iii

II

.jt, "I give theft BttiAi1
¦Tfar tie- fonmfiaig if: it &Clige- tft t^Colony '

> YALE -^MVEiaSinr Y«

Presented by the Author

POPULAR LECTURES
ON
THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

POPULAR LECTURES
ON
THE BOOKS
OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT

BY
AUGUSTUS H. STRONG, D. D., LL. D., Litt. D.
President Emeritus of the Rochester Theological Seminary

THE GRIFFITH & ROWLAND PRESS
PHILADELPHIA
BOSTON CHICAGO ST. LOUIS TORONTO. CAN.

Copyright 1914 by
A. J. ROWLAND, Secretary

Published March, 1914

PREFACE

This book, with the exception of the eighth chapter,
is a stenographic report of lectures delivered to a
large Sunday-school class, which at times numbered
as many as three hundred. This fact will explain the
familiar and even colloquial style of address. While
the problems of history and exegesis were discussed,
the lectures were intended to be popular, in the sense
of being intelligible to all. It is hoped that this has
not prevented them from being fairly representative
of the results of modern scholarship. They are now
printed in the belief that they may be useful to a larger
number of Christian people than that which first lis
tened to. them.
A. H. S.
Rochester, January 9, 1914.

CONTENTS

The New Testament as a Whole  1-15
" New Testament" means New Covenant, 1. Rela
tion between old covenant and new, I, 2. Old
covenant of salvation by law, 2. New covenant
of salvation by grace, 2. Under the old, ordinances,
prophecies, judgments, 2. Scattering of the Jews,
Greek language, 3. Incarnation, and death of Christ,
3. In him the new covenant ratified, 4. The New
Testament the final revelation, 4. It is the title-deed
to our inheritance, 5; the new covenant embodied,
5. New Testament a collection of many books, 5.
Not in existence for twenty years after Jesus' death,
6. Epistles preceded Gospels, 6. Slow and difficult
transmission, 7. Most of the books in circulation by
A. D. 70, 7. Canon not complete for three hundred
years, 8. Proofs of care in making it up, 8. Apoc
ryphal literature set aside, 9. The collection of many
books came to be a single book, 9. The New Testa
ment is a unity, 9. Condensation and sublimity of its
writing, 10. Its unity shows divine inspiration, 10.
No imperfections inconsistent with truth, 11. Yet
the organic whole is articulate, 12. Three great
divisions, 12. History, doctrine, prophecy, 13. Like
the Old Testament, 14. Contrast with the Koran, 14.
Beginning and end, in both Old Testament and
New, 15.
The Life of Christ  16-31
The life of Christ the substance of gospel, 16. It
is the life of an infinite Being on earth, 16. Christ
is the eternal Word of God, made flesh, 16; the one
and only Revealer of God, 17. No other name vii

vni contents
whereby we may be saved, 18. The Infinite can be
known only as it comes under limitation, 18. God
comes down and lives a finite life, that we may
understand him, 19. More worthy than the Greek
idea of divine seclusion, 19. Self-limitation is the
highest nobility and dignity, 20. The Word made
flesh is subject to the laws of human development, 21.
Misconceptions removed, 21. At twelve years, Jesus
came to know himself as Sent of God and Son of
God, 22. Divinity limited by humanity, 23. Illus
tration from Humboldt, 23. Christ took form of
servant, 24. Progress in teaching of Jesus, but
always truth, 24. Christ subject of teaching, more
than teacher, 25. Embodied reconciliation between
God and man, 25. Three years of Christ's ministry
described, 26. First year an appeal to Jewish au
thorities, 26. John describes his rejection by the
rulers, 27. Second year an appeal to the Jewish peo
ple in Galilee, 28. They also reject him, 28. Third
year an appeal to his disciples, 29. Prepares them
to preach gospel after his death, 30.
The Gospels and their Origin  32-47
An oral account preceded our present Gospels, 32.
Apostles primarily teachers, only secondarily writers,
32. Converts needed direct instruction, 33. Memory
was strong, 33. Holy Spirit brought truth to re
membrance, 33. Repeated as was the Old Testament,
34- Salient and vital things were gradually selected,
34. Types of apostolic doctrine grew up, 35. One
supplemented another, 33. Yet the essentials were
stereotyped, 35. Substantial agreement, together with
individuality and independence, 36. No writing at
first, 36. But need of writing soon felt, 36. A. D. 50,
a possible Hebrew Gospel by Matthew, 37. A. D. 55!
Mark's Gospel in Greek, 37. A. D. 58, Matthew's
Gospel in Hebrew, 37. A. D. 59, Luke's Gospel, 38.
All three synoptic Gospels before destruction of
Jerusalem, 38. John wrote independently long after,
39; adding chronological data, 39- Gospels show
diversity in unity, 39. Matthew shows us Christ as

contents IX
suffering Messiah and King of Israel, 40; he ad
dresses Jews, 40; Mark shows Christ as Wonder
worker, 41 ; addresses Romans, 41. Luke shows
Christ as Friend of humanity, 41 ; addresses Greeks,
41. John shows us Christ in his divine nature, 42;
writes for all men, 42. Unity in diversity, 43. Pic
tures from different points of view, 43. Illustrated
by Canaletto and Turner, 44 ; by Plato and Xenophon,
45. Two plus two equal sixteen, 46. Gospels not
mere tradition, 46; but record written while wit
nesses were living, 46; the settled convictions and
testimonies of those who knew our Lord, 47.
The Gospel According to Matthew  48-66
The Gospel of sacrifice, 48. Matthew's original
name was Levi, 48. The publican was a tax-gatherer,
48; a qualified writer, 49; a humble man, 49; a man
of means, 49. First wrote in Hebrew, 50; and after
ward our Greek translation, 51 ; enlarging as he
wrote, 51 ; but quoting Greek Old Testament instead
of Hebrew, 52. Palestine bilingual, S3 ; people spoke
Aramaic, but read Greek, 53; the literary language
Greek, 54. Date of the Greek Gospel about A. D. 58,
54; testimony of Irenaeus to, 54; before destruction
of Jerusalem, 55 ; only wrong view of inspiration
puts the date after, 55. But Daniel had foretold that
destruction, 56. The date of the Gospel not long
before, 56. Object of the Gospel to prepare Jewish
Christians for trial, 57; by showing them that Christ
was an almighty Saviour, 57; King of Israel and
promised Messiah, 58. Historical proof begins with
genealogy, 58. Christ is son of David and son of
Abraham, 58; also a suffering Messiah, 58. Two
classes of predictions fulfilled in him, 59. Matthew
is the Gospel of rejection, 59. Christ is forsaken by
Sanhedrin, by Jewish people, by God himself upon
the cross, 60. The old covenant merged in the new,
61. Structure of the Gospel, 61; first, our Lord's
official life in Galilee, 62; secondly, preparation for
the crucifixion, 62. Sermon, miracles, parables, 62;
sermon, miracles, prophecies, 63. Not chronological,

X contents
but logical, order, 63; not an annalist, like Mark, 64.
Unique things in Matthew, 64. Christ the Son of
God and King of Israel, 65; his sacrifice the central
subject of Matthew, 66.
The Gospel According to Mark  67-83
John, whose surname was Mark, 67; convert of
Peter and mentioned in Mark 14 : 51, 52? 68. Cousin
of Barnabas? 68. Went with Paul and Barnabas to
Antioch and Perga, 69; left Paul, 69; recovered
Paul's confidence, 69. The familiar companion of
Peter and Paul, 70. Interpreter of Peter, 70. Evi
dences of Peter's sanction, 71. Mark inspired, as
standing in place of an apostle, 72. Gospel written
possibly in Babylon, A. D. 55 or 56, 73. Written for
Roman readers, 73 ; the Gospel of miracles, 73 ; Christ
the Wonder-worker, 73. Method of an annalist, 74;
chronological order, 74; little grouping, 74. Many
miracles, but few parables, 75. Gospel of activity, 76.
Christ the Lion of the tribe of Judah, 76. The word
"straightway," 76. Christ majestic and awe-in
spiring, 77. The briefest of the Gospels, 78; most
picturesque, 78; minute detail, 78. Unique things in
Mark's Gospel, 79. Adaptation to Roman readers,
80. Mark explains things familiar in Palestine, 81.
Witness to miracles, 82; in spite of Sadducean un
belief, 82; contrast to medieval accounts, 82; a
credible narrative, 83.
The Gospel According to Luke  84-97
The Gospel of Christ's humanity, 84. Luke is
Lucanus, not a Jew, born at Antioch, 84. Gospel
dedicated to Theophilus, 84, a man of note and
wealth, 85. Luke an educated physician, 85; com
panion of Paul from Troas, 85; goes with Paul
to Philippi, but there remains for seven years, 86.
The "we passages" in the Acts, 87. Date of the
Gospel, 87. Material collected at Csesarea, 88;
written about A. D. 59, 89. A Pauline Gospel, in
what sense, 89. Testimony of Irenasus and Tertul-

CONTENTS xi
Han, 89. " The beloved physician," 90. Inferences
from Marcion, 91. Luke has wider horizon than
Matthew or Mark, 92. Adapted to the Greeks, 92.
Application to universal humanity, 92; the human
side of Christ, 92. Unique things in Luke, 93.
Christ's discourses show his humaneness, 94; the
sympathizing, loving Saviour, 95. Christ's prayers,
95. Luke a painter? 96. Writes classical Greek,
96; yet quotes Hebraistic documents, 96. Faithful
to his materials, 97; a painter with the pen, 97;
shows us Christ as Light to lighten the Gentiles, 97.
The Gospel According to John  98-116
John and James sons of Zebedee, 98. John pos
sibly lived and studied in Jerusalem before his dis-
cipleship, 98; known to the high priest, and took
our Lord's mother to his home, 98. Special intimacy
with our Lord, 99. In company with Peter, 99;
finally goes to Ephesus, 99; dies only at close of the
century, 100. Exile under Nero, and writing of
Apocalypse, 100. Man of intuitive perception and
ardent affection, 100; fiery indignation, not feminine
weakness, 101. Depth of love measured by hatred
of wrong, 102. Insight and love combined qualify
him to perceive the divine side of Christ, 103; and
the union of the believer with his Saviour, 103.
John the author of the Gospel, 103; a Jew, 103;
whom Jesus loved, 104. Testimony of church
Fathers, 104. Style different from Apocalypse, 104;
illustration from George William Curtis, 105. Christ's
discourses melt into John's comments, 106; under
guidance of Christ's promised Spirit, 106. Writes
long after the Synoptists, 107; treats miracles as
symbols and texts of great truths, 108. Five miracles
wholly new, 108. John writes a supplement to Luke
and the two former Gospels, 109; to show Christ's
divinity, no. Plan of the Gospel, no. Growth of
faith and of unbelief, following divine revelation, no.
Types of faith and of unbelief, in. Culmination of
faith in Thomas, in. Chapter 21 is an epilogue,
112. Relation of Gospel to the Synoptics, and to the

Xll contents
Apocalypse, 112; to John's Epistles, 113. Unique
things in John's Gospel, 113. Deals with internal,
not external, things, 114. Style corresponds to mat
ter, 115. The greatest human composition, 116;
not forged, but inspired, 116.
John's Gospel the Complement of Luke's 1 17-142
An orthodox essay in higher criticism, 117. John
composed his Gospel with Luke's before him, 117.
Higher aspects of Jesus' life are settled history, 118.
John's family had permanent residence in Jerusalem,
119. His acquaintance with high priest and nota
bles, 119. Like Saul of Tarsus, educated at Rabbinic
schools? 120; amid Sadducean surroundings, 120;
with possible knowledge of Philo's terminology, 121 ;
seeks John the Baptist to satisfy his soul, 122;
finds and follows Jesus, 122. In Christ's inner circle,
123. Luke intimately associated with Paul, 123.
Paulinism of Luke's Gospel, 124. Luke may have in
corporated portions of Mark and Matthew, 125.
Paul must have wished Ephesians to possess Luke's
Gospel, 125; to make up for his own departure, 126.
John goes to Ephesus to take up Paul's work, 127;
must have found the church in possession of Luke's
Gospel, 128 ; supplemented that Gospel at first orally,
128. Oriental methods of instruction, 129. John
added what Luke lacked, 129; vindicated the Syn
optics, 130; taught of Jesus as the Word of God,
131; the Logos-doctrine, 132; Paul had taught it
before, for substance, 133. Luke's omissions sup
plied, 133-141. Summary of conclusions, 142.
The Acts of the Apostles  143-159
The author is Luke, 143. Reference to the Gospel,
143. Similarities of style, 143 ; in speeches of Peter,
Paul, and James, 144. Date of composition, A. D. 61,
145; before close of Paul's imprisonment at Rome,
146. The Acts a possible result of that imprison
ment, 147. Paul of service to Christ, as a prisoner,
148. Original title "The Acts," 148; Acts of Christ!

contents xiii
more than Acts of the Apostles, 149 ; only such Acts
of Apostles as determined history of church, 150.
Two foci, or critical points, prominent, 150; plant
ing of church among Jews, and among Gentiles, 151 ;
Christ's work in us follows Christ's work for us,
151. The Acts a bridge from the Gospels to the
Epistles, 152. Jesus began to do and to teach in
the Gospels, 153; he continues his work in the Acts,
154; by the Holy Spirit, 154. Acts teaches also uni
versal character of Christianity, 155; transition from
Jews to Gentiles, 156; from Jerusalem to Rome,
157. Work for Christ since his ascension, 158; the
fulfilment of his promise to Nathanael, 159.
The Epistle to the Romans  160-180
Paul born A. D. 7 or 8, 160; a Roman citizen,
160; high social position, 161; yet a Jew, 161; edu
cated at Jerusalem, 161 ; at feet of Gamaliel, 162.
Paul ambitious, blameless in conduct, of acute mind,
but warm affection, 162. Greater intellect than Peter
or John, 163. His dissatisfaction with self, 163;
persecution of Christians, 164; stoning of Stephen,
164 ; conversion at Damascus, 164. Attempted expla
nations by Baur, 165; by Renan, 166. Paul qualified
to be an apostle by seeing the risen Christ, 166. Effect
of this vision upon Paul, 167; convinces him of sin,
167; shows Christ as the only sacrifice, 168; a sacrifice
for all men, 168. Called to be an apostle, 168; wider
and wider missionary journeys, 168; he now has a
doctrine to preach, 169; which he puts into his
letters, 170; especially to Rome, the center of the
world, 170. Paul not founder of Roman church,
171; nor Peter, 171; or Paul would have mentioned
him, 171. Roman church mainly Gentile, 172. Dif
ferences among its members, 172; Paul aims to
reconcile them, 172. Epistle written from Corinth,
A. D. 56, 172; its main object to set forth Paul's
gospel, 173; not the facts of Christ's life, but the
explanation of their meaning, 173. Paul's summary
of Christian doctrine, 174. His preparation as a
lecturer, 174; he treats faith as opposed to works,

XIV CONTENTS
175; not simply justification by faith, but salva
tion by faith, 175. Explains rejection of Jews, 176;
and closes with exhortations to duty, 177- Heathen
ism differs from Christianity, 178. Paul principal
author of New Testament, 179. Coleridge's estimate
of this Epistle, 179; contrasted with that of Julian,
179, 180.
The Epistles to the Corinthians  181-199
Situation of Corinth, 181 ; chosen for defense,
181. History of the city, 182; its marvelous growth,
182 ; its temples and schools, 183 ; its immorality, 183.
In A. D. 52 Paul came as a solitary tent-maker,
184; found Aquila and Priscilla, 184; preached
Christ, 185. Antagonism of Jews, 185; yet many
conversions, 186. Paul departs after year and half,
186; Apollos comes, 186; instructed by Aquila and
Priscilla, 186; more showy than Paul, 187. Parties
grew up, 188. Five years after, church asks Paul's
advice, 189; as to practical matters, 189. Epistle not
mainly doctrinal, as that to the Romans, 189; deals
with questions of practice, 190; ten important ques
tions, 191 ; party spirit, 191 ; immorality, 192 ; law
suits, 192; meats offered to idols, 193; marriage, 194;
women unveiled, 194; modesty and subordination of
permanent obligation, 195 ; spiritual gifts, 196 ; the
resurrection, 196. In Macedonia Paul learns that
the church in Corinth had followed his advice, 197;
his anxiety changed to joy, 197; he writes his Second
Epistle, 197; his thanksgiving, 198; collection for
the poor saints in Jerusalem, 198. These Epistles
show Paul's firmness, yet his courtesy, 198.
The Epistle to the Galatians  200-215
With Moffatt, we hold to the North Galatian
theory, 200. Galatians and Gauls are the same, 200;
their history, 201 ; French characteristics, 202 ; im
pulsive and inconstant, 202; given to externals of
religion, 203. Church founded, in 51 or 52, while
Paul was detained in Galatia by illness, 204. His

CONTENTS XV
"thorn in the flesh," 204; an affection of the eyes,
204; in 54, writes this Epistle from Ephesus, to
warn the church against Judaizing teachers, 205,
206. Galatians rough draft of Romans, 207; its
oneness of purpose, 207; unlike Corinthians, 208;
its uniform severity, 208; yet fatherly affection, 208;
its effect unknown, 209. The course of thought,
209; not by law, or by works, but by faith in Christ,
are we saved, 209. Three parts: a personal narra
tive, 210; a doctrinal portion, 211; illustration, 212;
a hortatory portion, 213. Strife in early church per
mitted that we might be free? 213. Luther's affec
tion for this Epistle, 213. Ritualism revives the
evil against which Paul wrote, 214; the Romans and
the French specially need these Epistles, 215.
The Epistle to the Ephesians  216-231
Location of Ephesus, 216; a great city, 216; its
temple of Diana, 216; its schools of rhetoric and
philosophy, 217. Paul's first visit in 53, his second
in A. D. 54, 217; his whole stay for three years, 217;
great success of his preaching, 217. Success roused
opposition, 218; fight with beasts metaphorical, 218;
Paul driven from the city, 218; his love for the
church, 218. The Epistle written from Rome, in 63,
219. Paul writes and works " in a chain," 219 ;
imprisonment gives time for meditation, 220; pro
found exposition of Christian truth, 220; the won
derful privileges of believers, 221. The Epistle
liturgical and psalmodic, a solemn hymn, 221 ; lan
guage struggles under its weight of meaning, 222.
Address lacks the words " in Ephesus,'' 222 ; a cir
cular letter, though sent first to the Ephesians, 223 ;
Tychicus may have given personal messages, 224.
Subject is " Christ Head over all things to the
church," 225; the greatness of Christ, 225. Three
chapters doctrinal, and three practical, 225; first,
the church chosen, redeemed, and endowed, 226;
secondly, the offices, gifts, and duties of believers,
227; finally, the conflict between good and evil,
228 ; and the Christian's armor to meet it, 228. Love

XVI CONTENTS
wins, because it expresses Christ within, 229; whose
life we share, 230, 231.
The Epistle to the Philippians  232-246
Philippi a gateway from East to West, 232; a
Roman colony, 233; where Latin was spoken, 233;
and Christianity first came in contact with Roman
civilization, 233. The "man of Macedonia" sum
mons Paul, 234. No Jewish synagogue, 234 ; but a
place of prayer frequented by women, 234. Lydia
converted, 235; the soothsaying girl, 235; Paul and
Silas mobbed, scourged, and imprisoned, 236; earth
quake and conversion of jailer, 236. Paul released,
but banished, 237. Luke left in Philippi, 237. The
church firm in its faith and love, 238; contributed to
Paul's support, 239. Epistle almost wholly com
mendatory, 239; yet warns against possible faults,
239. Written later than Ephesians, Colossians, and
Philemon, 240; its date about A. D. 63, 241; ex
presses Paul's gratitude, 242. Only two offices in
the church, 242. Prayer that love may abound in
knowledge, 243. Humility urged by Christ's hum
bling himself, 243. Paul loves the Philippians in the
heart of Christ, 244; Christ's heart has become his
heart, 245; union with Christ is the secret of Chris
tian sympathy, 245 ; for Paul " to live is Christ,
and to die is gain," 246.
The Epistle to the Colossians  247-261
Colosse the smallest church Paul addressed, 247.
Jewish influence mixed with Oriental theosophy,
247. Epaphras its evangelist, 248; Paul's fellow
prisoner, told him of the strange teaching, 248.
Onesimus and Tychicus messengers, 249; A. D. 62
or 63, 249. Like Laodicea, Colosse was lukewarm,
250; from pride of esoteric wisdom, 250; God held
separate from the world, 251; evil physical only,
251; intermediate creations between man and God,
252; these angelic powers could be worshiped, 253;
evil removed by mortifying the body, 253. The
remedy is Christ, the only Mediator, 254; the Head

CONTENTS xvii
of the universe, 254. Christ's wisdom belongs to
all, 255 ; nothing is exclusive or esoteric, 255. Christ
supersedes angels as mediators, 256. Asceticism is
needless, because Christ is the only Purifier, 257;
therefore beware of false philosophy, 259; the rudi
ments of the world, first letters of alphabet, 259;
only Christianity has full knowledge of the truth,
260; and is the guarantee against immorality of
life, 261. Colossians shows Christ as Head of the
universe, 261 ; as Ephesians showed him to be Head
of the church, 261.
The Epistles to the Thessalonians .... 262-278
Importance of Thessalonica, 262; the capital of
Macedonia, 262; a center from which the gospel
might spread, 263. Paul worked here at his trade,
263; but received contributions from Philippi, 264,
Four weeks of preaching in synagogue, 265; Jews
stirred up against him, 265; charged him with
treason to Caesar, 266 ; drove Paul out, 266. Persecu
tion fell on members of church, 266; calls forth
his first letter of sympathy, 266; and second
letter of gratitude, 267. Greeks needc1 advice
to repress impulsiveness, indolence, sensuality, 267.
Special mistakes as to second coming of Christ,
268; Paul does not teach it as immediate, 269; but
is so misunderstood by some, 270; the Second Epistle
written to correct this misunderstanding, 270. Both
Epistles dated A. D. 51, 270; the two perfectly agree,
270; the second adds information as to inter
vening events, 271. We distinguish between private
surmises and public teaching, 272; Paul came later
to regard Christ's coming as more distant, 273; but
he had never taught it to be near, 274. Prophecy
is unfolded progressively in New Testament as in
Old, 274; so with doctrine and polity, 275. Progress
in teaching determined by practical needs, 276. The
" man of sin " is the principle of false religion, 277 ;
not simply Roman Catholicism, 277; began its de
velopment thus early, 277; Thessalonians shows that
Christ will come to put it down, 278.

xv111 contents
The Epistles to Timothy and Titus  279-292
Called the Pastoral Epistles, because written to
pastors of the churches, 279; date 64 or 65, the last
of Paul's writing, 279. Timothy had Jewish mother,
but Greek father, 280; his natural gifts, 280. Titus
of sterner stuff, 281 ; representative of the Gentiles,
281 ; apostle of Dalmatia, 282. Two opposite types
of character, 282. Date of the Epistles 64 and 65,
283; after Paul's first imprisonment, 283; and he
had gone to Spain, 284; and to Crete, 284. From
Philippi writes to Timothy, 284; from Nicopolis to
Titus, 285. At Nicopolis Paul is arrested, taken
to Rome, 285; writes Second Epistle to Timothy,
285; in real need, asks for books and parchments,
286. Paul's martyrdom soon follows, 286. These
Epistles counteract two dangers: (1) False doctrine
of Judaizing and Gnostic teachers, 287; Paul meets
this by recurring to first principles, 287; (2) difficulty
as to church organization, 288; Paul meets this by
teaching of church offices and government, 288.
Style of Pastoral Epistles differs from Paul's earlier
style, 288; as private letters differ from public, 289.
Paul's experiences at approach of death, 290 ; his care
for the church after his departure, 291. Gravitates
to Rome, and from there writes his last letter, 292.
The Epistle to Philemon  293_3°S
Philemon one of the Colossian Christians, 293;
converted by Epaphras, 293 ; church met at his house,
293 ; Paul's " partner," 293 ; Apphia, the wife, Archip-
pus, the son, of Philemon, 294. Onesimus, slave,
thief, and runaway, 295; made his way to Rome,
295; was there converted by Paul, 296; became use
ful to Paul, 296. But Paul sent Onesimus back to
his master, 297; with this letter, 297. A private
letter, like 2 and 3 John, 297; with gracious intro
duction, 298; appeals to Philemon, not with authority,
but for the sake of Christ, 299; to forgive Onesimus
and receive him back, 299. In Colopsians, Paul com
mends Onesimus to the whole church, 300. Paul will

contents xix
pay his debt, 300. Compare letter of the elder Pliny,
301; Paul's letter has no air of command, 302;
Christian intercourse on the basis of love, 302; its
spirit undermines, and finally does away with, slavery,
303; model of Christian effort against organized
wrongs of society, 303; Hebrew and Roman slavery
contrasted, 304; both now abolished, 305.
The Epistle to the Hebrews  306-320
Many enigmas, 306 ; purest Greek, 306 ; stormy his
tory, 306; not an Epistle of Paul, 307; doctrinal
reasons, 307; rhetorical reasons, 308; style not
broken, but flowing, 309; Paul is dialectic, 309; this
Epistle is rhetorical, 310; best ascribed to Apollos,
310; a Jew, an Alexandrian, and mighty in the
Scriptures, 311. Epistle addressed to Hebrews in
Jerusalem and vicinity, 312; in persecution and
tempted to apostatize, 313; excluded from temple,
314; A. D. 67, before destruction of Jerusalem, 314.
Christ the final sacrifice made Old Testament sacri
fices no longer needed, 315. Christ greater than
angels, 316; greater than Moses, 316; greater than
Aaron, 316; typified by Melchisedec, 316; since
Christ abides, Old Testament priests may go, 317.
Practical follows doctrinal part, 317. The divine
Priest is also human, 318; he is our brother, 318; the
one and final revelation of God to man, 319; apostasy
from him is apostasy from God and from salvation,
319. Warnings ensure perseverance, 320.
The Epistle of James  321-336
James, our Lord's brother, 321 ; president of the
church at Jerusalem, 322; converted after Christ's
resurrection, 322; distinguished from the apostles,
323 ; Christ's appearance to his brother converted
him, 324. James calls himself a servant, 324. Mary
had other children than Jesus, 325 ; Christianity gives
honor to marriage, 325. An apostle would not be
president of a local body, 326. Jesus gave his mother
to John, 326; faith being better than blood, 326.
James austere and righteous, 327 ; surnamed " The

XX contents
Just," 327; his decisions accepted, 328; he never left
the Old Testament church, 328; could best influence
Jewish Christians, 329; martyred just before de
struction of Jerusalem, 330. His Epistle the earliest
document of the New Testament, 330; A. D. 47, 331;
would correct wrong practices and tendencies among
Jewish Christians, 331; not doctrinal, 332; "be not
hearers only, but doers," 333. Luther's objection
short-sighted, 333. James teaches nature of true faith,
334; not inconsistent with Paul, 335; faith alone justi
fies, but faith is never alone, 335; it brings good
works in its train, 336.
The Epistles of Peter  337_353
Peter's original name Simon, 337; fisherman of
Bethsaida, 337; brought to Christ by his brother
Andrew, 337. Innermost circle of apostles, 338.
Ardent affection and openness of heart, 338 ; but rash
and overconfident, 338. First preacher to the Jews,
and also to the Gentiles, 339. Church built on the
rock Peter, 340; not as a person alone, but as a
confessor of Christ, 340; person and confession both
needed, 340; personality plus truth, 341. Peter tem
porarily unfaithful, 341. Transition from Peter to
Paul, 341. Epistles written from Babylon, 342; not
a name for Rome, 342; no evidence that Peter was
at Rome, 342 ; Paul would have mentioned him if he
had been founder, 342. Epistles written to churches
founded by Paul, 343; after Paul's death, 344; in
A. D. 66, 345. The churches already have doctrine,
345; Peter counteracts wrong practical tendencies,
345. He sanctions Paul's writings, 346; recognizes
them as of equal authority with the Old Testament,
346 ; is influenced by Paul, 347 ; Paul and Peter con
nected, 347. Second Epistle counteracts false teach
ers within the church, 348; as the First had helped
against persecution from without, 348. Genuine
ness of 2 Peter doubted, 348; only A. D. 250 have
we clear witness to it, 349 ; the work of an old man,
350; in time of persecution, 350; long hidden, 351;
curious analogies of Luther's, Milton's, Aristotle's

CONTENTS XXI
writings, 351. Internal evidence of its genuineness,
352. Peter the apostle of hope, 352; but hope based
on historical facts, 353; so he can strengthen his
brethren, 353.
The Epistles of John  354-368
First Epistle has no address, 354; anonymous, 354;
John never mentions his own name, 354; Gospel
written before the Epistle, 355; A. D. 96 or 97,
355. Gospel represents Christ as incarnate in human
ity, 356; Epistle represents humanity as united to
God in Christ, 356; is the application of the Gospel
sermon, 357. Jerusalem has been destroyed, and
heathen are not mentioned, 357. Church difficulties
are all internal, 358. John protests against the degrada
tion of Christ, 358; against the doctrine of Cerin-
thus, 358; maintains indissoluble union in Christ of
deity and humanity, 360; John not effeminate, but a
Boanerges, a hater of evil, 361. Beginnings of Gos
pel and Epistle are alike, 361. Two great divisions
of Epistle, 362; first, God is light, walk in the light,
362; secondly, God is love, walk in love, 363. Since
God is light, fellowship with him involves putting
away of sin, 364; since God is love, fellowship with
him involves love for the brethren, 364. Purity of
life and love to the brethren enjoined, 365; need
of increasing sanctification, 365 ; as Jesus says : " So
shall ye become my disciples," 366. John aims that
the joy of Christians may be fulfilled, 366; and that
they may know that they have eternal life, 366.
John's legacy, 367; last New Testament document,
367; 2 and 3 Epistles, 368.
The Epistle of Jude  369-381
Jude the brother of James, 369; no independent
standing as an apostle, 369; one of Jesus' half-
brothers, 370; converted after the resurrection,
370. Tradition that he preached to Jews in
Palestine and Egypt, 371 ; written before Peter's
death, 371 ; A. D. 64-66, 372. Resemblance between
Jude and 2 Peter, 372. Jude the original, 372;

XXII CONTENTS
Peter adopts thought and some of the expressions,
373; Jude the briefer and more condensed, 373; the
inspiring Spirit made the two consult and cooperate,
374; as Micah and Isaiah, 374- Design of Epistle,
first, to oppose antinomian Gnosticism, 374; urges
contending for faith once for all delivered to
saints, 375; this faith an easily recognized doctrine
of Christ, 375. No esoteric doctrine the possession
of the few, 375. Design, secondly,- to denounce
punishment upon those who resist the truth, 375.
Three sins reproved: unbelief, pride, sensuality, 376;
three punishments, 376. The remedy, the word of
God, love, and bringing back the wanderers, 376.
Watchcare and discipline, 377; exhortation and
doxology, 377. Quotation from book of Enoch, 377 ;
sanction of Apocryphal writing? 378. Was book of
Enoch in existence? 378. Jude may have gotten
his quotation from tradition, 379; he takes nothing
that is false, 380. Tone of invective like Jesus' de
nunciation of Pharisees, 380. Yet sublime utterance
of praise called forth by the judgments of God,
381. God judges and punishes iniquity, 381.
The Book of Revelation  382-398
Here we pass from beginning to end, 382. John
the author of the book, 382; written in Patmos, be
fore destruction of Jerusalem, 383; its date about
A. D. 68, 383. John had removed to Ephesus after
Mary's death, 383. The persecution under Nero,
384. Early date accounts for differences in style of
Apocalypse and Gospel, 384; peculiarities of Greek
construction, 384; the writer still young, a "Son of
Thunder," 385. John became the apostle of love, 386.
In Revelation, Jews are still a hostile power, 386;
the two witnesses, 387; the number 666, 387; the
five kings and the sixth, 387; evil tendencies had de
veloped rapidly, 388; Paul had warned the Ephesians
already, 388. The Jewish nation had reached a
climax of corruption, 388; the Roman Empire equally
corrupt, 389; TSJero was on the throne, 389. Chris
tians needed strengthening, 390. Interpretations of

CONTENTS XX111
the book diverse, 390; the Prseterists, 390; the Futur
ists, 390; the Continuists, 391. The key is in our
Lord's Apocalyptic discourse, 392; the book of
Revelation a commentary upon it, 392. All three in
terpretations have element of truth, 393. The book
is an exhibition of principles, 393 ; the book in detail,
394; the book of God's decrees, 394; only the Lamb
can understand or execute them, 394. Seals, trum
pets, bowls, all represent same events, 395. First
resurrection spiritual, 395; Christ's visible coming
postmillennial, 396; not separated from resurrection
and general judgment, 396. Salvation not solely in
dividual, 397; a glorious company, 397; redeemed
by the Lamb, 398; who makes visible the Godhead
to man, 398.

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE
We are to study the books of the New Testament. It
is the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus
Christ. It is well, at the very beginning, to know what
that phrase, the " New Testament," means. The
words are taken from the institution of the Supper.
It is there that we first find them. Our old version
reads : " This is my blood of the New Testament, which
was shed for many for the remission of sins." If you
look into the Revised Version, you will see that the
translation is changed ; and now we have : " This is
my blood of the new covenant, which was shed for
many for the remission of sins." The word " testa
ment " means " covenant." It often is so translated ;
and we now have to study together the New Covenant
between God and sinful man.
Of course this suggests at once the relation between
the new covenant and the old covenant. A covenant
is an agreement, an agreement between God and man.
Provisionally there was an agreement that men should
be saved if they could only present to God perfect
works of obedience. This was a trial or test ; intended
to show the real condition of man. God never expected
any human being under the old covenant to present
such works of perfect obedience; he only intended to
demonstrate the fact that human nature was helpless,
and that it could not be saved in this way. There
fore, for many, many generations there was going on
A I

2 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
a process of testing, with a view to showing that man
could never save himself.
The Scriptures of the old covenant represent that
history of probation ; and we see how, in many ways, it
constituted a preparation for the only covenant be
tween God and man, by which we can hope for salva
tion : namely, the covenant of grace, the covenant of
mercy in Jesus Christ, through whom we are saved,
not by works of righteousness, but by simple faith.
In this covenant of grace salvation is not by character,
but by the blood of Jesus.
This long preparation, under the old covenant, was
conducted by the law; there were ordinances of God;
the God of gods uttered his commands. But there
was also prophecy, in which was set forth the coming
of a Deliverer, through whom men were to be saved.
Men even then were not saved by their works, but
they were saved by faith in God, so far as he was re
vealed to them — practically in the same way in which
we are saved by believing in God and his method of
salvation — although they did not know it was a sal
vation through Jesus Christ.
Under the old covenant there were also judgments.
You know in how many ways those were experienced :
Through the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah ; by
the destruction of Achan and his family; and then,
finally, by the exiling of the chosen people from their
native land and the scattering of them among the
heathen. That intimates to us one way in which God
made this preparatory work lead to Christ.
The Jews, on account of their sins, were scattered
abroad; and wherever they went they erected syna-

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE 3
gogues and places of worship; and these were after
ward centers for the preaching of the gospel. The
Jews learned the Greek language, which was the lan
guage of the world; just as the French language, not
many years ago, was the diplomatic language of
Europe. They came under the influence of the Roman
law. Alexander had unified the Greek East. Caesar
had unified the Latin West, and had brought the world
under one government; so that converts from among
the Jews were now able to publish the new doctrine of
Christ. All roads led to Rome, the capital ; and there
was peace prevailing throughout the world. The Jews
had developed a spirit of proselytism, which was laid
hold of by Christians, so that, when the Jews became
Christians, they began to proselytize just as they had
proselytized when they were Jews. All these things
were preparations for the coming of Christ, prepara
tions for the new covenant. When the fulness of time
had come, Jesus himself appeared. There had been
four hundred years of silence in which God had not
spoken. But now once more the voice of inspiration
began to be heard ; and the messenger of the new cove
nant, Jesus Christ, appeared: he who seals the true
covenant between God and man, he who reconciles God
to man and man to God.
The Jews sacrificed the Son of God, the only true
propitiation for the sins of man, the only real repara
tion for the evil-doing of mankind ; not only a propitia
tion, but an atonement, an embodied union between
God and man. In Jesus Christ we have humanity and
Deity united : in fact, the beginning of the Church is
Christ himself. Humanity is united to God in him,

4 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and we become united to God only as we become one
with Christ. We are sons of God only as we are
partakers in the sacrifice of Jesus. In Christ the cove
nant was ratified, the real covenant between God and
man; the covenant which declared and established
absolute unity between Deity and the sinful world.
This was the final covenant, of which all prior cove
nants were symbols and preparations.
Have you ever noticed that, in the Old Testament,
everything points forward ? There are no indications
of completeness anywhere. On the other hand, the in
dications are that the system was not a complete one,
that it looked for something to come, to add perfec
tion to it; but, in the New Testament, on the other
hand, you find the most strenuous prohibitions against
the adding or taking away of a single jot or tittle
from this revelation. The New Testament is the final
revelation. It is the true covenant, the covenant for
which all the Old Testament prepared the way, the
complete and perfect union between God and man in
the person of Jesus Christ.
You know how the word " deed " has come to be
applied to a document. That word deed meant origi
nally an act, and a deed of property is the act of
giving ; but the act of giving is not a document. The
deed is really made before the document is signed, and
the document only expresses the act and puts it in
form. Just so, what we call the New Testament or the
New Covenant is simply the outward formal record
of a deed, a covenant, between God and man, which
was instituted before a single word was put in writing.

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE 5
We look, therefore, upon this New Testament as the
title-deed to our inheritance. Here we have a precious
document, in which is embodied a covenant between
God and man, in which is inscribed and set forth an
assurance to us of an eternal inheritance. " Search
the Scriptures, therefore, for in them ye have eternal
life." What an argument it is for the study of the
New Testament, that we should search these title-
deeds, to see how much God has given to us in Jesus
Christ, his Son! The New Testament is the record
of the new covenant, the agreement, the reconciliation
between God and man,, the union of Deity with
humanity. But we mistake greatly if we suppose that this book,
at the beginning, was complete ; that, at the time of the
first apostles, it was ready-made. The second thing
that I wish to bring to your attention to-day, after this
first thought that we have here the new covenant em
bodied, put into form, is that this New Testament was
a collection of many books; that, at the first, it was
not one complete thing. The word itself is very sig
nificant, the word " Bible." The word bible was
originally plural — the singular biblion, the plural was
biblia. The word biblia was originally used of this
production which we now call the Old Testament and
the New Testament. In other words, the thought of
the plurality of the production was the prominent
thought; and it was only afterward, as I shall show
you, that that plural word came to be a singular word,
came to be " The Bible," came to be biblion, a singular
noun, whereas at first it was biblia. The transition
from the plural to the singular is very significant of

6 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the change in the estimation which Christian people
put upon what we now call the books of the New
Testament. We have here a divine unity; but it is to
the thought of it as a collection that I want, at this
time, to call your attention.
The apostles and apostolic men felt, at first, that they
were only required to communicate orally the substance
of the teachings of Christ. I suppose that for twenty
whole years after the Saviour's death there was not
in existence a single one of these books which we call
the New Testament. All the preaching of the time
was oral; but it is very evident that, after one and
another of the early witnesses began to die, and Chris
tians realized that merely oral production is in danger
of becoming corrupt, they began to think of the neces
sity of putting into permanent form this gospel of
which they had been testifying. The result was that
one after another of these New Testament books came
into existence. The order in which the books occur
in our present New Testament was not the order in
which they were written. The truth is that not one of
the Gospels was written until most of the Epistles had
come into being. The Epistles to the Thessalonians
were probably the first written, and then other Epistles
followed. The majority of the Epistles were in exist
ence before any of the Gospels were written; but it
was the exigencies of the times that determined what
the apostles should write. There were errors spring
ing up, there were particular errors of unbelief and
there were particular forms of wrong conduct to which
Christians were exposed; and therefore it was, that
the apostles wrote simple letters to the churches, warn-

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE J
ing them of these errors and instructing them on these
points of which they were ignorant. So, little by little,
there grew up a doctrine, a written teaching.
These letters were first written to separate churches,
and the difficulties of transmission were many. There
was no such thing as a printing-press. All these books
had to be transcribed in manuscript, and that was a
long, tedious matter. The letter that was written to
one church had to be transcribed, and then communi
cated to another ; there were no mails in those days,
and no such thing as the penny post. There were also
difficulties in the transmission of the doctrine, owing
to persecution. There was nothing like the settled
government that we have to-day. The result is that
some of these books took a long time to get into cir
culation. The Epistles of Peter, written, I suppose, in Babylon
— far away at the East — written in a time of persecu
tion, and perhaps hid away on account of persecution,
did not come into general circulation until the middle
of the fourth century. This is an isolated and very rare
instance. In almost all other cases the books of the
New Testament got into general circulation before the
year 170, and perhaps even before the middle of the
second century.
There are two catalogues of the New Testament
books, both dating from about the year 170, which
materially supplement each other, and together give
us all of the New Testament except Second Peter and
the First and Second Epistles of John — as we might
say, insignificant parts of the New Testament.
It is only in the year 363, at the Council of Laodicea,

8 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that you have all of the books of the New Testament
embraced in a catalogue, and not all of the New Testa
ment even then, for the Apocalypse was not among
them. It was only in the year 397, at the Third Coun
cil of Carthage, that a list of the New Testament books
was put together which embraced exactly those books
which we now have in our New Testament ; so, you see,
that it was three hundred years after the death of the
last apostle, John, before our present New Testament
was actually constructed as we have it to-day. It took
three hundred years, in other words, to make this
collection. It is very important, for a good many reasons, that
we should recognize the fact of this gradual growth.
There was divine providence in it, as we shall see.
It was not left wholly to the ingenuity and skill of
man, though men did exercise their ingenuity and skill
in deciding as to the claims of the several books that
came to their notice.
The early Church has sometimes been represented as
credulously accepting whatever came to it with pre
tense of apostolic origin. How far from true this is
we can see by remembering Paul's injunction to the
Thessalonians, to use caution in putting their faith in
communications professing to come from him. Melito,
bishop of Sardis, made a journey into Palestine for
the express purpose of ascertaining the grounds upon
which the books of the Old Testament were received ;
and as a result of his investigation he excluded the
Apocrypha. Tertullian tells us of the deposition from office of a
presbyter in Asia Minor for the crime of forging a

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE 9
letter, which purported to be a letter of the apostle
Paul; so you will see that there was skill used in the
selection of the right writings, and that we have, in
the books which now bear the name of the New Testa
ment, the result of careful scrutiny and criticism on
the part of the best Christian people. In fact, I think
you will have brought before your mind the great work
which was performed by Christian people in that early
century, in that they rejected a great deal more than
they received. The whole of the Apocryphal literature
— as great in bulk as the New Testament — was set
aside as unworthy of a place in the sacred canon. The
true word of God is manifest from this fact, that all the
books of the New Testament, as we have them now,
sound one peculiar note. There is a peculiar air about
them; they have characteristics which are totally for
eign to this Apocryphal literature of which I have
spoken. There was an inner Christian sense, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, that led to the rejection
of the evil, and brought into the New Testament only
that which was of divine origin.
So I pass to that which is the third, thought of my
remarks this morning, that, although this is a collec
tion of books and originally was entitled " The Books
of the New Covenant," it came, at the last, before the
fourth century was concluded, to be "The Book."
There came to be recognized in it an organic unity.
In other words, the biblia became the biblion. " The
Books " became " The Book of God." " The Books
of the New Covenant " became the New Testament.
How remarkable this is I think you will see when
you remember that the apostles never gathered

10 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
together (as some have supposed) and held a consulta
tion as to what they would write, one of them declar
ing that he would write this portion, and another that
he would write that. There never was any consultation
or calculation at all in regard to it ; and the New Tes
tament sprang up almost as a matter of accident, look
ing at it from a human point of view.
The apostles were widely separated : some in Rome,
some in Babylon, some in Galilee, and some in Africa ;
and yet each one wrote with a condensation, a sim
plicity, a sublimity, and a spirituality that belong to
no other writings of man. The condensation of the
apostolic writing is something wonderful. Students
of literature know how easy it is to fall into a florid,
diffuse style, and how exceedingly hard it is to write
in a condensed way, so that every single sentence shall
be a nugget of gold. Look into the books of the
heathen, and you find there a single grain of wheat in
a bushel of chaff. The distinction of the New Testa
ment is that it is all wheat, there is not one single grain
of chaff. It is all good, and it is all divine.
This condensation, as a mere literary effect, is utterly
inexplicable, unless you take into consideration the
guidance of God. The absence of all self-assertion, the
absence of all self-consciousness, is something wonder
ful, but also the sublimity of it all. There are more
sublime writings in this New Testament than there
are, I think, in all literature besides, unless you except
the Old Testament Scriptures. Things that are un
seen and eternal, instead of things that are seen, occupy
the thought and glorify the style.
Though the New Testament is a collection by eight

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE II
or nine different writers, you have a unity of subject,
spirit, and aim that is absolutely inexplicable unless
you suppose it to be the book of God ; unless you be
lieve that these writers were spiritually directed in
what they wrote; so that their writings, taken alto
gether, form a complete and organic whole. They
builded better than they knew. I do not suppose that
one of these writers, not even Paul himself, had any
idea that his Epistles were going to be read and quoted
as they have been read and quoted this morning. I
do not imagine that Paul had any idea that his wri
tings were to have texts taken from them, and that
they would be the foundation of sermons in every
country on earth. No one of the New Testament
writers had any idea that he was writing part of a
collection. It makes no difference whether he did or
did not. God knew ; God had a plan and purpose in it ;
and each workman had to lay his stone, each had to
build up his part of the structure. While there was
growth, while there was a gradual collection, the New
Testament, at last, became one organic whole, through
the power of the Holy Spirit, which worked in and
through these writings and their writers.
I do not mean to say that there are no imperfections
in this book ; but I also do not mean to say that there
is falsity or error here. It is divine communication,
iput in human forms and molds. There is some bad
grammar now and then in the Apocalypse; there are
some rhetorical infelicities that could not stand the
test ; but there is nothing inconsistent with truth, though
the writing is full of the idiosyncrasies of the writer.
The books of the New Testament are all the more

12 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
adapted to reach our hearts, they are all the more
adapted to the common uses of life, just because they
come from living hearts and minds which have been
touched by the Holy Ghost. So the word of God is
the Word made flesh, just as Christ is the Word made
flesh in another way. This makes the New Testament
a finality. It is a complete thing. It is never to be
superseded, for example, by Mohammedanism, by
Swedenborgianism, or by Mormonism, each of which
comes to us with a new revelation, purporting to be
from God, but which discloses its own falsity by vio
lating the fundamental principle that nothing is to be
added to this New Testament, because it is an organic
whole, a complete revelation.
There is just one thought further, and that is this :
Every organic whole is articulate, and is to be looked
upon in that aspect, as well as in the aspect of its
organic wholeness. This human body of ours is an
organ, but there are articulate parts. There is the
circulatory system, and there is the respiratory sys
tem; we have our different limbs for various offices;
and there is the brain and the heart. While these are
all parts of one whole, yet the fact that there is an
organic whole does not prevent the existence of sepa
rate members, with separate offices. The New Testa
ment is peculiarly articulate. I might say that it has
its articulate parts, and no two of those members have
precisely the same office. There are three great divi
sions in the New Testament ; and if I impress nothing
else upon your minds to-day, I should like to impress
upon you the fact that there is a threefold division in
the New Testament, which we cannot safely discard.

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE 1 3
In the first place, there is history; in the second
place, doctrine; and in the third place, prophecy.
Where do we have the history? Why, we see at once
that we have the history, as a basis of all, in the life
of Christ and the apostles. In other words, the Gos
pels and the Acts give us the basis of the whole, the
foundation of the structure. Then what comes next?
Why, there comes doctrine. Where have we that
doctrine ? We have it in a long series of Epistles. I
believe there are twenty-one of them in all — Epistles
in which the spiritual meaning of Christ's life is given
us; and these doctrinal teachings of the apostles con
tain for us something remarkable in this, that they
almost, without exception, explain the germinal say
ings and teachings of Jesus Christ himself. In other
words, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, they
expound the meaning of what Jesus Christ himself com
municated. But we are not left the doctrinal teachings
simply; we have also, as it were, the gates of heaven
opened and a view of the future bestowed upon us.
History, Doctrine, Prophecy. Jesus Christ in the flesh
on the earth, teaching in the Gospels ; then, Jesus Christ
in his church teaching through the Epistles ; and, finally,
Jesus Christ in heaven, the future glory and reward of
the righteous. These are the three parts of the New
Testament. The New Testament is not only an organic whole,
but it is an articulate whole. It has its separate mem
bers as well as its organic unity. This great structure
has its foundation in the Gospels and in the Acts; its
superstructure in the doctrinal teaching of the Epistles ;
and its crowning dome, from which it looks up to

14 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
heaven and out to the great hereafter, in the prophecies
of the Apocalypse.
You notice there is some similarity between the New
and the Old Testament. The Old Testament began
with history; then gave material for teaching and for
worship in the Psalms and the Proverbs; and finally
concluded with prophecy. So the New Testament
gives history first, then doctrine, and finally prophecy.
I trust we have now a glimpse of the organism of the
New Testament. The historical portion is an organism
of itself, the treatment Of which I must leave for
another time. The doctrinal portion of the New Tes
tament has its organic relations also, and so it is with
the Apocalypse. I give you to-day only the three
great divisions, the main divisions of the New Testa
ment: History, Doctrine, and Prophecy.
Even with these few words that I have been able to
speak to you this morning, contrast this organic whole
of the New Testament with what you find in the Mo
hammedan Koran. What is the Koran? The Koran
is a shapeless mass of accidental accretions, to which
no human being can find beginning, middle, or end.
It stamps itself at the very beginning, and to the very
end it proves itself, as being purely the work of man.
The New Testament, on the other hand, in contrast
with heathen writings, gives us a complete whole, as
beautiful a structure, taken altogether, as the Parthe
non on the Acropolis at Athens, or the Saint Peter's at
Rome ; and all this has grown up, not by the wisdom of
man, but by the wisdom and the power of God. Here
you have a progressive revelation, gradually advancing
with the development of Christ's doctrine, until at

THE NEW TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE 1 5
last the whole structure is complete, and we have " all*
things that pertain to life and godliness."
Not only is this true of the New Testament, but it is
true also of the relation of the New to the Old. The
Bible begins with the words, " In the beginning, God
created the heavens and the earth " ; and it ends with the
words, " Even so come, Lord Jesus." The very begin
ning and the very end. And this magnificent revelation
is a great bridge spanning the interval between. How
wonderfully the Bible ends ! How wonderful the New
Testament is, in giving us first the basis of historical
fact, before any inferences are to be drawn, before any
doctrines are to be taught, before any application, be
fore any prophecies. You have the solid basis of his
torical fact in the life and death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ.
You see how important it is, then, that we should
begin with understanding something of the life of
Christ, because that life of Christ is the substance of
the Gospels. Without understanding it, we cannot
understand the gospel itself; and, therefore, next
Sunday, if Providence permits, I will treat in a general
way of the life of Christ, and try to give you some
general views of that life, the relation of its separate
years to each other, and then the relation of that life
of Christ to the Gospels of which we talk.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST
I intend, next Sunday, to speak of " The Gospels and
their Origin," and this morning to speak of something
preliminary to that, viz., " The True Conception of
the Life of our Lord." That life of Christ constitutes
the basis and substance of the Gospel record; and it
has seemed to me that, before studying the Gospels, we
may do well to get into our minds some general con
siderations in regard to the life of Christ himself.
The first thing that needs to be impressed upon us
is that this life of Jesus Christ is the life of an infinite
Being upon the earth. We cannot enter upon the study
of the Gospels in the proper spirit, and we cannot un
derstand them at all, unless we appreciate the fact that
this person who is set before us here is the Lord God
Almighty, although he is veiled in human flesh. In
other words, we have here, as John intimates to us,
the temporal life of the Eternal Word, the Word made
flesh, full of grace and truth.
We know what words are among men. We know
that they are symbols of communication, that they are
mediums of expression. I pass along the street ; I hear
a word of blasphemy or obscenity, and that single
word opens to me the depths of an evil heart. I hear
a word of kindness, I hear a word of compassion, and
such a word as that is a revelation to me of a gentle
and beautiful soul. By a single word I am let into the
inmost life of another. In just such a way God's
16

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 17
word is the medium of expression, the vehicle of com
munication, between God and his creatures.
The word of God of which we spoke last Sunday
was the outward Scripture. The Word of God of
which we speak to-day is something back of the out
ward Scripture, of which the outward Scripture is an
expression, viz., the everlasting Word that was with
God before the world was, and which was God; that
Word of God, God's medium of expression, God's ve
hicle of communication, is Jesus Christ. He existed
before he came in the flesh. He exists now, although
he is not here in the flesh with us, but is in heaven.
From the beginning to the end he is the only Revealer
of God. It is Jesus Christ through whom God created
the world. It is he who upholds all things by the word
of his power. It is he who conducted the history of
the people of Israel in the Old Testament. It was this
Eternal Word who thundered and lightened from the
top of Mount Sinai, just as truly as it was he who ut
tered the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus Christ is the
only Revealer of God; and we know nothing of God
whatever, except it be through the Revealer, Jesus
Christ. God in himself, apart from Christ, is utterly
unknown. No man has seen God at any time ; that is,
apart from God's own purpose and method of revela
tion in Jesus Christ, no human being could ever have
knowledge of him or come into communication with
him. Jesus Christ is the one and only Revealer of
God; in fact, we may say, Jesus Christ is the one and
only Word that God ever spoke or that God ever will
speak, either to us, his human creatures, or to any
of the intelligences that he has made or ever will make ;
B

l8 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and that, simply because Jesus Christ in his eternal
nature is the principle of revelation in God. There is
no revelation aside from or apart from him. You
might just as well think of knowing the great dynamo,
from which proceeds the electricity that lights our
streets, without the current of electricity proceeding
from it, as to think of knowing God without Jesus
Christ. Jesus Christ is the Revealer of God; Jesus
Christ is the only way by which God ever makes him
self known. Therefore, he that has seen him, " hath
seen the Father " ; therefore, " he that doeth my will
shall know of the doctrine." There is, therefore, now
no other name given under heaven to man, whereby we
may be saved, except the name of Jesus Christ.
Now, it is very evident, is it not, that you cannot
know anything that is infinite and absolute, unless
that infinite and absolute thing somehow comes under
limitation? How are you going to know that which
you cannot distinguish from anything else, and how
can you possibly distinguish one thing from another,
unless there are some limitations about that thing ? If
there is nothing else apart from it, you cannot know it ;
and, therefore, God himself, the Infinite and the Abso
lute One, must necessarily come into conditions or lim
itations, in order that we may know him. You cannot
know that which is absolutely unlimited. You cannot
know that which does not come into such conditions
and relations that it is in contact with yourself, your
faculty of knowing. Jesus Christ, the Infinite and Ab
solute Being, who otherwise would be unknown, came
into such limitations and relations with his finite crea
tures that he can be understood, can be known by us ;

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 19
and so we have the great God coming down into finite
humanity and living a finite life, in order that we may
understand him and know him.
It is just as if the ruler of a great people, in order
that each one of the least and lowest of his subjects
might understand him and know what he is, should
come and live the life of the poorest and lowliest among
them all, in order that he might teach them how to
live and might teach them something of his compas
sionate love. Just as if the greatest of teachers should
leave his desk of instruction and go down into the
A, B, C class of his school, and put himself side by side
with the least and humblest of his pupils, in order that
he might teach this pupil how to learn; so the great
God has evinced his compassion, his tenderness, his
consideration for the weak, finite creatures whom he
has made, by taking part with them in their ignorance
and their weakness and their limitations, in order that
he might show them what he is and show them what
they ought to be.
Now, there are some who do not understand this
limitation of God, this self-limitation of an Infinite
One. They think that it is unworthy of the great
God so to contract himself within the limits of the
human life. They would have God live apart in seclu
sion, as the Greeks represent their gods on hills, care
less of mankind. They think that would be worthy,
more worthy of the Godhead.
Well, I have seen a great burly ruffian walking in
the street with a little child ; and I have seen that great
ruffian stride along and drag his little girl after him,
cursing her because she could not go as fast as he, and

20 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
pass over the obstacles in their path with the same ease
as he; but I never thought that indicated any great
nobility or dignity on his part. And I have seen a
father, a great strong man, able to walk fast enough
himself, slackening his pace and adapting himself to.
the pace of his little child, talking to her by the way,
taking her weakness into consideration, and letting
himself down to her infirmities, and lifting her over
the hard places by the way ; and I have said to myself :
there is a great deal more nobility and dignity in that
than there was in the conduct of the burly ruffian that
I saw awhile ago, and who thought himself too great
to care for a child.
Now, that is what God does. The Infinite Being
shows his dignity and his glory by coming down, by
considering our weakness, by putting himself at our
side, by entering into our home life, by slackening his
pace, by teaching us as if we were little children, ma
king himself a little child, as it were, in order that he
may show us what he is and may make us like himself.
That is what God did, when the Eternal Word, the
only Revealer of God, the equal of God, came down
into this earthly life and became a babe, and passed
through all the measures and stages of human develop
ment, in order that he might give us an object-lesson
and show us what God was, in a way that we could com
prehend. Ah, there is nobility, there is dignity, there
is something divine ! It is in the God-man, therefore,
Christ Jesus, that we have the most vivid, the most
wonderful representation of the true nature of God,
the compassion, the condescension, the love of God,
as well as his purity and truth and power; for it

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 21
takes power so to limit one's self and bring one's self
down to the limits of human nature.
Christ, then, is not only the Word, but he is the
Word made flesh. He is the Word, in infinite love,
limiting himself in such a way that we can understand
him ; and the life of Jesus Christ is the life of this Infinite
Being in these finite limitations: When an Infinite Be
ing comes down to these limitations of a finite life, he
will not, in all respects, appear as an infinite Being, but
will take upon him the forms and modes of human liv
ing. In other word's, he will be subject to the laws of
human development, just as we, his finite creatures, are.
I remember very well the time when this doctrine
was first propounded to me, and the shock it gave to
my early conceptions, my misconceptions, as I think
them now. I had been taught (or, if I had not* been
taught, I had somehow grown up to think) that our
Lord Jesus Christ, through all the stages of his earthly
life, was Immanuel, God with us; that all things were
open to his knowledge ; and that he was always exert
ing his infinite power. I remember, when my teacher
talked to me about the suffering of Christ upon Cal
vary, in my heart I said : " Why, Christ could not
suffer ; that must have been a mere appearance ; Christ
was God, and God could not suffer " ; and so all the
representations which the teacher made of the suffering
of Christ passed over my head, and made no impres
sion upon me. I was one of the Docetas, without
knowing it. I regarded the suffering of Christ as
merely a matter of appearance; I thought he could
not suffer. Then, when I heard a sermon during my
college course, in which it was intimated that the

22 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
appearance of Christ in the temple at twelve years old
might have been the time when first our Saviour came
to the knowledge of what he was as the Sent of God,
the Son of God, it seemed to me as if all the founda
tions of my Christian belief were being shaken. I
said : " Did not Christ know who he was, and what
his work was, from the very beginning?" Now, I
have come to think that at that time I misconstrued
the meaning of the Scripture record, and did not give
full weight to some declarations of Scripture which
are of very great importance. Do not the Scriptures
say that Jesus, as a child, grew in wisdom as well as
in stature, and in favor with God and man ? Then, if
he grew in wisdom, there must have been a growth
from a less degree of knowledge to a greater; there
must have been a more incomplete consciousness of
his duty and of the work that he was to do, at the
beginning of his life, than there was in the latter por
tion of his life. And, when, in the Gospels, we read
that declaration of Christ himself, " Of that day and
that hour knoweth no man, neither the angels of God,
neither the Son," we have there a distinct declaration
of the Saviour's ignorance with regard to the time
of the end. There were limitations to the knowledge
of Christ while he was here upon the earth. He took
upon him the form of a servant; he divested himself
of the exercise of his attributes when he became man ;
and he went through a process of human development,
gradual growth in the consciousness of what he was,
which was analogous to the development through
which every son of Adam must pass. It was a mark
of his condescension and divine love that he was

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 23
willing to put himself under these limitations, and to
advance toward perfectness and knowledge through
the ordinary paths of human learning and obedience.
He learned obedience by the things he suffered.
You all know that if the reservoir south of the city
were ever so full, you would get in your basin at
home only that amount of water which was propor
tionate to the size of the pipe through which the water
flowed. The reservoir might be ever so large, but it
could never pour into your house in a larger stream
than the size of the pipe permitted.
Just so there was an ocean-like fulness of resource
in Jesus Christ. He was the Infinite and Eternal Word ;
but the channel of communication to man was only
as large as the human nature which he possessed.
Therefore, in those communications, he adapted him
self to the limitations of humanity. He did not al
ways know, and he did not always act, as God. Some
times he was permitted by the Holy Spirit thus to
do; and out of this ocean-like fulness of resource, he
showed that he knew what was in man. Sometimes the
veil was lifted ; but ordinarily the veil of humanity was
before his eyes, and he walked by faith just as we
walk by faith.
If you could imagine the mind of a Humboldt, with
all his vast amount of knowledge, being permitted to
come back here to this earthly sphere and to be taber
nacled once more in an earthly form; if you could be
lieve that the transmigration of souls were possible,
and the soul of Humboldt should once more take an
earthly body ; you may be very sure that, if it took the
body of an infant, it could not manifest itself except in

24 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
an infantile way, and it could only gradually show the
powers that were inherent in it. And so, if the Deity
itself becomes united to human flesh, if the Deity
itself joins itself to humanity, you may be very sure
that the ways by which the Deity will manifest itself
through the humanity will be adapted to the humanity
which is taken into union with itself. You will not have
everything revealed, as in a flash; there will be a
gradual progress in knowledge; and there will be a
gradual unfolding of the knowledge which he has
gained. Let us remember that our Lord became a
servant for us; that our Lord, while he was here on
the earth, was living what we may call an infinite life
under the forms of space and time; living the life of
God in the flesh of man ; and, therefore, we may find
in the life of Christ something which justifies our look
ing for a larger revelation of his purpose as he goes
on. We can find that, although he never passed from
the teaching of falsehood to the teaching of truth — he
is always the Eternal Truth, and just as far as he
does teach he teaches the truth of God — yet, at the same
time, the truth as he unfolds it now may be less com
plete than the truth as he unfolds it hereafter. You
know he himself tells us that there are many things he
could not say to us now, but he will show them to us
hereafter; and so we find that there is progress in the
teaching of Christ, and that there is progress in the
development of Christ himself, through the Gospels;
although, at the last, he is the risen and glorified Son
of God.
At the very beginning of his ministry, in his dis
course with Nicodemus, he shows that he has before

THE LIFE OF CHRIST

25

him the whole outline of his ministerial work, he shows
that the main features of his doctrine are clear to his
mind. The greatest truths of Christianity are un
folded there, in that discourse to the Jewish ruler ; and
yet it was only when the apostles had come, and the
Holy Spirit had been bestowed, that the germinal truth
was expanded, filled out, and elucidated.
So, our Lord was not so much a teacher as he was
the subject of teaching. We do not deny that he was a
teacher. He was the prophet of- his own work ; and one
of his great offices was that of prophetic teacher of
mankind ; but, after all, his teaching was not completed
when he was here in the flesh. He has been teaching
through his Gospels and teaching through his Spirit
ever since; and so we have, in Christ, the subject of
the Gospels. We have in him the truth. In fact, we
may say, we have in Jesus Christ the gospel itself. He
is the glad news. He is the embodied reconciliation
between God and man; the God-man shows forth the
perfect union between humanity and the Deity which
he has come to accomplish; and so he is not only a
union between man and God, but he is the sacrifice for
sins also.
I spoke of self-limitation, and I spoke of letting one's
self down, in order to be understood, into the finite,
in order that the finite might comprehend the Infinite.
Ah, what a self-limitation there was, when this Being,
who was God as well as man, died upon the cross, that
he, who was everlasting life, should, in connection
with the finite humanity, suffer death! He who was
rich became poor, in order that we, through his
poverty, might be made rich. He emptied himself,

26 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
became of no reputation, in order that we might under
stand God. He made a sacrifice for sin by sacrificing
himself. He was the Lamb of God, slain from before
the foundation of the world; and now this divine-
human Being, this Being in whom infinite truth and
love and mercy are brought down to our human com
prehension and engaged in the work of our salvation;
this Being lived a human life, and the story of that
human life is given us in the Gospels that we are to
study. That life unfolded itself according to a divine
plan. Our Lord had that plan in his mind at the very
beginning of his ministry.
There were three different years of our Lord's min
istry, each of which had its own particular purpose.
To a very brief description of the three years of our
Lord's ministry and the purpose of each one of those
years, I wish to give a few moments this morning.
The first year of Jesus' ministry was devoted to an
appeal to the authorities of Israel, an appeal to the
Jewish rulers, an appeal to the constituted judges of
the nation, and unless we understand this we cannot
understand the first year of Jesus' work, nor the relation
of that first year to the years that followed. Jesus was
the King. He came first to those that were in authority,
and he presented his claim to kingship. He was Jeho
vah. He came as Jehovah to his temple, the Messenger
of the Covenant, in whom the Jews ought to have de
lighted, though they did not. He presented his claims
as king to the constituted authorities of Israel: this
was the purpose and object of his first year of ministry.
During that first year, you remember, he spoke to
Nicodemus, one of the rulers of the Jews, During

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 27
that year he began his ministry by miracles in the
temple and by the cleansing of the temple ; and during
that year also, he made the acquaintance of those sisters
of Bethany, and their brother Lazarus, whom he raised
from the dead. The incidents of it are described not
by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, but only by the apostle
John. I have spoken of this Judean ministry as occupying
a year, in round numbers, as one might say. It will
help our memory to divide the Saviour's ministry into
three years, although those years were not exact in
their beginning and their end. The first year of Jesus'
ministry was really eight months instead of twelve
months ; and the latter portion of it, after he had been
rejected by the rulers, was spent in going about with
a few of his disciples, those first chosen, among the
cities of Galilee, and informing them all, as it were, in
regard to the purpose of his mission.
During those eight months many were baptized; so
many were baptized that the attention of the Jewish
rulers began to be turned from John the Baptist, be
cause Jesus baptized more than John. Their enmity
was beginning to turn from John to himself ; and Jesus
saw that to continue his work in Judea would be to
leave unperformed his whole mission, would be to
anticipate his death; for, just as they put John the
Baptist to death, just so would they have put Jesus to
death, two years before his time. Therefore Jesus
was obliged to withdraw; and this ministry to the
authorities of the people came to an end. It served
his purpose; it tested them; it was a probation; they
had had their offer; and now they are rejecting him

28 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets did write.
The authorities of the people had turned their backs
on the Son of God; the rulers rejected him; and he
was compelled to leave Jerusalem.
He begins the second year of his ministry in Gali
lee, in the freer and broader light of northern Pales
tine, away from the traditional influences and the super
stition of the central city, Jerusalem. The second
year of our Lord's ministry was devoted to an appeal
to the people at large, an appeal to the popular element
among the Jews. In Galilee he begins to preach to
the people rather than to the rulers; the rulers are far
away. He addresses himself to the common heart of
man ; and that Galilean ministry begins with the choos
ing of the apostles upon the summit of one mount — the
mount where the Sermon on the Mount was preached ;
and it ends with another mounts — the Mount of Trans
figuration. Between those two, the mount where the
sermon was preached and the Mount of Transfigura
tion, lies the whole of the Galilean ministry. It was in
Galilee rather than in Judea that his greatest miracles
were wrought. It was in Galilee that the most of his
parables, most of his public teaching was given. It
was in Galilee that the greatest multitudes followed
him. You remember it was there he fed the five
thousand, and at another time the four thousand. This
ministry in Galilee went on until it became perfectly
evident that the great crowds that followed him were
more bent upon the victuals he brought than upon
the meat that endureth to everlasting life. The Jews,
as a people, rejected Christ just as decisively as their
rulers had done. In other words, the second year of

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 29
Christ's ministry was an unsuccessful appeal to the
hearts of the people, just as the first year had been an
unsuccessful appeal to the hearts of the rulers. There
fore the second year of Christ's ministry ended also.
Having appealed to the rulers the first year unsuccess
fully, and having appealed to the people the second
year unsuccessfully, what remained? Only this, that
he should now appeal to the hearts of a few loved dis
ciples ; that he should prepare them by instruction for
the work which it was not appointed that he himself
should do ; that he should, in other words, train up the
future pillars of his church, and give them his promises ;
draw them into intimate intercourse with himself ; give
them some conception of what he was; make them
ready for the day of Pentecost, when they would be
endowed with power from on high; and prepare them
to go forth to all the world and preach his gospel.
If I am not mistaken, if you will take the Gospels
and read them with these subdivisions in mind that I
have given you, you will get a great deal of light upon
the meaning Of Christ's teaching and of Christ's won
derful works. The first year is a year of appeal to the
hierarchy, to the rulers; the second year is a year of
appeal to the people; and the third year is a year of
appeal to his disciples.
In the latter part of Jesus' life, you will find that the
instruction becomes more esoteric, it becomes more
intimate. Jesus lets his disciples into the secret of his
life. Jesus, after they have confessed that he is the
Son of God, after they have seen his glory on the
Mount of Transfiguration, tells them that he must be
rejected by the scribes and Pharisees and must be

30 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
crucified. He goes down from that mount of glory,
where the voice had spoken to him from on high, and
takes his way to Jerusalem to suffer ; and he goes with
such a majestic mien that the disciples following him
are amazed and afraid. So the glory was only the
prelude to the suffering, and Jesus showed that he
came into this world to die. He came, not so much
to teach as he did to die; and this death of Christ,
which we celebrate in the ordinances of the Church,
this death was the one great act of self-limitation and
self-sacrifice which the Son of God came to accomplish
in this world. In other words, the death was the cul
mination of the life ; and it was for the. sake of that
death that he lived here at all. So we find that, in the
Gospels, fully one-third of each narrative is taken up
with the incidents and events connected with the cru
cifixion or immediately leading to it, and only per
haps two-thirds, or one-half, of all is devoted to the
preliminary life of Christ and his preliminary teaching.
So, we have an infinite life lived within the limitations
of humanity; and we have that infinite life teaching
man, appealing to man, rejected by man, and then
prepared to die ; and only as we have that view of the
life of Christ, the infinite within the bounds of the
finite, the infinite finally giving up life itself for the
finite, have we any proper conception of the life of
Jesus Christ. We are to study Christ in order that
we may be like him ; and I do not know of any way in
which we can learn of Christ, except by reading these
accounts of Christ which are given us in the Gospels.
Having thus given you some general idea of what
that life was, we shall come next Sunday to the

THE LIFE OF CHRIST 3 1
consideration of the Gospels themselves ; what they are,
what their relations are one to another, what the dis
tinguishing characteristics are of each; and how it
was that, in the providence of God, they grew, they
originated, they came to be what we have them to-day.

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN
I am to speak to-day of the origin of the Gospels,
and some of their characteristics. There can be no
doubt that an oral account, an account of the life and
teachings and works of Jesus Christ that passed from
mouth to mouth, was the basis of our present Gospels.
Indeed, it is quite certain that from twenty to forty
years passed before the Gospels according to Matthew,
Mark, and Luke were written down. During those
twenty to forty years the story of each of these Gospels
had been current in quite another way. It had been
communicated viva voce, by the living voice. This
ought not to surprise us. The truth is, that the apos
tles were primarily teachers and only secondarily
writers. There were multitudes of converts from the Jews
and from the Gentiles. This multitude of converts
had to be instructed, and instruction in those days was
almost wholly by word of mouth. There was not only
preaching, but teaching; and this preaching and teach
ing was all personal communication of one individt
ual to another. You remember that the Sanhedrin
commanded Peter and John no more to preach or
teach in this name. They put no prohibition upon
them in regard to writing. Paul taught publicly and
from house to house. We read nothing at all about
his writing at that time.
The multitude of those who came into the Christian
32

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN 33
church needed just this personal and direct instruction;
and the memory was strong in those days, stronger
probably than in these days when we trust so much
more to books. The Jews, you know, could repeat
endless genealogies. Those very things which might
seem most difficult to remember they had deeply im
pressed upon their minds ; and then, they not only had
the most vivid recollection of the words of Jesus, their
Lord, and of those wonderful three years they had
passed in intimate intercourse with him, but it was
their delight to speak forth the things they had seen
and heard; and, if there ever was a lapse of memory,
they had the wonderful promise of the assistance of
the Holy Spirit, who was to bring to their remembrance
all these things with regard to Christ, so that they
might speak of the things of Christ and show them to
others. It is not wonderful that the apostles were primarily
teachers; and in their teaching there must have been
continual repetition. If we should judge the teaching
of those times by our modern standard, we should
make the greatest possible mistake. A modern teacher
would think it was a very monotonous thing for him
to say over and over again, in almost precisely the
same words, the lesson he had to teach; but this was
not only a common thing among the Jews, but we can
almost say that it was the only possible thing. They
had, you recollect, the Old Testament Scriptures. But
there were very few who knew how to read, and the
most of the knowledge the people had with regard
to these Scriptures was what they had gained from
the public reading of them. So, over and over again,
c

34 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the stories of the Old Testament were repeated; and
when the New Testament history came to be pro
claimed, it naturally was proclaimed in the same way.
There was no prejudice against the continual repetition
of the old, old story with regard to Jesus and his love.
But there was naturally a selection going on all the
while. It was said by John in his Gospel that the
world would not contain the things that would be
written if everything were written out. It is very
plain that, in the memory of the apostles, there was
a great deal that it was not thought best by them or
by the Holy Spirit should be put down permanently;
and it was not desirable that there should be a record
of the life of Christ so large and cumbersome that it
would break down with its own weight. It was desir
able that just those scenes and just those teachings of
the Saviour should be selected that were most central
and vital, in order that the Gospel record, when at
last it was made up, should be just as simple, just as
compact, just as brief as it could possibly be, consist
ently with giving the essential facts with regard to
the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
So there was a continual process of selection going
on. Those things that were most representative in
Christ's teachings came to be more and more insisted
upon, and the things that were merely incidental began
to have less and less attention paid to them ; and then,
as there were different classes of hearers, the truth
that was adapted to that particular class was chosen
in speaking to them. In that way there grew up cer
tain types of apostolic doctrine. One apostle, having
a different mental constitution and being prepared

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN 35
more easily to recognize certain portions of the truth
than another apostle was, would make his selection
of the incidents of the life and teachings of Christ and
would have his way of presenting the truth; and
another apostle would have his way of presenting the
truth. And, while there was an agreement with re
gard to a great many things, there was no agreement
as to what they should write. You find, in fact, with
regard to the words of Christ, the reverence of the
disciples for the Master's words seems, many times,
to preserve exactly the same form of words in the
narrative of each of the Evangelists, while, at the same
time, the circumstances, the setting, the frame-work
varies in many of its particulars — the one giving one
sort of incident connected with the teachings, and
another giving another sort of incident connected with
the teachings, so that one supplements the other.
There was thus growing up all the while, during
those twenty to forty years, in the case of the Gospels
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, what you may call a
stereotyped narrative, a gradual paring down, remov
ing of what was adventitious, putting aside the things
that were merely incidental, selecting the things that
were important; so that all three of the Evangelists
agreed in all the main lines of teaching. In fact, there
is absolute verbal agreement with regard to a great
many things; yet, at the same time, each one has his
own point of view, has his own hearers, persons for
whom he is writing, persons whom he has in mind as
the object of his discourse. So we have growing up
a sort of gospel or account of the Saviour's life all
oral at first, which is marked by the two characteristics

36 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of substantial agreement, and yet a wonderful individ
uality and independence.
The problem of the origin of the Gospels is one of
the most interesting, one of the most subtle, one of
the most difficult in all human history; and yet, after
all, I think that these conclusions which I have tried
to draw are manifestly demonstrable. They explain
the facts of the case.
This oral basis, this extemporary narrative, this
living account that was handed from mouth to mouth
was not at first put into writing at all; in fact, there
was no disposition to write. The apostles had no time
to write ; they were not used to writing. The literary
instinct was by no means so general then as it is now.
As the rabbis reiterated over and over again the same
things with regard to the law, the learned did not need
books, and the common people did not want them; so,
in the case of these New Testament accounts, every
one was contented for a very long time to have them
simply pass from mouth to mouth.
Yet we find that, little by little, there came to be
felt the need of putting these accounts into writing.
At first, the apostles apparently expected that Christ
was soon to come and put an end to all things. This
might have made it seem unnecessary to spend time in
writing documents. But we find that Peter, at last, be
gins to speak of his decease ; and, as he sees the time of
the end approaching, and feels the needs of the churches
over which he had care, he says, " I will take care that
you may have these things in remembrance." In other
words, it seems as if there were an intimation that
it was his purpose to put into permanent form the

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN T)7
substance of his teaching, so that it could subsist and
remain after he was taken away. And Paul, who, in
his letter to the Thessalonians, had at first the surmise
that the coming of the Lord was near at hand, after
ward recognized the fact that Christ's coming was to
take place after his day ; and he speaks of " having
fought the good fight, having finished his course." He
is now " ready to be offered," and he tells very plainly
of his expectation of approaching death. He was to
die before the coming of the Lord.
It was as the apostles were passing away from the
scene of action, and were no longer able to give their
oral testimony, that they made sure of a written testi
mony that could be left forever to the church of Christ.
So we find the gradual growing up of the Gospels, and
what was oral becomes written.
It has been thought by some, in fact it is a very early
tradition, that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew. If
Matthew did write a Gospel in Hebrew, which was
afterward translated into Greek, and the Hebrew origi
nal was lost, it is probable that this Hebrew original,
containing the sayings of Jesus, which were the nucleus
and basis of our Matthew, was the earliest of all, and
may be dated A. D. 50. Mark, you know, is said to
have been the interpreter of Peter ; and Mark's Gospel
must have been composed somewhere near the year 55
of our era, and twenty-five years at least after the
death of our Lord. Matthew's Greek Gospel, as we
have it now, comes a little later, perhaps in the year 58.
Luke, you remember, at the beginning of his Gospel
speaks of certain attempts that have been made by
others to put down incidents in the life of Christ and

38 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to compose a partial history; and he expresses his
purpose of putting down in order the things of which
he has become credibly informed. He may have in
mind the work of Mark and of Matthew, and I put
the Gospel according to Luke in the year 59.
So we have the synoptic writers ; and by the synoptic
writers I mean Matthew, Mark, and Luke ; called syn
optic because, in the early history of the church, a
synopsis was made of the three, the three being so
parallel with one another that you could easily form a
single narrative by combining them all together.
The synoptic writers probably composed their Gos
pels between the years 55 and 60, so that all of the
three were written before the destruction of Jerusa
lem; and while the oral Gospels become written, you
find that there is no evidence whatever that any one
of these Gospels was composed in view of the others;
not one of the Gospels was consciously an attempt to
supplement another; not one of them was written for
the purpose of correcting what was written in another ;
not one of them was written with the express purpose
of adapting the other narrative to a new class of hear
ers ; but it would seem that each narrative was written
by itself, each witness was independent, each gathered
his material in his own way, each put it down in his
own form. Yet, notwithstanding this independence,
there is a wonderful harmony : harmony as to substance
and harmony in a great many respects in verbal ex
pression, between each Gospel and the others. I speak
now in regard to the first three Gospels.
Then, in regard to the Gospel according to John,
which differs so remarkably from all three (Matthew,

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN 39
Mark, and Luke), it is perfectly evident that John
wrote independently. He did not intend simply to
supplement what the others had written, because he in
cluded the account of the feeding of the five thousand ;
this as a text to which he might attach Jesus' discourse
with regard to himself as the Bread of Life. He did
not write in ignorance of what was written before,
because he does not include the account of the trans
figuration, which he certainly would have included if
he had not known what Matthew, Mark, and Luke had
written. So we have the gradual growth of our Gospels from
the oral to the written form, at first in a sort of oral
account, passing from mouth to mouth, repeated with
very slight variations, as the sacred oracles of the Lord,
and existing in that form from twenty to forty years ;
and after that time put into written form before the
apostles died. Then, after the expiration of thirty
years more, John the Evangelist, in Asia Minor, writes
down his account of the life of Christ and adds many
things, together with chronological data, that were not
given by the three Evangelists who had written before.
So much now with regard to the problem of the origin
of the Gospels.
I want to speak now, as the second and concluding
portion of these remarks, of the characteristics of the
Gospels. I have spoken of their diversity. This diver
sity is diversity in unity ; but let us first get an idea of
what this diversity is.
Matthew first of all is the publican, the collector of
taxes or customs. He is a practised writer, just be
cause of his profession, perhaps the most practised

40 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
writer of them all, and, therefore, perhaps the first and
the most ready to enter upon this work of committing
the gospel to writing. Matthew puts down his ac
count of the life of Christ from his own point of view
and for a particular sort of hearers. And who are
these hearers, the persons whom he has in view as he
writes? Why, it is the Jews. He would convert the
Jews to Christ; and so he speaks of Christ as the Son
of David and the Son of Abraham, the heir to the Old
Testament promises. He speaks of Christ as the King
of Israel, who has been foretold by the prophets of
old. He also speaks of Christ as the suffering Messiah,
in whom all the sacrificial types of the Old Testament
found their fulfilment. Matthew has for his symbol,
in early Christian history, the sacrificial bullock. You
know the four figures of the cherubim were taken as
symbols of the Evangelists; and of those cherubic
figures, the sacrificial bullock was assigned to Mat
thew, as indicating the fact that Matthew more than
all the other Evangelists sets forth Jesus Christ as the
King of Israel, who was, at the same time, the Mes
siah offered for human sins. That is the main char
acteristic of Matthew. He speaks of Christ as the
sacrificed Son of God. Now the sacrificed King of
Israel was the Old Testament Messiah; so, you re
member, the Gospel according to Matthew begins with
the genealogies, and those genealogies are intended
to connect the New Testament with the Old.
Mark has in his mind an entirely different class of
hearers, and who are they? Why, Mark writes to the
Romans. Mark is the interpreter of Peter; Mark has
in him something of the vivid, vigorous, picturesque

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN 41
spirit that belonged to Peter. Mark is writing for the
rulers of the world, for men who have great homage
for law. And so you find that Mark represents Christ
in that aspect which was most likely to impress the
minds of the Romans, as the wonder-worker, the
worker of miracles, stirring the depths of men's hearts
by his demonstrations of divine power; and so the
symbol that has been assigned to Mark, in early Chris
tian archaeology, is the powerful lion. Mark goes
straight to his mark. Mark never wastes time in detail.
Mark is picturesque and incisive ; and there is a strength
and a grasp in his Gospel. Although the shortest of
them all, it is in some respects the most vigorous and
powerful of them all.
Luke, in the third place, writes, not for the Jews
nor for the Romans, but for the Greeks. Luke is the
physician. Luke is the man of scientific spirit. It is
remarkable that every description of disease given us
by Luke in his Gospel is just such as would naturally
proceed from the brain and pen of a physician. Luke
is probably the most learned of all the Evangelists. He
writes with an elaborateness and beauty of Greek style.
Luke's preface is more like classical Greek than any
other Greek we find in the New Testament. Now,
Luke, writing for the Greeks, with his breadth of
mind and his sense of human need, speaks of Christ as
the friend of humanity, the humane Saviour. You
find that those wonderful parables of the Prodigal Son
and the Lost Piece of Money, and many others of a
similar sort, are found in Luke, and not in the other
Evangelists. Luke is said to have been the interpreter
or representative of Paul, just as Mark was the repre-

42 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
sentative or interpreter of Peter; and the image or
symbol of Luke, in Christian archaeology, has been the
human form. You know that among the cherubic
figures — the figures that constitute the cherubim —
there was the bullock which answered to Matthew, the
lion which answered to Mark, the eagle which answered
to John, and then the man which answered to Luke ; so
that we have in these cherubic figures the symbols of all
four of the Evangelists.
And now, finally, you have John. John writes not for
Jews, not for Romans, not for Greeks; he covers the
whole world and writes for all men ; for, with his loving
and ardent spirit, his fiery nature, and yet his habit of
introspection, he apprehends, as none other of the
Evangelists do, the greatness and glory of Christ's
divine nature. So he takes us back to the very be
ginning, before all time, and speaks of the Word which
was with God, and was God. John gives us the most
beautiful exhibition of the lofty, the divine element in
Jesus Christ, our Lord; so that the symbol that has
been assigned to John is the soaring eagle that flies to
the heights of heaven, while its eye pierces with its
vision to the very depths of the sea.
These are the general characteristics of the Evan
gelists. Each one had his own nature, each one had
his own point of view, each one had his own audience,
so to speak; and they give us a picture of the life of
Christ that we never could get from any single one
alone. Here, then, there is diversity; but let me bring
you back again to the idea of the unity in diversity.
That is just as wonderful as the diversity itself. Jesus
was many-sided. You know it has been said of Shake-

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN 43
speare that he was myriad-minded. If Shakespeare
could be called myriad-minded, what epithet could be
applied to Christ? Why, there are no ends or sides to
Christ's nature. Human intellect cannot perceive the
whole of him at once. You cannot possibly see the
two poles, even of a globe, at one time. You must
turn one pole toward you first, and then remove that
from sight, in order that you may see the other. So it
was utterly impossible for any single human being to
see the whole of Christ. The only way in which the
world could be got to look upon Christ, in his true light,
was by getting a number to look at him from different
sides, and then to combine their stories.
It is said that in Paris there is a sculptor who makes
statues and busts of celebrated men, and his method of
making them is this : He has a circular apartment,
around the circumference of which a dozen photo
graphic cameras are stationed, all pointing toward the
center. He has the subject, of whom he is to make
the statue or bust, sit or stand in the center of the
apartment; the lights are all properly arranged, and at
a certain moment the curtain is removed from each
one of the cameras. A dozen different pictures from a
dozen different points of view are taken at the same
instant, and the sculptor makes up his statue or his bust
from all these pictures combined; so that the result is
true to the original, as a single view never could
make it.
Now, these four Evangelists have stationed their
photographic cameras on four different sides of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and they have taken their pictures
from different points of view; and, in order properly

44 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to understand what Christ was, we must, from all
these four narratives, construct a solid and symmet
rical structure of his life. If this be true, a great deal
of light is thrown upon the problem, which to some has
seemed almost insoluble, how it is that the first three
Evangelists can give us such a different view from that
which is given us in the Gospel according to John.
Why, it is the most natural thing in the world. Cicero
says, " The eye sees only that which it brings with it
the power of seeing." Every man sees another out of
his own eye, and gets a view of that other that no other
person ever does get ; and so the life of Christ appeared
from different points of view to different persons.
Those of you who have been abroad, those of you
who have visited the picture-galleries of Europe, know
very well that there is no subject of which the rep
resentations are so astonishingly various as those of
Venice. The pictures of Venice, how wonderfully
they differ! There are the pictures of Canaletto, in
which the drawing is perfect. It is as exact as a pho
tograph. You almost seem to be put back into one of
the gondolas on the Venetian canals. Every line is
perfectly distinct. But side by side with this picture,
by Canaletto, there is a picture of Venice by Turner.
What an astonishing difference there is! Here you
have not so much clearness of outline as you have won
derful light and shade. There is a roseate glow over
the whole picture that is marvelous. It seems as if Ven
ice were transfigured, almost as if it were the New Je
rusalem; and yet Turner painted Venice just as truly
as Canaletto did. So, John painted Christ just as truly
as Matthew, or Mark, or Luke ever painted him. John

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN 45
had the seeing eye, John had the glowing heart, John
had the deep love that enabled him to see in his Lord
the heavenly and the divine.
We have in ancient literature also a remarkable il
lustration. Some have wondered whether there ever
could have been such a man as Socrates, simply because
we have two accounts of him — the one by Plato and
the other by Xenophon — which widely differ. Shall
we say that there never was such a man as Socrates,
simply because these two speak of him so differently?
Shall we say that there was no such a personage as
Jesus Christ, simply because John speaks of him so
differently from the first three Evangelists? There is
no contradiction at all between them. It is simply that
each one sees that which he brings with him the power
of seeing ; in these separate portraits we have, with all
these diversities, a wonderful harmony of personality.
This composite picture is the representation of a ma
jestic person, such as never lived anywhere else upon
the earth. There is no representation of any human
being that can compare with this representation of
Jesus. The separate portraits only differ in the aspect
from which they regard him. How wonderful it is
that this harmony exists, a harmony that shows there
is no collusion between them, and which makes the tes
timony of one witness confirm that of the others. In
the courts of law the testimony of one may be some
thing; but if you get the testimony of another, side by
side with his, it is plain that one and one do not simply
make two, but that one plus one makes four. So these
two Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, plus the two
Evangelists Luke and John, do not make simply four.

46 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Two plus two do not equal four here; they make six
teen. So we have a gospel that grew up in a wonder
ful way into solidity and symmetry, and is given to us
now only after the most complete witness to its truth
by combined apostolic authority.
In conclusion, let me say that these Gospels are
not, as some have supposed, a jotting down of mere
tradition. What do you mean by tradition? Why,
we mean by tradition that which is handed down
after the death of the witnesses. A thing does not
become tradition until the witnesses are dead. Now,
were these things written long after the witnesses
were dead, so that we can say that we have simply
tradition put down here? That is the doctrine of
Robert Elsmere. What a mistake it is ! These things
were written down while the witnesses were yet
living. The men who wrote them, in more than one
case, had seen the Lord Jesus; and they put down
what they knew before they passed away from the
scene of action. That is not tradition. That is simply
a settled statement upon which they have agreed, after
pondering it over in their minds, after throwing out
the things that were simply incidental and of no ac
count, after concluding what was the truth, and what
was the exact way in which they ought to express it.
There is another thing that is very remarkable, and
that is this, that the apostles, by teaching, learned how
to tell their story. During these twenty to forty years
in which the gospel existed simply in an oral form, and
was repeated day by day to new hearers, the apostles
learned how to tell their story in exact accordance with
the facts; and speakers and hearers mutually helped

THE GOSPELS AND THEIR ORIGIN 47
and corrected one another. At last the whole narra
tive, as it was exhibited in the Gospels, came to be the
settled and permanent testimony of the apostles; not
something taken up by chance, not something taken by
a stenographer as it happened to be uttered, but the set
tled story upon which they had concluded as to sub
stance and as to expression, after from twenty to forty
years of a continuous utterance, for which they were
willing to lay down their lives. So we have things
that are absolutely certain to us, because they were not
the utterances of simply temporary interpreters, but
were the settled convictions and beliefs of the apostolic
witnesses. This, then, is the origin of the Gospels,
and these are their main characteristics.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW
The stream that flowed from the Garden of Eden, we
are told, was parted into four heads ; and so the water
of life comes to us through four Gospel channels. It
is the first of these, the Gospel according to Matthew,
the Gospel of sacrifice, to which I call your attention
to-day. The writer of this Gospel is Matthew. Matthew was
not his original name. His name was Levi, instead.
In Mark and Luke no other name is given to him but
this. It seems to have been a case of change of name
at a particular epoch in his life; just as Saul, when he
was converted to Christ, changed his name to Paul;
and just as Simon, when he made his great confession,
became Peter; and so a change of heart, a change of
purpose, a change of life was indicated that made him
a new man. It would seem as if Levi's following
Christ was the time when his name too was changed,
and Levi became Matthew. Levi would signify " serv
ant of the Lord " ; Matthew would signify " the Lord's
free man."
Levi was a publican ; and by publican, in those days,
was meant not innkeeper, but rather receiver of public
taxes, a tax-gatherer. He was a tax-gatherer under
Herod Antipas. Something of contempt attached itself
to this calling of a tax-gatherer, at least under the cir
cumstances under which Matthew attempted it. As
tax-gatherer he had probably acquired a large knowl-
48

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 49
edge of human nature. He had acquired accurate
business habits, and, more than that, I suppose we may
say that he had acquired practice in writing; so it is
possible that Matthew was the earliest of those who
composed a Gospel; and it is quite possible that the
logical and philosophical grouping of his Gospel may
evince the grasp and skill which he had acquired.
Matthew was a humble man. He calls himself Mat
thew the Publican; as if always to remember the low
degree from which he had sprung; as if to call atten
tion to the fact that it was a strange and wonderful
thing that the Lord had ever set his love upon him. He
not only calls himself so, but he avoids all mention of
any particular qualification in him for his work. Mat
thew was probably a man of means. Luke tells us that,
after he was called to be a disciple, he made a great
feast to Jesus ; but Matthew himself makes no mention
of it.
Matthew is distinguished by what we call self-efface
ment. He ignores himself continually. He makes as
little mention of himself as John does, even less than
John does; for, although John does not mention his
own name, John does speak of a certain disciple whom
Jesus loved that can be no other than John. After the
first calling of Matthew, and the relating of that
incident by which he became a disciple of Jesus, there
is absolutely no mention of Matthew, except his mere
name in the list of the apostles; and thus we get the
impression that he is a man of great humility, that he
merges himself in Christ, and thinks there is nothing
worthy to be mentioned of himself.
We know little about Matthew during our Saviour's
D

50 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
life, and we know almost next to nothing of his work
after the Saviour's death. Tradition says he went to
Ethiopia, preached the gospel there, and suffered mar
tyrdom, being slain while engaged in prayer. Even
this tradition is denied by some, especially by Clement
of Alexandria; so we may say that we know almost
nothing about Matthew, except that he was a publican,
a humble man, the author of this Gospel.
Yet this humble disciple of Christ, this apostle who
never cared to have his own name mentioned, has
become the first of the Evangelists ; just as that Mary,
from whom Christ cast out seven demons, was the
first to announce the gospel of the resurrection to the
apostles. It is a blessed thought to me that the names
of these apostles, who so merged themselves in Christ
and his kingdom as to be lost sight of entirely, the
names of these twelve apostles, every one, are to be
written on the foundation-stones of the New Jerusa
lem; so that, although they got no honor upon the
earth, they will get the honor that comes from God
only. Now in regard to the language in which this Gospel
is written. There is a dispute in regard to this matter,
as to whether the original writing of it was in Hebrew
or in Greek. Here we come to a problem of very great
interest. I cannot go into it at length. I can only in
dicate to you the nature of it. It is the unanimous
testimony of the early church that Matthew wrote
originally in Hebrew, " wrote a Gospel in the Hebrew
language which every one interpreted," i. e., I suppose,
every one translated into Greek, " as he was able to " ;
and it is of additional interest that, at the time

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 51
Matthew wrote, there was already existing a Greek
translation, for the word " interpreted " is a Greek
word, and intimates that people heretofore interpreted
the Gospel as they were able; but, now that the Greek
translation existed, there was no need any longer of
this individual interpretation.
Those who hold this view are themselves divided
into two different parties. One of them holds that the
original Gospel, written by Matthew in Hebrew, was
very brief, much briefer than our present Gospel ; and
that, subsequently, with the aid of the oral tradition
which then existed, Matthew himself wrote a Greek
translation, enlarging it as he wrote, so that our
present Greek Gospel is a translation of the briefer
original Gospel written by Matthew himself. Those
who hold this view think that the earlier Hebrew
Gospel was corrupted, and that it became the Apocry
phal book which is entitled the Gospel of the Hebrews.
There is a difficulty connected with this hypothesis
that the Gospel was originally written in Hebrew,
which makes it doubtful whether we ought to accept
it, even although we have in its favor the almost unani
mous tradition of the early church. The difficulty is
just this: Whenever Matthew, in his Greek Gospel,
quotes from the Old Testament, in giving us the words
of Christ, he quotes not from the Hebrew, but from the
Greek; and it would seem very strange, if he were wri
ting a Hebrew Gospel, that he should not quote from
the original Hebrew instead. Again, when Matthew
gives us the words of Christ, he gives us almost always
the same words which we find in the other synoptic
Gospels, gives us the words of Christ very much as

52 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
they are given us by Mark and by Luke. This would
seem very strange, if the Gospel which we have now
was translated from an original Hebrew Gospel.
We cannot understand this argument fully, unless
we remember that, in those days, the art of translation
had not reached the perfection which it reaches now.
In our day, when a man who has any scholarship at all
attempts a translation from Greek into English, he
does not translate word for word; he does not simply
transfer the words of the Greek into the words of the
English, but he puts the thought of the original into
English thought, and into English idioms. But in
those days the art of translation was by no means per
fected, and whatever translation there was, was really
transference instead of translation; and if our present
Greek version were the translation of an original He
brew, we should expect to find the Hebrew idioms con
tinually recurrent; we should find a great difference in
the words of Christ as they appear in our Gospel ac
cording to Matthew, and the words of Christ as they
appear in the Gospels according to Mark and Luke.
There is, however, no such difference, so that the inter
nal evidence, in spite of this external evidence from the
early church Fathers, seems to point to an original
Greek Gospel rather than an original Hebrew Gospel.
The explanation of Westcott is that Matthew himself
translated the Hebrew ,Gospel into Greek; that, when he
came to those portions that were common to him and
to Mark and Luke, he took the Greek oral tradition
that was current, side by side with the Hebrew tradi
tion, and substituted that for what he had originally
written in the Hebrew.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 53
This is a possible solution of the difficulty, and I am
still inclined to believe there was an original Hebrew
Gospel, perhaps briefer than our present Gospel accord
ing to Matthew, which was subsequently translated by
Matthew himself, and, in the translation, was enlarged.
The Fathers seem with one accord to have accepted
this view, and this unanimous assent of the early church
cannot rest upon the testimony of that single man
Papias, for Papias, we know, was not overcritical.
They must have had other and better evidence.
The truth is that, in Palestine, at the time of Christ,
there were two languages spoken. Palestine was a
bilingual country. The Aramaic, or corrupted Hebrew,
was the language of the common people, because that
was the language of the original Scriptures. On the
other hand, Greek was the literary language, and every
one learned something of Greek. Every man of affairs,
every business man had to know something of Greek.
There is a similar state of things in Wales in our own
day. The language of the people in Wales, of course,
is Welsh; and as a Welshman, a Welsh carpenter,
once said : " I learned English in school, and I am per
fectly familiar with English, but I never talk a word of
English except when I am speaking with English peo
ple. In my family and in my business in the village,
and, in fact, almost universally, I speak nothing but
Welsh. I read English, but I speak Welsh."
I suppose that in Palestine, at the time of Christ, the
people spoke Aramaic and they read Greek ; and, when
it came to putting the gospel into permanent and
written form, it was naturally the Greek, the literary
language, into which the Gospels were put, rather than

54 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
into the Hebrew or Aramaic, which was the language
commonly spoken. I suppose it is perfectly certain that
our Lord used the Greek language in his replies to
Pilate, the Roman governor ; but I suppose it is equally
true that, in prayer, in his utterances from the cross,
he used the Aramaic, the language of the common
people. It is a very curious thing in regard to Germans that
come to our country, that they may use nothing but
English in their business, speak English every day, but,
as Christians, they never pray except in German, their
mother tongue ; and, when they come to die, their last
words are spoken in German, and not in English.
So it was in Palestine. The Jewish language, the
language of the heart, the sacred language, was Ara
maic or Hebrew; but the literary language, the lan
guage of the books, was Greek. So you find that
James, one of the earliest Epistles written, was written
in Greek, although James was a Hebrew. And so you
find that the Epistle to the Hebrews, written to Jewish
Christians most of all, is written in Greek, and betrays
no signs of an original Hebrew. I think it is not only
perfectly natural, but it is probably a conclusion war
ranted by the circumstances, that our Greek Gospel is
now what it was when it left the hands of Matthew, the
apostle. Another question arises with regard to the date at
which this Gospel was written. I have concluded that
the most probable date is between the years 55 and 60,
or, if we must be more definite, about A. D. 58, twelve
years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
We have the testimony of Irenaeus, one of the

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 55
church Fathers, that the Gospel according to Matthew
was written while the apostles Peter and Paul were
preaching at Rome, i. e., just before their martyrdom;
and there is a great deal in the Gospel itself which in
dicates that it must have been written before the time
of the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no hint, for
example, that Jerusalem had been destroyed, as there
almost certainly would have been if the holy city had
been overthrown; and while our Saviour's words in
regard to the flight of Christians, on account of the
approaching calamity, are still retained in the Gospel,
there is no sort of indication that their flight had al
ready taken place. When our Saviour's discourse is
given, in which the prophecy of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the end of the world merge into one
another, there is no dividing line drawn, as there very
naturally would be if a part of that prophecy had
already been fulfilled. And when it is said, " This
generation shall not pass until all these things be ful
filled," it would certainly seem that, if that prophecy
had been fulfilled already, there would have been some
mark or indication that the Lord's words had been
verified. Yet there are those who, simply because these
prophecies are so clear and unmistakable, are inclined
to doubt whether this Gospel was written before the
events had taken place. Of course these difficulties all
arise from a wrong view of inspiration. They fancy
that there was no such thing as prediction, that man
cannot be inspired by God to prophesy the future. If
that be true, then the Gospel must have been written
after the destruction of Jerusalem rather than before;

56 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
but to us who' believe that God knows from the begin
ning, and that God prophesied and predicted what was
to happen, such an argument has no weight; in fact,
these words of objection are fraught with other difficul
ties just as serious, for Christ himself declared these
things. Christ himself declared that the temple was to
be destroyed, and that, in three days, it would be raised
again. There was a foretelling of the destruction of Jerusa
lem long before the apostolic testimony. The predic
tions of the apostles were only an echo of the prophecy
of Daniel that had been spoken four or five hundred
years before, viz., " The people of the Prince shall come
and destroy the city and the sanctuary " ; so we cannot
get rid of the element of prediction that is there.
Putting the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem
cannot help the matter at all.
In fact, we find that it must have been before that
event. There is a limit as to the point of time later
than which the Gospel cannot have been written. It
must have come before the destruction of Jerusalem;
and yet there is a limit on the other side. It cannot be
so very much before the destruction of Jerusalem. You
remember that, in Matthew's Gospel, there is the story
about the bribing of the soldiers who had watched at
the tomb of Jesus. They were bribed to say that the
disciples had come and stolen away the body of Jesus ;
and Matthew adds : " And this saying is commonly
reported among the Jews until this day." He could
not have put in these words unless a considerable in
terval of time had elapsed since the resurrection of
Christ. The time during which the Gospel could have

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 57
been composed must therefore be narrowed down to
a space somewhere between the years 50 and 60, or
even between 55 and 60, when there was yet time to
warn Christ's disciples of the impending destruction
of the sacred city. Let us tentatively call the date
A. D. 58.
Now, something with regard to the object of the
Gospel. Why was it that Matthew wrote ? What has
been said with regard to the language, and with re
gard to the date, may help us in determining the ques
tion why Matthew wrote his Gospel. What was the
main object he had in view? You can see that, if the
Gospel was written at the time I suppose, there was
already the shadow of approaching destruction and
desolation gathering about the " holy city." Those
who had been accustomed to go into the temple to
worship were now about to be cast out from the tem
ple ; many among those Jewish Christians were tempted
to question whether they would not be subject to a
vast and irreparable loss. In view of this approaching
calamity it was desirable that the Christian heart
should be strengthened. In view of the scattering of
the Jewish people it was desirable that the Gospel
should be put into permanent and written form, as it
never had been before ; and, therefore, Matthew began
to write.
There were two things which he might do to
strengthen Christian hearts, and to prepare them for
the times of suffering and trouble before them; and
the first of them was to show them that this Saviour,
in whom they had believed, was an Almighty Saviour,

58 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that he was the King of Israel, that he was the promised
Messiah; and it is to this point that Matthew first
directs his attention.
He gives us historical proof that Jesus of Nazareth is
the King of Israel ; he therefore begins with the gene
alogies, and proves from public records that Jesus is
the lineal descendant of David and Abraham, the son
of David and the son of Abraham, and that he is heir
to all the promises that were made to the fathers. He
is of the line of the kings ; for the genealogy given us
in Matthew, I think, is the royal genealogy; it is the line
of Jewish kings ; and Matthew aims to show that Jesus
is heir to the throne of David and to the hereditary
blessing of Abraham. This proof that Jesus, the car
penter, was the appointed and foretold King of Israel,
would tend to strengthen the heart of every Jewish
Christian, and make him stand by Christ, no matter
what trial and trouble might come.
But there was another thing that Matthew had in
mind, and this brings into view the essential purpose
of his Gospel. You know that, in the Old Testament,
there were prophecies of two sorts with regard to
Christ. There had been the prophecy that Jesus should
be the King of Israel, and there should arise one who
should be the heir of David's throne, who should have
power and glory and sovereignty. One class of pre
dictions was of this sort. Then, there had been
another sort of prophecy, which the Jews had never
been able to combine with the first, viz., that there was
to be a suffering Messiah. The natural hopes and feel
ings of the people had clustered about the first class of
prophecies ; but the second class of prophecies they had

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 59
almost entirely ignored. So we find, in the Jewish
people, a wide-spread expectation of a deliverer, a king
who is to come in power and great glory; but as for
believing that that king was also to be the Messiah
who was to suffer and die, that thought they never per
mitted to enter into their minds.
Now, it is Matthew's purpose to show that the two
sorts of predictions related to one single person; that
this promised King of Israel was the same individual
as he who was to suffer for the sins of men. In other
words, the promised son of David and son of Abraham
was also the suffering Messiah; the High Priest of
God's people was to reconcile Israel by sacrificing him
self. The Gospel according to Matthew shows that
this King of Israel has suffered and died for man ; has
accomplished his work of atonement; and, in spite of
his low origin, and in spite of his humiliation and
death, the Christian must look to him as the appointed
Saviour of the world.
If you look into the Gospel according to Matthew,
and read it through with this in mind, you will get
an entirely new view of its meaning. It is the Gospel
of rejection, and the Gospel according to Luke is the
Gospel of acceptance. People wonder, in Luke, at the
gracious words that proceed out of the Saviour's mouth.
That side, that aspect of the Saviour, comes into view ;
but in Matthew there is one long undertone of mourn
ing, one long undertone of sorrow. All through the
Gospel of Matthew Jesus is represented as rejected of
men. Mary is rejected and cast out at the beginning.
Herod pursues the young child. Joseph has to flee into

60 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Egypt, .from the wrath of the king. When he comes
back he cannot go to the native place of Jesus, but has
to withdraw to Nazareth. Jesus is driven from place
to place, until at last he goes to his crucifixion. You
find that there is a representation of the crucifixion, of
the sorrowful sacrifice, as there is not in any of the
other Evangelists.
The Sanhedrin, the appointed authorities of the Jews,
rejected Christ. He is cast out by his own people in
Galilee ; and, at last, when Pilate crucified him, he says,
" This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." In other words,
the king is a rejected king. The promised King is also
the suffering Messiah ; and the deepest note of sorrow
and sacrifice is struck when God himself forsakes his
Son upon the cross, and Jesus Christ, in his agony,
cries, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken
me?" The Gospel according to Matthew, then, is the Gos
pel of rejection; it is the Gospel of sorrow; it is the
Gospel of sacrifice; it is the proof that the expected
King and Messiah of Israel is the appointed ransom for
sinners ; it is intended to show to those who might be
staggering over this fact that this is the very fulfil
ment of prophecy, the very proof that Jesus' work is
a fulfilment of God's eternal plan of redemption. The
Gospel according to Matthew, then, is the Gospel of
sacrifice ; but you must remember that sacrifice involved
death, and that death is followed by resurrection. We
find the founding of the new covenant, and the spread
of the gospel through all the world, predicted in the
closing verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew's
sacrifice is " Sacrifice, out of which joy and triumph

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 6 1
have come " ; and it is only in Matthew that you have
the command, " Go into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature." The central thought of the
Gospel is indicated in those words in which Christ
instituted the Lord's Supper : " This is my blood of the
new covenant, which is shed for many for the re
mission of sins " ; in other words, a new covenant is
now established, in place of the old covenant, by the
blood of Jesus; so that Matthew furnishes the proper
transition from the Old Testament to the New, and
shows how the old covenant is merged in the new
covenant, the new covenant of grace and mercy to
mankind, through the blood of Christ.
One or two words with regard to the structure of
this Gospel. We can understand this very much better,
now that we have the leading thought. The childhood
of Jesus is related ; and then the Gospel is divided into
two great parts : First, our Saviour's ministerial work
in Galilee; and, secondly, his preparation for the cru
cifixion. Two great parts, I repeat — the one having
to do with his official life in Galilee, and the second
with regard to his preparation for the crucifixion.
The first of these parts answers to what I have called
the second year of the Saviour's ministry; and the
second part answers to what I have called the third
year of the Saviour's ministry — the ministry of Jesus
in Judea not being described at all by Matthew. We
have, then, the official life of the Saviour in Galilee
described first of all, and, as a preface, Jesus' baptism.
Secondly, we have the preparation for the crucifixion
described, and the preface to that is the account of the
transfiguration.

62 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are many evidences of structure in Matthew's
Gospel ; it has a plan ; read it with a view to this and
I think you will be greatly struck by its order and
system. The first part of the Gospel, the account of Christ's
official life in Galilee, is prefaced by the narrative of
his baptism; but it is also prefaced by the announce
ment, " from this time, Jesus began to preach that the
kingdom of heaven is at hand."
The second great division, the preparation for his
crucifixion, is prefaced in a similar way by words that
remind us of the first : " From this time, Jesus began
to show unto his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem
to suffer many things from the chief priests " ; and this
preface predicts his sacrifice, and, after his death, his
rising on the third day. So we have a preface to the
first part, and a preface to the second part.
After the preface to the first part, we have a ser
mon, the Sermon on the Mount, the giving out of the
law of the new covenant; and just so, when we come
to the second part, after this announcement that I have
spoken of, we have another sermon to the disciples,
on humility. As the first sermon was the laying out of
the law of his kingdom for all men, so the second part
of the Gospel has its sermon and discourse to the
disciples themselves, on humility.
Then, in the first part, as the sermon is followed by
a series of miracles, and a growth of power, showing
that Jesus has the authority to speak ; so, in the second
part, we have, after the sermon on humility, another
series of miracles. In the first part we have that series
of miracles followed by parables, a dozen or more of

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 6^
them; and, in the second part, we have its miracles
followed by prophecies.
It is impossible to go into this more minutely, be
cause I should burden your minds. I can only hint at
these evidences of structure in the Gospel. A great
trouble with us, in our reading of the Gospels, is that
we read them without looking beneath the surface.
We do not analyze and divide the Gospel into its dif
ferent parts, as we should. We would enjoy our read
ing very much more if we made an analysis of the
whole ; and here, in the Gospel according to Matthew,
we would find marvelous evidences of structure.
Matthew differs from Mark most palpably in this,
that while Mark relates things in chronological order,
Matthew finds the thought of much more importance
than the mere chronological order, and groups things
in a philosophical way. Matthew, for example, gives
us a number of the parables together, although, from
other Evangelists, we have reason to believe that they
were not all spoken at the same time. Matthew gives us
a number of Jesus' miracles together; although, from
other Evangelists, we have reason to believe that not
all of these miracles were performed at the same time.
Matthew describes the life of Christ in an orderly
and systematic way, following, not chronological, but
logical order. In that respect he is more like our
modern historian than was the ancient annalist. The
latter confines himself to the chronological order,
making his history a succession of dates, giving what
happened, for instance, on the twenty-second day of
March, then what happened on the twenty-third, and
so on. The modern historian does nothing of that sort.

64 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Green, in his " Short History of the English People,"
takes up a movement and carries that movement on
for a hundred years; then going back for a hundred
years to begin with another movement and to describe
that. The modern historian groups things. Matthew
groups, while Mark follows simply the order of time.
There are some peculiarities of Matthew's Gospel.
There are many things which we get from Matthew,
and from no other of the Evangelists. For example,
Matthew alone tells us about the coming of the wise
men from the East; Matthew alone tells us of the
slaughter of the innocents; Matthew alone tells us of
the incidents of the flight to Egypt and return to Naza
reth ; Matthew alone tells us of the coming of the Phari
sees and Sadducees to the baptizing by John ; Matthew
alone tells us of Christ's betrayal by Judas for thirty
pieces of silver; Matthew alone tells us of Judas'
remorse and death ; Matthew alone tells us of the dream
of Pilate's wife; Matthew alone tells us of the watch
at the sepulcher ; Matthew alone tells us of the bribing
of the soldiers at the sepulcher ; Matthew alone tells us
of the opening of the graves and the resurrection of the
saints; Matthew alone gives us the Sermon on the
Mount in its fulness; Matthew alone gives us the dis
course on humility ; Matthew alone gives us an account
of the last judgment. It is only Matthew that tells us
of that promise of Christ : " Come unto me all ye that
labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
It is only Matthew that tells that every idle word shall
be brought into judgment. It is only Matthew that
speaks of the blessing of Christ upon Peter for his great
confession, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW 65
God." It is only Matthew that gives us the parable
of the Tares, the parable of the Hid Treasure, the
Goodly Pearl, the Draw Net, the Unmerciful Servant,
the Laborers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Mar
riage of the King's Son, the Ten Virgins, the Ten
Talents, and the Sheep and the Goats.
How much there is that we should lose, if we lost
the Gospel according to Matthew ! Each of the other
Gospels has its peculiarities, as we shall see; but
Matthew is a precious Gospel in what it alone gives.
So Matthew has attained his object by proving to us
that this carpenter of Nazareth, this man of low
origin, this man who was despised and rejected of
men, is, notwithstanding, the Son of God, the King of
Israel. That is the first of Matthew's great teachings; and
the second of his great teachings is this : that this Son
of God and King of Israel was the sacrifice for human
sins, and that by that sacrifice he became the great
High Priest by whom Israel is brought back to God.
The prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in
the death of Christ for the sins of the world: Mat
thew is the Gospel of sacrifice. Last of all, we find
this atonement set forth as the turning-point in human
history. This sacrifice of Christ unites the old cove
nant with the new, constitutes the central thought of
all time, and is the one great event of the ages.
When a man leaves his native land and launches out
upon the sea, he passes one point after another, until,
at last, he comes to the final headland ; the great light
house there sheds its light over the sea, but disappears
at last in the distance ; he gets no light any more until
E

66 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
he reaches another land. So I have thought that, when
we leave this world and launch out on the sea of
eternity, there are many lights ; but the last light, the
only light that will remain when every other has
vanished, will be the light of that crucified Son of
God, who suffered for the sins of men. That is the
one event of history. And the death of Jesus Christ
for the sins of men, the sacrifice of the Son of God for
you and for me, is the central subject of the Gospel
according to Matthew.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK
The Gospel we study this morning is the Gospel of
Mark. John, whose surname was Mark, is mentioned
in the Acts of the Apostles; and he is said to be the
son of Mary, who had a house in Jerusalem which
was a sort of rallying-point for the disciples in the
early days of the church. It is just possible that this
very house may have contained the " upper chamber "
in which Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper. How
ever that may be, it is certain that John Mark was a
Jew. His first name would indicate this. Possibly
he was a native of Jerusalem; and yet, being a native
of Jerusalem, he would seem to have had some Latin
connections; the name Mark, or Marcus, might possi
bly indicate that; and some other allusions in his
Gospel seem to indicate the same thing. It would
seem as if the name Mark came to be used more fre
quently by him than the other Jewish name, just in
proportion as his activity transcended the bounds of
Palestine, and he devoted himself to preaching to the
Gentiles. It is possible that this passing from the name John
to the name Mark, which we perceive in the Acts and
in the Epistles, was significant of an inward change
in the man himself, or in the purpose of his life; just
as Levi, when he entered the service of Christ, became
Matthew ; just as Saul, when he entered the service of
Christ, became Paul. 67

68 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Peter, in his first Epistle, speaks of Marcus, his son.
Now, this may intimate that, during Peter's visits to
the house of Mary, Marcus' mother, the young and
active lad became inspired by Peter's words, and was
converted to Christ. It would seem as if Mark were
a convert of Peter; and you remember that, near the
close of Mark's Gospel, there is a peculiar incident
narrated in regard to a certain young man who, when
Jesus was apprehended and the apostles forsook him
and fled, still followed after Christ, was laid hold of by
the armed men who were taking Jesus away to the
judgment-hall, and in his fright and haste fled away
naked, leaving his garments in their hands. No name is
attached to this incident; but it is perhaps something
more than a mere conjecture that this young man may
have been Mark himself, and that this incident, in
which he seems to be throwing in his lot with the dis
ciples of Christ, was an early indication of his con
version to the Saviour and his purpose to devote
himself to his Lord.
It seems that Barnabas was a cousin of Mark. If
you will read the chapter in the Acts of the Apostles
which tells of Peter's rescue from prison and of his
coming back to that house, knocking, and being at
first taken for Peter's spirit or Peter's angel, you will
find that the chapter is preceded by the account of the
visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, as messengers
of the church at Antioch, and is followed by the de
parture of Paul and Barnabas, taking with them John
Mark. Now, it is just possible that, at that very meet
ing of the church, where they were praying for Peter
and for his release, Paul and Barnabas were them-

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 69
selves present; and it is just possible that, as the
result of that great incident, Mark may have been
especially impressed with the obligation of devoting
himself permanently and exclusively to the work of
the ministry. At any rate, we find that he went with
Paul and Barnabas to Antioch ; that, when they started
out on their first missionary journey, he went with
them to Perga ; and that it was only when Paul under
took a larger circuit and concluded to go into Pam-
phylia, in Asia Minor, that Mark seems to have been
seized with some change of purpose. It would almost
seem as if the impetuous and restless spirit of Peter
had found its like in Mark, and that we have in this
case some proof or indication of vacillation on Mark's
part. He departed from Paul, and went back to An
tioch ; and the result was that Paul gained, for a time
at least, an unfavorable impression with regard to
Mark's stability, and censured him. However, we
find it was the cause of quite a severe contention be
tween Paul and Barnabas. Barnabas took Mark with
him, and held to him ; but afterward we find that Paul
seems to have received Mark again into his fellowship.
We find Mark serving with Paul at Rome as his cher
ished helper ; we find Mark with Peter at the very east
of the Roman Empire, in Babylon; and afterward we
find him with Timothy at Ephesus, where, in one of
his last letters, Paul urged Mark to come to him again
at Rome ; so that Mark seems to have recovered what
ever ground he had lost both with Peter and Paul.
The only thing which can be added to these incidents
in the life of Mark is the tradition that he founded the
church at Alexandria, that he became bishop of that

70 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
church, and that he suffered martyrdom there. It is
evident that Mark was a great traveler. He went
from one end of the Roman Empire to another. He
was the familiar companion both of Peter and Paul,
with something of the restless and active mind that
belonged to the first, preaching both to the Jews and to
the Gentiles.
Papias, one of the very earliest of the apostolic
Fathers, tells us that Mark was the interpreter of
Peter. Now precisely what these words " interpreter
of Peter " mean has been a question among church
historians. It may mean that Mark was the transla
tor' of Peter's oral address; that he was interpreter
in that narrow sense; that, while Peter uttered his
words either in Aramaic or Greek, Mark interpreted
them into the Latin. Or it may mean (and the most
are inclined to take the words in this sense) that Mark
was the writer in Greek of what Peter spoke in Ara
maic, that Mark put down on paper the things which
Peter orally preached. The idea, I suppose, is not that
Peter dictated, and that Mark took down from his dic
tation his oral gospel ; nor do I think it probable that
Peter himself wrote a sort of diary and that Mark
expanded it. It would rather seem as if Peter had
suggested to Mark the putting down in Greek, as a
matter of permanent record, things which were the
subject of his preaching, and which Mark probably had
heard him detail over and over again, in their some
what stereotyped form, until at last they had impressed
themselves deeply upon his memory.
As Eusebius, under the authority of Clement of
Alexandria, tells us, Peter had the Gospel which Mark

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 7 1
wrote out in Greek submitted to him for his approval
and sanction; and, therefore, the Gospel as we have it
now is practically the Gospel of Peter. There are
some indications in the Gospel itself that it is, indi
rectly at least, the work of Peter, or that it has the
sanction of Peter, and practically represents the gospel
as Peter preached it. For example, we have all inci
dents in which Peter was expressly praised omitted;
and we have other incidents, in which Peter was
blamed, retained. The praise which Christ gave to
Peter, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I
build my church," is significantly omitted; but the
words, " Get thee behind me, Satan," which were
spoken to Peter by Christ in the way of reproof, are
retained; and we have two cock-crowings in Mark,
adding to the guilt of Peter in his denial, while in
Matthew we have only one. All these are evidences
that Peter had something to do with its authorship.
Many things are narrated to us by Mark in the third
person singular, which seem to be reports of what
Peter had told to Mark in the first person. As, for
example, we have such a sentence as this, " Peter and
those with him followed after " ; the singular number
used in the verb. The best explanation is that Peter
narrated this incident to Mark in the first person singu
lar, and that Mark simply put down what he had heard
from Peter in the third person ; but it is impossible to
enlarge upon this. It is only one of many indications
that Mark had heard from Peter a narration of his
personal experience; that he had become minutely ac
quainted with Peter's oral gospel; and that he had
put down what he had heard from Peter in a more

"J2 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
general form, a form which was capable of more
general use.
How can we claim that the Gospel of Mark is in
spired, when Mark was not an apostle of the Lord?
I suppose that a true answer to that question is just
this, that the promise which our Saviour gave to those
who should speak and teach in his name was a
promise, not simply to the individuals before him, but
to those who should stand in their place. It was a
promise to apostles and apostolic men. It was a
promise to those who should be the first pillars and
teachers of his church; so that it was practically a
promise to Paul, as well as those eleven apostles that
were before him at the time ; and it was a promise to
Mark, if Mark should be the representative of Peter,
the scribe of Peter, the interpreter of Peter. It was a
promise to Luke, if Luke should stand in the place of
Paul; it was a promise to James, the brother of our
Lord. It was a promise to any such as should be
chosen in God's providence to be the original pro-
claimers of the gospel, the putters of that gospel into
permanent and written form.
Where this Gospel was written, I do not certainly
know; and I do not think that any one can certainly
tell. It may have been written in Babylon, with Peter ;
and it may have been written in Rome, if Peter ever
was in Rome; but even about this residence of Peter
in Rome, and still more in regard to the fact that
Peter was bishop of Rome, I do not think we can say
we have any certainty at all. At any rate, it is true
that the Gospel was written some time before the de
struction of Jerusalem — probably before the year 60;

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 73
and if we were to put the date definitely at all, con-
jecturally, it is more likely to be the year 56, or the year
55, perhaps, than any other. There are certain in
dications in the Epistles which give some reason for
assigning the date within these limits. Some of the
Epistles were written as late as the year 62; in the
Epistle to the Colossians, in which Mark is mentioned,
we have no mention whatever of the Gospels; in the
First Epistle of Peter there is an indication that Peter
intended to see that the disciples were put permanently
in possession of the substance of the gospel : " He
would see to it that they had the means of keeping in
remembrance these things which they had heard " ; and
this would indicate that the Gospels were yet to be
written. Luke, however, refers to accounts of Christ's
life earlier than his own, and we cannot put his Gospel
later than the year 59. Matthew must have preceded
Luke by at least a single year, and so must be dated
as early as 58. Since Mark is the simplest and earliest
of the Gospels, we seem compelled to assign the year
56 or 55 for its composition.
Now, the description of Christ which is given in the
Gospel corresponds quite well with what I have said
with regard to the character of Mark, and with regard
to the character of Peter, of whom Mark was the inter
preter. The Gospel seems to have been written for
Roman hearers, or for Roman readers. It is the Gos
pel of miracles, we might say ; or, to put it in another
form, the Gospel according to Mark represents Christ
as the mighty Wonder-worker. It is a Gospel intended
for the Roman world, for the Romans who were
masters of the world, for the Romans among whom

74 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
energy and will were almost deified. The Gospel ac
cording to Mark is a Gospel of deeds rather than of
words. It is a Gospel in which the Saviour is set
before us as restlessly active, as full of energy, as full
of power. We find, for example, that the portions of
our Saviour's life which have not to do with his public
activity are wholly omitted. Matthew tells us very
much in regard to the infancy of Christ, or at least
gives us many incidents connected with his birth and
childhood; but, in Mark, the whole story begins with
the baptism by John the Baptist. We have described
to us only the activity of our Lord; and the long dis
courses which are given to us in Matthew are either
omitted in Mark, or they are so curtailed that but the
germ of them remains. We have no subjective sen
tences or reflections. We have only the merest allu
sions to that long Sermon on the Mount which is
recorded in the early part of Matthew's Gospel, import
ant as that sermon was. The whole method of Mark
is the method of an annalist rather than the method of
a philosophical historian.
Mark is a man of affairs; Mark is a man who fol
lows chronological order; Mark gives us but very lit
tle grouping. In Mark, there seems to be the attempt
to follow, from day to day and almost from hour to
hour, the incidents of the Saviour's life; and so we
find that the element of discourse plays an exceedingly
small part in Mark, compared with Matthew and Luke.
A single illustration, perhaps, may set this before you
better than anything else that I can say. A statistical
account of the miracles and the parables, and the pro
portionate space they occupy in Matthew, Mark, and

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 75
Luke is exceedingly instructive. /~Now Matthew gives
us twenty miracles of Christ, andXuke gives us twenty
miracles of Christ; and, although Mark's Gospel is
not more than one-half as long as the Gospel according
to Matthew, Mark gives us nineteen. Yet, when you
come to the parables, Matthew gives us fifteen, Luke
gives us twenty-three, and Mark only four. This is a
simple illustration of Mark's Gospel. He is occupied
with events; he is not occupied so much with dis
courses. It is not so much the teaching of Christ, as
it is the life of Christ, that interests hin£\ Moreover,
you will find that, in Mark, you have no reference
whatever to the fulfilment of prophecy. I speak some
what hyperbolically here. There are certain sayings
of Christ in which Christ's words have to be quoted,
one might say; and, therefore, there is here and there
an allusion to prophecy ; but that everlasting, " That
thus it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets," that you have continually recurring^ in Mat
thew, you have nothing of in Mark at all. (^ Y ou have
no genealogies of Christ in Mark, no connecting of
Christ with the old dispensation. You have nothing
with regard to the fulfilment in Christ of the predic
tions of the Old Testament. Mark narrates the life of
Christ only as it is a matter of present interest, with
out reference to the pastj? and so, while Matthew's
great object is to connect great epochs of history with
one another, connect the new with the old, and build
upon the foundation of the Old Testament prophets,
Mark has no such concern. Mark's idea is to set be
fore us1 the Wonder-worker, the individual personality
of the Son of God, and to show how continuously

76 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
active he was. Matthew, moreover, is the Gospel of
rejection : in Matthew you have a continual undertone
of sorrow ; Christ is represented there as the sacrifice ;
he is the fulfilment of the Old Testament predictions
of a High Priest of Israel; and so the symbol of the
Gospel according to Matthew is the sacrificial bullock ;
but for Mark, you have as a proper symbol the lion ;
Christ is the lion of the tribe of Judah; he is the Sa
viour full of energy, full of power, working wonders
among men. Mark's Gospel is the Gospel of activity ;
it is the Gospel of victory ; it is the Gospel of triumph,
as compared with the Gospel of Matthew. It is another
aspect of the Saviour's life ; it is another aspect of the
Saviour's work. The Gospel according to Mark is
crowded with action.
It is worth while to read over each one of these
Gospels in the light of this general characterization.
After getting the general idea of each one, if we read
it through with an eye to that particular idea, a great
many things assume a new significance. For example,
you have in Mark a spirit of restless activity ; he recog
nizes in Christ just that which satisfies the demand of
his particular nature. There is no word in the whole
Gospel according to Mark that is more characteristic
and significant than the word eu#uc, the word " imme
diately," or " straightway." You find that word two
or three times in Matthew ; two or three times in Luke ;
but in Mark it is perpetually recurring. In Mark it
occurs forty-one times. In Mark, whatever is done
is done " straightway," " immediately," and there is
rapid passage from one event to another. As soon as
Christ works a miracle, straightway something else

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 77
happens. Mark seems to be bent upon passing rapidly
from one thing to another, and recognizing the con
tinual activity of the Saviour's life. It is Mark that
tells us that the room where they were was so full they
could not stand. It is Mark that tells us that our
Saviour was so busy with the disciples that they had
no time to eat. It is Mark that tells us that Jesus was
so restlessly active that the people thought he was
beside himself. All these things are given to us by
Mark alone.
Mark describes the awe-stricken impression of the
disciples that Jesus was more than mortal man when
he started to go from the Mount of Transfiguration to
Jerusalem to suffer. He went forward with so ma
jestic a mien of determination and sacrifice that the
disciples were amazed and afraid. No Evangelist but
Mark gives us this aspect of the Saviour's countenance.
Mark represents Jesus as the Saviour of achievement.
Jesus, in entering into a town, finds that they are all
ready to receive him. The whole town rises up to meet
him. They run on foot out of their cities to come to
him; and, when they bring to him their sick, all that
even touched him were made perfectly whole. This
incident, which Mark, and Mark alone, gives to us,
presents a peculiar impression of the energy, the will,
the activity of the Saviour's life.
(_Thus Mark sets before us our Saviour in the pecu
liar light of a miracle-worker, a wonder-worker, one
who makes majestic and unique impressions, not only
upon his disciples but upon all men^y The literary
characteristics of Mark's Gospel are just such as befit
its subject on one hand — the peculiar aspect in which

78 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
it regards the person of the Lord Jesus — and just such
as befit the nature of Mark, as we are inclined to in
terpret it, and just such as befit Peter himself, of
whom Mark is the representative and interpreter.
Mark's Gospel is the briefest of all the Gospels. It
is not only brief in its general compass, but it is ex
ceedingly terse in its style. No other of the Gospels
bears comparison with it. Everything is " touch and
go," in Mark's Gospel. There is no amplification in
Mark; everything is sharp and incisive. And, while
everything is brief, there is also the other element of
picturesqueness, of a graphic quality. The pictorial
element is better represented in Mark than in any other
of the Gospels. Mark is a man of affairs; Mark evi
dently was a man of keen eye ; Mark had his wits about
him, and was observing and jotted down in memory,
if not upon paper, everything he saw; and the result
is that, although Mark's Gospel is the briefest of the
Gospels, there is more of detail in Mark's Gospel
than in either one of the others; i. e., there is more
of picturesque detail, more evidence that it is a picture
from real life. There is more in the Gospel according
to Mark than in the other Gospels that no forger could
have counterfeited. It is a healthy, breezy narrative,
that takes you right into the midst of affairs. If the
Gospel according to John is written for the contem
plative life of earlier days than ours, the Gospel ac
cording to Mark is written for this wide-awake, mov
ing, pressing, rushing twentieth century.
The Gospel according to Mark is not only brief,
terse, vivid, pictorial, graphic in its whole style, but
there is also a minuteness of detail, a picking out of

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 79
little things that give interest and vividness to the
narrative, such as are very difficult to describe in
general and can be illustrated only by certain particu
lars. Let me try to instance a very few of the things which
Mark tells, and which we get from no other Evangel
ist. At the baptism, when Christ comes up from the
water, after prayer, there is one incident which only
Mark gives us. Our Lord, with a deep sense of his
responsibility as he is entering upon the ministry, to
which now pictorially he has devoted himself by sub
mersion under the waters of death, thus, at the be
ginning of his ministry, symbolically indicating that
baptism of death with which his ministry is to close,
and feeling his need of the strength and help of God,
opens his great heart to heaven and prays to the
Father ; and then what is the result ? Why, Mark tells
us that the heavens were rent, and that the Holy Spirit
came down like a dove upon him. " Were rent ! " No
other Evangelist gives us that temporary rending of
the heavens ; as if God, in answer to Jesus' prayer, has
parted the very heavens to come down. It is only
Mark who tells us that, immediately after the baptism,
the Saviour was driven by the Spirit into the wilder
ness: driven by the Spirit, overmastered by the tre
mendous energy of the divine power within, was
driven into the wilderness, in order that there he might
contemplate the plan of his work; and then, in that
wilderness, it is only Mark that tells us that he was
among the wild beasts in the lone solitudes of nature,
with no other than irrational creatures about him to
give him help and sympathy. Yet all these graphic

80 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
touches are in the first chapter, and they indicate what
we find in every single chapter of the Gospel to the
end. Our Saviour, when he comes up into Galilee, is
asleep in the hinder part of the vessel, and is lying upon
the rower's cushion, fatigued and exhausted. Only
Mark tells of this. When Jesus performs the miracle
of casting out the evil spirit from the boy that was
possessed, Mark alone tells us that the boy wallowed
upon the ground, foaming. Jesus feeds the five
thousand; gathers the multitude about him; but only
Mark tells us that they all sat down on the green grass.
The imaginative, the pictorial element comes in there.
Mark saw the green. No other Evangelist apparently
did. These are mere illustrations of what occurs many,
many times over ; and even what I have given will be
sufficient to show that we are under a special debt to
the author of the Gospel according to Mark, for this
peculiar, this beautiful, this pictorial way of setting
forth before us the life of the Lord Jesus.
It is not only true that the literary characteristics
of the Gospel according to Mark embrace brevity, the
graphic quality, exceeding minuteness of detail, but
there is also in this Gospel a singular adaptation to the
purpose of the author, and to the readers for whom it
was designed. It was probably designed for Roman
readers. You have, for example, the coins that were
used in that day designated, not by their Greek or their
Aramaic names, but by their Latin names. The words
that would be perfectly intelligible to the Latin readers
are the words that Mark uses. You have centurio and
speculator, both of them simple Latin words; though

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 8 1
there were Greek equivalents for the words " centu
rion " and " executioner," Mark uses the words which
would be most intelligible to the circle of readers for
whom he wrote.
Many things that are common in Palestine, so com
mon as to need no explanation, Mark sets himself to
explain. f|Ie does not say " the Jordan," but the " river
Jordan,*} as if there might be some of his readers that
did not know that Jordan was a river. He tells us that
the Mount of Olives was over against Jerusalem, while
only one that knew nothing about Palestine at all, and
was very unfamiliar with the topography of the Scrip
tures, would have needed, that explanation that the
" Mount of Olives was over against the temple of
Jerusalem." Mark has in mind a peculiar set of read
ers, and he is continually explaining to them the things
of which those who were familiar with Palestine would
need no explanation. For example, wherever Aramaic
words are used, you find that Mark invariably trans
lates them. You do not find that Matthew translates
them at all. He has another set of readers and hear
ers, and does not need to translate.
So we have indications that there was not only de
sign in this Gospel, but that the design was very care
fully and regularly followed out; and the literary
characteristics of the Gospel are just such as set forth
Christ as the great Wonder-worker upon the earth.
It has been said, you know, that the people of the
first century were very imaginative, very credulous;
that they expected miracles at every turn, and that,
therefore, any narrative with regard to the great
Prophet and Teacher would have lacked its essential

82 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
interest unless miracles had been interwoven with it.
But that is all a mistake; for the ruling class among
the Jews, the wealthy class, and the most educated
class, were the Sadducees; and they surely did not be
lieve in miracle, nor spirit, nor the resurrection. John
the Baptist was the great teacher, and had the greatest
following that the Jews had ever known. John the
Baptist wrought no miracles. Why did he not work
miracles, if miracles were natural and necessarily at
tributed to every great Jewish teacher? There was
enough of the critical spirit to distinguish between
superstition and reality, and to scrutinize the evidence
upon which these narratives of our Saviour's life
rested. We have reason to believe that such scrutiny
was exercised, and that these narratives were accepted
because they conform to the testimony of witnesses
who were yet living at the time the Gospels were
written. All we need to do is to compare this vivid, this
bright, this healthy, this exceedingly vigorous, and yet
this exceedingly calm and clear narrative of the Sa
viour's life, with the medieval stories of miracles, or
the stories of miracles in the Apocryphal New Testa
ment; and we find that we are in an entirely different
atmosphere. In Mark the miracles are natural and
necessary to the presence of him who is the greatest
miracle, who is in himself the incarnate Son of God.
If Jesus Christ, God made flesh, did not signalize his
coming by a miracle, that would itself, we might say,
be the greatest of miracles. If Jesus, the Son of God,
became incarnate, then miracles were the natural and
necessary accompaniment of his incarnation; and so

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK 83
we claim that this Gospel of Mark needs only to be
read and studied to assure him who reads and studies
it that this narrative is a perfectly credible narrative
of historical facts.
The argument for miracles in general, of course,
does not belong to my present purpose. I have only
aimed thus far to show you that the Gospel according
to Mark is unique and peculiar in its character; that
it sets forth Jesus Christ in his aspect of the Wonder
worker; that it sets forth Jesus Christ so naturally,
so simply, with so many indications of the testimony
of an eye-witness, so many things that could not pos
sibly have been forged, or merely imagined, that we
have in this Gospel one of the very best testimonies
that Jesus Christ lived and that he wrought the
wonders that were attributed to him.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE
The Gospel according to Matthew is the Gospel of
rejection and sacrifice. The Gospel according to Mark
is an exhibition of the wonder-working power of the
Son of God. The Gospel according to Luke, which
we take up to-day, is the Gospel of humanity, the
Gospel that brings before us most vividly the human
life of our Redeemer, that brings him most intimately
into contact with our human wants and sorrows. The
Gospel according to John, which concludes the four, is
the Gospel of the divinity, as the Gospel according to
Luke is the Gospel of the humanity, of Christ. So we
have a complete cycle, a perfect whole, in these four
Gospels with which the New Testament begins.
Luke is probably a contraction for the longer name
Lucanus, just as Apollos is a contraction for the
longer Latin name Apollonius. Luke was probably
not a Jew; for in the Epistle to the Colossians, where
Paul mentions those who are of the circumcision,
Luke's name is not mentioned; but his name is men
tioned among others who follow, and who are appar
ently all Gentiles, or of Gentile origin. Tradition says
that he was born at Antioch, that gathering-place of
the nations, far to the north of Palestine.
The Gospel is dedicated to Theophilus, just as the
Acts, written also by Luke, is dedicated to Theophilus ;
and to him in the dedication is applied the very pe
culiar epithet, "Most excellent Theophilus." That
84

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 85
word is applied also by Claudius Lysias, and by Ter-
tullian, to Felix, and by Paul to Festus, both of them
governors of Judea, and apparently it is used very
much as we should use the words, " Your Excellency."
Theophilus appears, therefore, to have been a man
not only of official position, but of note and wealth;
and the Gospel of Luke, and the Acts alike, are dedi
cated to him perhaps in token of respect, perhaps as
the patronus libri, or patron of the book, who aids in
its publication, who gives to it a certain measure of
dignity and currency through his sanction and recom
mendation. Tradition says that this Theophilus was himself a
resident of Antioch, and that Luke was his f reedman ;
and as in those days slaves often were more educated
than their masters and pursued employments of great
respectability, so it is quite possible that Luke was an
educated physician while yet he was a slave, and that
after a time, possibly on account of the Christian re
lations between Theophilus, his master, and himself,
he became the freedman of Theophilus. This Gospel
may have been dedicated to the master who had set
him free, as a- token of gratitude for the boon he had
received at his hands ; and yet, after all this is said, we
must also say that it rests upon precarious tradition,
and not the very greatest weight is to be attached to it.
Historically the first thing we know with regard
to Luke is that he is the companion of Paul in Paul's
journey beginning at Troas. Lightfoot, a very saga
cious commentator and a very learned man, suggests
that this first appearance of Luke in company with Paul
almost exactly synchronizes with the attack of Paul's

86 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
constitutional malady, which Lightfoot believes to have
been epilepsy; and he suggests that Luke may have
accompanied Paul, partly in his professional capacity,
in order to be caring for the health of the apostle.
You remember that scene in which the man of Mac
edonia appears in a dream to Paul and cries, " Come
over and help us " ; and you remember the response
which is evoked. The apostle Paul goes over to
Europe, and the transition is made from missionary
work in Asia to missionary work in Europe. Luke
goes with Paul to Philippi; and there at Philippi he
seems to remain. Notice now how exceedingly meager
the actual material is for building up even this story.
It all rests upon the use of the word " we " in place
of the word " they," when Paul comes. In all Paul's
journeys up to Troas, Luke, in the Acts, uses the word
" they " — " they " did so and so ; but from Troas we
find that he uses the word " we " ; and that word " we "
he uses until Paul comes to Philippi and departs from
Philippi. Then for seven years of Paul's history Luke
does not appear to have been with Paul ; but when Paul
comes back to Philippi again, where Luke may have
been left as pastor of the church for the instruction
of converts, we find that the word " we " is used again.
Luke seems to have accompanied Paul to Asia, i. e., to
Asia Minor, and then back again to Palestine ; and at
last Luke goes with Paul to Rome, and continues with
Paul to the end of the history.
Curious, is it not, that, although Luke is the writer
of the Acts and was the companion of Paul, he men
tions his own name not even once? The only clue we
have to his being Paul's companion and a sharer in

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 87
his labors is this use of the word " we " ; and these
" we passages," as they are called, have become famous
on this account. Luke seems to have desired no fame
apart from that of his master and teacher, the apostle.
He seems to have desired to connect himself with Paul,
and be remembered only in his connection with Paul.
Like that man who ordered that upon his tombstone
there should be inscribed these words, " Here lies the
friend of Milton," so Luke seems to have desired that
his name should be forever connected with the name
of the great apostle of the Gentiles. He wanted no
other honor than that he should be known as the helper
of Paul, the preacher of Christ to the Gentile world.
It is also very curious that the moment Paul dis
appears, that moment the history of Luke becomes
mere surmise, confusion, and fable. Tradition tells
us about his being minister in Greece, and suffering
martyrdom there by being nailed to an olive-tree in
place of a cross ; but this is all on no certain founda
tion. He was the companion of Paul in the most im
portant of his missionary labors, beginning with the
second missionary journey from Troas, and then going
with him in the third missionary journey, from Philippi
to Palestine and Rome.
The date of the Gospel according to Luke may be
inferred with some degree of probability from the data
that I have already given you. It is pretty clear that
the evangelist Luke was not in Palestine (at least we
have no data at all to show us that he was in Palestine
at all) until he accompanied Paul there from Philippi.
You remember what happened after Paul went up to
Jerusalem for the last time, how he was apprehended,

88 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and how for two years (between the years 58 and 60)
he was prisoner in Csesajrea. This is the only certain
time to which we can assign the accumulation of the
material that was necessary for the construction of
Luke's Gospel. That time of Paul's imprisonment,
those two years in Caesarea, was the only time when
Luke could have come into personal contact with
Mary, the mother of our Lord, and have derived from
her, as he must have derived, his information with
regard to the infancy and growth of Christ, his pres
entation in the temple, and a number of other things
which are narrated to us by Luke alone. It must have
been the time, if any, when Luke procured from some
one of the brethren of our Lord his account of the
journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, just preceding
Christ's crucifixion. You know there is a passage of
almost nine chapters which is entirely peculiar to Luke,
and which must have been derived from some constant
companion of our Lord.
This time of Luke's residence in Palestine, during
the imprisonment of Paul, is the only time we can
assign for the collection of this material. During that
imprisonment at Caesarea Paul was not rigidly con
fined. His friends had access to him ; and it was dur
ing that time, if any, that Luke may have had Paul's
superintendence in his work of putting the materials
of the Saviour's life into permanent and written form.
As Paul had the prospect before him of leaving Pales
tine forever and of going to his death at Rome, it
would have been just the time that he would have
desired to put into permanent form the story of the
gospel that he had been accustomed to preach. Just

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 89
at this time we may imagine that he would suggest
to Luke the composition of such a Gospel, and would
have furnished him with such material as was neces
sary upon his part.
Since the Gospel according to Luke was written
before the Acts of the Apostles (it was " the former
treatise," you remember, as Luke himself tells us), and
since the Acts of the Apostles must have been written
before the close of Paul's first imprisonment in Rome,
i. e., before the year 66, the only time which we can
properly assign to the composition of the Gospel is the
year 59. All of the synoptic Gospels, I think, may be
put somewhere between the year 55 and the year 60;
and the Gospel according to Luke was probably the
latest of the three.
This Gospel is a Pauline Gospel, but not a Pauline
Gospel in the sense that Paul was himself the author
of it. When Paul, in his Epistles, speaks of " my
gospel," I suppose he speaks of the oral gospel which
he preached, and not of any Gospel which he, himself,
wrote out ; nor do I suppose that Paul was the author
of this Gospel in the sense of dictating it to Luke.
There is too much difference in style between Paul and
Luke to warrant any such hypothesis.
Irenaeus, one of the early Christian Fathers, says
that Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the
gospel which Paul preached. Tertullian, another Chris
tian Father, a little later tells us that Paul was the
illuminator of Luke, i. e., Paul furnished his material
in a large part to Luke ; and he also says that Luke's
digest was commonly attributed to Paul, i. e., it was
attributed to Paul as the suggester and furnisher of

90 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the material. There are many things in the purpose
and air of Paul's Epistles, Paul's speeches in the Acts,
and the Gospel according to Luke, which makes such
a Pauline relation exceedingly probable. It is prob
able, I think, that Paul suggested to Luke, his com
panion and physician, the writing of the Gospel. It is
probable that he superintended it, that to a large extent
he furnished material for it, and that it finally went
forth with his sanction ; and we have reason to believe
that the Saviour's promise of inspiration, which be
longed to the apostle Paul, belonged also to the evan
gelist Luke, because he was the representative of Paul.
Paul himself speaks of Luke as the beloved physi
cian, i. e., one to whom he was bound by very tender
ties; bound by gratitude, perhaps, for help rendered
to him in his physical infirmities; bound, perhaps, by
sympathy of nature and spirit, and by the many serv
ices that had been rendered to him in his journeys and
in his imprisonment. There is one of whom Paul says
that his praise is in all the churches, and that one is
thought by many to be Luke. In writing to Timothy,
during his imprisonment in Rome, Paul says, " Only
Luke is with me " ; as if Luke was the last one that
remained with the apostle in his time of trial. All these
things give us reason to believe that Luke had many
qualifications of mind and heart that drew him close
to the apostle, and made him the proper representa
tive of Paul in the putting of his Gospel into perma
nent and written form. In fact, they were so closely
related to one another in the view of the early church
that Marcion, the Gnostic and enemy of Judaism, one
who believed that the Old Testament God was a,

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 91
restricted divinity belonging to Palestine alone, and
who held to the antagonism between the Old and the
New Testament God — Marcion accepted no Gospel but
the Gospel according to Luke ; and even out of that he
cut those parts that had any Hebraistic relation — such
as the first and second chapters and quite a portion
between the third and fourth chapters. Marcion threw
away all the Hebraistic portion of Luke's Gospel, and
accepted the rest as the only Gospel that was worthy
of credence, or the only one, at any rate, adapted to his
views ; and then he threw away all the rest of the New
Testament except ten of the Epistles of Paul ; accept
ing the Pauline Gospel and the chief Pauline Epistles
simply because they represent the gospel as it was
preached to the Gentiles and possibly what we may call
the Gentile element in the church. By this, Marcion
indicates very clearly how close the relationship was
between Luke and the apostle Paul ; and yet I suppose
we are not to imagine, for a moment, that the rela
tionship was one of simple dictation. There was just
as much independence in the construction of Luke's
Gospel as we have seen to have existed in the case of
the construction of the Gospel according to Matthew
and the Gospel according to Mark.
All that I have said up to this point has been in
tended simply to prepare the way for a presentation
of the general character of the Gospel according to
Luke. You can see at once that in its author (not a
Jew, but a proselyte from the Gentiles, a Gentile Chris
tian), in the furnisher of its material (Paul the apostle
to the Gentiles), the Gospel according to Luke occu
pies a wider horizon, it has a larger aim than either

92 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of the Gospels that have preceded. If you can call
the Gospel according to Matthew a Gospel written for
Jewish Christians, then you may call the Gospel ac
cording to Luke written for Gentile Christians. If you
can call the Gospel according to Mark the Gospel
written for the Romans, then you can call the Gospel
according to Luke the Gospel written for the Greeks;
and as Greek was at that time the literary language of
the whole Roman Empire, and as men wrote Greek in
Rome as well as in Athens, this Gospel according to
Luke, in some respects, was better adapted to univer
sal and rapid circulation than either of the others.
This breadth, this application to universal humanity
is the characteristic of Luke. There is no Jewish
exclusiveness in Luke; nothing, for example, like the
confining of the lineage of Jesus to the seed of David
and the seed of Abraham. The genealogy in Luke
takes us back to Adam, the father of the race ; " the
Son of man " is set before us here. It is Christ in his
largest human relations. We have his connection with
humanity continually brought before us in the ac
count of his birth and his growth in wisdom and in
stature, as well as in favor of God and man. You find
that this humanity of Jesus, the fact that he was a man
like all of us, is the dominant thought of the Gospel.
Luke brings into view the universal human relations of
our Lord. If the Gospel according to John presents
to us the divine side of the Saviour's person, the Gospel
according to Luke presents to us the human side of our
Saviour's person; and so we find that, in Luke, we
have the gospel history linked in, more than any other
Gospel links it in, with the events of profane history.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 93
It is Luke, and none of the other Evangelists, that
gives us chronological data which enable us to fix
the fime at which various events occurred, gives us
the names of the different rulers of the surrounding
states, and so enables us to fit this history into what
we know of profane history outside; and then there
are many things with regard to the humanity of Christ
which are brought very beautifully into view in this
Gospel, which we find nowhere else ; such, for example,
as that remarkable incident, the only incident that is
related to us during the whole of the thirty years of
Christ's life. At the age of twelve years he goes up
to the temple, and there is found by his parents listen
ing to the doctors of the law, asking them questions
and giving them answers. That incident, which seems
to mark the point of time where Jesus first became
conscious of the fact that he was the Sent of God, the
Son of God, is related to us by Luke only.
We have only from Luke the information that,
after the temptation, Satan departed from him for a
season; in other words, that there was an interval
before Satan came back again with power to tempt him
in the garden.
It is only Luke who tells us of the miraculous
draught of fishes which accompanied the calling of the
disciples. It is only Luke that tells us about the first
missionary journey of the Seventy. Luke's miracles
are miracles in which our Saviour appears as the
Great Physician, as the Healer of lost and diseased
humanity. The miracle wrought for the ten lepers is
told us only by Luke ; it is Luke only who speaks of the
conversations of Christ with Moses and Elias at the

94 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
transfiguration. It is only Luke who tells us of Christ's
weeping over Jerusalem. It is only Luke who tells us
of the healing of Malchus' ear by the Saviour in the
garden. It is only Luke who records for us our Sa
viour's prayer as his enemies nailed him to the cross,
" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they
do." It is only Luke that tells us of the promise to
the repentant thief, " This day shalt thou be with me
in paradise." Luke alone tells us that, after the cru
cifixion had taken place and the Saviour had breathed
his last, the multitudes present returned to Jerusalem,
beating their breasts. These things draw us near to
Christ; they identify Christ with our common hu
manity ; they appeal to our sympathy. There is pathos
in them, because we see in them evidence that Christ
is really one of us, a man like ourselves.
The discourses of Christ are intended, all of them,
to produce this same impression upon us. It is only
Luke who tells us about that first discourse in Naza
reth, his early home, where Christ offers his gospel
first of all to his own townspeople, and especially makes
his preaching there the fulfilment of Isaiah's promise
that the gospel should be preached to all those in suf
fering and sorrow. It is only Luke who tells us of
the parable of the Importunate Widow, and the cer
tainty that the Judge on high will answer our prayers,
as the unjust judge answered that widow's prayers.
Only Luke gives us the parable of the Unrighteous
Steward, the parable of the Ten Pounds, of the Fig
Tree upon which so much care is bestowed and to
which so much grace is shown before it is finally cut
down and burned up. Luke alone tells us of the

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 95
parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus ; and finally and
above all, it is only Luke that gives us that trinity of
parables : the Lost Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, and
the Prodigal Son ; that parable that perhaps more than
any other of all the Gospels opens to us the fatherly,
human love of the heart of God. The parable of the
Prodigal Son is given to us only in the Gospel of
Luke. How much we owe to Luke's Gospel, the Gospel of
the humanity of our Lord, the Gospel that brings us
close to the sympathizing Saviour, one who is touched
with the feeling of our infirmities !
Luke is the Evangelist who tells about our Saviour's
praying. Run through the Gospel of Luke and you
will see that it puts our Saviour in the attitude of a
human suppliant as no other Gospel does. At Jesus'
baptism God parts the heavens and descends like a
dove on the Saviour, as the answer to his prayer.
Christ prays all night long before he calls his twelve
apostles. Christ prays on the Mount of Transfigura
tion; and it is after his prayer that the glory of God
overshadows him and he appears as the bearer, so to
speak, of the Shekinah; and then it is in the garden,
where Christ is praying, in Gethsemane, as Luke, and
Luke only, states, that the sweat flows from his body
in great drops of blood, in the agony of his supplica
tion. All these things bring us close to Christ as a
human Redeemer and sympathizing Saviour; and so
Luke gives us not only the Gospel of humanity, so far
as Christ and the representation of his person are
concerned, but he also gives us the Gospel that, in
some respects, is best adapted to meet all men upon

96 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
their own level and commend itself to all who are
suffering. There was an old tradition that Luke was a painter.
I have seen many pictures in European galleries in
which Luke is represented as painting pictures of our
Lord, of Mary the Virgin, or of the various apostles,
or where the picture itself is attributed to Luke. There
are such pictures still among the relics of the Roman
Catholic churches abroad. This tradition has an ex
ceedingly slight foundation. We have no reliable
authority for supposing that Luke was an actual
painter upon canvas. Probably some other painter of
later time, whose name was similar, was confounded
with Luke the Evangelist; and so this tradition grew
up. Although Luke was not a painter upon canvas,
he was a painter with his pen, and no other Evangelist
has given us so clear and so beautiful a picture of the
human Christ as Luke. No other Evangelist has told
us so much about the Virgin Mary as Luke has told us.
It is a very remarkable fact that, although Luke is
the most classical of the New Testament writers when
he is using his own style, when he is telling the things
he has observed — one might say that the preface to his
Gospel is most nearly like classical Greek of any por
tion of equal extent we have in the New Testament —
yet when he comes to the second and third chapters
of his own Gospel, and is using Hebrew documents
which have come into his possession, he follows them
word for word, and they are so Hebraistic in their
style that you might almost think they had been written
by the Evangelist Matthew. The spirit of faithful
ness to his material leads him to give over any attempt

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE 97
to manipulate what comes to his hands. He gives it
to us just as it came to him; so the Gospel according
to Luke shows throughout the spirit of faithfulness to
the truth, combined with a great deal of what you
might call human interest, breadth of view, and love
for humanity at large. To Luke Christ is the Light
to enlighten the Gentiles, and all men are the objects
of his saving and redeeming work. When Luke comes
to paint the various apostles, he paints them with a
human interest that is very well worthy of a master
in the art.
Luke was not, then, a painter upon canvas, but he
was a painter with his pen; and of all the pictures in
the four Gospels that are given us of the life and work
of Christ, there is not one that we should value more
highly, that we should study more closely, from which
we can get more benefit in our daily, spiritual life than
we can from this Gospel according to Luke.
We have next Sunday the contrast to all this. I
trust that a review of these four Gospels will bring to
our minds what perhaps has never been brought be
fore us so clearly before, the great variety that exists
in these various pictures of the life and work of
Christ; and the last of them, the Gospel according to
John, the Gospel of the divinity, as this one to-day is
the Gospel of the humanity, is in many respects the
most sublime and most wonderful of them all.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN
There were two brothers in the apostolic age, one of
whom was the first martyr for the faith, and the other
of whom lived on to the very end of the first century
and died the very last of the apostles. Those two
brothers were James and John. John and James were
the sons of Zebedee. Zebedee was a fisherman of Beth-
saida, in Galilee, a man well-to-do, apparently; for we
are told that he had hired servants. Salome, his wife,
perhaps after the death of her husband, was one of
those women who followed Jesus in his preaching
tours through Palestine and mfnistered to him of her
substance. John was known to the high priest, and it was he
who afterward took care of our Lord's mother, accord
ing to his commands, until her death, as tradition re
lates; all of which is more easy to understand if we
suppose that he was a man of some means, and more
intelligible still if the tradition be true that Salome,
his mother, was a sister of Mary the Virgin. In fact,
John may have lived and studied in Jerusalem at the
school of the rabbins long before his discipleship began.
But we read of him first in connection with Andrew
at the Jordan, where the Baptist is preaching. The
great preacher of reformation points to Jesus, the Lamb
of God, his Lord and theirs, and they all leave the
Baptist and follow the Saviour.
It appears that John and James were admitted into
98

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 99
an intimacy with Christ enjoyed by no other of the
apostles except Peter. These three we find in the inner
chamber where the ruler's daughter lies dead, present
at that wonderful exhibition of power in her resurrec
tion to life ; we find them on the Mount of Transfigura
tion, beholding the glory of Christ ; we find them with
our Saviour in Gethsemane, in the depths of his suffer
ing; and Peter and John were among the very first
witnesses of our Saviour's resurrection. At the time
that our Lord was apprehended in Gethsemane, John,
with the other disciples, forsook him and fled; but
he seems to have overcome his fears and to have made
his way courageously to the judgment-hall. He was
present during the trial of Christ; he was present
during the crucifixion; there he received the Lord's
command to take charge of his mother. He became
from that time the adopted son of the Virgin, and he
cared for her until her death.
Until the close of the narrative in the Gospels, and
in the Acts as well, we find John always in company
with Peter. He was at Jerusalem, as Paul tells us, at
the close of his narrative, and was one of those who
gave right hands of fellowship to the Gentiles; and,
remaining in Jerusalem for twenty or twenty-five years
after the death of Christ, he was engaged in minister
ing to the Jews or the Jewish Christians. When the
apostle Paul ceased his labors and Peter had suffered
martyrdom, the great church at Ephesus and the other
churches in Asia Minor needed apostolic supervision;
and then, in the prospect of the destruction of Jerusa
lem, John left Palestine, went to Ephesus, and there
remained until his death, which took place probably at

IOO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the very end of the century. It was 98 or 99, perhaps
100, before the apostle John died.
There was one interval, an interval of persecution,
an interval of exile under Nero, about the year 67 or
68, when John the apostle was banished to Patmos, a
wretched rock in the ^Egean Sea, and there the Apoca
lypse was written and sent to the seven churches of
Asia Minor ; but with that single exception, John was a
resident of Ephesus until he died.
The personal characteristics of the apostle John are
exceedingly striking; and it is impossible to under
stand the Gospel unless we know something about the
man. John had two remarkable characteristics. In
the first place, he was a man of intuitive perception.
He was not a man of logic. It has frequently been
said that John never argues, he always affirms. John
has all the natural predisposition of a seer. One
might say he was a born prophet, as far as man can
be born a prophet. By his natural temperament and
organization he was fitted for the work of prophesying.
The eagle, among the cherubic figures, has always been
assigned to John as his proper symbol, the eagle that
can gaze undazed upon the brightness of the sun, that
can soar aloft higher than any other winged creature,
and from that height can see the fish in the very depths
of the sea. That was the description of John given
by the church Fathers, and there is something very
characteristic, striking, and correct in it all. John was
a man of intuitive discernment, but he was a man of
deep and ardent affections. That was the second char
acteristic. A man of fiery mind, a man of fiery zeal,
great warmth, and fervor of temperament, he joined

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN IOI
to some of the very highest intellectual qualifications,
the faculties of insight and of spiritual perception, the
deepest and most ardent love. He was one who from
his nature and fervid temperament was in danger of
being biased. This warmth and ardor, if it is undisci
plined and untrained, may make a man a mere parti
san ; and this warm temperament, these strong impulses,
had to be checked and disciplined. You remember that
when John and James were commissioned by Christ to
precede him, as he was going to Jerusalem, and the
Samaritans refused him a night's lodging, John and
James thought it was quite a proper time for our Sa
viour to do as Elijah had done before him, and they
asked, " Lord, shall we call down fire from heaven upon
them?" It indicated the fiery indignation of these
two men.
Some years ago I asked my child how she knew the
apostle John in the pictures. " Oh," she said, " I
always know John because he has long hair and looks
like a woman." I suppose that idea of the apostle
John is very prevalent in the church. John is thought
to be the disciple of love, and often love is thought to
be weakness. How very different from that is the
truth ! Why, John and James were Boanerges, " sons
of thunder." They were full of hot indignation against
wrong. No weakness there. But that hot indignation
was subdued, that warmth of temperament was disci
plined by the rebukes of Christ and by the sorrows
through which they passed, until at last John became
the disciple of love. John in his last days was con
tinually repeating, as the tradition relates, " Little chil
dren, love one another." Love is the solvent of all

102 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
difficulties. Love, and all other things shall be added
to it.
It is said of Charles II that he was a man utterly
incapable of gratitude for benefits received, and utterly
incapable of indignation for wrongs done him. The
only emotion of which he seemed to be capable was the
emotion of contempt. An absolute incapacity for in
dignation against moral evil was his chief character
istic. There is no feature of human character that so
indicates absolute worthlessness in the sight of God as
the incapacity to hate that which is wrong. And why ?
Because hatred of wrong is the necessary correlative
of love for the right. Do not tell me that a man loves
virtue and purity, in whom a deed of shameful impurity
and injustice awakens no moral revulsion. Now the
depth and strength of John's love showed itself in his
power to hate that which was evil ; and, therefore, you
will find that in John's Gospel and in John's Epistles,
combined with this deep, this earnest affection, there
is at the same time a power of moral indignation. " Ye
that love the Lord hate evil." " Be ye angry," that is
the command of God, " and sin not ! " Let not per
sonal, private, passionate feeling mingle with your
anger; but calm and judicial indignation against moral
evil is absolutely inseparable from a true Christian
character. Here, then, were the two great characteristics of
John the apostle. He was first, a man of marvelous
intuitive insight; and then secondly, that vast intel
lectual endowment was balanced and interfused in
every part with a depth and fervor of Christian love;
and it was intellectual power, enlightened and made

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN IO3
energetic by love, that made John capable of recogni
zing the wonderful truths that he, better than any other
of the apostles, has proclaimed to us. It was this in
tellectual insight, lit up by deep Christian feeling, that
enabled him to comprehend, as none other of the
apostles did comprehend, the greatness and glory of
the person of Jesus, the incarnate Word of God; and
then it was this intellectual power, lit up by deep feel
ing, which enabled him, better than any other of the
apostles, to understand that union between Christ and
the Father, and that union between Christ and the
believer, of which we should know so much less if we
did not have the Gospel according to John.
John the apostle was the author of the Gospel. I do
not need to go through a process of proof, although
this is a question very much disputed in later times.
There is argument which to my mind is absolutely con
vincing, and which to any candid mind ought to carry
most perfect conviction. The author of that Gospel
was certainly a Jew; the author of that Gospel was a
Jew familiar with Palestine; the author of that Gos
pel was one of the apostles, because he tells of dis
cussions in the narrowest of the apostolic circles, and
of secret retreats of the apostles, as only an apostle
could do. He was not only an apostle, but he was one
of the sons of Zebedee. It. is very curious that where
the names of the apostles are mentioned in order, the
order is not the same as that given in the first three
Gospels. There John and James are mentioned first.
When John in his Gospel comes to mention their
names, the sons of Zebedee come always last. The
modesty of the apostle is in itself a signature to the

IO4 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Gospel. Though he never mentions his own name, and
only speaks of himself now and then as the disciple
whom Jesus loved, it is very evident that he, and he
only, is the author of the fourth Gospel. We have in
the Gospel itself direct declarations that this is the
apostle who has seen and witnessed these things.
Then we have the testimony of the church Fathers,
which I need not narrate to you, although there is a
great abundance. Papias, one of the earliest of them,
says that John, who leaned upon the Saviour's breast,
when in Ephesus wrote the Gospel which bears his
name ; and the Gnostics of the second century not only
knew of the Gospel, but recognized the fact of its
genuineness; although at the same time they did not
accept many of its declarations. All this external
evidence, however, would not be so convincing if we
were not able to remove two objections which have
been made to the genuineness of the Gospel. It is
said, for example, that it is impossible the author of
the Gospel should be the same person who wrote the
Apocalypse, for the Apocalypse is written in a very
different style. The Apocalypse shows a very imper
fect knowledge of the Greek language, unfamiliarity
with the laws of Greek composition, and the spirit of
the Apocalypse is very decidedly different from the
spirit of the Gospel. My answer to this is that up to
about the year 60, or 65 perhaps, John lived in Pales
tine, and John was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. It has
been said that he put the Hebrew soul into the Greek
language. He probably was accustomed from his
youth to the use of the Aramaic. Greek was not his
mother tongue, nor did he in Palestine constantly use

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 105
Greek. He goes to Ephesus. There, or immediately
after, at Patmos, the Apocalypse is written — written
at the time when he is more familiar with Hebrew
than he is with Greek. Hebrew constructions appear
in the Apocalypse. There are infelicities, not to say
inaccuracies, of grammar. One of the Greek preposi
tions that is naturally followed by the genitive is
actually followed by the nominative in the Greek which
John writes. Yet, at the same time, you find that this
energetic, fiery spirit which the Gospels would lead us
to attribute to John, is precisely the spirit of the Apoca
lypse, written just before the destruction of Jerusalem,
and in view of the coming doom of the holy city. Its
predictions and prophecies of coming wrath are pre
cisely the production which we should expect from
John's mind at that particular time. Thirty years pass
away. Jerusalem has fallen. There is no longer any
prophecy of this sort to utter. During that time John
is softened ; age has come upon him ; he has become a
gentle and loving old man ; and, as the tradition which
attributes to him this constant inculcation of the duty
of love is probably a true one, it is very natural to sup
pose that thirty years after, when he writes the Gospel,
his style should differ from his early style in these two
particulars. In the first place, Greek has now become
to him his mother tongue, as it were ; Greek is now as
familiar as Hebrew was before. A man's style changes
very much in the course of years.
If I were to say that because the editorials of George
William Curtis, in " Harper's Weekly," were so solid,
so calm, so statesmanlike, he could not possibly have
written that fervid, eloquent, and poetic style that I

106 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
found in the " Potiphar Papers " so many years ago, I
should simply show that I did not know the possibili
ties of change in one's literary style during the long
course of a human life. Just so, if I should say, be
cause John in the Gospel writes a smooth, flowing,
correct Greek style, he could not have written the
Apocalypse, I should show an equal ignorance of the
laws of human nature.
The Gospel, therefore, was written far away from
Palestine, at a time that was remote from the events
which were recorded. It was written out of John's
memory, but yet it was written under the guidance
and inspiration of that Spirit which was promised to
bring all things to remembrance, and which enabled
John not only to recall what Jesus had uttered, even
when Jesus' discourses were long, but also gave John
an insight into the meaning of Jesus' words. And this
suggests the second objection which is urged against
John's authorship. It is said that these long discourses
attributed to Jesus are not only beyond the power of
human memory to reproduce, but are manifestly the
work of some later author who mixes his own words
with those of our Lord, so that there is no telling where
the words of Jesus end and the words of the Evangelist
begin. We must concede that there is a problem here.
But the key is in our hands if we remember Jesus'
promise of the Holy Spirit. There was a natural
preparation of the apostle for his work. He had been
trained in the synagogue and possibly in the rabbinic
schools. He had been accustomed to memorize and to
repeat the Scriptures. Doctor Bruce maintained that
the apostles could all of them reproduce the whole Old

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN 107
Testament from memory. John's insight and affection
made the retention and recall of Jesus' words the joy
and comfort of his life. His preaching made this re
production more and more clear and effective. Little
by little the non-essential was purged away, till only
the substantial remained. And the living Spirit of
Jesus was with his apostle, according to Jesus' promise,
correcting, explaining, and even, when necessary, add
ing to the material in John's mind, so that his Gospel
is a truthful representation of Jesus' own mind and
heart. If he adds to what our Lord originally spoke,
he does this under the inspiration and authority of
Christ himself, and in his Gospel we have our Lord
himself speaking to us.
Remember that John writes long after the Synoptists.
You find, therefore, that there is absolutely no refer
ence to the destruction of Jerusalem, for all this had
taken place already. You find that the apostle writes
of things in Palestine, as if he were in the midst of
people who knew but little of Palestine. You find
that, when he speaks of the feasts, he does not speak
of the feasts as a Hebrew would, but calls them the
" feasts of the Jews " ; and you find that, when he
uses the word "rabbi," he must needs interpret: "it
being interpreted, is teacher." When he uses the word
" Messiah," he says, " it being interpreted, is Christ " ;
and when he comes to speak of the Samaritans, he must
say, " the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans."
All this would be unnecessary unless he were far away
from Palestine, and were writing to people to whom
these things were unfamiliar. Then it is also the fact
that the writer seems to be acquainted with the synoptic

108 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Gospels; otherwise I think it is inexplicable how he,
of all men, should omit any account of the transfigura
tion, as he does ; and it is also curious that John, when
he makes allusion to certain of the events which are
mentioned by the Synoptists, should do so with the
addition of new material, should put the evidence in
a new light, should put them to a new use; which
evidently shows that he has his own purpose and
object in thus referring to them. The miracle of the
five thousand, for example, which appears in the Synop
tists, is given us in detail by John; but you find that
the object with John is just the object that he has in
his relation of other miracles, namely, to speak of
them as signs or symbols of great truths. The multi
plying of the bread was not detailed simply in order
that we might get before us the power of Jesus, but in
order that Christ might be presented to us as the Bread
of Life, the Bread that cometh down from heaven.
The opening of the eyes of the blind is related simply
because John wished to set before us the power of
Christ to open our spiritual eyes.
In John's Gospel all the miracles are followed by
discourses, and the miracles are only the text of the
discourses. The miracles are not related for them
selves only, but for the sake of the truths that they
teach. If it were not for John we would not have the
opening of the eyes of the blind made to illustrate the
opening of the eyes of the spiritually blind, and the rais
ing of the dead made to illustrate the raising of those
who are dead in trespasses and sins.
John relates six miracles, and five of them are
wholly new ; only one, the feeding of the five thousand,

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN IO9
being given to us by the Synoptists. We have an
omission of all the parables that are given us in Mat
thew, Mark, and Luke ; an omission of the Sermon on
the Mount, and an omission of the last prophecies in
regard to the destruction of Jerusalem; in fact, two-
thirds of John's Gospel is wholly new. So we see that
the Gospel of John adds a large mass of new material
to what had been given us before by Matthew, Mark,
and Luke. It is written, therefore, as a sort of sup
plement to these Gospels, and with full knowledge
that they already existed. Yet, why was this Gospel
written? I have not yet touched upon what is really
the main object of my remarks to-day; for unless we
get clearly before us the central idea of the Gospel
according to John, we shall not get the instruction from
it that we should. John represents Christ, then, as the
Incarnate Word of God, God manifest in the flesh,
the Life and the Light of men. It is the aim of John
to set before us the spiritual and divine side of Christ,
as the Synoptists had set before us the human side of
Christ. Eusebius, one of the church Fathers, says that the
three Evangelists — Matthew, Mark, and Luke — have
given us the body of the truth ; and the elders of Ephe
sus urged John to write a spiritual Gospel : i. e., a
Gospel which should put into that body the spirit
which John knew so much more than the rest. Says
Cicero : " The eye sees only that which it brings with
it, the power of seeing." John, with his intuitive in
sight and fervent love, saw the divine side of Christ,
as Plato saw the loftier aspects of Socrates' character,
while Xenophon did not. John represents Christ to

110 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
us, then, as the Word of God, who was in the begin
ning with God and who was God, who is the Revealer
of God to man, the Creator of all things, not simply a
human messenger, but the very Truth of God, and the
King of Truth.
It is the aim of John, by this revelation, to raise up
all Christian life to a new level, to lead all Christians
to live their lives in union with Christ, the Son of
God. The expression which we have in Paul's Epis
tle, " The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by
the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave
himself for me," is only an expression of the doctrine
that you find more fully brought out in the Gospel
according to John.
The plan of this Gospel corresponds perfectly to
its object. We have, first of all, a prologue in which,
so to speak, the subject is set forth and enlarged upon.
" The Word of God who was in the beginning with
God and was God," that Word of God becomes human
flesh and enters into our human life, and lives the
life of our God before us. There are two parallel re
sults or effects within the limits of humanity. One
of these effects is upon the unregenerate and unbe
lieving; and you have a continual growth of unbelief
in this Son of God, who has come from above to en
lighten men, and you have various types of unbelief.
You have the enmity of the high priests and the Phari
sees, you have the weakness and cowardice of Pilate,
the governor, and you have the despicable treachery of
Judas. This unbelief is continually growing, and the
signs of this growth are continuous, as you read the
narrative from the beginning to the end, until at last

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN III
it culminates in hatefulness and enmity, and the result
is the crucifixion of the Son of God. In other words,
unbelief in its enmity to Christ rises up and puts the
Son of God out of the world.
But, on the other hand, side by side with this,
there is a growth in faith in a parallel line to the de
struction of faith, as the result of this manifestation
of the Son of God. You have faith beginning in weak
ness, and then growing from strong to stronger until,
at last, it is capable of overcoming the world. You
have types of faith. You have those types, first, in
Nathanael, a man without guile. A type of faith in
Nicodemus, inward faith which, after all, was not
strong enough to make him willing to confess the name
of Christ. A type of faith in Andrew, an open-
hearted and unthinking faith. A type of faith in
Philip, always willing and wanting to bring men to
Jesus. Then you have the type of faith which you
find in the woman of Samaria; and then, finally, you
have the culminating type of faith in Thomas, when
that naturally most unbelieving of all the apostles be
comes so affected by this transcendent manifestation of
the Son of God that all his doubts are removed, and
at last he is brought to bow down at the Saviour's
feet and to cry, " My Lord and my God." When this
last triumph of faith is reached, and the hardest of
the apostles to reach is brought into absolute submis
sion to Jesus as his very God, then the Gospel ends.
Then the thesis has been proved, and that final con-'
fession of Christ is followed by the natural conclusion
of the Gospel. These things are told in order that
we might know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of

112 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
God, and believing we might have life in his name.
So the Gospel properly ends with the twentieth
chapter. The twenty-first chapter is nothing but an epilogue,
subsequently added by John himself, added for a par
ticular purpose, because there grew up in the church at
that time the idea that the promise of Christ to John
meant that he should never die; and John, himself, in
his very last days appears to have added that chapter
with an account of the circumstances under which that
saying was made to him by Christ, and an interpreta
tion of the meaning of it; so that the Gospel accord
ing to John properly ends with the twentieth chapter,
with a confession on the part of Thomas that Jesus
is his Lord.
So there are evidences of structure in the Gospel
which are very striking, and which will make the
reading more interesting to us if we will notice them
as we read.
Notice now the relation of this Gospel to the synoptic
Gospels. The Gospel according to John is the Gospel
of the spirit, while the synoptic Gospels give us the
gospel of the facts. In it we have revealed to us the
heart of Jesus, as it is not revealed in the synoptic
Gospels. This Gospel gives us the spiritual side of
our Lord, while the synoptic Gospels give us the
earthly side.
There is a relation of this Gospel to the Apocalypse.
It is the spiritual interpretation of the book of Reve
lation. John's declarations in the Gospel with regard
to Christ's person and work were the result of long
preaching and long contemplation on the part of the

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN II3
beloved apostle, who lived longer than the other
apostles, at the end of the century, and who quite
outgrew the fire and fury of his earlier writing in
the Apocalypse.
Then there is a relation of this Gospel to the Epistles
of John. The Epistles of John are running comments
upon the same great facts, a subsequent addition prob
ably to the Gospel itself, the Gospel beginning with the
Son of God in heaven, and showing us that this Word
had become embodied in humanity, and, on the other
hand, the Epistles going through the reverse process,
and showing that this Jesus whom they had handled
and whom they had seen with their eyes here upon the
earth was absolutely the Son of God, who came down
from heaven.
So there is evidence, not only of an internal unity
in the Gospel itself, but of an organic relation of the
Gospel with John's other writings, in the providence of
God and under the direction of his Spirit, which shows
it to be a part of the whole system of truth given us in
the New Testament.
There are many things which John gives us in this
Gospel, but which are not given to us elsewhere. For
example, we have an account of the Judean ministry,
which hardly comes to us at all in the synoptic Gospels.
The scene of John is mainly laid in Judea, whereas the
scene of the synoptic Gospels is mainly laid in Galilee.
We have here very much more to do with the scribes
and Pharisees, high priests, and rulers of the people
than we have in the synoptic Gospels. Then, more
over, we have here two great miracles, the two great
est, the first and the last : the miracle performed at the
H

114 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
wedding-feast of Cana, and the last and most wonder
ful of Christ's miracles, the raising of Lazarus from
the dead. These are given us only by John.
We have not given to us here at all the Sermon on
the Mount, and yet we have in place of that Sermon
on the Mount the next longest discourse of Christ, that
last profound discourse to his disciples upon the very
eve of his suffering. This has been called the " holy of
holies " of the book of God. How much we should lose
if we had not these chapters in which Jesus tells us:
"Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in God,
believe also in me." If there be any portion of Scrip
ture that brings us near to Christ himself and lets us
into the very secrets of the divine nature, it is these
last chapters of John's Gospel. We have not these
discourses anywhere else. We owe them entirely to
John. Now notice that John deals very little with the out
ward. John does not tell us anything about baptism,
or the command to be baptized; but John does tell us
the meaning of baptism in the discourse with Nicode
mus : " Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God " — the neces
sity of an inward birth that is symbolized outwardly
by baptism. John does not tell us anything about the
Lord's Supper and its institution; but he does tell us
of that profound discourse which sets forth the central
truth which the Lord's Supper symbolizes.
John does not tell us anything with regard to the
external organization of the Christian church, but
he tells us most about that union of the believer with
Christ which is the basis of the Christian church.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN II5
Unless a man knows something of that union of the
believer with his Saviour, he cannot be a Christian nor
has he any right to a place in the Christian church.
It is, then, the vital truth itself, the central thing itself,
that John with his clear insight sets forth to us in the
most glowing way. Mark, you remember, begins his
story with the public ministry of Christ; Matthew and
Luke begin with the birth of the Saviour; but John
alone begins with the Eternal Word with the Father
before the world was.
The style of John corresponds perfectly to the mat
ter that he has to set forth. It is distinguished by
wonderful fulness, but, at the same time, by wonderful
depth. It is profound, yet simple. It is astonishing
how few words John uses, and how constantly repeated
those words are — life and death, light and darkness,
God and Satan. All these words come over and over
and over again.
These words are rich words. They are full of mean
ing. They are like the gold coins which only the great
lord keeps about him, and with which he makes his
payments. It is the Gospel of holy love and peace.
There is a contemplative, quiet, calm spirit running
through it all, a spirit that is not of this world.
I have often thought that the skeptic, if he would
but read this Gospel according to John, and ponder it
as he should, would find in it a sufficient evidence of
the truth of Christianity. Christ is set forth here in
such a way that a man cannot mistake the dignity and
glory of the representation, if he be a man who has
any sense of his personal needs, if he knows himself
at all to be a sinner.

Il6 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
It has been said that " poetry is the art of putting
infinity into things." To show the relation of our
life to the infinite is the aim of poetry. Judged by
that standard, this Gospel according to John is the
greatest poem that was ever written, the greatest com
position of any sort, indeed, that was ever written upon
this earth. If there were one single book of the Bible
which I could retain, providing all the rest were taken
from me, it is this Gospel according to John, for this
sets before me my Lord and my Saviour as no other
Gospel does.
Yet such a man as John Stuart Mill read this Gos
pel and called it unintelligible and insipid. May God
forgive him ! An unregenerate heart and self-compla
cent soul may read the Gospel of John, and it will
seem like a mystic tale, with little sense or meaning;
but for the man who knows himself to be a sinner,
above all, the man who has had any sense whatever of
his dependence upon Christ, for such a man this Gos
pel is the very word of Christ himself, and it makes
Christ manifest in his beauty and glory.
The work of a forger? Such a production as this,
written by one who pretended to be a disciple of Christ
in the second century, for merely political purposes?
It is as absurd as to tell me that Beelzebub has been
casting out devils for these eighteen hundred years.
This Gospel according to John has cast out too many
evil spirits to permit us to attribute it to a forger. It
can have its authorship only in a heart that was filled
with Christ himself, only in a heart that was drawn
near to the living God by the mighty inspiration of his
Spirit.

JOHN'S GOSPEL THE COMPLEMENT OF
LUKE'S
I present in this lecture an orthodox essay in the
higher criticism. It is an attempt to show from internal
evidence the relation between the Gospel of Luke and
the Gospel of John. It is not wholly original. In the
year 1900, Doctor Giimbel, gymnasial professor and
consistorialrath at Speyer on the Rhine, gave to the
world an exegetical study which he entitled "John's
Gospel a Complement of Luke's Gospel." The word
" complement," however, does not fully represent the
German word Erganzung. The author means that the
third and the fourth Gospels constitute one whole ; that
John composed his Gospel with Luke's Gospel before
him ; that his own work is intended as a supplement and
not as an independent account of Jesus' life and teach
ing; that he therefore limits himself to filling up the
gaps in Luke's narrative, omitting everything which
Luke had narrated, except in those cases where his
own eye-witness and ear-witness enable him to add
useful interpretation or detail.
It must be acknowledged that the reasoning of this
little German book, if it be sound, will do much to settle
the disputed questions as to the date and the author
ship of the fourth Gospel, and to place on an impreg
nable basis the historicity and trustworthiness of the
other Gospel narratives. When the halves of a broken
jar are dug out of the ground at Mycenae or Gnossos, 117

Il8 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and are found to fit each other so that every indentation
of the one corresponds to a protuberance of the other,
there is double reason to deduce from its shape and
epigraphy the facts of its history. Our author con
tends that John's Gospel and Luke's Gospel fit into
each other like two dove-tailed parts of a bureau
drawer, or like the interlaced fingers of our two hands.
The later is constructed to complete the earlier, but
to add only those matters of personal observation and
experience which are needed to make the twofold his
tory a perfect whole. This demonstration, if it be
well grounded, will relieve John's Gospel from the
charge that it is merely a philosophical speculation of
the second century, and will give to the higher aspects
of Jesus' life the value of settled history. I regard
the work of Professor Giimbel as an important contri
bution to theological science, and I am glad in this
essay to call attention to it. But I must not take his
conclusions for granted at the start. Let me proceed
to the proof.
The apostle John was born in Galilee. James was
his elder brother. His father, Zebedee, was a master-
fisherman who had hired servants and was a man of
means. John's mother was probably Salome. At
any rate, she still lived after he had become a disciple.
She was ambitious, and not content that her sons
should always follow their trade as fishermen. She
had still the worldly conception of Jesus' mission, and
she incited James and John to ask that one of them
may sit at Christ's right hand and the other on his left
in his future kingdom. The annual visits to Jerusa
lem at the time of the feasts gave opportunity to the

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 1 19
sons to become acquainted with the localities of the
sacred city. It is not therefore wonderful that this
child of well-to-do parents shows minute knowledge
of Bethesda, the Pool of Siloam, Solomon's Porch, the
brook Kidron, Gabbatha, Bethany, fifteen furlongs
from Jerusalem. But the fact that our Saviour on the
cross commits his mother to John's care, so that he
takes her to his own home, indicates that the family
had a permanent residence in Jerusalem, and that they
were householders of some consequence.
The author of the fourth Gospel has an acquaint
ance with official and notable persons in Jerusalem,
more intimate than is shown by the other Evangelists.
It is John who recognized the representatives of the
Sanhedrin when they came to ask the credentials of
the Baptist; it is John who tells us of Christ's conver
sation with Nicodemus and of the gift of spices which
Nicodemus made for Christ's burial; it is John who is
the friend of Annas and of Caiaphas, and who has the
entree to the high priest's house. This last fact of
John's relation to the high priest throws light upon his
whole history. That relation could not have been
formed after John had become Jesus' disciple. It in
dicates that before John went to the banks of Jordan
to hear the Baptist he had lived in Jerusalem and had
become intimate with its rulers. These connections
could not have been made by a known follower of
Jesus, and after Jesus' criticism had made scribes and
Pharisees his enemies.
It requires some historical imagination to recon
struct our view of those early days. Is it too much to
suppose that John's ambitious mother, knowing his

120 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
fervid religious spirit, and eager to withdraw him
from manual toil, had sent him when a mere youth to
the great rabbinical school at Jerusalem, and had main
tained him there ? That was the road to education and
to station. What happened to Saul of Tarsus might
easily happen to John. It is quite possible that the
family of Zebedee was of priestly rank, and that rela
tives of theirs held priestly office. Polycrates, the
Christian Father, bishop of Ephesus in 196, relates
that John was born a priest, wearing the high-priestly
miter, and the German writer Delff asserts * that this
word miter, or nerakov, indicates that John was of the
family of the high priest and had actually performed
high-priestly functions. James is also said to have
worn the izexalov, or miter. I pay little regard to this
tradition. But it shows in the early church a belief
that John's connection with the high priest was some
thing more than a mere matter of friendship. The
young man had some claim upon the elder because of
family relationship.
Consider now how much it would mean to an ardent
and spiritual soul to be sent for education into such
surroundings. Who were the high priests of that
day? Not Pharisees, but Sadducees. They were a
sacerdotal aristocracy, comparatively few in number,
but comprising most of the able and original thinkers
of the Jewish nation. It was their sharpness and vigor
that had given them wealth and political influence.
They had seized the reins of government, had formed
alliances with the Romans, had made the high priest
hood hereditary in their families. Over against the
1 Geschichte d. Rabbi Jesus v. Nazareth, 71.

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 121
narrow traditionalism and ceremonialism of the Phari
sees they were the speculators, the inquirers, the phi
losophers, the skeptics of the day. They did not be
lieve in the resurrection, nor in angel or spirit. They
were rationalists rather than believers, politicians
rather than rationalists. Free thought could be toler
ated among them, so long as it did not imperil their
standing and their power. Hence it was not until
Jesus' work was half done that they joined with the
Pharisees to put him to death.
It is said that Philo of Alexandria, whose birth
antedated that of Jesus by twenty years, went on one
occasion to Jerusalem to offer prayer and sacrifice. It
is quite possible that on that visit he may have ex
changed with the doctors of the law some ideas with
regard to the mediating principle between God and the
world. Jerusalem had thirty-two synagogues, and
each part of the world had its peculiar place of meet
ing in this center of Judaism. There was a synagogue
of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem, and Apollos, Paul's
convert, was an Alexandrian by race. The Alexan
drian doctrine of the Logos must have been known
and discussed in the Jewish schools, and here the warm
hearted and receptive John may have gotten his first
acquaintance with that great word whose meaning only
dimly revealed itself to him, but which he found so
useful after he had seen that the Word had become
flesh and had dwelt among us.
If Jesus at the age of twelve was found among the
doctors of the temple, both hearing them and asking
them questions, we may believe that the disciples whom
Jesus loved had a similar experience. And he must

122 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
have found others of like mind. Nicodemus did not
need to be an old man to be a ruler of the Jews, for it
was only thirty years that were required for qualifica
tion. John must have formed his acquaintance before
he became Jesus' disciple, and so may have afterward
introduced him to our Lord, and even have been pres
ent when Nicodemus came to Jesus by night. The
Sadducean indifferentism and abstract speculation
could not satisfy either of these spiritually inclined
young men. Nor could the Pharisees, with their in
sistence upon outward ceremonial, answer the deep
demand of their hearts for one who should make
atonement for sin and give life to the stricken soul.
When John the Baptist uttered his call to repent
ance and proclaimed the near approach of the promised
Messiah, all Palestine was stirred, and all truly earnest
Jews were moved, as by a common impulse, to flock
to John's baptism. That one word, " Behold the Lamb
of God, who taketh," and so taketh away, " the sin of
the world," was to John the beginning of a new life.
Though his modesty leads him to keep back all men
tion of his own name, " that other disciple " who was
with Andrew, was, if not the first, then certainly the
second of those whom Jesus called to follow him.
From Jesus John learns his own sinfulness and need
of redemption, but also Jesus' perfect ability to supply
that need. So he stays with Jesus and rejoices in him
as the promised Messiah and Saviour of the world.
Matthew and Mark add little to our knowledge of
John's personality, but what they give us confirms the
view we have taken. John is recognized as belonging
to the inner circle of the disciples, At the raising of

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 123
Jairus' daughter, at the transfiguration, and in Geth
semane, Jesus takes with him John, as well as Peter
and James. But we have only two utterances of John
in the synoptic narratives : the one when John forbids
the man who was casting out demons in Jesus' name
without following the Lord, and the other when with
James he would call down fire from heaven upon the
Samaritans who refuse our Lord a night's lodging.
Jesus calls the two brothers, James and John, " sons
of thunder," apparently because of their tropical im
pulsiveness and disposition to take Jesus' part against
every enemy of their Lord. With Peter, after Jesus'
resurrection and after Pentecost, John goes up to the
Beautiful Gate of the temple and assists in the cure
of the lame man; with Peter, he is imprisoned and
protests against the repressive edict of the Sanhedrin ;
with Peter, he is sent to Samaria to invoke upon the
new converts the descent of the Holy Spirit. But in
all these cases Peter appears to be the speaker, and
John aids only by his counsel and example. And now
John disappears wholly from the sacred record, and
we hear of him only from tradition. Let us follow
Scripture for a little and turn our attention to Luke,
if perchance we may learn something of the origin of
his Gospel.
Eusebius, the church Father, tells us that Luke was
born in Antioch. The text of Beza, in Acts n : 26,
reads " when we were assembled," and makes it pos
sible that Luke's acquaintance with Paul began in
the meetings of the church at Antioch. But it is well-
nigh certain from the " we " sections of the Acts that
Luke and Paul were intimately associated from the

124 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
time of Paul's entering Macedonia to the time of his
second imprisonment at Rome. This association covers
a period of fourteen years, A. D. 50-64, though for
seven years of these fourteen Luke was probably left
by Paul at Philippi as pastor. On his third missionary
journey Paul takes Luke as his constant companion
and assistant. From Paul Luke must have learned all
that Paul knew of Jesus' history, together with Paul's
interpretation of Jesus' work. Scholars of all schools
have acknowledged the Paulinism of Luke's Gospel.
It is nominally addressed to a Greek of distinction, but
it is evidently intended for the whole Greek-speaking
world. All Jewish limitations seem in it to be broken
down. It is the Gospel of universal humanity. Sa
maritans and Gentiles are made object-lessons of faith
and prayer, of benevolence and blessing. Renan called
Luke's Gospel " the most beautiful book ever written,"
and Harnack says that his story was " the indispensable
condition of the incorporation of Paul's Epistles in the
New Testament canon."
When was Luke's Gospel written? Its date must
be determined by comparison with that of the Acts.
But the Acts gives us no account of the trial or of
the release of the apostle Paul. Inasmuch as Harnack
has recently acknowledged that the Acts must have
been written before the close of Paul's first Roman im
prisonment, and that the Gospel must be dated yet
earlier, we may reasonably conclude that Paul's im
prisonment at Caesarea was the time and the occasion
of its writing. After two full years of ministry at
Ephesus Paul had gone to Jerusalem, knowing that
bonds and death were not far away in the future. He

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 125
is arrested and imprisoned in Caesarea. Luke is with
him there. But while Paul is in bonds, Luke is free.
For two whole years Luke can go to and fro from
Caesarea to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Caesarea,
serving as Paul's messenger, gathering from Mary,
Jesus' mother, and from relatives of Jesus, from the
elder apostles, and from other eye-witnesses the
materials for his Gospel, and with Paul's sanction, if
not his actual supervision, collating all the earlier
narratives, and writing his own account of Christ's
life and ministry.
It is quite probable that Luke may have had in his
hands our present Gospels of Mark and even of Mat
thew, and that he may have incorporated in his own
narrative such portions of those Gospels as suited his
purpose. The earliest germs of our New Testament
were probably the Logia, or sayings of Jesus, and
these, in the Hebrew or Aramaic in which they were
originally spoken, may have been written down within
five or ten years after Jesus' death. Matthew himself
may have been the first to commit them to writing.
Mark, however, was the first to add the story of Jesus'
life and miracles, and so to transform the Logia into
a complete Gospel. Then Matthew may have en
larged his original work and translated it into Greek.
When Luke begins his Gospel by saying that " many
have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning
those matters which have been fulfilled among us," he
may be acknowledging his indebtedness to the two pre
ceding Gospels, as well as to the new sources of infor
mation which he has himself discovered.
It is also possible that the Ephesian church possessed

126 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the Gospels of Mark and of Matthew. But there was
special reason why Paul should have wished that
church to possess the Gospel according to Luke : Mat
thew was written for Jewish Christians, and Mark for
Roman Christians, while Luke incorporated what was
best in these and yet was written for the whole Gentile
and Greek-speaking world. Is it not probable that one
of Paul's first concerns, as he went to Rome or after
he had reached the eternal city, was to furnish his dear
Ephesian converts with Luke's priceless record of
Jesus' works and teachings ? We know that he sought
by letters to supply the lack of his own personal minis
trations to the churches of Asia. This central church
of Asia was a pivot upon which the Christian future
of the whole Eastern world revolved, and he had,
therefore, spent with it a longer time than he had de
voted to any other church of the Gentiles. Luke's Gos
pel would largely make up for Paul's own absence and
for the loss of his oral testimony. The Ephesians,
moreover, knew and loved the Evangelist, for Luke
was with Paul when he parted from the Ephesian
elders, and in Paul's letter to the Colossians, who were
so near to Ephesus, he speaks of Luke as " the beloved
physician." Could Paul withhold from the Ephesians
this help to their faith ? What his own preaching could
not do this written Gospel of Luke might do, by fixing
indelibly in their minds the lineaments of the Son of
God. I think it probable that the Ephesian church was
possessed of the Gospel according to Luke, and that
Paul himself took care that they should possess it as a
substitute for his oral teaching, and as a permanent ex
pression of his view of Jesus' life and work.

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 127
There can be no doubt that Paul during his two
years' stay in Ephesus had taught the Ephesians the
main facts of Jesus' life. He had done this orally.
Now that he has given them Luke's written Gospel,
his work is done. The year 64, or the year A. D. 65,
marks the date of Paul's martyrdom. The Ephesian
church must now have other leadership. The death of
Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the approaching fall of
the Jewish state, leaves the apostle John free to take
up Paul's work and to carry it on to larger issues. And
so this deeply pondering, but quiet and undemonstra
tive, man finds himself at last and is called to utter
ance. Many years of care for our Lord's mother have
made him possessed of abundant material which has
found no outlet in the way of publication. He was
sent to Ephesus to give his own life-picture of Jesus to
the world. He could furnish what Paul could not,
namely, his own personal reminiscences of Christ, to
gether with the inferences and reflections which had
come to him from long meditation upon that marvelous
divine manifestation and from deeply drinking in the
spirit of Jesus.
So John leaves Jerusalem and takes Paul's place at
Ephesus, in Asia Minor. There he cares for the
churches of Asia for thirty years, or to the end
of his life. He suffers exile for a time in the Isle of
Patmos, but the result is the Apocalypse. Polycrates, a
bishop of Ephesus, a century after John's death, testi
fies that the remains of the apostle rest in Ephesus.
During this long ministry of thirty years, Irenaeus tells
us that John would not use water in which Cerinthus
the heretic had bathed ; Clement of Alexandria relates

128 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
his seeking out the young robber who had fallen away
from Christ ; Jerome informs us that, in his old age, the
apostle had but one sermon, " Little children, love one
another! " All this was supplemental to Paul's teach
ing and method, but it was in no respect contradictory
to it. Paul had taught the preexistence and deity of
Christ before John came to Ephesus, and the doctrine
of union with Christ was central to the theology of
both. John, like Paul, was a cultivated Jew, and in his
own way able to withstand the Judaizers and to win
the heathen. Paul had the wider training, but John
had the greater personal knowledge of Christ. And it
was this that the Ephesian church most needed.
John, at Ephesus, had the great advantage of finding
the church already in possession of a written Gospel.
Luke's Gospel was virtually Paul's testimony, and John
had only to supplement Luke's Gospel by adding his
own recollections of Jesus, and his own interpretations
of Jesus' works and words. Where Luke has spoken
John omits, except in those cases where additional de
tail is needed to complete the narrative. But there are
large tracts of Jesus' life and ministry for which Luke
did not possess the material. The early Judean minis
try Luke does not narrate, apparently for the reason
that his informants were the men of Galilee. John,
who had lived in Jerusalem and who knew the authori
ties there, could tell of Nicodemus and the Sanhedrin,
and of Jesus' first year of appeal to the ecclesiastical
chiefs of the Jewish nation.
One reason why the Synoptists do not tell us more
of Jesus' early life and ministry is probably that the
disciples did not at the first appreciate the importance

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 129
of his acts and utterances. Only gradually did they
learn to mark every step and treasure up every word.
It takes some education, moreover, to retain long dis
courses in the memory, and correctly to reproduce
them. John was gifted in both these respects beyond
the other apostles. From the very beginning his intense
spiritual nature found the words of Jesus to be spirit
and life, and we have seen it probable that his early edu
cation qualified him to remember and to repeat all
that he saw and heard. The methods of the rabbinical
schools were very unlike those to which we are accus
tomed, though they still prevail in the East, as in the
Mohammedan University, the Azhar Mosque, of Cairo.
The rabbins did not dictate. The scholars repeated
what they heard. Instances are frequent in which long
lectures are retained and reproduced by the hearer,
with scarcely the loss of a single word. It is not at all
impossible that the discourse to Nicodemus is a sub
stantially verbatim report, and that John's account of
Jesus' words to his disciples on the night of his be
trayal is a nearly precise reproduction of that wonder •
ful address by one who lost no part of it. Bruce, in his
" Training of the Twelve," declares that the twelve
apostles probably knew the whole Old Testament by
heart. Pundita Ramabai, at Oxford, recited from the
Rigveda, passim, and showed that she knew more of
it by heart than the whole contents of the Old Testa
ment. I make these remarks to show that John's nature
and training qualified him to add precisely those ele
ments which Luke's Gospel lacked — the elements of
personal acquaintance with Jesus and of spiritual

I3O THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
reception and retention. But there was another ad
vantage which John possessed at Ephesus. He had
come out from the falling Jewish state; he could re
gard the Jews as enemies of his Lord; and he was
safe from their hatred and violence. That is probably
the reason why he could tell the story of Lazarus'
resurrection when the synoptic writers make no men
tion of it. The Jewish authorities had sought to put
Lazarus to death, and they might make it dangerous
for any who would tell the story of his awakening.
When John took up his residence in Ephesus, Laza
rus was probably no longer living. So John was at
liberty to utter freely all that he knew, and what he
knew formed a supplement to Luke's Gospel not only
interesting, but also absolutely necessary in the way of
explanation and completion. As I have said in another
connection, the Christ of John's Gospel is required
to vindicate the truthfulness of the Synoptics. Only
Christ's deity can explain his perfect humanity. And
John's Gospel is the Gospel of Christ's deity.
I have no doubt that the original gospel was en
tirely oral. That does not bring suspicion on the
narrative, for the reason that memory has latent
powers which in our day of printing are undeveloped.
Memory retains what it must, and the events of Jesus'
life, as well as his utterances, came to seem of such
importance that it was matter of life and death to
preserve the record of them. For thirty years after
Jesus' death they were handed down by tradition.
There was an oral gospel, more or less complete, pre
served in parts which suited the needs of each Chris
tian community, but in parts which when put together

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE I3I
made a coherent whole. The human aspect of Christ's
life had gained its hold upon the churches. Even
thus early, however, Ebionites, like Cerinthus, so ex
aggerated the human as really to deny the divine. It
was John's mission to rescue the church from a de
grading heresy by giving his testimony that Christ was
the Eternal Word, who was with God in the begin
ning, and who was himself God. This he did for
many years by oral utterance, using Luke's Gospel
for his text, making it the basis of his preaching, but
supplementing it with reminiscences and reflections of
his own which he ultimately reduced to writing.
Time will not permit a full account of the many
points in which Luke and John are interlaced and
complementary to one another. I must select a few
characteristic examples and must let them suffice.
And the first is, of course, found in the prologue of
John's Gospel. Luke had traced everything from the
beginning (foio&eu), but John finds an earlier begin
ning. Luke carried the genealogy of Jesus back
through David and Abraham to Adam, the son of
God; but John goes back to eternity past, and sees in
Christ none other than Deity revealed. He does not
tell the story of Jesus' birth because Luke had already
narrated it, and the Ephesians were familiar with it.
But he can supplement it with his own insight into its
meaning, and can express the truth in language which
he had learned from the Alexandrian philosophy in
the rabbinical school at Jerusalem. There he had
heard of the Logos, the formative law of nature, the
ideal of perfection, the firstborn Son of God. But
the rabbins had never gotten beyond the existence of

132 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
this Logos in the thought of God. John had learned
from his acquaintance with Jesus that this Logos was
an actual and not merely an ideal person. Jesus' own
words, " Before Abraham was born, I am," and "The
glory which I had with thee before the world was,"
had shown him that Jesus' personality transcended all
space and time, reached back into eternity past, and
was bound up with the personality of God himself.
Jesus is the Word made flesh, deity revealed, divinity
brought down to our human comprehension and
engaged in the work of our salvation.
This is John's interpretation of Jesus' life, under
the influence of the promised Spirit of God. John does
not say that Jesus used the word " Logos " of himself,
or that he derived the knowledge of it from Jesus.
The form comes from John's early training, though the
substance has been taught him from on high. He
therefore gives us the term Logos only in his prologue.
It constitutes his thesis. The Gospel is its proof.
When, in spite of the growing enmity and rejection of
the Jews, the last doubter among the apostles is won,
and Thomas bows at Jesus' feet, crying, " My Lord and
my God ! " John's thesis is proved, and the Gospel
comes to its intended end, the last chapter being sub
sequently added to correct a prevalent belief that
Jesus had promised to its author an immortality on
earth. John's Logos-doctrine confirms Luke's account
of the immaculate conception, and gives the reason
for it; indeed, it is still possible that the original text
in John 1 : 13 referred, as an extant reading would
have it, not to believers, but to Christ, " who was born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 1 33
will of man, but of God." The terminology of John
came from Philo, but the doctrine itself came from
God. John was not even its sole discoverer and pub
lisher, for Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, before
John came to Ephesus, declared Christ to be " the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation ;
for in him were all things created, in the heavens and
upon the earth, things visible and things invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers; all things have been created through him
and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him
all things consist."
It has been said by Bruce that we have no trace in
Luke's Gospel of a doctrine of the atonement. I do
not think this statement correct, for Luke tells us of
the baptism of suffering and death which Christ was
to undergo, and quotes Jesus' words at the last supper
in which he says of the bread, " This is my body which
is given for you," and of the wine : " This cup is the
new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured
out for you." But if there were in Luke any lack of
clearness in proclaiming the doctrine of atonement,
surely John's account of the Baptist's testimony would
fill the gap. He has before him Luke's story of the
Baptist's stern and minatory preaching and the Bap
tist's announcement of the Judge who was standing at
the door. John tells us what sort of deliverance the
Messiah is to bring, for he gives the Baptist's designa
tion of Christ as " the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sin of the world." This, indeed, was the message
which drew the heart of John to Christ. Like Luther,
the young man was seeking a gracious God. That

134 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
search led him to the Baptist. And the singular, i'ds,
" behold ! " seems to be directed to John himself, and
points him to One who is the sacrifice for sin, who
pays the debt of the guilty, who reconciles sinful men
to the holy God. Luke had used the words " grace "
and " glory " in his account of the annunciation to
Mary and to the shepherds; John uses these same
words to describe the impression which Jesus made
upon his followers : " For the Word became flesh and
dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of
the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and
truth." In Luke there is a chasm between Jesus' baptism and
his ministry in Galilee. John shows how the new
grew out of the old. He fills the vacancy by telling
us that Jesus returned to the Baptist after his baptism
and then received his testimony, only gradually begin
ning to preach and winning the best of the Baptist's
disciples. Without John's account, Luke's narratives
of Christ's beginnings in Galilee would lack all proper
connection with the narrative of his baptism. John
tells us of the marriage at Cana — possibly the mar
riage of Jesus' own sister — and of the presence there
of Mary, the mother of Jesus ; but he tells us nothing
of Jesus' temptation because Luke had narrated it.
John tells us of the first cleansing of the temple and of
Christ's nocturnal interview with Nicodemus, and the
natural inference is that while the other disciples re
mained in Capernaum after their return from the
Jordan, John, who had a home in Jerusalem, was with
Christ, and was the witness and recorder of his Judean
ministry. Luke had told of Jesus' visit to Nazareth,

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE I35
and John omits it; Luke had not told of the Saviour's
talk with the Samaritan woman on the way to Gali
lee, and therefore John relates it. When Jesus goes
up alone to Jerusalem, John is there to report the cure
of the paralytic, and to hear, possibly from Nicodemus,
of the rising enmity of the Pharisees. From Luke
alone we should never know why the Pharisees sent
their emissaries to Galilee to gather evidence against
Jesus. In fact, it is John who relates four journeys
of Jesus to Jerusalem, while Luke gives us only two.
John's Gospel is therefore the basis of our chronology
of Jesus' life, and is indispensable as the completion
and explanation of Luke's story.
John's return from his private visit to Jerusalem
marks the close of the Judean and the beginning of
the Galilean ministry. The first year of Christ's work
was, roughly speaking, a year of appeal to the Jewish
authorities; the second year was a year of appeal to
the Jewish people. Now comes the second calling of
his apostles. It had doubtless been expected and
longed for. There is a temporary popularity. So long
as the multitude could cherish hopes of revolution, and
could expect a miraculous supply of their physical
wants, Jesus was sure of a following. But his spirit
ual demands are too great for weak human nature.
The Pharisees poison the minds of the crowd against
him, and the people forsake him. There is a rising
tide of opposition which presages condemnation and
death. Between the fifth and the sixth chapters of
John's Gospel there is a cleft which only Luke's Gos
pel enables us to fill. But John knows this link of
connection to be in the hands of his readers, and he

I36 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
only shows us how it was that the people came to take
sides with the Pharisees. He tells us that the chief
priests, who were Sadducees, were now added to the
number of Christ's enemies. Since the Sanhedrin has
passed a decree against him, and has sent officers to
take him, Jesus predicts his own death and goes to
meet it. Luke tells us of the end of the battle, and of
Jesus' leaving Capernaum, but only John tells us why.
The journey to Jerusalem is a gradual progress.
The way lies beyond Jordan. There is a great con
geries of parables, discourses, and miracles which only
Luke records. The parables of the Good Samaritan,
the Friend at Midnight, the Rich Fool, the Guests'
Excuses, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Money, the Lost
Son, the Unrighteous Steward, Dives and Lazarus,
the Unjust Judge, the Pharisee and the Publican, the
Ten Pounds, the Cumbering Fig Tree; the miracles
performed on the woman with a spirit of infirmity, the
man afflicted with dropsy, the ten lepers; the dis
courses at the sending out of the Seventy and on their
return, with regard to prayer, trust in God, and coming
judgment, the Galileans slain by Pilate, whether few
are saved, the lament over Jerusalem, on counting the
cost, on forgiveness and faith, on the kingdom that
cometh not with observation, on Zacchaeus as also a
son of Abraham — all these wonderful revelations of
truth and power are peculiar to Luke, and they are
not related by John. John tells us why Jesus was
compelled to leave Galilee and to spend so long an
interval in Perea; Luke gives us the result in that
marvelous cluster of parables and miracles which form
so unique a feature of his Gospel

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE I37
The year of appeal to the Jewish people had proved
as futile as the previous year of appeal to the Jewish
authorities. This breathing-spell in Perea constitutes
the last year of Jesus' life, and it is an appeal to his
own chosen circle of disciples. He would fit them to
preach the gospel after his death. He betakes himself
with his apostles to the wilds beyond the Jordan for
privacy, and to escape the machinations of the Jews.
There he shapes the pillars of his future church. But
even this work comes soon to an end. How strange
it is that Luke throws no light upon the sudden break
ing up of our Lord's seclusion and his venturing an
approach to Jerusalem! It is John who supplements
Luke's Galilean informants as to the closing week of
Jesus' life. The death of Lazarus draws Jesus to
Bethany, and it is Lazarus' resurrection that precipi
tates Jesus' apprehension and condemnation. We have
seen a reason why Luke should be silent, so long as
Lazarus was alive and was in danger from the Jews,
and we owe to John alone the account of that wonder
ful and fateful miracle. But we could not fully under
stand even John, if Luke had not previously told of
Jesus' intimacy with Mary and Martha and Lazarus.
Jesus' friendship for that family of Bethany was such
that he gave his own life for his friends. Luke, how
ever, mentions only the place ; John gives us the time.
Luke tells us of the crowd that accompanied Jesus to
the holy city ; John tells us whence they came, namely,
from Jerusalem itself. Mary's anointing and Judas'
reproof are peculiar to the fourth Gospel, but they are
so interwoven with Luke's narrative as to indicate
John's intention to complete it.

I38 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
John gives us no account of the Lord's Supper,
though he was sent with Peter to prepare for it. How
can that be explained except by supposing that he had
Luke's Gospel before him? The long report of Jesus'
discourse and prayer makes up for the lack. But there
are graphic touches besides. Jesus rose to wash the
disciples' feet; he must have been sitting. He an
nounces his betrayal : this rouses Judas to execute his
plan. John gives no words of Christ's passion in Geth
semane, for Luke had given them already. But he
does tell the effect of Jesus' majesty upon the servants,
and he adds Jesus' request, " Let these go their way,"
to show how easy it would have been for Jesus to
escape, and how careful he was to shield his disciples.
He adds the name " Malchus " to Luke's telling of
Peter's sword. John does not mention Jesus' taking
three to watch with him. He conceals his own per
sonality. Mark, Peter's interpreter, alone gives this.
John describes the preliminary examination before
Annas, while Caiaphas summons the Sanhedrin; but
he leaves Luke to tell of the trial before Caiaphas.
Perhaps John was not there, but had gone to recover
Peter after his denial. John has not denied his Lord,
though the maidservant's words, " Thou too," to Peter
indicates that John was now known to be a disciple.
Luke states the result of the trial before Pilate, but
he does not explain the steps which led to it. What
occurred in Pilate's palace must have been told by
Jesus himself, for neither Jews nor disciples entered
there. Only John reveals the deepest ground of com
plaint on the part of Christ's enemies when he shows
them accusing Jesus of claiming to be the Son of God.

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 1 39
John's narrative of the crucifixion, the entombment,
and the resurrection is fragmentary in itself, but with
Luke's it is complete. John explains the term " Gol
gotha." He mentions the quadruple of soldiers. He
shows how the Lord who forgave his enemies could
care for his friends when his mother and the penitent
thief alike received the blessing. The words, " I thirst,"
and " It is finished," are peculiar to John. The piercing
of Jesus' side shows that there was no need of break
ing his legs, and John sees in this a fulfilment of the
prediction that " a bone of him shall" not be broken."
Luke had told of Joseph's providing Jesus' tomb ; John
adds that Nicodemus brought a hundred pounds of
spices. Luke tells us of the women coming to the
sepulcher ; only John tells of Jesus' appearance to Mary.
Luke describes the manifestation of the Lord to the
disciples at Emmaus; only John tells of Jesus' second
appearance to his apostles when the doors were shut,
when he showed his wounded side, and when he won
the doubting Thomas to faith in his Lordship and
Deity. The ascension was a marvelous event and most
important to the Gospel narrative. Why does not John
mention it? Simply because Luke had told of it al
ready. There is no antithesis or evasion here. The
omission confirms the previous record. Luke is
vouched for. Indeed, his Gospel may be indirectly
alluded to when John says : " Many other signs there
fore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which
are not written in this book, but these are written that
ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that believing ye may have life in his name."

140 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
" This book " may possibly imply the existence of an
earlier book already in the possession of the Ephesian
Christians. What John did not write Luke had already
written, and the testimony of both is that Jesus is the
Messiah, the Son of God, and that life and salvation
are to be found only in personal union with him.
Students of the New Testament history have very
commonly been puzzled by the omission in the fourth
Gospel of all mention of Jesus' birth and childhood,
his temptation in the wilderness, his rejection at Naza
reth, his miracles in Capernaum, his choosing of the
Twelve, the Sermon on the Mount, the parables by
the sea, the Gadarene demoniac, the raising of Jairus'
daughter, the mission of the Twelve and of the
Seventy, the confession of Peter, the transfiguration,
the discourses against the Pharisees, the Rich Young
Ruler, the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem
and the end of the world, the institution of the last
supper, the walk to Emmaus, the ascension. This
omission is now satisfactorily accounted for. John's
readers had all these before them in another book,
which it is his purpose only to supplement and complete.
He narrates the same matters of which Luke had
written, only when he can add new incidents or con
firmations from his own observation and experience,
as, for example, when he tells the story of the feeding
of the five thousand as a text for Jesus' declaration of
himself as the Bread of Life, or when he adds the
account of Thomas' conversion to Luke's report of
Christ's second appearance to the disciples after his
resurrection. Throughout John's Gospel there is an
avoidance of incidents related by Luke, and a studious

JOHN THE COMPLEMENT OF LUKE 14I
silence with regard to what had been already written,
a silence so discriminating and complete as to preclude
all possibility of its being accidental.
But the argument is not perfectly conclusive if we
leave it here. The things which John does say are
more important than those which he omits. The testi
mony of John the Baptist, the miracle at Cana, the
conversations with Nicodemus and the woman of Sa
maria, the healings of the nobleman's son, of the infirm
man at the pool of Bethesda, of the man born blind,
Jesus' proclamation of himself as the Bread of Life,
as the Light of the World, as the Good Shepherd, his
answer to the Greeks who sought him, his raising of
Lazarus, his farewell discourses and his intercessory
prayer — all these are not only sublime disclosures in
themselves, but they so fit into gaps in Luke's Gospel
as to convince us that there was design in the relation
of them. Every convexity of the one, whether great
or small, so answers to a concavity in the other as to
render it well-nigh certain that the purpose of the au
thor was to turn what might have seemed to some a
merely human gospel into the record of a divine life
lived upon the earth. But John's Gospel does not come
to us as an antithesis or contrast to the Gospel of Luke.
It only brings out Luke's real meaning, or the meaning
of the Holy Spirit who inspired Luke's writing, and
was promised to lead Christ's followers into all the
truth as it was in Jesus.
My treatment of this large subject has been a very
meager and hasty one, but I trust it has led to certain
reasonable conclusions. Let me summarize them as
follows :

142 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
i. John follows Luke, and is not to be considered
as an independent narrative.
2. Luke is already well known and only needs sup
plementing. 3. John's supplementary matter, with a single ex
ception, consists only of personal reminiscences.
4. That exception is the philosophical prologue
which adopts a great word from the rabbins, but fills
it with a new and personal meaning.
5. John's Gospel is intended to complete the Gospel
of Luke, and with this to constitute one historical
narrative. 6. Its record of events and of discourses is so minute
and exact that it can be the work only of the apostle
John. 7. The origin of its Logos-doctrines must be re
ferred, not to Ephesus and to the influence of Alexan
drian philosophy there, but to Jerusalem and to the
schools of the rabbins, where both John and Paul had
studied. 8. The Logos-doctrine itself is absolutely needed to
supplement the . picture of Jesus as given us by the
Synoptics, and it was substantially the teaching of
Paul before John wrote his Gospel.
9. The divine aspect of our Lord's personality is as
essential as the human aspect, and Christ is none other
than God manifest in the flesh.
10. John's Gospel relieves Luke's from the charge
of being a merely humanitarian picture of Christ's re
ligion, and makes Christianity to be nothing less than
a vital and personal union of the human spirit with
the omnipresent and omnipotent Christ.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
We pass to-day from the study of the Gospels to the
study of the Acts of the Apostles, from the study of
Christ's work for us to the study of Christ's work in
us and in his church.
The author of the Acts of the Apostles is Luke. We
have plenty of external evidence to Luke's author
ship in the testimonies of the church Fathers, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Eusebius, tes
timonies which I need not narrate to you ; but we have
internal evidence also, with which all of you are more
or less familiar, and which, when it is set forth in order,
is exceedingly convincing.
Luke begins the Acts of the Apostles with a refer
ence to the former treatise, and that former treatise,
as it is addressed to Theophilus, just as the Acts is,
makes it quite certain that Luke himself, and no other,
is the author of the Acts as well as of the Gospel.
Then we have similarities of style in the Gospel and
in the Acts which cannot possibly be accidental. It
will perhaps interest those of you who are familiar
with the Greek to know that we have the use of verbs
compounded with prepositions, in Luke and in Acts,
to an extent not at all paralleled by any other of the
books of the New Testament. We have the use of the
preposition abv, for example, to a remarkable extent,
as we have not in the Gospel of Matthew, of Mark,
or of John. While we have that preposition used in
143

I44 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew only three times, we have that preposition
used in the Gospel according to Luke twenty-four
times, and in the Acts of the Apostles fifty-one times,
showing that there is marked similarity of style in this
particular. We have the Greek verb Ttopsueo&ae, to go,
hardly used at all, used very sparingly indeed in other
portions of the New Testament; but in Luke's Gospel
we find it forty-nine times, and in the Acts of the Apos
tles thirty-eight times, showing that the peculiarities of
the one are peculiarities of the other.
There are other connections of the Gospel and the
Acts in the fact that the earlier portion of the Gospel,
in which Luke seems to have material made ready to
his hand, is Hebraistic in its style. He shows his
faithfulness to his authorities by accepting the very
words of the original, in many cases, while the latter
portions of the Gospel are written in a more pure
Greek. Now that is precisely the case with the Acts.
The earlier portions of the Acts, which have to do with
transactions within the bounds of the church in Pales
tine, are somewhat Hebraistic in their style; and the
latter portion of the Acts, which narrates events of
which Luke was in part an eye-witness, is written in
Greek of a better style, a more classical Greek. Now
this correspondence between the Gospel and the Acts
tends to show that the same person was the author of
both. Then we find that there are striking coincidences be
tween the speeches of Peter and Paul and James in
the Acts and in the Epistles. We have from those
same persons in each case not only the same general
train of thought, but also expressions which indicate a

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 1 45
peculiar authorship. You remember that great work
of Paley, "Horn Paulina," the object of which was
to show that the Acts and the Epistles show wonder
ful correspondence ; that the Acts confirms the Epistles
and that the Epistles confirm the Acts ; that there are
remarkable agreements between them which would not
have been possible if the Acts had not been a historical
document, and if, on the other hand, the Epistles had
not been written by the very men to whom they are
attributed. Here are proofs that Luke was the author
of the Acts, and proof also that Luke's work is veri
table history.
The date at which the Acts of the Apostles was
written I think can be determined within a narrow
limit, since Luke was the author. It is a continuation
of the Gospel of Luke, or rather it is a work by the
same author with the intent of making it a supplement
to the Gospel ; and, being a supplement to the Gospel,
we are warranted in saying, as we said in discussing
the Gospel itself, that in this book Luke represents
Paul. Luke does not write at his own motion, or upon
his own responsibility. The apostle Paul furnishes a
large part of the material; the apostle Paul sanctions
the work; the apostle Paul probably supervises the
work; and, therefore, we are warranted in believing
that, as the Gospel according to Luke was probably
written toward the close of Paul's imprisonment at
Caesarea, the Acts of the Apostles was probably written
before the close of Paul's first imprisonment at Rome.
As we may date the Gospel some time not after the
year 59, so it is proper to date the Acts of the Apostles
not much before the year 61, or toward the end of it.

I46 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
You remember that the Acts, although it narrates
Paul's journey to Rome, narrates Paul's preaching at
Rome, speaks of Paul's imprisonment at Rome for two
whole years, speaks of Paul's addresses to the Jews at
Rome, yet does not give an account of the close of
Paul's imprisonment at Rome. It is very certain that
the Acts of the Apostles was written before the close
of Paul's imprisonment. It is almost impossible that
the Acts of the Apostles should have been written after
the close of Paul's imprisonment; for, if Luke had
known of the issue of that imprisonment, that re
markable event which formed so natural a close of the
apostle Paul's life would undoubtedly have been itself
narrated and described. The fact that he leaves Paul
at the end of that two years' imprisonment, without
indicating when that imprisonment terminated and
what the result of it was, is to my mind evidence that
the Acts of the Apostles must have been written before
the close of that imprisonment, and that the only reason
Luke does not tell us what the result was in that case
is simply that he did not know, simply because the
result had not yet taken place. So I think we may
put the date of the Acts of the Apostles before the
close of the year 61, as we put the date of the Gospel
according to Luke before the year 59.
Now this fact will throw considerable light upon the
circumstances in which the Acts was written. You
must remember that Paul had had already twenty
years of experience in preaching and speaking. That
imprisonment at Caesarea was apparently ordered by
divine providence, like the imprisonment of John
Bunyan in Bedford jail, in order that he might, in

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 147
solitary meditation and leisure, collect the results of
what he had orally uttered, and prepare them to be
put into permanent and written form.
As the imprisonment at Caesarea, during which Luke
had access to Paul, as also did the other friends of
Paul, was a time when Luke might have had constant
conversation with the apostle, and yet at the same
time been perfectly free to consult the earlier apostles
and secure the material that was used in his Gospel;
so we may believe that the imprisonment of Paul at
Rome was also used for the purpose of putting to
gether the narration of the wonderful way in which
God had led him in his apostolic labors, and in which
material that had been previously collected in Palestine
might be supplemented by other material furnished by
Paul in Rome; so that the Acts of the Apostles in its
complete form might be the result.
In Caesarea, you remember, Philip the deacon re
sided. It was in Caesarea that Cornelius had lived ; and
all the evidence in connection with the preaching of
Philip and in connection with the evangelization of
Caesarea was right there at hand. The persons who
were most interested were ready to communicate what
they knew ; and there was a multitude of other oppor
tunities by which Luke might get at his material,
might be directed in the putting of it together by the
great apostle.
It seems to me that this fact, that the temporary
ceasing of the apostle's public labors was thus made
the means of a far greater permanent benefit to the
church of God than even his public and oral preach
ing of the gospel could have been, is full of suggestion

I48 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to us. Paul calls himself a prisoner of Jesus Christ;
and yet he is perhaps of more service to Jesus Christ
while he is a prisoner, in comforting the saints and in
preparing a message of instruction to the church of
God through all coming time, than he could have been
in his oral discourses and his public labors; and so
there is many a saint of God laid aside for a time by
divine providence, . prevented from mingling with the
world, who, in that very imprisonment, so to speak,
may be gaining new strength by reflection and prayer,
and may be actually doing more for the world than
he could have done had God permitted him to go
about in his accustomed way. Imprisonment and se
clusion are not the worst things for the saints of God.
It certainly was not so in the case of the apostle Paul.
I believe that these two imprisonments have resulted
partly in giving to us not only a number of Paul's
Epistles, but also the Gospel according to Luke and the
Acts of the Apostles.
This designation, " The Acts of the Apostles," is
very interesting in itself. In the Sinaitic manuscript
the only designation given is " The Acts." I think it
probable that this was the original title. Certain it is
that Luke's Gospel has no author's name, and it is
equally certain that no author's name is given to the
Acts. The Acts is anonymous, not only so far as its
authorship is concerned, but also in the fact that in it
the name of Luke does not even once occur. As a
matter of fact, it is not the Acts of the Apostles in
any such sense as we are ordinarily inclined to believe.
That phrase, the Acts of the Apostles, would give us
the impression of a continuous and complete history

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES I49
of the apostolic labors and sufferings. Now it is very
far from being the case that the Acts of the Apostles
is such a document as this. Why, we have no history
of the church in Jerusalem and of the work of the
apostles there after the imprisonment and the deliver
ance of Peter! All that we know with regard to the
great church in Jerusalem is what we know previous
to that time ; and then we know absolutely nothing of
the introduction of the gospel at Rome, which might
be conceived by us as the most important epoch in
church history. The Acts of the Apostles tells us
nothing about that. Moreover, we have not here a
record of the labors and sufferings of a great majority
of the apostles. The Eleven are mentioned, indeed,
and the filling up of their number by the election of
Matthias is spoken of at the first; but yet we hardly
have the eleven mentioned before they drop out of
sight ; and, besides the intimation that they exist, once
or twice afterward, we have hardly any account of
them. And even with regard to the labors and suffer
ings of Paul, how much there is that is not related to
us ! Paul has told us with regard to his sufferings, his
scourgings, his shipwrecks, his perils in journeyings
and perils at sea, his troubles through false brethren
and through imprisonment. Not a tenth part of all
this is told us in the Acts of the Apostles. We should
hardly know that Paul passed through that multitude
of perils and troubles if it had not been for words of
his in the course of his Epistles.
The Acts does not give an account of the doings of
the apostle John. One might think that the apostle
John was just as important a person as Peter, just as

150 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
important a person as Paul; but aside from the fact
that John appears once as the companion of Peter at
the healing of the lame man in the temple, and he does
not say anything at that time, we have him mentioned
only three times, and nothing is told us with regard
to John's individual work in Palestine.
How curious it is, then, that, in what by its title
purports to be the Acts of the Apostles, we have not
the acts of very many of them. Those things upon
which curiosity would like to dwell are entirely omitted.
What, then, is the principle of selection which has led
the Holy Spirit, out of the multiplicity of apostolic
movements, to choose so few, and to set only these be
fore us in the Acts of the Apostles ? I think we must
say, first of all, that it chiefly indicates that not all
things are equally important in the history of the
church of God. If so, we might expect that the Acts
of the Apostles would be a series of annals, telling us
from year to year just what happened to the church.
No, there are great critical movements upon which
history turns. There are great central personages
who are called by God to be leaders. There are great
epochs, when there are changes from the old to the
new. And we have brought to light this fact in the
Acts of the Apostles, that there were great central
personages, that there were great critical movements,
that there were great changes ; and upon those changes
the whole future history of the church has depended.
It is upon these that all the rays of divine light are
made to converge. We have in the Acts of the Apos
tles two foci, as one might say, two great points of
light; those points of light are made prominent, and

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 151
everything else is allowed to recede into apparent
insignificance. Everything turns here upon the planting of the
church among the Jews and upon the planting of the
church among the Gentiles; and there were two great
personages who were instrumental in these plantings
of the church: Peter was instrumental as the apostle
to the Jews, and Paul was instrumental as the apostle
to the Gentiles. Around the movements and the works
of these two apostles, their respective thoughts and
their proper relation to each other, the whole story
revolves. In the Acts of the Apostles we find these two great
influences set forth : the setting up of the gospel of
the kingdom of Christ among the Jews, and the setting
up of the gospel of the kingdom of Christ among the
Gentiles. So the Acts of the Apostles forms a bridge
from the Gospels to the Epistles.
Here is something very important in our understand
ing of the structure of the New Testament. The
Gospels had been occupied in setting forth Christ's
work for us, Christ's external work for man, his per
son, his incarnation, his teaching, his suffering, his
death, his resurrection. All this is naturally followed
by the account of Christ's work in us, Christ's work in
his church, the extension of his gospel to the world;
and this we have in the Acts of the Apostles. After
the first work of the apostles in the setting up of the
church has been narrated, we just as naturally have
the instructions which the apostles give for the guid
ance and direction of the church, and these we find in
the Epistles of the New Testament.

152 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Let me bring this a little more vividly to your
minds by asking you a question. Suppose, for a
moment, you should just let the Acts of the Apostles
drop out of the New Testament entirely. Imagine,
for a moment, that your New Testament had no such
book as the Acts; imagine you had read through the
Gospels from Matthew to John, and you had gotten
before your mind all Jesus had done in his suffering,
death, and resurrection, and now you close the last
page of the Gospel according to John and you turn to
the next. Behold, you read, " Paul, an apostle of Jesus
Christ." " Well," you say, " Paul ! Paul an apostle of
Jesus Christ? Why, I have read nothing about Paul.
Who is Paul? and where does Paul come from? "
Do you not see that you would have no bridge from
the Gospels to the Epistles; that you would have no
voucher for the authority of Paul; that all these epis
tles, which form so large a part of the New Testament,
would have no authority, simply because you would
not know anything of the adding of Paul to the number
of the apostles? You would not know of Christ's
direction of Paul in his apostolic labors; you would
know nothing about the churches to which he preached ;
and you would know nothing about him who preached
to them. So important, therefore, is the position of
the Acts of the Apostles in its intermediate place be
tween the Gospels and the Epistles, as assuring us of the
authority upon which the Epistles rest. We should
not read the Epistles with any assurance that they were
the word of God; we should not read them with any
understanding either of their office, of the persons to
whom they were written, or of the reasons they wrote

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 1 53
them, if it were not for what is told us in the Acts of
the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles, narrating to
us the founding of the church at two great critical
points and the leadership of two great men, has given
us the connection between the Gospels and the Epistles,
and has furnished us a clue to all the remaining part
of the New Testament.
Now, after having said so much with regard to the
two points, the author of the Acts of the Apostles, viz.,
Luke, and the title of the work, viz., " The Acts," and
after having explained just how much weight and how
little weight is to 'be attached to that phrase, I would
set before you the two great objects of the Acts. Those
two great objects are given to us in the Acts them
selves; they are given to us in the very first verse
of the Acts; so that, although we have no title, we do
have as clear an indication of the drift of it all, as if
Luke, who wrote the Acts, had set down a title for
himself. You remember that the Acts begins by speaking of
the things which Jesus began both to do and to teach,
and then it proceeds to narrate what follows. We have
in that word " began," I think, a clue to Luke's pur
pose, to one of his main objects. In other words, it
is intimated to us that the work of Christ, when he
was here in the flesh, was only the beginning of his
work. It is intimated to us that Christ's work for us
was only preparatory to another work in us; that
Christ's work for the church was only preparatory to
his work in the church. Jesus himself intimates this
when he promises the coming of the Holy Spirit. He
says, " I will send the Comforter " ; and then, in imme-

154 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
diate connection with this, only a sentence or two after,
" I will come to you." In other words, Christ comes
in the Holy Spirit ; and the work of the Holy Spirit is,
in a proper sense, a continuation of the work of Christ.
We have in the Gospels, then, the beginning of
Christ's work upon the earth ; and we have in the Acts
the continuance of that work through the apostles and
through the church. It will interest you to look
through the Acts and to mark the passages — a great
number of them — in which the Holy Spirit is men
tioned, and in which the work and the power of the
Holy Spirit are set forth. You know that the first
great event in the Acts of the Apostles is the pouring-
out of the Holy Spirit. We have the ascension of
Christ narrated, apparently in connection with the
promise that the Holy Spirit should be bestowed.
Christ's going was not, as John says, to leave the
disciples orphans, but only to prepare his coming again
in a new form. The Holy Spirit is the all-present
Christ. The Holy Spirit is Christ present more uni
versally than he could possibly be if he were here in
this world in visible form; so that in the Holy Spirit
we have Christ present with his people, scattered
though they may be over all the earth, present at the
same moment to every Christian soul.
The descent of the Holy Spirit, then, is the first great
event in the Acts of the Apostles ; and now, after that
descent of the Holy Spirit, we have the continual mani
festation of the Spirit's presence and power; we have
miracles performed in the name of Jesus; we have
the sending out of the apostles and deacons, chosen
through the Holy Spirit ; we have the condemnation of

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 1 55
Ananias and Sapphira, who lied to the Holy Spirit;
and then we have the final missionary work of Paul
and Barnabas, with all the evidences which the Holy
Spirit gave of his presence and power. In the Acts
of the Apostles, we have the presence and power of
the Holy Spirit continually set forth ; the words Holy
Spirit are continually recurring, as they do not recur
in the Gospels. The first great object of the Acts of
the Apostles is therefore to set forth Christ's work in
the world through his church; the building up of his
church through the agency of the apostles; and yet
not this agency as something separate from him, but
rather as the agency which he himself uses, to show
his personal power in setting up his kingdom in the
world; in other words, the first great object of the
Acts is to show forth the setting up of Christ's kingdom
in the world by the living, personal agency of Christ
himself through his Holy Spirit.
Now, there is another object which the Acts has in
view, and that is the setting forth of the universal
character of the religion of Jesus. At this distance
of time we have almost no conception of that revolu
tion in human thought which took place when Judaism
was outgrown and Christianity was extended to the
Gentile world. We have no conception of the narrow
ness and prejudice of even those apostles to whom
Christ first preached his gospel. The idea that one
could ever be saved, except by becoming a Jew, was
something entirely foreign to their thoughts. Their
only idea of salvation was that of coming within the
pale of Judaism, submitting to the Jewish ritual and
organization, and thus becoming heir to the promises

I56 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
given to Abraham and the fathers. The idea that the
gospel was for all the world, and that any human soul
could come directly to God through Jesus Christ, with
out being circumcised and becoming a Jew, was some
thing so strange and wonderful that it required a per
fect earthquake to shake the idea into the apostles'
minds. The Acts of the Apostles is in great part given us
to show the process of transition by which the gospel
passed from the Jew to the Gentile, by which the Gen
tile came to hold equal rights in the kingdom of God,
and to be regarded as equally an object of divine favor
and blessing. The tendency among the Jews was just
as it is among Christians to-day, to think that they
were the special favorites of heaven, and that God had
chosen them and brought them into his kingdom for
their own sakes. It was the object of Christ Jesus,
so soon as he had ascended his throne, to dispel this
selfishness, to convince his church that the gospel was
for the world. So you find that there is a passing from
Peter to Paul.
Paul, you know, on his last journey goes back to
Jerusalem and preaches the gospel there. He does
everything he can to conciliate the Jewish Christians ;
in fact, he comes under very favorable circumstances on
account of the multitude of his converts among the
Gentiles; but you know what difficulties he met with.
The result of that embassy was that he was actually
driven out from Jerusalem, and was compelled finally
and forever to make his way to the Gentiles and to
confine his labors to them.
There is a transition from Jerusalem to Rome.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 1 57
After the twelfth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles
you read almost nothing in regard to Jerusalem. The
scene of the apostle's labor is changed. It is now more
important that the gospel should be preached through
the world ; and you have a gradual progress from Jeru
salem and Judea, to Samaria, to Antioch, and finally
to Rome. Home missions, we may say, led to foreign
missions. We have the passage from Peter to Paul, we have
the passage from Jerusalem to Rome, we have the
passage from Jews to Gentiles, we have the passage
from local to universal ; and as this passage is made we
have speeches and utterances on the part of Peter and
on the part of Paul which give us typical illustrations
of their way of presenting the great truth to those
whom they address.
If you take, for example, Paul's utterances to the
heathen, there is one comparatively long speech at
Athens. Then you have a comparatively long speech
to the Jews of Pisidia, and then you have another com
paratively long speech to the Jews at Rome.
So you have a marvelous system of selection that
takes out the important things and sets them before
us, with the one idea of showing how the gospel that
once was thought by the Jews to belong to themselves
alone is to be preached as the means of salvation to
every human being, both Jew and Gentile.
In this process we have a beautiful incentive to broad
and universal work in the kingdom of Christ. Just so
surely as we are shut up in ourselves, and fancy that
we are brought into the kingdom of Christ simply for
our own sake, just so surely the blessings of the

158 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
kingdom will be taken from us and will be bestowed
upon others. The Acts of the Apostles breathes the
most liberal spirit, and urges us to no selfish concep
tion of the kingdom of God, but to efforts to extend
his gospel to earth's remotest bound.
Let me go back to the thought with which I began.
The Acts of the Apostles narrates to us the beginning
of the work of Christ in the church and in the world,
the work of Christ since his ascension. It lays down
the principle of that work. It teaches us of the resur
rection, which was the main subject of preaching. It
tells us something of the power in which that historical
fact was to be proclaimed, the power of the Holy
Spirit. It teaches something of the greatness and
power which is possible to Christ's servants, and it
teaches that we are to leave all personal considerations
and devote ourselves to the great work of subduing
the world. But in all this it gives us only the begin
ning. It tells us only what Christ began to do and to
teach while here in the flesh, with the view of spread
ing his gospel from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria
to Antioch and Ephesus and Athens and Corinth and
Rome, and to the ends of the earth.
Now the Acts of the Apostles is, so to speak, first
of all, his new work in the foundation of the church
through the preaching of the gospel ; and we have in it
a clue to the method of Christ's labor, and his prom
ise that success shall attend that labor as it goes on
through all the ages, until his purpose is accomplished
and the whole world shall be brought back to God.
At the end of the first chapter of John's Gospel
there is a text which I think we might well apply here.

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 1 59
Jesus says, " Nathanael, because I said I saw thee under
the fig tree, believest thou ? Greater things than these
shalt thou see." Then he goes on to speak of the
heavens opening and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of man, intimating that he
was to be the medium of communication between earth
and heaven, the channel through which all God's bless
ings were to flow to the world. " Greater things than
these shall ye see," says Christ. As he utters those
words to Nathanael he utters those words to us. We
have seen great things since the time when the Acts
of the Apostles was written. The gospel has been
preached in almost every heathen land of the habitable
world, and thousands have been converted ; still Christ
can say to us, " Greater things than these shall ye see " ;
and there never will be a time, even after all his won
derful revelations of the divine nature, after all the
wonderful triumphs of his kingdom, when he will not
be able to turn to the sacramental host that follows him
and say, " Greater things than these shall ye see." The
Acts of the Apostles, like the gospel itself, is only the
beginning of the more wonderful future that is before
us. Let us thank God and take courage, for " mercy
shall be built up forever."

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
There is no writing of the New Testament that more
needs to be studied in connection with the history of
the writer than the Epistle to the Romans. The
apostle Paul was born about the year 7 or 8 of our era,
in Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, in Asia Minor. Cilicia
was populated with Greeks, and Tarsus was no mean
city. It was a place of great literary and philosophical
activity. It almost ranked with Athens and Alexandria.
The schools of Tarsus were famed throughout the
world, and Paul received in his early days the best
education in Greek literature and in Greek philosophy.
He refers three several times to Greek poets, and there
are other indications that he was familiar with Greek
poetical literature. In his controversy with the Stoics
and Epicureans, he shows a very correct and distinct
knowledge of their doctrine.
Paul, although he was born at Tarsus, was a Roman
citizen, and a Roman citizen at the time when to be a
Roman was almost greater than to be a king. He was a
Roman citizen not because all the inhabitants of Tarsus
had had Roman citizenship conferred upon them. As a
matter of fact, Roman citizenship was conferred upon
all the inhabitants of Tarsus at a later time; but at
this time Paul was free-born, because his father was
already a Roman citizen. The father may have ren
dered some special service to the state and so may have
had Roman citizenship conferred upon him.
160

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS l6l
There is no question but that this conferring of
Roman citizenship must have given to the family of
the apostle Paul a high social position; and it is quite
evident in all the bearing of the apostle, both in the
Acts and in his Epistles, that there was with him that
abiding sense of dignity which belongs to one who,
from his earliest years, has been accustomed to regard
himself as among the best of his fellow citizens. There
was a rank and honor which belonged to those who had
this dignity of Roman citizenship, and at that distance
from Jerusalem there was an enjoyment of some privi
leges and a broadening of the mind which would not
have been possible if Paul had been born at Jerusalem,
even though he had been there a Latin and a Roman.
But it is not enough to speak of Paul as a Roman
citizen. More than by his Roman citizenship was he
characterized by the fact that he was a Jew. He was
a Hebrew of the Hebrews. He was a Pharisee, and
the son of a Pharisee. He was of the tribe of Ben
jamin, of the straitest sect of the Jewish religion ; and,
therefore, in his twelfth year, he appears to have been
sent to Jerusalem for his education.
Having what could be gotten at Tarsus, and per
haps returning to Tarsus afterward for certain por
tions of his study, it would appear that from the age
of twelve years a very large portion of his time was
spent at Jerusalem. At Jerusalem the very highest
advantages that the Jewish religion could afford were
his, for he sat at the feet of Gamaliel, the greatest
Jewish teacher of his time, and not only a great Jewish
teacher, but a great man as well, as appears from the
fragments of his teaching that are left to us.

1 62 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
He sat at the feet of Gamaliel; and at the feet of
Gamaliel he seems to have made wonderful progress
in the development of his ardent and enthusiastic re
ligious spirit; for he states that he made progress in
Judaism beyond all those of his own age, and was
looked upon as the most promising of the rising young
men among the Jews.
There is no doubt whatever that Paul was a man
of ambition. His ambition was of a very lofty sort.
There is not the slightest evidence that there was ever
a spot or stain upon his moral character. His ambition
was to attain the highest legal and moral standing;
there was a constant effort at the doing of works of
righteousness; he sought to gain the applause of his
own conscience, and whatever earthly influence and
power might accrue as the result of a noble and un
blemished moral development.
There was in the character of the apostle Paul a
remarkable union of energy and quickness of mind.
He had not only acuteness of intellect, but with it
firmness of will. He was not only a thoroughly blame
less man in moral character, but a person possessed
of an ardent and impetuous nature. He was a man
of the warmest and deepest affection; and this union
of intellectual power and emotional power is perceptible
in every writing and in every speech which is left to us.
The apostle Paul was a great man by nature and a
great man by training. He was a great man because
in his mental composition there was not simply the in
tellectual element, but there was also the emotional ele
ment. He was greater than Peter, because he had a
greater intellect than Peter ever had. He was a

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 163
greater man than John, because he had greater strength
and energy of will than ever John possessed. And so
by his character and natural composition of mind and
heart, as well as by his birth and education, he was
fitted for the special work which God had ordained for
him, to be a bridge between the Jews and the Gentiles,
fitted for the work of extending the Jewish religion,
of freeing it from its husks, and making it the universal
religion of the world. The apostle Paul was wonder
fully fitted by natural temperament and by education
for the peculiar work that God gave him to do; and
yet, even though he united Roman citizenship with
Greek culture and Jewish legalism, he never could have
done the work that he did; he would at most have
been famous as a liberal rabbi among the Jews; his
fame would have been a narrow and local fame, if it
had not been for that wonderful change that came over
him on his way to Damascus, that wonderful change
which turned the ardent and enthusiastic Jew into the
greatest preacher of the gospel that this world has
ever seen.
It would seem that at his thirtieth year Paul entered
public life. It was at that time, apparently, that, in
response to an inward impulse to do more than he
had ever done hitherto, he undertook the persecution
of the Christians. This impulse to do more than he had
ever done, this longing to work out a righteousness
of his own which should commend him to God, was
parallel to that impulse that possessed the mind of
Luther during so many years; and it would seem
almost as if this impulse, this sense of dissatisfaction
with himself, this desire to do something more than

164 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
he had ever done before, led him to seek an enterprise
that had in it hazard and also something of faith; a
perverted faith. In other words, he would prove that
he was a Jew beyond all other Jews by his determined
opposition to everything in the way of heresy, the new
religion; and so he sought from the high priest the
letters to Damascus, in which he was authorized to
apprehend Christians and to bring them by force to
the holy city for trial and punishment. But before that
mission was executed an event took place which un
questionably had permanent influence upon the apostle's
mind, and that was the martyrdom of Stephen.
Although Paul does not appear to have been an
active participant in that martyrdom, as he only held
the clothes of those who were stoning Stephen to
death, yet there was something on the appealing face
of that martyr as he looked up to heaven, something in
that cry of Stephen, " Lord, receive my spirit," some
thing in the calm with which the man who was just
on the verge of death rejoiced in the presence of Christ
and in the assurance that his spirit was going to be
with him in glory; there was something in that scene
which stirred the apostle's mind after Stephen's death,
although he was not an apostle then, and which appar
ently — all the way on that journey to Damascus — was
agitating his soul with the feeling that all was not
right within, and was preparing the way for the mani
festation of Christ's power to him in that supernatural
light from heaven.
As he was nearing Damascus he was stricken down
by a light that was brighter than the light of the sun ;
he heard a voice saying to him, " Saul, Saul, why

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 165
persecutest thou me ? " and he cried, " Who art thou,
Lord ? " The answer was, " I am Jesus whom thou
persecutest; it is hard for thee to kick against the
pricks," hard for thee to resist this inner stirring of the
Holy Spirit, hard for thee to go on in this everlasting
struggle of will against conscience. So a wonderful
change took place. He bowed himself to this Christ,
whose followers he had been persecuting; and the
evidence of his submission was these words : " Lord,
what wilt thou have me to do ? I hear thy voice, from
this instant I give myself to thee " ; and the answer
was that he was to go into the city, and it should be
told him what he should do. There have been mani
fold attempts to explain this transaction upon natural
istic grounds. The two chief explanations that have
been given are the explanations of Baur and Renan.
Baur would "explain the outward from the inward,
and he says that it was simply an intense and sudden
conviction of the truth of Christian religion and of
Christ's spiritual presence, that Paul translated into
an outward scene and an outward event. The whole
transaction was within. Unfortunately, we cannot
translate the inward into the outward here, because
this experience was not peculiar to the apostle alone.
His companions with him heard the sound, heard the
voice, though they could not understand the words.
And Baur himself, at a later period in his life, was
obliged to confess that the conversion of the apostle
Paul and the effects that followed from it constitute
an inexplicable psychological enigma, which is simply
an acknowledgment that he has no answer or explana
tion to give.

l66 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Renan, on the other hand, would explain the inward
from the outward, and he tells us that there was a
sudden storm, that there was a flash of lightning, or
that there was a sudden access of ophthalmic fever,
which Paul took as a scene from heaven. Unfortu
nately for this explanation, it is utterly impossible for
any mere outward event or scene, any mere outward
transaction of that sort to explain the inward effects
that followed. No ordinary sickness, no ophthalmic
fever, no flash of lightning, no storm, would ever of
itself be sufficient to change the persecutor of the
Christian church into the greatest advocate of Christian
religion that the world has seen; and the apostle Paul
gives us very distinctly to understand that he knew
the difference between inward and outward experi
ences. He was not the man to translate inward ex
periences into outward ones, nor outward into inward
ones; because, on another occasion, when there was a
very peculiar experience and he was caught up into
the third heaven, he tells us, " Whether I was in the
body or out of the body I know not." That transac
tion was one which he could not explain, but his ex
perience on the way to Damascus was very different.
Then he saw the living, risen Christ in bodily form, for
he tells us afterward that, last of all Christ's appear
ances to his disciples after his resurrection, the Lord
was seen of him also, and that constituted his authority
in his apostleship.
It was necessary, in order to be an apostle, that one
should have seen the risen Christ, and so should be a
credible witness of his resurrection. All the apostles
had seen Jesus Christ in bodily form after he had risen

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 1 67
from the dead. Nothing but the seeing of the living,
risen Christ would ever have enabled such a mono-
theist as Paul to talk about Christ as being the fulness
of the Godhead, bodily. Paul knew the difference
between a vision and an outward, bodily manifestation
of Christ; and he has maintained the distinction be
tween those two with perfect accuracy and uniformity
throughout all his writings.
This outward manifestation had a wonderful effect
upon Paul. The inward experience, the revelation of
his sin was only the accompaniment of Christ's out
ward revelation of himself to Paul. In the first place,
this visible manifestation of the heavenly purity, that
was ineffably glorious beyond the brightness of the
sun, was the death-blow to all Paul's hope of legal
righteousness. The instant he saw this Christ in his
divinely holy manifestation he was like Isaiah of old,
who, in the presence of the holiness of Christ, as we
are told in John 12 : 41, put himself in the position of
the leper and cried, " Unclean, unclean ! " and in the
position of Peter, who, when the power of Jesus was
manifested to him, cried : " Depart from me, O Lord,
for I am a sinful man ! "
From that moment all idea of ever commending
himself to the holy God by any works of righteous
ness that he had done or could do was dispelled for
ever; and in the place of hope that he could do any
thing or claim anything good in his imperfection and
in his sin, there arose in his mind a new conception of
the sacrifice for sin. Those old Jewish types in which
he had been educated assumed an entirely new signifi
cance; this Jesus, whom he had been persecuting as a

1 68 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
false teacher, was the Messiah, was the Christ, was the
divinely appointed sacrifice for sin, was God himself
coming in human form and offering sacrifices for sin,
to exhibit his justice and make possible the salvation
of the lost.
Paul sees the sin, Paul sees the sacrifice for sin, and
then Paul sees who this is that has offered this sac
rifice: it is none other than the Son of God, the
Saviour of the world, God manifest in the flesh. In
connection with this there arises in his mind the idea
of the universality of the salvation. If God has offered
this sacrifice, if this Christ is the God offered upon the
altar of sacrifice for human sin, then the validity of
this sacrifice must be universal, not simply to the Jews,
but to all the nations of mankind.
So from this point must be dated not only Paul's con
version, but also Paul's calling to his apostleship and
to his work in the world, and to his understanding of
the nature and meaning of that work. He comes, lit
tle by little, to see that God has called him to be an
apostle to the heathen world, and he devotes himself
to missionary labors. A man not strong in his phy
sique, and with a malady upon him which requires the
constant attendance of the physician Luke, he, not
withstanding, with a perfectly indefatigable zeal, with
an absoluteness of devotion such as the world never saw
before or since, devotes himself to the evangelization
of the world.
He goes out in successive missionary journeys in
wider and wider circles. First, a narrow circle through
Asia Minor, then a wider circle through Asia Minor,
and finally another one through Asia Minor into

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 169
Greece. From Corinth he looks out wistfully toward
Rome, the center and metropolis of the world ; and he
longs there, among the masters of the world, to preach
this gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is something magnificent in this life of the
apostle! I do not wonder that Doctor Peabody, of
Harvard College, when he attended, not long ago, the
centennial celebration of the birth of Adoniram Judson,
in Maiden, Massachusetts, said in the pulpit that
Doctor Judson, in his judgment, was the greatest man
that had appeared on this earth since the days of the
apostle Paul.
I wonder that it did not occur to Doctor Peabody,
with his unwillingness to grant the absolute deity of
Jesus Christ, I wonder that it did not occur to him
that Unitarianism has never produced such a man as
Judson, or such a man as Paul, and that the spirit of
Unitarianism is a different spirit from the spirit of
either Judson or Paul.
There was a doctrine to preach, now that Paul had
found Christ. There was a doctrine to preach, now
that Paul had come to recognize Jesus as the living
God, and it was a doctrine for which he could sacri
fice life itself when, at last, he went to his martyrdom
at Rome.
I cannot tell the other steps of his life-story, and
it is not necessary for my purpose; but how perfectly
plain it is that when Paul comes to write his Epistles,
all his natural character and all his Christian experience
are wrought into them. These Epistles are Epistles
of fellowship, you might say. The apostle does not
stand upon a lofty elevation and talk down to those

170 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
whom he is addressing, but puts himself, so to speak,
upon their level. They are letters of friendship.
I wish the word " letters " could be substituted for
the word " Epistles," as applied to Paul's communica
tions to the churches; for they are letters of Christian
fellowship ; and underneath and through them all there
is the life of the apostle, so to speak, and the assur
ance that the Holy Spirit is with him in his speaking.
There is constantly present and constantly manifest
the throbbing of a warm and sincere heart, as well as
the working of an energetic and organizing intellect.
It is necessary to say a word with regard to the
church at Rome, to which this Epistle to the Romans
was addressed. Rome, of course, was the greatest
city and the greatest center of power in the world;
and Paul, as he looked off toward the West and knew
that from that city the greatest influences must ema
nate in future time, for the welfare of the nations to
which he was called to minister, had longed for years
that he might preach the gospel there also. But church
after church was laid upon him, constituting a new
burden of anxiety and care; and the personal rela
tions between himself and those converted under his
ministry were kept up year after year, so that he could
speak of the burden of all the churches as one of the
heavy things laid upon him by God. And yet his heart
goes out beyond the churches to which he has per
sonally ministered; and since he cannot instruct the
Romans in their great center of influence and power
by personal work and words, he feels it a duty to give
them the gospel by written instruction, and so the
Epistle to the Romans is written.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS I7I
Paul, of course, was not the founder of the Roman
church. Some have said that it was founded by those
Jews and proselytes of4 Rome who were present at
the day of Pentecost, and who went back, bringing the
glad news to their fellow countrymen ; but with regard
to that there may be considerable doubt. It seems
very likely to me that the church at Rome was founded
by Gentile converts that had made their way there from
Asia Minor, just as, at an earlier time, they had made
their way to Antioch and afterward to Alexandria.
The tradition that Peter was the founder of the
church at Rome is decisively negatived by this very
Epistle of Paul. This Epistle of Paul cuts absolutely
at the root of the historical basis of the papacy, be
cause it is perfectly evident in this Epistle that Paul
knows nothing of any previous work of Peter there.
In all the salutations there is no allusion to Peter;. and
if the Epistle to the Romans had been written to a
church of which such a person as the apostle Peter
had been the founder, we may be sure there would have
been an allusion to Peter's work and teaching. Letters
of apostolic instruction to churches founded by other
apostles were not according to Paul's rule. He never
built upon another man's foundation. It was always
new work that he did.
There is no reason to believe that Peter had ever
seen Rome when this Epistle to the Romans was
written, and therefore no reason to believe that the
apostle Peter was ever a founder of the Roman church.
Peter, if he ever did visit Rome, visited it after this
time. It is just possible that after this time he may
have visited it, and that he may have founded a church

172 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
there; and the fact that the succession of Roman
bishops presents a double list at the very beginning
may possibly be explained in this way : that there were
two churches in Rome, and that the bishops of the one
were bishops or pastors of the church to which Paul
wrote, and the others were pastors of the church in
whose foundation Peter was concerned. But even with
regard to this there is no certainty at all. It is by no
means certain that the apostle Peter ever visited Rome
at all.
We do know, however, with regard to this church
at Rome to which the apostle Paul wrote, that it was
a church prevailingly of Gentile Christians, persons
that were brought in from among the Gentiles and
not from among the Jews. And yet they had with
them, doubtless, many who were converts from among
the Jews also. While the letter shows that the ma
jority of believers among them were Gentile Christians,
yet at the same time we cannot deny that there were
also among them converts from among the Jews, and
it was from the fact that there were those two classes
in the church that one of the particular necessities of
writing the Epistle arose. There were diversities of
opinion between these two classes, and one of the
objects of Paul's writing was to reconcile these two,
bring about a compromise, induce a spirit of material
consideration and helpfulness between them; and the
fifteenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is written
expressly with this aim.
The letter itself was probably written from Corinth,
in the year 56, as Paul was on his third missionary
journey, and was just preparing to go to Jerusalem;

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 1 73
and, therefore, before his imprisonment at Caesarea and
during those three months of comparative leisure and
rest when Paul was at Corinth, when he had succeeded
in reducing the difficulties and troubles of the Corin
thian church and had, apparently, a period of rest and
relaxation preparatory to the great trials that were
just before him in his imprisonment at Jerusalem, his
imprisonment at Caesarea, and his trial at Rome.
So we come to what we have been aiming at all the
time : the object of the Epistle to the Romans. What
was the object of this Epistle? I have indicated that
there were subsidiary objects, such as the reconcilia
tion of these diverse opinions between Jew and Gentile
Christians. Undoubtedly there were such subsidiary
objects as this ; and still, I think, when you look at the
Epistle as a whole, you cannot doubt that Paul seized
upon Rome and the writing of the Epistle to the
Romans as a means of setting forth in more philosoph
ical, more organic, and more complete form than ever
had been attained heretofore, the gospel which he
preached. The facts of Christianity were at this time pub
lished for the most part only in an oral gospel, al
though our Mark, and the sayings of Jesus which Mat
thew incorporated, were already written. Paul was
not so much concerned about putting these facts into
written form, although a little later it would seem that
he had some influence in the composition of Luke's
Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. But Paul was
not a witness of the events of Jesus' life, and, more
over, Paul was called as an apostle after Jesus' death,
with an obvious end in view. It was not without a

174 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
purpose that Paul had not been with Jesus Christ all
through his life. He could see the life of our Lord as
a whole, in a way that the first apostles could not.
It was necessary that the Gospels should be written
by eye-witnesses and by those who had seen the eye
witnesses; but it was also necessary that a beginning
should be made in reducing Christianity to a system.
In this organizing of Christian facts into doctrine, the
writer needed to be conversant with the results rather
than with the events themselves. It was necessary,
in other words, that Paul should have his peculiar
mind and his peculiar religious and philosophical train
ing in order to write the Epistle to the Romans, and
the Epistle itself is therefore a semi-philosophical ex
position of the Pauline Gospel.
We have here the summary of Christian doctrine as
it appeared to the apostle Paul. Paul was perfectly
capable of doing this, and he had special preparation
for it. This will be more evident, I think, when you
remember that in Ephesus, for two years, every single
day Paul lectured in the school of the rhetorician
Tyrannus. Can you imagine a man of the skill of
Paul lecturing for two whole years, every single day,
without having any plan for his discourses ? You may
be very sure that, in the mind of the apostle as he
discussed these things, there was an order and a sys
tem. When he came to write the Epistle to the
Romans all this was ready to his hand. As he wrote,
it was inevitable that his material should be molded
by his individual characteristics and training, and by
the special purpose he had in preaching and lecturing
about the gospel of Christ. And so we have in this

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 1 75
Epistle to the Romans an exposition of the. truth of
Christianity as it was preached by the apostle Paul.
But this does not absolve us from the necessity of
showing what was the particular end and aim of this
Epistle. Christianity was a broad thing. It took all
the apostles to see Christianity and see Christ aright.
Christianity and Christ were many-sided, and not one
apostle, but all the apostles together were needed to
see them in their various aspects. The apostle Paul
represents Christ from his point of view, and that
point of view is the doctrine of faith as opposed to the
doctrine of works. The subject of the Epistle to the
Romans is salvation by faith in distinction from salva
tion by works.
Right here there is an important remark which I
wish to make, and which may correct some misappre
hension you have had in the past. It is often said
that the subject of this Epistle is justification by faith.
That is only a part of the truth. To say that the sub
ject of the Epistle to the Romans is justification by
faith is to narrow our conception of the apostle Paul
and his ideas of Christianity.
When you look at the Epistle to the Romans as a
whole, you find that although the doctrine of justifica
tion by faith is one of the largest parts of it, it is
only a part. [The subject of the Epistle to the Romans
is salvation Dy faith; and salvation by faith consists
of two things: first, justification by faith; and, sec
ondly, sanctification by faith. First, bringing in of
the ship safe; and then, secondly, the making of it
souncp It is one thing to bring the ship in after a
tempest and moor it safely to the dock — that is justifi-

176 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
cation; but it is quite another thing to see that that
ship is thoroughly repaired — that is sanctification.
Now the totality of salvation is the subject of the
Epistle. Justification first, the securing of a new ac
cess to God, pardon, the remission of sin, outward
favor, external justification; and then the renewal of
the heart, the increase of right affections, the subduing
of the whole man to obedience to Christ, and filling
him with peace and joy, internal sanctification.
The whole man is included, and all God does for
man is in view when the apostle writes. So you find
that after Paul has introduced his letter with an apos
tolic introduction, and has defined his subject as the
righteousness which God provides by faith, he goes on,
first, to speak from the first chapter and seventeenth
verse to the fifth chapter and eleventh verse, inclusive,
of justification by faith; and then from the fifth chapter
and twelfth verse to the end of the eighth chapter, of
sanctification by faith. If this is all by faith, how can
we explain God's calling of the Jews in times past,
God's election, and their rejection? Two explanatory
chapters, the ninth and tenth, are added to make that
matter clear, and to show that the Jews have been, cast
off because of their own wilful unbelief, and that the
Gentiles have been brought in in the fulness of God's
mercy. And then, after this salvation by faith as com
ing from God has been set forth in its two parts of
justification and sanctification, we have the ethical
portion of the Epistle, with which the twelfth chapter
begins ; that wonderful portion which tells us how this
gospel will manifest itself in practical life, and Chris
tian perfection will reveal itself to the world.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 1 77
" I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies
of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,
holy and acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable
service." What a source of gratitude that this doc
trine is not a mere abstraction, not a matter of mere
theory, but that it leads to a holy life ! What that life
will be is explained from the beginning of the twelfth
chapter, and the rest of the Epistle is ethical as the
first eleven chapters have been doctrinal.
Under the first head of justification by faith it was
necessary for the apostle to show that such a thing
was needed, because no one could ever be justified in
any other way; and so, from the eighteenth verse of
the first chapter to the twentieth verse of the third
chapter, he shows the need of a divinely provided
righteousness by proving that man could not work out
any such righteousness by himself. The wrath of God
rested both upon Gentiles and upon Jews.
See how Paul is simply reproducing his own experi
ence, and is applying to all men just that truth of
which he had been deeply conscious in his own soul;
and having proved this, he says that God has provided
a righteousness, a righteousness in Christ who is made
an atonement for sin. Then you have the way in
which the giving of this gospel to man absolutely ex
cludes boasting and self-praise ; and the proof that, even
under the Old Testament, the law of salvation was
precisely the same. Abraham was saved by faith just
as we are. He cast himself upon the mercy of God
when he had no righteousness of his own. There is
something wonderful in this presentation of the gospel
of Christ. M

I78 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(The great difference between men is not that one
man is a sinner and the other is n<£pv We are all
sinners and we are shut up in sin. The question is
quite a different one from that. Are you willing to
recognize the fact that you are a sinner, that you are
condemned and helpless and lost, dependent upon the
free grace of God in Jesus Christ for your salvation?
Are you willing to trust this provision of God's mercy
which he has made in Jesus Christ? If you will not,
if you set up your own righteousness and pride and
trust to that, then you are surely lost, and just as
surely lost as that you live to-day. There is the differ
ence. He that will acknowledge himself to be a lost
sinner and depend upon the atonement of the Lord
Jesus Christ, his crucified God, for salvation, is saved.
If he is in a heathen land, and casts himself upon God's
mercy, he can be saved even though he may not know
of the name of the Christ who saves him.
There is a great deal of difference between heathen
morality and Christian morality. Heathenism is man's
vain effort to lift himself up to God. Judaism had in it
something of the heathen element, and just so far as it
had, Paul rejected it and cast it out. But while heathen
ism is man's vain effort to lift himself to God, Chris
tianity is God's coming down to man and lifting him
up to himself. Heathenism is the work of man's self-
righteousness and pride; Christianity is the humble
reception of salvation as the free gift of infinite grace
to a lost sinner through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Now the object of the apostle Paul, his great object
in writing the Epistle to the Romans, was to set forth
this truth of universal significance, this truth which is

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 179
an article of standing or falling faith, of standing or
falling salvation ; and I have tried to set before you, in
a very imperfect way, the order of its treatment. It
simply carries out the one great aim to which the apos
tle Paul devoted his life, though he had been prepared
for it by his own inner experience, namely, the aim of
proclaiming to the whole world the gospel of salva
tion by faith, a salvation which included both justifica
tion and sanctification.
It is very remarkable that the apostle Paul, who, be
fore his conversion, was the greatest enemy of Chris
tianity, has become the founder of the great majority
of Christian churches, for the churches that were
founded by the Twelve have died out. Paul is the
principal author of the New Testament; for, including
Luke and Acts, which were probably written under his
supervision and with his sanction, the major part of
the New Testament may be attributed to Paul. Chris
tian doctrine owes more to him than to all the other
twelve apostles put together; and this Epistle to the
Romans is the summary of Christian doctrine as given
us by the apostle Paul.
Coleridge said of this Epistle to the Romans that
it was the profoundest work in existence. Godet
calls it the very cathedral of the Christian faith. It is
the magna charta of our religion ; and it is a wonder
ful proof that God can take even his enemies and can
make them praise him. How can you explain this
except by the supernatural power and grace of God ?
There was a man named Julian who was educated
as a Christian and professed Christianity; and then,
under the influence of the Platonic philosophy, he gave

l8o THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
up his faith and spent all his days and all his influence
(for he was emperor of the East) in waging war with
the Christianity he had once professed. But at the
last he felt that Christianity was too much for him,
and with his dying breath he exclaimed, in agony and
despair, " O Nazarene, thou hast conquered ! " And
here was the apostle Paul who, being the persecutor of
Christianity, turned to Christ and became the greatest
power in the world.
No other man has exercised in this world such in
fluence as the apostle Paul, and that influence is bene
ficial beyond all expression to-day. Ah, let us not be
broken like Julian, but let us bow like Paul !

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS
The city of Corinth, where the church was situated
to which Paul wrote the letter, or the letters, which we
are to consider this morning, was a place that had been
wealthy and famous ever since the time of Homer.
It was situated upon the isthmus, or just at the isthmus,
that connected the Peloponnesus with the northern part
of Greece. This isthmus constituted a sort of bridge
from the south to the north, and from the north to the
south ; and all who went from the north to the south, or
from the south to the north, by land, must necessarily
go across it. This of itself made Corinth a place of
great commercial importance ; but then, besides that, it
was situated between two seas. There was the port of
Cenchrea on the east and the port of Lechaeum on the
west, both of which were the seaports of Corinth ; and
all the traffic from Asia to the West at one time passed
through Corinth. It was much easier for the navigator
and avoided doubling those difficult and dangerous
capes at the south of the Peloponnesus; and so his
goods were transferred from one ship to another, and
the traffic made its way by sea.
I do not know that even this situation at the isthmus
would have determined the rank and importance of
Corinth if it had not been that it was marvelously
furnished by way of defense. The earliest settlements
have been determined by possibilities of defense. I
suppose that the earliest Scotch settlements were at
181

182 the books of the new testament
Edinburgh simply because Edinburgh has a natural
fortress, a great bluff, which could be easily defended.
Just so the Acropolis at Athens determined the very
early settlement at Athens, and just so at Corinth there
was a great hill or bluff, higher than Gibraltar and
quite as steep, one thousand, nine hundred feet high,
which rose close to the sea, at the foot of which the city
was built. This great bluff, or Acropolis, constituted
a sort of a natural fortress and defense for the city.
Here were celebrated the Isthmian games, at which
the enterprising of northern and southern Greece con
tended for the prize. Corinth was a city of great mag
nificence and splendor until the year 146 before Christ,
when the Romans swept over Greece and the Consul
Mummius took the city, totally destroyed it, and car
ried back from it to Rome the richest spoil that had
ever been brought from the East. For one hundred
years Corinth remained in perfect desolation, until at
last, in the year 44 before Christ, Julius Caesar rebuilt
the city. He peopled it with a colony of Italian freed-
men ; and it is very curious that we meet, in the refer
ences to Corinth in the New Testament, a remarkable
number of Latin names, which look exceedingly curious
as you see them masquerading in Greek dress. The
names, for example, of Caius, Quartus, Fortunatus,
Crispus, and Justus are all of them Latin and yet they
take the Greek form.
The colony of Julius Caesar very rapidly grew. Mer
chants flocked to it. The Jews came there to trade,
and the city had a marvelous growth, a growth that
was like the growth of our Western American towns.
From nothing, in one hundred years it had grown to

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 1 83
be a city of six hundred thousand inhabitants, of
whom two hundred thousand were freedmen and four
hundred thousand were slaves.
It not only grew in numbers, in wealth, and magnifi
cence (for here were situated those temples built of
stone to which Paul alludes in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians), but it was also celebrated for its school
of rhetoric and philosophy. There were workshops
and studios, and all the evidences of exceedingly busy
and active life; but with all the literary and philosoph
ical advantages of the place, with all its schools for
rhetoric and oratory, there was also an esoteric luxury
and licentiousness. Corinth was one of the very worst
cities of the ancient world.
From the top of that Acrocorinthus of Corinth, one
thousand, nine hundred feet high, there shone far off
upon the ^Egean Sea and upon all the surrounding
country of Greece, the magnificent temple of Venus,
where a thousand priestesses were consecrated every
year to immorality; and the names "Corinthian ban
quet," " Corinthian drinker," and " Corinthian girl "
were synonyms for all that was defiled and base. It
was in Corinth, you remember, a little later than the
time of which we are speaking to-day; it was in Corinth
and with the sights of Corinth before him that the
apostle Paul wrote the first chapter of his Epistle to
the Romans, with its terrible list of the infamous do
ings of the heathen. It was here that the gospel was to
make its inroads ; it was here to be determined whether
the gospel of Christ was as able to subdue and to bring
under its dominion the license of the heathen as it was
to subdue and put away the Judaistic yoke. That first

184 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
entrance of Christianity into Corinth was forever
memorable. More is told us with regard to the begin
nings of the church in Corinth than in regard to the
beginnings of the church in almost any other place.
Here was a city in many respects like our modern cities,
a city of exceedingly intense commercial life, a money-
getting and a pleasure-loving place, a place that was at
once exceedingly vicious and exceedingly refined.
What a question it was, whether the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ could win triumphs in such a city as this !
It was in the year 52 of our era, twenty-four years
after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and at
about the forty-fifth year of the apostle's life, toward
the close of his second missionary journey, or during
his second missionary journey, that the apostle Paul
first found his way into the city of Corinth. This
great immoral city was entered by Paul as a solitary
tent-maker. We do not know that he had a single
friend or a single acquaintance in the place. All we
know is that he found a certain Jew by the name of
Aquila, who, with Priscilla his wife, had been ban
ished from Rome by the Emperor Claudius. A de
cree had been passed expelling the Jews from Rome ;
Aquila and Priscilla, his wife, found their way to
Corinth, and here they began work at their trade.
Their trade was the same as Paul's.
Every Jew, however high-born he might be, how
ever well-to-do he might be, was taught his trade. It
was said among the Jews that he that did not teach his
child a trade did teach him to steal; and so Paul all
through his missionary life was dependent, at least at
times, upon the work of his own hands. He went into

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 185
the workshop with Aquila; he sat side by side with
him, we may believe; he worked with him upon the
same bench, and won him to the faith of the gospel.
This was the slight beginning of the great church of
Corinth. After a little, Paul was emboldened to go into the
synagogue and preach Christ there. His spirit was
stirred within him; he was under a sort of transport;
the Holy Spirit moved him mightily to speak for Christ
to those of his own nation. He had just come from
Athens. His mission at Athens had been a sort of
failure. He had preached to the philosophers, and the
philosophers had turned a deaf ear to the gospel mes
sage. He was over-burdened; he was full of care;
he felt his powerlessness and helplessness to contend
with the great powers of this world and the evil of
man ; he tells the Corinthians that when he came among
them he resolved that he would know nothing but
Jesus Christ and him crucified. In other words, he
would not trust to human philosophy, he would not
trust to human oratory, he would not trust to elo
quence, he would not trust to speculation ; but he would
declare with the utmost simplicity the truths of the
life of Christ, and would trust to the power of God
alone to give effect to his words.
He entered the synagogue, he proclaimed Christ;
and a few serious hearts were deeply impressed and
were gained for the Christian faith. Crispus, the ruler
of the synagogue, was one of them. But Paul's preach
ing ere long provoked violent antagonism from the
Jews. It was impossible for him to continue his work
there ; and declaring that he would turn to the Gentiles,

l86 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
he left the synagogue and began his preaching in a
house close by, belonging to a Gentile proselyte named
Justus; and there, from that time, the meetings of
the church were held. Large numbers from the middle
and lower classes of the population, both Jews and
Gentiles, but mainly from the Gentiles, were brought
into the Corinthian church.
Paul labored there for a whole year and a half; and
when at last the Jews, provoked by his success, sought
to arouse a tumult against him and brought him before
Gallio, the proconsul, who was, you remember, an
exceedingly moderate and equitable man, the brother
of Seneca, a philosopher of Rome, Gallio declared he
would have nothing to do with these matters, and
drove them from the judgment-seat; but Paul, antici
pating further difficulty and hindrance in his work,
and thinking it best, temporarily at least, to depart,
made his way to Asia Minor and on toward Jerusalem.
After this departure of Paul, we know little with
regard to what happened in the Corinthian church ex
cept by way of inference. It seems that a man by the
name of Apollos, a Jew of Alexandria, a man who was
eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures, but who had
never been fully instructed with regard to the Chris
tian scheme, who knew Christianity only from what
he had heard from the disciples of John the Baptist,
came to Ephesus and began to preach the gospel there.
Aquila and Priscilla had, in the meantime, made their
way across the ^Egean Sea to Ephesus and were resi
ding there. When they heard Apollos expounding the
truth as he understood it, they, having had better in
struction from the lips of Paul, saw that Apollos needed

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 187
further light; and they began to expound the gospel
to him as they had heard it from the apostle Paul.
Apollos, learned and eloquent as he was, seems to have
been a docile hearer. Priscilla was apparently the one
who did the most of the talking and preaching to
Apollos; for you find that Priscilla's name is a num
ber of times mentioned first, as if she were the one
who, by her sympathy and by her interest in Apollos,
had done the most to bring him to a better understand
ing of the Christian faith.
After Apollos had been thus instructed, these new
friends and instructors of his thought there was an
excellent opportunity for him to do work for Christ in
the Corinthian church; so they sent him with letters
over to Corinth, and Apollos supplemented there the
work of Paul.
It is easy to see that Apollos was a man of different
mold from Paul. Paul had preached with the utmost
simplicity ; Paul had preached fundamental truth ; Paul
had not used the arts of oratory or the methods of
philosophy; those whom he had gained he had gained
simply by a deep inward conviction of the truth. The
preaching of Apollos was more showy than that of
Paul. It won a new class of persons, a class of per
sons, we may believe, who were not so thoughtful, who
were not so thoroughly instructed when they came into
the Christian church. They were more commonly
from the class that had been accustomed to attend the
heathen schools of oratory. It was a more superficial
impression that was made upon them. The eloquence
of Apollos and the philosophical art with which he ex
pounded the Scriptures made its impression upon them.

188 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The result was that a different class of persons, to
some extent, was brought into the Corinthian church;
and naturally those who were later brought in, under
the influence of Apollos, and who had known very little
with regard to the preaching of Paul, were inclined
to pay great respect to the new preacher, under whose
influence they had received the gospel. And as they
found some differences of temperament and of feeling,
and some differences of method between the older
members of the church and themselves, it was very
natural that there should spring up a party feeling in
the church and that some should say : " I am of Paul ;
I am one of the constituent members of the church; I
am one of those who Were brought in under the origi
nal preaching of the great apostle " ; and then the others
would say : " I belong to the party of Apollos ; I was
brought in under the influence of this great and elo
quent preacher of the gospel."
We have no reason to believe that this party division
was encouraged by Apollos himself. We have every
reason, on the other hand, to believe that it was not;
but Apollos speedily took his departure, and the result
was that there were two parties left in the church,
which, to a certain extent, began to antagonize one
another. We read also of a party of Cephas. Some
think there was a visit of the apostle Peter to the
church ; but I do not know that we can be certain with
regard to it. Then we read of a party of Christ.
Some think there were emissaries from Jerusalem, who
claimed to have special relations to Christ, and to
have more authority even than the original Twelve. At
any rate, it is perfectly plain that after a few years the

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS 189
church at Corinth was divided into parties, and that
party strife and party feeling had already done much
to hinder the work of the gospel.
It was at this time, about five years after the original
foundation of the church, in the spring of the year 57,
that Paul, after having been to Jerusalem, started out
on his third missionary journey and came to Ephesus.
At Ephesus he remained for two or three years. He
lectured daily in the school of the rhetorician Tyrannus.
Toward the close of that time the church in Corinth,
in perplexity with regard to some matters which they
did not know how to decide for themselves, sent a
letter to the apostle Paul, asking for his advice, but
not mentioning all the real difficulties that existed in
the church. That letter, however, was supplemented
by the information that was given by a woman named
Chloe, a member of the church at Cenchrea, who came
across to Ephesus, and who informed the apostle Paul
with regard to other troubles in the church which
needed the exercise of his apostolic authority; and
Paul, feeling that there was great danger of all the
fruits of his year and a half's labor being swept away,
sat down and wrote to the church at Corinth the First
Epistle to the Corinthians — that great Epistle which is
next to the Epistle to the Romans in its practical value
for us among the Epistles of the New Testament.
The object of this Epistle was quite different
from that which Paul had in mind when he wrote his
Epistle to the Romans. In writing to the Romans,
whom he had never seen and who had never heard his
preaching, his object was to set forth in a semiphilo-
sophical treatise the way of salvation, the doctrine of

I90 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Christ — not so much the facts of Christ's life, because
they existed in the oral gospel, which I suppose was
familiar to the Christians at Rome; but the way of
salvation, the system of Christian doctrine just so far
as it had to do with the justification and sanctification
of man; but when Paul wrote his letters to the Cor
inthians he did not need to set forth the way of salva
tion as he set it forth to the Romans, because he had
preached at Corinth for a whole year and a half, and
they were familiar with his general doctrine.
They did need something very different. They
needed to have particular difficulties removed. They
needed to have some of their important questions set
tled ; and so the Epistles to the Corinthians dealt more
with casuistry, dealt more with questions of conscience,
dealt more with practical matters. In other words,
they seem to proceed from a pastoral mind and heart,
rather than from the mind and heart of a teacher of
doctrine; and that is the great difference between the
Epistles to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the
Romans. The Epistle to the Romans gives us mainly
the doctrine of Paul. The Epistles to the Corinthians
deal with questions of practice. Paul treats these
questions in no superficial way, but in the most fun
damental way. He makes each particular difficulty,
each particular trouble, the occasion of elucidating a
fundamental principle, so that there is no compromi
sing, no settling of the case upon mere grounds of ex
pediency. In every instance Paul goes to the very
root of the matter, and decides the case in such a way
that it is a decision not only for the church of Corinth
at that time, but a decision for all churches in all times

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS I9I
thereafter. I do not mean that the exact application
of the principle which Paul makes to the Corinthian
church is necessarily the exact application which we are
to make of the principle to-day; but I do mean that
Paul, in deciding the questions that arose in the Cor
inthian church, gives such an exposition of the princi
ple that applies to that case that we, taking that same
principle, may make our own application to the pecu
liar circumstances of our own day.
Now, the First Epistle to the Corinthians treats a
great variety of things. There are ten important and
difficult questions with which Paul has to deal. They
are questions so vague, and they are questions that
require so much of wisdom to decide, that, as you re
view them one after another, and as you see with what
skill, with what discretion and far-sighted wisdom the
apostle determines them, it seems of itself to be proof
that he was ordained and inspired by God.
Take this matter, for example, of party spirit.
Parties among the Corinthians had a sort of half-
idolatrous regard for special ministers or leaders of
the church. Paul decides all this matter by bringing
to mind the nature of the gospel, and by showing that
the gospel brings us into absolute allegiance to Jesus
Christ, brings us into direct relations to the Lord. We
have personal dealings with a personal Saviour. Chris
tian ministers ? What are they but servants of Christ
whose object is not to bring us into allegiance to them
selves, but to bring us directly to the Saviour that we
may bow at his feet and consecrate ourselves entirely
to him! Therefore he is the greatest minister of the
gospel who is the most of a servant, who puts himself

192 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
most completely out of sight. " Paul may plant, and
Apollos may water, but it is only God who gives the
increase." So Paul gives us a proper idea of the rela
tion between the minister and the church. The church
is not to think that because it has had the advantage
of the services of a certain minister of Christ, there
fore it is to give a sort of idolatrous reverence to him.
On the other hand, it is to reverence the Lord and to
recognize the minister as the servant of the church
for Jesus' sake. Therefore the reverence that the
Corinthians were tempted to give to the servant he
urges them to transfer to the Lord.
Here is a principle of vast importance, of perma
nent application. How important the application of
it is to-day ! How many people there are now who, in
going into the church, go into the church as followers
of the minister rather than as followers of Christ, and
who, therefore, when the minister changes his place,
are utterly lost to the church and the cause. This same
principle which the apostle Paul has laid down to the
early church in this Epistle to the Corinthians would
meet very many of our church difficulties to-day.
Now, the second great difficulty that the apostle
Paul had to meet in the church of the Corinthians
was the difficulty of immorality. There were three
different immoral things with which he had to con
tend. There was a particular case, you know, of
shameful irregularity in the case of an incestuous
person ; and the church is exhorted to meet together, to
excommunicate the man, and to clear its skirts of his
iniquity. Then there is the matter of lawsuits before
heathen judges. Christians had come to take their

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS I93
disputes before the heathen tribunals, instead of show
ing consideration and love for one another and submit
ting these disputes to the brethren in the church. Then
there were matters of impurity which were the natural
sequence of the former impure heathen life which so
many of the Christian converts had previously led.
Paul treats all this with the utmost discretion, with
the utmost delicacy; and in each case he gives us a
fundamental principle which is sufficient to settle the
whole matter and to restore harmony and union in the
church. There is a question with regard to self-denial, a
question with regard to meats, the use of meats of
fered to idols. You know, in those heathen cities,
where there were great heathen temples, almost all the
animals that were slain for food had, before they were
slain, been presented at an idol temple as an offering
to the idol. Some portion of the animal was laid upon
the altar, or presented to the priest, and then the rest
was taken to the market and sold. Many a Christian
convert, especially those who were converted from
among the Jews, had a scruple of conscience about
eating the meat that had been consecrated to a heathen
god, and the consciences of the weak were injured by
the practice of some who ate such meat.
The apostle Paul declares that although the meat
in itself did not harm, and the mere fact that it had been
offered at a heathen altar did not in any way harm it,
at the same time if his eating this meat made his
brother to offend he would not eat any more while the
world stood. He would not set an evil example before
another that would make him stumble and fall. Love
N

194 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
for Christ should induce him to deny himself in some
of these things which it was perfectly right for him
abstractly to partake of. It was almost impossible in a
city like Corinth to get any meat at all that had not
been offered to an idol. It was a serious practical
question as to where one was to get this staple article
of food, so long as he could not partake of the meat
offered to an idol. Paul tells us that the meat is the
same, whether offered to an idol or not ; any man can
partake of it so long as he does not violate the con
science of another; but let Christian love be the main
determining element in the case.
There was a matter with regard to marriage. Some
of the Jewish converts were inclined to taboo marriage
entirely, and to hold, in a sort of ascetic way, that it
was a wrong thing for man to marry at all. Paul set
tles this matter also by declaring that marriage is a
divine institution; that although there might be rea
sons which made it inexpedient to marry, there was no
ordinance against it ; and that, moreover, in many cases
marriage was the desirable and natural and proper
course on the part of Christian converts.
The apostle comes to certain other cases which we
may call cases of disorder in the church. There was a
practice which women had, or were beginning to have,
of coming into the assemblies of the church unveiled.
In Corinth it was customary for women as they went
in public to be veiled. It was the custom of the East,
and it is the custom of the East to-day.
When I went to Beyrout, in Syria, I attended the
chapel of the American Mission there, and Doctor
Thompson, the author of " The Land and the Book,"

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS I95
preached a sermon. I went into the audience-room and
sat down in one arm of an ell. The room was a
double one, and it had two arms. The pulpit was in
the angle between the two, and right before the pulpit,
diagonally, was a curtain. I took my seat among Jews,
Arabs, and Europeans, and the singing and the prayer
proceeded. When they began to sing I found what I
had not before suspected, that the part of the audience
where I was, was only a small part of the number
actually there, for beyond that curtain and in the other
arm of the ell many women were assembled. They
sang just as we men sang in the part of the room
where I was, but the men could not see the women, and
the women could not see the men.
That was a Christian congregation, only a few years
ago, in a city in which women and men were entirely
separated in worship, out of respect to that old fashion
of the East. To this day in the streets of Beyrout
and Damascus women cannot go unveiled except at
the risk of exposing themselves to public reproach and
of being stoned. Now, what is true to-day in the cities
of the East was true in Corinth at the time of the
apostle Paul. But Christian women, possessed of the
new freedom which belonged to them in Christ, began
to think they might transgress some of these laws of
discretion. They came into the assembly of the church
unveiled, and participated in the meeting as men would
do. Now, the apostle Paul settles that matter by re
ferring to the modesty and subordination of the female
sex. He declares that it is not right for a woman to
transgress these bounds ; and so he applies the principle
to those times and circumstances.

196 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The principle of modesty and subordination is just
as obligatory to-day as it was in the time of Paul ; but
the application of the principle may be very different
in our day from what it was in the days of the apostle.
Modesty and subordination to-day may not require all
that it required in those days. It is not a breach of
modesty or propriety for a woman to go unveiled to
day in the street or in a place of public worship. It
would be no breach of modesty or propriety to-day
for a woman to cut her hair; but in the days of the
apostle Paul he forbade it, because it. was at that time a
breach of the principle of modesty and subordination.
So with regard to spiritual gifts. The apostle re
bukes those who are inclined to make more of the
showy gifts than of those gifts which minister to
public instruction. He rebukes the disorder which at
tended the celebration of the Lord's Supper. When
we think that the Corinthian church, in celebrating that
sacred ordinance, was guilty of such disorder, such
rudeness, such want of consideration, we can hardly
believe that it was a Christian church at all. Let us
remember that they were half-heathen yet. They had
come into the Christian church with many of their
heathen habits and heathen notions, and it was a
long time before the religion of Christ could absolutely
sweep away these relics of a heathen past.
Last of all, the apostle treats of the doctrine of the
resurrection. Many of those who had been accustomed
to speculate could not understand how there could be a
resurrection from the dead. Paul first declares the
fact. He declares that if Christ has not risen, then our
hope is vain ; and if Christ is risen from the dead, then

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS I97
we who belong to Christ shall also rise. Christ's resur
rection is the pledge of the resurrection of his people ;
and Paul tells us that that resurrection is a resurrec
tion to spiritual life. We are to have a spiritual body,
by which I suppose he means not a body which is
spirit, which is a contradiction of terms, but a body
that is perfect, a body swift in movement as the light,
and, notwithstanding, composed of material elements.
The mystery of resurrection is not, by any means,
solved, nor is it shown how the thing may be ; but he
tells us that God can and will work this wonder for his
people. Now, the apostle leaves his letter to produce its
proper result. He goes on with his work. But his
heart is deeply burdened; he longs to know the result
of this instruction. Will this Corinthian church obey
his teaching? Will it give up this party spirit? Will it
harmonize its differences and accept his doctrine? All
this rests like a burden upon his heart; and when the
uproar occurs at Ephesus and drives him out, he goes
to Troas, trying to get a little nearer to Corinth. In
order to learn the news he sends Titus to Corinth to
enforce his instructions. Learning nothing at Troas,
he goes on to Macedonia. There Titus comes to him,
bringing news that the Corinthians had received his
letter as the very word of God; that they had excom
municated the incestuous person; that they had sub
mitted themselves to his commands ; and that the main
sources of difficulty and trouble had been removed.
His deep anxiety was suddenly changed to over
flowing joy. He sits down and writes the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians at Philippi, about six months

I98 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
after the first had been written. In that Second Epistle
to the Corinthians the very heart of the apostle Paul
pours itself out in gratitude and love, and in thanks
giving to God for what he had wrought in the church
of Corinth. After the first part of the Second Epistle,
devoted to this expression of gratitude, has been writ
ten, he passes on to urge them now, as a token of their
thankfulness to God, to partake in a contribution which
he is making up for the church at Jerusalem. He
wishes to carry back to Jerusalem a last token of his
regard for the mother church, from which all these
churches through the world have sprung, and he wants
to engage the members of the church at Corinth in the
work of making up this collection.
Then he devotes the last portion of the Second
Epistle to urging his claims upon those who still re
sist his authority, for there were some bitter Jews who
still resisted him, and he warns them that when he
comes to them, as he shortly will, he will show that he
is strong in his personal presence as well as strong
in his letters.
These two Epistles to the Corinthians are wonder
ful Epistles. They show the apostle's wisdom, but
then they also show the apostle's heart. There is a
gentleness and tenderness in them that is marvelous.
I do not wonder that Lord Littleton called the apostle
Paul the finest gentleman that ever lived.
Think of the church at Corinth. How the apostle
trusted them, and what courtesy he showed them ! He
wants them sanctified in Christ Jesus. That was what
they ought to be, that was their normal condition.
Paul knew there were many good souls among them

THE EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS I99
that longed for nothing but the coming of God ; and he
groups them all together and speaks of them as Chris
tians and sanctified in Christ Jesus.
It is a beautiful illustration of the way in which
Christians ought to take people at their best, have a
high consideration for them, make allowance for their
failures, take it for granted that they intend to do well,
and then urge them to be faithful to the gospel of
Jesus Christ.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
We study to-day the Epistle to the Galatians. Galatia
constituted a large part of central Asia Minor. It had
large cities — Pessinus, Ancyra, Tavium, and Iconium.
At Pessinus there was the temple of the goddess Cy-
bele, the most widely revered of all pagan divinities;
and at Ancyra there was the temple of Augustus and
Rome. But the Galatians, to whom the apostle wrote
his Epistle, were not scattered through all that Roman
Province of Galatia; they belonged to the region of
the Gauls, in the northwestern part of Galatia. With
Moffatt, in the " Encyclopedia Brittannica," 1 1 : 394,
I hold to the North Galatian, rather than to the South
Galatian, theory as to locality.1
It is very interesting to observe that Galati and
Gauls are the same thing. Galati, Galli, Gauls are all
one. It may surprise you at first to have these people
in northwestern Asia Minor identified with the Gauls
of France and the west bank of the Rhine ; but so it is,
and modern ethnological and genealogical research has
brought this fact to light. This fact helps us very much
to understand the Epistle which we are studying to-day.
In general we may say that the migration of nations
has been from the east to the west. Wave after wave
1 Moffatt's words are : " The identification of Gal. 2 : 1-10 with Acts 11 : 28 f., and
not with Acts 15, appears quite untenable, while a fair exegesis of Acts 16 : 1-6 implies
a distinction between such towns as Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium on the one hand,
and the Galatian X"Pa witft Phrygia upon the other." Moffatt's view is also held ¦
by Schmiedel, in his article on Galatians, in the "Encyclopaedia Biblica"; and by
Gilbert, in his "Student's Life of Paul."
200

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 201
went westward from Central Asia, until at last each
wave broke upon the coast of the ocean. Wave after
wave went westward, but there were some refluent
waves. There was occasionally a backward movement.
Although the tide generally flowed from the east to
the west, there was occasionally an ebb-tide ; and such
an ebb-tide in this advance of population gave rise to
the settlement of this portion of Asia Minor by the
Gauls. Repulsed perhaps by the chilly climate and al
most impenetrable forests, some of these Gauls turned
back from the west bank of the Rhine and marched in
a southeasterly direction, probably in order that they
might find a warmer climate and more fertile soil.
They were warlike and freedom-loving; they made
their attempt to conquer Greece ; and from Greece they
were repulsed. Having been repulsed from Greece,
they seem still to have pursued their march in a
southeasterly direction until, invited by Nicomedes,
King of Bithynia, in Asia Minor, they crossed the
Hellespont, conquered the central portion of Asia
Minor, and there took up their permanent abode.
These Gauls, half-barbarians as they were, were
the scourge and terror of Asia Minor for almost half
a century; but Greeks settled among them in so great
numbers that the region began to be called Gallo-
Graecia. And Jews settled among them, because this
country was in direct line of the caravan route from the
East to the West. The Jew had ever in mind the pur
pose of trade. The Greeks and the Jews gradually
mixed with the original Gallic and barbarian popu
lation, until at last they became more quiet and civil
ized and more settled in their habits.

202 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
This invasion of which I have spoken, and the con
quest of central Asia Minor by the Gauls, took place
in the year 280 before Christ. A century after that
time, having become much more civilized and proba
bly considerably less warlike, they were subdued by
the power of the Romans in 187. They submitted to
the Romans, and in the year 26 before Christ this
region became the Roman Province of Galatia.
This fact of the Gallic origin of the Galatians
throws a good deal of light upon the characteristics
of the people. The Gauls were modern French. The
French are the representatives of the ancient Gauls.
It is astonishing how national types persist not only
from one generation to another, but from one century
and from one millennium to another. From the very
beginning the Gallic nation has been noted as impul
sive and inconstant. Caesar spoke, even in his clay,
when he came in conflict with them in Gaul, of their
mobility and levity of mind. In other words, they were
distinguished then, as they have been distinguished ever
since, for instability and fickleness. They had what has
sometimes been called the fatal gift of fascination.
They were mobile of temperament, they were attract
ive in manner, they had gifts of eloquence, they were
easily impressed; but, alas, they very quickly lost the
impression that had been made upon them, and they
were also prone to peculiar kinds and forms of re
ligion. Caesar, in addition to what I have said with
regard to their natural characteristics, declares that
they were a race excessively devoted to outward ob
servances. In other words, a spirit not too persevering
and rather superficial, easily excited and moved, was

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 203
more prone to accept the outward forms of religion
than it was to take strong hold of its inner substance ;
and so we find that from early times down to the pres
ent that race has been noted for its love of showy and
ceremonial observances, for its willingness to follow the
lead of hierarchy, for its submission to the external
claims of priests, and for its domination by a self-
glorifying spirit.
These being the characteristics of the Galatians,
those ancient Frenchmen, we can see how peculiarly
adapted the soil was for the seed that came to be
planted in it.
A few words with regard to the early history of the
church in Galatia will be necessary, in order to under
stand the Epistle which Paul wrote. It is very sur
prising that in the Acts we have almost no mention of
the apostle's first visit to Galatia, and we have abso
lutely no mention of his second visit to Galatia. Luke
tells us simply that they went through the region of
Galatia; but he does not tell us that Paul preached
there, nor does he tell us that any churches were
founded there. Is this silence on the part of Luke
(which substantially is the silence of Paul, of whom
Luke is the interpreter) due to the fact that the church
so soon and so quickly swerved from the truth, and
made both Paul and Luke willing to say just as little
about it as possible ? So it may be. At any rate, it is
mainly from the Epistle to the Galatians itself that we
know the circumstances under which the church was
originally founded.
It seems that during Paul's second missionary jour
ney, in the year 51 or 52, the apostle, not from any

204 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
desire of his own, but quite contrary to his will, was
detained in this region of Galatia by a serious illness.
It is exceedingly probable that he found shelter and
nursing in some Jewish family; and since a man like
the apostle Paul felt that he was a debtor both to the
Jew and the barbarian, there can be no question what
ever that he began to preach. And although it was
not his intention to remain there long, his preaching
seems to have been accompanied by the power of God,
and both Jews and Gentiles began to be converted to
Christ; in fact, they received his gospel with great
joy; and the apostle, in the Epistle to the Galatians,
looks back to that time, to his first warm reception
among them, with the deepest emotion. He makes
mention of their earnest love for him, and their will
ingness, if it were necessary, to pluck out their own
eyes and give to him.
Some have thought that the " thorn in the flesh,"
with which the apostle was afflicted, was a continuous
and painful disease of the eyes, so that it could be
said that his bodily appearance was weak; and some
have connected this disease of the eyes with that vision
of the Saviour on the way to Damascus, when the glory
of the Lord smote him on the face and there was left,
even upon his physical system, such a sign or mark of
this miraculous turning of the apostle to God as was
a permanent reminder of what he had been in the past,
and of the great change that had come over him.
He says in the Epistle to the Galatians, "You
would have plucked out your own eyes and given them
to me." Some think we have an allusion to the very
trouble or malady with which Paul was afflicted when,

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 205
at the close of the Epistle, he says : " Ye see with how
large letters I have written unto you with my own
hand." The subscription of the letter is written by the
apostle himself, whereas all the earlier portion of the
Epistle is written by an amanuensis. Paul only certi
fies that the Epistle comes from himself and no other.
In spite of his eyes he writes the last words of the
Epistle; but, because of this trouble with his eyes, he
writes with a large hand, just as one does that is
partially blind.
. Whatever may have been this " thorn in the flesh,"
and whatever the value of this explanation which I
have given, it certainly is true that the apostle was
laid aside there for some time; that he preached the
gospel there; that he was received with the utmost
gladness ; that he made many converts. Those converts
were probably first of all from among the Jews. The
nucleus was a Jewish nucleus; and afterward there
were many converts from among the Gentiles.
Paul visited this same church two years after, in
the year 53 or 54 ; but we infer from certain passages
in the Epistle to the Galatians that he was received
with comparative coldness on his second visit; that he
recognized certain evil tendencies in the church, against
which he was compelled earnestly to warn the Gala
tian Christians. But it was. not until he reached Eph
esus, and began his three years' stay in that city (which
lasted from the year 54 to the year 57), and not until
some time in the year 54, a number of months after he
had taken his departure from Galatia at his second
visit, it was not until then that news came to him that,
in spite of his urgent warnings and his recent visit, a

206 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
large number of these Galatian Christians had given
way to Judaizing teachers who had come among them,
trying to persuade them that they must be Jews first
in order to become real Christians. The whole church,
indeed, was in danger of going over to the enemy and
of permanently forsaking the Christ. These Judaizing
teachers claimed that they were the special representa
tives of the Twelve ; they claimed that Paul was not a
real apostle, because he was not one of the original
Twelve, and had not had personal intercourse with
Christ in the flesh; and their opposition to him was
violent opposition. They claimed that, in order that
one might be an equal member in the church of the
Messiah, and be a full partaker of the benefits of the
Messianic salvation, he must be incorporated with the
people to whom the Messiah came. In other words,
they claimed that he must be circumcised, must submit
himself wholly to the Jewish law and become a Jew, in
order that he might be truly a Christian. And all this
was an entire contradiction and direct disobedience to
the decree of the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem.
Such news as this from Galatia must have stirred
the apostle's heart. He felt that all his work there
was being undone ; he felt that those who were engaged
in such preaching, and those who were yielding to their
influence were casting behind them all faith in Christ,
and in danger of losing their souls. So Paul writes to
the Galatians this Epistle, which is intended to check
these errors and bring back his converts to the truth.
The Epistle, then, was written about the year 54,
perhaps in the early part of the year 54 ; written, there
fore, two or three years before the Epistle to the

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 207
Corinthians was written, and even before the Epistle
to the Romans was written. And yet the object of
the Epistle was to touch almost the same general point
of controversy that is treated in the Epistle to the
Romans. Some one has called the Epistle to the Gala
tians a rough draft of the Epistle to the Romans.
Another one has said that the Epistle to the Galatians
is a study of a single figure which was afterward, in
the Epistle to the Romans, wrought out into a group.
Each of these statements gives a comparatively cor
rect idea of the relation of the Epistle to the Galatians
to the Epistle to the Romans.
But there is a better illustration to be drawn from
the course of a stream which has its origin in the
mountains. You can imagine a mountain torrent
going down from rock to rock and dashing its way
along through ravine and gully, with tremendous force
and energy, and then at last gliding with comparative
calmness and quietness through the open plain. The
same strength of doctrine, the same strength of tone
which, in the Epistle to the Galatians, is like the tre
mendous, rushing mountain torrent we see making its
way smoothly through the Epistle to the Romans as
through the open plain. The stream is the same, the
doctrine is the same; but the manner of utterance in
the one case is very different from the manner of utter
ance in the other. The characteristics of the Epistle
to the Galatians are quite different from the character
istics of the other Epistles of Paul.
In the first place, there is a oneness of purpose in
the Epistle to the Galatians that you find in scarcely
any of the other Epistles. There is one subject from

2o8 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the beginning to the end. Indeed, it differs exceedingly
from the Epistle to the Corinthians. In that Epistle
there were at least ten different practical matters, prac
tical errors, which do not seem to have been con
nected by any common basis of falsehood; and the
apostle had to treat them one by one ; but here among
the Galatians there was just one error which he had to
meet, and he devoted himself to that from the begin
ning to the close.
Again, this Epistle to the Galatians is characterized
by a uniform severity, such as you find in no other
Epistle of Paul. It is very different, for example,
from the Epistle to the Philippians. In that Epistle,
with the exception of a few slight cautions, you find
almost nothing but commendation. He would have
the love of the Philippians abound more and more in
knowledge and in all judgment; and he would repress
certain tendencies to disunion and jealousy among
them; but yet, on the whole, the Epistle to the Philip
pians is a commendatory Epistle ; there is almost noth
ing in the church which he would reprove. But this
Epistle to the Galatians contains no commendation.
There are no salutations and there is almost no praise ;
there is almost continuous reproof from beginning to
end. And yet, notwithstanding this comparatively
uniform severity in this Epistle, the severity is mixed
with tenderness. There are no personalities ; there are
no personal allusions in the way of reproof. No names
of false teachers are mentioned; and, every now and
then, the apostle's reproof seems to break into a tone
of fatherly affection and remorse that is exceedingly
pathetic. He says : " My little children, of whom I

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 209
travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you."
He seems almost to speak from a breaking heart, and
the tears seem to fall as he writes, so that, in speaking
of the severity of the Epistle, it is evident that it is the
severity of a loving heart. It is all meant to bring
them back to Christ.
What the effect of the Epistle was we do not know.
Whether the Galatians repented of their errors and
gave up their wrong views we do not know. The last
we know of them is what is told in the Epistle itself.
As a matter of fact, we find, in church history, that
that portion of Asia Minor was in after times a sort
of nursery and hotbed of heresy. The Montanists,
Ophites, Manichaeans, Sabellians, and Arians had their
strong advocates and defenders there. And yet the
Christians could not have been entirely rooted out,
because we also have evidence that here, in these several
churches of Galatia, many Christians endured persecu
tion bravely, and many of these very churches made a
brave fight in the last struggle between Christianity and
paganism. So we may believe that, although some fell
away to their destruction, Christian faith did not
wholly die out, and the apostle's letter was not abso
lutely in vain.
With regard, now, to the course of thought in the
Epistle. There is a course of thought, and it is very
marked, although the unity of the treatment is singu
lar, distinguishing this Epistle, perhaps, from all
the other Epistles of Paul. There is one aim and object
in it all : namely, to show that it is not by law, not by
works of righteousness that man can do, that he is to
be saved, but simply by faith in Jesus Christ.
O

2IO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The apostle treats his subject in three different parts,
and those parts are so nearly coincident with double
chapters that they are very easy to remember. There
is, first, the personal part — a personal narrative; there
is, secondly, a doctrinal part — he enforces his doctrine ;
and then, thirdly, there is a hortatory — or admonitory
part. The personal part occupies, roughly speaking,
the first two chapters; the doctrinal part occupies the
next two chapters, and the hortatory part occupies the
last two chapters ; and since there are only six chapters
in all, you can see that the Epistle is divided into three
parts of two chapters each. But in this rough way we
can remember it more easily. There is just this qualifi
cation: The first part does not end at the end of the
second chapter, but it does end at the fourteenth verse
of the second chapter. That is all the qualification that
would have to be made. You must begin the second
part then, the doctrinal part, with the second chapter
and fifteenth verse ; but, with that single exception, this
rough division will be a perfectly true one.
In the first part of the Epistle the apostle gives a
personal narrative, and what is the object of it? Why,
the object is to vindicate his apostolic authority. He
claims that he himself has been called of God; that
being called of God, he has the authority of God in his
work (that, of course, was necessary in dealing with
the Galatians) ; and that those were false teachers who
were leading them astray. He shows that he received
his gospel directly from God, through Jesus Christ,
and that he did not receive it from the Twelve, the
original apostles. He did not receive it from man at
all. It came to him by the revelation of Jesus Christ,

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 211
and he shows that the Twelve recognized this fact. He
went up to Jerusalem and the Twelve did not assume
any authority over him, as if they were his superiors
and had sources of information which he had not.
He shows how, of the Twelve, James and Peter, the
pillars of the church at Jerusalem, gave him the right
hand of fellowship; recognized his perfect equality as
an apostle of Jesus Christ; and bade him Godspeed in
going to the Gentiles, as they were to work among the
Jews. And then Paul shows how he suffers nothing in
comparison; that the apostle Peter at one time, when
he was at Antioch, plainly went astray, not by preach
ing wrongly, but by refusing to follow his own teach
ings ; that he, Paul, rebuked Peter to his face, and that
Peter had to put up with the rebuke and had to change
his course. In this way Paul proves plainly that he
was not inferior to Peter, but was on a level with the
very chief of the apostles.
Having proved his divine calling and apostolic
authority, he can go on to the second portion of his
Epistle, the doctrinal portion. His object is to show
that man cannot be saved by law, or obedience to law,
or works of law, but must be saved by simple faith in
Jesus, by laying hold of Jesus Christ the only Saviour
of the sinner. He declares that the law is not intended
to be the way of salvation for sinners. It might be a
way of salvation for man if he had not fallen and he
were perfectly able to obey it ; but just so soon as man
has sinned he cannot come up to the standard of the
law, and he cannot be saved by his own works. And
as he cannot be saved by law he must be saved simply
by faith. After he has fallen into a state of sin, the

212 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
law is given him simply to reveal to him his sin and
lead him to Jesus Christ.
An illustration which occurred to me many years ago
will make this very plain. The law is our school
master to lead us to Christ. Christ is the end of the
law for righteousness to every one who believeth.
Some years ago I went on a sleeping-car to Detroit.
I awoke in the morning, after a night's sleep, and I
found the car had stopped, and we seemed to have
reached the end of our journey. I arose ; I went out of
the car ; and to my immense astonishment I found that
the car was right on the edge of an abyss. We were on
a dock; our car was on the rails, and the rails went
right to the edge of the water. There they stopped. A
little movement might have precipitated us into the
river ; and I wondered that we should be in such a posi
tion, until I saw a great ferryboat coming up to the
dock. On the boat there were rails, and the rails on the
boat matched the rails on the dock. Our car was
pushed over on the boat, and the boat and car together
went across the Detroit River. In a little while we
were in Detroit. That boat was the end of the track
for getting us over the river ; and just so Christ is the
end of the law for righteousness to every one that be
lieveth. Just as that track on the dock depended on
the boat as the only way by which it was to be com
pleted, just so the law, with its track laid down for us
to run on, points to Christ, its completion, as the only
thing that can furnish the end toward which it looks.
The law can never save us, any more than the rails on
the dock could have gotten me over the river to Detroit.
The law can never save me, but Christ can. The

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 21 3
law points me to Christ, and the object of the law to
the sinner is simply to show him that he cannot save
himself, and that he must look to Christ alone for
salvation. The last portion of the Epistle, the hortatory por
tion, sums all this up, and tells men that if they turn
their backs upon Christ then they turn their backs
upon salvation; that if they give themselves up to the
law as the way of salvation they will be under obliga
tions to do everything that the law commands; that
they cannot be saved at all by law without perfect
obedience to God; and that no one can present such
perfect obedience. Then there are mentioned harmony,
love, forbearance, and patience, as duties of the Chris
tian, and with the mention of these the Epistle is
closed. Is it not a singular fact that there was such strife
in the early churches with regard to doctrine? I have
sometimes thought these strifes were permitted in the
early church in order that we might have less strife
among us ; in order that some questions might be set
tled once and for all ; in order that we might be freed
from trouble and perplexity with regard to them.
Baur, the skeptic, thought Christianity itself origi
nated in this strife. Ah, no ; there was strife simply be
cause there was something to strive over ; there was a
historical gospel for which Paul was fighting ; and the
strife originated simply because there was error coming
in, which threatened to reduce to a new slavery those
who had found liberty in Christ Jesus.
And so Luther found in this Epistle to the Galatians,
upon which he wrote his celebrated commentary, his

214 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
chief engine in the great Reformation in Germany. He
was so attached to this Epistle, it seemed to him so to
express his own heart, he felt so deeply the value and
need of it, that he called the Epistle to the Galatians
" his wife." It was something as dear to him as life,
something to which he was bound for all time; and
he made the Epistle to the Galatians the source of a
very large portion of his texts and his sermons.
In every generation of the Christian church there
have been those who have been prone to precisely the
errors that Paul is inveighing against in this Epistle.
Ritualism everywhere is a revival of the evil which
Paul denounces in the Galatians. Ritualism in its es
sence is the putting of some work, or ordinance, or
performance of man, side by side with the simple work
and power of Jesus Christ, as a means of salvation.
Ritualism is some external ceremony, or ordinance, or
work that man can do, as an addition to the one perfect
sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.
It is a very curious fact, is it not, that these two
Epistles, the Galatians and the Romans — these anti-
Judaizing Epistles — were written to precisely those
people whom history has shown to have had the great
est tendency to these errors? Now, the Romans was
written to whom? Why, to the Romans. And who
is it, in history, that has been the greatest exponent
of this Judaistic tendency, this putting works side by
side with Christ as a means of salvation? Why, it is
the Roman church. Paul seems, by prophetic insight,
to have recognized where this tendency was to be the
strongest, and so to have written his Epistle against
this tendency to the Romans.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS 21 5
And, again, the Epistle that strives to win men over
from inconstancy and fickleness to simple trust in Jesus
Christ is written to whom? Why, it is written to
Frenchmen. It is written to the Galatians, for the
Galatians were the early French, the Galati, the Gauls.
The nations which have shown the strongest ten
dency to these errors are just those which Paul has
singled out to be the object of these Epistles.
Remember the Old Testament law is outlawed. Men
cannot be saved by works. Why seek the living among
the dead? Why go back to the sepulcher in order to
find our Christ? The Christian has a new life in Christ
Jesus ; and it is a new life given to us upon the simple
condition of trusting in our risen Lord. Faith in him,
and nothing but faith in him, is the way of life and
salvation; and, therefore, what we need most of all is
to take to our hearts this one great lesson, that unless
we trust in Christ we can have no peace inwardly and
no certainty of salvation. If works must mingle with
Christ's methods as the way of salvation, no one can
possibly have a sufficient and solid ground of confi
dence, because no one can point to works that are
absolutely perfect.
Let us, then, once more confirm our faith in Jesus
Christ, and in the sole efficiency and sufficiency of his
way of mercy and salvation, by our study of Paul's
Epistle to the Galatians.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
The city of Ephesus, where the church was situated to
which this letter was written, was thirty miles south of
Smyrna, in Asia Minor. It was surrounded on three
sides by mountains, and upon the west there stretched
away the blue waves of the ^Egean Sea. Ephesus was
situated upon a plain five miles long by three miles
broad. It was in the way of commerce from the East
to the West, from Asia to Rome. It had become, long
before the time when our Epistle was written, a very
great and rich and powerful city.
The remains of a theater which was open to the sky
have been exhumed in these modern times, and the
stone seats of that theater would hold an audience of
thirty thousand men. But the most remarkable dis
tinction of the city was that which made Ephesus to
be Ephesus, as much as the university makes Oxford
to be Oxford, the magnificent and vast temple that
was erected there to the goddess Artemis, or Diana.
The goddess, half Greek and half Oriental, was repre
sented in the court of the temple by a strange, mis
shapen idol of many breasts, indicating the nutritive
and productive powers of nature. That temple was
one of the seven wonders of the world. It was four
hundred and fifty feet long by two hundred and twenty
feet broad. There was a colonnade of Parian marble,
each column of which was sixty feet in height, and
each of these was the gift of a prince. There were
216

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 217
treasures of sculpture and painting there, such as
existed almost nowhere else in the known world.
Ephesus was the gathering-place of strangers from
every clime. There were all kinds of schools there.
It was a place of rhetoric and philosophy; and it was
in this place that the apostle Paul in one of his early
journeys stayed for one single Sabbath day.
On his second missionary journey, as he made his
way back to Jerusalem, he made only a brief stay with
Aquila and Priscilla. When they begged him to stay
longer, he said that he could not at that time, but if
God willed he would come back. There he left Aquila
and Priscilla, who doubtless did good work among the
Gentiles, and went back to Jerusalem. After three
months more he returned; and as his first visit was in
the year 53, his second visit was in the year 54 of our
Lord. Then he made perhaps the longest stay that he
ever had made up to that time in any single city of the
Gentiles. He was for three months preaching in the
synagogue; and when it was not possible for him to
preach longer there without great opposition and diffi
culty, he betook himself to the school of Tyrannus, a
Greek rhetorician, and there conducted his lectures, or
preaching services, for two whole years. His whole
stay in Ephesus, as he tells us afterward, lasted for
three years.
His preaching was followed by very great success.
Multitudes became disciples of Christ. He had greater
success in Ephesus than he had had in any other
heathen city ; and the work went on until the powers of
heathenism around him began to be shaken. Those
who had been devoted to magical arts brought their

2l8 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
books of magic and burned them publicly, so that the
value of the books thus burned amounted to fifteen
thousand pieces of silver, or between seven and eight
thousand dollars, a testimony to the reality of the con
version of those who sacrificed so much for the cause
of Christ.
But this very success aroused opposition. He tells
us afterward, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, of his
fight with beasts at Ephesus. There is but little doubt
that this fight with beasts was metaphorical. There
was no general persecution at that time, and it is not
possible that Paul could have been thrown to the lions
in any amphitheater. The fight with beasts was evi
dently his conflict with the bitter and subtle enemies
who were constantly upon his track. The Jews lay in
wait for him. He was opposed by the silversmiths of
the city, whose business was making and selling silver
shrines, or miniature temples, in the likeness of the
temple of Diana. Their trade was almost taken away,
and they rose up in a mob and riot and drove Paul from
the town. A little while afterward, going to Miletus,
the seaport of Ephesus, he calls the elders of the Ephe
sian church, and there we have one of the most affect
ing events of Paul's career. How tender was the love
between him and them, that pathetic scene bears wit
ness. Paul gives them his last instructions. He kneels
with them on the seashore and prays for them. He
commends them to Jesus Christ, their Saviour. He
tells them how, for a space of three years, he ceased
not, day or night, to warn men, preaching to them
publicly and teaching from house to house. The evi
dences of affection between Paul and his converts are

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 219
very marked. He leaves them at last, goes on his
final journey to Jerusalem, and sees Ephesus no more.
Paul apparently puts the church in charge of Timothy ;
when Timothy is taken away, it seems to have come
under the direction of the apostle John, who writes to
them one of the letters addressed to the seven churches
in Asia. That is the last we read of the church in Eph
esus in sacred history.
The Epistle to the Ephesians was undoubtedly writ
ten from Rome, and was written in the year 63, just
ten years after Paul's first visit to Ephesus. Circum
stances had greatly changed with the apostle. The
time of his public unhindered work was now at an
end. He was in a Roman prison. His imprisonment
was not very stringent, it is true. He had his own hired
house; and yet he was chained, chained by his right
wrist to a soldier, and this soldier by his left wrist was
fastened to him. So every single word that Paul wrote
of these Epistles — the Epistle to the Ephesians, the
Epistle to the Philippians, the Epistle to the Colossians,
and the Epistle to Philemon — every word that was
written of all that group of Epistles during Paul's first
Roman imprisonment, must have been written with
the heavy load of a chain weighing upon his hand.
Very naturally and affectingly he speaks of himself as
" the prisoner of Jesus Christ." He does not attribute
his imprisonment to human powers or enemies; he
considers it as ordained by the Saviour; he bears it
for him ; he writes and works " in a chain," as the
words in the Greek literally signify.
Though he was chained to that soldier in his own
house at Rome, he had opportunity of receiving all

220 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
who would come to him. He preached the gospel with
all the more success because of the difficulties that sur
rounded him; and the gospel made great headway in
the imperial city.
He had long periods of meditation; in his confine
ment he meditated over the great truths of the gospel
as never before; and the Spirit of God unfolded to
him the inner significance of those truths as never
before. As he looks back to Ephesus, where God had
given him his most wonderful success in the preaching
of the gospel, and to that church that had received him
with open arms, and where God had shown the greatest
depths of his power, his heart goes out toward them,
and his desire is to give them this new blessing which
he himself has received. This larger knowledge of
the truth he is bound to communicate to the disciples of
Christ; and, as he cannot publicly preach to them the
word, as he is divided from them by continents and
seas, he will do what he can do, he will give to them
the truth by letter. So we owe to Paul's imprisonment,
and the larger unfolding of the truth of God which was
made to him in his imprisonment, the most wonderful
of the letters which were written by Paul.
This Epistle to the Ephesians is chief among all the
letters of Paul for the profoundness of its exhibition of
Christ's truths : truths set forth here that are set forth
nowhere else with the same power. Coleridge thinks it
is " the divinest composition of man " ; and there can
be no question that the depths of God's mercy and love
were never set forth in any human composition as they
are set forth here.
The object of Paul is to show to these converts who

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 221
have been brought in from heathenism, how wonderful
are the privileges that have been conferred upon them in
the gospel, and how solemn are the duties that devolve
upon them as the servants of Christ. As Paul treats
of the privileges of believers in Jesus Christ he is car
ried beyond himself. The first chapter of the Epistle
to the Ephesians, and in fact the larger portion of the
Epistle, reads like a solemn hymn.
It is liturgical, and at times it is psalmodic in its
manner. There is a glow to the thought, and there is
an exaltation to the expression, that make it surpass
all the Epistles of Paul for sustained fervor and maj
esty. It begins by saying, after the salutations:
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who chose us in Christ before the foundation of
the world that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love " ; and then goes on, little by little,
until the apostle's great prayer is uttered. He prays
God that they may have the spirit of wisdom and reve
lation in the knowledge of Christ, that they may know
what is the hope of their calling and what the riches of
the glory of their inheritance in the saints and what the
exceeding greatness of his power in those that believe,
according to the working of. that mighty power which
he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead
and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly
places, far above all principalities and power and
might and dominion, and every name that is named
both in this world and that which is to come, and hath
put all things under his feet and given him to be the
head over all things to the church, which is his body,
the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

222 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Now, there is a rhythm and a power in these words
such as you find almost nowhere else. Ellicott, the
commentator, declares that the genitives in this Epis
tle in the Greek tax the resources of Greek syntax to
the very uttermost. When interpreting it we require
all the helps that syntax can possibly give; simply
because the apostle, in the greatness of his thought,
struggles with earthly language. Language staggers,
so to speak, under the weight of meaning he would
lay upon it. In this Epistle to the Ephesians we have
one of the greatest productions of inspiration, an
Epistle which we can read for the first time and be
deeply impressed by it; and yet it is only the tenth or
twentieth or hundredth reading that lets us into the
secret of its power. It is an Epistle that commends
itself not so much to the immature as to the mature
Christian ; an Epistle which requires an inner spiritual
life and the broadest Christian experience for its under
standing. Renan, the French skeptic, can condemn it
for its useless repetitions and verbosity; but he only
shows thereby that he utterly lacks the inner spirit
that can enable him to understand it. No Christian
can read it without believing that it was inspired of
God. There is an aspect about that Epistle at the begin
ning which differentiates it from every other Epistle.
In some of the very earliest versions, the words " in
Ephesus " are lacking, so that it reads : " Paul, an
apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God to the saints
that are," and there it stops ; the words " in Ephesus "
are left out. It has been a great puzzle to commenta
tors to know precisely what this means ; how it is that

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 223
in some of the earliest copies the words " in Ephesus "
have been lacking; and some have thought that this
Epistle was a sort of circular letter, that it was writ
ten for many churches and not for one, and that there
was a blank place left there so that it could be filled in
for the church at Laodicea, for the church in Ephesus,
for the church in Smyrna, and so on. There are cer
tain things in the Epistle which lend at first a little
plausibility to that view.
For example, the doctrine of the Epistle is general.
It is doctrine that applies everywhere, and to all con
ditions of Christians, and to Christians of every name.
There is not the particularizing that there is in many
other Epistles. There is nothing like the salutations
to individuals ; there is nothing like the definite direc
tion of the Epistle to ethical ends, such as we find in
Paul's other Epistles.
It has therefore been urged by some that the Epistle
was not written to the church of Ephesus particularly,
but that it was written to all the churches as a sort
of general Epistle, like the general Epistles of Peter
or the general Epistles of John. I think, however, that
this is a mistake. The testimony of the early church is
perfectly unanimous that this was an Epistle to the
Ephesians. Although, at first sight, it does seem
strange that Paul, to this church where he was best
acquainted and where he must have had the most
friends, should not have mentioned the names of those
friends or have given his greeting to them ; yet we find
a parallel to this in the letters to the Corinthians. He
was with the Corinthians perhaps the next longest time.
He was with the Corinthians certainly two years, and

224 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
there were multitudes of friends there. Yet, in his
letters to the Corinthians, we do not find these per
sonal allusions and salutations. May not the reason
have been just this, that he had too many friends there ;
that, if he had begun to express his salutations to one
and another, there would have been no end to it? He
could have drawn no line. There would have been no
place to stop. As a matter of fact, we find that those
Epistles have the most of personal allusions and salu
tations which were written to churches where Paul
never had made a personal visit. As, for example, to
the church at Rome. We have a great number of per
sonal salutations there, and in the letter to Colosse we
have a great number of personal salutations there ; but
at the time that Paul wrote these two Epistles he had
not visited either place. We must remember, besides
this, that the letter to the Ephesians ' was sent by Ty
chicus, a dearly beloved brother, and these personal
salutations may have been sent by him. So, as there
was a living messenger taking the Epistle to those to
whom it was written, it might have been much easier,
and it might have been, on many accounts, much better,
that these personal messages should have been sent
orally by him.
Taking all things together, it is better to give credit
to the testimony and tradition of the early church,
which is unanimous that the letter was originally ad
dressed to the Ephesians, and simply to say that Paul
intended the letter for the benefit of the church in Ephe
sus primarily; but that he also intended it to be com
municated to other churches, and therefore gave it
such a general form that it was capable of being so

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 225
communicated. He did not limit it to one particular
church even by salutations that accompanied it, so that
it was just as good in all its parts for one church as it
was for another. Yet it was directed, first of all, to
the church at Ephesus that he dearly loved, and he
trusted to their love and care to see that from them it
should be communicated to others.
Now, the subject of this Epistle to the Ephesians is
perhaps the greatest subject that can engage the mind
of man. It is this, " Christ, the head over all things to
his church." The letter to the Ephesians and the letter
to the Colossians have been called twin Epistles; and
it will be very useful to carry in mind the relation be
tween the two. They treat different aspects of the
same great truth, viz., the relation of the world to
Christ. The Epistle to the Ephesians treats of Christ
as the head over all things to the church. The Epistle
to the Colossians treats of Christ, the head over all
things to the universe. And so the twin Epistles are
supplementary to each other. We need the two to
present this truth in its fulness and roundness.
The Epistle to the Ephesians then sets forth the
greatness of Christ; and the apostle does this by divi
ding his statement, as he commonly does, into a doctri
nal part and into a practical part, and here the division
is in the middle of the Epistle. There are six chapters ;
the first three of these have to do with the doctrinal
part, and the last three have to do with the practical
part. In the first three he would set forth the infi
nite privileges that belong to the believer in Christ, to
him who has Christ for his living head, to him who is a
part of this vast temple of God which Christ is erecting

226 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
in the ages. And then the last three chapters, the
practical part, urge Christians to walk worthily of this
high calling which they have received; in other
words, set forth the duties which belong to those who
have been so privileged. Privilege then comes first;
duty comes last; and they receive a perfectly equal
treatment. Three chapters are given to the one, and
three chapters are given to the other.
The first part of the Epistle, the doctrinal part, sets
forth Christ, the head over all things to the church, in
three special ways. The church is first said to be
chosen in Christ, and the first chapter is taken up with
God's everlasting choice of those who are united
to Jesus Christ. It is not a choice that has taken place
for the first time during our earthly life. As the ardent
lover said once, in a novel, to the lady whom he was
seeking to win : " Why, dear, I have loved you ever
since I set my eyes upon you as a child ! " God says
to us something better than that. He says, " I have
loved you with an everlasting love." We are said to
be chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.
In the depths of eternity past God fastened his eyes
upon us, and chose us in Christ, that we should be
holy and without blame before him. It is an eternal
choice of God that has brought us into union with
Christ and has made us Christians. The first chapter,
then, is taken up with the fact that the church is chosen
in Christ from the eternity past.
The second chapter shows that the church is re
deemed in Christ, and there the apostle refers them to
their past state as " alienated from the commonwealth
of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise,

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 227
having no hope and without God in the world." Then
he tells them how, in Christ, they have been redeemed ;
how the death of Christ has become, as it were, their
death; how they have been raised from the death of
trespasses and sins, and have been built into a living
temple, in which God dwells by the Spirit, an allusion
perhaps to that magnificent temple of Diana of which
I spoke. The apostle leads their imagination to a far
"greater and nobler spiritual temple, in which each
Christian is a living stone laid by God and inhabited by
the Spirit.
As we have in the first chapter the church chosen in
Christ, and in the second chapter the church redeemed
in Christ, so we have in the third chapter the church
provided for by Christ, endowed with the gift of the
apostleship, gifted with religious instruction, and so
disciplined and prepared for the final heavenly state.
All are urged to test this wonderful power and grace
of God, " the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,
that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God." So
we have Christ head over all things to the church, head
over all things even in eternity past, head over the
church in his redeeming work, head over the church by
providing it with its leadership and its various gifts.
Upon this doctrinal basis the apostle builds the
subsequent hortatory portion of the Epistle ; and so we
have in the last three chapters an account of the
various gifts of grace that are bestowed upon Chris
tians; we have the various orders and offices of the
ministry; and then we have general Christian duties,
and especially the duty of having in everything the
right spirit. In other words, the internal graces of

228 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the Christian character are unfolded ; and we are shown
how, now that we are Christians and in Christ, it is
not the fruits of our old evil nature that we are to bring
forth, but the fruits of the Spirit — love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,
and temperance; and we are urged, if we have fallen
away at all, to awake, to arise, and Christ shall give us
light. So we are exhorted to live in conformity with
the calling which we have received from Christ, our"
Lord. Having detailed these general Christian virtues,
which we are exhorted to bring forth, Paul goes on to
special duties — the duty, for example, which the wife
owes to the husband. There the duty is enforced by
the mention of Christ's union with the church; and
the relation between the believer and Christ is illus
trated by the marriage relation between the wife and
husband. Children are exhorted to be obedient to their
parents, and servants (or slaves, as the word might be
translated) are exhorted to be obedient to their earthly
master, seeing in the will of their earthly master the
will of their greater master, Jesus Christ, who will give
the reward at the last, even though earthly masters
fail to reward. And then, last of all, after the exhibi
tion of these Christian duties, there comes a representa
tion' of the conflict between good and evil in the world,
in which we are to participate and to stand for God.
It is told us that our warfare is not with flesh and blood,
but with principalities and powers, the spiritual rulers
of this world of darkness. In other words, a host of
evil influences are arrayed against us; and we are to
put on the whole armor of God that we may not be put

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 229
to shame, but that we may stand until the very last;
and, while the conflict is set before us, at the same time
we are assured that, in this Christ who is our head,
there is given to us a complete and perfect victory. So
we have the headship of Jesus Christ over all things to
the church carried out, first doctrinally, in such a way
that we see the everlasting character of it; and then
practically, in the effect which these wonderful privi
leges of the Christian ought to have upon his righteous
ness and holiness of life. The church is something
larger and more spiritual than a local body of believers
or an outward organization. This is the most churchly
Epistle in the New Testament; and yet, in this most
churchly Epistle, we have least with regard to ritual,
with regard to discipline, with regard to details. The
ideal character of the church, the universal kingdom of
God, so fills the apostle's mind as to swamp, as it were,
all thought of the local and the individual. It is the
essential relation of the believer to his Lord, that which
constitutes a Christian and which makes possible a
church, that he has mainly in mind. The matter of or
dinances and of discipline he will attend to at other
times. Now he busies himself only with this vast con
ception of the church as a whole, the spiritual body of
Jesus Christ, our Lord.
But it is very interesting to observe too, that while
the apostle speaks of all sorts of duties that belong to
the Christian, there is not one that he does not enforce
by the highest motive. There is no appeal to any
sordid or interested motive. There is no urging of
performances of Christian duty simply for the happi
ness that will come to us, or for the sake of the good

23O THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
even of those around us; but our thoughts are con
tinually lifted up to Christ. For Christ's sake we are
to do all. We are not to lie one to another, and why ?
Because, in Christ, we are members one of another.
It is as absurd for us to be telling lies one to another,
as it would be for us to attempt to deceive ourselves.
And then we must not steal from one another. That
is forbidden, and why? Simply in order that we may
do good to the body of Christ, that we may have that
which we may give to another. We are to work and
to win, in order that we may be helpers to others who
are members of the same body with us.
And so when we come to the more spiritual graces,
Paul urges us to show faith and all the other Chris
tian graces, simply because they are the natural ex
pression of the Spirit of Christ within. The words
" in Christ " appear in this Epistle more frequently
perhaps than they do in any other Epistle of Paul, and
you cannot read the Epistle intelligently without un
derstanding their meaning. They constitute the key
to Paul's Epistles in general, but they especially con
stitute the key to this Epistle to the Ephesians. " In
Christ " means in living union with Chnst, the per
sonal, risen, living Saviour, and Paul sees in Christ
God revealed. He takes literally those words of Christ
himself, " He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father."
If you want to know what God is, look at Christ.
There you have the very manifestation of God in
human form; and, therefore, we have in Christ the
ideal of our human life. We are to be like Christ.
Whatever there is in Christ is to be reproduced in us.
Whatever Christ did, he did not for himself alone, but

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS 23 1
did it for us also. Therefore, we are said to have died
together with Christ ; we are said to have been buried
together with Christ; and we are said to be raised to
gether with Christ and to be seated with Christ in
heavenly places ; to have suffered together with Christ ;
and to be glorified together with Christ. In other
words, the apostle sees in Christ the germ of the
redeemed humanity that God is to bring back to him
self. We are in Christ, and we are so united to Christ
that Christ's life is in us. Whatever Christ is, what
ever Christ has, is made over to our account, so that
all things are ours. Whether life or death, things
present or things to come, all things are ours, because
we are Christ's and Christ is God's. The great thought
of the Epistle is Christ, the head over all things to the
church, God manifesting himself in humanity, and lift
ing us up by union with Christ into his own great life,
so that all blessings are ours in him.
How vast the conception of the Epistle! How full
of comfort and strength to the Christian ! Let us study
it faithfully, and let us recognize the fact that all God's
exceedingly great and precious promises are ours.

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS
On the northernmost shore of the Greek Archipelago,
as it is now called, or of the ^Egean Sea, as it used to
be called, was the city of Philippi. If you look upon
the map you will see that northward from this northern
shore of the Greek Archipelago there stretches a great
rocky barrier, which separates now, as it did then, the
Turkish peninsula from the Greek peninsula, and which
separates the region of the East from the region of
the West.
Here, at Philippi, that great rocky barrier, as it
approaches the sea, was depressed, and there was a
narrow plain; upon that plain, at a distance of about
ten miles from the sea, Philippi was situated. Certain
gold mines in the neighborhood and certain mineral
springs had early led to the settlement of the place;
but it was chiefly the fact that this depression in the
hills, between the mountains and the sea, constituted
a sort of gateway from the East to the West that led
Philip of Macedon to fortify the place about three cen
turies and a half before Christ, to build a city there,
and to distinguish that city by giving it his name. The
city of Philippi, therefore, was so called because it was
founded by Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander
the Great.
The great importance of the place as a sort of
strategic key led, in the year 42 before Christ, to the
world-renowned battle of Philippi, one of the world's
232

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 233
decisive battles. Augustus and Antony on the one side,
and Brutus and Cassius on the other, fought there for
the empire of the world; and you know how Shake
speare has commemorated that struggle in his play
of Julius Caesar.
The conqueror in that battle, Augustus, led by the
same reasons which I have intimated already, made
Philippi a Roman colony; and by a Roman colony I
mean a city that is settled by Romans who have been
brought from Italy, who have brought with them their
municipal organization, who are governed by a senate
of their own, and who have all the rights and privileges
of Roman citizens. This Philippi is a Roman city, on
the very confines of the Roman world ; that is, on the
very confines of that world where the Latin language
is spoken and taught.
In the little narrative with regard to Philippi which
is preserved to us in the Acts of the Apostles, all these
various classes of population are more or less repre
sented. There, first, is the original barbarian element ;
secondly, there is the Greek element; thirdly, the
Roman element; and finally, the Jew. We have here
at Philippi a sort of strategic point for the gospel, as
well as for the empire of the world ; for here we have
a confluence of Eastern and Western life, a strangely
mixed population, and a remarkable regard paid to
the rights and dignities of Roman citizenship. Here it
was that Christianity first came in contact with Roman
civilization. Here was fought for Christianity a bat
tle more important than that battle of Philippi, in
which Augustus and Brutus fought for the mastery of
the world. You remember that the apostle Paul, on his

234 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
second missionary journey, desired very much to com
plete what he must have thought of as the evangeliza
tion of Asia Minor. There were other regions of
Asia Minor which he yet desired to visit. He wanted
to enter Bithynia; but you remember that the sacred
writer says, " the Spirit suffered him not." He was
driven, as it were, by his own inner impulse, and by
the direction of divine Providence, to the northwestern
portion of Asia Minor, until he came to Troas, the
point from which he would naturally, if at all, pass
over into Europe. I can imagine that the prospect of
passing over into Europe and into an entirely differ
ent civilization from that to which he had been accus
tomed caused him a great deal of trepidation. It
was only the voice of the man of Macedonia, " Come
over to Macedonia, and help us," that finally deter
mined him to take his way to Europe.
Here, in Philippi, was the first conflict between
Christianity and European paganism; and upon the
decision of that conflict great things depended for
Christianity in the future.
In every city he had visited heretofore, Paul had
always gone first to the synagogue of the Jews; but
here, in Philippi, there was no synagogue of the Jews.
There were Jewish people there, but they were very
few. It was a Roman population instead of a Jewish
population. Since there was no synagogue, the Jews
who were there, not having any regular place of meet
ing in the city, conducted divine worship outside, in a
secluded place, in the open air, by the side of that
rushing river upon which the city was built. Those
who visited this place of prayer were not Jewish men ;

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 235
they were Jewish women, and apparently these women
were themselves few in number.
But Paul went out there upon the Sabbath day ; and
as he spoke to them with regard to the gospel of
Christ and the fulfilment of the promises of the Mes
siah in the Old Testament, the Lord opened the heart
of one of them, Lydia by name, a seller of purple, of
the city of Thyatira, in Asia Minor, so that she at
tended to the things that were spoken. She might have
listened and gone away, and thought no more of it, if
the Lord had not imparted to her a new bent of mind,
a new disposition to receive the truth. Receiving the
truth, she became Paul's first disciple; and the fruits
of her discipleship were new Christian hospitality. She
received Paul and his fellow workers — for I suppose,
at this time, Timothy, Silas, and Luke also were with
him — received all four of them into her house, and
her house became a rendezvous and a starting-point for
missionary effort in the city. Paul remained there
many days, it is said. Probably this means a number
of weeks, or even months. He preached the gospel
until at last attention began to be attracted to him.
People began to know who he was; and now we find
that a Greek divining girl, a girl who was possessed by
an evil spirit, and pretended to prophesy, a sort of
Greek fortune-teller under the influence of the satanic
power, followed Paul and Silas as they went through
the street, half mocking, perhaps, and yet perhaps half
inclined seriously to recognize the power that was in
them. The Greek girl cried, as she ran : " These men
are the servants of the most high God, who came to
teach us the way of salvation." That continued day

236 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
after day until, at last, Paul turned and commanded
the evil spirit to come out of her, and the evil spirit
did come out. The result was that the masters of this
slave girl, finding that the hope of their gains was gone,
and that they could no longer use her for their pur
pose, fell upon Paul and Silas, roused a mob against
them, and brought them before the magistrates. The
magistrates ordered them to be scourged, put them in
prison, confined them in the innermost dungeon, and
made their feet fast in the stocks. So the magistrates
seemed to side with this riotous element in the Roman
population. It has been questioned by some why Paul, who was a
Roman citizen and who had a right to be absolved from
all such punishments as scourging, did not urge his
rights as a Roman before the scourging took place;
and some have thought that the reason was just this,
that this was his first visit to a purely Roman city.
Paul, it is said, was in a place where Latin was the
prevailing language ; it was impossible for him, under
the circumstances, to make himself known, and to get
the hearing of the magistrates; it was only after the
thing was really done that he was enabled to make an
effective protest. However that may be, we know that
it was an occasion of the mighty exercise of divine
power ; in the middle of the night there was an earth
quake; the doors of the prison swung open, and Paul
and Silas were permitted to go free. The jailer came
with fear and trembling, fell down before Paul and
Silas, and asked what he should do to be saved. The
appearance of these men, whose backs had been lacer
ated by the Roman scourge, still rejoicing and singing

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 237
praises to God at night, was something so strange as
to attract his wonder. Conviction of sin had already
been awakened in his heart ; he longed to know the God
whom these men preached ; and he earnestly asked how
he might find the way of salvation. The answer was
that he was simply to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and he should be saved ; and, believing right then and
there, he received baptism, and was added to the num
ber of the Christian church.
This miracle seems to have worked in behalf of the
truth, and to have made a deep impression through
the town. By declaring himself a Roman citizen
Paul secured release, and so intimidated the rulers of
the city that they were anxious to get rid of him in
order that there might be no report of their proceedings
carried to Rome. More than this, Paul and Silas seem
to have been so helped in their work that a large num
ber was added to the church. When Paul leaves
Philippi we find him speaking of " the brethren,"
though the church began with only a few women —
yes, with only one. The church of Jesus Christ had
been founded in that place, and that church was one
of the most beautiful illustrations of Christian love
and joy and confidence and successful labor that we
read of in all the annals of the New Testament.
We find that Luke, who, up to this time, for quite
a little space has used the word " we " of himself, the
apostle, and his companions, now ceases to use the
word " we " in describing Paul's journeyings, and
seems to intimate that he himself, the writer, was left
in Philippi. It is only when Paul goes back again to
this same Philippi — a long time afterward — that Luke

238 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
begins again to use the word " we," and goes with Paul
afterward in his journeyings. The inference has been
that Luke was left in Philippi by Paul, to take charge
of the church until Paul returned on his third mission
ary journey, after which he followed Paul to Rome. If
this be the case, it shows how greatly blessed, efficient,
and discreet pastoral care may be. In this church the
new converts from among the heathen passed for a
number of years under the instruction and supervision
of Luke. This furnishes us with some explanation of
their faithfulness, the uniformity of their Christian
character, and the depth of their love and joy. Ter-
tullian says that this church was one of the few that
were eminent for preserving autograph apostolic let
ters, by which I suppose that this letter to the Philip
pians was kept among them as a sacred treasure.
The church at Philippi seems to have been char
acterized by some very remarkable qualities. Paul, in
writing his letter to them, has almost nothing to blame.
It is the one letter of all the apostolic letters in which
you will find almost no censure at all. There is a great
deal of commendation. The apostle can commend,
first of all, their faithfulness and their devotion in the
midst of persecution. The persecution which vented
itself upon the apostle seems to have been continued in
the case of the disciples whom the apostle won ; and yet,
in spite of that persecution, the church at Philippi re
mained firm ; firm in its faith, firm in its love. Though
they were poor, yet they seem to have contributed very
largely, in proportion to their means, to all manner of
Christian enterprises; and they were especially char
acterized by affection and devotion to the apostle

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 239
himself. You know that the apostle did not wish to lay
upon the new church that he founded the burden of
his support. He preferred to earn his own living by
his trade of tent-making; and yet, occasionally, it was
very desirable that he should have the time to himself
for Christian labor. It was the contributions of this
church at Philippi which enabled him to take his time
for Christian work. When he came to be imprisoned
at Rome, there was a great deal in the way of comfort
that might be purchased for him by the pecuniary as
sistance that came to him from others. It was this
church at Philippi that again and again, as he declares,
ministered to his necessities. There is no proof of
confidence that a high-minded man can show like this
of being willing to take pecuniary assistance from
another. Paul would never have taken this assistance
from the Philippian church if there had not been a bond
of warm affection and confidence existing between him
and them. These were the graces of the Philippian
church. There were certain things against which the apostle
needed to warn them ; and yet he did not censure them
for special faults. He rather cautioned them against
things to which they might possibly be exposed. There
was, for example, the jealousy which might possibly
arise between different church-members engaged in
the same sort of work. " I beseech Euodias and be
seech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind." They
were two women who perhaps had a little jealousy of
one another in their Christian work. The apostle
cautions them to keep in mind the common cause for
which they labor, and always to work together. That

24O THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
is perhaps as near an approach to censure as we find
in the Epistle, and it is very gentle.
There is a little danger that Judaizing teachers may
persuade them that they can trust something else than
the one work and righteousness of Jesus Christ; and
so the apostle gives them, in the form of his own ex
perience, the instruction that we are not saved by any
works of righteousness that we have done. Salvation
is of the Lord. Paul seeks the righteousness of Christ,
and to be clothed only with that. That is his only
hope. He sees some in the Philippian church who are
not faithful in their Christian life. There are pro
fessors of Christianity who do not show forth the
power of religion. " There are some, I tell you even
weeping, that are enemies to the cross of Christ, whose
end is destruction, who mind earthly things." There
were a few such at Philippi.
It is wonderful that there were not more things in
this Philippian church against which he could inveigh ;
but we find nothing in the shape of denunciation. All
the apostle says, by way of qualification of his com
mendation, is rather a cautioning and warning against
possible future evil, than a declaration that these evils
were marked in the Philippian church.
And now as to the circumstances under which the
Epistle to the Philippians was written. You remember
that the apostle had now become a prisoner at Rome.
I suppose that this Epistle to the Philippians was writ
ten later than the Epistle to the Ephesians. Ephesians,
Colossians, and Philemon seem to be bound together
in a group. The Philippians seems to have been writ
ten somewhat later than those three, but during this

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 24I
same Roman imprisonment. It must have been in the
last year at least of that Roman imprisonment, because,
in the Philippians, Paul speaks of the church in Rome
as having acquired some size. The number of converts
was large. That could hardly have been said at the
beginning of his imprisonment. Then, again, his as
sociates have left him. In the Philippians he is com
paratively alone. In the early part of that imprison
ment his associates were with him. There has been
time for a number of journeys between Rome and
Philippi. Epaphroditus, during the imprisonment of the apos
tle at Rome, was sent to Paul with a contribution for
his necessities. Epaphroditus had time to go to Rome
and communicate to the apostle the gifts of the Philip
pian church. Epaphroditus was taken sick while he
was ministering to Paul; the news of Epaphroditus'
sickness had time to reach the Philippians ; and Epaph
roditus had time to hear again from Philippi of the
care and anxiety of the church on his behalf.
Such journeys as these, together with the sickness
of Epaphroditus and his recovery, the writing of "the
letter and the sending of it to the Philippians, must
altogether have occupied a number of months at the
least. One might better perhaps suppose that it was
a year, or a year and a half. Since the imprisonment
of the apostle in Rome lasted just two years, it must
have been the middle of the second year at least before
this Epistle to the Philippians was written. Then the
date of the Epistle was the middle of the year 63, six
months before the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles
came to its end.
Q

242 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The object of the Epistle was, as I have intimated,
not to reprove any particular things that the Philip
pians were guilty of, not to censure them as the apos
tle censures the Galatians, for example, or the Corin
thians in one portion of the Epistle ; not to set before
them any great scheme of Christian doctrine, nor to
vindicate his apostolic authority, as in the Epistle to
the Romans. The object of the Epistle was apparently
to pour forth the gratitude of the apostle's heart for
the great kindness and love which they had shown to
him in sympathizing with him in his troubles and in
his imprisonment, to encourage them in enduring simi
lar trials and sufferings, and to increase their knowl
edge and love and joy.
I do not know of any other Epistles in which the
personal remarks are so beautifully expressed as they
are here. It is the natural and spontaneous outflow
of the apostle's heart. He would stimulate their Chris
tian virtues. He would broaden and beautify their
Christian character, and he would show them how all
spiritual blessings are theirs in the gospel of Christ.
There is no other Epistle of Paul which, in our higher
moments, when we are near to Christ, seems to us so
sweet and beautiful as this Epistle to the Philippians.
The order of the Epistle is determined in a large
part by this desire to express the gratitude of the
apostle to God. In the very first verse you have recog
nized an organization of the Christian church that is
noteworthy. He writes to those who recognize Christ,
to the saints in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons ;
i. e., with the overseers and the deacons. Only two
orders are recognized, only two sorts of officers in the

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 243
Christian church. First the pastors, or overseers, of
the flock, and then the deacons of the church; and I
suppose we have here the outline of church organiza
tion in the apostolic time. We do not anywhere find
that there are more than these two ranks, or officers, in
the Christian church.
One of the first prayers is " that their love may
abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all
judgment." He recognizes the depth of their Christian
devotion, but he would have a discreet devotion; he
would have an affection that has laws and bounds ; he
would have it conform to the truth. So he prays that
they may add to their love Christian knowledge; and
then, as the means of increasing this knowledge, he
speaks of his own personal relations, and, in the latter
part of the first chapter, is occupied with an account
of his own experience, and of the fact that all his
trials and persecutions have been the means of further
ing the gospel of Christ. So he recognizes everything
that has happened to him as God's choice, ordained not
only for his own good, but for the good of the Chris
tian church.
Only in the second chapter does he give us the one
doctrinal portion of the Epistle. There is one doctrine
set forth in this Epistle to the Philippians with a ful
ness and power such as we find nowhere else in the
New Testament. It is the doctrine of the person of
Christ, and the relation of the divine to the human
nature of our Saviour. You remember how it begins.
The apostle would urge them to humility, and he sets
before them the example of Christ who, being in the
form of God, thought not his equality with God a thing

244 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to be forcibly retained, but emptied himself, taking
upon him the form of a servant, and being made in
the likeness of man. Not only did he humble himself
to become man, but he further humbled himself by
suffering death, even the death of the cross. " Where
fore God hath highly exalted him and given him a
name above every name; that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things
in earth and things under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father."
There is no more sublime passage in the New Testa
ment than this. It sets forth the infinite glory of
Christ, his absolute equality with God in the begin
ning, and then his emptying himself of this glory, in
order that he might unite himself to our human nature,
to sanctify and redeem it. This is the great doctrine
of the Epistle to the Philippians. What a motive to
humility we have ! He who was rich became poor that
we might be made rich. What an argument for self-
denial and the giving up of our own personal interests
in order that we may serve Christ and his church !
In the third and fourth chapters you have exhorta
tions to unity; you have warnings against Judaizing
tendencies ; and you have the Epistle ending with warm
salutations and expressions of the apostle's love. As
you read this Epistle, one thing is very striking in it;
and that is the love which passes all love that is com
mon among men. There is just one explanation of it.
The apostle longs after the Philippians in the heart of
Jesus Christ. In our old version this was translated
in such a way that the meaning of it was obscure, even

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS 245
repulsive, "in the bowels of Jesus Christ." That
word, you know, was in the old times simply the com
mon word for heart. When you hear of an accident
to a friend, it affects you in that very portion of your
body in which he has suffered. You have an awful
feeling of goneness ; and the word " bowels," because
it is connected with our own emotions of sympathy
with the trouble and pain of others, came to be used
for heart. The word meant only "heart," and it
ought always to have been translated by " heart."
The apostle longs for the Philippians " in the heart of
Jesus Christ." As much as to say, " It is not my own
affection that I am expressing. I am incapable of this
myself; I could not rise to this height, in which my
sympathy goes out to Christians in the remotest part
of the world, and bears them on my soul continuously.
This is all due to the fact that I have entered into union
with Jesus Christ, and that his heart has become my
heart." My dear friends, there are certain things we can do
in Christ, and by virtue of our relation to him, that we
can never do without him. There is a sympathy which
we can feel for the wants and needs of others, long
ings for their good, unselfish devotion to their interest,
which is absolutely impossible to unregenerate human
nature. It becomes possible only when we enter into
union with Christ. Then Christ fills our hearts with
some of the unselfish sympathy that pervades his heart,
and we ourselves begin to feel. Whatever comes to
us, we long to devote ourselves to Christ. Here is
the secret of Christian generosity and unselfishness.
When we become one with Christ we get out of our

246 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
narrowness, out of our pettiness; we begin to love as
Christ loves, and to long for the good of his church
as Christ longs for it. So this whole Epistle to the
Philippians is a continuous exhortation to Christian
peace, Christian faith, Christian confidence, Christian
joy, and Christian love.
If Christ is only an ideal conception or only a
historical person in the past, this faith, love, and joy
are indeed impossible. But if Christ is a living and
present Saviour, to whom we may become so united
that his Spirit takes up his residence in us, and his
heart becomes our heart, why, then, the highest
forms of Christian life are simple and easy. All
things are possible to him who opens his heart to re
ceive the great Son of God, and who by faith joins
himself to Christ; for thus our hearts become connected
with the great heart of the universe and are im
measurably enlarged.
Here is the secret of the Epistle to the Philippians,
and of the joy, peace, and comfort that fill the apos
tle's heart. When he does not know whether the
coming week shall bring to him life or death, he is
content. He knows that, since Christ is in him and he
is in Christ, " for him to live is Christ, and to die is
gain."

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
This Epistle to the Colossians. was written probably
to the smallest of the churches which Paul addressed.
Colosse was not a great city, compared with Corinth
or Rome or Ephesus; and yet, from this small city,
there went out influences that were very important
for the kingdom of God.
History relates that Antiochus the Great, that tyrant
and oppressor of the Jews, brought two thousand
Jewish families from Mesopotamia and Babylon and
settled them in Phrygia, the southwestern part of
Asia Minor. This Jewish influence was, therefore,
mixed with an Oriental influence; and the strange
combination which we find in the Colossian church of
formalism and Oriental theosophy was perhaps de
termined by the fact that Judaism in this portion of
the world had a historical connection with the East.
In Phrygia there were three cities of some impor
tance. Both Laodicea and Hierapolis were apparently
of more importance than Colosse. It was to Laodicea
that John wrote one of his seven Epistles to the
churches in Asia, which you find in the book of Reve
lation. Little Colosse was situated on the banks of the
river Lycus, and in the midst of magnificent mountain
scenery, so that its situation seems to have prompted
a loftiness of thought.
It does not appear that Paul ever made to Colosse 247

248 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
a personal visit. During his stay in Ephesus, at the
time when he had the most wonderful success in all
his apostolic ministry, we read that the word of God
went out into the regions of Asia. Although he did
not himself visit Colosse, it would almost seem that
some residents of Colosse visited Paul; and during
those two years when he was teaching in the school of
Tyrannus, in Ephesus; day by day, it is not at all
improbable that some of the visitors from Colosse
heard Paul, became his converts, and took back the
gospel to the region from which they came.
What we know of the formation of the church is
exceedingly little ; but there are indications that Epaph-
ras (not, by the way, Epaphroditus, who was a mem
ber of the church of Philippi, but an entirely different
person), a Colossian, had received the gospel and had
become the evangelist of Colosse. This Epaphras,
when Paul became a prisoner at Rome, made Paul a
visit in his imprisonment and devoted himself to the
apostle's care with such assiduity that he shared the
apostle's sufferings and dangers. It would almost
seem that he had involved himself in the apostle's im
prisonment, so that the apostle calls him a " fellow
prisoner." Whether he had become amenable to the
law, we do not know, but the epithet Paul bestowed
upon him is a peculiar one, his " fellow prisoner in
Christ." When Epaphras made his visit to Paul it is evident
that he related to Paul the circumstances of the Colos
sian church ; told him of the new teaching that had be
come current among them ; told him of Jewish teach
ers who combined with their Jewish tendencies some

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 249
Oriental notions of a newer and larger wisdom than
was provided for in the gospel itself, something of
the nature of philosophy, something that was hidden
from the mass of men, and was the possession only of
the few. By ascetic practices, and by fastings and
observances of an outward sort, this wisdom might be
obtained. Paul, as a result of these representations
on the part of Epaphras, writes this letter to the Colos
sian church.
We read in the Epistle to Philemon that, just about
this same time, Paul had been the means of converting
to Christ a runaway slave by the name of Onesimus,
who had escaped from his master Philemon and had
made his way to the city of Rome, where he thought
perhaps there was the best, chance of his being hid.
After Paul had converted him to Jesus Christ, Ones
imus was anxious to return to his master and make
reparation for the wrong he had done him. Paul sends
him back, and with him he sends that beautiful Epis
tle to Philemon, in which he commends Onesimus to
his Christian forgiveness. Onesimus and Tychicus
were the messengers who took this letter to the Colos
sians as well, and with this apparently the letter to the
Ephesians, which is alluded to in the latter part of this
letter to the Colossians, where the apostle speaks of
another letter which the Colossians were to possess
themselves of, while, at the same time, they were to
give to the Laodiceans the letter which they themselves
had received. So we may conclude that this letter to
the Colossians was written either at the close of the
year 62, or at the beginning of the year 63, four or
five years after the Colossian church had been founded.

250 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
It is necessary, in order to understand the apostle,
to get some more full idea of the errors that had begun
to be prevalent in this Colossian church. They were
very peculiar. They were such as we do not find al
luded to in the previous letters of Paul. We do find
some allusions to them in the pastoral Epistles to Tim
othy and Titus. The great danger of the Colossian
church was the danger of lukewarmness. That is the
specific fault which John rebukes in the neighboring
church of Laodicea. Though Laodicea was not a great
city, it was wealthy. An earthquake took place, and
Tacitus, the historian, tells us that Laodicea was able
to rebuild itself with its own resources, without calling
in the aid of Rome ; and this seems to be mentioned as
proof that it was a place of considerable importance.
In the writings of John to Laodicea, he speaks of
the church as fancying that it was rich and increas
ing in goods and had need of nothing. This appar
ently was also the case with the church in Colosse.
Riches had corrupted the Christian heart; the deceit-
fulness of wealth had led to selfishness and lukewarm
ness in their Christian faith ; and with this influence of
worldly goods there was intellectual pride and self-
satisfied reliance upon what mere human reason and
speculation could do. There grew up a species of
wisdom which was not the wisdom. of Christ, not " the
wisdom among those that are perfect," which the apos
tle speaks of in his letter to the Corinthians, but a
wisdom of this world. That wisdom was exclusive ; it
prided itself upon being the possession of the few; it
was an esoteric doctrine held by those who fancied
that they had greater intellectual powers than the

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 25 1
majority of the Christian church. Here was the first
great danger of the Colossian church; namely, intel
lectual pride and dependence upon human speculation,
rather than upon Christ or his gospel. This tendency
to intellectual speculation ran in a peculiar course, and
that course seems to have been determined for it by
the Oriental influence to which the Jews in that neigh
borhood had become subjected.
In order to explain what the doctrine was which the
Colossians held, or to which they tended, I shall have
to remind you of the fact that, in the East, there were
large numbers of persons who thought it was absolutely
necessary to separate God from the world in order to
explain the existence of evil. They thought it could
not be that God had himself created the world, because
they saw so much in the world that was wrong. They
fancied that the existence of evil was an incident of
matter. Man was a sinner because he had a physical
system. This was a strange perversion of the truth ; it
ignored the fact that the soul masters the body, and
that the body is only the servant of the soul. There can
be no sin properly in the body itself, for all sin has its
source in the spirit. We cannot explain moral evil by
attributing it simply' to the body, or to matter, or to
the physical world. The only possible explanation of
moral wrong is in the free decision of the moral crea
ture against God ; in other words, in the spirit and not
in the body.
But this strange sect of thinkers fancied that they
could explain evil by calling it a mere incident of the
physical system, something which had its origin in our
connection with matter. So they thought to remove

252 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
God just as far as possible from the world, from the
physical universe; and they did it in this way. They
said that all things proceeded in the last analysis from
God, but that things in the universe were successive
emanations from the substance of God; God was the
central sun, and that as his light proceeded farther and
farther from him, it became more and more mixed
with darkness; so that, when infinitely removed from
God, the darkness predominated over the light, and on
the outskirts of the universe evil was in the ascendency.
Or, to put the doctrine in a somewhat plainer form and
using the word creation, these thinkers fancied that
God only created at the beginning something that was
really of importance, and then that creation created
something else — this creation that was at the second
remove from the intercourse being less perfect than
the first one was — that this second created a third, and
that third created a fourth, and that fourth something
still beyond ; and when you got far enough away from
God, the central light and truth and holiness, why, of
course, you had something that was very imperfect
indeed, and matter was one of these last emanations or
creations. So there was an explanation of evil in the
universe. You can see at once that between man, who is evil,
and God, who is holy, there were a great many inters
mediate creations. There were hierarchies, principali
ties, and powers between us and God. It could not be
said that God was the immediate creator either of our
souls or of our bodies; our creation was due to some
angelic power. And because these angelic powers were
between us and God, they were the proper and natural

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 253
objects of worship; so that the worship of angels was
one of the features of this Oriental system. You can
also see that, if God was so very lofty and so very
high, and we were so very evil and so very low, it
was almost impossible that these corrupted creatures
could go at once to God. We must go through media
tors — these angels, these principalities, these powers
were the media between us and God, and they were
to be worshiped as the means by which we might
ascend by our thoughts and by our prayers to the
Most High.
Another idea besides this of mediatorship between
man and God was the result of this system. The body,
they said, . is the source of evil. If we only could get
rid of the body we could be holy. Why, then, the
more you can get rid of the body the more holy you
will be. If we cannot slough off the body entirely, let
us put just as much despite upon the body as we can.
So all manner of ascetic practices, all manner of morti
fications of the flesh were introduced, as if, through
them, men could become holy and could commend
themselves to God.
You see, then, that there were three great practices
or errors. First, this intellectual exclusiveness, this
spirit of caste in the Christian church; secondly, this
idea of mediatorship between man and God, created
beings between us and God interposing bars between
us and our Maker; and then, thirdly, practical asceti
cism, self-mortification, putting of despite upon the
body, in order that we might thereby become pure.
These great errors it was very important for the
subsequent history of the Christian church that Paul

254 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
should correct. If the Roman church had only paid
attention to this Epistle to the Colossians, how much
monasticism and self-mortification, how much depend
ence upon the Virgin and the saints as mediators with
God, would have been rendered forever impossible !
The remedy which Paul suggests for all this is sim
ply Christ. Christ is the remedy for all error, because
Christ is the absolute and perfect truth. The preach
ing of Christ and the setting forth of the glory and
majesty of the Son of God sweep away these various
forms of error, and there is nothing else in heaven
or in earth that can sweep them away.
How is it that Paul presents Jesus Christ to these
Colossians, in order to destroy, in root and branch,
this dangerous heresy that had become rife among
them? Simply in this way: He declares that Jesus
Christ is the head of the universe ; that he is the Lord
of all things ; that he is the Creator through whom all
things were made ; that he is the Sustainer, so that all
things, either in the physical or spiritual universe, hold
together only in him; that he is the one Revealer of
God; that he is the only wisdom and only truth; and
that the Colossians, if they have Christ, have all. See
how this doctrine applies to each one of the errors
to which I allude. The Colossians were claiming that
there was a larger wisdom, which might be the pos
session of a few ; that it was something that belonged
only to the initiated ; that it was something above and
beyond what was presented to them in the gospel.
Speculation and ascetic practices, they claimed, could
put them in possession of this larger and nobler under
standing of the truth. How does Paul refute this

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 255
error? By declaring to them that Jesus Christ is the
wisdom and truth of God; that, if they have Jesus
Christ, they have all wisdom and all truth; and that
every single person who has Christ has this wisdom
and this truth. No exclusiveness at all, absolute univer-
salism of the gospel.
The twenty-eighth verse of the first chapter of the
Colossians we often read without understanding the
remarkable significance of every word of it. Paul
speaks of " admonishing every man and teaching every
man in all wisdom, in order that we may present every
man perfect in Christ Jesus." Three times, in that
single verse, that phrase " every man " occurs. Ad
monish every man, teach every man in all wisdom,
present every man perfect — here is no confining of
wisdom to a few. Every member of the Christian
church has a right to the most esoteric teaching that
can possibly be given. All the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge are open to all believers. Paul teaches the
perfect democracy of the church of God. You that
belong to an intellectual caste are establishing a sort
of secret society inside of the church. The notion
has in it an infinite amount of evil. Admonish every
man and teach every man in Christ the true wisdom of
God, in order to present every man perfect. No one
is to be contented with imperfection. All there is of
perfection is open to every member of the church of
Christ. The second great error, as you remember, was that
of mediatorship between man and God ; angels, princi
palities, and powers to be reverenced, to be worshiped,
and to be made successive steps by which we might

256 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
reach up to God; in other words, separation of man
from God. How does Paul meet that? Why, by tell
ing the Colossians that Jesus Christ is the one and only
Mediator between man and God. Are we created
by some angel or principality or power, which itself
was created by something higher than it, and it
created by something higher, and so on through suc
cessive sources back to God? Paul replies that there
is just one Mediator between man and God, and one
Creator, and that Mediator and Creator is Christ. The
gulf between man and God is bridged by the one Jesus,
our Lord. If we have Christ, we pass over all these
mediators. They are thrust out of the way ; they have
never existed. Christ is the one Mediator; when we
have Christ we have direct communion between God
and man ; and because Christ is God the Creator, God
the Sustainer, and God the Revealer, when we come to
Christ we come into direct relation to God. " He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father," says Christ; and
for salvation his prescription is, " Come unto me."
What a blessing it is, my brethren and friends, that
instead of being shoved off at a great distance from
God and taught that we are to look up to angelic
agencies by which we are to reach him, we are told, in
this Epistle, that every Christian has direct relations
to the divine Christ, and that in Christ he can come
into direct communion with God, so that there is
nothing any longer to separate him from the holy of
holies and from immediate communion with the Father
of his spirit !
The last of the errors which I mentioned was prac
tical asceticism and mortification of the body ; " touch

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 257
not, taste not, handle not " ; the idea that, by all sorts
of restrictions, we are going to commend ourselves
to God. That was the doctrine of the Essenes, in
Palestine. There is a historical connection between
the doctrine of the Essenes and the Colossians of the
first century and the Gnostic heresy that sprang from
it in the second century. Investigation has shown the
connection between these three forms of heretical
teaching. The Essenes, in Palestine, had all these various ideas
of which I have spoken. They abjured, for example,
the use of flesh, of wine, and of oil ; and they rejected
marriage. They were inclined to sun-worship, that
is, a worship of the heavenly luminary; and they re
fused to offer bloody sacrifices. They rejected the
resurrection of the body, because the body was mate
rial. The body was a source of evil ; and if they only
got rid of the body at death they never wanted it back
again. They therefore denied that the body was to
rise, or that, in the next world, we were to have a
body. These ascetic notions of the Essenes were
propagated westward; we find these same notions
among the Colossians, to whom Paul writes ; and after
ward we find these same ideas, more largely developed,
in the Gnostics of the second century.
How did Paul meet this doctrine of mortification of
the body as the means of perfection? Why, simply
by preaching Christ again. Christ is the great Puri
fier ; Christ in the heart is the only Sanctifier. Do you
suppose that you can make yourself better by simply
putting yourself through bodily mortification and as
cetic practices? What you want is perfection within,
R

258 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
purification of the heart. That is accomplished only
by Christ within the soul.
Paul mentions these outward restrictions with a
sort of contemptuous tone, " touch not, taste not, han
dle not," as much as to say that they are of no value
whatever, that mere asceticism and will-worship can
never purify the flesh. He then turns to the Colos
sians and says : " If ye then be risen with Christ, seek
those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at
the right hand of God," " for ye died and your life is
hid with Christ in God." He urges them to put away
all manner of evil, because they have Christ in them,
and Christ is the very life of their souls.
If there is a sensible doctrine in the world, that is a
sensible doctrine, as opposed to the absurd notion that
man can somehow make himself better by external
mortifications and ablutions and restrictions. So we
have Christ, the explanation of all the problems, and
the remedy for all the errors of the Colossian church.
The remedy for all this intellectual exclusiveness is in
Christ, the wisdom of God. The remedy for all this
notion of mediators, or agencies, between man and God
is the idea of Christ, the one Mediator. The remedy
for all this foolish notion of physical mortifications
and self-denials is the living Christ within, the only
Purifier and Sanctifier of the human spirit.
What a magnificent doctrine this is that Paul
preaches to us in the Epistle to the Colossians! In
treating it I have followed the order of the apostle.
First of all, Paul sets forth the dignity and glory of
Christ ; then he states that, since we have such a Christ,
we ought to beware of being led astray by philosophy

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 259
and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world and
not after Christ; and in the concluding chapter, since
we have this Christ and all these glorious privileges,
he urges us to walk worthily of the gospel which we
have received.
In the Epistle to the Colossians we have a yet more
general truth intimated to us, namely, the relation be
tween philosophy and religion. There are many men
who excuse their unbelief and disobedience with the
idea that they have a better philosophy than that which
Christianity can furnish. I would like to have you
notice the wOrd which Paul uses when he speaks of
such philosophy as that. He bids us beware of being
led astray by " vain deceit, after the rudiments of
this world." Rudiments? What are rudiments?
Why, rudiments are nothing but the A, B, C. Just as
much as to say: Why, you people, who think you
have so much philosophy, have only learned the first
letters of the alphabet. You really do not know what
philosophy is. The trouble with you is that you keep
yourselves in the primary class, when you ought to
have a knowledge, not only of the whole alphabet, but
of everything that the whole alphabet can spell. Do
not content yourself with the rudiments of the world !
Do not content yourself with things that can be per
ceived only with the intellectual eye, while you neglect
the things perceived only with the heart. You cannot
trust your native reason, your mere intellect, unen
lightened by the Spirit of God and unconditioned by
a right state of the affections. No man, with the
corrupt and perverse nature which he has received
from his ancestry, can trust in himself, unaided. He is

260 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
dependent upon the Spirit of God and upon divine illu
mination. A young man, sick with the typhoid fever, was in
that peculiar state where some of his perceptions were
normal and some abnormal. He was partly rational,
and partly irrational. In his state, of weakness, life
itself depended upon his taking nourishment. His
mother came to him and said, " My son, drink this
milk." He looked at it a moment and said, " It is
black ! " The mother replied : " Oh, no, my son, it is
not black, this is milk. Drink it, the doctor says you
must take it." He looked at it again and said, " No, it
is black ! " He would not take the milk. He died. Now
a perverse heart, a depraved nature, can just as little
trust some of its perceptions and notions with regard to
God and divine things as that young man could trust
the sight of his eyes. Suppose he had said to his
mother : " Why, mother, have I not eyes ? has not God
given me eyes to see with ? is there anything more cer
tain than the sight of my eyes ? The sight of my eyes
declares that it is black." That young man was very
foolish. He should have taken into consideration that
he was in a state of fever and that, in his deplorable
physical condition, his eyes might deceive him. In re
ligion I would a great deal rather trust the word of God
than trust perceptions of my perverse spiritual na
ture ; and, if I have notions or beliefs which contradict
the word of God, it becomes me to submit my beliefs to
the declarations of Christ. That is better wisdom than
the fevered philosophy of a man who is in this de
praved moral state. So with regard to the relation
between philosophy and Christianity. Philosophy has

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS 26 1
only a rudimentary knowledge of the truth. Chris
tianity has the whole truth, because it is the whole
wisdom of God as it is revealed in Jesus Christ.
Paul does not, in the Epistle to the Colossians, speak
of any overt acts of immorality on the part of the
teachers of false doctrine. But we ought to remember
that, in the second century, when these germs had de
veloped and borne fruit, the Gnostics were honey
combed with immorality, and their immorality was of
the most degrading description. If teachers of unbe
lief do not, at present, show the dreadful fruits of
false teaching in their own private lives, those fruits
will certainly be shown in time, at least in their disci
ples. It is only the tree of correct Christian doctrine
that bears, in the long run, the fruit of true morality.
Let us be very careful, therefore, to hold the truth
of Christ as it is revealed in his word. There is no
safety but in accepting Christ as not only the way
and the life, but also the truth. This Epistle to the
Colossians presents to us Christ as the head of all
things to the universe, just as the Epistle to the Ephe
sians presented to us Christ as the head over all things
to the church.

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS
In the very earliest times there was a place called
Therma, at the northwestern corner of the .-Egean
Sea. It was so called because there were warm springs
there; and that place Therma gave its name to the
Thermaic Gulf, the northwestern projection, so to
speak, of the Greek Archipelago. That place was
beautifully situated and had great advantages for com
merce. The result was that, in the year 315 before
Christ, Cassander rebuilt it and gave it a new name
from the name of his wife, who was the sister of
Alexander the Great ; and the name he gave to the place
was Thessalonica.
This Thessalonica became afterward one of the
great cities of the Via Egnatia, the great Roman mili
tary road between the East and the West, and a place
of great political importance.
In the time of the apostle it was the capital of Mace
donia; it was governed by a Roman prefect, although
under him the old laws were respected, and according
to those old laws there were seven politarchs, so called,
or magistrates, elected by the people. It is a very
curious fact that this word " politarchs " is used in
the Acts of the Apostles in describing the founding of
the church at Thessalonica. The word precisely an
swers to what has recently been found to be the actual
government of the city. The word, moreover, is found
in inscriptions upon the site of the old city of
262

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 263
Thessalonica ; and a ruined arch not only has this word
" politarch " on it, but has also some names which bear
a very strong resemblance to those we find in the Acts
and in the Epistles. So we have evidence that the ac
counts of the founding of the church in the Acts and
in the Epistles, which were written by Paul, are all
genuine. They exactly fit in with what we know from
other sources to be the surroundings and government
of the place.
Thessalonica was a center from which Christianity
might be very easily diffused, for it was upon the
great highway from the East to the West. All the
travel from East to West passed through it. And, as
it was a seaport of great importance, it shared with
Corinth and with Ephesus the commerce of the .ZEgean
Sea. We are quite prepared to hear Paul say to us
that from Thessalonica the gospel had sounded out
through Macedonia and all Achaia.
The modern town is called Salonica, a corruption
or shortening of the ancient word. Even now it is
the second city in European Turkey. It has a popu
lation of ninety thousand, a curious population in its
constitution, for one-third of them are Spanish Jews
who came thither when they were expelled from Spain ;
one-third are Greeks; and another third are Turks.
Very curiously too, one of the commonest trades in
Salonica to-day is the weaving of goat's-hair, so that
travelers say that the sound which most frequently
strikes one's ear as he passes through the streets, is
the click of the shuttle. And we read, in the found
ing of the church, that Paul worked here with his own
hand; worked undoubtedly at his trade of weaving

264 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
goat's-hair, or making tents of goat's-hair ; worked be
fore the break of day in order to save his time for
preaching, and yet support himself in his labors for
the gospel.
You remember that, after Paul had preached the
gospel in Philippi and had passed through stripes and
imprisonment, he was compelled to leave the town,
and to leave it suddenly. With his back still raw and
bleeding from the scourge, he made his way through
Apollonia and Amphipolis until he came to Thessa
lonica. As there is no mention of his staying any
length of time in these intermediate places, it seems
to be altogether probable that, without delay, he pro
ceeded to Thessalonica, and began to preach the gospel
there — a remarkable instance of courage and devotion
in the prosecution of his work. Persecution in one
place only drives him to another ; and, no sooner has he
reached that other, than he immediately begins to
proclaim the same truth that had brought him into
difficulty before. The teacher is as indomitable as the
truth is unchangeable.
During his stay in Thessalonica he was dependent
upon his own labor for his support. People there do
not appear to have been wealthy. He would not lay
upon those who were won for the gospel the burden
of supporting him. During that short stay — perhaps
not more than a month — he twice received contribu
tions from the Philippian brethren whom he had so
recently left. So by his own personal labor, before the
break of day or possibly by night work, after he had
been preaching the gospel in public and from house to
house all the day, Paul gained the means of his own

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 265
support in carrying on his work in the gospel. For
three Sabbath days he preached the gospel in the
synagogue. In Philippi there was no synagogue ; but in Thessa
lonica, apparently, there was a large number of Jews,
and probably a synagogue where they met together.
Some Jews, it is said, believed, and of the chief women
not a few; and a multitude of proselytes were con
verted — heathen adherents of the synagogue, or Gen
tiles who had accepted more or less perfectly the Jew
ish faith, but had not actually become Jews. The result
seems to have been the formation of a church that
was mainly composed of Gentile converts. We do not
find in Paul's letters to the church any evidences of
necessity on his part to deal with questions of law and
circumcision, such as we find him dealing with when he
writes to other churches that were Jewish in their con
stitution. He preached the gospel here for about four weeks,
and gathered to himself so large a number of these
proselytes that he aroused the wrath of the unbelieving
Jews. They stirred up a riot against him. They as
sembled a great number of unbelievers in the market
place; and, with this following, made an assault upon
the house of Jason, Paul's host. In the Epistle to the
Romans, Jason is called a kinsman of Paul. Some
have supposed that this means a kinsman spiritually;
yet it seems most natural to take the word in its literal
acceptation. When the Jews made their assault upon
the house of Jason, Paul and Silas and Timothy were
not there. They were perhaps preaching elsewhere,
although still somewhere in the town. The Jews could

266 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
only take Jason, Paul's host, and bring him before the
magistrates, the politarchs of the city.
They made the charge that Paul and Silas and Tim
othy were attempting to establish another sovereignty,
by preaching in the name of one Jesus, a king. The
intimation was that they were subverting the consti
tuted authority and were guilty of high treason. The
magistrates were desirous of maintaining their good
relations with Rome. If they allowed such preaching
as this to go on they would be compromised; and, as
they were unable at the time to take bail of Paul and
Silas, they seem to have taken bail of Jason, that no
harm should be suffered and that this work should not
continue. The result was that Paul and Silas and
Timothy, that very night, took their departure from
Thessalonica, and presently made their way south
ward to Athens, and finally to Corinth, to which Paul
came toward the close of the year A. D. 50.
The persecution which had failed to harm the apos
tles themselves broke upon the devoted heads of the
new church-members at Thessalonica. It would seem
that they were maltreated after the departure of Silas
and Paul, and that their circumstances of persecution
and trial called especially for the sympathy of the
apostle. This doubtless was one of the reasons why
the first letter to the Thessalonians was written. Paul
naturally was concerned about the spiritual and the
temporal welfare of these new converts. Twice he
proposed to make them a visit, but in one way or
another he was prevented. At last he sent Timothy to
inquire with regard to their state, and when Timothy
came back to him with a favorable report, declaring

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 267
that they were still steadfast in their faith, and were
still witnessing for Christ in spite of persecutions, and
in spite of many sorrows which had recently come to
them in the deaths of some they greatly loved, Paul's
heart overflowed with gratitude, and as, at another
time, he wrote to the Corinthians his second Epistle
full of love and thanksgiving to God, so he was moved
to write this first letter to the Thessalonians, which
expresses his ardent affection, and encourages them to
endure persecution. Paul aims also to instruct them
further in the Christian life, and to build them up in
faith and holiness. As we read this first Epistle, es
pecially the first three chapters of it, we perceive that
here is a church that is living in the first freshness of
its love to Christ. It is a beautiful picture of over
flowing faith and zeal and affection. The apostle
recognized it as a church in which the power of God
had been made manifest. As they had gladly received
the word, so they had been faithful to the word which
they had received.
Yet, at the same time, there were certain things that
needed to be corrected, and which required admoni
tion. The members of the church were mostly Greeks,
and they showed the defects of the Greek character.
They were impulsive and excitable, and there was a
tendency to indolence among them. Some were prone
to avarice, and there was danger in sensual directions.
All these things Paul recognizes; and while he com
mends them for their love and patience and faithful
ness to Christ, he warns them against these wrong ten
dencies, and strives to set them right. And yet, after
all, the great danger of the Thessalonians has not yet

268 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
been mentioned. Their main defects, and the main
difficulties toward which Paul addresses himself in the
latter part of the First Epistle, center about the doc
trine of the coming of Christ. If we can only under
stand what Paul's preaching had been, and how they
had received that preaching, I think we shall have the
proper point of view from which to estimate these two
Epistles to the Thessalonians.
At this time in the apostle's life he had not advanced,
so far as we can see, to the teaching of those larger
and profounder doctrines of the Christian faith which
he sets forth so magnificently in the Romans and in
the Ephesians and in the Colossians. It was a sort
of elementary teaching that he gave to the Thessa
lonians, perhaps because of the fact that they were new
converts from among the heathen, and that one thing,
above all, needed to be impressed upon them, namely,
the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The preaching of Paul
to the Thessalonians, if we may judge from his Epis
tles, was such preaching as we find represented in
his speeches in the Acts of the Apostles.
Addressing heathen, as he did, he reproves their
sins, declares their need of pardon, and stimulates
them to repentance by declaring the coming of the Lord
Jesus Christ as a Judge. When he has thus spoken of
Christ as the Lord, and of Christ's coming to judge
the world, the Thessalonians are led to accept the gos
pel, to believe in this Christ as a Saviour, and actually
to enter the Christian church.
Four weeks with these heathen converts was not a
long time to expound the mysteries of the gospel of
Christ. It would seem that the teaching given them

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 269
was somewhat elementary. The doctrine of the com
ing of Christ was not fully understood by some of the
Thessalonians. After Paul had departed, they were led to think that
the coming of Christ was not to be long delayed ; that
it was certainly to take place in the lifetime of those
who were then members of the church. Since some
whom they especially loved had died already, they
drew the inference that these departed friends, by
dying before Christ's coming, had lost their share in
the Messianic glory; in other words, that those who
had been so early and prematurely taken away were
debarred from participation in the Saviour's triumph ;
and they grieved that their departed friends had lost
so much.
In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul cor
rects this error first of all, and tells them that, when
Christ comes, those who sleep in Jesus will be the first
that are raised from the dead ; that they will be caught
up in the air; and that then those who are living will
be caught up with them, to meet the Lord in the
clouds. Paul corrects their wrong impression with
regard to the meaning of his words. He declares that
the resurrection of the dead is one event; that all are
to be raised together; that all are to be raised at the
coming of Christ; and that the rising of those who
have departed in the faith of Jesus will precede in time
the rising of those who are still living at his coming.
Since some were disposed to regard this coming as
immediate, Paul urges them to be faithful in their ap
pointed calling; quietly to earn their own livelihood
from day to day; to be prepared for whatever may

270 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
come ; to be prepared whenever Christ comes, by being
prepared always. And there the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians leaves the matter.
There was a class of New Testament prophets who,
under the influence of the Holy Spirit, interpreted the
Scriptures. Some of these prophets had declared the
real truth with regard to this matter of Christ's com
ing and had pointed out their mistake to those who
were thus agitated and excited. Those who were thus
agitated had been inclined to neglect the admonitions
that had been given to them. Paul, therefore, advises
the Thessalonians not to despise the prophets, but to
heed the instruction which they gave under the influ
ence of the Spirit. With these particular injunctions,
and with a few others directed to more minute matters
of Christian practical life, the First Epistle closes.
Both the Epistles to the Thessalonians must be dated
in the year A. D. 51. During the interval that elapsed
between the First and Second Epistles — an interval
not very long in point of time, probably not more than
six months at the most — it would seem as if these
tendencies in the Thessalonian church increased, until
at last the agitation become very general, and the mis
interpretation of Paul's views became much more
serious than at the first.
People who are not accustomed to think very deeply
can take any sort of document, can run away with a
single phrase and exaggerate its meaning, while at
the same time they neglect the qualifying words that
have been used, and so fail to get the whole scope of
the document. In this way the First Epistle of Paul
to the Thessalonians was misinterpreted. While Paul

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 27 1
speaks of what will happen at the coming of Christ,
and declares that all should be ready for his coming,
the inference was unwarrantably drawn that Christ's
coming was in the immediate future, and that, there
fore, the main thing to do was to watch for the com
ing of the Lord and pay little attention to ordinary
temporal affairs. Paul was credited with teaching that
in the lifetime of those then living Christ would come
in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
It was necessary that Paul should correct this misappre
hension of his teaching. His second letter was written
to set everything right by declaring that they had mis
understood what he had said to them.
When you compare these two letters of the apostle,
four things are perfectly plain with regard to them.
The first is, that the two letters agree perfectly with
one another. The doctrine of the one is perfectly con
sistent with the doctrine of the other. They are two
hemispheres which complement one another. The
second is, that there is not, in either of these Epistles,
any statement that our Lord would come during the
lifetime of those who were then members of the church.
In the Second Epistle, Paul makes it perfectly plain
that this is not to be so, by the fact that he prophesies
great intervening events, and declares that these must
take place before the Lord can come. "The man of
sin " must be revealed. There is a power which now
withholds his full manifestation, and that withholding
power must be taken away first. In other words, it is
intimated that the end is farther away than these
Thessalonians are inclined to believe. These great in
tervening events, then, are set forth as the third piece

272 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of instruction which the apostle gives to them. And
then, fourthly, it is perfectly plain, upon reading these
Epistles together, that the apostle never did teach ex
pressly, and never did teach at all, that Christ was to
come in the lifetime of Paul himself.
It is quite possible that the apostle Paul had his own
private surmises with regard to the meaning of his
prophetic utterances. But it is very important that we
should distinguish between inspiration and inferences
from inspiration. It is very important that we should
distinguish between what the Spirit definitely commu
nicates with regard to the future, and the private im
pressions which even an apostle may have with regard
to the meaning of those things that are communicated.
Peter, in his Epistle, declares that those who were
inspired in the Old Testament times " sought what
time or what manner of time the Spirit within them did
signify, when they spoke beforehand of the sufferings
of Christ and the glory that should follow." In other
words, even inspired men in Old Testament times,
when they had communicated great things with regard
to the future, looked upon this revelation with wonder,
and did not comprehend its meaning. A man may
have given to him great revelations with regard to the
future, which, yet, he may not be able to understand.
Just as under the Old Testament, the prophets had
made known to them things with regard to the coming
of Christ, and yet what time it was, or what manner
of time it was, in which these things were to take
place, they did not understand; just so Paul seems
to have had made known to him the fact of the second
coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the judgment,

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 273
and yet Paul was not told when these things were to
take place. He was left to himself with regard to
that matter, and knew but little more as to the time
of Christ's coming than did these church-members
whom he addressed. Indeed, in the early part of Paul's
life and ministry, and even while he was preaching to
the Thessalonians and writing to them, Paul may have
had a private surmise and hope that this revelation
might refer to a time very near at hand in the future,
and might have hoped that Christ's coming might be
in his own day. But if he had such a private surmise
as that, he never once taught it. There is not one word,
in the Acts or in any one of his Epistles, which shows
that Paul ever vouched for the immediate coming of
Christ. On the other hand, it is plain that, as the
apostle's life went on, his private impressions with re
gard to the meaning of Christ's revelation of the future
changed their character; when he writes to Timothy,
the last of the Epistles which we know to have pro
ceeded from him — Second Timothy — he says : " Now
I am ready to be offered, and the time of my departure
is at hand ; I have fought a good fight, I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith." In other words, he
expects death, after the ordinary manner, and per
haps by martyrdom. He does not expect that the Lord
will come before he dies. He has got past any such
impression as that. Either he has had new communi
cations from God with regard to the time, so that now
he understands that it is not in the immediate future,
or he has used his ordinary faculties of human dis
cernment to such effect that he sees the time to be
farther away than he supposed in his early experience.
s

274 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
But, I would have you remember, he has never taught
anything about it ; and whatever false impressions have
been formed by the Thessalonians in regard to this
matter have been their own impressions, and not the
necessary or proper result of any apostolic assertion.
In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, there
fore, Paul corrects the misapprehension, that the
Thessalonians had received with regard to his first
communication; shows them that there must be great
intervening events first; and urges them to put away
habits of indolence and neglect of business, and to
give up looking to the richer members of the church
for their support, on the plea that the Lord is coming
so soon that there is no use of labor or anxiety with
regard to the future. He teaches that every man must
work in order that he may eat, and may have some
thing besides with which to help those who are less
comfortably off than he. It is true that the doctrine of
the New Testament, and the prophecy of the New Tes
tament, and the church polity of the New Testament
had a progressive development; but it is important
that we understand what this progressive development
was. This progressive development was simply an
unfolding. Prophecy in the New Testament, as in
the Old Testament, is gradually unfolded. We have
prophecy in germ at the gates of Eden, when it is
predicted that the seed of the woman shall bruise the
serpent's head. As age after age goes by, that initial
prophecy is qualified and expanded. Just so, in the
New Testament revelation, we have the beginnings of
prophecy in the discourse of our Lord Jesus with re
gard to the destruction of Jerusalem, and we have the

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 275
unfolding of this revelation until at last we get the
sum and ending of it in the Apocalypse, so that the
revelation goes on until the very last apostolic writer
has passed from earth.
So it is with regard to doctrine. We cannot get all
the doctrine of the New Testament from this Epistle
to the Thessalonians — the first Epistle that Paul wrote,
as early as the year 53. We must take all the other
Epistles that Paul wrote, down to the year 65 or 68, in
order to get the whole doctrine of the apostle Paul, and
even his Epistles must be supplemented by those of
Peter, James, and John, if we would learn the complete
doctrinal development of the New Testament.
Just so it is with regard to church polity. We have
the beginnings in the early Epistles. If you follow the
Epistles in the order of time, you find one thing after
another taught as you go on, until you get to the last
Epistle, when you have a pretty fully developed out
line of the organization and offices and ordinances of
the Christian church. This is God's method. The
whole body of instruction with regard to prophecy,
with regard to doctrine, and with regard to church
polity was not given as a sort of lightning flash at
the first; there was development in it; and yet that
development reached its climax and culmination; all
that was necessary to Christian faith and practice was
given and was completed by the close of the apostolic
age; and all development since then is simply develop
ment in the comprehension and understanding of the
prophecy, doctrine, and polity then given.
It is important to observe a second thing, namely,
that this development in prophecy and doctrine and

276 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
church polity, from stage to stage, was occasioned by
actual outward and inward needs. In other words,
Christ did not make communications to the apostles
without reference to the facts in the particular case,
and the needs of the church which they were instruct
ing; but the revelation in each case was, step by step,
drawn forth by the outward necessities of the churches
to which the apostle wrote, and then by the inward ex
periences of the apostles themselves. Side by side with
this development in prophecy and doctrine and church
polity, we have the external needs of the churches.
In the church at Jerusalem, for example, there was too
much for the apostles to do. They could not serve
tables, at the same time that they preached the gospel
and prayed, as they ought. That particular necessity
led to the appointment of deacons; the outward need
led to that development of church organization.
I find another example in the Epistle to the Colos
sians. Here was a great heresy brewing that finally
culminated in the Gnostics of the second century ; that
false teaching in the Colossian church was made by
the Holy Spirit the occasion of giving a magnificent
exposition of the greatness of Christ and of showing
that he is Head over all things to this universe, the
Creator and Upholder of all. The outward need of
the Colossians was the occasion of unfolding this great
doctrine of the Christian faith.
So we have two parallel lines. On the one hand,
we have an advancing line of prophecy and doctrine
and church polity; and then, on the other hand, we
have a line of inward and outward experience, both
on the part of the church and on the part of the apostle.

THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS 277
There was in those times, just as there is in these
later times, a principle of false religion which had to
have its development. It seems to have been God's
plan that, side by side with the church, there should be
the opportunity to misrepresent truth and to show the
error and tendency of evil. In the New Testament,
side by side with the doctrine of faith and of grace,
there is a continuous development of the principle of
self-righteousness and dependence upon works. " The
man of sin " must be revealed. I suppose " the man
of sin " is essentially the same in all ages and times.
The man of sin is not simply and only Roman Catholi
cism. It is not simply and only the doctrine of justifica
tion by works. It is all that tendency of the human
heart to self-righteousness and pride, in matters of
belief and in matters of practice, which stands over
against the doctrine of the grace of God, as its bitter
and perpetual antagonist.
That principle of false religion began its develop
ment then; but it was hindered for a time, hindered
by the outward and constant power of Roman govern
ment and organization. It reached its culmination, it
had its greatest power of evil only when Roman law
and organization was followed by hierarchy. The Epis
tle to the Thessalonians gives us the first of the prophe
cies of this mighty power of the world that is to rise
as Antichrist and to oppose the kingdom of Jesus
Christ, our Lord. Over against this prophecy of the
coming opposition to the kingdom of God there stands
another prophecy that must give us comfort, just as
it gave the Thessalonians comfort then; and that is
the prophecy of the coming of our Lord in judgment,

278 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to put down evil and to set up righteousness in the
earth. Our Lord is to come. Paul, in the early part of
his life, did not know when that coming would be, and
thought perhaps that it might take place in his own
day. But he never made this a matter of teaching to
the churches, and before his death the false impression
was dispelled. He came to see that the time of Christ's
coming was farther on. Age after age has come since
then, and age after age has been watching and wait
ing for the coming of the Lord. We are to watch, as
those to whom the Master may come at any time ; and
we are to be always ready. Somewhere in the future,
we know not when, and we know not where, Christ is
to come in clouds of heaven, in power and great glory,
to judge the world; and, for us Christians to-day, just
as it was in the times when these Epistles to the Thessa
lonians were written, the coming of Christ is the great
comfort and hope of the church. Our Lord has gone
into a far country to receive a kingdom and to return ;
we have been entrusted with our several talents; we
are to employ and increase them until he comes. When
he comes, he will bring us before him to render up our
account. Let us be faithful to him, looking for and
hastening, says the apostle, the coming of the day of
God. By our faithfulness, by our zeal, by our Chris
tian labor and endeavors, we may make it possible
for the Lord to come the sooner and to complete his
work in the earth. In the last chapter of the book of
Revelation we have the words, " Behold, I come
quickly"; and the answer of the church to-day, just
as it was the answer of the church then, is " Even so,
Lord Jesus, come quickly."

THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS
The two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus
are called the Pastoral Epistles, because they were
written by Paul to Timothy and to Titus, not as
friends simply, nor as individual Christians simply,
but as pastors of the church of God. They were writ
ten for the purpose of instructing these ministers in
the proper methods of pastoral work.
The three Epistles have a common character. The
subjects of all are very much the same. They were
written in the years 64 and 65, after Paul's release
from his first Roman imprisonment, and not long be
fore his martyrdom. As the Epistles to the Thessa
lonians were the first that Paul wrote, so these Pastoral
Epistles were the last of his writing. They are writ
ten under the shadow of approaching death. They
are written by " Paul, the aged " ; by one not more
than sixty years of age, yet old before his time because
of the shipwrecks and the scourgings he has suffered
for Christ. As he nears his end, he writes with
pathetic earnestness, and in a style somewhat differ
ent from that of his earlier writings ; and these things
give to the Pastoral Epistles a peculiar interest. Let
me say a word or two, first of all, with regard to the
persons to whom they were addressed: Timothy, on
the one hand; Titus, on the other.
Timothy was a native of Lystra, in Asia Minor, a
city where there was no Jewish synagogue. A place 279

280 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that had nO Jewish synagogue was a place where there
were very few Jews; for, so soon as there were ten
heads of families who were Jews, it was the custom
to establish a synagogue. We conclude that in Lystra
the number of those who professed faith in the true
God must have been very small.
At Lystra, Paul, in his first missionary journey,
preached to the people, and some were converted to
Christ. It is not until the second missionary journey,
some six years later, that we read of Timothy. Timo
thy was the son of a Jewish mother and of a Greek
father. His Greek father must have been living, one
would think, at the time when Timothy came under the
influence of Paul ; for, at that time, he was still uncir-
cumcised. Timothy had been instructed in the Scrip
tures by his mother and by his grandmother ; and that
early knowledge of the Scriptures seems to have drawn
Paul to him, and to have qualified Timothy for his work
of preaching the gospel. It was certainly much to the
credit of Timothy's mother and grandmother that, in
a town where there were no privileges of public wor
ship, he should have been so faithfully instructed in the
Scriptures of the Old Testament. There was some
thing in his mixed descent which qualified Timothy for
the work to which the apostle Paul called him. Being
partly Jew and partly Gentile, he had a peculiar fitness
for the work of preaching the gospel in a community
composed partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles.
After six years Paul came back to Lystra, and found
Timothy well known and highly esteemed in the
church; found, moreover, that Timothy had natural
gifts, in addition to his training in the Scriptures,

THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS 28 1
which qualified him to be Paul's companion. Timothy
seems to have been a young man of extreme and al
most effeminate sensitiveness of organization. This
made him sympathetic, and gave him access to many
classes of persons. His sensitive and conscientious
nature tended toward a sort of asceticism, against
which Paul warns him. And yet there were many quali
ties that drew him to Paul; and he enjoyed, during the
seventeen years in which he was Paul's companion, the
constant instruction and affection of the apostle.
Titus was a person of very different mental make
up from Timothy. He was a man of sterner stuff.
Strange to say, Titus is not mentioned in the Acts of
the Apostles. It is only in Paul's Epistles that we learn
anything about him. But the various allusions to
Titus, and the various missions upon which he was
sent, seem to indicate that he was a person of stalwart
mind and character. Titus was probably a native of
Antioch. It is from Antioch that he goes to Jerusalem,
with Paul and Barnabas. Perhaps he goes as a repre
sentative of the Gentile Christians; and in that Apos
tolic Council, to which he was a delegate, he secures
the liberty of the Gentiles. They are not to be put
under the restrictions of circumcision. Throughout
his whole life, Titus is a living protest against the doc
trine that men, in order to become Christians, must
first become Jews.
The second time when we meet with Titus is in con
nection with the letter which the apostle Paul writes
to the church at Corinth, commanding them to excom
municate the incestuous person. Titus' second mis
sion seems to have had for its object to insure the

282 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
obedience of the Corinthian church to the directions
of Paul — a mission which could hardly have been en
trusted to any but a man of great discretion and
decision. Again, we find that Titus is left behind in the
Island of Crete, to complete the apostle's work and to
organize the churches, after Paul and he had preached
the gospel there. When we remember what the Cre
tans were, it is very easy to see that this was a task of
no small difficulty, and one which needed something
more than a person of kind disposition and gentle
conduct. Last of all, Titus goes to Dalmatia. Tradition says
that Titus was the apostle of Dalmatia. Dalmatia
was by no means a civilized region at that time; this
seems like a mission to outside barbarians ; it required
not only zeal, but organizing ability.
These are all the intimations we have with regard
to Titus, and the work that Titus did, although we
have occasional allusions to him in Paul's Epistles, the
meaning of which I think we shall see a little farther
on, when we consider the large amount of instruction
which this Epistle contains.
Here, then, were two persons of very different train
ing and influence. On the one hand, a person of kindly
sympathy, of almost feminine mind and character ; and,
on the other hand, a man of strong will and vigorous
intellect. Yet both have their gifts of leadership, and
we can see that they are wisely chosen as the two per
sons to whom Paul addresses his Pastoral Epistles.
It is as if he selected two of the most opposite types
of character, in order that in them he might find the

THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS 283
representatives of the whole ministry of Christ that was
to arise and preach and work to the end of time.
The dates of these Epistles to Timothy and Titus
are difficult to determine with exactness. I can justify
the dates which I have assigned — during the years 64
and 65 — only by telling something of Paul's story.
For many years it was thought that we must fix the
date of these Epistles some time before the close of
Paul's imprisonment as it is narrated in the Acts ; but
there are very great difficulties connected with this
method of explaining their authorship. There seems
to be no place in Paul's history, up to the time of the
close of that imprisonment, where we can put the Epis
tles to Timothy and Titus.
The First Epistle to Timothy, for example, seems to
be written while Timothy remains in Ephesus during a
journey of Paul into Macedonia. But there is no one
of the journeys of Paul narrated in the Acts which the
authorship of these Epistles will fit; for, in one of
these journeys, Paul took Timothy with him, and there
are insuperable difficulties connected with the other
journeys. Our conclusion must be that these Epistles
to Timothy, and Titus were not written during the
period that preceded the end of Paul's first imprison
ment at Rome, but must have been written after the
close of that imprisonment.
We have no information with regard to the close
of that imprisonment, unless we get it from these
Epistles themselves. It would appear that Paul was
successful in his first appeal to Caesar; that, at the
close of the stay in Rome, which is narrated in the Acts
of the Apostles, he was released; and that, after his

284 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
release, he executed a purpose which he had intimated
a long time before, in his Epistle to the Romans, to go
into Spain and preach the gospel there. In the year
61 this first imprisonment of Paul's probably ended;
and we may most reasonably conclude that the two fol
lowing years, the year 62 and the year 63, were spent at
what Clement, the church Father, calls the ends of the
earth, or in Spain ; that Paul preached the gospel there
in comparative seclusion, since we have no Epistle dated
from that time of the apostle's life. After his im
prisonment it was possibly the most salutary thing for
him to remain in comparative quiet, far away from
Rome and from the notice of the Roman authorities.
After those two years in Spain we may believe that
the apostle went with Titus to Crete, and there, for a
year perhaps, engaged in missionary work, founding
and instructing churches ; that from Crete he took his
departure "with Timothy, leaving Titus upon the
ground to finish the work he had done; and that he
then accomplished what had been his purpose for a
long time (as we find by his early Epistles), visited
the church at Colosse, left Trophimus sick at Mile
tus, stayed for some time in Ephesus with Timothy,
left him behind to be his representative, and went
northward through Troas to Philippi, having promised
the Philippian church to visit them. From Philippi,
three years perhaps after his first imprisonment at
Rome terminated, Paul wrote the First Epistle to
Timothy, while Timothy was pastor of the church at
Ephesus. Leaving Philippi, he goes southward to
Corinth, and at Corinth he leaves Erastus. Then he
goes into Macedonia to Nicopolis ; and from Nicopolis

THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TlTUS 285
he writes the Epistle to Titus, who is still in Crete,
giving directions in regard to the conduct of his pas
toral work there, and the organization of the Cretan
churches. At Nicopolis, according to tradition, Paul was again
arrested upon the charge that he was the leader of
the Christians throughout the world. The attitude of
the Roman authorities toward the Christian faith had
become more rigorous. Paul was taken to Rome, and
at Rome he suffered, not the very tolerable confinement
which characterized his first captivity, but a much more
painful imprisonment.
In his first appearance before Caesar he appears to
have been successful, although no one stayed by him.
It required courage as well as Christian principle to
stand by the apostle, when standing by him might in
volve a sharing in his martyrdom. In his second letter
to Timothy he says that only Luke was left with him.
The friends that were about him in his first captivity
were absent now.
The Second Epistle to Timothy, written during
this second Roman imprisonment, has an entirely dif
ferent air from the First Epistle, which was written to
Timothy from Philippi, and from the Epistle to the
Philippians, in which he anticipates release. He seems
now to anticipate a speedy departure from the world;
and in that Roman prison, in a very pathetic and it
seems to me a very affecting way, he writes to Timo
thy, as he had previously written to Titus at Nicopolis,
to bring to him certain things he was in need of. The
cold of the prison demanded a greater amount of cloth
ing than he had, " Bring the cloak I left at Troas."

286 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
He also had need of the books, and especially the
parchments, Old Testament Scriptures, or possibly
blank parchments upon which he might write some
thing still to the churches he was soon to leave behind,
and for whose welfare he was solicitous.
Here are evidences that the apostle was brought
to a state of real need, and that little text about bring
ing the cloak, which has seemed to some so trivial as
almost to constitute an objection to the inspiration of
the writing, seems to me to have in it a great deal of
suggestion. It is worthy to be a text of a whole ser
mon. It indicates that the apostle Paul was brought
into great straits ; and in the urgent request that Timo
thy will come to him quickly, we seem to see the im
pression that the end was drawing near. He wished
to give Timothy his last instructions and to send his
dying wishes to the churches.
And so the Second Epistle to Timothy, the last
Epistle we have from the hand of the apostle, was
written from a Roman dungeon ; and only a little after,
a file of Roman soldiers marched out with Paul upon
the Ostian way, dug there a grave, severed his head
from his body, and buried him on the spot.
The object of these Epistles, as I remarked at the
beginning, is common to them all. Since the mission
of the churches is the same, and the needs of the
churches the same, Paul writes in very much the same
strain to them all.
Two things the churches were especially in danger
of, and Paul did all he could do to counteract these
dangers. First, there was the danger arising from
false doctrine. Paul had been absent from these

THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS 287
churches for several years; he had not been able to
give them continuous instruction; he had been com
pelled to commit his work to others. During that
time, Judaizing teachers had crept in; they were pro
pounding their endless genealogies; and the germs
which afterward developed into Gnosticism were all
felt in each one of these churches of Christ.
In the book of Revelation the Epistle to the angel
of the church at Ephesus describes the same errors
and dangers against which Paul warns Timothy. The
apostle John, only a little later, finds full grown the
errors and dangers which previously caused sorrow to
the apostle Paul. Timothy was pastor at Ephesus, and
Paul addressed him. There were Hymenaeus and Phile-
tus who concerning the truth had erred, saying that
the resurrection was past already. They spiritualized
the resurrection, declaring that at death the soul en
ters at once into its loftier state ; that that loftier state
is ethereal; and that the body does not rise at all.
These errors the apostle had first of all to meet, not,
as in the Epistles written during his first captivity at
Rome to the Colossians and Ephesians and Philippians,
by an elaborate expounding of any single Christian
doctrine, but as an old and tired man would meet
them, by referring once more to the first principles of
the gospel of Christ.
It is as much as to say that all we need to counteract
this heresy is to return to Jesus, the Saviour, and to
learn once more the A, B, C of the Christian faith. It
is the old man who, in a more broken way than in his
first Epistles, with nothing like the sustained eloquence
which we find in the Epistles to the Ephesians and the

288 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Colossians, gives his final instructions to those who
have under their care the church of Christ.
There was a second difficulty among these churches
to which the apostle was writing, through their repre
sentatives, and that' was a difficulty with regard to
church organization. Now church organization was a
matter of development. There was not so much
church organization at the beginning as there was in
later days. That was ordained by God. One thing
after another was provided as the need of it arose.
Before we get to the end of the apostle's teaching we
find a complete outline of church organization; and in
these Epistles we find more in regard to church offices
and church government than we find anywhere else.
Here are depicted the qualifications for the Christian
ministry. We have here the qualifications for the
deaconship. We have directions with regard to disci
pline of those who are heretics and of those who are
sensual. These instructions which Paul sent to his
representatives in the ministry have been of great im
portance in the determination of church polity, during
all these later times.
The style of these Epistles is different in some re
spects from the style of Paul's earlier writings. It has
been a puzzle, to those who have examined the Epis
tles from a literary point of view, to know how the
same person could have written, for example, both
the Epistles to the Thessalonians and the Epistles to
Timothy and Titus. But you are familiar with the
fact that a man's style changes as he advances in
years. When George William Curtis wrote his Poti-
phar papers, many years ago, there was a lingering

THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS 289
sweetness long drawn out, of which Curtis after
ward became incapable. If one should read the Poti-
phar papers now, and should mark the infinite deli
cacy and the. excess of sentiment which characterizes
them, he would think it almost impossible that the
same man could have written the calm and statesman
like articles of " Harper's Weekly." And yet it is
the same man. And so Paul, from the early part of his
life to the latter part of his life, must have undergone
a very great change in this matter of style. He had
had experience of the world, he had mingled with all
sorts of men, he had passed through all sorts of suffer
ing; and now, toward the close of his life, there is a
terseness and incisiveness in his writing, and an ad
vanced and enlarged Christian experience, such as we
do not find in the earlier Epistles. His style changed
with his subject and his circumstances, as the style of
every practical writer does.
Paul had an exceedingly mobile, an exceedingly im
pressible, and an exceedingly fertile mind. Paul was
one who could take in as well as give out. To the
end of his life he was always learning ; and as he writes
these private letters, for these you must notice, unlike
the earlier Epistles of which we have spoken, are let
ters to individuals, he very naturally writes in a dif
ferent style from that which characterized the letters
written to the churches. A private letter is very dif
ferent from an official communication; and a letter
of direction to individuals is very different from a doc
trinal treatise, such as we find in the Epistles to the
Romans and to the Ephesians. These considerations
are sufficient to account for whatever difference of

290 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
style we find between Paul's early Epistles and his
later ones.
How much we should lack if these Epistles to Timo
thy and Titus were taken from us! They are the
natural, and one might almost say the necessary, sup
plement to our other knowledge of Paul's life. If all
that we knew with regard to the apostle's teaching
ended with the Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philip
pians, and the Colossians, there would be a very large
part of Paul's life and heart which would be still un
known to us. There are personal experiences here of
which we should have no record if these Epistles were
taken from us. How did Paul feel as the shadows of
approaching death began to creep upon him? How did
Paul look forward to the end of all things earthly ? It
is a delightful thing to me to have related here, in
Paul's own words, an experience something like that
of Christian in the " Pilgrim's Progress," when he is
just about to step down into the cold river which sepa
rates him from the City of God on the other side. " I
am now ready to be offered, and the time of my de
parture is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have
finished my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which
the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that
day." Here the apostle, after all his sufferings and
trials, and in the very face of approaching death, is
uttering these calm, confident words. This is a bless
ing to the whole church of Christ; it is a blessing to
every one of us, because it gives us warrant for taking
these same words upon our lips when we come to die.
There is instruction with regard to the conduct of

THE EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS 29 1
affairs in the church of Christ, which we should lack
if these Epistles were taken from us. Paul had great
anxiety with regard to the future. He wanted to put
into other hands the work of preaching the gospel and
of sustaining the church; and that he does in these
Epistles. He charges Timothy to commit this same
gospel which he preached to faithful men who should
be able to teach others also. Paul was a whole theo
logical seminary by himself. He desired to raise up
and instruct those who should afterward teach the
word of God. There is no indication that Paul felt de
pressed with regard to the past or future. When
Luther came to this point in his life, where death be
gan to draw nigh, great man as he was and great work
as he had done, he felt as if his life had been spent in
vain, and as if everything he had accomplished was
about to be swept away. Great discouragement came
upon him. In such a state of mind as that, his life
ended. In the case of Paul we have a better illustra
tion of faith in Christ than is given by Luther. Paul
in his Roman prison, with the certainty that he was
soon to be taken away, and with no one in all the world
to take his place, still feels hopeful with regard to the
church of God. His only anxiety is to commend to
others the work he is so soon to lay down.
There is something very interesting in Paul's gravi
tating again toward Rome after his first imprisonment
there. It seems as if there was a tremendous magnet
in that capital of the world that drew him there. If
the tradition be true that Peter also suffered martyr
dom there, then both the apostles — Peter and Paul —
felt as if the great thing to do was to conquer the

292 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Eternal City for Christ. Although Paul has been im
prisoned there, and has been in danger of martyrdom
there, he still cannot rest until he gets back to Rome ; he
will dash himself during his last hours against that
stone wall of Imperial Rome, with the assurance that
Christ is able to strike that wall until it falls ; and so in
Rome he writes his last letter, the Second Epistle to
Timothy. Paul tells us in this Epistle that what we have our
selves received we must commit to faithful men, that
they may be able to teach others also. In other words,
every one of us has a responsibility for the extension
and continuance of the preaching of Christ's truth after
we are dead. It is our business to see that the gospel
is preached and published to the generations, that are
yet to come.

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON
Philemon was perhaps a native, and certainly a resi
dent, of the city of Colosse, one of the Colossian Chris
tians, therefore, to whom the Epistle to the Colossians
was written. Colosse was a city in the southwest of
Asia Minor, upon the banks of the river Lycus.
Philemon apparently was a convert of the apostle
Paul, though Paul had never made a visit to Colosse.
It would almost seem as if, led by trade, he had visited
Ephesus, perhaps with Epaphras, and there come under
the influence of the apostle's preaching during Paul's
two or three years' stay in that great city. Being con
verted to Christ, he seconded the efforts of Epaphras
to preach the gospel to his fellow townsmen ; and being
a man of wealth and hospitable instincts, he seems to
have opened his house for the meetings of the church.
So the apostle, in the Epistle, sends his salutations to
the church that is in that house.
Some have thought, from a word that is used in the
Epistle, namely, the word " partner," that the rela
tions between Paul and Philemon were partly relations
of business ; and there is a curious use of commercial
or business terms in the Epistle. A noted English in
terpreter, by the name of Plumptre, has actually writ
ten an essay upon the apostle Paul as a man of busi
ness, and has put together a number of allusions in the
Acts of the Apostles and in Paul's various Epistles,
which seem to show that the apostle was not at all
293

294 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ignorant of business life. He thinks that, during those
two or three years in Ephesus, when the apostle Paul
was dependent, as he ordinarily was, upon the labor
of his hands, he possibly made a sort of business con
nection with Philemon; that they had business trans
actions together; and that when Paul writes to him as
his partner, he is using that term in a business sense.
All this is somewhat precarious, and we may better con
clude that the relation between Paul and Philemon was
that of partnership in the Christian faith rather than
of partnership in commercial enterprises. At any rate,
it seems that Philemon was a fellow helper or fellow
laborer of the apostle's, for Paul applies this term to
him in the Epistle. Philemon was evidently engaged in
the spreading of the gospel, and did everything he
could to advance the cause of Christ.
In the salutations of the Epistle to Philemon, two
other persons are mentioned. One of them is Apphia ;
and Apphia was without question, I think, the wife of
Philemon. The third who is mentioned is Archippus;
and since both these names are mentioned before the
church is mentioned that worshiped in their house, it
seems altogether possible that Archippus was their son.
So we have three members of this Christian family
brought to our attention : Philemon, Apphia his wife,
and Archippus their son.
Archippus seems to have held some sort of official
position in one of the churches of the neighborhood,
probably the church of Laodicea, which was in walking
distance of Colosse; and in the Epistle to the Colos
sians we have exhortations to Archippus that he take
heed with regard to the office which he held, to fulfil

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 295
it. It is possible that Archippus was the elder, or
presbyter, or pastor, of the neighboring church of Laod
icea, although he may not have resided there. Since
he was the son of Philemon and Apphia, and saluta
tions of the apostle were extended to him in this letter
to Philemon, it would seem that he still lived with his
parents at Colosse.
There was another member of this family whom I
have not yet mentioned. With these three, Philemon,
his wife Apphia, and their son Archippus, that house
hold included also a man of the lowest social stratum —
the slave Onesimus. Onesimus was not only a slave;
he was also a thief and a runaway. Apparently finding
that the burdens and responsibilities of his position as
slave were irksome to him, he fled from Colosse and
from this relation of servitude ; and in order to provide
the means of his journeying he robbed his master, and
so made his way to Rome. It may seem strange that a
slave like Onesimus should have gone so far from his
master and from his town; but we must remember
that a city like Rome, where all nations congregated,
furnished the very best hiding-place for a criminal.
Rome was the easiest place to get at; for, as the old
proverb reads, " All roads lead to Rome " ; and at
Rome he might most easily find employment. In
Rome, moreover, there was the most to see and the
largest experience of the world to be gained, so that
there were many reasons why this runaway slave
should have made his way as quickly as possible to the
Imperial City.
But he made his way to the Imperial City only to
be apprehended by the Lord Jesus, and to be made

296 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the Lord's freedman. How it was that, in the city of
Rome, he was brought into contact with the apostle
Paul we do not know. The story is not told us. Per
haps hunger drove him to Paul for help. . Perhaps con
science drove him to Paul for consolation. Perhaps
Epaphras of Colosse, who was visiting Rome as a
helper of the apostle Paul, met him in the street and
persuaded Onesimus to accompany him to the house
where the apostle was in surveillance, chained to a
Roman soldier. Some way or other, Onesimus, the
runaway slave, was brought into the presence of the
apostle Paul ; and Paul did not disdain to preach to him
the gospel, just as he preached it to the low and the
high, people of all ranks and all conditions; and the
result of it seems to have been very quickly that Ones
imus became a convert to the gospel of Christ, that his
heart was changed and his whole temper and spirit
and purpose were altered. Now he desired nothing so
much as to make recompense for the past and to begin
an entirely new Christian life. Paul seems to have been
testing the reality of his conversion for a little while,
for he declares in this very Epistle that Onesimus has
been very helpful to him.
There were many services that Onesimus could ren
der, and Paul commends him for those services; de
clares that he is loath to part with him ; he would much
prefer to keep him. But there were many reasons why
Onesimus should not remain in Rome. Roman slavery
was an awe-inspiring institution, and many a slave was
crucified for smaller offenses than that which Onesimus
had committed. Paul evidently thought that, for Ones
imus' sake, and for the gospel's sake, it was desirable

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 297
that the gulf between him and his master should be
filled up ; and so, as Tychicus was going back to Ephe
sus and Colosse, and was to bear a letter to the church
in Colosse, Paul sent Onesimus back with him. Into
Onesimus' hands he placed what one might call a letter
of introduction and commendation to his former
master, urging that master to receive him kindly and
in a Christian way, for Paul the apostle's sake. So,
in the year 61, perhaps five years after the first founda
tion of the church at Colosse, Paul, in his first Roman
imprisonment, writes the Epistle to Philemon. Onesi
mus takes it to Philemon, and presents it to his former
master. What the result of that presentation is we do
not know, but I think it cannot be doubtful that the
letter was successful in accomplishing its end; that
Philemon received Onesimus as a Christian brother;
that Onesimus became his faithful servant again; and
that so the breach was healed.
The course of thought in this Epistle is very touch
ing and instructive. Although it is one of the shortest
Epistles of the New Testament, it is most worthy of
our consideration. Let us see how Paul treats this
peculiar case that has come under his notice and has
so engaged his interest.
The Epistle is not written for the purpose of touch
ing any great point of doctrine. It is not intended to
rebuke any serious crime or sin of Philemon's, to whom
it is addressed. It is a private letter. And yet, because
it is a private letter, unlike any other of the Epistles
in the New Testament, unless it be the Second and
Third Epistles of John, it has lessons of great impor
tance for us. As the Epistle to the Ephesians has been

298 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
called the hymn of Christianity, this Epistle to Phile
mon may be called the idyl of Christianity.
The introduction to the Epistle contains a salutation
from Paul and Timothy to Philemon of Colosse.
How Timothy should be mentioned in the salutation
I think may be made comprehensible if we remember
that during the two or three years when Paul was
preaching in Ephesus, Timothy was his helper, and
Philemon may have made the acquaintance and have
gained the friendship of Timothy in that place. When
Paul writes from his Roman prison to Philemon, it is
a very natural thing to include in his address the name
of Timothy, his helper. After the first salutation, there
come a few words of commendation. The apostle
shows his gentlemanliness of spirit by the gracious and
kindly way in which he begins his Epistles. He always
takes men upon their most favorable side. He always
mentions in a kindly and appreciative way what there
is that is good in them. At the very beginning he
praises Philemon's benevolence and faith, which had
been a great comfort to the church of God, and had
furnished instructive lessons to the world as to the
reality and power of Christianity.
That was a good way to begin an Epistle in which
he had a very serious and important request to make;
and after having thus prefaced his Epistle by mention
ing, what he could mention with great heartiness, the
great benevolence and faith of Philemon, he next
waives all claims upon Philemon based upon the fact
of his apostleship. He leaves that all out of account ;
takes the place of the humble servant of Christ before
him; and writes to him not as an apostle now, but as

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 299
Paul, the aged, a prisoner of Jesus Christ. In other
words, he presents himself before Philemon as one
marked by the shipwrecks and scourgings he had en
dured, and aged before his time ; as one now suffering
imprisonment ; and as one who has before him possible
martyrdom for the sake of Christ. But the great apos
tle does not presume upon his own authority, nor even
upon the fact that Philemon owes to him his conver
sion ; he does not threaten or command ; he simply ap
peals to Philemon as a servant of Christ who had suf
fered much for the Master, and who might, on that
account, have a tender place in Philemon's heart. Only
after this gracious introduction does Paul come to the
fact of Onesimus' fault.
He tells Philemon that he is well aware of the crime
which Onesimus has committed. He speaks of him,
however, as having become a convert of Christ, as
having repented of his fault, as being now a changed
man, and, as a proof of this change, he speaks of
Onesimus' helpfulness to the apostle in his Roman im
prisonment. He urges this as a proof that, in the
future, he may be profitable both to Paul and Phile
mon again. The changed spirit of the man furnishes
the basis of an appeal to Philemon, and there follows
the one thing for which the Epistle was written,
namely, an earnest entreaty on the part of Paul that
Philemon will forgive Onesimus what he has done,
forgive him the act of robbery that he has committed,
forgive him that he has broken away from his master
and run away to Rome, and that he will receive him
back, not simply as the slave he was before, but as a
brother in Christ.

300 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
It is a very beautiful thing that, in the Epistle to the
Colossians, which was written at just this time, and
which was sent by the hand of Tychicus along with
Onesimus, Paul commends to the whole Colossian
church this runaway but converted slave, declaring,
" He is a faithful and beloved brother who is one of
you." In other words, he sends him back to the Colos
sian church with his warm affection and strong recom
mendation; and then, at the same time, he sends this
Epistle to Philemon, urging him not only to take Ones
imus back into his service, but also to take him now
into his heart, as a brother beloved in Christ. Then
follow expressions of confidence on the part of Paul
that Philemon will do this thing that he is asked to
do, and a declaration that, if Onesimus is indebted to
Philemon, Paul himself will undertake to pay that
debt. He will take upon himself the burden of repay
ing the pecuniary loss that Philemon has sustained, if
Philemon requires it. Yet he reminds Philemon that,
being his convert to Christ, he owes to Paul all that
he has, owes to him something of infinite value, owes
to him his hope in Christ and his hope of heaven. It
is as much as to say : " If you think it well, I will pay
to you all you have lost by this act of robbery on the
part of Onesimus; but still you will remember how
much you owe to me." All is left to Philemon's good
will. Philemon shall do just as he pleases, but, at any
rate, Paul wants him to receive Onesimus back; and,
as to any pecuniary loss, Paul will sustain that, if there
is any pecuniary loss to be borne. Paul asks Phile
mon to prepare a lodging for him, in prospect of his
coming visit, which evidently shows that, in this first

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 3OI
imprisonment, Paul expected that his appeal to Caesar
would be successful, and that he would be released.
That visit he undoubtedly did pay; some time there
after he was arrested and taken back to Rome to his
second imprisonment; that second imprisonment ended
with his trial, condemnation, and execution.
The Epistle to Philemon consists of only eighteen
or twenty verses, but it is certainly one of the most
beautiful private letters that have come down to us
from all antiquity. There is a letter written by the
elder Pliny to a friend of his, which is just about as
long as this Epistle, and is written on behalf of a
slave who has also run away from his master, and
whom Pliny seeks to restore ; and these two Epistles —
the heathen and the Christian — have been put side by
side with one another. In the heathen epistle the ar
guments for the restoration of the slave are all based
upon the consideration of friendship, and there is no
appeal to Christian love. There is no request that the
master will take the slave back to his heart, and will
consider him as a Christian brother ; there is no appeal
to religious considerations, but simply an appeal to the
good temper and kindness and personal friendship of
the person addressed; so that, as compared with this
Epistle to Philemon, the whole spirit of it is a very
different one. Although it is a noble example of
heathen kindness and benevolence, it shows no trace of
the principle which actuates this Epistle of Paul to
Philemon. It is a very curious fact that in the fourth
century there were Fathers of the church who were
inclined to deny this Epistle a place in the canon,
simply because they thought it was so trivial and

302 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
unedifying. How they mistook the meaning and impor
tance of it ! To them, the battle of the creeds, as Bishop
Lightfoot said, was of more importance than the fate
of a single slave. Those were the days of slavery, and
these Christian Fathers could hardly conceive how the
apostle could have taken so much interest in the fate
of a man so far beneath him in social standing. We
do not need to go back to antiquity to find illustra
tions of the indifference of prominent Christians to
the wants and woes of the illiterate and the poor. In
the last century, Whitefield, the great evangelist, did
not hesitate to be the owner of slaves, even at the time
when he was preaching the gospel of Christ with the
greatest power and success. It took a great while to
convince Christendom that to have a fellow man your
chattel and property is inconsistent with the equal
brotherhood of the gospel of Christ. History has
justified the position and rank of this Epistle in the
New Testament, and I think there are two respects in
which it is exceedingly instructive to us.
In the first place, it gives us a beautiful example of
the proper spirit and method of Christian intercourse.
This private letter of one Christian to another, prefer
ring a request which seems to him of importance, has
a spirit and method in it that is of very great value.
The apostle had the right to command, but he does
not command at all. How humble, how unpretentious,
how quiet, how kindly, how pleading is the tone!
Everything is put on the ground of Christian love, and
of Christian love alone.
If we Christians would bring over our brethren to
any project of ours, if we would persuade them to do

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 3O3
what we wish, the proper tone on our part is not the
tone of command, nor the tone of threatening, nor the
tone of remonstrance, but rather the tone of entreaty
and persuasion. Christ's method is the quiet and hum
ble method of Christian love. An appeal to the heart,
which puts everything upon the basis of love to Christ,
will accomplish wonders ; when the other way, the hard
way, the remonstrating way, the threatening way, will
accomplish nothing. Paul gives us in this letter, first
of all, a model of the methods of influencing Chris
tian friends and of doing Christian work in the church
of Christ.
As a second and last piece of instruction, this Epis
tle shows us how Christianity undermines and finally
does away with the great organized wrongs of human
society. It has been said that the word " emancipa
tion " was trembling upon the apostle's lips ; and yet
he does not utter it. Christianity does not aim to ac
complish sudden social revolutions. Christianity does
not begin from the outside and work inward ; it begins
within and works outward. It does not begin with the
mass of men and then come to the individual ; it begins
with the individual and so spreads to the mass. It
does not take the great institutions of the world, those
creations of organized iniquity, and by one fell swoop
destroy them in an instant; it infuses into them a new
spirit and temper, and that new spirit and temper per
meates them like leaven in the meal. You look, and
this great organization of iniquity is a thing of the
past. So it was with the despotism of the Caesars. The
apostle Paul did not fulminate against the Roman Em
pire, with its wickedness and tyranny. The powers

304 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that be are ordained by God ; so long as human govern
ment exists he urges us to obey the government; but
he puts the spirit of love into human hearts, so that,
little by little, it does away with this system of despot
ism. So he did not utter any denunciation of slavery.
Denunciation would have accomplished little. Paul
preached Christ; and when people saw that Christ
loved the meanest slave so much that he gave his very
life to save him, the master could no longer tread that
slave under his feet. Among the Hebrews, slavery
was not so great an evil, because they themselves had
been slaves in times past, and that gave them a feeling
of compassion for those who were in bonds to them.
Slavery among the Jews could last only six years with
any individual. The seventh year was the day of re
demption, and the slave was set free. The number of
slaves among the Jews was very small; and, where
that is the case, the master does not fear the slave, and
is not called upon to use measures of cruelty.
How different from the Athenians and Romans ! In
Athens and Rome, in the days of power and splendor,
the number of slaves and freemen was four to one ; and
in order to keep that vast mass of slaves under the
yoke, there were cruelties and restrictions such as were
never known among the Hebrews. The slave could
be given away; he could be sold; he could be be
queathed by will ; he could be put to death ; and no one
could call his master to account. It was not so among
the Hebrews. Slavery had the whole Roman Empire
at its back. It would have been useless for Paul to
urge its destruction, or to speak against it; he preached
Christ and him crucified; he brought men to Christ

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON 305
and filled men's hearts with the love of Christ; and,
with that love of Christ within, they became patient
and tender toward their slaves, and counted them their
brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus ; so there was a new
spirit infused into society, which gradually led to the
liberation of the slave. We see the fruits in these
Christian times, in the liberating of two hundred mil
lions of serfs by the Czar in Russia, and in the emanci
pation of three million slaves in the Southern States of
America. The day will come when there will not be
one single slave upon this footstool. We see the dawn
ing of that day already. Slavery still exists in Africa,
but all the civilized nations of the world are banded to
gether to put it down. When slavery has vanished
from the face of the earth, its disappearance will be the
result of the preaching of Christ's gospel, and of that
era of human liberty and equality this Epistle to Phile
mon is the prelude and prophecy.

u

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
The Epistle to the Hebrews presents more enigma
than does any other Epistle of the New Testament.
The origin of it and the destination of it are uncer
tain. We are not sure whether it is a treatise or an
Epistle. It takes the Old Testament itself to prove the
insufficiency of the Old Testament, and to show that
the Old Testament economy is to vanish away. The
form of doctrine which we find in it is intermediate
between that of Paul and John, and this suggests ques
tions as to authorship which are difficult to answer.
Although it is written in the purest and most elegant
Greek of any writing of the New Testament, it was
written, not to Greek or Gentile Christians, but to He
brews; and it appears before us, like that Melchisedec
who makes so great a figure in the Epistle itself, " with
out father or mother, without beginning of days or
end of years," yet shows forth the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the glory of the new covenant in some aspects
which are not elsewhere revealed. It is not neces
sary to the inspiration of a New Testament document
that we should be able to tell the precise source or
author of it; it is only necessary that it should come
from God and should be adapted to the religious in
struction of mankind. The history of its reception in
the Christian church is itself very peculiar. It was a
stormy history through which it passed. During the
first century after it was written we do not know that
306

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 307
there was the least doubt as to its genuineness; but
the two centuries that followed, in the Roman church
and in the North African churches, were centuries in
which its authenticity was very widely doubted; and
it was only the investigation of Jerome in the fourth
century, and the subsequent examination that was
given it by Augustine, that led these distinguished
church Fathers to the conclusion that it was of verita
ble canonical authority, and that finally led the West
ern church to unite with the Eastern church in accept
ing it ; so that all doubt was removed and its canonical
authority was settled for all time.
The doubts that arose, with regard to the genuine
ness and authority of the Epistle, circled around the
question of its authorship; and this is the question
which we must first discuss. Who was the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews ? The superscription, " The
Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews," is not a part of the
Epistle at all. That title is of later authorship; we
must set that aside just as if it were not, and must ask
ourselves what the evidence is that it was the work of
Paul or the work of some other. Origen, the great
church Father, gives us a sentence like this, " Who
wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, God only knows ";
and I suppose that we ourselves might take upon our
lips that very same sentence to-day. One thing is now
generally concluded by the great mass of commenta
tors and interpreters, and that is that the apostle Paul
did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is not, in
any proper sense, an Epistle of Paul.
There are two sorts of reasons upon which we base
this conclusion. First, there are doctrinal reasons ; and

308 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
secondly, there are rhetorical reasons. The doctrinal
reasons are these — that, in his discussion of the great
question of human salvation, the author of the Epistle
follows a method that is entirely different from that of
the apostle Paul. If you will examine the Epistles of
Paul, and his speeches in the Acts of the Apostles, you
will find that Paul always begins with the state and
condition of mankind, and from that state and condi
tion of mankind rises to the divine remedy and the
divine salvation. On the contrary, the method of the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to begin with
the divine Saviour and his great work for -human re
demption, and to come thence to the consideration of
man's needs and his method of appropriating the work
of God. The author of this Epistle, moreover, regards
the death of Christ as connected more immediately and
prominently with the work of intercession than with
the work of atonement. He sets Christ before us in
his priestly intercession in heaven, rather than in his
priestly atonement upon the earth. To the mind of
the author, the cross of Christ is mainly an offering in
the heavenly sanctuary. It is rather the basis of inter
cession there than the basis of atonement here.
When you come to the rhetorical characteristics of
the Epistle, you find that, both in minute details and in
its general character, the Epistle is very unlike the
Epistles of the apostle Paul. These matters of style
are very difficult to expound in popular discourse. One
who is acquainted with the original Greek and who has
read Paul's Epistles, and who has then read this Epistle
with a view to its relation to those, will recognize the
fact that, in style, this is entirely different from them.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 309
There is nothing by which the style of a person can
be judged so accurately and correctly as by his use of
adverbs and conjunctions, those little connecting parts
of speech upon which very little conscious attention is
bestowed, yet which indicate the method of the author's
thought, rise spontaneously to his lips, and flow spon
taneously from his pen. The conjunctions and adverbs
that are used in all the Epistles of Paul are very dif
ferent from those which are used in the Epistle to the
Hebrews; in fact, one conjunction that is used fifty
times in this Epistle to the Hebrews you do not find
even once in the Epistles of Paul.
There is a characteristic that is more evident and
more easy to describe. I refer to the general rhetorical
style. This is totally different from that of Paul's
Epistles. The style of the Epistle to the Hebrews is
flowing and fervid and rhetorical; while the style of
the apostle Paul is predominantly dialectic. Paul is
full of what we might call anacolutha — sentences that
begin and do not end; but you have no such sentence
in this Epistle to the Hebrews. The style of the apostle
Paul is that of a man whose emotions frequently break
through all common forms of speech, and show them
selves superior to the outward methods of expression.
It is like a mountain torrent. There are very few
places where it flows on in a smooth and unbroken
course; it is evermore dashing from point to point,
breaking away from the even and steady method of
address, and reveling in that which is sudden and un
expected. There is picturesqueness in it, and emotion
frequently breaks through the natural forms of ordi
nary speech. The Epistle to the Hebrews is character-

3IO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ized by no such bursts, by no such breaks. It flows on
steadily, like the course of a great river through an
open plain.
Our own Doctor Kendrick has said very truly that
the apostle Paul is rhetorical when he cannot help it;
but the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is always
rhetorical, because he can never be anything else. This
is the real difference between the rhetoric of the Epis
tle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of the apostle Paul.
There is now almost universal consent among scholars
that Paul was not the author of this Epistle. It is
equally difficult to believe that the substance of the
Epistle was furnished by Paul, but that the form of it
was furnished by some helper of his as, for example,
Luke or Timothy. It could not possibly be Timothy,
because there is an allusion to Timothy as a third per
son in the Epistle itself. Luke has often been men
tioned as one to whom Paul might have given the sub
stance of the document, to be put into form by Luke
himself. But there is such a unity in the Epistle, the
thought and the expression are so welded together, and
both of them are so independent and so unlike what we
know of the apostle Paul, that it is impossible to be
lieve the author of it a mere subordinate. The Epistle
gives every evidence of an original writer, who drew
his material mainly from his own soul, under the influ
ence of the Spirit of God.
The most plausible hypothesis that has ever been
advanced is that it was the work of Apollos. Luther
first gave this suggestion to the world, and one of the
strongest advocates of this authorship of the Epistle is
our own Doctor Kendrick. In the commentary of Lange

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 3II
on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which Doctor Kendrick
edited, you may find this view very admirably drawn
out. If you remember what is said of the work and
characteristics of Apollos in the Acts of the Apos
tles, you will see at once that there is great verisimili
tude in this hypothesis. The author of this Epistle
must certainly have been a Jew. Well, Apollos was a
Jew. The author of this Epistle was a very learned
man, and the Acts of the Apostles tells us that Apollos
was a learned man. The author of this Epistle shows
great familiarity with the works of Philo Judaeus, the
Alexandrian, and he uses many phrases that are the
same as those used by Philo. Now the Acts tells us that
Apollos was a Jew of Alexandria. The author of this
Epistle had a wonderful knowledge of Old Testament
Scriptures; and the Acts of the Apostles tells us that
Apollos was mighty in the Scriptures.
The author of this Epistle shows a wonderful power
and skill in proving from the Old Testament the Mes-
siahship of Christ, and the glory of the New Covenant ;
and the Acts of the Apostles tells us that this Apollos
powerfully convinced the Jews, proving to them that
Jesus is the Christ. Indeed, in the description of
Apollos which the Acts gives us, we have packed to
gether in a few verses the most remarkable character
istics of this Epistle, and all these characteristics are
declared to be the characteristics of Apollos. So, if
we are to settle down upon any single person mentioned
in the New Testament as the author, we may settle
down upon Apollos. Timothy is mentioned in the
Epistle as one with whom the author had acquaintance
and apparently had intercourse; and we know that

312 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Timothy, having been instructed by Paul, was Paul's
messenger to Corinth. Since Apollos was in Corinth
at the time, there is abundant reason to believe that
Apollos and Timothy were intimately acquainted with
each other. But leaving this matter of authorship, al
though I think the general consent of scholars is more
and more fastening upon Apollos as the most probable
author of the Epistle, let us pass on to ask to what
persons this Epistle was addressed.
You may say it was addressed to the Hebrews. But
who were the Hebrews, and where were the Hebrews ?
There were Hebrews, or Jews, scattered all through
the Roman Empire. Was this Epistle to the Hebrews
written to Jews who were thus scattered among the
Gentiles ? No, very decidedly not ; for it is very plain,
as you read the Epistle, that those to whom the Epistle
is addressed constituted a Christian community by
themselves. It is not to the multitude of churches, but
to a number of Christians within a certain locality, that
the Epistle is sent. This Jewish community, appar
ently, has no connection with Gentiles. There is no
mention of Gentiles in the Epistle; no indication that
the Jewish Christians to whom the Epistle was written
were in any particular danger from Gentiles; no inti
mation that they were tempted by Gentiles, or had
work to do with Gentiles. No, the persons to whom
the Epistle is addressed are living quite apart from
Gentile influence, and there is no such variety among
them as there was in those churches to which Paul
addressed most of his Epistles. Now there is no
place in the Roman Empire at this time which so
fits the circumstances and conditions which I have

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 313
mentioned, as the city of Jerusalem and the region of
Palestine around about it. That these Hebrews were
in Jerusalem and in its vicinity is altogether the most
plausible hypothesis.
We find, by reading the Epistle, that these Hebrews
were in special danger of being drawn away from their
faith, because of their exclusion from the services of
the temple. They were in the midst of persecution,
and were tempted to apostatize from the faith of Christ.
This Epistle was written to warn them of these tempta
tions, and to urge them to be steadfast in their alle
giance to Jesus.
These conditions are fulfilled in Jerusalem and in
Palestine at a particular point of time in the New Tes
tament history, and that leads us to the question when
it was that the Epistle was written. Certain considera
tions lead us to believe that it cannot have been earlier
than the year 60.
In the first place, it is pretty clear that it was to
a second generation of Christians that the Epistle was
written. It is intimated in the Epistle that those who
are addressed had not received the gospel at first hand
from Christ. They were not persons who had been
contemporary with Jesus; but they had received the
word from those who had seen Jesus and had heard
him. Therefore, the point of time when the Epistle is
written must be twenty-five or thirty years after the
death of the Saviour. Another generation had sprung
up. Moreover, it is intimated that certain leaders of
the church had suffered martyrdom for their faith;
many of its members had suffered persecution by the
spoiling of their goods; and they are still under

314 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
reproach and exposed to danger. Now, if you remem
ber, immediately after the death of Christ and the as
cension of the Saviour, the disciples returned from
Bethany to Jerusalem with great joy; and they were
found continually in the temple. There was no objec
tion or difficulty in the way of Christians, at that time,
worshiping in the temple and having all the privileges
that formerly belonged to them as Jews. In other
words, at the first, Christians were thought to be only
a sect or school of the Jews. They were not thrust
out completely from the synagogue or from the temple.
When we come on to the year 58, at Paul's last visit to
Jerusalem, we find the beginning of a different state
of things. We find prejudice aroused against Chris
tians. We find hostility and opposition. A riot is in
stigated against Paul by the mere suspicion, the unjust
suspicion, that he has brought a Gentile Christian into
the court of the Jews belonging to the temple. That
bitterness of spirit which had developed itself against
Christians would lead us to expect, a little later in the
history, precisely what we find in this Epistle to the
Hebrews, namely, that there would be a disposition
among the Jews to thrust Christians out altogether.
It must be, therefore, after the year 58, it must be
after the year 60, that this Epistle was written. It
seems to me altogether probable that the date of this
Epistle is as late as the year 67, just after the martyr
dom of Paul at Rome, and just after Timothy had
made that visit to Rome which Paul requested, and
had shared his imprisonment, for we find in this Epis
tle that Timothy has just been set at liberty. If this
supposition be true, it must be about the year 67 that

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 315
the Epistle was written; that is, just before the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, which took place in the year 70.
It could not have been later than that, because the
temple is spoken of as still standing. The dates be
tween which we must confine the writing of the Epistle
are somewhere between the year 66 and the year 70;
and if we must fix upon a definite year, the year 67 is as
good as any we can fix upon.
The object of the Epistle I have already touched
upon. It was to warn the Hebrew Christians against
the danger of apostatizing from Christ. What was
this danger? Why, the danger arising from the
fact that, having been born and bred in Jerusalem or
its neighborhood, they had been accustomed to regard
the outward worship of the temple as essential to their
Christian faith. They had been accustomed to think
that the sacrifices that were offered day by day, being
of divine appointment, were to be perpetual, and that
those who were thrust out from the worship of the
sanctuary and from participation in these sacrificial
offerings were thrust out from God, and might lose
their hope of the Messianic salvation.
The Epistle endeavors to counteract all this, by
showing these Hebrew Christians that the laws of the
old dispensation were only a type of the new dispensa
tion that was to come; that, as they had Christ in
their hearts as their heavenly sacrifice and interces
sor, they could now do away with the old sacrifices of
the temple and with the old temple worship; and that
they would be none the worse for the change. Christ
is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Christ is
the divine Saviour. If they have Christ they have all.

316 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are three main divisions of the doctrinal
treatment, in which the author of the Epistle shows
that the Old Testament system is only the type and
the prophecy of the New. You remember how he
opens his Epistle. The subject is stated in that first
verse. " God," he says, " who at many times and in -
varied ways spoke unto the fathers by the prophets,
hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son."
Then he goes on to describe him as being the effluence
of the Father's glory, as being the express image of
his person, as having purged our sins by his sacrifice,
and as now sitting at the right hand, on the throne, of
God; so, at the very beginning, he suggests that the
new is better than the old, and that the old way is only
the foreshadowing of the new. Now that the new
has come, the substance has come, and the shadow may
flee away. Then he proceeds to show that this Christ,
this divine Redeemer, who has purged our sins and
now sits in the heavenly sanctuary for us, is, first,
superior to the angels, the mediators of the old cove
nant; secondly, is superior to Moses and Joshua, the
leaders of the old economy; and, thirdly, is superior
to Aaron, the great high priest of the Old Testament
dispensation. Having shown that Christ is superior to
"all these mediators of the old covenant, he shows that
the only personage in the Old Testament who can fitly
set forth the glory and dignity of Christ is that strange
and mysterious person, Melchisedec, who was both
king and priest, and who sprang all of a sudden in
the history, without any account of his ancestry or of
what became of him, as a sort of type of the Lord
Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the world.

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 317
Then the author goes on to speak of the great su
periority of this new redemption and economy, this
high priesthood of Jesus in heaven and his heavenly
service, to anything that could possibly exist upon the
earth, where the priesthood could continue only a little
while by reason of death. Here we have One who is
made priest, not after the law of a carnal command
ment, but after the power of an endless life, and there
fore, not for a day, nor for a few days, but forever
and forever, living to make intercession for us. If
he who is the one great Priest, of whom the Old Testa
ment priests were only types, has come at last, why,
the Old Testament priests may go, we need them no
longer. Christ abides; he is the same, yesterday, to
day, and forever. Then the latter portion of the Epis
tle is a practical part, which draws the inference that,
if these things be true, then the one duty of every Chris
tian is to hold fast to Christ, and to let the Old Testa
ment dispensation, with its types and its symbols, pass
away into forgetfulness.
The beginning of this practical part is that long
catalogue of the heroes of faith, those worthies of the
Old Testament that had been true to God, in spite
of all manner of temptation, persecution, and danger,
and who furnish for us models for the faith of the
New Testament. Since Jesus, our forerunner, has
entered into the heavenly sanctuary, we are to follow
him, running the race that is set before us, " looking
unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith,
who, for the joy that was set before him, endured the
cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at
the right hand of the throne of God." So the practical

318 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
part of the Epistle succeeds and supplements the doc
trinal part, and impresses its applications upon us.
Three things may be said with regard to this Epis
tle, all of which are points of general interest, aside
from the general course of thought which I have men
tioned. The first is this, that the Epistle to the He
brews sets before us Jesus Christ as an absolute, unique,
and divine High Priest, ordained to transact with God
for us, as the one High Priest, of whom the Old Testa
ment high priests were only the types and symbols.
That is the first great thought of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. We have such a High Priest who has en
tered into the heavenly sanctuary. Let us, therefore,
go boldly to the throne of grace, that we may find
mercy and grace to help us in our times of need.
This High Priest is one with God, the brightness of
the Father's glory and the express image of his per
son ; but he is one with us also. No other passage of
the New Testament presents to us the human side of
our sympathizing High Priest as this does. He took
upon himself our nature; was tempted in all points
like as we are, yet without sin; and, for that reason,
he is able to sympathize with us, and succor us when
we are tempted. There is no more beautiful or pathetic
passage than this in the whole Bible.
The second great lesson which the Epistle to the
Hebrews teaches is that of the brotherly relation which
the Lord Jesus Christ sustains to us. He is not only
God, but also man; our elder brother is upon the
throne; our elder brother is interceding for us in the
heavenly sanctuary. Since this High Priest is both
God and man, since there unites in him all that can

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 319
make high-priesthood perfect, this high-priestly serv
ice is the final one. No greater revelation than this is
ever to be expected from God; it is the last revela
tion of God to man ; it is the most perfect disclosure of
the love and justice of the King on high. Therefore,
Christianity is not one of many revelations; it is not
to be put side by side with Buddhism or Confucianism,
as if there were only some good in it, just as there is
some good in them; but Christianity is the one and
only revelation, of which all these others are only
faint foreshadowings. Here, in Christianity, we see
brought to a focus all those scattered rays that shone
dimly amid the darkness of the heathen world. All
that is good in heathenism is found in Christianity,
and infinitely more. Christianity is the one and final
revelation of God to man.
So there follows the third and last great lesson.
" See that ye refuse not him that speaketh " ; for, if he
that rejecteth the Old Testament dispensation did not
escape, of what punishment shall he be thought worthy
who has trodden under his feet the blood of the Son
of God, and has put his Saviour to an open shame ?
Nowhere in the whole New Testament do we find
such solemn warnings against apostasy as we find here
in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The apostle has set
before us the exceeding glory of this new dispensation.
He has shown us that it is an absolute, complete, and
final thing, the last word that God has spoken or that
God can speak to man. Let us be sure that we do not
turn our backs upon him. Let us be sure that, having
come to a knowledge of the truth, we do not turn away
from it, and forget what we have learned, to the

320 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
destruction of our souls. Let us accept the warning, let
us go on in the Christian course. Leaving the princi
ples of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfec
tion. In his warning against apostasy, the apostle
does not mean us to understand that any that have
once experienced the real grace of God shall ever be
left to fall away to their own destruction. He says to
these very persons : " Brethren, I am persuaded better
things of you, even although we thus speak." Yet it
is very needful for the perseverance of the saints that
these warnings be given. Only by appreciating the
greatness of our danger, and the necessity of our per
severing in holiness, shall we be kept from falling away.
Let us endure, therefore, to the end, in order that we
may be saved.

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES
Three persons named James are mentioned in the
New Testament, and it has been a question which of
these persons was the author of our Epistle. Some
have thought that the author was James, the brother of
John and the son of Zebedee; but this seems quite im
possible, because he suffered martyrdom in the year 44,
before the dispersion of the Jewish Christians which is
mentioned in its opening words. It was after this
James, the brother of John, was slain, and largely be
cause of his death, that members of the church fled
from Jerusalem and made their way beyond the bounds
of Palestine. When the apostle James died they had
not yet gotten even so far as Antioch, and it was con
sequently impossible then to write to the twelve tribes
of Christians who were scattered abroad, as the author
of this Epistle does. The apostle James, moreover,
could hardly have been the author, for the reason that
before his death the internal organization of the Chris
tian church was not so perfectly developed as it appears
to have been in this Epistle.
The indications are far more favorable to the view
that the author of the Epistle is James, our Lord's
brother, the oldest of those brothers of our Lord with
whom we meet so frequently in the Gospels and in the
Acts of the Apostles. There were four of these, James,
and Joses, Simon and Judas, and there were sisters
belonging to the family also.
v 32i

322 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, speaks of James,
the Lord's brother, as being the president of the church
at Jerusalem. He was one of " the pillars." He had
authority; his words were treated with respect such
as belongs to no one else outside of the narrow apos
tolic circle; and it is probably to him that we must
ascribe this Epistle.
There still remains a question that is quite inter
esting; narhely, whether this James, the brother of our
Lord, was identical with James the son of Alphaeus or
James the Less, who was one of the apostles. In the
apostolic circle there were two persons by the name of
James. There was James the son of Zebedee, and there
was James the son of Alphaeus; and it is a question
whether the James who is the brother of our Lord was
not also this apostle.
There are some reasons to believe that this was not
so, and that the James of whom we read here was a
third person, entirely distinct from either one of the
two persons by the name of James who belonged to
the apostles. One reason is this : that after Jesus had
completed his choice of the apostles, the brethren of
our Lord were yet unbelievers; they could not have
belonged to the apostles, because the apostles were all
known and numbered before the time of their conver
sion. Moreover, when we find that the brethren of our
Lord are mentioned at all, we find them mentioned in
such a way as to distinguish them from the apostles.
For example, in that long-continued meeting for prayer
in the upper room at Jerusalem, which ended at the day
of Pentecost, we read that there were gathered the
Twelve, who are mentioned by name, with the women

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 323
and with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his breth
ren; where you see that his brethren are put last, are
distinguished from the apostles, are evidently different
persons. The James, therefore, who is the brother of
our Lord, could not also have been one of the apostles.
Why is it that the Lord's brethren, in this enumeration
of the persons who are present and who are praying for
the descent of the Spirit, are mentioned last? Why,
simply because they were the last to come into the num
ber of Christ's disciples. After the Twelve had been
chosen they still remained unbelieving.
These brethren of our Lord, who had been accus
tomed to look up to Jesus in his life at Nazareth as
simply the elder brother of the household, and to see
him perform the common work of the carpenter, had
of all men found it most difficult to realize the fact
that he was the Messiah sent from God, the very Son
of God, who had come to deliver the world.
It must have required a struggle of faith, it must
have required a conflict with preconceptions, such as
no others passed through. Let us not blame them too
much. A prophet is not without honor save in his own
country and in his own house, said Jesus, with prob
able reference to these very brethren of his.
The very nearness which we sustain to Christ in an
external relation may make it the more difficult for
us to apprehend his thoroughly spiritual nature; and
so it was with them. Therefore, it was not until
Christ's work was completed, and the greatest of mira
cles, the resurrection of our Lord from the dead, had
taken place, that these brethren of our Lord had their
doubts removed, and came into the number of his

324 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
disciples. It was only when Christ, the risen Saviour,
in the fulness of a brother's love, appeared to this James
singly, that James' doubts were all removed, that his
skepticism was swept away, that his heart was broken
with love for him whom up to that time he had refused
to recognize as his Lord.
There is something very touching, it seems to me,
in the way in which James begins his Epistle. He says,
" James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ." How much that meant for him who had been
seated side by side with our Saviour, at the same
board for many years, and who had refused to recog
nize him! And why is it that James, in the beginning
of his Epistle, does not mention the fact that he is the
brother of our Lord? Why, very much for the same
reason that Paul does not think that he can take any
glory to himself, since he persecuted the church of
God. So James hardly thinks that he is worthy to be
called the brother of our Lord; at least, he will not
join that title to his name when he writes to others.
Moreover, he will not seem to claim a greater near
ness to Christ than belongs to Christ's chosen apostles.
There is great humility, I think, in the way in which
James begins his Epistle. So, we have James, the
brother of our Lord, not one of the Twelve, but one
called after the Twelve, one converted after the resur
rection of Jesus Christ from the dead, as the author of
this Epistle, and proclaiming himself to be, not an
apostle of Christ, but simply a servant of God and of
Jesus Christ our Lord. There yet remains another
question with regard to the personality of James;
namely this : whether the phrase " brother of our

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 325
Lord " means that James was a son of the same
mother, or whether he was a cousin, or a son of the
same father. The Roman Catholic Church has a great
prejudice against the idea that Mary should ever have
had other children than Jesus. The perpetual virginity
of Mary is one of its most cherished dogmas. This
dogma had its origin in the superior sanctity which
that Church attaches to celibacy. It is thought de
rogatory to the mother of our Lord that she ever should
have been the mother of other children. But the
seventh verse of the second chapter of Luke's Gospel
has the words, " Brought forth her firstborn son," and
a candid reader would naturally infer from the fact of
Jesus' being the " firstborn," that Mary had other chil
dren after.
Plato is, in a similar way, called by one of his Greek
biographers, Diogenes Laertius, the firstborn child;
yet, as a matter of fact, we know that Plato had two
brothers and a sister. So it is altogether probable that
Luke uses this word in its literal sense, and implies
that there were other children born to Mary and Joseph
after the birth of our Saviour. While the words in
Luke cannot be said to make it certain, they at least
show that, in the mind of the writer, there was no
prejudice against the idea that Mary should have had
other children. He never thought it necessary to the
sanctity of Mary that Jesus should have been her only
child. Christianity gives honor to marriage; and this idea
that Mary, the virgin, should have had no other chil
dren than Christ, is based not only upon a misinter
pretation of Scripture, but upon a radical error with

326 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
regard to marriage itself, as if marriage were some
thing dishonorable, and the married state was not so
lofty or so pure as the unmarried state. Protestantism
has evermore protested against such a doctrine as this.
It is altogether probable that Mary had other children,
and that these other children were the four whose
names are given to us. It is significant that James is
always mentioned as the first among them.
Being thus related to Jesus by ties of blood, James
would seem to have had claim to the position of presi
dent or pastor of the church in Jerusalem. It was not
fit that an apostle should have that permanent relation
to a local church. That, I think, in itself is an a priori
argument against the idea that the James of whom we
are speaking was an apostle, either James the son of
Zebedee or James the son of Alphaeus, for an apostle
was one who had wider relations, one who had author
ity over the universal church. It was not fit that an
apostle should narrow down his regards to a particular
local body. It was, rather, proper that one who was
outside that circle of the apostles should be the presi
dent of the church at Jerusalem.
If this be true that James was the brother — the half-
brother, shall I say? — of our Lord, is it not wonder
ful that Jesus, when he hung upon the cross and was
making provision for the comfort of his mother after
his death, should not have commended her to the care
of James, rather than to the care of John, who did not
belong to his own immediate family ? How plain it is
that relationship in the faith is a closer relationship
than mere relationship of blood! When Jesus hung
upon the cross, neither James, Joses, Simon, nor Judas

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 327
belonged to the number of the disciples. They were
still unbelievers! How unfit it would have been that
Jesus should have commended his mother to the care
of one whose heart was yet unrenewed, one who was
not a disciple! It would have been a poor house to
send her to; and, besides, it is very questionable
whether there was any such home. Jesus was the
elder brother. Jesus was the head of that household.
Jesus' death broke up the household, and he had not
had where to lay his head. They had no home. John
had such a home. John appears to have been a man
of means. John appears to have had a house in Jeru
salem. Jesus commended his mother to John because
John was a believer ; because John stood to Jesus him
self in a closer relationship than any one of these unbe
lieving brethren did; because John had a home and
was ready to receive her. Surely here are reasons
enough why Jesus should prefer John to James.
James, however, was speedily renewed in the whole
spirit and temper of his mind ; and when, at last, Jesus
had ascended, we see him, with his brethren, meeting
together with the apostles and with Mary, the mother
of our Lord, and with certain women, in that upper
chamber, to pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit.
It was very natural that this James who was closely
related to Christ, after he was converted to the faith
of Jesus, should have been pitched upon as the very
first for the presidency of the local church. In spite
of his previous unbelief, he held a high place in the
minds of the disciples for the rectitude of his life, the
austere and thoroughgoing righteousness of his con
duct. He was surnamed " The Just," because of his

328 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
severe and unbending integrity. Tradition says of
him that he never partook either of wine or of flesh,
and that his knees were hard and horny, like the knees
of a camel, because he had spent so much time pros
trate upon them in prayer.
So we find James becoming the head of the church
of the circumcision; find him a Jew, preaching the
gospel to the Jews; find him a pillar of the church;
and, at the time of the council at Jerusalem, when the.
church at Antioch sent to ask the advice of the Jerusa
lem church with regard to that difficult matter of the
treatment of Gentile converts, we find him presiding
over the meeting of the council and, when all has been
said upon one side and upon the other side, standing
forth to give his verdict. And, just so soon as he has
uttered his verdict that the Gentiles shall be regarded
as fellow heirs, the whole church at once assents to
his decision, and accepts this decision as its own. To
the very end of his life, which apparently took place
in the year 62, James maintained this unbroken con
sistency. It was the consistency of a perfect character,
of a spotless integrity, of a holy life. There was great
fitness in putting James in just the position that he held,
and an equal fitness in his addressing just the persons
who are addressed in this Epistle.
We must remember that James was a Jewish Chris
tian. James apparently never left the Old Testament
church. James apparently never forsook the worship
and service of the temple. James regarded Chris
tianity as a developed Judaism; and the position he
takes in this Epistle reminds us very strongly of our
Saviour's Sermon on the Mount, on the one hand, and

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 329
of the preaching of John the Baptist on the other.
Righteousness of life seems to be the keynote of all
his writing. It was a very fit thing that this kinsman
of our Lord and this Puritan Jew, as one might call
him, should have exercised this great influence and
should have had this prominent and important position
in the days of the Jewish church. How natural it was
that he should be looked up to and respected by the
Jews around him, as no other person could have been
looked up to and respected. There were many pious
Jews who might be influenced in favor of the gospel,
but who could not be influenced by Gentile Christians,
or by Paul. They would have been most seriously prej
udiced against Paul; but they could be influenced in
favor of the gospel by one who was out and out a Jew,
who gloried in the ancestral traditions, who was care
ful to maintain the forms of Jewish righteousness, who
paid respect to all the external services and observ
ances of the temple. These things were dear to him.
This James could constitute a transition from the old
to the new, as almost no other man could do. There
was a divine providence in it toward that multitude of
pious Jews who could not break away from the ances
tral worship, that the gospel of Christ should be rep
resented so long and so faithfully by one of their own
number, who showed them that Judaism was perfectly
consistent with a higher faith, and that they might be
Christians while yet at the same time they were Jews,
so far as the outward services and observances of the
temple were concerned. For many years, even for a
quarter of a century, Christians did not give up the
services of the temple. In the temple and from house

33O THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to house they met, and they rejoiced in God. I say
it was a marvelous providence to the pious Jews, who
had not yet been convinced of the truth of Christianity,
that Christ had a representative who preached con
tinually by his faithful and consistent life, and by his
love for the old Jewish traditions, while yet at the
same time he was a convert to the new religion.
It was only when this long and faithful ministry to
the Jewish Christians came to its end; it was only
when the Jews, in the obstinacy of their unbelief, took
hold of this same James, cast him down from a pinnacle
of the temple, stoned him with stones, and beat him
to death with a fuller's club, it was only then that the
iniquity of the Jews seems to have reached its height ;
and that was only a little before the storm of wrath
burst upon Jerusalem. God gave the Jews a chance to
receive the gospel for a long time after the death and
resurrection of Christ, and he gave them one of their
own number to preach it to them. It was only when
this long ministry of James, the brother of our Lord,
had proved utterly unavailing and had ended in the
martyr's death, that the destruction of Jerusalem came,
and swept away that devoted city. But there was
great fitness in such a representative of the Old Tes
tament piety being permitted to hold on and work,
while, at the same time, he was the representative of
the new gospel. James constituted a bridge, and a
transition, from the Old Testament to the New Testa
ment ministry.
This Epistle of James has in it an interest pecu
liarly its own. It is the first Epistle of the New Tes
tament. It is the earliest written document of the

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 33 1
whole canon. It was probably written as early as the
year 47, twenty years before the Epistle to the He
brews and long before any of the Epistles of Paul.
There is an air of antiquity, savoring of the Old Tes
tament, about it, such as there is about no other of the
New Testament documents.
What was the occasion of the writing of the Epistle ?
It is evident that, at the time it was written, Chris
tianity had spread abroad, and that Jewish Christians
had become so scattered as to be called " the Disper
sion." Yet they have not gotten so far as Antioch,
nor have they begun to penetrate the heathen world.
They seem rather to be confined still to the bounds of
Palestine. James had perhaps been the means of con
verting many of them, and as these converts would
come back, from time to time, to Jerusalem to attend
the feasts, and his personal connection with them would
not cease, he would follow them into their distant
homes, he would be solicitous in regard to their spirit
ual condition; and from his position of authority and
influence he would naturally write to them his instruc
tions and requests.
Tradition relates that James never left his place
of labor in Jerusalem. Whatever influence he exerted
upon the distant Christians he exerted by his writing.
About the year 47, we may believe, he wrote this Epis
tle in order to correct wrong practices and tendencies
among the Jewish Christians. It was not written to
Jews as Jews. The twelve tribes that are scattered
abroad are not the twelve tribes of the old Israel ; they
are the spiritual men and women who, from James'
point of view, constitute the real Israel. He can speak

332 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of them as the real twelve tribes ; and, therefore, he ad
dresses them with regard to the evils that have begun
to prevail among them. It is a time of trial and diffi
culty among them. Many of them are poor. Only
here and there is there one who is rich. The poor are
full Of discontent, and the rich are overbearing, tyran
nical, and proud. They presume upon their riches,
they oppress their poor brethren. So easy it is to see
that the early church was not immaculate. James
looked abroad and recognized the fact that even the
gospel of Christ had not made the Christians all they
ought to be, and he tried to remedy these difficulties by
writing to them an Epistle. All this takes place appar
ently before the Apostolic Council, for you notice there
is not the slightest reference to the subsequent con
troversies with regard to justification by faith. Al
though James uses the word justification, there is no
probability that he alluded to Paul ; in fact, the Epistle
of James was written before even Paul's first Epistle
to the Thessalonians had seen the light.
The Epistle is not a doctrinal Epistle at all. It
is a practical Epistle, written to correct practical evils.
How does the apostle correct them? Why, he repre
sents Christianity as the royal law, as the perfected
law. The gospel, and God's new requisitions in Christ,
are merely an expansion, an enlargement, an interpre
tation of the law of the Old Testament. It is the per
fected law of liberty, and it is a law in which, if a
man looks as into a mirror, he sees his own reflection ;
he sees the reflection of his own sin and his own needs ;
and he sees the way of salvation that has been provided
by God through his Son. And so the whole substance

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 333
of this Epistle might be put into those few words, " Be
not hearers of the law, but be doers also." In other
words, the apostle was grieved at the fact there were
so many that regarded their whole work as done when
they had but merely an external faith in Christ, and
he claims that mere faith in Christ that is intellectual
and theoretical is of no value ; that that is not the real
faith of the gospel; that the real faith of the gospel
is a faith that will make men faithful. The faith that
saves is a faith that works by love and purifies the
heart; and every other faith is a dead faith. Man is
saved by a living faith, he is saved by a faith that will
do something for him ; he is saved by a faith that will
bring him into connection with a living Christ, and so
will lead to the purification of his life and heart. James
is indignant with those who declare that they have the
faith of Christ, and who yet are immoral or inconsistent
in their practical lives. This is the whole substance of
the Epistle. There is not much organized material,
there is not much structure, as there is in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. You cannot analyze it so easily as some
other Epistles. It is a series of admonitions and pre
cepts, directed to the practical life of the Christian
church. Luther had great difficulty with this Epistle of
James. It was a stumbling-block to the great reformer
to the very end of his days. He said some very hard
things about it. He said, " The Epistle of James is a
veritable epistle of straw." He counted it to be no
apostolic writing. He said that it was destitute of the
substance of the gospel. And why? Why, because he
thought it inconsistent with Paul's doctrine of salva-

334 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
tion by faith. Ah, Luther was a great hero, and a
great reformer, but he was a great deal narrower
than Jesus Christ and his gospel. Luther did not un
derstand James, and he would have done far better if
he had suspended his judgment and waited for more
light. The truth is, that profession of faith in Christ
which makes a mere external idea of Christ the sub
stance of the gospel is no better than heathenism. That
profession of faith in Christ which regards Christianity
itself as being nothing but an intellectual or historical
belief, is no better than heathenism. Says James, a
man is not justified by faith only; he is justified also
by works. That seemed to Luther a very contradiction
of the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul says we are
justified by faith. James meant just the same thing as
the apostle Paul, only James meant that a man is justi
fied only by the faith that brings forth good works,
and that any other faith is not faith at all. James'
criticism, therefore, is not a criticism of the doctrine
of justification, but of the nature of faith. James is
criticizing the manner of faith that so many had who
had professed faith, while they were destitute of the
spirit of love and of self-sacrifice. Why, I tell you
that such faith is dead ; and, if a man tells me that he
has faith and does not have any works at all, I say
that he has not the true faith of the gospel — that is,
not the faith that saves. The faith that saves is the
faith that will do something for a man in making him
over again, and making him obedient to the commands
of Christ.
Paul and James seem at first sight to teach oppo
site doctrines, when Paul says that man is justified by

THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 335
faith, and James says that man is justified by works.
But there is no contrariety at all between them. Each
of them is fighting a different man; they are striking
out against different errors; they are not striking at
each other. Dr. William M. Taylor has given us a
useful illustration. A couple of men are surprised in
a dark wood by a band of robbers; one says to the
other: "Let us stand back to back; you strike out
against the men on your side, and I will strike out
against the men on my side." They are not striking
against each other, but one is striking one foe and the
other is striking another foe. So Paul is striking at
the men that deny justification. James is striking at
the men that deny faith. It is a different enemy that
each one has in mind, and the two doctrines together
are hemispheres that make up the whole globe of truth.
It is a good deal, as the old illustration had it, like a
man in a boat. If he rows with one oar alone he will
go round and round, and make no progress at all; if
he puts that oar down, takes up the other oar, and
rows with that, then he will go round and round, only
in a different direction. The only true way is to take
both oars, and both oars at once. The gospel is the
gospel of faith on the one hand, and of works on the
other. We must use both oars if we ever are going to
get into the kingdom.
The true gospel of Christ, therefore, is a gospel
of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, of salvation by
faith alone; for it is only by trusting what the Lord
has done that you can ever be saved; but that faith
will necessarily bring you into such relation to Christ
that you will be like Christ and will obey Christ.

336 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Your faith will show itself in a holy life; and if there
is no holy life, there is no true faith. Therefore Luther
was narrow. He did not know the whole gospel, al
though he knew a part of it; and the lesson that is left
to us is most important. We should lack one of the
most important teachings of the New Testament if
the Epistle of James were not ours. We should lack
the great doctrine that those who have laid hold of
Christ and have put faith in him must be sure also to
maintain good works. We are saved by faith alone;
but faith is never alone; it always brings good works
in its train ; it works by love, and purifies the heart.

THE EPISTLES OF PETER
The apostle Peter was the son of Jonas or John, two
different versions of the same name. Peter was not,
however, his original name. He was Simeon at first,
or Simon, which is the same thing; and the name Peter
was given him by Christ in anticipation. The Saviour
says to him, " Thou shalt be called Peter " ; but with
an intimation that he has not yet the spirit which would
make that designation a true one; and it is only two
years afterward, at least, that Jesus says to him, " Thou
art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church."
Peter was a fisherman of Bethsaida : that is, Beth-
saida was his native place, but at the time he was
chosen by Christ he appears to have belonged to the
city of Capernaum. There, during the greater part
of the Gospel narrative, he had his home ; and, like the
sons of Zebedee, he pursued the trade of fishing for his
livelihood. Peter seems to have been brought to Christ first by
Andrew, his brother. Christ's first call was on the
banks of the Jordan, where Peter and Andrew, James
and John seem to have gone, amid the multitude who
were thronging to John the Baptist, to be baptized.
After a slight sojourn with Christ, and having become
acquainted with him, Peter, with his brother and with
James and John, appears to have gone back to his trade
once more and to have pursued it until Jesus met them
by the side of the Lake of Galilee, called them to be his
w 337

338 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
permanent companions, and invested them with the
responsibilities of apostleship.
From that time you find Peter continually with
Jesus. He becomes one of our Lord's most intimate
companions. He is one of those chosen disciples who
constituted the innermost circle of the apostolic num
ber. He is with the Saviour when Jesus raises Jairus'
daughter from the dead. He is with Jesus upon the
Mount of Transfiguration, and beholds his glory; he
is with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane, when the
Saviour utters that memorable prayer and sweats those
drops of blood. Jesus calls Peter to himself, because
there is something in Peter which fits him for leader
ship. I imagine that each one of the disciples had his
peculiar gift and qualifications for service. Judas, for
example, was a practical administrator. Judas would
have made an excellent manipulator and manager. He
was treasurer, because there were certain business gifts
which were his, more than they belonged to any other
of the disciples. He had his opportunity. He had his
chance to use what gifts he had for the service of the
Lord. And Peter had especially an openness and receptivity
of heart, an ardent affection and power of recognizing
Christ in his personal and divine mission, and then a
zealous and enthusiastic activity, which fitted him, in
some respects, to be the chief of the apostles. And yet,
this ardent affection, this insight into the real person
and work of Christ, this enthusiastic activity, were
accompanied by a rashness and overconfidence which
led Peter to his triple fall and triple denial of his
Master,, and were followed by the bitterest repentance.

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 339
Jesus looked upon Peter after that denial, and that
look broke Peter's heart. He went out and wept bit
terly. He repented. But he needed some special as
surance of Jesus' forgiving love. After Jesus arose
from the dead there was something very affecting in
his words to the women, " Go and tell Peter." It
was a special message to Peter that his heart might be
comforted by the assurance of Christ's forgiving love.
Is there not something very beautiful in this, that this
denying Peter is made the mouthpiece of the Holy
Spirit upon the day of Pentecost? Have we ever
thought that our sins would prevent us evermore from
being of service in the cause of Christ ? Let us remem
ber that it was that denying Peter who was made by
Christ the means of bringing three thousand to the
knowledge of the truth and of being the first communi
cator of the gospel to his Jewish countrymen. And it
is not only true that Peter becomes the first preacher
to the Jews, but he becomes the first preacher to the
Gentiles also; for I suppose that is the meaning of
the promise to Peter that the. keys of the kingdom
of heaven shall be given to him. Christ gave him the
keys in this sense, that he was the first to unlock the
door of the kingdom to the Jews, and he was the first
also to unlock the door of the kingdom to the Gentiles.
There were two great doors to be opened ; Peter opened
the first great door when at Pentecost he proclaimed
salvation through the crucified One to the Jews who
had put the- Saviour to death ; he opened the second
great door when, going to Cornelius at Caesarea, he
proclaimed the gospel of Christ to the heathen, and
opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles. In a

34O THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
certain sense this denying Peter was given the first
place in the kingdom of God; it was upon Peter that
Christ built his church. " Thou art Peter ; upon this
rock I will build my church." The word " Peter "
meant " rock."
But it is not upon Peter, as a person alone, that the
church is founded, as the Roman Catholic Church im
agines; but it is upon Peter as a confessor of Christ.
It is upon Peter, as he has Christ in him. Peter can
become a rock upon which the church is built, only as
he becomes one with Christ, the great corner-stone.
Peter can be- the means of bringing others into the
kingdom of Ga>d, only as he is a true confessor of Jesus
Christ and a proclaimer of his gospel.
The Roman Catholic Church errs very greatly when
she fancies that there is a sort of apostolic succession,
and that, in an external way, through persons, there
can be communicated the grace of God. No, it is not
in any external way, or by any external means, that
salvation comes down to man. It is through Peter
as a confessor. It is through Peter as he has Christ in
him; and, therefore, every one who is a confessor of
Christ and is joined to Christ has the privilege of
bringing in others also, and upon every true confessor
of Christ the church is built. Protestants have some
times erred in thinking it is simply the confession upon
which the church is built; as if some external creed
alone could be the means of bringing men to the king
dom of God. That is no more true than the Roman
Catholic doctrine. You must have the person and his
confession. You must have Peter plus the truth. The
truth alone, as an abstract thing, will not bring men to

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 34 1
God ; but the person plus the truth brings men to God.
The " rock," therefore, is both confession and heart.
It is personality plus the truth.
So Peter becomes the means of bringing in both
Jews and Gentiles. At the Apostolic Council, when
Paul comes to narrate what God has done for the Gen
tiles, Peter is one of the first to acquiesce in the decision
which James has uttered and to sanction this opening
of the door to the Gentiles without their becoming
Jews. Afterward Peter was privately and individually
unfaithful to this position which he took ; for, at An
tioch, he refused to associate with certain Gentile
Christians, in order that he might grarify those who
were prejudiced in favor of Jewish doctrine; but he
was rebuked by Paul; and we do not find that this
error of his continued at all; in fact, we do not find
that he ever preached it. It was simply an instance
of unfaithfulness in his private conduct to the truth
which he had publicly proclaimed.
After having opened the door of the kingdom both
to Jews and Gentiles, by the keys of faith and confes
sion which Christ had committed to him, Peter appears
to have less prominence in the apostolic history. Why ?
Because there was to be a transition from the Jews to
the Gentiles. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles par
excellence; and, although we find Peter most prominent
at the beginning of the Acts, in the latter part of the
Acts we find that Paul occupies most of the room and
attracts to himself most of the attention.
Tradition relates that Peter went to the East, that
he preached to the Jews in Babylon. In fact, this
First Epistle declares itself to have been written from

342 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Babylon, and Babylon, I suppose, was not a mythical
name for Rome, as some have supposed. It never as
sumed that mythical signification until after John had
written his Apocalypse. At the time when this Epistle
was written we have no reason to believe that the word
" Babylon " was used for Rome. In an Epistle like
this, in plain prose, we should hardly expect that the
word Babylon would be used in that figurative, rhe-*
torical, poetical sense.
There was a very large colony of Jews at Babylon ;
and Peter seems to have gravitated toward the East of
the Roman Empire, as Paul gravitated toward the
West. As the larger part of the Jews were in the East
rather than in the West, the apostle to the Jews seems
to have had the chosen sphere of his activity there,
while Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, had his chosen
sphere of activity westward, toward Rome, ever tend
ing toward Rome, until at Rome he died. Some one
will ask : Is it, therefore, entirely a mythical thing that
Peter was crucified at Rome, that he was the founder
of the Roman church, that he suffered martyrdom there
by being crucified with his head downward? Well,
with regard to that, the historians of the church are at
variance to this very day. It certainly appears that
Peter had not been at Rome at the time that Paul wrote
his Epistle to the Romans. It would be almost inex
plicable that there should be no mention of Peter if
Peter had founded the Roman church. It would be
impossible for Paul to have written the Epistle to the
Romans without mentioning Peter, if Peter was there
or had been there. We have no evidence in all the
Epistles which Paul wrote during his imprisonment at

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 343
Rome that Peter was there in Rome or that he had ever
preached there at all. I think, therefore, that the Epis
tle to the Romans is, in itself, a strong argument
against the claims of the papacy, against the claim that
the bishops of Rome derived their apostolic descent
directly from Peter. It never can be proved that Peter
was in Rome at all. If Peter ever was in Rome, it
seems to me altogether probable that he was in Rome
after Paul had suffered martyrdom, and that he went
to Rome to take Paul's place and preach the gospel
after Paul was taken away. But I think we shall have
to leave the question in abeyance. With the light we
now have it cannot be decided. All we know in regard
to the First Epistle of Peter is that it was written from
Babylon, the far east of the Roman Empire.
To whom was the First Epistle of Peter written?
It appears to have been written to the churches that
were founded by Paul. If you notice the address of
the First Epistle you will see that it purports to come
from Peter, " an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ, to
the elect sojourners of the Dispersion." By the Disper
sion Peter meant the true Israel of God, those Chris
tians who were scattered abroad. After the Assyrian
and Babylonian captivities, the Jews were scattered
among all the nations of the earth; they had syna
gogues in every large city of the Roman Empire; and
there were multitudes of them throughout Asia Minor.
As Jews were scattered about through the Roman Em
pire, and Christians constituted the true Israel, this
word " Dispersion " came to be applied to the scattered
Christians ; and Peter writes his Epistle to the " elect
sojourners of the Dispersion," that is, the Christians

344 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that were dispersed throughout the whole of Asia
Minor ; then he proceeds to mention them in the order
that would naturally occur to one writing from the
East. He begins, for example, with Pontus, which was
farthest to the east; then he mentions Galatia; then
Cappadocia ; and finally he mentions the two provinces
that were farthest westward, namely, Asia, in the nar
row sense, and Bithynia. So, in the very order of the
provinces we have a new evidence that it was from
Babylon, and not from Rome, that the Epistle was writ
ten. But all these churches of Asia Minor were
churches that had directly or indirectly owed their
foundation to the apostle Paul; and it was a sort of
rule with the apostles not to invade the sphere of one
another's labors. There was no place or church that
had Epistles written to it, near the same time, by two
of the apostles. Paul would not invade the sphere of
another man's labors ; he built on his own foundations ;
and just so, Peter would not invade Paul's sphere of
labor, if the apostle Paul were still living.
These Epistles of Peter, therefore, could not have
been written until after the death of the apostle Paul,
or at least after Paul had withdrawn from active work.
Possibly this First Epistle may have been written dur
ing Paul's first imprisonment, when he could not attend
to the churches ; but it is more likely that both the First
and the Second Epistles were written after Paul's
death. Peter then assumed the charge of the churches
for which Paul had cared ; and so, in a similar manner,
the Epistles to the seven churches, which we find in the
book of Revelation, were not written until after Paul
had suffered martyrdom. The Epistles of Peter, then,

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 345
were written from the East, after the death of the apos
tle Paul ; and as the apostle Paul suffered martyrdom in
the year 64, or some part of the year 65, we certainly
cannot put the date of the First Epistle of Peter earlier
than the year 66. This is as near to the date of the
two Epistles as any year that we can assign; and we
find that Peter is striving to assist and encourage these
churches of Asia Minor, after the great leader, the
apostle to the Gentiles, has been taken away.
There are indications that much apostolic labor had
preceded Peter's writing, and this labor Peter himself
had not performed. He takes it for granted that these
churches have already a complete system of Christian
doctrine. He does not seek to indoctrinate them, but
assumes that they already know the truth, and that they
need only to have the truth brought vividly to their
remembrance. The churches to which he writes are
not only in possession of this complete system of doc
trine, but they are now involved in persecution; not
apparently persecution by the civil power, but persecu
tion of a social sort from their Jewish countrymen, and
from overweening and arrogant heathen. They need
strengthening against this persecution from those who
ought to help them in their Christian life. They also
need instruction with regard to their conduct toward
the heathen about them, lest evil example tempt them to
impurity of life. And finally, there are tendencies to
critical and censorious judgment among them, and
their pastors and leaders are somewhat in danger of
being infected by ambition and of lording it over God's
people. These are the influences which Peter, in his
First Epistle, tries to counteract.

346 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There is something striking in the Epistles of Peter
as to the style and method of address. Peter's Epistles
show very strong traces of the influence of the apostle
Paul. In that respect too, we have an evidence that the
apostle Peter wrote after the apostle Paul. Peter was
one of those open-hearted souls that receive from every
hand. He had insensibly taken in many of the ideas
of the apostle Paul, and not only the ideas of Paul, but
some of Paul's methods of expression. Peter had seen
writings of the apostle Paul before he himself wrote;
in fact, in the Second Epistle, he says of Paul's Epistles
that in them " there are many things hard to be under
stood, which those who are unstable wrest to their own
destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
Is it not a sign of the nobility of this apostle that,
with all his prestige and influence, he should declare
his approval and give his sanction to the writings of
the apostle Paul; that he should recognize them, as
Scripture like the Old Testament (for, when he speaks
of " other Scriptures," it is the Old Testament, un
questionably, of which he speaks) ; that he should as
sign to them an equal authority with the writings of the
prophets, and say that the things in them which are
difficult to be understood are worthy of all respect, as
if they were the very utterances of Christ himself?
How devoid of jealousy, how generous, how magnani
mous, how full of the spirit of love and self-sacrifice !
How well he has subdued all private feeling to the in
terest of Christ ! There is something very noble in all
this. But it is not surprising. Paul, a long time be
fore, had put the Christian truth into correct form, and
in this respect was the greatest of the apostles. Only

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 347
James had preceded Paul, and the Epistle of James
had no such currency as had the writings of the apostle
Paul, being destined for a narrow circle of Jews, while
Paul's were sent abroad to all the Gentile churches and
were spread quickly through the world. It is not sur
prising that Peter should have been greatly influenced
by Paul's doctrine and by Paul's method of expression.
If you will take the First Epistle of Peter and read
the opening of it, " Blessed be the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ," you will see that there is
something to remind you very vividly of Paul's Epistle
to the Ephesians. Peter unquestionably had in his
hands the writings of Paul ; he had studied them care
fully and had been influenced by them. In Peter's
First Epistle we find Silvanus, or Silas, mentioned, and
Mark also, two of Paul's principal helpers. Here is a
link of connection between Peter and Paul. We can
trace the history of Silas and the history of Mark down
to the close of Paul's life. After Paul's martyrdom it
would seem that these friends and companions of his
made their way to the East to the apostle Peter; that
they brought with them the letters which Paul had
written to the various churches ; that Peter made them
a subject of study; and that Peter then wrote to the
churches that were now orphans by the apostle's death,
expressed his sanction of all that Paul had written, and
then added his own instructions for their present con
dition and needs.
When we come to the Second Epistle of Peter we
find that it is written to practically the same persons
or communities, because, in the third chapter and first
verse, Peter says, " This second epistle I write unto

348 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
you, brethren." But this Second Epistle has a slightly
different object from the first. The dangers and diffi
culties counteracted in the second are internal, whereas
those in the first are external. As, in the first, it was
the heathen with whom the people of God had to deal
and who persecuted them, so, in the Second Epistle, it
seems to be the false teachers within the church. Li
centious professors of religion, and profane scoffers,
seem to be within the body. Trouble had already
arisen, and the object of the Second Epistle is to coun
teract these internal difficulties; whereas the object of
the First Epistle is to strengthen and comfort and en
courage the churches in their endurance of persecutions
from without.
This Second Epistle of Peter is the Epistle of all
the New Testament with regard to whose genuineness
there has been most dispute. Many people who are
convinced of the authenticity and genuineness of all
the other books of the New Testament, declare that
with regard to this Second Epistle of Peter they are
in great doubt; and it is well for us to understand the
exact state of the case. The fact seems to be that it
is not until the year 230, almost two centuries after the
Saviour's death, that we have an express mention of
this Second Epistle Of Peter. This first mention of
the Epistle is by Origen, the church Father, and he
mentions it in a very peculiar way. He says : " We
have one Epistle of Peter which is universally ac
cepted; and, if you will, a second, for this is ques
tioned." While he mentions the Second Epistle of
Peter as being in existence, he says that it is ques
tionable whether it is a genuine work of the apostle.

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 349
It is not until the year 250 that we have the first clear
witness to the Second Epistle of Peter, with an accept
ance of the Epistle; this is by Firmilian, a bishop of
Cappadocia. The church historians mention it among
the Antilegomena, the books that are spoken against.
Jerome, in the fourth century, investigated the claims
of the Epistle and admitted it to the Latin Vulgate,
while, at the same time, he recorded the objections
against it.
It was not until the year 372 that the Council of
Laodicea formally admitted it to the canon. But that
was a council held in the East; and it was not until
the year 397, almost four hundred years after Christ,
that the Council of Carthage, in the West, admitted it
formally to the canon. The history of this Epistle is
manifestly quite different from that of any other New
Testament document.
How can we account for all this strange lateness in
getting into circulation and acceptance in the Christian
church ? Is all this consistent with the genuineness and
the inspiration of the Epistle ? I think it is ; and I ven
ture an explanation, though my explanation can be
only a plausible hypothesis. These Epistles were cer
tainly written very late in the apostle's life. Peter
must have been a somewhat old man in the year 66,
when we say the Epistle was probably written. How
old was Peter at the time of the Saviour's death ? We
should think, should we not, that the apostle Peter was
older than our Lord? Then, in the year 66, he was
thirty-three years older than when Jesus died. He
must have been sixty-six, if he was born at the same
time with Christ; but if older than Christ, then he

350 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
must have been, say, seventy-six or possibly eighty.
We think of him as much older than the apostle John ;
and in the Second Epistle we see the marks of age; he
is getting toward his end; he says the time of his de
parture is at hand ; he wishes to leave his remembrance
to the church, and to give them something that will
instruct them and comfort them and encourage them
after he is gone. These are the words of an old man.
These two Epistles seem to be written in the old age
of the apostle, and just before his death.
And how did he die? Why, tradition says that he
suffered martyrdom. This is an indication of perse
cution, and the persecution would have been persecu
tion not simply of himself, but persecution of other
Christians also. An Epistle written just before his
martyrdom, and just before a general persecution of
the church, would certainly find some difficulties in the
way of its rapid dissemination. Persecution might
require it to be hidden for a time. Years may have
passed before it safely could be brought out from its
obscurity. I think we can easily see that there may
have been reasons why this Epistle should have come
later into general circulation than any of the other
Epistles of the New Testament. Written far away
at the East, with no daily mails, no express-trains, no
post-office, no press, it had to be transcribed word by
word, a single copy at a time. It took long to circulate
the documents of the New Testament through the
Christian church. To make an Epistle written in Baby
lon fully known in western Rome may have required a
whole generation, and intervening persecution may have
prevented the multiplication of copies for a century.

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 35 1
There are some curious analogies in modern times
which may throw light upon this matter. Some have
questioned whether it was possible that Epistles, hidden
so long, could have come out to the light at last and
then be accepted by the whole Christian church. But
De Wette found, not seventy-five years ago, a number
of important letters by Luther, the great reformer,
that the world had never seen before. Three hun
dred years had passed since Luther's death. De Wette
brought out these letters and printed them. They were
accepted at once as veritable letters of the reformer,
although they had been hidden for three hundred years.
John Milton wrote a treatise on Christian doctrine —
an important work — but it was two hundred years after
John Milton's death before the world knew of its exist
ence ; then only was it printed . and circulated. Sir
William Hamilton tells us that there are now actually
in existence important treatises by great philosophers
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that are lying
hidden away, and unknown, not only to the world but
even to the chosen biographers of these philosophers.
Or if one desires an illustration from ancient times, we
have it in the case of the later works of Aristotle.
These works were lost for a hundred and fifty years
after his death, but they were recognized as genuine
so soon as they were recovered from the cellar of the
family of Neleus in Asia. So I think it not without
parallel or analogy that this Epistle of the apostle Peter
should have remained hidden for many years, should
have been then brought out, and finally, through many
difficulties, should have won its way to the confidence
of the Christian church.

352 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Our evidence of the genuineness and value of the
Epistle is in part external. But there is an internal
evidence just as valuable as the external. By internal
evidence I mean the spiritual value of the Epistle itself,
the appeal that it makes to our Christian sympathies
and affections, and the power it has to stir and arouse
and warn. There is a spirit in the sacred writings
which is very different from that of secular literature.
Take the first chapter of the Second Epistle of Peter
and read it through; if you are a Christian, you will
feel that the Holy Spirit appeals to you through that
first chapter as clearly and indubitably as it appeals to
you through any other chapter of the New Testament.
There is a power here, an elevation, an illumination,
that are manifestly the work of the Spirit of God ; and
I confess that, for my part, I should greatly feel the
loss of the Second Epistle of Peter, if it should be taken
from us. I do not think the question whether the
Second Epistle of Peter is genuine or not is one upon
which the whole New Testament stands or falls. Still
I think there was a divine will guiding the formation
of the canon, and that the church was inspired as to
which portions of the ancient writings to accept. I be
lieve most firmly in the inspiration and genuineness of
this Second Epistle of Peter, but I believe it not so
much upon the external evidence as I believe it upon
the internal evidence, the power it has to touch my heart
and speak to me as by the very voice of the Holy Spirit.
It has been said that the apostle Paul is the apostle
of faith, that the apostle John is the apostle of love, and
that the apostle Peter is the apostle of hope. Let us
read these Epistles in the light of that general remark.

THE EPISTLES OF PETER 353
Hopefulness is the most characteristic thing about
them. You cannot read these two Epistles without
feeling something of their broad and noble hopefulness.
Peter was a man of sanguine temperament; a man
who found it easy to believe; and a man who, as he
believed most heartily in the facts of Christianity, had
a most unwavering faith in the triumph of Christianity.
Read the first chapter of the First Epistle of Peter in
the light of this remark. You will notice that Peter
based his hopes on historical facts. He takes us back
to the suffering and the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
Christ ; then he takes us forward to the future, and the
certainty that the Lord Jesus Christ will come again.
One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a
thousand years as one day. So he bids us to be pure,
even in the midst of darkness and persecution, for the
day of the Lord draweth nigh.
You remember that Jesus told Peter to strengthen
his brethren. Obedience to that command led to the
writing of these First and Second Epistles. Peter
would strengthen his brethren, to undergo the trials
and persecutions with which they are beset here in
this present life, with the assurance that there is laid up
for them a crown of glory, incorruptible, and unde-
filed, and that fadeth not away. There is a spirit of
cheer, there is a spirit of brightness, a spirit of hope
in the Epistles of Peter, which differences them from
all the other Epistles of the New Testament. Peter's
own soul is full of hope and brightness and cheer, and
he expresses that innermost nature of his in both the
First and the Second Epistles.

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN
The First Epistle of John can hardly be distinguished
from a doctrinal and practical treatise. There is no
address to it. There are no salutations at the end of
it. No author's name is connected with it. One might
almost think it was intended as a general exposition
of Christian truth; and yet you find, here and there
through the work, expressions like this, " I write unto
you, little children," which seem to indicate that, in
the author's mind, it was an Epistle. Although we do
not know the names of the churches to which it was
first sent, it is quite possible that it was sent to them
by some messenger who assured them of its author
ship; so that the name John did not need to be ap
pended to it or mentioned at its beginning. This, in
fact, is characteristic of all John's writing. It is always
anonymous. The two other Epistles of John do not mention the
author's name. He calls himself " the elder " in them.
That word " elder " may not mean " officer of the
church," but may be used simply in the sense of " an
elderly person," as Paul called himself " Paul, the
aged." And in the Gospel, you remember that there is
no mention at all of John's name. The " disciple
whom Jesus loved " is the nearest he comes to it ; so
that, although this is an Epistle of John, it is not neces
sary at all that we should connect our faith in its
genuineness with any ability on our part to show the
354

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 355
apostle's name connected with it, either in the Epistle
itself, or traditionally, when it was first delivered.
The characteristics of the Epistle are the characteris
tics of John's other writings. There are so many
common features of the Gospel, of these three Epistles,
and of the Apocalypse, the style of thought in them
all is so peculiar, so unlike that of any other of the
New Testament writings, that the simplest and easiest
hypothesis is that all are the work of the apostle John.
Any other hypothesis at once meets with so many
difficulties, so many contradictions, that we have to
give it up. The universal voice of the tradition of
the church ascribes this First Epistle to John; and I
think we need pay very little attention to the skeptical
objections of some modern critics, for they evidently
originate in a carping spirit that no evidence whatever
would satisfy. The Gospel according to John is the
first of the two main writings, and this Epistle is the
second ; in other words, the Gospel was written before
the Epistle. I do not mean to say that the Gospel is
the earliest of John's writings, because the Apocalypse,
I believe, is the earliest. The Apocalypse, or book of
Revelation, was written thirty years before the Gospel ;
while the Epistle was written in the very latest period
of the apostle's life. I doubt whether we can put the
date of it earlier than the year 96 or 97, at the very
close of the first century, long after Paul and Peter
had suffered martyrdom, and long after the other
books of the New Testament had been written. Quite
an interval appears between the writings we have
studied heretofore, all of which were written before
the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Gospel of John

356 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
with the Epistle which immediately follows it. The
relation of the Epistle to the Gospel is an interesting
one. In both of them the great subject is Christ, the
everlasting Word of the Father, the revelation of God
to man. And yet the aspect in which Christ is re
garded is different in the Gospel from that in which
he is regarded in the Epistle. The Epistle seems to be
an application of the truth that is laid down in the
Gospel. In the Gospel, John is a historian; in the
Epistle, John is a theologian. Or, if you choose to
put it another way, in the Gospel John gives us the
historical basis. He represents Christ as coming from
God, becoming incarnate in humanity, and living his
, life before us. Thus he lays the foundation of the
Gospel in historical fact. Humanity is incorporated
and absolutely united with the Deity, but it is in the
person of Christ; the union of Christ's followers with
God is an incident and consequence, but not the main
thing that is treated.
This union of Christ's followers with God is the
subject of the Epistle. In the Epistle we have the
result of the union of deity with humanity, in the life
of the church. As the Gospel shows us God incarnated
in Christ, the starting-point, so, in the Epistle, we have
humanity brought into fellowship with God by union
with Christ. As the Gospel sets before us God in
Christ, so the Epistle sets before us the church in
Christ. In the Gospel we have the great doctrinal fact
set before us ; in the Epistle we have the ethical conse
quence of that fact. In the Gospel we have God in
Christ; in the Epistle we have Christ in the church.
So it is very natural that the Epistle should follow the

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 357
Gospel, follow it at no great interval, follow it as a
commentary follows a text, follow it as the application
ordinarily follows the doctrinal part of a sermon.
Written in the year 96 or 97, therefore, immediately
after the Gospel, we find in it no reference to the con
troversies which had agitated the church in the days of
Paul. They all seem to have been settled — that great
Judaizing controversy, for example ; that question be
tween law and gospel; that dividing line between
merely outward Israel and the true church of God-
nothing of this appears in either the Gospel or the
Epistle of John. Paul has long since passed away.
Thirty years have passed since his martyrdom, and
John has been called to supervise the churches over
which Paul was once the bishop or supervisor. Asia
Minor has been for many years the scene of the apos
tle's labors, and a great many of the early difficulties of
the situation have ceased to exist. Jerusalem has been
destroyed, so long destroyed that there is not the least
mention of Jerusalem in this Epistle of John.
Not only has Jerusalem been destroyed, but the per
secutions that circled about that time have all passed
by. There is not the least hint in the First Epistle of
John that there was any such thing as persecution.
The difficulties which John has to meet, the errors
which he has to controvert, are not those which arise
from external opposition of enemies to the faith. The
heathen are not mentioned at all in this First Epistle
of John.
The church seems not only to have been launched,
but to have proceeded for a long time on a prosperous
voyage. No external rocks or quicksands occasion the

358 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
warnings of the apostle; the difficulties are all inter
nal; such difficulties as would arise in a church that
had been prosperous, and which, by virtue of its pros
perity, was in danger of forgetting its early love. And
so the apostle is enabled to confine himself to those
great internal truths and needs which are the same for
all time.
It is remarkable how completely John lifts himself
up above everything merely temporal, above everything
that has reference to the present, and how he strikes
at tendencies that are the same from age to age ; if you
find in his Epistles any reference to errors peculiar to
his time, they are errors of a totally different sort from
those with which Paul had to deal.
There is one great doctrinal tendency, one great
tendency of error, which John, in this Epistle, com
bats. It has to do with the person of Christ. At the
close of the first century there began to manifest itself
in the Christian church a disposition to degrade Christ,
on the one hand, to the mere level of man, and to hold
him to be a mere exalted human being; and, on the
other hand, a disposition to regard him as so completely
and entirely God that he could not suffer here in the
flesh. This latter tendency is represented in the per
son of Cerinthus. The Christian Fathers tell us that
Cerinthus lived in the days of the apostle John, and
was in Ephesus at the close of the first century.
What was the doctrine of this Cerinthus? It was
this, that Deity and humanity were not from the first
indissolubly united in Christ; the union was a tem
porary one, and a separable one. In other words, Cerin
thus did not believe in a miraculous conception; did

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 359
not believe in a genuine incarnation of God in hu
manity; did not believe that he who was born of the
Virgin was the Son of God as well as the Son of man,
divine as well as human. No, Cerinthus held that
Jesus was born just as other men are born; that he
was a holy man; that he was the choice of God; that,
at his baptism, there descended upon him from on high,
in the form of a dove, a divinity that took possession
of him, and that constituted a union with him that
lasted through his earthly life until the time of his
crucifixion; and that then he was forsaken by the
Father; the death that occurred was not the death of
Deity plus humanity, but was the death simply of a
human being ; all the miraculous works that Christ had
previously done were done by virtue of the Deity that
dwelt in him and by no power of his own; Deity did
not unite itself to him in such a way that his humanity
could not be separated from it ; and so, Christ went up
on high, the human was left here below, and only the
Deity went back to the throne. How plain it is that
such an incarnation does not answer either to the
Scripture representation, or to the needs of our human
hearts ! It is very like the incarnation that we find in
Buddhism, where Buddha comes down in a cycle of
ages, joins himself temporarily to a human being, in
habits this humanity for a little time, and then, after
he has done this temporary work, shuffles off the
humanity like a worn-out garment, and returns alone
to his heaven.
How different from the conception of the incarna
tion in Scripture! In Scripture God unites himself
from the very birth of Christ, and forevermore. We

360 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
call our Lord the God-man. From the very beginning
he is the Son of God. The union in him of humanity
and deity is indissoluble. When Christ ascends up on
high he takes our humanity with him; so that in
heaven to-day he has the same hands and feet that
were nailed to the bitter cross for us. That is the in
carnation, that is the union of humanity and deity for
which our human hearts long. We want a union of
humanity with God that is permanent; and only that
complete union of humanity with God satisfies our
needs or furnishes the basis of our fellowship with
God. Cerinthus denies this; Cerinthus declares that
the union of deity with humanity began only at Christ's
baptism and continued only until the time of his death ;
Christ now is not our elder brother in the sense that
he is man as well as God; he cannot sympathize with
us now, because he has not the same nature that he had
when he was here upon earth. This doctrine is so
repugnant to Christian feeling, it is so antagonistic to
Scripture that John regards it as the very central
heresy of all ; and he makes belief in the real union of
Deity and humanity in Christ, belief in the permanent
union of the Son of God with human nature, a test of
all Christian fellowship. There is a tradition with
regard to the apostle John that when, on a certain day,
he found himself in the public bath with Cerinthus, or
heard, as he was in the bath, that this heretic Cerinthus
was there too, he seized his single garment and rushed
out from the bath in terror, declaring to those about
him that he dare not stay under that roof lest the roof
should fall upon them as a sign of God's judgment
upon such a heretic. There was a revelation of the

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 361
burning love and burning hate that characterized the
apostle John.
We sometimes think of him as effeminate. We must
remember that he was a Boanerges, a " Son of Thun
der." That same deep heart of love was inseparable
from a heart of hatred for everything that was untrue
and impure. The love of goodness that is not ac
companied by a hatred of evil is love of a very sus
picious sort.
The apostle John has given us, in this First Epis
tle, a commentary, application, and continuation of the
Gospel. He has told us, in this First Epistle, what
effect this fellowship with God produces in the heart
and life of the believer.
You remember the striking similarity between the
beginning of the Gospel and the beginning of the Epis
tle. In the Gospel we have : " In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God " ; and then, in the fourteenth verse, we have :
" And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us
(and we behold his glory, glory as of the only begotten
from the Father) full of grace and truth." In the
Epistle we find the apostle stirred by the completed
incarnation, and speaking of what he himself, as an
eye-witness, has beheld : " That which our eyes have
seen, which our hands have handled, of the Word of
life, that declare we unto you " ; and the object of his
declaration is that those who believe in Christ may
have their joy fulfilled.
As, in the Gospel, he begins with eternity past,
shows how the Word of God became incarnate, and
then describes the life of God among men, so, in the

362 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Epistle, he begins with the complete incarnation, tells
us how he himself, among others, had been an eye
witness of the facts of the Saviour's life, and then
proceeds to show what effect this great doctrine ought
to have upon the life of the believer and of the church.
After this beginning of the First Epistle there are
two great divisions of the treatment, the first of them
extending to the twelfth verse of the second chapter,
and the second extending from that point to the end.
It is difficult to follow the course of thought of the
Epistle, and to construct an analysis of it. The apostle,
while having the general plan which he is to follow,
yet allows himself from time to time to diverge from
the path that he has marked out, in order to make par
ticular applications of the truth and to add suggestions
that occur to his mind. Exactly where the lines of
division are to be drawn it is sometimes difficult to say.
The first verse seems to suggest another verse, and the
second verse to suggest the third; yet, after all, there
can be no doubt that there is a general progress of
thought, and that two great ideas are presented in it.
If we can fasten in our minds these two ideas of the
Epistle, it will be of service to us.
The first is : God is light, walk in the light ; and the
second is: God is love, walk in love. The first part
of the Epistle has to do with God as light ; that is, as
moral light, as having in him no darkness at all of
sin or impurity, and therefore as excluding sin on the
part of the Christian, so that he who lives in fellow
ship with God is bound to walk in the light, as God
is light. And if the Christian has come into fellow
ship with God, that light will reveal the Christian's

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 363
remaining unholiness, and will show that the Chris
tian is necessarily one who recognizes sin and con
fesses sin. " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and
just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all un
righteousness. If any man says he has no sin, he is a
liar, the truth is not in him " ; God's moral light re
veals the remaining impurity of those who are joined
to him; reveals it to themselves; leads them, by his
Spirit, to confess that remaining impurity; leads them
to seek forgiveness for it and deliverance from it. That
is the first great division of the Epistle. Fellowship
with God, brought about by union with Jesus Christ,
is the one great subject of the Epistle. And the appli
cation is obvious. As God is light, let us walk in the
light, confess our sin, put away our sin, seek the de
liverance from sin which the Spirit of God provides in
Christ. The second part of the Epistle very naturally fol
lows. God is not only moral light, holiness, purity,
but he is also love; and fellowship with God in Jesus
Christ will, therefore, necessarily lead us first to love
God, and then, as the result of that love, to love our
brethren also; so that the evidence that we have this
love to God will be seen in our love for the brethren,
and wherever love for the brethren prevails, it will
have its source in God himself, who is love. So we
are brought to a recognition of the fact that there
should be two sorts of self-sacrifice and service on the
part of Christians, one toward one another, and the
other toward their Lord. Beginning with the fact of
God's great love to us, John saw the necessity on our
part of corresponding love toward one another.

364 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
" Herein is love," or, in the original, " herein is the
Love," as if this love of God in Christ were the one
great example of love; as if this were the love which
included all other love; the love into fellowship with
which we were to enter. In other words, the love of
God toward the lost world in Christ is love of which
we are not only the objects, but also the partakers.
Did he not lay down his life for us ? If he laid down
his life for us, then we also ought to lay down our
lives for the brethren. That is, a very simple sort of
argument. It is not dialectic. It is not conceived or
expressed in the logical way of the apostle Paul. John
speaks in a childlike way; he speaks from insight; he
puts his thought in the simplest possible form; yet his
utterance is wonderfully profound and wonderfully
true. This is the very truth we need to make us active
and useful Christians.
Here, then, we have the great subject of the Epis
tle, fellowship with God in union with Christ. God is
light: therefore enter into this fellowship of moral
light, confess and put away sin. God is love: enter
into this fellowship of love ; not only receive this love
from God, but manifest this love to your brethren;
for, when a man says he loves God and loves not his
brother, he is a liar, like that man who says that he has
no sin which he needs to confess and put away.
We have seen that John's first aim in this Epistle
is to oppose a great doctrinal error with regard to the
person of Christ, that doctrinal error which would
separate between the humanity and Deity of Christ,
and conceive of them as dislocated and only tempo
rarily united during the Saviour's life; that great error

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 365
that denies that Jesus Christ is from the beginning and
forever the divine-human Redeemer, Son of God and
Son of man. John's second great aim is to combat
the great practical error that a man, when he is once
redeemed, does not need any further redemption.
These prosperous Christians were in danger of for
getting that there was still remaining something to be
done, and that they must look to God to sanctify them
as well as justify them. It is not enough to be for
given. Those who say, " God has forgiven me ; it is
all right with me; I have nothing now to do," must
take care to live a life of good works, a life of holiness,
a life of love, or they will prove that they are strangers
to the grace of God. The practical instruction of the
Epistle, then, aims to convince Christians that they
must continually seek sanctification, that they must be
faithful to Christ in purity of life and in love toward
the brethren. A little remark of Luther's is exceed
ingly apt, and is worth remembering. He says, " He
that is a Christian is no Christian " ; that is, he who
thinks that his Christian life is a complete thing, that
he needs nothing more, that there is nothing to strive
for, nothing further to do, nothing further to attain,
why, he is not a Christian at all. How much there is
in that! He who is a Christian, trusts Christian ex
periences in the past, without trying continually to be
a better Christian and to live more near to God, why,
that man shows that the root of the matter is not in
him. He is not a Christian, for a Christian is one who
recognizes his remaining depravity, hates it, longs to
be rid of it, and strives continually to be more and
more like Christ his Lord.

2,66 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There is a saying of Jesus himself, of which I think
this is only an exposition in another form of words.
Jesus bids his disciples love one another and sacrifice
themselves for one another ; and he says, " So shall ye
become my disciples." Become ? Why, they were his
disciples. Yes, they were his disciples, but they could
become more and more his disciples. " So shall ye
become my disciples." It is not enough that we are
Christians now; there is a sense in which we are to
become more and more thoroughly Christians in our
daily life. This is exactly what the apostle John seeks.
He writes this Epistle in order that those whom he
recognizes as already saved by the grace of God may
be more and more saved. They may be saved more
and more from the evil that is within and without, and
they may become more and more like Christ in heart
and life.
There are two specific objects which the apostle
mentions in addition to this one. He says he writes
these things to them that their joy may be fulfilled —
that is one thing he aims at ; and that they may know
that they have eternal life — that is the other aim.
There is a knowledge of the fact that they belong to
Christ and that they are his, on the one hand; and
there is a joy resulting, on the other. These two have
an intimate connection with each other. John writes
in order that our faith may be turned into assurance ;
in order that our trust in Christ may become a real
conviction. He would have us know that Christ is
ours, and that we are his ; and so would put us in pos
session of our proper Christian joy. The Lord is not
content that we should be simply Christians ; he wants

THE EPISTLES OF JOHN 367
us to know that we are Christians and to have the joy
of knowing it; so that the joy of the Lord may be our
strength. It is not possible for a Christian who is living in
Doubting Castle, and who is constantly troubled with
fears lest he shall be a castaway, to do so much for
God or to exert so large or so blessed an influence
upon those around him as he could exert if he had the
assurance that he was a child of God and an inheritor
of the kingdom of heaven. The joy of the Lord is a
contagious joy ; when it shines out from the features it
gives witness to the world of a higher life in Christ ; it
leads others to seek and to find the Christ who imparts
it. John writes with these two ends in view : First,
that we may know wje are Christians; and secondly,
that we may have the joy that belongs to Christians.
This Epistle, written in his age, and just before his
death, is his legacy to the Christian church.
There is something very striking in the point to
which we have arrived in our study of the New Testa
ment. This is the last of the New Testament docu
ments, the last word of inspiration, and how calm,
how authoritative, how apostolic it is !
A single word with regard to the Second and Third
Epistles. The second is apparently written to a lady,
an elect lady, who has a Christian household which is
threatened by the invasion of false teachers, and she
is warned against them. It is a beautiful illustration
of family religion in the apostolic age. The Third
Epistle is written to Gaius; and in that Epistle Gaius
is warned not to yield to the false instructions of a
certain Diotrephes, who seems to be a pastor or elder

368 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of the church who has refused to obey the commands of
the apostle and to entertain certain evangelists whom
he had sent to minister in that neighborhood. This
Third Epistle furnishes evidence of church organiza
tion in the apostolic age. In the First Epistle we have
no mention of church organization, and no mention of
religion in the family. The Second and Third Epistles
supplement the First, and show us that both existed,
although in the First Epistle we have no allusion to
them. So the three together constitute a complete
whole, and round out the whole work of apostolic in
struction which John the apostle was sent to perform.
Like the Lord who sent him, he could say that he had
finished the work which God gave him to do.

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE
Jude or Judas, as our new version makes his name,
declares himself to be the brother of James; and by
that very fact he seems to intimate that he has no in
dependent standing as an apostle. If Jude had been
an apostle, it would seem as if he would have so an
nounced himself in the address of his Epistle, and have
gained whatever of authority such an announcement
might give. On the other hand, he seems to distin
guish himself from the apostles when he urges those
to whom he writes to remember the words that were
spoken to them by the apostles of our Lord, while
Peter says : " Remember the words that were spoken
unto you by us, the apostles of the Lord." Jude does
not class himself among the apostles. He calls himself
simply Jude, the brother of James.
This James cannot be James the greater. John, so
far as we know, is his only brother. This James must
have been the James who wrote the Epistle; and this
James was not an apostle at all, but was a brother of
our Lord, a later son of the Virgin, half-brother, so to
speak, of Jesus, one of those who up to the time of
the Saviour's resurrection had remained unbelieving.
For that reason he could not be chosen as an apostle,
for an apostle needed to be one who had been an eye
witness of the wonderful works of Jesus from the be
ginning; and the brethren of Jesus, who did not con
stantly accompany him during his earthly life, but
y 369

370 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
rather sundered themselves from him, were not wit
nesses of all the events of that life, and therefore
were not so fit persons to be entrusted with the apos-
tolate. Jude, like James, then, was one of those half-
brothers of Jesus who, though unbelieving during most
of our Saviour's life here upon the earth, were con
verted after the resurrection. Jesus appeared to James
in the fulness of a brother's love, convinced him of his
error, and brought him to repentance and faith. We
do not know that there was any special appearance of
the risen Lord to Jude. He may have been one of
those five hundred brethren to whom our Lord revealed
himself all " at once." At any rate, he became a con
vert after Jesus' resurrection; and we find him with
the other brethren of our Lord, and with the women,
and with the apostles, in that upper chamber, where
they prayed for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon
the day of Pentecost.
We know very little with regard to the life of Jude.
It is told us that two of his grandsons were appre
hended by Domitian; and being brought before him,
were accused of being related to Jesus, the Christ;
but when Domitian, the emperor, saw that they were
plain men, and, on questioning them, found that the
kingdom which they intended to set up was not a tem
poral but purely a spiritual kingdom, it is said that he
dismissed them, and stayed the persecution that had
begun. What became of Jude himself we hardly know.
Tradition relates that he preached to the Jews in
Palestine and in Egypt; and if we are asked to say to

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE 37 1
what particular portion of the Christian church this
letter of Jude was addressed, we may say that it was
probably addressed to Jewish Christians in Palestine
and in Egypt, for in those countries we find the first
recognition of the Epistle. It would almost seem as if
Peter and Jude had consented together with regard
to the portions of the Christian church which they
would address — Peter writing to the Jewish Christians
of the Dispersion in Asia Minor, while Jude wrote to
the Jewish Christians in Palestine and Egypt. The
date of the Epistle must have been in the very latest
period of the Apostolic age — that is, just before the de
struction of Jerusalem — for Jude speaks as if the apos
tolic preaching were a thing of the past ; " Remember
the words that were spoken to you by the apostles," he
says, as if some of the apostles had already fallen
asleep, and their ministry had come to its close.
And yet, while the Epistle of Jude must have been
written very late, it cannot have been written after the
destruction of Jerusalem, because there are certain evi
dences that Peter had read this Epistle and had re
ceived some special influence from it. It therefore
must have been written some time before Peter's death;
and, moreover, there is no reference whatever in it
to the destruction of Jerusalem, as there most certainly
would have been if Jerusalem had been destroyed.
The Epistle reminds its readers of the various warn
ings and judgments of God ; if Jerusalem had recently
fallen, Jude would certainly have mentioned it as the
most striking evidence that God's justice, although long
delayed, will certainly be executed. We must, there
fore, put the date of the Epistle somewhere about the

2,72 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
years 64 to 66. Peter suffered martyrdom probably in
68. We must put the date of the Epistle a few years
before that. And it is before the destruction of Jeru
salem, which took place in the year 70. Yet it is at
the very close of the Apostolic age, after many of the
apostles had ceased to labor, so that this date 64 to 66
is as probable a date as any that can be assigned.
There is a striking resemblance between the Epistle
of Jude and the second chapter of the Second Epistle
of Peter. Students of the New Testament have marked
this resemblance, and have been puzzled by it. The
writers of these two Epistles must have been in com
munication with each other ; one of these two had read
the work of the other, had been strongly influenced by
it, and had actually taken from it some of its thoughts
and expressions.
The question as to priority is interesting. Who was
the original, and who was the transcriber? It appears
that Jude was the original ; for there is a certain terse
ness, vigor, and coherence about the Epistle of Jude
which marks it as an original. No one can read the
Epistle of Jude without feeling that it is a unit, that it
is the work of one man.
On the other hand, when you read the Second Epistle
of Peter, you find that the second chapter of Peter is
not in Peter's ordinary style ; that there are expressions
which are diverse from Peter's manner ; and, when you
compare those divergent expressions with the Epistle
of Jude, you find that, in the Epistle of Jude, some of
them are there, almost word for word. I do not mean
to say that the whole Epistle of Jude has been tran
scribed by Peter; but the general course of Jude's

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE 373
thought is adopted by Peter, and many of the forms
of expression are adopted also.
There is another reason why we should be led to
think that Peter was the transcriber and not Jude, viz. :
That the Epistle of Peter is the longer, and the Epistle
of Jude is the briefer. It is the big fish that eat up
the little fish, and not vice versa. It was easier for
Peter to take Jude and to incorporate what Jude had
written than it was for Jude to take a piece out of
Peter, and make his whole Epistle out of that.
You find, moreover, that the striking expressions of
Jude are often curtailed. Peter takes them in con
densed form. Peter puts them in his own way. When
he came to things in Jude which were difficult to un
derstand, expressions that were very uncommon, he
simply omitted them, and contented himself with taking
the substance of Jude's thought. I explain this curious
phenomenon, just as I explain the taking from the
Old Testament by the New Testament writers of mani
fold quotations, without any allusion whatever to the
place from which they were taken. You do not blame
Paul as he writes the Epistle to the Romans, and, in the
second chapter, quotes verse after verse from the Old
Testament Scriptures, without any allusion to the
parts of the Old Testament Scripture from which they
are taken. The inspiring Spirit who directed the mind
of Paul had a perfect right to lead Paul's mind to the
acceptance and reiteration of truth that, under the in
fluence of that same Spirit, had been spoken before.
Here were Jude and Peter writing to Jewish Chris
tians, and yet writing to Jewish Christians in different
regions — Peter writing to Jewish Christians in Asia

374 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Minor, Jude writing to Jewish Christians in Palestine
and Egypt. It is possible that there was not only com
munication, but also consultation, between them. Jude
may even have had Peter for an amanuensis, and Peter
may have taken from Jude's dictation what suited his
purpose, may have incorporated it in his own Epistle,
and then may have sent it out to Jewish Christians in
another part of the earth. In the Old Testament we
have a similar appropriation in Micah of a prophecy
previously uttered by Isaiah. I see no reason why
such a theory as this should not be perfectly consist
ent with our idea of inspiration. The real author of
the Scripture is not Jude, nor Peter, but the Spirit of
God; and the Spirit of God has a right to repeat his
utterances by whomsoever he will.
The design of the Epistle of Jude is to oppose what
we may call antinomian Gnosticism. By Gnosticism I
mean the pretense that religion consists mainly in
speculative belief, and the corresponding tendency to
make mere outward profession the essential thing.
Gnosticism claims, moreover, that those who have pro
fessed Christianity and are outwardly connected with
the church are in no danger of sin and may do what
they will. There was the real spirit of licentiousness
and the tendency to all manner of sensuality, while at
the same time there was an utter disregard of the ap
pointed authorities of the Christian church. The de
sign of the Epistle is to oppose these tendencies, which
we find treated in other Epistles of the New Testament,
and which seem to have been particularly rife in the
churches to which Peter and Jude wrote.
Jude treats his subject in a very orderly way. After

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE 375
the introduction, in which he speaks of Christians as
the peculiar possession of the Lord Jesus Christ, sanc
tified by God, the Father, and kept for our Lord up
to the time of his coming, he urges them to contend
earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered
to the saints. Notice the peculiar form of statement.
This faith is something that can be separated from all
the vagaries and speculations of men. It is a well-
known and an easily recognized doctrine of Christ. It
is given once for all; it is not to be altered, or added
to, or superseded; it is given to all the saints as their
common property and possession. It is not an esoteric
doctrine, as the false teachers claimed. These false
teachers prided themselves upon knowledge that is the
possession of the few. They fancied that they alone had
the key to the truth, and they excluded from the inner
circle of intimacy with God the great mass of the
Christian membership. They were self-sufficient and
arrogant. The Epistle sets over against all this narrow pre
tense of a peculiar doctrine the one faith delivered
once for all to all the saints, as the common property
and possession of all who love our Lord and Saviour,
Jesus Christ. The church is to contend constantly for
this faith against the false teachers who set up some
thing beyond the common truth that belongs to the
Christian church.
In the second part of his Epistle Jude speaks of
the punishment that comes to those who resist the truth
and are unfaithful to the word of God. Three sorts of
sin are spoken of as punishable and three illustrations
aTe given of their punishment. There is, first, the sin

376 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of unbelief. God brought Israel out of Egypt, and yet,
when Israel disbelieved, God destroyed them in the
wilderness. The second is the sin of pride. The angels
that kept not their first estate God punished by banish
ing them from heaven and by keeping them in everlast
ing chains under darkness unto the judgment of the
great day. The last of all is the sin of sensuality, and
of this Sodom and Gomorrah are the example.
Here are three distinct and terrible instances of pun
ishment brought upon persistent iniquity. And now
there are three other forms of sin that are mentioned
one after another. First, the way of Cain : that is, the
way of self-righteousness, unwillingness to accept of
God's appointed sacrifice; then, the way of Balaam:
that is, the way of avarice, the seeking of earthly good
and making our relations to God subordinate to what
we can get from them in the way of advantage to our
selves ; and then, last of all, there is the way of Korah,
the way of pride and rebellion, which are immediately
followed by the downfall of destruction. And now,
after having thus set before his readers the punishment
of those who are rebellious and the character of those
thus treated, he comes to what we may call the remedy ;
and in the seventeenth verse he begins to tell us of
what we are to do with regard to this matter. The
first thing we are to do is to remember the word of
God that has been left us in order to keep us from this
transgression and rebellion. Then, secondly, we are to
continue in love and faith and prayer, Christian graces
and virtues which are antidotes to all evil. Thirdly,
we are to bring back those who have gone astray, treat
ing them in different ways according to their peculiar

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE 377
necessities. Some of them are so involved in iniquity
that, in order to save them, we must run some risk our
selves. We must pluck them like brands from the
burning, even at the risk of our own burning; others
are to be treated more gently and so brought back to
Christ. All this is an inculcation of faithful watch-care and
discipline on the part of the Christian church. The
Epistle is not speaking of those who are outwardly
ungodly, but rather of those who have already pro
fessed the religion of Christ, and are in danger of
being led astray by false teachers, to the harm of the
Christian church and the ruin of their own souls. Last
of all, there comes the magnificent exhortation and
doxology with which the Epistle closes. It is one of
the noblest specimens of eloquence and solemn gran
deur in the whole book of God.
There are one or two things in this Epistle of Jude,
in addition to those which I have mentioned, which
challenge attention at the very outset, and which have
constituted an obstacle to the reception of the book as
authentic and inspired. There is an apparent quota
tion from an Apocryphal writing, the book of Enoch.
In the early Jewish times a circle of tradition gathered
itself around the name of Enoch, the patriarch who
walked with God, and was not, because God took him.
Enoch came to be regarded not only as a representative
of Old Testament piety, but as a representative also of
Old Testament science. It was said that Enoch was an
astronomer, and that he taught the movements of the
heavenly bodies to the men of his time. It was said
that he preached not only to man, but also to angels.

378 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There comes down to us from remote antiquity a
book which purports to be the book of Enoch. Those
who have investigated it most fully, and who know
most about it, describe it as a delirious dream. I have
tried to read it. I doubt whether any one of you could
read it through. It is a rhapsody without beginning,
middle, or end; it is a series of reflections or medita
tions upon Old Testament truths by a mind which has
in it all the instincts of speculation, but which is bound
down by very few ties to solid fact. In it there are a
few traces of truth, a few sagacious conjectures with
regard to the meaning of Old Testament Scripture;
but the most of it is vague, transcendental, and worth
less dreaming with regard to Old Testament characters
and God's method of dealing with the world.
Did Jude actually quote from that Apocryphal book ?
If Jude did quote from it, does he sanction that Apocry
phal writing? Could he have quoted from a book- that
was not the word of God and thereby have given to it
his sanction ? Was not this a mistake, inconsistent with
the real inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit,
in Jude's writing? These questions presented them
selves very early to the Christian Fathers, and led
some of them to throw out the book of Jude from its
place in the canon.
Two or three things may be said in regard to this.
In the first place, we do not certainly know that this
book of Enoch was in existence when Jude, the writer
of the Epistle, wrote. In fact, one of the most learned
of the modern German investigators, one who I think
has as much weight of argument upon his side as
any one who has written with regard to this matter,

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE 379
declares that this book of Enoch was not written until
about 132 after Christ, long after Jude's time. Jude,
therefore, does not quote from the book of Enoch at
all. Jude is quoting a tradition which had come down
through many successive mouths from very early
times ; this tradition was a true tradition ; and, in quo
ting it, the Holy Spirit vouches for its truth. That may
be the proper explanation. Jude may be quoting,
under the direction of the Holy Spirit, a tradition
which had come down from early times, and to which
he gives the sanction of inspiration.
The words quoted begin with this sentence : " The
Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute
judgment upon the ungodly." The whole quotation
gives us nothing new. It is only what in substance is
vouched for in other parts of the New Testament and
of the Old Testament as well; so that we cannot say,
even if Jude quoted from the book of Enoch, that he
has taken from that book of Enoch anything which was
false or even anything which had not been revealed be
fore. He may have quoted it just as Paul quoted from
Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander, the Greek poets.
Paul mentioned Jannes and Jambres. Where did Paul
get them? Not from the Old Testament, but from
some floating tradition. But by so quoting the floating
Jewish tradition, he gives the sanction of inspiration
to the truth of that tradition to just that extent. So, if
Jude quoted from a book of Enoch that existed before
his time, he only took from that book of Enoch the
germ of truth that it contained and gave the sanction
of inspiration to that. So, from whatever point of
view we regard it, I do not think we are warranted in

380 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
maintaining that Jude gives his sanction to an Apocry
phal book. He may give his sanction to some statement
in that Apocryphal book if that book existed at his
time ; but the most probable conclusion is that the book
did not exist at his time, but was written after his time,
and that he quotes simply a floating oral tradition and
gives to that oral tradition the sanction of inspiration.
In this reserve which Jude shows in his quotation
we see the guidance of inspiration. There are a thou
sand statements in the book of Enoch which, if Jude
had quoted them and given his sanction to them, would
have given us almost conclusive proof that his Epistle
was not canonical, and that the Holy Spirit had not
indited it; but Jude takes nothing that is false, nothing
that is not vouched for substantially by other portions
of the Scripture. He is prevented from taking material
that is not suited to his purpose. He is prevented
from taking anything that would cast suspicion upon
his general narrative.
A final objection to this Epistle is its tone of con
tinuous invective. The second chapter of Peter's
Second Epistle is the nearest parallel in the New Testa
ment, and we have seen reason to believe that here
Peter copied from Jude. Jesus' own denunciation of
the Pharisees before his death may have served as a
model both for Jude and for Peter. We must remem
ber that God denounces sin, and that he commands his
ministers, under some circumstances, to denounce it.
Jude's fearful arraignment of wilful and persistent
iniquity is no objection to its inspiration, but rather a
proof. It is a solemn, scorching, withering representa
tion of sin, and of God's just judgment against it. If

THE EPISTLE OF JUDE 38 1
we consider the various sins that Jude reprobates, we
shall see that this Epistle is not without its value to
day. There is the same unbelief, the same pride, the
same sensuality, the same avarice, the same insubordi
nation, the same disregard of authority to-day as in
the times when Jude wrote; and these scathing de
nunciations and threatenings are needed to-day as
warnings to watch and to repent.
How beautiful it is that, in connection with these
denunciations, there comes in the most sublime dox-
ology that is to be found in the whole New Testa
ment! Can there be anything more solemn, more
glorious than those words with which Jude closes?
" Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling/
and to present you faultless before the presence of his
glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our
Saviour, be glory, majesty, dominion, and power
through Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen." It is
like Jesus' " Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! Woe unto
thee, Bethsaida ! " followed immediately by his " Come
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I
will give you rest."
Jude's sublime utterance of praise is called forth by
the judgments of God. There is a refuge from sin
and death in God our Saviour. But God also judges
and punishes iniquity, and his holiness is a matter of
praise to the saints as well as his love. He will not
look with favor upon iniquity. Just and true are thy
ways, O thou King of saints! That seems to be the
spirit of the Epistle of Jude.

THE BOOK OF REVELATION
The last book of the New Testament has been wisely
assigned its place at the close of our Bible. It is a
large and comprehensive view of the conditions of the
church and the course of history. It brings to our
minds by anticipation the completion of God's work in
humanity at large, the expansion of that germ which
was once for all planted in the earth when, in the
person of Jesus Christ, salvation was embodied and
a new humanity created over which sin and death had
no more dominion forever. In the study of this book
our thoughts can rise from the beginning of the proc
ess to the end of the process, can pass from the begin
ning of the conflict to the end of the conflict, in the
glory of the children of God and the gathering together
of all the sons of God into one holy and blissful com
munity in the presence of Christ, their Lord. These
are only preliminary remarks, but they intimate to
some extent the purpose and value of this book which
we are considering.
The book of Revelation, or the Apocalypse, as it is
so often called, is the revelation made to John the apos
tle ; for all attempts to show that any other person than
John was the author are futile in the extreme. Many
of those who deny John's authorship of the Fourth
Gospel, and even of the Epistles, are perfectly ready
to concede that the Apocalypse is the work of John, and
to hold that it has all the marks of a Johannine author-
382

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 383
ship. It must, however, have been written at a differ
ent time from the Gospel and the Epistles, because
there are very marked differences between it and those
other works of the apostle. The Apocalypse was by far
the earliest writing of the apostle John, and although
it now constitutes the last book of the New Testament,
it was by no means the last book that was written. A
very considerable interval came between the writing
of the Apocalypse and the writing of the Gospel and
of the Epistles. The Apocalypse was probably written
before the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps in the
year 68 ; it was written by the apostle John, in Patmos,
where he had been exiled during the reign of Nero and
in the very last portion of Nero's reign ; it was written
under a persecution which had its greatest violence at
Rome, but the farthest circles of whose waves had
reached out as far as Asia Minor to Ephesus, where
John was then in charge of the churches which Paul
had left to his supervision at his martyrdom.
John had remained in Jerusalem until the death of
the apostles Peter and Paul had rendered it necessary
that some one of apostolic authority should take charge
of the great and influential churches that were located
in the western part of Asia. You remember that our
Lord, at his death, left his mother in the charge of
John. Tradition relates that he not only took her to
his own home, but that he remained in Jerusalem, car
ing for her as the representative of our Lord, until
Mary's death ; and this death did not occur until some
thirty years after the death of our Lord. Then, in
prospect of the destruction of Jerusalem, and know
ing that the city of the Old Testament was soon to be

384 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
obliterated from the face of the earth, John made his
way to Asia Minor, took up his residence in Ephesus,
and began to take charge of the churches in that region.
Soon after this there sprang up the persecution
under Nero. John was banished to Patmos, and there,
on a certain Sabbath day, the Spirit of the Lord opened
to him the future, and prepared him to communicate
great truths with regard to God's dispensation to the
churches of Asia, of which he was the superintendent.
The early origin of the Apocalypse accounts for
some of the main difficulties with regard to the genu
ineness of either the Apocalypse or the Gospel. We find
that the Apocalypse is written in a style that, in some
respects, is different from the style of the Gospel and
of the Epistles. The main differences might be char
acterized in this way : The Gospel and the Epistles are
in simple and flowing Greek. They are not broken, or
rugged in style. There is a spirit of sympathy and of
love in them, which you do not find so evidently pres
ent' in the Apocalypse. In addition to this, you find
some striking peculiarities of Greek construction in the
Apocalypse, which are totally absent in the Gospel
and in the Epistles. There are lapses of grammar.
The Greek preposition which should govern the geni
tive is used occasionally with the nominative instead.
Any student of Greek will recognize the strangeness of
this peculiarity, and there are certain other things of
a similar sort which I need not mention. I am inclined
to explain this by saying that, during his early life, the
apostle John had his dwelling-place in Jerusalem, and
was accustomed mainly to the use of the Aramaic lan
guage. In other words, Greek was not in constant use

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 385
and. therefore, when he goes to the churches of Asia
Minor and begins to use Greek continually, it is with a
less perfect familiarity than that which he attains
afterward; and these lapses of grammar, and these
peculiarities of style, are due to the fact that he had
not worked into the Greek language as he afterward
did. Thirty years_ afterward, when he had become
an old man and Greek had become to him, as it were,
his mother tongue, he uses it with perfect fluency, and
not only with fluency, but with very remarkable beauty
and smoothness and eloquence.
This is probably one of the reasons why the style
of the Apocalypse differs from the style of the Gospel.
But there is another reason : When John wrote the
Apocalypse he was by no means so old as he was when
he wrote the Gospel and the Epistles. It is true he
was not young. You cannot call a man of fifty a
young man. Yet a man of fifty still retains the fresh
ness and fervor of his youthful style ; and as you read
the Apocalypse, I am very sure you will recognize some
of that fire and vivacity, some of that intensity and
energy which is indicated in the epithet " Boanerges,"
or " Son of Thunder," which our Lord conferred upon
him. I suppose there are more thunderings and light
nings in the Apocalypse than in any other book of the
Bible ; and it seems very fitting that Boanerges, the Son
of Thunder, John the apostle, should have been the
author of it.
As time went on and the outward difficulties of the
church were less, as the season of conflict gave place
to a season of calm, as youth was succeeded by age, it
seems only natural that John the apostle should have

386 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
become softened. In the Gospel and the Epistles you
seem to hear again and again repeated the words which
tradition ascribes to John in his old age, " Little chil
dren, love one another." Love became more and more
the dominant key of his life ; the Gospel and the Epis
tles represent this softened nature, this effect of the
Spirit of God upon him, this maturity of Christian
character. I do not say that the fiery element, the in
tense hatred of wrong is absent from the Gospel and
from the Epistles. You find it there still, and yet it is
toned down, as you do not find it toned down in the
Apocalypse. That the Apocalypse was written before the destruc
tion of Jerusalem I think is very plain from some
things in the Apocalypse itself, namely, the fact that
the Jews are spoken of there as an existing hostile
power, as they are not in the Gospel and in the Epistles.
You remember that, toward the close of Paul's life, but
during Paul's active ministry, Judaizing teachers were
his most active, persistent, and malignant enemies;
and the tendency to turn the church of Christ into an
old-fashioned Jewish synagogue was the evil tendency
of the day. The Jews were the persistent and malig
nant opposers of Christianity. In the Apocalypse you
find the recognition of that present enmity and hatred,
as you do not find it in the Gospel and in the Epistles.
In the Gospel and in the Epistles John refers to the
Jews as enemies of Christ, it is true, but it is perfectly
evident that their power for evil has long since passed
away. In the Apocalypse, when the apostle is describing
those two witnesses that were slain and that lay dead

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 387
for a time, he represents them as lying in the streets
of the city in which our Lord was crucified. If Jeru
salem at that time had been destroyed and blotted out
from the face of the earth, it is hardly possible that
John would have spoken of it as if it were still exist
ing, as if the streets were there, and as if this scene
which rises before him could yet be conceived of as
taking place just as he describes it. That mystical
number, the number 666, which is given by the author
of the book of Revelation as a sort of key to the
present application of his prophecy, can be interpreted
most easily and simply, I think, as an allusion to the
reigning emperor ; namely, the Emperor Nero. If you
will take each letter of the words neron kaisar, ac
cording to its numerical value in Hebrew, you will
find that these letters make up the precise number 666
that is recorded; and when John says that five kings
have already passed away and have had their day, it
is most natural that these five kings should refer to
the five who had reigned at Rome: namely, Caesar,
Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. Then he
names the sixth as the one that now is, and that sixth
one is Nero. Then, to confirm these conclusions, he
speaks of another that follows who is to continue but
for a little space; and Galba, who followed Nero, had
his place upon the throne, as we know historically, for
only seven months ; so that the prophecy seems to have
more light thrown upon it than if we regard it as
written in the time of Domitian, as some have thought,
some thirty years afterward.
It has been argued, in reply, that we do not give
time for the development, in the churches of Asia, of

388 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the peculiar tendencies which the apostle John is rep
robating in the Apocalypse. Well, I say, evil some
times grows very rapidly; the apostle Paul warned the
Ephesian elders, even in his day, against these evil
tendencies ; declaring that, " of themselves even, some
would rise and would lead away disciples after them " ;
and it is not improbable that, in a very few years
after, these tendencies may have become so developed
as to call for John's warnings and reprobations. You
remember, in the case of the Galatians, how soon they
turned from the faith. Evil, I repeat, sometimes grows
very rapidly; and, as we find these very tendencies
recognized by the apostle Paul, it is nothing at all im
probable that, after Paul had been taken away and
Peter had suffered martyrdom, these tendencies should
have very speedily required reprehension and rebuke
such as we find given to them in the book of Revelation.
The times in which the book of Revelation was writ
ten need to be taken into account, in order that we may
get a proper apprehension of the object of it. Remem
ber that the Jewish nation had reached its climax of
hostility to God and his truth, its climax of inward
moral corruption and rottenness. At the time when
this Apocalypse was written the Jewish nation was
simply ripe for destruction. It had turned against
Christ, and it had turned against God. The high-
priesthood was openly sold in the market for money;
high priest after high priest obtained his office by
bribery ; and, having obtained his office, signalized his
holding of it by the most shameful wickedness of every
kind. The persecution of Christians was a' common
thing. Christians came at last to be excluded from the

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 389
courts of the temple, and the Jews became enemies of
all that was good. All idea that they were holy peo
ple, made for the service of God, seemed to pass from
their mind; they became an apostate church, that re
mained only to call down upon it the judgments of God.
On the other hand, the Roman Empire was just now
in a condition equally corrupt, and equally fit for divine
retribution. The Romans for centuries had, by war
and conquest, enslaved the world and carried tens of
thousands of captives to Italy, there to be " hewers of
wood and drawers of water " ; so that the whole fabric
of the Roman commonwealth rested upon a vast basis
of human slavery, the atrociousness and monstrosity
of which passes belief. The emperors became so in
flated with pride of power that they set themselves up
in the place of God himself; they were objects of
worship to their subjects; altars were set up, upon
which sacrifices were offered to them as gods, in every
great city of the Roman Empire.
And Nero was upon the throne at this time. Nero
was a sort of concentrated essence of everything that
is depraved and base in human history. He murdered
his mother ; he murdered his brothers ; he murdered his
wives. His history was stained by every lust and
every crime in the catalogue; and now he began the
persecution of Christians. He set fire to Rome, and,
finding that public reprobation followed the act, he
laid the blame of it upon the Christians, wound multi
tudes of them with linen bandages, loaded them with
wax, and set them up in his garden at night as torches
to burn, in order that his great public gatherings might
be graced by the spectacle. That was Nero — one of

39° THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the most cold-blooded and horrible examples of crime
that has ever defaced the history of the world — and
in Nero we have the beginning of a long line of per
secutions of the Christian church.
John writes at the beginning of this tremendous
conflict between heathen power on the one hand and
Christian faith on the other, and just upon the verge
of that tremendous visitation of God by which Jeru
salem was swept away from the face of the earth. In
view of these calamities that were to sweep away the
Jewish temple and the old order of worship, and in
view of the various persecutions and troubles that
might come upon them as individuals and as churches,
Christians needed to be strengthened with the thought
that God was in the heavens, that the Lord reigned,
that he saw the end from the beginning, that the same
hands that were nailed to the cross held now the reins
of power, and that all things would work together
for good to them that love God. To confirm the
faith of the people of God in view of a visitation of
Providence, such probably as has never been seen in
the history of the world, and to make them sure that
God would give victory to his saints at last, this was
the great end for which the Apocalypse was written.
With regard to the interpretation of the Apocalypse,
there is great diversity of opinion. There have been
hundreds of interpreters, and not many of them agree.
There are, first of all, the Praeterists, or those who
believe that everything in the Apocalypse had taken
place, or. was to take place in a very few years after
the death of the apostles; there are, secondly, the
Futurists, or those who hold that none has yet taken

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 39 1
place, but that all are to take place far-off in the future;
and then, thirdly, there are the Continuists, or those
who hold that the Apocalypse is a continuous historical
narrative, an unfolding of the history of the church of
God from the beginning to the end.
Let me give you what I think to be the key to it
all. The key to it all is found in the eschatological,
apocalyptic discourse of our Lord Jesus Christ himself
just before his death, the discourse in which he refers
to the destruction of Jerusalem, but in which his ac
count of the destruction of Jerusalem passes into an
account of the end of the world. Prophecy is destitute
of perspective. It does not take account of now and
then, but presents before us a series of events of which
the one passes into the other, with no clear dividing
line between this and that. You have seen the views of
a stereopticon, and you know how, as you are looking
upon one view, another seems to be appearing; the first
merges into the second; the first has gone, and the
second is here ; but you can never tell the precise point
where the one ceases and the other begins. Just so,
as our Lord is seated upon the Mount of Olives oppo
site Jerusalem, there passes before him, like a moving
panorama, the terrible scenes that were to be witnessed
only a few years after his death, in the destruction of
Jerusalem. He sees mothers that are massacring and
devouring their own children. He sees hundreds of
thousands put to the sword. All these terrible scenes
are passing before him, and he depicts them; but, be
hold, as he depicts this divine judgment so soon to
be witnessed, the panorama becomes transparent, the
present merges into the future, and, before you know

392 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
it, he is describing the judgment of the great day; the
Lord is bringing 'all the nations of the earth before
him and separating them, as sheep from the goats. No
one can tell where the description of the destruction of
Jerusalem ends, and where the description of the. end
of the world begins.
This eschatological, apocalyptic discourse of Jesus
Christ furnishes the key by which we are to interpret
the book of Revelation. As all the Epistles of Paul
may be called only an inspired commentary upon
Christ's last discourse to his disciples in the Gospel ac
cording to John, just so the whole book of Revelation
may be called nothing but an inspired commentary upon
Christ's apocalyptic discourse before he suffered. No
tice two or three things with regard to Christ's dis
course. The first is this, that it is vain to say that our
Lord Jesus was describing there simply things that
were taking place in his generation. It is perfectly
plain that, although he begins with describing things
that are taking place in his generation, he does not end
there. He does not end with anything short of the
end of the world ; and so I think that our Lord's dis
course furnishes a reason why we should completely
give up the Praeterist interpretation of the book of
Revelation, which regards it as only a description of
things that took place in the day of the apostles. It
doubtless refers to some such things, but that is not
the end of it. There is much more than that.
Again, if we take our Lord's discourse for a guide,
we must equally throw out the view that the book of
Revelation all belongs to the future. Our Lord's dis
course certainly spoke of things that were then present

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 393
or were going to be within a few years after his death.
We cannot accept the interpretation of the book which
makes it all refer to things that have none of them yet
happened; but then, on the other hand, it is equally
true that the continuous or historical method has very
much against it, when we look at what Christ has said
in his discourse about the destruction of Jerusalem and
the end of the world.
Our Lord does not attempt to fill up all the inter
vals between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end
of the world. I infer that those who think we have, in
the book of Revelation, a complete map of all the
events that were to take place from the destruction of
Jerusalem to the end of the world must be mistaken.
Prophecy passes over vast intervals, and sometimes
gives no account of the incidents that are in them. It
may be, therefore, that large intervals are passed over
in the book of Revelation, and that no account is taken
of them.
I think I hear you say : " If you throw out all the
interpretations, pray, what interpretations have you
left? " Well, I say I have them all left; I mean that
I have all the good in them left; and the interpreta
tion which I would propose is substantially this: We
have in the book of Revelation, as we have in the dis
course of Christ, an exhibition of principles rather than
of events, of principles illustrated here and there by
events, but without intention to give us a continuous
map of the whole. My general idea of the interpreta
tion of the book of Revelation, then, regards it as an
exhibition of principles.
As our Lord speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem

394 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and the visitation of punishment upon his opposers, he
elucidates principles of God's retributory judgment,
which apply to the end of the world as well; the de
struction of Jerusalem and the end of the world are
both mentioned, simply as illustrating those principles.
So we have great principles laid down in the book of
Revelation, together with isolated illustrations of them.
Let us now take up the book of Revelation a little
more in detail. We have, first of all, the prologue, in
which the greatness and glory of Christ are set before
us. The foundation of our hope is the fact that our
Lord reigns, that he is a risen Saviour, that he has the
keys of hell and of death, that he supervises his
churches, that he walks in the midst of the golden can
dlesticks. This truth serves as the foundation of all
that comes after, whether of doctrine or of duty.
There follows a description of the church which
Christ is to supervise, with all its infirmities, with all
its weaknesses, with all its dangers, yet with the life
of God in it. It is, notwithstanding, a sevenfold lamp
that is set up to burn here in the world.
After this we have a sort of summary, in which
heaven is opened; there is a book before the throne;
and that book or roll is sealed; no one can open the
seal, until at last the Lion of the tribe of Judah prevails
to open the seal, and all heaven rejoices.
I call this the summary of everything that is to
come. The meaning of it is just this : The book is the
book of God's decrees. That book no one can open ;
that is, no one can understand, except the Saviour him
self, the Lamb of God, who executes these decrees
in human history. He can understand and explain,

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 395
because he has himself formed the decree and he him
self will execute it. So, one after another, he opens the
seals; that is, he unrolls the book, breaking one seal
after another as he unrolls it; and as he unrolls it he
reads or explains it by the revelation that he gives to
the apostle.
You remember how the revelations that follow suc
ceed one another. First, the seven seals, then the
seven trumpets, and finally the seven vials, or bowls.
Do these represent successive periods of human history,
or are they simply different representations of the same
events ?
I am inclined to this latter view, and for the reason
which I intimated only a few moments ago. We have
no sufficient reason for believing that, in the book of
Revelation we have a continuous account of all the
main events between the time of the apostles and the
end of the world.
I am rather inclined to believe that we have here
representations of the great future which are parallel
to one another. In other words, the seven trumpets
are parallel, are the same things represented in a differ
ent way, with the seven seals ; and the seven vials are
the same things, represented in a still different way,
as the seven trumpets and seven seals.
The twentieth chapter, which intervenes, is a won
der in the book. In this chapter the first resurrection
is distinguished from the second resurrection, as spirit
ual resurrection is distinguished from literal resurrec
tion. In other words, in the first resurrection we have
described a mighty movement of the Spirit of God in
his people all over the world, a movement so mighty

396 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that it would seem as if the prophets of old had risen
again to testify for their Lord, while, at the same time
the opposing spirit of enmity and unbelief has itself
a day of rest. In other words, the millennium that is
spoken of is a millennium that precedes, not follows,
the second coming of Christ. My view is the post-
millennial view, rather than the premillennial view.
Christ comes at the end of the millennium. He comes
literally at the end of the millennium instead of at its
beginning, because the second coming of Christ is coin
cident with, and cannot be separated frOm, the resur
rection and the general judgment. He is to come the
second time to judge the earth. He is to come the
second time unto salvation. No interval of a thousand
years is intimated between the coming of Christ on the
one hand and the resurrection of the wicked and the
general judgment on the other. The first resurrection
is spiritual, and now is. The saints who have been
raised from the death of trespasses and sin shall have
their last conflict with the powers of darkness, but
the conflict shall end in victory. The second and literal
resurrection will follow, when Christ comes in the
clouds of heaven to judge the earth. The book of
Revelation ends with those wonderful chapters which
depict the final rest and glory of the people of God.
Let us be thankful for such a book as this. Our
hearts need it. Human beings in the midst of persecu
tion and trial and trouble, which are at times unspeak
able, need some assurance that there is to be. an end of
these things. Otherwise human nature would be for
ever longing, but never blest. Our nature would never
reach the end for which it aspires. God has not left us

THE BOOK OF REVELATION 397
to live in this world forever dissatisfied; he therefore
reveals to us, in the midst of the conflicts of the world,
that these conflicts are to have an end, and that the
Lord is to come, for the rewarding of his saints and
for the punishment of the ungodly.
In the twenty-first and twenty-second chapters of
the book of Revelation we have heaven coming down
to earth. We have the complete manifestation of God.
We have the final perfection of man, not only individu
ally but collectively. God does not save men simply
for themselves. He does not take me and make me a
member of his kingdom, as the last end he has in view.
No, the last end that he has in view is to gather to
gether a great company of redeemed and holy souls,
in which, in manifold ways, he shall show forth his
glory. He will show the power of his grace in multi
tudes of individuals, bound together in an intimacy of
communion, in a closeness of intercourse, in a rapture
of worship and fellowship, of which all we see in this
world is only the foretaste and symbol. We need such
a revelation as this to lift us up in our times of dark
ness and trial. Thank God, the need is wonderfully
supplied; it is supplied by the revelation of Jesus
Christ; for it is Christ alone around whom all these
glories circle and center.
John's Apocalypse and John's Gospel agree together
in their representations of the " Word of God." The
phrase " Word of God," as applied to Christ, is pecu
liar to the Apocalypse and to the Gospel and the First
Epistle of John. You find it nowhere else in the New
Testament, but you do find it here. Christ is God re
vealed. Christ is God brought down to our human

398 THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
comprehension, and engaged in the work of our salva
tion. In John's vision of the holy city, New Jeru
salem, " the lamp thereof is the Lamb." Not " the
light," as it was in our old version, but " the lamp."
What is the difference between a light and a lamp?
Why, light is something universally diffused, some
thing indefinite. You see by it, but you cannot see it.
A lamp is a light-bearer. A lamp is the narrowing
down, the focusing of light, so that in the lamp the
light becomes definite and visible. Have you ever
thought you were going to see God, the Father, in the
New Jerusalem, as separate from Christ, the Son? I
do not think you will. " He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father," says Christ. In Christ we have nar
rowed down and concentrated and made definite and
visible the Godhead itself. This representation of
John's Apocalypse is just the same as the representa
tion of John's Gospel. " No man hath seen God at any
time," and no man ever will; but " the only begotten
Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de
clared him " ; and he will declare him to his saints for
ever; so that the Lamb shall be the Lamp of the
heavenly city ; and in Christ we shall see the perfected
glory of God. May all who read these lectures " enter
in by the gates into the city " from which there is no
more going out forever; and in the presence of God
and of the Lamb, may we see directly and perfectly
what we have seen here only in an indirect and imper
fect way. Then we shall see as we are seen, and know
as we are known ; and, seeing Christ our Saviour as he
is, we shall at last be like him.

II I if H ii ui mm