Resource Manager Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 No. V.* Chap. 1:12.— “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” Also, 3:6.— “I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.” This expression, “I have planted, Apollos watered,” imports two things: first, that Paul had been at Corinth before Apollos; secondly, that Apollos had been at Corinth after Paul, but before the writing of this epistle. This implied account of the several events, and of the order in which they took place, corresponds exactly with the history. St Paul, after his first visit into Greece, returned from Corinth into Syria by the way of Ephesus; and, dropping his companions Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus, he proceeded forwards to Jerusalem; from Jerusalem he descended to Antioch; and from thence made a progress through some of the upper or northern provinces of the Lesser Asia, Acts 18:19, 23; during which progress, and consequently in the interval between St. Paul’s first and second visit to Corinth, and consequently also before the writing of this epistle, which was at Ephesus, two years at least after the apostle’s return from his progress, we hear of Apollos, and we hear of him at Corinth. Whilst St. Paul was engaged, as hath been said, in Phrygia and Galatia, Apollos came down to Ephesus; and being, in St. Paul’s absence, instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, and having obtained letters of recommendation from the church at Ephesus, he passed over to Achaia; and when he was there, we read that he “helped them much which had believed through grace: for he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly,” Acts 18:27, 28. To have brought Apollos into Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital city, as well as the principal Christian church, and to have shown that he preached the gospel in that country, would have been sufficient for our purpose. But the history happens also to mention Corinth by name, as the place in which Apollos, after his arrival in Achaia, fixed his residence: for, proceeding with the account of St. Paul’s travels, it tells us, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper coasts, came down to Ephesus. (19:1.) What is said, therefore, of Apollos in the epistle, coincides exactly, and especially in the point of chronology, with what is delivered concerning him in the history. The only question now is, whether the allusions were made with a regard to this coincidence. Now the occasions and purposes for which the name of Apollos is introduced in the Acts and in the epistles are so independent and so remote, that it is impossible to discover the smallest reference from one to the other. Apollos is mentioned in the Acts, in immediate connexion with the history of Aquila and Priscilla, and for the very singular circumstance of his “knowing only the baptism of John.” In the epistle, where none of these circumstances are taken notice of, his name first occurs, for the purpose of reproving the contentious spirit of the Corinthians; and it occurs only in conjunction with that of some others: “Every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.” The second passage in which Apollos appears, “I have planted, Apollos watered,” fixes, as we have observed, the order of time amongst three distinct events; but it fixes this, I will venture to pronounce, without the writer perceiving that he was doing any such thing. The sentence fixes this order in exact conformity with the history; but it is itself introduced solely for the sake of the reflection which follows:— “Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” (f) -------(f) Professor Hug, who dates the Epistle to Titus during St. Paul’s first brief stay at Ephesus, contends that Apollos reached that city before St. Paul left it. Such a view, however, is a plain contradiction of the history, which places his arrival daring the circuit of St. Paul in Upper Asia, and tells us that Aquila and Priscilla were his instructors, clearly in St. Paul’s absence. The grammatical force of Acts 19:1, is just the opposite of what he affirms it to be, and distinctly places only the arrival of St. Paul at Ephesus, and not his whole previous circuit in Asia, after the voyage of Apollos to Corinth. Hence the argument of Paley is perfectly just and accurate. See Horæ Apostolicæ: cap. III. No. III. for some further remarks on the same text.—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 No. VI. Chap. 4:11, 12.— “Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and labour, working with our own hands.” We are expressly told in the history, that at Corinth St. Paul laboured with his own hands: “He found Aquila and Priscilla; and, because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought; for by their occupation they were tent-makers.” But, in the text before us, he is made to say, that he laboured “even unto this present hour” that is, to the time of writing the epistle at Ephesus. Now in the narration of St. Paul’s transactions at Ephesus, delivered in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, nothing is said of his working with his own hands; but in the twentieth chapter we read that, upon his return from Greece, he sent for the. elders of the church of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus; and in the discourse which he there addressed to them, amidst some other reflections which he calls to their remembrance, we find the following: “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.” The reader will not forget to remark, that though St. Paul be now at Miletus, it is to the elders of the church of Ephesus he is speaking, when he says, “Ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered unto my necessities;” and that the whole discourse relates to his conduct during his last preceding residence at Ephesus. That manual labour, therefore, which he had exercised at Corinth, he continued at Ephesus; and not only so, but continued it during that particular residence at Ephesus, near the conclusion of which this epistle was written; so that he might with the strictest truth say, at the time of writing the epistle, “Even unto this present hour we labour, working with our own hands.” The correspondency is sufficient. Then, as to the undesignedness of it: It is manifest, to my judgment, that if the history, in this article, had been taken from the epistle, this circumstance, if it appeared at all, would have appeared in its place, that is, in the direct account of St. Paul’s transactions at Ephesus. The correspondency would not have been effected, as it is, by a kind of reflected stroke, that is, by a reference in a subsequent speech to what in the narrative was omitted. Nor is it likely, on the other hand, that a circumstance which is not extant in the history of St. Paul at Ephesus should have been made the subject of a factitious allusion, in an epistle purporting to be written by him from that place; not to mention that the allusion itself, especially as to time, is too oblique and general to answer any purpose of forgery whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 No. VII. Chap. 9:20.— “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law.” We have the disposition here described exemplified in two instances which the history records; one, Acts 16:3: “Him (Timothy) would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters; for they knew all that his father was a Greek.” This was before the writing of the epistle. The other, Acts 21:23, 26, and after the writing of the epistle: “Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them: them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads; and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.—Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple” Nor does this concurrence between the character and the instances look like the result of contrivance. St. Paul in the epistle describes, or is made to describe, his own accommodating conduct towards Jews and towards Gentiles, towards the weak and over-scrupulous, towards men, indeed, of every variety of character; “to them that are without law as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” This is the sequel of the text which stands at the head of the present number. Taking, therefore, the whole passage together, the apostle’s condescension to the Jews is mentioned only as a part of his general disposition towards all. It is not probable that this character should have been made up from the instances in the Acts, which relate solely to his dealings with the Jews. It is not probable that a sophist should take his hint from those instances, and then extend it so much beyond them: and it is still more incredible that the two instances in the Acts, circumstantially related and interwoven with the history, should have been fabricated in order to suit the character which St. Paul gives of himself in the epistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 No. VIII. Chap. 1:14-17.— “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” It may be expected that those whom the apostle baptized with his own hands were converts distinguished from the rest by some circumstance, either of eminence or of connexion with him. Accordingly, of the three names here mentioned, Crispus, we find, from Acts 18:8, was a “chief ruler” of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, who “believed on the Lord with all his house.” Gaius, it appears from Rom. 16:2-3, was St. Paul’s host at Corinth, and the host, he tells us, “of the whole church.” The household of Stephanas, we read in the sixteenth chapter of this epistle, “were the first fruits of Achaia.” Here, therefore, is the propriety we expected; and it is a proof of reality not to be contemned; for their names appearing in the several places in which they occur, with a mark of distinction belonging to each, could hardly be the effect of chance, without any truth to direct it: and, on the other hand, to suppose that they were picked out from these passages, and brought together in the text before us, in order to display a conformity of names, is both improbable in itself, and is rendered more so by the purpose for which they are introduced. They come in to assist St. Paul’s exculpation of himself, against the possible charge of having assumed the character of the founder of a separate religion, and with no other visible, or, as I think, imaginable design.* ------- * Chap. 1:1. “Paul called to he an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth.” The only account we have of any person who bore the name of Sosthenes is found in the eighteenth chapter of the Acts. When the Jews at Corinth had brought Paul before Gallio, and Gallio had dismissed their complaint as unworthy of his interference, and had driven them from the judgment-seat, “then all the Greeks,” says the historian, “took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat.” The Sosthenes here spoken of was a Corinthian; and, if he was a Christian, and with St. Paul when he wrote this epistle, was likely enough to be joined with him in the salutation of the Corinthian church. But here occurs a difficulty. If Sosthenes was a Christian at the time of this uproar, why should the Greeks beat him? The assault upon the Christians was made by the Jews. It was the Jews who had brought Paul before the magistrate. If it had been the Jews also who had beaten Sosthenes, I should not have doubted but that he had been a favourer of St. Paul, and the same person who is joined with him in the epistle. Let us see therefore whether there be not some error in our present text. The Alexandrian manuscript gives πάντες alone, without οὶ Ἑλληνες, and it is followed in this reading by the Coptic version, by the Arabian version, published by Erpenius, by the Vulgate, and by Bede’s Latin version. The Greek manuscripts again, as well as Chrysostom, give οὶ Ἰουδαι̂οι, in the place of οὶ Ἑλληνες. A great plurality of manuscripts authorize the reading which is retained in our copies. In this variety it appears to me extremely probable that the historian originally wrote πάντες alone, and that οὶ ‘Ελληνες and οὶ Ἰουδαι̂οι have been respectively added as explanatory of what the word παvτες was supposed to mean. The sentence, without the addition of either name, would run very perspicuously thus, “κὰι ὰπήλασεν άυτοὺς άπό τοῦ βήματος ἐπιλαβόμενοι δε πάντες Εωσθένην τὸν ἀρχισυνάγωγον, ἔτυπτov ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος, and he drove them away from the judgment-seat; and they all,” namely, the crowd of Jews whom the judge had bid begone, “took Sosthenes, and beat him before the judgment seat.” It is certain that, as the whole body of the people were Greeks, the application of all to them was unusual and hard. If I were describing an insurrection at Paris, I might say all the Jews, all the Protestants, or all the English, acted so-and-so; but I should scarcely say all the French, when the whole mass of the community were of that description. As what is here offered is founded upon a various reading, and that in opposition to the greater part of the manuscripts that are extant, I have not given it a place in the text, (g) (g) See Horæ Apostolicæ: cap. III. No. I. for a different view of the above passage, where Sosthenes is named, and one which turns it into a striking addition to the general argument —ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 5, 2013 No. IX. Chap. 16:11.— “Now, if Timotheus come, let no man despise him.”—Why despise him? This charge is not given concerning any other messenger whom St. Paul sent; and, in the different epistles, many such messengers are mentioned. Turn to 1 Timothy, chap. iv. 12, and you will find that Timothy was a young man, younger probably than those who were usually employed in the Christian mission; and that St. Paul, apprehending lest he should, on that account, be exposed to contempt, urges upon him the caution which is there inserted, “Let no man despise thy youth.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. Χ.* Chap. 16:1.— “Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” The churches of Galatia and Phrygia were the last churches which St. Paul had visited before the writing of this epistle. He was now at Ephesus, and he came thither immediately from visiting these churches: “He went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.— And it came to pass that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts,” (namely, the above-named countries, called the upper coasts, as being the northern part of Asia Minor,) “came to Ephesus,” Acts 18:23; 19:1. These, therefore, probably were the last churches at which he left directions for their public conduct during his absence. Although two years intervened between his journey to Ephesus and his writing this epistle, yet it does not appear that during that time he visited any other church. That he had not been silent, when he was in Galatia, upon this subject of contribution for the poor, is further made out from a hint which he lets fall in his epistle to that church: “Only they (namely, the other apostles) would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.”(h) -------(h) See Horæ Apostolicæ: cap. III No. VIII., for dome further remarks on this text. upper parts, it may be observed, denote the eastern, and not, as Paley has twice intimated, the northern parts of Asia.—Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. XI. Chap. 4:18.— “Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come unto you.” Why should they suppose that he would not come? Turn to the first chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, and you will find that he had already disappointed them: “I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit; and to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of Macedonia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way toward Judæa. When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? Or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay? But, as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. “It appears from this quotation that he had not only intended, but that he had promised them a visit before; for, otherwise, why should he apologize for the change of his purpose, or express so much anxiety lest this change should be imputed to any culpable fickleness in his temper; and lest he should thereby seem to them as one whose word was not, in any sort, to be depended upon? Besides which, the terms made use of plainly refer to a promise, “Our word toward you was not yea and nay.” St. Paul, therefore, had signified an intention which he had not been able to execute; and this seeming breach of his word, and the delay of his visit, had, with some who were evil affected towards him, given birth to a suggestion that he would come no more to Corinth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. XII.* Chap. 5:7, 8.— “For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and “truth.” Dr. Benson tells us, that from this passage, compared with chapter 16:8, it has been conjectured that this epistle was written about the time of the Jewish passover; and to me the conjecture appears to be very well founded. The passage to which Dr. Benson refers us is this: “I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.” With this passage he ought to have joined another in the same context: “and it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you;” for from the two passages laid together, it follows that the epistle was written before Pentecost, yet after winter, which necessarily determines the date to the part of the year within which the passover falls. It was written before Pentecost, because he says, “I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.” It was written after winter, because he tells them, “It may be that I may abide, yea, and winter with you.” The winter which the apostle purposed to pass at Corinth was undoubtedly the winter next ensuing to the date of the epistle; yet it was a winter subsequent to the ensuing Pentecost, because he did not intend to set forwards upon his journey till after that feast. The words, “let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth,” look very like words suggested by the season; at least they have, upon that supposition, a force and significancy which do not belong to them upon any other; and it is not a little remarkable, that the hints casually dropped in the epistle, concerning particular parts of the year, should coincide with this supposition,(i) -------(i) See Horæ Apostolicæ: cap. III. No. VI. Mr. Greswell infers, from the passage here discussed, that the letter was written before the passover had arrived. It may be shown, I think, by arguments which I have there used, that it was written after the passover, and only a few weeks before Pentecost. For another coincidence, derived from 1 Cor. 16:6, see No. 9: in the same chapter.—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 CHAPTER IV. THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. No. I. I will not say that it is impossible, having seen the first Epistle to the Corinthians, to construct a second with ostensible allusions to the first; or that it is impossible that both should be fabricated, so as to carry on an order and continuation of story, by successive references to the same events. But I say that this, in either case, must be the effect of craft and design. Whereas, whoever examines the allusions to the former epistle which he finds in this, whilst he will acknowledge them to be such as would rise spontaneously to the hand of the writer, from the very subject of the correspondence, and the situation of the corresponding parties, supposing these to be real, will see no particle of reason to suspect, either that the clauses containing these allusions were insertions for the purpose, or that the several transactions of the Corinthian church were feigned, in order to form a train of narrative, or to support the appearance of connexion between the two epistles. 1. In the first epistle, St. Paul announces his intention of passing through Macedonia, in his way to Corinth: “I will come to you when I shall pass through Macedonia.” In the second epistle, we find him arrived in Macedonia, and about to pursue his journey to Corinth. But observe the manner in which this is made to appear: “I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready; lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) be ashamed in this same confident boasting.” (Chap. 9:2-4.) St. Paul’s being in Macedonia at the time of writing the epistle is, in this passage, inferred only from his saying that he had boasted to the Macedonians of the alacrity of his Achaian converts; and the fear which he expresses lest, if any of the Macedonian Christians should come with him unto Achaia, they should find his boasting unwarranted by the event. The business of the contribution is the sole cause of mentioning Macedonia at all. Will it be insinuated that this passage was framed merely to state that St. Paul was now in Macedonia; and, by that statement, to produce an apparent agreement with the purpose of visiting Macedonia, notified in the first epistle? Or will it be thought probable that, if a sophist had meant to place St. Paul in Macedonia, for the sake of giving countenance to his forgery, he would have done it in so oblique a manner as through the medium of a contribution? The same thing may be observed of another text in the epistle, in which the name of Macedonia occurs: “Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach the gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus, my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.” I mean, that it may be observed of this passage also, that there is a reason for mentioning Macedonia, entirely distinct from the purpose of showing St. Paul to be there. Indeed, if the passage before us show that point at all, it shows it so obscurely that Grotius, though he did not doubt that Paul was now in Macedonia, refers this text to a different journey. Is this the hand of a forger, meditating to establish a false conformity? The text, however, in which it is most strongly implied that St. Paul wrote the present epistle from Macedonia, is found in the fourth, fifth, and sixth verses of the seventh chapter: “I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation. For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears. Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus.” Yet even here, I think, no one will contend that St. Paul’s coming to Macedonia, or being in Macedonia, was the principal thing intended to be told: or that the telling of it, indeed, was any part of the intention with which the text was written; or that the mention even of the name of Macedonia was not purely incidental, in the description of those tumultuous sorrows with which the writer’s mind had been lately agitated, and from which he was relieved by the coming of Titus. The first five verses of the eighth chapter, which commend the liberality of the Macedonian churches, do not, in my opinion, by themselves, prove St. Paul to have been at Macedonia at the time of writing the epistle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 2. In the first epistle, St Paul denounces a severe censure against an incestuous marriage, which had taken place amongst the Corinthian converts, with the connivance, not to say with the approbation, of the church; and enjoins the church to purge itself of this scandal, by expelling the offender from its society: “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named amongst the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (Chap. 5:1-5.) In the second epistle, we find this sentence executed, and the offender to be so affected with the punishment, that St. Paul now intercedes for his restoration: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that, contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such an one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him,” 2 Cor. 2:6-8. Is this whole business feigned, for the sake of carrying on a continuation of story through the two epistles? The church also, no less than the offender, was brought by St. Paul’s reproof to a deep sense of the impropriety of their conduct. Their penitence, and their respect to his authority, were, as might be expected, exceeding grateful to St. Paul: “We were comforted not by Titus’s coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more. For, though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did repent: for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.” (Chap. 7:7-9.) That this passage is to be referred to the incestuous marriage is proved by the twelfth verse of the same chapter: “though I wrote unto you, I did it not for his cause that had done the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered wrong, but that our care for you, in the sight of God, might appear unto you.” There were, it is true, various topics of blame noticed in the first epistle; but there were none, except this of the incestuous marriage, which could be called a transaction between private parties, or of which it could be said that one particular person had “done the wrong,” and another particular person “had suffered it.” Could all this be without foundation? or could it be put in the Second Epistle merely to furnish an obscure sequel to what had been said about an incestuous marriage in the first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 3. In the sixteenth chapter of the first epistle, a collection for the saints is recommended to be set forwards at Corinth: “Now concerning the collection for the saints as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” (Chap. 16:1.) In the ninth chapter of the second epistle, such a collection is spoken of, as in readiness to be received:— “As touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you: for I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many.” (Chap. 9:1, 2.) This is such a continuation of the transaction as might be expected; or possibly it will be said, as might easily be counterfeited: but there is a circumstance of nicety in the agreement between the two epistles, which, I am convinced, the author of a forgery would not have hit upon, or which, if he had hit upon it, he would have set forth with more clearness. The second epistle speaks of the Corinthians as having begun this eleemosynary business a year before: “This is expedient for you, who have begun before, not only to do, but also to be forward a year ago.” (Chap. 8:10.) “I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago.” (Chap. 9:2.) From these texts it is evident, that something had been done in the business a year before. It appears, however, from other texts in the epistle, that the contribution was not yet collected or paid; for brethren were sent from St. Paul to Corinth, “to make up their bounty.” (Chap. 9:5.) They are urged to “perform the doing of it.” (Chap. 8:11.) And every man was exhorted to give as he purposed in his heart. (Chap. 9:7.) The contribution, therefore, as represented in our present epistle, was in readiness, yet not received from the contributors; was begun, was forward long before, yet not hitherto collected. Now this representation agrees with one, and only with one, supposition, namely, that every man had laid by in store, had already provided the fund, from which he was afterwards to contribute —the very case which the first epistle authorizes us to suppose to have existed; for in that epistle St. Paul had charged the Corinthians, “Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by in store as God hath prospered him,”* (1 Cor. 16:2.) -------* The following observations will satisfy us concerning the purity of our apostle’s conduct in the suspicious business of a pecuniary contribution:— 1. He disclaims the having received any inspired authority for the directions which he is giving: “I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of your love.” (2 Cor. 8:8.) Who, that had a sinister purpose to answer by the recommending of subscriptions, would thus distinguish, and thus lower the credit of his own recommendation? (k)2. Although he asserts the general right of Christian ministers to a maintenance from their ministry, yet he protests against the making use of this right in his own person: “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying,” that is, my professions of dis-interestedness, “void.” (1 Cor. 9:14,13.)3. He repeatedly proposes that there should be associates with himself in the management of the public bounty; not colleagues of his own appointment, but persons elected for that purpose by the contributors themselves: “And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.” (1 Cor. 16:3, 4.) And in the second epistle, what is here proposed we find actually done, and done for the very purpose of guarding his character against any imputation that might be brought upon it, in the discharge of a pecuniary trust: “And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches; and not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with this grace, (gift,) which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind: avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: pro¬viding for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men; that is, not resting in the consciousness of our own integrity, but, in such a subject, careful also to approve our integrity to the public judgment. (2 Cor. 8:18-21.) (k) This remark seems to rest on an evident misinterpretation. The meaning of St. Paul is not to disclaim a Divine warrant for the advice he offers, but to state emphatically that it is advice, and not a command, and that he would have the offering to be free and spontaneous. The delicacy of thought and feeling in the passage is greatly obscured, if we lose sight of the true meaning of the expression. Some duties are plain and absolute, and these he enforces with apostolic authority; others are indirect, and have no value, unless as the free utterance of Christian love. In this case the apostle, under the teaching of the same Spirit, disclaims the exercise of authority, and simply pleads with them as a Christian brother.—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. II.* In comparing the second epistle to the Corinthians with the Acts of the Apostles, we are soon brought to observe, not only that there exists no vestige either of the epistle having been taken from the history, or the history from the epistle; but also that there appears in the contents of the epistle, positive evidences that neither was borrowed from the other· Titus, who bears a conspicuous part in the epistle, is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles at all. St. Paul’s sufferings enumerated, chap. 11:24, “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one, thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep,” cannot be made out from his history as delivered in the Acts; nor would this account have been given by a writer, who either drew his knowledge of St. Paul from that history, or who was careful to preserve a conformity with it. The account in the epistle of St. Paul’s escape from Damascus, though agreeing in the main fact with the account of the same transaction in the Acts, is related with such difference of circumstance, as renders it utterly improbable that one should be derived from the other. The two accounts, placed by the side of each other, stand as follows:— 2 Cor. 11:32, 33. In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: and through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands. Acts 9:23-25. And after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: but their laying in wait was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. Now if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him; then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.(l) ------(l) See Horæ Apostolicæ: cap. IV. No. IV., for some further remarks on the congruity of these two passages.—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. III. The opening of this epistle exhibits a connexion with the history, which alone would satisfy my mind that the epistle was written by St. Paul, and by St. Paul in the situation in which the history places him. Let it be remembered that in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, St. Paul is represented as driven away from Ephesus, or as leaving however Ephesus, in consequence of an uproar in that city, excited by some interested adversaries of the new religion. The account of the tumult is as follows: “When they heard these sayings,” namely, Demetrius’s complaint of the danger to be apprehended from St. Paul’s ministry to the established worship of the Ephesian goddess, “they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aris tarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre. And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not. And certain of the chief of Asia, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre. Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together. And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with his hand, and would have made his defence unto the people. But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.—And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.” When he was arrived in Macedonia, he wrote the second Epistle to the Corinthians, which is now before us; and he begins his epistle in this wise: “Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble by the comfort, wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation. For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: but we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead: who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us.” Nothing could be more expressive of the circumstances in which the history describes St. Paul to have been, at the time when the epistle purports to be written; or rather, nothing could be more expressive of the sensations arising from these circumstances, than this passage. It is the calm recollection of a mind emerged from the confusion of instant danger. It is that devotion and solemnity of thought, which follows a recent deliverance. There is just enough of particularity in the passage to show that it is to be referred to the tumult at Ephesus: “We would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia.” And there is nothing more; no mention of Demetrius, of the seizure of St. Paul’s friends, of the interference of the town-clerk, of the occasion or nature of the danger which St. Paul had escaped, or even of the city where it happened; in a word, no recital from which a suspicion could be conceived, either that the author of the epistle had made use of the narrative in the Acts; or, on the other hand, that he had sketched the outline, which the narrative in the Acts only filled up. That the forger of an epistle, under the name of St. Paul, should borrow circumstances from a history of St. Paul then extant; or, that the author of a history of St. Paul should gather materials from letters bearing St. Paul’s name, may be credited; but I cannot believe that any forger whatever should fell upon an expedient so refined as to exhibit sentiments adapted to a situation, and to leave his readers to seek out that situation from the history; still less that the author of a history should go about to frame facts and circumstances, fitted to supply the sentiments which he found in the letter. It may be said, perhaps, that it does not appear from the history that any danger threatened St. Paul’s life in the uproar at Ephesus, so imminent as that from which in the epistle he represents himself to have been delivered. This matter, it is true, is not stated by the historian in form; but the personal danger of the apostle, we cannot doubt, must have been extreme, when the “whole city was filled with confusion;” when the populace had “seized his companions;” when, in the distraction of his mind, he insisted upon “coming forth amongst them;” when the Christians who were about him would not suffer him; when “his friends, certain of the chief of Asia, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre;” when, lastly, he was obliged to quit immediately the place and the country, “and when the tumult was ceased to depart into Macedonia.” All which particulars are found in the narration, and justify St. Paul’s own account, “that he was pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that he despaired even of life; that he had the sentence of death in himself;” that is, that he looked upon himself as a man condemned to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. IV. It has already been remarked, that St. Paul’s original intention was to have visited Corinth on his way to Macedonia; “I was minded to come unto you before... .and to pass by you into Macedonia,” 2 Cor. 1:15, 16. It has also been remarked that he changed his intention, and ultimately resolved upon going through Macedonia first. Now upon this head there exists a circumstance of correspondency between our epistle and the history, which is not very obvious to the reader’s observation; but which, when observed, will be found, I think, close and exact. Which circumstance is this: that though the change of St. Paul’s intention be expressly mentioned only in the second epistle, yet it appears, both from the history and from this second epistle, that the change had taken place before the writing of the first epistle; that it appears however from neither, otherwise than by an inference, unnoticed perhaps by almost every one who does not sit down professedly to the examination. First, then, how does this point appear from the history? In the nineteenth chapter of the Acts, and the twenty-first verse, we are told, that “Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem. —So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season.” A short time after this, and evidently in pursuance of the same intention, we find (chap. 20:1, 2) that “Paul departed from Ephesus for to go into Macedonia: and that, when he had gone over those parts he came into Greece.” The resolution therefore of passing first through Macedonia, and from thence into Greece, was formed by St. Paul, previously to the sending away of Timothy. The order in which the two countries are mentioned shows the direction of his intended route, “when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia.” Timothy and Erastus, who were to precede him in his progress, were sent by him from Ephesus into Macedonia. He himself a short time afterwards, and, as hath been observed, evidently in continuation and pursuance of the same design, “departed for to go into Macedonia.” If he had ever, therefore, entertained a different plan of his journey, which is not hinted in the history, he must have changed that plan before this time. But, from the seventeenth verse of the fourth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, we discover, that Timothy had been sent away from Ephesus before that epistle was written: “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son.” The change therefore of St. Paul’s resolution, which was prior to the sending away of Timothy, was necessarily prior to the writing of the first Epistle to the Corinthians.(m) -------(m) Mr. Greswell supposes that the journey of Timothy mentioned in Acts, and the one alluded to in the former epistle, were distinct. It is, however, very clear that they were the same. See Horæ Apostolicæ: ch. III. No. IV., where the reasons are examined, and the accuracy of Paley’s view confirmed,—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 Thus stands the order of dates, as collected from the history, compared with the first epistle. Now let us inquire, secondly, how this matter is represented in the epistle before us. In the sixteenth verse of the first chapter of this epistle, St. Paul speaks of the intention which he had once entertained of visiting Achaia in his way to Macedon: “In this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit: and to pass by you into Macedonia.” After protesting, in the seventeenth verse, against any evil construction that might be put upon his laying aside of this intention, in the twenty-third verse he discloses the cause of it: “Moreover I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet unto Corinth.” And then he proceeds as follows: “But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness. For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me? And I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you. But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me: but in part, that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.” In this quotation, let the reader first direct his attention to the clause marked by Italics, “and I wrote this same unto you,” and let him consider, whether, from the context, and from the structure of the whole passage, it be not evident that this writing was after St Paul had “determined with himself that he would not come again to them with heaviness?” whether, indeed, it was not in consequence of this determination, or at least with this determination upon his mind? And, in the next place, let him consider, whether the sentence, “I determined this with myself that I would not come again to you in heaviness,” do not plainly refer to that postponing of his visit, to which he had alluded in the verse but one before, when he said, “I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you, I came not as yet unto Corinth:” and whether this be not the visit of which he speaks in the sixteenth verse, wherein he informs the Corinthians, “that he had been minded to pass by them into Macedonia,” but that, for reasons which argued no levity or fickleness in his disposition, he had been compelled to change his purpose. If this be so, then it follows that the writing here mentioned was posterior to the change of his intention. The only question, therefore, that remains, will be, whether this writing relate to the letter which we now have under the title of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, or to some other letter not extant? And upon this question I think Mr. Locke’s observation decisive; namely, that the second clause marked in the quotation by Italics, “I wrote unto you with many tears,” and the first clause so marked, “I wrote this same unto you,” belong to one writing, whatever that was; and that the second clause goes on to advert to a circumstance which is found in our present first epistle to the Corinthians; namely, the case and punishment of the incestuous person. Upon the whole, then, we see that it is capable of being inferred from St. Paul’s own words, in the long extract which we have quoted, that the first epistle to the Corinthians was written after St. Paul had determined to postpone his journey to Corinth; in other words, that the change of his purpose with respect to the course of his journey, though expressly mentioned only in the second epistle, had taken place before the writing of the first; the point which we made out to be implied in the history, by the order of the events there recorded, and the allusions to those events in the first epistle. Now this is a species of congruity of all others the most to be relied upon. It is not an agreement between two accounts of the same transaction, or between different statements of the same fact, for the fact is not stated; nothing that can be called an account is given; but it is the junction of two conclusions, deduced from independent sources, and deducible only by investigation and comparison. This point, namely, the change of the route, being prior to the writing of the first epistle, also falls in with, and accounts for, the manner in which he speaks in that epistle of his journey. His first intention had been, as he declares, to “pass by them into Macedonia:” that intention having been previously given up, he writes, in his first epistle,” that he would not see them now by the way,” that is, as he must have done upon his first plan; but “that he trusted to tarry awhile with them, and possibly to abide, yea and winter with them.” 1 Cor. 16:5, 6. It also accounts for a singularity in the text referred to, which must strike every reader: “I will come to you when I pass through Macedonia; for I do pass through Macedonia.” The supplemental sentence, “for I do pass through Macedonia,” imports that there had been some previous communication upon the subject of the journey; and also that there had been some vacillation and indecisiveness in the apostle’s plan: both which we now perceive to have been the case. The sentence is as much as to say, “This is what I at last resolve upon.” The expression “ὃταν Μακε-δovίav διέλθω,” is ambiguous; it may denote either “when I pass,” or “when I shall have passed, through Macedonia:” the considerations offered above fix it to the latter sense,(n) Lastly, the point we have endeavoured to make out confirms, or rather, indeed, is necessary to the support of a conjecture, which forms the subject of a number in our observations upon the first epistle, that the insinuation of certain of the church of Corinth, that he would come no more amongst them, was founded on some previous disappointment of their expectations. -------(n) This remark is, I conceive, incorrect. The force of the subjunctive aorist is distinctly given only by the second version, “when I shall have passed through Macedonia;” and this is the meaning which the scope of history plainly requires. —ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. V. But if St. Paul had changed his purpose before the writing of the first epistle, why did he defer explaining himself to the Corinthians, concerning the reason of that change, until he wrote the second? This is a very fair question; and we are able, I think, to return to it a satisfactory answer. The real cause, and the cause at length assigned by St. Paul for postponing his visit to Corinth, and not travelling by the route which he had at first designed, was the disorderly state of the Corinthian church at the time, and the painful severities which he should have found himself obliged to exercise, if he had come amongst them during the existence of these irregularities. He was willing therefore to try, before he came in person, what a letter of authoritative objurgation would do amongst them, and to leave time for the operation of the experiment. That was his scheme in writing the first epistle. But it was not for him to acquaint them with the scheme. After the epistle had produced its effect (and to the utmost extent, as it should seem, of the apostle’s hopes); when he had wrought in them a deep sense of their fault, and an almost passionate solicitude to restore themselves to the approbation of their teacher; when Titus (chap. 7:6, 7, 11) had brought him intelligence “of their earnest desire, their mourning, their fervent mind towards him, of their sorrow and their penitence; what carefulness, what clearing of themselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what revenge,” his letter, and the general concern occasioned by it, had excited amongst them; he then opens himself fully upon the subject The affectionate mind of the apostle is touched by this return of zeal and duty. He tells them that he did not visit them at the time proposed, lest their meeting should have been attended with mutual grief; and with grief to him embittered by the reflection, that he was giving pain to those from whom alone he could receive comfort: “I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness. For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me?” (chap. 2:1,2:) that he had written his former epistle to warn them beforehand of their fault, “lest, when he came, he should have sorrow from them of whom he ought to rejoice” (chap. 2:3): that he had the further view, though perhaps unperceived by them, of making an experiment of their fidelity, “to know the proof of them whether they are obedient in all things” (chap, 2:9). This full discovery of his motive came very naturally from the apostle, after he had seen the success of his measures, but would not have been a seasonable communication before. The whole composes a train of sentiment and of conduct resulting from real situation, and from real circumstance, and as remote as possible from fiction or imposture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. VI. Chap. 11: 9.”When I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man; for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied.” The principal fact set forth in this passage, the arrival at Corinth of brethren from Macedonia during St. Paul’s first residence in that city, is explicitly recorded, Acts 18:1, 5. “After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth.—And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. VII. The above quotation from the Acts proves that Silas and Timotheus were assistants to St. Paul in preaching the gospel at Corinth. With which correspond the words of the epistle (chap. 1:19): “For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay; but in him was yea.” I do admit that the correspondency, considered by itself, is too direct and obvious; and that an impostor with the history before him might, and probably would, produce agreements of the same kind. But let it be remembered, that this reference is found in a writing, which from many discrepancies, and especially from those noted No. II., we may conclude, was not composed by any one who had consulted, and who pursued, the history. Some observation also arises upon the variation of the name. We read Silas in the Acts, Silvanus in the epistle. The similitude of these two names, if they were the names of different persons, is greater than could easily have proceeded from accident; I mean that it is not probable, that two persons placed in situations so much alike should bear names so nearly resembling each other.* On the other hand, the difference of the name in the two passages negatives the supposition of the passages, or the account contained in them, being transcribed either from the other. -------* That they were the same persons is farther confirmed by 1 Thessalonians chap. 1:1, compared with Acts, chap. 17:10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. VIII.* Chap. 2:12, 13. “When I came to Troas to preach Christ’s gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.” To establish a conformity between this passage and the history, nothing more is necessary to be presumed, than that St. Paul proceeded from Ephesus to Macedonia, upon the same course by which he came back from Macedonia to Ephesus, or rather to Miletus in the neighbourhood of Ephesus; in other words, that in his journey to the peninsula of Greece, he went and returned the same way. St. Paul is now in Macedonia, where he had lately arrived from Ephesus. Our quotation imports that in his journey he had stopped at Troas. Of this the history says nothing, leaving us only the short account, that “Paul departed from Ephesus, for to go into Macedonia.” But the history says, that in his return from Macedonia to Ephesus, “Paul sailed from Philippi to Troas; and that, when the disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread, Paul preached unto them all night; that from Troas he went by land to Assos; from Assos, taking ship and coasting along the front of Asia Minor, he came by Mitylene to Miletus.” Which account proves, first, that Troas lay in the way by which St. Paul passed between Ephesus and Macedonia; secondly, that he had disciples there. In one journey between these two places, the epistle, and in another journey between the same places, the history, makes him stop at this city. Of the first journey he is made to say, “that a door was in that city opened unto me of the Lord;” in the second, we find disciples there collected around him, and the apostle exercising his ministry, with what was, even in him, more than ordinary zeal and labour. The epistle, therefore, is in this instance confirmed, if not by the terms, at least by the probability, of the history; a species of confirmation by no means to be despised, because, as far as it reaches, it is evidently uncontrived. Grotius, I know, refers the arrival at Troas, to which the epistle alludes, to a different period, but I think very improbably; for nothing appears to me more certain, than that the meeting with Titus, which St. Paul expected at Troas, was the same meeting which took place in Macedonia, namely, upon Titus’s coming out of Greece. In the quotation before us, he tells the Corinthians, “When I came to Troas, ... I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother; but, taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.” Then in the seventh chapter he writes, “When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears. Nevertheless God, that comforteth them that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus.” These two passages plainly relate to the same journey of Titus, in meeting with whom St. Paul had been disappointed at Troas, and rejoiced in Macedonia. And amongst other reasons which fix the former passage to the coming of Titus out of Greece, is the consideration, that it was nothing to the Corinthians that St. Paul did not meet with Titus at Troas, were it not that he was to bring intelligence from Corinth. The mention of the disappointment in this place, upon any other supposition, is irrelative.(o) -------(o) In Horæ Apostolicæ: No. I., on this epistle, will be found a further disproof of the very baseless hypothesis of Grotius, that some earlier visit to Troas is alluded to. In No. II. will be found the development of another coincidence in the same passage, very circuitous, and beautifully complete.—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. IX. Chap. 11:24,25.”Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one, thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep.” These particulars cannot be extracted out of the Acts of the Apostles; which proves, as hath been already observed, that the epistle was not framed from the history: yet they are consistent with it, which, considering how numerically circumstantial the account is, is more than could happen to arbitrary and independent fictions. When I say that these particulars are consistent with the history, I mean, first, that there is no article in the enumeration which is contradicted by the history: secondly, that the history, though silent with respect to many of the facts here enumerated, has left space for the existence of these facts, consistent with the fidelity of its own narration. First, no contradiction is discoverable between the epistle and the history. When St. Paul says, thrice was I beaten with rods, although the history record only one beating with rods, namely, at Philippi, Acts 16:22, yet there is no contradiction. It is only the omission in one book of what is related in another. But had the history contained accounts of four beatings with rods, at the time of writing this epistle, in which St. Paul says that he had only suffered three, there would have been a contradiction properly so called. The same observation applies generally to the other parts of the enumeration, concerning which the history is silent: but there is one clause in the quotation particularly deserving of remark; because, when confronted with the history, it furnishes the nearest approach to a contradiction, without a contradiction being actually incurred, of any I remember to have met with: “Once,” saith St. Paul, “was I stoned.” Does the history relate that St. Paul, prior to the writing of this epistle, had been stoned more than once? The history mentions distinctly one occasion upon which St. Paul was stoned, namely, at Lystra in Lycaonia: “There came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.” (Acts 14:19.) And it mentions also another occasion in which “an assault was made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully and to stone them; but they were aware of it,” the history proceeds to tell us, “and fled into Lystra and Derbe.” This happened at Iconium, prior to the date of the epistle. Now, had the assault been completed; had the history related that a stone was thrown, as it relates that preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to stone Paul and his companions; or even had the account of this transaction stopped, without going on to inform us that Paul and his companions were “aware of their danger and fled,” a contradiction between the history and the epistle would have ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent: but it is scarcely possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction without falling into it. Secondly, I say, that if the Acts of the Apostles be silent concerning many of the instances enumerated in the epistle, this silence may be accounted for from the plan and fabric of the history. The date of the epistle synchronizes with the beginning of the twentieth chapter of the Acts. The part, therefore, of the history, which precedes the twentieth chapter, is the only part in which can be found any notice of the persecutions to which St. Paul refers. Now it does not appear that the author of the history was with St. Paul until his departure from Troas, on his way to Macedonia, as related chap. 16:10; or rather indeed the contrary appears. It is in this point of the history that the language changes. In the seventh and eighth verses of this chapter the third person is used: “After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not. And they passing by Mysia came to Troas:” and the third person is in like manner constantly used throughout the foregoing part of the history. In the tenth verse of this chapter, the first person comes in: “After Paul had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.” Now, from this time to the writing of the epistle, the history occupies four chapters; yet it is in these, if in any, that a regular or continued account of the apostle’s life is to be expected; for how succinctly his history is delivered in the preceding part of the book, that is to say, from the time of his conversion to the time when the historian joined him at Troas, except the particulars of his conversion itself, which are related circumstantially, may be understood from the following observations:— Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 The history of a period of sixteen years is comprised in less than three chapters; and of these, a material part is taken up with discourses. After his conversion, he continued in the neighbourhood of Damascus, according to the history, for a certain considerable, though indefinite, length of time, according to his own words (Gal. 1:18), for three years; of which no other account is given than this short one, that “straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God; that all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem? that he increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus; and that after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him.” From Damascus he proceeded to Jerusalem; and of his residence there nothing more particular is recorded, than that “he was with the apostles, coming in and going out; that he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians, who went about to kill him.” From Jerusalem, the history sends him to his native city of Tarsus.* It seems probable, from the order and disposition of the history, that St. Paul’s stay at Tarsus was of some continuance; for we hear nothing of him until, after a long apparent interval, and much interjacent narrative, Barnabas, desirous of Paul’s assistance upon the enlargement of the Christian mission, “went to Tarsus for to seek him.”** We cannot doubt but that the new apostle had been busied in his ministry; yet of what he did, or what he suffered, during this period, which may include three or four years, the history professes not to deliver any information. As Tarsus was situated upon the sea-coast, and as, though Tarsus was his home, yet it is probable he visited from thence many other places, for the purpose of preaching the gospel, it is not unlikely, that in the course of three or four years he might undertake many short voyages to neighbouring countries, in the navigating of which we may be allowed to suppose that some of those disasters and shipwrecks befell him to which he refers in the quotation before us, “thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep.” This last clause I am inclined to interpret of his being obliged to take an open boat, upon the loss of the ship, and his continuing out at sea in that dangerous situation, a night and a day. St. Paul is here recounting his sufferings, not relating miracles. From Tarsus, Barnabas brought Paul to Antioch, and there he remained a year: but of the transactions of that year no other description is given than what is contained in the last four verses of the eleventh chapter. After a more solemn dedication to the ministry, Barnabas and Paul proceeded from Antioch to Cilicia, and from thence they sailed to Cyprus, of which voyage no particulars are mentioned. Upon their return from Cyprus, they made a progress together through the Lesser Asia; and though two remarkable speeches be preserved, and a few incidents in the course of their travels circumstantially related, yet is the account of this progress, upon the whole, given professedly with conciseness; for instance, at Iconium, it is said that they abode a long time:+ yet of this long abode, except concerning the manner in which they were driven away, no memoir is inserted in the history. The whole is wrapped up in one short summary, “They spake boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” Having completed their progress, the two apostles returned to Antioch, “and there they abode a long time with the disciples.” Here we have another large portion of time passed over in silence. To this succeeded a journey to Jerusalem, upon a dispute which then much agitated the Christian church, concerning the obligation of the law of Moses. When the object of that journey was completed, Paul proposed to Barnabas to go again and visit their brethren in every city where they had preached the word of the Lord. The execution of this plan carried our apostle through Syria, Cilicia, and many provinces of the Lesser Asia; yet is the account of the whole journey dispatched in four verses of the sixteenth chapter. If the Acts of the Apostles had undertaken to exhibit regular annals of St. Paul’s ministry, or even any continued account of his life, from his conversion at Damascus to his imprisonment at Rome, I should have thought the omission of the circumstances referred to in our epistle a matter of reasonable objection. But when it appears, from the history itself, that large portions of St. Paul’s life were either passed over in silence, or only slightly touched upon, and that nothing more than certain detached incidents and discourses is related; when we observe, also, that the author of the history did not join our apostle’s society till a few years before the writing of the epistle, at least that there is no proof in the history that he did so; in comparing the history with the epistle, we shall not be surprised by the discovery of omissions; we shall ascribe it to truth that there is no contradiction. -------* Acts, chap. 9:80.** Chap. 11:25.+ Chap. 14:3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. X. Chap. 3:1. “Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, letters of commendation from you?” “As some others.” Turn to Acts 18:27, and you will find that a short time before the writing of this epistle, Apollos had gone to Corinth with letters of commendation from the Ephesian Christians; “and when Apollos was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him.” Here the words of the epistle bear the appearance of alluding to some specific instance, and the history supplies that instance; it supplies at least an instance as apposite as possible to the terms which the apostle uses, and to the date and direction of the epistle in which they are found. The letter which Apollos carried from Ephesus was precisely the letter of commendation which St. Paul meant; and it was to Achaia, of which Corinth was the capital, and indeed to Corinth itself (Acts, chap. 19:1), that Apollos carried it; and it was about two years before the writing of this epistle. If St. Paul’s words be rather thought to refer to some general usage which then obtained among the Christian churches, the case of Apollos exemplifies that usage; and affords that species of confirmation to the epistle, which arises from seeing the manners of the age, in which it purports to be written, faithfully preserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. XI.* Chap. 13:1. “This is the third time I am coming to you:” τρίτον το ῦτο ἕρχομαι. Do not these words import that the writer had been at Corinth twice before? Yet if they import this, they overset every congruity we have been endeavouring to establish. The Acts of the Apostles record only two journeys of St. Paul to Corinth. We have all along supposed, what every mark of time except this expression indicates, that this epistle was written between the first and second of these journeys. If St. Paul had been already twice at Corinth, this supposition must be given up: and every argument or observation which depends upon it falls to the ground. Again, the Acts of the Apostles not only record no more than two journeys of St. Paul to Corinth, but do not allow us to suppose that more than two such journeys could be made or intended by him within the period which the history comprises; for from his first journey into Greece to his first imprisonment at Rome, with which the history concludes, the apostle’s time is accounted for. If therefore the epistle was written after the second journey to Corinth, and upon the view and expectation of a third, it must have been written after his first imprisonment at Rome, that is, after the time to which the history extends. When I first read over this epistle with the particular view of comparing it with the history, which I chose to do without consulting any commentary whatever, I own that I felt myself confounded by this text. It appeared to contradict the opinion, which I had been led by a great variety of circumstances to form, concerning the date and occasion of the epistle. At length, however, it occurred to my thoughts to inquire, whether the passage did necessarily imply that St. Paul had been at Corinth twice; or, whether, when he says, “this is the third time I am coming to you,” he might mean only that this was the third time that he was ready, that he was prepared, that he intended to set out on his journey to Corinth. I recollected that he had once before this purposed to visit Corinth, and had been disappointed in this purpose; which disappointment forms the subject of much apology and protestation, in the first and second chapters of the epistle. Now, if the journey in which he had been disappointed was reckoned by him one of the times in which “he was coming to them,” then the present, would be the third time, that is, of his being ready and prepared to come; although he had been actually at Corinth only once before. This conjecture being taken up, a further examination of the passage and the epistle produced proofs which placed it beyond doubt. “This is the third time I am coming to you:” in the verse following these words, he adds, “I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare.” In this verse the apostle is declaring beforehand what he would do in his intended visit: his expression, therefore, “as if I were present a second time,” relates to that visit. But, if his future visit would only make him present among them a second time, it follows that he had been already there but once. Again, in the fifteenth verse of the first chapter, he tells them, “In this confidence I was minded to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit.” Why a second, and not a third benefit? why δεύτεραν, and not τρίτην χάριν, if the τρίτον ἕρχομαι, in the fifteenth chapter, meant a third visit? for, though the visit in the first chapter be that visit in which he was disappointed, yet, as it is evident from the epistle that he had never been at Corinth from the time of the disappointment to the time of writing the epistle, it follows, that if it were only a second visit in which he was disappointed then, it could only be a second visit which he proposed now. But the text which I think is decisive of the question, if any question remain upon the subject, is the fourteenth verse of the twelfth chapter, “Behold the third time I am ready to come to you:” Ἰδού τρίτον έτοίμως ἕχω ἐλθει̂ν. It is very clear that the τρίτον έτοίμως ἕχω ελεών of the twelfth chapter, and the τρίτον τοὔτο ἕρχομαι of the thirteenth chapter, are equivalent expressions, were intended to convey the same meaning, and to relate to the same journey. The comparison of these phrases gives us St. Paul’s own explanation of his own words; and it is that very explanation which we are contending for, namely, that τρίτον τοὔτο ἕρχομαι does not mean that he was coming a third time, but that this was the third time he was in readiness to come, τρίτον έτοίμως ἕχων. I do not apprehend, that after this it can be necessary to call to our aid the reading of the Alexandrian manuscript, which gives έτοίμως ἕχω ἐλθει̂ν in the thirteenth chapter as well as in the twelfth; or of the Syriac and Coptic versions, which follow that reading; because I allow that this reading, besides not being sufficiently supported by ancient copies, is probably para-phrastical, and has been inserted for the purpose of expressing more unequivocally the sense, which the shorter expression τρίτον τοὔτο ἕρχομαι was supposed to carry. Upon the whole, the matter is sufficiently certain: nor do I propose it as a new interpretation of the text which contains the difficulty, for the same was given by Grotius long ago: but I thought it the clearest way of explaining the subject to describe the manner in which the difficulty, the solution, and the proofs of that solution, successively presented themselves to my inquiries. Now, in historical researches, a reconciled inconsistency becomes a positive argument. First, because an impostor generally guards against the appearance of inconsistency; and secondly, because, when apparent inconsistencies are found, it is seldom that anything but truth renders them capable of reconciliation. The existence of the difficulty proves the want or absence of that caution, which usually accompanies the consciousness of fraud; and the solution proves, that it is not the collusion of fortuitous propositions which we have to deal with, but that a thread of truth winds through the whole, which preserves every circumstance in its place.(p) -------(p) In this article the difficulty, supposing the words to imply a third visit to Corinth, appears to be overstated. It is true that all the internal signs fix the date of the epistle about the time of the tumult at Ephesus. And hence the real question is not, whether it were written before the visit in Acts 20:1, 2, or before some later visit; but whether a second visit, not mentioned in the history, had already taken place, or, on the other hand, a second visit in purpose only, which had never been fulfilled. Dr. Burton, and many others, adopt the former view. He places the visit to Crete, and the Epistle to Titus, during the long stay at Ephesus, and supposes the apostle to have touched at Corinth in the way. One of the reasons of Paley for the opposite view, from 2 Cor. 1:15, is clearly of no weight. The phrase, a second benefit, refers most naturally to the double visit, which was the apostle’s design at first, in contrast with that single visit, which resulted from the alteration of his plan. The reading varies slightly in 2 Cor. 13:8, and though the passage may be explained in either view, it seems to agree best with the view of Grotius and Paley. “I have foretold, and foretell, as if present the second time, even now when absent, to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all others, that if I come again, I will not spare.” It is more natural to suppose that he refers to the visit close at hand, than to another of which there is no trace elsewhere, either in the letters or the history. The comparison of 2 Cor. 13:1, with xii. H, is a still more powerful reason for the same view, which Paley has justly preferred; but still there is no violent improbability in the opinion of several critics, that a second brief visit had occurred during the apostle’s long stay at Ephesus.—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 No. XII.* Chap. 10:14-16.”We are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ; not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men’s labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you.” This quotation affords an indirect, and therefore unsuspicious, but at the same time a distinct and indubitable recognition of the truth and exactness of the history. I consider it to be implied by the words of the quotation, that Corinth was the extremity of St. Paul’s travels hitherto. He expresses to the Corinthians his hope, that in some future visit he might “preach the gospel to the regions beyond them;” which imports that he had not hitherto proceeded “beyond them,” but that Corinth was as yet the furthest point or boundary of his travels.—Now, how is St. Paul’s first journey into Europe, which was the only one he had taken before the writing of the epistle, traced out in the history? Sailing from Asia, he landed at Philippi; from Philippi, traversing the eastern coast of the peninsula, he passed through Amphipolis and Appollonia to Thessalonica; from thence through Berea to Athens, and from Athens to Corinth, where he stopped; and from whence, after a residence of a year and a half, he sailed back into Syria. So that Corinth was the last place which he visited in the peninsula; was the place from which he returned into Asia, and was, as such, the boundary and limit of his progress. He could not have said the same thing, namely “I hope hereafter to visit the regions beyond you,” in an epistle to the Philippians, or in an epistle to the Thessalonians, inasmuch as he must be deemed to have already visited the regions beyond them, having proceeded from those cities to other parts of Greece. But from Corinth he returned home: every part therefore beyond that city might properly be said, as it is said in the passage before us, to be unvisited. Yet is this propriety the spontaneous effect of truth, and produced without meditation or design.(q) -------(q) See Horæ Apostolicæ: ch, V. No. II. for some further remarks on the above passage.—ED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resource Manager Posted May 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2013 CHAPTER V. THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. No. I. The argument of this epistle in some measure proves its antiquity. It will hardly be doubted, but that it was written whilst the dispute concerning the circumcision of Gentile converts was fresh in men’s minds: for, even supposing it to have been a forgery, the only credible motive that can be assigned for the forgery, was to bring the name and authority of the apostle into this controversy. No design could be so insipid, or so unlikely to enter into the thoughts of any man, as to produce an epistle written earnestly and pointedly upon one side of a controversy, when the controversy itself was dead, and the question no longer interesting to any description of readers whatever. Now the controversy concerning the circumcision of the Gentile Christians was of such a nature, that, if it arose at all, it must have arisen in the beginning of Christianity. As Judæa was the scene of the Christian history; as the Author and preachers of Christianity were Jews; as the religion itself acknowledged and was founded upon the Jewish religion, in contradistinction to every other religion then professed amongst mankind: it was not to be wondered at, that some of its teachers should carry it out in the world rather as a sect and modification of Judaism, than as a separate original revelation; or that they should invite their proselytes to those observances in which they lived themselves. This was likely to happen: but if it did not happen at first; if, whilst the religion was in the hands of Jewish teachers, no such claim was advanced, no such condition was attempted to be imposed, it is not probable that the doctrine would be started, much less that it should prevail in any future period. I likewise think, that those pretensions of Judaism were much more likely to be insisted upon, whilst the Jews continued a nation, than after their fall and dispersion; whilst Jerusalem and the temple stood, than after the destruction brought upon them by the Roman arms, the fatal cessation of the sacrifice and the priesthood, the humiliating loss of their country, and, with it, of the great rites and symbols of their institution. It should seem, therefore, from the nature of the subject, and the situation of the parties, that this controversy was carried on in the interval between the preaching of Christianity to the Gentiles and the invasion of Titus; and that our present epistle, which was undoubtedly intended to bear a part in this controversy, must be referred to the same period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts