i\P iiilCWX Or

°%t

t r

X i 1 fe> -8i

fv Vv

VFC

MA

''>y¥T

ED1TE]

Y

Btsftop of Gtoucrxfcrtf 'Brisk

msmmi>m&mm&izsims.issismmmsm

•YAEJE-wair¥Eiaainnr- JLTHSfRAMF

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF
ii* I<ev. Oscar E. Maurer, D. Q.
Pastor
First Church, New Haven
1909 ¦ 1943 

ww "Books are sepulcbi-es of Thought."' — Longfellow.
w — •— v i-

* -  %
I PRIVATE LIBRARY I
* of *
I OSCAR E. MAURER. !
$ —  :  <ft"
| No . 3 O;  ; . .Purchased:4/4//>.r  {
h Price.2-.-.t/S»  Place..^fVrrvv.A^rfeV<l4j,... /,>
W Remarks . /^.fct Jr..  ^
* - ' :s -,-  l &
* To the kind 'Borrower. — Re^id this volume $
\y carefully, but discreetly, so that neither you nor it fc
W will, be injured by the perusal. Reading maketh a <ft
$ full man, but much thumbing maketh a ragged jg
$ library. Dogs' ears are useful, but are good things -$
XB not to have in books. o. e. m, <J>

PLAIN INTEODUCTIONS

THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

PLAIN INTRODUCTIONS

TO

The Books of the Bible

VOLUME II
|iein tfeatamEtti JFittrotrurtioita *
Edited by
CHAELES JOHN ELLICOTT D.D.
Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol

CASSELL and COMPANY Limited
LONDON PAB1S & MELBOURNE
1893
ALL BIGHTS RESERVED

CONTENTS.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By the late Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. .
ST. MATTHEW.
By the late Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. .
ST. MARK. By the late Very. Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. .
ST. LUKE. By the late Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. ,
ST. JOHN. By the Ven. Archdeacon Watkins, D.D. .
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
By the late Very Rev. E. H. Pltimptre, D.D. .
ROMANS. By the Rev. Professor Sanday, D.D.
I. CORINTHIANS. By the Rev. Canon Teignmouth Shore .
H. CORINTHIANS. By the late Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. .
GALATIANS. By the Rev. Professor Sanday, D.D.
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL'S FIRST CAPTIVITY.
By the Right Rev. Alfred Barry, D.D. .
EPHESIANS. By the Right Rev. Alfred Barry, D.D. .
PHILIPPIANS. By the Right Rev. Alfred Barry, D.D. .
COLOSSIANS. By the Right Rev. Alfred Barry, D.D. . .
I. THESSALONIANS. By the Rev. Canon Mason, D.D.

CONTENTS.

n. THESSALONIANS. By the Rev. Canon Mason, D.D. . ,
I. TIMOTHY. By the Very Rev. H. D. M. Spence, D.D.
H. TIMOTHY. By the Very Eev. H. D. M. Spence, D.D.
TITUS. By the Very Rev. H. D. M. Spence, D.D.
PHILEMON. By the Right Rev. Alfred Barry, D.D. .
HEBREWS. By the Rev. F. W. Moulton, D.D. .
JAMES. By the Rev. E. .G. Punchard, D.D. .
L PETER. By the Rev. Canon Mason, D.D.
H. PETEE. By the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D.
I. JOHN. By the Ven. W. M. Sinclair, D.D. .
II. AND III. JOHN.
By the Ven. W. M. Sinclair, D.D. .
JUDE. By the Eev. Alfred Plummer, D.D.
THE REVELATION. By the Eight Eev. W. Boyd-Carpenter, D.D.

. 237
. 241
. 244
. 246
. 250
. 257
. 271
. 280
. 285
. 297
. 311
. 315
. 321

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

Bt the late Vert Eev. E. H. PLUMPTEE, D.D.

1.— THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

I. The language in which -we
commonly speak of the volume
which all Christians accept as be-
ing, in some sense, their rule of
faith and life, presents many terms
more or less technical in character,
each of which has a distinct his
tory of its own, not without in
terest. The whole volume for us
is The Bible, or, more fully, The
Holy Bible, containing The Old
and New Testaments. Some
times we use The Scripture, or
The Scriptures, or The Holy
Scriptures, as a synonym for The
Bible. With these we sometimes
find, hound up in the same volume,
" the hooks called Apocrypha,"
which are distinguished in the
Sixth of the Thirty-nine Articles
of the Church of England from
the " Canonical Books of the Old
and New Testament." It is desir-
ahle that the student of the New
Testament should know, at least
in outline, somethmg as to the
meaning and history of each of
these terms.
II. Of all the words so used,
Scripture, or The Scriptures, is
that which stands highest, as far as
the claims of antiquity and author
ity affect our estimate. It had
come to be used hy the Jews hefore
1

our Lord's time as contrasting — as
the Moslem now contrasts, in refer
ence to the Koran — those who had
a written rule, or hook, as the rule
of faith and life, with those who
had not. The hooks that had been
written in " sundry times aud
divers manners " (as the familiar
passage in Heb. i. 1 should
read), and which, after various
processes of sifting, editing, and
revising, were then received as
authoritative, were known as " tlie
Writings," " the Scriptures," as in
Matt. xxi. 42, Luke xxiv. 27, John
viii. 39, sometimes with the addition
of the term "holy," or "sacred"
(2 Tim. iii. 5). It was because
they studied this literature {gram-
mata) that the interpreters of the
Law were known as " scribes "
{grammateu). When these books
were quoted, it was enough to say,
"It is written" {e.g., Matt. iv. 4,
6 ; xxi. 13 ; xxvi. 24), or, with
more emphasis, " the Scripture
saith'' {e.g., Eom. iv. 7; ix. 17),
or to cite this or that " Scripture "
(Mark xii. 10).
It may he noted, however, that
the later terminology of the Jews
in their classification of the Sacred
Books differed from this. They
applied the term " Writings "
{Kethubim), or "Holy Writings"

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

(from which we get the Greek
Sagiographa, with the same mean
ing) to one portion only of the
collection, and that, in some sense,
the one which they reckoned as
the lowest. First came the Law,
including the Five Books of
Moses, whence the term Pentateuch
(=the five-volumed Writing) ; (2)
the earlier Prophets, including under
that head Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2
Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings; and (3)
the later Prophets, including {a)
the three Greater Prophets — Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel — and {b)
the twelve Minor Prophets, as we
have them; (4) the JCethubim, or
" Writings," including the follow
ing groups of books : — {a) Psalms,
Proverbs, Job ; (J) the five Megil-
loth, or Eolls, the Song of Songs,
Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther ; («) Daniel, Ezra, Nehe
miah, 1 and 2 Chronicles. So far
as the later Jews wanted one word
for the whole of what we call the
Old Testament, they used the term
Mikra ( = " what is read or re
cited"), a word which has the
interest of being connected with
the Koran, or sacred book of Islam.
III. The Greek word for Bible

occurs m our version as
"hook," in 2 Tim. iv. 13, Rev. x.
3, v. 1, hut not apparently with
any specially distinctive sense. It
is just possible that in the first of
these passages St. Paul may refer
to what he elsewhere calls the
Scriptures. (See 2 Tim. iv. 13.)
This sense, however, did not begin
to attach to the word by itself
till the twelfth or thirteenth
century. Greek writers, indeed,
talked, as was natural, of the sacred
or holy "books" on which their
faith rested ; and, as in the Council
of Laodicea, drew up catalogues of

such hooks, or spoke of the whole
universe as a hook, or " bible," in
which men might read the wisdom
and the love of the Creator. It
was natural, as the word came to
he used, like other Greek terms, in
the Western Churches, that tran
scribers, or hinders, of the " sacred
books " should label them as Biblia
Sacra. As the centuries passed on,
however, men forgot the origin of
the word, and took Biblia, not for
a neuter plural, as it really was,
but for a feminine singular ; and
so we get the origin of the " Holy
Bible," betraying itself in most
European languages, as, e.g., in La
Bible, La Bibbia, die Bibel, hy the
feminine form of the noun. We
are able to fix, within compara
tively narrow limits, the date of the
introduction of the word so used
into our English language. It was
unknown to our Saxon fathers.
They used ge-writ, the " Writing,"
or, following Jerome's felicitous
phrase, Bibliothe/ce, the "library"
or collection of books. "Bible"
came into use through the Norman
Conquest and the prevalence of
French. Chaucer uses it in his
earlier poems {Souse of Fame, Book
iii., 1. 244) as applicable to any
book. In the Prologue to the
Canterbury Tales, 1. 437, his latest
work, it stands as " the Bible,"
with its new distinctive honours.
WyclinVs translation of what was
headed as the Holy Bible, and the
frequent use of the term in the
Preface to this translation, prob
ably gained for it a wide accept
ance, _ and all idea of its plural
meaning having dropped out of
sight, the definite article acquired
a new significance, and it was
received, as ninety-nine readers out
j of a hundred receive it now, as the
\ Bible, t he Book above all other books.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

3

IV. The history of the terms the
Old and the New Testament leads
us into a region of yet higher in
terest. They have their starting-
point in the memorable distinctions
drawn between the Covenant that
had been made with Israel through
Moses, and the New Covenant,
with its better promises, which was
proclaimed for the future in Jer.
xxxi. 31. That promise received a
fresh significance, and was stamped
for ever on the minds of the fol
lowers of Christ, by the words that
were spoken on the night of the
Last Supper, when He told the
Apostles that it was ratified by
His own blood. (See Matt. xxvi. 28,
where Covenant, and not "Testa
ment," is the right rendering.)
The stress laid on the distinction
between the two Covenants in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (chaps, vii.
— x.) was, as it were, the natural
development of that thought; and
the repetition of the words of insti
tution, as we find them in 1 Cor.
xi. 25, at every celebration of the
Supper of the Lord, secured for it
a universal acceptance in all the
Churches. For a time the essential
outlines of the New Covenant —
the terms, as it were, of the New
Contract — were conveyed chiefly or
exclusively hy the oral teaching of
the Apostles and their immediate
followers. But soon the New
Covenant, like the Old, gathered
round it a literature of its own.
Without anticipating what will
have to he said hereafter as to the
history of individual books, it lies
on the surface that within sixty or
seventy years after the Death and
Resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
there were written records of His
words and deeds, Epistles purport
ing to he written by His Apostles
and disciples, revelations of the

future of His kingdom. In course
of time, but probably not till the
fourth century, the books so re
ceived came naturally enough to be
known as the Books of the New
Covenant {diatheke), as distin
guished from those of the Old; and
so in the Council of Laodicea, in
a.d. 320, we have lists of the Books
whieh were recognised as belonging
to each {Can. 59). The Greek
word for Covenant was never natu
ralised, however, in the Latin of
the Western and African Churches,
and the writers of those Churches
were for a time undecided as to
what equivalent they should use
for it, and wavered between fasdus,
a " covenant " ; instrumentum, a
" deed ' ' ; and testamentum, a " will."
The earlier Latin writers, such as
Tertullian {Adv. Marcion, vi. 1),
use both the two latter words, but
state that the last was the more
generally accepted term. As such,
it passed into the early- Latin ver
sions of the Scriptures, and then
into St. Jerome's Vulgate, and so
became familiar through the whole
of Latin Christendom. If we
confine its meaning to its strict
legal sense of " will," it must he
admitted to be a less accurate ren
dering than fatdus of the general
sense of the Greek diatheke (Heb.
ix. 16 is, of course, an excep
tion), and the latter word has
accordingly .been adopted by some
of the more scholarly Protestant
theologians, such as Beza, as part
of their terminology. So in the
writings of the French Eeformed
Church, the New Testament ap
pears as La Nouvelle Alliance.
Luther, with a certain characteristic
love for time-honoured words, used
Testament throughout ; and though
some recent German writers have
used Bund, it does not seem likelv

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

to gain general acceptance. In the
history of the English versions we
find Wycliffe, as was natural in a
translation from the Vulgate, using
" Testament " uniformly. Tyndale,
in spite of his usual tendency to
change the familiar terms of Latin
theology, was probably in part in
fluenced by Luther's example, and
retained "Testament" throughout.
He was followed in the other Eng
lish translations, till we come to
that known as the Geneva version,
where it is replaced by " Covenant "
in most passages, still retaining, so
to speak, its place of honour in
Matt. xxvi. 28, Luke xxii. 20, and
Heb. ix. 16 ; and it has thus secured
a position from which it will not be
easy to dislodge it. In strict ac
curacy, we ought to speak, as the
title-page of our Bible does, of the
Books of the New Testament, hut
the natural tendency of popular
speech to economy of utterance
leads men to speak of the "New
Testament " as including the books.
V. In the Sixth of the Thirty-
nine Articles of the English
Church, we find the phrase Can
onical Scriptures, and that term
also has a noteworthy history of
its own. We start from the
Greek word kanon, connected with
"canna," "cane," *'canalis," "chan
nel," "canal," "cannon" — all the
words implying the idea of straight-
ness — and find its primary meaning
to be that of a "reed," or rather
(for that belongs to the earlier
form, /cane), of a rod ; then of a rod
used as a carpenter's rule ; thence,
by a natural use of metaphors, it was
employed, chiefly hy Alexandrian
critics and grammarians, for a
" rule " in ethics, or rhetoric, or
grammar. So the great writers of
Greece were referred to as being

the Canon or standard of accuracy.
In the LXX. version of the Old
Testament the word is found only
once, in Mic. vii. 10. The passage
is very obscure, but it is apparently
used in the sense of a column or
bar of some sort, as it is also in
Judith xiii. 8. The figurative sense
had become dominant in the time
of the New Testament, and so we
find St. Paul using it in Gal. vi. 16,
Phil. iii. 16, for a "rule" of faith
and life, and 2 Cor. x. 13, 16, for
one which marked out a man's
appointed line of work. So Coun
cils made Canons, or Rules, for
the Churches. So those who were
bound hy the rules of cathedrals
and collegiate churches were called
Canonici, or Canons. So the first
invariable part of the Eoman lit
urgy was known as the Canon of
the Mass.
At even an earlier period than
that to which these later illustra
tions refer, the word had come into
use as belonging to the language of
theology. Clement of Alexandria
speaks of the Canon of the Church
being found in the agreement of
the Law and the Prophets with the
traditional teaching of the New
Covenant {Strom, vi., p. 676).
Chrysostom and other commenta
tors find the Canon, or Eule of
Faith in Scripture. Tertullian,
obviously Latinising the same
word, speaks of the doctrine which
the Church had received from the
Apostles, or embodied in a creed,
as the regula fidei. Alexandria
appears in this, as in other in
stances, to have been the main
source of ecclesiastical terminology.
In Origen we find the next appli
cation of the word, and he speaks
(in books of which we have only
the Latin Version) of the Scriptura
Canonical, the libri regulares, the

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

libri canonizati — of hooks that are
"in the Canon." Here there is a
slight change of meaning. The
hooks are not only the rule of the
Church's faith ; they are themselves
in conformity with a standard.
They find their place in a list
which is accepted by the Church
as the rule of what is or is not
Scripture. So Athanasius speaks
of books that are in this sense
"canonised," and the Council of
Laodicea {Can. 39) of those that
are not so. Amphilochius {circ.
a.d. 380) takes up the language of
the Latin translator of Origen, and
uses it for the actual Catalogue of
Books. With Jerome the term is
in frequent use in this sense, and
from his writings it passed into
the common language of Latin
Christendom, and so into that of
modern Europe, and men spoke of
the Canonical Scriptures as those
which were in the Canon.
VI. The history of the word has
to be followed by the history of the
origin and growth of the thing.
Without anticipating what will find
a more fitting place in the Intro
duction to each several book, viz.,
the traces which each has left of
itself in early ecclesiastical writings,
and the evidence which we have in
those traces of its genuineness, it
lies on the surface that the Christian
Society had a literature of some
kind at a very early period. There
were the "Words of the Lord
Jesus," quoted by St. Paul as known
(Acts xx. 35), and quoted as Scrip
ture (1 Tim. v. 18). There were
Epistles that were eited in the same
way (2 Pet. iii. 16). There were
"many" records of the life and
teaching of Christ (Luke i. 1). The
"memoirs" of the Apostles were
readpublicly in Christianassemblies,

and these were known as Gospels
(Justin, Apol. c. 66). Besidesthese
hooks, which are now in the Canon,
we find a Gospel of the Hebrews,
and of St. Peter, a Revelation hear
ing the name of the same Apostle,
an Epistle to the Laodiceans, and
so on. It was obvious that men
would want some standard by which
to discern the genuine from the
spurious : and as lists of the Old
Testament had been drawn up at
an early period of the Church, by
Melitoof Sardis (a.d. 180) and others,
so, as we have seen, the Church of
Alexandria, the centre of the criti
cism of early Christendom, supplied
the thing, as it had supplied the
word. The process by which such
a list was drawn up must be left, in
part, to imagination, hut it is not
difficult to picture to ourselves, with
little risk of error, what it must
almost necessarily have been. A
man of culture and great industry,
imbued with the critical habits of
his time, such, e.g., as was Origen,
finds a, multitude of hooks before
him professing to have come down
from the time of the Apostles. He
takes them one by one, aud examines
the claims of each. Has it been
read in church at all, and if so,
where, and in how many churches ?
Has it been quoted hy earlier
writers ? Has it been one of a
group assigned tp the same writer,
with the same characteristics of
style as the other hooks so assigned ?
Whence has it come ? Who can
report its history ? It is obvious
that the answer to these questions
was to be found in a process of
essentially personal inquiry, of the
exercise of private judgment, of the
critical reason working uponhistory.
And so, to take the earliest instance
of such a list which we can connect
with a name, we find Origen giving

6

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

one which includes the four Gospels
hy name, the Epistles of St. Paul
(the names of the Epistles, however,
are not given, nor even the total
number of them), the two Epistles
of St. Peter, the second being noted
as open to question, the Revelation,
and one "acknowledged" Epistle
by St. John. Elsewhere he men
tions the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and the traditions which assigned
it to St. Paid, St. Luke, and Clement
of Rome respectively. Another,
without a name, but commonly
known as the Muratorian 0&non,
from that of the scholar who first
found it among the MSS. of the
Ambrosian Library at Milan, is
assigned, on internal grounds, to a
period about a.d. 170. It is im
perfect both in the beginning and
in the end, and, though in Latin,
bears every mark of having been
translated from the Greek. It had
obviously mentioned the Gospels of
St. Matthew and St. Mark, for it
begins "in the third place, Luke
the Physician wrote a Gospel." It
then names St. John, the Acts, the
Epistles of St. Paul, enumerating
nine Epistles to seven churches;
the thiee Epistles now known as
Pastoral, and that to Philemon. It
rejects two, to the Laodiceans and
Alexandrians, as spurious ; recog
nises a Revelation of St. Peter, two
Epistles and the Revelation of St.
John ; and strangely enough, for a
list of books of the New Testament,
includes the Wisdom of Solomon,*
and the Pastor or Shepherd of
Hermas. The whole fragment is

* The facts connected with this remark
able book are briefly — (1) That it is not
named hy any pre-Christian -writer ; (2)
tliat it is not quoted by any writer before
Clement of Rome; (3) that it presents
innumerable points of resemblance in
phraseology and style to the Epistle to

of extreme interest, as representing
a transition stage in the formation
of the Canon, exhibiting at once the
spirit of critical investigation which
was at work, and the uncertainty
which more or less attended the
process of inquiry. A nearly con
temporaneous version of the New
Testament writings in the Syriac,
known as the Peschito (= the
"simple" or "true" version), ex
hibits nearly the same results. It
includes fourteen Epistles by St.
Paul, that to the Hebrews being
assigned to his authorship, hut omits
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and
the Apocalypse. A like catalogue
is given in the fourth century {circ.
a.d. 330), by Eusebius, Bishop of
Csesarea in Palestine, and Amphi-
lochius of Asia Minor {circ. a.d.
380) . The former divides the books
into two classes, the one those
which are generally recognised, and
the other those that were still
open to question {Antilegomena) ;
and the latter list includes 2
Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and
the Apocalypse. This may be taken,
though not exhaustive, as a sufficient
account of the evidence supplied by
individual writers ; and as they in
clude representatives of Alexandria,
Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and
Eome, it may fairly be considered
as embodying the general consent
of the Christian Church in the
fourth century.
These individual testimonies were
confirmed about the same period by
the authority of two local Councils
of the Church. That held at Lao-

tlie Hebrews. These facts have led the
present -writer to the conviction that they
are both by the same author, the one
written before, and the other after, his
conversion to the faith in Christ. (See
two papers "On the writings of Apollos,"
in the Expositor, Vol. I.)

GENEEAL INTRODUCTION.

7

dicea a.d. 363 (?) gives a list of
the " Books of the Old Testament "
that ought to be read, agreeing with
the Hebrew Canon, except that it
inserts Baruch and the Epistle of
Jeremiah; and in its catalogue of
the "Books of the New Testament "
gives a complete list of those now
received,- withoutnoting,asEusebius
notes, any difference between them,
with the one exception that it
makes no mention of the Apocalypse,
and that it assigns the Epistle to
the Hebrews to St. Paul. That
known as the third Council of
Carthage (a.d. 397) enumerates
among the " Canonical Scriptures
of the Old Testament" Tobias
(= Tobit), Judith, and the two
books of Maccabees, and in its list
of those of the New includes, with
out any exception, all the books that
are now recognised, and does so on
the ground that this was what had
been received from " the Fathers."
The history of this growth of the
Canon of the New Testament is in
many ways instructive. It has
been often thrown in the teeth of
those who urge the right of private
judgment as against the authority
of the Church of Rome, or of the
Church in her Councils generally,
that we have no ground for our
acceptance of the Scriptures them
selves, and especially for that of
the Scriptures of the New Testa
ment, but that authority. The
facts that have been stated exhibit
a process which leads naturally and
necessarily to the very opposite con
clusion. What we have traced is
the exercise, at every stage, of pri
vate judgment, of criticism working
upon history ; and it is not till this
has done its work that Councils
step in to recognise and accept the
results that have been thus obtained.
And when this is done, be it observed,

it is not by any Oecumenical
or General Council, nor by the
Church which claims to have been
founded by St. Peter, nor by the
Bishop who claims to be his suc
cessor, but by two Synods, in com
paratively remote provinces, who
confine themselves to testifying
what they actually found. Other
men had laboured, and they entered
into their labours. The authority
of the Church, so far as it was as
serted, rested on the previous exer
cise of free inquiry and private
judgment. How far later inquiry
may have modified the results of
the earlier, throwing doubt on what
was then accepted as certain, or
establishing the genuineness of
what was then looked upon as
doubtful, compensating for its re
moteness by its wider range and
manifold materials, by its skill in
following up hints and tracing coin
cidences designed or undesigned —
this is a question which in its bear
ing on individual books of the New
Testament will be best discussed in
the Introduction to each of those
Books. VTI. Side by side with the Books
as belonging to the Old or New
Testament thus recognised as Ca
nonical, there were those which had
been weighed in the balance and
found wanting. These were known
either as being simply "uncanon-
ised" or " uncanonical," asnot being
in the list which formed the standard
of acceptance. Such as continued,
from their having formed part of
the generally accepted Greek version
of the Old, to be read in churches
or quoted by devout scholars, were
described by a term which had
already become conspicuous as ap
plied to the Wisdom of the Son of
Sirach, the book Ecclesiasticus, and

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

were known as " ecclesiastical," and
these included all, or nearly all, the
books which we commonly know
as the Apocrypha. Later writers,
especially among the more liberal
or critical Roman Catholic writers
since the Council of Trent, have
invented and applied the term
Deutero- Canonical to those books, as
recognising that they do not stand
on the same level as those included
in the older Canons of Laodicea and
Carthage. The Council itself {Sess.
4), however, had the courage of its
convictions, and setting aside the
authority of earlier councils, and of
the great Father to whom it owed
its Vulgate, drewno such distinction.
It added to the Canon of Scripture,
not, indeed, all the books that we
know as the Apocrypha, but the
greater part of them : Tobit, Judith,
Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch,
the additions to Esther and Daniel,
and the two books of Maccabees.
It declared that all these books were
to be received with the same rever
ence as the other sacred writings.
It placed the traditions of the Church
on the same level with the sacred
books thus defined. It pronounced
its anathema on all who did not
accept its Canon of Scripture, or
despised its traditions. It deliber
ately proclaimed to all men that
this was the foundation of its
faith. The history of the word Apocry
pha exhibits a curious instance of
a change from honour to dishonour.
Primarily it simply meant "hidden"
or " secret." In this sense we find
it in Luke viii. 17; Col. ii. 13;
Ecclus. xxiii. 19. It was used
accordingly by teachers who claimed
a higher esoteric wisdom which
they embodied in secret, i.e., in this
sense, apocryphal, writings. Traces
pjE such a boast, even among Jews

and Christians, are found in 2 Esdr.
(obviously a post-Christian book),
where the scribe is instructed to
reserve seventy books for "such
only as be wise among the people "
(2 Esdr. xiv. 46), in distinction from
the twenty-four (this, and not two
hundred and four, is probably the
right reading) of the Hebrew Canon.
The books thus circulated, with
their mysterious pretensions, im
posing on the credulity of their
readers, were "hidden" in another
sense. No man knew their history
or their authorship. They were
not read in the synagogues of the
Jews, or, for the most part, in the
churches of Christians. They de
served to be hidden, and not read.
And so the word sank rapidly in
its connotation, and became a term
of reproach. Already, in the time
of Tertullian {De Anima, c. 12) and
Clement of Alexandria {Strom, i.
19, 69), it is used in the sense which
has ever since attached to it, of
spurious and unauthentic. Its pre
sent popular application dates from
the time of St. Jerome. In Greek
churches and Latin churches that
used a version based upon that of
the LXX,, the position occupied by
many of the books now included
under that word secured for them
the same respect as the other books;
they were quoted as "Scripture,"
as " inspired," as " prophecy."
Where, on the contrary, men were
brought into contact with Judaism,
and so with the Hebrew Canon,
they were led to draw the distinction
which has since obtained. So Melito
of Sardis (a.d. 180), in his Canoa
of the Old Testament, follows that
of the Jews, and Cyril of Jerusalem
(a.d. 315—386) adds only Baruch
and the later Esther. Jerome, bent
upon a new version from the He
brew, and with the natural instincts

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

9

of a scholar, looked on the Greek
version of the LXX. as being faulty,
not only in its translations, but in
its text. For him the Hebrew
Canon was the standard of authority,
and he applied without hesitation
the term Apocrypha, as equivalent to
spurious, to all that were not included
init {Prol. Gal.). Augustine shrank
from so bold an application of the
word. Western Christendom, as a
whole, followed his lead, rather
than that of Jerome. The doubtful
hooks kept their ground in the MSS.
of the Latin Vulgate, and were read
and quoted freely as Scripture. It
was not till the revival of the study
of Hebrew in Western Europe in
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,
warmly pursued as it was by Luther
and his fellow- workers, that the old
line of demarcation was drawn more
boldly than ever. Luther, following
the example of the LXX. that had
been printed at Strasburg in 1526,
when he published his complete
German Bible, in 1534, placed all
the books that Jerome had not
received together, with the title of
" Apocrypha — i.e., books which are
not of like worth with Holy Scrip
ture, but are good and useful to be
read." His example was followed
by Cranmer in the English Bible
of 1539, and has obtained in all
later versions and editions. The
effect of this has been, to some
extent, that the word has risen a
little in its meaning. While the
adjective is used as equivalent to
" spurious," and therefore as a term
of opprobrium, we use the sub
stantive with a certain measure of
respect. The " Apocrypha " are
not necessarily thought of as
" apocryphal." Among the books that are now
so named, one, 2 Esdras, is certainly
of post-Christian origin, and some

critics have ascribed the same date
to the Wisdom of Solomon, and
Judith. These, however, either in
the circumstances of the history they
contain, or by their pseudonymous
authorship, obviously claim atten
tion as belonging to the Old Testa
ment, and are therefore rightly
classed among its Apocrypha. The
New Testament, however, was not
without an apocryphal literature of
its own — spurious Gospels of Peter,
of the Infancy of Jesus,of Nicodemus,
of Matthew, of James ; spurious
Acts of Philip, of Andrew, of Mat
thew, of Thomas; of Pilate, of
Bartholomew, of John; spurious
Epistles of St. Paul to the Laodiceans
and to Seneca ; spurious Revelations
of St. Peter. None of these, how
ever, ever attained to the respectable
position occupied by most of the
Apocrypha of the Old Testament.
They met a vulgar curiosity as to
the unrecorded facts of the child
hood of Jesus, as to the work that
He had done behind the veil in the
Descent into Hades. They were
read more or less widely, and formed
the nucleus of a popular Christian
mythology which has left its traces
in literature and art. The legends
as to the childhood of the Virgin,
her betrothal to Joseph when his
rod alone budded, and those of all
her other suitors remained as they
had been before ; as to her physical
virginity, that remained unaltered
after the birth of the Divine Child ;
the fantastic notions that the gold
which the Magi brought was the
same as that which the Queen of
Sheba had brought to Solomon ;
that the wood of the Cross had been
grown in Paradise as the tree of
life ; that Calvary was named from
the skull of Adam, and that it
received the first drops of the blood
by which the children of Adam

10

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

were redeemed ; the release of the
souls of the Patriarchs from the
limbo {limbus, the " outer fringe ")
of Hades into Paradise— all these
had their origin in the Apocryphal
Gospels; and their appearance in
the art of the Renaissance period,
as, e.g., in the painting's of Raffaelle
and others, is a proof of the hold
they had taken upon the imagination
— one can hardly say, the mind — of
Christendom. But from first to
last, happily, they were not received
by a single teacher with the slightest
claim to authority, nor included in
any list of books that ought to be
read by Christians publicly or pri
vately. Here and there, as we
have seen, books that we now re
ceive were for a time questioned.
Here and there other books might

be quoted as Scripture, or bound up
with the sacred volume, as the
Epistle of Clement is with the Alex
andrian MS., or the "Shepherd"
of Hermas with the Sinaitic ; but
none of these spurious Gospels,
Acts, or Epistles were ever raised
for a moment to the level of the
Canonical Scriptures. They re
mained in the worst sense of the
word as Apocrypha. The Canon of
the New Testament has never varied
since the third Council of Carthage.
If we have to receive the statement
that there was " never any doubt iu
the Church" about any one of them,
with some slight modification, it is
yet true that that doubt was never
embodied in the decrees of any
Synod, and extended no further than
the hesitation of individual critics.

II.-THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

I. Introductory. — We might
have expected, had we been framing
the history of a Revealed Religion
according to our wishes or a priori
assumptions, that, so far as it de
pended on written records, those
records would be preserved through
successive ages as an authentic
standard of appeal. Facts are,
however, against all such theories
of what ought to have been. Not
a single autograph original of any
book is known to exist now, nor
does any writer of the second or
third century say that he had seen
such au original. Failing this, we
might have fallen back on the
notion that each transcriber of the
books would be guarded by a super
natural guidance against the usual
chances of transcription ; that each
translator would be taught how to

convey the meaning of the origmal
without error in the language of
his version. Here also we have to
accept facts as we find them. There
has been no such perpetual miracle
as this theory would require, ex
tending, as it does extend when
pushed to its logical conclusions,
to the infallibility of every com
positor in a printer's office who had
to set the type of a Bible in any
language. Manuscripts vary, ver
sions differ, printed Bibles are not
always free from error. Here also
we trace the law in things spiritual
which we recognise in things na
tural. " Pater ipse colendi
Haud facilem esse viam voluit.''
[" The Father from whose gift all good
things flow,
No easy path hath oped His truth to
know."

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

11

Here also the absence of any
immunity from error has tried
men's faith and roused them to
labour, and labour has received its
reward. Accepting probability as
the only attainable result, the prob
ability which they have actually
attained is scarcely distinguishable
from certainty. Experience shows
that, had they begun with postu
lating infallibility somewhere, and
accepting its supposed results, in
quiry would have ceased, criticism
would have slumbered, and errors
would have crept in and multiplied
without restraint.
II. The Process of Tran
scription. — Dealing, then, with
facts, we have to realise to ourselves
in what way copies of the books of
the New Testament were multiplied.
It is obvious that prior to the
invention of printing, two methods
of such multiplication were possible.
A man might place a MS. before
him, and copy it with his own
hand, or he might dictate it to one
or more writers. The former was
probably the natural, process when
Christians were few and poor, when
it was a labour of love to transcribe
a Gospel or an Epistle for a friend
or a church. The latter became
natural, in its turn, when the books
were in sufficient demand to be
sold by booksellers, or when Chris
tian societies were sufficiently or
ganised, as, e.g., in monasteries, to
adopt the methods of the trade.
Each process had its own special
forms of liability to error. Any
one who has corrected a proof-
sheet will he able to take a measure
of what they are in the former.
Anyone who has had experience of
the results of a dictation lesson
can judge what they are in the
latter. We may assume that in

most cases, where the work was
done systematically, there would be
a process for correcting the errors
of transcription, analogous to that
of correcting the errors of the press
now. MSS. of the New Testament,
as a matter of fact, often bear
traces of such correction by one or
more hands.
III. The Sources of Varia
tion. — Experience shows that in
such a process as that described,
various readings, more or less of
the nature of errors, may arise in
many different ways. In some
cases they may be entirely in
voluntary. The eye may mistake
what it reads, or pass over a word,
or, misled hy two lines that end
with the same word or syllable,
omit even a whole line (as in the
omission in many MSS. of " He
that acknowledgeth the Son hath
the Father also," in 1 John ii. 23) ;
or, where contractions are employed
freely, as they were by most Greek
writers, might omit or insert the
mark that indicated contraction.
Thus in the famous passage of 1
Tim. iii. 16 the two renderings,
" God was manifested in the flesh "
and " Who was manifested," re-
present respectively the readings
02 {®ebs, God) and 02 {ts, Who).
Or the ear might mistake the sound
of vowels, and so we find Christos
for Chrestos (= " gracious ") in 1
Pet. ii. 3, or Hetairoi (= " com
panions") for Seteroi (=" others")
in Matt. xi. 16, or Kamilon (="a
rope") for Xamelon (="a camel")
in Luke xviii. 25. In not a few
cases, however, the element of will
came in, and the variation was
made deliberately as an improve
ment on what the transcriber had
before him. Taste, grammatical
I accuracy, the desire to confirm »

12

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

doctrine, or to point a moral, or to
soften down a hard saying, or avoid
a misconstruction, or bring about a
closer agreement between one book
and another in passages where they
were more or less parallel — all
these might come into play, ac
cording to the temperament and
character of the transcribers. Thus,
e.g., one set of MSS. gives in Luke
xv. 16, "would fain have filled his
belly; " and another, aiming appar
ently at greater refinement, " would
have been satisfied " or "filled." Some,
as has been said, give " God was
manifested in the flesh," in 1 Tim.
iii. 16, and some " Who was mani
fested." So, we find "the only
begotten Son " and " the only be
gotten God" in John i. 18. Some
in Acts xx. 28 give " the Church of
God, which He hath purchased
with His own blood," and some
"the Chureh of Christ," or "the
Church of the Lord." 1 John v. 7,
which speaks of the "three that
bear record in heaven," and which
is not found in any Greek MSS.
earlier than the thirteenth century,
is manifestly an interpolation of
this nature. So some give and
some omit the italicised words in
the following passages : —
" Whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause,"
Matt. v. 22.
" Thy Father which seeth in
secret shall reward thee
openly" Matt. vi. i, 6.
"When men speak all manner
of evil against you falsely,"
Matt. v. 11.
" This kind goeth not out but by
prayer and fasting," Mark
ix. 29.
" That ye may give yourselves
to fasting and prayer," 1
Cor. vii. 5.
Or the alteration might be made

to avoid a difficulty, as when we
find " I go not yet up to this feast "
for " I go not up " in John vii. 8,
or "Joseph and His mother" for
" His father and His mother " in
Luke ii. 33 ; or to make one Gos
pel correspond with another, as
when we find " Why callest thou Me
good?" for "Why askest thou con
cerning that which is good?" in
Matt. xix. 17 ; or to bring the
Gospel into closer accord with
liturgical usage, as when the dox
ology was inserted in the Lord's
Prayer, in Matt. vi. 13, or the full
confession of faith, I believe that
Jesus Christ is the son of God, put
into the mouth of the Ethiopian
eunuch, in Acts viii. 37 ; or to
insert introductory words, "the
Lord said," " Jesus said unto His
disciples," as in some of the Gos
pels in our Prayer Book ; or mere
grammatical accuracy might lead
the transcriber to reject forms and
modes of spelling which the gram
marians pronounced inaccurate.
The last class, however, affecting
form only, does not come under
the notice of the student of a trans
lation, nor need it be much dwelt
on even by those who study the
original. IV. Canons of Criticism.—
Men who gave themselves to the
work of classifying phenomena such
as these, soon found that they had
a sufficient basis for the results of
an induction. It was easy to note
the causes of error, and to frame
canons, or rules, hy which, in
addition to the weight of evidence
drawn from the number or anti
quity of MSS. and the like, to
judge of the authority of this or
that reading. Thus, e.g., it has
been laid down (1) that, caiteris
paribus, the shorter of two various

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

13

readings is more likely to be the
true one ; (2) that the same holds
good of the more difficult of two
readings ; or (3) of one that agrees
less closely with another parallel
passage. In each case there was a
probable motive for the alteration
which made the text easier or more
complete, while no such motive was
likely to work in the opposite
direction. Other rules, not resting,
as these do, on antecedent prob
ability, but on the nature of the
materials with which criticism has
to deal, will follow on a survey of
those materials.
V. Manuscripts. — The extant
MSS. of the New Testament are
classed roughly in two great
divisions, determined by their style
of writing. Down to the ninth or
tenth century the common usage
was to write in capital letters,
which, as having been originally
of a bold and large type, like those
which we use for the title-page of
a folio Bible, were spoken of as
literal unciales (" letters an inch
big"). The word is thus applied
by St. Jerome, and from this use of
it the whole class of MSS. so writ
ten are known as Uncials. Some
what later a smaller running-hand
came to be employed, and the later
MSS. are accordingly known as
Cursive. They begin to appear in
the tenth century, and extend to
the sixteenth. The invention of
printing did away with the demand
for copies multiplied by transcrip
tion, and, with the exception of one
or two conspicuous instances of
spurious MSS. of parts of the New
Testament palmed off upon the
unwary as genuine antiquities, none
are extant of a later date. Experts
in such matters acquire the power
of judging, hy the style of writing,

or by the material employed, of the
date of a MS. belonging to either
class, and in their judgment there
are no extant MSS. of any part of
the New Testament earlier than the
fourth century. Most critics, how
ever, are agTeed in assigning a date
as early as a.d. 350 to the two
known respectively as the Sinaitic,
as having been discovered by Tis
chendorf in the monastery of St.
Catherine, on Mount Sinai, and the
Vatican, so named as being the
great treasure of the library of the
Papal palace. Two others, the
Alexandrian — sent by Cyril Lucaris,
Patriarch of Constantinople, to
Charles I., as a precious Codex,
or MS., that had been brought
from Alexandria — and the Codex
Ephraem — so called from its having
been found underneath the text of
the works of Ephraem, a Syrian
Father of the fourth century — are
ascribed to the middle of the fifth
century.* The Cambridge MS., or
Codex Bezje, so called because it
was given by Theodore Beza, the
French Reformer, to the University
of Cambridge in 1562, belongs
probably to the latter part of the
fifth or beginning of the sixth
century. Others — some complete,
and some existing only in frag
ments, either as originals or as
palimpsests — came later, in the
seventh or eighth, or even as low
as the eleventh century.
As a matter of convenience, to
avoid the constant repetition of the

* This way of using up old MSS. by
partially effacing with pumice - stone
what had first been written, and then
writing what was thought of more im
portance, was a common practice in
monasteries. The works of many ancient
authors have probably fallen a sacrifice
to this economy. MSS. so used are
known as palimpsests, literally, "re-
I scraped."

14

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

names of these and other MSS., a
notation has been adopted by which
letters of the alphabet stand for
them, as follows : —
« (Aleph) for the Sinaitic. This
contains the whole of the
Greek version of the Old
Testament as well as the
New, and the Shepherd of
Hermas, an allegorical book
more or less of the Pilgrim's
Progress type, ascribed to
the second century. It
represents the early text
that was received at Alex
andria.
A. The Alexandrian, containing
the Old and New Testa
ments, a Greek Evening
Hymn, a Psalm ascribed to
David after the slaughter
of Goliath, some Psalms
ascribed to Solomon, and
the Epistle of Clement to
the Corinthians. It is mu
tilated in parts of St. Mat
thew and St. John. It
represents the text received
at Constantinople.
B. The Vatican, containing the
Old and New Testaments.
This agrees generally with
K, as representing the Alex
andrian text of the fourth
century.
C. The Codex Ephraem; con
tains portions of most of the
Old and New Testaments, 2
Thess. and 2 John having
disappeared in the process
of cutting up and re-making.
It agrees generally with x
and B, but ha3 been corrected
at Constantinople, and so
gives later readings in the
margin.
D. The Codex Bezse ; contains
the Gospels and Acts only,
with a Latin version. The

presence of the latter shows
a Western origin, and the
Greek seems to have been
copied by an ill-instructed
scribe. The Greek text is
peculiar, and has more in
terpolations than any other
MS. The Latin represents
the version that preceded
the Vulgate.
L. The Paris Codex, containing
the Gospels only, and with
several gaps. It agrees gen
erally with n and B.
The MSS. that come between D
and L, ahd others, are not of
sufficient importance to claim men
tion here. It is obvious, as every
transcription involves the risk of
fresh errors, that the later MSS.
must be prima- facie of less auth
ority than the more ancient, and
hence it is not thought necessary
to give in this place any detailed
account of the cursive MSS. It is,
of course, possible, as some have
urged, that they may represent a
text more ancient than that of any
uncial ; but it is clearly against
common sense and the laws of
evidence to accept a bare possi
bility on one side against a strong
probability on the other, and all
that can be allowed in their favour
is that where the uncials differ
they may come in aud help, so far
as they can be shown to give an
independent testimony, to turn the
scale in favour of this or that
reading. MSS. that are manifestly
copied from the same original, or
come from the same school of
transcribers, are obviously not
independent, and their value is
proportionately diminished.
The following Table of New
Testament MSS., from Dr. Scri
vener's Introduction, p. 225, will
show the range of materials with

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

15

which criticism has to deal, and
the relative proportions of the two
classes : — Un- Cur-
cial. sive.
Gospels  34 601
Acts and Catholic Epistles 10 229
St. Paul's Epistles . . 14 283
Revelation  4 102
Evangel ist aria (Service")
Books containing Gos- > 5S 183
pels for the year) . . )
Apostles (do. containing > « 65
127 1,463

Epistles for do.)

Many of these, however, are im
perfect, some containing only a few
chapters or even verses.
VT. Versions. — Over and above
MSS. of the actual text of the
Greek Testament, we have an im
portant subsidiary help in the
translations which were made, as
soon as the Canon was more or
less complete, into this or that
language. If we know when a
translation was made, we can infer,
in most cases with very little room
for doubt, what Greek text it was
made from; and so can, in some
cases, arrive at that which repre
sents an earlier text than any
existing MS. Of these versions
the most important are —
(1) The Syriac, commonly known
as the " Peschito," i.e., the " simple"
or " accurate " version, made in the
second century. Later Syriac ver
sions were made in the fifth and
sixth centuries.
(2) The early Latin version, he
fore Jerome, commonly known as
the Italian version. Most of the
MSS. belong to the fourth, fifth,
or sixth centuries.
(3) Jerome's Latin version, known
as the Vulgate {i.e., made in the
common or vulgar tongue), repre
sents, of course, the Greek text

received in the churches of Pales
tine, perhaps also in that of Rome,
in the fourth century. The most
ancient MSS. of this version are of
the sixth century.
(4) The Gothic, made by Ulphi-
las, the Apostle of the Goths, when
they settled on the Danube in the
f ourth century.
(5) The JEthiopic, in the fourth
century. (6) The Armenian, in the fifth
century. VII. Quotations in the
Fathers  One other element of
evidence, often of considerable im
portance, comes to the help of the
textual critic. The early writers
of the Christian Church, of whom
we speak commonly as the Fathers,
read Scripture, studied it some
times very carefully, and almost in
the modern spirit of critical ac
curacy, lived in it, and quoted it
perpetually in their writings. In
some cases, of course, they might
quote from memory, subject to the
risks incident to such quotations ;
but as soon as they felt that they
were writing for educated men, in
the presence of adversaries who
would easily fasten upon a blunder
or misquotation, they would natu
rally strive after accuracy, and
verify their quotations as they pro
ceeded. The Greek Fathers occupy
obviously the first place as giving
the words of the text of the Greek
Testament, and of these the most
important are — Clement of Rome
{circ. a.d. 91 — -101), Justin Martyr
(a.d. 140—164), Clement of Alex
andria {ob. a.d. 220), Origen {ob.
A.D. 254), Irenaeus, where we have
the Greek text of his works {ob.
a.d. 200), Athanasius {ob. a.d. 373),
Eusebius {ob. a.d. 338), Chrysostom
{ob. a.d. 407). The earlier writers

16

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

are obviously of more authority
than the later. That of Origen,
on account of his indefatigable
labours, and the critical character
of his mind, stands as the highest
authority of all. Alone, or almost
alone, among the early Fathers, he
notes, again and again, the various
readings which he found even then
existing — as, for example, "Gada-
renes " and " Gerasenes " in Matt.
viii. 28 ; " Bethabara " and " Beth
any " in John i. 28 ; " Barabbas "
alone, and " Jesus Barabbas," in
Matt, xxvii. 17. Of the Latin
Fathers, Tertullian {ob. a.d. 240),
Cyprian {ob. a.d. 257), Ambrose
{ob. a.d. 397), Augustine {ob. a.d.
430), Jerome {ob. a.d. 420), are the
most important, as giving in their
quotations the text of the earlier
Latin versions, and so enabling us
to judge upon what Greek text
they have been based.
VIII. Results  As a rule it is
found that the lines of evidence
from these classes of materials tend
to converge. The oldest MSS., the
oldest versions, the quotations from
the earlier Fathers present, though
not a universal, yet a general
agreement. Where differences arise
the judgment of one editor may
differ from that of another ; but
as correcting the text upon which
the Authorised Version was based,
there is now something like a
consensus of editors on most
important passages. It has not
been thought desirable in the
Commentary to which this In
troduction - belongs to bring the
evidence in detail before the reader
in each individual case; but, as
a rule, the readings which are
named as " better " than those
of our printed Bibles, are such
as are supported by convergent

evidence as above described, and
adopted by one or more of the
most eminent scholars in New
Testament criticism.
IX. Printed Text of the
Greek Testament. — It may
seem strange at first that the He
brew text of the Old Testament
should have been printed for Euro
pean use, at Soncino, in 1488,
thirty-three years before the Greek
text of .the New. In the one case,
however, we must remember that
there was a large Jewish popula
tion in almost every great city in
Germany, Italy, and France, want
ing copies for their synagogues and
for private use. In the other, the
Latin of the Vulgate satisfied
ecclesiastics, and as yet there was
not a sufficient number of Greek
students even in the Universities of
Europe to create a demand for
books in that language. During
the last quarter of the fifteenth
century, however, the knowledge
of Greek spread rapidly. When
Constantinople was taken by the
Turks, refugees fled to Italy and
other parts of Western Europe,
bringing with them Greek MSS.
and offering themselves as instruc
tors. In 1481 a Greek Psalter was
printed at Milan, and in a reprint
at Venice in 1486 the hymns of
Zacharias and the Virgin were
added as an appendix, being thus
the first portions of the New Testa
ment to which the new art was
applied. In 1504 the first six
chapters of St. John were appended
tentatively to an edition of the
poems of Gregory of Nazianzus,
published at Venice. About the
same time (1502), under Ferdinand
and Isabella of Spain, the great
Cardinal Ximenes, who had founded
a University at Alcala, began a

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

17

grand work on a princely scale.
It was by far the noblest task to
which the art of printing had as
yet been applied. It was to give
the Hebrew of the Old Testament,
with the Chaldee Targum or Para
phrase, and the LXX. or Greek
version, and the Vulgate. Hebrew
and Greek lexicons were appended,
and something like a dictionary of
proper names. MSS. were bor
rowed from several quarters, chiefly
from the Vatican Library at Rome.
The work went on slowly ; and
was not completed till 1517, four
mouths before the Cardinal's death ;
nor published till 1522, after it had
received the approval of Leo X. in
1520. The edition is commonly
known as the Complutensian from
Complutum, the Latin name of
Alcala. Meantime Erasmus, the
head of the Humanists, or Greek
scholars of Germany, had been
employed in 1515 hy Froben, the
head of an enterprising publishing
house at Basle, to bring out a
Greek Testament, which was to
get the start of the Complutensian.
The work was done hurriedly, in
less than a year, and the book
appeared in February, 1516. But
little care had been taken in col
lecting MSS., and in some cases we
find somewhat bold conjectural
interpolations. The omission of 1
John v. 7 was, however, a sign that
a spirit of honest criticism was at
work. Erasmus had not found it
in any Greek MS., and therefore
he would not insert it. A second
edition appeared in 1519, and in
1522 a third, in which, through
fear of giving offence, he had re
stored the disputed text on the
strength of a single MS. of the
thirteenth century, now in the
library of Trinity College, Dublin,
and known as the Codex Montfor-
2

tianus. Later editions followed in
1527 and 1535.
Paris, however, soon took the
lead in meeting tho demand, now
rapidly increasing, partly through
the labours of Erasmus, and partly
through the theological excitement
of the time, for copies of the Greek
Testament. After an edition by
Simon de Colines (Colinseus), in
1543, of no great importance, the
foremost place was taken by Robert
IStienne (or Stephanus), and main-
tamed afterwards by his son Henry.
His first edition, based upon colla
tions of MSS. in the Royal Library
at Paris with the Complutensian
text, appeared in 1546; another in
1549. A third, in 1550, was on a
larger scale, and gave for 'the first
time — thus marking an epoch in
the progress of textual criticism —
a systematic collection of various
readings to the number of 2,194.
A fourth edition, published in 1557
at Geneva, and therefore intended
primarily, we may believe, for the
use of the pastors and students of
the Reformed Church there, is re
markable as giving for the first
time the present division into verses.
The work of Henri IStienne went
on, guided in 1556 by Beza, and
the text, as revised by him (not
very critically), was printed in suc
cessive editions in 1565, 1576, 1582,
and 1598. The name of the great
Reformer stamped the work with
a sanction which most Protestant
students recognised. The editions
were widely circulated in England,
where as yet no Greek Testament
had issued from the press ; and this
and the earlier text of Etienne
were probably in the hands of
the translators of the Authorised
Version. The house of Elzevir, at Leyden,
famous for the beauty of type and

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

the "diamond" editions which we
now associate with the name, took
up the work at the beginning of
the seventeenth century, and a
Greek Testament, almost perfect
in typography, was issued in 1624,
and another in 1633. Both were
based, as far as the text was con
cerned, upon the later editions of
Etienne and Beza, and in the pre
face to the latter the editor assured
the reader that he could now rely
on having an undisputed text ( textum
ab omnibus receptum). The boast
was not without foundation, and it
tended, for a time at least, to secure
its own fulfilment. Most English
editions in the seventeenth century
reproduced it with hardly any varia
tion, and the Textus receptus, though
no critic now receives it as a whole,
still keeps its ground as a standard
of comparison. We measure the
value of MSS., for the most part,
by the extent to which they differ
from or agree with it.
The spirit that craves for accuracy
as an element of truth was, however,
still active in England, as elsewhere.
The arrival of the Alexandrian MS.
(see above) attracted the notice of
scholars. They began to feel the
importance of versions as bearing
on the text, and in Bishop Walton's
famous Polyglot Bible, the Syriac,
Arabic, Persian, and iEthiopie
versions were printed side by side
with the text of Etienne, and
various readings were given, though
not very fully, from the Alexan
drian, the Cambridge, and fourteen
other MSS. The work of collecting
and comparing these and other
materials was carried on for thirty
years with unremitting industry by
Dr. John Mill, Professor of Divinity
at Oxford, and in 1706 the labours
of his life were crowned, just before
his death, by the publication of an

edition of the Greek Testament, in
two folio volumes, which, while
practically retaining the text of
Etienne — i.e., the Textus receptus —
contained a far larger mass of ma
terials, and a more thorough ex
amination of their relative value
than hadeverbeenbeforeattempted.
The Prolegomena extended over
180 pages; the various readings
were reckoned at 30,000. The
shallow scepticism of the Free
thinkers of the time assumed that
all grounds for certainty as to the
contents of the New Testament
writings had vanished. Timid and
prejudiced theologians took up the
cry that textual criticism was dan
gerous. It found, however, a suf
ficiently able apologist in Richard
Bentley, Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge. He urged with great
power and success, in a pamphlet
published under the pseudonym of
Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, in 1714,
that truth had no need to fear truth ;
that if the existence of the various
readings is compatible with the
Christian faith, the knowledge of
their existence cannot he fatal to
it ; that it was with the New Testa
ment, as with other ancient books,
a help and not a hindrance, to have
to edit from many MSS., and not
from one only, which might chance
to be defective ; that every fresh
discovery of variations was, there
fore, a step to certainty ; and that
the result had been to fix the range
of possible uncertainty within such
narrow limits that no single fact or
doctrine of the religion of Christ
was imperilled by it. Bentley him
self aspired to take a high place
among the workers whom he thus
defended, and in 1716 sketched- out
a plan for printing a revised Greek
text, on principles which presented
a singular approximation to those

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

19

that have since been acted on
by Lachmann and Tregelles. He
believed that it was possible to
ascertain from the uncial MSS.,
the early versions, and the early
Fathers, what text was received in'
the fifth century, and was pre
pared to receive all later variations.
Acting on those principles, he pro
posed to use the materials which
Mill's indefatigable labours had
collected. Bentley was, however, involved
in personal troubles and disputes
which hindered the accomplishment
of his purpose, and for a long series
of years the work was left to be
carried on by the scholars of Ger
many, while English students were
content to accept, with scarcely any
inquiry, the text which was known
as Mill's, but which practically
hardly differed at all from the
Textus receptus. Among the former
the most conspicuous was Bengel
(1734), whose essentially devout
Commentary bore witness that cri
ticism did not necessarily lead to
scepticism, that he was a verbal
critic mainly because he believed in
verbal inspiration. He was fol
lowed by Griesbach (1774—1806),
Scholz (1830—1836), and by Lach
mann (1831), who avowedly looked
on himself as Bentley's disciple,
working on his lines, and completing
the work which he had left un
finished. The list culminates in
Tischendorf, the labours of whose
life in collating and publishing,
often in facsimile, MSS. of the

highest value (amongst others, the
Codex Ephraem) were crowned by
the discovery, in 1859, of the
Sinaitic MS. Two countrymen of
our own— Dr. S. P. Tregelles {d.
1876), and the Rev Dr. Scrivener —
may claim a high place in the list
of those who, with unshaken faith,
have consecrated their lives to tho
work of bringing the printed text
of the Greek Testament to the
greatest possible accuracy. Alford
and Wordsworth, in their editions
of the Greek Testament, though
not professing to do more than use
the materials collected by others,
have yet done much to bring within
the reach of all students the results
of textual criticism. In Dr. Tre-
gelles's Introduction to the New
Testament, Dr. Scrivener's Intro
duction to New Testament Criticism,
and Mr. Hammond's Outlines of
New Testamemt Criticism, in the
Clarendon Press Series, the student
who wishes to go more fully into
the subject will find ample informa
tion. Of these Lachmann and Tre
gelles are, perhaps, the boldest in
setting aside the Textus receptus in
deference to the authority of the
uncial MSS. and the early Fathers ;
Scrivener and Wordsworth, and
more recently Mr. Maclellan, in
maintaining the probability that
the cursive MSS., upon which the
Textus receptus was mainly based,
though themselves of late date, may
represent an ancient text of higher
authority than that of the oldest
existing uncials.

m.— THE ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

I. The Earlier Versions —
Wherever men have believed in
earnest that they had the ground

work of their faith in God mainly
or wholly in a written record, it is
natural that they should desire, if

20

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS

their religion has any hfe and
energy, to have that book in the
speech to which they were bom,
and in which they think. The
religious Hfe of our early English
or Anglo-Saxon forefathers, after
their conversion by Augustine, was
a deep and earnest life ; and as soon
as schools and monasteries gave
men the power to study the Scrip
tures in the Latin of the Vulgate
translation, portions of them were
translatedinlo Anglo-Saxon. There
were versions of the Psalms in the
eighth century. Bede, as in the
well-known narrative of his scholar
Cuthbert, died (a.d. 735) in the act
of finishing the last chapter of St.
John's Gospel. Alfred prefixed a
translation of the Ten Command
ments, and some other portions of
Exodus, to his Code of Laws (a.d.
931). The Homilies of Mliiic {ob.
a.d. 1005) must have made many
passages of Scripture familiar to
lay as well as clerical readers. In
the tenth century the four Gospels
were translated ; a little later the
Pentateuch and other portions of
the Old Testament. Most of these
were made of necessity from the
Vulgate, without reference to the
originals. Hebrew was utterly un
known, and the knowledge of Greek
which Theodore of Tarsus {ob. a.d.
690) brought with him to the See
of Canterbury did not spread Here
and there only, as in the case of
Bede, who spent his life in the
Monastery of Jarrow, founded by
Benedict Biscop, do we find any
traces of it, and even in him it
hardly goes beyond the explanation
here and there of a few isolated
terms. There are no signs that he
had studied a single chapter of a
Gospel in the Greek. It was na
tural when the Norman rule, in
troducing a higher culture through

the medium of two languages, one
of which was dead and the other
foreign, repressed the spontaneous
development of that which it had
found in existence, that these ver
sions should drop into disuse, and
be forgotten. At the best they
were but tentative steps to a goal
which was never reached.
II. Wycliffe. — The stirrings of
spiritual and intellectual life in the
thirteenth century, mainly under
the influence of the Franciscan and
Dominican Orders in the Univer
sities of Europe, led, in the first
instance, to the development of a
logical and metaphysical system of
theology, of which the works of the
great schoolmen Peter Lombard
{ob. a.d. 1164) and Thomas Aquinas
{ob. a.d. 1274) furnish the most
complete examples. This was, for
the most part, subservient to the
great scheme of a spiritual universal
monarchy on the part of the Bishop
of Rome, which found its most
prominent representatives in Inno
cent III. {ob. a.d. 1216) and Boni
face VIII. {ob. a.d. 1303). The
teaching of Scripture was still for
mally the basis of that of the school
men, but it was Scripture as found
in the Vulgate and commented on
by the Fathers; and, practically,
the comments and glosses of the
doctors took the place of the text.
Against this, whenever men found
themselves on any ground, political
or theological, opposed to Eome,
there was, in due course, a natural
reaction. Roger Bacon {ob. a.d.
1292), who certainly knew some
Greek and a little Hebrew, is loud
in his complaints of the corrupt
state of the current text of the
Vulgate, and of its defects as a
translation. Devotional minds
turned then, as always, to the

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

21

Psalms, as giving utterance at once
to the passionate complaints and
the fervent hopes of men in dark
and troublous times ; and three
English versions of them belong to
the first half of the fourteenth
century. It was significant, as an
indication of what was ripening for
the future, that the first book of
the New Testament to be translated
into English should have been the
Revelation of St. John. The evils
of the time were great. Men's
minds were agitated by wild Com
munistic dreams of a new social
order, and by the false revelation
of a so-called Everlasting Gospel,
ascribed to the Abbot Joachim of
Calabria {ob. a.d. 1201). It seemed
to John Wycliffe, in a.d. 1356, that
men would find the guidance which
they needed in the Apocalypse, and
with this accordingly he began.
He soon formed, however, the wider
plan of making the whole Bible
accessible to his countrymen. It
seemed to him, as John of Gaunt
put it in a speech before the King's
Council, a shameful thing that other
nations, French, Gascons, and the
Bohemians, who, in the person of
the wife of Richard II. had supplied
England with a queen, should have
the Scriptures in their own tongue,
and that Englishmen should not.
The next step accordingly was a
translation of the Gospels, with a
commentary; and by 1380 there
was a complete English New Testa
ment. A version of the Old Testa
ment was begun by Nicholas de
Hereford, and carried on to the
middle of the Book of Baruch, which
then stood after Jeremiah, when, as
is seen in the original MS. in the
Bodleian Library at Oxford, his work
was interrupted, probably by an
ecclesiastical prosecution, which first
summoned him to London and then

drove him into exile. Wycliffe, or
some fellow- worker, finished it be
fore his death, in 1384. A few
years afterwards it was carefully
revised throughout by another dis
ciple, John Purvey, whose text
is that commonly printed (as in
Forshall and Maiden's edition) as
WyclifEe's version.
There is much that is touching
in the history of the work thus
accomplished, as Purvey describes
it in his preface. It was hard to
get at the true text of the Vulgate ;
harder often to understand it. He
felt that it was a'task that required
the consecration of all powers, "to
live a clean life, and be full devout
in prayer ; " but he laboured on in
the belief that his toil would not
be fruitless. " By this manner,
with good living and great travail,
men may come to clear and true
translating, and true understanding
of Holy Writ, seem it never so hard
at the beginning." A work so
begun and completed could hardly
fail of success. It met a great want,
and in spite of all the difficulty and
cost of multiplying books by hand,
and the active measures taken by
Archbishop Arundel, imder Henry
V. {ob. a.d. 1413), not fewer thin
170 copies of the whole, or part, of
one or other of the versions, most
of them of the Revised text, aro
still extant. The greater part ap
pear to have been made between
1420 and 1450 ; nearly half of them
being of a portable size, as if men
desired to have them in daily use.
The book was clearly in great de-
maud, and though the "Lollardie,"
with which it was identified, was
repressed by the strong arm of
persecution, it doubtless helped to
keep alive the spirit of religious
freedom. Wycliffe's version did not profess

22

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

to have been made from the original,
and it had, therefore, against it all
the chances of error that belong to
the translation of a translation.
Thus, to confine ourselves to a few
instances from the New Testament,
the "Pontifex," which stands for
High Priest in Heb. ix. 11, 25, and
elsewhere, is rendered by "Bishop ; "
Ihe "knowledge of salvation," in
Luke i. 77, appears, as from the
scienlia salutis of the Vulgate, trans
formed into the " science of health" ;
for "repent," in Matt. iii. 2, we
have " do ye penance " ; for " mys
tery," in Eph. v. 32, "sacrament."
The " villages " of the Gospels are
turned into " castles " (Luke x. 38) ;
the " soldiers " into " knights " ;
" pearls " into " margarites " ; " un
learned men " into " idiots."
III. Tyndale.— The work of
giving an English Bible to the
English people had to be done over
again, in one sense, under happier
conditions. Under the influence of
the great Renaissance movement
Greece "had risen from the grave,"
to modify a well-known saying,
"with Plato in one hand for the
scholars of Italy, but with the New
Testament in the other for those
of Germany and England." The
printing-presses of all countries
were at work to multiply and trans
mit the labours of all scholars from
one country to another. The re
sults, as far as the printed text of
the Greek Testament is concerned,
have already been described above.
An impulse had been given to the
study of Greek at Oxford by Grocyn
{ob. a.d. 1519) and Linacre {ob. a.d.
1524), who went to Italy to learn
what was almost as a newly-dis
covered language, and was carried
forward by Colet, the founder of
St. Paul's School (ob. a.d. 1419), and

Sir Thomas More (ob. a.d. 1525),
who, as a layman, gave lectures in
one of the city churches on the
Epistle to the Romans. Lexicons
and grammars began to issue from
the press. Erasmus, the great
scholar of the age, studied Greek
at Oxford, and taught it at Cam
bridge from 1509 to 1524. It was
in vain that the adherents of the
old scholastic methods urged that
the study of Greek would probably
make men Pagan, and that those
who read Hebrew were in danger
of becoming Jews ; in vain that
the editors of the Complutensian
Bible compared the position of the
Vulgate version of the Old Testa
ment with the Hebrew text on one
side, and the LXX. version on the
other, to that of Christ crucified
between the two thieves. Culture
asserted the claim of classical studies
to be the literal humaniores of edu
cation, and men were not slow to
discover that without a true and
thorough "humanity," in that sense
of the word, there could be no true
theology. Foremost in the great work
which, carried on step by step
through nearly a century, ended in
1611 in what is known as the
Authorised Version,* stands the

* The name seems to have been attached
to it from the fact that it was undertaken
at James I.'s command, and dedicated to
him, and that the title-page spoke of it
as " appointed to be read in churches."
Historians have, however, sought in vain
fin- any Act of Parliament, Vote of Con
vocation, Orderin Council, or other official
document so appointing it. Practically,
it has tacitly received its sanction from
being exclusively printed by the King's
printers aud the University presses ; but
simply as a matter of strict law, the Act
of Parliament which authorised the Great
Bible remains unrepealed, and that is,
therefore, still the only version authorised
by law.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

23

prone of William Tyndale. Born
in 1484, studying at Oxford under
Grocyn and Linacre, carrying on
his Greek studies under Erasmus
at Cambridge in 1510, attracted by
the new theology of Luther, as he
had been before by the new learning
of his great rival, he formed the
purpose of turning laymen into
theologians. Himself a "priest,"
and more devout and thoughtful
than his fellows, he was among the
first — perhaps in England quite the
first — to realise the truth, that the
work of the ministers of the Church
was to be not priests, in the scholastic
and mediaeval sense, but [preachers
of the Word. At the age of thirty-
six he declared his purpose, "if
God spared his life, to make a boy
that driveth a plough to know more
of Scripture than the Pope;" and
from that purpose, through all the
changes and chances of his life, he
never swerved, even for a single
hour. The main features of that life
can be stated here but very briefly.
Bent upon his work, and knowing
that Tunstal, Bishop of London,
stood high in repute among the
scholars and humanists of the time,
he came up to London, in 1522, in
the hope of enlisting his support,
and presented himself with a trans
lation of one of the Orations of
lsocrates as a proof of his com
petency. He was met with delays
and rebuffs, and found that he was
not likely to gain help from him or
any other prelate. He was forced
to the conclusion that, "not only
was there no room in my Lord of
London's palace to translate the
New Testament, hut also there
was no place to do it in all
England." He accordingly went abroad,
first to Hamburg, and began with

versions of St. Matthew and St.
Mark with marginal notes ; thence
to Cologne, where his work was
interrupted by one of Luther's
bitterest opponents, Cochlasus ;
thence, with his printed sheets, to
Worms, four years after Luther's
famous entry into that city. From
its presses came two editions — one
in octavo, the other in quarto — in
1525. They appeared without his
name. Six thousand copies were
struck off. They soon found their
way to England. Their arrival
had been preceded by rumours
which roused, an eager desire in
some, fear and a hot enmity in
others. The King and the Bishops
ordered it to be seized, or bought
up, and burnt. Tunstal preached
against it at St. Paul's Cross, de
claring that he had found 2,000
errors in it. Sir T. More wrote
against it as being both heretical
and unscholarly. The Reforming-
spirit was, however, gaining
ground. Tyndale defended him
self successfully against More's
criticisms. The books were eagerly
read by students and tutors at
Oxford and Cambridge. They
were given by friend to friend as
precious treasures. The very pro
cess of buying up created a demand
which was met by a fresh supply.
The work of destruction was, how
ever, thorough. Of six editions,
three genuine, three surreptitious,
there were probably 15,000 copies
printed. Of these, in strange con
trast to the 170 MS. copies of
Wyclifie's version, some four or
five only, the greater part incom
plete and mutilated, have come
down to our own time.
Meanwhile Tyndale -went on
with his work. The prominence
of the Jewish element at Worms,
the synagogue of which is said to

24

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

be one of the oldest in Western
Europe, may have helped him to
a more accurate knowledge of He
brew. Jewish editions of the Old
Testament had been published by
Bomberg in 1518 and 1523. A
new Latin translation from the
Hebrew text was published by
Pagninus in 1527. Luther's Penta
teuch had appeared in 1523; the
Historical Books and Hagiographa
in 1524. A like work was carried
on simultaneously by Zwingli and
other scholars at Zurich. Tyndale
was not slow to follow, and the
Pentateuch appeared in 1530 ;
Jonah hi 1534. The latter year
witnessed the publication of a re
vised edition of his New Testa
ment, of three unauthorised editions
at Antwerp, with many alterations
of which Tyndale did not approve,
by George Joye, an over-zealous
and not very scrupulous disciple.
In Tyndale's own edition short
marginal notes were added, the
beginnings and endings of the
lessons read in Church were
marked, and prologues prefixed to
the several books. The state of
things in England had been altered
by the King's divorce and mar
riage with Anne Boleyn, and in
return for her good offices on be
half of an Antwerp merchant who
had suffered in his cause Tyndale
presented her with a copy (now in
the British Museum) printed upon
vellum and iUuminated. The in
scription Anna llegina Anglice, in
faded red letters, may still be
traced on the gilded edges. So
far Tyndale lived to see of the
travail of his soul; but his work
was nearly over. The enemies of
the Reformation in Flanders hunted
him down under the persecuting
edicts of Charles V., and in October,
1536, he suffered at the stake at

Vilvorde, near Brussels, breathing
the prayer of longing hope, as
seeing far off the Pisgah vision of a
good land on which he was not
himself to enter, "Lord, open the
King of England's eyes." So
passed to his rest the truest and
noblest worker in the English
Reformation. The labours of Tyndale as a
translator of the New Testament
were important, not only because
he prepared the way as a pioneer
for those who were to follow him,
but because, to a great extent, he
left a mark upon the work which
endures to this day. The feeling
that his task was to make a Bible
for theEnglish people kept him from
the use of pedantic "ink-horn"
terms belonging to the vocabulary
of scholars, and varying with their
fashions, and gave him an almost
instinctive tact in choosing the
phrases and turn of speech which
happily have not yet disappeared,
and, we may add, are not likely to
disappear, in any process of revi
sion. And this, we must remember
required at the time a courage
which we cannot easily estimate.
The dominant feeling of the eccle
siastics was against translating the
Bible at all. Those who did not
openly oppose it, such as Gardiner
and those who acted with him,
surrounded their consent with reser
vations of all kinds. The dignity
of Scripture was to be secured by
keeping its language as distinct as
possible from that of the common
people. Time-honoured and eccle
siastical words, on which the
Church had, as it were, stamped
its seal, were to be used as largely
as possible. Tyndale's leading idea
was precisely the opposite of this.
He felt that tho scholastic theology
of the time had so surrounded the

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

25

language of Christ and His Apostles
with new associations, that their
meaning, or what had been called
their connotation, was practically
altered for the worse ; and. it seemed
to him that the time was come for
laying the axe to the root of the
tree by the exclusion of the terms
which had thus been spoilt for
common use. And at first the
work was done with a thorough
ness in which subsequent revisers
have not had the courage to follow
him. " Congregation " uniformly
instead of "church," "favour"
often instead of " grace," " mys
tery" instead of "sacrament,"
"overseer" instead of "bishop,"
"repentance" instead of "pen
ance," "elder" instead of "priest,"
"love" instead of "charity," "ac
knowledge" instead of "confess."
It was just this feature in Tyn
dale's work that roused the keenest
indignation on the part of the
Bishops of the English Church,
and even of scholars like Sir
Thomas More; and made Ridley
(the uncle of the martyr) say of it,
not untruely as appearance went,
that his translation was "accursed
and damned (condemned) by the
consent of the prelates and learned
men." If we wish to picture to
ourselves what might have been
the result had Tyndale acted as the
" prelates and learned men " would
have had him act, we may see it in
the Rhemish New Testament. If
we ask what shape his translation
might have taken had he been
only a scholar and a critic, we may
find the answer in the fragments
of a translation left by Sir John
Cheke, the great scholar, who first—
" . . . . taught Cambridge and
King Edward Greek."
The first process would have given

us " azymes " for " unleavened
bread " ; " evacuated from Christ "
(Gal. v. 4) ; " the justifications of
our Lord" (Luke i. 6); "long
animity " (Rom. ii. 4) ; " sicer "
for " strong drink " (Luke i. 15) ;
"replenished with fear" (Luke v.
26) ; " the specious gate of the
Temple" (Acts. iii. 2); "a greater
host " (Heb. xi. 4) ; " contemning
confusion " (Heb. xii. 2) ; the
" consummator, Jesus " (Ibid.) —
and so on through a thousand in
stances. The second, with a pedan
try of a different kind, would, have
given "biword" for "parable,"
"frosent" for "apostle," "fresh
men" for "proselytes," "uprising"
for " resurrection," " gainbirth,"
for "regeneration," and the like.
Instead of such monstrosities, we
have a version which represents as
accurate a scholarship as was pos
sible under the then conditions of
culture, and the faithfulness of one
who felt that what he was dealing
with contained God's message to
mankind, and never consciously
tampered with its meaning. Two
testimonies to its value may well
close this brief account of it. One
is from the pen of the most emi
nent of modern English historians.
"The peculiar genius — if such a
word may be permitted — which
breathes through it, the mingled
tenderness and simplicity, the
Saxon simplicity, the preternatural
grandeur,unequalled,unapproached,in the attempted improvements of
modern scholars — all are here— and
bear the impress of the mind of one
man, William Tyndale " (Froude,
History of England, iii. p. 84). The
other comes from one who seems to
have felt keenly the change which
he found when he had to quote the
phrases of the Rhemish version,
almost, as it were, to think in it,

26

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

instead of those with which his
youth and manhood had been
familiar, and after which he now
sighs with the vain wish that,
being what it is, it was with Rome
and not against her. "It was
surely a most lucky accident for
the young rehgion that, while the
English language was coming to
the birth with its special attributes
of nerve, simplicity, and vigour, at
its very first breathings Protestant
ism was at hand to form it upon
its own theological patois, and to
educate it as the mouth-piece of
its tradition. So, however, it was
to be, and soon,
( As in this bad world below
Holiest things find vilest using,'
the new religion employed the
new language for its purposes, in a
great undertaking — the translation
of its own Bible; a work which,
by the purity of its diction and
the strength and harmony of its
style, has deservedly become the
very model of good English, and
the standard of the language to
all future times " (J. H. Newman,
Lectures on the Present Position of
Catholics, p. 66).
IV. Tyndale's Successors.
— In this, as in the history of most
great enterprises, it was true that
" one soweth, and another reapeth."
Other men, with less heroism and
less genius, entered into the labours
of the martyr of Vilvorde. The
limits of this Introduction exclude
a full account of the work of his
successors. It will be enough to
note briefly the stages through
which it passed till it reached what
was to be its close and consumma
tion for more than two centuries
and a half.
(1) First in order came Cover-

dale (born 1485, died 1565), after
wards, under Elizabeth, Bishop of
Exeter. In him we find a diligent
and faithful worker, and we owe to
him the first complete translation
of the whole Bible, published in
1535. Partly perhaps from his
inferior scholarship, partly from a
wish to conciliate at once the fol
lowers of Luther and those who
had been accustomed to the Vul
gate, he did not even profess to
have had recourse to the original
text, but was content with an
nouncing on his title-page that it
was " truly translated out of the
Douche" (i.e., German) "and
Latyn." Tyndale for the New
Testament, Luther's version and
the Zurich Bible of Zwingli for the
Old, were his chief authorities ;
but he was less consistent than
T3"ndale, and deliberately defends
his inconsistency, in not excluding
the words that had become asso
ciated with scholastic definitions.
He uses, e.g., " penance " as well
as "repentance," "priest" as well
as "elder," "charity" as well as
" love." " Congregation," how
ever, keeps its ground as against
" church." Reprints of this ver
sion appeared in 1536 and 1537,
and even in 1550 and 1553. Among
smaller facts connected with this
version we may note that the Latin
Biblia, and not Bible, appears on
the title-page ; that the Hebrew
letters forming the name of Jehovah
are also there ; and that the alpha
betic elegies of the Book of La
mentations have the Hebrew letters
attached to their respective verses.
There are no notes, no chapter
headings, nor division into verses.
(2) Matthew's Bible appeared
in 1537, and is memorable as
having been dedicated to Henry
VIII. and his Queen, Jane Sey-

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

27

mour, and set forth "with the
King's most gracyous license."
Who the Thomas Matthew was by
whom the book purports to be
translated, no one knows. There
was no scholar of repute of that
name ; and though his name is
attached to the dedication, the ex
hortation to the study of Scripture
has the initials J. R. as a signa
ture. Possibly, Thomas Matthew
was, as some have supposed, a
simple alias assumed by John
Rogers, afterwards the proto
martyr of the Marian persecution,
in order that the name of one who
was known to have been a friend
of Tyndale might not appear
with an undue prominence on the
title-page. Possibly he was a lay
man, who made himself responsible
for the cost of printing. The book
was printed in large folio. Through
Cromwell's influence, which was
then in the ascendant, hacked by
Cranmer's — partly, also, we may
conjecture, through Matthew's
name appearing as the translator
instead of Rogers's — the King's
license was obtained without diffi
culty. The publishers (Grafton
and Whitchurch) were bold enough
to ask for a monoply for five years ;
to suggest that " every curate "
(i.e., parish priest) should be com
pelled to buy one copy, and every
abbey six. As a literary work,
Eogers's translation is of a com
posite character. The Pentateuch
and New Testament are reprinted
from Tyndale; the Books of the
Old Testament, from Ezra to
Malachi, from Coverdale. From
Joshua to 2 Chronicles we have a
new translation. The most notice
able feature of the book was found
in the marginal notes, which made
a kind of running commentary on
the text, and which were, for the

most part, of a strong Lutheran
character. It is scarcely conceiv
able that the King could have read,
with any care, the book to which
he thus gave his sanction. As it
was, a copy was ordered to be set
up in every parish church, and
Matthew's Bible was the first
authorised version.
(3) It was, perhaps, in part
owing to the antagonism which
Rogers's notes naturally roused
that it was scarcely published before
another version was begun under
Cromwell's authority. Coverdale
was called on to undertake the task
of revision, and he and Bonner
(names strangely joined) were for
a time acting together in getting
it printed at Paris, and transmit
ting the sheets to London. The
notes disappeared, and a marginal
hand took their place, indicating
the " dark places " that required
the comment which Coverdale was
not allowed to write. This also
came out in an extra-sized folio,
and is known, therefore, as the
Great Bible. It had no dedica
tion, but there was an elaborate
frontispiece title-page, engraved,
probably, from Holbein's designs,
representing the King on his throne,
giving the Verbum Dei to Cromwell
and Cranmer, while they in their
turn distribute it to clergy and
laity. It appeared with a preface
by Cranmer in 1540, and a copy of
it was ordered to be set up in every
church. Other editions followed,
two in the same year, and three in
1541. In the third and fifth of
these two new names appear on the
title-page (the first two editions
having been issued without the
name of any translator) as having
revised the work — Tunstal, then
Bishop of Durham; and Heath,
Bishop of Rochester. The impulse

28

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

which Tyndale had given had told
even on the man to whom he had
applied in vain for support at the
outset of bis career, and, as by the
strange irony of history, he who
had been foremost in condemning
Tyndale's version as dangerous,
full of errors, and heretical, was
now found giving the sanction of
his name to a translation which
was at least largely based on that
version. It is significant that
under this editorship even the
marginal " hands " of Coverdale's
unfulfilled intentions disappeared,
and the Bishops were thus com
mitted to what twenty years be
fore they had shrunk from and
denounced : the policy of giving to
the English people a Bible in their
own tongue without note or com
ment. It was well that all this
was done when it was. Cromwell's
fall, in July, 1540, was followed
by a time of reaction, in which
Gardiner and Bonner gained the
ascendant. They did not, how
ever, venture to recall the step that
had thus been taken, and the Great
Bible, chained to its desk in every
church, and allowed, for some
years at least, to be read out of
service-time to any who choose to
listen, did a work which not even
the king's proclamations against
discussing its teaching, nor Bon
ner's threats to withdraw the Bibles
unless the discussions were sup
pressed, were able to undo. It
remained the authorised version,
recognised in the Liturgical Ee-
forms under Edward VI., and from
it accordingly were taken the
Psalms which appeared in the
Prayer Books of that reign, and
have kept their place through all
revisions to the present day. The
version, as a whole, was based
upon Coverdale and Tyndale, with

alterations made more or less under
the influence of the Latin versions
of Erasmus for the New Testament
and the Vulgate for the Old. All
readers of the English Prayer Book
Psalms have accordingly the means
of comparing this translation with
that of the Authorised Version ;*
and, probably, the general im
pression is in favour of the Prayer
Book version as being, though less
accurate, more rhythmical and
harmonious in its turns of phrase
ology ; often with a felicitous ring
in its cadences, that seems, even
when the Psalms are read, to carry
with it a music of its own. A
certain ostentation of learning is
seen in the appearance of the He
brew names of books, such, e.g., as
Bereschith (Genesis), Telle Shemoth
(Exodus). On the other hand, by
what was obviously the hasty sub
stitution of what was thought a
more respectful term than Apo
crypha, the books which are now
classed under that head are said to be
"called Hagiographa" (i.e., "sacred
writings "), because they " were
read in secret and apart."
(4) Nearly contemporaneous with
the Great Bible — issuing from the
press, indeed, before it — another
translation was published in Lon
don (1539), by Richard Taverner,
who had been a student at Cardinal
College, afterwards Christ Church,

* The use of the "Morians' land" (i.e.,
the land of the Moors), in the Prayer
Book, where the Bible version has
"Ethiopia" (Pss. lxviii. 81, lxxxvii. 4),
may be noted as a prominent instance
of the influence of Luther's version,
which gives Mohrenlaiul, working through
Coverdale. Besides the Psalms we flud
traces of this version in the Sentences oj
the Communion Service, and in phrases
such as " worthy fruits of penance," and
the like. From it, too, come the quota
tions in the Homilies.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

29

at Oxford. It affords the attrac
tion of the nrnning commentary on
the text which the editors of the
Great Bible had deliberately omit
ted, and on this ground found the
acceptance which is indicated by
two editions, folio and quarto, of
the whole Bible, and two, quarto
and octavo, of the New Testament,
in the same year, followed by a
subsequent reprint. It never oc
cupied, however, any position of
authority, nor had it any traceable
influence on subsequent versions.
It deserves to be noted, however —
as if each translation was to have
somethmg specially memorable with
it — as an instance of a layman's
scholarship and devotion, of the
assertion of a layman's right to
translate, publish, comment on, the
Sacred Books. The work which
Taverner had done in this way was
so far recognised that in the reign
of Edward VI. he received a special
license to preach, and performed
his office with an almost ostenta
tious disregard of conventional
rules of costume, preaching, not in
the dress of his university degree,
but in velvet hat, damask gown,
gold chain, and sword.
(5) The Geneva Bible. The
last five years of the reign of Henry
VIII. were conspicuously a time of
reaction, but it kept, as has been
said, within limits. The old horror
of Tyndale's name revived, and all
books bearing his name were or
dered to be destroyed. The notes
in all editions that had them — i.e.,
Matthew's and Taverner's — were to
be erased. No women, except those
of noble and gentle birth, no men
below what we should call the upper
middle-class, were to read the Bible,
publicly or privately, to others, or
by themselves. Coverdale's New
Testament was proscribed, as well as

Tyndale's, and this involved in most
instances the destruction of the
whole Bible that bore his name.
Gardiner proposed that a translation
should be made by the Bishops
(Tunstal and Heath now disavowing
the work of revision for which the
title-page of the Great Bible; made
them responsible), and urged the
retention in the original Latin of
every ecclesiastical and theological
term, and even of others, such as
oriens, simplex, tyrannus, in which
he seemed to see a peculiar and
untranslatable force. That project
happily fell through. The matter
was discussed in Convocation, and
referred to the universities, but
nothing more was done. The
Great Bible kept its position as the
authorised translation.
Under Edward VT. the attention
of Cranmer and the other ref o-rming
Bishops was occupied with the more
urgent work of liturgical reforma
tion, and though many reprints of
both Bibles and New Testaments
issued from the press, and were
eagerly purchased, nothing was
done towards a new revision, beyond
the appointment of two foreign re
formers, Fagius and Bucer, to pro
fessorships at Cambridge, with a
view to their undertaking such a
work. The former was to take the
Old Testament, the latter the New.
They were to write notes on dark
and obscure places, and reconcile
those that seemed repugnant to each
other. Their work was hindered
by illness, and the accession of
Mary, in 1553, put a stop to this
or any like enterprise.
The work was, however, done
for England, though not in England,
and in 1557, the last year of Mary's
reign, a New Testament with
copious notes was printed at Geneva,
with an introductory epistle by

30

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Calvin. The work appeared anony
mously, but it was probably by
Whittingham, one of the English
refugees, who had married Calvin's
sister. For the first time in the
history of the English Bible the
chapters were divided into verses,
after the manner with which we
are familiar, and so the facility
of reference and verifying quota
tions was enormously increased.
The example of such a division
had been set, as stated above
(p. 17), in the Greek Testament
published by Stephens (or Etienne)
in 1551 ; but there the verses
were only noted in the margin,
as is done, for example, in the
Oxford reprint of Mill's Greek
Testament. It was also the first
translation printed in Roman type,
and so presenting a clearer and
easier page to the reader. The
work was earned on by Whitting
ham, Coverdale, and others, after
the accession of Elizabeth, for two
years, and the whole Bible was
published in 1560. Of all English
versions before that of 1611, it was
by far the most popular. Size,
price, type, notes, division into
verses, made it for more than half
a century the household Bible of
the English people. In most of
the editions after 1578 it was ac
companied by a useful Bible Dic
tionary. It was found in every
family. It was the text-book of
every student. It came in oppor
tunely to fill up the gap which had
been caused by the wholesale de
struction of Bibles in the later
years of Henry VEIL and during
the whole reign of Mary. It was
only slowly displaced by that which
we now know as the Authorised
Version — several editions being-
printed after 1611 — and from one
point of view it may be questioned

whether there was not loss as well
as gain in the displacement. The
presence of notes, even if they were,
like those of the Geneva Bible,
somewhat over-dogmatic and con
troversial in their tone, was yet at
once an incentive and a help to a
thoughtful study of Scripture. The
reader could find some answer-
often a clear and intelligent answer
— to the questions that perplexed
him, and was not tempted, as a
Bible without note or comment
tempts men, to a mechanical and
perfunctory perusal. For good or
for evil, and it is believed that the
former greatly predominated, it was
the Geneva version that gave birth
to the great Puritan party, and
sustained it through its long conflict
in the reigns of Elizabeth and
James. So far as the religion of
the peasantry of Scotland has been
stamped with a more intelligent and
thoughtful character than that of
the same class in England, the secret
may be found in the more enduring
influence of this version among
them. Among its other distinctive
features it may be noted (1) that
it omitted the name of St. Paul in
the title of the Epistle to the He
brews, and left the authorship an
open question, and (2) that it avowed
the principle of putting words not
in the original in italics. One of
the English editions of this version
is that commonly known as the
" Breeches Bible," from its use of
that word instead of " aprons " in
Gen. iii. 7.
As compared with the Great Bible,
the Geneva version shows a careful
work of comparison and revision.
In the Old Testament the revisers
were helped both by the Latin and
the French translations of foreign
Protestant scholars, especially by
the Latin New Testament of Theo-

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

31

dore Beza, and by the notes attached
to it. Beza's scholarship was above
the level of that of most of his contem
poraries, and in many instances the
corrections which were introduced
on his authority in the Geneva
version have been recognised by
later revisers, and have found their
place in the Authorised Version.
On the other hand, he was some
what over-bold in dealing with the
Greek text of the New Testament,
substituting conjecture for the pa
tient work of laborious criticism ;
and in this respect his influence
was mischievous. On the whole,
however, the work was well and
faithfully done, and was so far a
great step forward to the consum
mation in which the English people
were to rest for more than two
centuries and a half.
(6) The Bishops' Bible. The
popularity of the Geneva version,
its acknowledged superiority to the
Great Bible, which was then the
authorised version of the Church
of England, coupled perhaps with
a slight feeling of alarm at the
boldness of the marginal notes, led
Archbishop Parker, about 1563 —
though he had forwarded the re
publication of that version in Eng
land — to undertake the work of
revision, by committing the several
books of Scripture to individual
scholars or groups of scholars.
Many of these (Sandys, Guest,
Harne, Grindal, and others) were
Bishops, and when the book ap
peared, in 1568, it soon became
known by the title which now
attaches to it, of the Bishops' Bible.
It was published, like most of the
Bibles intended for use in church,
in a stately folio. It has no dedi
cation, but a portrait of Elizabeth
appears on the engraved title-page,
and others of Leicester and Burleigh

appear, with strange, almost ludic
rous, inappropriateness, before the
Book of Joshua and the Psalms.
It does not appear to have distinctly
received the Queen's sanction, but
a vote of Convocation ordered copies
to be bought by every Archbishop
and Bishop, and placed in his hall
or dining-room, forthe convenience
of strangers, by all cathedrals, and,
as far as possible, by all churches.
Fresh issues, more or less revised,
appeared in 1575 and 1578. The
Bishops' Bible is memorable as to
a certain extent fulfilling Cover-
dale's intention, which had been
adjourned sine die by the successive
editors of the Great Bible, and for
the first and last time there was
thus a quasi-authorised commentary
on the whole Bible. It aimed, too,
more than most previous versions,
at reproducing the exact spelling
of Hebrew names, as, e.g., in giving
Izhak for Isaac, and affixing the
final u to names like Hezekiahu,
Josiahu, and the like. It classified
the books both of the Old and New
Testament as legal, historical, sa
piential, and prophetic. Passages
were marked to be omitted when
the chapters were read as the lessons
for the day. In the edition of 1572
there was, for the first time, a map
of Palestine, with degrees of lati
tude and longitude; and elaborate
genealogical tables were prefixed to
it. The judgment of most scholars
is unfavourable to this version of
the Old Testament, but the New
shows considerable scholarship,
carrying on its work of revision
at each successive issue.
(7) The Rhemish Version of the
New Testament, followed by the
Douay Version of the Old, was
intended partly to refute the charge
that the Church of Rome was op
posed altogether to the work of

32

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

translation, partly to show that
she had scholars who were not
afraid to challenge comparison with
those of the Reformed Churches.
It appeared at Eheims in 1582, and
had copious notes, mostly of a con
troversial character. It was just
such a version as Gardiner would
have welcomed, based avowedly on
the Vulgate as more authoritative
than the Greek, and on the text of
the Vulgate that had been stamped
by Clement VIII. with Papal sanc
tion, retaining, as far as possible,
all technical and theological terms,
such as depositum (1 Tim. vi. 20),
exinanited (Phil. ii. 7), penance,
chalice, priest (for "elder"), host
(for "sacrifice"), advent (for "com
ing"), coinquination (2 Peter ii. 13),
peregrination (1 Pet.i. 17), prepuce,
azymes, and the like. In many
cases, hut naturally more in the
Old Testament than the New, they
were content to rest in a rendering
which had simply no meaning at
all. Two specimens may he suf
ficient to show to what extent stones
were offered to English Catholics
instead of bread.
Eph. vi. 12. "Our wrestling is
. against princes and
potentates, against the rec
tors of this world of dark
ness, against the spirituals
of wickedness in the celes
tials."
Heb. xiii. 16. "Beneficence and
communication do not for
get, for with such hosts
God is premerited."
In not a few cases, however, the
words of Latin use which were thus
introduced had become current in
the language of English religious
writers, and a list of considerable
length might be made of words
which the revisers under James I.
were not afraid to take from the

Rhemish Testament in place of those
which were found in the Bishops'
Bible or the Geneva version. Among
these we may note " charity " for
" love " in 1 Cor. xiii., " church "
for "congregation" in Matt. xvi.
18, xviii. 17.
V. The Authorised Version.
The position of the Church of
England on the accession of James
I. in 1603, in relation to the trans
lations of Scripture then current,
presented two conflicting currents
of feeling. On the one hand, the
Bishops' Bible occupied the position
of authority. On the other, that of
Geneva had gained a stronger hold
on the affections of the English
people,* and to a large extent of the
English clergy also. The Puritan
party wished to dislodge the Bishops'
Bible from its pre-eminence, and
to make way for one more after
the pattern of Geneva. The King
and the Court divines disliked the
bolder tone of many of the notes of
the latter version. Some few per
haps of the school afterwards de
veloped by Laud and Montagu on
the one side, by Falkland and Chil-
lingworthonthe other, fretted under
the yoke of the Calvinistic dogmat
ism which pervaded both. Accord
ingly when the Puritan petition,
known, from the supposed number
of signatures, as "millenary," led
to the Hampton Court Conference,
the campaign was opened by Dr.
Reynolds, President of Corpus
Christi College, Oxford, who, urging
some special faults in the Bishops'

* Of the Bishops' Bible there were
thirteen editions in folio, six in quarto,
and only one in octavo. Of the Geneva
version, 1568 and 1611, there were sixteen
in octavo, fifty-two in quarto, eighteen in
folio.— Westcott, History of the English
Bible, p. 149.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

33

Bible (the passages selected, Gal.
iv. 25, Pss. cv. 28, cvi. 30, were, it
must be said, singularly unimpor
tant) pleaded for a new revision.
Bancroft, Bishop of London, made
the somewhat peevish answer "that
if every man's humour were to be
followed, there would be no end of
translating." The King, however,
interposed. He saw in the task of
revision just the kind of work which
met his tastes as a scholar. He
saw in it also an opportunity for
getting rid of the obnoxious Geneva
Commentary. It was settled then
and there, Bancroft withdrawing-
his opposition on this concession,
that the forthcoming version should
be issued without note or comment.
Fifty-four scholars were selected
(only forty-seven, however, are
named) probably by the bishops
who had most influence with the
King, and arranged in six groups,
to each of which a given portion of
the Bible was assigned. Compara
tively few of the names on this list
have now any special interest for
the general English reader. Of
those who are still remembered, we
may name Andrewes, afterwards
Bishop of Winchester ; Abbot, after
wards Archbishop of Canterbury ;
Overall, the author of the latter
part of the Church Catechism ;
Saravia, the friend of Hooker ; Sir
Henry Savile, famous as the editor
of Chrysostom ; Reynolds, who had,
as we have seen, been the first to
urge revision. The king recom
mended the translators to the pa
tronage of the bishops, and invited
cathedrals to contribute to the ex
penses of the work. As far as can
be traced, the labour was, from first
to last, like that of the recent re
visers of the Authorised Version, a
labour of love, without payment,
or hope of payment, beyond the
3

occasional hospitality of this or that
college", which might, perhaps, offer
free quarters to a company that
included one of its own members.
After nearly three years of labour
the new Bible appeared in 1611.
It bore, as our Bibles still bear, on
its title-page, the claim to be " newly
translated out of the origmal tongue ;
and with the former translations
diligently compared and revised,"
and to be " appointed to be read in
churches." The latter announce
ment, confirmed as it has been
by general acceptance, has led to
the title of the "Authorised Ver
sion," which has since commonly
attached to it. Singularly enough,
however, there is nothing, as has
been said above (note, p. 22), but
the printer's title-page as the war
rant for this assumption of authority.
A fresh revision was talked of under
the Long Parliament, 1653, and a
committee of scholars appointed in
1656. They met at the house of
Lord Keeper Whitelock, and the
list included the names of Walton,
the editor of the great Polyglot
Bible, and Cudworth, the famous
metaphysician, but nothing came of
the Conference.
The principles on which the trans
lators were to act were definitely
laid down for them in fifteen rules,
probably drawn up under Bancroft's
direction: (1) The Bishops' Bible
was to be taken as a basis, and
altered as- little as possible. (2)
Names of prophets and others were
to be retained in their common
form. This was directed against
the plan which had been adopted
in the Bishops' Bible. (3) The old
ecclesiastical words were to be kept.
"Church" was to be used instead
of " congregation." This was
against Tyndale and the versions
that had followed hiin, with special

34

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS;

reference to the Genevan. (4)
Weight was to be given, where a
word had different senses, to the
authority of the ancient Fathers.
(5) The received division of chapters
was to be altered not at all, or as
Httle as might be. (6) There were
to be no marginal notes, expect
such as were purely verbal, alter
native rendering's, and the like.
(7) Marginal references should be
given at discretion. The next six
rules prescribed the details of the
work : the revision by one company
of the work of another, and the
like. The 14th pointed to Tyn
dale's translation, Matthew's Cover-
dale's, Whitchurch's (the Great
Bible), and the Geneva version, as
to be followed where it was thought
desirable. In their preface, written by Dr.
Miles Smith — a far more interesting
document than the dedication which
we find in all our Bibles — some
further rules of action are stated
as having guided them. They con
trast their careful work, extending
through three years or more, with
the seventy-two days of the legend
of the Septuagint. They speak re
spectfully of previous English ver
sions. They profess to have con
sulted both ancient and modem
translations : Chaldee, Hebrew, Sy
rian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French
(probably the Geneva version),
Italian (probably Diodati's) , German
(certainly Luther's). They defend
their practice of varying the ren
derings of Hebrew or Greek words,
partly on the legitimate ground
that one English word will not
always express the different mean
ings of the same word in the
original, partly on the somewhat
fantastic plea of fairness, that as
many English words as possible
might have the honour of being

admitted to the sacred volume. A
careful comparison shows that in
the New Testament their chief
standards of comparison were Beza's,
the German, and even the Ehemish
version, from the last of which, as
stated above, they adopted many
words and phrases,* and with which
the direction to retain the old ec
clesiastical terms, at times brought
them into close agreement. The
general acceptance which the Au
thorised Version met with, both from
scholars and the great mass of
readers, may fairly be admitted
as evidence that the work was done
carefully and well. The revisers
were never satisfied, as those of
Rheims or Douay sometimes were,
with an absolutely unmeaning trans
lation. They avoided archaisms to
the best of their power, and with
equal care avoided the "ink-horn
terms" of a pedantic scholarship.
They followed the earlier English
versions in the majestic simplicity
which, as a rule, had characterised
them from Tyndale onwards, and
aimed, not unsuccessfully, at greater
accuracy. Where they failed, it
was chiefly through the circum
stances under which they worked.
In one respect their deliberate
choice of a wrong method, in seeking
to vary the renderings of Greek or
Hebrew words as much, instead of
as little, as possible, has involved
them in many mistakes, leading to
a false emphasis or a false antithesis,
hindering the English reader from
seeing how one passage throws
light upon another, and making the
use of an English concordance of
little or no value as a help to inter
pretation. For other defects they
were, perhaps, less responsible. The
text of the New Testament was as

* See "Westcott's History, p. 352.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

35

yet in an unsettled state, and
Stephen's (or Etienne's) edition,
which they took as their standard,
was based on the later, not the
earlier MSS. They had learnt
Greek through Latin, and were thus
led (1) through the comparative
incompleteness of the Latin con
jugation to confound tenses of the
Greek verbs, imperfect, aorist, per
fect, pluperfect, which were really
distinct; (2) through the absence
of a Latin definite article, to pass
over the force of the Greek article,
or to exaggerate it into a demon
strative pronoun ; (3) through the
imperfect analysis of the use of the
Greek prepositions to give not un
frequently a sense, when the prepo
sition is used with one case, which
rightly belongs to it only when it
is used with another. (4) The two
centuries and a half which have
passed since have naturally rendered
some words obsolete or obsolescent,
have lowered or altered the mean
ings of others, and have enlarged
the range of the English vocabulary
so as to take in words which would
be as legitimately at the disposal
of the revisers now as any which
were then in use were at the com
mand of the revisers of 1611. Mr.
Aldis Wright's Bible Word-Booh,
and the papers by Canon Venables
in the Bible Educator, on " Bible
Words," may be consulted as au
thorities on the subjects of which
they treat.
A few of the minor, but not un
important, details of the Authorised
Version still remain to be noticed.
(1) The two editions printed in
1611 were both in the Old English
black letter. Roman type was used
in the reprint of 1612. (2) All the
editions contained tho Apocrypha
till 1629. (3) Printers, or the
editors employed by printers, have

from time to time modified, though
without authority, the spe1 ling of
the edition of 1611, so as to keep
pace with the real or supposed im
provements of later usage. (4) The
careful use of italics to indicate the
use of words which, though not
expressed in the original, were yet
essential to the meaning, was, from
the outset, a special characteristic
of the Authorised Version. This,
too, has, from time to time, been
modified by successive editors.
The text printed in the present
volume represents, in this respect,
that of 1611, but the Cambridgo
edition of 1638 is said to be
still more carefully edited. (5)
The marginal readings and re
ferences of the edition of 1611
have in like manner been largely
added to or varied by subsequent
editors, notably by Dr. Paris in
the Cambridge edition of 1762, and
Dr. Blayney, who superintended
the Oxford edition of 1769. Use-'
ful as these are as suggesting
possible alternative translations or
the comparison of really parallel
passages, they cannot be regarded
as having the slightest claim to
authority, properly so called. Some
few corrections of the version itself
were also made by these or otha.1
editors, on their own responsibility,
as, e.g., "about" for "above" in
2 Cor. xii. 12, "unto me" for
" under me " in Ps. xviii. 47. Mis
takes in printing have made some
editions memorable — "vinegar" for
" vineyard " in Matt. xxi. 28 ;
" not " omitted from the Seventh
Commandment, in 1632; "right
eousness " (Rom. vi. 13), in 1653.
(6) The marginal dates of the com
mon English Bibles, which first
appear in Bishop Lloyd's Bible, in
1701, are also, it should be noted,
though often helpful, altogether

36

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

without authority. They represent,
as now printed, the chronology
adopted by Archbishop Ussher, and
are, like all such systems, open to
correction, as research brings to
light fuller or more authentic
materials, or criticism corrects the
conclusions of earlier scholars. In
eome cases, as, e.g., in assigning
a.d. 60 to the Epistle of St. James,
a.d. 96 to the Revelation of St.
John, a.d. 58 to the Epistle to the
Galatians, the dates assigned assume
theories which many recent scholars
have rejected. (7) The chapter-
headings of our printed Bibles have
remained with but little alteration,
but they, too, call for a careful
revision. That the right of re
vision has been exercised, however,
appears from the changes that have
taken place in the heading of Ps.
cxlix. from the form which it pre
sented in 1611, "The Psalmist
exhorteth to praise God ... for
that power which He hath given to
the Church to bind the consciences
of men," to its present text, which
omits the last six words. In many
instances the headings assume,
somewhat too decisively, the cha
racter of a commentary, rather
than a summary. Thus, while
Pss. xvi., xxii., and lxix. are dealt
with in their primary historical
aspect, Pss. ii., xiv., xlvii., lxxii.,
and ex. are referred explicitly
to "Christ's kingdom." "The
Church " appears as the subject
of Pss. lxxvi., lxxx., and lxxxvii.,
where it would have been histori
cally truer to say Israel. Ps. cix.
is referred to Judas as the object
of its imprecations. The Song of

Solomon receives throughout an
elaborate allegorical interpretation.
Isa. liii. is referred specifically to
" the scandal of the Cross," Isa.
lxi. to " the office of Christ," Mic.
v. to " the birth and kingdom of
Christ," and so on. Luke vii. as
sumes the identity of the " woman
that was a sinner" with Mary
Magdalene. In Acts vi. the Apostles
are said to " appoint the office of
deaconship to seven chosen men."
In Acts xx. Paul is said to " cele
brate the Lord's Supper." Apart al
together from the question whether
the interpretation in these and other
like cases is or is not correct, it is
clear that the headings go beyond
the function which properly belongs
to them, and trench upon the work
of the commentator, which the
revisers of 1611 deliberately re
nounced. That there was an ele
ment of loss in that renunciation
has been already stated, but we
may well believe that on the whole
it has been well we have the
Bible in its completeness, without
the addition of any comments re
flecting the passing ecclesiastical or
Calvinistic dogmatism character
istic of the early part of the seven
teenth century, which would in
all probability have been clothed,
sooner or later, by popular and
clerical feeling, with a fictitious
authority, or even been invested
by legal decisions, or Acts of
Parliament, with a real one. It is
well, in the long run, that every
commentary on the whole or any
part of Scripture should be sub
mitted freely to the right and the
duty of private judgment.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

37

IV.— THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

I. It is, of course, an important
question whether we have in the
four Gospels received hy the Church
as canonical the evidence of eon-
temporary writers — two of them
claiming to be eye-witnesses — or
writings of a generation, or two
generations, later, the after-growth
of the second century, fathered
upon authors whose names be
longed to the first. The question
when the Gospels were written is,
it may be admitted, one which can
not be answered precisely within a
decade or so of years ; nor would it
be right to overstate the argument
by asserting that we have any evi
dence external to the New Testa
ment of the existence of the Gospels
in their present form earlier than
Papias (ob. a.d. 170), who names St.
Matthew and St. Mark, and Ire
naeus (a.d. 130—200) and Tertullian
(a.d. 160 — 240), who name all four.
The existence in a.d. 170 of a
harmonised narrative of the Gospel
history of Tatian, known as the
Diatessaron (i.e., the Gospel as
stated by the Four), and the men
tion of St. Luke in the MS. in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan,
known from the name of its first
editor as the Muratorian Fragment
(a.d. 150—190 ?), point to the con
clusion that four Gospels bearing
the same names as those now re
ceived, and presumably, till proof
is given of the contrary, identical
with them, were recognised and
read publicly as authoritative
documents in the middle of the
second century. And, obviously,
they occupied at that time a posi
tion of acknowledged superiority

to all other like documents. Men
invent reasons, more or less fan
tastic, such as those which Irenfeus
gives (Contr. Hares, iii. 11) — the
analogy of the four elements, or
the four winds— why there should
be neither more nor less than four.
It is scarcely too much to say that
this reputation could hardly have
been gained in less than half a
century from the time when they
first came to be generally known ;
and so we are led to the conclusion
that they must have been in ex
istence at a date not later than
a.d. 100—120.
II. An examination of the earliest
Christian writings outside the canon
of the New Testament is to some ex
tent disappointing. There are very
few references to the Gospel narra
tives in the Epistles that bear the
name of Clement, or Ignatius, or
Barnabas. They assume the broad
outlines of the Gospel history, the
Crucifixion and Resurrection of
Jesus as the Christ. They contain
echoes and fragmentary citations
from the Sermon on the Mount,
and other portions of our Lord's
ethical teaching which had most
impressed themselves on the mind
and. conscience of His disciples;
but it must be admitted that we
could not infer from them that the
writers had in their hands the
Gospels as we have them. We
may go further, and say that it is
antecedently probable that their
knowledge was more or less tradi
tional, and that the general accept
ance of the Gospels, and therefore,
so far as their writings are con
cerned, even the existence of the

38

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Gospels, may have been of later
date. On the other hand, it must
he remembered that these letters
are, in the strictest sense of the
word, occasional, and not syste
matic. They are directed, each of
them, to a special purpose, under
circumstances that did not naturally
lead the writers to speak of the
facts of the Gospel record — even of
those of which, on any assumption,
they must have had, at least, a
traditional knowledge.
III. When we come to the writ
ings of Justin Martyr (a.d. 103 —
167), the case is altered. He, as
having passed into the Church of
Christ from the schools of philo
sophy, was a man of wider culture
than any Christian writer since St.
Paul. The circumstances of his life
led him into controversy with the
Jews who questioned the claim of
Jesus to be the Christ, and in his
argument with them his references
to the acts and words of Christ are
numerous and often of great length.
It is true that he does not cite any
Gospel by name, but mentions
them generally as " the memoirs "
or "records" that are "known as
Gospels," and are read in the
weekly meetings of the churches
(Apol. i. 66), and that where he
quotes from these "memoirs" itis
at times with such considerable
variations of detail as regards their
facts, and of expression as regards
their teaching, that it has been
urged by some writers — notably by
the anonymous author of ' ' Super
natural Religion " — that he prob
ably had in his hands some book
other than any of the four which
we now acknowledge. Against
this it may be pleaded, however,
that the habits of the age, and the
special circumstances of Christian
writers, were unfavourable to accu

rate quotation. The Jewish Scrip
tures, in their Greek form, were
collected into a volume, and could be
bought in Alexandria, or perhaps in
any great city, without difficulty; but
such Apostolical writings as those
of which Justin speaks were scarcely
likely to be multiplied by either
the Jews or heathen scribes who
supplied the stalls or shops of book
sellers ; nor is it probable that the
Christian Church was at that time
sufficiently organised to command
booksellers of its own. A treasured
copy, in tho hands of the bishop
or elder of each Christian com
munity, read publicly at its meet
ings, was, we may well believe, in
that early stage of the growth of
the new society enough to meet its
wants. The members of that
society listened, and remembered
and reproduced what they had
heard, with the variations which,
under such conditions, were in
evitable. And even if we were
to admit, hypothetically, the con
clusion which has thus been drawn,
the result would, after all, be
neither more nor less than this —
that there was in Justin's time a
fifth Gospel in existence, agreeing
in all material points with the four,
or, at least, with three out of the
four. To most men it would seem
improbable that such a Gospel
.should have left no traces of its
existence outside the quotations or
references from which that exist
ence has been thus inferred, that
it should have supplied the most
scholarly of the early Christian
writers with all his knowledge of
the life and the teaching of the
Christ, and then have vanished like
a meteor. But if it did exist, then
it would simply follow that we
have, in the unknown Gospel sup
posed to be quoted by Justin, a

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

fifth independent witness confirm
ing, at least in substance, the
records of the other four.
IV. There are, however, writ
ings which even the most sceptical
critics allow to be earlier than the
Epistles of Clement and Ignatius.
The Epistles of the New Testament
are — excluding for the present the
so-called Antilegomena (2 Pet. ii.
and iii., John, Jude) — documents
of an antiquity that may well be
called primitive. They did not
come together into a volume till
perhaps the middle of the second
century or later. The letters of
each writer may be cited accord
ingly as giving a perfectly inde
pendent testimony. Let us ask,
therefore, what evidence they
supply as to the existence, either
of the first three Gospels, or of a
common narrative, written or oral,
which they embody, each with
variations of its own. For the
present we limit the inquiry to
these three. The fourth Gospel
stands apart from them in a distinct
position of its own, and the evidence
in favour of its having come from
the Apostle whose name it bears
will be found in the Introduction
to it.
Take, then, (1) the Epistle op
St. James. Its contents point to
its being, perhaps, the very earliest
document in the New Testament.
The absence of any reference to the
controversy between the Judaisers
and the followers of St. Paul leads
naturally to the conclusion that it
was written before that contro
versy — prior, i.e., to the Council of
Jerusalem of Acts xv. There is
absolutely no ground for thinking,
as men have thought, that he
writes either against St. Paul's
doctrine that a m..;i is justified by
faith, or against the perversion of

that doctrine by St. Paul's fol
lowers. The dead faith which ho
condemns is not a faith in Christ,
as having atoned for sin, but the
mere confession of the primary
article of Jewish monotheism —
" Thou believest that there is one
God" (Jas. ii. 19). Taking the
Epistle op St. James, therefore, as
the earhest witness, what do we
find there ? Not, we must freely
admit, any reference to the Gospel
narrative : but, on the other hand,
a mind whose thoughts and mode
of teaching had been manifestly
formed on the model of the Sermon
on the Mount. He, too, teaches
by beatitudes (Jas. i. 12; Matt. v.
10, 11), and the one beatitude is an
echo of the other. To him, also,
God is emphatically the giver of all
good things (Jas. i. 17 ; Matt. vii.
11). He, too, dwells on the danger
of hearing without doing (Jas. i. 22 ;
Matt. vii. 24). To him the grass
withering before the scorching sim
and the hot wind of the desert is
the type of all that is most fleeting
in fortune or in character (Jas. i.
11; Matt. vi. 30; xiii. 6). He,
too, connects the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ with that freedom
from " respect of persons " which
even the Scribes acknowledged to
be a leading feature in His charac
ter, and which, therefore, He would
inculcate in those who professed to
be His disciples (Jas. ii. 1 ; Matt.
xxii. 16). He shares his Master's
implied condemnation of the "gor
geous raiment " of those whom the
world honours (Jas. ii. 2 ; Matt.
xi. 8). To him, as to Christ, to
keep the law " Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself," is the con
dition of entering into life (Jas. ii.
8 ; Matt. xix. 19 ; xxii. 40), and
that law, as having been thus con
firmed by the great King, is for

40

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

him the royal, the kingly law. He
re-states the law that the merciful,
and they alone, will obtain mercy
(Jas. ii. 13 ; Matt. v. 7 ; vii. 1).
He warns men against the risks of
claiming without authority the
function of teachers, and forgetting
that we all need the guidance of
the one divine Teacher (Jas. iii. 1 ;
Matt, xxiii. 8). The same familiar
illustration of the tree and its
fruits is used by him to set forth
the relation of character and acts
(Jas. iii. 12; Matt. vii. 16). To
clothe the naked and to feed the
hungry are with him, as with the
Christ, elements of the perfect life
(Jas. ii. 15; Matt. xxv. 35, 36).
He has the same word of stern re
proof for the " adulterous genera
tion" in which he lived (Jas. iv. 4 ;
Matt. xii. 39), and which he reminds
of the truth that they cannot be
the friends at once of God and of
theworld (Jas. iv. 4 ; Matt. vi. 24).
He knows that humility is the
condition of true exaltation (Jas.
iv. 10; Matt, xxiii. 12). He, too,
speaks of the Father as One who,
though willing to save, is able also
to destroy (Jas. iv. 12 ; Matt. x.
28), and protests, in words that are
almost an echo of our Lord's,
against the far-reaching schemes
of man's covetousness (Jas. iv. 13 —
16; Luke xii. 16—20). To him
the coming of the Lord is the goal
to which all things tend (Jas. v. 8 ;
Matt. xxiv. 27). It is nigh, even
at the doors (Jas. v. 9 ; Matt. xxiv.
33). He condemns, as his Lord
had done, the rash use of oaths,
and tells men, in the very words
used by Christ, that their speech
should be Yea, yea, and Nay, nay
(Jas. v. 12; Matt. v. 34—36). He
prescribes anointing with oil as a
means of healing the sick, even as
our Lord had done (Jas. v. 14 ;

Mark vi. 13). With him, as in our
Lord's miracles, the healing of the
sick is associated with the forgive
ness of their sins (Jas. v. 15 ; Matt.
ix. 2). It will hardly be contended
that so continuous a series of paral
lelisms between the Epistle of St.
James and the Gospel of St. Mat
thew is purely accidental. But if
it is not so, if there is evidence of a
connection of some kind between
them, then we have to choose be
tween the hypothesis (1) of both
drawing from the common source
of the current traditional know
ledge of our Lord's teaching ; or
(2) of the Evangelist incorporating
into his report of that teaching
what he had learnt from St. James ;
or (3) of St. James being a reader
of a book containing the whole,
or part, of what we now find in
St. Matthew's Gospel. (See Intro
duction to St. Matthew. )
I turn to the First Epistle of
St. Peter. The opening words
attach to the "blood of Christ"
the same importance which He
Himself had attached to it (1 Pet. i.
2; Mark xiv. 24). The writer takes
up the words in which his Lord had
bidden men watch with their loins
girded (1 Pet. i. 13 ; Luke xii. 35).
He points the contrast between
seeing and believing, even as Christ
had pointed it (1 Pet. i. 8 ; John
xx. 19). He has learnt to inter
pret the Prophets, as his Lord had
taught him, as foretelling the
sufferings that were appointed unto
Christ (1 Pet. i. 2 ; Luke xxiv. 44,
45). He sees in the blood of Christ
a ransom for many (1 Pet. i. 18 ;
Mark x. 45), and knows that God
has raised Him from the dead
(1 Pet. i. 3). He teaches that there
must be a new birth wrought in
men by the divine word (1 Pet. ii.
23 ; John iii. 3, 5). He sees in

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

41

Christ the stone which the builders
rejected (1 Pet. ii. 4, 7 ; Mark xii.
10), in the crisis through which
Israel was passing, the time of its
'Visitation" (1 Pet. ii. 12; Luke
xx. 44). He remembers using the
self-same unusual word which
occurs in almost immediate se
quence in the Gospel record, how
the calm recognition of the claims
of civil rulers had " put to silence "
(literally, muzzled) the ignorance of
foolish men, and can therefore call
on men to follow their Lord's ex
ample for His sake (1 Pet. ii. 15 ;
Matt. xxii. 21, 34). He remembers
also the marvellous silence of his
Master at His trial before the San
hedrin, and the livid scars left by
the scourges of the soldiers (1 Pet.
ii. 23, 24 ; Matt. xiv. 60, 61 ; xv.
15). Slaves were to recollect, when
they were buffeted, that they were
suffering as Christ had suffered
(1 Pet. ii. 20 ; Mark xiv. 65). It
was by that suffering that the Good
Shepherd, laying down His life for
the sheep (John x. 11), had drawn
to Him the sheep that had gone
astray, over whom He had yearned
with an infinite compassion (1 Pet.
ii. 25; Matt. ix. 36). He has
learnt the lesson of not returning
evil for evil (1 Pet. iii. 9; Matt.
v. 10). He knows the beatitude
that had been pronounced on
those who suffer for righteous
ness' sake (1 Pet. iii. 14 ; Matt. v.
10). He knows, too, that Jesus
Christ, having preached to the
" spirits in prison " (there is, at
least, a possible connection here
with Matt, xxvii. 52, 53), went into
heaven, and is at the right hand of
God (1 Pet. iii. 22 ; Mark xvi. 19).
As if remembering the sin into
which he fell because he had not
watched unto prayer, he urges
others to watch (1 Pet. iv. 7 ; Mark

xiv. 37). He had learnt, by a
living personal experience, how
man's love, meeting God's, covers
the multitude of sins (1 Pet. iv. 8 ;
John xxi. 15—17). Revilings do
but bring to his memory yet an
other beatitude which he had heard
from his Lord's lips (1 Pet. iv. 14;
Matt. v. 10). He reminds men
how his Lord had commended His
spirit to the Father (1 Pet. iv. 19 ;
Luke xxiii. 46). He writes as being
himself a witness of the sufferings
of Christ (1 Pet. v. 1). He has
leamt to see in Him the chief
Shepherd, under whom he himself
and all other pastors are called to
serve (1 Pet. v. 4; John x. 14).
His call to others to be " sober
and watchful," because their adver
sary, the devil, was "like a roaring
Hon, seeking whom he might de
vour," speaks of the experience of
one who had been told that Satan
desired to have him that he might
" sift him as wheat " (1 Pet. v. 8 ;
Luke xxii. 31).
The doubts which have from time
to time been raised as to the Second
Epistle op St. Peter prevent my
laying much stress on the evidence
which it suppHes in this matter.
My own belief is that the scale
turns in favour of its genuineness.
In any case, it is as early as any
document later than the New Testa
ment writings. Looking to it, then,
we note the recognition of the dis
tinction between calling and election,
which Peter had himself specially
been taught (2 Pet. i. 10 ; Matt. xx.
16). The writer remembers how
the Lord Jesus had shown him that
the putting-off of his " tabernacle "
should be quick and sudden (2 Pet.
i. 14; John xxi. 18). He uses of
his own "decease" the self-same
word which had been used of that
of Christ (2 Pet. i. 15; Luke ix.

42

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

31). The vision of the brightness of
the Transfiguration, and the voice
from the exceUent glory, are stiH
living in his memory (2 Pet. i. 17,
18; Mark viii. 2—7). In this, as
in the former Epistle, he has been
taught to see lessons connected with
the coming of Christ, which did not
lie on the surface, in the history of
Noah and the Flood, to which our
Lord had directed men's attention
(1 Pet. iii. 20, 21 ; 2 Pet. iii. 5— 7 ;
Matt. xxiv. 37). Here also, then,
we have documents, one of which
at least is acknowledged as belong
ing, without the shadow of a doubt,
to the Apostolic age, and which
abound in allusive references to
what we find recorded in the Gos
pels. In this case it is, of course,
more than probable that the writer
spoke from personal recollection,
and that we may have here the
testimony, not of one who had read
the Gospels, but of one from whom
the information which they embody
had been, in part at least, derived.
And, assuming the Second Epistle
to be by him, we have there a direct
intimation of his intention to pro
vide that that information should
be embodied for those for whom
he wrote in some permanent form
(2 Pet. i. 15). For the evidence
which leads to the conclusion that
the Second Gospel grew out of that
intention, see Introduction to St.
Mark. V. We pass to the Epistle to
the Hebrews, which, whether we
assume, as seems to me most prob
able, the authorship of Apollos,
or that of St. Paul, or one of his
f eHow-labourers, Barnabas, or Luke,
or Clement, belongs also to the
Apostolic age. The writer of that
Epistle acknowledges the fact of
the Ascension (Heb. i. 3 ; xii. 2).
He distinguishes himself (Heb. u. 3,

4), just as St. Luke does, from those
who had actuaUy heard the word
of salvation from the lips of the
Lord Himself, but he has heard
from them of the Temptation and
the Passion of the Christ (Heb. ii.
18), of His perfect sinlessness (Heb.
iv. 15), of His tolerant sympathy
for all forms of ignorance and error
(Heb. v. 2), of the prayers and sup
plications, the strong crying and
tears, of the garden and the cross
(Heb. v. 7). The Messianic pro
phecy of Ps. ex., to which promi
nence had been given by our Lord's
question in Matt. xxii. 42, becomes
the centre of his argument. He
knows, as one who has traced the
descent from David, as given by
St. Matthew and St. Luke, that our
Lord had sprung out of Judah (Heb.
vi. 14). The New Covenant, of
which Christ had spoken as being
ratified by His blood, fiUs the next
great place in his argument (Heb.
viii. 8 — 13 ; xiii. 14 ; Luke xxii.
20). He finds a mystical meaning
in the fact that the scene of that
blood-shedding was outside the gate
of Jerusalem (Heb. xiii. 12; John
xix. 20). To him, as to St. Peter,
the name of Jesus, on whieh he
most loves to dwell, is that He is,
as He described Himself, the Great
Shepherd of the sheep (Heb. xiii.
20; Johnx. 14).
VI. We pass, as next in order,
to the Epistles op St. Paul, taking
them, as is obviously more natural
in such an inquiry, in then' chrono
logical sequence. It is not without
significance that the earliest of
these, the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians, opens with a refer
ence to a Gospel of which St. Paul
speaks as his (1 Thess. i. 5 ; ii. 2).
It is, of course, true that he uses
that word in its wider sense, not as
a book, but as a message of glad

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

43

tidings; hut then that message con
sisted, not in a speculative doctrine,
but in the record of what the Lord
Jesus had done, and suffered, and
taught, and how He had been raised
from the dead (1 Cor. xi. 23 ; xv. 1, 3),
and so the facts of the case suggest
the conclusion that the name was
given at a later stage — later, but
how soon we cannot say — to the
book, because the book so called
embodied the substance of what had
previously been taught orally. He
knows that those whose faith in God
exposes them to persecution are, in
this respect, followers of the Lord,
reproducing the pattern of His suf
ferings (1 Thess. i. 6). He warns
men of a " wrath to come," such as
the Baptist had proclaimed (1 Thess.
i. 10 ; Luke iii. 7), and assumes the
Eesurreetion, the Ascension, the
Second Coming from Heaven (1
Thess. i. 10 ; iii. 13), as ideas already
familiar. The key-note of his
preaching, as of that of the Gospel,
is that men have been called to a
kingdom of which Christ is the
Head (1 Thess. ii. 12; Luke iv.
43). In words which reproduce
the very accents of our Lord's
teaching, he tells men that "the
day of the Lord so cometh as a
thief in the night " (1 Thess. v. 2 ;
Luke xii. 39). For him also the
times of trouble that are to precede
that coming are as the travail-pangs
of the world's new birth (1 Thess.
v. 3 ; Matt. xxiv. 1). The echoes
of the voice that calls men, not to
sleep, but to " watch and be sober,"
are ringing in his ears, as they had
done in those of St. Peter (1 Thess.
v. 6 ; Luke xxi. 34—36). In the
Second Epistle the coming of the
Son of Man is painted more fully,
as Christ Himself had painted it.
He is to come with " the sound of
a trumpet, and with angels of His

might " (2 Thess. i. 7 ; Matt. xxiv.
31 ; xxv. 31 ; Luke xxi. 27), and the
sentence which He will then pass
on the impenitent is characterised
as " eternal " (2 Thess. i. 9 ; Matt.
xxv. 46). He, too, has learnt,
though as with a fresh revelation of
details, that the day of the Lord is
not, as men dreamt, at hand, that
the end is not "by and by" (2
Thess. ii. 2 ; Luke xxi. 9). He
appeals to a body of traditions — i.e.,
of oral teaching, which certainly
included portions of the Gospel
history and. of the teaching of Christ
(2 Thess. ii. 15; 1 Cor. xi. 23; xv.
1,2). The Epistles to the Church op
Corinth present the same general
features as to the Coming of Christ,
the revelation of Jesus Christ from
Heaven, the Eesurreetion, and the
Judgment (1 Cor. xv. 20—28).
Their greater fulness naturally pre
sents more points of contact with
the Gospel history on which they
rest. We meet with the names of
Cephas (which we find in that form
in John i. 43, and not elsewhere in
the Gospels) and of the brethren
of the Lord as famiHar to that
Church (1 Cor. i. 10 ; iii. 22 ; ix. 5).
The command which Christ had
given to His disciples to baptise all
nations is known and acted on (1
Cor. i. 14). The story of the Cross
is the theme of the Apostle's preach
ing (1 Cor. i. 18). Christ is to him
the impersonation of the Divine
Wisdom (1 Cor. i. 30 ; Luke n. 40,
52 ; xi. 49) . He employs the
imagery, which Christ had employed,
of the Wise Builder who erects his
fabric on a firm foundation (1 Cor.
iii. 10; Luke vi. 48). He knows
the lessons taught by the parable
of the Steward (1 Cor. iv. 2 ; Luke
xii. 42), and by that of the Unpro
fitable Servant (1 Cor. iv. 7 ; Luke

44

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

xvii. 10). The rule of the Sermon
on the Mount for those who suffer
persecution is his rule also (1 Cor.
iv. 12, 13; Luke vi. 27, 28). He
illustrates the spread of spiritual
influence for good or evil by the
same image that givesits distinctive
character to the parable of the
Leaven (1 Cor. v. 5 ; Gal. v. 9 ;
Luke xiii. 20), and connects this
with the sacrifice of Christ as the
true Passover, on the day of that
Feast (1 Cor. v. 7; Luke xxii. 15).
He has received the thought that
the saints shaU iudge the world
(1 Cor. vi. 2; Matt. xix. 28), and
on that ground urges men to submit
now to injustice (1 Cor. vi. 6, 7 ;
Luke vi. 29, 30). His thoughts of
the holiness of marriage rest on the
same grounds as those of Jesus
(1 Cor. vi. 16; Matt. xix. 5, 6);
and he, too, has learnt to see in
man's body a temple of the Eternal
Spirit (1 Cor. vi. 20 ; John ii. 21).
Outward freedom and slavery are
looked on by him as nothing com
pared with the true freedom of the
spirit (1 Cor. vii. 22, 23 ; John viii.
36). He regards the life of the un
married, when the choice is made
for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake,
as higher than that of the married
(1 Cor. vii. 32; Matt. xix. 12).
The special danger of over-anxiety
about earthly things is to him
known by the same word that our
Lord had used (1 Cor. vii. 32—34 ;
Luke x. 19). The very adverb
which he employs to express free
dom from it is taken from St.
Luke's account of Martha as
" cumbered " about much serving
(1 Cor. vii. 35 ; Luke x. 40). He too
echoes, in view of the troubles that
were coming on the earth, the
beatitude pronounced on the wombs
that never bare (1 Cor. vii. 40 ;
Luke xxiii. 29). With him, also,

it is not that which goes into the
mouth that affects our acceptance
with God (1 Cor. viii. 8 ; Mark vii.
18) ; and that which he seeks to
avoid in eating or drinking is the
offending others (1 Cor. viii. 13;
Luke xvii. 1). His thoughts of the
name, the function, the rights of
an Apostle, are based upon our
Lord's commission delivered to the
Twelve and to the Seventy (1 Cor.
ix. 4—14; Lukeix. 3; x. 7). He
refers the last to the express com
mandment of Christ (1 Cor. ix. 14;
Luke x. 7), and yet rises beyond
those rights to the higher law of
giving without receiving (1 Cor.
ix. 18 ; Matt. x. 8). He uses the
same unusual word for persistent
" wearying " that St. Luke had
used (1 Cor. ix. 27 ; Luke xviii. 5).
The narrative of the Last Supper,
with all the symbolic significance
of its words and acts, with all the
associations of the events that came
before and after it, is assumed as
part of the elementary knowledge
of every Christian (1 Cor. x. 16, 17;
xi. 23—26; Luke xxii. 19—23).
His account of the appearances of
our Lord after His Resurrection,
though manifestly independent, in
cludes some of those recorded in the
Gospels (1 Cor. xv. 3—7; Luke
xxiv. 34 — 36) ; and his teaching as
to the "spiritual body" of the
Resurrection agrees with the phe
nomena which they report (1 Cor.
xv. 42 — 44 ; Luke xxiv. 3'6 ; John
xx. 19). His Master's law of
veracity in speech is his law also
(2 Cor. i. 18 ; Matt. v. 37), as it had
been that of St. James. Our Lord's
formula of asseveration, Hebrew as
it was, is his formula (2 Cor. i. 20 ;
Luke iv. 24, et al.). His thoughts
of his mission as a minister of the
New Covenant are based on our
Lord's words (2 Cor. iii. 6 ; Luke

GENERAL INTEODUCTION.

45

xxii. 20). The words in which he
speaks of the believer as " trans
figured " from glory to glory, are
manifestly an allusive reference to
the history of Christ's transfigura
tion (2 Cor. iii. 18; Matt. xvii. 2).
He looks forward to the manifesta
tion of all secrets before the judg
ment seat of Christ (2 Cor. v. 10;
Eom. xiv. 10 ; Matt. xxv. 31), and,
almost as in Christ's own language,
he states the purpose of His death
(2 Cor. v. 15; Gal. i. 4; Mark x.
45). He thinks of Him as being-
made sin for us — i.e., as being num
bered with the transgressors (2 Cor.
v. 21 ; Mark xv. 28), and dwells on
the outward poverty of His life (2
Cor. viii. 9 ; Luke ix. 51), and its
inward meekness and gentleness
(2 Cor. x. 1 ; Matt. xi. 29).
We turn to the Epistle to the
Galatians. There the Apostle's
knowledge of the higher truths of
the Gospel has come to him, as it
came to Peter, not by flesh and
blood, but by a revelation from the
Father (Gal. i. 12, 16; Matt. xvi.
17). Eeferences to external facts
are, however, not wanting. The
names of James, Cephas, and John
are mentioned as already familiar
to his Galatian converts (Gal. ii. 9).
He echoes the very syllables of the
prayer of Gethsemane (Gal. iv. 6 ;
Eom. viii. 16 ; Mark xiv. 36). He
mentions the birth of Christ ("made
of a woman") in a way which at
least suggests an acquaintance with
St. Luke's account of the Incarna
tion (Gal. iv. 4; Luke i. 31). He
sums up aU duties of man to man
in the self -same law which Christ
had Solemnly affirmed (Gal. v. 14;
Eom. xui. 9 ; Luke x. 27). His
list of the works of the flesh reads
Hke an echo of our Lord's list of
' ' the things that defile a man " (Gal.
V. 19-21; Mark vii. 21, 22).

In the Epistle to the Eomans
we have comparatively few of these
references, but the great facts of
the birth from the seed of David
(Rom. i. 3), and the Resurrection
and Ascension of Christ are assumed
throughout (Eom. viii. 34; Eph. i.
20). The command to meet cursing
with blessing is repeated (Eom. xii.
14 ; Luke vi. 2S) ; as is also that of
paying tribute to whom tribute is
due (Rom. xiii. 7; Luke xx. 25).
He has learnt the lesson that no
thing that goes into the mouth can
defile a man (Rom. xiv. 14 ; Mark
vii. 18). In Rom. xvi. 25 he seems
even to point to the existence of
"prophetic writings," or "scrip
tures," as containing the substance
of the gospel which he preached ;
and if we adopt the view that he
refers here, not to the older pro
phets, but to contemporary writings
(as St. Peter apparently does in
the " prophetic word " of 2 Pet. i.
19), then we have a coincidence
confirming St. Luke's statement
that there were many such writings
anterior to his Gospel (Luke i. 1),
and explaining St. Paul's use of the
term " scripture " as appHed to a
quotation from that Gospel ( 1 Tim.
v. 8; Luke x. 7).
The Epistles of the First Im
prisonment — i.e., Philippians,
Ephesians, Colossians — speak of
Christ as "the beloved" of the
Father (Eph. i. 6; Luke ix. 35).
" Apostles and prophets " are joined
together, as Christ had joined them,
and in close connection with the
Wisdom of God as sending them
(Eph. iii. 5, 10; iv. 11; Luke xi.
49). The parable of theBrideg-room
and the Bride is recognised and
developed (Eph. v. 25 ; Matt. xxii.
1 ; xxv. 1 ; Luke xiv. 16), and our
Lord's citation from Gen. ii. 24
recited (Eph. v. 31; Mark x. 7).

46

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

The writer knows that there is no
respect of persons with the Lord
Jesus (Eph. vi. 9 ; Cor. iii. 25 ;
Matt. xxii. 16). He takes up and
expands the thought of the " whole
armour," the "panoply" of God,
which is mightier than the " pan
oply " of evil (Eph. vi. 13; Lukexi.
22). He sees that the true redemp
tion or deliverance of men is found
in the forgiveness of sins (Col. i.
14; Luke i. 77; iii. 3). He ex
presses the perfect law of the be-
Hever's Hfe in saying that all per
sonal or corporate acts should be'
done in the name of the Lord Jesus
(Col. iii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 4; Matt.
xviii. 20). That name is above
every name, because He who bore
it, having been in the form of God,
had emptied Himself of that glory,
and had come to be in the likeness
of man, and even in His man
hood had humbled Himself still
further, and become obedient unto
death, even the death of the cross
(Phil. ii. 6—9 ; Luke i. 32; ii. 51).
ThePASTORALEpiSTLEs — 1 Timo
thy, 2 Timothy, Titus — carry on
the evidence. It is with him one
of the faithful sayings, which are
as the axioms of Christian doctrine,
that Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners (1 Tim. i. 15;
Luke v. 32), to give Himself as a
ransom for aU men (1 Tim. u. 6 ;
Matt, xx, 28). The earliest type
of the Church's creed includes the
Incarnation, the Visions of Angels,
the Ascension, as they are recorded
by St. Luke (1 Tim. iii. 16; Luke
xxii. 43; xxiv. 4, 51 ; Acts i. 10).
He lays down as the rule of dis
cipline for the trial of offenders,
that which, though previously ac
knowledged, had yet, in a specially
solemn manner, been re-affirmed by
Christ (1 Tim. v. 19; Matt, xviii.
16). He dwells on the good con

fession which Jesus Christ had
witnessed before Pontius Pilate
(ITim. vi. 13 ; Luke xxiii. 3). He
speaks of the far-off judgment, in
Christ's own words, as simply "that
day" (2 Tim. i. 18; Matt. vii. 22).
He refers once more to his own
Gospel as witnessing both to the
Resurrection of Christ and His
Descent from David (2 Tim. H. 8).
He states again, almost in the very
words of Christ, the law of retribu
tion according to which He will
deny hereafter those that deny Him
now, and will cause those that
endure to be sharers in His king
dom (2 Tim. ii. 12; Luke ix. 26).
Baptism is for him the washing of
a new birth, and that by the work
ing of the Spirit (Tit. iii. 5 ; John
iii. 5) . What has been said of the
Second Epistle of St. Peter holds
goodof this last group of the Epistles
that bear St. Paul's name. If they
are not actuaUy by him, they are
yet unquestionably documents that
carry us back to a period not later
than the. close ofthe First Century
or the very beginning of the Second.
VII. The examples that have
thus been coUected are, it is be
lieved, sufficient to show that the
Epistles of the New Testament
abound in references, not only to
the great facts and doctrines of the
Faith, but to the acts and teaching
of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.
And it must be remembered that
there was nothing in the circum
stances of the case to lead the
writers to more than these inci
dental and allusive references.
They were writing, not the Com
mentaries or the Sermons which
belonged to a later age, but Epistles
called for by special necessities,
and not naturaUy suggesting, any
more than analogous documents do
now, a reference to the details of

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

47

the Gospel history ; and therefore
the fact that the allusions are as
numerous as they are, may fairly
be accepted as a proof that their
memories were satui'ated, as it
were, with the acts and the words
of the life of Jesus. These formed
the basis of the oral instruction
given to every convert (Luke i. 3).
They were part of the traditions
of every Church, of the Gospel as
preached by every Apostle and
Evangelist. I do not say that they
prove the existence of the first
three Gospels as written hooks, but
they prepare the way for aU the
special evidence — external and in
ternal — which may be adduced on
behalf of each of them, and show
that they represent what was the
current teaching of the Apostle's
age. It is probable enough, look
ing to the literary activity of that
time in aH the cities of the empire,
that there were, as St. Luke says
(chap. i. 1), and as Papias implies
(see Introduction to St. Matthew),
many writers who undertook the
task of embodying these floating
traditions in writing. If out of
these only three have survived, it
is a natural inference that they
were recognised as the most accu
rate or the most authoritative.
VIII. And it is at least a pre
sumption in favour of the Gospels
with which we are now dealing
that they are ascribed to persons
whose names were not of them
selves clothed with any very high
authority. A later writer, com
piling a Gospel for Jewish Chris
tians, would hardly have been likely
to select the publican-Apostle, the
object of scorn and hatred alike to
his own countrymen and to the
Gentiles, instead of St. Peter or
St. Andrew; or the subordinate
attendant on the Apostles, whose

help St. Paul had rejected because
he had shown himself wavering
and faint-hearted (Acts xn. 13 ;
xx. 38) ; or the physician whose
name just occurs incidentaUy. in
the salutations of three of St.
Paul's later Epistles (Col. iv. 14 ;
Philem. verse 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11).
And yet, when we know the names,
and track out the history of the
men, we see that in each case they
explain many of the phenomena
of the books to which they are
severaUy attached, and furnish
many coincidences that are both
interesting and evidential. In the
case of one Gospel, that of St. Luke,
thereis besides this, so close anagree-
ment between its vocabulary and
that of St. Paul, that it is scarcely
possible to come to any other con
clusion than that the one writer
was intimately acquainted with the
other. It may be added that whether
from the sceptical point of view,
or that of those who accept the
first three Gospels as a real re
cord of our Lord's words, there is
prima facie evidence that they took
their present form before the de
struction of Jerusalem in a.d. 72.
The warnings of the great pre
diction of Matt, xxiii., Mark xiii.,
Luke xxi., as to " the abomination
of desolation," and " Jerusalem
compassed with armies," the counsel
that men should " flee to the moun
tains " regardless of what they left
behind them, the expectation sug
gested in them of the coming of
the Son of Man immediately after
the tribulation of those days, all
indicate, on cither hypothesis, a
time of anxious and eager watching
— a looking-for of those things that
were coming on the earth, which
exactly corresponds with the period
between the persecution under Nero

48

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

and the invasion of Titus, and does
not correspond to any period either
before or after. There had not
been time when the Gospels were
written for men to feel the doubt
and disappointment which showed
themselves in the question, " Where
then is the promise of His coming P ' '
(2 Pet. iii. 4).
IX. The book known as the Acts
of the Apostles is so manifestly the
sequel to the Gospel of St. Luke
that it can hardly be put in evi
dence as an independent witness.
On the other hand, it contains
elements of evidence, reports of
speeches, and the like, that are in
dependent. It shows (Acts xx. 25)
that in the churches of Asia Minor,
in the very region in which Papias
afterwards wrote on the " sayings "
or " oracles " of the Christ, the
" words of the Lord Jesus " were
recognised as at once familiar
and authoritative, and that among
those words were some that are not
found in any of the extant Gospels.
A series of coincidences, obviously
undesigned, with the Epistles of
St. Paul, in regard to facts, as seen,
e.g., in Paley's Horce Paulina), and
yet more in respect of style and
phraseology, as above stated, makes
it all but certain that the two
writers were contemporary. The
fact that the last incident recorded
in the Acts is St. Paul's arrival at
Rome makes it, prima facie, prob
able that the book was written
shortly after the expiration of the
two years of his sojourn there,
with the mention of which the
book concludes— i.e., about a.i>. 65.
But if so, then the Gospel to which
it is a sequel could not well have
been later, and thus the former
conclusion gains an additional con
firmation. X. The elements of agreement

and of difference in the first three
Gospels faH in, it is obvious, with
the view just given of their origin
and history. It is scarcely prob
able, though we are not justified
in assuming it to be impossible,
that any notes of our Lord's dis
courses, or parables, or shorter
sayings, were taken at the time,
or that records of His miracles
were then and there reduced to
writing. But in the East, as else
where, the memory of men is often
active and retentive in proportion
to the absence of written aid. Men
recite long poems or discourses
which they have learnt orally, or
get into the way of repeating long
narratives with comparatively slight
variations. And so, when the
Church was enlarged, first in
Palestine and afterwards at Anti
och and the other churches of the
Gentiles, new converts would be
instructed freely in the words and
acts of the Master from whom they
took the name of Christians. As
the Church spread beyond the
limits of Judaea, as it came to in
clude converts of a higher culture,
as it spread to countries where
those who had been eye-witnesses
were few and far between, there
would naturally be a demand for
documents which should preserve
what had first been communicated
by oral tradition only, and that
demand was certain in its turn to
create the supply. It was natural that
each of the three great sections of
the Church — that of the Hebrew
section of the circumcision, repre
sented by James, the Bishop of
Jerusalem; that of Hellenistic
Judaism mingling with the Gen
tiles, as represented by St. Peter;
that of the more purely Gentile
churches that had been founded
by St. Paul — should have, each of

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

49

them, in the Gospels of St. Mat
thew, St. Mark, and St. Luke
respectively, that which satisfied
its wants. Each of those Gospels,
as will he seen, had its distinctive
features — St. Matthew conspicuous
for the fullest report of discourses,
St. Mark for graphic and vivid detail,
St. Luke for a wider range of topic
and of teaching, as the work of one
who had more the training of a
skilled historian, and who, though
not an eye-witness, based his record
upon fuller and more directly per
sonal inquiries. For the circum
stances which led to the composition
of the fourth Gospel, and the
position which it occupied in rela
tion to the Three, see Introduction
to St. John.
XI. The difference in tone and
phraseology between the Gospels
and the Epistles may fairly be
urged as evidence of the earlier
date, if not of the books themselves,
yet of the teaching which they
embody. (1) Throughout the Gos
pels the term by which our Lord
most commonly describes Himself
is the " Son of Man," and it occurs
not less than eighty-four times in
aU. It expressed at once our Lord's
f eUowship with our humanity, and
His speciaHy Messianic character
as fulfilling the vision of Dan. vii.
13. The faith of the disciples after
the Resurrection and Ascension
naturaHy fastened, however, on the
higher truth that the Lord Jesus
was the Christ, the Son of God;
and the term so famiHar to us in
the records of the Gospels is not
found in one soHtary passage
through the whole body of the
Epistles, and the only examples
of its use outside the Gospels are
in Acts vii. 56, Rev. i. 13. In the
latter of these two passages it is
doubtful, from the absence of the

article, whether it is used in the
same distinctive sense as in the
Gospels, or as- meaning simply "a
son of man." The broad distinction
thus presented can hardly be ex
plained except on the hypothesis
that the Gospel report of our Lord's
teaching is faithful, and at least
substantially accurate, unaffected
by the phraseology and theology
even of the earHest periods of the
Church's history. (2) Hardly less
striking is the contrast between the
two groups of books as regards the
use of another term — that of the
Church, or Ecclesia— as describing
the society of Christ's disciples.
In the Acts and Epistles it meets
us at every turn, 112 times in aU.
In the Gospels we find it in two
passages only, Matt. xvi. 18; xvii.
17. Here also we may point
to the fact as a proof that the
reports of our Lord's teaching as
preserved in the Gospels were
entirely unaffected by the thoughts
and language of the ApostoHc
Church, and bear upon them the
face of originaHty and genuineness.
(3) The absence of any reference
in the Gospels to the controversies
of the first century is another argu
ment of like nature. We speak,
and within due Hmits legitimately
enough, of the characteristic ten
dencies and aims of St. Matthew,
St. Mark, and St. Luke, of their
connection with this or that
Apostle or school of thought. But
if tendencies and aims had pre
vailed over honesty and faithful
ness in reporting, how strong would
have been the temptation to put
into our Lord's Hps words that bore
more or less directly on the questions
which were agitating men's minds
— on the necessity or the nullity of
circumcision, on the justification
by faith or works, on eating thinga

50

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

sacrificed to idols, on the reverence
due to bishops and elders ! All
these things are, it need hardly be
said, conspicuous by their absence.
They are after-growths, which the
teaching of Christ recorded in the
Gospels does not even touch. The
only controversies which it knows
are those with Pharisees and Sad
ducees. The writers of the Gospels
must have dealt faithfully with the
materials which they found ready
to their hands, and those materials
must have been collected while the
words and acts of Jesus were yet
fresh in the memories of those who
saw and heard them.
XII. It is indirectly a further
argument of the early date of these
three Gospels that so Httle has come
down to us, outside their contents,
as to the words and acts of Jesus.
It Hes in the nature of the case, as
is, in part, seen by the success
which attended the gleaning of
which we have just spoken by St.
Luke, in part also by the bold
hyperbole of St. John's language
as he dwelt on the things that
Jesus had said or done (John xxi.
25), that there must have been
much that has found no permanent
record. The Apocryphal Gospels
— few of them, if any (with the
possible exception of the Acta Pilati
and the Descent into Hades, known
as the Gospel of Nicodemus), earlier
than the fourth century — give Httle
else but frivolous and fantastic
legends. Here and there only are
found fragments which may be
authentic, though they lie outside
the limits of the Canonical Gospels.
Such as they are, it is interesting
and may be profitable to gather
up even these fragments so that
nothing may he lost ; but the fact
that these are aH, may fairly
be ascribed to .the prestige and

authority which attached to the
Four that we now recognise, and
to these only.
I give accordingly, in conclusion,
the foUowing sayings, reported as
having been among the sayings of
the Lord Jesus : —
(1) Quoted by St. Paul in Acts
xx. 35, " It is more blessed to give
than to receive."
(2) An addition to Luke vi. 4,
in Codex D, " And on the same day
Jesus saw a man working at his
craft on the Sabbath-day, and He
said unto Him, 'Man, if thou
knowest what thou doest, then art
thou blessed; but if thou knowest
not, then art thou accursed, and
art a transgressor of the Law.' "
There seems no reason why we
should not receive the saying as
authentic. Its teaching is in har
mony with our Lord's reported
words and acts, and it brings out
with a marveUous force the distinc
tion between the conscious trans
gression of a law recognised as
still binding, and the assertion of
a higher law as superseding the
lower. (3) Quoted by Origen (in Joann.
xix.), "Be ye trustworthy money
changers." The word is the same
as that used in the parable of the
Talents (Matt. xxv. 27), and may
weU have been suggested by it.
The saying appears to imply a
two-fold parable. The disciples of
Christ were to be as the money
changers (a) in their skiU to
distinguish the counterfeit coin
from the true — to know, as it
were, the ring of what was stamped
with the King's image and super
scription from that which was
aUoyed and debased ; and (b) in the
activity with which they laboured,
and the wisdom which guided their
labours, so that their Lord, at His

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

51

coming, might receive His own
with usury.
(4) An addition in Codex D, to
Matt. xx. 28, "But ye seek (or,
perhaps, taking the verb as in the
imperative, seek ye) to increase from
Httle, and from greater to be less."
(5) From the Epistle of Barna
bas, c. 4, " Let us resist all iniquity,
and hold it in abhorrence."
(6) From the same, c. 7, " They
who wish to see Me, and to lay
hold on My Kingdom, must receive
Me by affliction and suffering."
(7) From the Gospel of the He
brews, quoted by Clement of Alex
andria (Strom, ii. 9, § 45), " He
that wonders [i.e., apparently, with
the wonder of reverential faith]
shall reign, and he that reigns shall
be made to rest."
(8) From Clement of Alexandria
{Strom, ii. 9, § 45), " Wonder thou
at the things that are before thee."
This and the preceding passage are
quoted by Clement to show that in
the teaching of Christ, as in that of
Plato, wonder is at once the begin
ning and the end of knowledge.
(9) From the Ebionite Gospel,
quoted by Epiphanius (Hair. xxx.
16), "I came to abolish sacrifices,
and unless ye cease from sacrificing,
the wrath (of God) wiU not cease
from you."
(10) Quoted by Clement of Alex
andria (Strom, iv. 6, § 34) and
Origen (de Oratione, c. 2), " Ask
great things, and small shaU be
added to you : ask heavenly things,
and there shaU be added unto you
earthly things."
(11) Quoted by Justin (Dial. v.
Tryph. c. 47) and Clement of Alex
andria (Quis dives, c. 40), " In the
things wherein I find you, in them
will I judge you."
(12) From Origen (Comm. in Jer.
Hi. p. 778), " He who is nigh unto

Me is nigh unto the fire : he who
is far from Me is far from the
kingdom." Ignatius (ad Smyru.
c. 4) has a like saying, but as a
quotation : " To be near the sword
is to be near God."
(13) The Pseudo - Clement of
Rome (Ep. ii. 8), " If ye keep not
that which was Httle, who will
give you that which is great ? "
(14) From the same (as before),
" Keep the flesh pure, and the seal
without stain." (The "seal " prob
ably refers to Baptism as the sign
of the Covenant.)
(15) From Clement of Alex
andria, as a quotation from •the
Gospel according to the Egyptians
(Strom, hi. 13, § 92), and the
Pseudo- Clement of Rome (Ep. ii.
12). Salome, it is said, asked our
Lord when His kingdom should
come, and the things which He had
spoken be accomplished; and He
answered, " When the two shall be
one, and that which is without as
that which is within, and the male
with the female, neither male nor
female." Another like saying is
given by the Pseudo-Linus, " Un
less ye make the left as the right,
and the right as the left, and that
which is above as that which is
below, and that which is behind as
that which is before, ye know not
the kingdom of God." In the first
of these we may trace a feeling
analogous to that expressed by
St. Paul in Gal. iii. 28 ; 1 Cor.
vii. 29.
(16) Origen (in Matt. xu. 2),
" For them that are infirm was I
infirm, and for them that hunger
did I hunger, and for them that
thirst did I thirst."
(17) Jerome (in Eph. v. 3),
" Never be ye joyful, except when
ye have seen your brother (dweU-
ing) in love."

52

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

(18) Ignatius (ad Smyrn. c. 3).
Our Lord, after His Resurrection,
said to Peter, " Take hold, handle
Me, and see that I am not a bodi
less demon." This is obviously a
reproduction of Luke xxiv. 39 — the
pecuHarity being the use of the
word " demon " for " spirit."
(19) The Clementine Homilies, xii.
29, " Good must needs come, but
blessed is He through whom it
comes." (20) Clement of Alexandria
(Strom, v. 10, § 64), "My mystery
is for Me, and for the sons of My
house." The Clementine Homilies
(xix. 20) gives another version,
" Keep My mysteries for Me, and
for the sons of My house."
(21) Eusebius (Theophania, iv.
13), "I will choose these things to
Myself. Very exceUent are those
whom My Father that is in heaven
hath given Me."
(22) Papias (quoted by Irenaeus,
v. 33, 3), "The Lord said, speaking
of His kingdom, The days wiU
come in which vines shall spring
up, each having ten thousand stocks,
and on each stock ten thousand
branches, and on each branch ten
thousand shoots, and on each shoot
ten thousand bunches, and on each

bunch ten thousand grapes, and
each grape when pressed wiU give
five-and-twenty measures of wine.
And when any saint shaU have laid
hold on one bunch, another shaU
cry, ' I am a better hunch, take
me ; through me bless the Lord.' "
This is foUowed by a like statement
as to the productiveness of ears of
corn, and then by a question from
Judas the traitor, who asks, " How
shaU such products come from the
Lord ? " and who receives the
answer, " They shaU see who come
to Me in these times."
The above extracts are taken
from Dr. Westoott's Introduction
to the Gospels, App. C. In some
of them, as has been said above,
there is no internal difficulty in
receiving the words as they stand,
as not unworthy of the Teacher to
whom they are ascribed. In others,
as notably in (15) and (22), what
ever nucleus of truth there was at
first has been encrusted over with
mystic or fantastic imaginations.
None, of course, can claim any
authority, but some, pre-eminently
perhaps (2), (3), and (10), are at
least suggestive enough to be fruit
ful in deep thoughts and salutary
warnings.

V— THE HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.

I. The Christian Church found
itself, as we have seen, in the
middle of the second century in
possession of the four Canonical
Gospels, and of these alone, as
authentic records of the words and
acts of its Lord. Each was ob
viously but a fragmentary memoir.
They were almost as obviously,
though in part, derived from

common sources, independent of each
other. It was natural, as soon as
they came to be read and studied
by men with anything Hke the
culture of historians, that they
should wish to combine what they
found separate, and to construct,
as far as might be, a continuous
narrative. So, as we have seen,
Tatian, of the Syrian Church,

GENEEAL INTRODUCTION.

53

compiled his Diatessaron {circ. a.d.
170), a book which, though now
altogether lost, was once so popular
that Theodoret (Hair. i. 20) states
in the fifth century that he had
found not fewer than 200 copies in
the churches of his own diocese;
and about half a century later a
Hke work was undertaken by Am-
monius of Alexandria. The his
torical mode of study feU, however,
for many centuries into disuse, and
it was not tin the revival of learn
ing in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries that attempts, more or
less elaborate, were made, first by
Gerson, the famous ChanceUor of
the University of Paris (ob. a.d.
1429), to whom some have attri
buted the authorship of the De
Imitatione Christi, and Osiander,
the friend of Luther (a.d. 1561), to
place aU the facts recorded in the
four Gospels in their order of
chronological sequence. Since that
time Harmonies have multipHed,
and while, on the one hand, they
have often helped the student to
see facts in their right relation to
each other, they have, on the other,
it may be feared, tended to perplex
him by their divergent methods
and consequently discordant con
clusions. II. It may be admitted that the
four Gospels do not lend themselves
very readily to this process. That
of St. John, which is most precise
in its notes of time, as connecting
weU-nigh every incident which it
records with a Jewish feast, is the
one which stands most apart, with
only here and there a connecting-
link from the other three, confining
itself almost exclusively to our
Lord's ministry in Judaea, as they
confine themselves to His work in
GaHlee. The two which have so
much in common, St. Matthew and

St. Mark, that the one has been
thought, though wrongly, to be but
an abridgment of the other, differ
so much in their arrangement of
the facts which they record that
it is clear either one or both
must have been led to adopt an
order which was not that of actual
sequence. St. Luke, though aim
ing, more than the others, at
chronological exactness (Luke i. 3),
was dependent on the reports of
others. Probably the very mode
in which facts and sayings were
for several years transmitted orally
and separately made it often diffi
cult to assign to each event its
proper place in the series. The
assumption, on which some have
started, that the order in each
Gospel must be accepted as free
from the possibility of error in the
order of its incidents, has led to an
artificial and arbitrary multiplica
tion of similar events, such as
would at once be dismissed as un
tenable in dealing with any other
histories. Men have found in the
Gospels three blind men at Jericho,
and two anointings at Bethany.
The counter-assumption that no
two events, no two discourses in
the Gospels could be like each
other and yet distinct, has led to
equaUy arbitrary and fantastic
curtaUment of the facts. Men have
assumed the identity of the feeding
of the Five and of the Four
Thousand ; of the anointing which
St. Luke records in chap, vu.,
in the house of Simon the Phari
see, with that which the other
Gospels record as taking place in
the house of Simon the leper (Matt.
xxvi. 6 — 13; Mark xiv. 3—9; John
xii. 1 — 11); of the cleansing of the
Temple in John ii., at the com
mencement of our Lord's ministry,
with that which the other Gospels

54

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

relate as occurring at its close
(Matt. xxi. 12— 17 ; Mark xi. 15—
19 ; Luke xix. 45—48).
III. Admitting, however, these
elements of difficulty and uncer
tainty, it yet remains true that
they are more than balanced by
the advantage of being able to
connect one Gospel with another,
and to read the narratives of
the first three in then- right re
lation to those of the fourth.
If difficulties present themselves,
so also do coincidences, often of
great significance and interest. It
is beHeved, therefore, that it will
be a gain for the readers of this
volume to have, ready at hand for
reference, such a harmonised table
of its contents. That which foUows
is based, though not without varia
tions here and there, made in the
exercise of independent judgment,
upon the arrangement of the
Synopsis Evangelica of the great
German scholar Tischendorf, as
that in its turn was based upon
a Hke work of Wieseler's. It
has been thought expedient to
give the results rather than to
discuss the views which have been
maintained on each point that
has been thought open to dis
cussion by this or that writer. It
is not pretended that what is now
presented is throughout free from
uncertainty ; and where the uncer
tainty exists, it win be indicated
in the usual way by a note of
interrogation — (P) .
TV. It will be expedient, how
ever, to state briefly what are the
chief data for the harmony that
foUows, both in relation (A) to
external harmony, and (B) to the
internal arrangement of the Gospel
narrative that foUows : —
A. — (1) Luke ui. 1 fixes the
beginning of John the Baptist's

ministry in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius. This may be reckoned,
either from the death of Augustus
(a.u.c 767), or from a.u.o. 765,
when he associated Tiberius with
himself as sharing the imperial
power. The latter calculation is
the one generaUy adopted. As our
Lord is stated to have been at that
time "about thirty years of age,"
this would place His birth in a.u.c.
752 or 750. (2) The narrative of
Matt. H.l shows the birth of Jesus
to have preceded the death of
Herod the Great, which took place
Bhortly before the Passover of a.u.c.
756 or B.C. 4. (3) John ii. 20 fixes
the first Passover in our Lord's
ministry as forty-six years from
the beginning of Herod's work of
reconstruction, on which he entered
in A.u.c. 734 — i.e., in A.u.c. 780 ;
and this agrees with St. Luke's
statement as to His age at the
commencement of His ministry.
Under (B) the chief points are
those which are common to all four
Gospels. (1) The baptism of Jesus ;
(2) the imprisonment of the Baptist ;
(3) thefeeding ofthe Five Thousand;
(4) the last entry into Jerusalem,
foUowed by the Crucifixion. In
addition to these, as notes of time
peculiar to the Gospels that con
tain them, we note (1) St. Luke's
second-first Sabbath, which, how
ever, is for us too obscure to
be of much service as a landmark,
and the successive feasts men
tioned by St. John, sc, (2) the
Passover of chap. n. 13; (3) the
unnamed Feast of chap. v. 1 ; (4)
the Passover of chap. vi. 4, coincid
ing with the feeding of the Five
Thousand, and therefore important
in its bearing on the other Gospels ;
(5) the Feast of Tabernacles in
chap. vii. 2_; (6) the Feast of the
Dedication in chap. x. 22; and,

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

55

lastly, (7) the final Passover (chap.
xii. 1), in common with the other
three. The last-mentioned Feast,
however, whUe it serves, on the
one hand, to connect the history
with that of the other Gospels,
introduces a new difficulty. It
cannot be questioned that the im
pression naturaUy left by Matt.
xxvi. 17—19, Mark xiv. 12—16,
Luke xxii. 7 — 13, is that the meal
of which our Lord partook with
the disciples was the actual Pass
over. It can as Httle be questioned
that the impression naturaUy left
by John xiii. 1, 29, xviii. 28, is
that the Passover was eaten by the
Jews on the evening after the Cru
cifixion. The question is hardly
important except as bearing upon
the frustworthiness or authority of
the Gospel narratives, but the view
which commends itself to the pre
sent writer as most probable is that
which assumes our Lord and the
disciples to have eaten the actual
Passover at the same hour as the
majority of the other Jews were
eating it, and that the priests and
others who took part in the pro
ceedings against our Lord postponed
their Passover, under the pressure
of circumstances, till the afternoon,
not the evening, of Friday (John
xviu. 28). That Friday, it may be
noted, was the Preparation, not
for the Passover as such, but for
the great Sabbath of the Paschal
week. A further, but minor, difficulty
presents itself as to the hour of
the Crucifixion. Mark xv. 26
names the " third hour " — i.e., 2
a.m.; and the "sixth hour," or
noon, is fixed by the first three
Gospels as the time when the
mysterious darkness began to faU
upon the scene (JIatt. xxvii. 45 ;
Mark xv. 33 ; Luke xxiii. 44). St.

John, on the other hand, names
"about the sixth hour" (xix. 14)
as the time when Jesus was con
demned by Pilate. Here, however,
the explanation lies almost on tha
surface. St. John used the Eoman
reckoning, and the Three the Jew
ish ; so that their " early in the
morning " and his " about 6 a.m."
came to the same thing.
V. A word ought, perhaps, to be
said in explanation of the fact that
we place the birth of Jesus, not as
might have been expected, in a.d.
1, but in B.C. 4. The mode of
reckoning by the " year of our
Lord" was first introduced by
Dionysius the Little, a monk of
Rome, in his Cyelus Paschalis, a
treatise on the computation of
Easter, in the first half of the
sixth century. Up to that time
the received computation of events
through the Western portion of
Christendom had been from the
supposed foundation of Rome (b.c.
754), and events were marked
accordingly as happening in this
or that year Anno Urbis Condita,
or by the initial letters a.u.c In
the East some historians continued
to reckon from the era of Seleucidie,
which dated from the accession of
Seleucus Nicator to the monarchy
of Syria in B.C. 312. The new
computation was naturaUy received
by Christendom (it first appears
as a date for historical events
in Italy in the sixth century),
and adopted without adequate
inquiry till the sixteenth century.
A more careful examination of
the data presented by the Gospel
history, and hi particular by the
fact that the birth of Christ
preceded the death of Herod,
showed that Dionysius had made a
mistake of four years, or perhaps
more, in his calculations. The

56

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

received reckoning had, however,
taken too firm a root to be dis
turbed by re-dating aU events in
history since the Christian era ;
and it was accordingly thought

simpler to accept it, and to rectify
the error, as far as the Gospel
history was concerned, by fixing
the birth of Christ at its true date,
B.C. 4.

VI.— CHRONOLOGICAL HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS.

5. Birth of John the Baptist, June
(?), October (?) ; birth of
Jesus, December (P).
4. Census under Quirinus or Cy-
renius ; birth of Jesus,
January (?), April (?) ;
Presentation in the Tem
ple; Flight into Egypt,
March ; death of Herod,
just before the Passover j
return of Joseph and Mary
to Nazareth (P), (Matt. ii.
19—23).
3. Augustus assigns Judaea to
Archelaus, GaUlee to Anti
pas ; birth of Apollonius of
Tyana (?).
2.1.

1.2. Birth of John the Apostle (?).
3. Birth of Seneca (?).
4.6. Birth of St. Paul {?).
6. Death of Hillel; deposition of
Archelaus; Judaia a Soman
province.
7. Insurrection of Judas of Galilee.
8.9. First visit of Jesus to the Temple
(Luke ii. 41—52); Pass
over.
10.11.12.13.

A.D. 14.
15.16.17.18.19.
20.21.22.23. 24.
25.26.

Death of Augustus;
Emperor.

Tiberius,

Tiberias built by Antipas; death
of Livy and Ovid.
Jews expelled from Italy.
Death of Joseph (?).

Pontius Pilate appointed Pro
curator of Judasa.
Preaching of John the Baptist,
January (P), or in the pre
vious Autumn (?), (Matt.
iii. 1—12; Mark i. 1—8;
Luke iii. 1—18).
Baptism of Jesus (Matt. iii. 13 —
17; Mark i. 9—11; Luke
iii. 21, 22).
The Temptation in the wUder-
ness (Matt. iv. 1 — 11; Mark
i. 12, 13; Lukeiv. 1—13;
Johni. 19—34).
Call of Peter, Andrew, John,
Philip, and Nathanael
(John i. 35—51).
The marriage at Cana (John ii.
1-11).
Passover rtr Jerusalem (John
ii. 13 — 25) ; Nicodemus
(John iii. 1 — 21) ; Jesus
baptises in Judaea ( Johniii.
22—36) ; John Baptist im
prisoned (Matt. xiv. 3 — 6 ;

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

Mark vi. 17—20; Luke
iii. 19, 20) ; Jesus returns
through Samaria (John iv.
1—42) into Galilee (Matt.
iv. 12; Marki. 14; Luke
iv. 14).
26. Jesus again at Cana : heaUng
of the son of the king's
officer of Capernaum (John
iv. 43—54).
— The first sermon at Nazareth ;
Day op Atonement (?) ;
October (?) ; settlement at
Capernaum (Luke iv. 16 —
30).
27. Feast op Passover, March (?) ;
Pentecost, May, a.d. 26
(?) ; Tabernacles, Octo
ber, a.d. 26 (?) ; or Purim,
February, a.d. 27 (?),most
probably the last, at Jeru
salem; the cripple at Beth-
esda (John v. 1 — 9).
— Jesus begins His public ministry
in GaHlee (Matt. iv. 17 ;
Mark i. 14, 15).
— CaU of Peter, Andrew, James,
and John (Matt. iv. 18 —
22 ; Mark i. 16—20 ; Luke
v. 1—11 ?).
— Miracles at Capernaum (Matt.
viii. 14—17; Marki. 29—
34; Lukeiv. 31—41).
— Mission journey through Gali
lee, mcluding Chorazin (?),
Bethsaida (?), Matt. iv. 23 ;
Mark i. 38, 39 ; Luke iv.
42—44).
— Leper healed (Matt. viii. 1 — 4 ;
Mark i. 40—45; Luke v.
12—15).
— Capernaum: paralytic healed
(Matt. ix. 1—8 ; Mark ii.
1—12 ; Luke v. 18—26).
— Capernaum : caU of Levi-
Matthew (Matt. ix. 9—17;
Mark ii. 13—22; Luke
v. 27, 28).
— Near Capernaum: second-first

Sabbath, March (P), April
(?), (Matt. xii. 1—8; Mark
H. 23—28 ; Luke vi. 1—5).
27. Capernaum: the withered hand
healed on the Sabbath
(Matt. xH. 9 — 1 3 ; Mark Hi.
1—6; Lukevi. 6—11).
— Choice of the Twelve Apostles
(Matt. x. 2—4 ; Mark iii.
16—19 ; Lukevi. 14—16).
— The Sermons on the Mount
(Matt, v., vi., vii.) and on
thePlain(Lukevi.26— 65).
— Capernaum : centurion's servant
healed (Matt. viii. 5 — 13;
Luke vii. 1—10).
— Nain: widow's son raised to
life (Luke vii. 11—17).
— Messengers sent by John the
Baptist (Matt. xi. 2—19;
Luke vii. 18—35).
— House of Simon the Pharisee ;
the woman that was a
sinner (Luke vii. 36 — 50).
— Journey through Palestine, fol
lowed by devout women
(Luke viii. 1—3).
— The charge of casting out devils
by Beelzebub (Matt. xii.
22—37 ; Mark iii. 22—30 ;
Luke xi. 14—26).
— Visit of mother and brethren
of Jesus (Matt. xii. 46 —50 ;
Mark iii. 31—35 ; Luke
viii. 19—21).
— The first teaching by parables
(Matt. xiii. 1—53; Mark
iv. 1 — 34 ; Luke viii. 4 —
18 ; xiii. 18—21).
— Sea of Galilee: the tempest
calmed (Matt. viii. 23—27 ;
Mark iv. 35 — 41; Luke
viii. 22—25).
— The Gadarene demoniac (Matt.
viii. 28—34 ; Mark v. 1—
20 ; Luke viii. 26—39).
— Daughter of Jairus raised to life
(Mattix. 18— 26;Markv.
22—43 ; Luke viii. 40—56).

58

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

27. Nazareth : second discourse in
the synagogue (Matt.
xiii. 54—58; Mark vi.
1-6).
— Renewed journey through Gali
lee (Matt. ix. 35—38 ;
Mark vi. 6).
— Mission of the Twelve Apostles
(Matt. x. 1—42 ; Mark vi.
7—13; Lukeix. 1—6).
— Execution of John the Baptist,
March (?), (Matt. xiv. 6—
12; Mark vi. 21—29).
— Herod the Tetrarch hears of
Jesus (Matt. xiv. 1, 2 ;
Markvi. 14—16 ; Lukeix.
7-9).
— Return of the Twelve to Beth
saida ; feeding of the Five
Thousand ; Passover
(Matt. xiv. 13—21 ; Mark
vi. 30—44; Lukeix. 10—
17; Johnvi. 1—14).
— Sea of Galilee : Jesus walks on
the waters (Matt. xiv. 22 —
33 ; Mark vi. 45— 52 ; John
vi. 15—21).
— Gennesaret : works of healing
(Matt. xiv. 34—36; Mark
vi. 53—56).
— Capernaum : Sabbath after
Passover ; discourse on
the Bread of Life (John
vi. 22—65).
— Phariseesfromjerusalemcharge the disciples with eating
with unwashed hands
(Matt. xv. 1—20; Mark
vii. 1—23).
— Coasts of Tyre and Sidon :
daughter of Syro-Phoeni-
cian woman healed (Matt.
xv. 21—28 ; Mark vii. 25
—30).
— Deaf and dumb (Matt. xv. 29—
31; Mark vii. 31—37).
— Feeding of the Four Thousand
(Matt. xv. 32—38; Mark
viii. 1—9).

27 Pharisees and Sadducees de
mand a sign from heaven
(Matt. xvi. 1—4; Mark
viii. 10—12).
— Bethsaida : blind man healed
(Mark viii. 22—26).
— Csesarea Philippi : Peter's con
fession (Matt. xvi. 13—28;
Mark viii. 27 — ix. 1; Luke
ix. 18—27 ; John vi. 66—
71 ?).
— Hermon (?) ; Tabor (?) : the
Transfiguration (Matt.
xvii. 1—13; Mark ix. 2—
13; Lukeix. 28— 36).
— Base of Hermon (?) : demoniac
healed (Matt. xvii. 14 —
21 ; Mark ix. 14—29 ;
Luke ix. 37—43).
— The Passion foretold (Matt.
xvii. 22, 23 ; Markix. 30—
32; Lukeix. 43—45).
— Capernaum (?) : payment of
didrachma, or Temple-rate,
April (?), May (?), (Matt.
xvii. 24—27).
— Rivalry of disciples, and con
sequent teaching (Matt.
xviii. 1—35; Markix. 33—
50 ; Luke ix. 46—50).
— Journey through Samaria ; new
disciples ; Jerusalem :
Feast of Tabernacles,
October (Matt. viii. 19—
22; Lukeix. 51—62; John
vii. 1—53).
— Jerusalem: the woman taken
in adultery (John vii. 53 —
viii. 11).
— Jerusalem: discourse in Temple;
blind man healed at Siloam
(John viii. 21 — 59 ; John
ix. 1—41).
— Jerusalem : the Good Shepherd
(John x. 1—18).
- Mission and return of the
Seventy (Lukex. 1 — 24).
— Parable of the Good Samaritan
(Luke x. 25—37).

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

59

27. Bethany : Jesus in the house of
Martha (Luke x. 38—42).
— Disciples taught to pray (Luke
xi. 1—13).
— Two blind men healed (Matt.
ix. 27—31).
— Demoniac healed; subsequent
teaching (Matt. ix. 32 — 34 ;
xii. 38—45; Lukexi. I4
86).
— Peraea (?) ; Galilee (?) ; teaching
on various occasions (Luke
xi. 37— xiii. 21).
— Jerusalem: Feast of Dedica
tion, December 20 — 27
(John x. 22—39).
28. January : Jesus on the east
side of Jordan (John x.
40—42).
— Jesus begins to prepare for the
journey to Jerusalem ;
message from Herod (Luke
xiii. 22—35).
— East side of Jordan : teaching,
including parables of the
Lost Sheep, the Lost Piece
of Money, Prodigal Son,
Unjust Steward, the Rich
Man and Lazarus, &c.
(Luke xiv. 1 — xvii. 10).
— Progress towards Jerusalem
(Matt. xix. 1 ; Mark x. 1 ;
Luke xvii. 11).
— The ten lepers; teaching, in
cluding parables of Unjust
Judge, Pharisee and Pub
lican (Luke xvii. 12 —
xviii. 14).
— Teaching as to divorce and
infants (Matt. xix. 3—15 ;
Markx. 2 — 16 ; Luke xviii.
15—17, infants only).
— Dialogue with the rich young
ruler (?), (Matt. xix. 16—
30; Markx. 17— 31; Luke
xviii. 18—30).
— Parable of the Labourers m the
Vineyard (Matt. xx. 1—
16).

28. Bethany : raising of Lazarus
(Johnxi. 1—46).
— Ephraim : retirement of Jesus
(John xi. 47—54).
— Request of the sons of Zebedee
(Matt. xx. 20—28 ; Mark
x. 35—45).
— Jericho : two blind men healed
(Matt. xx. 29—34 ; Mark
x. 46 — 52; Luke xviii.
35—43).
— Jericho : Jesus in the house of
Zacchanis (Luke xix. 1 —
10).
— Parable of the Pounds (Luke
xix. 11—28).
— Bethany : Jesus anointed by
Mary, evening or Sab
bath BEFORE THE PaSS-
OVER.
— Bethany and Jerusalem : first
day of the week : kingly
Entry into the city (Matt.
xxi. 1—11; Mark xi. 1—
11; Luke xix. 29-44;
John xii. 12—19).
— Second day of the week :
Bethany and Jerusalem ;
the barren fig-tree (Matt.
xxi. 18— 22;Markxi. 12—
14,20—25).
— Cleansing of the Temple (Matt.
xxi. 12— 17;Markxi. 15—
19; Luke xix. 45—48).
— Parables : discussions with Pha
risees, Herodians, Saddu
cees, and lawyers (Matt.
xxi. 23 — xxu. 46 ; Markxi.
27 ; xii. 40 ; Luke xx. 1—
44).
— The last discourse against the
Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 1 —
39; Mark xii. 38—40;
Luke xx. 45—47).
— The widow's mite (Mark xii.
41 — 44 ; Luke xxi. 1 — 4).
— The Greeks in Jerusalem (?) :
the voice from heaven
(Jihn xii. 20—36).

60

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

28. Prophetic discourse of the de
struction of Jerusalem and
of thesecond Advent (Matt.
xxiv. 1 — 42; Mark xiii. 1 —
37 ; Luke xxi. 5—36).
— The parables of the Wise and
Foolish Virgins, the Tal
ents, the Sheep and the
Goats (Matt. xxv. 1 —
46).
— Third day oftheweek: passed
by Jesus in Bethany and
Gethsemane (P), Jerusa
lem (?) ; compact of Judas
with thechief priests (Matt.
xxvi. 1—5, 14—16; Mark
xiv. 1, 2, 10, 11; Luke xxii.
1-6).
— Fourth day of the week :
nothingrecorded ; Bethany
(P), Gethsemane (P), Jeru
salem (?).
— Fifth day of the week : Peter
and John sent from Beth
any to Jerusalem ; the
Passover Supper ; the
Feast of the New Cove
nant; dialogue and dis
courses.
— Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 17 —
46 ; Mark xiv. 12—42 ;
Luke xxn. 7 — 46 ; John
xiii. 1 — xvii. 26).
— Sixth day of the week : 3 a. m.,
Jesus taken in Gethsemane;
brought before Annas ;
Peter's denial (Matt. xxvi.
47—75; Mark xiu. 43—
72 ; Luke xxu. 47—62 ;
John xviii. 2 — 18).
— 6 a.m. The trial before Caiaphas

and the Sanhedrin ; their
second meeting; Jesus sent
to Pilate; suicide of Judas.
28. Jesus before PUate, Herod, and
PUate again; the people
demand release of Barab
bas ; Jesus led to Golgotha
(Matt. xxvi. 59 — xxiii.
34 ; Mark xiv. 55— xv. 23 ;
Luke xxii. 63 — xxiH. 33 ;
John xviu. 19 — xix. 17).
— 9 a.m. The Crucifixion (Matt.
xxvii. 35 — 44 ; Mark xv.
24—32 ; Luke xxiii. 33—
43; John xix. 18—27).
— Noon to 3 p.m. Darkness over
the land; death of Jesus
(Matt, xxvii. 45—56 ;
Mark xv. 29—41; Luke
xxiii. 44 — 46 ; John xix.
28—30).
— 6 p. m. Embalmment and en
tombment by Joseph of
ArimathaBa, Nicodemus,
and devout women ; priests
apply for a guard over the
sepulchre (Matt. xxvu. 57
—66 ; Mark xv. 42—47 ;
Luke xxiii. 50 — 56 ; John
xix. 38—42).
— Sabbath : disciples and women
rest (Luke xxiii. 56).
— First day of the week : the
Eesurreetion (Matt, xxviii.
1—20 ; Mark xvi. 1—20 ;
Luke xxiv. 1 — 43 ; John
xx. 1 — xxi. 25).
— Ten days before Pentecost
(?) : the Ascension (Mark
xvi. 19, 20 ; Luke xxiv.
44—53).

ST. MATTHEW.

By the late Very Rev. E. H. PLUMPTEE, D.D.

I. The Author. — The facts
presented by the New Testament
records are few and simple. In
Mark H. 14, Luke v. 27, we find
Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting
at the receipt of custom (better,
perhaps, at the custom house) in
Capernaum. He is identified by
Matt. ix. 9 with the "man that
was named Matthew." The second
name may have been given by our
Lord, as Peter was given to Simon,
or taken by him of his own accord.
Its meaning, as " God-given," like
Theodoras, Theodoretus, Doro-
theus, Adeodatus, made it a suit
able name for one to take for
whom old things had passed away
and aU things had become new,
and who thanked God for that
unspeakable gift ; and its historical
associations with the name of the
great Mattathias, the father of the
Maccabaean heroes, made it — as we
see in the case of Matthias, another
form of the name — one of the
names which, like Judas and Simon,
had become popular with aU true
patriots. In the Hsts of the Apostles
his name is always found in the
second group of four, with Thomas,
James (or Jacob) the son of Alphaeus,
and Judas the son (or brother) of
James. If, as seems probable, we
recognise in Mark H. 14 the same
Alphaeus as in Mark iii. 18, we
have another instance, in addition
to the sons of Jona and of Zebedee,
of two, or possibly three, brothers
caUed to act together as Apostles.

A not improbable conjecture
leads us a step further. The name
of Matthew is coupled, in aU the
Hsts in the Gospels, with that of
Thomas — sometimes one, some
times the other name taking pre
cedence — and as Thomas, or Didy-
mus (John xi. 16, xxi. 2), signifies
"Twin," there is, primd facie,
good ground for the inference that
he was so known as the twin-
brother of Matthew. The Alpheeus
who is named as the father of the
second James in the lists of the
Apostles is commonly identified
with the Clopas of John xix. 25,
where the Authorised Version
wrongly gives Cleophas. This
cannot, however, be regarded as
certain, and there are serious con
siderations against it. Mary, the
wife of Clopas, is described (Mark
xv. 40) as the mother of James the
Little and Joses. But the union of
these two names (as in Mark vi. 3)
suggests that the Evangelist speaks
of the brethren of our Lord, and
therefore not of James the Apostle.
Either, therefore, Clopas and Al
phaeus are not different forms of
the same name, or, if they are, the
two forms were used, for the sake
of clearness, to distinguish the
father of the three or four Apostles
from the father, on this assump
tion, of the four "brethren" of
our Lord. Possibly, however, the
sons of Clopas have, in their turn
also, to be distinguished both from
the Apostles and the brethren.

62

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Assuming these facts, the cir
cumstances of the caU of Matthew
gain a fresh interest. The brothers
of the Evangelist may have been
already among the disciples who
had acknowledged Jesus as the
Christ, or at least as a great
Prophet. Matthew may have seen
and heard Him as He taught in
the synagogue of Capernaum. The
events which immediately preceded
his call had been the healing of
the man sick of the palsy, and the
proclamation that the Son of Man
had power on earth to forgive sins
(Matt. ix. 1—8; Mark ii. 1—12;
Luke iii. 17—26). We are led to
beHeve, by the readiness with which
he obeyed the call of Jesus, that
the good seed had already been
sown. But he was a publican.
He had chosen for himself a calling
more lucrative than that of the
fisherman or the peasant, but one
which brought with it an evil
repute and a sense of degradation.
The Pharisees shrank from his
touch. His companions were " pub
licans and sinners" like himself.
Could he any longer claim to be a
" son of Abraham " ? (Luke xix.
9.) Would the new Teacher deign
to receive him, or even speak to
him? To one in such a state of
feeling, the command " Follow
Me" would be hi itself a gospel.
Regardless, apparently, of its being-
one of the traditional fast-days,
which the Pharisees were observ
ing with their usual strictness, he
called together his friends and
neighbours, mostly of the same
calling as himself, and gave them
a farewell feast, that they too
might hear "the words of grace,"
in which his soul had found the
starting-point of a new life (Matt.
ix. 10 ; Mark H. 15 ; Luke v. 29).

Of the rest of his life we know
but very little. CaUed now to be
a disciple, he, with his brothers,
was chosen afterwards — much, we
may believe, to his own astonish
ments — to be one of the Twelve
who were the special envoys of the
anointed King. The union of his
name with that of Thomas suggests
the inference that the two twins
were joined together in the work
of proclaiming the Gospel. He is
with the other disciples in the upper
chamber after the Ascension, and
on the day of Pentecost (Acts i. 1 3 ;
H. 1). From that date, as far as
the New Testament is concerned,
he disappears from view.
A comparatively late tradition
(Euseb. Hist. iii. 24 ; Clem. Alex.-
Strom, vi.) represents him as hav
ing preached for fifteen years in
Judaea, and ultimately died a mar
tyr's death in Parthia or Ethiopia
(Socrates, Hist. i. 19). Clement
of Alexandria, however, speaks
of his dying a natural death.
The fact that Thomas also is re
ported to have founded churches
in Parthia and Ethiopia (Euseb.
Hist. Hi. 1) is at least in harmony
with the thought that then, as be
fore during their Lord's ministry
on earth, they had been feUow-
workers together to the end.
An independent tradition that
Pantaenus, the great Alexandrian
missionary, had found the Gospel
of St. Matthew among the Indians
(Euseb. Hist. v. 10) points in the
same direction. His asceticism
led him to a purely vegetarian
diet (Clem. Alex. Paidag. ii. 1,
§ 16). A characteristic saying is
ascribed to him by Clement of
Alexandria (Strom, vii. 13)— "If
the neighbour of an elect man sin,
the elect man himself has sinned,
for had he conducted himself as

ST. MATTHEW.

63

the Word (or, perhaps, as Reason)
commands, his neighbour would
have felt such reverence for his
Hfe as to refrain from sin." The
thought thus expressed is obviously
one that might naturaUy come
from the Hps of the Apostle, who
had not only recorded the Sermon
on the Mount, but had framed his
Hfe upon its teaching. (Comp.
especiaUy Matt. v. 13 — 16.)
II. The Authorship and
Sources of the Gospel. — It has
been rightly urged that the very
obscurity of St. Matthew's name
and the odium attached to his
caUing, made it antecedently im
probable that a later pseudonymous
writer would have chosen him as
the Apostle on whom to affiHate a
book which he wished to invest
with a counterfeit authority. On
the other hand, assuming his
authorship as a hypothesis caUing
for examination, there are many
coincidences which at least render
it probable. His occupation as a
publican must have involved a
certain clerkly culture which would
make him, as it were, the scholar
of the company of the Twelve,
acquainted, as his caUing required
hi™ to be, with Greek as weU as
Aramaic, familiar with pen and
paper. Then, or at a later date,
as growing out of that culture, he
must have acquired that famiHarity
with the writings of the Old
Testament which makes his Gospel
almost a manual of Messianic
prophecy.* The external evidence

• In St. Matthew's Gospel there are no
less than eleven direct citations from the
Old Testament, not including those re
ported as spoken by our Lord. In St.
Mark there are two, of whicli one is doubt
ful ; in St. Luke three ; in St. John nine.
It is, on any view, striking, that this
reference to the teaching of the older

begins, aa we have seen, with
Papias (a.d. 170), who states that
Matthew compiled a record of the
"oracles" or "sayings" of the
Lord Jesus (Euseb. Hist. iii. 39).
As the work of Papias is known
to us only by a few fragmentary-
quotations, we have, of course, no
adequate data for proving the
identity of the book which he
names with what we now know as
the Gospel according to Matthew.
But the account which he gives of
it shows a precise agreement with
the prominence given in that
Gospel more than in any other to
our Lord's discourses ; and it is, to
say the least, a strained hypothesis,
hardly Hkely to suggest itself
except for the sake of a foregone
conclusion, to assume the existence
of a vanished Gospel bearing Mat
thew's name, and afterwards super
seded by the work of a pseu
donymous writer. Papias, it may
be added, is described by Eusebius
(Hist. iii. 39) as having been a
hearer of St. John and a friend of
Polycarp. He describes himself as
caring less for what he found in
books — thus implying the existence
of many narratives, such as St.
Luke speaks of (chap. i. 1) — than
for what he gathered by personal
inquiry from the elders who re
membered the Apostles, and who
could thus repeat what the Lord
Jesus had taught. To him the
"living voice," still abiding with
the Church, was the most precious
of aU records, and upon these he
based what appears to have been
the first Commentary on the Gospel-
history and the words of Jesus.

Scriptures should characterise the Gospels
of the two Apostles rather than those of
the two Evangelists who wrote specially
for Gentiles.

64

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

He names Aristion and John the
Presbyter as his two chief infor
mants. Eusebius, while admitting
his industry in thus coUecting the
fragments of apostoHc tradition,
looks on him as wanting in dis
cernment, and mingling with what
was authentic matter that which was
strange and legendary. Among
these fragments he seems to have
included the narrative of the
woman taken in adultery (" a wo
man accused before the Lord of
many sins," Euseb. Hist. Hi. 39),
which, though found at present in
St. John, bears every mark of
having been inserted in that Gospel
after it had left the hands of its
writer. III. The Aim and Charac
teristics of the G-ospel —
There was a widely diffused tra
dition, as early as the second
century, that the Gospel of St.
Matthew had been written pri
marily for Hebrew Christians. By
many it was beheved that it had
been written originaUy in the
Hebrew or Aramaic of the time,
and that we have only a version of
it. So Papias writes that Matthew
composed his Gospel in the Hebrew
tongue, and that each interpreted
it as he could (Euseb. Hist. iii. 39) ;
and the statement is repeated by
Irenaeus (Hair. iii. 1), who adds,
that it was written while St. Peter
and St. Paul were preaching the
Gospel at Eome, i.e., circ. a.d. 63
— 65 , and by Jerome {Praif. in Matt.) .
There is, however, no evidence of
the actual existence of such a He
brew Gospel, and the Greek text
now received bears no marks of
being a translation. The belief
that it was, in the intention of the
writer, meant for readers who were
of the stock of Abraham, receives,
at any rate, abundant confirmation

from its internal peculiarities. It
presents numerous and striking
parallelisms with the Epistle
which James, the brother of the
Lord, addressed to the Twelve
Tribes scattered abroad. It begins
with a genealogy — a "book of the
generations" of the Christ (Matt.
i. 1) — after the manner of the old
Hebrew histories (Gen. v. 1 ; x. 1 ;
xxxvi. 1 ; Euth iv. 8). It is con
tented to trace the descent of
the Christ from Abraham through
David and the kingly line, with
out ascending, as St. Luke does,
to Adam. It dweUs, as has
been said, with far greater fulness
than any other Gospel, on the
Messianic prophecies, direct or
typical, of the Old Testament. It
does not explain Jewish customs,
as St. Mark and St. Luke do.
(Comp. Matt. xv. 1, 2, with Mark
vii. 3, 4.) It sets forth more fully
than they do the contrast between
the royal law, the perfect law of
freedom (Jas. i. 25 ; ii. 12), and
the corrupt traditions and casuistry
of the scribes (Matt, v., vi, xxiii.).
It uses the distinctly Hebrew
formula of " the kingdom of
heaven,"* where the other Evan
gelists speak of " the kingdom of
God." It records the rending of
the veU of the Temple, the earth
quake and the signs that foUowed
it, which, at the time, could hardly
have had any special significance
except for Jews (Matt, xxvii. 51 —
53). It reports and refutes the
explanation which the Jewish
priests gave at the time he wrote,
of the marvel of the emptied
sepulchre (Matt, xxviii. 11 — 15).
It dwells more than the others do

* The phrase occurs thirty-two times
in St. Matthew, and nowhere else ill the
New Testament.

ST. MATTHEW.

65

on tho aspect of the future king
dom which represents the Apostles
as sitting on twelve thrones judg
ing the twelve tribes of Israel
(Matt. xx. 28). Such features were
naturaUy to be looked for in a
Gospel intended for IsraeHtes. We
may add that they were also na
tural in the Gospel of the publican.
Foremost among the emotions of
one who was caUed from the receipt
of custom, would be the joy that
he too was now, at last, recognised
as a child of Abraham. To him it
would be a welcome task to con
trast the higher and purer doctrine
of the Lord who had caUed him,
with that of the Pharisees who
had scorned and thrust him out.
We may, perhaps, even trace the
influence of his experience as a
collector of customs, in the care
with which he brings together his
Master's warnings against the vain
and rash swearing, and the false
distinctions as to the vaHdity of
different oaths (Matt. v. 34—37;
xxui 16 — 22) which, common as
they were in all times and places,
were sure to be loudest and least
trustworthy in disputes between
the pubHcan and the payers of an
ad valorem duty.
There was, however, another
aspect of the publican character.
The work of St. Matthew had
brought him into contact with
those who were known as the
¦' sinners of the Gentiles " (Gal. ii.
15). He had. caUed them to share
his joy in the first glow of his con
version (Matt. ix. 10). The new
consciousness of being indeed one
of a chosen and peculiar people
passed, not, as with the Pharisees,
into the stiffness of a national ex
clusive pride, hut, as a like con
sciousness did afterwards in St.
Paul, into the sense of universal

brotherhood. And so he is careful
to record that visit of the Magi in
whom Christendom has rightly
seen the first-fruits of the caUing
of the Gentiles (Matt. ii. 1—12).
He dweUs, if not exclusively, yet
emphatically, on the far-off pros
pect of men coming from east and
west, and north and south, and
sitting down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob (Matt. viii. 11).
He records the parable which
represents the servants of the
great King as sent forth to gather
guests for the marriage feast from
the "by-ways" of the Gentile
world (Matt. xxii. 10). He sets
forth the law of compassionate
judgment, which shall make the
doom of Tyre and Sidon more
tolerable than that of Chorazin
and Bethsaida (Matt. xi. 21—24),
and take as its standard, when all
the Gentiles are gathered round tho
throne of the Judge, not the spe
cific truths revealed in Christ, but
the great laws of kindness which
are stamped everywhere, even when
neglected and transgressed, upon
the hearts and consciences of those
who have known no other revela
tion. Lastly, it is in St. Matthew that
we find recorded the full commis
sion, anticipating the Gospel as St.
Paul afterwards preached it, which
bade the disciples not to circumcise,
but to baptise— to baptise, not con
verts from Israel only, but "aU
the Gentiles," the outlying people
of the world, of every race and
speech. It foUows from what
has now been Baid that the chief
aspect in which the form of the
Son of Man is presented to us in
St. Matthew's Gospel is that of
the King who fulfiUed the hopes
of Israel — a King, not tyrannous
and proud, but meek and lowly;

66

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

coming, not with chariots and
horses, but on an ass's colt, bear
ing the cross before He wears the
crown, and yet receiving, even in
unconscious infancy, tokens of His
sovereignty, and in manhood giv
ing proof of that sovereignty by
His power over nature, and men,
and the forces of the unseen world.
Seen from this point of view, each
portion of the Gospel is part of the
great portraiture of the ideal King.
The Sermon on the Mount, while
it is, in part, the voice of the true
Teacher, the true Eabbi, as con
trasted with those who were un
worthy of that title, is yet also the
proclamation by the King, who
speaks, not as the Scribes, but as
one having authority, of His royal
Law (Jas. ii. 8), of the conditions
of His kingdom (Matt. vii. 29).
The parables of chaps. xHi. and
xxv. are brought together with a
fulness and profusion found in no
other Gospel, because they bring
before us, each of them, some
special aspect of that kingdom. If
he alone of the Evangelists men
tions, as coming from our Lord's
Hps, the word for the Christian
society (Ecclesia) which, when the
Gospels were written, was in uni
versal use, we may see, in the care
that he took to record those few
words as bearing witness to the
true relation of that society to its
King and Lord, his sense of the
reality of the kingdom. Christ

had built that Church on Himself
as the Eternal Eock, and the gates
of hell should not prevaU agamst
it (Matt. xvi. 18). Where it was,
there He would be, even to the end
of the world (Matt, xxvni. 20).
The play of fancy which led the
men of a later age to connect the
four Gospels with the four cherubic
symbols may have had much in it
that was arbitrary and capricious,
but it was not altogether wrong
when, with a uniform consent, it
identified the Gospel of St. Mat
thew with the form that had the
face of a man (Ezek. i. 10 ; Eev.
iv. 7). Assuming the cherubic
forms to represent primarily the
great manifestations of Divine
wisdom as seen in nature, that
"face of a man" testified to the
seers who looked on it that there
was a WUl and a Purpose which
men could partly comprehend as
working after the manner of their
own. Interpreted by the fuUer
revelation of God in Christ, it
taught them that the Son of Man,
who had been made a little lower
than the angels, was crowned with
glory and honour, sitting on the
right hand of the Ancient of Days
(Dan. viii. 13), Lord and King
over the world of nature and the
world of men, and yet delighting
above all in the praises that flowed
from the mouth of babes and
sucklings (Ps. viii. 2; Matt. xxi.
16).

ST. MARK.

By the late Very Eev. E. H. PLUMPTEE, D.D.

I. The Writer.— There is but
one person of the name of Mark,
or Marcus, mentioned in the New
Testament, and, in the absence of
any gvidence to the contrary, it
may reasonably be assumed that
the Gospel which bears his name is
ascribed to him as being, directly
or indirectly, its author. The
facts of his life as they are gathered
from the New Testament may be
briefly put together. He bore also
the Hebrew name of John, i.e.,
Joannes, or Jochanan (Acts xii. 12,
25 ; xv. 37). The fact that he took
a Latin and not a Greek surname
suggests the probabUity of some
point of contact with Jews or
others connected with Eome. As
was natural, when he entered on
his work among the Gentiles the
new name practically superseded the
old, and in the Epistles (Col. iv.
10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; Philem. verse
24 ; 1 Pet. v. 13) he is spoken of
as " Mark " only. He was cousin
to Barnabas, and. was therefore, on
his mother's side probably, of the
tribe of Levi (Col. iv. 10 ; Acts iv.
36). His mother bore the name
of Mary, or Miriam, and it may
he inferred from the fact that her
house served as a meeting-place for
the disciples at Jerusalem (Acts xii.
12), that she, like her kinsman, was
one of the prominent and wealthy
members of the Apostolic Church.
St. Peter speaks of him as his
"son" (1 Pet. v. 13), and it is a
natural inference from this that he
was converted hy that Apostle to

the new faith, but whether this was
during our Lord's ministry on earth
or after the day of Pentecost
must remain matter for conjecture.
When Paul and Barnabas return
from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts
xii. 25) he accompanies them, and
this may be taken as evidence that
his sympathies were at that time
with the wider work which they
were carrying on among the Gen
tiles. So, when they were sent
forth, on their first missionary
journey, they chose him as their
"minister," or attendant (Acts
xiii. 5). His function, as such,
was probably to provide for their
personal wants in travelling, to
assist in the baptism of new con
verts, and to arrange for their
meeting to "break bread" in the
Supper of the Lord. For some
unrecorded reason, possibly want
of courage, or home-sickness, or
over-anxious care about the mother
whom he had left at Jerusalem, he
drew back at Perga in PamphyHa
from the work to which they were
sent, and returned home (Acts xiii.
13).* We find him, however, again

* It was doubtless on account of this
desertion that we find the strange epithet
of "poltroon" (kolobodactylos) connected
with St. Mark's name hy some early
Christian writers (Hippol. Philosopli. vii.
30). He was, by those who took St.
Paul's view of his conduct, like the sol
dier who cuts off his thumb in order to get
free from service. The figurative epithet
was afterwards the basis of a legend (Pref.
to St. Mark in Cod. Amiat.) that he had
literally mutilated himself in order to

68

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

at Antioch, after the council at
Jerusalem, and he had so far re
gained his uncle's confidence that
he was willing to take him once
more as a companion in his mis
sionary labours (Acts xv. 37 — 39).
To that course, however, St. Paul
would not agree, and the result
was that the two friends who had
so long been fellow-workers in the
cause of Christ were divided after
a sharp contention.
From this point onwards we get
but few glimpses of the writer of
the Gospel. He accompanied Bar
nabas (a.d. 52) in his work among
the Jews and Gentiles of Cyprus
(Acts xv. 39). About eight years
later he was with St. Peter in the
city on the banks of the Euphrates
which still bore the old name of
Babylon, and there must have
met Silvanus, or Silas, who had
taken his place as the companion
and minister of St. Paul (I Pet.
v. 12, 13). It is possible that
this may have led to a renewal
of the old intimacy between him
and the Apostle of the Gentiles,
and about four years later (a.d. 64)
we find him with St. Paul at Rome,
during the Apostle's first imprison
ment (Col. iv. 10 ; Philem. verae
24), and there, it may be noted, he
must have met his brother Evan
gelist St. Luke (Col. iv. 14). _ He
was then, however, on the point of
returning to the Asiatic provinces,
and contemplated a visit to Colossae
(Col. iv. 10). Two years later (a.d.
66), accordingly, we find him at
Ephesus with Timotheus, and the
last mention of his name shows
that St. Paul had forgotten his
former want of steadfastness in the
recoUection of his recent services,

avoid the responsibilities of the priest
hood.

and wished for his presence once
again as being "profitable for
ministering"* (2 Tim. iv. 11).
To these facts, or legitimate
inferences, we may now add the
less certain traditions that have
gathered round his name. Epi
phanius (Contr. Heer. p. 314) makes
him one of the Seventy whose mis
sion St. Luke narrates (x. 1), and
says that he was of those who
turned back when they heard the
hard saying of John vi. 60, 66.
Eusebius (Hist. ii. 15 ; vi. 14) states,
on the " authority of the ancient
elders " and of Clement of Alexan
dria, that he was with St. Peter at
Rome, acting as his " interpreter,"
or secretary, and that he was sent
on a mission from Rome to Egypt
(Hist. ii. 16). There, according
to Jerome (de Vir. illust. 8), he
founded the Church of Alexandria,
became bishop of that church, and
suffered martyrdom at the hands of
the people on the feast of Serapis,
in the fourteenth year of Nero,
a.d. 68, about three years after the
death of St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a.d. 815 his body was said to
have been taken to Venice, and the
stately cathedral in the Piazza of
St. Mark in that city was dedicated
to his memory. Some recent com
mentators identify him conjectur-
aUy with " the young man with
the linen cloth round his naked
body" of Mark xiv. 51.
II. The Authorship of the
Gospel.— St. Mark is named by
Papias, Bishop of HierapoHs (circ.
a.d. 169), on the authority of a
certain "John the Presbyter," as
writing down exactly, in his char
acter as Peter's interpreter, " what
ever things he remembered, but

* This, rather than "for the ministry,"
is the sense of the Greek.

ST. MARK.

69

not in the order in which Christ
spoke or did them, for he was
neither a foUower nor a hearer of
the Lord's, but was afterwards a
foUower of Peter."
The statement is probable enough
in itself (Euseb. Hist. Hi. 39), and
receives some additional weight
from the fact that the city of
which Papias was Bishop was in
the same district as Colossaa, which
Mark, as we have seen, meant to
visit (Col. iv. 10). In another pas
sage, above referred to, Eusebius
(Hist. ii. 15; v. 8) speaks of him
as having been asked to write by
the hearers of St. Peter at Rome,
and that the Apostle at first
acquiesced in, and afterwards sanc
tioned, his doing so. The same
tradition appears (a.d. 160 — 225) in
TertuUian (Cont. Marc. iv. 5). It
receives some confirmation from
the language of the second" Epistle
ascribed to St. Peter. The Apostle
there promises that he wiU " en
deavour" that those to whom he
writes may have these things (i.e.,
the facts and truths of the Gospel)
in remembrance, that they might
know that they had not " foUowed
cunningly-devised fables," but were
trusting those who had been eye
witnesses — at the Transfiguration
and elsewhere— of the majesty of
Christ (2 Pet. i. 15, 16). Such a
promise seems almost to pledge the
Apostle to the composition of some
kind of record.
Mark, we have seen, was with
him when he wrote his first Epistle,
perhaps, also when he wrote the
sectad, and it would be natural
that he should take down from
his master's Hps, or write down
afterwards from memory, what he
had heard from him. It may
be added that the comparatively
subordinate position occupied by

St. Mark in the New Testament
records makes it improbable that
his name should have been chosen
as the author of a book which he
did not reaUy write. A pseud
onymous writer would have been
tempted to choose (let us say)
Peter himself, not Peter's attendant
and interpreter.
The Gospel itself, we may add,
supplies some internal evidence in
favour of this hypothesis-: — (1.)
It differs from St. Matthew, with
which to a great extent it runs
paraUel in the facts narrated, in
giving at every turn graphic de
scriptive touches which suggest the
thought that they must have come
in the first instance from an eye
witness. It wiU be enough to mention
here a few of the more striking
instances. Thus, e.g., we have (a)
the "very early in ihe morning,
whUe it was yet night" of i. 35,
as compared with "when it was
day" in Luke iv. 42; (}) there
being no room, "not so much as
about the door," in ii. 2 ; (c) the
" taking off the roof and digging
a hole in it " in ii. 4 ; (d) the
"making a path by plucking the
ears of corn" in H. 23 ; (e) the
" looking round with anger " in iii.
5 ; (/) the " taking Him, even as
He was, into the ship," and the
"lying in the stern on the piUow "
(iv. 36, 38) ; {g) the account of the
manner in which the Gadarene
demoniac had " burst asunder" his
chains and "worn away" his fet
ters (v. 4), and how he was "in
the mountains crying and cutting
himself with stones " (v. 5) ; (A)
the "green grass," and the "sitting
in ranks and companies by hun
dreds and by fifties " (vi. 39, 40) ;
(i) the " exceeding white as snow
so as no fuUer on earth can whiten

70

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

them " (ix. 3) ; ( j) the " Jesus
beholding him, loved him" of
the young ruler (x. 21) ; (k) the
" young man with the linen cloth
round his naked body " (xiv. 51) ;
and many others of a Hke charac
ter (2.) As pointing in the same
direction, we may note the in
stances in which St. Mark, and he
alone, reproduces the very syUables
which our Lord uttered in Aramaic.
Whether they were an exception
to His usual mode of speech or
not may be an open question, but
as connected with His works of
healing they had the character of
words of power for those who
heard them, and so fixed themselves
in their memories. So we have
the Talitha cumi of v. 41, the
Eehphatha of vii. 34, the Eab-
boni in the Greek of x. 51, the
Boanehges of iii. 17, the Abba of
xiv. 36, the Corban of vii. 11, and,
though here in common with St.
Matthew, the Eloi, Eloi, lama
sabachthani of xv. 34. (3.) So,
too, in a few cases, St. Mark gives
names where the other Gospels do
not give them : Levi is the son
of AlphaBus (H. 14) ; the ruler of
the Synagogue, not named by St.
Matthew, is Jairus (v. 22) ; the
blind beggar at Jericho is Barti-
masus, the son of Timasus (x. 46) ;
the mother of James and John is
Salome (xv. 40) ; Simon the Cyre-
nian is the father of Alexander
and Rufus (xv. 21). (4.) Some
have seen grounds for the inference
thus suggested in St. Mark's omis
sion of the promise made to Peter
in Matt. xvi. 17 — 19, and of his
" weeping bitterly " after he had
denied his Master, but the proof
in this case seems somewhat pre
carious. III. The first readers of the
Gospel. — The position which St.

Mark occupied in relation both to
St. Paul and St. Peter — his connec
tion with the former being re
sumed, as we have seen, after a
long interval — would make it pro
bable that he would write with a
special eye tb Gentile rather than
Jewish readers ; and of this the
Gospel itseU' supplies sufficient
evidence in the full explanation oi
the customs of the Jews as to ablu-
tions and the Hke in vii. 3, 4, in
the explanation of the word Corban
in vii. 11, perhaps also in his de
scription of " the river of Jordan "
in i. 5. A closer study suggests
the thought, in full agreement with
the tradition mentioned above, that
he wrote with a special view to
Christians of the Roman Church.
He alone describes Simon the Cyre-
nian as the father of Alexander
and Rufus (xv. 21), as though that
fact had a special interest for his
readers. There is but one Rufus
mentioned elsewhere in the New
Testament, and he meets us in
Rom. xvi. 13 as one who was pro
minent enough in the church of
that city for St. Paul to send a
special message of remembrance to
him ; and it may be inferred, with
some likelihood, that the wife or
widow of Simon of Cyrene (having
previously met St. Paul at Corinth,
for some personal knowledge is im
plied in the words " his mother and
mine ") bad settled with her two
sons in the imperial city, and had
naturaUy gained a position of some
importance. The very name of
Marcus indicates, as has been said,
some Latin affinities ; and it is
noticeable, in this connection, that
a larger number of words Latin in
their origin appear in his Gospel
than in any one of the others.
Thus we have him giving the
Latin centurio instead of the Greek

ST. MARK.

71

lKa.T0VTipxns (hekatontarches) in
xv. 39, 44, 45 ; the Latin speculator
for "executioner" in vi. 27; gra-
batus for bed (this in common with
John v. 8, 9, 10) in ii. 4, 9, 11, 12 ;
quadrans for "farthing" in xii.
42 ; a verb formed from the Latin
fiagellumioT "scourging" (this in
common with Matt. xxvu. 26) in
xv. 15 ; a noun formed from sex-
tarius for " vessels " in vH. 4 ; Prce-
torium (this in common with Matt.
xxvii. 27 and John xvHi. 28) in
xv. 16 ; the denarius in vi. 37, xii.
15, xiv. 5 (this, however, is common
to aU four Gospels) ; the legio (found
also in Matt. xxvi. 53, Luke viii.
30) in v. 9 ; censtis (found also in
Matt. xvii. 25, xxii. 17, 19) in
xii. 14.
IV. The characteristics of
the Gospel. — The distinguishing
features of St. Mark's Gospel are,
it wiU be seen — (1) vividness and
fulness of detail in narrating the
events of the history ; (2) compres
sion or omission in deaHng with our
Lord's discourses. This may have
been owing partly to the object
which he had in view, writing,
it may be, for the instruction of
catechumens, for whom he judged
this method the most fitting, and
partly to the idiosyncrasies of his
own character. What we have
seen of his Hfe and work would
prepare us to accept the latter as,
to a great extent, an adequate
. explanation. One who had been
chiefly a " minister" or "attend
ant " (the latter word is the more
accurate rendering of the Greek of
Acts xiii. 5) on the two ApoBtles
may weU be supposed to have been
chiefly distinguished for his activity
in service, for the turn of mind
which observes and notes particu
lars, rather than for that which
belongs to the student, and de

lights to dweU on full and deve
loped statements of the Truth. We
may see in what he has left us, ac
cordingly, pre-eminently the Gospel
of Service, that which presents our
Lord to us as in the form of a
servant, obedient even unto death
(PhU. ii. 7, 8) ; and so far it forms
the complement to that in which
St. Matthew presents Him to us
pre-eminently in His character as
a King. Even the characteristic
iteration of the ever - recurring
" immediately," " anon," " pre
sently," " forthwith," " by-and-by,"
" straightway " — aU representing
the self-same Greek word, occur
ring not less than 41 times — may
not unreasonably be connected with
his personal experience. That had
been, we may believe, a word con
stantly on his lips in daily life, the
law and standard of his own ser
vice, and he could not think of his
Lord's work otherwise than as ex
hibiting the perfect fulfilment of
that law, a work at once without
haste and without pause. So, too,
in another point in which he stands
in singular contrast to St. Matthew,
the almost entire absence of any
reference, except in reporting what
had been said by our Lord or others,
to any prophecies of the Old Testa
ment — there are but two such re
ferences in the whole Gospel (i. 2,
3 ; xv. 28), as rising out of his
own reflection — may be explained
in part, perhaps, by the fact that
he was writing not for Jews, but
for GentUes, to whom those pro
phecies were not familiar, and also
by the fact that his own life in its
ceaseless round of humbler service
led him to be less than others a
student of those prophecies. As
suming the genuineness of the latter
of the two passages just referred to
(it is absent from nearly aU the best

72

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

MSS.), we may, perhaps, trace the
connection of thought. Words
from that 53rd chapter of Isaiah
had been quoted by the Apostle to
whom he ministered (1 Pet. ii. 22,
23), at a time when he was with
him, in special connection with the
work of servants and the duty of
obedience, and so his mind had been
called to'those words, but there does
not appear to have been in him, as
there was in St. Matthew, a delibe
rate purpose to trace the fulfilment
of prophetic words in the circum
stances of our Lord's life and work.
He was content to paint the scenes
that passed before his mind clearly
and vividly, and to leave the teach
ing which the facts embodied
to do its work on the minds of his
readers. V. Relation to St. Matthew
and St. Luke. — The Gospels of
St. Mark and St. Matthew have so
much in common, sometimes with
each other only, sometimes with
St. Luke also, that it is clear that
they must have drawn more or less
from a common source. Nothing,
however, can be more against the
whole tenor of internal evidence
than the hypothesis that St. Mark
epitomised from St. Matthew, or
that St. Matthew expanded from
St. Mark. The narrative of the
second Gospel is in almost every
instance fuller than that of the
first, and its brevity is obtained
only by the absence of the dis
courses and parables which occupy
so large a portion of the other. On
either of these assumptions the per
plexing variations in the order of
events (comp. e.g. , Matt. viii. with
Mark i. 4, 5) are altogether in
explicable. What is, with our
scanty data, the most probable
explanation is, that the matter
common to both represents the

substance of the instruction given
orally to disciples 'in the Church
of Jerusalem and other Jewish-
Christian communities coming,
directly or indirectly, under the
influence of St. Peter and St.
James, as the Apostles of the
Circumcision (Gal. ii. 9). The
miracles that had most impressed
themselves on the minds of the
disciples, the simplest or most
striking parables, the narratives
of the Passion and Resurrection,
would naturally make up the main
bulk of that instruction. St.
Matthew, the publican Apostle,
and therefore conversant, as has
been said before, with clerkly cul
ture, writing for his own people,
closely connected with James the
Bishop of Jerusalem, would natu
rally be one exponent of that teach
ing. St. Mark, the disciple and
"interpreter," or secretary, of St.
Peter, would as naturaUy be
another. That they wrote inde
pendently of each other is seen,
not only in the details above
noted, the addition of new facts,.
the graphic touches of description,
but from variations which would
be inexplicable on any other assump
tion; such, e.g., as Mark's "Dal-
manutha" (viii. 10) for Matthew's
" Magdala" (Matt. xv. 39), " Syro-
Phoenician woman " (vii. 26) for
" Canaanite " (Matt. xv. 22), " Levi
the son of Alphasus" (u. 14) for
"Matthew" (Matt. ix. 9). Short as
the Gospel is, too, there is one
parable in it (iv. 26 — 29), and one.
miracle (vii. 31 — 37), which are not.
found in St. Matthew. It is re
markable, moreover, that there are .
some incidents which St. Mark and
St. Luke have in common, and
which are not found in St.
Matthew : that of the demoniac
in chap. i. 23 — 27, Luke iv. 33—37;

ST. MARK.

73

the journey through Galilee (i. 35
— 39, Luke iv. 42 — 44) ; the pursuit
of the disciples (i. 36, 37, Luke iv.
42) ; the prayer of the demoniac
(v. .18, Luke viii. 38) ; the com
plaint of John against one that
cast out devils (ix. 38, Luke ix.
49) ; the women bringing spices to
the sepulchre (xvi. 1, Luke xxiv. 1).
Of these phenomena we find a natu
ral and adequate explanation in the
fact that the two Evangelists were,
at least at one period of their Hves,
brought into contact with each
other (Col. iv. 10, 14, Philem. verse
24). It is probable, as has been
said above, that neither wrote his
Gospel in its present form until

the. two great Apostles whom they
served had entered on their rest ;
but when they met each must have
had the plan formed and the chief
materials coUected, and we may
well think of them as comparing
notes, and of the one, whose life
had led to less culture, and whose
temperament disposed him to record
facts rather than parables or dis
courses, as profiting by his contact
with the other, and while content
to adhere to the scope and method
which he had before marked out for
himseU, adding here and there what
he learnt from his fellow-worker
whose "praise was in the Gospel"
(2 Cor. vhi. 18).

ST. LUKE.

By the late Vekt Eev. E. H. PLUMPTEE, D.D.

I. The "Writer. — But one per
son bearing the name of Luke, or,
in its Greek form, Lucas, appears
in the New Testament ; and of
him the direct notices are few and
meagre. He is named as being
with St. Paul during his first im
prisonment at Rome, and is de
scribed as "the beloved physician"
(Col. iv. 14). He is stiU with him,
stress being laid on his being the
only friend who remained, when
the Apostle's work was drawing to
its close (2 Tim. iv. 11). Beyond
these facts all is inference or con
jecture. Both conjecture and in
ference are, however, in this case,
full of interest, present many un
expected coincidences, and, by the
convergence of many different
lines of circumstantial evidence,
raise the probabilities which attach
to each taken separately into some
thing not far from certainty as to
their collective result.
The name itself is suggestive.
It does not appear as such in any
classical writer, or on any Greek
or Latin inscription. Its form,
however, shows that it is a contrac
tion from Lucanus, as Apollos is
from Apollonius, or Silas from
Silvanus, and not, as some have
thought, another form of Lucius.*

* It follows from this that the Evange
list cannot be identified, as some have
thought, with Lucius of Cyrene, who is
mentioned as prominent among the pro
phets and teachers at Antioch (Acts xiii.
1), or the Lucius who is named as a kins
man of St. Paul's (Rom. xvi. 21). If that
identification had been possible, the

This name, again in its turn, was
not a common one, and we naturaUy
ask what associations were con
nected with it. Its most probable
etymology points to its being de
rived from the region of southern
Italy known as Lucania. Lucas,
or Lucanus, would be a natural
name for a slave or freedman,
having no famUy name as his own,
who had come, or whose father had
come, from that region. Assuming,
for the present, St. Luke's author
ship of the Acts, we find in the
supposition that this was the
origin of his name an explanation
of the obvious familiarity with
Italian topography shown in his
mention of Puteoli, Appii Eorum,
and the Three Taverns, in Acts
xxviii. 13 — 15. The name Lu
canus, was, however, borne at this
time by a writer, M. Annseus
Lucanus, who stands high in the
list of Latin poets, as the author
of the Pharsalia, an epic which
takes as its subject the great
struggle for power between Julius
Caesar and Pompeius. As he was
born, not in Italy, but in Spain (at
Corduba, the modern Cordova), the
name with him must have had
another than a local significance.
Was there any link of association
connecting the two men who bore
a name which was, as we have
seen, far from a common one f We

traditional fame of Cyrene for its School
of Medicine (Herod, iii. 131), would have
had a special interest in connection with
8t. Luke's calling.

ST. LUKE.

75

are here in a region of conjecture ;
but on the assumption that there
was some such link, we have a
probable explanation (1) of the
favour shown to St. Luke's friend
and companion, the great Apostle
of the GentUes, by the uncle of
the poet, J. Aimaeus Gallio, the
Pro-consul of Achaia (Acts xviii.
14 — 17), and (2) of the early tra
dition of a friendship between St.
Paul and another uncle, the Stoic
philosopher, Seneca, issuing in the
correspondence of fourteen letters,
which, in the time of Jerome {de
Vir. Illust. c. 12) and Augustine
(Epist. cliU. 14), was read, with
interest, and often quoted as a
fragment of ApostoHc Hterature.
The letters that are now extant
under that name are, in the j udg-
ment of well-nigh aU critics,
spurious ; but the fact that a
writer in the third or fourth cen
tury thought it worth while to
compose such a correspondence,
implies that he was able to take
for granted a general beHef in the
friendship which it pre-supposes ;
and the many coincidences of,
thought and language between the
Apostle and the Philosopher (as
seen, e.g., in the "Essay on St.
Paul and Seneca," in Dr. Light-
foot's Commentary on the Epistle to
the Philippians) are at least striking
enough to suggest, if not inter
course, at least some derivation
from a common source. Seneca
was, it must be remembered, offi
cially connected with the court of
Nero during St. Paul's imprison
ment ; and when the fame of the
prisoner and of his doctrine was
spread through the whole Praeto
rium (Phil. i. 13), and congrega
tions of disciples were to be found
even among the slaves of the Im
perial household (Phil. iv. 22), it

was not likely that a man in his
position should remain ignorant of
the teacher whose influence was
spreading so widely. If the friend
and companion of the prisoner bore
the same name as the nephew of
the philosopher, that coincidence
would help to attract attention.
If, as the coincidence itself sug
gests, there had been any previous
connection between the two, we
have an' hypothesis into which all
the facts of the case fit in with au
almost surprising symmetry. The
poet Lucan, we may note, was
born a.d. 39. The date of St.
Luke's birth we have no materials
for fixing, but the impression left
by the facts of the case is that
he was about the same age as St.
Paul,* and therefore older than the
poet by thirty or forty years. Was
the one named after the other ?
.'¦nd does this imply a connection
of the whole family with the be
loved physician ? This, it is ob
vious, would give an additional
support to the superstructure of
inferences alreadv raised.+

* St. Paul, e.g., never speaks of him as
he does of younger disciples, like Timothy
or Titus, as his " child," or " son," in the
faith. t Lucan, as has been said above, was
born at Cordova. Now, it is remarkable
that when St. Paul was planning an
extended journey with St. Luke as his
companion, Spain, and not Rome, was to
be its ultimate goal (Rom. xv. 28). That
country had a large clement of Jews in
its population in the third aud fourth
centuries, and it is probable that they had
settled there, as iu Cyrene and Carthage,
from an early period of the Dispersion.
Cordova, as one of the chief seats of
Romau culture, was certain to attract
them, and we find it at a later period one
of the chief seats of mediseval Rabbinism,
with a fame already traditional. Another
point of some interest still remains to be
noticed. The poet was a fellow-pupil with
Persius, under one of the great Stoic
teachers of the time, L. Annabus Cornutus

76

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

The incidental mention of St.
Luke's name in Col. iv. 14, places
us on more solid ground. He is
emphatically distinguished from
" those of the circumcision " —
Mark and others who are named
in Col. iv. 10, 11. He was, i.e.,
a Gentile by birth, and this fact,
it is obvious, is important on aU
the questions affecting his relations
with the Apostle of the Gentiles,
and the aim and characteristic
features of his writings.
The fact that he was " a physi
cian " suggests other inferences.
That profession in the early days
of the Empire was filled almost
exclusively by freedmen, or the
6ons of freedmen (the Libertini of
Acts vi. 9), who, shut out more or
less completely from military or
official life, were led to devote
themselves to science, or art, or
Hterature. The weU-known list
of the members of the household
of the Empress Livia, the wife of
Augustus, compiled from the Co
lumbarium, * a sepulchre which was
opened at Rome, in a.d. 1726, pre
sents many examples of names
with the word medicus attached to
them ; among them may be noted
that of Tyrannus, which appears
in Acts xix. 9 as that of the owner
of the "school" or lecture-room
at Ephesus, in which St. Paul
received his disciples. Where, we
ask, was one who made choice of

(the name is that of tlie gens of Seneca
and Gallio), and Persius, as may be in
ferred from a remarkable description of a
feast on Herod's birthday in Sat. v. ISO—
185, had at least some points of contact
with Jewish life and thought.
* The word means literally "a dove
cote," and was applied to the sepulchre as
consisting mainly of what we should call
"pigeon-holes," in each of which stood
a small bin containing the ashes of the
dead.

that profession hkely to seek for
his education? The answer to
that question leads us into yet a
new region of coincidences. On
the one hand, the town of Crotona,
in Southern Italy, had a reputation
of some centuries' standing for its
School of Medicine (Herod, iii.
131), and this would faU in with
the hypothesis of the Evangelist's
Lucanian origin. On the other,
of aU the medical schools of the
time, there was none that stood
higher in reputation than that of
Tarsus, and few that stood so high.
The leading physicians of the time,
Aretasus the Cappadocian, Dios-
corides of Anazarba in CUicia,
Athenaeus of the Cilician Attaleia,
could hardly have received their
training elsewhere. Within a few
miles of Tarsus, at iEgas, on the
coast of Cuicia, was a great
Temple of iEsculapius, which, as
resorted to by sick persons from
aU countries who came to consult
the priests of the Temple (the
Asclepiadae, i.e., the guild or
brotherhood of iEsculapius), of
fered the nearest analogue to a
modern hospital, as a place for
observation and practice. If
Tarsus were thus the place, or
one of the places, to which Luke
went to gain his professional know
ledge and experience, we have
again what explains many of the
facts, more or less perplexing, in
the Apostolic history. There is no
record of St. Paul's first meeting
with him, or of his conversion to
the faith. If, with almost all in
terpreters of repute, we see in the
sudden use of the first person
plural in Acts xvi. 10 a proof of
companionship then beginning be
tween the writer of the book and
the Apostle whose labours he nar
rates, the naturalness with which

ST. LUKE.

77

it comes in must be admitted as
primd facie evidence of previous
acquaintance. But there were
other names at that time connected
with Tarsus which have an interest
for the Christian student. All
that we read in the Acts suggests
the thought that the Cypriot Jew,
the Levite, Joses Barnabas, the
Son of Consolation, received his
education at Tarsus, and there
learnt to love and honour the tent-
maker Rabbi, for the reality of
whose conversion he was the first
to vouch (Acts ix. 27), to whom he
turned when his work pressed hard
on him, as the f eUow-labourer most
like-minded with himself (Acts xi.
25), the separation from whom,
when they parted, brought with
it a bitterness which is hardly in-
teUigible, except on the assump
tion of a previous affection that
was now wounded to the quick
(Acts xv. 39). Not altogether,
again, without some points of con
tact with St. Luke, is the fact that
the great geographer Strabo, a
native of Cappadocia, whose full
description of Tarsus (Geogr. xiii.
p. 627) is obviously based upon
personal observation, may have
visited that city about a.d. 17, and
on the supposition, either of actual
contact, or of the attention caUed
to his writings among the students
of what we may weU caU the
University of Tarsus, we may
legitimately trace his influence as
working indirectly in the uniform
accuracy of all the incidental geo
graphical notices that occur in St.
Luke's Gospel and in the Acts.
At Tarsus also, at or about the
same period, was to be seen another
conspicuous character of the time,
the great wonder-working impostor,
ApoUonins of Tyana, whose life
was afterwards published as a

counterfeit and rival paraUel to
that of Christ, and in whom St.
Luke might have seen the great
prototype of all the "workers with
curieus arts," with their books of
charms and incantations, whom he
describes as yielding to the mightier
power of St. Paul (Acts xix. 11,
12). St. Luke's character as a physi
cian may' be considered from three
distinct points of view, each of
which has a special interest of its
own. (1) As influencing his style
and language ; (2) as affecting his
personal relations with St. Paul;
and (3) as giving him opportunities
for acquiring the knowledge which
we find in the books commonly
ascribed to him. Each of these
call for a special, though brief,
notice. (1.) The differences of style in
St. Luke's Gospel as compared with
the two that precede it, the proofs
of a higher culture, the more
rhythmical structure of his sen
tences, which are traceable even
by the merely English reader, in
such passages, e.g., as chap. i. 1 — ¦
4, are in the Greek original con
spicuous throughout, the only ex
ceptions being the portions of his
Gospel which, like chaps, i., from
verse 5, and ii., are apparently
translations from a lost Hebrew or
Aramaic document. The use of
technical phraseology is, in like
manner, traceable in his mention
of the " fevers (the word is plural
in the Greek), and dysentery," of
which Publius was healed at Melita
(Acts xxviii. 8) ; in the " feet " not
the common ir6Ses, podes, but the
more precise pdo-jis, baseis) " and
ankle bones" of Acts Hi. 7 ; in
the " scales " that fell from St.
Paul's eyes (Acts ix. 18) ; in the
"trance," or, more literally, ecstasy,

78

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

connected with St. Peter's vision
(Acts x. 9, 10), as brought on by
the Apostle's exposure to the noon
tide sun after long-continued fast
ing ; in the special adjective'used
for "eaten of worms," in Acts
xii. 23 ; in his notice of the
" virtue," or healing power, that
flowed forth from our Lord's body
(chap. viii. 46) ; and of the sweat
in "clots," or "drops like as of
blood," that issued from it in the
Agony of Gethsemane (chap. xxii.
44). (2.) It is— noticeable in tracing
the connection of St. Paul and St.
Luke, that on each occasion when
the one joins the other for a time,
it is after the Apostle had suffered
in a more than common degree
from the bodily infirmities that
oppressed him. When they met
at Troas, it was after he had been
detained in Galatia by " the in
firmity of his flesh" (Gal. iv. 13)
When the one joins the other in
the voyage to Jerusalem, it is after
St. Paul had had " the sentence of
death" in himself , had been " dying
daily," had been " dehvered from
so great a death," had been " carry
ing about in his body the dying of
the Lord Jesus" (2 Cor. i. 9 ; iv.
10—12, 16). Erom that time St.
Luke seems scarcely to have left
his friend, except, perhaps, for
short intervals ; and the way in
which St. Paul speaks of him as
" the beloved physician," makes it
almost a 'matter of certainty that
it was by his ministrations as a
physician that he had made him
self " beloved." The constant
companionship of one with St.
Luke's knowledge and special cul
ture was sure, sooner or later, to
affect St. Paul's thoughts and
language, and traces of this in
fluence are to he found in many of

the Epistles. Most of these are
naturaUy more manifest in the
Greek than in the EngHsh words ;
but we may note as examples the
frequent use of the ideal of
"health" as the standard of life
and teaching, as seen in the
phrases "sound," or better, healthy,
" doctrine " (vyiaivoiarj) of 1 Tim.
i. 10; vi. 3; 2 Tim. i! 13; and in
the " doting," or better, diseased,
of 1 Tim. vi. 4 ; in the spread of
error being like that of a gangrene
or cancer (2 Tim. ii. 17) ; in the
word for " puffed up," which im
plies the delirium of a fever of the
typhus type (Tu</>eufle!s, typhotheis)
in 1 Tim. iii. 6 ; vi. 4 ; 2 Tim. Hi. 4 ;
in the conscience seared, or better,
cauterised, till it has become caUous
(1 Tim. iv. 2) ; in the malady of
"itching ears" (2 Tim. iv. 3); ;in
the " bodily exercise " or training
(literally, the training of the gym
nasium) that profiteth little (1 Tint.
iv. 8) ; in the precept which en
joined on Timothy, as a means of
keeping his mind in a state of
equiHbrmm and purity, unconta-
minated by the evil with which his
office brought him into contact, to
" drink no longer water " only,
but " to use a little wine, for his
stomach's sake and his often in
firmities" (1 Tim. v. 23); in the
judgment that a reckless disregard
of the body is of no value as a
remedy against what is technicaUy
called fulness (not ' ' satisfying ")
of the flesh (Col. ii. 23). These
words are, in almost aU cases,
characteristic of the Greek _ of
Hippocrates and other medical
writers, and the same may be
said of the Greek words used by
St. Paul for " dung " (o-Ki$a\a —
skybala, Phil. iii. 8), for "occa
sion " (cupop/iii — aphorme, 1 Tim. v.
14), for "gazing" or "lookmg

ST. LUKK

79

earnestly " (fa-evlfav, 2 Cor. Hi. 7—
13 : the word is used twelve times
hy St. Luke, and, with the above
exceptions, by him only), for
"charge" (1 Tim. i. 3, 18), for
" contention " (i.e., paroxysm) in
Acts xv. 39.
(3.) Itis obvious that in the East,
then as now, the calling of a phy
sician was a passport to many social
regions into which it was otherwise
difficult to find access. A physician
of experience arriving in this or
that city, would be likely to be
come acquainted, not with the
poor only, but with men of official
rank and women of the higher
class. How far, and in what
special way this helped St. Luke
to obtain the information which he
wanted for his Gospel, will call for
inquiry further on. Here it will
be enough to note that such chan
nels of information were sure to
be opened to him.
If, on the data that have been
given, it is reasonable to suppose
that St. Paul and St. Luke had met
at Tarsus, it is almost a matter of
certainty that their friendship was
continued at Antioch. Here the
tradition, given by Eusebius (Hist.
Hi. 4), that St. Luke was a resident
in the latter city, agrees with the
natural inference from the promi
nence which he gives to the Chris
tian society there as the mother of
aU the Gentile churches (Acts xi.
19 — 30), from his knowledge of the
names of its pastors and teachers
(Acts xiii. 1 — 3), from the fulness
with which he relates the early
stages of the great controversy
with the Judaisers (Acts xv. 1 — 3,
22 — 35). From Antioch, however,
accepting as before the natural
conclusion from the change of pro
nouns, he must have gone to Troas
(Acts xvi. 10), and probably begun

or continued there his labours in
the gospel, which at a later time
won St. Paul's glowing praise
(2 Cor. vUi. 18).* Thence he went
with St. Paul to Philippi, and, as
Bar as we can judge, remained
there during the whole period of
the Apostle's work at Corinth and
Ephesus, the friend and guide of
Lydia and Euodia and Syntyche
and the other women who laboured
with him in the gospel (Phil. iv. 2,
3), until after a visit to Corinth
(2 Cor. viii. 18), he joined him
again, and the Apostle returned
from his winter sojourn in that
city, Philippi, was with him once
more at Troas, sailed with him to
Miletus, and so to Tyre and Ptole-
mais and Csesarea, went up with
him to Jerusalem, and remained
with him or near him during his
two years' imprisonment under
FeHx or Festus (Acts xx. — xxvi.).
Then came the voyage to Italy,
narrated with the graphic precision
of an eye-witness, and throughout
in the first person plural (Acts
xxvii. 1 — 44) ; then the shipwreck
at Mclita, and the arrival in Italy,
and the companionship of two
years (broken, perhaps, if we
assume Luke, as seems probable,
to be the " true yokefellow "
of Phil. iv. 3, by a short visit
to Philippi) of the first imprison
ment at Rome (Col. iv. 14 ; Phi-
lem. verse 24). Then came the
last unrecorded missionary jormey

* There are, it is believed, no sufficient
reasons for rejecting the reference of this
passago to St. Luke. It is not meant that
St. Paul speaks of his gospel as a book,
but the physician was an Evangelist in
the primitive as well as the later sense of
the word (Acts xxi. S ; Eph. v. 11 ; 2
Tim. iv. 5), and no one was so likely to
have been chosen by St. Paul to be one of
the representatives of the Macedonian
churches,

80

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

of St. Paul in Spain, Asia, Mace
donia, Achaia,* during which St.
Luke probably continued with him ;
and then we find him, the last
clear g-Hmpse we get, still at the
side of his friend and master, when
aU others were proving time-serv
ing and faithless (2 Tim. iv. 10).
' Beyond this we have nothing defi
nite. Tradition, not earlier than
the fourth century (Epiphanius,
Heer. 51), says that he preached in
Italy, Gaul, Dalmatia, and Mace
donia ; that he was a painter as
well as physician, and was specially
famous for seven portraits of the
Virgin : that he Hved to the age of
eighty-four ; that he was crucified
at Elsea on an olive tree, in the
Peloponnesus ; or, according to
another story, died a natural death
in Bithynia. His bones are re
lated to have been brought to Con
stantinople from Patras in Achaia
by order of the Emperor Constan
tine, and to have been deposited
in the Church of the Apostles.
A tomb has, however, been dis
covered by Mr. Wood, bearing the
* The route of the Apostle may be
inferred partly from his plans (Phil. ii.
24 ; Philem. verse 22), partly from the re
ference to Asia in 2 Tim. i. 15, Macedonia
(1 Tim. i. 3), Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20). I
have ventured to suggest Spain as also
probable. It is hardly likely that St.
Paul would have abandoned the strong
desire which he expresses in Rom. xv. 24.
And if there was, as has been shown to
be probable, a personal connection be
tween Luke and the family of Cordova,
there would be fresh motives for his
going there. Clement of Rome, it may be
mentioned, speaks of St. Paul as having
travelled to the farthest boundary of the
West {Epist. ad Cor. c. 5), a phrase whieh
would hardly have been used by a Roman
writer of Rome itself. The tradition as
to an evangelising journey into Spain
became, as the years passed on, more
aud more definite, and was accepted by
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, and
Theodoret.

name of St. Luke among the ruins
of Ephesus.
II. The Authorship of the
Gospel. — The two earliest wit
nesses to the existence of a Gospel
recognised as written by St. Luke
are (1) Irenaeus, and (2) the early
Hst of sacred hooks known as the
MuratorianFragment. The former,
dwelling on the necessity of there
being neither more nor less than
four Gospels, as there are four ele
ments, four cardinal points, and
the like, names St. Luke's as one of
the four. Pressing the analogy of
the four symboHc figures of the
Cherubim, he compares the Gospel
which he names as Luke's to the
calf, as representing the priestly,
sacrificial side of our Lord's work.
"As such," he says, "it began with
Zacharias burning incense in the
Temple" (Adv. Heer. iii. 11). In
another passage he speaks of
"Luke, the companion of Paul,"
as having " written in a book the
gospel which the latter preached "
(Adv. Heer. iii. 1). The Muratorian
Fragment, which has suffered the
loss of its first sentences, and so
fails to give direct evidence as to
St. Matthew and St. Mark, begins
accordingly with St. Luke, men
tioning, however, his Gospel as the
third. What foUows is interesting,
though being, like the whole frag
ment, in the language of an ob
viously iUiterate scribe, and pre
sumably a translation from a Greek
original, it is at once corrupt and
obscure. The nearest approach to
an inteUigible rendering would be
as foUows : — " Luke the physician,
after the ascension of Christ, when
St. Paul had chosen him, as being
zealous of what was just and right
(juris studiosus), wrote in his own
name, and as it seemed good to

ST. LUKE.

81

him (ex opinione, apparently with
an implied reference to chap. i. 2).
Yet he himself did not see the
Lord in the flesh, and did what he
did as he could best attain to it,
and so he began bis narrative from
the birth of John." The passage
is every way important, as showing
(1) the early identification of the
writer of the third Gospel with
Luke the physician ; (2) the absence
of any early tradition that he was
one of the Seventy ; (3) the fact
that the first two chapters were
part of the Gospel as known to the
writer of the Fragment, or of the
still older document whieh he
translated. Papias, who names St.
Matthew and St. Mark, is silent,
as far as the fragments of his
writings that remain show, as to
St. Luke. Justin, who does not
name the writer of any Gospel,
speaks of the " records of the
Apostles, which are called Gospels,"
as having been written either by
Apostles themselves, or by those
who followed them closely (using
the same Greek word here as St.
Luke uses in chap. i. 2), and cites
in immediate connection with this
the fact of the sweat that was as
great drops of blood {Dial. c. Tryph.
c. 22). It seems all but certain
from this that he had read the
narrative of chap. xxii. 44 as we
have it, and that he ascribed the
authorship of it to a companion of
the Apostles. So Tertullian, who
recognises four Gospels, and four
only, speaks of ' ' John and Mat
thew as Apostles, of Luke and
Mark as helpers of the Apostles
(Cont. Marc. iv. 2) ; and Origen (in
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25) speaks
of the Gospel according to St. Luke
as being " cited and approved
by Paul," referring apparently to
the expression " according to my

Gospel" (Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25;
2 Tim. i. 8), and to "the brother
whose praise is in the Gospel," in
2 Cor. viii. 18, 19.
III. The Sources of the
Gospel. — The question, Where
did the writer of this Gospel col
lect his information, is obviously
one of special interest. In St.
Matthew, we have, accepting the
traditional authorship, personal re
collection as a groundwork, helped
by the oral or written teaching
previously current in the Church.
In St. Mark we have substantially
the same oral or written teaching,
modified, as seems probable, by the
personal recollections of St. Peti r.
St. Luke, on the other hand, dis
claims the character of an eye
witness (chap. i. 2), and confesses
that he is only a compiler, claiming
simply the credit of having done
his best to verify the facts which
he narrates. St. Paul, to whom he
speciaUy devoted himself, was, as
far as personal knowledge went,
in the same position as himself.
Where, then, taking the facts of
St. Luke's life, as given above, was
it probable that he found his ma
terials ?
(1.) At Antioch, if not before,
the Evangelist would be Hkely to
come in contact with not a few
who had been " eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word." Those
who were scattered after the
persecution that began with the
death of Stephen (Acts xi. 19),
and the prophets who came from
Jerusalem with Agabus (Acts xi.
28), the latter probably forming
part of the company of the
Seventy, must have included some
at least of persons so qualified.
At Antioch, too, he must have
met with Manaen, the foster-

82

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

brother of the Tetrarch, and may
have derived from him much that
he narrates as to the ministry of
the Baptist (chap. Hi. 1 — 20), our
Lord's testimony to him (chap. vii.
1 8 — 34), the relation betweenHerod
and PUate, and the part which the
former took in the history of the
Crucifixion (chap, xxiii. 5 — 12),
the estimate which our Lord had
passed upon his character (chap.
xiii. 32). That acquaintance served
probably, in the nature of things,
to introduce him to a knowledge
of the other members of the
Herodian family, of whom we
learn so much from him, and,
of the EvangeHsts, from him only
(chap. iii. 1; Acts xH. 1 — 25; xxv.
13; xxvi. 32).
(2.) During the years of St.
Luke's work at Troas and Philippi,
there were, we may presume, but
few such opportunities ; but when
he accompanied St. Paul on his
last journey to Jerusalem, they
must have been multiplied indefi
nitely. Mnason of Cyprus, the
old disciple (a disciple from the
beginning, as the word signifies,
Acts xxi. 16), must have had much
to teU him. During St. Paul's
stay at Caesarea there was ample
time for him to become acquainted
with the current oral, or as his own
words imply, written, teaching of
the churches of Palestine, which
formed the groundwork of what is
common to him and the first two
Gospels, as well as with the many
facts that connect themselves with
that city in the narrative of the
Acts. We cannot, however, think
of a man of St. Luke's culture,
bent upon writing a history be
cause he was not satisfied with the
" many " fragmentary records that
he found already in circulation,
resting at Caesarea during the two

years of St. Paul's imprisonment
without pushing his inquiries
further. We may think of him
accordingly as journeying in re
gions where he knew our Lord had
worked, most of which lay within
two or three days' easy journey,
while yet there was Httle record of
His ministry there, and so collect
ing such facts as the raising of the
widow's son at Nain (chap. vii. 11
— 17), the appearance of the risen
Lord to the disciples at Emmaus
(chap. xxiv. 13 — 35), the fuU record,
pecuHar to this Gospel, of His
ministry and teaching in Perasa.
(3.) The profession of St. Luke as
a physician, probably also the cha
racter that he had acquired as the
guide and adviser of the women
who formed a kind of sisterhood
at Philippi, would naturally give
him access to a whole circle of eye
witnesses who were not so likely to
come within the range of St. Mat
thew and St. Mark. He alone men
tions the company of devout women
who foUowed Jesus during part, at
least, of His ministry (chap. viii. 2,
3), and as he gives the names of the
chief members of the company, it
is natural to infer that he was per-
sonaUy acquainted with them. So
far as they were sharers in the
feeHngs of other women, we may
beHeve, with hardly the shadow of
a doubt, that they would dwell espe
cially on all that connected itself
with the childhood and youth of
the Lord whom they had loved
with such devout tenderness, that
the bereaved mother whom St.
John had taken to his own home
(John xix. 27)— sometimes, perhaps,
in GalUee, sometimes in Jerusalem
— would be the centre of their re
verential love. From them, there
fore, as those who would be sure to
treasure up such a record, St. Luke

ST. LUKE.

S3

may well have derived the narrative
— obviously a translation from the
Hebrew or Aramaic of Palestine —
which forms the introduction to his
Gospel (chaps, i. and ii.), and which
is distinct in character and style
from the rest of his Gospel. But
informants such as these would be
sure to treasure up also the special
instances of our Lord's tenderness
and sympathy for women Hke them
selves, and it is accordingly not more
than a legitimate inference from the
facts of human nature to trace to
them such narratives as that of the
woman that was a sinner (chap. vii.
36 — 50), of the contrasted charac
ters of the two sisters at Bethany
(chap. x. 38 — 42), of the woman
who cried out, " Blessed is the
womb that bare thee ..." (chap.
xi. 27),* of the daughters of Jeru
salem who met their Lord on His
way to Calvary (chap, xxiii. 27 —
29), of those, again, who had come
up from Gahlee, and who stood afar
off beholding His death upon the
cross (chap, xxiii. 49), and of their
buying spices and ointment for His
entombment (chap. xxiH. 56).
On the whole, then, everything
tends to the beHef that St. Luke's
statement that he had carefully
traced to their sources, as far as
he could, the facts which he nar
rates, was no idle boast ; that he
had many and ample opportunities
for doing so ; and that he did this,
as we have seen above, with the
culture and discernment which his
previous training was Hkely to have
-imparted. It is obvious, however,

* It will be noted that our Lord's words
(chap, xxiii. 29), "Blessed are the barren,
and the wombs that never bare, and the
paps that never gave suck," seem intended
to remind those who heard them of the far-
uifferent benediction which one of them
had once uttered.

that coming, as he did, into the
field of inquiry some thirty, or at
least twenty, years or so after tho
events, many of the facts and say
ing's would reach him in a compara
tively isolated form ; and though
there is an obvious and earnest
endeavour to relate them, as he
says, " in order," it might not
always be easy to ascertain what
that order had actuaUy been. And
this is, in part at least, the probablo
explanation of the seeming disloca
tion of facts which we find on com
paring his Gospel with those of St.
Matthew and St. Mark. (Comp.
Matt. viii. 1 ; ix. 1, with the his
tory of the same events in St. Mark
and St. Luke.)
IV. The First Headers ofthe
Gospel. — St. Luke's record differs
in a very marked way from tho
other three in being addressed, or,
as we should say, dedicated, to an
individual. Who and what Theo-
phUus was, we have but few data
for conjecturing. Tho epithet
"most exceUent" — the same word
as that used by Tertullus in ad
dressing Felix-(Acts xxiv. 3) — im
plies social or official position of
some dignity. The absence of that
epithet in the dedication of the Acts
indicates, perhaps, that the Evan
gelist had then come to be on
terms of greater familiarity with
him. The reference to Italian lo
calities of minor importance, as
places famiHar to the reader as
weU as writer, in Acts xxviii. 12
— 14, suggests the conclusion that
he was of Latin, probably of Roman,
origin ; the fact that the Gospel was
written for him in Greek, that he
shared the culture which was then
common to weU nigh all educated
Romans. He was a convert, ac
cordingly, from the religion of

84

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Rome to that of Christ, though
he may, of course, have passed
through Judaism, as a schoolmaster
leading him to Christ. The teach
ing which he had already received
as a catechumen had embraced an
outline of the facts recorded in the
Gospel (chap. i. 3), and St. Luke
wrote to raise the knowledge so
gained to a standard of greater
completeness. The name, it may
he noted, was, like other names
of kindred meaning, such, e.g.,
as Timotheus, not an uncommon
one. Among St. Luke's contem
poraries, it was borne by one of the
Jewish high priests, the brother-in-
law of Caiaphas (Jos. Ant. xviii. 4,
§ 3), who probably was responsible
for St. Paul's mission of persecution
to Damascus, and by some official at
Athens who was condemned for per
jury by the Areopagus (Tacit. Ann.
H. 55). Beyond this all is conjec
ture, or tradition which dissolves
into conjecture. He is said to
have been, by this or that eccle
siastical writer, an Achaean, or an
Alexandrian, or an Antiochian ; he
has been wUdly identified, by some
modern critics, with one or other of
the two persons thus named ; it has
been held by others that the name
(= " one who loves God") simply de
signated the ideal Christian reader
whom St. Luke had in view.
It is, however, reasonable to infer
that the Gospel, though dedicated
to him, was meant for the wider
circle of the class of which he
was the representative, i.e., in
other words, that it was meant
to be especially a Gospel for the
educated heathen. It will be seen
in what follows, that this view is
confirmed by its more prominent
characteristics. V. The Characteristics of
the Gospel. — (I.) It has been

said, not without some measure
of truth, that one main purpose
of the Acts of the Apostles was
to reconcile the two parties in the
Apostolic Church which tended to
arrange themselves, with more or
less of open antagonism, under the
names of St. Peter and St. Paul,
by showing that the two Apostles
were substantiaUy of one mind ;
that the former had opened the
door of faith unto the Gentiles
(Acts x. 48), and had consented
to the great charter of their free
dom (Acts xv. 7) ; that the latter
had shown his reverence for the
ceremonial law by twice taking
on himself, wholly or in part, the
vow of a Nazarite (Acts xviii. 18 ;
xxi. 26). Something of the same
catholicity of purpose is to be
found in the Gospel which bears
St. Luke's name. It was obviously
natural that it should be so in the
work of the friend of one who be
came as a Jew to Jews, and as a
Greek to Greeks (1 Cor. ix. 20).
Thus we have the whole history
of the first two chapters, and the
genealogy in chap, iii., obviously
meeting the tastes, in the first
instance, of Jewish readers on the
one side, and on the other the choice
of narratives or teachings that spe
cially bring out the width and uni
versality of the love of God, the
breaking down of the barriers of
Jewish exclusiveness, the reference
to the widow of Sarepta and Naaman
the Syrian (chap. iv. 26, 27), the
mission of the Seventy as indi
cating the universality of the King
dom (chap. x. 1), the pardon of the
penitent robber (chap. xxui. 43),
the parables of the Good Samari
tan (chap. x. 30 — 37), of the Lost
Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money,
and the Prodigal Son (chap, xvi) ;
midway between the two, the story

ST. LUKE.

85

of Zaechaeus, the publican, treated
as a heathen, and yet recognised as
a son of Abraham (chap. xix. 9).
(2.) In the Acts, again, especially
in the earHer chapters, we note a
manifest tendency in the writer to
dweU on aU acts of self-denial, and
on the lavish generosity which made
the Hfe of the Apostolic Church the
realisation, in part at least, of an
ideal communism (Acts H. 44, 45 ;
iv. 32, 37; vi. 1.; ix. 36). So in
the Gospel we recognise, over and
above what St. Luke has in common
with others, a principle of selection,
leading him to dweU on aU parts of
our Lord's teaching that pointed in
the same direction. The parables of
the Rich Fool (chap. xii. 16—21),
of the Rich Man and Lazarus (chap.
xvi. 19 — 31), of the Unjust Steward,
with its direct and immediate appli
cation (chap. xvi. 1 — 14) ; the coun
sel to the Pharisees to " give alms,"
and so to find a more than cere
monial purity (chap. xi. 41); to
His disciples to sell what they have
and to seek for treasures in heaven
(chap. xii. 33) ; the beatitudes that
faU on the poor and the hungry
(chap. vi. 20, 21), are aU instances
of his desire to impress this ideal
of an unselfish Hfe upon the minds
of his readers. Even in his account
of the Baptist's teaching, we find
him supplying what neither St.
Matthew nor St. Mark had given
— the counsel which John gave to
the people — " He that hath two
coats, let biTri impart to him that
hath none" (chap. iii. 11). In this
also we may recognise the work of
one who was like-minded with St.
Paul. He, too, laboured with his
own hands that he might minister
to the necessities of others (Acts
xx. 34), and loved to dweU on the
pattern which Christ had set when,
" being rich, He for our sakes be

came poor" (2 Cor. viii. 9), and
praised those whose " deep poverty
had abounded to the riches of
their liberality" (2 Cor. viii. 2).
He, too, had learnt the lesson that
a man's life consisteth not in the
abundance of the things that he
possesseth (chap. xii. 15), and had
been initiated into the mystery
of knowing how, with an equal
mind, to be full and to be hun
gry, to abound and to suffer need
(PhU. iv. 12). He, too, warns men
against the deceitfulness of riches,
and the hurtful lusts springing from
them that plunge men in the abyss
of destruction (1 Tim. vi. 9, 17).
Lastly, we cannot fail to note, as
we read his Gospel, the special stress
which he, far more than St. Matthew
or St. Mark, lays upon the prayers
of the Christ. It is from him we
learn that it was as Jesus was
" praying " at His baptism that
the heavens were opened (chap.
Hi. 21) ; that it was whUe He was
praying that the fashion of His
countenance was altered, and there
came on Him the glory of the
Transfiguration (chap. ix. 29) ;
that He was "praying" when
the disciples came and asked Him
to teach them to pray (chap. xi. 1) ;
that He had prayed for Peter that
his faith might not fail (chap. xxii.
32). In the Hfe of prayer, no less
than in that of a self-chosen
poverty, His was the pattern-Ufe
which His disciples were — each in
his measure and according to his
power — to endeavour to reproduce.
VT. Relations to St. Mat
thew and St. Mark. — It would
be a fair summary of the account
of the Gospel of St. Luke thus
given, to say that it is in its uni
versality, its tenderness, its spirit
of self-sacrifice, pre-eminently the

S6

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Gospel op the Saintly Life,
presenting to us that aspect of
our Lord's ministry in which He
appears as the great Example, no
less than the great Teacher. In
other words, since He is represented
as at once holy, undefiled, and sepa
rate from sinners (Heb. vn. 26), and
as able to have compassion on their
infirmities (Heb. iv. 15), it is the
GOSPEL OF THE SON OF
MAN as the great High Priest
of humanity in the human phase
of that priesthood. It follows
with a marvellous fitness upon the
Gospel of St. Matthew, that brings
before us the portraiture of the
true King and the true Scribe —
upon that of St. Mark,- in which
we may trace the lineaments of
the true Servant of the Lord. It
prepares the way for that of St.
John, which presents the Incarnate
Word as manifesting His Eternal
Priesthood in its sacrificial and
mediatorial aspects. In its per
vading tone and Bpirit, it is, as
we have seen, essentially Pauline.
In its language and style, however,
it presents not a few affinities with
an Epistle, the Pauline authorship
of which is at least questionable,
and which not a few have seen
reason to look upon as the work
of Apollos — the Epistle to the
Hebrews. On this ground chiefly
many critics, beginning with Cle
ment of Alexandria (about a.d. 200),
a man of wide and varied culture,
have held that Epistle to have been
the work of St. Luke, elaborating
and polishing the thoughts of St.
Paul (Euseb. Hist., vi. 14). It has,
he says, speaking as a critic of style,
"the same complexion" as the Acts.
Other considerations, it is believed,
outweigh the arguments based on
that fact ; but the resemblance is
sufficient to indicate that there were

some affinities connecting the two
writers, and the most natural is
that which supposes them both to
have had, directly or indirectly, an
Alexandrian training, and to have
formed their style upon the more
rhetorical books of the later Hel
lenistic additions to the canon of
the 01dTestament,such as theBooka
of Maccabees as the model of his
tory, and the Wisdom of Solomon
and Ecclesiasticus for that of the
more systematic treatment of doc
trine. The points of resemblance
between the Book of Wisdom and
the Epistle to the Hebrews are
indeed so numerous as to have
suggested to the present writer the
thought of identity of authorship.*
It is, of course, obvious to remark
that many of the facts referred to
are found also in the other Gospels,
and formed part of the current oral
teaching out of which the first three
Gospels grew. Admitting this, how
ever, it is clear that the history of
ApoUos brought him speciaUy within
the range of those who were likely
to he conversant with St. Luke's
teaching ; and if we suppose bim
to have any written record before
him, it is far more likely to have
been the third Gospel than either
the first or second. The two men,
who were friends and companions
of the same Apostle, were, at any
rate, likely to have met and known
each other, and if so it would not
be strange that, with like character
and like culture, there should be a
reciprocal influence between them.
Traces of that influence are to be
found, it is believed, in the refer
ences in the Epistle to some of the
passages which, though common to

* The facts that bear upon St. Luke's
work, as the writer of the Acts of the
Apostles, are naturally reserved for the
Introduction to that Book.

ST. LUKE.

87

the other Gospels, are yet specially
characteristic of this Gospel ; to the
temptations of the Son of Man as
giving Him power to sympathise
with sinners, though Himself with
out sin (Heb. iv. 15) ; to His prayers
and supplications and strong crying

(Heb. v. 7, 8) ; to His endurance of
the cross, despising the shame (Heb.
xii. 2) ; His endurance also of the
contradiction of sinners (Heb. xii. 3);
to His being the Mediator of a new
covenant (Heb. xii. 24), the great
Shepherd of the sheep (Heb. xiii. 20).

ST. JOHN.
By the Ven. Aechdeacon WATKINS, D.D.

I. Life of the Apostle John.
— Our sources of information for
the life of the Apostle John are,
(1) the Four Gospels themselves;
(2) the Acts of the Apostles, with
references in the Epistles ; (3) the
traditions which have come to us
in the history of the early Church.
(1) From the Gospels we know
that St. John was the son of
Zebedee and Salome.
The father is mentioned only
once in the narrative (Matt. iv.
21, 22; Mark i. 19, 20), but the
name occurs frequently as distin
guishing the sons. He had " hired
servants " (Mark i. 20) ; and John's
own connection with the family of
the high priest (John xviii. 15),
and the committal of Mary to his
care (John xix. 27), may also point
to a position removed at least from
the necessity, but not from the
practice, of labour, which was cus
tomary among Jews of aU classes
(Matt. iv. 21).
Of Salome we know Httle more.
It has been assumed above that she
was the wife of Zebedee, and the

mother of St. John ; and the as
sumption is based upon a com
parison of Matt. xx. 20 ; xxvii. 56 ;
Mark xv. 40 ; xvi. 1 . It has
also been frequently assumed that
she was the sister of Mary, the
mother of our Lord, mentioned in
John xix. 25 ; and although this
cannot be regarded as proved, it is
the most probable interpretation.
It would foUow from this that
St. John was the cousin-german
of our Lord.
Salome was also one of the band
of women who ministered unto the
Lord of their substance (Matt.
xxvii. 56 ; Luke viii. 3) ; and this
falls in with the general impression
which the narrative gives of the
position of the family. She was
present at the Crucifixion (Mark
xv. 40), and was one of those who
brought spices for the embalmment
(Mark xvi. 1). In one other pas
sage she is mentioned, and there
she appears as asking for her two
sons the position of honour in the
Messianic kingdom (Matt. xx. 20
et sea.). Her prominence as com-

ST. JOHN.

89

pared with her husband, and the
title " mother of Zebedee' s child
ren," makes it probable that she
outUved him, and that the in
fluence of the mother, whose zeal
and love for her sons are Ulustrated
in her ambitious request for them,
was that which chiefly moulded the
earHer years of the beloved Apostle.
Another member ot the house
hold is known to us — James, who
is usuaUy mentioned first, and was
presumably the elder of the pair of
brothers. At the time of his death
he was, however, known to St.
Luke as " James the brother of
John" (Acts xH. 2), and the same
writer inverts the order of the
names in the same chapter (Luke
ix. 28 [? reading], 52). In Acts
i. 13, too, the better reading is
Peter and John and James. The
home of the famUy was on the
shores of the Lake of GaUlee, at
Bethsaida-, according to the usual
conclusion from Luke v. 9 and
John i. 44 ; or, perhaps, at Caper
naum, which was not far from
Bethsaida (Mark i. 29).
The sons of Jonas were com
panions of the sons of Zebedee
when they are first mentioned, and
had probably been friends in boy
hood and youth. Whether the
home was at Bethsaida or Caper
naum, the Apostle was by birth a
Galilean, as were aU the Twelve,
with the exception, perhaps, of
Judas Iscariot (Acts ii. 7). He
belonged, then, to the free, in
dustrious, and warlike people of
the North — a people who were
despised by the more cultured
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and
upon whom the yoke of Judaism
pressed less heavUy than it did
upon the dwellers in Judaea.
Removed from the influence of
Scribes and Pharisees on the one

hand, he would on the other hand
grow up in contact with men of
alien races and creeds, who were
found in large numbers in the
populous cities of Gahlee. The
union of Jewish and Greek charac
teristics which mark the man would
be thus formed insensibly in the
boy. We know too little of the famUy
life in GaHlee eighteen centuries
ago to he able to reaHse with any
fulness and certainty how the years
of the Apostle's boyhood and youth
were spent ; and yet there are
certain bold Hnes which can be
distinctly traced. Up to the age
of six he, like other Jewish child
ren, would be taught by his
parents at home, and then sent to
one of the pubHc schools, which, in
the period after the Captivity, had
been estabHshed in every town and
important village in Judaea and
Galilee. We know that after the
faU of Jerusalem Tiberias became
the seat of the most famous rabbinic
school, and it is probable that there
were already estabHshed on the
shores of the sea of GaHlee the
seminaries of doctors who had been
themselves trained at Jerusalem.
The lad would have gone to one of
these higher seminaries at the age
of sixteen, and would thus have
been fitted for the work which, in
the providence of God, lay before
him, though he was not technicaUy
trained at the feet of a rabbi, and
was therefore classed among tho
"unlearned and ignorant" (Acts
iv. 13).
At the age of twelve or thirteen,
John would have been taken up,
as we know that Jesus was, to keep
the feasts at Jerusalem. The holy
city, bound up with prophecy and
psalm ; the temple, the centre of
every highest hope and thought

90

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

which, at mother's knee or at the
feet of the teacher, had been in
stilled into his mind, now burst in
all the glory of its reality upon
this Galilean boy. What Oxford
and Cambridge are to English
schoolboys, or Rome to the pUgrim
from distant lands, all this, and a
thousand times more than all this,
was the city of Zion to the Jewish
pilgrim. WeU may it be that the
gorgeous ritual of the temple so
impressed itself upon the receptive
youthful mind as to furnish the
imagery in which the Visions of
the Apocalypse were afterwards to
be clothed.
These visits would be repeated
three times each year, and form the
great events in the year's course.
The caravans, the pilgrim-songs,
the discourses of rabbis and
teachers, the ritual of the feasts
themselves, would all leave their
mark upon the opening mind, and
lead to question and answer as to
what these things meant.
In the intervals between the
feasts, there would be the regular
synagogue services and instruc
tions, the converse with teachers
and friends, the daily task in his
father's trade, the growth and
development of character in and
through aU these outer circum
stances. The most prominent thought of
the times, the subject on which
men were ever musing and speak
ing, was the expectation of the
Messiah. Probably every well-
trained Jewish boy expected that
the Messiah would come before his
own Hfe would end. Together
with this expectation of the Mes
siah there were hopes of freedom
from the oppression of Rome ; and
the deep feeling of - the masses
frequently found vent in open in

surrection. One remarkable attempt
to throw off the hated yoke, which
was for a time successful — when
Judas the Gaulonite, and Sadoc
the Pharisee, ruled the whole
country — must have occurred when
John was yet a boy, and his spirit
must have been fired by the cry of
then* watchword, ' ' God only is our
Lord and Master." (Comp. Jos.
Ant. xvHi. 1.)
And so the years went on. Boy
hood passed into youth, and youth
into manhood. The study of the
law and the prophets, the singing
of psalms, the utterance of prayers,
the feelings and hopeB of his
countrymen, must, with successive
years, have brought a new mean
ing. The dreams of chUdhood and
visions of youth grew into the
deeper thoughts and f uUer hopes of
manhood. Such was the relation of John's
mind to the preparation of the past
and to the hopes of the future,
when the Baptist appeared as the
herald of the coming King, and
passing from Judaea northwards
through the Jordan VaUey, cried
with a voice which, like a trumpet-
blast, awoke men from their spirit
tual slumber, " Repent ye, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand."
Among those who flocked to this
new teacher were the sons of
Zebedee and the sons of Jonas.
The first chapter of this Gospel
leads to the thought that they were
prominent among the Forerunner's
disciples ; and to the heart of no
one, it may be, of aU who heard
him did his burning words come
with greater power than to that of
the young foUower whose name
was in the after-history to eclipse
his own. For days, or weeks, or
months, perhaps, the spirit of John
the Baptist was leading the spirit

ST. JOHN.

91

of John the son of Zebedee onward
from Old Testament prophecy to
Him in whom Old Testament pro
phecy was to he fulfilled. Neither
knew, indeed, that the fulfilment
was so near at hand until the
Baptist saw the Messiah coming to
be baptised, and the disciple heard
the cry, " Behold the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sins of
the world." On the foUowing day
the words so fuU of meaning were
again spoken, and a pair of dis
ciples, of whom Andrew was one,
and John almost certainly the
other, passed from the discipleship
of the Baptist to that of the. Messiah
Himself. They " remained with
Him that day," the crisis of the
life, in which its whole current
was changed.
The next period of the life is one
with which we are familiar from
the Gospels themselves, and one
which, therefore, needs but a brief
treatment here. John seems at
once to have foUowed Jesus; to
have been present, and perhaps
even to have been a central figure,
at the marriage at Cana (chap.
H. 5) ; to have gone thence with
Him to Capernaum and Jerusalem
(chap. u. 12, 22) ; to have been with
Him on the return to Samaria;
and then probably for a time to
have gone back to his ordinary
Hfe, learning in the calmness of
its retirement the meaning of the
lessons which the words and deeds
of Jesus had suggested to his
mind. From that retirement he is again
caUed, and perhaps the caU was
repeated (comp. Matt. iv. 18 and
Luke v. 1 — 11), to be a fisher
of men and an Apostle of the
Church of Christ. With James his
brother, with Simon and Andrew
his friends, he is always named in

the first group of the Apostles ; and
with James and Simon he forms
the band of three who are the
nearest friends and companions of
the earthly life of Christ. They
alone are with Him in the presence
of death (Mark v. 37); in the
Mount of Transfiguration ; in the
garden of Gethsemane. Peter and
John feUow Him within the high
priest's house at the trial (chap.
xviii.) ; John at least was present
at the Crucifixion ; and both ran
together to the sepulchre. From
the caU to the Apostleship to the
close of the human Hfe of Christ,
the story of the life of St. John is
bound up with the outer events of
the life of his Master. FoUowing
in His steps; hearing, and, with
greater receptive power than any
other hearer, grasping the truths
that Christ taught ; seeing, and,
with greater spiritual intuition
than any other witness, reading the
signs that Christ did ; loving with
fuller love, and therefore more
fully loved; he was preparing to
be prominent among witnesses to,
as he had been prominent among
those who were witnesses of, the
works and teaching and love of
Christ. But his character is not repre
sented as simply receptive. He
who gave to Simon the name of
Peter to mark him out as the
rockman of the Church, gave to
James and John, as marking out
some characteristics in them, the
title "Boanerges" or "Thunder-
sons." (Comp. Mark iu. 17.) If
" Son of Perdition" was the name
of him in whom there was the
special characteristic marked by
"perdition" (comp. chap. xvn.
12), and "Son of Exhortation"
that of him who had this special
gift (comp. Acts iv. 36), then

92

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

" Sons of Thunder " marks out
some force of character — sudden,
impulsive, vehement, as the thun
der's roU. Of this we find traces
in the earlier Gospels. These
sons of Zebedee, seeking with their
mother the chief places in the
Messianic kingdom, declare that
they are ready to face aU the
dangers and difficulties before
them ; to drink of His cup ; to be
baptised with His baptism (Matt.
xx. 20—24; Mark x. 35—41).
They forbad those who cast out
devils in Christ's name, and would
caU fire from heaven to consume
those who received not their Lord
(Luke ix. 49—54). Of the spirit
of the EHjah of the Old Testament
they had learnt in the school of the
Elijah of the New Testament, and
had carried, perhaps, something of
the Baptist's stern denunciation of
sin, and of his hardness of life and
manner, into the work of Christ.
But if this is the character of
John as drawn in the earlier Gos
pels, it is not that which is drawn
in the Fourth Gospel itself. There
he is the son of love, gentleness,
receptivity, rather than the son of
thunder ; and these are the aspects
of his character which have for the
most part impressed themselves on
Christian art and thought. The
difference has often been noted,
and for the most part noted by
those who have drawn from it the
inference that the two pictures can
not represent the same man, and
that the later is the ideal of an after
age. But the picture of the natural
man taken in the fire and vigour
of youth may furnish but few
points of resemblance with that
which represents him in the mel
low ripeness of age. Great minds
are whoUy changed by half a cen
tury of expansion and growth ; and

experience would seem to show
that the earnest, forceful, impulsive
character is that which ripens into
calm and gentle love. If the youth
represents love bursting forth in
active strength, the old age repre
sents love passively resting in being
loved. The pictures, it 3hould be
remembered also, are drawn from
different stand-points. The former
is from without, representing the
character in youth, as seen in its
manifestations by others ; the lat
ter is from within, representing the
character at the close of Hfe, as the
writer knew himself, and knew
himself to be receptive of the love
of Christ.
(2) For the next period of the
life of St. John our only authori
ties are the Acts of the Apostles
and their letters. Here, as in the
Gospels, he is closely connected
with St. Peter. They are named
together among those who were
" in the upper room" (chap. i. 13) ;
they go up to the Temple together
(chap. iii. 1), and are together be
fore the Sanhedrin (chap.iv. 13, 19) ;
they are sent together on the mis
sion to Samaria (chap. vHi. 14).
Both are in Jerusalem after the
Herodian persecution, in which
James was killed with the sword
(chap. xu. 2), and are at the first
great council (chap. xv. 6 ; comp.
Gal. ii. 9). These scanty notices
give all that we know of a period
which must have extended over
some twenty years. WhUe James
was the first bishop of the Jeru
salem Church, and Peter was the
leader of Christianity among the
Jews, it can hardly be that St.
John was Hving a life of retire
ment. Other missions, like that to
the Samaritans, may in part have
occupied this interval ; or he may
have carried on a work less promi-

ST. JOHN.

93

nent, hut not less useful, than thati
of St. Peter and St. James in
Jerusalem itself; or he may have
returned to GaHlee to do a Hke
work there. Wherever he dwelt,!
he doubtless regarded the solemn'
committal ot the Virgin Mary to
his care (chap. xix. 26) as binding
whUe she lived. If we may accept
the traditions which place her death
in the year a.d. 48 as approximately
true, it may account for the fact
that St. J olin is not mentioned with
St. Peter and St. James as in Jeru
salem during St. Paul's first visit
after his conversion, about a.d. 38
(Gal. i. 18, 19); but he is so men
tioned, and is regarded as one of
the " pUlars of the Church," at the
visit to the council in a.d. 51 (Gal.
n. y).
In connection with this residence
at J erusalem, extending, it may be,
over many years, we have<to bear
in mind that while Galilee is the
scene of the narrative of the earlier
Gospels, J erusalem is specially that
oi the Fourth. It assumes a minute
acquaintance with persons and
places which could be possessed
only by one who had resided in
the city. (Comp. pp. 99, 100 (b).)
(3) Passing to the later period
ot the Apostolic Hfe, we are left
without any certain guide. He is
nowhere mentioned in the New
Testament after the Jerusalem
council in a.d. 51. It would seem
probable that he was not there
during St. Paul's visit of Acts xxi.,
but the argument from sUence
ought never to be pressed, nor
should it be forgotten that St. Luke
records the visit only in so far as
it concerned St. Paul. We may
with greater reason infer that he
was not at Ephesus when St. Paul
bade tareweU to the elders of that
city (Acts xx.), nor yet when he

[wrote the Ephesian Epistle and the
jlater Pastoral Letters. It may be,
[indeed, that he had left Jerusalem,
put had not yet arrived at Ephesus.
JA work of which we have no record
is suggested by some MSS. of the
jFirst Epistle, which assert that it
'was written to the Parthians, and
a tradition of such work seems to
have been known to Augustine.
It is, however, more probable that
the Apostle continued in Jerusalem
until the destruction of the city,
and that he was then borne on the
westward-flowing current of Chris
tianity to the city of Ephesus,
which from the middle of the first
to the middle of the second century,
was its most important centre.
(Comp. § III. p. 18.)
Ephesus was the link between
the east and the west, between the
mystic phUosophies of Asia and
the schools ot Greece. More than
any other city it had a charm for
St. Paul, who had preached in it
and the surrounding towns during
three years, and had planted there
Churches, which he saw flourish
under his care, but in the midst
of which he saw also seeds of
future error. (See Acts xix.; xx.
29, 30.)
From the Book of Revelation we
may infer that, in addition to Ephe
sus, the surrounding Churches of
Smyrna, and Pergamos, and Thy-
atira, and Sardis, and Philadelphia,
and Laodicea were thespecial objects
of the Apostle's care, and that in one
of the persecutions which fell upon
the early Church lie was banished
to the island of Patmos. Returning
from Patmos to Ephesus after the
accession of Nerva, if we may
accept the early tradition, he con
tinued there to an extreme old age,
combating heresies and teaching
the truth.

94

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

The old age of St. John became
the centre of legends, partly based
upon fact, and partly ideal, which
the early Christians loved to tell,
and many of which have come
down to our own day. They
thought of his life as charmed, so
that poison could not affect it, nor
any form of death destroy it ; they
told — and it was not, Clement of
Alexandria says, a story, but a
true account — how the old man
pursued a lost convert, whom he
had committed to the charge of a
bishop in Asia Minor, and regained
him in the robber's den ; how, hke
the Jewish high priest, he wore
upon his head the plate of gold
inscribed with ' ' Holiness to the
Lord ; " how he, with something of
the spirit of earlier days, flew from
the bath in which the heretic
Cerinthus was, lest it should faU
upon him ; how he was borne into
the church when aU power to move
was gone, and, as if echoing the
fareweU words of Christ, which he
himself had heard, said, " Little
children, love one another, little
children, love one another;" and
how, when asked why he always
said this one thing, the old man
replied, " Because this is the Lord's
command, and if this is done, all is
done." Cassian (Collat. xxiv. c. 2) relates
an anecdote, which may be given
as an Ulustration of the impression
of the Asiatic Church with regard
to the character of the Apostle.
" The blessed EvangeHst was one
day gently stroking a partridge,
when a young man, returning from
hunting, aBked in astonishment
how a man so illustrious could spend
his time in such a manner ? ' What
have you got in your hand ?' re
plied the Apostle. ' A bow,' said
the young man. 'Why is it not

strung ? ' ' Because if I carried it
strung always it would lose the
elasticity which I shaU want in it
when I draw the arrow.' ' Do not
be angry, then, my young friend,
if I sometimes in this way unstring
my spirit, which may otherwise
lose its spring, and fail at the very
moment when I shaU need its
power.' "
But space would faU to enter on
a field so tempting and so f uU of
beauty as the traditional history of
the old age of St. John. Uncertain
as we have found the history to be,
we cannot expect to have any exact
knowledge of the time of his death.
Irenaeus speaks of him as alive
after the accession of Trajan (a.d.
98) ; Jerome places the death at
sixty-eight years after the Cruci
fixion. He Hved, then, until near
the close of the first century, or, it
may be, that he lived on into the
second century ; and if we accept
the tradition that he was some
years younger than our Lord, wg
have to think of him — the martyr
in will, but not in deed — as sinking
peacefully to the grave, beneath
the weight of more than fourscore
years and ten.
[For the matter of this section,
comp. Godet, Introduction, Histo-
rique et Critique, 1876, pp. 35 — 75
(translated in Clark's Library) ;
Lucke, Commentar, 1840, vol. i.,
pp. 6 — 40 ; Neander, Planting of
Christianity (Bohn'sLibrary) ; Stan
ley, Sermons and Essays on the Apos
tolic Age; Macdonald, Life and
Writings of St. John, 1876 ; Trench
(Francis), Life and Character of St.
John, 1850; Plumptre, Article
" John the Apostle," in Smith's
Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i., pp.
1103 et seq. ; Archbishop Tait,
" St. John's Connection with Chris
tian History and Evidence," Good

ST. JOHN.

95

Words, July, 1868 ; Miss Yonge,
The Pupils of St. John the Divine.]
II. Authorship of the Gos
pel. — The evidence for the author
ship of any writing consists of two
distinct branches, of which one (1)
traces the external history of the
writing, and the other (2) is based
upon the contents of the writing-
itself. (1) The writing which everybody
now understands by " The Gospel
according to St. John" has borne
this title through the whole history
of the Church, and during hy far
the greater part of that history has
borne it without question. From
the last quarter of the second cen
tury to the last quarter of the
eighteenth century the writing was
received with almost one consent,
as the authentic witness of the
Apostle John; but this period
of clear and unbroken reception
was preceded by one of twilight,
in which it is difficult to trace the
Hues of evidence, and has been
foUowed by one of destructive criti
cism, extending to our own day.
It is beheved that to every new
investigator who unites competence
with candour, the Hght of the
second century becomes more and
more clear in the evidence it sup-
pHes of the reception of the Gospel
as St. John's ; and that the chief
result of the criticism which would
destroy, has been to bring out a
criticism of defence which has
made the external evidence of the
Johannine authorship more con
clusive than it has ever been before.
The evidence adduced for the
reception of the Gospel as by St.
John, at the close of the second
century, comes from every quar
ter of the Church. Irenaeus at
Lyons, himself a disciple of Poly
carp, who was a disciple of St.

John ; Tertullian at Carthage,
writing against the heretic Mar
cion ; Clement at Alexandria ; the
Muratorian Fragment at Rome ;
the Peshito version from Syria ; the
Old Latin from Africa — aU are
witnesses speaking with a voice
the meaning of which cannot be
doubted, and the authority of
which cannot be impeached.
FoUowing the line of. evidence
backwards through the earlier de
cades of the century, we meet with
a fragmentary Hterature ; and the
value of the evidence depends upon
considerations sucb as how far we
have a rational ground to expect
that in Apologies, Letters, Homi
nes, Apocalyptic Visions, there
would be references to a writing like
the Fourth Gospel ; how far such
references are actuaUy found ; how
far the Hterary habits of the age
justify us in saying that a re
ference is or is not a quotation;
how far it is Hkely that a Gospel
which is confessedly much later
than the others, and was pos
sibly for years known only to a
limited circle, should, in com
parison with these, have influenced
the scanty literature of the next
age. To discuss this question is, ob
viously, far beyond the Hmits of
the present sketch, and requires an
acquaintance with languages and
a Hterature, which can hardly be
within the reach of those for
whom the present pages are meant.
The result to which the opinions
of the most competent scholars
seems to be tending is, that we
have in the literature of the earlier
part of the second century fuUy
as much reference to the Fourth
Gospel as we could reasonably ex
pect it to furnish ; and that a f uU
and fair examination of that Htera-

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

ture, even as it has come down to
us, must pronounce it to be in
support of the Johannine author
ship. Upon this point, those of
us who are ordinary readers must
be content to accept the witness of
experts ; and there are few students
ot English Divinity who wiU doubt
that the writer of the following-
words speaks with an authority
such as few can pretend to : —
' ' If the same amount of written
matter — occupying a very few
pages in all — were extracted ac
cidentally from the current theo
logical literature of our day, the
chance, unless I am mistaken,
would be strongly against our
finding so many indications of the
use of this Gospel. In every one
of the writers, from Polycarp and
Papias to Polycrates, we have
observed phenomena whicli bear
witness, directly or indirectly, and
with different degrees of distinct
ness, to its recognition. It is
quite possible for critical ingenuity
to find a reason for discrediting
each instance in turn. An objector
may urge in one case that the
writing itself is a forgery ; in a
second that the particular passage
is an interpolation; in a third,
that the supposed quotation is the
original, and the language of the
Evangelist the copy ; in a fourth,
that the incident or saying was
not deduced from this Gospel, but
from some apocryphal work con
taining a parallel narrative. By
a sufficient number of assumptions,
which he beyond the range of
verification, the evidence may be
set aside. But the early existence
and recognition of the Fourth
Gospel is the one simple postulate
which explains aU the facts. Tho
law of gravitation accounts for the
various phenomena of mcticn, the

falling of a stone, the jet of a
fountain, the orbits of the planets,
and so forth. It is quite possible
for any one who is so disposed to
reject this explanation of nature.
Provided that he is allowed to pos
tulate a new force for every new
fact with which he is confronted,
he has nothing to fear. He will
then — ' Gird the sphere
With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er
Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb,'
happy in his immunity. But tho
other theory will prevail, never
theless, by reason of its simplicity."
(Prof. Lighttoot, in Contemporary
Review, Feb., 1876.)
Important as these results of
modern scholarship are, the results
attained by the greatest thinkers
and scholars at the close of the
second century itself are of still
greater importance. We have seen
above that there was a general
consensus of independent testimoay
to the acceptance of the Gospel by
St. John. The evidential value of
this fact cannot be over-estimated.
Men like Irenaeus, and TertuUian,
and Clement, were neither morally
dishonest nor inteUectually incap
able. They had to deal, moreover,
with opponents who would quickly
have exposed deceit and detected
error. They and their opponents
were intellectually, as well as phy-
sicaUy, the children of the second
century ; their own Hves went
back far into it ; they were re
moved by one generation only from
the probable date of St. John's
death ; they had means of inquiry
which we have not, and evidence
upon which to base their judgment
which has been for the most part
lost ; and it is scarcely too much to
say that, had it been wholly lost,
the convictions based upon this

ST. JOHN.

97

evidence would have remained ir
resistible. The evidence of the
Versions is of the same nature,
showing that the translators ac
cepted this Gospel as an undoubted
portion of the sacred canon. We
find that the moment the historic
mists which hang over the second
century pass away, the reception
of the Gospel stands out in the
clear Hght as an undoubted fact.
The Hght did not create this
reception, hut made visible that
which was there hefore.
The Gospel continued to he re
ceived, not without here and there
an objection, but without any of
historic importance, until the close
of the eighteenth century, when
Edward Evanson published The
Dissonance of the Four generally
received Evangelists, and the Evi
dence of their Authenticity Examined
(Ipswich, 1792, 8vo). The object
was to show that the Fourth
Gospel was from a. Platonist of
the second century. Evanson was
answered in the following year by
Dr. Priestley and David Simpson,
and for a time the scene of
the controversy was shifted from
EngHsh ground. The seed sown
took root on the Continent, where
it brought forth a host of smaller
works, and notably the Von Gottes
Sohn der Welt Heiland of Herder
(Riga, 1797), in which the author
seeks to show that St. John de
scribed an ideal, not an historic
Christ. The weU-known Intro
ductions of Hug (ist ed., 1808) and
Eichhorn 1st ed., 1810) seem to
have produced a strong reaction,
and during the next decade the
older opinion was again triumphant
in Germany. In 1820 there ap
peared at Leipzig Bretschneider's
famous Probabilia, in which he
endeavoured to show the inconsist

encies between the Fourth Gospel
and the earlier three, and to prove
that the writer was not an eye
witness, nor a native of Palestine,
nor a Jew, and therefore not St.
John. The work was more thorough
than any of its precursors, and
sent a Bhock through the whole
theological world. There were, of
course, many replies, and in the
following , 'year Bretschneider him
self seems to have departed from
his positions, and stated that his
object was to promote the truth by
discussing the subject. Once again
came the reaction ; and now, indeed,
German thought, led by Schleier
macher, and sending forth Liicke's
Commentary (1st ed., 1820 ; 2nd
ed., 1833 ; 3rd ed., first part, 1840),
which is stiU a classical work on
the subject, was in danger of the
other extreme of exalting the
Fourth Gospel at the expense of
the earHer three. This school
maintained its ascendency until
1835, when another shock was
sent through Europe by the " Life
of Jesus " of David Friedrich
Strauss (Das Leben Jesu, kritisch
bearbeitet, Tiibingen, 1835 — 6).
The position of Strauss himself
with regard to the Fourth Gospel
was simply negative. He denied
that the Gospel was by St. John,
but did not venture upon the
harder task of finding another
author. But disciples are bolder
than their master, and the Tubingen
school did not long shrink from a
positive hypothesis. Differing on
other points, Baur, 1844, Zeller,
1845, and Schwegler, 1846, agreed
that the Fourth Gospel belonged
to the second half of the second
century. Later investigations have
again led to a reaction, and the
Gospel is now confidently asserted
to be the product of the first half

98

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

of the century. To take but two
representative names — Hilgenf eld
(Einleitung, Leipzig, 1875) does not
now doubt that the Gospel was
written between a.d. 132 and 140,
and Keim (Jesu von Nazara, 1875)
would now, with equal confidence,
give about a.d. 130 as its date.
The last phase of the history again
leads us to English ground, and
cannot yet. have been forgotten by
EngHsh readers.
The author of Supernatural Re
ligion (London, 1st ed., 1874; 6th
ed., 1875) could not pass over
the question of the fourth Gospel,
and concluded that "there is the
strongest reason for beHeving that
it was not written by the son of
Zebedee." EngHsh scholars have been no
longer able to look at the ques
tion from without; it has been
brought home to them, and has
demanded an answer at their
hands. That answer has been, and
is being given, and the apparent
result is that to the author of no
EngHsh work published during the
present generation wiU the seekers
of truth have more cause to be
thankful than to the anonymous
author of Supernatural Religion,
who has led to inquiry upon this
subject. (2) Passing to the writing itself,
we have to aBk what answer the
Fourth Gospel gives to the honest
inquirer about its authorship. The
inquiry is a wide one, and depends
upon the careful study of the
whole Gospel. Here we can only
hope to point out the method in
which the reader should pursue
the inquiry. (Comp. especially
Sanday's Authorship of the Fourth
Gospel, chap, xix.)
The chief centres round which
modern criticism has grouped her

questions respecting the internal
evidence are the foUowing : —
(a) Was the author a Jew ? — The
line between the Hebrew and Greek
languages — between Hebrew and
GentUe modes of thought— is so
definitely and clearly drawn that
there ought to be to this ques
tion an undoubted answer. The
Gospel deals with the ministry
of our Lord among the Jews,
and it ought not to be difficult
to say, with an approach to cer
tainty, whether or not the many
Jewish questions which neces
sarily arise are treated as a Jew
naturaUy would treat them, and as
no one but a Jew possibly could
treat them. This, Hke every ques
tion related to the authorship of
the Fourth Gospel, has met with
answers diametrically opposed to
each other; and yet the evidence
for an affirmative answer seems
irresistible. 1. The evidence of style can carry
no weight with one unacquainted
with the Hebrew and Greek lan
guages ; but the best Hebraists do
not doubt that the style of the
Fourth Gospel, while much more
Greek than that of the Apocalypse,
is stiU essentiaUy Hebrew. Even
Keim admits this (Jesu von Namra,
vol. i. p. 116) ; and Ewald regards
it as beyond question that the
writer is a " genuine Hebrew, who
carries in himself the spirit of
his mother tongue" (Johanneischen
Schriften, vol. i. p. 44). It is not,
however, simply that individual
expressions are Hebraic, but that
the Hebrew spirit comes out in
the whole tone and structure of
the wilting.
2. StUl more important than the
evidence of style is that which
comes from the exact acquaint
ance with the current Hebrew

ST. JOHN.

99

thoughts, into which a GentUe
could not possibly have thrown
himself. (Comp., as a few in
stances out of many, the thoughts
about the Messiah in chaps, i.
19—28; iv. 25; vi. 14, 15 et al;
about baptism, i. 25 ; iii. 22 ;
iv. 2 ; about purification, H. 6 ;
iii. 25 ; xi. 55 et al. ; about
the Samaritans, iv. 9, 22 ; about
the Sabbath, v. 1 et seq.; ix.
14 et seq.; about circumcision,
vii. 22 ; about the notion that
a Rabbi may not 'speak with
a woman, iv. 27 ; about the
Jew's manner of burying, xi. 44
and xix. 40.) These thoughts
meet us in every chapter. They
flow naturally from the Jewish
mind, and could flow from no
other. 3. Not less striking than the
acquaintance with current Jewish
ideas is the knowledge of the
Jewish Scriptures. The Fourth
Gospel is, in this respect, almost
as Hebrew as the first. There
can be no need to quote passages ;
but there are some of special
interest, because they show that
the writer did not know the
Old Testament through the Greek
version (LXX.) only, but that
he translated for his Greek
readers from the original Hebrew
text. (Comp. chaps, i. 29; xii.
13, 15, 38, and 40; xHi. 18;
xix. 37.) '
4. The prominence given to
the Jewish feasts, and the way
in which the writer makes them
centres, and groups events and
discourses around them, is one
of the striking features of the
Gospel. We have Passover
(chaps. H. 13, 23; vi. 4; xHi. 1;
xvHi. 28) ; Tabernacles (vH. 2) ;
Dedication (x. 22); "A Feast
of the Jews" (f Purim, v. 1).

The writer does not simply name
these feasts, he also knows their
history, and significance, and
ritual. He is famUiar with "the
last day, the great day," of
Tabernacles (vii. 37), and with
the technical "Lesser Festival";
with the fact that Dedication was
in winter (x. 42) ; and with the
" preparation " of the Passover
(xix. 31).
(b) Was the author a native of
Palestine ? — Attention is frequently
arrested, in reading the Gospel, by
the minute knowledge of places.
It wiU be sufficient here to
refer to chaps, i. 28 (Bethany
beyond Jordan), 44 (Bethsaida),
46 (Nazareth) ; ii. 1 (Cana) ;
iii. 23 (iEnon) ; iv. 5 (Sychar) ;
v. 2 (Bethesda); viii. 20 (The
Treasury) ; ix. 7 (SUoam) ; x. 23
(Solomon's Porch), 40 (Bethany,
comp. i. 28) ; xi. 54 (Ephraim) ;
xviii. 1 (Kedron), 15 (the high
priest's palace) ; xix. 13 (Gabbatha),
17 (Golgotha); xx. 18 (Bethany
near Jerusalem) .
There is constantly some ex
planation added to a name. It
is translated for Greek readers;
or the moment it is mentioned
some incident connected with it
occurs to the writer's mind.
Many of these examples show
an exact acquaintance with the
topography of Jerusalem, which
must have been acquired before
its destruction. The customs
of the Temple are familiarly
known (chap. H. 13 — 17) ; and
not less so are the haunts and
habits of the fishermen on the
Sea of Tiberias (chaps, vi. 17 — 21,
22—24; xxi. 6—11), or the syn
agogue at Capernaum (chap.
vi. 17).
The argument from these detaUs
is cumulative, and, taken as a whole,

100

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

must be acknowledged to be of very
great weight.
Let the reader carefuUy note the
incidental way in which aU this
accuracy comes out, and he will
feel that it is not acquired, and
that the one simple explanation
is that it belongs to a writer who
was born and had Hved among
the places he is writing of, and
now dwells upon them with loving
memory. (c) Did the author live al the
time of our Lord's ministry ? — The
remarks upon Jerusalem imme
diately above have their bearing
upon this question also; but that
which is here specially important
is to estimate the evidence which
comes from the circle of thoughts
in the midst of which the Gospel
was written. How difficult it is
at any period to realise the ideas
of an earHer era every dramatist
and writer of fiction knows. He
may clothe his characters in the
dress of their day, and surround
them with the manners and customs
of the past, but unless they are
in a consummate master's hands
they wiU think and speak in the
present. The question then is,
Does the writer of the Fourth
Gospel think as weU as speak the
thoughts and words of the first
century or not? Now the fall
of Jerusalem was a great gulf
across which the ideas of the
Jews about the Messiah could not
pass. With it disappeared from
the minds of that generation all
hope for a temporal Messianic
reign in Jerusalem. And yet this
expectation runs Hke a thread
through the whole texture of this
Gospel. The inference is that
the writer grew up amidst this
expectation — Hved through the
conflict between Jesus, who taught

the spiritual nature of Messiah's
kingdom, and the Jews, who
could grasp only the temporal —
and narrated at the close of the
century that in which he himself
had taken part, and which with
him survived the destruction of
Jerusalem. Other instances of this knowledge
of the thoughts of the period are
of frequent occurrence. Comp., e.g.,
chaps, iv. 20, 21 (Jerusalem, the
place of worship) ; vii. 1 — 13 (mur
muring among the people about
Jesus) ; ix. 8 (the neighbours' re
mark about the blind beggar) ;
x. 19 — 21 (division among the
Jews) ; xi. 47 — 53 (consultation
of the Sanhedrin). ; chap. xix.
(the various phases of thought
during the trial).
(d) Was the author an Apostle ?
— The Fourth Gospel teUs us
much more of what passed in the
Apostolic circle than we are able to
gather from the whole of the three
earHer Gospels. The writer of this
Gospel is as famUiar with the
thoughts which were suggested at
the time to the Apostles as he is
with the thoughts of the Jews
exemplified in the last section.
Take, e.g.,. chap. H. 20 — 22, where
the writer records the saying of
our Lord regarding the Temple,
and how the disciples understood
this after the resurrection. There
are instances of the same kind of
knowledge in chaps, iv. 27 ; vH. 39 ;
xii. 6 ; xiii. 28, 29 ; xx. 9, 20 ; and
the reader may without difficulty
note others.
The minute knowledge of inci
dents in the relation between the
Apostles and the Lord would seem
to point exclusively to one of the
Twelve as the writer. Comp.
chaps, i. 38, 50 (Andrew, Simon,
Philip, Nathanael, and the unnamed

ST. JOHN.

101

disciple) ; vi. 6—7 (the question to
Philip), 8 (Andrew's remark), 68
(Peter's question), 70 (the explana
tory remark about Judas) ; ix. 2
(the question about the man born
blind) ; xi. 16 (the character of
Thomas and the name Didymus,
comp. xiv. 5 ; xx. 24, 28 ; xxi. 2) ;
xii. 21, 22 (visit of the Greeks) ;
xHi. (the Last Supper) ; xviii. 16
(the exact position of Peter and
the other disciples and the por-
teress) ; xx. 3 — 8 (the visit to the
sepulchre) .
In several instances there is re
markable agreement between the
character of Peter as drawn in
the Fourth Gospel and that which
is found in the Synoptists. More
striking stiU, because inconceiv
able, except by one who drew it
from the life, (is the character of
our Lord Himself. As we try and
think out the writer's representa
tion of the human life of Christ,
we feel that we are being guided
by one who is not picturing to us
an ideal, but is declaring to us
that which was from the beginning,
which he had heard, which he had
seen with his -eyes, which he had
looked upon, and his hands had
handled of the Word of Life.
(Comp. 1 John i. 3.)
(e) Was the author an eye-witness ?
— This question has in part been
answered above ; but it will add
strength to the' opinion which is
probably fixing itself in the candid
reader's mind if some of the in
stances of vivid picturing which
Renan and others have noticed in
this Gospel are coUected here.
1. With regard to persons, all
that has been said of individual
Apostles applies. Add to them
Nicodemus ' (chap. Hi.) ; Martha
and Mary (xi.) ; Malchus (xviU.
10) ; Annas, and Caiaphas, and

PUate (xvni.) ; the women at the
cross (xix. 25) ; the Magdalene
(xxi. 1).
2. The indication of places and
of feasts given above apply also in
answer to this question.
3. The writer knows the days
and the hours when events oc
curred. He was there, and is writing
from memory, and knows that it
was about the tenth (i. 39), or
seventh (iv. 52), or sixth hour (iv.
6; xix. 14). (Comp. chaps, i. 29 —
35, 43; H. 1, 13; iv. 40; xi. 6, 39;
xii. 1).
4. We find running aU through
the Gospel an exactness of descrip
tion, a representation of the whole
scene photographed, as it were,
upon the writer's memory, which
is of greater weight than any num
ber of individual quotations. Let
any one read, e.g., chap. i. 38 — 51,
or ii. 13 — 17, or xx. 8 — 10 — and
these are only instances chosen by
way of iUustration — and he will, as
he thinks of them, see the whole
picture before his mind's eye. The
only explanation is, that the writer
was what he claims to be — a wit
ness whose record is true (chap.
xix. 35). (Comp. chaps, i. 14, 16,
and xxi. 24.) In this respect the
Fourth Gospel reminds us of that
by St. Mark.
(/) Was the author one of the
sons of Zebedee ? — Assuming that he
was an eye-witness and an Apostle,
we are sure that he was not Andrew,
who is named in the Gospel four
times, nor Peter (thirty - three
times), nor Philip (twice), nor Na-
thanael (five times), nor Thomas
(five times), nor Judas Iscariot
(eight times), nor Judas, not Is
cariot (once). Of the five other
Apostles, Matthew is necessarily
excluded, and James the son of
Alphaeus, and Simon the Canaanite

102

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

occupy too unimportant a position
in the Synoptic narrative to bring
them within the limits of our hypo
thesis. The sons of Zebedee remain.
Now, what is the relation of the
Fourth Gospel to them? While
they are prominent among the
members of the first Apostolic
group in the Synoptists, and in
the Acts of the Apostles, they are
not even mentioned in this Gospel.
In chap. i. 41 it is probable that
both are referred to, but neither
of them is named. In chap.
xxi. 2 they are, on any interpreta
tion, placed in an inferiority of
order unknown to the earlier or
later history, and are probably
named last of those who were
Apostles. This omission of names
is not confined to the sons. It was
so with the mother also. All we
know of her comes from the earlier
Gospels. We gather, indeed, from
chap. xix. 25 that she was one of
the women at the cross ; but we
have to turn to the parallel passages
before we read of Salome or the
mother of Zebedee' s children.
Such are the facts ; but if one of
these brothers is the writer of this
Gospel, then, and as far as we now
know, thus only are the facts ex
plained and the conditions met.
But if the author was one of the
sons of Zebedee, we can go a step
further and assert that ho was St.
John, for St. James was a martyr
in the Herodian persecution (Acts
xii. 1 ; a.d. 44).
(g) Was the author the " disciple
whom Jesus loved?" — (Chaps, xiii.
23; xix. 26; xx. 2; xxi. 7, 20.
Comp. xvHi. 15 ; xx. 2, 3, 4, 8.)
The concluding words of the Gospel
(chap. xxi. 24), as compared with
verses 7 and 20, formally assert
this identification. It may be

granted that these words are not
those of the writer, but an attes
tation on the part of the Ephesian
Church. Still they are part of the
Gospel as it waB first pubHshed,
and are the words of one who
claims to speak from personal
knowledge. But admitting that the writer
was the disciple whom Jesus loved,
then we have the key to what
seems an impossible omission of the
sons of Zebedee in this Gospel.
The writer deliberately omits all
mention of his own famUy, but his
writing is the record of events in
which he had himself taken part,
and in this Hes its value. His own
personality cannot therefore be sup
pressed. He is present in aU he
writes, and yet the presence is felt,
not seen. A veil rests over it — a
name given to him, it may be, by
his brethren, and cherished by him
as the most honoured name that
man could bear; but beneath tho
veil lives the person of John, the
son of Zebedee and Salome, and
the Apostle of the Lord.
We have now found in the Gos
pel answers to the questions which
have been so often asked, and very
variously answered, during the last
half-century. If the answers are
taken as but smaU parts of a great
whole, and the Gospel itself is
carefully read and studied, the evi
dence will in aU its fulness be such
as cannot be gainsaid. In the
spirit of the striking words which
we have quoted before (p. 96), it
may be said that whUe here minute
criticism thinks it may trace an
error, or there some part of the
evidence may be explained away —
while various separate hypotheses
may be invented to account for the
various separate facts — the ono
postulate which accounts for tho

ST. juiin.

103

whole of the phenomena, and does
violence to none, is that the Fourth
Gospel is the work of the Apostle
whose name it bears.
Here the two lines of external
and internal evidence meet, and if
each points only with a high degree
ot probabUity, then both together
must approximate to certainty.
The indirect line of argument
may fairly be used as evidence
which leads to the same results.
The Fourth Gospel existed as a
matter ot fact, and was accepted as
by St. John, in the last quarter of
the second century. If it is as
serted that the author was not St.
John, we have a right to demand
ot the assertor that he should ac
count tor the fact of its existence,
and for the fact of its reception
at that time, as the work of the
Apostle. This demand has never
been met with evidence which
would for a moment stand the test
of examination.
From one point of view the ar
guments we have now foUowed
wiU to most readers seem satis
factory ; from another point of
view they are painful enough. The
fact must be apparent to all that
many men have followed out these
same arguments to a whoUy differ
ent result. Amcng them are men
of the highest inteUectual culture,
and with special knowledge of these
special subjects ; men whose ability
no one haB a right to question, and
whose honesty no one has a right
to impeach. And yet contradictory
results cannot both be true. If
Lightfoot and Westcott, Ewald
and Luthardt are right, then
Strauss and Baur, Keim and Hil-
genfeld are wrong. Assertions
like the foUowing cannot be recon
ciled : —
"The elaborate explanations,

however, hy which the phenomena
of the Fourth Gospel are reconcUed
with the assumption that it was
composed by the Apostle John are
in vain, and there is not a single
item of evidence within the first
century and a half which does not
agree with internal testimony in
opposing the supposition."*
" We have seen that whilst there
is not one particle of evidence
during a century and a half after
the events recorded in the Fourth
Gospel that it was composed by the
son of Zebedee, there is, on the
contrary, the strongest reason for
believing that he did not write
it." f
" That John is reaUy the author
of the Gospel, and that no other
planned or interpreted it than he
who at all times is named as its
author, cannot be doubted or de
nied, however often in our own
times critics have been pleased to
doubt and deny it on grounds
which are whoUy foreign to the
subject ; on the contrary, every
argument, from every quarter to
which we can look, every trace and
record, combine together to render
any serious doubt upon the ques
tion absolutely impossible." (Hein
rich Ewald, quoted by Professor
Westcott as " calm and decisive
words," which " are simply true."J)
" Those who since the first dis
cussion of this question have been
really conversant with it, never
could have had, and never have
had, a moment's doubt. As the
attack on St. John has become
fiercer and fiercer, the truth during
* Supernatural Religion, Ed. 6, vol. ii.,
p. 470.
t Ibid. p. 474.
X Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,
Ed. 3, p. x. The quotation and comment
are repeated in Ed. 4, 1S72.

104

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

the last ten or twelve years has
been more and more soHdly estab
lished, error has been pursued into
its last hiding-place, and at this
moment the facts before us are
such that no man who does not
wUl knowingly to choose error
and reject truth can dare to say
that the Fourth Gospel is not the
work of the Apostle John."*
In one case or the other the
human intellect, honestly inquiring
for the true, has been convinced
of the false. Plain men may well
ask, Which are we to believe, or
how can we be certain that either
is true ? The negative criticism
has not shrunk from poisoning its
arrows with the assertion that
bigotry in favour of received
opinions has closed the eyes of its
opponents to the light of truth. It
may sometimes be so ; but unless
much of the criticism of the present
day is strangely misread, there is a
blinding bigotry which prevents
men from seeing the truth of re
ceived opinions simply because they
have been received. There are
minds to which the " semper,
ubique, et ab omnibus " marks out
an opinion for rejection, or at least
for cavil. And yet the world is
wiser than any one man in it, and
truth has been written in other
languages than German, and seven
teen centuries of a belief which has
borne the noblest results and com
manded the assent of the noblest
inteUects, wUl hold its ground
against the changing moods of the
last fifty years. The " higher
criticism" must hot wonder if
humbler minds withhold their as-

* Ewald, in Gottingen Gel. Anz., Aug.
5, 1863, reviewing Kenan's Vie de Jesus.
Quoted by Gratry, JeSus Christ, p. 119,
and by Professor Liddon, Bampton Lec
tures for 1866, Ed. 7, p. 218.

sent to its dicta, until it has agreed
upon some common ground of faith
which is not always shifting, and
individual disciples have proved
the depth of their own convictions
by adhering- to them. These com
batants in the battle between error
and truth are men of war armed in
the armour of their schools, but
plain men wUl feel that they have
not essayed this armour and cannot
wear it ; and wiU go down to the
battle with the moral PhiHstines
who threaten Israel, trusting in the
simple pebble of the old faith, and
in the arm nerved by a firm trust
in the presence of God.
The Fourth Gospel foreshadows
its own history. It teUs of Light,
Truth, Life, Love, rejected by the
mere inteUect, but accepted by the
whole man ; and it has been with
the historical as with the personal
Christ represented in its pages.
"Men learned to know Him and
to trust Him before they fully
understood what He was and what
He did. The faith which Hi the
Gospel stories we see asked for and
given, secured, and educated, is a
faith which fastens itself on a living
Saviour, though it can but httle
comprehend the method or even the
nature of the salvation ... As it
was with the disciples, so also it is
with ourselves. The evidential
works have their own most impor
tant, most necessary office ; but the
Lord Himself is His own evidence,
and secures our confidence, love,
and adoration by what He is, more
than by what He does." *
For the many to whom the evi
dences as to the authorship of the
Fourth Gospel must come as the

* Bernard, "Progress of Doctrine in
the New Testament," The Bampton Lec
tures tor 1864, pp, 43, 44.

ST. JOHN.

105

testimony of others, and to whom
the conflict of testimony must
oftentimes bring perplexity, the
ultimate test must He in the appeal
of the Gospel to the whole man.
Jt the heart studies the Christ as
portrayed in this writing, it wiU
need no other proof of His divinity,
hut wiU bow hefore Him with the
confession, " Truly this was the Son
ot God." "^es; and it wiU feel also
that the penman was one who,
iiiOit deeply than any other of the
sons ot men, drank of the Spirit of
Christ — that he was a disciple who
loved the Lord, a disciple whom
Jesus loved; and it wiU feel that
the voice of the Church is the voice
ut the heart of humanity, feeling
as itselt feels and speaking as itself
speaks, that this writing is the
Gospel of J esus Christ, and that it is
tL.e " Gospel according to St. John."
[For the matter of this section
the student may conveniently refer
to Liicke, Godet, and Liddon, as
before; Luthardt, St. John theAuthor
of the First Gospel, EngHsh trans
lation, Clark, 1875, in which the
Appendix on the Literature, revised
and enlarged by Gregory, is a
valuable and distinctive feature ;
Hutton, Essays Theological and
Literary, vol. i. pp. 144— 276, 1871;
tianday, Authorship and Historical
Character of the Fourth Gospel,
lb72; The Gospels in the Second
Century, 1876 ; Westcott's Intro
Auction, Ed. 4, 1872, and Canon of
the New Testament, Ed. 3, 1870 ; or
in an easier form, Bible in the
Church, Ed. 'I, 1866 ; Leathes, The
Witness of St. John to Christ, 1870,
The Religion of the Christ, 1874 ;
J-tightioot, Articles in the Contem
porary Review, beginning in De-
cembei, 1874; Article, "The
Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,"
in Edinburgh Review, January, 1877 ;

Articles on " St. John, and Modern
Criticism," by Beyschlag, in Con
temporary Review, October and
November, 1877; and on the other
side, Supernatural Religion, Ed. 6,
1875, vol. ii. pp. 251—476; David
son, Introduction to the New Testa
ment, 1868, vol. ii. pp. 323—468;
Tayler, The Fourth Gospel, Ed. 2,
1870.] III. Time when and Place
where the Fourth Gospel
was written. — (1) If the Gospel
was written by St. John, its date
must be placed within the Hmits of
the first century. There is good
reason for concluding that the
last chapter is an appendix, coming
chiefly from the hand of the Apostle
himseU, but that the closing verses
(24 and 25) give tho corroborative
testimony of others. The fact of
an appendix, and the difference of
its style from that of the earHer
writing, points to an interval of
some years, during which, it may
be, the original Gospel was known
to a Hmited circle before it was
openly published. This appendix
is, however, incorporated with the
earlier writing in aU the oldest
copies and versions, and was prob
ably, therefore, thus incorporated
during the lifetime of the Apostle.
The beginning of the last decade
of the first century is a limit, then,
after which the Gospel could not
have been written by St. John.
In fixing a Hmit before which
it could not have been written,
there is greater difficulty; but the
following considerations point to
a date certainly not earlier than
a.d. 70, and probably not earHer
than a.d. 80.
(a) The absence of all reference
to St. John in the Pastoral Epistles
of St. Paul.

106

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

(b) The style, though strongly
Hebraic, is much less so than the
Book of Revelation. It is Hebrew
partly clothed in Greek, and for
this development of thought and
language we may assign a period
of ten or twenty years. The rela
tion of the Epistles and the Apo
calypse to the Gospel belongs to
the Introductions to those books;
but it wiU be foimd that the
Gospel probably occupies a middle
place, being considerably later than
the Apocalypse and somewhat
earHer than the Epistles.
(c) The subject-matter of the
Gospel, while representing a some
what later development of theology
than that of the Epistles to the
Colossians and Ephesians, points
to a much earlier development
than that which we find in the
earliest of the Gnostic systems
at the beginning of the second
century. {d) The references to the Jews,
their customs, places, &c. , are as to
things at a distance and in the
past, and needing explanation in
the present. See, e.g., chaps, iv.
9 ; v. 1, 2 (comp. xi. 18) ; v. 16, 18 ;
vH. 13, and the instances given
before (pp. 98—100).
The earhest historical evidence
we have is that of Irenaeus, who
places the Gospel according to St.
John after the other three, i.e., as
he places the Gospels according to
St. Mark and St. Luke after the
deaths of St. Peter and St. Paul, not
earHer than a.d. 70, and probably
some years later. (See Eusebius,
Eccles. Hist., v. 8.)
The general voice of antiquity
gave a.d. 85 or 86 as the exact
year, and whUe we cannot regard
this as authoritative, it faUs in
with the probabiHties of the case.
Without fixing the year thus

definitely, we may regard the date
as one which could not be much
earHer than a.d. 80, or much later
than a.d. 90, and conclude that
the Gospel in its present form ap
proximates to the later, rather than
to the earlier date.
(2) The passage of Irenaeus
above referred to gives us also a
definite statement that the place
from which the Gospel was written
was Ephesus. "Afterwards, John,
the disciple of the Lord, who also
leaned on His breast — he again
put forth his Gospel whUe he
abode in Ephesus in Asia" {Against
Heresies, iii. 1, Oxford Trans.,
p. 204 ; also Eusebius, Eccles.
Hist., v. 8). This statement is
confirmed by the whole tenor of
tradition from the second century
downwards, and was never, seem
ingly, questioned until the com
mencement of the nineteenth
century. It falls in with the
other scanty hints of facts in St.
John's life, and is in entire har
mony with the standpoint of the
Gospel. It wiU be unnecessary
to weary the reader with proofs
of that which hardly needs to be
proved. The facts may be found
in a convenient form in Luthardt,
St. John the Author of the Fourth
Gospel, Eng. Trans., pp. 115, 166;
but even Davidson admits that
" Lutzelberger and Keim push
their scepticism too far in denying
John's residence in Asia Minor."
Again, the indirect argument
holds good. If Ephesus is not
the place from which the Gospel
was written, what other place
can be named with any show
of probability? The only city
besides Ephesus in which we
might have expected the thoughts
of the Prologue is Alexandria;
but there is not even the shadow

ST. JOHN.

107

of a reason for connecting St. John
with this city.
IV. The Purpose whieh
the "Writer had in view.—
Here, again, there are two lines
of evidence whieh may guide our
inquiries : (1) the .statements of
early writers, which may represent
a tradition coming from the time
of publication when the purpose
was weU known ; and (2) the indi
cations which may be gathered
from the writing itself.
(1) The earhest statement we
possess is that of the Muratorian
Fragment (see p. 121, and comp.
TregeUes, Canon Muratorianus,
1867, pp. 1—21, and 32—35),
which tells us that " The author of
the Fourth Gospel was John, one
of the disciples. He said to his
feUow disciples and bishops who
entreated him, ' Fast with me for
three days from to-day, and what
ever shaU be made known to each
of us, let us relate it to each other.'
In the same night it was revealed
to Andrew, one of the Apostles,
that John should relate aU things
in his own name with the recogni
tion of them all. And, therefore,
though various elements are taught
in the several books of the Gospels,
this makes no difference to the
faith of heHevers, since all things
are set forth in all of them in one
supreme spirit, about the birth,
the passion, the resurrection, the
conversation with the diBciples,
and His double advent, the first in
the lowliness of humUiation which
(? has been accompHshed), the
second in the glory of royal power,
which is to come. What wonder,
therefore, is it if John so con
stantly brings forward, even in his
Epistle, particular (? phrases), say
ing in his own person, ' What we

have seen with our eyes, and
heard with our ears, and our hands
have handled, these things have
we written unto you.' For he
thus professes that he was not only
an eye-witness, but also a hearer,
and more than this, a writer in
order, of all the wonderful works
ot the Lord."
On this question the testimony
oi Irenaeus has a special value,
from the fact that he was separated
from the time of St. John by one
generation only, and was directly
connected, through Polycarp, with
the circle in which the Gospel was
first -circulated. It may be well,
therefore, to quote his words at
some length : — "In course of
preaching this faith, John, the
disciple of the Lord, desirous by
preaching of the Gospel to remove
the error which Cerinthus had
been sowing among men ; and long-
before him those who are called
Nicolaitans, who are an offshoot of
the knowledge [Gnosis'] falsely so
caUed ; to confound them and per
suade men that there is but one
God, who made aU things by His
word, and not, as they affirm, that
the Creator is one person, the
Father of the Lord another, and
that there is a difference of persons
between the Son of the Creator
and the Christ from the higher
iEons, who both remained impas
sible, descending on Jesus, the Son
of the Creator, and glided back
again to his own Pleroma; and
that the Beginning is the Only
Begotten, but the Word the true
Son of the Only Begotten ; and
that the created system to which
we belong was not made by the
First Deity, but by some Power
brought very far down below it
and cut off from communion in the
things which are beyond sight and

108

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

name. AU such things, I say,- the
Lord's disciple desiring to cut off,
and to estabHsh in the Church the
rule of truth, viz., that there is
one God Almighty, who by His
Word hath made aU things visible
and invisible ; indicating, also, that
by the Word whereby God wrought
Creation, in the same also He
provided salvation for the men
who are part of Creation; — thus
did he begin in that instruction
which the Gospel contains [then
follows chap. i. verses 1 — 5]." In
the next section he quotes verses
10, 11, and 14 against Marcion and
Valentinus and other Gnostics who
held the Creation by angels or
demi-gods. (Adv. Hmr., lib. iii.,
chap, xi., Oxford Trans., pp. 229
et seq.)
In an earlier passage Irenaeus
gives the following account of the
heresy of Cerinthus : ' ' And a
certain Cerinthus too, in Asia,
taught that the world was not
made by the First God, but by a
certain Power far separated and
distant from the Royalty which is
above aU, and which knows not
the God who is over all. And he
added that Jesus was not born of a
virgin (for that seemed to him
impossible), but was the son of
Joseph and. Mary Hke aU other
men, and had more power than
men in justice, prudence, and
wisdom. And that after His bap
tism there descended on Him from
that Royalty whieh is above all,
Christ in the figure of a dove, and
that He then declared the unknown
Father and did mighty works ; but
that in the end Christ again soared
back from Jesus, and that Jesus
suffered and rose again, but Christ
remained impassible as being spiri
tual" (lib. i, cap. xxvi., Oxford
Trans., p. 77).

In Hb. Hi., cap. iii., Oxford
Trans., p. 208, Irenaeus relates the
story of the Apostle flying from
Cerinthus in the bath. This is
repeated in Eusebius, iii. 28,
Bagster's Trans., p. 131.
Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Je
rome agree in tho statement that
the Gospel was written to meet the
heresy of Cerinthus, but speak of
the Ebionites instead of the
Nicolaitans. Clement of Alexandria is quoted
by Eusebius, as saying, " John,
last of all, perceiving that what
had reference to the body in the
gospel of our Saviour was suf
ficiently detailed; and being en
couraged by his familiar friends
and urged by the Spirit, he wrote
a spiritual gospel (Eccles. Hist.,
lib. vi., cap. xv. , Bagster's Trans.,
pp. 247 — 8), and Eusebius himself
says, "The three Gospels pre
viously written having been dis
tributed among all, and also handed
to him, they say that he admitted
them, giving his testimony to their
truth ; but that there was only
wanting in the narrative the ac
count of the things done by Christ
among the first of His deeds and at
the commencement of the Gospel.
For these reasons the
Apostle John, it is said, being
entreated to undertake it, wrote
the account of the time not recorded
by the former Evangelists, and the
deeds done by our Saviour which
they have passed by . . ." (lib.
Hi., cap. xxiv., Bagster's Trans.,
pp. 126, 127).
We have in these extracts three
points of view, distinct but not
different, from which it was con
ceived that the writer undertook
his work. His aim was didactic,
to teach that which was revealed
to him ; or it was polemic, to meet

ST. JOHN.

109

the development of Gnosticism in
Asia Minor, of which we find
traces in the later PauHne epistles ;
or it was historic, to fiU up by way
of supplement those portions of
the life of our Lord which earlier
evangehsts had not recorded. In
the later fathers and commentators,
now one, now another, of these
views is prominent. They do not
exclude each other : to teach the
truth was the sure way to make
war against error ; to teach the
truth historicaUy was to represent
it as it was revealed in the life of
Him who was the Truth.
We have to think of the Apostle
as Hving on to the close of the first
century, learning in the thoughts
and experience of fifty years what
the manifestation of Christ's life
reaUy was, and quickened by the
presence of the promised Paraclete,
who was to bring all things to his
mind and guide him into aU truth
(comp. chap. xvi.). He lives among
the speculations of men who have
tried in their own wisdom to cross
the gulf between God and man, and
have in Ephesus developed a Gnos
ticism out of ! Christianity which is
represented by Cerinthus, who was
himseU trained in Alexandria ; just
as in this latter city there had
been a Gnosticism developed from
Judaism, which is represented by
Philo. He feels that he has learnt
how that gulf was bridged in the
person of Jesus Christ; he re
members His acts and words; he
knows that in Him, and Him only,
does the Divine and human meet ;
and he writes his own witness at
once, in the deeper fulness of its
truth, instructing the Church and
refuting heresy, and supplying the
spiritual Gospel which was as a
complement to the existing three.
If we turn to the Fourth Gospel

itself we find that each line of this
three-fold purpose may be distinctly
traced. The didactic element is
apparent throughout. That the
writer had before him, not only the
instruction of the Church, but also
the refutation of the errors of
Gnosticism — and that not only in
the special features connected with
Cerinthus — is clear from the Pro
logue. We have seen how Irenaeus
appHes this to Cerinthus, but the
very term A6yos (Logos) shows
that the writer did not contem
plate his school only. There was
an easy connection between Ephe
sus and Alexandria at the time,
and we have an example of it in
the teaching of Apollos in Acts
xvHi. 24. Now the distinctive
tenets of aU Gnosticism were that
the Creator was not the Supreme
God, and that matter was the
source of aU evU. In "aU things
were created by Him " we have
the answer to one ; in " The Word
was made flesh," the answer to the
other. The writer gives in chap. xx. 21,
a formal statement of his own pur
pose : " These are written that ye
might believe that Jesus is the
Christ the Son of God ; and that
believing ye might have life through
His name." It is usual to refer to
these words as though nothing was
further from the writer's thoughts
than any polemic purpose. But in
the passage quoted from Irenaeus,
on the heresy oi Cerinthus, it will
be seen that the separation of the
divine Christ from the human Jesus
was a prominent tenet. This verse
declares that the purpose of the
Gospel was to establish the identity
of the human Jesus and the Christ
who is the Son of God, as an article
of faith, that in that faith they
might have Hfe through His name.

no

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Eusebius gives no authority be
yond " they say " for the statement
that St. John had seen the earlier
Gospels, and it does not foUow that
he had seen them in their present
form. That he could have done so
is, a priori, improbable, and there
is no evidence of any such circula
tion of them as would be impHed.
It is further improbable from the
relation between the subject-matter
of the Fourth Gospel as compared
with the three ; it contains too
much that is common to all to be
regarded aB a mere supplement ; it
differs too much in arrangement,
and even in details, to have been
based upon a study of the others.
Moreover it is in itself a complete
work, and nowhere gives any in
dication that it was intended to
be simply an appendix to other
works. In seeking the origin of the
Gospels we have the following
general Hnes to guide us. There
would be, probably, in the first
generation after the life of Christ
an oral Gospel, in which all the
chief events of His life and the
chief discourses were preserved.
In different churches different parts
would be committed to writing, and
carefuUy preserved, and compared
with similar writings elsewhere.
Such documents would form the
basis of the Synoptic Gospels. Such
documents doubtless existed at
Ephesus, and John had access to
them ; but it is to his personal
remembrance of Christ's Hfe and
work, and his residence in Jeru
salem, and his close union with the
Virgin Mary, that we are to trace
his special information. Mary, and
his own mother Salome, and Mary
Magdalene, and Nicodemus, and
the famUy of Bethany, and the
Church at Jerusalem, are the

sources from which ho would have
learnt of events beyond his personal
knowledge. [For the matter of this section
comp., in addition to the books
quoted, Liicke and Godet as before
(this part of Liicke' s Einleitung is
of great value, and may be read in
the Prolegomena of Alford, who
adopts it, and in that of Words
worth, who rejects it); Mansel,
The Gnostic Heresies of the First
and Second Centuries, 187 5; Neander,
Church History, § 4, Clark's Eng.
Trans., vol. i. pp. 67—93; Ueber-
weg, History of Philosophy, Eng.
Trans., 1874, § 77 ; Wood's Dis.
cooeries at Ephesus, Lond., 1877.]
V. Contents and Charac
teristics of the Gospel.— The
Gospel is divided into two main sec
tions at the close of chap. xii. The
great subject of the first of these
sections is the manifestation of
Christ ; and that of the second is
the result of this manifestation.
The first represents the life; the
second, the passion, death, and re
surrection. Subdividing these
main sections, we have the foUow
ing outline of the general contents
of the Gospel: —
(1) Prologue. The Hnk with
the eternity of the past (chap. i.
1—18). (2) Manifestation of Jesus. Vary
ing degrees of acceptance (chaps.
i. 19— iv. 54).
(3) The fuUer revelation and
growth of unbelief among the Jews
(chaps, v. 1 — xii. 50).
(4) The fuUer revelation and
growth of faith among the disciples
(chaps. xHi. 1 — xvn. 26).
(5) The efimax of unbenel. Vo
luntary surrender and crucifixion of
Jesus (chaps, xvni. 1 — xix. 42).
(6) The climax of iaith, ftesur-

ST. JOHN.

Ill

rection and appearances of Jesus
(chap. xx.).
(7) EpUogue. The link with the
eternity of the future (chap. xxi.).
The reader wUl find a, detaUed
analysis of these sections at the end
of this Introduction. It has been
attempted by a consecutive enu
meration to indicate the lines of
thought running through the whole
of the Gospel ; but these are many,
and a brief sketch may be help
ful to those who attempt to trace
them. (1) The Prologue (chap. i. 1 —
18) strikes, in a few words, the
keynote of the whole. The
Word with God, and God, re
vealed to men, made flesh — this is
the central thought. The effect
of the revelation, received not,
received; Hght not comprehended
in darkness, but ever shining ;
this, which runs Hke a thread
through the whole of the Gospel,
is as a subsidiary thought present
here. (2) The manifestation of Jesus
(chaps, i. 19 — iv. 54) is introduced
by the witness of the Baptist, and
one of the characteristic words of
the Gospel, which has already
occurred in verse 8, viz., " witness,"
is made prominent in the very
first sentence of the narrative
portion. This witness of John is
uttered to messengers from the
Sanhedrin, is repeated when Jesus
is seen coming unto him, and
spoken yet again on the foUowing
day. The witness of John is foUowed
by the witness of Christ Himself.
At first He manifests Himself in
private to the disciples, when their
hearts respond to His witness ; and
at the marriage feast, when the
voice of nature joins itself with
that of man ; and then publicly,

beginning in His Father's house,
and proceeding in a widening circle,
from the Temple at Jerusalem to
the city, and then to Judaea, and
then Samaria, and then Galilee.
Typical characters represent this
manifestation and its effects —
Nicodemus, the Master in Israel;.
the despised woman of despised
Samaria, herseU steeped in sin ;
the courtier of alien race, led to
faith through suffering and love.
This period is one of acceptance
in Jerusalem (chap. ii. 23) ; Judaea
(chap. iii. 29) ; Samaria (chap.
iv. 39—42) ; GaHlee (chap. iv. 45,
49) ; and yet its brightness is
crossed by dark Hnes (chap. u.
24, 25), and the struggle between
Hght and darkness is not absent
(chap. iii. 18, 21).
(3) Following this public mani
festation, we have in the third sec
tion (chaps, v. 1 — xH. 50) the fuUer
revelation of Christ; and, side by
side with it, the progressive stages
of unbelief among the Jews.
He is Lite, and shows this in the
energy given to the impotent man
at the pool ot Bethesda ; but they
persecute Him because He did
these things on the Sabbath day.
He shows that His work is one
with the Father's, but they seek to
kill Him as a blasphemer. Thus
early is the issue ot the struggle
foreshadowed ; and thus early does
He point out that the final issue is
not in physical death, and trace to
the absence of moral preparation
the true reason of His rejection
(chap. v.).
He is Life, and shows this in
blessing the food which gives
sustenance to thousands, and in
declaring Himself to be " the bread
of life," but they think of manna
in the desert, and murmur at one
whom they k»ew to be Jesus-bar-

112

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Joseph claiming to have come down
from heaven ; and again the line
between reception and rojection is
drawn. Many go back, but some
rise to a higher faith; yet even
the Hght which shines in this inner
circle is crossed by the presence of
one who is a devU (chap. vi.).
He is Truth, and declares at the
Feasts of Tabernacles that His
teaching is from heaven, and that
He Himself is from heaven, whither
He will return. The perception
of truth is in the will to obey it.
He that wiUeth to do His wUl
shall know of the doctrine whether
it be of God. The effect of this
teaching is that many believe, but
that the Pharisees send officers to
take Him. He is Life, and declares
that in Him is the living water
which the ritual of the great day
of the Feast represented, and this
is foUowed by a division among
the people, and even in the Sanhe
drin itself (chap. vH.).
He is Light, and declares Him-
seU' to be the true Light of the
World, of which the illumination
ot the Feast was but a type. They
murmur at successive points in His
teaching, and in answer He declares
to them what the true witness is,
what His own return to the Father
is, what are true discipleship and
true freedom and true life, by the
word of the Son, who was before
Abraham. Their hatred passes from
words to acts, and they take up
stones to cast at Him (chap. viii. 12
— 59). [The paragraph from chaps.
vii. 53 — viii. 1 1 does not belong to
this place.]
He is Light, and shows this
by giving physical sight to the
man born blind. The Pharisees
seek to disprove, and then to dis
credit, the miracle, and again there
is a division. Some say that this

man is not of God because He
keepeth not the Sabbath. Others
ask how a, man that is a sinner
can io such miracles. Jesus Him
self declares the separation which
His coming makes between those
who are spirituaUy Mind and those
who 3pirituaUy see (chap. ix.).
He is Love, and declares this in
the aUegory of the Good Shepherd.
Again a division is made prominent
between those who are willing to
accept and those who have willed
to reject Him. Then comes Dedi
cation, and the request to declare
plainly whether He is the Christ.
The answer brings again to them
the earlier teaching of moral pre
paredness, and they take up stones
to stone Him. They justify their
act by the charge of blasphemy,
which He proves from the Scrip
tures to be without foundation.
But their determination has gone
beyond the reach of reason, and
they seek again to take Him. Re
jected by His own, and in His
own city, He withdraws from it to
Bethany beyond Jordan. The
darkness comprehends not the
light, but still it shineth, and
"many beheved on Him there"
(chap. x.).
He is Life, and Truth, and Love,
and shows this in going again to
Judaea to conquer death, and
reveal the fuller truth of the
Resurrection and Life, and sympa
thise with the sorrowing home.
The attributes of divinity are so
fuUy manifested that many of the
Jews beheve, but with the clearer
Hght the darkness is also made
more f uUy visible, and the Sanhe
drin formally decree His death.
When this decree is passed He
again withdraws to the wilderness,
but disciples are stiU with Him
(chap. xi.).

ST. JOHN.

llS

As the Passover draws near He
is _ again at Bethany. Love to
Him is shown in the devotion of
Mary; the selfishness and hatred
which shut out love, in the mur
mur of Judas and the consultation
of the chief priests to destroy the
life of Lazarus which Jesus had
restored. But conviction has seized
the masses of the people, and the
King is received into the royal city
with shouts of " Hosanna ! " Even
the Pharisees feel that the ' ' world
is gone after Him," and there is
present the earnest of a wider world
than that ot which they thought.
Men came from the West to the
cross, as men had come from the
East to the cradle, and are the
firstfruits of the moral power which
is to draw aU men. LUe con
quering in death is the thought
suggested by the presence ot the
Greeks ; Hght and , darkness is
again the form in which the
thought of His rejection by the
Jews is clothed. But the struggle
is drawing to a close, and the
writer adds his own thoughts and
gathers up earliei words of Jesus
on those who rejected Light and
Truth and Life and Love (chap.
xii.). (4) With the next section (chaps.
xiii. 1 — xvii. 26) we pass from the
revelation to the Jews to the f uUer
revelation to the disciples. It is the
passing from hatred to love, from
darkness to light ; but as in the
deepest darkness of rejection rays
of light are ever present, so the
fuUest Hght of acceptance is never
free from shadows.
His Love is shown by the signifi
cant act of washing the disciples'
feet, and this is spiritually inter
preted. His words of love cannot,
however, apply to aU, for the dark
presence of the betrayer is stiU with

them. When Hatred withdraws
from the presence of Love, and
Judas goes out into the night, then
the deeper thoughts of Jesus (which
are as the revelation of heaven to
earth) are spoken without reserve.
This discourse continues from
chaps. xHi. 31— xvi. 33, when it
passes into the prayer of the
seventeenth chapter.
It tells them of His glory because
He is going to the Father ; of the
Father's house where He will wel
come them; that He is the Way,
the Truth, and the Life ; that being
absent, He will stiU be present,
answering their prayers, sending to
them the Paraclete, abiding in them;
that His peace shaU remain with
them. It tells, in the aUegory of
the Vine, that there is an unseen
spritual union between Him and
the Church, and every individual
member of it ; that there is, there
fore, to be union between them
selves; that the world will neces
sarily hate them because they are
not ot it ; but that the Paraclete
in them, and they themselves, of
their own knowledge, should be
the witness to the world.
It teUs them the truth so hard to
learn — that His own departure is
expedient ; declares the coming
and the office of the Paraclete, and
His own spiritual power with them,
and comforts them with the thought
of the full revelation of the Father,
and the final victory over the world
which He has overcome. Their
faith rises to the sure conviction
that He is from God. But even
this fuU acceptance is not un
clouded ; He knows they wiU aU
be scattered, and leave Him alone.
And then having in fulness of
love taught them, He lifts His eyes
to heaven and prays for Himself, for
the disciples, and for aU beHevers,

8

114

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

that in Him, as beHevers, they may
have the communion with the God
head which comes from the revela
tion of the Father through the
Son. (5) But here again in the narra
tive Darkness alternates with Light,
and Hatred with Love. From the
sacred calm of this inner circle we
pass (chaps, xviii. 1 — xix. 42) to
the betrayal and apprehension, the
trials before the Jewish and Roman
authorities, the committal and
crucifixion, the death and burial.
Unbelief has reached its cHmax,
and hatred gazes upon Him whom
it has crucified.
(6) But love is greater than
hatred, and light than darkness,
and Hfe than death. From the
cHmax of unbelief we pass to the
climax of faith. Nicodemus, a
ruler of the Jews, and Joseph of
Arimathaea, join with the band of
women in the last office of love.
The appearance to Mary Magdalene,
to the ten Apostles, to the eleven
now including Thomas, has carried
conviction to aU, and drawn from
him who is last to beHeve the f uUest
expression of faith, " My Lord and
my God " (chap. xx.).
The writer has traced the struggle
between acceptance and rejection
through its successive stages, and
now that the victory is won the
purpose of bis work is fulfilled.
There is a faith more blessed than
sight, and these things are written
that we may believe.
(7) The things which the writer
has told are but a few of those with
which his memory was stored.
There were many signs not written
in this book. He afterwards (in
chap, xxi.) adds one of those
which serves as a link with the
future, in part, perhaps, to pre
vent a misconception which had

sprung up about bis own life.
Other disciples, too, give to his
writing the stamp of their own
knowledge of its certain truth.
Such are the characteristics of
this Gospel. We feel as we read
them that we are in a region
of thoughts widely different from
those of the earlier Gospels. The
characteristic thoughts naturaUy
express themselves in character
istic words.
The reader wiU not need to be
reminded, as he again and again
comes upon the words "Hght"
(which occurs twenty- three times),
"Hfe" (fifty-two times), "love"
(seven times; 1 John seventeen
times), "truth" (twenty-five times),
" true " (ideaUy, nine times), " wit
ness " (substantive and verb, forty-
seven times), "believe" (ninety-
eight times), "world" (seventy-
eight times), "sign" (seventeen
times), that ne has in such words
the special forms which express
the special thoughts which have
come to us through St. John.
Some characteristics in style have
been pointed out in sect. II. as
bearing upon the authorship of the
Gospel. VI. Sketch of the Litera
ture ofthe Subject. — References
have already been given, under the
earHer sections of this Introduc
tion, to works where the reader
may find fuller information upon
the different topics dealt with.
Here it is intended to note such
works as the ordinary reader may
without difficulty have access to,
and which bear upon the subject-
matter of the Gospel itself.
Of the older commentaries, Chry-
sostom's Homilies on the Gospel oj
St. John, and the Tractatus 124 in
Joannem of Augustine, may be read

ST. JOHN.

115

in the Oxford Library of the
Fathers. The Commentary of Cyril
of Alexandria has lately been trans
lated by Mr. P. E. Pusey, Oxford,
1875. The Aurea Catena of Thomas
Aquinas is accessible in the Oxford
translation of 1841 — 45.
Of more modern Commentaries,
Lampe's three quarto volumes in
Latin (Basilem, 1725 — 27), take the
first place, and are a storehouse
from which almost aU his suc
cessors have freely borrowed. The
century and a half which has passed
since his book appeared has been
fruitful in works on St. John. A
selection of exegetical works pre
fixed to the second volume of
Meyer's Commentary, Eng. Trans.,
1875, contains more than forty
pubHshed during this period, and
the number may be largely in
creased. The Appendix to the
English translation of Luthardt's
St. John the Author oj' the Fourth
Gospel, contains a. list ot some 500
works and articles upon the authen
ticity and genuineness alone, which
have been published since the year
1790. In our own day the best results
of New Testament criticism, as
applied to this Gospel, have been
presented to the EngHsh reader in
the Commentaries of Tholuck, Ed.
7, 1857, Eng. Trans., 1860; Ols-
hausen, edited by Ebrard and
Wiesinger, 1862, Eng. Trans.,
1855; Bengel, Eng. Trans., 1874;
Luthardt, Ed. 2, 1875—6, Eng.
Trans., 1877; Godet, Ed. 2, with
critical Introduction, 1877, Eng.
Trans., 1877; Meyer, Ed. 5, 1869,
Eng. Trans., 1875, all published by
Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh.
In our own country the Commen
taries of Wordsworth, 1868, and
Alford, Ed. 7, 1874, are known to
aU students of the New Testament,

and the latter work has been also
arranged specially for English
readers (1868). Two works, which
are less known than they deserve
to be, may be speciaUy noted as
furnishing in a convenient form
the patristic interpretation : Com
mentary on the Authorised English
Version of the Gospel according to
St. John, by the Rev. F. H. Dun-
well, London, 1872 ; and The Gos
pel of John, illustrated from Ancient
and Modern Authors, by Rev. J.
Ford, London, 1852. Two other
English books on this Gospel deal
specially with its subject-matter :
the well-known Discourses at Lin
coln's Inn of the late Frederick
Denison Maurice, a work marked
by his spiritual insight and earnest
devotion, and containing a striking
criticism on Baur' s mythical theory,
Camb. 1857 ; and The Doctrinal
System of St. John, by Professor
Lias, London, 1875.
For all questions of geography,
chronology, and Jewish antiquities,
the English reader has the latest
results of scholarship in the Bibli
cal Dictionaries edited by Dr. Wil
liam Smith and by Dr. Kitto, Ed.
3, 1866; in Dean Stanley's 'Sinai
and Palestine ; in the Reports of the
" Palestine Exploration Fund ;" in
the Synopsis of Dr. Karl Wieseler,
Eng. Trans., 1864 ; in the Chrono
logical and Geographical Introduc
tion of Dr. Ch. Ed. Caspari, Eng.
Trans,, 1876. Special reference
may be made to the articles on
Jewish subjects by Dr. Ginsburg
in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. See, e.g., in
connection with this Gospel the
articles on "Education," "Disper
sion," "Dedication," " Purim, "
"Passover," and "Tabernacles."
On questions of the text, and the
translation of the text, a very
valuable help has been furnished in

116

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

The Holy Bible, with Various Ren
derings and Readings from the Best
Authorities, London, 1876 ; this
Gospel has also been revised by
" Five Clergymen," London, 1857,
and the results have been incor
porated in The New Testament, Au
thorised Version Revised, London,
1876, of the late Dean Alford, who
was one of them.
It remains for the writer to ex
press his obligations to the works
which he has above mentioned,

and to many others from which,
directly and indirectly, thoughts
have been suggested. To Liicke,
Luthardt (especiaUy in the Ana
lysis), Godet, and Alford (both
Commentary and Translation), he
is conscious of owing a con
stant debt; but the work which
has influenced his own thoughts
most in the study of the New
Testament is the Kritisch Exp-
getisches Handbuch of Dr. Heinrich
Meyer.

ANALYSIS.

1. Prologue (chap. i. 1—18).
The Wokd
(1) was God (verses 1 — 5) ;
(2) became man (verses 6 — 13);
(3) revealed t3ie Father (verses
14-18).
2. Manifestation of Jesus.
Varying Degrees of
Acceptance (chaps, i. 19
— iv. 54).
(1) The Witness of the Baptist
(chap. i. 19—40) :
(a) To the messengers ofthe San
hedrin (verses 19—28) ;

(b) At the appearance of Jesus
(verses 29 — 34) ;
(c) To the two disciples (verses
35—40).
(2) Jesus Manifests Himself to
Individuals (chaps, i. 41 —
H. 11):
(a) To the first disciples — the
witness of man (verses
41-51);
(b) Al Cana of Galilee — the
witness of nature (verses
1-11).
(3) Jesus Manifests Himself
Publicly (H. 12 — iv. 54) ;

ST. JOHN.

117

(a) In Jerusalem — the Temple
(chap. ii. 12—22) ;
(b) In Jerusalem — the city
(chaps, ii. 23— iii. 21) ;
Nicodemus :
The new birth (verses
1-8);
Belief (verses 9 — 15) ;
Judgment (verses 16 —
21);
(c) In Judeta (chap. iii. 22 —
36). The Baptist.
(d) Jr. Samaria (chap. iv. 1 —
42). The woman of Sa
maria, and the living
water (verses 1 — 16). The
people of Samaria, and the
fields white unto harvest
(verses 17 — 42) ;
(e) In Galilee {ch&p. iv.43 — 54).
Received by the people.
The courtier's faith.
!». The fuller Revelation,
and Growth of Unbe
lief among the Jews
(chaps, v. 1 — xii. 50).
(1) Jesus is Life (chaps, v. 1 —
vi. 71).
(«) This follows from the unity
of Son and Father (chap.
v.).
(u) Energy given to
strengthen the weak
(verses 1 — 9).
(;8) Persecution by the Jews
(verses 10—18).
(7) Teaching of Jesus (verses
19—47) :
The Father's work also
the Son's (verses 19
and 20) ;
The spiritual resurrec
tion and judgment
(verses 21—27) ;
The physical resurrec
tion and judgment
(verses 28—30) ;
Witness, and the reason

of its rejection (versea
31—47).
(b) His Incarnation is life for
mankind (chap. vi.).
(u.) Food given to sustain the
hungry (verses 1 — 15).
(p) His body not subject to
natural laws (verses
16—21).
(y) The multitude follow
Him (verses 22—25).
(S) Teaching of Jesus (verse3
26—58) :
The work of God (verses
26—29) ;
The Bread of Life
(verses 30—50) ;
The true food (flesh) and
the true drink (blood)
(verses 51 — 58) ;
(e) The effect of the teaching
— on the one hand de
fection, on the other
a fuller confession of
faith (verses 59—71).
(2) Jesus is Truth and Light
and Love (chaps, vii. 1 —
x. 42).
(a) Jesus is Truth (chap. vii.).
(a) The Feast of Tabernacles
(verses 1 — 13).
(/}) The teaching of Jesus
(verses 14 — 39) :
His doctrine is from the
Father (verses 15 —
24);
He is Himself from the
Father (verses 25 — ¦
31);
He will return to tho
Father (verses 32 —
39).
(7) The effect of the teaching
Division among the
multitude and in the
Sanhedrin (verses 40—
52).
{b) Jesus is Light (chaps, viii
12— ix. 41).

118

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

(o) He declares Himself to
he the Light, and ap
peals to the witness of
the Father and of Him
self (verses 12—20).
(P) His return to the Father
misunderstood by the
Jews, and explained
by Him (verses 21 —
29).
(7) True discipleship and
freedom (verses 30 —
59).
Freedom by the Son's
word (verses 30 — 36).
Natural and ethical son-
ship (verses 37 — 47).
Eternal Hfe by the Son's
word. The Son's eter
nity (verses 48 —
59).
(S) Physical light given to
the man born blind
(chap. ix. 1 — 42) :
The miracle itself (verses
1—12).
The objections of the
Pharisees and the wit
ness of tho sufferer
verses 13 — 34).
Physical light and dark
ness ; spiritual light
and darkness (verses
35—41).
(e) Jesus is Love (chap. x. 1 — 42).
(a.) The Good Shepherd, who
giveth His life for the
sheep (verses 1 — 20).
(/3) The discourse at the
Feast of the Dedication
(verses 22—38) :
The true sheep hear
the Shepherd's voice
(verses 22—30).
The charge of blas
phemy shown by
their Scriptures to
be groundless (verses
30—38).

(7) Rejected in Jerusalem,
Jesus goes away be
yond Jordan (verses
39—42).
(3) Life, Truth, Light, and
Love more fully Mani
fested. Corresponding
Increase of the Unbelief
of the Jews (chaps, xi. 1
—xii. 50) :
(a) Lazarus restored to life (chap.
xi. 1—46).
(a) The journey to Bethany.
Sleep and death (verses
1—16).
(j8) The interview with Mar
tha. The Resurrection
and the Life (verses
17-27).
(7) The interview with Mary.
Sorrow and love (verses
28—38).
(S) The open sepulchre. The
corruptible and incor
ruption (verses 39—
46).
(b) The council of the Jews.
The decree of death against
the Giver of life (verses
47—53).
(c) The withdrawal to Ephraim.
Many seek for Jesus
(verses 54 — 57).
(d) The supper at Bethany.
Mary, Judas, the chief
priests (love, selfishness,
hatred) (chap. xii. 1 — 11).
(e) The entry into Jerusalem.
The King and His people
(verses 12—19).
(f) The wider kingdom (verses
20—36).
Certain Greeks would see
Jesus. The firstfruits
of the West (verses 20 —
22).
The seed and the harvest.
Life in death (verses
23—26).

ST. JOHN.

119

The woi Id-wide attraction
of the Cross. Light in
darkness (verses27 — 36).
(g) Tht final issue ofthe unbelief
of the Jews.
(a) The writer's own judg
ment (verses 27—43) :
On no-faith (verses 37 —
41) ;
Or. half -faith (verses
42; 43).
(j3) The judgment of Jesus
(verses 44—50).
The rejection of Hght
verse 46) ; love ("that
I might save the
world," verse 47) ;
truth (verse 49) ; Hfe
(verse 50).
4. The fuller Revelation,
and Growth of Faith
among the Disciples
(chaps, xiii. 1 — xvii. 26).
(1) Love Manifested in Humi
liation (chap. xiii. 1 — 30).
(a) The washing of the disciples'
feet (verses 1 — 11) ;
(b) The spiritual interpretation
of this act (verses 12 — 28) ;
{c) The Betrayal. Hatred passes
from the presence of love
(verses 21—30).
(2) The Last Words of Deepest
Meaning to the Faithful
Few (chaps, xiii. 31 — xvi.
33).
(ff) His glory is at hand, because
He is going to the Father ;
they are therefore to love
one another (verses 31 —
38).
(J) In the Father's house He will
receive them to Himself.
He is the Way, the Truth,
the Life (chap. xiv. 1 — 10).
(c) Being in the Father, He will
be present in the disciples
(verses 11 — 24) :

(a) By answering their
prayers (vers. 12 — 14) ;
(/3) By sending to them the
Paraclete (verses 15 —
17);
(7) By abiding in them
(verses 18—24).
(d) His legacy of peace to them
(verses 25—31).
(e) Relation oj Jesus and His
disciples to each other;
and to the world (chap.
xv. 1—27).
(a) Their union with Him.
The True Vine : union
from within' (verses 1 —
11). Comp. the Good
Shepherd (chap, x.) ;
union from without.
(P) Their union with each
other (verses 12 — 17).
(y) The hatred of the world
(verses 18—24) :
The reason of it (verses
18-21);
The sinfulness of it
(verses 22—25).
(8) The witness to the world
(verses 26, 27) :
By the Paraclete (verse
26);
By the disciples (verse
27).
(/) Their relation to the world
and the promise of the
Paraclete explained more
fully (chap. xvi. 1 — 33).
(a) Though the world will
hate them, it is still ex
pedient that He should
depart from them
(verses 1 — 7).
(/3) The coming of the Para
clete and His office
(verses 8 — 15).
(7) His own departure and
return. Their sorrow
the birth-pangs of joy
(verses 16 — 24).

120

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

(5) He promises a full reve
lation of the Father
(verses 25—28).
(*) Their faith is now weak,
though they think it
strong (verses 29 — 32) ,
their future shaU be
one of tribulation, but
He has overcome the
world (verse 33).
(3) Love Manifested in His Tn-
tercessory Prayer (chap.
xvii. 1 — 26). He Prays —
(a) For Himself; the glory of
the Son (verses 1 — 5) ,
(b) For the disciples ; their union
with the Father and the
Son (verses 6 — 19) ;
(c) For all believers ; their union
(verses 20, 21) ; their com
munion with the Godhead
(verses 22 — 24) ; which
results from the revelation
to them of the Father
(verses 25, 26).
6. The Climax of Unbelief.
Voluntary Surrender
and Crucifixion of
Jesus (chaps. xviH. 1 —
xix. 42).
(1) The Betrayal and Appre
hension (verses 1 — 11).
(2) The Trials before the
Jewish Authorities
(verses 12—27) :
(a) Before Annas (vers. 12 — 23);
(b) Before Caiaphas (verse 24).
(c) Denied by St. Peter (verses
17, 25, 27).
(3) The Trials before the
Roman Proconsul (chaps.
xviH. 28 — xix. 16) :
(a) The first examination. The
kingdom of truth (verses
28—40) ;
(b) The second examination. The
scourging andmoek royalty
(chap. xix. 1 — 6) ;

(c) The third examination. The
power from above (verses
7—11);
(d) The public trial and com
mittal (verses 12 — 16).
(4) Jesus Submits to Death
(chap. xix. 17—42) :
(«) The Crucifixion (verses 17 —
24);
(b) The sayings on the Cross
(verses 25—30) ;
(c) The proof of physical death
(verses 31—37) ;
(d) The body in the Sepulchre
(verses 38—42).
0. The Climax of Faith.
Resurrection and Ap
pearances of Jesus
(chap. xxi.).
(1) St. Peter and St. John at
the empty sepulchre.
They see and believe
(verses 1 — 10).
(2) Mary Magdalene at the
Sepulchre. The Angels.
"Rabboni." Changed Con
ditions of Life (verses
11—18).
(3) The First Appearance to
the Ten. Peace to them
and to the World (verses
19—23).
(4) The Appearance to the
Eleven. "My Lord and
my God '" (verses 24 — 29).
(5) Close of the original Gos
pel AT THIS HIGHEST REACH
of Faith. Its Object :
Life through Believing
(verses 30, 31).
7. The Epilogue to the Gos
pel. The Link between
the Past and the Fu
ture (chap. xxi.).
(1) The Draught of Fishes
(verses 1—8).

ST. JOHN. 121

(2) The Breakfast. The Third
Manifestation of Jesus
to the Disciples (verses
S— 14).
(3) The Test and the Commis
sion. St. Peter and St.
John (verses 15 — 23).

(4) The Close of the Gostel.
Corroborative Witness
to its Truth :
(ff) By fellow-disciples (verse
24);
(b) By an amanuensis (verse
25).

Quarti euangeliorum lohannis ex decipolis
cohortantibus condescipulis et eps suis
dixit conieiunate mihi • odie triduo et quid
cuique fuerit reuelatum alterutrum
nobis ennarremus eadem nocte reue
latum andreae ex apostolis ut recognis
centibus cuntis lohannis suo nomine
c e
cunta discribret et ideo licit uaria sin
culis euangeliorum libris principia
doceantur Nihil tamen differt creden
i _
rium fedei cum uno ac principali spu de
clarata sint in omnibus omnia de natiui
tate de passione de resurrectione
r
de conuesatione cum decipulis suis
ac de gemino eius aduentu
Primo In humilitate dispectus quod fo
s
tu secundum potetate regali pre
clarum quod foturum est quid ergo
mirum si Iohannes tam constanter
sincula etia In epistulis suis proferat
dicens In semeipsu Quae uidimus oculis
nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus
nostrae palpauerunt haec scripsimus uobla
CTregellca, Canon Muratorianuh.
See Introduction, page 107]

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Bt the iate Veky Rev. E. H. PLUMPTRE, D.D.

I. The Author. — The opening
words of the Acts, addressed, like
the Gospel of St. Luke, to Theo
philus, and referring to a former
book, as containing a history of the
life and teaching of the Lord Jesus,
such as we find in that Gospel, are,
at least, primd facie evidence of
identity of authorship. The inter
nal evidence of style,* yet more,
perhaps, that of character and ten
dency as shown in the contents of
the book, confirm this conclusion.
A tradition, going back to the second
century, falls in with what has
thus been inferred from the book
itself. The words of Stephen, " Lay
not this sin to their charge,"
are quoted in the Epistle of the
Churches of Lyons and Vienne to
those of Asia and Phry gia (a.d., 177),
given by Eusebius (Hist. v. 2).
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria
quote from it, the latter citing
St. Paul's speech at Athens (Strom.
v. 2) ; as also does Tertullian
(De Jejun. c. 10). The MS. known
as the Muratorian Fragment
dwells on its being largely the
work of an eye-witness, as seen
in its omission of the martyr
dom of St. Peter, and St. Paul's
journey to Spain. Eusebius (Hist.

* Not fewer than fifty words are com
mon to the two books, and are not found
in any other part of the New Testament.

iii. 4) ascribes both books to him,
in the same terms ; and Jerome (De
Vir. Illust. c. viii.) almost repeats
the words of the Fragment : " Luke
wrote his Gospel from what he had
heard, but the Acts of the Apostles
from what he saw." It will be
enough, therefore, as far as the
authorship of this book is con
cerned, to refer for all that is
known or conjectured as to the
writer to the Introduction to St.
Luke. There also will be found all
that it is necessary to say as to
Theophilus as representing the
first readers of the Acts.
II. The Title.— It does not
follow that the present title was
prefixed to the book by the writer
himself. For him, probably, it
would only present itself as the
" second treatise," or " book,"
which came as a natural sequel to
the first. It was not strange, how
ever, especially when the books of
the New Testament came to bo
collected together in a volume, and
the " former treatise " took its
place side by side with the other
Gospels, and was thus parted from
its companion, that a distinct title
should be given to it. In the title
itself the Greek MSS. present con
siderable variations — "Acts of
the Apostles," "Acts of all the
Apostles," "Acts of the Holy
Apostles," sometimes with the

THE ACTS.

123

addition of the author's name,
" Written by Luke the Evan
gelist," "Written by the Holy
and Illustrious Luke, Apostle and
Evangelist." The word " Acts "
seems to have been in common use
in the first and second centuries
after Christ for what we should
call " Memoirs " or " Biographies,"
and appears conspicuously in the
apocryphal literature of the New
Testament, as in the Acts of Pilate,
the Acts of Peter and Paul, of
Pliilip, of Matthew, of Bartholo
mew. III. The Scope of the Book.
¦ — It is obvious that the title,,
whether hy the author or by a
transcriber, does but imperfectly
describe its real nature. It is in
no sense a history of the Apostles
as a body. The names of the Eleven
meet us but once (chap. i. 13).
They are mentioned collectively in
chaps, ii. 37, 42, 43 ; iv. 33—37 ;
v. 2, 12, 18, 29; vi. 6; viii. 1, 14,
18 ; ix. 27 ; xi. 1 ; xv. 2, 4, 6, 22,
23, 33. St. John appears only
in chaps, iii. 1 ; iv. 13 ; viii. 14.
Nothing is told us of the individual
work of any other. Looking to
the contents of the book, it would
be better described, if we were to
retain the present form at all, as
the "Acts of Peter and of Paul,"
the former Apostle occupying a pro
minent place in chaps, i. — v., x. —
xii., xv., the latter being the cen
tral figure in chaps, vii. 58, ix. , xi.
25 — 30, xiii. — xxvii. From another
point of view a yet more appro
priate tit'e would be (using the
term in its familiar literary sense)
that of the Origines Ecclesiee — the
history of the growth and develop
ment of the Church of Christ, and
of the mission work of that Church
among the Gentiles. The starting-
point and the close of the book are

in this respect significant. It begins
at Jerusalem ; it ends at Rome.
When it opens, circumcision is re
quired, as well as baptism, of every
disciple ; the Church of Christ is
outwardly but a Jewish sect of
some hundred and twenty persons
(chap. i. 15). When it ends, every
barrier between Jew and Gentile
has been broken down, and the
Church has become cathohc and
all-embracing. To trace the stages
of that expansion both locally and
as affecting the teaching of the
Church is the dominant purpose of
the book. The "acts" of those
who were not concerned in it at
all, or played but a subordinate
part in it, are, we may venture to
say, deliberately passed over. Some
principle of selection is clearly in
volved in the structure of such a
book as that now before us, and
even without going beyond the
four corners of the book itself, we
may safely affirm that the main
purpose of the writer was to inform
a Gentile convert of Eome how the
gospel had been brought to him,
and how it had gained the width
and freedom with which it was
actually presented.
IV. Its Relation to the
G-ospel of St. Luke. — The view
thus taken is strengthened by the
fact that it presents the Acts of
the Apostles as the natural sequel
to the Gospel which we have seen
sufficient reason to assign to the
same writer. For there also, as it
has been shown (Introduction),
we trace the same principle of
selection. It is more than any of
the other three a Gospel for the
Gentiles, bringing out the univer
sality of the kingdom of God,
recording parables and incidents
which others had not recorded,
because they bore witness that the

124

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

love of God flowed out beyond the
limits of the chosen people on
rubers and harlots, on Samaritans
and Gentiles. It remained for one
who had led his catechumen con
vert to think thus' of the Christ
during His ministry on earth, to
Bhow that the unseen guidance
given by the Christ in Heaven,
through the working of the Holy
Spirit, was leading it on in the
same direction, that, though there
had been expansion and develop
ment, there had been no interrup
tion of continuity. I have ven
tured to say (Introduction) that
the Gospel of St. Luke might be
described as emphatically " the
Gospel of the Saintly Life." The
natural sequel to such a Gospel
was a record of the work of the
Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier. Look
ing to the prominence given to the
work of the Spirit, from the Day of
Pentecost onwards, as guiding both
the Church collectively and its in
dividual members, it would hardly
be over-bold to say that the book
might well be called " the Gospel
of the Holy Spirit." At every
stage His action is emphatically
recognised. Jesus, after His resur
rection, had, "through the Holy
Ghost, given commandment to the
Apostles whom He had chosen "
(chap. i. 2). They arc to be " bap
tised with the Holy Ghost " (chap.
i. 5), are to "receive power after
the Holy Ghost is come upon
them" (chap. i. 8). The Holy
Ghost had spoken through the
mouth of David (chap. i. 16.)
Then comes the great wonder of
the Day of Pentecost, when all
the disciples were " filled with the
Holy Ghost (chap. ii. 4), and spake
with tongues, and the prophecy,
" I will pour out My Spirit upon all
flesh" (chap. ii. 17), is quoted as

on the verge of fulfilment. Jesus
has " received from the Father the
promise of the Holy Ghost " (chap.
ii. 33). Once again all were " filled
with the Holy Ghost, and spake
the word with boldness " (chap. iv.
31). The sin of Ananias is a "lie
unto the Holy Ghost " (chap. v. 3).
He and his wife have " tempted
the Spirit of the Lord " (chap. v.
9). The " Holy Ghost, whom God
hath given to them that obey
Him," is a witness that the Christ
is exalted at the right hand of God
(chap. v. 32). The seven who are
chosen in chap. vi. are ' ' full of
the Holy Ghost, and of wisdom"
(chap. vi. 3). Stephen is pre-emi
nently " full of faith and of the
Holy Ghost" (chap, vi 5). His
leading charge against priests and
scribes is that they " do always re
sist the Holy Ghost" (chap. vii. 51.)
His vision of the Son of Man stand
ing at the right hand of God is
closely connected with his being at
the moment ' ' filled with the Holy
Ghost" (chap. vii. 55). Peter and
John go down to Samaria that
those who had been baptised by
Pliilip "might receive the Holy
Ghost" (chap. viii. 15 — 17); and
the sin of Simon the sorcerer is
that he thinks that that gift of
God can be purchased with money
(chap. viii. 18 — 20) . It is the Spirit
that impels Philip to join himself to
the Ethiopian eunuch (chap. viii.
39), and carries him away after his
baptism (ehap. viii. 39). Ananias
is to lay his hands on Saul of Tar
sus, that he "may be filled with
the Holy Ghost" (chap. ix. 17).
The churches of Judaea and Galilee
and Samaria in their interval of
rest are " walking in the fear of
the Lord and the comfort of the
Holy Ghost " (chap. ix. 31). The
admission of the Gentiles is attested

THE ACTS.

125

when " the gift of the Holy Ghost "
is poured out on Cornelius and his
friends (chap. x. 44—47), and Peter
dwells on that attestation in his
address to the Church of Jerusalem
(chaps, xi. 15 — 17 ; xv. 8). Barna
bas, when he is sent to carry on
that work among the Gentiles at
Antioch, is described, as Stephen
had been, as " full of the Holy
Ghost and of faith " (chap. xi. 24).
It is the Holy Ghost who " separates
Barnabas and Saul for the work of
the ministry," and they are sent
forth by Him (chap. xiii. 2 — 4).
Saul, roused to indignation by the
subtlety of Elymas, is " filled with
the Holy Ghost" (chap. xiii. 9).
It is He who guides the decision
of the council assembled at Jeru
salem (chap. xv. 28), and directs
the footsteps of Paul and his com
panions in their mission journey
(chap. xvi. 6, 7). The twelve dis
ciples at Ephesus, baptised before
with the baptism of John, " receive
the Holy Ghost " when Paul lays
his hands on them (chap. xix. 6).
He it was who witnessed in every
city that bonds and imprisonment
awaited the Apostle in Jerusalem
(chaps, xx. 23; xxi. 11). It was
the Holy Ghost who had made the
elders of Ephesus overseers of the
Church of God (chap. xx. 28).
Well-nigh the last words of the
book are those which " the Holy
Ghost had spoken by Esaias," and
which St. Paul, in the power of the
same Spirit, applies to the Jews
of his own time (chap, xxviii.
25). V. Its Relation to the Con
troversies of the Time. — I
have thought it right to go through
this somewhat full induction be
cause it presents an aspect of the
book which has hardly been ade
quately recognised in the critical

inquiries to which it has been sub
jected. But subject to this, as the
dominant idea of the Acts of the
Apostles, I see nothing to hinder us
from recognising other tendencies
and motives, partly as inferred
from the book itself, partly as in
themselves probable, looking to the
circumstances under which it must
have been written. An educated
convert like Theophilus could
hardly have been ignorant of the
controversy between St. Paul and
the Judaisers, which is so prominent
in the Epistle to the Galatians and
the Second Epistle to the Corin
thians. He would know that the
Judaising teachers in the Galatian
Church had spoken of the Apostle
as a time-server seeking to please
men (Gal. i. 10) ; as having no
authority but that which he de
rived from the Church of Jerusa
lem (Gal. i. 1, 12, 17, 22); that they
used the name of James in support
of their exaggerated rigour, and
worked upon the mind even of
Peter, so as to lead him to, at least,
a temporary inconsistency (Gal. ii.
11 — 13) ; that others of the same
school had appeared at Corinth,
boasting of their "letters of com
mendation" (2 Cor. iii. 1) ; taunt
ing the Apostle with his ' ' bodily
presence weak, and speech con
temptible " (2 Cor. x. 10) ; speak
ing of him as a " fool " and mad
man (2 Cor. xi. 16) ; arrogating to
themselves something like an ultra-
apostolic authority (2 Cor. xi. 4) ;
boasting that they were Hebrews
and ministers of Christ (2 Cor. xi.
22). The language of Rom. xiv.
shows that disputes analogous in
their nature had sprung up at
Rome even before St. Paul's arrival ;
differences as to days and meats *
(Rom. xiv. 2 — 6) ; connected with
the very question of eating "things

126

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

sacrificed to idols," which had given
occasion to one of the canons of
the Council of Jerusalem (chap.
xv. 20, 29) proposed by James, the
bishop of that Church, and which
had been discussed fully in the
Epistle which St. Paul addressed
to the Church of Corinth, at a
time when its numbers were largely
made up of Roman Christians (1
Cor. viii. — x.). These facts were
patent to any one who had any
knowledge of St. Paul's work. If
Theophilus were, as is probable, an
Italian, probably even a Roman,
convert, they would be forced upon
his notice.
There are, however, other mate
rials for estimating the attitude of
the Judaising party towards St.
Paul, and the language they habi
tually used in reference to him. I
do not assume that the Pseudo- Cle
mentine Homilies, Recognitions, and
Epistles are of an earlier date than
the second century, but it is a legiti
mate inference that they represent
the traditions of the party from
which they emanated, and they
help us to fill up the outline
which has been already sketched.
In them, accordingly, we find
James, the bishop of Jerusalem, as
the centre of all church authority,
the " lord and bishop of the holy
Church" (Epist. of Peter, c. i), the
"archbishop" (Recogn. c. i. 73).
Peter complains that "some among
the Gentiles have rejected his
preaching, which is according to
the Law, and have followed the
lawless and insane preaching of
the man who is his enemy" (ibid.
c. 2. Comp. Gal. iv. 16). He
complains that he has been mis
represented as agreeing with that
"enemy" (ibid.). James declares
that circumcision is an essential
condition of discipleship (ibid. c. 4) .

Under cover of the legendary dis
putes between Peter and Simon
the Sorcerer, the personal dis
cipleship of the former is con
trasted with that of one who has
only heard the doctrine of Jesus
through a vision or a dream (Horn.
Clem. xvii. c. 14. Comp. chaps, ix.
3, 17; xviii. 9; xxii. 18; xxiii. 11;
2 Cor. xii. 1), and it is suggested
that one who trusts in those
visions and revelations may have
been deceived by a demon (ibid.
xvii., c. 16). Barnabas is named
with praise (ibid, i., c. 9), but the
name of Paul is systematically
ignored. The opposition to Peter
at Antioch, of which we read in
Gal. ii. 11 — 14, is represented as
the work of the sorcerer (Recogn.
x., c. 54). Almost the only direct
reference to the Apostle of the
Gentiles is an allusion to the
"enemy" who had received a
commission from Caiaphas to go to
Damascus and make havoc of the
faithful (Recogn. i., c. 71), and the
fact that the " enemy " afterwards
preached the faith which he had
once destroyed is kept out of sight.
With the strange confusion of
chronology characteristic of this
apocryphal literature, the " enemy "
is represented as entering the
Temple, disputing with James,
attacking him with violence and
throwing him down the Temple
stairs, so that he lay there as dead
(Recogn. i., c. 70).
Representations such as these
might be met in two different
ways. St. Paul, in the manly in
dignation of his spirit against such
misrepresentations, met them, as
in the Epistle to the Galatians, by
asserting his entire ¦ independence
of the Church at Jerusalem (Gal.
i. 1 — 12), by showing that they
had learnt from him, not he from

THE ACTS.

127

them, the fulness and freedom of
the gospel which he preached (Gal.
ii. 2) ; that the chief leaders of that
Church had given to him and Bar
nabas the right hand of fellowship
id their work among the Gentiles
(Gal. ii. 9) ; that he had not given
way by subjection, no, not for an
hour, to the Judaising Pharisee
section of the Church (Gal. ii. 4,
5) ; that he had not shrunk from
rebuking, with the general ap
proval of the Church at Antioch,
the inconsistency of Peter and of
Barnabas (Gal. ii. 11 — 14). He
meets them also, as in 2 Cor. xi.
13 — 27, by challenging a compari
son between his own life and that of
his antagonists. St. Luke thought
it wise, in writing to a Gentile
convert, to lay stress on the fact
that the history of the Church of
Jerusalem, truly stated, was against
the policy and claims of the Juda
isers, that the Apostle of the Gen
tiles, in his turn, had shown every
disposition to conciliate the feel
ings of the Jews. With this view,
he records the fact that charges hke
those which were brought against
St. Paul had been brought also
against the martyr Stephen (chap.
vi. 14) ; that the Apostle had been
admitted into the Church of Christ
by a disciple devout according to
the Law (chaps, ix. 10 ; xxii. 12) ;
that he had been received, after
the first natural suspicion had been
iemoved by the testimony of Bar
nabas, by the Apostles at Jeru
salem (chap. ix. 27) ; that it had
been given to Peter to be, perhaps,
the first to act on the essential
principle of St. Paul's gospel, and
to throw open the doors of the
Church to the uncircumcised Gen
tiles (chaps, x ; xi. 1 — 13) ; that he
and the Church of Jerusalem had
sent Barnabas to carry on that

work at Antioch (chap. xi. 22) ;
that St. Paul had always addressed
himself to the Jews whenever
there were any to listen to his
preaching (chaps, xiii. 5, 14 ; xiv.
1; xvii. 2, 17; xviii. 4; xix. 8);
that he had lost no opportunity of
renewing his friendly intercourse
with the Church of Jerusalem
(chaps, xv. 2 ; xviii. 22 ; xxi. 15);
and that James, the bishop of that
Church, had throughout received
him as a beloved brother (chap. xv.
4, 25, 26) ; that he had shown his
willingness to conciliate the Jewish
section of the Church by circum
cising Timotheus (chap. xvi. 3),
and by his taking on himself the
vow of a Nazarite (chaps, xviii. 18 ;
xxi. 26) ; and, lastly, that the
Council of Jerusalem had solemnly
formulated a, concordat by which
the freedom of the Gentiles was
secured (chap. xv. 23 — 29).
A principle of selection such as
this is naturally open to the charge
that has been pressed by unfriendly
critics, that it tends to lead the
writer to exaggerate the harmony
between the two parties whom it
seeks to reconcile; and stress has
been laid on the omission of the
dispute between Paul and Peter at
Antioch (Gal. ii. 14), as showing
that with this view he slurred over
what was an important fact in the
history which he undertakes to
write. It may fairly be urged,
however, on the other side, thai
there is absolutely no evidence
that he was acquainted with that
fact. As far as we can gather
from his narrative, he was not at
Antioch at the time. It was an
incident on which St. Paul would
naturally be reticent, unless forced
to allude to it, as in writing to the
Galatians, in vindicating his own
independence. And even if he did

128

NEAV TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

know it, was this passing, momen
tary difference of sufficient im
portance to find a place in a brief
compendium of the history of St.
Paul's work? Would the writer
of a school history of England
during the last fifty years feel
bound, in tracing the action of the
Conservative or Liberal party as a
whole, to notice a single passage at
arms, in which sharp words were
spoken, in debate in cabinet or
Parliament, between two of its
leaders ? AVould a writer of Eng
lish Church History during the
same period think it an indispens
able duty to record such a difference
as that which showed itself between
Bishop Thirlwall and Bishop Sel-
wyn in the Pan- Anglican Confer
ence of 1867? That he did not
shrink from recording a personal
dispute when important conse
quences were involved is shown
by his treatment of the quarrel
between Paul and Barnabas (chap.
xv. 37—40).
"VT. Its Evidential "Value. —
(1) In relation to the Gospels. Had
the Acts of the Apostles presented
itself as an entirely independent
book, its evidence as to the main
facts of the Gospel history would
obviously have been of the highest
value. It assumes those facts
throughout as well known. The
main work of the Apostles is to
bear witness of the resurrection
(chap. i. 32) . Jesus of Nazareth had
been ' ' approved of God by miracles,
and wonders, and signs " (chap. ii.
22). Against him "Herod and
Pontius Pilate had been gathered
together " (chap. iv. 27).. God had
" anointed him with the Holy
Ghost and with power ; " and He
" went about doing good, and
heaUng all that were oppressed of
the devil, beginning from Galilee,

after the baptism which John
preached " (chap. x. 37, 38). It
is obvious, however, that it does
not present itself as independent.
It looks back to a former book,
and that former book is the Gospel
according to St. Luke. "It was
natural," it has been said, "that
the writer should thus take for
granted what he had thus himself
recorded. Vou cannot, in such a
case, cite the second volume to
bear witness to the veracity of
the first." Admitting this, however
— as in all fairness it must be ad
mitted — the Acts present evidence
of another kind. If they are shown,
by the numerous coincidences which
they present with the writings of
St. Paul (see infra), by their occa
sional use of the first personal
pronoun (chaps, xvi. 10 — 15; xx.
5 ; xxi. 17 ; xxvii. 1 ; xxviii. 16),
by their stopping at St. Paul's
imprisonment at Rome, instead of
going on to the close of his work
and life, to be, on any fair estimate
of circumstantial evidence, the work
of a contemporary, and to have been
written before St. Paul's death, in
a.d. 65 or 66, then it follows that
the Gospel from the pen of the
same author must have been of
even earlier date. The reference
to the "many" who had "taken
in hand " to set forth a narrative
of the gospel (Luke i. 1) connects
itself with the quotation from " the
words of the Lord Jesus " in chap.
xx. 35, as showing that there was
not only a widely diffused oral
tradition of the facts of the Gospel
history (such as that implied in
1 Cor. xi. 23—25 ; xv. 3—7), but
that there was also a fairly copious
Gospel literature, presenting ma
terials for future editors and com
pilers. But we may go yet further.
It has often been urged, as against

THE ACTS.

129

the early date of the Gospels In I
their present form, that they have
left so few traces of themselves in
the early history and the early
writings of the Church. As far as
the Epistles of the New Testament
are concerned, those traces are far
from few ; but it may be admitted
that they do not refer, as we might,
perhaps, have expected them to
refer, to any individual miracles,
or parables, or discourses of our
Lord. The same holds good of
the Apostolic fathers ; and it is
not till we come to Justin Martyr
that we get any such frequency of
citation as to make it certain that
he had one of our first three Gospels
or another resembling them, in his
hands. Well, be it so ; but here we
have aworkwith the same absence of
citation, the same vague generalisa
tion in its reference to the outlines
only of the Gospel history ; and of
this hook, whatever view may be
taken of its date, it is absolutely
certain that the writer knew that
history in all its fulness. Had the
Acts come down to us without the
Gospel of St. Luke, its reticence,
and vagueness also, might have
been urged as against the credi
bility of the narratives of the
Gospels that bear the names of
St. Matthew and St. Mark. As it
is, it shows that that reticence and
vagueness may be compatible with
a full and intimate knowledge of
the facts so narrated.
(2) In relation to the Epistles of
St. Paul. Here, as Paley has well
put the argument in the opening
of his Horm Paulina, the case is
different. We have a book pur
porting to be by a contemporary

of St. Paul's. We have thirteen
or fourteen documents purporting
to be Epistles from him. There is
not the shadow of a trace in the
Epistles that the writer had read
the Acts, or even knew of the
existence of the book. There is
not the shadow of a trace in the
Acts of the Apostles that the writer
had read the Epistles, or even knew
of their existence. He not only
does not compile from them nor
allude to them, but he does not
even record, as might have been
expected, the fact that they had
been written. He omits facts which
we find in them, and which would
have been important as materials
for his history. Whatever co
incidences the two may present
are conspicuously undesigned. So
far as they do agree and throw
light upon each other, they sup
ply a reciprocal testimony each
to the truBtworthiness of the
other. The coincidences which thus
present themselves cannot be dis
played here; while to state them
with any fulness would he to
re-write the Hora Paulina with
numerous additions. It will, how
ever, it is beheved, be of some
advantage to the student to have
at least the more important of
these coincidences brought under
his notice in such a form as to admit
of examination without turning to
other books, and the following table
has accordingly been drawn up with
that view. It has been thought
expedient to present them aB they
occur in the Epistles of St. Paul,
and to take those Epistles in their
chronological order.

1 Thess. ii. 2 ; iii. 4. St. Paul's suffering at Philippi . Acts xvi. 22, 23.
„ iii. 4 „ „ „ Thessa-
lonica  , xvu. 6.

130 NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

lThess.ii.l8;iii.l, 6,7 .
„ ii. 14 .

i. 9 .

St. Paul left at Athens alone . Acts xvii. 16.
Sufferings of the Thessalonians
from their own country
men  •
Thessalonian converts turning
from idols 

,, xvii. 5.
„ xvii. 4.

»

ii. 9,10;
iv. 11 .

Cor. ii.

1 ; iv. 19 ;
xvi. 5.

„ XV

32 . .

„ xvi.

19 . .

» xvi.

9 . . .

„ iv.

17—19 .

„ xvi

10, 11 .

» i-
» it.

12; iii. 6
11, 12 .

„ ix. 20 .
„ i. 14-17
„ xvi. 1 . .
» v. 7,8 .
„ xvi. 8 . .
i Cor. i. 1
„ xvi. 6
„ xvi. 5
2 Cor. i. 16 ; ii

. JVU .1.1. .
„ xvi. 6 . .
- xvi. 5 - -

ii. 13
„ xi. 32, 33 .
„ L8 . . .
„ xi. 9 . . .

St. Paul's precept and practice
in working 
St. Paul's two visits to Corinth .
Fighting with wild beasts at
Ephesus 
" Aquila and Priscilla salute
you much in the Lord " .
The " effectual door " opened
at Ephesus ...
The many adversaries . . .
Timotheus sent to Corinth
from Ephesus ....
St. Paul's doubt as to arrival
of Timotheus ....
Work of Apollos at Corinth .
St. Paul's working for his
bread at Ephesus . . .
St. Paul's becoming to Jews
as a Jew 

Baptism of Crispus and Gaius .
Collection for the saints in
Galatia 
Allusion to the Passover . .
" Tarrying at Ephesus till
Pentecost" 
Sosthenes with St. Paul . .
St. Paul's wintering at Corinth
„ journey through
Macedonia 
St. Paul's journey through
Macedonia 
St. Paul's escape from Damas-

The trouble that came on bim
in Asia 
Supplies from the brethren
from Macedonia ....

„ xviii. 3.
,, xviii. 1 ; xx.
2.
„ xix. 29, 30.
„ xviii. 18, 26.
„ xix. 20, 26.
„ xix. 9, 28.
„ xix. 21, 22.
„ xix. 22.
„ xviii. 27, 28.
„ xx. 34.
„ xvi. 3 ; xviii.
18 ; xxi. 23
—26.
„ xviii. 8.
„ xviii. 23.
,, xix. 22; xx.
3.
„ xviii. 12—17.
„ xx. 3, 6.
„ xx. 1.
„ XX. 1.
„ ix. 23—25.
„ xix. 29, 30.
„ xviii. 1, 5.

THE ACTS.

131

2 Cor. i.

19 . . .

„ xi. 25 . .

„ m. 1 . . .
„ x. 14—16 .

Gal. i.

17, 18 . .

„ ii.

1 > • ¦

„ ii.

13 . , .

» v.

11 . . .

» i-

18 . . .

» "•

9 . . .

Rom. xv. 25, 26 .

„ xvi. 21—23 .

„ xvi. 3 . . .

„ xvi. 27 . .
„ i. 13; xv. 23
„ xv. 19 . .

„ xv. 30 . .

Phil. ii.

19 . . .

„ iv.

29, 30 ; ii.
1, 2 . .
2,3 . .

Eph. vi

. 21 . . .

,, -n

. 19, 20 .

CoL iv.

10 . . .

Silvanus and Timotheus as St.
Paul's fellow-workers at
Corinth 
" Once was I stoned "...
Letters of commendation . .
Corinth as then the Umit of
St. Paul's labours . . .
His visit to St. Peter and James
the Lord's brother, after
his conversion ....
The journey with Barnabas to
Jerusalem 
Barnabas with St. Paul at
Antioch 
Persecutions from the Jews .

Acts xviii. 5.
„ xiv. 19.
„ xviii. 27.
„ xviii. 18.

„ ix. 28.
„ xv. 2.

„ xv. 35—37.
„ xiii. 49 ; xiv.
1—19; xvii.
4 — 13 ; xviii.
12.
The shortness of the first visit
to Jerusalem  , xxii. 18.
The authority of James, the
brother of the Lord . . „ xii. 17 ; xv.
13; xxi. 18.
St. Paul's journey to Jerusalem „ xx. 6; xxiv.
17.
Salutations from Sosipater,
Timotheus, and Gaius . „ xx. 4.
Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth
and Rome  „ xviii. 2.
Phoebe of Cenchrese .... „ xviii. 18.
St. Paul's desire to visit Rome . „ xix. 21.
The gospel preached in Illy
ricum  „ xx. 2.
Apprehension of coming dan
ger  . „ xx. 22, 23.
Timotheusknown to the Philip
pians  „ xvi. 4 ; xvii.
14.
St. Paul's sufferings at Philippi „ xvi. 22.
Euodia, Syntyche, and the
other women at Philippi . „ xvi. 13.
Tychicus as known to the
Ephesians  „ xx. 4.
St. Paul as an ambassador in a
chain .  xxviii. 16 —
20.
Mark as sister's son (better,
cousin) to Barnabas . . „ x v. 37 — 40 ;
xii. 12.

132

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

xxvii. 2.

Col. iv. 10 . . . Aristarchus, St. Paul's fellow-
prisoner  Acts xix. 29 ;
1 Tira. v. 9 . . . Provision for the maintenance
of widows  „
The persecutor converted . . „
State of the Church at Ephesus „
Apollos in Crete  „
Onesiphorus and St. Paul's
chain  „
Trophimus left at Miletus . . „
The mother of Timotheus . . ,,
His education in the Holy
Scriptures  „
Persecutions at Antioch, Ico-
nium, Lystra  „
Mark profitable in ministering „
Alexander the coppersmith . „

» i

13

— 1G .

2 Tim

S,7;iv.l-
iii. 13 .
. i. 16 .

4

iv. i.
iii.

20 .
4,5 .
15 .

:>

iii.

io, n

»
iv.iv.
n .
14 .
VI.
1.
Vlll.
3; ix.
—10.
XX.
29, 30
xvni.
24.
xxviii
20.
XX.
4.
XVI.
1.
xvi.
2.
xiii.
, xiv.
xni
5.
XIX
33.
It should he stated that the com
parison of the Acts and the Pauline
Epistles brings to hght also some
real or apparent difficulties. Of
these the most conspicuous are : —
(1) The omission in ix. 19 — 23
of the journey to Arabia
mentioned in Gal. i. 17.
(2) The omission in Gal. ii. 1 — 10
of any notice of the jour
ney to Jerusalem in chap.
xi. 30, or of the decrees
of the council of Apostles
and elders in chap. xv.
(3) The omission in the Acts of
any record of the dispute
between St. Peter and
St. Paul at Antioch (Gal.
ii. 11).
These are examined in detail in
the Commentary.*
* See " A New Testament Commentary
for English Readers," Acts.
This method of inquiry may be
extended, with similar results, to
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and to
the two Epistles of St. Peter. It
is in the account of Apollos, in
chap, xviii. 24 — 28, that we get
what many critics since Luther's
time have looked upon as the only
satisfactory explanation of the
phenomena presented by the first
of these Epistles. Assuming the
authorship of Apollos as at least a
probable hypothesis, the spiritual
condition described in Heb. v. 11,
vi. 2, as that of some of those who
had been under the teaching of
the writer, may be compared with
that of the twelve disciples at
Ephesus who knew only the bap
tism of John (chap. xix. 1 — 7).
In the reference to the ' ' saints of
Italy " in Heb. xiii. 24 — apparently
as distinct from Roman Christians
— we may, perhaps, see a refer
ence to the Church of Puteoli, the
only ItaUan town, besides Rome,
mentioned in the Acts as con
taining "brethren" (chap, xxviii.
14).
THE ACTS.

133

I note, further, a few coincidences J of the ApOBtles and the Epistles of
of some interest between the Acts St. Peter : —

1 Pet. i. 11 . . The tone in which prophecy is
spoken of, as compared with
„ i. 17 . . God no respecter of persons .
„ i. 22 . . Purity by faith and obedience
„ ii. 7 . . The stone which the builders re
jected ...
„ iv. 16 . The name of Christian .
„ v. 12 . . Mention of Silvanus as accounting
for St. Peter's knowledge of
St. Paul's Epistles (2 Pet. iii.
15) 
„ v. 13 . . " Marcus my son "...

Acts

16, 17,
30, 31.
34.

xv. 9.
iv. 11.
xi. 26 ;
xxvi. 28.

xv. 32, 40.
xii. 12.

(3) In relation to External His
tory. — It is obvious that the Acts
of tbe Apostles take a wider range,
both in space and time, than any
other narrative book of the New
Testament. They cover » period
of more than thirty years. The
scene is shifted from Jerusalem to
Samaria, Cassarea, Damascus, An
tioch, Cyprus, Asia Minor, Greece,
and finally ends in Italy. The
writer is constantly brought across
some of the events of contempo
rary history, and the scenes which
earHer or later travellers have
described. Does he show himself
in these respects an accurate ob
server, faithful in his reports, cor
rect in his language ? Does he fall
into the blunders which would be
natural in a man writing a ficti
tious narrative a century or so after
the events which he professes to
relate ? For a full answer to these
questions the reader must be re
ferred to the Commentary; but it
may be well to indicate briefly
some of the more important of
these points of contact with the
contemporary history of the outer
world : —

Acts. v. 37.
Acts vi. 9.
Acts viii. 9.
Acts vni. 27.
Acts ix. 36.
Acts x. 1.
Acts xi. 26.
Acts xi. 2S.
Acts xii. 23.
Acts xiii. 7.
Acts xiv. 11.
Acts xvi. 12.
Acts xvi. 14.
Acts xvi. 16.
Acts xvi. 22.
Acts xvi. 37.
Acts xvii. 6.

Judas of Galilee.
The synagogue of
the Libertines.
Simon the sorcerer.
Candace, queen of
the Ethiopians.
Dorcas.The centurion of
the Italian band.
The name of Chris
tian at Antioch.
The famine under
Claudius.
Death of Herod
Agrippa I.
Sergius Paulus of
Cyprus.
Paul and Barnabas
taken for Zeus
and Hermes.
Philippi a colonia.
The purple-seller of
Thyatira.
The damsel with a
Python spirit.
The strategi of
Philippi.
St. Paul's Roman
citizenship.
The politarchs of
TheBsalonica.

134

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Acts xvii. 19.
Acts xvii. 21.
Acts xvii. 28.
Acts xviii. 2.
Acts xviii. 12.
Acts xix. 9.
Acts xix. 24.
Acts xix. 27 —
29.
Acts xix. 31 —
35.
Acts xix. 38,
39.
Acts xxi. 38.
Acts xxii. 28.
Acts xxiii. 2.
Acts xxiii. 24.
Acts xxiv. 24.
Acts xxiv. 27.
Acts xxv. 13.
Acts xxv. 11.
Acts xxvii.
Acts xxviii. 7.
Acts xxviii. 15.

The court of the
Areopagus.
Character of the
Athenians.
Quotation from
Aratus.
Jews banished from
Rome by Clau
dius.
Gallio pro-consul of
Achaia.
The school of Ty-
rannus.
The silver shrines
of Artemis.
The temple and
theatre at Ephe
sus.
The Asiarchs and
town - clerk of
Ephesus.
The pro-consuls and
the lawful As
sembly.
The Egyptian rebel.
St. Paul's Roman
citizenship.
The high priest
Ananias.
Felix the governor.
Drusilla.Porcius Festus.
Ag-rippa and Ber-
nice.
Appeal to Caesar.
The details of
the narrative
throughout.
The "chief man"
of Melita.
Appii Forum and
the Three Ta-

Under this head also it is right to
notice that which appears to make
against, rather than for, the credi
bility of the narrative, and I
accordingly name the chronological

difficulty connected with the name
of Theudas in Gamaliel's speech
(chap. v. 36).
(4) Internal Evidence of Credi
bility. — The internal consistency
of any book is not necessarily evi
dence of more than the skill of the
writer. Every writer of fiction
aims more or less at producing the
impression of verisimilitude by
touches that have the effect of
coincidences between one part of
the narrative and another ; and the
art that conceals art will produce,
according to the skill of the author,
the impression that the coincidences
are undesigned. On the other hand,
we feel, as we read some stories,
that they contain, in the natural
ness of their style, the absence of
any sensational dove-tailing of
incidents, primd facie testimony to
their own veracity. And it is sub
mitted to the reader whether in
stances such as the foUowing may
not fairly claim consideration, as
coming under the latter category
rather than the former.
(1) Hostility of the high priests,
as Sadducees, to the preach
ing of the resurrection
(chaps, iv. 1, 2 ; v. 17).
(2) Barnabas of Cyprus going
twice to his own country
(chaps, iv. 36 ; xiii. 4 ; xv.
39).
(3) The complaints of the Hel-
lenistae (Grecians), leading
to the election of seven
men with Greek names
(chap. vi. 1 — 5).
(4) The Cilicians disputing with
Stephen (chap. vi. 9). The
young man named Saul
(chap. vii. 58) ; afterwards
described as of Tarsus
(chap. ix. 11).

THE ACTS.

135

(5) Philip's arrival at Csesarea
(chap. viii. 40). No fur
ther mention of him tiU we
find him again at Caesarea
(chap. xxi. 8).
(6) Mark's return to Jerusalem
(chap. xiii. 13) explained
by bis mother's being there
(chap. xii. 12) and the pres
sure of the famine (chap.
xi. 28).
(7) Agabus prophesying the
famine (chap. xi. 28) ; again
appearing in the character
of a prophet sixteen years
later (chap. xxi. 10).
(8) The speech of Lycaonia as
accounting for the surprise
of Paul and Barnabas at
the preparations for sacri
fice (chap. xiv. 11 — 14).
(9) Conversion of Samaritans
(chap. viii. 14). Incidental
mention of the brethren in
Samaria (chap. xv. 3).
(10) Men of Cyprus and Cyrene
found the Church at An
tioch (chap. xi. 20). Bar
nabas of Cyprus sent to
carry on the work (chap.
xi. 22). Lucius of Cyrene
among the prophets of the
Church (chap. xiii. 1).
(11) Philippi a colonia (chap. xvi.
12). PhiUppians speak of
themselves as Romans
(chap. xvi. 21).
(12) Trophimus the Ephesian
(chap. xxi. 29) recognised
by Jews of Asia, i.e., from
Ephesus and its neighbour
hood.
The list might, it is believed, be
easily enlarged, but these will be
sufficient to put the student on the
track of a method which he can

apply almost indefinitely in other
instances for himself.*
"VTI. Sources of the His
tory. — It wiU he assumed here
that the use of the first person in
parts of the history implies that
the writer was then the companion
of the Apostle whose labours he
records. We have seen, in the
Introduction to St. Luke, how far
the facts that are thus implied
brought the writer into contact
with persons who could give him
trustworthy information as to what
he relates in his Gospel ; it remains
to be seen how far they point to
the probable sources of his know
ledge as to the events recorded in
the Acts.
Acts i. — v. PhiUp the Evan
gelist (chap. xxi. 8 —
10), or Mnason of Cy
prus (chap. xxi. 16), or
others — and, in parti
cular, the "women" of
Luke viii. 2 — at Jeru
salem.
Acts vi., vii. PhiUp or St.
Paul.
Acts viii. Philip.
Acts ix. St. Paul.
Acts x. — xi. 18. PhiUp.
Acts xi. 19 — 30. St. Paul,
or, probably, personal
knowledge gained at
Antioch.
Acts xii. 1 — 19. John surnamed
Mark (Col. iv. 10—14).
Acts xiii. 1 — 13. St. Paul, or
Mark, or Mnason of
Cyprus.

* It lies on the surface that I am largely
indebted in this part of my work to Paley's
Horce Paulinos. I wish also to acknow
ledge my obligation to Mr. Birks's Horce
Apostolicce.

136

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Acts xiii. 14 — 52; xiv. St.
Paul ; or, possibly,
knowledge gained by
Luke in person on his
journey to Troas, or
afterwards from Timo
theus.
Acts xv., xvi. 1 — 7. St. Paul,
or, probably, personal
knowledge, as staying
at Antioch, and, pos
sibly, going up to Jeru
salem.
Acts xvi. 8 — 40. Personal
knowledge.
Acts xvii., xviii. Probable com
munications from the
brethren who came from
Philippi to Thessalonica
(Phil. iv. 16), and again
to Corinth (2 Cor. xi.
9). General intercourse
between the Romans of
PhiUppi and the Roman
Jews at Corinth.
Acts xix. St. Paul ; or possibly
Aristarchus and Gaius
of Macedonia, or Ty-
rannus.
Acts xx. — xxviii. Personal
knowledge.
Looking to the manner in which
the Gospel begins with what has
the character of a distinct docu
ment, so strongly marked by He
braisms that it could scarcely have
been written by a Greek writer, it
is probable that the first five chap
ters of the Acts may, in Uke man
ner, have been incorporated from
an earUer document, recording,
like the later history of Hegesippus,
the history of the Church of Jeru
salem with a special fulness. It
will, at any rate, be clear that at
every step in the narrative we are
able, in the Acta, as in the Gospel
of the same writer, to point with a

very high degree of probability to
those who here also were " eye
witnesses and ministers of ihe
AVord" (Lukei. 2).
VIII. Its Bearing on the
Mission-work, Organisation,
and "Worship of the Church.
— -(1) Mission-work. It will not,
it is beheved, be unprofitable to
look at the records of the Acts of
the Apostles as presenting the type
and pattern for aU future labours
in the work of evangelising the
world. It is obvious that the
preaching of the Apostles is some
thing very different from that of
those who offer to men's acceptance
simply a lofty ideal of virtue or
high-toned ethical precepts. The
central fact of aU their teaching is
the resurrection of Christ (chaps ii.
32, 33; iv. 10; x. 40, 41; xiii. 32
—37; xvii. 31; xxvi. 23). Upon
that proclamation of a fact in the
past they build their assurance that
He will come again as the Judge
of the living and the dead (chaps.
iii. 21; x. 42; xvii. 31); that in
the meantime He calls men to
repent and beheve in Him (chaps.
ii. 38 ; v. 31 ; x. 43 ; xiu. 38, 39 ;
xiv. 15 ; xvii. 30, 31) ; and that
thus they may receive remission of
their sins and the gift of the Holy
Ghost (chaps, ii. 38 ; viii. 15 ; x.
45 ; xix. 2). They are naturally
brought into contact, as they preach
this gospel, with men of very
different habits of thought, varying
in their training, their knowledge,
and their culture ; and they adapt
themselves, as far as Ues in their
power, to all these variations in
their hearers. With the Jews of
Jerusalem, Antioch in Pisidia,
Corinth, and Rome, they draw
their arguments almost exclusively
from the correspondence between
the acts and death and resurrection

THE ACTS.

137

of _ Jesus with what had been
written in the Law and Prophets
as pointing to the coming Christ
(chaps, ii. 14—36; iii. 19—26 ; vii.
2—53; xiii. 17—41; xxviii. 23).
With peasants, such as those at
Lystra, they lay their foundation
on what we should caU the broad
lines of a simple natural theology,
and appeal to the goodness ot God
as manifested in the order of nature,
in rain from heaven and fruitful
seasons (chap. xiv. 15 — 17). With
the Stoics and Epicureans of
Athens, St. Paul (he alone, it may
be, of the glorious company of the
Apostles was fitted for that work)
rises to the level of the occasion,
and meets the thinkers on their
own grounds, appeals to the witness
of their own poets, and sets before
them what we have ventured to
caU the outlines of a philosophy at
once of worship and of human
history (chap. xvn. 22 — 31).
And it may be noted how care
fully in all these cases the preachers
abstain from the weapons of terror
and of ridicule which men have
sometimes used in dealing with the
heathen whom they were seeking
to convert. There are no state
ments that the world outside the
range of the gospel was sentenced
to hopeless condemnation — that the
forefathers of those to whom they
preached were for ever in the dark
prison of Gehenna. They recog
nised, on the contrary, that in
every nation he that feareth God
and worketh righteousness is ac
cepted with Him. (See chap. x.
35.) They speak of the times
of ignorance which God "winked
at" (chap. xvu. 30). They are
no "blasphemers" even of the
worship which they are seek
ing to supplant (chap. xix. 37).
They present the Gospel to men's

minds as reaUsing at once the con
scious prophecies of Israel and the
unconscious prophecies of heathen
ism. They come, it is true, with
some weapons in which modern
missionaries are wanting. They
claim to work signs and wonders as
attestations of their divine mission
(chaps, iii. 6, 7 ; v. 15 ; vi. 8 ; viii.
13; ix. 34—40; xiv. 10; xix. 12;
xxviii. 5 — 8) ; but they lay far less
stress on these than on the " de
monstration of the Spirit" — the
prophecy that reveals the secrets
of the heart, the conscious ex
perience of the power of that Spirit
to give a new peace and a new
purity to souls that had been
alienated from the life of God
through the ignorance that was in
them (chaps, ii. 38, 39 ; xi. 17, 18 ;
Rom. viii. 23—26; 1 Cor. ii. 4).
(2) Organisation and Worship.
And, it may be noted further, they
do not rest satisfied with the con
version of individuals as such, nor
with leaving with each believer a
book or a rule of life for his own
personal guidance. Everywhere
they seek to organise a society : the
"brethren," the "disciples," the
" saints," are formed into a church
— i.e., an ecclesia, or congregation ;
and that society receives a distinct
and definite constitution. Elders,
otherwise known as bishops (chap.
xx. 28 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Tit. i. 5, 7), are
appointed in every city (chaps, xi.
30 ; xiv. 23 ; xx. 17), to teach, and
preside in worship, and administer
the discipUne and laws of the con
gregation. There are ministers or
deacons under them, who assist in
. baptising, in the subordinate offices
of worship, in the relief of the
sick and poor, and, if they have
special gifts, in preaching the gos
pel to Jews and heathen, and teach
ing converts also (chap. vi. 3 — 6 ;

138

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Phil, i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 8). The
Apostles appoint both elders and
deacons, with the consent — and
therefore the impUed right of veto
— of the congregation, and exercise
over them an authority analogous
to that of the later bishops (chaps.
xiv. 23 ; xx. 17). There is an
organisation of the charity of the
Church on the basis of systematic
almsgiving ; and the Apostles, and,
in their absence, the bishop -elders
of the Church, act, where necessary,
with the help of others as repre
senting the laity of the Church, as
treasurers and almoners (chaps, iv.
37 ; v. 2). The disciples meet to
break bread, as their Lord had com
manded, on the evening of every
day ; afterwards, as the Church
included men of various classes and
employments, on that of the first
day of the week — probably, i.e., on
Saturday evening (chaps, ii. 46 ; xx.
7) ; and the history of the institu
tion of what came to be known as
the Supper of the Lord formed the
centre of the celebration of that
feast (1 Cor. xi. 23—26). The
feast itself was preceded by a
solemn blessing, and closed with a
solemn thanksgiving. Psalms,
hymns, and unpremeditated bursts
of praise, chanted in the power of
the Spirit, such • as those of the
gift of tongues, were the chief
elements of the service (chap. iv.
24—30 ; Eph. v. 19 ; Col. iii. 16).
The right of utterance was not
denied to any man (women even
seem at first to have been admitted
to the same right — chap. xxi. 9 ; 1
Cor. xi. 5) who possessed the neces
sary gifts (1 Cor. xiv. 26 — 33) and
was ready to submit them to the
control of the presiding elder or
Apostle. There were in the un
written traditions of the Church ;
in its oral teaching as to our Lord's

life and teaching (1 Cor. xi. 23 ;
xv. 1 — 8) ; as in its rules of disci
pline and worship (2 Thess. ii. 15 ;
iii. 6) ; in the ' ' faithful sayings "
which were received as axioms of
its faith (1 Tim. i. 15; iv. 9; 2
Tim. ii. 11 ; Tit. iii. 8), the germs
at once of the creeds, the canons,
the liturgies, the systematic theo
logy of the future. It is, lastly,
instructive and suggestive to note
that throughout the history there
is no record of any effort to set
apart a separate place of worship
for the members of the new society.
They meet in private houses (chaps.
u. 46 ; xx. 8 ; Rom. xvi. 5, 15, 23 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 19), or in a hired class
room (chap. xix. 9), as opportunities
present themselves. There would
apparently have been no difficulty
in their claiming the privilege
which Roman rulers con ceded freely
to other Jews and proselytes, of
erecting a synagogue of their own ;
but they left this to come in due
course afterwards. Their own
work was of a different and highsr
kind. They were anxious rather
to found and edify the society
which, as built of " living stones,"
was to be the temple of the living
God, than, in the modern sense of
the term, to be the builders of
churches. IX. Its Bearing on the
Church History of the
Future. — Nor is the record which
we owe to St. Luke less instructive
considered as the first volume of
the history of Christendom. Fairly
considered, while it brings before
us the picture of primitive Chris
tianity as a pattern to be foUowed
in its essential features, it is as
far as possible from presenting it
as a golden age of unalloyed and
unapproachable perfection. It tells
us of men who were of hke passions

THE ACTS.

139

with ourselves, not free from the
bitterness of personal quarrels
£chap. xv. 39), or from controversies
in which party was arrayed against
party on a question on which each
held that it was contending for a
vital truth (chap. xv. 1 — 5). It
records, as if with an unconscious
prevision of future controversies,
how that dispute ended in an ami
cable compromise, each party mak
ing concessions, within certain
well-defined limits, to its opponents,
neither insisting on what an inexor
able logic might have looked on as
the necessary conclusion from its
premisses (chap. xv. 23 — 30). The
writer tends, partly by his natural
instincts, partly of deliberate pur
pose, to dwell on the points of
agreement between men rather than
on their points of difference ; to
bring out the good which was to be
found in men of different degrees
of culture and very varied training.
Peter, James, ApoUos, Paul, are
not for him what they were for so
many others — leaders of parties,
rivals for aUegiance. He is able to
recognise in each and aU men who
are ministers of Christ, fitted for

the work of that ministry by the
gift of the Holy Ghost. And in
striking contrast to the martyro-
logiste and other annalists of the
Church who foUowed him, he avoids
what we may call the sensational
element ot history ; does not dwell
(with the one marked exception
of St. Stephen) on the deaths
and sufferings of the disciples ;
understates the work, the hardships,
and the perils of the Apostle who
is the chief figure in his history ;
aims rather at presenting the results
of the actual contest between the
new and the old societies, now
favourable and now quite other
wise, than at representing the two
as in irreconcUable enmity. There
is, so to speak, a hopefulness and
healthiness of tone, which contrasts
favourably with that of later
writers after the sword of systematic
persecution had been unsheathed,
or even in some measure with that
ot the later writings ot the New
Testament, such as the Epistles of
St. Peter and the Apocalypse, and
which may fairly be aUowed some
weight as evidence for tbe early
date cl its composition.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF APOSTOLIC HISTORY.

It will, it is believed, be helpful to the reader to have before him something like a general survey of the
history of the Apostolic Age, indicating, at least approximately, the probable succession of events, and the
relation which they bore to what then occupied the minds of men as the prominent facts in the history of the
world in which they Uved ; and with this view the following Table has been compiled. AVhere the dates
are uncertain, and have therefore been variously placed, the doubt is indicated by a note of interrogation (?).

A.D.JEMPERORS.

Apostolic History.

CrVTL RULERS.

High Priests.

COS TEMl'O BABY EVENTS.

A.D.

28

Tiberius,

The, Day of Pentecost, May (?).

Pontius Pilate, Pro

Caiaphas from

28

from a,d.

(O'ther dates, varying from a.d.

curator of Judaea

a.d. 25, son-in-

14.
30—33, have been assigned for
this.)
from. a.d. 26.
law of Annas,
or Ananus.
'29
29
::u
30
81
Death of Sejanus.
31
32
The growth of the Chureh as de
scribed in Acts ii. — v. may be
referred to this period, but there
are no data for going further
into detail.
Tiberius at Capress. New Sibyl
line books brought under notice
of Senate.
32
33
Drusus, son of Germanicus,
starved to death.
33
34
Vitellius, Prelect of
Syria.
Phcenix reported to have been
seen in Egypt.
34
35
Vitellius in Mesopotamia,
35
36
Martyrdom of Stephen (?).
Philo at Alexandria.
36
37
Caligula.
Peter and John in Samaria.
Conversion of Saul.
Herod Agrippa I.
Jonathan, son
of Ananus.
Aretas in possession of Damas
cus.
37
38
Conversion of Cornelius. Saul at
Damascus.
Theophilus, son of Ananus.
Philo's mission to Bome.
38
39
Saul at Damascus.
Herod Antipas goes to Rome, and
is banished to Gaul. Birth of
Lucan.
39
40
Paul at Jerusalem and Tarsus.
Petronius, Prefect of
Syria.
Caligula orders his statue to be
set up in the Temple of Jeru
salem. Philo at Rome.
40
4Hfed
w H%HM
fe!H
wo b
dQi-3Mo
m
CHRONOLOGICA1 TABLF OI APOSTOLIC HISTORY (continued).

A.I). Emperors. Apostolic History.

Civil Rulers,

High Priests.

CONTEMPORARY EVENTS.

A.I).

41

Claudius.

Barnabas sent to Antioch. See
of Rome founded by St. Peter
W).
Paul at Antioch. Disciples called

Simon Can-
theras

Birth of Titus.

41

45

Matthias, sou

Herod Agrippa made King of

42

Christians.
of Ananus.
Judaea by Claudius.
48
Paul and Barnabas go to Jeru
salem. The Gospel ac
cording to St. Matthew
Death of James the son of Zebe
Elionaeus. son
of Canthe-
ras.
Claudius conquers Britain.
43
44
Cuspius Fadus Pro
Death of Herod Agrippa at Cae-
44
dee. Peter imprisoned.
curator of Judssa.
sarea. Pia uti us in Britain.
45
Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus.
Epistle of St. James (?).
Joseph, son of
Canis.
Apollonius of Tyana ill India and
Persia .
45
46
Paul and Barnabas in Pisidia and
Lycaonia.
Tiberius Alexander,
Procurator of
Judaea.
46
47
Paul and Barnabas return to An
Ventidius Cumanus,
Ananias, son
Ludi scecukt/res at Rome. Plau-
47
tioch.
Procurator of
Judtea.
of Nebedius.
tius returns from Britain.
48
Death of Messalina. Claudius
undei the influence of Narcis
sus and Pallas.
48
49
Paul's dispute with Peter (??).
Herod Agrippa II.,
King of Chalcis.
Herod Agrippa II. made King of
Chalcis. Seneca appointed as
Nero's tutor. Jews banished
from Eome.
49
60
Council at Jerusalem. Paul and
Barnabas return with Silas to
Antioch.
Caractacus captive in Rome.
Foundation of Cologne by
Agrippina.
60
SI
Paul and Silas start on another
mission. Paul's dispute with
Peter (?).
Felix, Procurator of
Judaea.
Burrus made Prefect of the Prae
torian Guards. Astrologers
expelled from Italy.
51
£2
Paul at Philippi, Thessalonica,
Bercea, Athens, Corinth.
Herod Agrippa IL,
King of Batanaea
and Trachonitis.
Herod Agrippa II. made King of
Batanaea and Trachonitis.
52
58
Paul at Corinth. First and
Second Epistles to the
Thessalonians.
Marriage of Nero with Octavia.
53
Nero.

Paul's journey to Ephesus, Cse-
sarea, Jerusalem, Antioch.
Apollos at Ephesus. Dispute
with Peter (?).
Apollos at Corinth, Paul in
Asia.
Tumult at Ephesus (May). First
Epistle to the Corin
thians. Paul in Macedonia.
Epistle to tbe Galatians.
Second Epistle to tne
Corinthians.
Paul at Corinth. Epistle to
the Romans. Journey to
Jerusalem (April, May). Trial
hefore Felix.
Paul at Ceesarea.
Paul at Csesarea.
Paul at Csesarea. Appeal to
Csesar. Voyage to Italy.
Paul at Melita. Arrives at Rome
(April). Lives in his own
house.
Paul at Bome. Epistle to tne
Philippians.
Paul at Eome. Epistles to tne
Ephesians, Colossians,
Philemon. Belease. First
Epistle of St. Peter.
Paul in Spain (?), Asia (?), Nico-
polis (?). First and Second
Epistles to Timothy.
The Gospel according
to St. IiUlce and Acts of
the Apostles (?) Epistle
to Titus. Second Epistle
of St. Peter. Jude.

Porcius Festus, Pro
curator of Judaea.

Alhinus, Procurator
of Judaea.

Gessius Floras, Pro
curator of Judaea.

Ishmael, son
of Phahi.

Joseph Cabi.

Ananus.

Jesus, son of
Damngeus

Narcissus put to death by Nero. 54 £

Tumult in Judeea, headed by the
Egyptian of Acts xxi 38.
Birth of Trajan.

Trial of Pomponia Grsecina.

Poppaea Sabina, Nero's mistress.
Agrippina, Nero's mother, put to
death.

Bevolt in Britain, under Boadi-
cea. Queen of the Iceni. Apol-
lonius of Tyana at the Olympic
Games.
Burrus dies, and is succeeded by
Tigellinus. Persius dies. Jo
sephus at Bome.
Earthquakes iu Asia Minor.

Great fire at Bome.
of Christians.

Persecution

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF APOSTOLIC HISTORY (continued).

A. D. i Emperors.

Apostolio History.

Civil Rulers.

High priests.

CONTEMPORARY EVENTS.

Galba.

Otho. Vitellius.

Titus.

Death of Paul and Peter (?) at
Bome. Linus Bishop of Bome
(?)¦
Epistle to the Hebrews (?).
The Gospel according to
St. Matthew (?).
Death of Peter and Paul (?).
The Gospel according to
St. Mark. Epistle of St.
James (??).
St. John in Patmos (?). The
Apocalypse (?).
IDeath of James, the Bishop of
Jerusalem (?).
Simeon Bishop of Jerusalem;
Ignatius of Antioch (f).

Cletus Bishop ot Bome (!).

Epistle of Clement of Bome to
the Corinthians (??).

Seneca and Lucan put to death
by Nero. Death of PoppEea,
Nero in Greece. Apollonius of
Tyana ordered to leave Bome.
Martial at Bome.
Josephus gains favour with Ves
pasian after the capture of
Jotapata*
Vespasian takes Jericho

The Capitol rebuilt by Vespasian,
Jerusalem taken by Titus (Aug.
31). Josephus released.
Temple of Janus closed. Destruc
tion of the Onias Temple in
Egypt. Triumph of Titus and
Vespasian.

Berenice at Bome with Vespasian
and Titus. Philosophers ba
nished from Bome.
Temple of Peace at Bome dedi
cated by Vespasian.
Coliseum begun. Birth of Hadrian.
Britain conquered by Agricola.
Pompeii and Herculaneum de
stroyed. Death of Pliny the
Elder.
Coliseum finished. Pestilence
and fire at Bome. Baths of
Titus built.

Domitian.!

Nerva.

Trajan.

Clement Bishop of Rome.
St. John thrown into boiling oil
before the Latin Gate (??).
Epistle of Clement (?). The
Apocalypse (??). Flavius
Clemens put to death. Domi-
tilla banished.
The Three Epistles of St.
John (?).
The Gospel according to
St. John (?).
Cerdon Bishop of Alexandria ;
Ignatius of Antioch ; Simon
of Jerusalem.
Death of St. John (?).
Death of St. John (?).

_L

Domitian banishes all philo
sophers from Bome.
Agricola in Caledonia.
Antoninus Pius born.
Quintilian at Bome from a.d. 68-

Philosophers again banished from
Bome, Epictetus among them.

Death of Agricola and Josephus.
Juvenal banished.
Grandsons of the brethren of the
Lord brought before Domitian.

Death of Apollonius of Tyana.
Pliny and Plutarch in favour
with Trajan.

Pliny's Panegyric on Trajan.
Martial retires to Spain.

100

ROMANS.
By the Rev. Pnoressoa SANDAY, D.L».

I. The Epistles of St. Paul
generally, and that to the
Romans in particular  It is
a somewhat remarkable fact that so
large a part of the documents of
Christianity should be taken up
with a correspondence. The con
tents of the Old Testament, hetero
geneous as they are, correspond
more nearly to what we should
expect to find in a sacred volume.
A legislation such as that of Moses,
songs expressive of deep religious
feeling like the Psalms, impassioned
addresses like those of the prophets,
histories such as the continuous
series which trace the fortunes of
the Chosen People — all these, we
should have thought, were the
natural vehicle for a religion. But
the composition of the New Testa
ment is something more unique.
The foundation of Christianity is
laid in a narrative ; but the first
and greatest development of Chris
tian theology is not embodied in
narrative, not in any set and formal
treatise, not in liturgies, canons,
and works of devotion, but in a
collection of letters.
The causes of this peculiarity are
not far to seek. Christianity was
the first great missionary religion.
It was the first to break the bonds
of race, and aim at embracing all

mankind. But this nocessarily in
volved a change iu the mode in
which it was presented. The pro
phet of the Old Testament, if he
had anything to communicate,
either appeared in person or sent
messengers to speak for him by
word of mouth. The one excep
tion of any rehgious significance is
a letter of Elijah to Jehoram in
2 Chron. xxi. The narrow limits
of Palestine made direct personal
communication easy. But the case
was different when the Christian
Church came to consist of a number
of scattered posts, stretching from
Mesopotamia in the east to Bome,
or even Spain, in the far west. It
was only natural that the Apostle
by whom the greater number of
these communities had been founded
should seek to communicate with
them by letter. He was enabled to
do so by two things : first, the very
general diffusion of the Greek lan
guage ; and, secondly, the remark
able facilities of intercourse afforded
at this particular time. The whole
world was at peace, and held to
gether by the organised rule of
imperial Eome. Piracy had been
put down. Commerce flourished
to an extraordinary and unpre
cedented degree. In order to
find a parallel to the rapidity and

10

146

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

ease of communication along- the
whole coast of the Mediterranean
and the inland districts, intersected
as they were with a network of
military roads, we should have to
come down to the present century.
St. Paul was in the habit of travel
ling surrounded by a group of more
intimate disciples, whom, as occa
sion arose, he despatched to the seve
ral churches that he had founded,
much as a general sends his aides-
de-camp to different parts of a battle
field ; or, without falling back upon
those, he had often an opportunity
of sending by some chance traveller,
such as was probably Phebe, the
bearer of the Epistle to the
Romans. The whole of St. Paul's Epistles
bear traces of their origin. It is
just this occasional character which
makes them so peculiarly human.
They arose out of actual pressing
needs, and they are couched (most
of them, at least) in the vivid and
fervent language of one who takes
a deep and loving interest in the
persons to whom he is writing, as
well as in the subject that he is writ
ing about. Precept and example,
doctrine and practice, theology and
ethics, are all mixed and blended
together. No rehgious books pre
sent the same variety as the Chris
tian, and that because they are in
the closest contact with actual life.
There is, however, as we might
naturally expect, a difference in the
balance of the two elements — the
personal or epistolary clement pro
per on the one hand, and the doc
trinal or didactic element on the
other. In some of the Epistles
the one, in others the other, pre
ponderates. As types of the first
class, we might take the Eirst,
and still more that noble and un
surpassable Second Epistle to the

Corinthians, and the Epistle to
the Philippians. At the head of
the second class would be placed the
Epistles to the Eomans and to the
Ephesians. It can hardly be a chance co
incidence that precisely in these
two Epistles there are certain
MSS. which omit the words of
address to the particular church.
By reasons which cannot be given
in this Introduction the writer has
been led to the suggestion that the
Epistle was at an early period cir
culated in a double form — one that
in which wo now have it, and tho
other, with the personal matter
excised, as a general treatise on
Christian doctrine. In any case,
this character in it is marked : it
is the most like a theological trea
tise of any of the New Testament
writings. How are we to account for this ?
We shall be in a better position to
answer such a question when we
have considered more particularly
the circumstances under whieh tho
Epistle was written, the persons to
whom it was addressed, and the
object for which it was designed.
II. Time and Place of the
Epistle. — And first, as to the time
and place of the Epistle. These
are fixed within very definite limits.
One set of allusions clearly points
to Corinth as the place from which
the Apostle is writing. In chap.
xvi. 23 he speaks of himself as the
guest of one " Gaius," and in 1
Cor. i. 14, he says that he had bap
tised none of the Corinthian Church
"but Crispus and Gaius." The
name was a common one ; still
there would be a primd facie proba
bility in the identification. In the
same verse (chap. xvi. 23), the
Apostle conveys a salutation fro:n

EOMANS.

147

Erastus, "the treasurer" ("cham
berlain," Authorised version) "of
the city," and in 2 Tim. iv. 20 we
are told that Erastus "abode in
Corinth," which would be natural
if Corinth was his home. These
indications are clenched by the com
mendatory notice in chap xvi. 1 of
Phebe, deaconess of the Church at
Cenchrea, to whose care it would
seem that the Epistle was entrusted.
Cenchrea was the port of Corinth.
Prom another set of allusions
(chap. xv. 25, 26) we gather that
at the time at which he was writ
ing, St. Paul was about to go up
to Jerusalem, bearing with him the
sums collected amongst the com
paratively wealthy churches of
"Macedonia and Achaia" for the
poor Christians at Jerusalem. The
order in which the two names are
mentioned would quite fall in with
the assumption that it was from
Achaia — of which province Corinth
was the capital — that the Epistle
was written; and we should also
naturally infer that he had passed
through Macedonia on his way to
Corinth. We find, besides, the
intention expressly declared of
extending the journey, after his
visit to Jerusalem, to Eome (chap.
xv. 23 — 26) . All this tallies exactly
with the statement in Acts xix. 21,
"After these things were ended
(i.e., the success of the Apostle's
preaching at Ephesus), Paul pur
posed in the spirit, when he had
passed through Macedonia and
Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying,
After I have been there, I must
also seo Eome." Such was his
programme ; and that it was actu
ally carried out appears from the
:notices in Acts xx. 1 — 3, 22, xxi. 15.
In the first we find the Apostle
spending three months in Greece,
in the second ho announces at

Miletus the destination of his
journey for Jerusalem, in the third
he actually arrives there. We
learn, moreover, incidentally from
his speech before Eelix, in Acts
xxiv. 17, that the object of his
visit to Jerusalem was to bring
"alms and offerings." And there
are repeated allusions to a collection
for the same purpose in both the
Epistles to the Corinthians. (See
1 Cor. xvi. 3 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 2 ; ix.
1 et seq.)
The Epistle is thus placed, by
a remarkable convergence of evi
dence, in that part of the Apostle's
third missionary journey which
was spent in Corinth. The journey
in question began at Antioch.
Thence the Apostle made his way
to Ephesus by a detour through
Galatia and Phrygia. At Ephesus
he stayed in all about three years,
and his preaching was attended
with a success which roused the
heathen population against him.
The disturbance that ensued has
tened him on bis way to Mace
donia. Through Macedonia ho
passed westwards as far as Illyri
cum (chap. xv. 19), and thence to
Greece, where he spent three
months. It was at Corinth, then, during
these three months that the Epistle
was written. This would be, ac
cording to the system of the best
chronologists, in the spring of the
year a.d. 58. That the time of the
year was spring is fixed by the fact
that the Apostle had intended to
sail for Syria (Acts xx. 3), which
ho would not have done during the
wiuter season. The navigation of
the Mediterranean was held lo be
unsafe from October to the middle
of March. But the Apostle must
have left Corinth before the spring
was far advanced, as he had time,

148

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

after passing through Macedonia
and coasting along the shore of
Asia Minor, to arrive at Jerusalem
forthe Feast of Pentecost — i.e., our
Whitsuntide. We shall not be far
wrong if we place the Epistle to
wards the end of the month of
February. III. Place of the Epistle
in relation to the rest of
St. Paul's Epistles. — Three
other Epistles were written during
the same journey, the First and
Second to the Corinthians, and that
to the Galatians. The First Epistle
to the Corinthians was written from
Ephesus during the spring of the
year preceding, a.d. 57. The
Second Epistle was written from
Macedonia in the autumn of the
same year. The Epistle to the
Galatians is less clearly dated. It
may possibly belong to the earlier
part of the three years' residence
at Ephesus, and it is assigned to
this time and place by the majority
of commentators. But when we
come to deal with that Epistle,
reasons will be given for preferring
another view, which places it rather
between the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians and that to the Romans.
We should thus have the following
order : —
1 Cor. Ephesus a.d. 57 Spring.
2 Cor. Macedonia „ 57 Autumn.
(Macedonia, or perhaps
more pro
bably Greece

, 57, 58
Winter.

Rom. | Corinth 1 '

58 Early
Spring.

The Epistle to the Eomans comes,
in any case, last in the group.
Passing to the wider relations of
the group to which the Epistle to

the Eomans belongs, to the rest of
the Apostle's writings, we shall see
that it comes second of the four
larger groups. The order woidd be
this: —

A. 1 & 2 Thess.

B. 1 & 2 Cor.,

| 2nd Mis-
I sionary
journey
f3rd Mis-
•< sionary

Gal., Eom. 1 .""""" -x
' um- ( journey J

C.Philip.,Eph. Col., Phil.
(Epistles of
the Imprison
ment)

D. 1 & 2 Tim.,
Titus (Pastoral

A.D. 52
(end), 53
A.D.
57,58

A,D.
62, 63

A.D.
66—68

FirstEo-
man Im
prisonment
'Interval of free
dom and
SecondEomanImprisonment

IV. The Roman Church 
The next point to be determined
is the character of the Church to
which the Epistle was addressed.
And this we may do well to con
sider from two points of view.
First, with reference to what may
be learned respecting it from ex
ternal sources ; and, secondly, with
reference to the indications sup
plied by the Epistle itself.
1 . At Eome, as elsewhere, Chris
tianity first took root among the
Jews. A large colony of this
people existed in Eome at tho
Christian era. The foundation of
it had been laid by the captives
carried away by Pompey after tho
taking of Jerusalem in n.c. 63. A
number of these were settled in
Rome. They attracted the favour
able notice first of Julius Cassar,
and then still more of Augustus,
who assigned to them a special

EOMANS.

149

quarter beyond, i.e., on the rjght
bank of .the Tiber, and opposite to
the modern Jewish quarter, or
Ghetto, which lies between the
Capitol and the river. They were
allowed the free exercise of their
religion, and, as was always the
case where they were treated with
toleration, rapidly increased in
numbers. A Jewish embassy,
which came to Eome after the
death of Herod the Great, was able
to attach to itself as many as 8,000
Roman Jews, who naturally would
represent only the more respectable
portion of the male community.
This rapid progress received a check
under Tiberius, who, in a.d. 19,
probably at the instance of Sejanus,
obtained a decree of the Senate,
sending 4,000 Jews and Egyptians
to Sardinia on military service, and
forbidding the rest from the practice
of their religion on pain of expul
sion from Italy. Josephus tells a
scandalous story to account for this,
but the real reason may, very
possibly, have been the fear oi'
secret political machinations under
the disguise of religion. In the
latter part of his reign Tiberius
reversed this policy, and its effects
speedily disappeared. Under the
next emperor, Caligula, an embassy
of Alexandrine Jews, headed by
Philo, met with a rough reception ;
but this would seem to have been
more than count/rbalancd by the
favour extended to Herod Agrippa,
who stood high in influence at
the Court. This astute politician
made use of his position to further
the accession of Claudius, and, as a
reward, not only was restored to
the dominions of his grandfather,
Herod the Great, but also obtained
an extension of privileges for his
countrymen throughout the empire.
Later in the reign of Claudius dis

turbances arose among the Jews at
Eome, which seem to have been
connected with the first preaching
of Christianity, either through the
excitement of the Messianic expec
tations, or through disputes between
the Jews and Christians. Suetonius
says that they took place at the
instigation " of one Chrestus,"
which, for the heathen historian,
would be a not unnatural miscon
struction. The result was a second
banishment of the Jews from Rome
(Acts xviii. 2). But this again
cannot have been really complete,
and the Jews who were banished
seem in many instances (such as
that of Aquila and Prisca) soon to
have returned. The effect of the
repressive measures might easily be
exaggerated. There is abundant
evidence to show that, at the time
St. Paul was writing, the Jewish
community at Rome was numerous
and flourishing, and its influence
upon Roman society was loudly
complained of alike by the
philosopher, the satirist, and the
historian. The chronology of the foregoing
sketch may be thus exhibited : —
Founding of the Jewish
community at Rome
by prisoners brought
from Jerusalem by
Pompey  e.c. 63
Favourable position
lmderjulius Caesar B.C. 48 — 44
and Augustus B.C. 27— a.d. 14
Embassy to Eome after
the death of Herod... ex. 4
First decree of banish
ment under Tiberius a.d. 19
Philo's embassy to
Caligula ... circa „ 40
Second decree of banish
ment under Claudius circa „ 49

150

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

Eeturn of Aquila and
Prisoa to Eome ... a.d. 57
Epistle to the Eomans „ 58
According to the tradition which
is still in vogue among the modern
representatives of the Eoman
Church, Christianity was planted
there by St. Peter in the year a.d.
41. St. Peter himself is said to
have held the episcopate for twenty-
five years. This tradition, how
ever, only dates from the time of
Jerome (ob. a.d. 420), and is there
fore much too late to be of any
value. It is contradicted by the
whole tenor of St. Paul's Epistle,
which could hardly have failed to
contain some allusion to the
presence of a brother Apostle,
especially when we consider the
express declaration of St. Paul that
he was careful not to " build upon
another man's foundation." Be
sides, a distinct alibi can be proved
by the comparison of Acts xv. with
Gal. ii. 1 — 9, which shows that, at
the time of the Apostolic Council
in a.d. 52, not only was Peter at
Jerusalem, but Jerusalem had been
up to that time his head-quarters.
He is still the Apostle of the
circumcision, and a pillar of the
mother church. At a later period
he is found, not at Eome, but at
Antioch. It is more probable that the
germs of Christianity were carried
back to Rome by the " strangers "
(Acts ii. 10) whom we find in
Jerusalem at the Feast of Pente
cost, i.e., Jews resident in Rome
who had come up for the purpose
of attending the feast. The rudi
ments of Christian teaching brought
back by these would soon be
developed in the constant inter
course whieh took place between
Rome and the provinces. The fact

that, in the list of salutations at
the end of the Epistle, so many are
mentioned who were not native
Romans, but had been already
under the personal influence of St.
Paul, would readily account for the
advanced knowledge of Christianity
that the Apostle assumes among
them. 2. Turning now more exclusively
to the Epistle itself, what are we
to gather from it in recard to the
Church to which the Apostle is
writing ? The main question to bo
decided is the proportion in which
the two great constituent elements
of the primitive Christian Church
were mixed and combined in it.
Was the Church at Rome, in a
preponderating degree, Jewish or
Gentile ? The answer to this
question usually gives throughout
the apostolic times the best clue to
the doctrinal bearings and general
character of any Christian com
munity. AVe find throughout the Epistle
an easy interchange of address,
first pointed, as it were, towards
Gentiles, and then towards Jews.
In one place (chap. xi. 13) the
Apostle says in so many words, " I
speak to you Gentiles." In another
place (chap. vii. 1) he says as ex
pressly, " I speak to them that
know the law," and in proof that
this is not merely an external
knowledge, he evidently in chap.
iii. 19 is appealing to an authority
which he knows that his readers
will recognise. " What things
soever the law saith, it saith to
them that are under the law."
Accordingly we find, that though
the Apostle begins his Epistle
by addressing the Romans as a
Gentile Church (chap. i. 6, 13), and
although the first section of the
proof of his great thesis, the uni-

ROMANS

151

versal need and offer of salvation,
bears specially upon the Gentiles,
he very soon passes from their case
to that of the Jews. Chap. ii. con
tains a direct expostulation with
the one, just as chap. i. had con
tained a condemnation of the other.
Nor is it only a rhetorical artifice
that in the section chap. ii. 1 7 — 24
the Jew is addressed throughout in
the second person. The Apostle
evidently had actual Jews before
his mind. In like manner, the long-
parenthetical discussion of the
claims and fall of Israel in chaps,
ix. — xi. is clearly intended to be
double-edged. It has u two-fold
apphcation at once to Jew and
Gentile. On the one hand it is
intended as an apology for the
justice of the divine dealings
addressed to the Jew, and on the
other hand it contains a warning
addressed to the Gentile. If stress
is laid upon the calling of the
Gentiles, it is to provoke the Jews
"to emulation." If stress is laid
upon the rejection of the Jews, it
is in order that the Gentiles may
not " be high minded, but fear."
The whole phenomena of the
Epistle, then, point to the conclu
sion that the Church for which it
was destined consisted in almost
equal proportions of converts from
Judaism and from heathenism ; and
the easy transitions by which the
Apostle turns from the one to the
other seem to show that there was
no sharp and hard antagonism
between them. The Epistle is
written as if hoth might form part
of the audience that would hear it
read. The Church at Rome was
divided as yet by no burning
questions. The Apostle did not
think it necessary to speak strongly
on the subject of circumcision on
the one hand, or of laxity and

immorality on the other. The
differences that existed were of a
much milder kind. The " strong "
and " weak brethren,''" whose
mutual difficulties are weighed so
judiciously in chap, xiv., are not
by any means a synonym for Jew
or Gentile, though there would
naturally be a, tendency in parties
to divide according to their origin.
The asceticism and observance of
days alluded to were not common
characteristics of Judaism, but
belonged especially to the sect of
the Essenes. Nor does it seem
that the divisions to whieh they
gave rise extended beyond a greater
or less degree of scrupulousness or
liberality. The inferences that we have thus
been led to draw receive support
from an analysis of a different Mud.
Much light is thrown upon the com
position of the Church by the list
of names of the persons selected for
salutation in the last chapter of the
Epistle. These cannot very weU be
fully discussed in an Introduction,
but in this place we may so far sum
up the results as to say that they
point clearly to a mixture of nation
alities. The one named Mary (=
Miriam) is exclusively Jewish;
Apelles is, if not exclusively, at
least typically so. But besides these,
Aquila and Prisca, Andronicus and
Junia (or Junias), and Herodian,
must have been Jews. As Aristo
bulus was a Jew, and the Jews
generally hung much together, it
is probable that the household of
Aristobulus would be mostly Jews
also. Urban and Ampliatus (the
true reading for Amplias) are
genuine Latin names. Julia would
be a dependent on the imperial
household, of what nationality is
uncertain. The rest of the names
are Greek, which tallies with the

152

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

fact that the literature of the Eoman
Church was Greek, and there are
other evidences that' the Church
bore a general Greek character up
to the middle of the second century.
A detailed comparison of the names
with those which have come down
to us in mortuary and other inscrip
tions, seems to show that their
owners belonged for the most part
to the lower section of society —
petty tradesmen, and officers, or
elaves. There is reason to |hink
that the gospel had already found
u, footing among the slaves and
freed-men of the court, who formed
ti prominent body in the Church
eome four years later, when St. Paul
Bent greeting's to the Philippians
"chiefly" from them "of Caesar's
household" (Phil. iv. 20).
We may picture to ourselves the
Roman Church as originating in
the Jewish synagogues, as gradually
attracting converts from the lower
ordexs with which the Jews would
come mostly in contact, as thus
entering the household of the
emperor himself, and, at the time
when St. Paul was writing, con
stantly gaining ground among the
Gentile community. As yet, how
ever, the two great divisions of Jew
and Gentile exist side by side in
amicable relations, and with differ
ences hardly greater than would at
this day be found in the opposite
views of a body professing the
same creed.
V. General Character ofthe
Epistle to the Eomans  We
have, then, two kinds of data which
may help us to understand the gene
ral character of the Epistle. We
know that it was written at the
same time as the Epistles to the
Corinthians and Galatians, and we
know that it was written to a

Church composed partly of Jewish
and partly of Gentile converts with
no very pronounced antagonism
between them. In these facts we
may seek the explanation of the
question that was raised at starting
— the question how it was that the
Epistle to the Romans comes to be
so much of a comprehensive theo
logical treatise.
It was addressed at once to Jews
and Gentiles. There was, there
fore, nothing to disturb the even
balance of the Apostle's teaching.
For once, at least, he found himself
able to dilate with equal fulness
upon both sides of his great theme.
His own mind was naturally ele
vated above controversy. He had
worked out a system for himself,
which, though its main elements
were drawn from the Old Testa
ment, yet transcended the narrow
limits of Judaism. His philoso
phy of things was one in which
Jew and Gentile alike had their
place, and each received justice, but
not more than justice. Hitherto his
desire to hold the equilibrium be
tween the parties had been thwarted.
He wrote to the Corinthians, but
his letter had been prompted by an
outbreak of Gentile licence, in the
face of which it would have been
unseasonable to insist on the relaxa
tion of the Mosaic law. He wrote
to the Galatians, but then it was
with indignation roused by Jewish
bigotry. In each case a one-sided
treatment of Christian doctrine was
necessary. It was as necessary as
it is for a physician to apply local
remedies to a local sore.
In the Roman Church the neces
sity existed in a much less degree.
Nor, even if it had existed, would
the Apostle have felt it as strongly.
The character of the Church was
only known to him by report. He

ROMANS.

153

had not the same vivid personal
impressions in respect to it as he
had of the Churches of Corinth and
Galatia. In these Epistles the strong per
sonal feelings of the Apostle and
his vivid realisation of the circum
stances with reference to which he
is writing, come out in almost
every line. " I write not these
things to shame you, but as my
beloved sons I warn you." " Now
some are puffed up, as though . I
would not come to you. But I will
come to you shortly if the Lord
will, and will know, not the speech
of them that are puffed up, but the
power." " I verily, as absent in
body, but present in spirit, have
judged already, as though I were
present, concerning him that hath
so done the deed . . . ." " Out of
much affliction and anguish of heart
I wrote unto you with many tears ;
not that ye should be grieved, but
that ye might know the love which
I have more abundantly unto you.
But if any hath caused grief, he
hath not grieved me but in part :
that I may not overcharge you all."
" Ye are our epistle, written in our
hearts, known and read of all men
. . . ." " Ye know how through
the infirmity of the flesh I preached
the gospel unto you at the first.
And my temptation which was in
my flesh ye despised not, nor re
jected ; but received me as an angel
of God, even as Christ Jesus ....
I bear you record, that if it had been
possible, ye would have plucked out
your own eyes, and have given them
to me."
These disturbing influences were
wanting in the case of the Romans.
If the Epistle loses somewhat in the
intensity of its personal appeals, it
gains in breadth and comprehen
siveness. It is the most abstract of

all the Epistles. It is not a special
doctrine for special circumstances,
but Christian theology inits broadest
sense. A double set of reasons com
bined to produce this. Not only
the nature of the Apostle's relation
to the Church at Eome and the
character of that Church, but also
the 'condition of his own mind at
the time of writing. He was writ
ing from Corinth, and just after
he had despatched a letter to
Galatia. An. extreme upon one
side balanced an extreme upon tho
other. Jew and Gentile were
present to the mind of the Apostle
in equal degree. At last he was
able to express his thoughts in
their own natural proportions. His
mind was in its true philosophical
attitude, and the result is the great
philosophical Epistle, which was
most appropriately addressed to
the capital of the civilised world.
VI. Contents and Analysis
of the Epistle. — The Epistle
represents, then, the most mature
result of the Apostle's reflection at
this period of his life. It gathers
up and presents in a connected form
the scattered thoughts of the earlier
Epistles. The key to the theology of the
apostolic age is its relation to the
Messianic expectation among the
Jews. The central point in the
teaching of the Apostles is the fact
that with the coming of Christ was
inaugurated the Messianic reign.
It was the universal teaching of
the Jewish doctors — a teaching fully
adopted and endorsed by the
Apostles — that this reign was to
be characterised by righteousness.
But righteousness was just what
the whole world, Jew and Gentile
alike, had signally failed to obtain.
The Mosaic law had indeed held

154

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

up the ideal of righteousness before
those who were subject to it, but it
remained an ideal, utterly unful
filled. Left merely to his own
powers, threatened with punish
ment if he failed, but with no help
or encouragement to enable him to
succeed, the Jew found in the Law
a hard task-master, the only effect
of which was to " multiply trans
gressions " — i.e., to provoke to sin
and to increase its guilt. Chris
tianity, on the other hand, does
what the Law failed to do ; it
induces a state of righteousness in
the believer, and opens out to him
the blessedness and salvation which
the Messiah came to bring.
The moans by which this state
of righteousness is brought about
is naturally that by which the be
liever obtains admission into the
Messianic kingdom — in other words,
Faith. Righteousness is the Mes
sianic condition; Faith is the Mes
sianic conviction. But by Faith is
meant, not merely an acceptance of
the Messiahship of Jesus, but that
intense and loving adhesion which
such acceptance inspired, and which
the life and death of Jesus were
eminently qualified to call out.
Faith opens out a new road of ac
cess to the divine favour. This
was no longer to be sought only
by the painful and laborious — nay,
impossible, way of a fulfilment of
the divine commands. The favour
of God, and admission into the
Messianic kingdom, was promised
to all who with a true and heartfelt
devotion took the Messiah for their
king. Of such it was not asked
whether they had actually fulfilled
the Law in their own persons ;
their faith was imputed to them for
righteousness — i.e., taken in lieu of
it, as the condition which would
exempt them from the wrath and

obtain for them the favour cf
God. That which gave to faith this
peculiar efficacy was the fact that
Jesus, the Messiah, towards whom
it was directed, by His sacrificial
death had propitiated the anger
which God could not but feel
against sin, and set free the hither
to obstructed current of divine
love. Henceforth the anger of
God could not rest upon the fol
lowers of the Messiah, by virtue
of that which the Messiah Him
self had done.
But the faith of the Christian
was no merely passive principle.
Such an ardour of devotion must
needs gain strength by its own
exercise. It became by' degrees a
moral lever by which the righteous
ness, at first imputed, was made
more and more real. It placed the
believer in so close a relation to
Christ as could hardly be de
scribed by any word short of union
itself. And union with One so
holy as Christ was could not fail to
have the most powerful effect upon
him who entered into it. It brought
him into a new sphere entirely dif
ferent from that of the Law.
Henceforth the Law was nothing
to him. But the end for which the
Law existed was accomplished in
another way. By union with Christ
he became dead to sin. He entered
upon a new service and a new state
— a state of righteousness, which
the indwelling Spirit of Christ (i.e.,
the closest conceivable influence
of the Spirit of Christ upon the
soul) enabled him to maintain.
The old bondage of the flesh was
broken. The lawless appetites and
desires engendered by the body
were annihilated by the presence
of a deeper and stronger emotion,
fanned and cherished by the inter-

ROMANS.

155

vention of a power higher than
that of man.
Such, at least, was the Christian's
idea), which he was pledged to aim
at, even if he failed to reach it.
And the presence of the Divine
Spirit within him was something
more than the guarantee of a
moral life here on earth ; it was
the earnest of an existence still
more glorious in the future. The
Christian, by his adhesion to Christ,
the Messiah, was brought within
the range of an order of things in
which not he alone, but all creation,
was to share, and which was des
tined to expand into as yet dimly
anticipated perfection. As faith is
the faculty which the Christian is
called upon to exercise in the
present, so Hope is that by which.
he looks forward to the future.
He finds the assurance of bis ulti
mate triumph in the unconquerable
and inalienable love of Christ.
One objection might naturally be
raised to this exposition of the
Christian's privileges. What re
lation did they bear to another set
of privileges — the ancient privi
leges of the chosen people, Israel ?
At first sight it seemed as if the
throwing open of the Messianic
kingdom to faith only, and there
fore to Gentiles equally with Jews,
was a violation of the Old Cove
nant. To this objection there were
several answers. Even if there had
been some further act of choice on
the part of God, involving a re
jection of Israel, His absolute
power of choosing one and refus
ing another was not to be ques
tioned. But really the promise was
not made to the whole of Israel,
but only to such as should comply
with the condition of faith. All
Israel did not do this. Nor was all
Israel rejected. If a part of Israel

was rejected, it was only with the
beneficent purpose of bringing in
the Gentiles. In the end Israel,
too, will be restored.
The privileges of the Christian
are naturally connected with his
duties, and these, as we should
expect, the Apostle insists upon in
considerable detail. The two points
that seem to have a special refer
ence to the condition of tho Eoman
Christians are : — First, the incul
cation of obedience to the civil
power. This would seem to allude
to the disturbances which had led
to the expulsion of the Jews from
Eome (" Judaios assidue tumultuantes
Roma, expulit" — Suetonius). The
second point is the stress that is
laid upon the duty of toleration on
the part of the more liberal mem
bers of the Church towards those
who showed a greater scrupulosity
in ceremonial observances, espe
cially those connected with dis
tinctions of meats and drinks.
This may, however, have been
suggested less by anything that
the Apostle knew to have hap
pened in the Church at Rome, than
by his recent experiences of the
Churches of Corinth and Galatia,
and the possibility that similar
dangers might arise at Rome.
The analysis of the Epistle which
follows is intended to give the
reader a clearer conception of its
contents, and must not always be
taken to represent a conscious
division of his subject in the
Apostle's mind. This is especially
the case with the two headings that
are printed in italics. The course
of his thought happens to lead the
Apostle, in the first instance, to
deal with the application of the
Christian scheme to the individual ;
and, in the second, to its applica
tion to the great question of Jew

156

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

and Gentile, but this is rather
accidentally than because such a
distinction entered into his plan.
The headings are inserted ashelping
to bring ont a point which really
exists, and which is, perhaps, of
more importance to the reader, who
looks upon the Epistle as a theo
logical treatise, than it was originally
to its author.
A Treatise on the Christian
Scheme as aDivinely-appointed
Means por Producing Righ
teousness in Man, and so
realising the messianic
Reign.
I. — Introduction (i. 1 — 15).
a. The apostolic salutation (i.
1-7).
b. St. Paul and the Roman
Church (i. 8—15).
IT. — Doctrinal.
a. The Great Thesis.
Righteousness by Faith (i.
16, 17).
Proof —
Righteousness not hitherto
attained either by Gen
tiles (i. 18—32) or by
Jews (ii. 1—29).
Parenthetic answer to
objections (hi. 1 —
«)¦
Confirmatory proof
from Scripture (iii.
9—20).
b. The Great Thesis Re
peated and Expanded.
Righteousness by Faith.
The propitiatorydeath
of Christ (iii. 21—
26).
(1) This righteousness is
open to Jew and Gen

tile alike, and excludes
boasting (iii. 27 — 31).
(2) Proof from Scripture —
Abraham (iv. 1 — 5,
9—25).
David (iv. 6—9).
(3) First Climax. Blissful
effects of righteous
ness by faith (v. 1 —
11).
(4) The first and the second
Adam (v. 12—19).
Abundance of sin and
of grace (v. 20 — vi. 1).
c. The Christian Scheme in its
Application to the Indivi
dual.
(1) Progressive righteous
ness in the Christian.
Death to sin, through
union with Christ (vi.
1—14).
(2) The Christian's release
(vi. 15— vii. 25).
a. Its true nature (vi.
15—23).
/3. Illustration from the
marriage bond (vii.
1-6).
y. The inward struggle
and victory (vii. 7
—25).
(3) Second Climax (viii. 1 —
39).
a. The Flesh and the
Spirit (viii. 1—13).
/3. The adoption of sons
(viii. 14—17).
y. Creation's yearning
(viii. 17—25).
5. The Spirit's inter
cession (viii. 26 —
27).
e. Happy career of the
Christian (viii. 28 —
30).
f. Triumphant close
(viii. 31—39).

i.. The Christian Scheme in its
world-wide significance and
bearing.
Israel's rejection (ix., x., xi.).
A saddening thought (ix. 1
—5).
a.. Justice of the rejection.
The promise was not
made to all Israel
mdiscriminately, but
confined to the chosen
seed (ix. 6—13).
Absoluteness of God's
choice, which is not
to be questioned by
man (ix. 14 — 23).
/3. Cause of the rejection.
Self -sought righteous
ness contrasted with
righteousness by faith
in Christ (x. 1—13).
The gospel preached
and beheved (x. 14 —
21).
> . Mitigating considera
tions (xi. 1—36).
(i.) Not all Israel fell
(xi. 1—10).
(ii.) Special purpose of
the fall (xi. 11—
24).
The engrafted and
original olive
branches (xi. 17
—26).
(iii.) Prospect of final
restoration (xi.
25—29).
Third Climax. Be
neficent results
of seeming seve
rity (xi. 30— 32).
Doxology (xi. 33 —
36).
HI —Practical and Horta
tory. a. The Christian sacrifice
(xii. 1, 2).

ROMANS. 157
6. The Christian as a mem
ber of the Church (xii.
3—8).
e. The Christian in his Na
tion to others (xii. 9—
„,21>- The Christian's vengeance
(xii. 19—21).
d. Church and State (xiii.
1-7).
e. The Christian's one debt ;
the law of love (xiii.
8—10).
The day approaching (xiii.
11—14).
/. Toleration : the strong
and the weak (xiv.
1-xv. 3).
g. Unity of Jew and Gentile
(xv. 4—13).
IV — Valedictory.a. Personal explanations.
Motive of the Epistle.
Purposed visit to Rome
(xv. 14-23).
b. Greetings to various per
sons (xvi. 1 — 16).
A warning (xvi. 17 — 20).
Postscript by the Apostle's
companions and amanu
ensis (xvi. 21—23).
Benediction and doxology
(xvi. 24— 27).
VII. Style.— The style of St.
Paul's Epistles varies considerably,
according to the date at which they
were written. A highly-strung and
nervous temperament like his would
naturally vary with circumstances.
His Hfe was excessively wearing.
We have only to read a catalogue
like that in 2 Cor. xi. 23—28, to
see the enormous strain to which he
was exposed. The list of bodily
hardships and sufferings is almost
unparalleled, and his own Epistles
show what the ' ' care of all the

158

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

churches " must have been to him.
Hence it is not unnatural -that in
the later Epistles we should trace a
certain loss of vitality. The style
is more depressed and formal, and
less buoyant and spontaneous. The
period at which the Epistle to the
Romans was written was, on the con
trary, that at which the Apostle's
physical power was at the highest.
AU through the two Epistles to the
Corinthians, the Galatians, and the
Romans, there is the greatest energy
and force of diction. This gains,
perhaps, from the fact that all these
Epistles were written from dicta
tion. The name of the amanuensis
in the case of the Epistle to the
Eomans, as we gather from chap.
xvi. 22, was Tertius. In some of
the later Epistles it is possible that
the turn of phrase was left more
to the amanuensis, but the earlier
group of Epistles bears all the ap
pearance of having been taken down
just as the Apostle spoke. Hence
the broken and disjointed form of
some of the sentences, beginning
with one construction and ending
with another, as in chaps, ii. 5 — 10,
iii. 21—26, v. 12—14, ix. 22—24.
A pointed instance would be (if the
view taken in this Introduction is
correct) chap. vii. 21. Hence, also,
the insertion of long parentheses, in
terrupting the sense, as in chap. ii.
13 — 15, and of digressions such as
chap. iii. 3 — 8. Hence, lastly, the
rapid and vehement cut and thrust
of indignant questioning as in chaps.
ii. 21 — 23, ix. 19 — 21, or impetuous
challenge as in chap. viii. 31 — 35.
The plain and direct style of tho
Apostle is well exemplified in the
practical and hortatory chaps, xii.
— xv. On the other hand, the
more involved and elaborate style
of the later Epistles finds a paral
lel in the opening and closing

paragraphs, chaps, i.
25—27.

1—7, xvi.

VIII.— External Evidence
of the Genuineness of the
Epistle. — It is hardly necessary
to collect external evidence to the
genuineness of the Epistle, as it
bears upon itself the most indisput
able marks of originality. As a
matter of fact it has not been dis
puted by any critic of the slightest
importance. The external evidences
are, however, abundant. Beforo
the first century is out there is a
clear allusion to the language of
the Epistle in the letter of Cle
ment of Rome to the Corinthians
(a.d. 95). This writer entreats
the Corinthian Christians to cast
off from themselves " all un
righteousness and iniquity, cove
tousness, strifes, malignities, and
deceits, whisperings and backbitings,
hatred of God, pride, arrogance, vain
glory, and inhospitality," on the
ground that "they that do these
things are hateful to God ; and not
only they that do them, but they also
that consent to them." The words
in italics, many of them markedly
pecuhar, are taken from the passage
Rom. i. 29 — 32. In another place
(§ 46) in the same letter occurs the
phrase, "We are members of one
another," which recalls Rom. xii. 5.
Other allusions that have been
found in the Epistle are perhaps
less certain. In the first quarter
of the next century allusions to the
Epistle are alleged from the letters
of Ignatius and Polycarp. The
first of those are, perhaps, them
selves of too doubtful authenticity
to be claimed very strongly in evi
dence. The Epistle to Polycarp,
itself well guaranteed, presents an
exact repetition of the phrase, " we
must all stand before the judgment-

EOMANS.

159

seat of Christ ; " adding, " and each
one must give an account of him
self." (Comp. Eom. xiv. 10, 12.)
The Gnostic writers appealed to the
passages, " He who raised up Christ
from the dead shaU also quicken
your mortal bodies " (Eom. viii. 11),
and " sin reigned from Adam to
Moses" (Eom. v. 13, 14), in support
of their own peculiar views ; but it
is somewhat doubtful whether the
fragments quoted by Hippolytus in
which those aUusions occur are
really to be referred to the founders
of the respective sects, Basilides
(circ. a.d. 125) and Valentinus
(circ. a.d. 140), or to their foRowers.
The date, therefore, of this evidence
is uncertain. So also is that derived
from the Epistle to Diognetus which
is commonly placed at about a.d.
170. Justin Martyr (ob. a.d. 148)
seems pretty clearly to have made
use of the Epistle, for he quotes
precisely the same series of Old
Testament passages as is quoted in
Rom. iv. 11—17, in the same order,
and in the same way — as if they
were one connected passage. Iii
the last quarter of the second cen
tury, as Christian literature be
comes more copious, the references
to the Epistle become more express
and definite. The letter of the
Churches of Vienna and Lyons to
that at Rome (a.d. 177) contains an
exact verbal coincidence with Rom.
viii. 18 ("I reckon that the suf
ferings of this present time," &c).
In Theophilus of Antioch (a.d. 181)
there are unmistakable paraphrases
of Rom. ii. 6 — 9, and of Eom. xiii.
7, 8. Irenaeus, writing about a.d.
185, quotes the Epistle directly by
name. "This very construction
St. Paul put upon it, writing to the
Eomans, ' Paul an Apostle of Jesus
Christ,' &c. ; and again, writing to
the Eomans concerning Israel, he

says, ' whose are the fathers,' " &c.
IremBus also quotes expressly Rom.
v. 17 : "And in agreement with
these St. Paul, too, addressing the
Romans, says : ' Much more they
who receive abundance of grace
and righteousness unto life, shall
reign through One, Jesus Christ.' "
Besides these, there are other long
quotations, which are the more to
be remarked, as they show in some
cases the presence of readings in
the Codex used by Irenams, which,
though supported by other authori
ties, are certainly false, and there
fore show that they have already a
long history behind them. There
are equally express and direct quo
tations in Clement of Alexandria
(flourished a.d. 185—211) and Ter
tullian (flourished a.d. 198—210).
The Epistle to the Romans is also
contained in the Muratorian Frag
ment on the canon circ. a.d. 170.
From this point onwards the pro
duction of further evidence is su
perfluous. The main points to
notice in what has been given are
that the existence of the Epistle is
proved incontestably by Clement of
Eome as early as a.d. 95, and that
it was attributed to St. Paul by
Irenseus in a.d. 185, or some fifteen
years earlier by the Muratorian
Fragment. [Of the many Commentaries on
this Epistle the most useful are
perhaps those of Meyer and Dr.
Vaughan. The scholarly tact of
the English commentator might,
perhaps, have been allowed to
correct, even more often than has
been the case, the rigorous science
of the German. Dr. Vaughan's
carefully-assorted references have
also been of much service. Special
attention has been paid to all that
has been written on this Epistle,,

160

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

either directly or incidentally, by I the doctrinal teaching of the Epistle
Dr. Lightfoot. The writer's most will be found in the section of the
mature thoughts upon the connec- I Introduction which deals with this
tion between the several parts of | subject.

I. CORINTHIANS.

Bt the Eev. Canoh TEIGNMOUTH SHORE.

To describe briefly the relation in
which St. Paul stood to the Corin
thian Church, and the circumstances
under which he wrote this Epistle,
will, I think, be the best and most
efficient help to the ordinary reader.
After a stay at Athens of some
few months, St. Paul, towards the
end (probably) of the year a.d. 51,
left that city for Corinth. At
Athens, the centre of philosophic
thought and culture, St. Paul had
preached Christianity. The wide
question of the relation of God's
providence to the heathen world in
times past — Christ crucified and
raised from the dead — all these
topics had been dwelt on by the
Apostle in a speech which still
remains a model of the subtlest
rhetorical skill and of the most
earnest eloquence. Judged, how
ever, by immediate results, the
speech on Mars Hill, and the
other addresses at Athens, of which
we have no record, but which were
probably on the same lines, were
not successful. Only a few con
verts were won to Christ.
The Apostle dwells with no fond
recollection on his work here. A
single sentence* sums up the
* Acts xvii. 34.

results of his labour in a city
where the successful planting of
the Church would have been of
such vast importance : " Howbeit
certain men clave unto him, and
believed ; among the which was
Dionysius the Areopagite, and a
woman named Damaris, and others
with them." There is an under
tone of sadness and disappointment
in these words of St. Paul's com
panion and friend, St. Luke.
The Apostle left Athens down
cast and thoughtful. The subtle
skill, the earnest eloquence, had
been employed apparently in vain.
The inestimable value which that
great exposition of God's dealings
with man, as well in the world at
large as in the more sacred enclo
sure of the Christian faith, might
have — as we know now it has had
— for Christendom, did not present
itself to the Apostle's mind as
any consolation for the want of
practical results at the moment.
Athens was a sad memory to St.
Paul. He never mentions her
name in an Epistle. He sends
no words of greeting to any of
her children.
From the Pmeus — the port of
Athens— St. Paul sails for Corinth.
It being late in autumn (probably
October or November), it is most

11

162

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

likely that the Apostle landed at
Cenchreae, a seaport town on the
Saronic Bay.* The experience
which he had at AthenB, and its
¦ bearing on the work on which he
was now about to enter in the
capital of Achaia, were doubtless
the uppermost thoughts in the
Apostle's mind during this brief
journey. He sees that the power
of the gospel to win men to Christ
lies in the message itself, and not
in the method and style of its
delivery. He resolves to lay aside
the rhetoric and the merely human
eloquence, and in the new field of
his missionary labours " to know
nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified.'^ This vow he probably
made as he landed at Cenchrete ;
and when, a year and a half after
wards, he embarked at the same
port on his return journey, he
could look back with satisfaction
and with thanksgiving on the
resolution which he had formed,
and the glorious results which had
followed in Achaia from his preach
ing. A journey of nine miles from
Cenchrese brought the Apostle to
Corinth, which was situated in the
south-west end of the isthmus, and
* I assume that St. Paul went by sea,
and not by land, as the words (Acts xviii.
I), "Paul departed from Athens, and
came to Corinth," seem to imply a brief
and uninterrupted journey. Had he gone
Dy land he would have passed through
other towns on the way, some mention
ot which it would be natural to expect.
t See 1 Cor. ii. 1, 2, and Note there.
The word "you," repeated in both these
verses, seems emphatic, as if the Apostle
meant to bring out a contrast between his
toriuer style of teaching among others,
and that which he had resolved should be
nis style of teaching amongst them. The
only point on which he had determined
when coming to them was, " Jesus Christ,
and Him crucified," as the subject-matter
ol his teaching.

at the northern base of the Acro-
corinthus. The two things which
in older days had made Corinth
famous in Grecian history still
rendered her a place of supreme
importance. From a military point
of view, she might be regarded as
the key to the Peloponnesus, and
commercially she was the central
point of the vast trade which was
carried on between Asia and
Europe. The storms whieh so con
stantly raged on the southern shora
of Greece drove the vast tide of
commerce into the safer overland
route, which lay through Cenchreaa
and Lechamm, which latter port
was only a mile and a half distant
from Corinth. It was at Corinth
that, in b.o. 146, the Achaians
made their last stand against the
Romans, and were finally defeated
by Mummius. After this, Achaia
became a Roman province, and
Corinth for a century remained
in the condition of utter desolation
to which the sword and fire of the
victorious consul had reduced it.
Some years before the birth of
Christ (b.o. 44) Julius Caesar re
stored Corinth, and, under the
Emperor Claudius, the direct rule
of the province was transferred
from the emperor to the senate;
and hence we find at the time when
St. Paul arrived its government
was administered by a proconsul.*
As St. Paul entered Corinth his
eyes might for a moment have
rested on the grave of Lais amid
the cypress grove outside the waUs,
and the monument of Diogenes
which stood by the gate — fit types
of the cynical, worldly philosophy,
and the gross, yet attractive, sen
suality with which the society of
that day and city were permeated.
* Acts xviii. K.

I. CORINTHIANS.

163

Within the city, most of the
buildings were comparatively mo
dern, " run up " within the last
century by the imported popula
tion of Eoman freed-men ; while
only here and there, in the stately
magnificence of an older style of
architecture, stood an occasional
edifice which had survived the
" fire " that had " tried every man's
work" in the great conflagration
which had swept away the inferior
structures of "wood, hay, stubble "
when the conquering troops of
Mummius had captured Corinth.*
The population of Corinth was
composed of many and diverse
elements. There were Greeks, who
thought, by their delight in a
tawdry rhetoric and in a sham and
shallow philosophy, to revive the
historic glory of a past age. There
were a thousand corrupt and shame
less priestesses attached to the tem
ple of Aphrodite, which crowned
the neighbouring hill. There were
the families of the Eoman freed
men whom Julius Cassar had sent
to rebuild and recolonise the town.
There were traders from Asia and
from Italy, and aU that nonde
script element naturally to be
found in a city which was practi
cally a great commercial seaport
and the scene, every fourth year,
of those Isthmian games which
attracted among the athletes the
best, and among some of the spec
tators the worst, of the population
of the surrounding provinces. AU
these, like so many streams of
human life, mingled together here,
and at this particular juncture were
met by the vast returning tide of
Jews expelled from Eome by Clau
dius, + and so formed that turbulent
* See St. Paul's recollection of this in
the imagery employed in 1 Cor .iii. 10—13.
t Acts xviii. 2.

and seething flood of human life
on which the barque of Christ's
Church was launched at Corinth.
Amongst those who had lately
come from Italy were Aquila and
Priscilla, his wife. With them
the Apostle lodged, joining with
them in their occupation of tent-
making. Pontus,* the native
country of Aquila, and Cilicia,t the
native country of St. Paul, wero
both renowned for the manufacture
of the goat's-hair cloth from which
the tent-coverings were made. It
is probable, however, that an
affinity of faith, as well as an
identity of occupation, led to the
Apostle's intimate association with
these friends. If this man and
his wife had not been converted
to Christianity before this they
would scarcely have aUowed St.
Paul to join himself so intimately
with them. The very circum
stances of their expulsion from
Eome would have embittered them
against a Christian. From a
remark in Suetonius, we find that
the expulsion of the Jews had to
do with their riots with Christian
converts. Eome cared nothing
about the religious opinions of
these rival sects ; but when their
differences led to pubhc riots Eome
was then as vigorous and decisive
in action as before she had been
indifferent. J Having left Italy
under such circumstances, Aquila
and Priscilla would, if unconverted

* Acts xviii. 2.
t Acts xxi. 39.
j " Claudius expelled the Jews from
Eome on account of their continual
tumults instigated by Chrestus." The
name Christus, in pronunciation nearly
identical with Chrestus, was mixed up in
the riots somehow. That was quite suffi
cient for the authorities to assume that
some person of that name was the author
of them.

164

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Jews, have certainly not taken a
Christian as a partner in their
home and work ; whereas, if already
Christians, and suffering expulsion
thus from Rome, they would gladly
welcome such a convert as Paul.
These considerations are confirmed
by the course of events at the out
set of St. Paul's preaching at
Corinth. The Apostle first preaches
to the Jews and those proselytes
(called "Greeks")* who had at
least accepted Judaism so far as to
attend the synagogue. He is met
with opposition and blasphemy by
them, and then turns unto the
Gentiles, and teaches in a house
close by the synagogue, winning
many converts to the faith, amongst
others, Crispus, the ruler of the
synagogue, Gaius, and Stephanas
and his household, who received
their baptism at the hand of
the Apostle himself .f Silas and
Timothy joined the Apostle during
the earlier part of his sojourn, and
probably brought with them some
pecuniary help from the Philippians,
which was doubly acceptable be
cause of a famine then prevalent
and of the Apostle's unflinching
determination to take nothing from
the Corinthians.J
Some time in a.d. 53, M. Anna?us
Novatus, the brother of the philo
sopher Seneca, arrives at Corinth
as proconsul of Achaia. He was
called GaUio, having been adopted
into the family of that name. His
kindly and loving disposition § gave
the Jewish faction some hope that
they might make him the uncon-

• Acts xviii. 4.
t 1 Cor. i. 14—16.
j See 2 Cor. xi. 7—12 ; Phil. iv. 15.
§ Seneca says of Gallio, " He was loved
much even by those who had little power
to love;" and, "No mortal is so dear
to me as Gallio to all men."

scioua tool by which they would
wreak their intensifying rage on St.
Paul and his Christian companions.
Gallio, with the imperturbable calm
ness of a Roman governor, refuses
to allow himself to be dragged into
a religious dispute between two
sects. In retaliation for this con
duct on the part of the Jews, the
Greeks take Sosthenes, who had
succeeded Crispus as chief ruler of
the synagogue — here, no doubt, the
ringleader in the persecution of St.
Paul — and beat him.* When the
same Sosthenes became a convert it
was not strange that he and St. Paul
should become firm friends. Both
had been active enemies of the faith
which they now preached, and the
two converted persecutors are j oined
together in the opening of this
Epistle to the Corinthian Church
(1 Cor. i. 1). For some considerable
time the Apostle remains and
teaches at Corinth, and then returns
to Syria by Cenchreae. The vow
made on landing there had been
kept, f Jesus Christ and His cruci-

* In Acts xviii. 17, the words "the
Greeks " do not occur in the best MSS.,
and some commentators conclude that it
was the Jewish faction who took Sosthenes
and beat him, suspecting him of some
leanings towards the faith which he after
wards embraced. I think it more natural
to assume that it was the Greek mob who
acted thus towards the leader of the
defeated faction of the Jews. If it were
the Jews writhing under their defeat,
surely they would have taken vengeance
on some avowed Christian like Paul or
Aquila. t Acts xviii. 18. The words here may,
as a mere matter of grammar, refer to
either Paul or Aquila; but the whole
sense of the passage refers them to tho
former. The fact that Paul goes on to
Jerusalem, and Aquila remains at Ephe
sus, is almost in itself sufficient to indi
cate Paul as the one having some solemn
obligation to fulfil. I have already indi
cated that in the solemn vow made by tho
Apostle, and whieh was carried out

I. CORINTHIANS.

165

fixion had been the sole subject
and strength of the Apostle's teach
ing. With what feelings of pro
found thankfulness must St. Paul,
as he sailed from Cenchrea?, have
looked back on the work and the
success of those intervening months.
With Aquila and Priscilla, he
arrives at Ephesus, and leaves
them there. After a somewhat
prolonged tour through Galatia
and Phrygia, and a visit to
Jerusalem, St. Paul returns to
Ephesus, probably in the year a.d.
54. Meanwhile, during the absence
of St. Paul on his journey visit
ing the churches in Galatia and
Phrygia, a man arrives at Ephesus
who is destined to have a remark
able influence in the future on St.
Paul's relation with the Corinthian
Church. Apollos, a Jew by religion
and an Alexandrian by birth, had
been brought up in a city where
commerce brought together various
races, and where philosophy at
tracted varied schools of thought.
Alexandria, famous also as the
place where the Greek translation
of the Old Testament had been
made, became naturally the seat of
an inteUectual school of scriptural
interpretation, as well as the abode
of Greek philosophy. Amid such
surroundings, Apollos, gifted with
natural eloquence, became " mighty
in the scriptures," and was " in
structed in the way of tho Lord,"
possibly by some of those Alexan
drian Jews who, in their disputes
with Stephen,* had become ac-

apparently according to the law of the
Nazarite vow (see Num. vi.), was included
a resolve as to his teaching at Corinth.
What, if any, other motives for the vow
the Apostle could have had, must, of
course, be matter of the merest con
jecture. • Acts vi. 9.

quainted with the elementary prin
ciples of Christianity. His imper
fect acquaintance with the Christian
faith — limited to the tenets of the
Baptist * — is supplemented and
completed by the instruction which
he receives from' Aquila and Pris
cilla, who were attracted by tho
eloquence and fervour with wbich
he preached in the synagogue at
Ephesus his imperfect gospel. The
days spent with St. Paul at Corinth
were fresh in the memory of these
Christians. The incidents of those
days were doubtless often recalled
in many a conversation with
Apollos, and what he hears fires
his earnest soul with a -desire to
preach the gospel in Achaia. To
the various churches — including, of
course, Corinth — he receives letters
of commendation from the Ephesian
Christians, and his preaching is
attended with great blessing, "help
ing them much which had believed
through grace." His style of
teaching was strikingly different
from that which St. Paul — in
accordance with his vow " to know
nothing but Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified," — hadadopted at Corinth.
With more intellectual eloquence,
and with a wider and more philo
sophic range of thought, he opened
up the deeper spiritual meaning of
the Old Testament scriptures, show
ing from them that Jesus was
Christ, t The philosophic school
of thought in which he had been
educated could be traced in the
style of his eloquence, whieh won
many converts amongst those classes
to whom the simplicity of Paul's
preaching had not been acceptable,
and who, on that account, had
continued to the end his active
opponents.

* Acts xviii. 25.

t Acts xviii. 28.

166

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

While the eloquent Alexandrian
is preaching in Corinth — watering *
where Paul had planted, building
up where Paul had laid the founda
tion, giving strong meat to those
whom, in their spiritual infancy,
Paul had fed with milk, and win
ning some new converts amongst
those whose Jewish and intellectual
prejudices had hitherto been invin
cible—St. Paul rejoins Aquila and
Priscilla at Ephesus. t This is not
the place to dwell upon St. Paul's
work at Ephesus (of which a full
account is given in Acts xix.), only
so far as it directly bears upon his
Epistle to Corinth. During his
stay at Ephesus he is constantly
hearing news of the Corinthians by
those whose business necessitated
constant journeyings between these
two commercial capitals. The
Apostle himself also, during the
earlier part of his sojourn, pays a
brief visit to Corinth, of which we
have no record, and of which we
should know nothing but for the
casual allusion in his Second Epistle
that he is coming to them the third
time. J After some two years' re
sidence at Ephesus, the Apostle
determines, after some time, to pro
ceed directly by sea to Corinth, and
making it his head-quarters, visit
the churches in Macedonia, return
ing after this tour to Corinth again,
on his way back to Jerusalem, §

• 1 Cor. iii. 1, 6, 10.
t Acts xix. 1.
X I place the unrecorded visit of St.
Paul thus early during his residence at
Ephesus because it seems to have occurred
before the matter treated of in the First
Epistle to the Corinthians assumed a
serious aspect ; otherwise we can scarcely
imagine that there should be no allusion
in this Epistle f o some definite rebuke or
instruction for which that visit would
have afforded an opportunity.
§ 2 Cor. i. 15, 16.

from whence, finally, he hoped to
visit Rome.* This plan is, how
ever, entirely upset by the course
of events which we have now to
narrate. Eumours, more or less vague at
first, reach St. Paul of a bad state
of affairs in the Corinthian Church.
The Corinthian Christians were
living in the midst of a heathen
society. The religion of heathen
dom, and the sensual license and
indulgence which formed a part of
it, pervaded all the social customs
and entered into the very fibre of
the social life of the country. To
define, therefore, the precise posi
tion which Christians should as
sume in relation to the political
conditions and the domestic insti
tutions of the heathen was a matter
of the utmost delicacy and difficulty.
Christian thought and practice per
petually oscillated between the
license into which human nature
easily transformed the liberty of
the gospel, and the rigid rejection
of every custom which was tainted
with heathen approval. To steady
in the line of right that trembling
pendulum of vibrating religious
thought required all the spiritual
skill and all the fine delicacy of
touch which were characteristic of
the great Apostle of the Gentiles.
When tho earhest rumours reach
him of the unsatisfactory condition
of some of the Corinthian Chris
tians, he writes a letter to them, in
which he probably mentions his
intention of visiting them on his
way to Macedonia ; and he warns
them of the great danger of moral
contamination to which they would
infallibly be subject if they allowed
any of the immoral practices of the
heathen to receive any sanction

• Acts xix. 21.

I. COEINTHIANS.

167

from the Christian Church. What
ever the heathen might think of
the lawfulness of sinful indulgence
which their own faith surrounded
with a distorting moral atmosphere
of rehgious sanction, Christians
were to allow no trace of such im
morality within the boundaries of
the Church. This Epistle has" been
lost; we can only conjecture its
general contents from the circum
stances under which it was written,
and the reference to it in what is
now the First of St. Paul's Epistles
to the Corinthians.*
The Apostle still adheres to his
intention of visiting Corinth and
Macedonia, and sends Timothy and
Erastus to prepare the various
churches in Macedonia and Achaia
for his coming, and, above all, to
set things right at Corinth by, as
St. Paul says, " bringing you into
remembrance of my ways which be
in Christ, as I teach everywhere in
every church."f
After the despatch of Timothy
and Erastus, more alarming news
reaches St. Paul. The household
of Chloe J — some Christian resident,
either at Corinth or Ephesus, evi
dently well known to the Corin
thians — report to the Apostle that
the Church is disorganised with
sectarian strife, and defiled by sanc
tioning a marriage between a
Christian man and a heathen
woman who had been his step
mother, and . was now divorced
from his father. A letter also ar
rives § from the Corinthians to St.
Paul, which was in part a reply to
St. Paul's lost Epistle, and which
contained various questions regard
ing doctrine and practice which
revealed the disintegrated condition

of religious thought and life in
Christian Corinth.* The letter
was probably brought to Ephesus
by Stephanas and his companions,
who supplemented the information
which it contained by their own
knowledge, based upon personal and
recent observation. The arrival of
this letter, which called for an im
mediate answer, and the receipt of
this intelligence of a state of affairs
which required to be dealt with im
mediately and vigorously, led to a
change in the Apostle's plans. He
abandons his intention of going
direct to Corinth, so as to give time
for a change for the better in the
state of that Church ; and he can
no longer, now that he realises the
full extent of the evil, leave it to
be dealt with by one of Timothy's
gentle disposition. He therefore
writes this (Second) First Epistle
to the Corinthians, and sends with
it Titus, who, going direct to
Corinth, would reach that city pro
bably before the arrival of Timothy,
who would be delayed visiting other
churches en route. Titus — whom
we may call St. Paul's companion
in determination, as Timothy was

* See 1 Cor. v. 0.
% 1 Cor. i. 11.

t 1 Cor. iv. 17.
§ 1 Cor. viii. 1.

* My reason for thinking that the letter
from the Corinthians was in part a reply
to St. Paul's lost Epistle is that the
Apostle says (1 Cor. v. 9) emphatically,
"I wrote to you in ihe Epistle," — i.e., the
Epistle to whieh you refer. They had
probably taken exception to his strict in
junction, and said in reply, "If we are
not to keep company at ail with forni
cators, then we must go out of the world
altogether." His words seem to me to be
an answer to some such captious criticism,
and not a voluntary modification or expla
nation of what he had no reason to suppose
should be misunderstood. It has been
suggested by some commentators that the
lost Epistle had been sent by Timothy. But
St. Paul seems to assume as certain that
the letter has reached them (1 Cor. v. 9),
and to be doubtful whether Timothy was
there or not (1 Cor. xvi. 10).

168

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

St. Paul's companion in conciliation
— was far more competent to meet
the difficulties which would present
themselves in such a state of affairs
as existed then at Corinth. More
over, Titus was a Gentile, whereas
Timothy was half Jewish by birth ;
and so there would be no danger of
the most hostile faction in Corinth
— the Jewish — a wakening any sym
pathy for themselves in him. flow
judicious the selection of Titus was
is evident by the success of his
mission, which we read of after
wards when he rejoined Paul in
Macedonia.* The Epistle was written and des
patched probably about Easter, a.d.
57, t and the Apostle's intention is
now to remain at Ephesus until
after Pentecost, and then proceed,
visiting the churches in Macedonia
before going to Corinth. This
would leave time for this Epistle to
have the desired effect, and for St.
Paul to meet Titus somewhere —
probably at Troas. This Epistle
divides itself into two parts. The
first Section, extending to chap.
vi. 20, deals with the reports which
had reached St. Paul as to the
condition of the Corinthian Church ;
and the second Section, which occu
pies the remainder of the Epistle,
is a reply to the letter received
from Corinth, including directions
for the collection for the saints at
Jerusalem and the usual salutations
from the brethren.
With characteristic courtesy, the
Epistle opens with words of ap
proval and congratulation,! which
show that the writer's subsequent

• See 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13.
t See 1 Cor. v. 7 and xvi. 18, showing
that it was written before Pentecost, and
probably at Passover time.
J 1 Ccr. i. 1— fl.

censures arise from no desire to see
merely what is bad in tho Corin
thians, but are forced from him by
the serious nature of the'evils which
have to be checked. Three evils
are then rebuked — viz., TheSpirit
op Faction,* The Case of Pro
hibited Marriage, + The Ap
peals of Christians to Heathen
Courts. J The general principles
of the relation of Christianity to
heathenism, out of which the ad
vice given under the last two heads
has grown, are then solemnly re
iterated ; § and the first Section of
the Epistle closes with these words
of earnest warning.
From the second Section of this
Epistle'wo can discover what were
the topics concerning which tho
Corinthians had written to St. Paul.
He would doubtless treat of these
subjects in the same sequence as
they occurred in the letter to which
this is the answer. The questions
asked were probably these : Is it
right to marry ? The answer to
this || is, — that, owing to the excep
tional state of circumstances then
existing, the unmarried state is
better. This advice is, however, to
be modified in its practical applica
tion in the cases of those who have
an irresistible natural desire for
marriage and those who have al
ready contracted it.
The second question was : Is it
LAWFUL FOR A CHRISTIAN TO EAT
T1IE FLESH WHICH HAS BEEN AL
READY USED FOR SACRIFICIAL PUR
POSES BY THE HEATHEN ? To this
the answer ^f is, in general terms,
that there is no harm in eating such
meat, but that in practice this wide
principle of Christian liberty must

* 1 Cor. i. 10— iv. 21.
t 1 Cor v. 1—13. t 1 Cor. vi. 1—0.
§ 1 Cor. vi. 5—20. | 1 Cor. vii.
1 1 Cor. viii. 1— xi. 1.

I. CORINTHIANS.

169

bo limited by regard to the general
welfare of others and their tender
ness of conscience.
The third inquiry was : What
is the becoming dress of women
in public worship ? This ques
tion was rendered necessary by
some women pushing the freedom
of the faith so far as to appear in
public unveiled — a practice which
might easily be mistaken by the
heathen as the indication of a loose
morality. To this the Apostle re
plies * practicaRy that our Chris
tianity is not to make us transgress
the social order and customs of the
community in which we live.
The fourth question was : What
is the proper order of the
celebration of the Lord's Sup
per ? In his answer to this ques
tion f the Apostle severely censures
the scenes of riot and debauch into
which the Love Feasts — with which
the Lord's Supper was practically
united, though not identical — had
fallen, and gives stringent and
exact directions as to the means of
avoiding such scandal in the fu-
ture.J The fifth question was : Which
is the most valuable of spi
ritual gifts ? The discussion of
this matter § involves the condem
nation of the extravagant value
attached by some to the gift of
tongues, and the enunciation of the
principle that the value of a gift

• 1 Cor. xi. 2—16.
t 1 Cor. xi. 17—34.
% It seems impossible to us that
drunkenness could arise from the abuse
of the Encharistic wine as administered in
our own day. A remarkable instance is
mentioned in Mrs. Brassey's Voyage of tlie
"Sunbeam" (p. 234) of a church which
they visited in Tahiti, where cocoa-nut
milk was used in the Holy Communion in
the place of wine, owing to abuses of the
cup which had arisen.
§ 1 Cor. xii. 1— xiv. 40.

depends on its utility for the good
of the whole Church.
The sixth, and last, inquiry was :
Is THE RESURRECTION OF THE
DEAD A VITAL DOCTRINE OF CHRIS
TIANITY? The reply to this* is
an elaborate exposition and vindi
cation of the doctrine of the resur
rection. The coRection for the
saints at Jerusalem, information
regarding his own change of plans,
and some personal matters, occupy
the concluding chapter of the
Epistle. After despatching this Epistle,
St. Paul is fuR of fears lest it may
have been written with too much
severity, and possibly may have
exactly the opposite effect from
that which he desired. It may fail
to reconcile to him the Church so
dear to his heart — it may only
widen the breach and embitter op
ponents. The Apostle leaves Ephe
sus after Pentecost, but his fears
increase. Even an "open door" at
Troas -f cannot detain him in his
restless anxiety. No new love
could make up for the possible loss
of the old one at Corinth in that
large and tender heart of St. Paul.
He passes over into Macedonia —
fuU of care : there are the echoes
of tumults at Ephesus behind him
— there is the fear of coming dis
ruption with Corinth before him.
At last at Philippi, he meets Titus,
who brings him the joyful news
that, on the whole, the letter has
been successful.;); The Corinthian
Christians are penitent, the chief
offender has been cxpeRed, and
there is nothing now to prevent the
Apostle taking back into his confi
dence and love the Church to which
he was so warmly attached. A

* 1 Cor. xv. t 2 Cor. ii. 12.
X 2Cor.ii. 14.

170

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

second letter* — to express his joy
and gratitude, to reiterate his ex
hortations, and to flnaUy prepare
the Corinthians for his coming
(which he explains had been de
layed from no personal caprice, but
for their sakes f) — is written, and
the last trace of the cloud which,
by separating him from them had
cast so terrible a, darkness over his
own soul, is completely and finally
removed. The authenticity of this Epistle
has never been seriously disputed ;
indeed, to deny it would almost in
volve a disbelief in the historical
existence of the Corinthian Church
and in the personahty of St. Paul.
The earliest fathers refer to it as
the recognised letter of the Apostle.
Clement of Eome, Polycarp, and
Irenasus quote passages from it as
St. Paul's writing. All throughout
this Epistle we have the heart as
well as the intellect of the Apostle
displayed to us ; the Holy Spirit of
God not setting aside, but control
ling and guiding those good gifts
of which, though we call them
"natural," He is the Author and
the Giver.
Many of the subjects treated of
here were local and personal. The
combination of circumstances which
give rise to them cannot possibly
occur again in Christendom; but
the principles on which the Apostle
decided these matters are im
perishable and of universal obliga
tion. They can guide the Church
amid the complex civilisation
of the nineteenth century as truly
and as clearly as they indicated
to her the path of safety in the
infancy of the Christian faith.

* 2 Corinthians.

t 2 Cor. i. 23.

The following woiks will be
found useful by those who desire
to enter into a more detailed and
exhaustive study of this Epistle: —
The Greek Testament, with a
Critically-revised Text, §c, by Dean
Alford. Vol. II. Eivingtons, 1871.
Tlie Greek Testament, with Notes,
by Bishop Wordsworth.
Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar
iiber das Neue Testament. Gottingen
(Eng. Trans., Clark, 1877).
The Epistles of St. Paul to the
Corinthians, with Critical Notes and
Dissertations, by Dean Stanley.
John Murray, 1876.
The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,
by W. J. Conybeare and the Very
Rev. J. S. Howson, Dean of Ches
ter. New Edition. Longmans.
The Hulsean Lectures for 1862, by
the Very Rev. J. S. Howson.
Third Edition. Strahan & Co.
The Metaphors of St. Paul, by
the Very. Rev. J. S. Howson.
The Companions of St. Paul, by
the Very Rev. J. S. Howson. Is-
bister, 1874.
Expository Lectures on St. Paul's
Epistles to the Corinthians, by the
late F. W. Robertson. Smith and
Elder, 1870.
The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,
by Thomas Lewin, M.A. 2 Vols.
Third Edition. George BeR &
Sons, 1875.
The Homilies of St. John Chrysos
tom, on the First Epistle of St. Paul
to the Corinthians. Vols. IV. and
V. of the Library of Fathers of the
Holy Catholic Church. Parker,
1839. G. B. Winer's Grammatik des
neutestamentlichen Spraehidioms
(English Translation, by Dr. W.
F. Moulton. Eighth Edition. T. &
T. Clark, 1877).

II. CORINTHIANS.

By the late Very Eev. E. H. PLUMPTEE, D.D.

It is not without some reluctance
that I have undertaken to treat of
an Epistle which stands in such
close connection with that which
precedes it that it can scarcely be
dealt with by a different hand
without some risk of want of unity
of treatment.
I have, however, kept on the
same main Rnes of thought and
method of interpretation which
have been foRowed in the Com
mentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and have been glad to
find myself on aR important points
of one mind with the commentator.
Of the genuineness of the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians there has
never been a moment's doubt, even
among critics who allow themselves
the widest range in their attacks on
the canon of New Testament writ
ings. External evidence is in itself
adequate. The Epistle is quoted
by Irenaeus (Hair. iii. 7, § 1), by
Athenagoras (De resurr. wort), by
Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii.
94, iv. 101), and by Tertullian (De
Pudicitid, c. 13). Testimony of this
kind is, however, hardly needed.
The Epistle speaks for itself. In

its intense personaHty, its pecu
liarities of style, its manifold coin
cidences with the Acts and with
other Epistles (especiaRy with
1 Corinthians, Romans, and Gala
tians), its vehement emotions, it may
fairly be said to present phenomena
beyond the attainment of any later
writer wishing to claim for what
he wrote the authority of a great
name. Pseudonymous authorship
is, in this case, simply out of the
question. In order to understand the Epistle
we must throw ourselves, as by a
mental effort, into the mind and
heart of the writer at the moment
when he wrote or, more probably,
dictated it. Of the sins and disorders
of the Corinthians as reported to
him by successive informants — the
household of Chloe (1 Cor. i. 11),
and by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and
Achaicus (1 Cor. xvi. 17); of his
treatment of the topics then brought
before him; of the probable effect
of what he wrote upon the several
parties in the Corinthian Church,
we need not here speak. It will be
sufficient to note that he had sent
Timotheus before he wrote the First

172

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

Epistle ; that he had then sent the
First Epistle by Stephanas, his
companion; that when they were
gone (or possibly with them*) he
despatched Titus to complete the
work, perhaps as trusting more to
his energy than that of the other
messengers. Timotheus had re
turned to him. It is not certain
that he reached Corinth. If he did,
he came and left before the Epistle
had arrived, and was unable to
report what had been its result.
His timid and shrinking character
probably unfitted him for coping
with the difficulties which presented
themselves. His coining, there
fore, however welcome it might bc,
brought no relief to the Apostle's
anxiety. He started from Ephesus,
whether before or after the arrival
of Timotheus we do not know, and,
in pursuance of his plan, went to
Troas. But there, too, great as the
opportunities for mission-work were
(chap. ii. 12), he had no strength
or heart to use them. A restless,
feverish anxiety devoured him night
and day, and he sailed for Mace
donia, probably for Philippi. And
there, at last, after a time of expec
tation and anxiety, Titus came to
him (chap. vii. 6). His report was
Evidently more full and satisfactory
than that which had been brought
by Timotheus. Ho was able to
report, what the latter had not re
ported — the effect of the First
Epistle ; and this was, in part, at
least, full of comfort. The majority
at a meeting of the Church had
acted as he had told them to act, in
the punishment of the incestuous
offender (chap. ii. 6), they had
shown generally a desire to clear
themselves from the reproach of

• See Introduction to tlie First Epistle to
the Corinthians.

sensual impurity (chap. vii. 11),
and had manifested warm feelings
of attachment to the Apostle per-
sonaRy (chap. vii. 7). They had
obeyed Titus as the Apostle's dele
gate, and had made the work which
he had undertaken in much anxiety,
a labour of love and joy (chap. vii.
13—16). They had taken up the
collection for the saints with an
eager interest, and had not only
accepted the idea, but had begun to
act on the suggestion of 1 Cor. xvi.
1, 2, as to the weekly payments,
and to the alms-box of the houso
(chap. ix. 13). So far aR was well,
and had this been all, the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians would
probably havo been as f uR of thank
fulness, and joy, and comfort, as
that to the Philippians. But it was
not all. Wisely or unwisely, Titus
thought it right to tell him of tho
words and acts of tho two parties
in the Church of Corinth, who, at
opposite extremes, were agreed in
resisting his authority. There were
some, the party of license, who
needed sharp words of censure,
and had given no proof of repent
ance for the foul evils of their
former life (chap. xii. 21). There
was the Judaising party, claiming
to belong to Christ in a sense in
which St. Paul did not belong to
Him, boasting of their Hebrew
descent (chaps, x. 7 ; xi. 4, 22),
arrogating to themselves a special
apostoRc authority (chap. xi. 5),
insolently lording it over their
abject foRowers (chap. xi. 20).
And from one or other of these
rival parties, probably in some
cases from both, there had come —
so Titus reported — taunts, sneers,
and insinuations against the Apos
tle's character. He had shown
feebleness in his change of plan
(chap. i. 17) ; his personal appear-

n. CORINTHIANS

173

ance, feeble and infirm, did not
match the authoritative tone of his
letters ; his speech had nothing in
it to command admiration (chap. x.
10) ; he threatened supernatural
punishments, but he did not dare
to put his threats to the proof
(chap. xiii. 3). What right had he
to claim the authority of an Apostle,
when he had never seen the Christ
in the flesh ? Was it certain that
he was a Hebrew, a Jew of the pure
blood of Palestine, or even that he
was of the seed of Abraham ? (chap.
vi. 22). They turned into a re
proach the fact that he had worked
for his maintenance at Corinth, and
yet had received gifts from the
Macedonian churches, as though he
had been too proud to put himself
under obligations to any but his
favourites (chap. xi. 2 — 10). They
insinuated that what he would not
do directly he meant to do indirectly,
through the coRection for the poor
of Jerusalem (chap. xii. 16). How
could they tell that the fund so
secured would find its way to those
who were ostensibly its objects f
Who was this Paul who came
without credentials (chap. iii. 1),
and expected to be received on the
strength of his everlasting self-
assertions? (chaps, iii. 1 ; v. 12;
x. 8, 12; xii. 11). Was there not
a touch of madness in his visions
and revelations ? Could he claim
more than the tolerance which men
were ready to extend to the insane ?
(chaps, v. 13 ; xi. 16—19.)
Conceive all these barbed arrows
of sarcasm falling on the ears, and
through them piercing the very-
soul, of a man of singularly sensi
tive nature, passionately craving
for affection, and proportionately
feehng the bitterness of loving with
no adequate return (chap. xii. 15),
and we may form some estimate of

the whirl and storm of omotion in
which St. Paul began to dictate the
Epistle on which we are about to
enter. Joy, affection, tenderness,
fiery indignation, self-vindication,
profound thoughts as to the mys
teries of the kingdom of God which
flashed upon his soul as he spoke —
aU these elements were there, crav
ing to find expression. They hin
dered any formal plan and method
in the structure of the Epistle.
They led to episodes, and side-
glances, and allusive references
without number.
It follows from this that an
analysis of such an Epistle is not a
very easy matter, and that which
foRows must be received only as
an approximately complete one,
helping the student to follow the
manifold oscillations of thought
and feeling.
1. — St. Paul wishes the Corinthians
to know his troubles and suf
ferings before the return of
- Titus (chap. i. 1—14).
2. — He tells them of his first plan
of coming to them, and de
fends himself against the
charge of fickleness in chang
ing it (chaps, i. 15 — ii. 1).
3. — He is glad that he did change
his plans, for thus there was
time for the repentance on
the part of the incestuous
offender of 1 Cor. v. 1. Such
a one now needed sympathy
and pardon (chap. ii. 2 — 11).
4.— He is about to tell them of his
meeting with Titus, but the
remembrance of the tri
umphant joy of that moment
overpowers him, and fills
him with a profound sense
of the issues of life and
death which hang upon his
words (chap. ii. 12 — 17).

171

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

5. — WiR this be caRed the self-
assertion of one who has no
credentials ? His thoughts
pass rapidly to the true cre
dentials of effective preach
ing, and so to the new cove
nant of which he is the
preacher, and so to the con
trast between that covenant
and the old (chap. iii. 1 — 18).
6. The sense of the tremendous
responsibility of the work
thus committed to him, leads
him to dweR on his own
fitness and unfitness for it.
On the one side there is
nothing but infirmity and
disease, on the other there
is the life of Jesus working
in his life (chap. iv. 1 — 18),
and the hope of a life after
death, in which aR that is
spiritual in us now shaR
find itself emancipated from
the flesh and clothed with a
new spiritual organism (chap.
v. 1—9).
7. — That hope does not, hpwever,
exclude the fear of the judg
ment through which aR
must pass. At the risk of
seeming mad he must dweR
on that fear. Only so can
he lead men to estimate
rightly the preeiousness of
the message of reconcilia
tion (chap. v. 10 — 21).
8. — Will those to whom he writes
receive that message in vain P
He pleads with them by aR
he has done and suffered for
them to give him a place in
their affections, above aU to
give Christ the supreme
place in them. Only so can
they be indeed God's chil
dren (chap. vi. 1 — 18). They
cannot serve him and the
lust demon, Belial.

9. — His thoughts turn from the
party of license, whom he
had in view in the previous
section, to those who had
shown themselves . zealous
against impurity. Now he
can teR these, and such as
these, why meeting Titus
had given him matter for
such warm rejoicing; why
he feels that he can trust
them (chap. vii. 1 — 16).
10. — A new topic begins, appar
ently after a pause. He is
about to show that he trusts
them, by asking them to let
their performance in the
matter ofthe coRection for the
saints be equal to their readi
ness of will. He tells them
of the arrangements he has
made for it, and stirs them up
by example of the Macedoni
ans, by appeals to their own
self; by the hope of God's fa
vour (chaps, viii. 1 — ix. 15).
11. — As if by the association of
contrast, he turns from what
he viewed with satisfaction
and hope to the sarcasm and
insinuations which had
caused such acute pain (chap.
x. 1 — 18). He charges his
opponents, the Judaising
teachers, with intruding
into his province, defends
himseK agamst some of their
special accusations, and chal
lenges them to a comparison
of their labours and suffer
ings with his own (chap. xi.
1—29). Even the infirmi
ties with which they taunted
him are, for those who under
stand them rightly, a ground
of confidence and strength
(chaps, xi. 30 — xii. 18).
12. — Having thus defended himself,
his thoughts travel on to

II. COBINTHIANS.

175

the time of his projected
visit. He looks forward, not
without anxiety, to the pos
sibihty of having to exercise
bis apostoRc authority in
punishing the offenders both
of the party of Rcense and
that of the Judaisers. But
he hopes that that necessity
wiR not arise. His wish
and prayer is that they may
be restored to completeness
without it. The agitation
of his own spirit is calmed,
and he ends with words of
peace and blessing for them
(chaps, xii. 19 — xiii. 14).
Of the immediate results of the
Epistle, and of the after-history of
the Church of Corinth, we know but
Rttle. Within a few months he
paid, his promised visit, and was
received with hospitality by one of
the chief members of the Church
(Rom. xvi. 23) . Titus and the un
named brethren of chap. viii. 18, 22,
probably Luke and Tychicus, had
done their work effectuaRy, and he
could teR the Romans to whom he
wrote of the coRection for the saints
which had been made in Achaia as
weR as in Macedonia (Rom. xv. 26) .
They apparently had so far gained
the confidence of the Corinthians
that they did not think it necessary
to choose any delegates of their
own to watch over the appropriation
of the funds coRected (Acts xx. 4) .
The maRgnant enmity of the Jews,
however, had not abated. His Rfe
was endangered by a plot to attack
him as he was embarking at Cen-
chreae, and he had to change his plans
and return through Macedonia
(Acts xx. 3). After this we lose
sight of the Corinthian Church
altogether, and the one glimpse
which we get, accepting the Pas

toral Epistles as genuine, and as
coming after St. Paul's first im
prisonment at Eome, is that on his
return to his former labours, Eras
tus, who seems to have travelled
with him, stopped at the city in
which he held a municipal position
of authority (Eom. xvi. 23 ; 2 Tim.
iv. 20). The Epistle of Clement of
Eome to the Corinthians, written,
probably, about a.d. 95 — some
thirty-five years, therefore, after
the date of this Epistle — shows,
however, that the character of the
Church has not altered, and that
the old evils had re-appeared. A
few rash and seH-confident persons,
putting themselves at the head of a
factious party, had brought dis
credit on the Church's name. It
was necessary to exhort them once
more to submit to their rulers and
to foRow after peace (Clem. Rom.
i. 1), to remind them of the self-
denying labours of the two Apostles,
Peter and Paul, whose names they
professed to honour (i. 2), of the
examples of faith and humility pre
sented by Christ HimseR and by
the saints of the Old Testament (i.
16—18). The old doubts as to the
resurrection (1 Cor. xv.) had re
appeared, and Clement, over and
above the teaching of Scripture and
of the Apostles on this subject,
presses on them the analogy of the
stories then current as to the death
and revival of the Phoenix* (i. 24,

* The elaborate note in Dr. Lightfoot's
edition of St. Clement shows that a fresh
prominence had recently been given to the
phcenix-legend, whieh may account for the
stress thus laid on it. It was said to have
re-appeared in Egypt in the reign of Tibe
rius (a.d. 34—86) (Tacit. Ann. vi. 28). In
a.d. 47 a live phoenix was actually exhi
bited in the comitium of Eome (Plin. Nat.
Hist. x. 2). Historians and savans, though
they might think the particular instance
an imposture, accepted the tradition with
hardly a question.

17(1

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

25). Theauthority of the legitimate
pastors of the Church (he names
bishops or deacons only, as St. Paul
had done in Phil. i. 1) was disputed,
and he urges submission, and quotes
the Epistle — the first of the two
which St. Paul had addressed to
them (i. 47) — paraphrasing the sec
tion in which he had set forth the
excellence of charity (i. 49). The
letter was sent by messengers,
among whom we find one, Fortu-
natus, who may have been among
the survivors who knewthoApostle's
work, and had been the bearer of
the Epistle of which Clement has
just reminded them. The name,
however, Rke its synonyms, Felix,
Eutychus, and the like, was not an
uncommon one, and the identifica
tion cannot, therefore, be regarded
as more than probable.
Somewhat later on, about a.d.
135, the Church of Corinth was
visited by Hegesippus, the historian
of the Jewish Church, to whom we
owe the narrative of the death of
James, the Bishop of Jerusalem.
He touched at that city on his voy
age to Rome, and remained there
for several days. He found the

Church faithful to the truth under
its bishop Primus (Euseb. Hist. iv.
22). Dionysius, who succeeded
Primus in his episcopate, brought
out aR that was good in the Church
over which he ruled, and extended
his activity to the Macedonians, the
Athenians, the people of Nicomedia,
of Crete, and of the coast of Pontus.
He bears his testimony to the
liberality of the Church of Corinth
in relieving the poverty of other
churches, to the traditional liberality
whieh it had, in its turn, experi
enced at the hand of the Eoman
churches. The teaching of 2 Cor.
viii., ix., had, it would seem, done
its work eft'ectuaRy. He records
the fact that the Epistle of
Clement was read, from time to
time, on the Lord's Day. A female
disciple, named Chrysophora, ap
parently of the some type of charac
ter as Dorcas and Priscilla, was
conspicuous both for her good works
and her spiritual discernment
(Euseb. Hist. iv. 23). Witn this
glimpse into the latest traceable
influence of St. Paul's teaching, our
survey of the history of the Church
of Corinth may weR close.

GALATIANS.

By the Eev. Prokessoe SANDAT, D.D.

I. Galatia. — The name Galatia
is used in two senses. In ordinary
speech it was used to designate
that portion of Asia Minor lying
chiefly between the rivers Sangarius
and flalys, which was inhabited by
the tribe of Galatas, or GaRi. This
warlike people had been invited
over from Europe by Nicomedes,
king of Bithynia, who repaid their
services by a grant of land. Issu
ing forth from thence, they had
been for a time the terror and the
scourge of Asia Minor, but they
had been at last driven back and
confined within the territory origin-
aRy assigned to them. These events
took place in the latter half of the
third century B.C. Their power
was broken by the Romans in n.c.
189, and though for another cen
tury and a half they retained a
nominal independence, in B.C. 25
they were formally annexed to the
empire of Rome.
Just before this final annexation,
during the reign of the last king,
Amyntas, the kingdom of Galatia
had been considerably enlarged.
Amyntas had ranged himself on
the winning side in the great civil
wars, and he had received as his
reward Pisidia, Isauria, parts of
Lycaonia and Phrygia, and Cilicia
Trachsea. On hia death the greater

part of these dominions, with the
exception of Cilicia Trachsea, be
came a single Roman province,
which, for administrative purposes,
was also known by - the name
Galatia. To which of these two Galatias
did St. Paul address his Epistle ?
Was it to the narrower Galatia —
Galatia proper — or to the wider
Galatia — the Roman province?
There are some temptations to
adopt the second of these views.
In that case we should have a
graphic account of the founding of
the Galatian churches — for such
they would be — in Acts xiii., xiv.
At Antioch in Pisidia, which we
are expressly told formed part of
the kingdom of Amyntas, the
Apostle had preached with a
success which had called down vio
lent opposition. Iconium, to which
he retreated, appears not to have
been given to Amyntas, and whe
ther it formed part of the Eoman
province at this time is uncertain.
There is, however, no doubt as to
Lystra — where the two Apostles
were received so enthusiastically —
and Derbe. On the hypothesis
that the Galatia of the Epistle is
the Roman province, the scenes of
the first missionary journey would
be directly associated with it. On

12

178

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

the contrary assumption, no detaRs
whatever as to the founding of the
Galatian churches have come down
to us.
In spite of this, and in spite of
some other points in which the
history may seem to be simplified
by assigning to Galatia the wider
signification, a balance of considera
tions seems to prevent us from
doing so. There can be no question
that St. Luke, in the Acts, wher
ever he speaks of Galatia, uses the
word in its narrower and proper
sense, and though this would not
be in itseR decisive as to the usage
of St. Paul, still it is impossible to
think that in impassioned passages
like Gal. iii. 1, "0 foolish Galatians,
who hath bewitched you," &c, the
Apostle is using only an official
title. We shall be safe in assuming
that he was really writing to the
descendants of the Gallic invaders,
and that he addresses them by the
name by which they were familiarly
known. II. The Galatians  It does
not, however, follow from what has
just been said that the Christian
converts were taken solely or even
chiefly from the native Galatians.
They did but give a name to the
country; three other nationaRties
went to make up its population.
First came the Greeks, who were
so numerous as to give to their
adopted home the second name of
GaRograeia. Then, beneath the
upper layer of conquering Gala
tians, there lay a large substratum
of the older inhabitants, the con
quered Phrygians ; and by the side
of both — brought partly by coloni
sation and partly by purposes of
trade — were considerable numbers
of Jews. Of the disturbing pre
sence of this latter clement the

Epistle itseR gives us ample evi
dence. Still, the predominant body, and
that which gave its most distinctive
characteristics to the Church, were
the genuine Galatians themselves.
A question similar to that as to the
boundaries of Galatia has been
raised in regard to these. To what
race did they belong P A large
section of the ablest German com
mentators untR quite recently were
disposed to claim them as Teutons,
the main ground for this being
that Jerome, in the fourth century,
observed the resemblance between
the language spoken in Galatia and
that of Treveri, who bequeathed
their name to the modern district
of Treves, and who are said to
have been German. This point,
however, is itseR perhaps more
than doubtful, and as to the GalatsB
there is abimdant evidence, besides
their name, to show that they were
Celts, and not Teutons. This was
the universal opinion of antiquity,
to which even Jerome, notwith
standing his statement about the
language, was no exception ; and it
is confirmed by a philological
analysis of the names both of per
sons and of places in Galatia that
have come down to us. The theory
of the Teutonic origin of the Gala
tians is now given up, not only in
England, but in Germany.
The Galatians, then, were Celts,
and we are not surprised to find in
them the Celtic qualities. They
came of the race which " shook aR
empires, but founded none." Their
great failing was in stability.
Quick to receive impressions, they
were quick to lose them; at one
moment ardently attached, at the
next violently opposed. This is
precisely what St. Paul complains
of. He gives a striking picture of

GALATIANS.

179

the enthusiasm with which he had
been received on his first visit. He
himself was stricken down with
sickness, but that did not damp the
ardour of his converts. They
would even have " plucked out
their eyes," and given them to him.
But in a short space of time all
this was gone. They had now
made common cause with his adver
saries. They had forsaken his
teaching and repudiated his au
thority. The cause of the evR lay in the
intrigues of certain Judaisers. And
the consideration of the question in
debate between them and St. Paul
opens out a new subject for dis
cussion. III. Contents and Doc
trinal Character of the
Epistle  The controversy that
divided, and could not but divide,
the infant Church, came to a head
most conspicuously in Galatia.
Was the Jewish Law to be binding
upon Christians ? It was only
natural that many should be found
to say that it was. Christianity
had sprung out of Judaism. The
first and most obvious article in the
Christian creed — the Messiahship
of Jesus — was one that might easily
be accepted, and yet aR the pre-
judices in favour of the Jewish
Law be retained. It was only a
• deeper and prolonged reflection
¦ that could show the fundamental
. antagonism between the Jewish
' view of things and the Christian.
; St. Paul saw this, but there were
many who were not so clear
sighted. The main body of the
Church at Jerusalem held tena
ciously to the Jewish practices.
The old Pharisaic passion for mak-
. ing proselytes stiR clung to them.
-And emissaries from this Church

had found their way — as they
easRy might, through the chain of
Jewish posts scattered over Asia
Minor — as far north as Galatia.
These emissaries pursued the
same tactics as they had pursued
elsewhere. They called in question
the Apostle's authority. They
claimed to act from a superior
commission themselves. They dis
paraged his teaching of personal
faith in Jesus. They knew nothing
of such faith. They acknowledged
Jesus as the Messiah, and with
that they were content. They still
looked for salvation, as they had
done hitherto, from the literal per
formance of the Mosaic Law, and
they forced this view upon the
Galatians. They insisted specially
on the rite of circumcision. They
would not aRow the Gentile con
verts to escape it. They proclaimed
it as the only avenue to the cove
nant relation with God. And no
sooner had the convert submitted
to circumcision than they proceeded
to lay upon him an oppressive
burden of rituaRstic ceremonies.
He was to keep a multitude of
seasons, " days, and months, and
times, and years." If he was to
enjoy the Messianic privileges he
must be righteous. But to be
righteous was to perform scrupu
lously the precepts- of the Mosaic
Law, and in the attempt' to do this
the convert's whole powers and
energies were consumed. The
Messiahship of Jesus was something
secondary and subordinate. The
Judaisers accepted it so far as it
seemed to hold out to them » pro
spect of advantage, but otherwise
it remained a mere passive belief.
The key to life and conduct was
stiR sought in the fulfilment of the
Mosaic Law.
With such a position as this the

180

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

Apostle could not but be directly
at issue. To him the Messiahship
of Jesus (including, as it did, His
eternal Sonship) forrnfidthe ver;
and cputTB nf bis
rehgiods "' lleinu1. Kait.h— nr the

ardent conviction of this Messiah-
ship in its completest sense — w^is
the one great motive power which".
hj> rppngnisprl A uri trip afei t,B in
which the Christian was placed by
faith was itseR — apart from any
laborious system of legal obser
vances — an attainment of right
eousness. The Messianic system
was everything. The Law hence
forth was nothing. By his relation
to the Messiah the Christian ob
tained all of which he had need.
Sin stood between him and the
favour of God, but the Messiah had
died to remove the curse entailed
by sin ; and by his adhesion to the
Messiah the Christian at once
stepped into the enjoyment of all
the blessings and immunities which
the Messianic reign conferred. It
was not that he was released from
the obligations of morality (as
represented by the Law), but
morahty was absorbed in religion.
One who stood in the relation that
the Christian did to Christ could
not but lead a holy life ; but the
holy life was a consequence — a
natural, easy, necessary conse
quence — of this relation, not some
thing to be worked out by the
man's unaided efforts, independ
ently of any such relation. The
command, " Be ye holy as I am
holy," remained, but there inter
vened the motive and stimulus
afforded by the death and exaltation
of Christ. " Be ye holy, because ye
are bought with a price; because
ye are Christ's, and your life is hid
with Christ in God."
* The Law then no longer held

that primary position which it had
occupied under the old covenant.
It had fulfiRed its functions, which
were preparatory and not final. Its
object had been to deepen the sense
of sin, to define unmistakably the
line which separated it from right
eousness, and so to prepare the way
for that new Messianic system in
which the power of sin was not
ignored but overcome, and over
come by lifting the believer as it
were bodily into a higher sphere.
He was taken out of a sphere ofi
human effort and ritual observance,
and raised into a sphere in which
he was surrounded by divine in
fluences, and in which all that he
had to do was to reaRse practically
what had aReady been accomplished!
for him ideally. In that sphere!
the centre and Rfe-giving agency
was Christ, and the means by
which Christ was to be apprehended
was Faith. So that Christ and
Faith were the watchwords of the
Apostle, just as the Law and Cir
cumcision were the watchwords of
the Jews.
Thus the line that the Apostle
takes in this Epistle was clearly
marked out for him. Against the
attacks upon his apostolic authority
he defended himself by claiming
that, although he was a late comer in
point of time, this did not imply
any real inferiority. His was not
an authority derived at second
hand. On the contrary, he owed
his calling and commission directly
to God Himself. The proof was to
be seen both in the circumstances
of his conversion and also in the
fact that, though he had once or
twice been brought into apparent
contact with the elder Apostles, his
teaching was entirely independentof
them, and was already fully formed
when he had at last an opportunity

GALATIANS.

181

of consulting them about it. And
in practice, not only was he recog
nised by them as an equal, but
even Peter submitted to a rebuke
from him. On the other hand,
upon the great dogmatic question,
St. Paul meets his opponents by an
emphatic statement of his own posi
tion. Christianity is not something
accessory to the Law, but super
sedes it. Righteousness is to be
sought not by legal observances,
but by faith. The old system was
carnal, material, an affair of ex
ternals. The new rcyatpm ia n
spiritual renewal bv sniritunl fnvr.es.
JS ot that there is any real contra
diction between ths new and the
old. For the very type and pattern
of the old dispensation — Abraham
himself — obtained the righteous
ness that was imputed to him not
by works, but by faith. Thus, the
true descendant of Abraham is he
who puts faith in Christ. It was
to Christ that the promise related,
in Christ that the whole divine
scheme of redemption and regene
ration centred. The Law could not
interfere with it, for the Law came
after the Promise, by which it was
guaranteed. The function of the
Law was something temporary and
transient. It was, as it were, a
state of tutelage for mankind. The
f uR admission to the privileges of
the divine patrimony was reserved
for those who became personal
followers of the Messiah. He was
the Son of God, and those who
cast in their lot wholly with Him
were admitted to a share in His
Sonship. To go back to the old
stage of ritual observance was pure
retrogression. It was an unnatural
exchange — a state of drudgery for
a state of freedom. It was a
reversal of the old patriarchal story
— a preferring of Ilagar and

Ishmael for Isaac, the child of
promise. The Apostle cannot think
that the Galatians will do this. He
exhorts them earnestly to hold fast
to their liberty, to hold fast to
Christ, not to give up their high
privilege of seeking righteousness
by faith, and accepting it through
grace, for any useless ordinance
like circumcision. Yet the liberty
of the Christian is far from mean- j
ing license. License proceeds from
giving way to the impulses of the
flesh, but these impulses tho
Christian has got rid of. His,
relation to Christ has brought him*
under the dominion of the Spirit of
Christ. He is spiritual, not carnal ;
and to be spiritual implies, or
should imply, every grace and every
virtue. The Galatians should be
gentle and charitable to offenders.
They should be Rberal in their
alms. The Epistle concludes with
a repeated warning against the Ju
daising intruders. Their motives are
low and interested. They wish to
pass off themselves and their con
verts as Jews, and to escape perse
cution as Christians. But to do so
they must give up the very essen
tials of Christianity.
The Epistle is not constructed
upon any artificial system of divi
sions, but tho subject-matter falls
naturaRy into three main sections.
each consisting of two of our
present chapters, with a short
preface and conclusion, the last in
the Apostle's own handwriting.
The first section contains the de
fence of his apostolic authority and
independence in a review of his own
career for the first seventeen years
from his conversion. This leads
him to speak of the dispute with
St. Peter at Antioch, and the doc
trinal questions involved in that
dispute lead up to the second or

182

NEAV TESTAJMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

doctrinal section, in which his own
main tenet of righteousness by
faith is contrasted with the teach
ing of the Judaisers and established
out of the Old Testament. This
occupies chaps, iii. and iv. The
last section, is, as usual with St.
Paul, hortatory, and consists of an
application of the principles just
laid down to practice, with such
cautions as they may seem to need,
and one or two special points which
his experience in the Church at
Corinth and the news brought to
him from Galatia appear to have
suggested. The following may be taken as a
tabular outline of the Epistle* : —
I. — Introductory Address
(chap. i. 1—10).
a. The apostoRc salutation (chap.
i. 1—5).
b. The Galatians' defection (chap.
i. 6—10).
II. — Personal Apologia : an
Autobiographical Retro
spect (chaps, i. 11 — ii. 21).
The Apostle's teaching derived
from God and not man (chap.
i. 11, 12), as proved by the
circumstances of —
(1) His education (chap. i. 13, 14).
(2) His conversion (chap. i. 15 —
17).
(3) His intercourse with the
other Apostles, whether at
(a) his first visit to Jerusa
lem (chap. i. 18—24), or (b)
his later visit (chap. ii. 1 —
10).
(4) His conduct in the contro
versy with Peter at Antioch
(chap. ii. 11 — 14) ;

* Figures are used where the subdivi
sions are continuous steps in the same
argument, letters where they are distinct
arguments.

The subject of which con
troversy was the super
session of the Law by
Christ (chap. ii. 15 —
21).
III. — Dogmatic Apologia :
Inferiority of Judaism,
or Legal Christianity, to
the Doctrine of Faith
(chaps, iii. 1 — iv. 31).
(a) The Galatians bewitched into
retrogression from a spiritual
system to a carnal system
(chap. iii. 1 — 5).
(b) Abraham himself a witness
to the efficacy of faith (chap.
iii. 6—9).
(c) Faith in Christ alone removes
the curse which the Law
entailed (chap. iii. 10 — 14).
(d) The validity of the Promise
unaffected by the Law (chap.
iii. 15—18).
(e) Special pedagogic function
of the Law, which must
needs give way to the larger
scope of Christianity (chap.
iii. 19—29).
(/) The Law a state of tutelage
(chap. iv. 1 — 7).
(g) Meanness and barrenness of
mere ritualism (chap. iv. 8 —
11).
(h) The past zeal of the Galatians
contrasted with their present
coldness (chap. iv. 12 — 20).
(i) The aRegory of Isaac and
Ishmael (chap. iv. 21 — 31).
IAr. — Hortatory Application
of the Foregoing (chaps.
v. 1— vi. 10).
(a) Christian Rberty excludes
Judaism (chap. v. 1 — 6).
(b) The Judaising intruders
(chap. v. 7 — 12).
(c) Liberty not license, but love
(chap. v. 13—15).

GALATIANS.

183

(d) The works of the flesh and of
the Spirit (chap. v. 16—26).
(e) The duty of sympathy (chap.
vi. 1—5).
(/) The duty of RberaRty (chap.
vi. 6-10).
V.— Autograph Conclusion
(chap. vi. 11 — 18).
(a) The Judaiser's motive (chap.
vi. 12, 13).
(b) The Apostle's motive (chap.
vi. 14, 15).
(c) His parting benediction, and
claim to be freed from any
further annoyance (chap. vi.
16—18).
The subject of the Epistle to the
Galatians might be summarily de
scribed as the same as that to the
Eomans — the doctrine of justifica
tion by faith — i.e., the state of
righteousness entered by means
of faith. (See Introduction to
Romans.) TV. Date of the Epistle.—
Mention has just been made of the
Epistle to the Romans, and the
resemblance between these two
Epistles forms an important element
in the consideration of the next
question with which we have to
deal — the question as to the date of
the Epistle, and the place from which
it was written.
On this point two views are cur
rent. It is agreed that the Epistle
was written on St. Paul's third
great missionary journey. It is
agreed that it belongs to the group
which includes 1 and 2 Corinthians
and Eomans. The difference is as
to the place whieh it occupies in
this group. A large majority of
commentators - suppose it to have

been the first of the four Epistles,
and date it from Ephesus at some
time during the Apostle's length
ened stay there, i.e., at some time
during the three years a.d. 54 — 57.
The other view is that the Epistle
was written after the two Epistles
to tho Corinthians, but before the
Epistle to the Eomans, i.e., at the
end of the year 57 or beginning of
58, from Macedonia or Greece.
This view has until recently not
had many supporters, but it found
a strong advocate in Dr. Light
foot. Practically there is a single main
argument on each side. In favour
of the earlier date, the one point
that can be pressed is the expression
used in chap. i. 6 : "I marvel that
ye are so soon removed from Him
that called you, into another gos
pel." The conversion of the Gala
tians appears to have taken place
in a.d. 51. St. Paul paid them a
second visit in a.d. 54. In the
autumn of that year his three years'
stay at Ephesus began. And it is
argued that the expression " soon "
wiR not allow us to go beyond these
three years. " Soon," however, is
a relative term. It may mean any
interval from a few minutes to one
or more centuries. The context
must decide. A change, which in
the natural course of things would
take a protracted length of time to
accomplish, might be described as
taking place " soon " if it was
brought about in a space of time
conspicuously shorter, than might
have been expected. But for the
conversion of a whole community
to Christianity, and for their second
conversion to another form of
Christianity whoRy distinct from
the first, we should surely expect
a long and protracted period. Under
such circumstances a period of six

184

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

or seven years might very weR be
called " soon." To this argument,
then, it does not seem that very
much, or indeed any, weight can
be attached.
The one chief argument upon the
other side is the very close and re
markable similarity, both in ideas
and language, between the Epistles
to Galatians and the Eomans, and,
in somewhat lower degree, 2 Corin
thians. Any one may observe in
himseR a tendency to use similar
words, and to fall into similar trains
of thought at peculiar periods. This
is especially the case with strong-
thinkers who take a firm grip of
ideas, but are possessed of less
facility and command of words in
which to express them. Such was
St. Paul. And accordingly we find
that the evidence of style as a help
to determine the chronological re
lations of the different Epistles is
peculiarly clear and distinct. But
in the doctrinal portions of Romans
and Galatians we have a resem
blance so marked — the same main
thesis, supported by the same argu
ments, the same Scripture proofs
(Lev. xviii. 5 ; Ps. exliii. 2 ; Hab.
ii. 4), the same example, Abraham,
thrown into relief by the same con
trast, that of the Law, developed to
the same consequences and couched
throughout in language of striking
similarity — that we seem to be pre
cluded from supposing any interval
between them sufficient to allow of
a break in the Apostle's mind. And
considering the throng of events
and emotions through which the
Apostle was now passing ; observing
further that the three Epistles, 2
Corinthians, Galatians, and Eo
mans, in this order, form a climax
as to the distinctness with which
the ideas expressed in them are
elaborated, it would seem that the

Epistle with which we are dealing
should be placed between the other
two ; that is to say, we should
assign it to the end of the year 57,
or beginning of 58, and the place
of its composition would probably
be Macedonia or Greece.
The course, then, of the history
will be this : St. Paul first visited
Galatia on the occasion of his second
missionary journey soon after the
memorable conference at Jerusalem,
and probably about the year a.d. 51.
His intention had been to pass from
Lycaonia due west into the Roman
province of Asia. From this, how
ever, he was prevented, as St. Luke
informs us, by some supernatural
intimation . Accordingly he turned
northwards through Phrygia, and
so entered Galatia. Here he seems
to have been detained by illness
(Gal. iv. 13, 14). He took the
opportunity to preach, and his
preaching was so successful that
the Church in Galatia was definitely
founded. This work accomplished,
he left for Mysia, and thence passed
on to Troas and Macedonia, where
the better-known portion of the
second missionary journey begins.
After the conclusion of this journey
St. Paul, in starting upon his third
missionary journey, again directed
his course to Galatia. This time
the historian mentions " the country
of Galatia and Phrygia " in a dif
ferent order from that in which
they had occurred before. We
should conclude, therefore, that St.
Paul made his way straight from
Antioch; and as no mention is
made this time of the churches of
Lycaonia, it would seem probable
that he took the direct Eoman road
skirting Cappadocia. On his arrival
in Galatia we read that he went
through it "in order, strengthen
ing the disciples" (Acts xviii. 23).

GALATIANS.

185

We should gather from some in
dications in the Epistle (chaps, iv.
16; v. 21) that he had found it
necessary to administer rather
severe reproof to his converts.
Already there were signs of false
teaching in the Church. The
Apostle's Judaismg opponents had
obtained an entrance, and he was
obliged to speak of them in language
of strong condemnation (Gal. i. 9).
But the warning was in vain. This
second visit had taken place in the
autumn of a.d. 54, and from the end
of that year tiR the autumn of a.d.
57, during which he was settled at
Ephesus, disquieting rumours con
tinued to be brought to him of the
increasing defection of his converts,
and the increasing influence of the
Judaising party. Matters went on
from bad to worse; and at last,
apparently upon his way through
Macedonia to Greece, the Apostle
received such news as determined
him to write at once. The Epistle
bears marks of having been written
under the influence of a strong and
fresh impression ; and Dr. Light
foot, with his usual delicate acumen,
infers from the greeting, " from aR
tha brethren that are with me "
(chap. i. 2), that it was probably
written en voyage, and not from any
of the larger churches of Macedonia,
or, as might have been otherwise
thought natural, Corinth. At all
events, it would seem that we should
be keeping most closely to the
canons of probability if we assign
the Epistle to the winter months of
the years 57 — 58.
V. Genuineness of the
Epistle. — No doubt of any real
importance has been or can be cast
upon the genuineness of the
Epistle. It is one of those fervid
outbursts of impassioned thought

and feeling which are too rare and
too strongly individual to be
imitated. The internal evidence,
therefore, alone would be sufficient,
but the external evidence is also
considerable. It is true that no
thing conclusive in found in the
apostolic fathers. The clearest
allusion would seem to be in the
Epistle of Polycarp to the PhRip-
pians, cap. 5 : " Knowing, then,
that God is not mocked " (a peculiar
and striking word) " we ought to
walk in His commandment and
His glory " (comp. Gal. vi. 7) ; and
again, in chap, iii., with perhaps a
somewhat more direct reference,
" who (St. Paul) also in his absence
wrote unto you Epistles that you
might be able to be buRt up unto
the faith given you, which is the
mother of us all." (Comp. Gal.
iv. 26.) It is noticeable that
though Justin Martyr does not
name the Epistle, and, indeed, no
where directly quotes from St.
Paul, yet in two consecutive chap
ters he makes use of two passages
of the Old Testament (Deut. xxi.
23, and xxvii. 26), which are also
quoted in close connection by St.
Paul, and that these passages are
given with precisely the same
variations both from the Septuagint
and the Hebrew. There is also a
clear quotation in Athenagoras
(circ. 177 a.d.). But, until we get
towards the end of the second cen
tury, the best evidence is not so
much that of orthodox writers as of
heretics. Marcion, who flourished
a.d. 140, laid great stress upon this
Epistle, which he placed first of the
ten which he recognised as St.
Paul's. The Ophites and Valen-
tinians, in writings belonging to
this century, quoted largely from
it. Celsus (circ. 178) speaks of
the saying, Gal, vi. 14, " The

186

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

world is crucified unto me, and I
unto the world," as commonly
heard amongst Christians. The
author of the Clementine Homilies
(which may be probably, though
not certainly, placed about 160
a.d.) grounds upon St. Paul's
account of the dispute at Antioch
an attack upon the Apostle him
self; and the Epistle furnishes
other material for accusation. As
we draw near the last quarter of
the century, the evidence for this,
as for most other books of the New
Testament, becomes ample. The
Muratorian Canon (circ. 170 a.d.)
places the Epistle in the second
place, next to 1 and 2 Corinthians.
The Syriac and the Old Latin
translations (the second of which
was certainly, and the firBt
probably, made before this time),
both contain it. Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria, and Tertullian,
quote the Epistle frequently, and
as a work of St. Paul's. And,
what is of still more importance,
the text, as it appears in quotations
by these writers, as weR as in the

versions, and even eo far back as
Marcion, already bears marks of
corruption, showing that it had
been for some time in existence,
and that it had passed through a
lengthened process of corruption.
But to prove the genuineness of
the Epistle to the Galatians is
superfluous. It is rather interest
ing to coRect the evidence as a
specimen of the kind of evidence
that, in the case of a work of
acknowledged genuineness, is forth-

[The English commentator upon
the Epistle to the Galatians has no
excuse beyond the calibre of his
own powers, if his treatment of the
subject is inadequate. He has be
fore him two commentaries in his
own language, Dr. Lightfoot's and
Bishop Ellicott's, which, in thpir
kind, cannot easily be surpassed.
It is needless to say that these,
along with Meyer, have been taken
as the basis of the present Introduc
tion, though Wieseler, ARord, and
Wordsworth have been consulted.]

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL'S FIRST
CAPTIVITY.

Bt the Eight Eev. ALFEED BAEET, D.D.

The Epistles of St. Paul's captivity
¦ — to the Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, and Philemon — form a
distinct group, distinguished by
certain marked characteristics both
of style and subject, in the series
of the writings of the great Apostle
of the Gentiles. Just as, in com
parison with the Thessalonian
Epistles, belonging to the second
missionary journey, the four great
Epistles to the Corinthians, Gala
tians, and Eomans, written at the
close of the third missionary
journey, show a "second manner,"
with exactly that union of simi
larity and diversity which marks a
true development of thought and
circumstance — so,, in comparison
with this latter group, the Epistles
of the Captivity present a "third
manner," itself again markedly
distinct from that of the Pastoral
Epistles, of still later date. In
those early days of Christianity
events moved fast; under the
living Apostolic inspiration and
the rapidity of the Apostolic mis
sion, successive years marked
changes as great as would have
indicated the lapse of generations
in more ordinary times. AVhen
we compare the marveRous growth
of the Christian Church in the

thirty years (or thereabouts) of St.
Paul's own Apostolate — from a
small sect limited to Palestine,
hardly as yet completely dis
tinguished from the Judaic system,
to a community which had its
branches in every province of the
Eoman world, and which was
obviously advancing to a world
wide dominion — we may be pre
pared to find obvious and important
developments, both of teaching and
of circumstance, even in the various
periods of his Apostolic ministry.
I. The Period to which
they belong. — In accordance
with the great majority of com
mentators, ancient and modern, I
take these Epistles to belong to
the Eoman captivity, in which the
history of the Acts leaves St. Paul,
and to which he was consigned
about the year a.d. 61. It has,
indeed, been proposed by Meyer
and other German commentators
to refer them to the Caesarean
captivity of Acts xxiv. — xxvi.
The reasons on which this proposal
is based may be seen in Meyer's
edition of the "Epistle to the
Ephesians " (Introduction, sect. II.).
They prove, however, on examina
tion, to be not only trivial, even if

188

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

maintained, but in themselves un
certain, resting largely on mere
supposition, and certainly incapable
of standing against the powerful
arguments which may be brought
on the other side. These are of
two kinds — general and special.
Of the first kind is the whole style
and tone of the Epistles, indicating
a transition to an entirely different
and most important sphere of mis
sionary labour, such as could not
possibly be found in the compara
tively unimportant town of Caas-
area ; and, moreover, the obvious
expectation by the writer (see Phil.
ii. 24 ; Philemon verse 22) of a
speedy release from captivity,
which would enable him to visit,
not Eome and Spain, as was his
intention at the time when he was
taken prisoner at Jerusalem (Acts
xix. 21 ; Eom. xv. 24, 25), but Mace
donia and the Eastern chinches,
where at the earlier time he de
clared that he had "no longer any
place " (Rom. xv. 23 ; comp. Acts
xx. 25). Of the latter kind are the
references found — especiaRy in the
most personal of all the Epistles,
the Epistle to his beloved Church
at PhiRppi — to the manifestation
of his bonds "in the whole Prae
torium" (Phil. i. 13) — a phrase
which (in spite of the verbal coin
cidence with Acts xxiii. 35) could
not well be used of his prison at
Csesarea ; to the converts made
from "Caesar's household," which
must surely have belonged to Rome
(Phil. iv. 22) ; to the circumstances
of his captivity, which describe
with an almost technical accuracy
(see Eph. vi. 20) the imprison
ment at Rome "in his own hired
house with the soldier that kept
him," and the freedom which he
then had (Acts xxviii. 16, 30, 31),
but which at Cxsarea, particularly

considering the especial object con
templated by Felix in prolonging
his captivity (Acts xxiv. 26), was
eminently improbable.
In accordance, also, with the
general opinion, I should designate
this as St. Paul's "First Roman
Captivity " ; though it will be,
perhaps, more appropriate that the
evidence for the common belief
that St. Paul was set at liberty
from his captivity, and that, after
a period of freedom, he underwent
a second imprisonment, which was
only closed by his death, should be
considered in relation to the Pas
toral Epistles. For with this
beRef the acceptance of these
Epistles as genuine is closely, if
not inseparably, connected.

II. The Genuineness of
these Epistles  On this point
external evidence is strong and
unvarying. It will be sufficient
here to notice that aR were in
cluded unhesitatingly in all the
catalogues and versions of St.
Paul's Epistles, and placed by
Eusebius (as by others before him)
in the list of the New Testament
books "acknowledged by all."
More detailed evidence will be
with more advantage given in the
Introduction to each Epistle.
It is true that, as in the case of
many other New Testament books,
their genuineness has been chal
lenged, on supposed internal evi
dence, even by critics who are
ready to acknowledge the four
Epistles of the preceding group.
This adverse criticism has been
advanced with different degrees
of positiveness against different
Epistles of this group. Thus, the
Epistle to the Philippians has been
but Httle doubted; and, indeed,

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL'S FIEST CAPTIVITY.

189

the similarities to St. Paul's earlier
Epistles, and especially to the
Epistle to the Romans, are so strik
ing that it requires singular per
versity to discover or imagine
dissonance with them. The beauti
ful httle Epistle to PhRemon, again,
can hardly be said to have been
questioned, except in the mere
wantonness of arbitrary criticism.
On the other hand, the two Epistles
which bear most distinctly the
peculiar impress of St. Paul's
"later manner" — the Epistles to
the Ephesians and the Colossians
• — have been far more seriously
attacked on that very ground ; the
Epistle to the Colossians, moreover,
on the supposition that it involves
references to Gnosticism of later
date ; and the Epistle to the Ephe-
Bians, on the supposition — which it
might have been thought that an
attentive study of these two Epistles
would have soon shown to be un
tenable — that it is a mere copy and
expansion of the Epistle to the
Colossians. On the peculiar
grounds of scepticism in each case
it wiR be more convenient to speak
in connection with each Epistle
separately; but on the general
question of the relation of these
Epistles to the earlier group it
will be best to dweR here, not
merely with a view to show the
hoRowness of this destructive criti
cism, but with the more important
object of sketching out the main
characteristics of this group of
Epistles as a whole.
Now it must be considered ex
actly what is the nature of the
question. We have not here an
anonymous document, like the
Epistle to the Hebrews, as to
which we have to inquire into the
degree of its Rkeness or unlikeness
to St. Paul's acknowledged Epis

tles. We have Epistles which not
only bear his name, but present
various indications marking them
as his ; and these Epistles are
received as his at a very early date
— aRuded to by Clement of Rome,
Ignatius, Polycarp, formaRy in
cluded in the Muratorian Canon
about the year 170. Accordingly,
they are either his genuine
Epistles, or Epistles written in
his name at an early period by
some adherent of the "Pauline
School" desiring to claim a forged
authority from his great master.
Now, in the case of forgery, we
should expect to find substantial
inferiority of power and inspira
tion, and possibly some discre
pance of the inner reality, as
contrasted with the outward form,
of doctrine; but certainly no
marked difference of style, no
peculiar words and phrases pre
viously unknown, no change of
expressions, which had become
markedly characteristic of St. Paul
in the acknowledged Epistles of
the earlier group. In the case of
genuineness, on the other hand,
we should look for substantial
identity of thought and teaching,
coupled with free variation of ex
pression and style, and with indi
cations of a development of
doctrine, corresponding to progress
of time, change of scene and
circumstance, increase of the power
of Christianity over thought and
society, as exemplified in the
development of the Christian
Church. It is all but impossible
for any careful student to doubt
that it is always the latter — never
the former — condition which is dis
tinctly realised in these Epistles.
This will be seen clearly on
examination botli of their style
and of their substance.

190

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

III. The style of the
Epistles  There is unquestion
ably a marked difference of style,
although in various degrees — tho
Philippian Epistle showing such
difference far less than the Epistles
to the Ephesians and Colossians.
Now it is not a little remarkable
that the nature of this acknow
ledged change of style singularly
corresponds with the historical
change in St. Paul's circumstances.
When he wrote the former Epistles
he was in the full tide of his Apos
tolic work ; at periods, moreover,
of marked excitement and interest
— just after the tumult at Ephesus,
or on his circuit through Mace
donia "round aboutinto Hlyricum,"
or at Corinth in the very heat of
the Judaising controversy. He
was then emphatically the preacher
and the church-founder. His Let
ters, written in the intervals of
his busy work, would be like
fragments of his preaching, marked
by the incisive earnestness, the
•close argument, the impressive
•abruptness of a pleader for God.
AVhen he wrote these later Epistles
he was in the enforced inactivity
and the comparative rest of im
prisonment, and this imprisonment
(as, indeed, we might have ex
pected) appears to have been to
him a time of study, in those
"many writings" which Festus
thought at that time to have
" made him mad " (Acts xxvi. 24),
with such "books and parch
ments " round him as those which
he asked for even in the greater
severity of his second imprison
ment (2 Tim. iv. 13). He is now
not so much the worker as the
thinker. The impassioned em
phasis of the preacher might
naturally be exchanged for the
quiet, deliberate teaching of the

Christian sage ; sounding the
lowest depths of thought ; wander
ing, as it might seem, but with
subtle links of connection, from
one idea to another ; rising con
stantly in secret meditation from
truths embodied in the practical
forms of earthly life, to truths as
they exist above in the calm per
fection of heaven. Who can doubt
that this is exactly the change of
style which we trace in these
Epistles of the Captivity? *The
Epistle to the Philippians has
least of it; for there his remem
brance of earHer times would be
strongest, and would tend most to
reproduce the earHer tone of
thought. But in the Colossian
Epistle, written to a Church which
he had never seen — knowing it,
indeed, weU, but only by hearsay
— still more in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, probably an encyclical
letter, certainly approaching more
nearly to the nature of abstract
general teaching, this characteristic
difference is most vividly marked.
It manifests itself in the appear
ance of many words used in no
other Epistles, and these frequently
words compounded with a thought
ful felicity of compressed meaning.
It manifests itseR in sentences
which, unlike the terse and often
abrupt incisiveness of his earHer
Letters, flow on without gram
matical break, sometimes not with
out grammatical harshness and
obscurity, but with an unfailing
connection and evolution of
thought, a singular and (so to
speak) phRosophical completeness
of doctrine, a sustained perfection
of meditative and devotional
beauty. It manifests itseR, again,
in a constant lookmg upward to
"the heavenly places" of the
Ephesian Epistle ; sometimes, as in

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL'S FIEST CAPTIVITY. 191

the opening of that Epistle, to the
source of aR Christian Hfe in the
election of the divine love; some
times to the angelic " principaHties
and powers," invisibly fighting for
or against that love of God in sal
vation; sometimes to the life of
Christians "hid with Christ in
God," in virtue of which we sit
with Him in heaven even now;
most often, perhaps, of aR, to
Christ in His heavenly glory, seen
now by the eye of faith, ready to
reveal HimseR in the Epiphany of
the great day. Yet, with all this
difference of style, the detailed
bilks of connection, both in word
and in thought, are simply
numberless —mostly showing simi
larity, not absolute identity, of
expression; an independent like
ness, not an artificial copyism.
Above aR, the general impress of
the mind and character of St. Paul
comes out more and more clearly
as we pursue the detailed study of
the Epistles. Thus, the character
which paints itseR in the Epistle
to the Philippians is obviously the
same as that which we know in the
Epistles to the Corinthians, or in
that yet earlier Epistle to the
other Macedonian Church at Thes
salonica, which presents some strik
ing similarities in detaR. But
there is a greater calmness and
maturity, sometimes of peaceful-
ness, sometimes of sadness : it is
the picture of an older man.
Again, the notion that the teach
ing of the Ephesian or Colossian
Epistle could possibly have come
from the weaker hand of a disciple
will seem fairly incredible to any
who have ever glanced at the
writings of Clement of Eome, of
Ignatius, or of Polycarp, the
scholars of St. Paul and St. John.
The inspRed hand of the Apostle

is traceable in every Hue ; the very
change of style argues at once
identity and development. It is
a strong internal evidence of the
ApostoHc authorship ; it is in itself
full of deep interest and signifi
cance.

IV. The Substance of the
Epistles.— StiR more striking is
the corresponding phenomenon in
relation to substance. In the doc
trine of these Epistles there is the
same indication of a true develop
ment. (1) The Doctrine of Salvation. —
Thus, for example, it is profoundly
instructive to examine the relation
of these Epistles to that primary
doctrine of " justification by faith "
which had been the one all-impor
tant subject of the Galatian and
Roman Epistles. It is touched on
here with the same master-hand.
"By grace are ye saved through
faith ; and that not of yourselves :
it is the gRt of God : not of works,
lest any man should boast" (Eph.
H. 8, 9). "That I may be found
in Him, not having mine own
righteousness, which is of the
Law, but that which is through the
faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith" (Phil.
iii. 9). But it is no longer the one
subject to which all else leads up.
It is treated as a thing known and
accepted, with a quiet calmness
utterly unlike the impassioned and
exhaustive earnestness of St. Paul's
pleading for it in the crisis of the
Judaistic controversy. The em
phasis on faith is less vivid and less
constant. "Salvation by grace"
takes the place of "justification by
faith," and leads the thoughts on
from the first acceptance in Christ
to the continuous work of grace, of :

192

NEAV TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

which such acceptance is the first
beginning. The Law, which before
its idolaters in Galatia or at Rome
was resolutely thrust down to its
right secondary position, described
as the servile " pedagogue to bring
men " to the true Teacher, depre
ciated as the mere subsidiary guard
of the covenant of promise, is now
less often touched upon, and less
unreservedly condemned. It has
obviously lost the dangerous fasci
nation with which such idolatry in
vested it. It is only " as contained
in ordinances " that it is now viewed
as a separation between Jew and
Gentile, or between man and God,
or considered as cancelled by
" nailing it to the cross " of
Christ. We feel that St. Paul
is aRea'dy passing on from the
earnest pleading of advocacy of
the freedom of the gospel to the
judicial calmness which was here
after to teR how " the law is good
if a man use it lawfuRy " (1 Tim.
i. 8). Judaism has, in great
measure, at least in the Eastern
churches, changed its character.
St. Paul's earnest pleading for
Christ as aU in aH has similarly
changed its direction and its tone.
Against new idolatries it is still
necessary to fight to the death.
But the old battle is substantially
won ; on the old field no more is
needed than to maintain the vic
tory. (2) The Doctrine of the Catholic
Church. — Nor is it less interesting
to note how in these Epistles, and
especially in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, the prominence of the
idea of the Kingdom of God has
marveRously increased. The Gala-
tian and Eoman Epistles (as the
history of the Eeformation of the
sixteenth century showed) are the
treasure-house of the truths of

personal Christianity ; for the very
thought of justification, dominant
in them, brings each soul face tc
face with its own sin and its own
salvation, in that supreme crisis of
life and death in which it is con
scious of but two existences — God
and itself. These later Epistles are
equaRy the storehouse of the less
vivid, yet grander, conception of
the Holy Catholic Church. The
central idea is of Christ the Head,
and the whole coRective Chris
tianity of the Church as His Body.
He is conceived not solely or mainly
as the Saviour of each individual
soul, but rather as " gathering up "
aR humanity, or even aR created
being, "in Himself." The two
conceptions are, of course, in
separable. In the earlier Epistles
the Church is constantly recog
nised ; in these the individual
relationship to God in Christ is
never for a moment ignored. But
the proportion (so to speak) of the
two truths is changed. AVhat is
primary in the one case is secondary
in the other.
It is obvious that this is the
natural order. The Christian unity
is directly the unity of each soul
with Christ, the Head ; indirectly
the unity of the various members
in one Body. AVhen the gospel of
salvation first speaks, it must speak
to the individual. AVhen the grace
of Christ draws aU men unto Him,
each individual must move along
the line of his own spiritual gravi
tation. But when the truth has
been accepted in a faith necessarily
individual ; when the Saviour has
been found by each as the Christ
who liveth " in me " — then the
question arises, What are His
truth and His grace to that great
human society, to which we are
bound by a network of unseen

EPISTLES OF ST. PAULS FIRST CAPTIVITY.

193

spiritual ties ? The first and
proper answer to that question is
the doctrine of the Holy Catholic
Church. There is a second answer,
larger, but less distinct, which goes
even beyond this, to contemplate
our Lord as the Head of all created
being. The relation, therefore, of
these Epistles to the earHer group
is profoundly natural, even on the
consideration of the right and
necessary course of idea.
But here, again, it is impossible
not to trace in these Epistles a
special appropriateness to this
period of St. Paul's life and work.
Of the three great threads of
ancient civiHsation — the Hebrew,
the Greek, and the Eoman — two
had already been laid hold of by
Apostohc hands, and fastened to
the cross of Christ. Now, as " am
bassador for Christ," although "in
bonds," St. Paul had been permitted
to "see Eome;" the circumstances
of his imprisonment had placed
him in the Praitorium, in the very
citadel of the Imperial grandeur,
and had given him access to " those
of Caesar'shousehold." TheEpistles
of the former group had been
written from cities where Greek
thought reigned supreme — from
Ephesus, from Philippi, from Co
rinth. These later Epistles came
from the centre of Imperial Eome.
Now, it is a commonplace to re
mark that the main element of aR
Greek thought was the freedom
and sacredness of the individual,
whether in the realm of thought,
or of imagination, or of action.
But the mission of the Eoman (as
VirgR has, with a true insight,
declared in weR-known lines) was
to teach the greatness of the com
munity — the family, the state, the
whole race of humanity ; to give
laws which were to be the basis of
13

the " law of nations ; " to unite all
peoples in one great empire, and,
perhaps, by an inevitable inference,
to deify its head. It can hardly be
accidental that, while the former
Epistles dealt with the individual,
pointing him to the true freedom
and the true wisdom, whieh Greek
phRosophy sought for in vain,
these Epistles should similarly face
the great Eoman problem, and
sketch out that picture which was
hereafter to be wrought into the
chief masterpiece of Latin theology
— the picture of "the city of God."
We note in the Epistle to the
Ephesians the emphatic reference
to the three great social relation
ships, so jealously and sternly
guarded by Eoman law — the re
lations of parents and children,
husbands and wives, masters and ser
vants — asderivingahigher spiritual
sacredness, above all law and con
vention, from the fact that they
are types of the relations of man to
God in the great unity in the Lord
Jesus Christ. We read in the
Epistle to the Philippians of the
" city in heaven " — not now the
" heavenly Jerusalem " of Jewish
aspRation, but simply the city of
which aR are citizens, whether
"Jew or Greek, barbarian, Scy
thian, bond or free." We find,
both in the Ephesian and Colossian
Epistles, a constant recurrence to
the thought of aR as " one body "
or "one temple" in Jesus Christ
— supplying that supreme personal
relation, which changes the shadowy
dream of a divine republic, where
the individual is lost, to the solid
reaHty of a weR-centred Kingdom
of God, preserving at once perfect
individuaHty and perfect unity.
We are reminded at every step of
the "fifth empire" — "a stone cut
out without hands" from the

194

NEAV TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

mountain of the Lord, and grow
ing tiU it displaced the artificial
fabrics of the Iringdoms of the
world, and fiUed the whole earth.
We contrast the inevitable idolatry
of the Roman emperor — remember
ing that, by a strange irony of
circumstance, that emperor was
now a Nero — with the worship of
the true Son of Man and Son of
God, of which aR such idolatries
are perverted anticipations. I pass
over minor points of coincidence
between idea and circumstance —
such as the remarkable metaphor
of the Christian armour, working
out a figure previously touched by
St. Paul, with an obvious detailed
reference to the armour of his
Eoman jaRor; or the adaptation of
Stoic ideas and phrases in the
Epistle to the Philippians, bearing
(as Dr. Lightfoot has shown)
pecuhar resemblances to the later
Stoicism of Seneca, then the leader
of Roman thought. But taking-
only the main idea of these
Epistles, and comparing it with
the main principle of Roman great
ness, it is impossible again not to
be struck with a coincidence —
which must surely be more than
mere coincidence — between the
teaching and the circumstances of
this period of the Apostle's life.
(3) The advanced Christology . —
There is another true development,
of infinitely greater importance and
deeper interest, in respect of what
is caUed the "Christology" of
these Epistles. At aU times the
preaching of Christianity is the
preaching of " God in Christ."
But attentive study of the New
Testament shows that graduaUy,
Hne by Hne, step by stop, the full
truth was revealed as the world
was able to bear it — passing, ac
cording to the true order of teach

ing, from visible manifestations to
invisible realities, guarding at
every step the supreme truth of
the unity of the Godhead, so
jealously cherished by the Jew, so
laxly disregarded in the elastic
Polytheisms of the Gentile world.
The manifestation of Christ in the
Incarnation, the Atonement, the
Eesurreetion, and Ascension, is, of
course, reaHy one. Yet at different
times each of the different steps of
that one manifestation appears to
have assumed greater prominence
in Christian teaching ; and it may
be noted, that as, when we dig
through the strata of the earth,
we uncover first what is latest, and
come only at last to what is earhest
in deposition, so in the reaHsation
of gospel truth, the order of preach
ing is the reverse of the order of
actual occurrence of the great facts
of the divine manifestation. First,
as is natural, came the preaching
of " Christ risen; " for the Eesur
reetion — the great miracle of
miracles — was the seal of our
Lord's Messiahship, declaring Him
who was " of the seed of David,
according to the flesh " to be " the
Son of God with power." As
risen and exalted to the right hand
of God, in fulfilment of oft-repeated
ancient prophecy, He was de
clared to be both " Lord and
Christ." Even clear-sighted hea
then ignorance could declare that
the great question between Chris
tian and unbeliever was then — as,
indeed, it is now — "of one Jesus
who was dead, whom Paul affirmed
to be aHve." But then, when men
were called to receive in the risen
Christ remission of sins, to see in
His resurrection the pledge of a
spiritual resurrection for them
selves here, a resurrection of body
and spRit in the hereafter, came

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL'S FIEST CAPTIVITY. 195

the question, How can this be P
To that question the answer is
found in the one truth which St.
Paul declared that in his teaching
at Corinth, and (we may add) in
his teaching to the Galatians and
Eomans, he cared to know — the
truth of " Jesus Christ, and Him
as crucified." The Eesurreetion,
in itseR, was accepted as known ;
to unfold its meaning it was neces
sary to go back to the Atonement.
Hence the great teaching of these
Epistles is of Christ as the one
Mediator between God and the
countless souls which He has made.
That mediation is described some
times in the phrase " through
Christ," bringing out the access
through His atonement to the
Father who sent Him; sometimes
in the phrase "in Christ," dweR-
ing not so much on our justifica
tion as on our regeneration in Him
to the new Hfe. Perhaps in the
great struggle for Justification by
Faith the former idea was the more
prominent. In either phase, how
ever, it is the sole and universal
mediation of Christ which is the
one leading conception of ApostoHc
teaching. But, again, the question
arises, Who is He who thus is —
what surely no merely created
being can claim to be — a mediator
between God and all human souls,
in aR lands and in aR ages of the
world ? To answer that question
it was needful to go back once
more to "Christ Incarnate:" i.e.,
ultimately, to Christ as He is, not
in manifestation, but in His own
true being, before He was pleased
to stoop to earth, and since He has
ascended again to His own glory
in heaven. It is on this last phase
of thought that the Epistles of the
Captivity appear to enter, standing
in this respect paraRel with the

Epistle to the Hebrews, leading on
to the yet fuller teaching of the
Epistles and Gospel of St. John.
We notice that it is always
through the knowledge of His
mediation that they lead us into
the region of yet higher truth.
St. Paul, in brief yet exhaustive
description of that mediation, teHs
us of Christ, as One "in whom we
have redemption through His
blood, even the remission of sins."
AVe notice, also, that the phrase
" in Christ," rather than "through
Christ," is the dominant note in
these Epistles. As we have seen
aReady in relation to justification
and sanctification, so we find in
relation to the objective truths
corresponding to them, that it is
not so much on " Christ crucified "
as on " Christ Hving in us " that
he emphatically dweUs. But the
especial point of transcendent im
portance is that he leads us on
from the fact of this mediation to
draw out expHcitly what such
mediation impHes. The PhiHp-
pian Epistle, simple and practical
as its purpose is, recites, in the
great passage of its second chapter
(chap. H. 5 — 11) the whole creed
of our Lord's Nature and Office
— the distinctive creed of Chris
tianity. It marks the two-fold
hunvility of His mediation for us :
first, the "taking on Him the form
of a servant ; " next, the " hum
bling HimseR to the death of the
cross." It turns next to the cor
responding exaltation of His human
nature in the Mediatorial kingdom
(described in 1 Cor. xv. 20 — 28), so
that " in the name of Jesus every
knee should bow." But it does
more than this. It speaks of Him
as being essentiaRy "in the form,"
that is, in the nature, " of God,"
in the eternal glory of which " He

196

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

stripped HimseR " for us; it tells
us that to Him is given " the name
which is above every name" — the
awful and incommunicable name of
Jehovah. In that deeper teaching
it tells us, not of His office, but of
HimseU ; not of His mediation, but
of the divine nature which alone
made such mediation possible.
Again, in the Epistle to the Ephe
sians, starting from " the redemp
tion in His blood, the remission of
sins," the idea of our Lord's me
diation is infinitely enlarged and
exalted in the conception, that "in
Him all things are gathered in one
head, both which are in heaven
and which are on earth ; " that
"He fiUeth aRin aR;" "ascend
ing above all heavens," " descend
ing into the lower parts of the
earth," "that He might thus fiH
aR things." That He is, indeed,
the Head of the Church we are
told again and again in various
forms of expression ; but He is
more. In Him all created being
is summed up ; He is, in all that
relates to it, the mardfestation of
God. As in the unity of the
Church, so in the wider unity of
aR creation, we have, co-ordinate
with one another, the " one Spirit,"
the " one Lord," the " one God and
Father of all." But far even
beyond this, the Epistle to the
Colossians carries the same higher
teaching. Standing face to face
with an incipient Gnosticism,
stiffened to some degree into a
Jewish type, but presenting aR the
essential features of the Gnostic
idea — of one supreme God and
many emanations, aR real and aU
imperfect, from the divine fulness
— St. Paul declares expHcitly aR
that the earHer teaching had im-
pHed with ever increasing clear
ness. Our Lord is not only " the

firstborn of God before all crea
tion," "in whom," "through
whom," " for whom," " aR things
in heaven and earth, visible and
invisible, were created," and in
whom " aR things consist." In
this the Colossian Epistle would
but draw out more forcibly the
truth taught to the Ephesians of
His relation to aR created being.
But what is He in HimseR P St.
Paul answers, " the image " — the
substantial manifestation — " of the
invisible God," in whom "aU the
fulness of the Godhead dweReth
bodRy." The paraRel is smgularly
close with the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which, in simUar con
nection with the great mediation
of His one priesthood and one
sacrifice, declares Him (chap. i. 3)
to be "the brightness of the glory
of the Father, and the express
image of His person " (the " sub
stance," or essence, of the Godhead).
There remains little beyond this to
bring us to the fuR declaration of
"the Word " who " was in tho
beginning," who "was with God,
and was God." These Epistles of
St. Paul correspond, with marvel
lous appropriateness, to that inter
mediate period, when his great
ovangeRsing work was almost done,
and the time was coming for the
growth of the school of deep
thought on a now acknowledged
Christianity, which was to sur
round the old age of " St. John the
Divine." (4) The Condition and Trials of
the Church.- — The examination of
the substance of the Epistles would
not be complete without some brief
reference to the condition of the
Church which they disclose.
In this view, also, we trace the
same coincidence with the natural
growth of events. The whole tenor

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL'S FIEST CAPTTVITY. 197

of the Epistles indicates that the
Church had reached a condition in
which the consideration, not so
much of its extension, as of its
unity, became the prominent idea.
With but Httle hyperbole, St. Paul
could say that the gospel had come
into " all the world " of the Eoman
empire. His own career of active
evangeHsation had been stopped;
in his prison at Eome, the centre
of communication with all nations,
he would, no doubt, hear of the
growth and the trials of other
Churches, as we know that he
heard of Philippi and Colossae ; he
looked eagerly, as from a distance,
on the building up of the Temple
of God, which was going on by
many hands and under many con
ditions. The one thought and
prayer of his captivity was that it
should grow as one, "fitly framed
and joined together," on the one
foundation, and in the one corner
stone. To the Philippian Church
the burden of his exhortation is to
unity of spirit. In the Ephesian
Epistle the great central passage is
that which brings out, with aR the
incisive emphasis of a creed, the
description of the " one body "
and the "one Spirit"; and the
fundamental conception of the
gospel, as the reconcRiation of the
soul to God in Jesus Christ, carries
with it as a, perpetual undertone,
the union of Jew and Gentile in
the covenant of God. Even in the
Colossian Epistle, although there
the main idea of the sole headship
of Christ assumes a more absolute
predominance, yet the great anxiety
of St. Paul for Colossal and its
sister Churches was that theR
hearts might be " knit together in
love "and the "fuR assurance of the
knowledge " of a common gospel.
Tho whole tenor of these Epistles,

standing in contrast with those of
the earHer group, thus corresponds
with the needs of the more
advanced period of Church history.
Nor is this coincidence less
evident in relation to the forms of
danger, by which the progress of
the Church is here seen to be
menaced. The old leaven of
Judaism stiR works in the "so-
caRed cRcumcision," which now
deserves, in St. Paul's eyes, only
the name of "concision," or seH-
mutilation. But it has changed
its character. The Pharisaic idol
atry of the Law, as a law by obedi
ence to which man might work
out, R not his own salvation, at
least his own perfection, has passed
away in the East, though it lingers
in the simple, unspeculative Christi
anity of Macedonia. Perhaps by
the very extension of the Church
the providence of God had clenched
the victorious argument of St. Paul.
A Church truly cathohc could
hardly rest on a rigid code of law,
or find the spring of a world-wide
salvation anywhere, except in the
grace of God accepted Dy faith.
But now, as the Epistle to the
Colossians shows, Judaism had
alHed itseR with those wild specu
lations, weaving the gospel into
philosophical or mystic theories of
reHgion, which arose inevitably,
when Christianity, assuming to be
the religion of humanity, naturally
came in contact with the various
philosophies and reHgions of aU
mankind. Dr. Lightfoot has shown,
with much probability, that one
form in which it adapted itself to
the new condition of things was the
form of the old Essenic mysticism.
The Epistle to the Hebrews sug
gests that, on the other hand, it had
also fixed its faith on the ritual and
sacrifice from which the Essenes

198

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

shrank — doubtless as having in
themselves » mystic efficacy, per
haps as enabling men to enter
into the region of mystic specula
tion, where they might learn the
secrets hidden from the mass of
Christians, and revealed only to
the perfect. In both forms it is
seen as gradually dissolving its old
rigidity and carnality, and claim
ing, in accordance with the spRit
of the age, the title of spirituality
and mystic perfection.
StiH more is the progress of the
times shown in this very tendency,
to which Judaism so strangely and
incongruously aUied itseR. Gnos
ticism, in later days, marked the
attempts — sometimes serious, some
times fantastic — to weave Christi
anity into systems designed to solve
the insoluble problem of the relation
of the infinite God, both in creation
and manifestation, to His finite
creatures ; to fix the place to be as
signed to matter and spirit in the
universe ; to answer the question
how far evil is necessarily associ
ated with matter ; and in contem
plation of the gospel itseR, to
determine the relation between the
Old and New Covenant, and to
define or explain away the mystery
of the Incarnation. To what wild
developments it ran is told in the
true, but almost incredible, record
of a subsequent chapter of Church
history. But it showed itself — we
may almost say that it could not
but have shown itself — at the close
of the ApostoHc age : as soon as the
gospel showed itseR to be not only
a divine Hfe, but a divine philo
sophy, to an age radicaUy sceptical,
both in its eagerness of inquiry
and its discontent with aU the
answers hitherto found. We find
traces of it — easily read by those
who have studied its after-develop

ment — in the"endlessgenealogies,"
the false asceticism, or stiR falser
antinomianism of the later Epistles
of St. Paul and St. John, in the
denial that "Jesus Christ was come
in the flesh," and the idea that
" the Resurrection was passed
aReady." In these Epistles of the
Captivity there are similar traces,
but less fully developed, especially
in the Colossian Epistle. The
spurious claims to spRitual " per
fection ; " the " deceits by vain
words ; " the " systematic plan of
deceit" of a specious antinomian
ism, for which St. Paul can hardly
find language of adequate condem
nation ; the " philosophy and vain
deceit " of the traditions of men,
with its mere " show of wisdom"
and its "intrusion" into the
regions of the invisible; the sup
posed emanations from the God
head taking the angelic forms of
"thrones and principalities and
powers"— aR these mark tho first
beginning of that strange progress
which ran its pretentious course in
later times. To this time of St.
Paul's history they belong, and to
no other.
Thus, as it seems every way, a
careful study of the style and sub
stance of these Epistles not only
confirms the external testimony
which refers them to St. Paul, but
illustrates to us the course of the
development of the gospel, the pro
gress and the trials of the Church.
They light up the historical dark
ness in which the abrupt close of
the record of the Acts of the
Apostles leaves us : they are f uU of
those lessons for our own days in
which the [close of the ApostoHc
age is especially fruitful.
V. The Order of the Epis
tles — That tho Epistles to the

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL'S FIEST CAPTIVITY.

199

Ephesians, to the Colossians, and
to Philemon belong to the same
time, and were sent by the same
messengers, is tolerably clear. The
one question is, whether the Epistle
to the PhiHppians precedes or
foRows them ; and this question
can only be answered by probable
conjecture. It is obvious, from the
progress already made (Phil. i.
12 — 18), from the whole descrip
tion of the mission and the sickness
of Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25—30),
from the anticipation of release
(PhU. ii. 24), that some time must
have elapsed between St. Paul's
arrival at Rome and the writing
of this Epistle. It has also been
noticed, as at least a remarkable
coincidence, that Aristarchus and
St. Luke, who accompanied the
Apostle to Eome (Acts xxvu. 2),
are named in the Epistles to the
Colossians and Philemon (Col. iv.
10, 14 ; PhRemon verse 24), and not
in the Epistle to the PhiHppians.
But this last may be a mere co
incidence; and the fact that the
Philippian Epistle was not written
early in the imprisonment deter
mines nothing as to its priority or
posteriority to the other Epistles.
The only strong argument on the
subject; — which has been admirably
worked out by Dr. Lightfoot in his
Introduction to the Epistle to the
Philippians, sect. II. — is the re
markable similarity in word and
style between it and the Epistle to
the Romans, its position as a Rnk
between the strong individuality of
the earHer teaching and the charac
teristic universality of the Epistles

to the Ephesians and Colossians,
and its dealing with trials and
difficulties more nearly resembling
those of an earHer time. The
argument is strong, yet not neces
sarily conclusive, for much in aR
these points depends on the char
acter, and even the geographical
position, of the Church addressed.
To it, however, in the absence of
any solid controverting evidence,
we may give considerable weight,
and perhaps incline, without abso
lute decision, to place the Philip
pian Epistle before the other
group in the Epistles of the
Captivity. [In relation to the treatment of
the Epistles of the Captivity, it
seems right to acknowledge the
deep obligation of the writer to the
Commentaries of ERicott, ARord,
Wordsworth, Meyer, Harless, and,
above aU, to the adnnrable and
exhaustive treatment by Dr. Light
foot of the Epistles to the Philip
pians, Colossians, and Philemon;
to Conybeare and Howson, and
Lewin, for their fuR and learned
summaries of all that Rlustrates
the life and, in less degree, the
writings of St. Paul ; but perhaps
not least to the Homilies of St.
Chrysostom — simply invaluable as
a commentary, venerable in its pre- '
servation of ancient tradition, criti
cally precious as dealing with the
Greek as stiU a Hving language,
and yet modern in that breadth
and simplicity of treatment which
contrast with the frequent mystic
ism of great ancient commentators.

EPHESIANS.

Bt the Eight Eev. ALPEED BAEEY, D.D.

I. The Date and Place of
Writing. — This Epistle, for
reasons hereafter to be considered,
has few detaUed indications, either
of the personal condition of the
writer or of the c-Rcumstances of
those to whom it is addressed. But
one point is made perfectly clear,
that it was written by St. Paul
when he was the " prisoner of
Jesus Christ " (chaps, iii. 1 ; iv. 1),
suffering some special " tribulations
for them," which he bade them
consider as " their glory " (chap.
iii. 13), and being an "ambassador
for Christ in a chain " (chap. vi.
20) — the word here used being the
same as in Acts xxviii. 20, and
being a word almost technically
describing the imprisonment "with
a soldier that kept him " (Acts
xxvin. 16). AU these things point
unmistakably to what we have
spoken of in the General Introduc
tion as the first Roman captivity.
That captivity began aboat a.d. 6 1,
and lasted, without change, for at
least "two fuU years." In the
Letter to Philemon, sent by One-
simus, who is associated with
Tychicus, the bearer of this Epistle,
in Col. iv. 7 — 9, St. Paul prays him
to "prepare hima lodging" against
the speedy arrival, which he then
confidently expected. Hence our

Epistle must be placed late in tho
captivity — not earHer than a.d. 63.
II. The Church to whieh
it is addressed. — The Epistle
has borne from time immemorial
the name of the "Epistle to the
Ephesians." To the Church at
Ephesus most certainly, whether
solely or among others, it is ad
dressed. Ephesus. — Of St. Paul's preach
ing at Ephesus we have a detailed
account in the Acts of the Apostles.
At the close of his second mission
ary circuit he had touched at
Ephesus, and " entered the syna
gogue " to "reason with the Jews."
In spite of theR entreaty, he could
not then remain with them, but
loft Aquila and PrisciRa there.
From them, probably, with the aid
of theR convert ApoUos, tho
Christianity of Ephesus began its
actual rise. It is not, indeed, im
possible that there may have been
some previous preparation through
the disciples of St. John the Bap
tist. The emphatic aUusion to
him and to the simply preparatory
character of his work in St. Paul's
sermon at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts
xiii. 24, 25), seems to point to
knowledge of him in Asia Minor.
Wo know that afterwards St. Paul

EPHESIANS.

201

found some disciples at Ephesus,
baptised only with St. John's bap
tism (Acts xix. 3) ; and we note
that ApoUos, whRe " knowing only
the baptism of John," yet stiU
"teaching the things of the Lord,"
found a ready acceptance at
Ephesus (Acts xviii. 24, 25). But
however this may be, the fuU de
velopment of the Christianity of
Ephesus was made under St. Paul's
charge in his thRd missionary cR-
cnit. His first circuit had been an
extension of that Asiatic GentUe
Christianity which began from
Antioch; his second was notable
as the first planting of European
Christianity, having its chief centre
at Corinth ; now his headquarters
for the evangelisation of the Eoman
province of Asia were fixed for three
years at Ephesus, a city speciaRy
fit for^ the ' welding together of
Asiatic and European Christianity
— for there Greek civilisation met
face to face with Oriental supersti
tion and magical pretensions, in
that which was made by Eome the
official metropoHs of pro-consular
Asia ; and the strange union is
curiously symboHsed by the en
shrining in a temple which was the
world-famed masterpiece of Greek
art of an idol — probably, some
haR-shapeless meteoric stone —
" which fell down from Jupiter."
The summary of his work there —
his re-baptism with the miraculous
gR'ts of the disciples of St. John
Baptist : the " special miracles "
wrought by his hands ; the utter
confusion both of Jewish exorcists
and of the professors of those
"curious arts " for which Ephesus
was notorious ; the sudden tumult,
so skRfuRy appeased by the "town
clerk," who must surely have been
haR a Christian — make up (in
Acts xix.) one of the most vivid

scenes in St. Paul's ApostoHc
history. Another — not less striking and
infinitely pathetic — is drawn in
Acts xx. 16 — 38, in the fareweR
visit and address of St. Paul to the
Ephesian presbyters at MHetus,
indicating, alike by its testimony
and by its warnings, a fully-
organised and widely-spread Chris
tianity — the fruit of his three
years' labour. AVhat had been the
extent of the sphere of that labour
we know not. We gather, with
some surprise (Col. R. 1), that
the Churches of the valley of
the Lycus — Laodicea, HierapoHs,
Colossa? — had not been visited by
him personaRy. Yet, whether by
his own presence, or through such
delegates as Epaphras (Col. i. 7),
" aU which dwelt in Asia had heard
the word of the Lord, both Jews
and Greeks" (Acts xix. 10). They
might weU " sorrow " and " weep
sore " at the thought that they
should " see his face no more."
Now, in his captivity, certainly
to Ephesus, and (as we shaU see
hereafter) probably to the other
Churches of Asia, he writes this
Epistle — itseR a representative
Epistle, almost a treatise, bearing
to the doctrine of the Holy
CathoHc Church a relation not
unlike that which the Epistle to
the Eomans bears to the funda
mental truths of personal Christi
anity. After this, in the interval be
tween the first and second cap
tivity, we find (see 1 Tim. i. 1 ;
2 Tim. i. 18) that St. Paul did
revisit Ephesus at least once ; that,
in his deep anxiety for its weRare,
he placed it under the quasi-epis
copal charge of his "own son
Timothy ; " and that, in his last
captivity, he sent Tychicus, the

202

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

bearer of this Epistle, to Ephesus
again (2 Tim. iv. 12), perhaps in
view of the coming absence of
Timothy in obedience to the Apos
tle's summons.
From that time Ephesus passed
into the charge of St. John, as the
first of the seven churches of Asia
(Rev. ii. 1), commended for its
steadfastness, but yet rebuked as
"having faUen from its first love."
Of this phase of its Christianity,
and its subsequent importance in
the future history of the Church,
especiaRy as the scene of the ThRd
great Council and the previous
Latrociuium, it would be out of
place here to dweU.
The Churches of Asia. — But
while there is no doubt that the
Epistle was addressed to Ephesus,
there seems very strong reason for
the opinion, now held by many.
commentators, that it was an ency
clical letter to the churches of Asia,
of which Ephesus was the natural
head. The evidence of this opinion may
be thus summarised : —
Direct Evidence. — Taking first the
dRect evidence, we observe ( 1) that
in the opening salutation, which in
the ordinary reading is addrsesed
to " the saints which are at Ephe
sus, being also faithful in Christ
Jesus," the words "at Ephesus"
are omitted in our two oldest MSS.
(the Vatican and the Sinaitic), and
in both supplied by a later hand.
This omission is exceptional, aU
other MSS. and versions inserting
the words. But it agrees with two
remarkable ancient testimonies.
Origen, the first great Biblical
critic in the early Church (a.d.
186 — 254), (as appears from a frag
ment quoted in Cramer's " Catemo
in PauH Epistolae," p. 102, Oxford
edition, 1842), noticed that in the

Ephesian Epistle alone there was
the " singular inscription," " to the
saints who are, being also faithful."
Basil of Cassarea (a.d. 329—379) ex
pressly says (in his treatise against
Eunomius, Book ii., c. 19), "this
reading was handed down by those
who have gone before us, and we
ourselves have found it in the
ancient MSS."
Now (2) the effect of this omis
sion is to make the passage obscure,
if not unintelligible ; for the only
simple rendering of the Greek
would be to " the saints who are
also faithful," and this would give
an impossible vagueness and gener
ality to the address. Accordingly,
ancient criticism (perhaps derived
from Origen in the first instance)
actually faced the difficulty by giv
ing a mystic sense to the passage.
St. Basil, in the passage above
quoted, explains it tlius : — "But,
moreover, writing to the Ephesians
as to those truly united by full
knowledge to Him who is, he gives
them the peculiar title of the ' saints
who are.' " To this interpretation,
also, St. Jerome refers thus (in his
Commentary on Ephesians i. 1) : —
" Some, with more subtlety than is
necessary, hold that, according to
the saying to Moses, Thus shalt
thou say to the children of Israel,
He who is hath sent me unto you,
those who at Ephesus are holy and
faithful are designated by the name
of essential being, so that from Him
who is these are called They who
are ; " and adds, with his usual
strong critical good sense, "others
more simply hold "that the address
is not to Those who are, but to
Those who are at Ephesus." Cer
tainly, nothing could show a firmer
conviction that tho omission of the
words "at Ephesus" was necessi
tated by MS. authority, than the

EPHESIANS.

203

desperate attempt to meet the diffi
culty of rendering by this marvel
lous interpretation.
But (3) we also find that Marcion
the heretic, by TertuRian's twice-
repeated testimony (in his work
against Marcion, Book v., cc. 11,
16), entitled this Epistle, "The
Epistle to the Laodiceans." "I
omit," he says, "here notice of
another Epistle, which we hold to
have been written to the Ephesians,
but the heretics to the Laodiceans ; "
End he then proceeds to refer to our
Epistle. In another place : — " In
the true view of the Church, we
hold that Letter to have been sent
to the Ephesians, not to the Laodi
ceans ; but Marcion has made it his
business to interpolate an address
in it, to show that on this point
also he is a most painstaking cri tic. "
Now (as TertuRian adds) the ques
tion of the address was of no doctri
nal importance ; accordingly, Mar
cion could not have been tempted
in this respect to falsify or invent.
He gave the address on critical
grounds; and Tertullian says that
he "interpolated" it, presumably
where there was a blank. Epipha
nius, also (320 ? — 402), in his notice
of Marcion, (adv. Hair., Lib. I.,
Tom. III., xn.), after quoting " one
Lord, one faith, one baptism," &c,
adds : — " For the miserable Marcion
was pleased to quote this testimony,
not from the Epistle to the Ephe
sians, but from the Epistle to the
Laodiceans, which is not in the
Apostle's writings." He appar
ently refers to an apocryphal letter,
of which he says elsewhere that
" Marcion received fragments ; "
and such a letter is Doticed in the
Muratorian Canon. But looking to
TertuRian's clear declaration, we
may, perhaps, see here a confused
reminiscence of this same critical

achievement of Marcion. Marcion,
no doubt, was led to it by a con
sideration of the well-known pas
sage in the Colossian Epistle (chap.
iv. 16) speaking of the " letter from
Laodicea," which he (it would
seem, correctly) identified with our
Epistle. (4) Now, all these things lead
plainly to one conclusion — that,
while an unvarying tradition de
clared that the Letter was " to the
Ephesians," yet there was a blank
in the oldest MSS. after the words
" which are," generally filled up
(as in most of our later MSS.) with
the words "in Ephesus; " but by
Marcion, with no MS. authority,
simply on grounds of critical infer
ence, with the words " in Laodicea."
That this insertion of Marcion, if
intended to infer that the Letter
was addressed specially to the Lao
dicean Church, was unwarrantable,
appears obvious, from the whole
stream of ancient tradition assign
ing the Letter to the Ephesians,
and the absence of any vestige of
such a reading in the existing MSS.
But R the Epistle were a circular
letter, of which many copies were
sent at one time, it would be at
least probable that blanks might be
left, to be filled up in each case
with the proper name of the Church ;
and this supposition, which has
been adopted by many, would fur
nish a very simple explanation —
indeed, the only simple explanation
— of this perplexing MS. phe
nomenon. Indirect Evidence. — This being
the state of the case in relation to
dRect evidence, we naturaUy pass
on to consider what may be ga
thered indirectly, either to confirm
or to confute this supposition, from
the Epistle itself.
Now, the study oE the Epistle, as

204

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

a whole, must surely convey to the
mind the impression of a certain
generaHty and abstractness of char
acter. It approaches closely — at
least as closely as the Epistle to
the Eomans — to the character of a
treatise, dealing, with a singular
completeness, accuracy, and sym
metry of handling, with a grand
spiritual truth — the doctrine of the
Holy CathoHc Church. The very
opening — strongly reminding us in
form, though not in substance, of
the opening of the General Epistle
of St. Peter to these churches and
other churches of Asia Minor
(1 Pet. i. 3 — 7) — is a complete and
exhaustive statement of the mys
terious truth of the election of the
whole Church, as gathered up in
Christ and redeemed by Him, in
the eternal counsels of God. The
celebrated passage (chap. iv. 4 — 6)
on the unity of the Church, while
it is fuR of an almost poetic beauty,
has aR the fulness and precision of
a creed. The practical -exhortations
of the Epistle are drawn, with a
philosophic generality, from the
fundamental conception of rehgious
unity. Nor can we faU to notice
that the Epistle is entRely destitute
of any reference — such as is invari
able in St. Paul's other Epistles —
to the particular condition, bless
ings, trials, graces, or defects, of
those to whom it is addressed. They
are simply spoken of as " you Gen
tiles," in contradistinction to the
children of the old covenant. The
sins against which they are warned
are the typical sins forbidden in the
Second Table, or the sins specially
rife in the heathen society of that
time in general.
The comparison in this respect
with the ColossianEpistle is most in
structive. Everywhere the Ephe
sian Epistle is general and (so to

speak) philosophical in treatment ;
whUe in the paraUel passages the
other Epistle is particular and
practical. Now it so happens that
in the Epistles of this period we
have the PhiUppian, written to a
Church personally known and loved,
whRe the Colossian is addressed to
a Church known perhaps weU, but
indirectly, and not by personal
intercourse. The former Epistle is
pervaded from beginning to end
with the personality of the writer,
as fuUy as the Corinthian or Gala-
tian Epistles themselves. The lat
ter is more distant and more general,
introducing the special warnings of
the second chapter with a half-
apologetic reference to the deep
anxiety felt " for them, and for the
Laodiceans, and for those who had
not seen his face in the flesh." The
Church of Ephesus must have been
even more intimately known and
bound to St. Paul than the Church
at PhiUppi. How near it lay to
his heart we know by the pathetic
beauty and yearning tenderness of
his address to the elders at Miletus.
An Epistle written to this Church
should surely have had all the
strong personality of the PhiUppian
Epistle ; yet our Epistle, on the
contrary, is infinitely less direct,
personal, special, than the Epistle
to the Colossians. The inference,
even from these general considera
tions, seems unmistakable — that it
was not addressed to any special
Church, but least of all to such a
Church as Ephesus.
But there are also some indica
tions in detaR, looking in the same
dRection, which cannot aR be
specified in an Introduction. Such,
for example, is the vagueness
which has been noticed in the two
passages (chaps, i. 15 ; iii. 2), " after
I heard of your faith in the Lord

EPHESIANS.

205

Jesus," and " if ye have heard of
the dispensation of tho grace of
God given me to you- ward." It is
true that the former may be ex
plained of St. Paul's hearing of
them since he had left them ; and, if
confirmed by the parallel case of
the Colossians (Col. i. 4), may be
neutralised by comparison with
Philem. verse 5 (" Hearing of thy
love and faith"). It is also true
that in the latter case the "if " of
the original is not, except in form,
hypothetical, and the verb may be
"heard," not "heard of." But,
making all reservation, there still
remains ¦¦<. vagueness, hardly con
ceivable in reference to such a
Church as Ephesus, especially when
we remember how St. Paul in
paraUel cases refers to his former
preaching. (See, for example, 1
Cor. ii. 1—4; 2 Cor. i. 12—19;
xi. 6—9 ; xiii. 2 ; Gal. iv. 13 ; Phil.
iv. 9 ; 1 Thess. ii. 1—12 ; iii. 4 ;
2 Thess. ii. 5.) Such, again, is
the generaHty, absolutely without
parallel elsewhere, in the salutation
"which is the token in every
Epistle" — "Grace be to all them
who love the Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity " — compared with the
"Grace be with you" or "with
your spirit " of the other Epistles.
The conclusions, again, of the
Ephesian and Colossian Epistles
may be compared. I do not lay
stress on the simple absence of
greetings, for it has been shown
(by ARord), by comparison with
other Epistles, that this argument
is precarious. But it is impossible
not to be struck with the vague
generaHty of the one, as compared
with the fulness of detail and strong
personality of the other. They
coincide verbaRy in the quasi-
official commendation of Tychicus,
and in this alone.

These indications may be thought
to be sHght, but they aR point one
way, and their combined force is not
to be lightly put aside. ^
The indRect evidence, therefore,
appears strongly to confirm the
supposition which alone gives any
simple explanation of the MSS.
phenomena. But is there any
trace of such an encyclical letter ?
That there was an "Epistle from
Laodicea" to be read by the Colos
sians, we know; and the context
shows conclusively that this was an
Epistle of St. Paul himself. Lao
dicea was near Colossse, and evi
dently in close union with it. The
special warnings of the letter ad
dressed to the Colossian Church were
probably applicable to it also, and
accordingly it was to be read there.
But why should Colossse read the
" Epistle from Laodicea ? " Had it
dealt with the peculiar needs of
that sister Church this would be
inexpHcable ; but R it were what our
Epistle is — general in character,
and dealing with a truth not iden
tical with the main truth of the
Colossian Epistle, but supplement
ary to it — then the dnection is
inteUigible at once. It is not (it
wiU be observed) an " Epistle to
the Laodiceans," but an Epistle
" coming from Laodicea," which
would be reached from Ephesus
before Colossae, and which, being
the larger and more important
town, might naturally be made the
recipient of a letter intended for it
and Colossee, and perhaps Hiera-
polis. It may be asked, if this be so,
why have no MSS. any other
address than to the " saints at Ephe
sus ? " and why has tradition in
variably caUed this "The Epistle
to the Ephesians," and nothing
else P The answer which has been

206

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

often given appears to be entirely
sufficient. Ephesus was, as the
metropolis of Asia, the natural
centre of the Apostolic ministry,
and the natural leader of the
Asiatic churches : standing, as in the
apocalyptic epistles (Eev. i. 11), at
the head of all. There the Epistle
would be first read ; thence it would
go out to the other Asiatic churches ;
there it would be best treasured up,
and copies of it multiplied; and
through these it would be likely to
become known to the European
churches also. It must have been
quoted by some title. AVhat title
so natural as "To the Ephesians ? ' '
The use of this title evidently pre-
cedcd tlie insertion of the words " in
Ephesus ' ' in the text. This is
natural. We remember that no
extaDt MS., except the Vatican and
Sinaitic, is earlier than the begin
ning of the fifth century. By that
time most of the Asiatic churches
had sunk into insignificance. The
tradition aReady prevalent of the
address to the Ephesians would
naturally express itself by the in
sertion of the words, without which
the context of the opening passage
is hardly intelligible.
This supposition seems also to be
confirmed by the occasional appro
priation to Laodicea ; for — though
after a long interval — Laodicea
comes next after Ephesus in im
portance in Church history. On
that ground St. Paul made it the
centre of the churches of the Lycus
vaUey. On that ground, also, some
claim to the Epistle as an Epistle
to the Laodiceans may have sur
vived till the time of Marcion. It
is curious that the Muratorian
Canon (a.d. 170?), after noting the
Epistle to the Ephesians among St.
Paul's Epistles, adds: "There is
in cRculation also an Epistle to the

Laodiceans . . . forged in the name
of Paul, to aid the heresy of Mar
cion . . . which cannot be received
into the CathoHc Church." Now
the Apocryphal Epistle to the Lao
diceans, still extant, is clearly of
later date, made up of quotations
or imitations of various passages of
St. Paul's Epistles, and in no way
bearing on Marcionism. It may
perhaps be conjectured that Mar
cion, not content with altering the
title of our Epistle, tampered with
it and mutilated it, as we know that
he did in the case of other New
Testament books. There may be
in the Canon (as afterwards in
Epiphanius) a reference to this
corrupted form of our Epistle, as a
separate work ; and this would be
a kind of survival of the designa
tion of it as an Epistle to the Lao
diceans. On aU these grounds, therefore,
we must hold it at least highly
probable that we have in it an
encycHcal letter to Ephesus and
the sister churches of Asia.
III. The Genuineness of the
Epistle. — External Evidence. —
The external evidence, as has been
aReady said (see Introduction to the
Epistles of the Captivity), is strong
— as strong as for any other of St.
Paul's Epistles.
Among the ApostoHc fathers
there seem to be unquestionable
aUusions to passages in it : as in
Clement of Eome, chap, xlvi.,
dwelling on "the one God, one
Christ, one spirit of grace . . .
one calling " (comp. Eph. iv. 4— 6) ;
and in Polycarp, chap, xii., uniting
the two quotations : " Be ye angry
nnd sin not," " Let not the sun go
down upon your wrath" (comp.
Eph. iv. 26, 27). In Ignatius (to
the Ephesians, chap. xR.) we have

EPHESIANS.

207

a remarkable reference to the
Ephesians as " feRow-mystics "
with St. Paul, sharing the mystery
of the gospel with him (comp.
Eph. i. 9; Hi. 4—9; vi. 19); and
he adds of St. Paul that, "in aU
his letter he is mindful of you
in Christ Jesus." In the "longer
Greek " version of the same Epistle
— interpolated at a later date —
there is in chap. vi. a dRect
quotation, "as Paul wrote to you
— one body and one Spirit " (Eph.
iv. 4 — 6), and a clear reference to
the address (Eph. i. 1) in chap. ix.
Passing on to a later date, we
have the Epistle formaRy recog
nised in the Muratorian Canon
(a.d. 170), apparently representing
the tradition of the Church of
Eome : quoted repeatedly, and in
some . cases unmistakably, by
Irenaeus in the Church of Gaul
(about a.d. 130 — 200) ; quoted also
by Clement of Alexandria (about
a.d. 150—210), and Tertullian
(a.d. 160 — 240), representing the
opposite school of Carthage. It is
found in aR ancient versions ; and
henceforth held without doubt
among the acknowledged books
in the Church.
Dr. Westcott has also shown
(" Canon of theNewTestament," pp.
314, 323, 338) that it is quoted by
the heretical and Gnostic writers —
the Ophites, BasiHdes, Valentinus,
and others. Marcion's recognition
and criticism of it we have already
seen. Internal Evidence. — The doubts
of its genuineness which have been
advanced in our own times turn
entRely on internal evidence.
(1) The differences in style and
substance between these Epistles
of the Captivity and the earHer
Epistles of St. Paul have been
already discussed. I have ventured

to urge that, corresponding as they
do to the time and cRcumstances of
the captivity, marking a true and
natural development of doctrine,
abounding in points both of simi
larity and independent originaHty,
these differences are decisive against
the idea of imitation, and strongly
confirmatory of ApostoHc author
ship. To the Epistle of the
Ephesians these remarks bear a
special application, for this Epistle
bears most distinctly of all the
marks of St. Paul's later manner.
I may add, also, that in a very
special degree the grandeur and
profoundness of treatment, which
make it one of the great typical
Epistles of the New Testament,
speak for themselves as to its
Apostolic origin. To lose it would
be to leave a strange gap in the
development of Christian doctrine,
and to mar the harmony of the
individual and corporate elements
in the Scriptural exposition of the
concrete Christian Hfe. To ascribe
it to the weaker hand of a mere
disciple of St. Paul might, but for
actual experience, have weR been
thought impossible.
(2) But this Epistle in particular
has been described as simply an
elaborate reproduction of the Colos
sian Epistle, and accordingly
represented as of doubtful origi
nality. It is, of course, obvious
(as will be shown in. the Introduction
to the Epistle to the Colossians) that
there is a very marked similarity,
sometimes in idea, sometimes in
actual expression, between the two
Epistles. But the more both are
studied, the more it must be seen
that this similarity is exactly such
as belongs to contemporaneousness,
and is utterly incompatible with
dependence of either upon the
other.

208

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

In the first place, it is found that
there are sections of the Colossian
Epistle to which there is nothing to
correspond in the Ephesian Epistle,
and that these sections are principal
and not subordinate. Such are, for
example, Col. i. 15 — 17 (on the
nature of the Lord Jesus Christ),
Col. ii. 8 — 18 (the warning against
mingled Judaism and Gnosticism),
and Col. iv. 9 — 17 (the special
salutations and cautions). The
absence of these in the one case,
and their presence in the other, are
perfectly intelHgible on the theory
of contemporaneousness, entirely
inexplicable on the theory of
dependence. On the other hand, there are
sections in the Epistle to the Ephe
sians of the most emphatic origi-
naHty, which have no counterpart
in the other Epistle. Such are the
great opening on the " election of
God and the gathering up of all in
Christ" (Eph. i. 3—14); the su-
bHme ApostoHc prayer in Eph. iii.
14 — 21 ; the celebrated and ex
haustive passage on the unity of
the Church in God (Kph. iv. 4 —
6) ; the profound comparison of
marriage to the union of Christ
with the Church in Eph. v. 23—33 ;
the magnificent description of the
Christian armour (Eph. vi. 13 — 17).
To these the same remark must
apply : to suppose these the work
of a copyist appears aU but prepos
terous. Next, a careful study shows
repeatedly and unmistakably that
these differences are not accidental;
they arise from a fundamental dis
tinction between the leading ideas
in the two Epistles. The Epistle
to the Ephesians is the exposition
of the reahty, the blessing, and
the glory, of the CathoHc Church
as the body of Christ. The famous

image of the spiritual temple (in
which, perhaps, we may trace some
recoUeotion of that magnificent
Temple of Artemis, "which aR
Asia and the world worshipped")
belongs to this Epistle (chap. ii. 20
— 22), and has no place in the
other. The passage to which all
else works up as a cHmax is chap.
iv. 4 — 6, on the " one Body and the
one SpRit." Even the ordinary
moral duties and social relations of
Hfe are treated in chaps, iv. and v.
with a characteristic reference to
this great principle of unity with
man in Christ, which is wanting in
the paraUel passages of the Colos
sian Epistle. On the other hand,
the Colossian Epistle, having to
deal with an incipient Gnosticism,
is specially emphatic on the sole
headship and the true Godhead of
Christ. Its great teaching is of
Him, as "the image of the in
visible God," "in whom aU the
fulness (the pleroma) of the God
head dweUs bodily " (Col. i. 15 — 17;
ii. 3 — 8, 10). The passage which
occupies the chief place, corre
sponding to the great passage on
Unity in the Ephesian Epistle, ia
that which dwells on our life as
risen with Christ, and hid in God
with Him, who HimseR " is our
Hfe" (Col. iii. 1—4).
But besides this, it may be seen
from quite a number of passages
that, on the one hand, in detailed
passages paraUel to each other,
the simUarity is almost always
mingled with clear and character
istic difference, marking an inde
pendent coincidence ; and on the
other, that identical expressions
occur again and again in entirely
different contexts, and in different
degrees of prominence. These are
exactly the phenomena we may
expect when two letters are written

EPHESIANS.

209

at the same time to churches which
are neither whoRy identical nor
whoRy dissimRar in character,
and under the guidance of dis
tinct, yet complementary, ideas.
They are wholly incompatible
with dependence or deliberate
copyism. On this particular subject, there
fore, I cannot but draw the same
conclusion as on the general sub
ject of the Epistles of the Cap
tivity, viz., that the indRect
evidence which has been thought
to weaken, will be actuaRy found
to confirm the strong external
evidence for the genuineness of
the Epistle.
IV. The Contents of the
Epistle  The general character
and substance of the Epistle have
been aReady glanced at. It will
be sufficient here simply to repeat
that the Epistle falls into two
great sections — namely, Doctrinal
and Practical. In both the one
great subject is the Unity in
Christ, in some sense of aU
created being, in a closer sense
of humanity, in the closest and
most sacred sense of the Holy
Catholic Church.
In the doctrinal section (chaps.
i. 1- — iv. 16) we find this unity
noticed in the first chapter as
ordained in the eternal predestin
ation of God's love, and manRested
in the actual communication to
His members of the Eesurreetion,
the Ascension, and glorification
of Christ theR head. Next
it is shown (in chap, n.) how
the Gentiles are caRed into this
regenerating unity out of the
deadness of their old Hfe; and
thus at once brought into the
covenant of God, and so united
with His chosen people of Israel

that all alike, as Hving stones,
are built into the great Temple
of God. Then (in chap. Hi.),
after an emphatic declaration
of the newness of this mystery
of grace, and of the special com
mission for the revelation of
it entrusted to St. Paul, there
follows a solemn and fervent Apo
stoHc prayer for their knowledge
of the mystery, not by human
wisdom or thought, but by the
indwelling light and grace of
Christ. FinaUy, the whole is summed
up in a grand passage (chap.
iv. 1 — 16), which brings out in
perfect completeness the whole
doctrine of this unity — first in its
grounds, its means, and its con
ditions; next in its variety of
spiritual gifts ; lastly, in the
oneness of the object of all, in
the reproduction of the Hfe of
Christ in the individual and the
Church. The practical section (chaps, iv.
17 — vi. 24) opens with an unique
treatment of morality and of
human relationship, as dependent
upon the mysterious unity of man
with man and of man with God.
First (chaps, iv. 17— v. 21), that
unity is made the basis of ordinary
moral duties towards man, and the
safeguard against the besetting
sins of heathen society — bitterness,
impurity, and reckless excess. Next
(chaps, v. 22 — vi. 9), it is shown as
the secret of the sacredness of
earthly relations of marriage, of
fatherhood, and of mastership. In
the first ease the idea is worked
out with a transcendent beauty and
solemnity which have beyond aU
else hallowed Christian marriage ;
in the others it is more briefly
touched upon, with a view chiefly to
temper and soften the sternness of

14

210

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

a recognised authority. FinaUy
(chap. vi. 10 — 24), this portion of
the Epistle is wound up by a
magnificent and elaborate descrip
tion of the full panoply of God;
and the Epistle then ends, briefly
aud rather vaguely, with commen
dation of Tychicus and a general
form of salutation.
The general sketch of this
most wonderful Epistle wiU, it is
beHeved, be best explained by the
very brief analysis which is here
with subjoined : —
1. Doctrinal Section.
(1) The Introduction (chap, i.) :
(a) Salutation (chap. i. 1, 2) ;
(b) Thanksgiving for the elec
tion of the whole Church
in God's love, given through
redemption by unity with
Christ, shown in the calling
and faith both of Jew and
Gentile (chap. i. 3 — 14) ;
(c) Prayerfor their fuller know
ledge of this unity with the
risen and ascended Christ,
the Head of the whole
Church (chap. i. 15 — 23).
(2) The Call op the Gentiles
(chap. H.) :
(a) Out of the deadness of sin
and power of Satan into the
new life of the risen Christ,
accepted in simple faith,
wrought out in good works
(chap. n. 1—10) ;
(J) Out of alienation from the
covenant , into perfect unity
with God's chosen people,
all division being broken
down, and full access given
to the Father ; so that Jew
and Gentile alike, built on
the one foundation, grow
into the living Temple of
God (chap. ii. 11—22).

(3) Prayer por their Fuller
Knowledge (chap. Hi.) :
(a) The mystery ofthe universal
call, new in revelation,
specially intrusted to St.
Paul (chap. Hi. 1 — 13) ;
(4) Prayer for their fall know
ledge of it (though passing
knowledge) through the in
dwelling of Christ, accepted
in faith and love (chap. Hi.
14-19) ;
(c) Doxology to the Father
through Christ Jesus (chap.
iii. 20, 21).
(4) Final Summary op Doctrine
(chap, iv.) :
(a) The unity of the Church in
one Spirit, one Lord, one
God and Father of all
(chap. iv. 1 — 6) ;
(b) The diversity of gifts in
the glorified Christ (chap,
iv. 7—11) ;
(c) The unity of the purpose of
all, viz., the individual
and corporate regeneration
(chap. iv. 12—16).
2. Practical Section.
(1) The New Life : learning
Christ and growing unto His
image (chap. iv. 17 — 24).
(2) Conquest op Sin :
(a) The conquest of sin . in
virtue of tlie sense of unity
with man in Christ (chap.
iv. 25—30) ;
(b) Conquest of special besetting
sins of malice, impurity,
recklessness of excess (chaps.
iv. 31 ; v. 21).
(3) Regeneration op Social
Eelations :
(a) The relation of husbands
and wives consecrated as a
type of union of Christ with
His Church (chap. v. 22,
23);

EPHESIANS.

211

(J) The relation of parents and
children hallowed as in the
Lord (chap. vi. 1 — 4) ;
(c) The relation of masters and
servants made a brother
hood of service to one
Master (chap. vi. 5 — 9).
(4) Final Exhortation :
The armour of God and the
fight against the powers of
evil (chap. vi. 10 — 17).
3. Conclusion. (a) Special desire of their
prayers for him in his
captivity (chap. vi. 18 —
20);
(J) Commendation of Tychicus
(chap. vi. 21, 22) ;
(c) Salutation and blessing(cha,-p.
vi. 23, 24).
In conclusion, I may add that it
does not appear to me fanciful to
suppose that the teaching of this
Epistle has as special an applicability
to our age as the teaching of the
Galatian or Eoman Epistles had to
the sixteenth century. For in all
spheres of Hfe — the poHtical, the
social, and the ecclesiastical alike —
it would Beem that our prominent
questions are not those of indi

vidualism, but of sociaHsm in the
true sense of the word. Society is
contemplated in its corporate life;
in its rights over the individual ;
in the great eternal principles
which it truly embodies and par-
tiaUy represents ; and, moreover,
this contemplation has a breadth
of scope which refuses to be con
fined within the hinits of family,
or nation, or age. Humanity itself
is considered, both historicaUy and
philosophically, as only the highest
element in the order of the universe
which is itself bound together in a
unity of unbroken connection and
continuous development. It is
asked, AVhat has Christianity- to
declare as a gospel to society at
large, and as a key to the mys
terious relation of humanity with
creation, and so with Him who
created it ? To that question, per
haps, the answer is nowhere more
truly given than in the Epistle to
the Ephesians. AVe need a real
and Hving unity; but it must be
such as wiU preserve the equally
sacred individuality of freedom.
This Epistle presents it to us in its
magnificent conception of the unity
of all with God in tho Lord Jesus
Christ.

PHILIPPIANS.

Bt the Eight Eev. ALPEED BAEEY, D.D.

I. Time, Place, and Occa
sion of the Epistle. — The indi
cations of the time and place of this
Epistle are unusuaUy clear. It is
written by St. Paul "in bonds"
(chap. i. 7 — 13) ; in the Preetorium
(chap. i. 13), that is, under the
charge of the Praetorian guard; it
sends greeting from the "saints
of Caesar's household" (chap. iv.
21) ; it expresses an expectation of
some crisis in his imprisonment
(chap. i. 20 — 26), and a confident
hope of revisiting Philippi (chap.
i. 26; H. 24). All these indica
tions place it in the Eoman im
prisonment of St. Paul — which
we know (Acts xxviii. 30) to have
lasted without trial or release for
"two whole years," and which
certainly began about a.d. 61.
The date of the Epistle must there
fore be fixed somewhere about the
year a.d. 62 or 63.
Nor is the occasion of the Epistle
less obvious. The Church at Phi
lippi now, as at an earlier time
(chap. iv. 10 — 19), had sent contri
butions to St. Paul's necessities,
under the distress and destitution
of imprisonment, when he was
unable to maintain himself by the
labour of his own hands, as he
had formerly done at Thessalonica.,

Corinth, and Ephesus. Epaphro
ditus, their messenger, through his
affectionate exertions on St. Paul's
behaR, had faUen into dangerous
illness, and on his convalescence had
been seized with home-sickness,
aggravated by the uneasiness of
knowing that his danger had been
reported to his friends at home
(chap. ii. 25—30). St. Paul, there
fore, sent him back with this Letter,
the immediate object of which was
to convey his thanks and blessing
for the generosity of the Philip
pians, and to commend warmly the
devotion of Epaphroditus, which
had been in great degree the cause
of his illness.
II. The Church to 'which
it was written. — Of the first
preaching at Philippi we have a full
and graphic account in Acts xvi.
The preaching began, as usual,
from a Jewish centre, but this was
only a proseuche, or oratory (Acts
xvi. 13)— not, as at Thessalonica, a
synagogue (Acts xvn. 1) ; and the
whole history shows no indication
of any strong Jewish influence.
The first convert named is Lydia,
an Asiatic of ThyatRa, not a
Jewess, but " one who worshipped
God," a "proselyte of the gate."
Tho first opposition came not from

PHILIPPIANS.

213

the Jews, as at Thessalonica (Acts
xvR. 5" 6, 13), but from the masters
of the "damsel possessed with a
spRit of divination," simply because
by the exorcism of the Apostle the
' ' hope of their gain was gone. "
The accusation levelled against St.
Paul and his companion was one
which was intimately connected
with the peculiar position of Phi
lippi as a Eoman colony — a frag
ment (as it were) of the imperial
cityitseR. We note, indeed, that
at this very time (Acts xviu. 2)
" Claudius had commanded aR Jews
to depart from Eome," and it is at
least probable that this decree of
banishment might extend to the
Eoman colonies as distinguished
from the ordinary provincial cities.
Accordingly, in the accusation
itseR stress was laid on the fact
that the accused were "Jews," and
the charge was that they preached
a religio illicita, involving customs
which it was "not lawful for
the PhiHppians to receive, being
Eomans" (Acts xvi. 21). The
Church was, therefore, mainly a
Gentile Church — the firstfruits of
European Christianity — and its
attachment to the Apostle of the
Gentiles was especiaUy strong and
fervent. The PhiHppians alone, it
appears, offered — certainly from
them alone St. Paul consented to
receive — those contributions to his
necessities, which elsewhere (see
Acts xx. 33—35 ; 2 Cor. xi. 7—12 ;
1 Thess. i. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii. 8) he
thought it best to refuse for the
gospel's sake.
The foundation of the Church
had been laid amidst a persecution,
in which the Eoman magistrates,
with a characteristic disHke of aU
foreign superstitions likely to lead
to uproar, and a characteristic dis
regard of justice towards two or

three obscure Jews, simply played
into the hands of mob violence.
The step which St. Paul afterwards
took of asserting his citizenship and
forcing the magistrates to confess
theR wrong-doing (Acts xvi. 37,
38) looks Hke a precaution to render
the recurrence of arbitrary perse
cution less likely after his departure.
But we gather from this Epistle
(chap. i. 27—30) that the Church
had stUl, like the sister Church at
Thessalonica (1 Thess. i. 6 ; ii. 14)
and the other Macedonian churches
(2 Cor. viii. 2), to undergo " the
same confl ict " of suffering from
"their adversaries," "which they
had seen in him." It grew up
under the bracing aR of trial, with
a peculiar stedfastness, warm
heartedness, and simplicity, appa
rently unvexed by the speculative
waywardness of Corinth, or the
wHd heresies of Ephesus or Colossae.
Again Hke the Tbessalonian
Church, its dangers were mainly
practical (see chap, iii.) ; the Juda
ising influence was probably foreign
and not very formidable ; the ten
dencies to Antinomian profligacy
(chap. iii. 17 — 21), to some division
by party spirit (chaps, ii. 1 — 4 ; iv.
2, 3), to occasional despondency
under trial (chap. i. 28), hardly
appear to have affected the Church
widely or seriously. In its condi
tion, accordingly, St. Paul could
rejoice almost without reserve of
sorrow or anxiety.
Of St. Paul's subsequent visits
to Philippi we have no full record.
We cannot doubt that he visited
the city on his way from Ephesus
to Macedonia and Greece on the
third missionary circuit (Acts xx.
3). The common tradition, exceed
ingly probable in itself, dates the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians
from Philippi on that occasion.

214

NEAV TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

We know (Acts xx. 6) that it was
from Philippi that he started, some
months after, on his last journey
to Jerusalem. At a period subse
quent to this Epistle, we learn
(1 Tim. i. 3) that St. Paul, appa
rently after a visit to Ephesus,
" went into Macedonia " after his
first captivity, and so, no doubt,
fulfilled his hope of revisiting this
well-loved Church. After this we
have no notice of the Church in
history tiU we read of their kindly
reception of Ignatius on his way to
martyrdom, and study the Epistle
of Polycarp to them, written shortly
after, mainly practical and horta
tory, and implying, with but slight
reservation, a stiU strong and vigor
ous Christianity, and a constant
grateful memory of the great
Apostle. (See, for example, chap.
i. — " I rejoiced greatly with you in
our Lord Jesus Christ, because ye
have adopted the imitation of true
love . . . because the firm root of
your faith, celebrated from ancient
times, remains even until now, and
bears fruit unto the Lord Jesus
Christ ; " chap. iii. — " Neither I
nor any like me can follow out
f uUy the wisdom of the blessed and
glorious Paul, who, when he came
among you, taught accurately and
durably the word of truth.") Ter-
tuUian also alludes to it (de Preescr.
xxxvi.) as one of the churches
where the " authentic letters of the
Apostles " — no doubt, this Epistle
itseR — were read. Afterwards we
have little reference to it in Church
history. Like Colossae, it sank into
insignificance. III. The genuineness ofthe
Epistle. — External Evidence. —
The evidence for the genuineness
of the Epistle is very strong. In
all ancient catalogues, from the
Muratorian Fragment (a.d. 170)

downwards, in aU ancient versions,
beginning with the Peschito and
the old Latin, it is placed among
the undoubted Epistles of St. Paul.
In Christian writings, before the
end of the second century, know
ledge of it may be distinctly traced;
after that time it is quoted continu-
ally. Thus, in the ApostoHc Fathers, to
say nothing of shghter indications
which have been noted (as by Dr.
Westcott, Canon of the New Testa
ment, chap, i., and Dr. Lightfoot, in
his Introduction to this Epistle), St.
Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philip
pians (chap, iii.), expressly declares
that St. Paul, " when absent, wrote
letters to them, by searching into
which they can still be built up in
the faith, " and speaks of them as
" praised in the beginning of
this Epistle " (chap. xi.). Nor are
there wanting expressions in his
letter (such as the " using our
citizenship worthily of Christ,"
"the enemies of the cross," the
"rejoicing with them in the Lord,"
the "not running in vain," &c.)
which not obscurely indicate refer
ence to the text of our Epistle
itself. Again Dr. Lightfoot quotes
from the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, a Judfeo-Christian work,
dating early in the second century,
certain expressions — " the form of
God" and the "fashion of men"
(see Phil. ii. 6), the "luminaries"
of heaven (see PhU. ii. 15), and,
above aU, the unique phrase " the
bowels (heart) of the Son of God"
(see Phil. i. 8) — which indicate
unmistakably knowledge of this
Epistle. Perhaps the earliest dRect quota
tion of it is in the celebrated
Epistles of the Churches of Lyons
and Vienne (a.d. 177), on the
martyrdoms in the persecution of

PHILIPPIANS.

215

Marcus Aurelius (Eusebius, Ecclesi
astical History, v. 2) — where we
find the great passage : " He being
in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God," &c.
Then, as in other cases, the habit of
quotation begins in Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertul
lian, and continues afterwards
unbroken. TertuHian, as we have
already seen, apparently speaks of
the Letter as "being read as an
ApostoHc letter in the PhiUppian
Church ; and in his controversy
with Marcion (v. 20) so quotes it as
to show that it had escaped the
destructive criticism and arbitrary
mutilation in which Marcion so
constantly anticipated the critical
scepticism of later times.
Internal Evidence. — But, strong
as external evidence is, it is in this
case far weaker than the internal,
which may be said to rise almost to
demonstration. The strong marks
of personaUty which we trace in
every line, the unstudied frequency
of historical allusion and of un
designed coincidences with histori
cal records, the simple and natural
occasion of writing, in the reception
of the offerings and the iUness of
Epaphroditus, the absence of all
formal doctrine or ecclesiastical
purpose, the fulness and warmth of
personal affection, — all are unmis
takable marks of genuineness, all
are fairly inconceivable on the
supposition of imitation or forgery.
The character of St. Paul, as uncon
sciously drawn in it, is unquestion
ably the same character which Hves
and glows in the Corinthian and
Galatian Epistles ; and yet there is
in it an indescribable growth
into greater calmness and gentle
ness, which corresponds remarkably
with advance of age and change of
circumstances. There are also

marked similarities, both of style
and expression, with the earlier
Epistles, and, above all, with the
Epistle to the Eomans, the last of
the earlier group, which will be
found noted in detail on the various
passages.* There is also that min
gling of identity and development of
idea which is notable in all the
Epistles of the Captivity. But in
this case, perhaps, the similarity is
greater, and the diversity less, than
in the other Epistles of the same
period. It is, therefore, not surprising
that, even in the freest speculation
of the higher criticism, there are
but few examples of scepticism as
to the genuineness of this Epistle.
IV. The main Substance
of the Epistle.— (1) The Picture
of the Writer and the Receivers. —
The first and simplest impression
made by this Epistle is the vivid
portraiture which it gives us of St.
Paul himself — especially in the
conflict of desRe for the death
which is the entrance to the nearer
presence of Christ, and for the
longer Hfe, which will enable him
to gather a fuUer harvest for Christ
— in the striking union of affection
and thankfulness towards the
PhiHppians, with a dignified inde
pendence and a tone of plenary
authority — in the sensitiveness to
the sorrow and inactivity of im-

* Perhaps the most notable are : —
(a) Phil. ii. 10, 11, compared with Eom.
xiv. 11.
(&) Phil. iii. 10, 11, compared with Eom.
vi. 5.
(c) Phil. iii. 19, compared with Eom.
xvi. 18.
(d) Phil. iv. 18, compared with Eom.
xii. 1.
(e) Phil. iii. 5, 6, compared with 2 Cor,
xi. 22, Eom. xi. 1. It maybe noted that
in all these cases there is similarity with
difference — the characteristic of indepen
dent coincidence, not of imitation.

216

NEAV TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

prisonment, overcome and finally
absorbed into an almost unequaRed
fulness of joy in the Lord. Side
by side with this we are next struck
with the picture which it gives us
of the Macedonian Christianity at
PhUippi — not unlike that of Thessa
lonica, though, it would seem, less
chequered by fanaticism or disorder,
and certainly singularly accordant
with the Macedonian character, as
it paints itself at once speculatively
inferior and practically superior to
the Greek, in the pages of history.
The Philippian Christianity is pre
eminently vigorous,loyal,and warm
hearted, courageous and patient,
Httle disturbed either by speculative
refinements or speculative inven
tions, hardly needing any warning,
except against the self-assertion
which is the natural excrescence of
earnestness, or any exhortation,
except to a deeper thoughtfulness,
which might " overflow into know
ledge," and prove "the things which
are really exceUent." There is no
letter of St. Paul's so absolutely
free from the necessity of rebuke,
and, accordingly, there is none so
fuU of joy, in spite of aU the cir
cumstances of suffering and anxiety
under which it was written.
(2) The Condition of the Church
at Rome. — The next great subject
of interest is the light thrown by
this Epistle on the progress of the
Churcli at Eome during St. Paul's
imprisonment. Of his preaching to
the Jews, the Asiatic GentUes, and
the Greeks, we have plain historical
record in the Acts of the Apostles.
That record fails us at the moment
when he reaches the great centre
of heathen civiHsation at Eome,
simply teHing us that his imprison
ment was not allowed to be a hin
drance to his preaching, first (as
always) with the Jews, then, on

their rejection of tho gospel, to the
Gentiles who were " willing to
hear it." Now, we know by the
history of the Neronian persecution
iu Tacitus that, less than ten years
after St. Paul's arrival in Eome,
the Christians were already " a vast
multitude," not only in the Eastern
home of their religion, but in the
metropolis itself. While we per
ceive from St. Paul's Epistle to the
Eomans that, before that arrival
Christianity was firmly estabHshed
in Eome, and suspect that the ignor
ance of the Jewish leaders con
cerning " the sect everywhere
spoken against " (Acts xxvin. 22)
was in great degree affected, yet
we cannot but see that these ten
years must have been years of
rapid progress, in order to justify,
even approximately, the description
of the Eoman historian. NaturaRy,
Ave conclude that St. Paul's pre
sence, even in his prison, must
have given the chief new impulse
to such progress, and inquire
eagerly for any indications of his
actual discharge to the Romans of
the debt of gospel preaching which
he had long ago acknowledged as
due to them (Rom. i. 14, 15). To
this inquiry almost the only answer
is found in the Epistle to the
PhiHppians. There we learn that, as we might
have expected, St. Paul's bonds
"turned out" to the great " further
ance of the gospel." Wherever his
prison actually was, it gave him
opportunity of influence over
the Praetorian guards, and aU
the rest of the world, civilian
or mHitary, who frequented their
quarters ; it gave him access,
moreover, to those of Caesar's
household — that large community
of the domus Augusta which in
cluded all varieties of occupation,

PHILIPPIANS.

217

character, and rank. That the
earHer Christianity of Eome was
largely under Jewish influence we
learn from the whole argument of
the Epistle to the Eomans ; and it
has been often remarked that the
names rncluded in the long Ust of
salutations in the last chapter show
a preponderance of Greek nation-
aHty in the converts themselves.
But of those who came under the
spell of St. Paul's presence, prob
ably comparatively few would be
Jews, although indeed at this time,
through the influence of Poppaea,
the Jewish elemeDt might be more
than usuaRy prominent in Caesar's
household ; and whRe the greater
number of that household who came
in contact with him would be slaves
of various nationalities, stiU, in the
higher officers and among the Prae
torian soldiery, many would be of
true Eoman origin. Eemembering
the friendship of Seneca for
Burrhus,, the Praetorian Prefect
at the time of St. Paul's arrival,
and the former conduct of GalHo,
Seneca's brother, towards the
Apostle at Corinth, many have
delighted to speculate on the pro
bability of some direct intercourse
between the Apostle of the OentHes
and the phRosopher of the later and
more reUgious Stoicism, who was
then the leader of higher Eoman
thought. But, however this may
be, and whatever may be the real
weight of the various apparent
similarities to f amiHar Stoic phrase
ology which may be traceable in
the Epistle, those who have any
remembrance of the eagerness of
Eoman society at this time for new
religions, new mysteries, and even
new superstitions, from the East,
wiU find no difficulty Hi beHeving
that one who was placed, by the
circumstance of his imprisonment,

in the imperial court itself, might
easily have produced a deep im
pression on men of Eoman birth,
perhaps of high Eoman rank.
This new Christianity would
therefore probably be of a type,
more purely GentUe, less predomi
nantly Oriental, than the Chris
tianity to which the Epistle to the
Eomans was addressed. Of the
division between the old and the
new tbe Epistle shows traces, in
the description of those who
preached Christ " of good wUl "
to St. Paul, and those who preached
in "factiousness and vain-glory;"
for it seems clear, from his rejoic
ing that " every way Christ was
preached," that the division was as
yet one of mere faction and party,
not of the contrast of false with
true doctrine, which we know that
he treated with stern, uncompro
mising severity. (See 2 Cor. xi.
1 — 4 ; Gal. i. 6—9.) Like aR such
divisions, it probably marked and
justified itseR by some differences
in reUgious teaching and reUgious
life : but if these existed, they did
not go down to the foundation. The
time, indeed, was not far distant,
when the faU of Jerusalem, and the
obvious passing away of the whole
Jewish dispensation, struck the
final blow to the existence of
Judaism in the Christian Church.
In spite, therefore, of this division,
it seems clear that at the time of
the PhiUppian Epistle Christianity
had advanced, and was advancing,
with rapid strides. "The city
which is in heaven " was aReady
beginning to rise from its founda
tions in the " great Babylon of the
Seven HiUs," now the very type of
the kingdom of the earth, destined
hereafter to be, even visibly, the
metropolis of Western Christi
anity.

"218

NEAV TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

(3) The main Subjects of the
Epistle. — Turning to the teach-
nig of the Epistle itself, the main
interest centres round the great
passage in the second chapter (ii.
5 — 11), which is the very creed
of the Incarnation, Passion, and
Exaltation of our Lord Jesus
Christ. This is a feature which
has been noticed already in the
General Introduction to the Epistles
of the Captivity. Here, therefore,
it is only necessary to remark that
its advanced Christology is made
the more striking by the occasion
of its occurrence, which is, in
point of form, simply incidental, in
enforcement of the familiar exhor
tation to follow the mind of Christ
Jesus in humility and self-sacrifice ;
and that the singular simplicity
and clearness of its enunciation
of truth stand to the profounder
and more mysterious teaching on
the same subject in the Epistle
to the Colossians, much as, in
later times, the simplicity of a
AVestern creed stands to the greater
subtlety of an Eastern. Next in
interest, though after a long inter
val, is the light thrown (in chap.
iii.) on the obstinate persistence
in Macedonia of the old Judaising
influence, elsewhere decaying or
passing into new forms ; and the
appearance both of the pretensions
to perfection (chap. iii. 12 — 16)
and of the Antinomian reckless
ness (chap. Hi. 17 — 21) — a reck
lessness that is sometimes in asso
ciation with these pretensions and
at other times is in open revolt
agamst them — with which we are
but too famUiar in subsequent
Church history.
(4) Analysis of the Epistle. — A
short general sketch of the con
tents of the Epistle is here sub
joined : —

1. The First Saction (original
Letter ?).
(1) Introduction.
(a) Salutation (chap. i. 1, 2) ;
(b) Thanksgiving for their "fel
lowship " in the work of
the gospel, specially shown
towards himself (chap. i. 3
-8);
(c) Prayer for their fuller know
ledge and increase of fruit-
fulness to the end (chap. i.
9—11).
(2) Declaration op the Posi
tion at Rome.
(a) The progress of the gospel
throughhisbonds, stimulat
ing preaching of the gos
pel, partly in good will,
partly in strife, but in any
case a cause of joy (chap. i.
12—18) ;
(b) His own division of feeling,
between desire to depart,
and a willingness to remain
for their sakes, * which he
knows will be realised (chap.
i. 19—26).
(3) Exhortation :
(a) To steadfast boldness under
persecution, now present or
imminent (chap. i. 27 — 30);
(b) To unity of spirit in the
humility and self-sacrifice
of " the mind of Christ
Jesus" (chap. ii. 1 — 4).
(4) The Doctrine op Christ.
(a) His humility in the Incar
nation : stooping from the
form of God to the form of
man (chap. ii. 5 — 7) ;
(b) His second humility in the
Passion (chap. ii. 8) ;
(e) His exaltation above all
created being (chap. ii. 9 —
11).
(5) Original Conclusion op the
EriSTLE.
(a) 'Final exhortation to obe-

PHILIPPIANS.

219

dience, quietness, purity,
joy with him in sacrifice
(chap. ii. 12—18) ;
(b) Mission and commendation
of Timotheus as St. PauVs
forerunner (chap. ii. 19 —
, 24>;.
(c) Mission and commendation
of Epaphroditus (chap. ii.
25—30) ;
(d) Final "farewell inthe Lord"
(chap. Hi. 1).
2. The Second Section (Post
script ?).
(1) Practical Warnings :
(a) Against Judaism, by the
example of his own renun
ciation of all Jewish privi
lege (chap. Hi. 2 — 10) ;
(5) Against claim of perfection,
again enj'orced by his ou-n
example (chap. iii. 1 1 — 16) ;

(c) Against Antinomian pro
fligacy, as unworthy of the
" citizens of heaven " (chap.
Hi. 17— 21).
(2) Exhortations Renewed :
(a) To unity (chap. iv. 1 — 3) ;
(4) To joy, thankfulness, and
peace (chap. iv. 4 — 7) ;
(c) To following of all good, in
the fulness in which he had
taught it (chap. iv. 8, 9).
(3) Acknowledgment of Of
ferings.
(a) Rejoicing in their renewed
care for him (chap. iv. 10
-14) ;
(b) Remembrance of their for
mer liberality (chap. iv. 15
-17);
(c) Thanks and blessing (chap.
iv. 18—20).
(4) Concluding Salutation and
Blessing.

COLOSSTANS.

IS* the Eight Eev. ALPEED BAEEY, D.D.

I. The Time, Place, and Oc
casion of Writing. — There are
in this Epistle indications of the
time and place of writing similar
to those already noticed in the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Phi
lippians. It is written in prison :
for St. Paul bids the Colossians
"remember his bonds" (chap. iv.
18), and designates Aristarchus as
his "feUow-prisoner " (chap. iv. 10).
Like the Epistle to the Ephesians,
it is sent by Tychicus, with pre
cisely the same official commenda
tion of him as in that Epistle (chap.
iv. 7, 8 ; comp. Eph. vi. 21, 22) ;
but with him is joined Onesimus,
the Colossian slave, the bearer of
the Epistle to Philemon. The per
sons named in the concluding
salutations (chap. iv. 7 — 14) — Aris
tarchus, Marcus, Epaphras, Luke,
Demas, and " Jesus, called Justus "
— are aU, except the last, named in
the corresponding part of the
Epistle to Philemon (verses 23, 24) ;
two of them, Aristarchus and St.
Luke, are known to have accom
panied the Apostle on his voyage,
as a captive, to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2) :
and another, Tychicus, to have
been his companion on the journey
to Jerusalem, which preceded the
beginning of that captivity at
Csesarea (Acts xx. 4). A direction
is given to forward this Epistle to

Laodicea, and to obtain and read
a letter from Laodicea (chap. iv.
16), which is, in all probability,
our Epistle to the Ephesians— an
Epistle (see the Introduction to
it) addressed, indeed, primarily to
Ephesus, but apparently also an
Encyclical Letter to the sister
churches of Asia.
All these indications may be
said to point to one conclusion —
not only that the Epistle is one of
the Epistles of the Roman captivity
(about a.d. 61 — 63)', butthat it is a
twin Epistle with the Epistle to
the Ephesians, sent at the same
time and by the same hand, and
designed to be interchanged with
it in the Churches of Colossae and
Laodicea. These indications are
confirmed most decisively by the
substance of the Epistle itself,
which (as wiU be seen below) pre
sents, on the one hand, the most
striking similarities to the Epistle
to the Ephesians, and, on the other,
differences almost equally striking
and characteristic — thus contradict
ing aU theories of derivation of one
from the other, and supporting-
very strongly the idea of indepen
dent contemporaneousness and co
incidence of thought.
The occasion of writing seems
evidently to have been a visit to
the Apostle from Epaphras, the

COLOSSIANS.

221

first preacher of the gospel at
Colossae, and the profound anxiety
caused both to him and to St. Paul
(chaps, ii. 1 ; iv. 12, 13) by the
news which he brought of the rise
among the Colossians (and prob
ably the Christians of Laodicea
and HierapoHs also) of a peculiar
form of error, half Jewish, haR
Gnostic, which threatened to be-
guRe them from the simpHcity of
the gospel into certain curious
mazes of speculation as to the God
head and the outgrowth of various
emanations from it ; to create a
separation between those who be
lieved themselves perfect in this
higher knowledge and the mass of
theR brethren : and, above all, to
obscure or obHterate the sole divine
mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ.
To warn them against these forms
of error — the last development of
the Judaism which had been so
formidable an enemy in time past,
and the first anticipation of an in-
teUectual and spiritual bewRder-
ment which was to be stiR more
formidable in the future — St. Paul
writes this Letter. The Colossian
Church was indeed to receive a
copy from Laodicea of our Epistle
to the Ephesians; but in an En
cyclical Letter this pecuHar form of
heresy could not weR be touched
upon. Epaphras was for the pre
sent to continue at Eome, and (see
Philem. verse 24) to share St.
Paul's imprisonment. Mark, the
nephew of Barnabas, then with St.
Paul, was perhaps coming to Co
lossae (chap. iv. 10), but not yet.
Accordingly, by Tychicus, the
bearer of the Encyclical Letter, and
Onesimus, a fugitive Colossian
.slave, whom the Apostle was about
to send back to Philemon, his
master, this Letter is despatched.
Partly it repeats and enforces the

teaching of the other Epistle, but
regards these common truths from
a different point of view, designed
tacitly to correct the errors rife at
Colossae ; partly it deals directly
with those errors themselves, im
ploring the Colossians to break
through the delusions of theR new
" philosophy and vain deceit," and
to return to the simplicity of the
gospel, in which they had aU been
one in the one mediation of the
Lord Jesus Christ.
II. The Church to -which it
is addressed  The Church of
Colossae, unlike the Churches of
Ephesus and Philippi, finds no re
cord in the Acts of the Apostles ;
for, although this city is not very
far from Ephesus, we gather that it
was not one of the churches founded
or previously visited by St. Paul per-
sonaRy (chap. ii. 1 ; comp. chap. i.
4). But it appears, from what is
apparently the true reading of
chap. i. 7, that Epaphras, named as
its first evangelist, and stUl, to
some extent, in charge of it and the
neighbouring churches of Laodicea
and HierapoHs (chap. iv. 12, 13),
was not only a feUow-servant but a
representative of St. Paul in his
mission to Colossae. We can,
therefore, hardly be wrong in re
ferring the conversion of the Co
lossians to the time of St. Paul's
three years' stay at Ephesus, during
which we are expressly told that
"aR they which dwelt in Asia
heard the word of the Lord, both
Jews and Greeks" (Acts xix. 10),
and supposing that indirectly
through Epaphras the Christianity '
of the Colossians was due to the in
fluence of that great Apostolic
preaching under which " the word
of God grew mightily and pre
vailed." We find also that St.

222

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

Paul had intimate personal ac
quaintance, and what he caUs em
phatically " partnership," with
PhUemon (see Philem. verse 17),
apparently a leading member of
the Church at Colossae. It is not
unlikely that through him also the
Apostle had been able to influence
the foundation or growth of that
Church. These circumstances ex
plain the style and tone of this
Letter, which seems to stand mid
way between the personal famili
arity and unhesitating authority of
such Epistles as the Epistles to the
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Gala
tians, and Philippians, addressed to
churches founded directly by St.
Paul, and the courteous reserve of
the Epistle to the Romans, ad
dressed to a Church over which he
could claim none of the authority
of a founder. This is, perhaps,
especiaUy notable in chap. H.,
where St. Paul prefaces his de
finite and authoritative denun
ciation of the peculiar errors be
setting the Colossian Church with
the half -apologetic introduction :
"I would that ye knew what
great conflict I have for you, and
for them at Laodicea, and for as
many as have not seen my face in
the flesh."
The position and history of
Colossae are admirably described
by Dr. Lightfoot in his Introduction
to this Epistle, sect. 1. It lay in
the vaUey of the Lycus, a tributary
of the Maeander, near Laodicea and
HierapoHs. These two cities stand
face to face, about six miles from
each other, on opposite sides of the
vaUey, and ten or twelve miles
farther up, on the river itself, lies
Colossa?, so that any one approach
ing it from Ephesus or from the
sea-coast would pass by Laodicea.
Tho three cities thus form a group,

so that they might naturaUy re
ceive the gospel at the same time,
and the Christian communities in
them might easRy be under the
same general charge. They seem
to have been poUticaUy united
under the Eoman Government, and
to have been distinguished by a
common trade ; Hke ThyatRa, they
were known for theR manufacture
of dyes, especiaUy purple dyes, and
derived considerable wealth there
from. Colossae had been once a
place of importance. It is described
by Herodotus (chap. vii. 20) as
being, at the time of Xerxes' in
vasion of Greece, " a great city of
Phrygia," the site of which is'.
marked by a subterranean dis
appearance of the river Lycus; and
by Xenophon (Anab. i. 2, j 6),,
about a century later, as " a city-
great and prosperous." But at the*
time at which this Epistle was:
written Colossaj was of far less notei
than the wealthy Laodicea, the--
metropoUs of the district, or Hiera
poHs, well known as a place of
resort for medicinal baths, and.
consecrated both to the Greek.
Apollo and the Phrygian Cybele.
In the Apocalyptic letters to the
Seven Churches of Asia it finds no-
mention, being Jirobably looked
upon as a dependency of the proud
and wealthy Church of Laodicea.
After the Apostolic age, whRe
Laodicea and, in less degree, Hiera
poHs are well known, Colossa?
sinks into utter insignificance. It
may possibly have been laid in
ruins by one of the earthquakes
which are known to have been
common in these regions. Com
paratively few remains of it are
now found, and the very ortho
graphy of the name (Colossal, or
Colassa) has, it appears, been
matter of dispute. It is notable

COLOSSIANS.

223

that a Church so much honoured
and cared for by St. Paul should
have had hereafter so obscure and
so adverse a future.*
UI. The Genuineness ofthe
Epistle. — External Evidence. —
Speaking generaRy, the condition
of the external evidence is much
the same with this as with the
other two Epistles. It is included
unhesitatingly in aR canons, from
the Muratorian Canon (a.d. 170 ?)
downwards, and in aR versions, be
ginning with the Peshito and the
Old Latin in the second century.
Quotations or references to it have
not, however, been traced in any of
the ApostoHc fathers. The first
distinct allusion to it is in Justin
Martyr (a.d. 110 — 170 ?), who'says
(Apol. i. 46, ii. 6 ; Dial. c. Tryph.
c. 100): — "We were taught that
Christ is the first-horn of God;"
"We have acknowledged Him as
the first-born of God, and before all
creatures;'' "Through Him God
set aR things in order." (Comp.
chap. i. 15 — 17.) The next is Theo-
phRus of Antioch, who died about
a.d. 180 :— " God begat the Word,
the first-born before aR creation."
After this, in Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, and Tertullian, direct
quotation begins and continues
uninterruptedly in aR Christian
writings. (See Westcott, Canon of
the New Testament.) The external
evidence is therefore strong. Never
until these later days of arbitrary
criticism has the genuineness of the
Epistle been questioned.
Internal Evidence. — This Epistle,
far more than the Epistle to the
PhUippians, perhaps a little less
* Views of the country near the sup
posed site of Colossi, aud ot the ruins
of Laodicea and Hierapolis, are given in
Lewin's St. Paid, Vol. II., pp. 357-360.

than the Epistle to the Ephesians,
bears traces of what I have ven
tured to call St. Paul's "third
manner." To the correspondence
of the change, both in style and
substance, traceable rn these
Epistles, to the alteration of St.
Paul's circumstances, and the
natural development of the gospel
and of the Church, I have already
referred in the General Intro
duction to the Epistles of the
Captivity, and given reasons for
maintaining that this change, which
has been often made an argument
against the genuineness of these
Epistles, presents to us phenomena
inexpHcable on any supposition of
imitation or forgery, but perfectly
intelHgible if we accept the
ApostoHc authorship.
Some critics, however — of whom
Dr. Holtzmann (in his Kritik der
Epheser- und Kolosser- briefe) may
be taken as the chief representative
— insist on tracing extensive inter
polations (almost amounting to a
vRtual reconstruction) in what they
believe themselves able to discover
as the originals both of this Epistle
and the Epistle to the Ephesians.
Except so far as these hypotheses
depend upon the supposed traces of
a later Gnosticism in both Epistles,
but especiaRy in the Epistle to the
Colossians, they seem to resolve
themselves into the idea that every
passage bearing strong simUarity
to the teaching of St. Peter and
St. John must have been altered
or interpolated with a view to
accommodation. Without any his
torical evidence that is in any
degree substantial, ignoring both
the probabilities of the ease and the
indRect evidence of Holy Scripture,
and disregarding the utter absence^
of any support whatever in the
witness of Christian antiquity, they

224

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

assume an absolute antagonism be
tween St. Paul and the Apostles of
the CRcumcision, and pronounce
every indication of an underlying
unity, and a true development of
common doctrine, which contra
dicts this assumption, to be a mark
of interpolation or falsification by
a later hand. With the rejection
of this arbitrary assumption, the
greater part of the ingeniously-
constructed fabric of destructive
criticism faRs to the ground.
But, indeed, it appears difficult
to conceive how any one attentively
studying either of these Epistles,
without any preconceived hypo
thesis, can fail to recognise the
internal consistency and unity
— all the more striking because
indicating a free method, as
distinct from a well - squared
artificial system — which runs
through the whole, and makes the
theory of interpolation even more
improbable than the theory of
imitation or forgery. Nothing, for
example, is more notable in this
Epistle than the substantial unity,
under marked difference of form,
which connects the positive state
ment of doctrine in the first chapter
(verses 14 — 23) with the polemical
re-statement in the second chapter.
In the former we trace anticipation
of the latter, and (so to speak) pre
paration for the more expHcit
development of the attack on
doctrinal error; in the latter, the
very repetitions, with variations, of
passages in tho first chapter are
indicative of a free treatment of
the truths previously dealt with by
the same hand, and are utterly
unlike the tame reproductions or
artificial modifications of a mere
copyist. The remarkable indica
tions, again, of the co-existence of
similarity and distinctness between

this Epistle and the Epistle to the
Ephesians (noticed in the Introduc
tion to that Epistle) , as they preclude
the theory of dependence or imita
tion in either, so are equally fatal
to the idea of an artificial inter
polation and reconstruction by
later hands. They indicate at every
point a free, almost unconscious,
coincidence, omitting or preserving
the paralleHsms of idea and expres
sion by a kind of natural selection.
They mark a Hkeness of Hving
organic growths, not of artificial
and heterogeneous fabrics. Nor
should we omit to notice the sus
tained power of -these Epistles,
differing as to the pecuhar style of
each, but equaUy conspicuous in
both. The Epistle to the Ephesians
has about it a certain calm and
almost mystic eloquence, a. beauty
of meditative completeness of idea,
unbroken by necessities of special
teaching or special warning, which
weR suits a general ApostoHc mes
sage to Christians as Christians, in
which we seem almost to hear the
utterance of an inspired mind,
simply contemplating the divine
truth in the knowledge of Jesus
Christ, and speaking out, so far as
they can be spoken, the thoughts
which it stirs within — conscious of
God and itseR, only haR conscious
of those to whom the utterance is
addressed. In the Epistle to the
Colossians, on the other hand, we
find a far greater abruptness, force,
and earnestness. The free course
of the ApostoHc thought, which
occasionaUy, perhaps, rises to an
even greater height, is, on the whole,
checked and modified by the con
stant remembrance of pressing
needs and pressing dangers — ac
cordingly developing some elements
and leaving others comparatively
undeveloped: and so, while perhaps

COLOSSIANS.

225

increasing intensity, certainly in
terfering to some extent with the
majestic symmetry of the universal
revelation. Each Epistle has its
marked characteristics; and these,
unquestionably, so run through the
whole as to destroy even any show
of plausibUity in the theory of
interpolation. With regard to the supposed ana
chronisms in the references to what
afterwards became peculiarities of
the Gnostic system, it wiR here
be sufficient to say that, on more
attentive examination, not only
do the supposed objections to
the genuineness of the Epistle
disappear, but the phenomena of
the "phRosophy and vain deceit"
touched upon in this Epistle, when
compared with the opinions either
of the past or of the future, accord
so remarkably with the charac
teristics of the period to which
the Epistle claims to belong, as
to add a fresh confirmation of the
conclusions aReady derived from
a consideration of the external
evidence, and by the study of the
coherence and vigour of the Epistle
itseR. In this case, therefore, as in that
of the others, we may without the
least hesitation dismiss the ques
tions which have been ingeniously
raised, and with undisturbed con
fidence draw from the Epistle
the rich treasures of ApostoHc
teaching. TV. The main Substance of
the Epistle. — In considering the
substance of the Epistle, we must
distinguish between the large
amount of matter common to it
with the Epistle to the Ephesians
and the portion which is peculiar
to this Epistle alone.
In regard of the common matter,

it may be said generaRy that it is
found treated with a greater width
of scope and completeness of hand
ling in the Epistle to the Ephesians.
It is best studied there in the first
instance (see, accordingly, the Intro
duction and Analysis of that Epistle),
and then Ulustrated by comparison
and contrast with the corresponding
passages in this Epistle. It will
easily be seen that this iUus-
tration is at every point fuU of
suggestiveness and variety. Literal
identities are exceedingly rare; in
almost every set of paraUel passages
the treatment in the two Epistles
presents some points of character
istic variety, either in expression or
in meaning. Speaking generaRy,
this variety depends on two causes.
The first turns on the speeiaHty of
the Epistle, addressed to a single
Church, thoroughly, though indi
rectly, known to St. Paul ; and the
generality of the other, approach
ing more nearly to the character
of a treatise rather than that of a
letter. The second and the more
important cause of this variety
is the subtle adaptation even of
detaUs to the characteristic doc
trines which stand out in the two
Epistles respectively.
This last consideration leads on
naturaRy to the examination of the
portions of the Epistle to which
there is nothing to correspond in
the Ephesian Epistle.
(a) We have the passages in the
first and last chapters which refer
to the foundation of the Colossian
Church by Epaphras, the declara
tion to them of the " truth of the
Gospel," and the practical fruitful-
ness of that teaching (chap. i.
6 — 11); next, to the deep anxiety
felt by Epaphras and St. Paul
himself for theR steadfastness in
| the simple truths of the Gospel,

15

226

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

against the speculations of a wild
philosophy and the allurements of
a mystic perfection in practice
(chaps, i. 23, 24; ii. 1—4, 8—10,
16—23 ; iv. 12, 13) ; lastly, the
particularity and strong personality
of the salutations, directions, and
blessing at the close of this Epistle
(chap. iv. 7 — 18), singularly con
trasting with the brief generaHty
of the other (Eph. vi. 21—24). AU
these correspond to the former of
the causes above named. They
mark the difference betweenaspecial
and an EncycHcal Epistle.
(b) Of infinitely greater moment
is the special prominence which is
given in this Epistle to the doctrine
of the sole Headship of Christ. The
references to the Church as His
body, though not unfrequent, are
brief, secondary, unemphatic; and
thus stand in marked contrast with
the vivid and magnificent descrip
tions in the Ephesian Epistle of the
predestination and election of the
whole body of the Church in the
eternal counsels "of the heavenly
places" (Eph. i. 3—14): of the
union of Jew and GentRe in
the divine "commonwealth," aU
divisions being broken down which
separated each from the other and
both from God (chap. ii. 11— 18): of
the great Temple, "buHt on the
foundation of the apostles and pro
phets, Jesus Christ being the chief
corner-stone" (chap. n. 19 — 24): of
the "one body" and "the one
Spirit," the "one Lord, the one God
and Father of aU" (chap. iv. 4 — 10).
It is especiaUy notable that to the
last-named passage, which is the
climax of the doctrinal teaching of
the Ephesian Epistle, there corre
sponds in this the equaUy celebrated
but whoUy different passage (Col.
Hi. 1 — 4), which addresses the Colos
sians as " risen with Christ," having

their "Hfe hid with Him in God,"
looking for the time when He who
is their Hfe shaR appear, and they
with Him in glory. The reason
of the distinction is made clear at
once by the indications of the pre
sence at Colossal of a tendency to
vain speculations, to obsolete Jewish
forms, and to half idolatrous super
stitions, all of which alike prevented
them from "holding the Head,"
from " being dead with Christ " to
the rudiments of the world, from
being " risen with Him " to a com
munion with heaven (chap. ii. 8 —
23). Accordingly the sole Head
ship of Christ is dwelt upon — first
positively (chap. i. 18 — 20), next
polemicaHy, in warning against
error (chap. n. 8, 16, 18). Both pas
sages are peculiar to this Epistle,
as compared with the Epistle to the
Ephesians. They deal with a sub
ject on which the needs of Colossae
and its sister Churches forced St.
Paul to lay very special emphasis.
(e) But this emphasis does but
bring out with greater force what
may be found elsewhere. The great
characteristic feature of this Epistlo
is the declaration of the nature of
Christ in HimseR as the " image of
the invisible God ; " " firstborn be
fore aR creation ; " " by whom,"
"for whom," "in whom," " aU
beings were created in heaven and
earth" and "aU things consist;"
" in whom dweUs all the fulness of
the Godhead bodily " (chaps, i. 15 —
17, 19 ; ii. 9). In this the Epistle
may be compared with the Epistle
to the Philippians (chap. ii. 6, 7).
But the simple declaration there
made of Christ as " being in the
form of God " is here worked out
into a magnificent elaboration, as
cribing to Him the "fulness of God
head" and the essential divine
attributes of universal creation. It

COLOSSIANS.

227

may be even more closely compared
with the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which not only describes him as
" the express image of the essence
of Godhead," but with an emphasis
which reminds us of the Judaistic
angel-worship condemned in this
Epistle, exalts His absolute supe
riority over aU who, however glo
rious, are but creatures of God
and ministering spirits (Heb. i. 1 ;
ii. 4). It is evident, again, that it
anticipates, yet with characteristic
difference of expression, the doc
trine of the ' ' Word of God " taught
by St. John, and the ascription to
Him of essential eternity and God
head, and both of physical and spi
ritual creation (John i. 1 — 5, 14).
It is this which gives to our Epistle
an unique doctrinal significance and
value. CaRed out by one of the
changeful phases of a pretentious,
but transitory error, it remains to
us an imperishable treasure. We
cannot doubt that tiR the end of
time it wRl have fresh force of spe
cial application, as ancient forms of
error recur with more or less variety
. of outward aspect, and in theR con
stant changes, developments, and
antagonisms, stand in significant
contrast with the unchanging
gospel. V. Analysis of the Epistle.
— To this general description is
subjoined, as before, an analysis
of the Epistle : —
1. Doctrinal Section.
(1) Salutation (chap. i. 1, 2).
(a) Thanksgiving for their faith,
love, and hope, the worthy
fruits of the truth of the
gospel taught by Epaphras
(chap. i. 3—8) ;

(b) Prayer for their fuller know
ledge, fruitfulness, and pa
tience (chap. i. 9 — 12).
(2) The Doctrine op Christ
(stated positively).
(a) His mediation in the for
giveness of sins (chap. i.
13,14);
(b) His divine nature as the
image of God and the
Creator of all things (chap.
i. 15—17) ;
(c) His Headship over the Church
and over all created being
(chap. i. 18—20) ;
(d) Special application of His
mediation to the Colossians,
and declaration of the com
mission of the preaching of
this mystery to St. Paul
" " p. i. 21—29).

(3) The Doctrine op Christ
(stated polemicaUy).
(a) Declaration of St. Paul's
anxiety for them that they
should remain rooted and
stablished in the old truth
of the gospel (chap. ii. 1
-7)-
(b) Warning against speculative
error, denying or obscuring
the truth — ¦
(a) Of Christ's true God
head.
(i8) Of the regeneration
of spiritual circum
cision in Him ;
(7) Of His sole atone
ment and triumph
over the powers of
evil (chap.H.8 — 15).
(c) Warning against practical
superstition —
(o) Of trust in obsolete
Jewish ordinances
and mystic asceti
cism;

228

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

(8) Of superstitious wor
ship of angels,
trenching on the
sole Headship of
Christ (chap. ii. 16
-19).
(d) Exhortation to be —
(a) Dead with Christ to
the rudiments of
the world ;
($) Risen with Christ
to the communion
with God in heaven
(chaps. H. 20 — Hi.
4)-
2. Practical Section.
(1) General Exhortation —
(a) To mortification of the flesh
in all the sins of the old urn-
regenerate nature (chap.
iii. 5—9).
(b) To putting on the new man
in all the graces ofthe image
of Christ, receiving the
peace of God, and doing all
to his glory (chap. Hi. 10
-17).

(2) Special Duties op Human
Relationship —
(a) Wives and husbands (chap.
Hi. 18, 19) ;
(b) Children and parents (chap.
iii. 20, 21) ;
(c) Slaves and masters (chap. iii.
22— iv. 1).
(3) Conclusion.
(a) Exhortation to prayer and
watchfulness (chap. iv. 2
-6);
(J) Mission of Tychicus and
Onesimus (chap. iv. 7 — 9) ;
(c) Salutations from St. Paul's
companions (chap. iv. 10
-14);
(d) Charge to exchange Epistles
with Laodicea (chap. iv.
15-17) ;
(e) Final salutation (chap. iv. 1 8) .
"VI. Comparison with Epis
tle to the Ephesians.— To this
outHne of the Epistle may also be
added a tabular comparison with
the Epistle to the Ephesians, noting
the general lines of paraUeUsm and
peculiarity.

epistle to the colossians.
1. Doctrinal Section.

[In the following Table whatever is common to the two Epistles is printed
in ordinary type, and whatever is peculiar to each in italics.]
epistle to the ephesians.
1. Doctrinal Section.
1. (a) Salutation (chap. i. 1, 2).
(b) Doxology and thanksgiving
for the divine election (chap.
i. 3—6).
(c) Prayer and thanksgiving
for them (chap. i. 15 — 18).

2. (a) Declarationofthe"gather- ing up of aR in Christ,"
of His universal media-

1. (a) Salutation (chap.

i. 1, 2 .

(b) Prayer and thanksgiving
for them (chap. i. 3 — 5,
9—12).
(c) Special reference to the
teaching of Epaphras and
its effect (chap. i. 6 — 8).
2. (a) Declaration of the univer
sal mediation of Christ,
and His headship over the

COLOSSIANS.

229

tion for Jew and Gentile,
and His headship over the
Church, which is His
Body, " the fulness of Him
who fiReth aU in aR"
(chap. i. 7—14, 19—23).
(i) Fuller declaration of the
union of Jew and Gentile
in one covenant and temple,
on sole condition of faith
in Christ (chap. H. 1 — 20).
(e) The commission to St. Paul
of the mystery of the call
ing in of the Gentiles, once
hidden, now revealed to
men and angels (chap.
Hi. 1—13).
(d) Prayer that they may know
that which passeth know
ledge, by the indwelling of
Christ, and be filled to the
fulness of God (chap. Hi.
14—21).
3. Summary op Doctrine :
(a) The unity of the Church in
God;
(b) The diversity of gifts ;
(c) The one object of all — per
sonal and corporate edifica
tion (chap. iv. 1 — 16).
2. Practical Section.
1. (a) General exhortation to
put off the old man and
put on the new, by learning
Christ and being taught in
Christ (chap. iv. 17 —
24).
(b) Warning against various
sins, as breaking unity
with man (chap. iv. 25 —
30).
(«) Special learnings against
bitterness, against impurity
and lust, and against reck
less excess and drunkenness
(chap. iv. 31— v. 21).

Church and over all created
being (chap. i. 13, 14, 18 —
22).

(b) Declaration of the true God
head and creative power of
Christ (chap. i. 15 — 17).

(c) The commission to St.
Paul of the preaching of
the mystery once hidden,
now revealed, "which is
Christ in you the hope of
glory " (chap. i. 23—29).
(d) Special warnings against
peculiar forms of specula
tive error and practical
superstition, drawing them
from Christ, and obscuring
His sole mediation and true
Godhead (chap. H. 1 — 23).
3. Summary of Doctrine :
The unity of the soul with
Christ, in which it is risen
and exalted to heaven in
Him (chap. iii. 1 — 8 ;
comp. Eph. H. 5, 6).

2. Practical Section.
1. (a) General exhortation to
mortify our earthly mem
bers, to put off the old
man and put on the new
(chap. Hi. 5 — 11).
(b) Warning against various
sins, as unworthy of "the
elect of God " (chap. Hi. 5,
8, 9, 13—17).

230

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

2. Human Eelationships :
(a) Wives and husbands (chap.
v. 22—33). (The sacred
ness of marriage as a type
of the union between Christ
and the Church.)
(b) ChUdren and parents (chap.
vi. 1—4).
(s) Slaves and masters (chap.
vi. 5—9).
3. Conclusion.
(a) Exhortation to put on the
whole armour of God (chap.
vi. 10—17).
(b) Request for theR prayers
(chap. vi. 18—20).
(c) Commendation of Tychicus
(chap. vi. 21, 22).

(d) "Peace be to the brethren."
" Grace be with aU them
who love our Lord Jesus
Christ in sincerity " (chap.
vi. 23, 24).

2. Human Eelationships :
(a) Wives and husbands (chap.
Hi. 18, 19).

(*) ChRdren and parents (chap.
Hi. 20, 21).
(c) Slaves and masters (chap.
Hi. 22— iv. 1).
3. Conclusion.

(a) Request for theR prayers
(chap. iv. 2—6).
(b) Commendation of Tychicus
and Onesimus (chap. iv. 7
-9).
(c) Salutationsfromthe brethren
(chap. iv. 10—14).
(d) Message to Laodicea and
Archippus, and direction
as to the letter from Lao
dicea (chap. iv. 15 — 17).
(e) "Eemember my bonds.
Grace be with you " (chap.
iv. 18).

[For the Epistle to Philemon, see p. 250]

I. THESSALONIANS.

By the Eev. Canon MASON, D.D.

In the earHer part of the year 52,
St. Paul, in the course of his second
journey, arrived at Thessalonica,
the modern Saloniki — then, as now,
one of the largest and most im
portant cities of the Levant. The
wounds which the converted gaoler
of PhiHppi and St. LyRa had tended
(Acts xvi. 33, 40) can hardly have
been healed, when the Apostles
Paul, Silas or SUvanus, and Timo
thy,* journeying rapidly through
AmphipoHs and ApoUonia, came
to found their second European
Church (1 Thess. H. 2). The Jews
(who to this day form, it is be
lieved, a moiety of the population
of Saloniki) were massed there in
great numbers, and had there
" their synagogue," — a kind of
metropoHtan church, contrasted
with the mere chapels or " prayer-
houses ' ' of Philippi and other
Macedonian towns.
To this synagogue did St. Paul
repair, and there he for "three
Sabbath days " reasoned, as usual,
with the Jews (1) on the Scriptural
necessity for a suffering Messsiah;

* Timothy's presence is not mentioned
iu the Acts, but seems implied by chaps.
xvi. 3, 4 ; xvii. 14, and made absolutely
cei-tainby the Epistle, where the ' 'we" al
ways includes him. Howson, nevertheless,
concludes from Phil. ii. 22 that he had
been left behind at Philippi.

(2) for a resurrection of the Mes
siah ; and (3) on the claim of Jesus
to the Messiahship. We are not
informed how long the missionaries
stayed at Thessalonica : probably
a good deal more than the three
weeks during which the preaching
at the synagogue continued. + Their
converts from among the Jews of
the synagogue were few, though
the proselytes and the ladies in con
nection with it joined them in large
numbers. We can draw from the Epistles,
in connection with the Acts, a clear
picture of the Apostles' manner of
life and preaching at Thessalonica.
They lodged in the house of a be
lieving Jew of the name of Joshua,
or (in the Graecised form) Jason
(Acts xvH. 5 ; Rom. xvi. 21), but
accepted nothing from him but
theR lodging. To norte of the
Thessalonians would they be in
debted (1 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Thess. iii.
8), but maintained themselves,

t Several facts indicate this : The good
organisation of the Thessalonian Church
(though this might be partly owing to St.
Timothy's subsequent visit) ; the fact that
St. Paul had time to get regular artisan's
work ; the repeated contributions from
Philippi tli:it reached him there (Phil. iv.
16); the way in which St. Paul speaks of
his habitual conduct among them, and of
what he " used to say " {e.g., 1 Thess. ii. 9,
11; 2 Thess. ii. 5).

232

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

partly by the contributions twice
forwarded to them from PhUippi
(PhR. iv. 16), but chiefly by hard
manual labour, which occupied not
the day only, but extended far into
the night to make up for dayUght
hours devoted to preaching. They
were determined to be model oper
atives (2 Thess. Hi. 9), and not
merely eloquent preachers. And
this was not aR ; besides the work
of pubHc preaching and teaching,
the Apostles foRowed theR usual
method of deaHng individuaUy
with the converts' souls.
The Thessalonian Christians—
" every one " in his turn — thus
received the encouragements and
warnings of theR ghostly fathers
(1 Thess. ii. 11). If the pres
byters whom they left to carry
on this work of admonition con
tinued it with the Apostles' zeal,
they might indeed well be de
scribed as " labouring among
them." The preaching no doubt went on,
not only on the Sabbaths, but on
the week-days j for though the
Acts tell us nothing of evangelistic
efforts among the GentUes, except
among the "devout" (i.e., the pro
selytes), the whole tone of the
Epistles proves that the Thes
salonian Church was almost whoUy
Gentile. Besides which, the account
in the Acts of the subjects of the
three sermons preached on the
three successive Sabbaths does not
by any means include aU that we
find mentioned as the staple of the
Apostles', preaching there. Thus,
it is clear that they had spoken
strongly of the regal aspect of our
Lord's work. The charge on which
they were arraigned was the charge
of proclaiming " another king" (or
emperor, for the word is the same
Ri Greek), " one Jesus." It was,

in fact, the proclamation of what
is speciaUy distinguished as the
" gospel of the kingdom " (Matt.
iv. 23; ix. 35; xiii. 19; xxiv. 14;
Luke viH. 1, Greek ; xvi. 16), that
is, not only the good news of Jesus
Christ's complete empRe over the
individual soul, but the good news
that He has organised us aU into a
weR-disciplined Church (Rev. i. 6,
Greek ; comp. John xi. 52) , whicli
was to form an imperium in im-
perio within the Eoman dominions.
And accordingly we find the Thes
salonians reminded that one of the
best blessings which God had be
stowed upon them was His calling
them into "His kingdom " ( 1 Thess.
H. 12), and encouraged by the
thought of God's counting them
"worthy of the kingdom of God,
for which they suffered " (2 Thess.
i. 5) . The full development of this
"kingdom," at the King's return,
was indeed very probably the main
subject of the preaching. On this
point the Thessalonians appear to
have had the most accurate in
formation (1 Thess. v. 2). St. Paul
assumes that they thoroughly be
heved the doctrine (1 Thess. iv. 14).
They not only knew the very
form in which our Lord Him
self had taught the impossibility
of forecasting the date, but they
had been told again and again
(2 Thess. ii. 5) what changes
must take place before the Advent
of the kingdom was to be expected.
At every turn in the Epistle it
is mentioned. And the moral
laws of the kingdom of God had
been taught in the most explicit
manner (1 Thess. ii. 11), not
only with reference to sins which
the Gentile world permitted freely
(1 Thess. iv. 1, 2), but also with
regard to strenuous industry (2
These. Hi. 6, 10). And as in Galatia

I. THESSALONIANS.

233

(Acts xiv. 22) so here, the sufferings
that fenced the entrance of that
kingdom were fuRy prophesied
(1 Thess. Hi. 3, 4).
This teaching, deHvered with aR
the tenderness of a nursing mother,
and aR the authority of a father,
and aR the devotion of a friend (1
Thess. H. 7, 8, 11), yet sternly and
unflatteringly (1 Thess. ii. 5), told
upon the Thessalonians with great
effect. The Apostles themselves
were in the most exalted and con
fident frame of mind (1 Thess. i. 5),
and their hearers, in spite of many
difficulties (1 Thess. i. 6 ; ii. 2. 14),
received with enthusiasm the in
struction as proceeding from
God and not from man) (1
Thess. H. 13). The difficulties,
however, soon increased. The
Jews grew jealous of the work
going on among the Gentiles, es-
peciaUy among their proselytes
(Acts xvH. 5), and vehemently set
themselves to forbid such preach
ing (1 Thess. H. 16).
The abandoned Greeks who idled
in the market-place were stirred
up to make a riot against these
disturbers of the world, where
upon the Greeks, with the pas
sionate servUity which usuaUy
marked what was called under the
EmpRe a free Greek town,* took
up eagerly the cry that to preach
Jesus as Emperor was treason to
Claudius, and began a prosecution
of Jason before the politarchs,

* The city of Thessalonica had been
made a libera civitas because of the sup
port it had given in the civil wars to the
cause of Octavian and Antony. Such
cities were exempt from the interference
of the provincial government, and had
their own forms of administration. Thes
salonica had her popular assembly, and
for supreme officers certain magistrates
called politarchs— a namo elsewhere un
known.

The prosecution only resulted in
Jason's being bound over to keep
the peace ; but the irritation was
so great that it was judged
expedient for the Apostles to
leave the city and proceed south
ward. From Thessalonica St. Paul
traveUed to Bercsa, from Beroea to
Athens, and from Athens to Cor
inth. But though he had quitted
Thessalonica, he had not forgotten
his infant Church, and had not in
tended to be absent from it long.
Twice at least (1 Thess. ii. 18) he
had seriously endeavoured to make
his way back, " but Satan hindered"
him. The persecution of the Church
had by no means been appeased
(as they had hoped) by the ex
pulsion of the missionaries ; and St.
Paul dreaded lest the temptation
should have been too fiery for
Christians so imperfectly taught
and organised (1 Thess. Hi. 10).
In his extreme agony of mind for
them, unable himself to travel
northward, he determined, at the
cost of utter loneliness in a strange
and most unsympathising town
(Acts xvii. 16 ; 1 Thess. Hi. 1), to
send Timothy to see how they
fared, and to help them. To St.
Paul's great relief, the younger
Apostle brought back, on the
whole, an exceRent report. True,
there were several most grave
faults to be found with the Thessa-
lonian Church, which will be best
understood from the table of the
Epistle's contents, but the practical
St. Paul had evidently not expected
even so much progress as had been
made, and was overjoyed (1 Thess.
Hi. 8). And this Epistle — the
earHest of aU that are preserved of
its author, perhaps the earliest book
of tho New Testament; — contains

234

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

St. Paul's comments on Timothy's
report. The question now occurs, At
what point of the narrative in the
Acts is the writing of this Epistle
to be placed? Was it written at
Athens, or at Corinth? Almost
aU critics agree that it was written
at Corinth.*
The difficulty, it may here be
pointed out, consists in identRying
the return of St. Timothy with his
report (1 Thess. Hi. 6), with the
coming of SUas and Timotheus in
Acts xviH. 5.
The narrative of the Acts seems,
at first sight, to exclude the suppo
sition that Silas or Timothy had
paid a visit to St. Paul between
the time of his leaving Bercea and
the time for theR rejoining him at
Corinth ; while the words of 1
Thess. Hi. 1 — 5 seem as urgently to
requRe that Timothy at aR events
should have been with St. Paul at
Athens. But, on closer inspection,
the Acts prove rather to favour
this supposition ; they teU us that

* The subscription at the end of the
Epistle has no weight whatever, not re
presenting even a tradition, but being
merely an uncritical inference from chap.
iii. 1. The only way in whieh any case
can be made out for the Athenian date is
to suppose that the past tenses in iii. 1, 2,
5, are what is called in Greek the episto
lary aorist, equivalent to our present, as
e.g., where St. Jude (verse 3) says, "I
gave all diligence," " it was needful," or
St. John (1 John ii. 14), " I have written,''
literally, I wrote. Thus it would mean
that Timothy has just obeyed St. Paul's
hasty summons, and arrived at Athens by
way of Thessalonica, as (from Berosa) he
naturally might. "Being no longer able
to forbear, I am determined to be left at
Athens alone, and I send Timothy; I
send to know your faith, lest through the
tempter's temptation of you our labour
should prove in vain." The following
verse will then mean — "Not that I
seriously distrust you ; for the other day
when Timotheus came," &c.

St. Paul sent a peremptory and
immediate summons to his two col
leagues whom he had left in Mace
donia (xvii. 15), which summons
they promptly obeyed, and if so,
would no doubt reach him long
before the meeting at Corinth
mentioned in Acts xviH. 5 ; besides
which, the very words, "whUe
Paul waited for them at Athens,"
seem to imply that they came to
that city. A few other points may
be mentioned which help to fix the
date. On the one hand, the letter
cannot be placed later than the de
parture from Corinth, for we never
read of St. Silas being with St. Paul
after that time. For the same
reason it must have been written
some while before the departure
from Corinth, as the Second Epistle
(which equaRy bears Silvanus'
name) was also written thence.
But on the other hand, it must not
be placed .too early. For (1) the
Thessalonian Church had had time
to extend its missionary zeal over
all Macedonia, and indeed over aU
Greece ; (2) the Jewish persecu
tions had had time to gain crush
ing force and consistency ; (3)
errors and disorders had had time
to spoR the faith and morals of the
community; (4) at any rate, a few
of the believers had Mien asleep,
which, considering the probable
numbers and nature of the mem
bers of that young Church, requRes
a probable lapse of some months.
The contents of the Epistle bear
every sign of an early date. None
of the great doctrines which are
considered speciaUy Pauline are
touched upon init, such as " faith,"
in its special sense, or " justifica
tion." There is no Judaic legahsm
to oppose, as in Galatians ; St.
Paul " can still point to them " 
the churches of Judaaa — "as ex-

I. THESSALONIANS.

235

amples to his converts at Thessa
lonica "_ (chap. H. 14). There is no
Gnosticism to confront, as in the
Epistle to the Colossians or to St.
Timothy. Again, the great promi
nence given to the doctrine of the
Advent seems an indication of what
St. Paul caUs " the beginning of
the gospel" (PhR. iv. 15). The
earHest gospel must needs consist
in teaching that Christ, was aHve
from the dead, and giving each
Christian a vital interest in His
present Hfe, and this cannot be
effected without much preaching of
the Advent.
It has already been remarked
that the Thessalonian Church con
sisted almost whoRy of Gentiles.
This may be easily seen from the
Epistle. There are no quotations
from the Old Testament, nor argu
ments founded upon it. The name
of Satan (1 Thess. ii. 18) is the only-
approach to a reference to Scriptural
knowledge. The earHest revela
tion with which the Church is sup
posed to be acquainted, and which
forms the canonical standard of re
ference, is the tradition which the
Thessalonians have received from
their founders by word of mouth
(2 Thess. H. 5). The Thessalonians
are never credited with any expe
rience Hke " turning from dead
works," but, on the contrary, they
had "turned to God from idols"
(1 Thess. i. 9). The fierce and
bitter invective against the Jews is
far different in its language from
what it would have been had anyr
large proportion of the Church been
but neophytes from Judaism ; and,
indeed, the Jews are clearly
distinguished from " your own
countrymen" (chap. ii. 14). The
difficulty with which the young
Church accepted the doctrine of the
resurrection also points in that

dRection, as weU as the dulness of
conscience with regard to the sin
fulness of fornication (chap. iv. 5).
The Epistle, which is entRely
practical throughout, divides itseR
more clearly into its component
sections than perhaps any other of
St. Paul's Epistles. There are two
main portions. The first (chaps.
i., ii., Hi.) is narrative and personal,
designed to attach the Thessalo
nians more closely to the writers'
persons by the ties of common
memories, of imparted information,
and of sympathy over the news
which had been brought from Thes
salonica. Attention having been
thus secured, the two remaining
chapters are occupied with instruc
tions upon special points in which
the Church was deficient. The
contents (after the salutation) may
be tabulated thus : —
I. The Narrative Portion
(chaps, i. 2 — Ui. 13).
A. Containing reminiscences of
the apostoHc sojourn at Thes
salonica (chaps, i. 2 — H. 16).
(1) Thanksgiving for the dis
play of God's power and
love both in the mission
aries and in the converts
(chap. i. 2—10).
(2) Reminder of the mission
aries' conduct there (chap.
H. 1—12).
(3) Acknowledgment of the
Thessalonians' hearty re
sponse (chap. H. 13 — 16).
B. Containing an account of the
Apostles' (especiaUy St.
Paul's) anxieties and efforts
for the Thessalonians since
they left them (chaps. H.
17— iii. 10).
Then follows a prayer for
them, which connects the
first portion naturaUy with

236

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

the first subject of instruc
tion in —
II. The Educational Portion
(chaps, iv. 1 — v. 28).
(1) The necessity of abstaining
from fornication (chap. iv.
1-8). "
(2) The extension of sober
church feeling (chap. iv.
8—12).
(3) Discussion of certain points
connected with the Ad
vent : —
(a) The respective part there
in of the quick and the
dead (chap. iv. 13 — 18).
(b) The -uncertainty of its
date, and consequent need
of vigilance (chap. v.
1-11).
(4) Duty to the Presbyters
(chap. v. 11 — 13), who
are charged to see that
orderly discipline is en
forced (chap. v. 14, 15).
(5) ATarious spiritual direc
tions, chiefly with regard
to pubHc worship (chap.
v. 16—28).
The genuineness of the Epistle
can scarcely be said to have been
ever seriously doubted. Though
there are no certain patristic quo
tations from it, or allusions to it,
earHer than the end of the second
century, it has passed unchaUenged
(even by Marcion) untU the pre
sent century. Schrader and Baur
in this century have argued against
its Pauline authorship, aHeging the

absence of "Pauline" theology,
contradictions to the account in
Acts, marks of date which they
suppose to be subsequent to the
fall of Jerusalem, &c. But the
internal evidence is so convincing
that even such a sceptical critic as
M. Eenan has no hesitation in ad
mitting both Epistles to the Thes
salonians into his second class of
Epistles, which he caHs " Un
doubted Epistles, although some ob-
jections have been made to them,"
and his words are as follows: —
"The difficulties which certain
modems have raised against them
are but those Hght suspicions which
it is the duty of criticism to express
freely, but without being stopped
by them when there are more
powerful reasons to draw one on.
And these three Epistles (i.e.,
1 and 2 Thess. and Phil.) have a
character of authenticity which
overbears every other considera
tion." The attack upon the
Epistles was renewed in the
Bummer of 1877 by Holsten, in
the German Annual of Protestant
Theology. [The principal works which the
author has made use of are the
Commentaries of Lunemann and
his English follower EUicott, as
weU as those of Hammond and of
Wordsworth, together with such
works as Eenan's and Howson's
accounts of St. Paul, and MS.
notes from lectures of Professor
Lightfoot.]

11. THESSALONIANS.

Br the Eev. Canon MASON, D.D.

We may confidently assert that this
Epistle was written by St. Paul
from Corinth during his residence
there of a year and a haR, within
a few months of the FRst Epistle :
that is, in the year 53. Not only
are aR its main features so like
those of the FRst as to suggest a
very close connection in time, but
it is despatched by the same apos
toHc group — Paul, Silvanus, and
Timotheus ; and, as we have re
marked in the Introduction to the
First Epistle, we have no reason to
beHeve that Silvanus was in St.
Paul's company later than the de
parture from Corinth in 54. It
suits weU with this date that the
Apostle is in fear of certain " mon
strous and depraved persons"
(chap. iii. 2), who may weU be the
Jews who brourht him before
GalHo. The cRcumstances which caUed
forth the Letter were as foUows.
Since the FRst Epistle had been
despatched St. Paul had been able
to receive fresh tidings of the state of
the Thessalonian Church, concern
ing which he was naturaRy anxious,

as it was so young when he had
been forced to leave it to itseR and
to God. The tidings were both
good and bad. On the one hand,
there was marked progress in some
of the points which hadbef ore caused
soHcitude. St. Paul uses enthusi
astic language (chap. i. 3) of the
advance made in faith (comp. 1
Thess. iii. 10), and in individual
brotherly charity (comp. 1 Thess.
iv. 10), and also of their steadfast
ness in persecutions which were
stUl afflicting them (chap. i. 4) —
persecutions in which, apparently,
both the Jews and the GentRes
joined. We may likewise gather,
from the silence of the present
Letter, that St. Paul's instructions
on the state of the departed faithful
had taken good effect : this being,
perhaps, the special increase in
faith mentioned above. We find,
moreover, that there is no further
need of warnings on the subject of
purity or of submission to ecclesi
astical authority. On the other
hand, there were three great faults
to find.
(1) The tendency to disorders

238

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

and idleness, which had been cen
sured both (Hrectly and indRectly
in the former letter, had become
stronger instead of receding. Some
considerable number of the little
Church had become mere " busy-
bodies " — had left off work, expect
ing maintenance at the pubHc ex
pense of the community while they
indulged themselves, probably, in
what seemed more religious pur
suits. (2) We can trace more clearly in
this Epistle than in the former the
doctrinal ground on which such
disorders were justified by those
who were guilty of them. They
had been " shaken from theR
reason," and were stiR ' ' in trepida
tion" (chap. H. 2), Rom a behef
that " the day of the Lord " was
aReady upon them. Panic and
exultation aUke had the effect of
making the Thessalonians think it
not worth while to attend to the
things of a doomed world.
(3) This belief had been, if not
. created, yet confirmed by some
audacious forgeries and fictions
(chap. ii. 2). Even in the First
Epistle St. Paul gives signs of un
easiness, as though he were not
sure of the honesty of some of his
correspondents in their use of his
name and writings (1 Thess. v. 27).
Now it is clear that, in more than
one way, persons (who might be
only haR conscious of theR fraud)
had attempted to impose on theR
brethren. They had pretended to
a dRect inspRation or angelic visi
tation, which had revealed to them
the immediate nearness of the Ad
vent. They had misrepresented
the oral teaching given by St. Paul
during his stay at Thessalonica.
They had, perhaps, wrested the
words of his FRst Epistle, which
had certainly given a colourable

pretext for what they now taught.
More probably still, from the pre
caution given in chap. iii. 17, they
had actually written a letter, or
letters, purporting to be from the
Apostle, in which the doctrine was
definitely taught.
To all these three faults the
writer opposes the authority of
what they knew to have genuinely
proceeded from hiniseH. He has
nothRig to unsay. They are to
"hold fast the traditions" (chap.
H. 15) which, written or unwritten,
were his. (1) He reminds them
not only of his example (as in the
FRst Letter), but of his teaching
leveUed at theR dissipated reHgi-
ousness : ' ' Withdraw yourselves
from every brother that walketh
disorderly, and not after the tradi
tion which they received of us"
(chap. iu. 6); "Even when we
were with you, this we commanded
you, that R any has no mind to
work, neither let him eat" (chap.
iii. 10). (2) He recalls the very
definite instructions which showed
that the end was not by-and-by.
The Eoman empire was still stand
ing, and therefore the Man of Sin
could not be revealed as yet, and
therefore Christ could not be on the
point of coming. "Eemember ye
not, that, when I was yet with you,
I told you these things ? " (chap. ii.
5.) (3) He enforces, against theR
forgeries, his present Letter, even
at the risk of provoking an open
rebeUion : " If any man obey not
our word by this Epistle, note that
man, and have no fellowship with
him" (chap. Hi. 14).
The style of the Epistle (except
in the studied obscurity of the pro
phetic passage) is clear and easy,
Hke that of the First; and the
structure is also very simple, as wUl
be seen from the foUowing analysis,

II. THESSALONIANS.

239

and marked by the same character
istic feature as the First : i.e., the
prayer which leads on from one sec
tion of the Letter to another : —
I. The Salutation (chap. i. 1,
2).
II. The Eetrospective Portion
(chap. i. 3—12).
(a) Thanksgiving for progress
made (chap. i. 3, 4).
(b) Hopes thus afforded against
the Advent Day (chap. i.
-6—10).
(c) Prayer for continuance in
so happy a state (chap. i.
11, 12).
III. The Instructive and Horta
tory Portion (chaps. H. 1 —
in. 18).
(1) On the date of the Advent.
(a) Caution against believing
the Advent close at hand
(chap. H. 1 — 3).
(b) What must happen first
(chap. H. 3—10).
(c) Terrible fate of the apos
tates (chap. ii. 11, 12).
(d) Thanksgiving that the
Thessalonians' fate is so
different (chap. H. 13, 14).
(«) Exhortation and prayer
(chap. H. 15 — 17).
(2) On the necessity of work.
(a) Bequest for prayers for
himseR, which skUfully
serves to predispose the
readers to obey the ensuing
commands (chap. Hi. 1
-*)• .'
(b) Prayer for the same pur
pose (chap. Hi. 5).
(c) Commands to make aR
work, and to excommuni
cate the refractory (chap.
iii. 6—15).

(d) Prayer for tranquiUity
(chap. Hi. 16).
(e) Final benediction, with at
tention drawn to the
autograph (chap. Hi. 17,
18).
The genuineness of this Letter,
like that of the FRst, is practicaRy
uncontroverted. We seem to have
very early testimony to its use —
St. Polycarp appearing in two
places to quote it, though anony
mously, according to his custom;
and St. Justin, speaking of tho
Man of Sin in a manner which
might indeed be explained by say-
Rig that that doctrine was common
to the CathoHc Church, not special
to St. Paul, but which is more
simply referred to this Epistle.
The objections of a few modern
scholars (Baur, Schrader, &c.) are
chiefly drawn from the prophecy
in chap. H., from supposed contra
dictions between this Epistle and
the FRst — especiaUy in regard to
the date of the Advent ; from fan
cied allusions to the persecution of
Nero ; from a mistaken notion that
the doctrine of an Antichrist (which
was in reality pre-Christian) was
only invented by the Montanists.
Doubts have been entertained by
a few critics, who acknowledged
the genuineness of both, which of
these Letters is the earHer in date.
Ewald, the greatest of these critics,
placed the Second Epistle first. It
was, he thought, placed second in
the Canon because, as a rule, the
shorter letters in the Canon foUow
the longer. The arguments, how
ever, which he adduces are scarcely
worth considering, in face of the
fact that in 2 Thess. ii. 15 we have
an aRusion to a former Epistle.
AR the historical portion of tho
First Epistle (especiaRy 1 Thess. H.

240

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

17 ; Hi. 11) bears evident tokens of
being the earliest communication
that had passed between St. Paul
and his spiritual chUdren since he
had left them.
[The chief books consulted by
the author have been those already
mentioned in 1 Thessalonians : —
The Patristic commentaries, partic

ularly St. Chrysostom; Hammond,
Liinemann, EUicott, and others;
and the posthumous edition
(which appeared too late for use
in annotating the first Epistle)
by the Presbyterian Professor
Eadie. His notes are, however,
Httle but a reproduction of Bishop
EUicott's, without theR concentra
tion.!

I. TIMOTHY.
By the Very Eev. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D.

I. Timothy — Timothy was a
native of the province of Lycaonia
in Asia Minor — most probably of
Lystra, a smaU town some thirty
miles to the south of Iconium, the
modern Konieh. His father was a
pagan, but his mother and grand
mother, Lois and Eunice, were
Jewesses, evidently devout and
earnest in the practice of the re
ligion of theR forefathers. They
became Christians, apparently, at
the time of St. Paul's first visit to
Asia Minor in company with Bar
nabas (a.d. 46), (Acts xiv. : 2 Tim.
i. 5; Hi. 15).
From Lois and Eunice Timothy
no doubt learned the rudiments of
the faith of the Lord Jesus. Some
five years later, in company with
Silas (a.d. 51), St. Paul paid a
second visit to Asia Minor. Moved
probably by the devotion and earn
estness of the young son of Eunice,
and seeing in him the promise of a
loving and heroic Hfe, St. Paul took
Timothy in the place of Mark,
whose heart had failed him in the
presence of so many difficulties and
dangers. From this time (a.d. 51)
Timothy's Hfe was closely associated
with that of his master.
He was with the Gentile Apostle
in Macedonia and Corinth (a.d.
52 — 53), (Acts xvii. 14 ; xviii. 5 ;
1 Thess. i. 1) ; with him at Ephe
sus, whence he was sent on a special
mission to Corinth (a.d. 55 — 56),
(1 Cor. iv. 17 ; xvi. 10) ; with him
when ho wrote from Macedonia the
Second Corinthian Letter (2 Cor. i.

1) ; with him at Corinth when he
wrote to the Eoman Cliurch (a.d.
57), (Rom. xvi. 21) ; with him when
he was returning to Asia, where he
was arrested prior to the long cap
tivity at Caesarea and Rome (a.d.
57—58), (Acts xx. 4), We find
him again specially mentioned as
the Apostle's companion during
that long Roman imprisonment
(a.d. 61—63). (See the Epistles
written at that period — Col. i. 1 ;
PhRem. verse 1 ; PhU. i. 1.)
After the Apostle's release from
his first great captivity (a.d. 63),
(see General Introduction to the Pas
toral Epistles), Timothy, stUl St.
Paul's companion (1 Tim. i. 3), was
left in charge of the Ephesian
Church (probably about a.d. 64).
While fulfilling this work he re
ceived the two Epistles of St. Paul
(a.d. 64 — 65) which bear his name.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xiH.
23) Timothy is aUuded to as having
been imprisoned and again Hbe-
rated. This soUtary notice, how
ever, throws but little hght on the
Hfe of the Apostle's famous dis
ciple, except that it seems to tell us
that the pupU's life was full of
hardship and danger, as was the
master's, and that the younger man
had weU learned the lesson of St.
Paul, who bade him with his dying
breath (2 Tim. ii. 3) " endure hard
ness as a good soldier of Jesus
Christ." Nicephorus and the ancient mar-
tyrologies teU us that Timothy died
by martyrdom under the Emperor

16

242

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

Dsmitian some time before a.d. 96.
Baronius, however, puts his martyr-
death a little later — a.d. 109 — when
the Emperor Trajan was reigning.
The accompanying table wiU
assist the reader in foUowing the
Hfe of Timothy : —

Roman

A.D.

Emperor
Eeigning.

— .

48

Claudius.

First meeting
between Paul
and Timothy,
still a child, at
Lystra — prob
ably in the
house of Eunice
and Lois.

51

Paul and Silas
take Timothy
with them from
Lystra.

52

Timothy accom
panies Paul in
hi s j ourney
through Mace
donia.
53
Timothy is with
Paul at Corinth.
54—56
Nero.
Timothy is with
Paul at Ephe
sus.
57
Timothy is with
Paul at Corinth.
Paul writes
Epistle to Bo-
mans.
68
Timothy is with
Paul in the
journey from
Corinth to Asia.
62—63
Timothy is with
Paul during the
Roman impri
sonment.
64
Paul leaves Tim
othy at Ephe
sus.
65-66
Timothy receives
the two Epistles
from Paul.
Not later
) Domi- (
j" tian. \
Alleged- martyr
than 96.
dom of Timothy
Or, ac
s
cording to
Baronius,
> Trajan.
Alleged martyr
dom.
109
J
II. Date of the Epistle.—
The FRst Epistle to Timothy was
written apparently in the year 65 —
66, whUe the Apostle was passing
through Macedonia, after a prob
able journey into Spain and a return
to Ephesus, at which city he had
left Timothy in charge of the
Church. III. General Contents of
the Epistle  No systematic ar
rangement is followed in this
Epistle. Its contents may be
roughly divided into six general
divisions, coinciding with the six
chapters : —
1. — St. Paul reminds Timothy of
his especial commission at
Ephesus — the repression of
a school of false teachers
which threatened to subvert
the Church.
This leads to a brief re
view of the Apostle's own
past history (chap. i.).
2. — The second division is occupied
with directions respecting
the public worship of Chris
tians, and the parts which
each sex Bhould take in
public prayer (chap. H.).
3. — Treats of the office-bearers in
the Church — bishops (or,
elders), deacons, and dea
conesses (chap. iii.).
4. — Again St. Paul refers to
Timothy's commission in
respect to false teachers.
He dweUs upon the decep
tive teaching of asceticism,
showing the dangers which
accompanied such doctrine.
The practical godly hfe of
Timothy and his staff would,
after all, be the best anti
dote to the poison dissemi
nated by these unreal, un
true men (chap. iv.).
I. TIMOTHY.

243

5. — Treats (a) of the behaviour of
the Church officials to the
flock of Christ; (b) of the
pubHc charities of the Church
in connection with destitute
and helpless women ; (c) of
a certain order of presbyteral
or elder widows, which, in
connection with these chari
ties, might be developed in
such a Christian community
as Ephesus; (d) rules for
Timothy, as chief presbyter,
respecting ordination and
selection of coUeagues in the
ministry, &c. (chap. v.).
6. — A few plain comments on the
great social question of
slavery. How Christian
slaves were to behave in
their condition. The false
teachers must be sternly
combated in their teaching
on this point. Timothy is
warned with solemn earnest
ness against covetousness.
This, St. Paul argues, was
the root of aU false teaching
(chap, vi.)

One golden thread seems to run
through this, and, it may be said,
through the other two Pastoral
Letters. St. Paul's earnestness in
these last days of his life seems
rather to expend itself in exhorta
tions to Christian men and women
to live a good, pure, self-denying
life. Doctrine, in these last words
of the noble, generous toiler for
the Lord, retreats a little into the
background. It is true that he
reiterates in several places the
grounds of a Christian's belief —
that he rehearses in plain and
evidently well-known phrases the
great articles of the Christian faith ;
but his last words dwell rather on
life than on theology. The errors
of the false teachers whose deadly
influence Timothy was to counter
act belonged rather to an evil life
than to a false behef. The pure and
saintly conduct, the pattern home
life — these things, Timothy and his
coUeagues must remember, were the
surest antidote against the poison
ous teaching and the selfish practice
of the enemies of the Lord Jesus.

II. TIMOTHY.

Bt tue Vert Eev. H. D. H. SPENCE, D.D.

I. Contents ofthe Epistle.—
Like the First Epistle, the Second
Letter presents no regular plan.
1. — It commences with expression
of deep love to Timothy
(chap. i. 1 — 5) ;
2. — And then passes on to exhort
ation to a fearless and faith
ful discharge of his duties
(chap. i. 6— 14).
3. — These exhortations are inter
rupted by the Apostle's
memory of many faithless
ones, and of one faithful
friend (chap. i. 15 — 18).
4. — The Apostle renews his exhor
tations to Timothy to a
brave endurance, even if
suffering come on him. He
teUs his disciple Timothy
what has nerved him, Paul,
to endure to the end. Then
he renews his pleading, that
Timothy should be careful
in guarding against a reli
gion of mere words — in
stancing what such a teach
ing might end in (chap. R.
1—26).
5. — Again St. Paul interrupts his
exhort ition by writing down
his sad forebodings of evU
times (chap. Hi. 1 — 9).
C. — Then he encourages his dis
ciple, by recounting his own

suffering and deHverances.
Timothy too must Buffer,
only let him remain stead
fast in the faith (chap. Hi.
10—17).
7. — The Apostle closes with a
solemn command that his
disciple should teach earn
estly, for he, the old master,
was at the end of his course.
He would, R possible, see
his dear friend once more,
so he prays him to come
speedily, weU nigh all
having deserted him. He
ends with a touching remi
niscence of his first trial in
the Roman court of justice,
and with a few greetings
(chap. iv. 1—22).
This second Epistle to Timothy
has been weU termed the "will or
testament" of the master, addressed
to his favourite disciple, and con
taining his last wishes, written as it
was under the shadow of approach
ing death. It is fuR of Hght and
shade ; the tone of the exhortation,
the warning and the encourage
ment constantly changing. Now
the words are sad with a strange
parting solemnity, now bright with
the glorious sunshine of the Apos
tle's immortal hopes. Yet in every
Hne of this most touching of aU

H. TIMOTHY.

245

the PauHne writings we cannot
faR to perceive something of the
gloom which, owing to desertion
of so many friends, had saddened
that gaRant, loving heart of St.
Paul. He was weR-nigh quite alone,
almost friendless in the midst of
mortal foes, an old man, worn out
with toU, weakened by illness and
privation, expecting a death of
agony ; and yet in spite of his sur
roundings, in spite of his own
seeming failure, in spite of his own
baffled hopes, he writes to his best-
loved disciple in sure confidence,
that he, Timothy, wiR war the
same warfare as his master Paul
had warred; that he, Timothy,
though by nature perhaps timid
and shrinking, wiU, undeterred by
dangers, sufferings, and the sad
prospect of a painful death, bravely
cany on the work he has seen his
master do, and for the sake of which
he has seen his master die. He
writes to him in sure confidence
that the teaching respecting the
mystery of the atoning blood, the
doctrine of Christ, and the Hfe Hved
by Christ, the sum of the sacred
deposit of the Catholic Faith com
mitted to his charge, would be pre
served intact and safe by him, and
by him then handed down, when
his Hfe-work was done, to other
faithful hands.
The Epistle, though ringing with
a ring of hope, yet paints the future
of the Church in sombre colours.
The enemies would increase, and

the. love of many would wax cold,
and in coming years the man of
God would be exposed to persecu
tion, hatred, and to cruel suffering :
and yet though aR this is found in
this strangely touching Httle writ
ing, no one who has read these
dying words of St. Paul can lay
the Letter down without a prayer
of thanksgiving for this Epistle of
immortal hope.
II. Date ofthe Epistle  Tho
Second Epistle to Timothy was
written by St. Paul from Rome
during his second imprisonment in
that city, about the year a.d. 66.
We may suppose that shortly after
the writing of the First Epistle to
Timothy the Apostle had been ar
rested at NicopoHs, " the city of
victory," in Epirus (see Titus iii.
12), probably on the capital charge
of being connected with the burning
of Rome (a.e. 64), and after a short
delay had been conveyed to Italy.
The words of chap. iv. 16 refer to
the first hearing of his cause, either
by Nero himself, or, more probably,
by the infamous TigeRinus, the
Prastorian Prefect. It was no doubt
shortly after this first hearing, that
St. Paul, feeling that the end for
him was at hand, wrote this Second
Epistle to Timothy. The exact
date of the martyr's passing to his
rest is unJoiown. The last hour
probably came before he looked for
it, for, notwithstanding the urgent
summons, no tradition speaks of
Timothy again looldng on the face
of his beloved master.

TITUS.
Bt the Vert Rev. H. D. H. SPENCE, D.D.

I. Titus. — Among the early
Christian leaders of the school of
Paul, Titus, to whom one of the
three Pastoral Epistles of the Gen
tile Apostle was addressed, must
have occupied a prominent position.
For some unknown reason his name
never occurs in the Acts (save,
perhaps, in the doubtful reference,
Acts xviii. 7, on which see below) ;
but from a few scattered notices in
the Epistles of St. Paul we are
able to gather some notion of the
work and influence of this distin
guished and able teacher of the
first days.
The silence of St. Luke in the
Acts with reference to one who
evidently played so important a
part in the days when the founda
tions of the Christian Church were
being laid, has been the subject of
much inquiry. Attempts have been
made, but with Httle success, to
identify Titus with one or other of
the characters prominent in the
Acts story — with Luke himseR, for
instance, or Silvanus (Silas). The
only possible identification, how
ever, is with the " Justus " of Acts
xviii. 7, to which name, in some of
the older authorities, the name
" Titus " is prefixed. The circum
stances, as far as we know them,
connected with Justus would fit in
with this identification. This Justus
was, like Titus, closely connected
with Corinth; and like Titus, too,

was an uncircumcised GentUe, at
tending the Jewish services as a
proselyte of the gate. That these
two were identical is possible, but
nothing more.
Titus was of GentUe parentage,
and probably a native of Antioch
— the great centre of that early
Gentile Christianity of which St.
Paul was the first teacher, and,
under the Holy Ghost, the founder.
Some time before a.d. 50 — 51 the
master and scholar had come to
gether. In that year he accompa
nied Barnabas and St. Paul to the
councR of Apostles and elders
which was convened at Jerusalem
to consider the question of the
general obligations of the Mosaic
law. The result was the draw
ing up of the charter of Gen
tile freedom from aL the re
straints of the Jewish la>v. (bee
Acts xv.; Gal. ii. 1 — 3.) From
this time (a.d. 50 — 51) the glad
tidings that Christ was indeed a
Light to tha Gentiles (Isa. xlix. 6)
spread through Asia, North Africa,
and Europe with a strange and
marveUous rapidity. There is no
doubt, from the scattered notices in
the Epistles of St. Paul, that Titus
was one of the most active agents
in the promulgation of the gospel
story among the peoples that had
hitherto sat in darkness and in the
shadow of death.
The foUowing table wiU give

TITUS.

247

some idea of Titus' connection with
St. Paul :—

Date.

Before A.D.
50—51

50-51

54-55

56

E7

65—66
66-ffT

Emperor of Rome.

Claudius.

Nero.

Titus meets with and
is instructed by St.
Paul at Antioch in
the faith. (Comp.
Tit. i. 4 : "My own
son in the faith."
Titus accompanies St.
Paul and Barnabas
to the council of
Apostles and elders
at Jerusalem (Acts
xv. ; Gal. ii. 1).
Probably with St. Paul
during part 'of his
second missionary
journey. He is evi
dently well known
to the Galatians,
from the familiar
reference to him in
the Epistle to that
Church. Perhaps he
is alluded to in Gal.
iii. 5.
With St. Paul at
Ephesus. Thence
sent on a special
mission to Corinth,
probably bearer of
the First Epistle to
the Corinthians (2
Cor. xii. 18).
With St. Paul in Mace
donia (2 Cor. vii. 6
—15), and perhaps
with St. Paul at
Corinth, if identical
with Justus, accord
ing to the reading of
some of the older
authorities.
Titus is superintend
ing presbyter in
Crete.
At Rome with St.
Paul ; thence sent
to Dalmatia (2 Tim.
iv. 10).
[Tradition speaks of
Titus as returning
from Dalmatia to
Crete, where he died
in extreme old age
as Archbishop of
Gortyna.J

Titus, as we have seen, was a
Gentile — was the one chosen by the
great Apostle in very early days as
the example of Christian freedom
from Jewish rites and customs. At
first the pupU, then the friend of
St. Paul, we find him, in the brief
notices in the Epistles, evidently
occupying a position quite inde
pendent of, and in no wise subject
to, his old master. He is St. Paul's
"brother," "companion," "feUow-
labourer" (2 Cor. vHi. 22, 23) ; St.
Paul's trusted and honoured friend.
His missions of investigation and
love, his arrangements for the
famous collection for the poor
saints at Jerusalem, were appa
rently undertaken spontaneously,
rather than by the direction of a
superior and elder officer of the
Church. (See, for instance, 2 Cor.
viii. 6, 16, 17.) Now the Acts is
confessedly a very early writing,
and must have been put forth not
later than a.d. 62 — 63 ; would it
not be very probable that, in such
a work, so prominent a Gentile,
who had publicly, with St. Paul's
consent, held himseR free from aR
Jewish restraints, and by his pro
minent example preached the per
fect equality of the Gentiles in the
kingdom of God — would it not be
very probable that in the Acts the
name and work of such a person
would be omitted ? The fierce hos
tility of a large section of the
Jewish race to St. Paul on account
of this very teaching of equality is
weU known ; it probably compassed
in the end his death. The gentle,
loving spirit of St. Luke, whUe
telling the story of the foundation
of the Christian Church with scru
pulous accuracy, would be likely to
avoid such passages of the early
history which would tend to aHen-
ate any. (He never, for instance,

248

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

hints at such scenes as the, Galatian
Epistle, chap. R, relates so graphi-
caUy.) Tliis same spirit, which
ever sought to win rather than to
alienate, induced him, perhaps, to
. avoid the mention of the famous
GentUe leader Titus at a period
when the fierce hostiUty of the
Christians of the Circumcision was
endeavouring to compass the faU of
St. Paul, and the disruption of the
school of GentUe Christianity.
Tlie Holy Spirit loves to work,
we know, by purely human in
struments — now by the tender
concRiatory pen of a Luke — now
by the fiery zeal of a PaiU, which
refuses to recognise danger, or to ac
knowledge the possibihty of failure.
Later on, the appointment of the
brilHant]and successful Gentile or
ganiser to the chief superintendence
of the churches of Crete was one
of singular fitness. "There was,"
as it has been weU said, "a strange
blending of races and religions "
in the island which boasted the pos
session of the birthplace of Zeus
(Jupiter), and rejoiced in the vUe
mysteries practised in the worship
of Dionysus (Bacchus). There
were many Jews, we know, at Crete,
but the Gentile population, of
course, far outnumbered them. The
congregation seem to have been
numerous and fuU of life, but dis
organised and troubled with dis
order, misrule, and even dishonoured
with many an excess utterly at
variance with theR Christian pro
fession. Who so fitted to restore
order and to enforce a sterner rule
in such communities as the friend
of St. Paul, who had worked
aReady so great a work among the
turbulent and licentious Christians
of Corinth, and had persuaded by
his marveUous skUl so many Gen
tile congregations to unite in help

ing with a generous liberality
the pressing needs of their proud
and haughty Jewish brethren
who had treated them with dis
dain? After the year a.d. 65 — 66 the
story of Titus is uncertain. We
know he rejoined the Apostle at
Rome, and left him again for Dal
matia (2 Tim. iv. 10).
Then traditionary recoUections
which Hngered in Crete tell us how
he returned from Dalmatia to the
island, where he worked long and
presided over the churches, and died
at an advanced age. The church
of Megalo-Castron, in the north of
the island, was dedicated to him.
In the Middle Ages, his name was
stiU revered, and his memory hon
oured. The name of Titus was the
watchword of the Cretans when
they fought against the Venetians,
who came under the standard of St.
Mark. The Venetians themselves,
when here, seem to have transferred
to him part of that respect which
elsewhere would probably have
been manifested for St. Mark alone.
During the celebration of several
great festivals of the Church the
response of the Latin clergy of
Crete, after the prayer for the Doge
of Venice, was, Sancte Marcc tu
nos adjuva ; but after that for the
Duke of Candia, Sancte Tite tu nos
adjuva (Pashley's Travels in Crete,
quoted by Conybeare and Howson,
St. Paul).
II. Contents of the Epistle,
— After a formal salutation and
greeting St. Paul reminds Titus of
his special work in Crete, viz., that
the government of the various
churches must be properly organ
ised — a body of elders, or presby
ters, must be ordained and set over
the congregation. The qualifica-

TITUS.

249

tions of these officers are then de-
taRed. They are for the most part
of a moral nature ; but these elders
must also possess the power neces
sary for teaching and influencing
such a people as were the Cretans
(chap. i. 1 — 16). St. Paul passes
on to the special kind of' in
struction Titus and the elders
must impart to men and women
of varied ages, sexes, and ranks in
the Cretan churches — to aged men,
to aged women, to the young of
both sexes, to slaves — and then pro
ceeds to show the Teason why such
instruction must be given. God's
grace, he says, has appeared in the
work of redemption, brineRier sal

vation to aR — old or young, free or
slaves '(chap. ii. 1 — 15). St. Paul
now points out to Titus how the
Christian community must conduct
themselves towards the heathen
world. There must be no thought
of rebelHon among the worshippers
of the Lord Jesus. Again he en
forces these solemn admonitions by
an appeal to the loftiest Christian
truths. He closes his Letter by re
minding his friend that this prac
tical teaching, based on gospel
truth, must be the standard of in
struction ; no time must be wasted
on useless theological questions. A
few personal requests are added
(chap. Hi. 1 — 15).

PHILEMON.

By the Eioht Eev. ALFRED BARRY, D.D.

I. The Date, Place, and
Occasion of the Epistle. —
These are aR perfectly clear. The
Epistle is of the same date as the
Epistle to the Colossians, sent by
Onesimus, who was one of the
bearers of that Epistle (Col. iv. 9) ;
dwelling emphaticaHy on St. Paul's
imprisonment (verses 1, 9), lookmg
forward confidently to a speedy re
lease and a return to Asia (verse
22). Even the salutations, with
one exception, are the same in both
(verses 23, 24, comp. with Col. iv.
10 — 14). It is written to intercede
with Philemon for Onesimus, his
slave — formerly " unprofitable," a
runaway, and probably a thief,
but now converted to a new Hfe by
St. Paul at Rome, and after his
conversion becoming at once "pro
fitable " to St. Paul for ministration
in his captivity, and Hkely to be
profitable also to his old master, to
whom, accordingly, St. Paul sends
him back, with this letter of inter
cession. II. The Persons to whom it
is addressed  AU we know of
Philemon is gathered from this
Epistle. It is nowhere actually said
he was a Colossian ; but this is in
ferred from the fact that Onesimus,
his slave, is described as of CoIosssb

(Col. iv. 9). It is clear that he
was St. Paul's convert ; but, as the
Apostle had not visited Colossie
(Col. ii. 1), we may probably con
jecture that he had been brought
under his influence during his long
stay at Ephesus. Possibly, Hke
Epaphras (Col. i. 7), he had been,
under St. Paul's auspices, an evan-
geHst of his native place. For he
is evidently a man of mark ; " the
Church" gathers " in his house ; "
he is able, by his love, " to refresh
the hearts of the saints," probably
by temporal as weU as spiritual
gifts ; to him St. Paul entrusts the
charge of preparing a lodging for
his hoped-for visit, and describes
that visit as " being granted,"
" through his prayers," to him and
his. We note also that the Apostle
treats him as almost an equal — as
a"brother" (not "a son"), as "a
feUow-labourer," and as a "part
ner." This last phrase — used distinc
tively, and without any words of
Hmitation to some particular work
— is unique. It occurs in close
connection with the promise on St.
Paul's part to take upon himself
the pecuniary responsibiHty of any
default of Onesimus — a promise
emphasised by the writing of a bond
of obligation in legal form. Ac-

PHILEMON.

251

cordingly, it has been supposed that
Philemon was St. Paul's partner in
the "tent-making" by which he
maintained himself with Aquila and
PrisciUa — first, certainly, at Corinth
(Acts xviH. 3), and afterwards, as
it appears (Actsxx. 35), at Ephesus ;
that he may have still had in his
hands some of the money earned by
that common labour, and that from
this St. Paul offers to discharge
the obligation taken upon himself
for Onesimus. The supposition is
ingenious, and certainly quite pos
sible ; but it revolts against all our
conceptions of St. Paul's character
to suppose that he would work be
yond what was actuaRy necessary
for maintenance, so as to accumulate
money, and keep a regular debtor
and creditor account wilh Philemon.
Nor is it easy to see why, if this
was so, he should have so urgently
needed in prison the supplies sent
from Philippi (PhU. iv. 10 — 13).
Accordingly, it seems better to
refer the "partnership" or com
munion " (see verse 6 of the Epistle)
principaUy, R not exclusively, to
some united work of evangeHsation
or beneficence (possibly devised
during the common labour at
Ephesus) for the Churches of Asia,
and especially for the Church of
Colossae. Ecclesiastical tradition,
as usual, makes Philemon the
Bishop of Colossae in the hereafter.
Of Apphia we know nothing,
except that tradition, and the style
in which the Epistle mentions her,
both support the idea that she was
Philemon's wRe. Archippus, a
minister of the Church, either of
Colossoe or of Laodicea (see Col.
iv. 7), is on the same ground sup
posed to have been his son. The
tone of the whole Epistle gives the
impression of some wealth and dig
nity in the family, nobly used for

the relief of necessity and the knit
ting closer ofthe bonds of Christian
unity. III. The Genuineness of the
Epistle. — It is notable that, un
like the other two personal Epistles
— the Second and the Third of St.
John, if, indeed, the Second be
reaUy personal — this Epistle found
its place in all catalogues, from the
Muratorian Canon downwards, and
in aU the ancient versions. We
might have supposed that, in re
spect of such reception, it would
have suffered from the improba-
biHty of any pubiic reading in the
Church, from the want of adapta
bility to theological or ecclesiastical
uses, and from the idea which
seems to have prevailed — which is
noticed by St. Chrysostom on the
Epistle, and which St. Jerome in
his preface to the Epistle (vol. vii.,
p. 742, ed. VaUarsH, 1737) refutes
with his usual strong sense and
trenchancy — that the occasion and
the substance of the Epistle were
too low for the ApostoHc inspira
tion. "They will have it," St.
Jerome says, "either that the
Epistle which is addressed to Phile
mon is not St. Paul's, or that, even
R it be his, it has nothing in it
tending to our edification ; and that
by many of the ancients it was re
jected, since it was written for the
purpose merely of commendation,
not of instruction." But this kind
of criticism did not prevail against
the common acceptance of its
authenticity. Even Marcion did
not tamper with it, as TertuUian
(adv. Marc. v. 42) and St. Jerome
expressly declare. Origen, the
great critic of the East, as St.
Jerome of the West, quotes it with
out hesitation. In the Church
generaUy it remained unshaken as

252

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

one of the Epistles accepted by
all. In the larger criticism of modern
times the very reasons which in
duced doubt in the fourth and fifth
centuries will be accepted as the
strongest internal evidence of its
genuineness. The utter impro
bability of the forging of such an
Epistle, which admits of no contro
versial or directly theological use,
the exquisite beauty and natural
ness of the whole style, even the
vivid pi ture which it gives of an
ancient Christian family — aU have
been felt to preclude any except
the most wanton scepticism as to
its genuineness. It is hard to con
ceive how any one can read it with
out feehng that we have in it a
picture of the Apostle of the Gen
tiles, which we could ill afford to
lose, but which no hand, except his
own, would have ever ventured to
paint. IV. The Substance of the
Epistle. — The great interest of
this Epistle is two-fold — (1) in its
personal relation to St. Paul's Hfe
and character, and (2) in the Ught
which it throws on the attitude of
the gospel towards slavery.
(1) It is the only strictly private
Letter of St. Paul — the one sur
vivor, we may suppose, of very
many — preserved to us in the
Canon of Holy Scripture. For aU
the other Epistles are either Letters
to the Churches, or Pastoral Epis
tles of authoritative direction. Ac
cordingly it exhibits the Apostle in
a new Hght. He throws oft, as far
as possible, his ApostoHc dignity,
and his fatherly authority over his
converts. He speaks simply as
Christian to Christian. He speaks,
therefore, with that pecuhar grace
of humility and courtesy, which

has, under the reign of Christi
anity, developed the spRit of
chivalry, and what is caUed "the
character of a gentleman" — cer
tainly very Httle known in the old
Greek and Roman civiHsations —
while yet in its graceful flexibility
and vivacity it stands contrasted
with the more impassive Oriental
stateliness. It has been customary
and natural to compare with it a
celebrated letter of the younger
Pliny on a like occasion (Ep. ix.
21, quoted in Dr. Lightfoot's In
troduction). But in PHny himseR
there was a tone of feeling differ
ing very much from the more an
cient Roman character, approach
ing more nearly to the modern
type. It would be curious to in
quire whether, in this tone of cha
racter, as in the actual tenets of the
later stoicism, there might not bo
some unknown and indirect influ
ence of the Christianity which as
yet would have been probably de
spised. Nor will the comparison
for a moment place even the highly
accomplished and cultivated Roman
on a level with the Jewish tent-
maker of Tarsus.
There is to us a vivid interest in
the glimpse thus given into the
private and personal life of St.
Paul. We note, for example, the
difference of tone — the greater
pathos and the less unqualified re
joicing — in which he speaks of his
captivity. We observe the glad
ness with which, when he rightly
may, he throws off the isolation of
authority, and descends into the
familiarity of equal intercourse,
lingering with an obvious deHght
in the very word "brother,"
which breathes the very spRit of
freedom and equality. We see
how, under the ApostoHc mission,
as under the Apostolic inspiration,

PHILEMON.

253

free play of personal character
and of familiar companionship
could stiR live and flourish. We
seem to know St. Paul better, even
as an Apostle, because we are
aRowed to see him when he chooses
not to be an Apostle, but a
" partner," and, moreover, " such
an one as Paul the aged, and the
prisoner of Jesus Christ." But,
even beyond this, we may fairly
draw from this Epistle a priceless
lesson as to the place which true
courtesy and delicacy occupy in
Christian character, and especiaUy
as to theR entire compatibility
with high Apostolic enthusiasm,
with a keen insight into reaHties
as distinct from forms, and with
the greatest possible plainness of
speech in due season. We feel, as
we read, how Httle it accords with
the idea that Christian men and
Christian ministers " have nothing
to do with being gentlemen." We
understand how true courtesy, as
distinct from artificial and technical
culture of manners, is the natural
outgrowth of the " lowHness of
mind " in which " each esteems
other better than himself," and of
the sympathy of love which
"looks not only upon our own
things," but, even in greaterdegree,
" upon the things of others."
(2) But of far greater interest
stiR is the iUustration of the atti
tude assumed in theNew Testament,
and in the early Church, towards the
monstrous institution of slavery.
How deeply that institution of
slavery was engrained in all the
history of antiquity, both Eastern
and Western, we know weR. Nor
wHl this surprise any one who re
members that inequaHty — physical,
mental, and spRitual — is, quite as
truly as equaRty, the law of human
Hfe. Service and lordship, in some

sense, there must always be ; and it
is absurd to deny that this law is,
because we wish that it were not, or
perhaps think that it ought not to
be. But equality is the law of the
primary qualities and rights of
nature ; inequality only of the
secondary qualities and rights. If
this relation be reversed in prac
tice, we pass from what is natural
to that which, however frequent,
is yet fatally unnatural. Slavery is
just such a reversal. Because one
race is stronger, abler, more com
manding, more civilised than
another, this is made a ground for
crushing out, in the weaker race,
aU the essential attributes of hu
manity. Primarily by the unna
tural agency of war, secondarily by
systematised organisation in peace,
the slave is made to cease to be a
man : he is treated simply as a
brute beast of somewhat higher
organisation and usefulness than
his fellows, or even " as a Hving
chattel or machine " — having no
rights whatever, except those which
humanity may teach towards the
lower creatures, or expediency en
force in relation to the machinery
of the prosperity and progress of
the master. Since, in some sense,
freedom of action and cultivation
bring out natural inequalities more
and more strikingly, slavery, in the
absence of some counterbalancing
power, rather advanced than re
ceded with the progress of heathen
civilisation. Under the Roman
Empire, depending mainly on or
ganised force rather than on intel
lectual cultivation, it presented this
characteristic and intolerable in
congruity, that it held in bondage
men at least as noble in race as their
conquerors, men even more highly
cultivated, and heRs of more an
cient civilisations.

254

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

That the Old Testament should
recognise the existence of slavery,
especiaUy in inferior and degraded
races, was only to be expected.
That slavery under the patriarchal
simpHcity should have been lighter
than under the higher civiHsation
of the nation of Israel, though at
first sight startling, is yet, on more
careful thought, seen to be natural.
That the Mosaic law Bhould at
tempt only to mitigate the irre
sponsible despotism of the master,
and that in this respect it should
make a marked distinction between
the IsraeHte and the foreigner, is
thoroughly accordant with our
Lord's declaration, that it was
made " for the hardness of men's
hearts," and with the exclusiveness
of privilege which it claimed in aU
things for the chosen race. Slavery,
accordingly, continued in the
Jewish people, though — thanks to
those mitigations of the Law, to
the protest against oppression and
cruelty so familiar to us in pro
phecy, and to the very influence of
a spiritual religion, wherever this
was reaUy accepted — it was actually
very far mUdcr than under Greece
or Rome. Still it did exist. Nor
will this surprise those who have
duly weighed — what advocates and
opponents of slavery, in deaHng
with the Old Testament, have con
stantly failed to weigh — the essen
tiaUy imperfect and preparatory
character ofthe Jewish covenant.
But what line would Christianity
take ? Nothing, of course, could be
clearer than that it was radicaUy
opposed in principle to the whole
conception and practice of slavery.
For it brought out the fundamental
equaUty or brotherhood of all, in
the regenerate human nature, in
which "there was neither Jew nor
Greek, barbarian, Scythian, bond

nor free.'' It devoted itseR with a
very special earnestness to redress
aU . existing inequalities, by exalt
ing the humbie, by glorifying
weakness, by restraining the self-
assertion of strength. Above aU,
it consecrated that brotherhood in
Jesus Christ ; its whole conception
of the spiritual IRe consisted in the
union of each individual soul with
God in Christ, so giving to indi
viduality a sacredness utterly in
compatible with the very possibihty
of absolute despotism of one Chris
tian man over another. But of
carrying out the principle there
were two ways. One was, so to
speak, " of law," embodying it at
once in a declaration of freedom,
abrogating all slavery within the
Christian Church, protesting against
it, as against aU moral- evils, in tho
world at large. The other was " of
the Spirit," proclaiming the great
truth of brotherhood in Christ and
sonship of God, and then leaving it
graduaUy to mould to itself aU in
stitutions of society, and to eradi
cate whatever in them was against
God's fundamental law, reasserted
in the word of Jesus Christ. Now
of these two ways it is not hard to
see that to adopt the former way
would have been to revolutionise
suddenly the whole of society, to
preach (though unwillingly) a
servile war, and to arm aU existing
governments by the very instinct
of self-preservation against the
infant Church, which, even as it
was, excited their suspicion and
alarm. Independently of aU
thought of consequences, we could
not but anticipate that by its very
nature Christianity would take the
way of the Spirit, rather than the
Law. But there can be no doubt
that, historicaRy, this was the way
which it did take without hesita-

PHILEMON.

265

tion or reserve. The principle
laid down broadly by St. Paul (1
Cor. vii. 20 — 24) was that " every
man should abide " in the outward
condition "in which he was
caUed," only " with God," in the
new spiritual unity with God sealed
to him in the blood of Jesus Christ.
He apphed that principle to the
cases of cRcumcision and uncir
cumcision, marriage and celibacy ;
be did not shrink from applying it
for the Christian community to
the case of submission to " the
powers that be," even to death,
arid for the individual to the crucial
and extreme case of slavery and
freedom. However we may interpret the
Apostle's words in 1 Cor. vii. 21,
they clearly imply that to one who
is at once " the Lord's freeman" and
" Christ's slave " the outward con
dition matters comparatively Httle.
It may be that in this case, as in
the case of marriage, St. Paul was
partly influenced by the considera
tion that "the time was short."
Yet his teaching reaUy depended,
not on this expectation, but on the
fundamental principle and method
of Christianity. The declaration,
"Not now a slave, but a brother "
a " brother beloved," and " a
brother beloved in the Lord,"
brought the forces of human duty
and human affection, under the in
spiration of religious faith, to bear
on the prison-house of slavery.
Deeply founded as its waHs were,
and cemented by the use of cen
turies, they could not but faR
under the combined attack of these
three Rresistible powers.
Meanwhile the gospel set itself
to two immediate works. First, to
raise the seR-respect of the slave,
to comfort his sorrow, to nerve him
to bear the hardships of his cruel

lot. This it did sometimes by
glorifying suffering, in the bold
declaration to the slave that his
suffering, whatever it was, was a
brotherhood in the suffering of the
Lord Jesus Christ, who HimseR
"took upon Him the form of a
slave," and " suffering for us left
an ensample," in which even the
helpless and despised slave could
" foRow His steps " (1 Pet. ii. 18—
25). Sometimes, on the other hand,
by setting forth to him the spiri
tual freedom, which no "master
after the flesh " could take away,
and by declaring that aR service
was ultimately a service to the
Lord, to be rendered not only
" from the heart," but " of good
wiU," and rewarded here and here
after with the heavenly prize
(Eph. vi. 5—8 ; Col. iii. 22—25).
Under both these convictions it
taught the slave still to be patient
under "subjection," till the end
should come. Next, Christianity
turned to the masters. It bade
them remember their responsibility
to the same Master in heaven,
under whom their slaves served,
and who would certainly make, in
His strict retribution, no " respect
of persons ; " it claimed that they
should "do the same things" to
their slaves, recognising a mutual
duty, and giving them aU that was
l"just and equal," due to the inde
feasible rights of humanity ; above
aU, that they should recognise in
them a common brotherhoou in
Christ. Now this is precisely the line
which St. Paul pursues in respect
of Onesimus. He, the runaway
slave of Philemon, apparently an
idler and a thief, had made his
way to Rome, " the sink," as its
writers bitterly complained, " of
the civRised world." There St.

256

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Paul had somehow found him, and
had regenerated the true humanity
whieh had been degraded in him.
He had found him a dear son ; he
had felt the comfort of his affec*
tionate ministration. How deeply
this had impressed on his mind the
whole question of slaves and mas
ters we see by the strong emphasis,
marked by almost verbal coinci
dence, with which, in the Ephesian
and Colossian Epistles, he dweUs
on the subject generally. But,
coming to the particular case, he
bids Onesimus acknowledge the
mastership of Philemon, and go
back to submit to him, and to offer
atonement for his past misdeeds
and flight. He will not even in
terpose by authority, or, by keep
ing Onesimus at Rome, put any
constraint on PhRemon's freedom
to use his legal power. But he
shows, by his own example, that
the slave is to be treated as a son.
He sends him back, not as a slave,
but as "a brother beloved in the
Lord." He " knew that Philemon
would do even more than he said."
He may have looked forward in
prophetic foresight to the time
when the whole Christian com
munity, Hke Philemon, should
draw the inference, unspoken but
irresistible, and set absolutely free
those who were not slaves, but
brethren. That expectation has been re-
aHsed. It is remarkable that from
very early days the iron cruelty of

this Roman slave law began to give
way. We may allow much in this
respect to the growing dominion of
universal law, and to the influence
of the nobler philosophies ; but we
may be permitted to doubt whether
the unacknowledged principles of
Christianity were not already
leavening public opinion, and be
ginning to make the change even
in law, which was afterwards seen
in the codes of Christian emperors.
But one thing is certain histori
cally, that in the abolition, cer
tainly of ancient serfship in Eu
rope, and perhaps of modern serf-
ship in Russia, in the prohibition
of the slave trade, in the great
sacrifices for emancipation made by
England in the last generation,
and the United States of America
in this, it was Christianity, and not
simple philanthropy, which actually
did tbe beneficent work. The battle
was the battle of humanity ; but
it was fought under the banner of
the Cross. Even while we wonder
that the victory should have been
so long in coming, we must confess
that it has been won : and against
all forms of mitigated slavery in
modern society, experience cer
tainly warns us to trust, not to the
sense of common interest, the con
viction of mutual duty, or even the
enthusiasm of philanthropy, but to
the faith which recognises in the
poorest and the weakest, even in
the idler and the sinner, "a brother
beloved in the Lord."

HEBREWS.

Hi the Rev. F. W. MOULTON, D.D.

As the Epistle to the Hebrews is
presented to the reader in our
English Bibles, various questions
which beset many other books of
the New Testament appear to have
no place. It is entitled "The
Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Hebrews" ; and from the subscrip
tion we learn that it was written
in Italy and sent to its readers by
the hand of Timothy. It is hardly
necessary to say that, whether
these statements have or have not
a foundation in fact, they are
whoRy destitute of authority here ;
for no ancient manuscript adds to
the Epistle anything beyond the
simple words "To the Hebrews,"
and even this inscription can
scarcely have been affixed by the
writer himseR. Within the few
pages at our disposal we can do
Httle more than present a summary
of the ancient evidence on the
points in question and the chief
results of modern investigation.
I. Ancient Testimonies.
Canonicity. — That the Epistle
was known and read before the
close of the first century is beyond
doubt. The earliest Christian
writing beyond the Hmits of the
New Testament is the Epistle

addressed to the Church of Corinth
(about a.d.95), by Clement, writing
in the name of the Roman Church.
This Letter contains no express
quotation from any Book of the
New Testament, and one only (the
First Epistle of St. Paul to the
same Church) is mentioned by
name. In several places, however,
words from some of St. Paul's
Epistles are interwoven with the
text without formal introduction.
In exactly the same manner, but
to a greater extent, does Clement
make use of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, as the following quota
tion (from chap, xxxvi.) wiU show :
"Through Him the Lord wiUed
that we should taste the immortal
knowledge ; who, being the bright
ness (or, effulgence) of His majesty,
is so much greater than angels as
He hath inherited a more excellent
name. For it is thus written : He
who maketh His angels winds (or,
spirits), and His ministers a flame
of fire. But in regard to His Son
thus said the Lord : Thou art My
Son, I have this day begotten Thee.
Ask of Me, and I wiU give Thee
nations as Thine inheritance, and
as Thy possession the ends of the
earth. And again He saith unto
Him : Sit at My right hand, until

17

258

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS

I have made Thine enemies a foot
stool of Thy feet."
This passage does not standalone ;
but of itseR it is sufficient to prove
that the Epistle was well known to
the Roman Church at this early
date. The traces of the Epistle in
the second century are clear, but
not numerous until we reach its
closing years. Quotations present
themselves in the Homily which is
commonly caUed Clement's Second
Epistle, written at Corinth or Rome
about a.d. 140 ; in writings of
Justin Martyr (a.d. 145), Pinytus,
of Crete (a.d. 170), Theophilus,
Bishop of Antioch (a.d. ISO). It
is also important to note that the
Epistle was one of the twenty-two
books included in the'Syriac version
of the New Testament, the date of
which is probably not later than
a.d. 150. That Marcion should
have rejected the Epistle, and that
it is passed over in the Muratorian
Fragment (probably written at
Rome about a.d. 170) are points of
Httle consequence ; for Marcion is
known to have rejected whatever
conflicted with his system of
doctrine, and the Latin document
has not come down to us complete.
One testimony belonging to the
close of the second or the beginning
of the third century is of great
interest and importance. It is
found in one of the works of
Clement, who succeeded Pantamus
as head of the catechetical school
of Alexandria, about a.d. 190. The
work itseR survives in fragments
only; but the foUowing passage
is preserved by Eusebius (Eccles.
History, vi. 14) : " And in his
Outlines, to speak generally, he
(Clement) has given brief exposi
tions of all canonical Scripture, not
even passing by the disputed books
— I mean the Epistle of Jude and

the rest of the Catholic Epistles,
the Epistle of Barnabas and the
so-called Apocalypse of Peter. And,
moreover, he says that the Epistle
to the Hebrews was Paul's, but
had been written to the Hebrews
in the Hebrew language, and that
Luke, having with great care trans
lated it, published it for the Greeks ;
hence this Epistle and the Acts are
found to have the same colouring
of style and diction. He remarks
that the Epistle does not begin
with 'Paul an Apostle,' and with
reason ; for (he says), writing to
Hebrews, men who had become
prejudiced against him and were
suspicious of him, he acted very
wisely in not repelling thom at the
outset by giving his name. Then
a Httle below he adds : And as the
blessed presbyter before now used
to say, since the Lord, as Apostle
of the Almighty, was sent to
Hebrews, Paul through modesty,
as having been sent to Gentiles,
does not inscribe himseR Apostle of
Hebrews, because of the honour
belonging to the Lord, and also
because he went beyond his bounds
in addressing Hebrews also, when
he was herald and Apostle of Gen
tiles." We can hardly doubt that by
"the blessed presbyter" is meant
Pantamus, whom Clement held in
the highest esteem. " Thus " (as
Dr. Westcott observes) " the tradi
tion is carried up almost to the
Apostolic age." It wiU be seen
that with a strong affirmation of
the Pauline authorship of the
Epistle is joined a distinct recog
nition of its unlikeness to the other
writings of the Apostle. Of much
greater importance is the testimony
of Origen. Many passages from
his writings might be quoted in
which he speaks of the Epistle as

HEBREWS.

259

St. Paul's, and many more in which
he appeals to it as to other portions
of the New Testament, without
any reference to authorship. In
one of his latest works, however,
Homilies on the Hebrews (written
between a.d. 245 and 253), we have
the complete expression of his views.
The HomiHes are not preserved to
us, but the passage is given by
Eusebius in his Eccles. History (vi.
25), and is as f oRows : "That the
style of the Epistle which bears the
superscription To the Hebrews does
not exhibit the Apostle's plainness
in speech (though he confessed
himseR to be plain in his speech,
that is, Hi his diction), but that the
Epistle is more Grecian in its com
position, every one who knows how
to judge of differences of diction
would acknowledge. And again,
that the thoughts of the I' Epistle
are wonderful, and not inferior to
the acknowledged writings of the
Apostle, this, too, every one who
gives attention to the reading of
the Apostle's words would aUow
to be true." To this, after other
remarks, he adds : " But if I were
to give my own opinion, Ishould say
that the thoughts belong to the
Apostle, but the diction and the
composition to some one who wrote
from memory the Apostle's teach
ing, and who, as it were, commented
on that which had been said by his
teacher. If, then, any Church holds
this Epistle to be Paul's, let it
be approved even for this. For
not without reason have the men
of olden time handed it down as
Paul's. But as to the question who
wrote the Epistle, the truth is
known by God (only) ; but the
account which has reached us is a
statement by some that Clement
who became Bishop of Rome was
the writer, by others that it was

Luke, who wrote the Gospel and
the Acts."
The influence of Origen would
naturaRy be great in removing
doubts as to the acceptance of the
Epistle. WhRst the more thought
ful would learn from him to dis
tinguish between directly apostoHc
authorship and canonicity, the
effect of his opinion and example
on the many would be to strengthen
the beHef that the Epistle should be
accounted St. Paul's. From this
time onwards the Church of Alex
andria, as represented by a succes
sion of writers, seems to have held
the PauHne authorship as a matter
free from doubt.
It is otherwise with the Latin
writers of North Africa. TertulHan
(about a.d. 200), indeed, once quotes
some verses of chapter vi., but
assigns them to the Epistle of
Barnabas to the Hebrews; an Epistle
which, he says, deserves more re
spect than the Shepherd of Hermas,
as being written by a man who
learnt from Apostles and taught
with Apostles. No other certain
quotation from the Epistle presents
itself in Latin writers for many
years. At the close of the third
century it would seem, as far as we
may judge from extant Christian
literature, that the Epistle was
known and received by the Churches
of Alexandria, Syria, Rome, and
Asia Minor, and that in Alexandria
and Syria it was regarded as a work
of St. Paul. Writing before a.d.
326, Eusebius expressly mentions
the Church of Rome as rejecting
the Pauline authorship of the
Epistle. It is not necessary to
give any express quotations from
writers of the fourth century. By
this time the doubts respecting the
Epistle are confined to the Western
Churches : in Syria, Palestine, Asia

260

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Minor, Alexandria, Constantinople,
the PauHne authorship appears to
have been universally admitted.
The influence of Jerome and
Augustine ultimately prevaUed in
the West : neither of these eminent
Fathers appears reaUy to have re
garded the Epistle a3 St. Paul's,
but they agree in the expression of
a strong conviction of its canonical
authority. The object of this summary of
ancient evidence has been to show
how the Epistle won its way to
universal acknowledgment as a
part of sacred Scripture, and at the
same time to present the chief testi
monies of the early Church on the
other important questions which
concern the Book. It cannot be
thought surprising that for a time
many should evince hesitation in
regard to such a document as this
— anonymous, pecuhar in character,
and addressed to a special and
Hmited circle of readers. The
doubts have in later times had
little power. Their effect may, for
the most part, be traced in a vary
ing estimate of the importance of
the Book as compared with the un
doubted writings of St. Paul.
II. Authorship  In regard to
the authorship of the Epistle, the
most important ancient testimonies
have been cited aReady; and in
them we find more or less clearly
stated almost all the possible solu
tions of the problem. The charac
ter of the Epistle is beyond aR
question Paul-like (if we may so
speak, to avoid the ambiguity of
"PauHne"). If then it is not to
be ascribed dRectly to St. Paul, we
must suppose either (1) that it is a
translation from a Hebrew original
written by him ; or (2) that, whflst
the substance of the Epistle is his,

the diction and style belong to one
of his companions, who, for some
unexplained cause, put the Apostle's
thoughts into form ; or (3) that the
Epistle was written by a friend or
disciple of St. Paul. Each of the
four hypotheses may, as we have
said, claim the evidence of early
writers ; but it is a matter of ex
treme difficulty rightly to estimate
the value of this evidence. That
the Epistle was directly written by
St. Paul is an opinion of which we
have no distinct evidence earlier than
the third century. Even then the
language used on the subject is
not perfectly clear ; for Origen's
example proves that the, quotation
of the Epistle under St. Paul's name
may mean nothing more than a re
cognition that its substance and
teaching are his. If Origen had
influence in producing the later
consensus of opinion as to the
authorship, that opinion may fairly
be judged of (to a considerable ex
tent) by reference to Origen's own
explanation of the sense in which
he ascribed the Epistle to St. Paul.
At aU events, his plain statement
of the case as it presented itself in
his day seems distinctly to prove
that there existed no such clear and
authoritative tradition in favour of
the Pauline authorship as might
claim our submission, upon the
ordinary principles of literary
criticism. To internal evidence
Origen makes appeal : to the same
test of internal evidence we beUeve
the case must now be brought.
Similar observations apply to the
other hypotheses. Each of these
appears earlier in existing docu
ments than that of which we have
been speaking. The opinion ex
pressed by Clement, that the Greek
Epistle is a translation, was prob
ably derived by him from Pantse-

HEBREWS.

261

nus : the traditions mentioned by
Origen cannot be of later date ; and
TertuRian's reference to Barnabas
carries back the last hypothesis to
the close of the second century. But
again it is impossible to say whether
the ancient testimonies present in
dependent evidence, or are no more
than conjectures to explain the
patent facts. At aR events, the
variance in the traditions may
leave our judgment free, especiaRy
as we can plainly perceive in what
way the traditions might very
possibly arise.
H we now proceed to test each
of the hypotheses that have been
mentioned by the testimony which
the Epistle gives respecting itseR,
the first question to be decided is,
Have we the Epistle in its original
form ? If the opinion quoted by
Clement is correct — that the Greek
document hefore us is a translation
— our right to argue from its
characteristics wiU be materiaHy
affected. This opinion has not
lacked advocates, and has been in
recent years maintained in an able
but disappointing work by Dr.
Biesenthal. We have no space
here for the discussion of such a
question, and can only express in a
word or two the results to which
the evidence before us leads. We
do not hesitate to say that the
hypothesis appears absolutely un
tenable : for one difficulty which it
removes, it introduces many more.
Dr. Biesenthal' s own treatment of
various passages is sufficient to
show that those who regard the
Epistle as translated from a Hebrew
original must necessarily regard it
as a translation that is often in
accurate, and needs the correction
of the commentator. Few wiH be
prepared to surrender the Epistle
to such treatment, unless" under

constraint of argument immeasur
ably stronger than any yet ad
duced. Our inquiry therefore is limited
to the Greek Epistle as it stands.
The questions at issue are very
simple. What is there, either in
the substance or in the diction of
the Epistle, that may lead us to
ascribe it to St. Paul ? What pecu-
Harities of thought or language
separate it from its writings ? In
its general arrangement and plan
the Epistle to the Hebrews cannot
but remind us of St. Paul? It is
true there is no opening salutation
or direct address, such as is found
in all [St. Paul's Epistles. These
Epistles, however, differ greatly
amongst themselves in this respect.
Thus, in writing to the Galatians,
the Apostle is impatient of any
thing that may detain him from
the great topics on which he is to
speak ; and it is possible to imagine
reasons which might lead him to
avoid aU mention of the Church
addressed, and even to keep back
his own name. But, waiving this,
we recognise at once the familiar
plan : first the discussion of dog
matic truth ; then the earnest ex
hortation based on the doctrine
thus presented; and, lastly, the
salutations, interwoven with per
sonal notices, with doxology and
prayer. The main outHnes of
theological teaching are in close
accord with St. Paul's Epistles :
chaps. H. and v., for example, as
strikingly recaU Phil, ii., as does
chapter xiu. the closing chapter in
the Epistle to the Romans. Other
points of special resemblance wiU
easily suggest themselves, such as
"ihe relation of the writer to those
whom he addresses (chap. xiu. 18,
19, &c.) the mode in which he
refers to TRnothy (verse 23), his

262

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Pauline Ulustrations (see chaps, v.
12, 13 ; xR. 1 — 4), his choice of
Old Testament passages. Under
(he last head may be specially
mentioned the quotation of Ps. viii.
(1 Cor. xv. 25—28) and Deut.
xxxHi. 30 (Rom. xu. 19); see chaps.
R. 6 ; x. 30. It is not necessary
in this place to go into further
detail in proof of a position allowed
by aU, that (as has been aReady
said) the Epistle, whether by
St. Paul or not, is Paul-like in
tho general character of its teach
ing and in many of its special
features. It is of much greater moment
to examine those passages of the
Epistle and those peculiarities of
teaching or language which have
been adduced as inconsistent with
the Pauline authorship. Resem
blance may be accounted for more
readily than points of difference ;
for a disciple of St. Paul would
hardly faU to exhibit many of the
traits characteristic of such a
master. Hers, it will be seen, the
distinction between style and sub
ject matter must be carefully ob
served. If this Epistle could be
proved to differ in diction only
from the acknowledged writings of
St. Paul, some theory of mediate
authorship (similar to that men
tioned by Origen) would be very
possible ; if the discordances lie
deeper, no such theory can be
maintained. When an argument must rest on
characteristics of Greek diction
and style, it is very probable
that different conclusions may be
reached by different readers. This
question, again, cannot be examined
here in any detail. The writer can
only state the impression made
upon his own mind by the original
text, and especially by the careful

study pursued for the purpose
of this work. From point to
point the general likeness of the
Epistle to St. Paul's writings came
out more and more plainly; on the
other hand arose a continually in
creasing wonder that the Greek
sentences and periods should ever
have been attributed to that Apos
tle's hand. We have before us
Epistles belonging to "every period
during the last thnteen or fourteen
years of St. Paul's life, written
under widely different circum
stances, — some during the enforced
leisure of imprisonment, others
amid active labour. We can trace
differences of style resulting both
from tbe time of writing and from
the circumstances which called
forth the Epistles ; but these differ
ences lie within a comparatively
narrow compass. At whatever
date St. Paul might be supposed to
have written this Epistle, we can
compare it with some other of
his writings belonging nearly to
the same period ; and the differ
ences of language and style pre
sented by the two documents are,
we are persuaded, far greater than
those presented by the most dis
similar of the thirteen Epistles.
Stress has been laid on the unique
character of this Epistle, as the
only one addressed to the Hebrews
by the Apostle of the Gentiles ; but
it has been weU asked why St. Paul
should adopt a more finished Greek
style in addressing Jews than when
writing to the Greeks of Corinth.
For ourselves we must express our
decided conviction that, whatever
may be the relation of the Epistle
to St. Paul, the composition of the
Greek was certainly not his.
The remaining points of differ
ence which (it is alleged) separate
this Epistle from St. Paul's writ-

HEBREWS.

263

ings, may be ranged under the
following heads : — (1) statements of
fact which we cannot suppose to
have proceeded from the Apostle ;
(2) divergence in doctrinal view;
(3) pecuHarities in the use of the
Old Testament; (4) the use made
of Alexandrian writers.
(1) The most important passage
is chap. ii. 3: "which (salvation)
at the first began to be spoken by
the Lord, and was confirmed unto
us by them that heard." In these
words the writer appears distinctly
to sever himself from those who
had directly received the word from
the Lord. It is urged that he is
here associating himself with his
readers, as when in chap. iv. 1 he
writes, "Let us therefore fear;"
see also chaps, x. 24, 25, 26 ; xR. 1,
et al. We will not venture to say
that an Apostle could not have
thus written ; but, bearing in mind
the necessity which lay upon St.
Paul to defend his ApostoHc posi
tion, and the claim which he con
sistently makes to have received
his teaching by direct revelation
(Gal. i. 1, 11, 12, et al.), we must
hold itextremely improbable that he
should use words that might even
appear to represent him only as a
disciple of the Apostles. On the
other passages which have been
brought into this controversy a
very different judgment must be
passed. It is aUeged that in the
description of the Temple furni
ture (chap. ix. ) the writer faUs into
mistakes, asserting that the altar
of incense (or, the golden censer)
was placed in the Holy of HoUes,
that the ark contained the pot of
manna and Aaron's rod, and that
even in his own day the Most Holy
Place into which the high priest
entered year by year still contained
the cherubim and the ark of the

covenant. If the writer has in
deed faUen into these mistakes,
we may safely say that he is
not St. Paul. But, as it would
not be difficult to show in detaU,
there is no real reason for im
pugning the accuracy of his
words. No part of his description
relates to the Temple services or
furniture : he is occupied through
out with the injunctions of the
Mosaic law and the arrangements
of the Tabernacle. Even the asso
ciation of the altar of incense with
the Most Holy Place may be very
easily explained. If the view we
have taken is correct, this argu
ment against the Pauline author
ship must faU to the ground. It is
not necessary, therefore, to do
more than mention the ingenious
attempt of Wieseler to show that
in the descriptions of chap. ix. the
writer had in mind, not the Taber
nacle or the Temple of Jerusalem,
but the temple built by Onias at
LeontopoHs in Lower Egypt (about
B.C. 170).
(2) The aUeged differences of doc
trinal statement are of three kinds.
Of St. Paul's favourite topics some
are absent from this Epistle, some
are treated in a different manner :
and, again, certain themes here
brought into prominence are not
noticed in the Epistles of St. Paul.
Thus we find only one passage in
this Epistle in which the Resurrec
tion of our Lord, ever a prominent
topic with St. Paul, is mentioned
(see chap. xiii. 20) ; the law, faith,
righteousness, are looked at from a
different point of view ; the promi
nence here given to the High-
priesthood of Jesus is foreign to St.
Paul's Epistles. It would require a
volume duly to examine the various
particulars adduced under this head ;
for the real question is not whplher

264

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

the teaching is opposed to St. Paul's,
but whether the various themes are
treated in the manner characteristic
of the Apostle. We do not believe
that the most careful examination
wiU detect any real discord between
the dogmatic teaching of this Epis
tle and that of St. Paul; but the
pecuHarities of selection of topics
and in mode of treatment are suffi
cient (even when all allowance has
been made for the special position
and aim of the Epistle) to suggest
that, if St. Paul " laid the founda
tion," it is another who "buildeth
thereon," "according to the grace
of God which is given unto " him
(1 Cor. Hi. 10). The resemblances
in teaching may show the presence
of the Apostle, but the new colour
ing and arrangement prove that he
is present only in the person of a
disciple on whom his master's man
tle has fallen, and who is taught by
the same SpRit.
(3) A similar conclusion is sug
gested by a review of the arguments
that are founded on the difference
in the use of the Old Testament. It
need hardly be said that in the
Epistle before us this subject is of
the greatest consequence, for "the
whole argument of the Epistle de
pends on the reaHty of the spi
ritual meaning of the Old Testa
ment." But the essential principle
involved is found as truly in St.
Paul (see 1 Cor. x. ; 2 Cor. iii. ; Gal.
iv. ; Eph. v., et al.). The New
Testament is not divided against
itself in its recognition of the Old.
As has been truly said,* "The au
thority of Christ HimseR encourages
us to search for a deep and spiritual
meaning under the ordinary words
of Scripture, which, however, can-

* Westcott, Introduction to the
j>. 412.

not be gained by any arbitrary alle
gorising, but only -by following out
patiently the course of God's deal
ings wilh man." But again when
we come to detaUs we find marks
of divergence from St. Paul. In
the Epistle to the Hebrews the
word of Scripture is almost always
quoted as the dRect utterance of
God ("He saith," " He hath said,")
whereas St. Paul commonly uses
the formula, "It is written," or
'' The Scripture saith." The latter
mode of introduction, which occurs
about thirty times in the Pauline
Epistles, is not once used in this ;
and, on the other hand, such ex
amples as Eph. iv. 8 are very rare
in St. Paul. The quotations in this
Epistle, again, are commonly taken
directly from the LXX., even when
it differs from the Hebrew ; and
for the most part agree with that
text which is preserved to us in the
Alexandrian manuscript : St. Paul
shows more acquaintance with the
Hebrew. In each of these argu
ments (the former especiaUy) there
is force. The latter, however, has
been pressed unduly; for an exa
mination of the quotations as they
stand in the best text of the Epistle,
will show not a few departures from
the Greek version, and there are
not wanting tokens of the writer's
acquaintance either with the Hebrew
original or with a more accurate
translation of some passages than
the LXX. affords.
(4) One distinguishing pecuH-
arity of this Epistle is found in the
many remarkable coincidences both
of thought and of expression with
the writings of Philo of Alexandria.
In this Introduction we cannot quote
examples ; and nothing short of a
collection of aU the points of simi
larity, as presented in the Greek
text, wiU show this characteristic

HEBREWS.

265

of the Epistle in its proper light.
Both St. Paul and St. John exhibit
acquaintance with the Alexandrian
philosophy, but it has left compa
ratively slight traces in their
writings. The resemblance in lan
guage in many passages of this
Epistle is all the more remarkable
because of the fundamental differ
ences in doctrine between the
Christian teacher and the Alexan
drian phUosopher. Another point
of interest can only be briefly men
tioned — the many wordsand phrases
common to this Epistle and the
Book of Wisdom. The reader is re
ferred to the remarkably interesting
papers by Professor Plumptre in
vol. i. of The Expositor, on " The
Writings of ApoRos."
On a review of the whole case,
there is only one conclusion that
appears possible — that the Epistle
was written by one who had stood
in a close relation with St. Paul,
but not by St. Paul himseR. It
will be readily understood that the
arguments given above are not ad
duced as being of equal weight :
some are only confirmatory, and
might not have very much force if
they stood alone ; but all point
with more or less distinctness to the
conclusion which has been stated.
Farther than this we cannot go
with certainty ; and it is perhaps
the wisest to rest satisfied with this
negative result. If we turn to the
positive side, we have Httle to guide
our judgment. Three names only
seem to be mentioned by early
writers —those of Barnabas,Clement
of Rome, and St. Luke. The Epistle
is quoted by TertuUian, as we have
seen, as h, work of Barnabas; and
two later Latin writers, Philastrius
and Jerome, mention the same tra
dition. In one passage Jerome says
that very many (perhaps meaning

many of the Greek ecclesiastical
writers) assign the Epistle to Bar
nabas or Clement; in another he
mentions Tertullian alone as an au
thority for this, and seems to attach
no special importance to the opinion.
It would seem that the tradition
was very limited ; it is especiaUy
noteworthy that the name of Bar
nabas is not found in the passages
quoted from Origen. We know
too little of Barnabas to judge for
ourselves of the intrinsic probabUity
of the hypothesis : the so-called in
ternal arguments which have been
adduced by some are of no worth.
The Epistle which bears the name
of Barnabas belongs, in aR proba
bUity, to the beginning of the
second century, and has no con
nection with the companion of St.
Paul. That Epistle, therefore
(which presents a remarkable con
trast to the teaching of the Epistle
to the Hebrews ; see Westcott On
the Canon, pp. 43 — 45), yields no
evidence in the present inquRy.
In regard to Clement we can
speak with more confidence, as we
possess one Epistle which is cer
tainly from his hand. That docu
ment contains passages belonging
to our Epistle, but they are no
doubt quotations from it, and the.
general style and character of Cle
ment's Letter forbid us to ascribe
the two works to the same writer.
Much more favour has in recent
times been shown to the other tra-
-dition which Origen records — that
the Epistle was written by St. Luke.
The resemblance of language be
tween this Epistle and St. Luke's
writings are numerous and striking;
but with all this there is great dis
similarity of style. The difference
between a Letter such as this and
historical or biographical memoirs
must indeed be taken into account ;

266

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

but even when allowance has been
made for this, it is difficult to
receive the writer of the Acts as
the author of our Epistle.
Another consideration also is of
weight. We can hardly doubt
that we have before us here the
work of a Jew ; but St. Paul's
words in Col. iv. 11, 14, imply
that St. Luke was of GentUe
birth. The subject is not one for con
fident assertion ; but we may ven
ture to strongly doubt whether
the Epistle can be ascribed to any
of those suggested by ancient
writers. One other hypothesis
must be mentioned, which has
commanded the adhesion of many
of the ablest writers of recent
times. Luther was the first to express
(in his Commentary on Genesis)
an opinion that the Epistle to the
Hebrews was the work of ApoUos.
Some wiU maintain that conjecture
is inadmissible, but certainly all
the conditions of the problem
appear to be satisfied by this con
jecture. The record of St. Luke in Acts
xviH. 24—28, xix. 1, supplemented
by St. Paul's references in 1
Corinthians, might seem to have
been expressly designed to show
the special fitness of Apollos
for writing such an Epistle as
this. If it be not unbecoming to go
beyond the words of Origen on
nuch a subject as this, and to favour
an hypothesis for which no express
evidence can be adduced from
ancient times, we can have no
hesitation in joining those who
hold that it is the Jew of Alexan
dria, "mighty in the Scriptures,"
"fervent in spirit," the honoured
associate of St. Paul, who here

carries on the work which he began
in Achaia, when "he mightily con
vinced the Jews, showing by the
Scriptures that Jesus was Christ."
III. Headers. — The inquiry
as to the original readers of the
Epistle is even more difficult. It
may be assumed with confidence
that the present title of the Epistle
is not that which it originaUy bore.
There has sometimes been a dis
position to deny the propriety of
the name Epistle ; and it has been
thought that the pecuUarity of the
opening verses, containing, as they
do, neither address nor author's
name, may be most easily explained
on the supposition that the work is
a homily or general treatise. But
a very slight examination will
prove that such a theory has no
foundation. The closing verses
show that a particular community
is directly addressed, a, community
well known to the writer, whose
affection the writer knew himself
to possess, though some individuals
may have distrusted him and mis
judged his acts and motives. He
complains of their declension in
Christian knowledge, and points
out its cause (chap, v.) ; thankfully
recognises their generous love to
the brethren (chaps, vi. x.) ; and
urges them to be true to their own
past history (chap. x.). He cannot
but have known that the trials and
necessities of many other commu
nities were very similar ; but, like
St. Paul, he addresses the wider
only through the narrower circle.
The immediate impulse was given
by the news he had received re
specting brethren for whom he him
self had laboured, and over whose
welfare he was bound diligently to
watch. The Epistle needed no
express inscription to make the first

HEBREWS.

267

readers understand from whom it
came and to whom it was sent ;
and it is not impossible that (as
Ewald suggests) the watchfulness
of enemies may have rendered some
conceaRnent a matter of prudence.
The absence of the writer's name
has been considered confirmatory
of the belief that ApoUos wrote
the Epistle. In one Church, as we
know, rival factions had arisen,
some saying, "I am of Paul,"
others " I am of Apollos ; " and
the incident recorded in 1 Cor.
xvi. 12 seems to point to the regret
of Apollos that his name should
have been so used. Such a feeling
may have continued to operate,
and have led to this partial with
drawal of himseR from view. (See
ARord's Gk. Test. vol. iv. pp. 60,
61.) It is very plain that the Epistle
is addressed to Jewish Christians,
and its present name was probably
given when the Epistle had passed
into more general use, in order to
make its destination clear. In the
New Testament the name Hebrew
is strictly opposed to HeUenist or
Grecian Jew (Acts vi. 1), and de
notes one who adhered to the
Hebrew language aud usages;
there would therefore be some in
consistency between the name and
the language of the Epistle, if the
title proceeded from the writer
himseR. Again we are in the
main thrown back on internal
evidence ; but in this case the
materials before us are very
scanty, when doubtful or irrelevant
passages have been set aside. One
verse of the Epistle, and one only,
contains any note of place : " They
of Italy salute you " (chap. xiii.
24). Unfortunately these words
adinit of two opposite interpreta
tions. Either the author is huiiseR

in Italy, and sends to the Hebrew
Christians whom he addresses the
salutations of an ItaHan church ;
or, writing to Italy, he transmits
the message which those "of Italy"
who are now with him send to
their feRow-Christians at home.
Between these two interpretations
it seems impossible to decide with
any confidence ; though, in itself,
the latter might be the more pro
bable. Perhaps the only other
indication that we possess is the
manRest destination of the Epistle
for a community of Jewish Chris
tians, exposed to peculiar danger
from the soHcitations and the perse
cutions of the unbeHeving Jews.
Such a community would most
naturaUy be found in Palestine,
and accordingly the prevalent
opinion has been that the Epistle
was first sent to Jerusalem, or to
some neighbouring town. The
words of chap. ii. 3 are perhaps
less suitable to Jerusalem — a city
in which there would still be Hving
many who had heard the word
from the Lord HimseR. In chap.
vi. 10 the writer speaks of a minis
tration to the saints which at once
recaUs the efforts of St. Paul and
others to send help to the Christians
of Jerusalem, who were oppressed
by poverty. This passage may
imply that the readers of the
Epistle had engaged in that par
ticular labour of love, but it cannot
be proved that the meaning is not
perfectly general. The language
of chap. x. 32 — 34 decides nothing,
if the first member of verse 33
is to be understood figuratively;
and verse 34, which has been urged
in regard to the question of
authorship, loses aU such signi
ficance when the true reading is
restored. From chap. xii. 4 has
usuaUy been drawn the inference

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

that no members of the Church had
suffered martyrdom : even here,
however, it is not at aU probable
that any such aUusion is intended.
On the whole, it is difficult to
resist the impression that the writer
addresses some Church in Palestine,
though Jerusalem itself may be ex
cluded by chap. ii. 3. The readers
seem to have lived under the
shadow of Jewish power and in
fluence, where opposition to Chris
tianity was most bitter, the tempta
tion to unfaithf ulness greatest, the
abjuration requRed of the apostate
most complete: The exhortation
of chap. xiii. 13, the warning of
chap. x. 25, the remarkable appro
priation of Old Testament pro
mises, and threatenings which we
find in chap. x. 27, 28, 30, would
faU with wonderful force on the
ears of men in whose very presence
the spirit of Judaism was exerting
all its power. That there are still
difficulties must be felt by aU. We
should not have expected that a
Letter addressed to such a Church
would be written in Greek, or that
the writer's appeal would be to the
Greek translation of the Old Testa
ment ; but the phenomena which
other books of the New Testament
display forbid us to regard these
difficulties as decisive. It is not
possible here to enumerate the other
opinions which have been main
tained. The reader will find an
able argument in favour of Rome
in Alford's Prolegomena to Gk.
Test., vol. iv. : others have argued
the claims of Alexandria.*

* Prof. Plumpti-e's hypothesis that those
addressed are Christian ascetics of {or
connected with) Alexandria is worked
out by him in a very interesting manner
(see Expos, i. 428—432), but does not
appear to suit the facts of the Epistle as
well as tho viow defended above.

IV. Date. — There is very little
to guide us as to the time when the
Epistle was written. The present
tenses of chap. ix. 2 — 9 are often
understood as implying that the
Temple service stiU continued ;
but there are strong reasons
for explaining the versos other
wise. On the other hand, the
general complexion of the Epistle
is such as to convince us that it
was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem. Of the imprison
ment of Timothy (chap. xiii. 23)
we know nothing from any other
source. It has often been supposed
that he shared St. Paul's im
prisonment in Rome (see the In
troduction to 2 Timothy) . The date
of the martyrdom of St. Paul is,
however, uncertain ; and it does
not seem possible to say more than
that our Epistle was probably
written some three or four years
before Jerusalem feU — in other
words, about a.d. 66.
V. Object and Contents. —
The discussion of the very important
external questions which connect
themselves with this Epistle has
left us but Httle space for a notice
of its internal character. By reason
of the demands that it would make
upon the space at disposal it is
impossible to give an account of the
peculiar difficulties which ' th'
Epistle presents ; all other considera
tions have therefore been sacrificed
to the desire of exhibiting, as exactly
as possible, the connection and
course of thought. The Christians
addressed were in imminent danger
of apostasy. The danger was oc
casioned partly by seductions from
without, partly by weakness within.
Even when the fabric of Jewish
power was falling, the iufluence of
its past history, its glorious trea-

HEBREWS.

269

sure of promise, its unique associa
tions, retained a wonderful power.
As we look back on the years pre
ceding the fall of Jerusalem the
case of the people may seem to us
hopeless ; but the confidence of the
nation was unbroken, and even at
that period we note outbursts of
national pride and enthusiastic
hope. Bitter hate and contempt
for Christianity on the one hand,
and the attraction of theR ancestral
worship and ritual on the other,
had apparently won a victory over
the constancy of some Christians
belonging to this Hebrew com
munity. Where open opposition
had not prevaRed, the tone of
Christian^ faith had been lowered.
The special temptation of these
Christians seems to have been
towards a loss of interest in the
higher Christian truths, and a
union of elementary Christian
teaching with that to which they
had been accustomed as Jews.
The arguments of the first and
other chapters show that they held
the foundation truths; the expos
tulation of the fifth and sixth chap
ters proves that the fuU signifi
cance of the doctrine they held was
not understood, and that the doc
trine was near to losing its power.
In no Epistle, perhaps, do we find
a more carefully sustained argu
ment ; of none can be said as truly
that the whole Epistle is a " word
of exhortation."
The design of the writer is to
show the superiority of Christianity
over Judaism. He in whom God
has in these last days revealed
HimseR to man is His Son, to
whom the Scriptures themselves
bear witness as exalted above the
highest of created beings, the
angels, who are but ministers of
God (chap. i.). The law was given

through angels : salvation has now
come through the Son, who, though
Lord of the world to come, the
Heir and FulfiRer of God's highest
promises to man, submitted to
suffering and death — not of neces
sity, but that He might by His
atonement deliver man from sin
and death, and might become a
true High Priest for man (chap.
ii.). As the faithful Apostle and
High Priest He is exalted above
God's most favoured servants upon
earth, even above Moses (chap. Hi.
1-6). This is the first division ot the
argument, designed to establish
the supremacy of the revelation
given through the Son of God, and
to remove " the offence of the
cross." Next foRows a powerful
section of exhortation and warning.
Do not imitate the unfaithfulness
through which Israel failed to enter
into the true rest of God (chaps.
iii. 7 — iv. 16).
The second portion of the Epistle
(extending to chap. x. 18) is oc
cupied with the Priesthood of
Christ. Once only is the current
of the argument interrupted. After
the first introduction of a prophecy
which wiU form the theme of later
chapters, the writer pauses to bring
into reHef the carelessness which
his readers have shown, and the
peril they have incurred ; the re
sult is to give most powerful effect
to the argument for which he is
preparing them (chap. v. • 11 — vi.
20). Jesus made perfect through
suffering (chap. v. 1 — 10) has after
declared by God High Priest been
the order of Melchizedek ; by this
declaration the Aaronic priesthood
is aboHshed, giving place to a
priesthood vvhichabidescontinuaUy,
through which aU that the former
priesthood sought in vain to attain

270

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

is made sure to man for ever (chap.
vR). This High Priest, seated at
God's right hand, is Minister in the
heavenly sanctuary, Mediator of
the New Covenant (chap. viH.) ;
and in Him aU the types of the
first covenant are fulflUed, for by
His one offering of HimseR He
has put away sin, and established
the new covenant in which sin is
pardoned and man sanctified (chaps.
ix. x. 1—18).
The remainder of the Epistle is
in the maRi directly hortatory.
These being our privileges, let us
not by unfaithfulness faR short of
them, for terrible is the doom of
the unfaithful, and glorious the
reward of Faith (chap. x. 19 — 39),
which from the beginning has led
God's servants on to victory, and
of which Jesus is tbe Author and

Perfecter (chaps, xi. — xii. 4).
Chapters xH. and xHi. continue the
exhortations of the earlier chapters,
but in a higher strain.
We cannot conceive of any ar
gument by which the end contem
plated could be more effectuaUy
accomplished, and men morepower-
f uUy turned from " the offence of
the cross " to glorying in Christ
Jesus. The value which the Epistle
has for us and the extent of its in
fluence on our theology it would be
hard to over-estimate. Its peculiar
importance lies in the exposition
which it gives of the earlier revela
tion, showing the meaning of the
types and arrangements of the
former dispensation, and theR per
fect fulfilment in our Lord, and in
its witness to the power and abiding
significance of tbe divine word.

JAMES.

By the Rev. B. G. PUNCHARD, D D.

I. The "Writer. — Questions of
Identity. — " James, a servant
(literaUy, a slave) of God and the
Lord Jesus Christ : " this is aU the
direct information to be learned
from the author concerning him
self. The name James was, of
course, a favourite with the Jews
under the more common form of
Jacob, and is famiHar to us in
studying the books of the New
Testament. We read there of : —
1. James, the son of Zebedee.
2. James, the son of Alphseus.
3. James, " the Lord's brother."
4. James, the son of Mary.
5. James " the Less " (or, " the
Little").
6. James, the brother of Jude.
7. James, the first Bishop of
Jerusalem.
Is it possible for us to decide
between so many, or even feel faRly
convinced that we can identify one
of these as the writer of our Epistle ?
To reject them aR, and ascribe it
to another James, of whom no fur
ther mention is made, would seem
to be the addition of fresh and
neeRess difficulty to a problem
aReady sufficiently obscure. The
first claimant in the above list may
be dismissed at once, from the fact of
his early death. James the Great, as
he is called, the brother of John, was

executed by Herod Agrippa I. in
a.d. 44 (Acts xii. 2), a date much
too early for this Letter; and no
tradition or opinion worthy of con
sideration has ever attributed it to
him. The next inquiry must be one of
much circumspection, beset as it is
with thorns of controversy : in
fact, the conflict of authorities must
seem weU-nigh hopeless to an ordi
nary mind. Apart from the main
question, many collateral ones have
arisen to embitter the dispute, and
by no means the last word has been
said on either side. If, then, an
attempt be here made to arrive at
some conclusion, it must confessedly
be with much misgiving, and full
admission of the almost equal argu
ments against our decision.
By comparing St. Paul's descrip
tion concerning numbers 4 and 7
(above) in Gal. i. 19 and H. 9 — 12,
it is thought he must be referring
to one and the same man ; let that
be granted, therefore, to begin
with. We may identify numbers
3 and 4 by the knowledge that
James the son of Mary had a
brother caUed Joses (Matt, xxvii.
56), and so also had James "the
Lord's brother" (Matt. xiii. 55);
and further we may consider num
bers 3 and 6 identical, because each
was brother to Jude (Mark vi. 3 ;

272

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Jude, verse 1) ; James the Little,
number 5, is clearly the same as
the son of Mary, number 4. (Comp,
Matt. xxvu. 56; Mark xv. 40;
Luke xxiv. 10.) These might, it-
is true, be coincidences merely, and
when we remember the frequency
of Hebrew names, seem insufficient
for more than hypothesis ; but we
are arguing- on probabUity only,
and not to absolute demonstration.
Thus far, then, numbers 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7 are thought to be one and
the same person — the Apostle
James, and he the Lord's brother ;
the claims of number 1 have been
disposed of ; those of number 2, the
son of Alphams, remain. The
question, perhaps the greatest of
all, is whether the process of iden
tification can be extended further,
for on this depends largely the
issue of the dispute with regard
to the brethren of the Lord and
the perpetual vRginity of His
mother. Further Consideration of "the
Brethren of the Lord." — We have
no need in the present instance to
enter on the war-path of this theo
logical quarrel. There seems an
intentional silence in Holy Writ
concerning the family of our
Saviour, to teach us, perhaps, that
it stood in no spirituaUy pecuHar
position nearer to Him than we
may be ourselves, and to remind us
of His precious words, " Whosoever
shall do the will of My Father
which is in heaven, the same is My
brother, and sister, and mother "
(Matt. xii. 48—50). Bearing this
in mind, and with thoughts of
peace in our heart for those who
truly — and reverently — differ from
us, we may soon learn the outlines
of this discussion.
The terms "brother" and
" brethren " meet us so often in

the New Testament, as appHed to
Jesus Christ, that we can hardly
pass them by. Do they infer the
strict and actual relationship, or
one merely coUateral P
1. XTti-r'inc, or Helvidian Theory.
— The advocates of the natural
sense, that these men were the
younger sons of Joseph and Mary,
urge the plain meaning of the
Greek word adelphos, i.e., "bro
ther," and deny its use figuratively.
They point, moreover, to Matt. i.
25, and suppose from it the bRth of
other children in the holy family.
Those who shrink from such a view
are charged with sentiment, as im-
pugners of marriage, and even with
ideas more or less ManichaBan con
cerning the impurity of matter.
The German commentator Bleek,
and Dean Alford and Dr. Davidson
amongst ourselves, contend thus
for the actual brotherhood, main
taining the theory originaUy pro
pounded by Helvidius, a writer of
the fourth century, answered by
the great Augustine. To their first
argument we may answer that in
Holy Scripture there are four senses
of brotherhood, namely, of blood,
of tribe, of nation, of friendship,
and the three last of these wiU all
apply to the case in point. As for
the view based on Matt. i. 25, the
words, either in the Greek tongue
or our own, authorise it not. To
say " he did not do such a thing
untU the day of his death" does
not (as Bishop Pearson has ob
served) suggest the inference that
he did it then or afterwards ; and
the term " firstborn " by no means
impHes a second, even in our pre
sent use of language, under similar
circumstances. Above aU, though
it is confessedly ho argument, there
is the feeling aUuded to by Pearson
and others, and acquiesced in by

JAMES.

273

many, that there could have been
no fresh maternity on the part of
" Her who with a sweet thanksgiving
Took in tranquillity what God might
bring ;
Blessed Him, and waited, and within her
living
Felt tlie arousal of a Holy Thing."
" And as after His death His body
was placed in a sepulchre ' wherein
never man before was laid,' so it
seemed fitting that the womb con
secrated by His presence should not
henceforth have borne anything of
man." 2. Agnatic or Epiphanian Theory.
— A second class of divines are in
accordance with the theory of Epi
phanius, who was Bishop of Salamis,
in Cyprus, towards the end of the
fourth century, and no mean
antagonist of the Helvidians. At
the head of their modern repre
sentatives, facile princeps for
scholarship and faRness, is Bishop
Lightfoot. The brethren of the Lord are
said to be the sons . of Joseph
by a former wife, i.e., before his
espousal of the VRgin Mary, and
are rightly termed adelphoi ac
cordingly. Far from being of the
number of the Twelve, they were
beHevers only after Christ's resur
rection. Thus, then, are explained such
texts as Matt. xH. 46, Mark Hi.
31, Luke viii. 19, John vii. 5.
By this supposition James the
Lord's brother must be a distinct
person from James the son of
Alphasus. But an objection — nay,
"the one which has been hurled
at the Helvidian theory with great
force . . . and fatal effect " — is
strangely thought by Lightfoot to
be powerless against his favourite
Epiphanian doctrine. It is this :
our Lord on the cross commended

His mother to St. John : " Behold
thy mother," " Behold thy son "
(chap. xix. 26, 27); "and from
that hour," we are told, " that dis
ciple took her unto his own home."
If the Uterine theory be right, she
had at least four sons living at the
time. " Is it conceivable that our Lord
would thus have snapped asunder
the most sacred ties of natural
affection ? " Nor could the fact
of His brethren's unbelief " over
ride the paramount duties of final
piety " ; and the objection is
weakened further by our know
ledge that within a few days " all
alike are converted to the failh of
Christ : yet she, theR mother, liv
ing in the same city, and joining
with them in a common worship
(Acts i. 14), is consigned to the
care of a stranger, of whose house
she becomes henceforth an inmate."
Now, aR this argument, forcible
and fatal as it unquestionably is to
the idea of real and full relation
ship, is hardly less so against that
of step-sons. For, seeing they
were borne by a former wHe, they
must have been older than Jesus :
and, on the death of Joseph, the
eldest would certainly have become
head of the family, in full dominion
over the younger chRdren and the
widow herself, and with chief re-
sponsibUity for theR protection
and weRare. The custom prevaUed
under Roman law as well as Jewish,
and exists in the East stUl : being,
in fact, a relic of immemorial anti
quity. Nor can we conceive, for other
than the weightiest reasons, such
as immoraHty or crime, that our
Lord, who came " not to destroy
the Law, but to fulfil," would thus
openly have set one of its firmest
obHgations aside. It seems clear

18

274

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

that the widowed mother watching
by the cross, and soon to be child
less among women, with the sword
of separation piercing to and
through her own soul (Luke ii. 35),
had none to care for her, except
the beloved disciple into whose
charge she was given by her dying
Son. 3. Collateral, or Hieronymian
Theory. — There remains one pro
position more, known, from the
name of its foremost champion,
Jerome, as the Hieronymian theory ;
and this, on the whole, presents
fewest difficulties to the religious
mind. The sons of Alphaeus (or
Cleopas : the name is the same in
different dialects) were the cousins
of our Lord, their mother and His
being sisters ; and such a relation
ship would entirely j ustif y the use
of the word " brethren." The
balance of evidence seems to the
present writer to incline to
wards this venerable beUef ; and,
identifying " the son of Alphajus "
with "the brother of the Lord,"
he considers him to have been the
James of the Epistle. Unless this
solution of the difficulty be aUowed,
we are committed to the recogni
tion of a third James an Apostle,
and one so caUed in only a second
ary sense. It is true the term was
not strictly appHed to the origmal
twelve, and therefore might have
been appHed to a third James
as weU as to a Barnabas ; and we
will further admit that, if James
were one of the unbeHeving brethren
mentioned in John vii. 5, he could
hardly have been the early convert
enroUed by our Saviour in His
apostoHc band : though Bishop
Wordsworth, on the contrary, thinks
that he, like Peter, might have
fallen away for a time. A better
account for such a statement may

be sought in the reflection that,
although it is recorded "neither
did His brethren believe in Him,"
there is no evidence against them
all; and in the absence of nega
tive proof it seems safer — at least,
not inconsistent with the charity
which "hopeth aR things" — to
think of James and Jude as happy
exceptions to the family jealousy
and mistrust.
Again, unless we consider the
son of Alphaeus the brother of our
Lord in the tribal sense of Jerome,
we must admit the existence of
two men, strikingly similar in Hfe
and caRing, evidently related, each
with a mother named Mary, and
brethren Joses and Jude ; and to
which of these two, R they were not
one and the same, can the Epistle
be best ascribed ?
Opinions of Theologians. — These
problems, hard assuredly, seem
faRly such as may best be solved
by the ingenuity of ancient writerE,
weU acquainted with contempo
rary ideas. The opinions of moderns,
such as Lightfoot, Bleek, ARord,
and Davidson, are grounded on no
discovery of facts hidden from
theologians who were at least as
able and honest as themselves ; and
the old testimony has been so
thoroughly sifted that, untU moro
be brought forward, we had better
remain undecided R we cannot
hold a conclusion fortified by tho
consensus of Clement of Alexandria
and John the Eloquent, in the
Greek Church ; Jerome and Augus
tine, in the Latin ; Pearson, Lard-
ner, Home, Wordsworth, and
ElUcott in our own ; and by
German writers, such as Lampe,
Hug, Meier, and Lange.
Conclusion. — Thus we see the
best ecclesiastical authority and
traRtions have pretty constantly

JAMES.

275

assigned the authorship of the
CathoHc Epistle to the third name
on our Ust (above), and identified
him with the second, fourth, fifth,
sixth, and seventh, in accordance
with what we venture to affirm is
the plainest path out of the maze.
Further History of James. — So
much externaUy ; for interval evi
dence we have a singular agree
ment between the fervid abrupt
style of the Letter and the cha
racter of its reputed writer, known
as "the Just" by the Jews, and
termed by them (in honour, not
reproach) the " Camel-kneed,'
from his long and frequent devo
tions. In no way conspicuous
amongst the disciples, he comes
into prominence only after the Re
surrection ; perhaps that witness to
the Lord Christ was speciaRy
needed in his case to perfect faith,
and to transform the sHent man of
prayer into the strong and fearless
leader of the infant Church.
As the first Bishop of Jerusalem,
we find him (Acts xv.) presiding in
a solemn assembly to hear the mis
sionary reports and to arrange for
the requRements of GentUe con
verts. The pastoral letter (Acts
xv. 24 — 29) may be compared with
the cathohc one now before us, as
it was probably written by the
same hand. The last Scriptural
notice of James is (Acts xxi. 18) on
St. Paul's final visit to the Holy
City, when, again, a synod of the
elders seems to have been held. A
Greek Christian writer, named He-
gesippus, himself a convert from
Judaism, teUs us more of the fate
of this "bulwark" of the fold.
Comparing his highly artificial
account (preserved for us in the
history of Eusebius : too prolix for
insertion here) with the narrative
in Josephus, the plain truth seems

that James the Just was hurled
from a pinnacle of the Temple, and
finaUy despatched by stoning, as a
believer in Jesus of Nazareth,
about the year 69, immediately be
fore the siege of Jerusalem by the
Roman emperor Vespasian. Jo
sephus (Ant. xx. 9) accuses the
high priest Ananus, a Sadducee, of
the judicial murder, and declares
that the "most equitable of the
citizens, and such as were the most
uneasy at the breach of the laws,
disliked what was done," and com
plained to King Agrippa and
Albinus the procurator, who, in
consequence, removed Ananus from
his office. Many authors, ancient
and modern, have been of opinion
that the martyrdom of James was
the " fiUing up of the sins of Jeru
salem, and made its cup of guRt to
overflow." " Though the mills of God grind slowly,
yet they grind exceeding small :
Though with patience He stands waiting,
with exactness grinds He all."
II. His Epistle. — To whom
written. — In the first and chief
place, James unquestionably wrote
to his countrymen, scattered over
the whole earth, though stiU be
longing to their twelve tribes. But
in no sense can the Letter be
looked upon as an appeal to un-
beHeving Jews, abounding as it
does with references to Christian
doctrines held, and Christian works
to be maintained, by those who
had " the faith of our Lord Jesus
Christ." That the majority of its
readers would be the poor and
meek can hardly be doubted, if we
turn to such passages as those in
chap. H. And it would seem that
these struggling societies of humble
Christians were in a danger more
peculiar to the poor — that is, of

276

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

envying and fawning upon the
rich and weR-to-do ; forgetting
that they themselves were op
pressed by such, dragged before
judgment-seats, and exposed to
the blasphemy and contempt out
poured by unbeHevers on the
"Christian" name (chap. H. 6, 7).
Style and Character. — In his de
nunciation of the rich defrauders,
James breaks out into a fiery elo
quence worthy of an ancient pro
phet ; the tender change from
rebuke of the wrongers to comfort
for the wronged (chap. v. 7, 8) is
unsurpassed in the whole roU of
inspired utterance ; and in con
demnation of lust (chap. iv. 1 — 4),
pride (chap. iv. 5 — 10), evil-speak
ing (chap. iv. 11, 12), and all
worldliness (chap. iv. 13 — 17), the
fervour and righteous indignation
of the Apostle show of themselves
the manner of his life and death :
for again, as with God's servant of
old, " the land was not able to bear
all his words" (Amos vii. 10).
Scope and Aim. — Nothing can
be clearer and simpler than the
scope and aim of this Letter; as
the Sermon on the Mount compared
with the rest of Matthew, so this
exhortation of James the Just (or
"tbe Wise," as the Greeks love to
caU him) stands forth among its
feUow Epistles, a lovely gospel of
good works, of Christian steadfast
ness and patience. Some theo
logians, unfortunately, blinded by
their own partial apprehension of
one side of God's truth, have mis
read its chapters, and found therein
an opposition to the doctrine of
St. Paul. Luther even could go so
far as to caRthe Epistle "worthless
as one of straw." Happily, later
criticism has vindicated the teach
ing of the brother of the Lord; and
the plainest reader may learn for

himself that Paul and James were
at one, RrfaRibly moved by the
same Spirit of the Hving God.
State of Religious Opinion : — Ju
daism and Christianity. — Let us
recoUect a little more fully the
condition of the faith among those
Christians who were first converted
from Judaism. With them the
adherence to outward forms, the
stickHng for the letter of the Law,
and other like barren principles,
had become a behef, which dis
played itself in new shapes, corre
sponding with theR altered state
of reHgion. "Wherever," it has
been well said, "Christianity did
not effect a complete change in the
heart, the old Jewish spirit natur
aUy manifested itself in the pro
fessed converts." It was what our
Puritan divines quaintly, but cor
rectly, termed "the popery of the
human heart." The souls that had
trusted whoUy and entRely in
sacrifice as a bare substitution of
victims, and deHverance from an
indiscriminate vengeance, now
clung to faith as a passive thing,
instead. The old idol had, as it
were, been torn down by these
ardent disciples : a new one was
upraised to the vacant niche ; faith
in a faith became the leading idea,
and the light which was in them
turned to darkness, the breath of
Hfe to death.
Affectedby Oriental Theories. — But
perhaps a cause of this confusion is
to be found much farther afield.
The Jewish Church had become
largely affected by the more re
mote Eastern thought; the cap
tivity, while it eradicated utterly
aR wish for idolatry, influenced
the chosen people in a strange and
unlooked-for way. The power of
the mystical speculations of India,
more especially of the devout foi-

JAMES.

277

lowers of Gotama Sakya Muni,
now known as Buddhists, is only
beginning to be rightly pondered
by Christian scholars and divines.
It was not the Persian systems,
nor the Chaldaean, but the Hindu
(and not infrequently working
through, and by means of, them)
which perplexed anew the Oriental
mind. Here was, doubtless, the
origin of the Essenes and other
offshoots of Judaism ; and even in
the Church itself similar mischief
may be traced in the varying forms
of heresy which drove her almost
to destruction. The ancient theory
of sacrifice in InRa was abandoned
by the Brahmans, and in its place
faith was everywhere preached ;
the sole essential was dependence
on God ; implicit " reliance on Him
made up for all deficiencies in other
respects, whilst no attention to the
forms of reHgion or to the rules of
morahty was of the sHghtest avail
without this all-important senti
ment." * Precisely the same wave
of thought seems to have broken
on the Jewish Church; and one
not much dissimilar, we know, in
later times, has changed the whole
set of reHgious tendencies in West
ern Europe.
Denounced accordingly. — It seems,
then, that in complete aversion
from such innovations, James
wrote what he did of moral right
eousness, as opposed to correct
beHef ; in other words, contending
for a reHgion of the heart and not
the lips alone ; with him Christi
anity was indeed " a Hfe, and not a
mere bundle of dead opinions."
" Wilt thou know, 0 vain man,"
pleads the impassioned Apostle
(chap. H. 20, 21), "that faith with-
* See Elphinstone's India, Vol. i.,
Book 2, chap, iv., quoting from the text
book called Bhagwat G ita.

out works is dead ? Was not
Abraham our father justified by
works when he had offered Isaac?"
And surely here we catch the echoes
of a greater than James, who an
swered the Jews when they boasted
to Him in the Temple, " Abraham
is our father," " If ye were Abra
ham's children ye would do the
works of Abraham" (JohnvHi. 29).
His " faith, working by love," up
held him through a desolating
trial. If we look at the motive,
he was justified by faith; if we
look at the result, he was justified
by works. No less a faith than
Abraham's could have wrought
thus mightily before the face of
heaven, or can so take the kingdom
thereof by violence still; and the
theology which could discern oppo
sition in the plain declarations of
God's word herein is fit only for
the dust that has buried its volumes
on forgotten shelves.
"Who are we that with restless feet,
And grudging eyes unpurged and dim,
Among the earthly shadows heat,
And seek to question Him ? "
Dale of the Epistle. — The Epistle
has been caUed "general" — that
is, " universal " — chiefly because it
was addressed to no body of be-
Hevers in one place in particular.
The absence of aU aUusion to
GentUe converts faRly proves an
earlier date than the circular letter
preserved in Acts xv. 24 — 29, that
is, somewhere about the year a.d.
44. And, if such be correct, we
must look on this as one of the
oldest writings in the canons of
the New Testament.
Genuineness and Canon icity. —
It does not seem to have been
known at first to all the early
Church, no direct quotation being
found tiU the time of Origen,

278

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

though indirect references may be
traced in the Apostolic Fathers.
In the Hst of sacred books univer-
saRy acknowledged, or the con
trary, drawn up by Eusebius,
Bishop of Csesarea (in Palestine),
at the beginning of the fourth cen
tury, the Epistle of James is
amongst the latter — the " antilego
mena," or " those spoken against,"
along with the Epistles of Jude, 2
Peter, and 2 and 3 John. The un
certainty was with regard to its
author ; Httle doubt ever being
felt concerning its inspRation. The
great Greek Fathers- of the fourth
century all quote it as canonical,
and are supported by the "Latin.
Some of the divines of the Refor
mation, however, mistrusted it,
chiefly on account of internal and
doctrinal evidence ; and, of course,
the German rationalists have
eagerly attacked the Epistle from
such a ground of advantage. But
it has thus far weR survived the
storms of controversy, and wiU as
surely remain unharmed, to be the
help and delight of the patient
souls who trust still that " the
coming of the Lord draweth nigh."
" Hora novissima, tempora pessima sunt,
vigilemus :
Ecce minaciter imminet Arbiter Ille
supremus :
Imminet, imminet, 'at mala terminer.,
sequa coronet.
Recta remuneret, anxia liberet, sethera
donet."
So wrote Bernard of Morlaix, seven
hundred years ago, with the words
of James (chap. v. 8) above quoted
in his heart. It were well to grave
them on our own : " For yet a Httle
while, and he that shaU come and
will come, and wiU not tarry"
(Hebrews x. 37). The free transla
tion appended is the famiHar one,
by Dr. Neale : —

" The world is very evil ; the times are
waxing late ;
.Be sober and keep vigil ; the Judge is
at the gate :
The Judge that comes in mercy, the
Judge that comes with might,
To terminate the evil, to diadem the
right." Analysis op Contents.
The Salutation (chap. i. 1).
I. Appeals on behalf of—
(i.) 1. Patience (chap. i. 2 — 4).
2. Prayer for wisdom ; to
be asked in faith
(chap. i. 5 — 8).
3. Lowly - mindedness
(chap. i. 9—11).
(H.) «. Endurance (chap. i. 12
—15.
p. Because of God's good
ness (chap. i. 16 — 18).
(Hi.) 1. Meekness (chap. i. 17 — 21.
2. SeR-knowledge (chap. i.
22—25).
3. Practical Religion (chap.
i. 26—27).
II. Rebukes on Account of—
(i.) a Respect for persons
(chap. ii. 1 — 9).
j8. Because leading to a
violation of law (chap.
ii. 10, 11).
(H.) Faith without works (chap.
ii. 14—26.)
a. Example of Abraham
(chap. H. 21—24).
j8. Example of Rahab (chap.
ii. 25).
y. Summary (chap. ii. 26.)
(iii.) Censoriousness and sins of
the tongue (chap. iii).
a. Warnings and examples
against (chap. iH. 5 —
12).
/3. Exhortations to gentleness
or silence (chap. iii. 13
-18).

JAMES.

279

(iv.) 1. a. Lust (chap. iv. 1 — 4).
j8. Pride (chap. iv. 5 —
10).
2. Evil speaking (chap.
iv. 11, 12.)
3. o. Worldliness (chap.
iv. 13—17).
j3. Trust in riches (chap.
v. 1—6).
III. Conclusion.
(i.) Exhortation to patience
(chap. v. 7 — 11).
(ii.) Caution against swearing
(chap. v. 12).
(iii.) Advice of various kinds : —
a. 1. To the sorrowful
(chap. v. 13).
2. To the joyful (chap.
v. 13).
3. To the sick and
suffering (chap.
v. 14, 15).
/8. 1. Concerning confes
sion (chap. v.
16).
2. Concernmgprayer :
example of Elias
(chap.v. 17, 18).
3. Concerning conver
sion (chap. v.
19, 20).

[References. — Much abler and
fuRer treatment of the subject
may be read in the foUowing
books, to aU of which, and to
many others by way of reference,
the present writer is under much
obligation : —
ARord's Greek Testament, with a
Critically-revised Text. Vol. IV.
Rivingtons, 1871.
Bleek's Introduction to the New
Testament. (Translated byUrwick).
Vol. II. T. & T. Clark, 1874.
Davidson's Introduction to the
New Testament. Vol. III. Bagster,
1851. Home's Introduction to the Holy
Scriptures. Vol. IV. Twelfth Edi
tion. By TregeUes. Longmans,
1869. Lightfoot on St. Paul's Epistles
to the Galatians : Dissertation II.,
The Brethren of the Lord. Mac-
millan, 1869.
Meyrick's articles on "James"
and " The General Epistle of
James," in Smith's Dictionary of
the Bible. Vol. I. Murray, 1868.
Wordsworth's New Testament,
with Introductions and Notes, The
General Epistles, §c. Rivingtons,
1872.]

I. PETER.

By the Rev. Cahoh MASON, D.D.

I. The Author. — The author
ship of this Epistle can hardly be
caUed a matter of question. If it
be not St. Peter's own, we have no
choice but to set it down as
an impudent forgery. It claims
dRectly, and in the simplest form,
to be the writing of the chief
Apostle of our Lord (chap. i. 1).
The author asserts himself to be a
"witness of the sufferings of
Christ " (chap. v. 1), and yet does
it so modestly and with such ab
sence of detaU as would be incon
ceivable in a forger acquainted
with St. Peter's history. The en
thusiastic and impassioned style of
the Letter corresponds with the
character of St. Peter as we find it
recorded in history ; and in several
marked points not only the doc
trinal statements, but even the
Hterary style and turn of the sen
tences, recaUs the style of St. Peter's
speeches in the Acts. The fact
that the Letter was written in
Greek (for the adjectives alone are
sufficient disproof of the theory
that it is a translation from
an Aramaic original) is no objec
tion to the Petrine authorship.
GaHlee was a haR-Greek country,
studded with Greek cities; St.
Peter's brother bore a Greek name.
No GalUean of the middle classes

(to which St. Peter evidently be
longed) could have been ignorant
of the language; indeed, there is
sufficient evidence that Greek was
as much used in GaHlee as Aramaic.
It seems that no question was
ever entertained untU this century
with regard to the genuineness of
the Epistle by any church, or by any
individual, whether orthodox or
heretical. The Epistle was, in
deed, rejected by Marcion, but
distinctly on the ground that it
was St. Peter's. Origen speaks of
it as one of the books whose
authority had never been disputed.
The Second Epistle of St. Peter,
which, even if not genuine, cannot
be dated later than the early part
of the second century, refers back
to it, and refers to it expressly as
the work of St. Peter. St. Clement
of Rome, writing (probably) a.d.
95, though he does not directly
quote from it with marks of cita
tion, has expressions such as " His
marvellous light," and several
others less marked, which seem
certainly to indicate his ac
quaintance with it. St. Polycarp
(about 115 a.d.), bishop of one of
the churches to which the Epistle
was addressed, within the compass
of one short letter to the PhiHppians,
cites it again and again — e.g., " In

I. PETEE.

281

whom, though ye never saw Him,
ye believe, and beHeving, ye re
joice;" "not rendering evil for
evU, or railing for railing ; " and
many other passages. St. Poly-
carp's friend Papias (according to
Eusebius) made use of this Epistle
too, and seems to have made
special comments on the connection
between St. Peter and St. Mark.
Besides traces of the use of it to
be found in Hermas, TheophUus,
and others, it is freely quoted, and
by name, by Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, TertuRian, and aR sub
sequent writers. In fact, it would
be difficult to imagine stronger ex
ternal evidence in its favour. M.
Renan, to take one example of an
historical critic whose theology is
not that of St. Peter, writes : " If,
as we are happy to beHeve, this
Epistle is reaRy Peter's, it does
honour to his good sense, his
straightforwardness, and his sim-
phcity ; " and he gives many good
reasons for his belief.
There is but one argument
against the genuineness of the
Epistle to which any weight at all
can be assigned, and even this loses
all its force when it is examined.
"As for the eclectic and con-
ciHatory tendencies observed in
the Epistle of Peter," writes M.
Renan (Antichrist, p. ix.), "they
constitute no objection to any but
those who, like Christian Baur and
his disciples, imagine the difference
between Peter and Paul to have
been one of absolute opposition.
Had the hatred between the two
parties of primitive Christianity
been as profound as is thought by
that school, the reconcUiation
would never have been made. Peter
was not an obstinate Jew Hke
James." Withoutnecessarilyagree-
ing in this description of James

we may weU accept the statement
that St. Peter was a man pecuHarly
susceptible of impressions, and
(even putting out of view the two
Epistles in our canon) his admRa-
tion, and indeed his awe of St.
Paul, are visible to any reader of
the Acts and the Epistle to the Gala
tians. No writer recognises them
more frankly than M. Renan (Saint
Paul, pp. 85, 86). Now, on the
one hand, it is very easy to ex
aggerate the Pauline character of
this Epistle. It contains no one
doctrine, Buch as Justification by
Faith, which is essentiaRy bound
up with the name of St. Paul. On
the matter of the free admission of
Gentiles into the Church (which
indirectly forms a large element in
this Epistle) St. Peter had made
up his mind long years before he
came much under the influence of
St. Paul (Actsx. 34; xi. 17 ; xv. 11).
But on the other hand, there were
special reasons why, in this Epistle,
aU St. Peter's sympathy for his co-
Apostle should come out. He was
using, either as his secretary, or as
his letter-bearer — perhaps in both
capacities — that liberal-minded Silas
(chap. v. 12), who, after being
chosen by the Church of Jerusa
lem as their own exponent to the
Gentiles of Antioch, had attached
himseR to St. Paul, accompanied
him in the most momentous of his
missionary travels, and had (ap
parently) devoted himseR to the
edification and extension of those
Asiatic churches which the two
had founded together. St. Mark,
too, dear to St. Peter as his own
"son" in the faith (chap. v. 13),
had been but recently again (after
early misunderstandings) a chosen
companion of St. Paul, and was
probably not very long returned
from a mission on which that

282

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUC'I'TONS.

Apostle had despatched him into
Asia Minor (Col. iv. 10). And,
moreover, aU St. Peter's chivalrous
naturewouldbearoused by the man
ner in which the churches of aU
that region, or any rate the Jewish
element in them, were beginning to
revolt (as at Corinth also) against
theR founder when his back was
turned. II. The Place, Time, and
Occasion of the Epistle. —
The place from which the letter
was written was, we may say with
out any hesitation, Rome. If this
be not the case, we must understand
the "Babylon" of chap. v. 13 to
mean the Eastern Babylon ; and it
is neither very probable in itseR
that St. Peter should have visited
that city, and there have been met
by St. Silas and St. Mark, nor is there
any trace of a tradition, however
meagre, that he over travelled in
those parts. On the other hand,
were it not for tho abuse made of
the fact by the supporters of the
Papacy, no one would ever have
questioned the universal and well-
authenticated tradition which
affirms that St. Peter was, along
with St. Paul, co-founder of the
Church of Rome. The whole sub
ject has been, of late years, sifted
to the bottom by various German
and other writers, especiaUy by Dr.
HUgenfeld in repeated articles
between 1872 and 1877 in his
Zeitschrift. Though every con
ceivable difference may be found
between these authors respecting
the dates and duration of St. Peter's
sojourn at Rome, very few are so
hardUy sceptical as to reject alto
gether evidence as strong, early,
and wide, as that on which we
believe that Hannibal invaded
Italy. This fact being then certain.

the only question i3 whether
Eusebius is right — or St. Clement
of Alexandria, and even Papias,
whom he appears to be quoting —
in suggesting that " Babylon " in
this Epistle meant Rome.*
About this there can be no diffi
culty. Not only is Rome so styled
in the Apocalypse, and some few
years later in the Jewish Sibylline
Oracles, but M. Renan quotes pas
sages from various Rabbinical
writings where the same name occurs
with the same meaning. The
Jews deHghted in substituting
symboHcal names and epithets even
in plain prose speech (e.g., Jerub-
besheth for Jerub-baal, Haman the
Agagite; St. Peter himseR, R the
Second, Epistle be his, seems to do
the same when he calls Balaam
" the son of Bosor"); and the detes
tation of Rome, natural to a Jew
at aU times, and heightened by
Christianity when once the persecu
tion began, found vent for itseR in
aU manner of names cuUed from
the Old Testament, such as
Nineveh and Edom, as weU as
Babylon. If, then, Rome be the place from
which St. Peter wrote, how can we
find approximately the time ? It
cannot be put earlier than the year
64, for two reasons especiaUy : (1) be
cause it shows a deep acquaintance

* The words occur in a passage describ
ing the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark,
which ends thus, " and that [St. Peter]
rati fied the book for the churches to study
(Clement, in tlie sixth of his Ilypotypose*,
has put the story in our hands, and his
account is substantiated also by the Bishop
of Hicrapolis named Papias), and that
Peter mentions Mark in his former Epistle,
which also they say tliat lie composed at
Rome itself, and that he means this when
he calls the city in a figurative kind of
way 'Babylon,' in these words, Tlieco-elcct
one in Babylon greeleth you, and Mark mil
son."— (Bus. Hist. Eccl. II. xv. 2.)

I. PETER.

283

with the Epistle (so-named) to the
Ephesians,* the date of which is [
62 or 63 ; (2) because direct perse
cution had broken out against the
Christians as Christians, and this
did not take place untR after the
great fire at Eome in July, 64.
The phenomena of the letter will
not bear interpreting by the theory
of simple disaffection, however deep
and spiteful, of the populace
against the Christians. They are
liable at any moment, even away
in Asia, to be caUed upon to give
an account for their faith in the
law courts (chap. Hi. 15). If any
of them is proved to be a Christian,
he wiR very Hkely "suffer" — suffer
capital punishment — for that crime
(chap. iv. 16). The whole piece is
burdened with persecution of a
most systematic kind on every side.
There is, however, one side-question
which causes some difficulty. St.
Paul is not mentioned as joining Hi

* Compare chap. i. 1, 2 with Eph. i. 4;
chap. i. 3 with Eph. i. 3 ; chap. i. 4, 5 with
Eph. i. 11, 18 ; chap. i. 12 with Eph. iii. 10 ;
chap. i. 14 with Eph. ii. 2, 3 ; chap. ii. 5
with Eph. ii. 20, 21, 22 ; chap. ii. 18 with
Eph. vi. 5 : chap. iii. 1 with Eph. v. 22 ;
chap. iii. 22 with Eph. i. 20, 21 ; chap. iv.
3 with Eph. ii. 2 ; and other passages.
The connection with Silvanus, and with
Mark, is sufficient to explain St. Peter's
close familiarity with an Epistle which
had been destined (largely) for the same
readers as his own. His deep knowledge
ofthe Epistle to the Romans (which is trace
able in very many passages) is a strong
argument in favour of the identification of
" Babylon " with Rome. There are some
indications also of an acquaintance with
the Epistles to the Thessalonians, again
perbaps through Silvanus. It is note
worthy, as showing the position which st.
Peter held amidst conflicting parties, tliat
the document which, next after the
Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, has
most influenced this Letter, is the Epistle
of St. James ; for instance, compare chap,
i. 6, 7 with Jas. i. 2, 3 ; chap. i. 24 with Jas.
i. 10, 11 ; chap. iv. 8 with Jas. v. 20 ; chap.
v. 5—9 with Jas. iv 8—10 ; ct al.

the salutation to the churches which
he had founded. Why so P No
more probable conjecture can be
madethanthat, shortly after writing
his Epistles to the Asiatic ChurcheB,
St. Paul was tried and Hberated,
and made that journey into the far
West on which he had long set his
heart, and which St. Clement of
Rome, who must have known weR,
says that he took. By this journey
he escaped death in the outbreak of
Nero's persecution ; and St. Peter,
arriving at Rome about the same
time, finds him gone, and Silas and
Mark just coming back to head
quarters from their work in Asia,
with reports of division and dis
order which requRed immediate
attention. Accordingly St. Peter
issues this cRcular Letter which we
have before us.
Opinions are much divided as to
whether the Letter was addressed
primarily to Jewish or to GentUe
Christians, or, again, to both in
differently. Either answer is beset with
difficulties, but the question cannot
be f uRy discussed here, though the
present writer adheres to the
usuaUy-received opinion that St.
Peter keeps to his origmal in
tention of going to the cRcumcision
only. The pact between the Apostles
was, indeed, not of that rigid nature
which would preclude the possibiHty
of his writing to the Gentiles, even
as St. Paul wrote to Jews ; stiU, it
seems more natural on the whole to
suppose that he adhered to tho
pact. The Letter is throughout
exactly what the author describes
it as being (chap. v. 12). He
" exhorts and testifies that this is
God's true grace." That is, he
insists upon the Jewish Christians
recognising fuHy that St. Paul's

284

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

gospel was aR that it ought to
be (chap. i. 12, 25), and exhorts
them to consequent unity and to
brotherly love. The presence of
persecution both increases the temp
tation to faR away and likewise
heightens the heinousness of such
desertion ; therefore every warning
together with every encourage
ment is pointed by the mention
of sufferings as well as of the

reward that is coming when Christ
returns. [The writer has not only had the
usual printed commentaries and
books of reference, but every now
and then has had the advantage of
manuscript notes of lectures (such
as wUl scarcely be heard in Cam
bridge again) by Bishop Lightfoot,
lent to him by the ChanceUor of
Truro Cathedral.]

IT. PETER.

Bt ihe Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D.

I. The Authorship. — The
question of the authenticity of our
Epistle is one of well-known diffi
culty. The objections to its
genuineness are more serious than
those against any other book in the
New Testament, and yet are not
so conclusive as by any means to
have sUenced those who defend the
authenticity. Before proceeding to
a consideration of the arguments
on each side, two remarks seem to
be necessary.
(1.) The Epistle must stand or
faR as a whole. It is impossible
to reject passages which appear to
be open to objection and retain the
rest. The thought is eminently
consecutive throughout, the style
is uniform, and the writer fre
quently glances back at what he
has said before or anticipates what
is coming. The net- work of con
nected ideas which thus pervades
the whole cannot be severed other
wise than -violently. Moreover, the
singular want of agreement among
those who advocate an expurgated
edition as to what portions should
be struck out and what not, is
another reason for refusing to dis
integrate the Epistle. Thus, Gro-
tius thinks that the words " Peter "
and "Apostle," in chap. i. 1, and
chaps i. 18 and iii. 15, 16, are in
terpolations. Bertholt would re

tain chaps, i. and iii., rejecting
chap. ii. Lange (in Herzog) would
reject all that Hes between chaps, i.
19 and iii. 3, i.e., from the words
"knowing this first" in chap, i 20,
to the same words in chap. iii. 3.
UUmann surrenders aU but chap. i.
Bunsen retains nothing but the
first eleven verses and the doxology.
(2.) It is inexpedient to encumber
the discussion with an attempted
reductio ad horribile of one of the
alternatives. A court must not con
cern itself with the consequences
of finding the prisoner guHty. Let
us, therefore, at once set aside aU
such notions as this : that if the
Epistle is not by St. Peter, ' ' the
Church, which for more than four
teen centuries has received it, has
been imposed upon by what must,
in that case, be regarded as a
Satanic device." Satan forging the
Second Epistle of St. Peter would
indeed be Satan casting out Satan.
Or, again, " If any book which she
reads as the Word of God is not
the Word of God, but the work of
an impostor, then — with reverence
be it said — Christ's promise to His
Church has faRed, and the Holy
Spirit has not been given to guide
her into aR truth . . . The testi
mony of the universal Church of
Christ, declaring that the Epistles
which we receive as such are Epistles

286

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

of St. Peter and are the Word of
God, is not her testimony only — it
is the testimony of Christ." Every
true Christian will sympathise with
the zeal for God's Word which is
conspicuous in these passages ; but
it will be weU to keep apart two
questions which they combine and
almost confuse — (a) Is this Second
Epistle the work of St. Peter ? (b)
Is it part of the Word of God ?
The second question is here takeni
for granted. The Church answered
it in the affirmative fifteen hundred
years ago, and it is no part of the
present work to question the de
cision. Only the first question will
be discussed; and to attempt to
settle it by considerations such as
the passages just quoted suggest, is
neither just, nor wise, nor in the
deepest sense reverent. It is not
just; for how can we give a fair
hearing to adverse evidence R we
approach it in a spirit which com
pels us to regard it as false or mis
leading ? It is not wise ; for what
wUl be our position if, after all, the
adverse evidence is too strong for
even our pre-judgment ? It is not
reverent; for it vRtuaUy assumes
that the Almighty cannot exalt an
Epistle put forth under a pretended
name to the dignity of being His
Word ; and that He who spoke to
His chosen people by the lips of
impure Balaam cannot speak to us
by the writings of one who may
have Ul-advisedly assumed the pen
of an Apostle. Hos. i. 2, 3 and Hi.
1, 2 may warn us to be on our
guard against pronouncing hastily
beforehand as to what means and
instruments it is or is not possible
for God to employ for the instruc
tion of His people.
These remarks are not made with
a -view to surrendering the authen
ticity of the Epistle as a thing of

no moment, but only that we may
be able to weigh the evidence with
calmness. The question of the
genuineness of the Epistle is one of
immense interest and no smaR im
portance ; but there is no terrible
alternative before us. If, after all,
we have to admit that the Epistle is
possibly, or probably, or certainly
not the work of St. Peter, the
spiritual value of the contents, both
in themselves and in having received
the stamp of the Church as
canonical, will remain absolutely
unchanged ; although, possibly, our
own views of God's providence in
relation to the canon of Scripture
may requRe re-consideration and
re-adjustment. This, however,
is but the common experience both
of the individual and of the race.
Men's views of God's deahngs with
them are ever needing re-adjust
ment, as He hides and manifests
HimseR in history ; for His ways
are not as our ways, nor His
thoughts as our thoughts.
The objections to the genuineness
of the Epistle are of four kinds :
being drawn (a) from the history
of the Epistle; (b) from its con
tents inrelationto the First Epistle ;
(c) from the contents considered in
themselves ; (d) from the same in
relation to the Epistle of St. Jude.
In each case it will be most con
venient to state the adverse facts
first, and then what may be said on
the other side.
(a) External Evidence : The His
tory of the Epistle. — Among the
earliest writers there is a remark
able sUence with regard to this
Epistle. There is no mention of
it, and no certain quotation from it
or aUusion to it, in either the first
or second century. Neither the
ApostoHc Fathers nor Justin Mar-

IT. PETER.

287

tyr nor Ireneeus yield anything
that can be relied upon as a refer
ence. It is probable that Irenaeus
did not know of its existence ; it is
almost certain that neither Tertul
lian nor Cyprian did. About
Clement of Alexandria there is some
doubt, owing to inconsistent state
ments of Eusebius and Cassiodorus.
But seeing that in the large amount
of Clement's writings now extant
there is only one possible, and not
one probable, reference to it, and
that, in quoting 1 Peter, he writes,
" Peter in his Epistle says," the
probabUity is that he did not know
it. The Muratorian Fragment
(circ. a.d. 170) omits it. It is
wanting in the Peschito or old
Syriac version (and St. Peter was
personuRy known in Syria, es
pecially at Antioch), and also in
the old Latin version which pre
ceded the Vulgate. Thus we are
brought quite into the thRd century
without any sure trace of the
Epistle. Origen certainly knew it. In
those of his works which exist
only in the Latin translation of
Rufinus he quotes it as the work of
St. Peter. But Rufinus is not a
trustworthy translator; and Origen,
in works of which the original
Greek is stiR extant, either ex
presses a doubt about it or rejects
it by RnpHcation, as Clement of
Alexandria does. Eusebius cer
tainly rejected it ; Chrysostom,
Theodore, and Theodoret probably
did so ; and we learn from Didy-
mus, Jerome's preceptor, that
doubts about it still survived late
in the fourth century, though he
seems to have overcome them in
himself. At the Reformation these
doubts revived again, and have
never subsided since. At the pre
sent time, a large number of the

best critics consider the Epistle
suspicious or spurious.
On the other hand, there are
possible aRusions to it in Clement
of Rome, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin
Martyr, Melito, TheophRus, and
Hippolytus : and some even among
adverse critics consider those in the
Shepherd of Hermas (circ. a.d. 140)
to be certain. These possible allu
sions cannot here be given, but they
may be found from the following
references: — Clement H. 5; iii. 4;
Polycarp, Hi. 4 ; Hermas, ii. 13,
15, 20 ; iii. 5 ; Justin Martyr, ii. 1 ;
iii. 8 ; Melito, Hi. 5 — 7 ; Theo-
phUus, i. 19, 21 ; Hippolytus, i. 21.
The first certain reference to the
Epistle as by St. Peter is in a
Latin translation of a letter by
Origen's pupR, FRmiHan of
Cajsarea, to Cyprian (a.d. 256).
Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome,
Rufinus, and Augustine accepted
it, although they knew that it had
been much suspected ; and they, of
course, had evidence which has not
come down to us. The Councils of
Laodicea (circ. a.d. 360) and of
Hippo (a.d. 393) formaUy included
it in the Canon, decisions which
have never been reversed. Its
omission from the Muratorian
Fragment is somewhat weakened
by the fact that 1 Peter (about
which there is no doubt) is omitted
also ; and, as a set-off to its omission
from the Peschito, we have the fact
that Ephrem Syrus seems to have
accepted it.
Thus the adverse external evi
dence, serious though it is, is any
thing but conclusive. It can easily
be explained. Communication be
tween the churches was fitful and
irregular, sometimes slow, some
times very rapid. Accidents might
favour the circulation of the FRst

2S8

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

Epistle and delay that of the
Second. The very fact of its being
the first Letter from the pen of the
chief Apostle would promote the
spread of the FRst Epistle ; and as
it was known to have been written
only a few years before the death
of St. Peter, this would make a
second Letter within so short an
interval a Httle improbable. The
marked difference of style and
language between the two Letters,
which Jerome teRs us had attracted
notice, would increase the distrust.
The amount of apocryphal Hterature
which began to appear at a very
early date, and flooded the Church
in the second and third centuries,
made all churches very suspicious
about unknown writings; and
several of these apocryphal books
bore the name of St. Peter. Every
year that the arrival of the Epistle
at any particular church was de
layed would make its acceptance
by that church less probable. The
fate of the Fourth Gospel, on
account of its appearing after the
others had obtained fuU possession
of the field, is an Ulustration of
similar causes and effects. When
we remember that many narratives
of Christ's Hfe (Luke i. 1, Note)
and some letters of St. Paul have
entRely perished, we need not be
surprised that a short Epistle like
this, containing Httle that ordinary
Christians did not know, should
have remained for more than a
century quite unknown to many
churches and suspected by others.
If the external evidence were aU,
we might admit that the general
and authoritative reception of the
Epistle in the fourth century, after
such fuU doubt and debate, is more
than sufficient for us.
(b) Internal Evidence : Tlie Con

tents ofthe Second Epistle in relation
to the First. — Very formidable Hsts
of points of difference between the
two Epistles have been drawn up,
but recent adverse critics have
ceased to urgo many of these sup
posed differences ; we may, there
fore, content ourselves with some
of the most telling of such argu
ments as specimens, (a) 1 Peter
uses Old Testament phraseology,
and quotes Old Testament writers ;
2 Peter, with two doubtful excep
tions (chaps, ii. 22; iii. 8), does
neither. (f3) 1 Peter is mainly
about suffering persecution ; 2
Peter is mainly about heresy. (7)
1 Peter speaks of the Death, Re
surrection, and Ascension of Christ ;
2 Peter mentions none of them.
(5) 1 Peter represents the return of
Christ as near (chap. iv. 7), and
caUs it a "revelation" (chaps, i.
7, 13 ; iv. 13) ; 2 Peter represents
it as possibly distant (chap. Hi. 15),
and calls it "coming' (chaps, i.
16 ; Hi. 4, 12). (e) 1 Peter caUs
our Lord simply " Christ " or
"Jesus Christ;" 2 Peter always
adds "Saviour" (five times; and
the word does not occur once in
1 Peter), or "Lord," or both. (£)
1 Peter insists on faith ; 2 Peter
on knowledge, (n) The Greek of
1 Peter is smooth, with easily-
moving sentences, simply con
nected ; that of 2 Peter is rough,
with heavRy-moving sentences, of
which the construction is often
harsh and, when prolonged,
broken. To these and simRar arguments
it may be repUed that considerable
differences between the two Epistles
are admitted, but they may easUy
be exaggerated. Of the above,
some are not strictly true ; in par
ticular, (a) and (e) ; others tell
rather in favour of the genuineness

II. PETER.

289

of 2 Peter. Why should a second
letter, written soon after the first,
on >i very different subject, repeat
the topics of the first, or even use
much of its phraseology ? En
couragement under persecution and
denunciation of corrupt doctrine
and conduct requRe very different
language. Great similarity of ex
pression under such very different
circumstances would have looked
Hke the careful imitation of a
forger. Jerome's suggestion, that
St. Peter used different " inter
preters" in the two Epistles to put
his thoughts into Greek, is a pos
sible solution of many differences ;
but it is not likely that St. Peter,
though originaUy an iUiterate
fisherman, was stRl, at the end
of a long and active Hfe, unable
to write the Greek of either
Epistle ; and both of them show
traces of a writer not perfectly at
home in the language. King's
theory, that 2 Peter is a translation
from an Aramaic original, is another
possible solution. But neither
theory is needed. Both Epistles are
too short to supply satisfactory ma
terials for an argument of this kind ;
and neither of them exhibits any
such marked characteristics as
those found in the writings of St.
Luke or St. Paul or St. John. An
anonymous pamphlet on any sub
ject by Carlyle or Victor Hugo
would probably be assigned to the
right author at once ; but most
writers, even if known by many
books, have no such marked style
as would betray them in a few
pages on a special subject ; and
here we are arguing as to the
authorship of a tract of four pages
from a tract of six pages on a dif
ferent subject. In such a case,
similarities, which cannot easily be
the result of imitation, are stronger

evidence of identity of authorship
than dissimilarities are of non-
identity. Difference of mood, of
subject, of surroundings, would
probably account for all the dis
similarities, did we but know all
the facts. The First Epistle would
seem to have been written with
much thought and care, as by one
who felt a deHcacy about intruding
himseR upon communities which
St. Paul had almost made his own.
Hence the earnest, gentle dignity
of the Epistle, which makes one
think how age must have tamed
the spRit of the impetuous Apostle.
But in the Second Letter, written
probably under pressure, we see
that the old vehemence is still
there. There is a sHght indication
of it Hi the way in which he goes
at once to the point (chap. i. 3 — 5) ;
as he nears the evR which has so
excited his fear and indignation,
the construction becomes broken
(chap. i. 17) ; and whsn he is in
the full torrent of his invective,
feeling seems almost to choke his
utterance. Hence the rugged
Greek, from which at times we
can scarcely extricate the con
struction; hence, too, tho repeti
tions, which some have thought a
sign of inferiority. They are the
natural results of emotion strug-
gHng to express itself in a language
with which it is not perfectly
familiar. Similar harsh construc
tions and tautological repetitions
may be found in some of St. Peter's
speeches "as recorded in the Acts
(chaps, i. 21, 22; Hi. 13—16,26;
iv. 9 ; x. 36—40).
Against the admitted differences
may be set some very real coin
cidences, both in thought and
language, between the two Epistles.
These also may be exaggerated and
their force over-estimated; but

19

290

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

when soberly treated they are a
valuable contribution to the evi
dence. Obvious simUarities of
language are of no great moment ;
for it is admitted by aU, whatever
theR conclusions, that the writer of
the Second Letter must have known
the FRst. But subtle coincidences
of thought, lying almost beyond
the reach of the conscious imi
tator, are worth considering. (See
chaps, i. 3, 5, 7 ; ii. 18, 19.) The
traces of St. Paul's phraseology,
which have been urged against the
originality of 2 Peter, may, from
this point of view, be counted in
its favour, for such traces are very
strong in the FRst Epistle.
The arguments, therefore, to be
drawn from a comparison of the
two Letters do not give much sup
port to those who impugn the
genuineness of the Second Epistle.
A patient consideration of the facts
may lead some to the conclusion
that, considering the brevity of
both Letters, and the different pur
pose of each, the amount of agree
ment, both on and below the
surface, throws the balance in
favour of both being the product
of one mind. The assertion that
had the Second Epistle not claimed
to be by St. Peter no one would
ever have dreamed of assigning it
to him, is easUy made, and not
easHy refuted; but study of the
phenomena wiU lead to its being
doubted. (c) Internal Evidence : The Con
tents of the Epistle considered in
themselves. — It is in this section of
the argument that by far the most
serious objections to the authen
ticity occur. The following have
been urged : — (a) It is unhke the
simple, practical spirit of St. Peter
to enlarge upon the manner of the

creation and of the destruction
of the world (chap. iii. 5 — 7,
10—12). (0) It is unHke an
Apostle to appeal to " the com
mandment of your Apostles "
(chap. Hi. 2). (7) The interchange
of future and present tenses (chaps.
ii. 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13 ; iH. 3, 5) looks
Hke a later writer trying to write
Hke a prophet in an earHer age,
and at times forgetting his assumed
position. (S) Ideas belonging to
an age latef than that of the
Apostles are introduced. Of this
there are four marked instances —
(1) The expression "the holy
mount" (chap. i. 18) betrays an
age which professes to know where
the Transfiguration took place (of
which the Gospels teR us nothing),
and which has a taste for mRacles.
(2) No such argument as that
urged by the scoffers (chap. iH. 4)
would be possible in St. Peter's
Hfetime ; it implies that at least
the first generation of Christians has
died out. (3) 2 Peter is addressed
(chap. i. 1) to aR Gentile Chris
tians, and at the same time (chap.
Hi. lj to the same readers as those
of 1 Peter, which is addressed
(chap. i. 1) to particular churches,
i.e., the post-Apostolic idea that
the letters of Apostles are the
common property of all Christians
is impHed. (4) St. Paul's writingo
are spoken of as equivalent to
Scripture (chap. iii. 16).
Let us take these objections in
order, (a) That St. Peter .should
enlarge upon the detaHs of the
creation and of the destruction of
the world is not more strange than
that he should enlarge upon "the
spirits in prison" (1 Pet. iii. 19,
20 ; iv. 6). It would almost seem
as R such mysterious subjects had
an attraction for him (1 Pet. i. 12).
At least it is more reasonable to

II. PETER.

291

suppose this, seeing that there are
some facts to support us, than to
settle precariously what " the
simple, practical spirit of St.
Peter" would or would not be
Hkely to enlarge upon. (0) Let
us grant that an Apostle is often
content with insisting on his own
authority : this is no proof that he
would never appeal to the authority
of another Apostle. In 2 Peter
the writer has more than once
stated his personal claim to be
heard (chap. i. 1, 18), and is then
wiUing to sink his own authority
in that of the Apostolic body, nay,
is anxious to do so ; for, as in the
FRst Epistle, he stiU feels a deli
cacy about addressing congrega
tions which, in the first instance,
belonged to the Apostle of the
Gentiles, and so he not only ap
peals to that Apostle's command
ment, but points out that his
commandment is at the same time
that of Jesus Christ. In Eph. iii.
5 St. Paul makes a similar appeal
to the authority of others ; and it
may warn us to be cautious in
arguing as to what an Apostle
would be sure to do in certain
cases when we find this passage
used to cast doubt on the ApostoHc
origin of such an Epistle as that to
the Ephesians. (7) This plausible
argument wiU not bear close in
spection. The evUs which the
writer foretells are aReady present
in the germ. Moreover, the pro
phetic present as equivalent to a
future is very common in pro
phecies ; the future is so confi
dently reahsed that it is spoken of
as present. In similar prophecies
in the New Testament there is a
similar mixture of future and
present (2 Thess. ii. 3, 7 ; 2 Tim.
iii. 1, 2, 8). (S) We come now to
the most weighty group of objec

tions. (1) The expression "the
holy mount" does not imply
that the mount is known ; and the
theory that it does is reduced to an
absurdity when it is further urged
that " the holy mount," as applied
to a known spot, must mean Mount
Zion. Would any sane Christian,
whether of the first or of the second
century, represent the Transfigura
tion as taking place on Mount
Zion ? "The mount" simply means
the one spoken of in the Gospels in
connection with this event. Nor
does the epithet " holy " indicate a
miracle-loving age. Any Jew would
naturaUy use it of a spot where the
glory of the Lord had been revealed
(Ex. Hi. 5 ; Josh. v. 15). (2) The
force of this argument is not so
great as at first sight appears. In
the Epistle of Clement of Rome
(a.d. 95 — 100) the same scoffing
argument is quoted as condemned
by "Scripture" (cha-p. xxiH.). The
"Scripture" is probably not 2
Peter. But we here have proof
that this scoffing objection was old
enough to have been written against
before a.d. 95. The kindred error
of Hymenaeus and Philetus was in
existence in St. Paul's lifetime.
Besides which, it is not so certaR
as it is assumed to be that " since
the fathers feU asleep" refers to
Christians at all. The argument may
be a piece of Sadducism, which had
found its way into tho Christian
Church ; the tone of it is not un-
Hke that in Mark xH. 23. (3) The
premises here are too vague for so
definite a conclusion. To state the
premises faRly we must say 2 Peter
is addressed in the main to aR Gen
tile Christians, and also in the main
to the same readers as 1 Peter,
which is addressed mainly to five or
six different churches. From such
indefinite data no very clean-cut

292

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

and decided result can be obtained.
Moreover, it is open to question
whether the idea that the letters
of Apostles are the common pro
perty of Christians was not in
existence even in the ApostoHc
age. The phenomena of the text
of the last two chapters of Romans
tend to show that this idea was
beginning to arise some years
before the traditional date of St.
Peter's death. The Epistle to the
Ephesians would lead us in the
same direction. So that itis doubt
ful (a) whether the idea- is implied
in 2 Peter ; (b) whether it was not
in existence in St. Peter's lifetime.
(4) No objection, probably, has had
more effect than this. "The other
Scriptures," it is urged, may mean
either Old Testament or New Testa
ment writings ; in either case, we
are face to face with a writer later
than the Apostolic age. If Old
Testament Scriptures are meant, it
is incredible that St. Peter would
place Epistles of St. Paul side by
side with them as Scripture. If
New Testament Scriptures are
meant, this indicates a date at
which certain Christian writings
had begun to be considered equal
in authority to the Old Testament,
and this date is later than the
death of St. Peter. In chapter Hi.
verse 16 it is quite probable that
not Old Testament, but Christian,
writing's are meant ; not any de
finite collection of writings, but cer
tain wcU-known documents, other
than the Epistles of St. Paul just
mentioned. We must remember
that the Greek words for " other "
are sometimes used loosely, and
rather Ulogically, without the two
individuals, or two classes, being
exactly alike (comp. Luke x. 1 ;
xxiu. 32; John xiv. 16); so that
we cannot be sure that the writer

means to place these Epistles of St.
Paul on precisely the same level
with " the other Scriptures." And
that " Scripture " was used in the
first century as rather a compre
hensive term is shown by the
passage from Clement of Rome al
luded to above, where he quotes
(chap, xxiu.) as "Scripture" a
passage not found either in the Old
or the New Testament. Again, the
high authority claimed by Apostles
for their own words makes this
passage, although unique in the
New Testament, quite intelligible.
(Comp. Acts xv. 28; 1 Cor. v. 3, 4 ;
1 Thess. ii. 13.) Perhaps the
nearest parallel is 1 Pet. i. 12,
where evangelists are placed on the
same level with the Old Testament
prophets, a very remarkable co
incidence between the two Epistles.
One more consideration must be
urged. The date of St.. Peter's
death is not certain, and the tra
ditional date may be too early.
Several of the objections just con
sidered would be stiU further
weakened if St. Peter's death took
place not in the third, but in the
fourth quarter of the century.
But besides answering objections
we may observe — (1) that the
writer professes to be Simon Peter
(chap. i. 1), one whose death Christ
foretold (chap. i. 14), a witness of
the Transfiguration (chap. i. i6 —
18), and the writer of the First
Epistle (chap. Hi. 1) ; (2) that he
speaks with authority (chap. i. 12,
13, 15, 16), yet is not afraid to
admit the high authority of pro
phecy (chap. i. 19) ; (3) that there
is some trace of the conciliatory
position between Jewish and Gen
tUe converts which St. Peter occu
pied between the rigour of St.
James and the liberty of St. Paul
(chaps, i. 1, 2: Hi. 15); (4) that

n. PETER.

293

the expression "our beloved brother
Paul," so unlike the way in which
Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Poly
carp, and Clement of Alexandria
speak of St. Paul (see chap. Hi.
verse 15), is a strong mark of
an Apostolic author — a writer of
the second century would scarcely
find his way back to this ; (5) that
some striking coincidences exist
between thoughts and expressions
in this Epistle and passages in
St.' Peter's speeches as reported in
the Acts.
On the other hand, no weight
can be aRowed to the argument
that " aU motive for forgery is
absent." It is quite true that
"this Epistle does not support any
hierarchical pretensions nor bear
upon any of the controversies of a
later age."
But a motive quite sufficient can
be found, viz., to put down with
the authority of an Apostle an
alarming corruption, both in doc
trine and conduct. This motive
might have induced exceUent men
in the primitive Church to write
in the name of St. Peter, and the
moral sense of the community
would not have condemned them.
Such personations, purely in the
interests of religion and virtue, are
neither impossible nor unknown;
and the very words " forgery" and
"impostor," in reference to such
acts and agents in primitive times,
are faUacious. We must beware
of transferring our own ideas of
literary morality to an age in
which they were absolutely non
existent. (d) Internal Evidence : The Con
tents of the Epistle in relation to the
Epistle of St. Jude. — This subject
is discussed in the Introduction
to Jude. The conclusion there ar

rived at is that the priority of
neither Epistle can be proved, but
that the balance inclines decidedly
towards the priority of 2 Peter.
If the priority of Jude should
ever be demonstrated, then we have
stiR more reason for placing the
date of St. Peter's death later than
a.d. 67 or 68, unless the authen
ticity of 2 Peter is admitted to be
more than doubtful.
The conclusion, then, to which
this long discussion leads us is this
— the objections to tho Epistle are
such that, had the duty of fixing
the Canon of the New Testament
faRon on us, we should scarcely
have ventured, on the existing evi
dence, to include the Epistle ; they
are not such as to warrant us in re
versing the decision of the fourth
century, which had evidence that
we have not. If modern criticism
be the court of appeal to which the
judgment of the fourth century is
referred, as it has not sufficient
reasons for reversing "that judg
ment it can only confirm it. Ad
ditional evidence may yet be forth
coming. A Hebrew or Greek text
of the Book of Enoch might settle
the relation between 2 Peter and
Jude beyond dispute ; and this
would clear the way not a little.
MeanwhUe, we accept the authen
ticity of the Epistle as, to say the
very least, quite the best working
hypothesis. II. The place and time 
The suggestions as to the place
where the Epistle was written are
mere conjectures ; we have no evi
dence of any value. As to the
date, any time after the writing of
the first Epistle may be right ; prob
ably not long before the Apostle's
martyrdom. The fact that the de
struction of Jerusalem is not men-

294

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

tioned is reason for believing that
it had not taken place when the
letter was written. If it be said
that a writer personating St. Peter
would have avoided so obvious a
blunder, we may reply (1) that
these are just the pitfalls into which
literary personators in an early age
fall ; (2) that it is not certain that
it would have been a blunder — St.
Peter may have been Hving a.d.
70; (3) that the destruction of
Jerusalem would have served the
purpose of the letter so weU, aB an
argument (more strong than the
Transfiguration) for Christ's return
to judgment, as a fulfilment of
prophecy on this subject, and as a
signal instance of divine vengeance,
that no explanation of its omission
is so satisfactory as that it had not
yet taken place.
III. Object and Contents 
The object of the Epistle is two
fold : (1) warning against the
seductions of false doctrme and the
licentiousness akin to it; (2) ex
hortation to increase in the grace
and knowledge of our Lord Jesus
Christ. The basis for both is the
same — the certainty of Christ's
return to judgment. With true
tact, the writer begins and ends
with exhortation and encourage
ment ; the warning and denuncia
tion He in between, and strongly as
the latter are worded, terrible as
are the metaphors and Uhistrations
employed, even here the gentleness
and tenderness of one who knew
from experience what tenderness
could do for those who had gone
the length of " denying even the
Master that bought them " (2 Pet.
ii. 1 ; Luke xxii. 61) continually
come to the surface, and break the
flood of vehement denunciation
(chaps, u. 6, 7 — 9 ; Hi. 1, 2).

The plan of the contents is easily
recognised, and the transitions from
one division to another are so
natural, that (as remarked at the
outset) it is impossible to strike out
any portion as spurious and retain
the rest.
I. — Introductory.
Address and greeting (chap. i. 1,
2).
II. — Hortatory and Argu
mentative. (1) Exhortation to increase in
spRitual graces, in order to
gain eternal life at Christ's
coming (chap. i. 3 — 11).
(2) Transition to the argumen
tative part; the purpose of
this Epistle stated (chap. i.
12—16).
(3) Basis of the exhortation—
the certainty of Christ' e
coming, which is proved :
(a) By the Transfiguration,
which was an anticipation
of it (chap. i. 16—18).
(b) By the utterances of pro
phets, who have predicted
it (chap. i. 19—21).
III. — Warning.
^ (1) First Prediction : False
teachers shall have great
success and certain ruin
(chap. H. 1 — 10) : their im
pious practices described
(chap. H. 10—22).
(2) Transition to the second pre
diction ; the purpose of both
Epistles stated (chap. iH. 1,
2)-
(3) Second Prediction : Scoffers
shaR throw doubt on Christ's
return (chap. iii. 3, 4) ; their
argument refuted (chap. Hi.
6—9).
(4) Basis of the warning — the
certainty of Christ's coming
(chap. iii. 10).

II. PETER.

295

IV — Hortatory.
(1) Concluding exhortations
(chap. iii. 11—18) ;
(2) Doxology (chap. Hi. 18).
IV. The False Teachers and
the Scoffers. — We are probably
to regard these as in the main
identical ; but in spite of the vigor
ous language in which they are
described, it is difficult to say what
particular heresy is indicated. As
in many of the Old Testament
prophecies, the picture is painted
in strong, lurid colours; but the
outlines are not sufficiently defined
to enable us to speeHy any distinc
tive characteristics. The spirit of
heresy, capable of developing into
endless varieties, rather than any
one of the varieties themselves, is
placed before us. CaviRing, pride,
irreverence, impatience of re
straints, impatience of mysteries —
these form the corrupt atmosphere
in which heresies are generated,
and these are just the qualities that
are depicted here. The indefinite-
ness of the description has been
pointed out by critics on both sides
of the question of authenticity. It
is a strong argument in favour of
an early date for this Epistle. A
writer of the second century, with
the fuU-blown Gnosticism of Basi-
Hdes, Carpocrates, Valentinus, and
Marcion around him, could scarcely
have divested himself of his experi
ence, and given us, not the details
of what he saw and heard, but the
germs that had developed into these
after a growth of haR a century.
Historic divination, by means of
which the essentials of an earlier
age are discovered and separated
from what is merely accidental — his
toric imagination, by means of which
these essentials are put together in
a. Hfelike picture — are powers of

modern growth. The divination of
the second century was exercised
on the future, not on the past ; its
imagination on the possibilities of
the unseen world, not on the reaH-
ties of the world of sense. The
disagreement of critics as to the
time in the second century at which
the letter was probably written
makes us all the more disposed to
doubt whether the second century
is right at all. Bleek suggests
a.d. 100 — 150 ; Mayerhoff, circ.
a.d. 150 ; Davidson, circ. 170 ;
Schwegler and Semler, a.d. 190 —
200. The view here taken of the false
teachers and scoffers, that they are
the forerunners of the Antinomian
heretics of the second century, is
confirmed when we turn to St.
Paul's Epistles. There we find
indications of these evils at a
slightly earlier stage. We see him
contending against corrupt prac
tices, which were on their road to
being established, inasmuch as
some tried to justify them on prin
ciples which were a caricature of
his own teaching. His Christian
liberty is stretched to cover the
detestable maxim, " Let us do evil
that good may come," participation
in idolatrous feasts, incestuous
marriages, intemperance at love-
feasts, &c. (Rom. iii. 8 ; 1 Cor.,
passim). A self-satisfied knowledge
is intruding itself (1 Cor. viH. 1 —
4). The resurrection of the dead
is being denied (1 Cor. xv. 12 ; 2
Tim. ii. 18). In 2 Peter the cor
rupt practices and the corrupt
principles are more definitely com
bined. St. Peter predicts that still
greater abominations than those
against which St. Paul wrote wiU
not only be justified, but taught
upon principle. Going beyond
those who denied the resurrection,

296

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

men wUl mock at the coming of
Christ and the day of judgment.
Thus the false teachers of 2 Peter
are just a step nearer to the sys-
tematised Antinomianism of the
second century than the evU-doers
denounced by St. Paul. St. Jude
shows us in active operation the
mischief of which St. Paul and St.
Peter had seen the beginning and
foretold the development. Tertul
lian, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus teU
us to what hideous proportions and
fantastic variety the development
cventuaUy progressed.
It is weU known that the framers
of our Authorised Version, whUe
on the whole making an enormous
advance on previous English ver
sions, sometimes went back. In
some instances the changes they
made in the translations on which
they worked were the reverse of
improvements. Perhaps no portion
of the New Testament is more f uU
of cases of this kind than the
Second Epistle of St. Peter. In a
large number of such cases it will
be found that the earlier versions
which are superior to the Author
ised Version are WiclR's and the
Rhemish; and not unfrequently
that the version which has led our
translators astray is the Genevan.
None of these three versions was
among those which the translators
were instructed to use; and of
WiclR's they probably made very
little use ; of the other two they
made a great deal of use. Wiclif's
version and the Ehemish were
made from the Latin Vulgate, riot
from the Greek; so that we have
what at first sight seems to be a
startling fact, that versions made
from a Latin translation are often

superior to the best version mado
from the Greek. The explanation
is simple. The Vulgate is a good
Latin translation of excellent Greek
texts ; our version is a good Eng
lish translation of very defective
Greek texts. "The errors in the
text of our EngHsh Testament in
herited from them are considerably
more important than the existing
errors of translation" (Westcott).
The late Dr. Eouth, when asked what
commentary he considered to be on
the whole the best, is said to have
answered, " The Vulgate." The
facts just noticed are a striking
illustration of his meaning.
[In writing the Introduction to
this Epistle, use has been made
of the Commentaries of Alford,
Bengel, Bruckner's edition of De
Wette, Hofmann, Huther, Reuss,
Schott, and Wordsworth, together
with the Introductions of Bleek
and Davidson, and the articles
in Smith and Herzog. A much
better use might have been made
of them had time permitted. But
it is only just to the editor and the
reader to say that the commentator
on 2 Peter and Jude was asked to
undertake the work at very short
notice, and to complete it within a
very short time. If he is found to
have undertaken a task beyond his
strength, he must plead in excuse
the attraction which the work had
for him, and the wish to render
help to a far abler but over-worked
contributor to this Commentary.*]

* The work here referred to is, of course,
the " New Testament Commentary for
English Readers," from which, as stated
in Bishop Ellicott's Preface to these
books, the Introductions have been ex
tracted.

I. JOHN.

lir this Ven. W. M. SINCLAIR, D.D.

I. Wuo was the Wiuteu?
II. Who were the Readers ?
III. What were the Circum
stances of the Churches P
IV. Is the Writing an Epistle ?
I. "Who was the Writer?—
Three Epistles come before us in
the New Testament bearing a very
strong family likeness to each other
and to the Fourth Gospel. They
carry no superscription in their text,
but "the elder," or "the old man."
Whose are they ? The manuscripts
from which they are derived have
always said " John's," and in some
is .added " the Apostle."
We wRl here consider the FRst.
The Second and ThRd wiU be
treated separately. The evidence
for the First is as strong as any
thing could be. It was accepted as
the Apostle's by the whole Church.
Eusebius, the historian (born about
a.d. 270), places it among the
writings "universaUy admitted
(homologoumena) " ; and Jerome
states that it received the sanction
of aR members of the Church. The
only exceptions were such sects of
heretics as would be likely to re
pudiate it as not harmonising with
their theological errors ; the Alogi,
or " Unreasonables," an obscure
and rather doubtfiR sect in the
second century, who rejected St.
John's Gospel and the Revelation,
and therefore, probably, these

V. When was it written ?
VI. Where was it written f
VII. What is its Scope p
VIII. Notes on Difficult Pas-
IX. Literature. [sages.
three Epistles ; and Marcion, in
the same century, who chose such
parts of the New Testament as
suited him best, and altered
them at pleasure.
The evidence of quotation and
reference begins early. Polycarp,
the disciple of St. John, became a
Christian a.d. 83. In the epistle
which he wrote to the Philippians,
occur these words : " For every one
that confesseth not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh is anti
christ." The Hkeness to 1 John iv.
2, 3, is marked ; and it is far more
probable that a loosely written
letter, such as his, should embody
a weR-known saying of so senten
tious and closely- worded a treatise
as the First Epistle of John than
the other way.
Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis,
flourished in the first half of the
second century. Iremeus, who was
born about the end of the first
century, says that he was a hearer
of St. John. This is contradicted
by Eusebius on the evidence of
Papias' own writings (H.E.111. 39,
1, 2) ; but he wrote a work caUed,
An Explanation of the Oracles of the
Lord, in which he bore witnoss to

298

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

the authenticity of Christian doc
trine. The account of his work is
derived from Eusebius, the his
torian, who says that " he used
testimonials from the First Epistle
of John." By balancing the name
of St. John in this sentence with
that of St. Peter, Eusebius evi
dently understood the Apostle.
About a.d. 100 was born Justin
Martyr. In his time was written
the anonymous epistleto Diognetus.
Six of its chapters contain indis
putable reminiscences of the First
Epistle. The epistle of the Churches
of Vienne and Lyons was written
in a.d. 177. It quotes 1 John iii.
16. Carpocrates, the Gnostic,
Hved at Alexandria at the beginning
of the second century. He tried
to pervert 1 John v. 19, "The
whole world lieth in the evil one."
Irena?us cites three passages from
the First Epistle, mentioning its
author; and Eusebius mentions
this piece of evidence in exactly
the same manner as that from
Papias. Clement of Alexandria
was born about a.d. 150. Like
Irenams, he quotes passages from
the FRst Epistle, naming the
author. So TertuUian, born about
the same time, Origen, and the
succeeding Fathers. About a.d.
170, a Canon of the New Testa
ment was drawn up by some teacher
for the use of catechumens. This
is now known by the name of
Muratori, who discovered and
printed it a.d. 1740. (See Tregelles'
Canon Muratorianus, pages 1, 81 —
89 : Oxford, 1867.) "What
wonder," it says, "that St. John
makes so many references to the
Fourth Gospel in his Epistles, say
ing of himself, ' that which we
have seen with our eyes, and
have heard with our ears, and our
hands have handled, that have we

written ? for thus he professes
himself not only the eye-witness,
but also the hearer and the writer
of aU the wonders of the Lord in
order." And after cataloguing St.
Paul's Epistles, it continues : " The
Epistle of Jude, and the two which
bear the name of John as a title,
are considered General." The
writer evidently means the Second
and Third Epistles, which might
not have been considered general
from their shortness and slightness.
The Peschito, or Syrian version, of
about the same date, gives the same
evidence as the Muratorian Canon.
We have thus a consentient voice
from the churches of East and
West, of Syria, of Alexandria, of
Africa, and of Gaul.
So strong, so clear, is the external
proof. On the internal nothing
can be better than the words of
Ewald. " As in the Gospel, we
see here the anthor retire to the
background, unwilling to speak of
himseR, and stiR less to support
anything by the weight of his name
and reputation, although the reader
here meets him, not as the calm
narrator, but as an epistolary
writer, as exhorter and teacher, as
an Apostle, and, moreover, as the
only surviving Apostle. It is the
same dehcacy and diffidence, the
same lofty calmness and composure,
and especially the same truly Chris •
tian modesty, that cause him to
retire to the background as an
Apostle, and to say altogether so
little of himseR. He only desires
to counsel and warn, and to remind
his readers of the sublime truth
they have once acquired ; and the
higher he stands the less he is dis
posed to humble ' the brethren ' by
his great authority and dRections.
But he knew who he was, and every
word tells plainly that he only

I. JOHN.

209

could thus speak, counsel, and
warn. The unique consciousness
which an Apostle as he grew older
could carry within himseR, and
which he, once the favourite dis
ciple, had in a pecuHar measure ;
the calm superiority, clearness, and
decision in thinking on Christian
subjects ; the rich experience of a
long Hfe, steeled in the victorious
struggle with every unchristian
element ; and a glowing language
lying concealed under this calm
ness, which makes us feel in
tuitively that it does not in vain
commend to us love as the highest
attainment of Christianity — aR
this coincides so remarkably in
this Epistle, that every reader of
that period, probably without any
further intimation, might readily
determine who he was. But where
the connection requRed it the
author intimates with manifest
plainness that he stood in the
nearest possible relations to Jesus
(chaps, i. 1—3; iv. 16; v. 3—6),
precisely as he is wont to express
himseR in simUar circumstances
in the Gospel; and aU this is so
artless and simple, so entirely with
out the faintest trace of imitation
in either case, that nobody can
fail to perceive that the seHsame
author and Apostle must have com
posed both writings" (Ewald, Die
Johann. Schriften, i. 431).
No less than thirty-five passages
of the Fourth Gospel are common
to the FRst Epistle. These ex
pressions occur in twenty-three
different places, and are used in a
way of which only the author of
the same two treatises could be
capable. Considerably more than
half of the paraUel places in the
Gospel belong to the fareweU dis
courses of John xH. — xvH. There
the tender, loving, receptive, truth

ful, retentive mind of the bosom-
friend had been particularly neces
sary; at that great crisis it had
been, through the SpRit of God,
particularly strong ; and the more
faithf uUy St. John had Hstened to
his Master and reproduced Him,
the deeper the impression was
which the words made on his own
mind, and the more likely he was
to dweU on them in another work
instead of on his own thoughts and
words. The style may be his own
both in Gospels and Epistles,
modified by that of our Lord;
the thoughts are the thoughts of
Jesus. An examination of the
f oRowing list of paraUels wiU illus
trate this : —

First Epistle of

Gospel of John.

John.

Chap. i. 1, 2.

Chap. i. 1, 2, 14.

„ i. 4.

„ XV. 11.

„ xvi. 24.

„ i- 10

V. 38.

„ ii. 1, 2.

,, xiv. 16.

xi. 61, 52.

, . xiii. 15, 34, 35
ii. 4—6.
,, xiv. 21-24.
XV. 10.
„ ii. 8.
,, xiii. 34.
ii. 11.
xii. 35.
,, ii. 23.
XV. 23, 24.
V. 24.
ii. 27.
„ xiv. 26^
,, iii. 1.
,, xvii. 25.
, , iii- 8.
,, viii. 44.
„ iii. 10.
,, viii. 47.
,, iii. 13—15
V. 24, 38.
,, XV. 18, 10.
,, iii. 16.
xv. 12, 13.
„ iii. 22.
ix. 31.
xvi. 23.
iv. 5, 0.
iii. 31.
XV. 19.
,, viii. 47.
,, iv. 9.
,, iii. 36.
., iv. 10.
vi. 69.
v. 3, 4.
,, xiv. 15.
„ xvi. 33.
v. 9.
V. 36.
V. 12.
iii. 36.
,, xiv. 6.
V. 13.
XX. 81.
„ V. 14.
,, xiv. 13, 11.
„ xvi. 23.
soo

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

The proof that the Fourth
Gospel was the work of St. John
is given in the Introduction to
that Gospel, in this volume. On
internal grounds alone, without the
strong external evidence already
sketched, an unbiassed mind would
find it very difficult to believe that
the FRst Epistle (and the Second
and Third also) are not by the
same author. Even the style and
construction have an identity which
could not easily be spurious or ac
cidental. This is seen in the habit
of thinking in periods the limbs of
which are paraUel and co-ordinate
instead of progressive : the junc
ture of these by "and " instead of
by particles, expressing consequence
or movement : the pecuhar use of
four special particles : the general
Aramaic framework of the diction :
and the constant reappearance of
special words and phrases. The
identity of ideas in both writings
is of the same character ; they bear
no sign of imitation, but are the
free production of the same spirit.
Light, life, darkness, truth, the
lie, propitiation, doing righteous
ness, doing sin, doing lawlessness,
Hfe and death, loving aud hating,
love of the Father and love of the
world, children of God and children
of the devU, the spirit of truth and
the spirit of error : all these notions
underlie the thought of both Gos
pel and Epistle. The writer of
each, too, has the same charac
teristics : love of the background
for himseR ; absorbing devotion to
his Lord ; faithful rect-ptiveness
and faculty for sympathetic repro
duction of His thoughts and spirit ;
pure unruffled, unfaltering move
ment among the very inmost facts
of Hfe and being ; intense unhesi
tating indignation (like thunder
from a clear sky) for wiRul de

pravers of spiritual truth ; and
the absolute tranquillity of that
certainty which comes from long
conviction and demonstrable expe
rience. So, again, the particular
dogmatic notes of each are the
same: the Spirit aReady marking off
the true from false beHevers, and
so preparing the way for the final
judgment; the manifestation of
the sons of God already by the
presence of the Father and the Son
in the Spirit ; the actual present
beginning of everlasting life, and
the safety from future judgment ;
the present existence of the last
hour ; Christ the actual Paraclete,
the Divine Spirit being another.
It would, indeed, be difficult to
find a more structural and pene
trating identity between the works
of any author whatever than there
is between the Gospel and the First
Epistle. It was Scaliger (1484—1558) who
first announced "the three Epistles
of John are not by the Apostle of
that name." The tradition men
tioned by Eusebius that there was
living at Ephesus at the same time
as St. John a presbyter of the same
name, to whom great weight was
attributed because he was a hearer
of our Lord, seems to have given
rise to the notion that " the elder "
of the three Epistles was this tra
ditional person. Those who take
this view are guilty of the fallacy
that if this man existed he must
have had all the characteristics of
the Apostle because he had his
name and was contemporary. It
is far more probable that the
beginning of the three Epistles
gave rise among the ignorant to
the tradition.
In modern times, S. G. Lange
was the first who questioned the
Epistle on internal grounds. His

I. JOHN.

301

argument rests on the assumption
that it is destitute of all character
istic individuality and personality ;
that the affinity of the Epistle to
the Gospel is an imitation ; that
the Epistle exhibits marks of senUe
decay; and that if it was written
after the destruction of Jerusalem
mention must have been made of it
in chap. ii. 18. Few sound critics
wUl think these assumptions worth
refutation. The next opponent,
Bretschneider, Hved to recant his
doubts. The unreasonableness of
Claudius, Horst, and Paulus, is
even more arbitrary, imaginative,
and groundless than that of Lange.
The Tiibingen school have a pre
conception of theR own to support.
As, according to them, there can
be no mRacle, so there can be no
<Hrect revelation ; the beginning of
Christianity must have been the
natural consciousness of an indi
vidual, such as Jesus of Nazareth,
developing gradually through a
much longer period than the ac
cepted Christian history ; they hold
that Christ only slightly modified
Judaism ; that in the hands of St.
Peter and St. John in the Apoca
lypse, His teaching took an Ebion-
ite form, in the hands of St. Paul
was adapted to the Gentile world
at large ; thence arose contentions,
in reconciliation of which the
greater part of the writings of the
New Testament were composed, as
party-writings without strict his
torical value. The Epistle is there
fore treated by different members
of the school as it will best suit
their special theory. KcstHn and
Georgii think the author of the
Gospel the same as of the Epistle ;
Zeller supposes it possible that they
may be by different hands. Baur
pronounces the Epistle a weak
imitation of the GosDel; Hilgen-

feld a splendid product of it. Thus
they contradict each other. The
main arguments of Baur are five,
and may be given as a specimen : —
(1) Studious anxiety of the writer
of the Epistle in his preface to be
considered the same as the author
of the Gospel ; (2) vain attempt
at drawing a distinction between
divine and human testimony ; (3)
the eschatology of the Epistle
more material than that of the
Gospel ; (4) the ideas of propitia
tion and Christ the interceding
Paraclete more like the Epistle to
the Hebrews than the Gospel ; (5)
the teaching whoRy Montanistic,
because it describes Christians as
holy and sinless, mentions the
anointing, and draws a distinction
between venial and mortal sins.
Of these it may be shortly said (1)
that an imitation would have been
more skilful, and that the intense
consciousness of the eye-witness
would necessarily produce the same
line of thought when St. John was
prefacing his moral treatise as
when he was writing his history ;
(2) that the distinction runs
throughout the Gospel ; (3) to a
candid reader the difference is im
possible to discover; (4) no ex
pression could be more sacrificial
than ' ' the Lamb of God which
taketh away the sin of the world;"
(5) St. John is describing the ideal,
not a class : the anointing is most
certainly not that in baptism, men
tioned for the first time by Ter
tullian, but that of " pouring out
the Spirit : ' ' and there is no re
ference whatever to the six or
seven deadly sins of TertulUan,
while there is a very distinct
similarity between the idea of the
sin unto death and the sin against
the Holy Ghost of the Gospels.
Baur, in fact, as Diisterdieck says,

302

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

has taken the Gnostic and Mon-
tanistic caricatures of the Apostoli
cal teaching as if they were its
type and origin.
The Epistle, then, has abundant
historical evidence ; the internal
evidence that it is by the same
hand as the Fourth Gospel is par
ticularly strong ; and the attacks
of hostile critics are pecuHarly
arbitrary and unfounded.
II. Who -were the Readers?
— There is in St. Augustine's works
— and he often quotes this Epistle —
a soHtary citation of it as written
to the Parthians. Whether this
was his own opinion, a mere cur
rent traditional title, or a clerical
error, the designation seems to
have arisen from the fact men
tioned by Clement of Alexandria
that the Second Epistle was some
times called " that to the vRgins "
(the word in the Greek for "virgin"
being parthenos). This title evi
dently became misunderstood, and
may have been appHed to the First
Epistle in error. One critic has
discovered in " that which ye heard
from the beginning " a proof that
the readers were the inhabitants of
Judasa ; another, identifying St.
John's correspondent Caius with
St. Paul's host at Corinth (it was
one of the commonest of aR
classical names), fancies that they
must have been Corinthians ; but
it was evidently written to no
church in particular : probably to
a circle of churches in immediate
connection with St. John, such as
the seven addressed in the Reve
lation. The warning against idol
atry may not unreasonably suggest
GentUe Christians, and the contrast
of the knowledge of the true God
in Jesus Christ, implying eternal
Hfe, with the dazzling speculations

of innovating teachers, harmonises
with the historical notice that St.
John resided at Ephesus.
III. "What were the Cir
cumstances ofthe Churches?
— (1) There is no aRusion to per
secutions. The hatred of the world,
the victory over the wicked one,
the victory over the world, suggest
spiritual conflict rather than hos
tile attacks.
(2) The internal indications
point rather to disunion, want of
brotherly love, want of steadfast
ness in thefeRowship of the Father
and the Son, the seductions of
worldliness, the snares of falso
brethren, the evRs of a time of
peace, when persecution no longer
braces the sinews of faith, and
warning is needed rather than con
solation ; or when perversion has
lost the moral shock of novelty,
and Christian loyalty the fire of
its indignation ; a time full of
evidence of continued spRitual
vitality in old and young, but also
when a recognised leader of a
church can be so ambitious as to-
reject the authority of the last of
the Apostles, and when heathen
speculation rather than Jewish
prejudice is beginning to corrupt
Christian faith.
(3) The particular heretics com
bated had a Docetic tendency, not
yet fully developed. Their theory
was that the Son of God was a
phantom, united for a time with
the man Jesus. St. John's con
temporary, Cerinthus, aReady
noticed in the Introduction to his
Gospel, held that Jesus was the
son of Joseph, to whom the Logos
was united from His baptism to
His crucifixion. The stress laid on
the true knowledge as growth in
understanding what had been re-

I. JOHN.

303

vealed from the beginning, points
also to the beginning of Gnosticism,
the system which exalted specula
tion into reHgion, buried Christi
anity under a heterogeneous philo
sophy, and substituted inteUectual
athletics for faith working by love.
(4) The only division of Chris
tians recognised is that into mature
and young. Ail aHke receive the
unction of the Holy Ghost. John
himself joins in the confession of
sin. He lays on aU the duty of
trying the spirits. He makes aU
alike responsible dRectly to the
Lord. IV. Is the "Writing an
Epistle? — As an EncycHcal
Letter, it would have no special
dedication nor salutations ; the
Epistle to the Hebrews is similarly
without the one, that of St. James
without the other. " I write ' '
occurs seven times, " I have
written " six, " you " thirty-six,
"Httle chUdren" ten, "beloved"
six, "fathers" and "young men"
twice each, " brethren " once. The
introduction is an ampHfication of
the ordinary epistolary address,
founded on a reminiscence of the
more abstract introduction to the
Gospel. Bacon says: "An Epistle
has more natural feeHng than a
treatise ; more ripe development
than momentary conversation."
Diisterdieck .says : "The whole
writing rests as thoroughly on a
living personal relation between
the author and his readers, the
appHcation of the written exhorta
tion is so absolutely personal, that
this ground is enough to make us
consider the writing as a genuine
Epistle. This epistolary character
belongs, moreover, to the whole
keeping and character of the short
writing. With aU logical order

there reigns in it that easy natural
ness and unconstraint of statemenf
which suits the immediate interest
and hortatory tendency of an
Epistle ; whRe the strict, pro
gressive, dialectical development,
peculiar to a treatise or a homily,
is held back." It may be described,
then, as a cRcular letter of St.
John to the churches connected
with his ministry, embodying a
succinct statement of his principal
views of Christian doctrine. There
is no good reason for calling it
either with one critic, the "pole
mical," or, with another, the "prac
tical" part of the Gospel; or "a
homUetical essay, the readers being
present ; " or " a summary," or " a
companion letter of the Gospel."
V. When was it 'written ? —
(1) As it contains no reference to
persecutions, it is less Hkely to
have been written Hi the time of
Trajan (a.d. 98 — 117) ; probably
before the end of the reign of
Domitian, a.d. 96 ; after the reign
of Nero and the destruction of
Jerusalem, a.d. 70. Thus we get
the period between a.d. 70 and 96.
A date near 70 is less likely, be
cause the breaking up of the Jewish
world would have made some refer
ence of the kind probable. " The
last hour " is a note of spiritual,
not material time.
(2) Jewish opposition no longer
troubles the apostoHc horizon.
(3) The Hfe of individual churches
apart from Jerusalem seems by this
time the natural order of the Chris
tian world.
(4) The heresies are the seeds
of Docetism and Gnosticism : this
points to the end of the first
century. (5) St. John is not mentioned in
the Acts after the Jerusalem Council

304

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

of a.d. 51. But he does not seem
to have been at Ephesus when
St. Paul took leave of the elders
in a.d. 60. (See Introduction to
the Gospel.) If St. Paul died in
a.u. 64, St. John can hardly have
begun working at Ephesus till
then. The tone of the Epistle
implies a, long and ripe pastoral
intimacy. St. John was banished
to Patmos before the end of the
reign of Domitian, a.d. 96. He
died after a.d. 100.
(6) It must always be a matter
of opinion whether the Gospel or
Epistle was written first. It may
be that a comparison of John xx.
31, " These things are written that
ye might believe," with 1 John
v. 13, "These things have I written
unto you that beheve," indicates an
earlier and more elementary object
for the Gospel ; but it cannot be
pressed. It is certainly likely that
the doctrinal chords struck in the
Narrative should afterwards receive
their f uUer variations in the Exhor
tation. It may even be that some
of the churches or their members,
aroused by these solemn notes,
asked St. John for a doctrinal
writing. (7) On the whole, there is no
improbability in putting the date
about a.d. 90.
VI. Where -was it 'written?
— On such a point as this we are
left to groundless conjecture, which
is useless. An old tradition men
tions Ephesus.
VII. What is its Scope ?—
That the joy which Christians
already had might not be dimmed
by the world or by error, but might
be crowned with completeness even
in this life (1 John i. 4), and that
they might realise tlie assurance of

the actual beginning of eternal life
within them.
For this purpose God is held up
as Light and Love, both through
Jesus Christ. By that exercise of
theR will, which would make them
remain in Christ as they knew
Him, both by hearing and by their
consciences, they would enjoy the
serene dignity of companionship
with the Almighty Father and His
Son, and so secure these two grand

Christians, looked at in the ideal,
cannot be wilful sinners ; but when
betrayed into sin, they may recover
through confession and reconcilia
tion. The proof of the Christian
Hfe must be sought in obedience to
the wiR of God, showing itself
speciaUy in true brotherly love.
The chief dangers are the world
and the depravation of Christian
doctrine. The light of God is shown in
the absolute distinctness from Him
of everything that is evil.
The love of God is shown in that
sonship of Christians which is
manifested by personal righteous
ness. Its correlative in us is love
to God, shown in pure love for one
another. The purity of love is
measured by the purity of faith.
And that faith is irrefragably
grounded in the witness of the Old
Testament through the Father,
culminating in the inauguration of
baptism ; in the witness of the New
Testament through the Son, cul
minating in the blood of Calvary ;
and in the witness of the Spirit
speaking through our own con
sciences. Christians cannot be reminded
too often that their religious life is
a matter of positive, demonstrable,
realised facts, to be completed by
earnest continual progress. They

I. JOHN.

305

are aReady in the Father and in
the Son ; they have eternal Hfe
begun within them ; they have
passed from death unto life ; they
have the witness of the Spirit. If
they are in doubt, they can prove
the truth of their Hfe by obedience
to God and love to the human
family. For those in sin or error
they can pray. The sight of the
world and the knowledge of the
Eedeemer make it finally most
important that they should hold to
the faith in the utmost simpHcity,
and avoid aU substitution of shadow
for substance.
St. Paul writes now in a storm
of argument, then in a humble
strain of seH-forgetf ul, self-abasing
expostulation and entreaty ; now
eloquently on high abstract truths,
now in exquisite descriptions, then
about the homeHest and simplest
duties. St. John moves in a calm
sphere of certainty among the very
highest, grandest, and largest of
Christian truths, raising the gen
eral outHnes of human Hfe into
the same atmosphere till they are
illuminated and penetrated by the
clear rays of Light and Love. AU
is simple, broad clear, calm, sure.
He writes at once with the most
commanding authority, and the
most loving tenderness ; the pro-
foundest wisdom, and the most
touching simpHcity; the most
searching knowledge of the human
heart andits difficulties andfailures,
and the most elevating and bracing-
courage and confidence; the gent
lest affection, and the most pitUess
and sternest condemnation of wiRul
departure from truth in practice or
opinion. It is noticeable that in a treatise
on the very innermost secrets of
rehgious Hfe, to aU Christian souls
are attributed the same duties and

privileges, and no mention is made
of ministerial authority or respon
sibility ; and that, though feUow-
ship with the Father and the Son
and the witness of the water and
the blood are both brought into
prominence, no aUusion is made to
sacraments. VIII. BTotes on Difficult

(1) Propitiation.
"He is the propitiation for our
sins " (1 John ii. 2).
J' Sent His Son to be the pro
pitiation for our sins " (1 John iv.
10). The same form is used in Luke
xviH. 13 : " God be merciful (be
made propitious) to me a sinner ; "
and in Heb. ii. 17 : "to make re-
conciHation for the sins of the
people. "
In classical Greek the verbal
form means " to make a person
favourable." From these facts it is clear that
Christ is regarded as making God
favourable to us. The word " re-
conciHation " introduces another
idea, and should be kept for
another Greek word, which occurs
in 2 Cor. v. 18, 19; Eph. ii. 16;
Col. i. 20. Although God is kind
to the unthankful and the evil, yet
for the sake of eternal Order and
Righteousness He is represented to
us as unable to pass over rebellion
without punishment, as a warning
and a security as weR as a discip
line. In this sense He could not
look favourably on the world until
His Son had bought it back by
becoming sin for us. Thus He is
the sacrifice on behaR of the sins
of the whole world, which enables
the Father, whose name is Love,
to show the fuU scope of Hia
favour. Divine love then can have

20

306

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

its perfect operation in reconciling
man, or bringing him back. Ex
piation appeases that wrath, with
out which. God would not be just ;
Reconciliation breaks down the
enmity of man in his state of sin.
(2) Brotherly love.
The unflinching truthfulness and
courage of St. John are nowhere
more remarkable than in the per
tinacity with which, amongst the
perversions of human affection
which are the blot of aU societies,
and were especially flagrant in the
ancient world, he urges his friends
to brotherly love. Love is the
fulfilling of the law, the proof of
union with God, the sign of having
passed from death unto Hfe, the
great commandment of Christ, the
outcome of birth from God, the
witness of God's presence, the per
fection and crown of our love to
Him : the absence of it is the mark
of spiritual death. It is that desire
for the good of others, temporal
and eternal, without which seR-
denial and self-sacrifice are but
barren pride. Like St. Paul, it
knows no man after the flesh —
that is, for mere fancy, pleasure, or
advantage — but is the instant re
cognition of merit and of God's
good gifts wherever they may pre
sent themselves. Founded on
faith and measured by it, it is ab
solutely pure and unselfish; it
would lay down life itself for the
good of others. And because it is
that attitude of the human mind
towards its fellows which is the
reflex of God's mind towards us, it
embraces and impHes aR human
vRtues. (3) The last hour (chap. ii. 18).
This phraseology occurs first in
Gen. xlix. 1, "That I may teU you
that which shaU befall you in the
last days ; " where it means " the

sequel of days," "far-off times.''
So Num. xxiv. 14, "What this
people shall do to thy people in the
latter days ; " Deut. iv. 30, " When
aU these things are come upon thee,
even in the latter days ; " and
Deut. xxxi. 29, "Evil will befaU
you in the latter days."
In Isa. ii. 2, it has begun to
mean the new age of the world ;
a vague indefinite time, during
which, or before which, Messiah's
kingdom would be estabHshed.
" It shaU come to pass that in
the last days the mountain of the
Lord's house shall be established."
So Micah iv. 1.
In Matt. xii. 32, our Lord dis
tinguishes between this world (or
rather, age) and the world to come.
So " this time '' is contrasted with
" the world to come " in Mark x. 30
and Luke xviH. 30. In our Lord's
usage, then, the beginning of the
kingdom of Messiah belonged to
the present age, and the coming
age would not be tiU the comple
tion of that kingdom. So the day
of resurrection and' final judgment,
the beginning, that is, of the coming
age, is " the last day " of the pre
sent (John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54 ; xi.
24 ; xii. 48).
St. Paul also speaks of the pre
sent age and the coming, the
sufferings of the present time and
the glory that shaU be, and of
things present and things to come
(Rom. vRi. 38). In Tit. H. 12, 13,
those who live " in this present
world " are " looking for the glori
ous appearing of the great God and
our Saviour." He says that "in
the last days " before that final
period there "shaU come perilous
times" (2 Tim. iii. 1); and that
" in the latter times some shaU de
part from the faith (1 Tim. iv. 1).
Although actually in this present

¦I. JOHN.

307

age, yet, according to St. Paul,
Christians have more or less entered
on the coming age proportionally
to their degrees of progress. So
the present age is regarded as
tainted with sin and alienated from
God (Rom. xii. 2 ; 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8 ;
iii. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Gal. i. 4;
Eph. ii. 2 ; 2 Tim. iv. 10). Since
the first advent of Christ, he re
garded the present age as begin
ning to draw to its close ; " our
admonition, upon whom the ends
of the world are come " (1 Cor. x.
11). St. Peter identified his age with
the " last days " of the prophets
(Acts H. 17), and considers the date
of the first advent as " in these last
times" (1 Pet. i. 20). But as, a
few verses before (verse 5), he
speaks of " salvation ready to be
revealed in the last time"; and
again (2 Pet. iH. 3), " There shall
come in the last days scoffers"
(comp. Jude, verse 18), he evidently
looked to a still more definite close
of the aReady closing age.
St. James, too, looked forward
to such a period : " Ye have heaped
treasure together for the last days"
(Jas. v. 3). The Epistle to the
Hebrews, Hke the first usage in
St. Peter, treats the existing times
as "these last days " (Heb. i. 1, 2) ;
" now once in the end of the world
hath He appeared to put away sin
by the sacrifice of HimseR " (Heb.
ix. 26). As weR as this, it looks
forward to the future age of which
Christians aReady, in varying de
grees, partake : " Have tasted the
powers of the world to come"
(Heb. vi. 5) ; " Christ being come
an high priest of good things to
come" (Heb. ix. 11). This tasting
is only a beginning, not an actu-
aUty, tUl the second coming (Heb.
xHi. 14).

St. John, then, having, like the
other Apostles, the notion that the
first age was drawing to its close,
and that the latter days were
already upon the earth, and believ
ing — or, at the very least, firmly
hoping — that the second advent was
not far off, did not hesitate, espe
cially in view of Matt. xxiv. 22, 24,
to speak of the time of his old age
as " the last hour." Of the date
of the second coming even the Son
was to be ignorant; but at any
rate, since the death of the last of
the Apostles, and the closing of the
Canon, there had been no change
in the Christian dispensation ; it has
been a constant repetition of re
pentance, forgiveness, watching.
(4) Antichrist.
" As ye have heard that antichrist
shall come, even now are there
many antichrists" (1 John ii. 18).
" He is the antichrist, that
denieth the Father and the Son"
(1 John ii. 22).
" Every spirit that confesseth not
that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is not of God ; and this is that
spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
have heard that it should come :
and even now aReady it is in the
world" (1 John iv. 3).
" For many deceivers are entered
into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh. This is the deceiver and the
antichrist " (2 John, verse 7).
Our Lord foretold false Christs
and false prophets, who "shaR show
great signs and wonders ; insomuch
that, if it were possible, they shall
deceive the very elect " (Matt. xxiv.
11, 24 ; Mark xHi. 22, 23).
St. Paul spoke of the growth of
the antichristian "lie," especially
in the cities of Asia Minor. " After
my departing shaU grievous wolves
enter in among you, not sparing

308

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

the flock. Also of your own selves
shaU men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after
them" (Acts xx. 29, 30; and 2
Tim. iii. 1 — 9). These would be
but anticipations of that concen
trated force of opposition for which
St. Paul looked immediately before
the second coming. " For that day
shall not come, except there come a
falling away first, and that man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdi
tion ; who opposeth and exalteth
himseR above all that is caUed God,
or that is worshipped ; so that he
as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God
. . . Then shaU that Wicked be
revealed, whom the Lord shaU con
sume with the spRit of His mouth,
and shaU destroy with the bright
ness of His coming : even him,
whose coming is after the working
of Satan with all power and signs
and lying wonders, and with aU
deceivableness of unrighteousness
in them that perish ; because they
received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved" (2
Thess. ii. 3—10).
St. John meant by the antichrists
what St. Paul" meant by the grie
vous wolves ; the individual mani
festations of "the spirit of anti
christ," whieh St. Paul describes as
" he whose coming is in them that
perish." There is a difference,
however, in the application of the
idea, for the opposer in St. Paul's
view is rather from without, St.
John's principle of evil rather from
within. Just as St. John noticed
the same tendencies showing them
selves in the same way in different
individuals, and caUed them spirits,
so in looking forward to a more
formidable and final apostasy, he
calls it "the spirit of antichrist,"
which has aReady declared itself in

so many personal antichrists. St.
Paul's "man of sin "must be of
the same spiritual character, for no
human being could ever be power
ful and dangerous enough to
answer the description.
(5) The three witnesses (1 John
v. 7, 8).
The authority for the words, " in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost, and these three are
one ; and there are three who bear
witness in the earth," is a copy made
in the sixteenth century, of Codex
173, which dates from the eleventh.
The words are wanting in aR the
Greek Codices, including the Codex
Sinaiticus, and in aU the ancient
versions, including the Latin, as
late as the eighth century. Since
then they are found in three varia
tions. Had they been known they
must have been quoted in the con
troversies about the Trinity ; but
they are not cited by any Greek or
any of the older Latin Fathers. A
quotation from TertuUian (adv.
Prax. 25) and a parallel quotation
from Cyprian (Ep. ad Jub.), where
each is estabHshing the doctrme of
the Trinity, refer to John x. 20,
and xvi. 5 ; and another from
Cyprian (de Unit. Eccl. p. 79) refers
to 1 John v. 8, where the spRit,
the water, and the blood, were
interpreted patristically as dRect
symbols of the Trinity.
The words probably crept into
the text gradually from Greek
notes on the passage, and from the
expression of Cyprian, which would
be placed alongside to Bhowhowhe
interpreted St. John's meaning.
The second place in Cyprian runs
thus : " The Lord says, ' I and My
Father are one ' ; and again, con
cerning the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy SpRit, it is written :
' And these three are one.' "

I. JOHN.

309

TheR first appearance is in a
work ascribed to VigUius, of
Thapsus, at the close of the fifth
century. They afterwards occur
in Latin translations. They first
appeared in print in the earHest
Greek edition, the Complutensian,
published a.d. 1522. (See Dr.
Scrivener's Introduction to the
Critical Study of the New Testa
ment, on this passage.)
Erasmus at first refused them,
but at last yielded to pressure, when
he heard that they were in the
Codex Britannicus. But that
manuscript is only of the fifteenth
or sixteenth century. Stephanus,
Beza, and the Textus Eeceptus
followed his lead. Luther never
translated them ; in his first com
mentary he pronounced them
spurious, in his second he com
mented on them. We owe them
solely to the reluctant deference
paid by Erasmus to unlearned
current opinion. There is hardly
a passage . in aR Hterature more
demonstrably spurious.
On the internal evidence, after
such adverse criticism, it is hardly
necessary to speak, but it may be
well to quote Sir Isaac Newton.
After writing of the fulness and
strength of the argument as it
stands, without the inserted words,
he says : " If you insert the testi
mony of the three in heaven, you
spoR it, for the whole design of the
Apostle being here to prove to men
by witness the truth of Christ's
ooming, I would ask how the testi
mony of the ' three in heaven '
makes to this purpose ? If their
testimony be not given to men,
how does it prove to them the truth
of Christ's coming ? If it be, how
is the testimony in heaven distin
guished from that on earth ? It is
the same Spirit which witnesses

both in heaven and Hi earth. If in
both cases it witnesses to us men,
wherein lies the difference between
its witnessing in heaven and its
witnessing in earth ? If in the
first case it does not witness to
them, to whom does it witness ?
And to what purpose ? And how
does its witnessing make to the
design of St. John's discourse ?
Let them make good sense of it
who are able ; for my part I can
make none." (Paraphrastic expo
sition.) IX. Literature. — I am in
debted chiefly to Dr. Karl Braune,
The Epistles General of John, in
Dr. J. P. Lange's series (an Eng
lish Translation is pubHshed by
T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh) ; to
Dr. H. A. Ebrard's Die Briefe
Johannes, Konigsberg, 1859 (an
English translation was published
by T. and T. Clark in 1860) ; and
to Dr. Friedrich Liicke' s Commentar
iiber die Briefe des Evangelisten
Johannis, Bonn, 1836 (an EngHsh
translation was pubHshed by T.
and T. Clark in 1837). Perhaps
the best authority of all is Erich
Haiipt, Der Erste Brief des Johannes,
Colberg, 1870 ;, London, WilHams
and Norgate. There are also Dr.
J. E. Huther's Handbuch iiber die
Drei Briefe des Apostel Johannes,
3rd Edition, Gottingen, 1868, in
Meyer ; De Wette in his Commen
tary on the New Testament ; and
Diisterdieok's Die Drei Johannei-
schen Briefe, Gottingen, 1852 — 54.
Of the Greek commentaries,
those of Diodorus of Tarsus and
Chrysostom have been lost ; a few
fragments remain from Clement of
Alexandria, a few more from Didy-
mus of Alexandria. Catena have
been preserved from Oecumenius,
Theophylact, and two SchoHasts,

310

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

Among Latins, an Expositio re
mains by Augustine, and one by
Bede. The epistle was also com
mented on by Erasmus, Luther,
Calvin, Beza, ZwingU, and Bul
linger. Calovius, Grotius, and
Bengel are often quoted in modern
editions. Besides the commentaries of

Wordsworth and ARord Bhould
be mentioned A. Neander's The
First Epistle of John practically
explained, BerHn, 1851 (translated
by Mrs. Conant, New York, 1853),
and F. D. Maurice's The Epistle
of John: Lectures on Christian Ethics,
MacmiUan, 1867 ; also the able but
posthumous edition of W. E. JeR.

II. AND in. JOHN.

By the Ykn. W. M. SINCLAIE, D.D-.

I. Who wrote them?
II. Date.
III. Character and Scope.
I. Who wrote them? — It is
difficult to imagine why any should
suppose these two Epistles to be by
different hands. Was this author
the Apostle ?
(1) External Evidence. — This is
not nearly so strong as for the FRst.
It is natural that it should be so,
for the two Epistles seem to have
been regarded as of far less general
interest ; and, therefore, there was
less obvious propriety in placing
them in a eoUection of important
ApostoUcal Hterature, and Httle
reason why they should be quoted
at aU. The main argument for
them is, indeed, their unaffected,
inartificial kinship to the FRst.
The oldest authority for the Second
is the Muratorian Canon, composed
before a.d. 170. Origen speaks of
St. John's Epistles in the plural, and
his disciple, Dionysius, cites the
ThRd by name. The Muratorian
Canon speaks of two Epistles of
John, apparently distinct from the
First. The Muratorian writer ex
plains the principle of his arrange
ment of the Canon distinctly : say
ing that the Epistles of Paul to

IV. Where were they written P
V. Literature.
Philemon and Timothy, although
addressed only to individuals, were
placed in the Canon on account of
their character. And even if the
two Epistles of John mentioned
were the First and Second, the fact
that the Epistle to Philemon has
precedence of those to Timothy
(and Titus), probably because it is
addressed also to Apphia and Ar-
ohippus, and the church in Phile
mon's house, makes it very easy to
understand that the Second Epistle
of John (early supposed to be ad
dressed to a church under the
symbolic (form of a lady) would
be received into a canon, while the
Third, addressed to an unknown
individual, and dealing with special
circumstances, might not be con
sidered sufficiently general for
such a position. In early days
there must have been many fugitive
writings of the Apostles ;- and
the discretion of the churches in
selecting from them for an autho
rised eoUection would be guided
probably more by usage than by
deliberate valuation. Clement of
Alexandria (a.d. 190 — 220), says,

312

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

"The Second Epistle of John,
written to the VRgins, is of the
simplest character ; it is written to
a certain Babylonian, caUed Electa,
but that means the election of the
holy Church" (Opera, p. 1011, ed.
Potter). Origen, in addition to
what has been quoted from him
above, is aRegedby Eusebius (Eccl.
Hist. vi. 25) to have said, " Not all
consider these Epistles to be genu
ine," without endorsing the doubt
himself. Dionysius of Alexandria,
pupil and successor of Origen,
makes use of the Second and Third
Epistle to iUustrate St. John's
diction ; he says that they were
generally received as St. John's by
tradition. Irenams, disciple of
Polycarp and of Papias (he died
a.d. 202), quotes 2 John, verse 7, by
a mistake of memory, as belonging
to the First Epistle ; the words of
2 John, verse 11, he cites as by John
the disciple of the Lord. Ephrem
the Syrian knew both Epistles, but
it is easy to understand why two
small fragments of such a private
character were not translated in
early days, and therefore did not
appear in the Peshito version ; for
that contains only three general
Epistles (James, 1 Peter, 1 John).
Cyprian shows that the Second
Epistle was received as Apostolical
and Canonical in the North African
Church, by the fact that he men
tions a quotation of the tenth verse
by Aurelius, Bishop of Chullabis.
Eusebius by speaking of St. John's
Epistles in the plural number (De-
monstratio Evangelica, iii. 5) shows
that he himself recognised some
other Epistles as weU as the First ;
but, as from their shortness and
smaR range there had been very
slight occasion to quote them, he
put them among the highest class
of those writings which were not

placed by absolutely universal con
sent in the authoritative Canon, and
were therefore called Antilegomena.
Jerome gives the " opinion of seve
ral writers," not as his own, that
they were by the traditional John
the Presbyter ; a view rejected by
Oecumenius and Bede. In the
Middle Ages they were received
without question as the Apostle's ;
then Erasmus took up the opinion
mentioned by Jerome, and .was fol
lowed by Grotius. Most modern
commentators recognise them as
ApostoHc. The Tubingen writers
are, of course, obliged to consider
them as later, referring them to
Montanistic, or at any rate, sub-
apoBtoHc times.
(2) Internal Evidence. — The term
"elder": The fact that St. John
does not give his name is in
favour of authenticity. As in the
Gospel and the First Epistle, he
prefers to retain a dignified incog
nito, intelligible to aU whom it con
cerned. Even R the messengers
did not know whose letters they
were carrying, even if the corre
spondents did not know the hand
writing, they would be perfectly
aware from the style and matter,
and the promise of a visit. It is
doubtful whether by " elder " he
meant "aged," or an official posi
tion. In classical Greek these
words would have a different form,
but St. John's Greek is that of a
man who had become accustomed to
a provincial form of the language
late in Hfe, and quite admits of
sHght irregularities. If he means
an office, there is nothing to show
that all the Apostles always used
the apostoHc title. St. Peter called
himself " feUow-presbyter " (1 Pet.
v. 1), and Eusebius called the Apos
tles Presbyters (Eccl. Hist. Hi. 39).
The Apostles and "Overseers"

II. AND III. JOHN.

313

were, in fact, only a speciaUy re
sponsible and important branch of
the Presbyterate. As the last re
maining Apostle, St. John might
prefer not to insist on a designation
now unique; or, as the name
" elder " was originally adopted
with reference to mature age, he
may have used it as a hint of his
own advanced years ; or the dan
gers of the times may have made it
advisable for him, for his messen
ger, and for his correspondents, to
drop the higher title.
The only authority for the
existence of another John at
Ephesus, at the same time as the
Apostle, caRed " the elder," and
" the disciple of the Lord," is
Papias, quoted by Eusebius. Is it
not possible, that, as Eusebius
says that he was "very smaH in
mind," there may be some con
fusion in some of these details ?
May not even the confusion itseR
have arisen from these anonymous
Epistles being misunderstood by
theunintelHgent? But, even admit
ting the existence of such a second
John, it is too much to ask us to
believe that he resembled the
Apostle not only in name and
history, but also in style, cha
racter, and thought. And where
it was extremely reasonable that
the Apostle should leave out his
name, it becomes most improbable
that this alternative John should
have left it out.
The Second and ThRd Epistles
are fuR of pecuhar forms, common
also to the FRst. Notice 2 John
verse 1, "knowing the truth";
verse 2, "abide in " ; verse 3, "in
truth and love" ; verse 4, "walking
in"; verse 5, "the commandment
which we had from the beginning "
(1 John H. 7) ; verse 6, " this is
love, that " ; " as ye heard from the

beginning" (1 John Hi. 11, 23);
verse 7, "deceivers are gone forth "
(1 John H. 18) ; " confessing not
Jesus Christ coming in the flesh "
(1 John iv. 1, 2) ; " the anti
christ " ; verse 9, " abideth not in
the doctrine, hath not God "
(1 John ii. 23) ; " hath the Son
and the Father"; verse 12, "that
our joy may be fuU " (1 John i. 4) ;
3 John, verse 1, "in truth";
verses 3, 4, " walkest in truth " ;
verse 11, "is of God, hath not seen
God" (1 John iH. 6, 10; iv. 8).
There are five or six expressions in
the two Epistles which do not
occur elsewhere in St. John's
writings, but it would be in the
highest degree absurd to confine
any writer exclusively to the lan
guage used in a former production.
Additional reason for variety here
would be found in the simple coUo-
quial character of the writings.
Accordingly, while there is every
reason to hold that the Second and
ThRd Epistles are by the author of
the First, and the First by the
Author of the Gospel, it is difficult
to find any vaHd reason to the
contrary. II. Date  In the absence of aR
evidence to the contrary, it seems
probable that the circumstances
and time were not very dissimRar
in aU three Epistles.
III. Character and Scope.
— In the Second, the Apostle, who
is probably staying at the same
place as some of his correspondent's
children, writes to a mother and
her other children to express his
sympathy and delight at the faith
of the family, and to warn them
against admitting false teachers to
theR cRcle. It contains notice
able definitions of love, antichrist,

314

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

and of true and false beHevers. It
also has a general lesson on the
treatment of wUful depravers of
divine truth.
In the ThRd, he recounts how
some missionaries had been badly
received by Diotrephes, who had
ambitiously obtained for himself
the chief influence in a certain
church, but notwithstanding Gaius
had been courageous and kind
enough to entertain them hospit
ably. Gaius is exhorted to help
them stiU further. The Letter
gives us an idea of the high impor
tance of hospitaHty at the time as
a Christian virtue ; and brings out
the fact that St. John's authority
was no less disputed in certain
cases than St. Paul's. It is pro
bable that the church of Diotrephes
had not been founded by Rt. John ;

and St. John had special claim to
be obeyed ; and that ecclesiastical
influence seems to have by this
time become vested in a single
head. IV. "Where were they
written ? — Probably at Ephesus,
before a tour of inspection. Had
they been written in Patmos, some
notice of the captivity might be
expected. V. Literature. — To the autho
rities mentioned in the Introduction
to the FRst Epistle, add the Articles
in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible,
and a paper by Professor Salmon
on the Third Epistle in the Christian
Observer, April, 1877. I should
mention again my obligations to
Dr. Karl Braune.

JUDE.

By the Eev. ALFEED PIUMMEE, D.D.

I. The Author. — Whatever
may be our opinion with regard to
2 Peter, sober criticism reqinres us
to beHeve that this Epistle was
written by the man whose name it
bears. To suppose that Jude is
an assumed name is gratuitous. It
remains to determine who the Jude
is who addresses us.
He tells us that he is a " servant
of Jesus Christ " and " brother of
James." Had he been an Apostle
he would probably have said so.
(Comp. Eom. i. 1 ; Titus i. 1 ;
2 Pet. i. 1.) Had he been an
Apostle he would not have claimed
attention by calHng himself " the
brother of James," when he pos
sessed so very much stronger a
claim. The fact that (verse 17)
the writer appeals to the words
of Apostles proves nothing; an
Apostle might do so. But at least
such an appeal is more natural in
one who is not an Apostle : there
being no reason why he should
keep his Apostleship in the back
ground if he possessed it. Our
Jude, then, is the Judas of Matt.
xiU. 55, and the Juda of Mark vi.
3 ; not the Judas of Luke vi. 16
and Acts i. 13, where " brother
of James " should more probably
be " son of James." The author of
this Epistle is rightly described as

the brother of James, " brother '"
beRig expressed in the Greek. The
James indicated is James " the
Just," the brother of the Lord, and
first Bishop of Jerusalem, who,
though not an Apostle, was never
theless a person of such dignity as
quite to account for this writer
thinking it worth whUe to mention
his near relationship to him. The
present question is mixed up with
the vexed question as to the
brethren of our Lord, already dis
cussed on p. 272 seq. The view
here taken is that they were not
the sons of Alphseus — i.e., cousins
— but in some real sense brethren :
either the chUdren of Joseph and
Mary, or of Joseph by a former
wRe, or by a levRate marriage, or
by adoption.
Which of these four alternatives
is the right one wiR probably never
be determined. Jerome's theory
that they were our Lord's cousins,
children of Alphaeus, is contradicted
by John vii. 5. It owes its pre
valence in the West mainly to
Jerome's influence. The identifi
cation of James the Lord's brother
with James the son of Alphaeus,
which it involves, has never pre-
vaRed in the Eastern Church. Our
author, then, together with his
better-known brother, James, were

316

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

in some sense our Lord's "brethren,"
and not Apostles. If it be asked,
Would not Jude in this case have
appealed to his relationship to
Christ rather than to his relation
ship to James ? we may securely
answer "No." As the author of
the Adumbrationes centuries ago
remarked, rehgious feeling would
deter him, as it did his brother
James in his Epistle, from men
tioning this fact. The Ascension
had altered aU Christ's human
relationships, and His brethren
would shrink from claiming kin
ship after the flesh with His glori
fied Body. This conjecture is
supported by facts. Nowhere in
primitive Christian Hterature is
any authority claimed or attributed
on the basis of nearness of kin
to the Eedeener. He Himself had
taught Christians that the lowHest
among them might rise above the
closest of such earthly ties (Luke
xi. 27, 28) ; to be spRituaRy " the
servant of Jesus Christ " was very
much more than being His actual
brother. Of this Jude very little is known.
Unless he was an exception to the
statement in John vii. 5 (of which
there is no intimation), he did not
at first believe on Christ, but joined
the Apostles after the convincing
fact of the Resurrection (Acts i. 14).
That, Hke his brothers, he was
married, appears from Hegesippus,
who tells us (Euseb., H E. III. xx.)
that two grandsons of Jude were
brought before Domitian as descend
ants of a royal house, and therefore
dangerous persons; but on their
proving their poverty, and explain
ing that Christ's kingdom was not of
this world, they were contemptu
ously dismissed. This story almost
implies that the relationship to
Chri st was very close; for Hegesippus

remarks, by way of explanation,
that Domitian was afraid of Christ,
just as Herod was. Statements of
St. Jude's preaching in various
parts of the world rest upon late
and untrustworthy evidence. That
he was an Evangelist, is implied
in his writing this Epistle ; but
nothing is known respecting his
labours. II. Authenticity. — The au
thenticity of the Epistle has been
questioned by some from very
early times, but without sufficient
reason. The evidence against it is
mainly this. External. — TheEpistle
is not contained in the Peshito or
ancient Syriac version; Eusebius
classes it among the disputed books
(III. xxv. 3 ; II. xxiii. 25) ; Theo
dore of Mopsuestia seems to have
rejected it ; few references to it are
found in early writers. Internal. —
It cites apocryphal books, has a
suspicious relationship to Eomans
and 2 Peter; is difficult in style.
Against this we may urge that
Ephrem Syrus seems to have recog
nised it ; the Muratorian Frag
ment (circ. a.d. 170) contains it ;
the old Latin version contains it ;
TertuUian (De Cult. Fem. I. iii.)
accepts it as genuine and Apostolic ;
Clement of Alexandria quotes it
as Scripture (Strom. III. ii. ; Paed.
III. viii. ) ; Origen, though he knew
of doubts about it (Comm. on Matt.
xxii. 23) fuUy accepted it (on Matt.
xiii. 55 ; xviii. 10, et al.) ; Jerome
(Scrip. Eccles. iv.) says that many
rejected it because it quoted apocry
phal books, but that it ought to be
reckoned among the Scriptures ;
the Councils of Laodicea (circ. a.d.
360) and of Hippo (a.d. 393)
formaUy included it in the Canon.
The doubts about it are very inteUi-
gible : it was not by an Apostle,

JUDE.

317

and therefore seemed wanting Hi
authority, and it quoted apocryphal
works. Its brevity fuUy accounts
for its not being often quoted. It
is too insignificant to be a forgery ;
a forger would have said more,
and would have selected some well-
known name, and not that of one
but Httle known, to give authority
to his production.
The difficult style is natural
enough in a Jew writing Greek
weU, but not with ease. As already
stated in reference to 2 Peter,
a theory that these two Epistles
(2 Peter and Jude) are translations
from Aramaic originals has been
advocated. (See Did St. Peter write
in Greek ? By E. G. King, Cam
bridge, 1871.)
It would be most presumptuous
on the part of one who is ig
norant of Hebrew to pronounce an
opinion on the arguments used;
but the number of them seems
to be insufficient. Mere internal
evidence of this kind ought to
be very strong to counterbalance
the entire absence of external
evidence. Jerome would certainly
give information on this point,
R he possessed any, when he
makes his own suggestion that
St. Peter made use of different
"interpreters" when writing his
two Epistles.

m. The Place and Time.—
As to the place, we have no evi
dence, either external or internal.
The Epistle contains some indica
tions of time.
(1) The fact that the destruction
of Jerusalem and consequent ruin
of the Jewish nation is not men
tioned among the instances of
divine vengeance (verses 5 — 7) is
a strong reason for beReving that

the Epistle was written before
a.d. 70.
(2) The fact that such Hbertines
as are here described are allowed to
remain members of the Christian
community points to a time
when Church discipline is in its
very infancy. The evils are very
similar to those which St. Paul
has to condemn in the Church of
Corinth (1 Cor. v. 1, 2; vi. 8—18;
xi. 17—22).
(3) It seems to be implied (verse
17) that some of those addressed
had heard Apostles.

IV. Object and Contents. —
The object is plainly stated (verses
3, 4) — to urge his readers to eon-
tend earnestly for the faith which
was being caricatured and denied
by the libertinism and practical in-
fideHty of certain members of the
community. In what Church or
Churches this evR prevaUed we are
not told ; but it would be more
likely to arise among converts from
heathenism than from Judaism.
The plan of the Epistle, short as it
is, is evidently laid, with consider
able care ; and the writer betrays
a fondness for threefold divisions
which is quite remarkable. It
would scarcely be an exaggeration
to say that wherever a group of
three is possible he makes one.
One or two of the triplets may be
accidental, but the majority of
them can hardly be so; and this
fact may be worth remembering in
discussing the question of priority
between this Epistle and 2 Peter.
There are ten (or possibly twelve)
groups of three in this short Epistle
of 25 verses : viz. (1 and 2), verse
1 ; (3) verse 2 ; (4) verse 4 ; (5)
verses 5 — 7 ; (6) verse 8 ; (7) verse
11; (8) verses 12—15, 16—18, 19;

318

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

(9) verse 19 ; (10) verses 20, 21 ;
(11) verses 22, 23; (12) verse 25.
Of these, (4) and (10) are perhaps
doubtful ; but there can be no ques
tion about the rest, although the
last two are obscured in the English
version, owing to our translators
having foUowed a defective Greek
text. (1) Introduction".
(a) Three-fold address and three
fold greeting (verses 1, 2).
(b) Purpose of the Epistle (verse
3).
(c) Occasion ofthe Epistle (verse
4).
(2) Warning and Denuncia
tion.
\<a) Three instances of God's ven
geance (verses 5 — 7), and
application of these three
instances to the libertines
who are now provoking God
(verses 8 — 10).
(b) Three examples of similar
wickedness (verse 11).
(c) Three-fold description corre
sponding to these three
examples (verses 12 — 15 ;
16—18; 19).
(3) Exhortation.
(a) To strengthen themselves in
the faith by prayer, godli
ness, and hope (verses 20,
21).
(b) To treat these libertines
with discrimination, making
three classes (verses 22,
23).
(c) Concluding doxology (verses
24, 25).
V. The relation of Jude to
2 Peter  The simUarity both in
substance and wording between a
considerable portion of these two
Epistles is so great that only two
alternatives are possible ; either one

has borrowed from the other, or
both have borrowed from a common
source. The second alternative is
rarely, if ever, advocated; it does
not explain the facts very satisfac
torily, and critics are agreed in re
jecting it. But here agreement
ends. On the further question, as
to which writer is prior, there is
very great diversity of opinion.
One thing, therefore, is certain, that
whichever writer has borrowed, he
is no ordinary borrower. He knows
how to assimilate foreign material
so as to make it thoroughly his
own. He remains original even
while he appropriates the words
and thoughts of another. He con
trols them, not they him. Were this
not so, there would be little doubt
about the matter. In any ordinary
case of appropriation, R both the
original and copy are forthcoming,
critics do not doubt long as to which
is the original. It is when the copy
itseR is a masterpiece, as in the
case of Holbein's Madonna, that
criticism is baffled. Such would
seem to be the case here. The pre
sent writer is free to confess hi3
own uncertainty. A superficial
acquaintance with the subject in
clined him to believe in the priority
of Jude ; further study disposes
him to think that the balance is
decidedly in favour of the priority
of 2 Peter, although the balance is
considerably short of proof. The
question cannot be kept distinct
from that of the authenticity of St.
Peter. Every argument in favour
of the authenticity of 2 Peter is
something in favour of its priority,
and vice versA ; although many
arguments bear more upon one
point than the other. If, then, the
genuineness of 2 Peter is accepted
as probable, this will add additional
weight to the considerations now to

JUDE.

319

be urged in favour of the priority
of 2 Peter ; and they in turn will
strengthen the arguments for its
genuineness. This question as to the relation
between these two Epistles seems
to be one in which the old-fashioned
view is not so far wrong after all.
And some value may faRly be
aRowed to the old-fashioned argu
ments for it : (1) that the account
of evil-doers in 2 Peter is in the
main a prophecy, whereas St. Jude
speaks of them as present; the
inference being that St. Jude re
cognised in what he saw the mis
chief which St. Peter had foretold ;
and added weight to his own de
nunciations by framing them in
the very words of the Apostle ; (2)
that St. Jude's warning, "re
member the words which were
spoken before by the Apostles . . .
how that they told you there shaU
be mockers in the last time walking
after theR own ungodly lusts "
(verses 17, 18), is an obvious re
ference to St. Peter's prediction,
" There shaR come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own
lusts " (2 Pet. iii. 3). Of course a
forger, with St. Jude's words before
him, might frame his own words
to fit them ; but in that case we
have stiU to account for St. Jude's
warning, "Eemember the words
which were spoken before by the
Apostles," &o. They may refer to
such passages as Acts xx. 29 ; 2
Tim. iii. 1 ; or (as some who insist
on "how that they told you," or
"used to tell you," prefer) to warn
ings given oraRy by the Apostles ;
stUl 2 Pet. Hi. 3 is the most obvious
reference. No doubt it is antecedently
more probable that a smaU Epistle
should be repubHshed with much
additional matter, than that one-

third of a longer Epistle should be
republished with very Httle addi
tional matter : but what has been
said above about 2 Peter being a
prophecy, of which St. Jude saw
the fulfilment, is an answer to this.
Besides which, we may urge that
it is antecedently improbable that
a forger should take so much from
an Epistle that was not only known,
but regarded with suspicion in
some quarters, because of its
quoting apocryphal books. That
St. Jude is quoted by one or two
writers who seem not to know
or to reject 2 Peter (Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen)
may be aUowed some weight ;
but this could easily be accounted
for, and in itself is not very con
vincing. One argument used for the
priority of Jude seems to the pre
sent writer to tell strongly for the
priority of 2 Peter. It is this :
that the evU-doers denounced by
St. Jude are much more distinctly
portrayed than those denounced in
2 Peter. We know from history
that the errors indicated increased
rapidly from the apostolic age on
wards. The later writer, there
fore, would have the clearer pic
ture before his eyes. Would not the
clearer description, then, be likely
to be his P (See above on the False
Teachers and Scoffers : Introduction
to 2 Peter.) In connection with
this point it is worth considering
whether the careful directions
which St. Jude gives as to the way
in which different classes of the un
godly men are to be treated does
not point to a later stage of the
evil. Again, the rather fanciful
arrangement into triplets which
prevails in St. Jude's Epistle looks
more like a second writer working
up old material than a first writer

320

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

working under no influence from a
predecessor. Of the numerous minute argu
ments drawn from the wording of
paraRel passages, only one or two
specimens can be given here.
Jude, verse 6, contains a telling
piece of Rony in the double use of
" kept," which is wanting in 2 Pet.
ii. 4 ; Jude, verse 10, contains a
striking antithesis, very epigram-
matically stated, which is wanting
in 2 Pet. ii. 12; Jude, verses 12,
13, contains some fine similes, es
pecially the one of "wandering
stars," which would have fitted
the "false teachers" admRably;
yet most of them are absent from

2 Peter. Would a writer who is
quite willing to borrow anything
that wUl serve his purpose (this is
evident, whichever is the borrower)
have wilfuUy rejected aU these
good things ? If they are im
provements added by St. Jude, all
is natural enough. It is worth
mentioning, in conclusion, that the
arguments urged for an Aramaic
original teR decidedly in favour of
tho priority of 2 Peter.
While admitting, therefore, that
the case is by no means proved,
we may be content to retain the
priority as well as the authenticity
of 2 Peter as at least the best work
ing hypothesis.

THE REVELATION.
By the Eibht Eev. W. BOYD-CAEPENTEE, D.D.

I. The Author.
H. The Date and
Writing.

Time op

I. The Author. — The general
opinion of the Church of Christ
has accepted the Apocalypse as the
work of John the Apostle, but this
general opinion has been caUed in
question. Our space can only aRow
us to lay before our readers a brief
resume of the reasons which have
been urged on either side. For con
venience it wiR be as weR to ask
the foUowing questions : —
(1) Was the Writer's name John?
— At first sight it would seem that
there could be but one answer to
this question. The book announces
itseR as written by a person whose
name was John. Four times over
does the name occur (Rev. i. 1,4, 9,
xxH. 8).
Is there any reason for question
ing the witness thus given by the
book itseR ? It has been asserted
that the writer does not claim to
be John, but only " gives a report
of a revelation which John had re-

III. Schools and Principles op
Interpretation.
IV. General Scope op the Book.
V. Literature.
ceived" (Scholten). It is perfectly
true that a writer might thus dra-
maticaUy represent the Apostle John
as the seer of tho revelation ; but
such possibihty is no proof that it
was so, and certainly cannot be
entertained in the total absence of
aU proof. The reiteration of the
name four times is out of har
mony with this conjecture; and
the theory would not, as Gebhardt
has remarked, be applied to any
other book of the New Testament.
Would any serious reply be
" thought necessary should it occur
to some one to reject the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, because
from such passages as 1 Cor. i. 1 3,
it does not foUow that the author
identifies himself with Paul, but
gives (i Cor. i. 1,2), after the man
ner of an introduction, a report
of an Epistle which the Apostle
wrote ? "
We may assume, then, that the
writer's name was John.

21

322

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

(2) Was the Writer John the Apos
tle ? — It is round this question that
we meet the most serious conflict.
(a) It is admitted on aR hands,
even by those who oppose the apos
toHc authorship of the book, that
the great consensus of early opinion
regarded the writer as St. John
the Apostle. " From the time of
Justin Martyr to that of Irenaeus
and the great Fathers, the Apoca
lypse was recognised as a produc
tion of the Apostle." Such is the
opinion of Keim (Jesu v. Nazara).
"We find the Revelation unhesi
tatingly attributed to him (St.
John) by the Fathers from the
midRe of the second century down
wards ; by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, TertuUian,
and others " (Bleek). The opinion
of the third century was the same.
Origen, whose opposition to mil-
lenarianism adds value to his tes
timony, Cyprian, Lactantius, and
others, acknowledge the Apocalypse
as the work of St. John.
Setting aside the opinion of Mar
cion, and of the unimportant sect
of the Alogi (see Introduction to the
First Epistle to St. John), doubts
respecting the apostoHc authorship
seem to have commenced with
Dionysius of Alexandria ; these
doubts which were echoed hesita
tingly by Eusebius, were based
not on historical or critical, so
much as upon doctrinal grounds :
the dread of miUenarianism created
a wish to discredit the book which
appeared to lend such weight to
the disHked doctrine. It is need
less to foUow the history ,of this
controversy ; it is enough to notice
that the first breach of this con
tinuous early opinion in favour of
the apostolic authorship grew out
of doctrinal prejudice rather than
candid examination.

(b) In later years, the contro
versy has been fought from dif
ferent bases of operation. The
conflict respecting the authorship
of the Fourth Gospel (see Intro
duction to St. John's Gospel) has
complicated the dispute. It seemed
to some impossible to believe that
the Fourth Gospel and the Apoca
lypse proceeded from the same pen.
The divergence in style and lan
guage was, in their view, too
great to admit of theR being
written by the same man, even
though that man were an Apos
tle. If the Gospel was the
work of St. John, the Apocalypse
could not be. The generaUy ac
cepted opinion that St. John wrote
the Apocalypse was assailed by
those who, in theR wish to pre
serve theR faith in the apostoUc
authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
were ready to sacrifice the Book of
Revelation. This was substantiaRy
the view adopted by Neander,
Liicke, Ewald, Bleek, Dilsterdieck,
and others. In opposition to these,
others were ready to adopt the
other hypothesis : they accepted the
view that the two books could not
have been the work of one and the
same writer ; but they preferred to.
sacrifice the Gospel : the Apoca
lypse was the work of St. John ;
the Gospel, therefore, could not be.
Such was the view of those who,
like Baur, aimed at discrediting
the Fourth Gospel, or who wished
to support the theory of a designed
antagonism between the school of
St. John, and that of St. Paul.
Neither of these parties — those
who would sacrifice the Apocalypse
to the Gospel, and those who
would sacrifice the Gospel to
the Apocalypse — represent the
most recent phase of the contro
versy. Another class of thinkers

REVELATION.

323

arose who felt that the witness
which the Fourth Gospel and the
Revelation alike gave to the Person
of Christ was too strong to be al
lowed the authority of an Apostle
by those who had formed other
and lower conceptions of the Jesus
of the Gospels. They saw no
glimpses of His heavenly glory and
majesty in the synoptical Gospels.
They found that the Book of Re
velation was fuR of them. The
Christ of the Apocalypse was the
Word of God, the King of Kings ;
the Christ of the Gospels was One
who came not to be ministered to,
but to minister. The portrait
given in the Gospels of " the loving
and amiable Son of Man," as the
Divine Son of God was patronis-
ingly styled, was not to "be found
in the Apocalypse ; such a book
could not have been written by
one who personaRy knew the
gentle and seR-sacrificing Prophet
of GaHlee — least of aR, perhaps, by
the beloved disciple. Such is the
view of the more recent critics, and
advanced with varying power and
arguments by Volkmar, Hokstra,
-and Scholten. The book was a
forgery, or at best the composition
¦of some other John — not of John
the Apostle. Besides, it was urged,
the Apostle could not have been
the author, for it is clear that the
writer Hved in Asia MRior, where
as the Apostle John never was in
Asia Minor at aR.
Such is, perhaps, the most recent
phase of the controversy.
(c) We have not space to do
more than touch but briefly, and
only upon a few of the arguments
advanced against the apostolic
authorship of the book. It wiH,
perhaps, be best to specify three or
foui. (i.) St. John tho Apostle, it is

said, never resided in Asia Minor ;
he could not, therefore, have been
the author of a book which is un-
doubteRy the work of one resident
there. It is proverbially difficult to
prove a negative : it is increasingly
difficult when only negative evi
dence can be adduced, and this is
aU that can be appealed to. The
argument, R argument it can be
caUed, runs thus : the residence of
St. John in Asia Minor is not men
tioned by those whom we might
have expected to mention it : there
fore, St. John did not reside there.
To use the words of a modern critic
(Mr. Matthew Arnold), " But there
is the rigorous and vigorous theory
of Prof. Scholten, that John never
was at Ephesus at aU. If he had
been, Papias and Hegesippus must
have mentioned it : R they had
mentioned it, Irenaeus and Eusebius
must have quoted them to that
effect. As if the very notoriety of
John's residence at Ephesus would
not have disproved Irenaeus and
Eusebius from advancing formal
testimony to it, and made them
refer to it just in the way they do.
Here, again, we may be sure that
no one judging evidence in a plain
fashion would ever have arrived at
Dr. Scholten's conclusion ; above
aU, no one of Dr. Scholten's great
learning and abUity " (Contempo
rary Review, vol. xxv., p. 988).
To this also we may add Geb-
hardt's words : — " No one in the
second century could believe that
the Apostle John was the author of
the Apocalypse, without at the same
time beHeving that he lived in Asia
Minor ; and in Hke manner, the
acknowledgment of the Apoca
lypse as the Apostle's from the time
of Justin Martyr downwards, made
prominent by Keim, is an ackndw-

324

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

ledgment of his residence in
Asia Minor, and inferentially at
Ephesus." (ii.) There are, it is stated, traces
of non-apostolic authorship in the
book. (a) The manner in which the
Apostles are spoken of (see chaps.
xviii. 20 and xxi. 14) is thought to
be inconsistent with the opinion
that the Apostle wrote it. The
Apostles are mentioned with a
degree of objectivity, and are as
signed a prominence which is un
likely if an Apostle were the writer.
But with regard to the last, if St.
John describes the foundations of
the heavenly Jerusalem as bearing
the names of the twelve Apostles,
St. Paul speaks of the Church being
built upon the foundation of the
Apostles and Prophets (Eph. ii.
20). The imagery is distinctly
apostoHc ; and if the Apostles are
mentioned with "objectivity" in
the Apocalypse, are they not men
tioned with an equal, if not greater,
degree of objectivity by St. Mat
thew ? (Matt. x. 2—4.)
(i8) But, it is argued, there is no
hint given throughout the book
that the writer is an Apostle. If
St. John were the writer, would he
not betray himself somewhere as
the beloved disciple ? Should we
not have some allusion to his in
timacy with his Master, or to some
circumstance connected with the
life and ministry of Christ? In
reply, it is enough to remark that
the nature of the book would not
lead us to expect such aUusions.
He writes as a Prophet, not as an
Apostle. It would be as idle to
expect some allusion to the circum
stances of Milton's political life in
the Paradise Lost. " The Apoca
lypse declares itself not to bc the
work cf an Apostle in the same

sense as SchiUer's poetry declares
itseR not to be the work- of a jiro-
fessor at Jena " (Gebhardt).
But it may be further urged
that there are not wanting cer
tain characteristic allusions which
reveal the writer. The allusions
to the piercing of the Saviour's
side (chap. i. 7 ; comp. John xix.
34), and to the washing, or cleans
ing (chaps, i. 5; vii. 13, 14;
xxii. 14; John xiii. 8 — 10), are
not to be overlooked; and more
than these may be detected by a
careful student.
(y) There is no trace of ApostoHc
authority. If we are not to expect personal
reminiscences, we surely should
expect the air of official authority.
But the answer is, Do we not find
this ? The language is surely that
of one. who does not doubt that his
name wiU carry a guarantee with
the book. (Comp. Prof. Davidson's
article in Kitto's Biblical Cyclo
paedia.) (iii.) The Christology of the book
is described as non-apostolic. The
picture which the Apocalypse gives
of Jesus Christ is not that of the
Gospels. In the Gospels we have
the loving and gentle Son of Man ;
in the Apocalypse we have the Word
of God, whose eyes are as a flame
of fire, and whose mouth a sharp
sword, &c. Is not the whole con
ception of the kingly Christ thus
portrayed the product of a later
age ? " The picture of Christ which
here comes before us seems to pre
suppose a conception so perfectly
free, that it can only belong to a
later Christianity" (Scholten).
"The apotheosis of Christ is too
strong lo bo ascribed to a contem
porary and disciple of Jesus"
(quoted in Gebhardt).
Such objections as these arise

REVELATION.

325

from a fundamental misconception
of the character and work of Jesus
Christ. The Christ of the Gospels
is not the colourless creation which
has been evolved out of the thought
of men Hving pighteen centuries
afterwards. The Christology of
the Apocalypse is distinct enough,
but it does not differ from the
Christology of St. Paul ; and it is
in complete harmony with the lofty
and divine utterances of our Lord
Himself even in the synoptical
Gospels. Time and space would
fail us in illustrating this position ;
it wiU suffice to refer to two or
three passages, which might be
multiplied: Matt. xxv. 31; xxvi.
13; Luke v. 20 ; vii. 8, 9, 23, 35 ;
ix. 41 ; x. 16—2*0.
(iv.) The divergence in style
between the Revelation and the
Fourth Gospel demands a few
words. We have spoken of those
critics, who, in their desire to pre
serve the authority of the Gospel,
have been wiUing to throw over
board the apostoHc authorship of
the Apocalypse. Is it necessary to
do this ? It has ¦ been shown that
the external evidence is in favour
of the apostoHc authorship. In
the language of Prof. Davidson,
" With the limited stock of
early ecclesiastical Hterature that
survives the wreck of time we
should despair of proving the
authenticity of any New Testament
book by the help of early witnesses,
if that of the Apocalypse be re
jected as insufficiently attested."
Is there any reason in the internal
character of tho book sufficient to
reverse this verdict ? Or, in other
words, assuming (and the stormy
controversy has rather increased
than diminished the right to the
assumption — see Introduction to St.
John's Gospel) the apostolic author

ship of the Fourth Gospel, is there
any ground for boHeving that the
Apocalypse could not have pro
ceeded from the same writer?
There are no doubt strongly
marked differences. We have not
space to touch on the whole ques
tion. One or two points caU for
notice. There are differences of
language ; there are " anomalies,"
" awkward dispositions of words,"
" peculiar constructions ; " " the
Greek is moulded by the Hebrew
tendencies of the writer." This is
no doubt largely the case ; but
there has been often a want of
appreciativeness at the root of some
criticisms Ukc these : some viola
tions of grammatical construction
have been set down to ignorance on
the part of the writer, when it is
clear that they were intentional
Notably, the language of Rev. i. 4
is beyond aR doubt designedly un-
grammatical ; indeed, as Bishop
Lightfoot has pointed out, were it
not so, the writer would not havo
possessed sufficient literary power
to construct a single sentence. Nor
has sufficient weight been allowed
to the different characters of the
two books, or the interval of
time which elapsed between their
writing. The highly wrought rap
ture of the seer, when beholding
the visions of the Apocalypse indi
cates a mental state in which voli
tional control is at the minimum,
and the automatic action of the
mind is left free. At such a time
the images and associations which
have been originaUy imbedded in
the memory are those which rise
uppermost to clothe the thoughts.
Thus the strong Hebrew colouring
is precisely what we should expect
from one who, of ardent tempera
ment, has spent the whole of his
earlier life in Palestine, and among

326

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

those who were constantly talking
over Messianic hopes and pro
phecies. (Comp. John i. 38 — 41.)
The force of this is not invalidated
by saying that the seer did not
write the visions as he saw them,
but recorded them afterwards. In
the first place, it is merely an as
sumption to affirm this ; in the
next, even were it true, the man
who records such visions must
recall the whole mental condition
in which he was at the time of the
vision, and would preserve in his
record the characteristics of such a
state of mind. Nor can much
stress be laid upon the fact that the
writer was not young. The visions
of God are given to the old as weU
as to the young. The loftiest reveal-
ings were given to Moses when he
had passed fourscore years : and,
even from a merely human point
of view, it is possible for a man of
sixty to retain the fire and warm
imagination of youth. Even in
modern life, when the faculties are
too often drudged into imbecility
by forced and premature develop
ment, and deprived of their full
and ultimate power by being made
reproductive when they ought to
be remaining receptive, we may
find the powers of imagination sur
vive the strain and incessaney of
toU ; indeed, in some cases the
imaginative powers have gathered
force tiU the Hne of the three
score years has been passed. Ed
mund Burke was sixty when he
wrote his Reflections on the Revolu
tion in France, and none wiU con
demn him for deficiency in imagi
nation. It was not in the ardour
of youth that Dante wrote the
Divine Comedy. The conditions of
ancient and Eastern life were pro
bably much more favourable to the
preservation and quiet ripening of

the powers of thought and imagi
nation. The truth is that there is
nothing so deceptive as the com
parison between the ages and
powers of different writers ; there
is no standard which can be used
as a measure. Some men of sixty
are, in mental force, more nearly
alHed to men of forty than to those
of theR own age ; and the addition
of twenty or five-and-twenty years
brings them to the mellow and
quiet autumn-time of their Hfe.
The Apocalypse may be " sensu
ous," full of "creative fancy,"
"objective," and " concrete ;'" the
Gospel may be " calm," " mystic,"
" spiritual," and delighting in
" speculative depth " ; but differ
ences equaUy great may be found
in the works of other writers.
Literature supplies numberless in
stances of such varieties. "It is
strange," wrote Lord Macanlay,
" It is strange that the Essay on the
Sublime and Beautiful, and the
Letter to a Noble Lord should be
the productions of one man ; " yet
no one has been found to doubt
that they were both written by
Edmund Burke. The writings of
De Quincey supply examples. Let
any one compare the Autobiographic
Sketches, or The Confessions of an
Opium Eater, with one of the little
flights of fancy — such as the
Daughter of Lebanon — written under
different conditions, and he wiU
find how much diversity may be
found in the works of the same
writer. And, not to go beyond the
Gospels, might it not be said that
there is a great separation in tone
and thought between our Lord's
discourses in Matt, xxiii. — xxv. and
the Sermon on the Mount? We
have, then, in the two books — the
Gospel and the Apocalypse — dif
ferent subject-matter, vision instead

REVELATION.

327

of history ; a wide interval of time
— some twenty or twenty-five years ;
and, with this interval of time, a
changed atmosphere of associations
and influences, Greek instead of
Hebrew : these in themselves would
account for divergences greater
even than we find.
If we can thus account for the
differences we meet with, we have
to remember that there are resem
blances in the two books which can
scarcely be accidental, and which,
found in two independent books,
would have suggested to some.
shrewd critic the theory of a com
mon authorship. There is a
strong resemblance in language
and imagery : both books delight
in the words " witness " (martyr),
"to overcome," "to keep" (the
word of God), "sign" (semeion),
" dweU," or tabernacle (in this last
case the coincidence is lost sight of
in the EngHsh version, because the
word "dwell" is used instead of
tabernacle, or " tent "), " true "
(alethinos), (John i. 9 ; xix. 35 ; Rev.
Hi. 14; xix. 9).
There is a similarity in the terms
used to describe our Lord. He is
the Word (John i. 1 — 3 ; Eev. xix.
13) ; the Lamb (John i. 29; Rev. v.
6) ; the Shepherd (John x. through
out ; Eev. vii. 17) ; the Bridegroom
(John iii. 29 ; Eev. xix. 7 ; xxi. 2) ;
simUar images are used — the Living
Water (John iv. 10 ; vii. 38 ; and
Rev. vH. 17 ; xxi. 6 ; xxH. 17) ; the
Hidden Food, bread, or manna (John
vi. 32—58 ; Eev. ii. 17) ; the Har
vest (John iv. 34, 38; Eev. xiv. 15).
The same incident — the piercing of
our Lord's side — is referred to ; and
the word employed, both in the
Gospel and in the Apocalypse, is
Bingularly not the word used in the
LXX. version of the prophet Zecha
riah. There, is besides, a similar

disposition towards a seven-fold
arrangement of subjects in the
Gospel and the Eevelation. (See
Introduction to St. John's Gospel.)
Further resemblances might be
pointed out. These, however, will
suffice to show that Prof. Davidson,
in his candid, impartial, and valu
able article (see above), says no
more than truth when he writes :
" After every reasonable deduction,
enough remains to prove that the
correspondences between the Apoca
lypse and the Fourth Gospel are
not accidental. They either betray
one author, or show that the writer
of the one was acquainted with the
other. These cognate phenomena
have not been allowed their full
force by Liicke, Ewald, De Wette,
and Diisterdieck."
To conclude. The author repre
sents himseR as John in a way, and
at a time, that would naturally
suggest that he was either John
the Apostle and Evangelist, or
wished to pass as such. The gene
ral consensus of early opinion be
heved that the Apostle was the
writer. The doubts grew out of
doctrinal prejudice ; there_ is no
reasonable ground for disputing
the residence of the Apostle in Asia
Minor. There are not wanting
traces of personal reminiscences
such as the beloved disciple would
have cherished. The portrait of
Jesus Christ is in complete har
mony with apostolic teaching ; and
the difficulties which beset the
theory that there were two Johns
— one who wrote the Gospel, and
the other the Apocalypse — are
greater than those which surround
the theory of a common author
ship. It is only necessary to add the
attesting language of various and
independent critics. " The apostoHc

328

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

origin of the Apocalypse is as well
attested as that of any other book
in the New Testament " (Davidson).
" The testimony has been pro
nounced more absolutely convincing
than can be adduced in favour of
the apostolic authorship of any of
the books of the New Testament "
(Edinburgh Review, October, 1S74).
II. The Date and Time of
Writing. — The evidence for deter
mining the date of the Apocalypse
is in many respects conflicting.
Any conclusion on the matter
should be given with caution and
hesitation, and with the full admis
sion that the arguments which can
be brought on the other side are
entitled to consideration. It has
been too much the practice among
the supporters of different theories
to insist with unwise positiveness
upon their own view. Briefly,
there are practically only two opi
nions, between which the reader
must decide. The book was either
written about the year a.d. 68 or
09, or about a quarter of a century
later (a.d. 96), in the reign of
Domitian. The later date was that whieh
was accepted almost unHomily by
the older theologians. In favour
of this early tradition has been
appealed to. The most important
witness (in some respects) is Ire
naeus, who says that " the Apoca
lypse was seen not long ago, but al
most in our own age, towards the end
of the reign of Domitian." Other
writers have been claimed as giving
a support to this view by their
mention of Patmos as the place of
St. John's banishment ; and it is
plain from the way in which
Eusebius quotes the mention of
the Patmos exile by Clement of
Alexandria, that he associated it

with the reign of Domitian. On
the other hand, it must be re
membered that neither Clement of
Alexandria, TertuUian, Origen, or
Jerome, state that the banishment
took place in the reign of Domi
tian. TertuUian, indeed, repre
sents Domitian as recalling the
exiles; and other writers affirm
that the banishment took place
much earlier. Theophylact, for
example, declares that the Apostle
was in Patmos thirty-two years
after the Ascension ; and the pre
face to the Syriac version of the
Apocalypse affirms that the revela
tion was given to St. John in Pat
mos, whither he was banished by the
Emperor Nero. Another tradition
assigns the writing to the reign of
Trajan. Epiphanius, in a passage
of doubtful value, places the exile
in the reign of Claudius.
On the whole, then, there is not
any very certain conclusion to be
drawn from the external evidence.
The exile in Patmos receives ample
support, but the date of the exile
is hardly settled by early tradi
tion. Will the internal evidence help P
The advocates of the later date
rely much upon the degenerate
state of the Asiatic churches, ns
described in the Epistles to the
Seven Churches. The Epistles
to the Ephesians, Colossians, and
Philemon were written during the
captivity of St. Paul at Eome,
about the year a.d. 63. If, then,
the Apocalypse was written in a.d.
69 or 70, we have only an interval
of six or seven years to account for
a striking change in the spiritual
condition of the Asiatic churches.
Can we believe that a Church
which is so forward in love as that
of Ephesus (Eph. iii. 18) can have
in so short a time left its first love P

REVELATION.

329

Can it bo believed that the Lao
dicean Church — whose spiritual
conRtion in a.d. 63 can be inferred
from that of Colossae (Col. i. 3, 4)
— can have, in six brief years, for
saken their " faith in Christ Jesus,
and their love to all the saints,"
and become the " lukewarm "
Church (Rev. iii. 15, 16) of the
Apocalypse ?
It may be noticed, in passing,
that the above argument assumes
that the (so-caRed) Epistle to tho
Ephesians was really addressed
to the Church at Ephesus ; and
this is by no means certain : the
weight of evidence appears to in
cline the other way. But aRow-
mg this to pass, and, for the pur
pose of argument, assuming that
the Epistles to the Ephesians and
Colossians afford indications of the
spiritual condition of these and
kindred Asiatic churches, it does
not seem to the writer that tho
above argument can be sustained.
The two propositions on which its
force depends are the foUowing : —
(1) It is impossible that
churches could change
much for the worse in six
years.
(2) A comparison between the
Apocalypse and the Letters
of St. Paul show a great
change for the worse.
From these two propositions it is
inferred that the interval must
have been more than six years :
a generation at least being required
to account for such degeneracy.
" It bespeaks a change of persons,
the arrival of a new generation"
(Hengstenberg) .
It is believed that neither of the
two propositions mentioned above
can be sustained. (1) It needs no
long time for the first ardour of

young converts' zeal to cool. The
New Testament gives us examples
of such rapid changes: the "evil
eye " of a perverted teaching be
witched the Galatians (Gal. iH. 1),
so that the Apostle marveRed that
the disciples were so rapidly turn
ing away to another gospel (Gal. i.
6). Changes quick and real soon
sweep over a religious community,
especially in districts where the
natural temperament is warm, im
pressible, and vivacious. It is not
impossible that six years may make
changes in the religious condition
of churches.
But (2) it is more important to
consider the second proposition,
and to ask whether it is so certain
that any such great change had
taken place in the instances now
before us. A comparison of the
Epistle to the Colossians and that
to Laodicea rather leads to an
opposite conclusion. The learned
Bishop Lightfoot has shown that
the same truths need enforcing
(comp. Col. i. 15 — 18, and Rev.
iii. 14), the same practical duties
are taught (Col. iii. 1, and Eev.
iii. 21), the same lukewarmness is
the subject of caution (Col. iv. 17,
and Rev. iii. 19), the same denun
ciations are heard against the pride
of life, in wealth or intellect (Col.
ii. 8, 18, 23, and Rev. iii. 17, 18).
" The message communicated by
St. John to Laodicea prolongs the
note which was struck by St. Paul
in the Letters to Colossae. An in
terval of a very few years has not
materially altered the character of
these churches. Obviously the
same temper prevails, the same
errors are rife, the same correction
must be appF.ed " (Bishop Light
foot, Epistle to the Colossians, pp.
41—44). A similar comparison might be

330

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

made between the two Ephesian
Epistles. The impression left from
a perusal of St. Paul's Letter to the
Ephesians, whether addressed to
that Church or not, is that he was
not without a fear that the warm
love which prevailed among the
Christians addressed might soon
change : it is a love above the acci
dents of time and the powers of
change which he desires may be
theirs (Eph. vi. 24; Eev. ii. 4).
The area of comparison between
this Epistle to the Ephesians and
the Epistles to the Seven Churches
becomes much wider when we re
gard it, in harmony with proba
bility, as a circular letter addressed
to the Asiatic churches : then the
resemblances become more plain,
and the so-called great change in
spiritual condition disappears. It
will be sufficient to mention tho
following: Eph. i. 18, Rev. iii. 18 ;
Eph. ii. 6, Eev. iii. 21 ; Eph. iii. 8,
Eev. ii. 9 ; Eph. iii. 1 7—1 9, Rev. ii. 4.
Enough has been said to show
that the argument from the
spiritual condition of the churches
lends little or no support to the
later date, but fairly strengthens
the earlier.
The advocates of the earlier
date adduce other internal evidence.
They lay great weight upon infer
ences drawn from chaps, xi., xiii.,
and xvii. They argue that the
measuring of the Temple and the
treading down of the Holy City,
described in chap. xi. 1, 2, is a
token that Jerusalem had not
yet faRen. This argument does
not seem to the present writer
satisfactory. The measuring of the
Temple is symboHcal, and it is un
safe to ground an argument upon
it. The aim of the vision seems to
us to point out the safety of the
germ-Church during the times of

desolation. The external frame
work, the old Jewish polity, might
be swept away (chap. xi. 2 ; comp.
Hob. viii. 13) : the true spRitual
germ would never die, but spring
forth in fuller and freer vigour.
Such a vision might indeed have
preceded the fall of Jerusalem ; but
it might also have been given as
a consolation and an instruction
afterwards. Hardly more convincing is the
argument from chaps. xiH. and
xvii. In the account of the seven-
headed wild beast we read of seven
kings, five of whom are fallen.
The seven kings are said to be the
emperors of Rome. The five faUen
are Augustus, Tiberius, Caius,
Claudius, Nero ; the one that is, is
Galba. The force of this depends
upon the truth of the interpreta
tion. If the seer meant the seven
kings to represent seven emperors
of Eome, then the date of the
Apocalypse is fixed to the age of
Galba; or to that of Nero if we
begin to reckon with Julius Caesar.
The former is the most correct
method of reckoning. To make
the sixth head Vespasian, as some
would do, is, as Dr. Davidson has
remarked, quite arbitrary. There
is no reason for omitting Galba,
Otho, and ViteUius from the reckon
ing. But the force of the argu
ment for the date here depends
upon the truth of the interpreta
tion ; and the foundation passages
in the prophecy of Daniel, from
which the Apocalyptic seer drew so
much of his imagery, describe under
the emblem of the wUd beasts,
kingdoms, or world-powers, rather
than individual monarchs. StiU,
of course, it is possible that there
may be a double interpretation — -
one more local, the other more
general — here as well as elsewhere.

REVELATION.

331

But the requisite interpretation
does not seem to be sufficiently
clear for the purpose of argument.
Nor can the argument from
silence be accepted. There is no
allusion to the fall of Jerusalem in
the book ; but it is scarcely safe to
infer that the book was therefore
earlier than that catastrophe.
One other internal (so called) argu
ment respecting date maybe noticed
here. Liicke cites chap, xviii. 20,
where the Apostles and prophets are
invited to rejoice because they have
been avenged on Babylon, to prove
that St. John the Apostle was dead
when the book was written. This
is one of those prosaic errors into
which even the most learned and
trustworthy of literary experts are
betrayed by their own acuteness.
There yet remains another class
of evidence : that of language and
style. Assuming the common
authorship of the Fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse (see Introduc
tion to the Gospel, and section on
the Author above), we shaR have
very little doubt that the general
probability is in favour of the
Apocalypse having been written
first. Not only is the Gospel
marked by the sententiousness of
age, and the Apocalypse by the
warm colouring of earHer life, but
the influence of Jewish Associations
is more strongly marked in the
latter ; while Greek influences are
more distinctly traceable in the
former. The evidence on this head inclines
to the earHer date, but it is not
absolutely conclusive : the preva
lence of Hebraic influences notice
able in the Apocalypse might well
fit in with the later date. The
influences of youth often re -assert
themselves with startling vigour
in declining years : the provincial

isms and accent of boyhood have
been resumed by mon in the even
ing of Hfe, after having been kept
long in abeyance by the joint
powers of control and culture.
Illustrations of this will occur to
the reader. But, in the instance
before us, the probabiHty seems to
lie the other way : in the Apostle's
case the Hebraic influences did
prevail during the early life ; the
Greek influences were present
during his later life ; and we may
well believe that the Apocalypse
" marks the Hebraic period of St.
John's life which was spent in the
East, and among Aramaic-speaking
populations " ; and that the Gospel
was written twenty or thRty years
afterwards', at the "close of the
HeUenic period during which St.
John lived in Ephesus, the great
centre of Greek civilisation." (See
Bishop Lightfoot's Article on
" Supernatural Religion," Contem
porary Review, vol. xxv., p. 859.)
To conclude this brief summary,
we may say that the general weight
of evidence is in favour of the
earHer date, and certainly this sup
position fits in best with all the
circumstances of the case.
III. Schools and Principles
of Interpretation  Before en
tering upon the general meaning
of the book, it is desirable to lay
before the reader a brief account of
the different schools of Apocalyptic
interpretation. (1) Schools of Interpretation. — It
is weU known that there are three
main systems of interpretation :
these are called, from their special
tendencies of thought, the Prse-
terist, the Futurist, and the His
torical. The Praeterist in general main
tains that the visions cf the

332

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

Apocalypse relate to events and
circumstances which are past : the
prophecies of the book — at least in
their primary intention — have been
fulflUed. Among the advocates of
this view may be reckoned the
names of Grotius and Hammond,
the learned and eloquent Bossuet,
Eichhorn, Ewald, De Wette, Liicke,
Diisterdieck, Professor MosesStuart
of America, and in this country the
late lamented Professor Maurice,
Prof. Davidson, and Mr. Desprez.
The Futurist is at the opposite
pole of interpretation, andmaintains
thatthe fulfilment of the book is stiR
future, when our Lord will come
again. Professor Davidson has
separated the Futurists into two
classes — the simple Futurist and
the extreme Futurist: the diffe
rence between these classes be
ing that the simple Futurist be
lieves that the prophecies of the
book are future in fulfilment,
while the extreme Futurist holds
that even the first three chapters
are prophetic. Among those who
have maintained the more moderate
Futurist view may be mentioned
De Burgh, Maitland, Benjamin
Newton, Todd, and the devout Isaac
Williams. The extreme Futurist
view has been supported chiefly by
some Irish expositors.
The Historical school holds a
sort of middle place between the
Prteterist and Futurist. Its advo
cates believe that in the Apoca
lypse we have a continuous pro
phecy, exhibiting to us the main
features of the world's history :
the visions therefore are partly ful
flUed, partly they are in course of
fulfilment, and a portion still re
mains unfulfilled. This view has
been sustained by men of con
spicuous ability. It was the in
terpretation which commended

itseR to many of the Reformers.
and was favoured by Wiclif, Bul
linger, Bale, and others. It was
upheld with more systematic power
by such distinguished writers as
Mede, Vitringa, Daubuz, Sir Isaac
Newton, Whiston, Bengel, and
Bishop Newton: more recently it
has been advocated by Hengsten-
berg, Ebrard, Auberlen, by EUiott
and Faber, by Bishop Wordsworth
and the late Dean Alford, by
Barnes, Lord, and Glasgow.
It is, of course, to be understood
that there are many varieties of
interpretation even among those
who belong to the same school of
interpreters : but it would quite
exceed the limits at our disposal to
speak of these varieties.
Against these schools of inter
pretations it is not difficult to find
objections. It is hard to believe,
with the Praeterist, that the coun-
seUing voice of prophecy should
have spoken only of immediate
dangers, and left the Church for
fifteen centuries unwarned; or, with
the Futurist, to believe that eighteen
centuries of the eventful history of
the Church are passed over in si
lence, and that the whole weight of
inspired warning was reserved for
the few closing years of the dis
pensation. Nor, on the other hand,
can we be thoroughly satisfied with
the Historical school, however ably
and learnedly represented. There
is a certain nakedness about the
interpretations often advocated by
this school : the interpreter is too
readily caught by external resem
blances, and pays too little heed to
inner spRitual and ethical prin
ciples. A mistake into which this
system falls is that of bringing
into prominence the idea of time.
According to them, the visions of
the book are pictures of occurrences

REVELATION.

3:;:,

to take place at a certain fixed
date. Now it must never be for
gotten that the question of time
— the time when this or that was to
happen — was one which our Lord
steadily put on one side. It was
not for His disciples to know the
times and the seasons. The know
ledge of the time of an event is
insignificant compared with the
knowledge of the forces, elements,
and laws which combine to produce
it. This seems to be our Master's
teaching to His foRowers all
through time. Our study is to
know what are the foes we have to
contend against, what combinations
they are Hkely to make, in what
power they are to be confronted,
what difficulties are Hkely to arise,
what certainty there is that all
difficulties wiU be surmounted and
every foe overthrown. It matters
not for us to know when these
things shaR be : it may be at the
firBt watch, or at midnight, or at the
cock-crowing : the time is a matter
of no ethical importance. It is
thus St. Peter treats it : " One day
is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one
day." It is but the echo of his
Lord's warning. It may take a
long time or a short time for the
moral laws and moral forces at
work in the world to bring forth
a crisis period. To take St. Peter's
words as laying down a kind of
prophetical " time-measure " is to
fall into that fatal source of error,
the conversion of poetry into prose.
We are not, then, to look for any
indications of time in the visions of
the Apocalypse; and what might
have made this very plain is the
employment of proportional num
bers to denote the prophetic epochs
in the book. These carefully-se
lected numbers, always bearing a

relationship to one another, and
so selected that a Hteral intepreta-
tion of them is almost precluded,
are beyond doubt symboHcal, and
thus in harmony with the whole
character of the book. " Most
numbers in the Revelation should
not be taken arithmetically, but
indefinitely, because they are part
of the poetic costume borrowed
from the Old Testament " (David
son). The anxiety respecting the
"times and seasons " has led many
interpreters into voluminous errors,
and has created a Thessalonian
restlessness of spirit in many quar
ters. Infinitely more important is
it to notice the moral and spiritual
aspects of the book, the evil and
the good principles which are de
scribed in conflict, and the features
which in different ages the combat
will assume.
But, though the time-interpreta
tion of the book is thus to be placed
in the background, it must not be
so done as to imply that the book
has no reference to occurrences-
which will happen in time. If
some of the Historical school of
interpreters have so forced the
question of time into prominence
as to ignore the more important
ethical bearings of the book, it is
no less true that critics on the other
side have erred in removing the
application of the book wholly out
of the sphere of history, and giving
it only the force of a fairy tale with
a possible and doubtful moral. This
is to set aside the value of the book
to the Church of Christ as she
moves across the vexed and stormy
sea of this world's history. Tho
visions of the book do find counter
parts in the occurrences of human
history : they have had these, and
they yet will have these, fulfilments ;
and these fulfilments belong neither

334

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

wholly to the past, nor wholly to
the future : the prophecies of God
are written in a language which
can be read by more than one
generation: what was read here
helped the early Christian to whom
imperial Rome was the great Baby
lon which absorbed to herself the
wealth, and the wickedness, the
power and persecuting spRit of the
world, to whom the emperor may
have seemed as a wild beast, savage
and relentless, rising out of the
tumults of peoples and nations,
fickle and ruthless as the sea. No
less have the visions of this book
consoled the mediaeval saint or
poet, who felt that the most influ
ential seat of the Church had
become the metropoHs of worldli
ness when "The Prince of the
New Pharisees " was seated in St.
Peter's chair, and when out of a
professedly Christianised Society
had arisen a power aspRing to
some religious culture, but fierce,
wild, and wanton as the wRd beast
of ancient days. (Comp. Dante,
Inf. xxvH. 85 ; andEossetti's Anti-
papal Spirit of the Italian Poets —
passim.) Nor is the force of the
consolation exhausted; in the fu
ture, the visions of this book,
showing the certain triumph of aU
that is good and true, in the final
consummation of Christ's kingdom,
may hereafter serve to console
men and women groaning under
a tyranny of ungodliness more
terrible and more specious than
any which have preceded it, be
cause built up of a pride which
worships physical laws, while R
treads under foot aR moral laws,
and spurns contemptuously aU
spiritual laws. In the past, the
book has had its meaning : in the
future, its meaning may grow
f uHer and clearer ; but in the

present also there is no doubt that
it has its practical value for aU who
wiU reverently and patiently hear
and keep the sayings of this book.
We are disposed to view the
Apocalypse as the pictorial unfold
ing of great principles in constant
conflict, though under various
forms. The Praeterist may, then,
be right in finding early fulfil
ments, and the Futurist in expect
ing undeveloped ones, and the
Historical interpreter is unques
tionably right in looking for them
along- the whole line of history ;
for the words of God mean more
than one man, or one school of
thought, can compass. There are
depths of truth unexplored which
sleep beneath tho simplest sen
tences. Just as we are wont to say
that history repeats itseR, so the
predictions of the Bible are not
exhausted in one or even in many
fulfilments. Each prophecy is a
single key which unlocks many
doors, and the grand and stately
drama of the Apocalypse has been
played perchance out in one age to
be repeated in the next. Its majes
tic and mysterious teachings indi
cate the features of a struggle
which, be the stage the human
soul, with its fluctuations of doubt
and fear, of hope and love — or the
progress of kingdoms — or the des
tinies of the world is the same
struggle in aU.
(2) The Principles of Interpreta
tion. — It wiU have been seen that
the writer does not feel at homo
under the leadership of any of the
three great schools of prophetical
interpretation. The Church of
Christ owes much to aU of them,
though the cause of truth has suf
fered much from many who have-
sought to be prophets when at the
most they could aspRe to be inter-

REVELATION.

335

preters ; but the result even of
the errors of interpreters has been
the slow formation of sounder
views, and therefore an advance
towards a clearer, because a more
modest, system. There are certain
principles which seem to be now
very generally accepted as essential
to the right understanding of the
book. It is not, indeed, to be sup
posed that the acceptance of these
principles wiR enable the student
to unlock every mystery, or ex
pound every symbol; but it will
certainly save him from foRowing
" wandering fires." Of these prin
ciples the chief seem to be the fol
lowing : — (1) the root passages in
the Old Testament prophecies must
be considered ; (2) the historical
surroundings of the writer are to
be remembered; (3) the fact that
the book is symboHcal must never
be forgotten ; (4) the obvious aim
of the book to be a witness to the
triumph and coming (parousia) of
Jesus Christ must be recognised.
These principles are simple enough,
but their neglect has been only too
fataRy evident. The difficulty, in
deed, lies rather in the apphcation
of these principles than in theR
acceptance. It is, perhaps, not too
much to say that the Prseterist
school has been apt to ignore the
first of these principles; the His
torical school has not adequately
recognised the second ; and the
Futurist school is in constant
danger of forgetting the thRd;
whUe partial views in aR schools
have violated or weakened the value
of the last principle.
The " coming of Christ," viewed
from the human side, is a phrase
which is not always to be held to
one meaning : it is, in this respect,
analogous to the "kingdom of
God." " Holy Scripture,, beyond

aU doubt, recognises potential and
spRitual, as well as personal,
' comings' of the Lord." * "There
are many comings of Christ. Christ
came in the flesh as a mediatorial
Presence. Christ came at the
destruction of Jerusalem. Christ
came, a spiritual Presence, when
the Holy Ghost was given. Christ
comes now in every signal mani
festation of redeeming power. Any
great reformation of morals and
religion is a coming of Christ. A
great revolution, Hke a thunder
storm, violently sweeping away
evil to make way for the good, is
a coming of Christ" (Robertson,
Sermons, Fourth Series, p. 73). It
is thus that the sacred writers
speak as of Christ's coming always
at hand : " The judge standeth at

* The whole note from Bishop Walcle-
grave's Bampton Lectures is worth quo
ting. " Holy Scripture, beyond all
doubt, recognises (1) potential and spiri
tual, as well as personal, 'comings' ot
the Lord, See, Sfor potential ' comings,'
Matt. x. 23; John xxi. 22, 23; Rov. ii.
5, 15, 16, 22—25 ; iii. 3, 10. . . . See, for
spiritual ' comings,' Ps. ci. 2 ; John xiv.
18, 21 — 24 ; Rev. iii. 20. In like manueT
Holy Scripture recognises (2) a potential
and spiritual, as distinct from a per
sonal, 'presence' of Christ with His
people. See Matt, xviii. 20; xxviii.
20 ; Mark xvi. 20 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17.
Now sucli potential and spiritual comings
and presence will naturally, when trans
lated, if I may so speak, into the lan
guage of imagery, assume the outward
appearance of a personal and visible
coming and presence. And this fact will
abundantly account for thejise of lan
guage (expressive of potential and spiri
tual comings) like that in Ps. cii. 13—16 ;
Isa. xix. 1, 16, 19—21; xl. 10; lix. 20;
Zech. ii. 10—12 : (expressive of potential
and spiritual presence) like that in Ps.
cxxxv. 21 ; Isa. xii. 6 ; xxiv. 23 ; Ix. 13 ;
Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24; xii. 22; xliii. 1—9;
xliv. 1, 2 ; Joel ii. 27 ; iii. 17, 20, 21 ;
Micah iv. 7 ; Zeph. iii. 14, 15 ; Zech. vi.
12, 13 ; viii. 3, without expecting a per
sonal reign of Christ upon earth as its
only adequate counterpart."

336

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

the qooi , " " The coming of the
Lord draweth nigh." So, also, our
Lord speaks : " I will not leave you
comfortless ; I wiU come to you."
Thus, viewed from one aspect, the
"coming of Christ" has various
appUcations ; but viewed from
another aspect, it wiU be seen to
be a phrase expressive of a simple
thought, and free from aU perplex
ing ambiguity. The coming of
Christ, viewed from the divine side,
is as a single act, in which aH
subordinate applications are in
cluded. There is no past or future
with God. All that is being done,
is, in one sense, done. God's deal
ings, as seen by human eyes, are,
as it were, projections on the page
of history. An illustration may
help. A telegraph cable, whether
cut straight through or on the
slope, will present to view exactly
the same combination of copper and
iron wire, gutta-percha and tarred
yarn ; but in the elliptical section
the elements wiU appear in more
extended order than in the circular
section: so the same features, which
to us appear separate and succes
sive, when viewed from the higher
level of heavenly thought may be
seen as forming parts of one act.
The various advents of Christ may
thus bc viewed as forming elements
in one Advent, which is progres
sive from one side, but complete
from another. The morning spreads
itseR in every direction over the
f orehea 1 of the sky, and yet is but
one morning. All the varying
scenes from the First Advent to the
Second are but the beatings of the
wings of God's new day. " It is,"
as the prophet expressed it in
language of glorious paradox, " It
is one day, known to the Lord,
neither clear nor dark, but one day,
at whose eventide it shall be light."

If this bo true, there is no ne
cessity for leaping to the conclu
sion that, when the sacred writers
warned their hearers that the com
ing of the Lord was near, they were
mistaken, or that they sought to
sustain the fainting hopes of the
early Church by expectations which
have proved false. Doubtless some
did not understand the fuU and
deep meaning of the words em
ployed : doubtless many still clung
to their carnal conceptions : but
the apostolic language, whether
from the pen of a St. Paul, St.
Peter, or St. John, expresses the
wider and truer thoughts of
the coming of Christ. We find
them anxious to remind those
to whom they wrote that the
idea of an immediate visible per
sonal coming of Christ must not be
aRowed to gain possession of the
mind. There were forces at work
which must have their way before
the end would come : seeds had
been planted, and those must grow :
the sowing and the harvest are
linked together as one in the law
of growth, and are yet separate-,
Thus tho spirit of wilfulness and
impatience is rebuked when mon
grasp the true thoughts of God.
Yet it must not be supposed that
the waiting Church of Christ will
be disappointed of her hope, or
that the heavenly Bridegroom wiU
not come. He wUl come again ;
and all the preliminary and subor
dinate advents in judgment and
in comfort wiU then be seen
to have been earnests of the
fulness of His coming. The
interpreters are as men who stand
upon a plain to watch the sunrise.
When the first veil of night is
withdrawn, and the starlight is
somewhat paled, the more ardent
than the rest wUl cry, " The dawn ! "

REVELATION.

337

but the rest answer, "Not yet."
Then when the mountain peaks
begin to flame, another wiR cry,
"The dawn!" and the rest will
stiU reply, "Not yet." And when
the landscape around catches its
true colours, another wiR cry, "The
dawn ! " but only when the great
and glorious orb leaps into view
wiR aR be one in crying, " The
dawn! the dawn!" So is the
coming of Christ. Some look upon
the faint Hghtening in the moral
atmosphere, and say, " Christ
comes!" Others look to the re
flected lights of truth proclaimed in
the high places of the world, and say,
" Christ comes ! " Others look to
the general diffusion of knowledge,
and say, " Christ comes ! " They
are right, and they are wrong :
right, for it is indeed Christ who is
thus enHghtening the world ; they
are wrong, for there is a coming
greater than these, when He will,
in f uUer manifestation of Himself,
tabernacle with His people as theR
everlasting light.
IV. General Scope of this
Book. (1) Its Aim.— What is the aim
of this book ? The answers given,
though various, have much in com
mon. Some see in it a prediction
of the overthrow of Paganism;
others carry it further, and see the
destruction of Papal Rome ; others
read in it the rise and faR of some
future Antichrist. Thus far the
opinions vary ; but in one respect
there is agreement : the Revelation
aims at assuring the Church of the
advent of her Lord : it is the book
of the Coming One. Every school
of interpretation wUl admit this.
Some indeed wiU say that the ex
pectation raised was never fulflUed,
but aR appear to unite in regarding

the Apocalypse as the book of
the advent. We may take this
as a key to its meaning; it pro
claims Christ's coming and victory.
But is it the victory of Christ over
Paganism, or over degenerate
forms of Christianity, or over some
final and future antichristian power
or person ? The true answer ap
pears to be, It is the victory of
Christ over aR wrong-thoughted-
ness, wrong - heartedness, and
wrong-spiritedness ; the pictures
given in the visions find theR
counterpart not in one age only,
but gather their full-filmeiit as the
ages advance : the fall of Paganism
is included in the visions, as the
downfaU of the world-power of
Imperial Eome is included ; but
the picture-prophecy is not ex
hausted, and wiU not be tiU every
form of evil of which Pagan and
Imperial Eome, of which the wUd
beast and Babylon are types, has
been overthrown. The ages are
seen in perspective; the incidents
separated from one another in his
torical sequence, are gathered into
one prophetical scene, and the
Apocalypse presents us with a
variety of these prophetical
scenes, which depict the salient
features of the conquest of evil,
the triumph and advent of Christ
— " He comes " is the key. He
comes when Paganism falls — He
comes when brute world force is
cast down ; He comes when world
liness faUs — He com.es, and His
coming is spreading ever over the
world, shining more and more
unto the perfect day. Clouds may
gather, and make the epochs which
are nearest the f uU day darker than
those which preceded them, but stiU
in every epoch leading up to the
golden day ; the line of conflict
may advance and recede from time

22

NEW TESTAMENT INTRODUCTIONS.

to time, but it is a triumphant
battle-field which is pictured. It
is thus the book of the advent and
victory of Christ.
But is it a book affording false
hopes ? Is it an echo of the wish
of the early Christian Church, or
is it a revelation from Christ to the
waiting and perhaps impatient
Church ? I beHeve it is the latter.
So far from the book giving colour
to the expectation of an immediate
personal coming of Jesus Christ, it
seems distinctly to caution the
early Christians against cherishing
mistaken notions : ' ' that day shall
not come except there come a faU-
ing away first," was the caution 'of
St. Paul ; the caution of St. John,
though expressed in pictorial form,
is none the less emphatic. Let any
one bear in mind the eager im
patience of suffering Christians
in early days, and let them
read the Apocalypse, and they
wiU learn that its undertone
is, " Not yet, not yet," but stUl
surely is He coming ; not as you
think, but as He thinks weU, so is
He coming. Let the seals furnish
an iUustration : the first shows an
ideal conqueror; Christ, or the
gospel of Christ, goes forth to; con
quer — it is the picture of the
Church's hope ; the vision teUs
her that her hope is right, Christ
wiR conquer ; but it is the prelude
of visions which teU her that her
expectation is wrong if she expects
that the kingdom of Christ will be
established without conflict, pain,
suffering, and revolution. The
succeeding seals are the pictures of
the things which must needs be :
the wars, the persecutions, the
sorrows which wiR afflict the world
because she wiR not accept her i
King ; the parable of Luke xix. i
1 1 — 27, and the emphatic warn- I

| ing language of Christ Jesus in
i Matt. xxiv. 4 — 14, are not forgotten
' in the Apocalypse. In it we are
bidden to remember, that though
the victory is sure, the victory is
through suffering ; we are shown
scenes which betoken the prolonged
sorrows of the faithful, the obsti
nate tenacity of evil, its subtle
transformations, and the concealed
powers by which it is sustained:
we are thus, as it were, shown the
world's drama from a heavenly
view-point, not in continuous his
torical succession, but in its various
essential features, it is in this
dramatic — that it does not tell its
story right on, but groups its
episodes round convenient centres,
bringing into special prominence
successively the principles of God's
world-government. It is thus an
apocalypse unfolding in symboHcal
forms the characteristic features of
the struggle between good and
evil, when the power of the gospel
enters the field ; it is the revelation
of the coming (parousia) of Christ,
because it shows not only that He
wiU come, but that He does come :
that He who has been revealed, is
being revealed, and wiU yet be re
vealed. (2) The Form. — It is the sym
boHcal form which hinders many
in the right understanding of the
book. " I am a man of the earth,"
wrote Gothe; "I am a man of
the earth, earthy ; to me the para
bles of the unjust steward, the
prodigal son, the sower, the
pearl, the lost piece of money,
&c, are more divine (R aught
divine there be about the mat
ter), than the seven messengers,
candlesticks, seals, stars, and woes."
This is only saying that symboHsm
employed in the one ease was
simpler than that employed in the

REVELATION.

339

latter — simpler, that is to say, to
Western minds ; for it may per
haps be doubted whether the sym-
boHsm which to the Teutonic mind
seemed so strange, may not have
been simple enough to those who
were accustomed to Hebrew sym-
boHsm. But however this may be,
the general symbols of the book
are not so difficult as might appear.
There is not space at our disposal
to enter upon a discussion of this
in detaU. Certain features, how
ever, are worthy of notice. The
geographical imagery needs atten
tion : Jerusalem stands as the type
of the good cause, Babylon as the
type of the metropolis of the world-
power : Jerusalem is thus the
Church of Christ (this symbohsm
is in complete harmony with St.
Paul and other apostolic writers,
(comp. Gal. iv. 24 — 31 ; Heb. xii.
22, 23). Babylon is the emblem of
Pagan Eome, but not only of Pagan
Eome, for the Babylon type remains
to this day: there are inspiring
powers on the side of the heavenly
Jerusalem — God is with her; she
shaU not be moved ; the metropolis
of evil has the assistance of evU
powers : the dragon, the wUd beast,
and the false prophet are for a
time with her. The family of
evil bears a marked paraUel to the
family of good throughout the
book : there is a trinity of evil
powers on the side of Babylon
the harlot, as the blessed Trinity
are with the bride, the heavenly
Jerusalem. The scenes in the great conflict
arrange themselves round the
members of these families of
good and of evU. The general
features and the elements of this
struggle aTe depicted. There are
numerical symbols : seven is the
number of perfection, six of man's

worldly perfection without God,
four of the universe, three and a
half of a limited period. There
are seals, trumpets, and vials ; the
seals of the book which could only
be opened by Christ betoken that
the dRection of earth's history and
its explanation can be found only
in Christ; the trumpets are the
symbols of God's war against all
forms of evil ; the vials are the
tokens of the retribution which
faUs upon those who turn not at
the divine summons to righteous
ness. The strong symbohsm of
the book has a two-fold advantage :
when the appHcation of the visions
are not to be exhausted in one age,
the pictorial form is the most con
venient to embrace the manifold
fulfilments. Again, the author
has clothed his thoughts in the
"variously Hmiting, but reverential
and only suitable drapery of an
cient sacred language and symbol
ism, in the conviction that the
reader would penetrate the veU and
reach the sense" (Gebhardt).
(3) The General Structure. —
The majority of critics see a seven
fold structure in the book. The
commentators differ, as might be
expected, as to the way in which
this seven-foldedness of structure
shows itself ; but most of them ar
range the different parts of the book
in a seven-fold fashion. This is
worthy of note, as the Fourth
Gospel (see Introduction to St. John's
Gospel) has been shown to have a
similar seven-fold arrangement.
When we notice the fondness of
the -seer for such an arrangement
in the subordinate visions, it is not
to be wondered at that the whole
book should faR into seven groups;
but we must be careful not to
be carried away by our love
of symmetry. The charts and

340

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

maps of Apocalyptic interpretation
are often very Procrustean. The
general structure of the book,
however, may be noted.
There are : —
L The Preliminary Chap
ters  Christ and His
Church.
(1) The Vision of the Christ
(chap. i.).
(2) The Messages to the
Churches (chaps, ii., iii.).
2. The Visions.
(1) The Vision of the Throned
One (chap. iv.).
(2) The Visions of the Con
flict, in two main sections.
(a) The conflict seen from the
world side (chaps, vi. — xi.) :
(a) The seven seals
(chaps vi. — viii. 1).
(ff) The seven trumpets
(chaps, viii. 2 — xi.).
(4) The conflict seen from the
heavenly side (chaps, xii.
— xx.): (o) The spiritual foes
(chaps, xii. — xiv.) .
(/3) The seven vials of
retribution (chaps.
xv. xvi.).
(y) The' fall' of foes
(chaps, xvii. — xx.).
(3) The Visions of Peace
(chaps, xxi., xxH. 1 — 6).
3. The Epilogue (chap. xxH. 6
-21).
It will be seen that there is a
moving onward from the more ex
ternal to the deeper and more
spiritual aspects of earth's story.
The earlier visions (the seals, for
example) show the ordinary phe
nomena of the world's story — war,
famine, death, revolution. The

next series (the trumpets) show iib
that there is another, even a sphi-
tual war, going forward in the
world, and that changes and revolu
tions are often tokens of the inner
spiritual battle in life. These visions,
however, are, so to speak, all in
the sphere of earth : in the next
series we are shown that the war
carried on here is one which has
its heavenly counterpart. The con
flict is not simply between good
men and bad, but between princi
palities and powers. (See an in
teresting article on " The Ideal
Incarnation," by Dr. S. Cox, in
the Expositor, Vol. IL, p. 405.)
There is a heavenly view-point of
all things on earth : there are
spRitual forces, the ideal Church,
the unseen strength of God, and
the hidden inspirations of evil. In
this struggle aU evR wiR be van
quished. The earthly manHesta-
tions of evU, as well as the un
earthly inspRations of it, wiU fall ;
the great and arch-enemy wiU be
overthrown; the true spiritual,
eternal rest be reached, and the
golden age be realised. We are
thus taught, in this ever-deepening
spirituality of the book, to look
beneath the phenomena, to trace
the subtle and unmasked principles
which are at work, to separate
between the false and the true, to
beHeve in ideals which are not
mere ideas, but the true thoughts
of God, which will one day be
made real in the eyes of men, and
which are even now real to the
eye of faith. Thus does the Book
of Revelation become the unfolding
of a dream which is from God.
In it are painted the scenes of
earth's history : the thRst of a
nation's Hfe and its passing groan ;
the tears and prayers of the un-
reckoned holy ones of earth; the

REVELATION.

341

agony of half-despair which even
the best have felt in the night of
conflict, that has so often been the
eve of triumph; the sustaining
faith which has transfigured the
weakling into a hero, and nerved
the heart of a soHtary saintship to
do battle alone against a degenerate
Church or a persecuting world;
the sUent victory of truth, or the
unperceived growth of worldliness
and falsehood. The book is thus a
help and stay — not as yielding fruit
to curiosity. It is not a manual of
tResome details : it is not meant to
be a treasure-house of marvels for
the prophetical archaeologist : it is
a book of Hving principles. It ex
hibits the force and fortune of truth
as it acts upon the great mass of
human society : it shows the revolu
tions which are the result. It
-shows the decay of the outward
form, the release of the true germ,
which wiU spring up in better har
vests. It shows us how the corn
of wheat may faU and die, and so
bring forth much fruit. It shows
us how evermore, from first to last,
Christ is with us — encouraging,
consoHng, warning, helping, and
leading us onward through conflict
to rest.
V. Literature of the Apo
calypse. — It is perfectly hopeless
to touch so vast a subject as this.
The mere Hst of works on the
Apocalypse given in Darling's Cy
clopaedia Bibliographica, pubHshed
in 1859, occupies fifty-two columns.
A history of various interpretations
is given in Liicke, Einleitung in die
Offenbarung Johannis ; a similar
sketch is given by Bleek, Lectures
on the Apocalypse; and EUiott
(Hora Apocalyptical, vol. iv.) has
presented us with an exhaustive
and impartial account, History of

Apocalyptic Interpretations,i(iHovfed
by A Critical Examination and
Refutation ofthe Three Chief Counter-
schemes ofApocalyptic Interpretation;
and"%lso of Dr. Arnold's General
Prophetic Counter-theory. Dean
Alford's article (Greek Test.) on
" Systems of Interpretation," is
lucid and compact.
Of Commentaries, leaving un
noticed earlier expositions, those of
Vitringa, De Wette, Ewald, Bleek,
Hengstenberg, Meyer, Ebrard,
Auberlen, and Diisterdieck ; of
Hammond, Bishop Newton, EUiott,
Alford, Bishop Wordsworth, Cun
ningham, Woodhouse, Moses
Stuart, De Burgh, I. WilHams,
besides the works of Faber, Mait
land, and Prof. Birks, are weU
known ; and Dr. Currey's Notes on
Revelation, in the Christian Know
ledge Society's Commentary, add
much to the value of a reaUy use
ful work.
Of lectures, the late Professor
Maurice's Lectures are fuU of
thought and interest; and many
are indebted to Dr. Vaughan (now
Dean of Llandaff) for his Lectures
on the Revelation of St. John, which
are models of what expository lec
tures ought to be. Gebhardt's
Lehrbegriff der Apokalypse, now
accessible to English readers in
Clarke's Foreign Translation Li
brary — (Gebhardt's Doctrine of the
Apocalypse) is a valuable addition
to the Hterature of the subject ; it
contains a close and careful com
parison between the doctrine of the
Apocalypse and that of the Gospel
and Epistles of St. John. Of other
books may be mentioned — Eev. S.
Garratt's Commentary on the Reve
lation of St. John, considered as the
Divine Book of History ; Prophet
ical Landmarks, by Eev. H. Bonar ;
Dr. J.H.To&A.'aDonnelloMLectures;

342

NEW TESTAMENT INTEODUCTIONS.

and Bishop Wordsworth's Hulsean
Lectures. The Apocalypse, by Eev.
Charles B. WaRer ; The Parousia,
a Critical Inquiry into the New
Testament Doctrine of our Lord's
Second Coming ; The Life and
Writings of St. John, by Dr. J. M.
Macdonald, of Princetown. On
special points the following works
may be noted : — On the Epistles to
the Seven Churches, in addition to
Archbishop Trench's indispensable
work, and to Stier's well-known
one, a valuable contribution has
been given by Prof. Plumptre.
On the Millennium : Bishop Walde-
grave's "New Testament MiUen-
narianism " (Bampton Lectures), and

the Rev. Dr. Brown's work, entitled
Christ's Second Coming : will it be
pre- Millennial ? On the Babylon
of the Apocalypse : Bishop Words
worth's Rome, the Babylon of the
Apocalypse. On the types and
symbols : FaRbaRn's Typology of
Scripture; Eev. Malcolm White's
Symbolical Numbers of Scripture ;
and the essay on " The Formal
Elements of Apocalyptics " pre
fixed to Lange's Commentary on
Revelation. Of this last book,
whieh has not been mentioned
above, it is to be regretted that.
with much that is most valuable, it
should be disfigured by pedantry
of style.

Printed by Cassell & Company, Limited, La Belle Sauvage, London, E.C.