Jump to content


Photo

Horæ Paulinæ


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
131 replies to this topic

#61 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:19 AM

No. IX.

 

Chap. 6:11. “Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.”

 

These words imply that he did not always write with his own hand; which is consonant to what we find intimated in some other of the epistles. The Epistle to the Romans was written by Tertius: “I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.” (Chap. 16:22.) The first Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Colossians, and the second Epistle to the Thessalonians, have all, near the conclusion, this clause, “The salutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand;” which must be understood, and is universally under­stood to import, that the rest of the epistle was written by. another hand. I do not think it improbable, that an impostor, who had remarked this subscription in some other epistle, should invent the same in a forgery; but that is not done here. The author of this epistle does not imitate the manner of giving St. Paul’s signature; he only bids the Galatians observe how large a letter he had written to them with his own hand. He does not say this was different from his ordinary usage; this is left to implication. Now to suppose that this was an artifice to procure credit to an imposture, is to suppose that the author of the forgery, because he knew that others of St. Paul’s were not written by himself, therefore made the apostle say that this was: which seems an odd turn to give to the circumstance, and to be given for a purpose which would more naturally and more directly have been answered by subjoining the salutation or signature in the form in which it is found in other epistles.*

 

-------

* The words πηλίκοις γράμμασιν may probably be meant to describe the character in which he wrote, ana not the length of the letter. But this will not alter the truth of our observation. I think, however, that as St. Paul by the mention of his own hand designed to express to the Galatians the great concern which he felt for them, the words, whatever they signify, belong to the whole of the epistle; and not, as Grotius, after St. Jerome, interprets it, to the few verses which follow.



#62 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:21 AM

No. X.*

 

An exact conformity appears in the manner in which a cer­tain apostle or eminent Christian, whose name was James, is spoken of in the epistle and in the history. Both writings refer to a situation of his at Jerusalem, somewhat different from that of the other apostles; a kind of eminence or presidency in the church there, or at least a more fixed and sta­tionary residence. (Chap. 2:11, 12.) “When Peter was at Antioch, .... before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles.” This text plainly attributes a kind of pre-eminency to James; and, as we hear of him twice in the same epistle, dwelling at Jerusalem (chap. 1:19, and 2:9), we must apply it to the situation which he held in that church. In the Acts of the Apostles, divers intimations occur, conveying the same idea of James’s situation. When Peter was miraculously delivered from prison, and had sur­prised his friends by his appearance among them, after de­claring unto them how the Lord had brought him out of prison, “Go show,” says he, “these things unto James, and to the brethren.” (Acts 7:17.) Here James is manifestly spoken of in terms of distinction. He appears again with like distinction in the twenty-first chapter, and the seventeenth and eighteenth verses: “And when we (Paul and his com­pany) were come to Jerusalem,.... the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.” In the debate which took place upon the business of the Gentile converts in the council at Jerusalem, this same person seems to have taken the lead. It was he who closed the debate, and proposed the resolution in which the council ulti­mately concurred: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles are turned to God.”

 

Upon the whole, that there exists a conformity in the ex­pressions used concerning James throughout the history, and in the epistle, is unquestionable. But admitting this con­formity, and admitting also the undesignedness of it, what does it prove? It proves that the circumstance itself is founded in truth; that is, that James was a real person, who held a situation of eminence in a real society of Christians at Jerusalem. It confirms also those parts of the narrative which are connected with this circumstance. Suppose, for instance, the truth of the account of Peter’s escape from prison was to be tried upon the testimony of a witness who, among other things, made Peter, after his deliverance, say, “Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren;” would it not be mate­rial, in such a trial, to make out by other independent proofs, or by a comparison of proofs, drawn from independent sources, that there was actually at that time, living at Jerusalem, such a person as James; that this person held such a situation in the society amongst whom these things were transacted, as to render the words which Peter is said to have used concerning him, proper and natural for him to have used? If this would be pertinent in the discussion of oral testimony, it is still more so in appreciating the credit of remote history.

 

It must not be dissembled that the comparison of our epistle with the history presents some difficulties, or, to say the least, some questions of considerable magnitude. It may be doubted, in the first place, to what journey the words which open the second chapter of the epistle, “then, fourteen years after­wards, I went to Jerusalem,” relate. That which best cor­responds with the date, and that to which most interpreters apply the passage, is the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, when they went thither from Antioch, upon the business of the Gentile converts; and which journey produced the famous council and decree recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. To me this opinion appears to be encumbered with strong objections. In the epistle, Paul tells us that he “went up by revelation,” chap. 2:2. In the Acts, we read that he was sent by the church of Antioch: After no small dissension and disputation, “they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to the apostles and elders about this question,” Acts 15:2. This is not very reconcilable. In the epistle, St. Paul writes that, when he came to Jerusalem, “he communicated that gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation,” chap. 2:2. If by "that gospel” he meant the immunity of the Gentile Christians from the Jewish law, (and I know not what else it can mean,) it is not easy to conceive how he should communicate that privately, which was the object of his public message. But a yet greater difficulty remains, namely, that in the account which the epistle gives of what passed upon this visit at Jerusalem, no notice is taken of the deliberation and decree which are re­corded in the Acts, and which, according to that history, formed the business for the sake of which the journey was undertaken. The mention of the council and of its determi­nation, whilst the apostle was relating his proceedings at Jerusalem, could hardly have been avoided, if in truth the narrative belong to the same journey. To me it appears more probable that Paul and Barnabas had taken some journey to Jerusalem, the mention of which is omitted in the Acts. Prior to the apostolic decree, we read that "Paul and Bar­nabas abode at Antioch a long time with the disciples,” Acts 14:28. Is it unlikely, that during this long abode, they might go up to Jerusalem and return to Antioch? Or would the omission of such a journey be unsuitable to the general brevity with which these memoirs are written, espe­cially of those parts of St. Paul’s history which took place before the historian joined the society?



#63 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:22 AM

But, again, the first account we find in the Acts of the Apostles of St. Paul’s visiting Galatia, is in the sixteenth chapter and the sixth verse: “Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia,.....they assayed to go into Bithynia.” The progress here recorded was subse­quent to the apostolic decree; therefore that decree must have been extant when our epistle was written. Now, as the pro­fessed design of the epistle was to establish the exemption of the Gentile converts from the law of Moses, and as the decree pronounced and confirmed that exemption, it may seem ex­traordinary that no notice whatever is taken of that deter­mination, nor any appeal made to its authority. Much, however, of the weight of this objection, which applies also to some other of St. Paul’s epistles, is removed by the fol­lowing reflections.

 

1. It was not St. Paul’s manner, nor agreeable to it, to re­sort or defer much to the authority of the other apostles, es­pecially whilst he was insisting, as he does strenuously throughout this epistle insist, upon his own original inspiration. He who could speak of the very chiefest of the, apostles in such terms as the following— “of those who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me, God accepteth no man’s person,) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me”—he, I say, was not likely to support himself by their decision.

 

2. The epistle argues the point upon principle: and it is not perhaps more to be wondered at, that in such an argument St. Paul should not cite the apostolic decree, than it would be that in a discourse designed to prove the moral and reli­gious duty of observing the sabbath, the writer should not quote the thirteenth canon.

 

3. The decree did not go the length of the position main­tained in the epistle; the decree only declares that the apostles and elders at Jerusalem did not impose the observance of the Mosaic law upon the Gentile converts, as a condition of their being admitted into the Christian church. Our epistle argues that the Mosaic institution itself was at an end, as to all effects upon a future state, even with respect to the Jews themselves.

 

4. They whose error St. Paul combated, were not persons who submitted to the Jewish law, because it was imposed by the authority, or because it was made part of the law of the Christian church; but they were persons who, having already become Christians, afterwards voluntarily took upon them­selves the observance of the Mosaic code, under a notion of attaining thereby to a greater perfection. This, I think, is precisely the opinion which St. Paul opposes in this epistle. Many of his expressions apply exactly to it: “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” chap. 3:3. “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” chap. 4:21. “How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” chap. 4:9. It cannot be thought extraordinary that St. Paul should resist this opinion with earnestness; for it both changed the cha­racter of the Christian dispensation, and derogated expressly from the completeness of that redemption which Jesus Christ had wrought for them that believed in him. But it was to no purpose to allege to such persons the decision at Jerusalem; for that only showed that they were not bound to these ob­servances by any law of the Christian church: they did not pretend to be so bound; nevertheless, they imagined that there was an efficacy in these observances, a merit, a recom­mendation to favour, and a ground of acceptance with God for those who complied with them. This was a situation of thought to which the tenor of the decree did not apply. Accordingly, St. Paul’s address to the Galatians, which is throughout adapted to this situation, runs in a strain widely different from the language of the decree: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law,” chap. 5:4; that is, whosoever places his dependence upon any merit he may apprehend there to be in legal ob­servances. The decree had said nothing like this; therefore it would have been useless to have produced the decree in an argument of which this was the burden. In like manner as in contending with an anchorite, who should insist upon the superior holiness of a recluse, ascetic life, and the value of such mortifications in the sight of God, it would be to no purpose to prove that the laws of the church did not require these vows, or even to prove that the laws of the church ex­pressly left every Christian to his liberty. This would avail little towards abating his estimation of their merit, or towards settling the point in controversy.*

 

-------

* Mr. Locke’s solution of this difficulty is by no means satisfactory. “St. Paul,” he says,” did not remind the Galatians of the apostolic decree, because they already had it.” In the first place, it does not appear with any certainty that they had it; in the second place, if they had it, this was rather a reason than otherwise for referring them to it. The passage in the Acts, from which Mr. Locke concludes that the Galatic churches were in possession of the decree, is the fourth verse of the sixteenth chapter: “And as they (Paul and Timothy) went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” In my opinion, this delivery of the decree was confined to the churches to which St. Paul came, in pursuance of the plan upon which he set out, “of visiting the brethren in every city where he had preached the word of the Lord;” the history of which progress, and of all that pertained to it, is closed in the fifth verse, when the history informs us that “so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.” Then the history proceeds upon a new section of the narrative, by telling us that “when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they assayed to go into Bithynia.” The decree itself is directed to “the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia;” that is, to churches already founded, and in which this question had been stirred. And I think the observation of the noble author of the Miscellanea Sacra is not only ingenious but highly probable, namely, that there is in this place a dislocation of the text, and that the fourth and fifth verses of the sixteenth chapter ought to follow the last verse of the fifteenth, so as to make the entire passage run thus: “And they went through Syria and Cilicia (to the Christians of which country the decree was addressed), confirming the churches; and as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem; and so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.” And then the sixteenth chapter takes up a new and unbroken paragraph: “Then came he to Derbe and Lystra,” etc. When St. Paul came, as he did into Galatia, to preach the gospel, for the first time, in a new place, it is not probable that he would make mention of the decree, or rather letter, of the church of Jerusalem, which presupposed Christianity to be known, and which related to certain doubts that had arisen in some established Christian communities.

 

The second reason which Mr. Locke assigns for the omission of the decree, namely, “that St. Paul’s sole object in the epistle was to acquit himself of the imputation that had been charged upon him of actually preaching circumcision,” does not appear to me to be strictly true. It was not the sole object. The epistle is written in general opposition to the Judaizing inclination which he found to prevail among his converts. The avowal of his own doctrine, and of his stedfast adherence to that doctrine, formed a necessary part of the design of his letter, but was not the whole of it.



#64 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 08 May 2013 - 01:24 AM

Another difficulty arises from the account of Peter’s con­duct towards the Gentile converts at Antioch, as given in the epistle, in the latter part of the second chapter; which con­duct, it is said, is consistent neither with the revelation com­municated to him, upon the conversion of Cornelius, nor with the part he took in the debate at Jerusalem. But, in order to understand either the difficulty or the solution, it will be necessary to state and explain the passage itself. “When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw they walked not up­rightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why com-pellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Now the question that produced the dispute to which these words re­late, was not whether the Gentiles were capable of being admitted into the Christian covenant; that had been fully settled: nor was it whether it should be accounted essential to the profession of Christianity that they should conform themselves to the law of Moses; that was the question at Jerusalem: but it was, whether, upon the Gentiles becoming Christians, the Jews might henceforth eat and drink with them, as with their own brethren. Upon this point St. Peter betrayed some inconstancy; and so he might, agreeably enough to his history. He might consider the vision at Joppa as a direction for the occasion, rather than as universally abo­lishing the distinction between Jew and Gentile; I do not mean with respect to final acceptance with God, but as to the manner of their living together in society: at least, he might not have comprehended this point with such clearness and certainty, as to stand out upon it against the fear of bringing upon himself the censure and complaint of his brethren in the church of Jerusalem, who still adhered to their ancient pre­judices. But Peter, it is said, compelled the Gentiles Ιουδαιζειν— “Why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” How did he do that? The only way in which Peter appears to have compelled the Gentiles to comply with the Jewish institution, was by withdrawing himself from their society. By which he may be understood to have made this declaration: “We do not deny your right to be considered as Christians; we do not deny your title in the promises of the gospel, even without compliance with our law: but if you would have us Jews live with you as we do with one another, that is, if you would in all respects be treated by us as Jews, you must live as such yourselves.” This, I think, was the compulsion which St. Peter’s conduct imposed upon the Gen­tiles, and for which St. Paul reproved him.

 

As to the part which the historian ascribes to St. Peter in the debate at Jerusalem, beside that it was a different question which was there agitated from that which produced the dis­pute at Antioch, there is nothing to hinder us from supposing that the dispute at Antioch was prior to the consultation at Jerusalem; or that Peter, in consequence of this rebuke, might have afterwards maintained firmer sentiments.(t)

 

-------

(t) See Horæ Apostolicæ: cap. II. No. IV., where the sameness of the visit, in the book of Acts, and the Epistle, is placed, I conceive, on solid grounds of evidence. Among recent writers, Dr. Burton and Mr. Biley maintain their identity, while Mr. Browne (Ordo Seclorum), Mr. Greswell, in his Dissertations, and Canon Tate, in his Continuous History of St. Paul, suppose them to be distinct. These three writers, however, all disagree in their own hypothesis. The first identifies it with the journey in Acts 11., the second with the one in Acts 18:, and the third with a private journey, not mentioned by the historian, during the interval of Acts 13:28. The question is fundamental in the whole subject of the chronology of the book of Acts, besides its important bearing on the harmony of the epistle with the sacred history.—ED.

 



#65 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 27 June 2013 - 01:54 PM

CHAPTER VI.

 

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

 

No. 1.*

 

This epistle, and the Epistle to the Colossians, appear to have been transmitted to their respective churches by the same messenger: “But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things; whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts,” Eph. 6:21, 22. This text, if it do not expressly declare, clearly I think intimates, that the letter was sent by Tychicus. The words made use of by him in the Epistle to the Colossians are very similar to these, and afford the same implication that Tychicus, in conjunction with Onesimus, was the bearer of the letter to that church: “All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and fellow­servant in the Lord; whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts;   with  Onesimus,  a  faithful  and  beloved  brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here,” Col. 4:7-9. Both epistles represent the writer as under imprisonment for the gospel; and both treat of the same general subject. The Epistle therefore to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to the Colossians, import to be two letters written by the same person, at, or nearly at, the same time, and upon the same subject, and to have been sent by the same messenger. Now everything in the sentiments, order, and diction of the two writings, corre­sponds with what might be expected from this circumstance of identity or cognation in their original. The leading doctrine of both epistles is the union of Jews and Gentiles under the Christian dispensation; and that doctrine in both is established by the same arguments, or, more properly speaking, illustrated by the same similitudes:* “one head,” “one body,” “one new man,” “one temple,” are in both epistles the figures under which the society of believers in Christ, and their common relation to him as such, is represented.+ The ancient, and, as had been thought, the indelible distinction between Jew and Gentile, in both epistles, is declared to be “now abolished by his cross.” Beside this consent in the general tenor of the two epistles, and in the run also and warmth of thought with which they are composed, we may naturally expect, in letters produced under the circumstances in which these appear to have been written, a closer resemblance of style and diction, than between other letters of the same person but of distant dates, or between letters adapted to dif­ferent occasions. In particular, we may look for many of the same expressions, and sometimes for whole sentences being alike; since such expressions and sentences would be repeated in the second letter, (whichever that was,) as yet fresh in the author’s mind from the writing of the first This repetition occurs in the following examples:**

 

-------

* St. Paul, I am apt to believe, has been sometimes accused of inconclusive reasoning, by our mistaking that for reasoning which was only intended for illustration. He is not to be read as a man whose own persuasion of the truth of what he taught always or solely depended upon the views under which he represents it in his writings. Taking for granted the certainty of his doctrine, as resting upon the revelation that had been imparted to him, he exhibits it frequently to the conception of his readers under images and allegories, in which, if an analogy may be perceived, or even sometimes a poetic resemblance be found, it is all perhaps that is required.

 

+

Eph. 1:22

 

 

 

Col. 1:18

 

Compare

Eph. 4:15

with

Col. 2:19

 

 

Eph. 2:15

 

Col. 3:10, 11

 

 

 

Also

Eph. 2:14, 15

 

 

 

Col. 2:14

 

 

Eph. 2:16

with

Col. 1:18-21

 

Eph. 2:20

 

Col. 2:7

 

 

** When verbal comparisons are relied upon, it becomes necessary to state the original; but that the English reader may be interrupted as little as may be, I shall in general do this in the notes.



#66 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:23 PM

Eph. 1:7. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.”1

 

Col. 1:14. “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.”2

 

Besides the sameness of the words, it is further remarkable that the sentence is, in both places, preceded by the same introductory idea. In the Epistle to the Ephesians it is the “beloved” (ήγαπημένψ); in that to the Colossians it is “his dear Son,” (υioυ της αγάπης αυτου), “in whom we have re­demption.” The sentence appears to have been suggested to the mind of the writer by the idea which had accompanied it before.

 

Eph. 1:10. “All things, both which are in heaven and which are on earth even in him.”3

 

Col. 1:20. “All things by him, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”4

 

This quotation is the more observable, because the con­necting of things in earth with things in heaven is a very sin­gular sentiment, and found nowhere else but in these two epistles. The words also are introduced by describing the union which Christ had effected, and they are followed by telling the Gentile churches that they were incorporated into it.

 

Eph. 3:2.  “The dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you ward.”5

 

Col. 1:25. “The dispensation of God, which is given to me for you.”6

 

Of these sentences it may likewise be observed that the accompanying ideas are similar. In both places they are im­mediately preceded by the mention of his present sufferings; in both places they are immediately followed by the mention of the mystery which was the great subject of his preaching.

 

Eph. 5:19. “In psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord.”7

 

Colos. 3:16. “In psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”8

 

Eph. 6:22. “Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts.”9

 

Col. 4:8. “Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that he might know your estate, and comfort your hearts.”10

 

In these examples, we do not perceive a cento of phrases gathered from one composition, and strung together in the other; but the occasional occurrence of the same expression to a mind a second time revolving the same ideas.

 

-------

1 Eph. 1:7. Ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν παραπτωμάτων..

2 Col. 1:14. Έν ᾧ ἔχομεν τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. However, it must be observed, that in this latter text many copies have not διά τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ.

3 Eph. 1:10.    Τά τε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν αὐτῷ.

4 Col.  1:20.   Διʼ αὐτοῦ, εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

5 Eph. 3:2.   Τὴν οἰκονομίαν χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς δοθείσης μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς.

6 Col. 1:25.   Τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι εἰς ὑμᾶς.

7 Eph. 5:19. ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ.

Col. 3:16. ψαλμοῖς κάι ὕμνοις κάι ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς ἐν χάριτι, ᾄδοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ Κυρίῳ.

9 Eph. 6:22. ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν.

10 Col. 4:8. ὃν ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἵνα γνῶτε τὰ περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ παρακαλέσῃ τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν.

 



#67 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:31 PM

2. Whoever writes two letters, or two discourses, nearly upon the same subject, and at no great distance of time, but without any express recollection of what he had written before, will find himself repeating some sentences, in the very order of the words in which he had already used them; but he will more frequently find himself employing some principal terms, with the order inadvertently changed, or with the order disturbed by the intermixture of other words and phrases ex­pressive of ideas rising up at the time; or in many instances repeating not single words, nor yet whole sentences, but parts and fragments of sentences. Of all these varieties the ex­amination of our two epistles will furnish plain examples; and I should rely upon this class of instances more than upon the last; because, although an impostor might transcribe into a forgery entire sentences and phrases, yet the dislocation of words, the partial recollection of phrases and sentences, the intermixture of new terms and new ideas with terms and ideas before used, which will appear in the examples that follow, and which are the natural properties of writings pro­duced under the circumstances in which these epistles are represented to have been composed—would not, I think, have occurred to the invention of a forger; nor, if they had occurred, would they have been so easily executed. This studied variation was a refinement in forgery which I believe did not exist; or, if we can suppose it to have been practised in the instances adduced below, why, it may be asked, was not the same art exercised upon those which we have collected in the preceding class?

 

Eph. 2:19; 2:5. “Towards us who believe, according to the working of his 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 principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come. And hath put all things under his feet: and gave him to be the head over all things, to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him, that filleth all in all); and you hath he quickened, who were dead in tres­passes and sins (wherein in times past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversa­tion, in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewithal he loved us,) even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ.”1

 

Col. 2:12, 13. “Through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead: and you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of the flesh, hath he quickened together with him.”2

 

Out of the long quotation from the Ephesians take away the parentheses, and you have left a sentence almost in terms the same as the short quotation from the Colossians. The resemblance is more visible in the original than in our transla­tion; for what is rendered in one place, “the working,” and in another the “operation,” is the same Greek term νεργεία:

 

in one place it is, τοὺς πιστεύοντας κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν; in the other, διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας. Here, therefore, we have the same sentiment, and nearly in the same words; but, in the Ephesians, twice broken or interrupted by inci­dental thoughts, which St. Paul, as his manner was, enlarges upon by the way,3 and then returns to the thread of his discourse. It is interrupted the first time by a view which breaks in upon his mind of the exaltation of Christ; and the second time by a description of heathen depravity. I have only to remark that Griesbach, in his very accurate edition, gives the parentheses very nearly in the same manner in which they are here placed; and that without any respect to the comparison which we are proposing.

 

-------

1 Eph. 1:19, 20; 2:1, 5. τοὺς πιστεύοντας κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ κράτους τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ ἣν ἐνήργηκεν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐγείρας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοιςκαὶ ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαιςκαὶ ὄντας ἡμᾶς νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ.

2 Col. 2:12, 13. διὰ τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐνεργείας τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. καὶ ὑμᾶς νεκροὺς ὄντας ἐν τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησε σὺν αὐτῷ.

3 Vide Locke in loc.



#68 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:35 PM

Eph. 4:2-4. “With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endea­vouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.”1

 

Col. 3:12-15. “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, hum­bleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another, and forgiving one another; if any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye; and, above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness; and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body.”2

 

In these two quotations, the words ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραΰτητα, μακροθυμίαν, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων, occur exactly in the same order: αγάπη is also found in both, but in a different con­nexion; συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης answers to σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος: ἐκλήθητε ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι to ἓν σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα, καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι: yet is this similitude found in the midst of sentences otherwise very different.

 

Eph. 4:16. “From whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body.”3

 

Col. 2:19. “From which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God”4

 

In these quotations are read ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον in both places, ἐπιχορηγούμενον answering to ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν: and yet the sentences are considerably diversified in other parts.

 

Eph. 4:32. “And be kind one to another, tender­hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.”5

 

Col. 3:13. “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.”6

 

Here we have “forgiving one another even as God, for Christ’s sake (ἐν Χριστῷ) hath forgiven you,” in the first quotation, substantially repeated in the second. But in the second the sentence is broken by the interposition of a new clause, “if any man have a quarrel against any;” and the latter part is a little varied; instead of “God in Christ,” it is “Christ hath forgiven you.”

 

Eph. 4:22-24. “That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”7

 

Col. 3:9,10. “Seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”8

 

-------

1 Eph. 4:2-4. μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ πραΰτητος, μετὰ μακροθυμίας, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ, σπουδάζοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης. ἓν σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα, καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν.

2 Col. 3:12-15. Ἐνδύσασθε οὖν ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι, σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, χρηστότητα, ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραΰτητα, μακροθυμίαν, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν· καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς· ἐπὶ πᾶσιν δὲ τούτοις τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣτις ἐστὶ σύνδεσμος τῆς τελειότητος. καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ βραβευέτω ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι·

3 Eph. 4:16. ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα συναρμολογούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον διὰ πάσης ἁφῆς τῆς ἐπιχορηγίας κατʼ ἐνέργειαν ἐν μέτρῳ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου μέρους τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ σώματος ποιεῖται.

4 Col. 2:19. ἐξ οὗ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα διὰ τῶν ἁφῶν καὶ συνδέσμων ἐπιχορηγούμενον καὶ συμβιβαζόμενον αὔξει τὴν αὔξησιν τοῦ θεοῦ.

5 Eph. 4:32. γίνεσθε δὲ εἰς ἀλλήλους χρηστοί, εὔσπλαγχνοι, χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, καθὼς καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν Χριστῷ ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν.

6 Col. 3:13. ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων, καὶ χαριζόμενοι ἑαυτοῖς, ἐάν τις πρός τινα ἔχῃ μομφήν· καθὼς καὶ ὁ Xριστὸς ἐχαρίσατο ὑμῖν, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς·

7 Eph. 4:22-24. ἀποθέσθαι ὑμᾶς κατὰ τὴν προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν, τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν φθειρόμενον   κατὰ τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τῆς ἀπάτης· ἀνανεοῦσθαι δὲ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ νοὸς ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας.

8 Col. 3:9, 10. ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατʼ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν.



#69 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:39 PM

In these quotations, “putting off the old man, and putting on the new,” appears in both. The idea is further explained by calling it a renewal: in the one, “renewed in the spirit of your mind; in the other, “renewed in knowledge.” In both, the new man is said to be formed according to the same model; in the one, he is, after God “created in righteous­ness and true holiness;” in the other, he is renewed “after the image of him that created him.” In a word, it is the same person writing upon a kindred subject, with the terms and ideas which he had before employed still floating in his memory.1

 

Eph. 5:6-8. “Because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.”2

 

Col. 3:6-8. “For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: in the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these.”3

 

These verses afford a specimen of that partial resemblance which is only to be met with when no imitation is designed, when no studied recollection is employed, but when the mind, exercised upon the same subject, is left to the spontaneous return of such terms and phrases as, having been used before, may happen to present themselves again. The sentiment of both passages is throughout alike: half of that sentiment, the denunciation of God’s wrath, is expressed in identical words; the other half, namely, the admonition to quit their former conversation, in words entirely different.

 

Eph. 5:15-16. “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time.”4

 

Col. 4:5. “Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time.”5

 

This is another example of that mixture which we remarked of sameness and variety in the language of one writer. “Re­deeming the time,” (ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν καιρόν,) is a literal repetition. “Walk not as fools, but as wise,” (περιπατεῖτε μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλʼ ὡς σοφοί,) answers exactly in sense, and nearly in terms, to “walk in wisdom” (ι σοφία περιπατεῖτε). Περιπατεῖτε ἀκριβῶς is a very different phrase, but is intended to convey precisely the same idea as περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. Ἀκριβῶς is not well rendered “circumspectly.” It means what in modern speech we should call "correctly;” and when we advise a person to behave "correctly;” our advice is always given with a reference “to the opinion of others,” πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω. “Walk correctly, redeeming the time,” that is, suiting yourselves to the difficulty and ticklishness of the times in which we live, “because the days are evil.”

 

Eph. 6:19, 20. “And (praying) for me, that utter­ance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.”6

 

Col. 4:3, 4. “Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds: that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.”7

 

In these quotations, the phrase “as I ought to speak,” (ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι,) the words “utterance,” (λόγος) a “mystery,” (μυστήριον,) "open,” (άνοίζη and εν ανοίξει,) are the same. “To make known the mystery of the gospel,” (γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον,) answers to “make it manifest” (ἵνα φανερώσω αὐτὸ) "for which I am an ambassador in bonds,” (ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει,) to “for which I am also in bonds” (διʼ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι).

 

-------

1 In these comparisons we often perceive the reason why the writer, though ex­pressing the same idea, uses a different term; namely, because the term before used is employed in the sentence under a different form: thus, in the quotations under our eye, the new man is καινὸς νθρωπος in the Ephesians, and τὸν νέον in the Colossians; but then it is because τὸν καινὸν is used in the next word, ανακαινόυμενον.

2 Eph. 5:6-8. διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας.  μὴ οὖν γίνεσθε συμμέτοχοι αὐτῶν· ἦτε γάρ ποτε σκότος, νῦν δὲ φῶς ἐν κυρίῳ· ὡς τέκνα φωτὸς περιπατεῖτε.

3 Col. 3:6-8. διʼ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας· ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε, ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν τούτοις· νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα.

4 Eph. 5:15,16. Βλέπετε οὖν ἀκριβῶς πῶς περιπατεῖτε μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλʼ ὡς σοφοί, ἐξαγοραζόμενοι τὸν καιρόν.

5 Col. 4:5. Ἐν σοφίᾳ περιπατεῖτε πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω, τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι.

6 Eph. 6:19, 20. καὶ ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, ἵνα μοι δοθῇ λόγος ἐν ἀνοίξει τοῦ στόματός μου, ἐν παρρησίᾳ, γνωρίσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὑπὲρ οὗ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῷ παρρησιάσωμαι, ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι.

7 Col. 4:3, 4. προσευχόμενοι ἅμα καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν, ἵνα ὁ θεὸς ἀνοίξῃ ἡμῖν θύραν τοῦ λόγου, λαλῆσαι τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, διʼ ὃ καὶ δέδεμαι, ἵνα φανερώσω αὐτὸ ὡς δεῖ με λαλῆσαι.

 



#70 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:42 PM

Eph. 5:22-33; 6:1-9. “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the Head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.—Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with promise,) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ: not with eye-service, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”1

 

2 Col. 3:18. “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be dis­couraged. Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh: not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons. Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven.”

 

The passages marked by Italics in the quotation from the Ephesians, bear a strict resemblance, not only in signification but in terms, to the quotation from the Colossians. Both the words and the order of the words are in many clauses a duplicate of one another. In the Epistle to the Colossians, these passages are laid together; in that to the Ephesians, they are divided by intermediate matter, especially by a long digressive allusion to the mysterious union between Christ and his church; which possessing, as Mr. Locke hath well observed, the mind of the apostle, from being an incidental thought, grows up into the principal subject. The affinity between these two passages in signification, in terms, and in the order of the words, is closer than can be pointed out between any parts of any two epistles in the volume.

 

-------

1 Eph. 5:22.   Αἱ γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὑποτάσσεσθε, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ.

2 Col. 3:18. Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἱδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν κυρίῳ.

Eph. 6:1. Τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν δίκαιον.

Col. 3:20. Τὰ τέκνα, ὑπακούετε τοῖς γονεῦσιν κατὰ πάντα, τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν εὐάρεστόν τῷ κυρίῳ.

Eph. 6:4. Καὶ οἱ πατέρες, μὴ παροργίζετε τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν.

Col. 3:21. Οἱ πατέρες, μὴ ἐρεθίζετε* τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν.

Eph. 6:5-8. Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου, ἐν ἁπλότητι τῆς καρδίας ὑμῶν, ὡς τῷ Χριστῷ· μὴ κατʼ ὀφθαλμοδουλίαν ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι ἀλλʼ ὡς δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ, ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς, μετʼ εὐνοίας δουλεύοντες [ὡς] τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις, εἰδότες ποιήσῃ ἀγαθόν, τοῦτο κομίσεται παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, εἴτε ἐλεύθερος.

Col. 3:22-24. Οἱ δοῦλοι, ὑπακούετε κατὰ πάντα τοῖς κατὰ σάρκα κυρίοις, μὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοδουλίᾳ, ὡς ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, ἀλλʼ ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας φοβούμενοι τὸν θεὸν· καὶ  πᾶν , τι  ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐκ ψυχῆς ἐργάζεσθε, ὡς τῷ Kυρίῳ, καὶ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις· εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπὸ Kυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας· τῷ γὰρ Kυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε.

_______________________

 

* παροργίζετε, lectio non spernenda, GRIESBACH.

 



#71 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:46 PM

If the reader would see how the same subject is treated by a different hand, and how distinguishable it is from the pro­duction of the same pen, let him turn to the second and third chapters of the first Epistle of St. Peter. The duties of servants, of wives, and of husbands, are enlarged upon in that epistle, as they are in the Epistle to the Ephesians; but the subjects both occur in a different order, and the train of senti­ment subjoined to each is totally unlike.

 

3. In two letters issuing from the same person, nearly at the same time, and upon the same general occasion, we may expect to trace the influence of association in the order in which the topics follow one another. Certain ideas universally or usually suggest others. Here the order is what we call natural, and from such an order nothing can be concluded. But when the order is arbitrary, yet alike, the concurrence indicates the effect of that principle, by which ideas, which have been once joined, commonly revisit the thoughts together. The epistles under consideration furnish the two following remarkable instances of this species of agreement:—

 

Eph. 4:24, 25. “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.”1

 

Col. 3:9. “Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge.”2

 

The vice of “lying,” or a correction of that vice, does not seem to bear any nearer relation to the “putting on the new man” than a reformation in any other article of morals. Yet these two ideas, we see, stand in both epistles in immediate connexion.

 

Eph. 5:20, 21, 22. “Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”3

 

Col. 3:17, 18. “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”4

 

In both these passages, submission follows giving of thanks, without any similitude in the ideas which should account for the transition.

 

It is not necessary to pursue the comparison between the two epistles further. The argument which results from it stands thus. No two other epistles contain a circumstance which indicates that they were written at the same, or nearly at the same time. No two other epistles exhibit so many marks of correspondency and resemblance. If the original which we ascribe to these two epistles be the true one, that is, if they were both really written by St. Paul, and both sent to their respective destination by the same messenger, the simili­tude is in all points what should be expected to take place. If they were forgeries, then the mention of Tychicus in both epistles, and in a manner which shows that he either carried or accompanied both epistles, was inserted for the purpose of accounting for their similitude: or else the structure of the epistles was designedly adapted to the circumstance: or lastly, the conformity between the contents of the forgeries, and what is thus directly intimated concerning their date, was only a happy accident. Not one of these three suppositions will gain credit with a reader who peruses the epistles with atten­tion, and who reviews the several examples we have pointed out, and the observations with which they were accom­panied.(u)

 

-------

1 Eph. 4:24, 25. Καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας· διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος, λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ· ὅτι ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων μέλη.

2 Col. 3:9, 10. Mὴ ψεύδεσθε εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν, ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον, τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν.

3 Eph. 5:20, 21, 22. Eὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων, ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ Kυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ θεοῦ. Αἱ γυναῖκες, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ὑποτάσσεσθε,  ὡς τῷ Kυρίῳ.

4 Col. 3:17, 18. Kαὶ πᾶν ὅ τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε, ἐν λόγῳ ἢ ἐν ἔργῳ, πάντα ἐν ὀνόματι Kυρίου Ἰησοῦ, εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ. Αἱ γυναῖκες, ὑποτάσσεσθε τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ὡς ἀνῆκεν ἐν Kυρίῳ.

 

(u) The simple and striking proof of reality, which Paley has unfolded in this article, would lose all its force if the hypothesis of Professor Hug and Dr. Lardner were adopted, that the second Epistle to Timothy was interposed between these two letters to Ephesus and Colosse. But the view is most untenable; and it is surprising that Dr. Burton and the able writer of the Literary History of the New Testament have ventured to espouse it anew. Mr. Greswell, Mr. Biley, and Canon Tate fully abide by the view of the Horæ, that the second to Timothy was the latest of St. Paul’s letters. In Horæ Apostolicæ: caps. VI. and VII. the opposite argu­ments are examined and disproved. No theory, indeed, could be more fatal to all reasoning from internal evidence, than one which interposes an epistle, so utterly diverse in tone, style, and character, between two others of such a peculiar and marked similarity.—Ed.

 



#72 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:47 PM

No. II.

 

There is such a thing as a peculiar word or phrase cleaving, as it were to the memory of a writer or speaker, and present­ing itself to his utterance at every turn. When we observe this, we call it a cant word or a cant phrase. It is a natural effect of habit: and would appear more frequently than it does, had not the rules of good writing taught the ear to be offended with the iteration of the same sound, and oftentimes caused us to reject, on that account, the word which offered itself first to our recollection. With a writer who, like St. Paul, either knew not these rules, or disregarded them, such words will not be avoided. The truth is, an example of this kind runs through several of his epistles, and in the epistle before us abounds; and that is in the word riches, (πλοτος,) used metaphorically as an augmentative of the idea to which it happens to be subjoined. Thus, “the riches of his glory,” “his riches in glory,” “riches of the glory of his inheritance,” “riches of the glory of this mystery,” Rom. 9:23, Eph. 3:16, Philip. 4:19, Eph. 1:18, Col. 1:27: “riches of his grace,” twice in the Ephesians 1:7, and 2:7; “riches of the full assurance of understanding,” Col. 2:2; “riches of his goodness,” Rom. 2:4; “riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God,” Rom. 11:33; “riches of Christ,” Eph. 3:8. In a like sense, the adjective, Rom. 10:12, “rich unto all that call upon him;” Eph. 2:4, “rich in mercy;” 1 Tim. 6:18, “rich in good works.” Also the adverb, Col. 3:16, “let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.” This figurative use of the word, though so familiar to St. Paul, does not occur in any part of the New Testament, except once in the Epistle of St. James, (2:5,) “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith?” where it is manifestly suggested by the antithesis. I propose the frequent, yet seemingly unaffected use of this phrase, in the epistle before us, as one internal mark of its genuineness.



#73 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:48 PM

No. IIΙ.

 

There is another singularity in St. Paul’s style, which, wherever it is found, may be deemed a badge of authenticity; because, if it were noticed, it would not, I think, be imitated, inasmuch as it almost always produces embarrassment and interruption in the reasoning. This singularity is a species of digression which may properly, I think, be denominated going off at a word. It is turning aside from the subject upon the occurrence of some particular word, forsaking the train of thought then in hand, and entering upon a parenthetic sentence in which that word is the prevailing term. I shall lay before the reader some examples of this, collected from the other epistles, and then propose two examples of it which are found in the Epistle to the Ephesians. In 2 Cor. 2:14-17, at the word savour: “Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. (For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: to the one we are the savour of death unto death, and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ. Again, 2 Cor. 3:1-3, at the word epistle: “Need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or of commendation from you? (Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy tables of the heart.)” The position of the words in the original, shows more strongly than in the translation, that it was the occurrence of the word ἐπιστολὴ which gave birth to the sentence that follows: 2 Cor. 3:1-3   Ἔῖ μὴ χρῄζομεν, ὥς τινες, συστατικῶν ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν συστατικῶν; ἡ ἐπιστολὴ ἡμῶν ὑμεῖς ἐστε, ἐγγεγραμμένη ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν, γινωσκομένη καὶ ἀναγινωσκομένη ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων· φανερούμενοι ὅτι ἐστὲ ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ διακονηθεῖσα ὑφʼ ἡμῶν, ἐγγεγραμμένη οὐ μέλανι, ἀλλὰ πνεύματι θεοῦ ζῶντος· οὐκ ἐν πλαξὶν λιθίναις, ἀλλʼ ἐν πλαξὶν καρδίαις σαρκίναις.

 

Again, 2 Cor. 3:12, etc., at the word vail: “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. But their minds were blinded; for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament, which vail is done away in Christ; but even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. (Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty). But we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not.”

 

Who sees not that this whole allegory of the vail arises entirely out of the occurrence of the word, in telling us that “Moses put a vail over his face,” and that it drew the apostle away from the proper subject of his discourse, the dignity of the office in which he was engaged? which subject he fetches up again almost in the words with which he had left it ”therefore, seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not.” The sentence which he had before been going on with, and in which he had been interrupted by the vail, was, “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.”

 

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, the reader will remark two instances in which the same habit of composition obtains: he will recognise the same pen. One he will find, chap. 4:8-11, at the word ascended: “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first unto the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles,” etc.

 

The other appears, chap. 5:12-15, at the word light: “For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light: (for whatsoever doth make mani­fest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.) See then that ye walk circumspectly.”



#74 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:50 PM

No. IV.*

 

Although it does not appear to have ever been disputed that the epistle before us was written by St. Paul, yet it is well known that a doubt has long been entertained concerning the persons to whom it was addressed. The question is founded partly on some ambiguity in the external evidence. Marcion, a heretic of the second century, as quoted by Tertullian, a father in the beginning of the third, calls it the epistle to the Laodiceans. From what we know of Marcion, his judgment is little to be relied upon; nor is it perfectly clear that Marcion was rightly understood by Tertullian. If, however, Marcion be brought to prove that some copies in his time gave εν Λαοδικείᾳ in the superscription, his testimony, if it be truly interpreted, is not diminished by his heresy; for, as Grotius observes, “cur in eâ re mentiretur nihil erat causœ.” The name ἐν Ἐφέσ, in the first verse, upon which word singly depends the proof that the epistle was written to the Ephesians, is not read in all the manuscripts now extant.    I admit, however, that the external evidence preponderates with a manifest excess on the side of the received reading. The objection, therefore, principally arises from the contents of the epistle itself, which, in many respects, militate with the supposition that it was written to the church at Ephesus. According to the history, St. Paul had passed two whole years at Ephesus, Acts 19:10. And in this point, namely, of St. Paul having preached for a. considerable length of time at Ephesus, the history is confirmed by the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and by the two Epistles to Timothy. “I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost,” 1 Cor. 16:8. “We would not have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia,” 2 Cor. 1:8. “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia,” 1 Tim. 1:3. “And in how many things he ministered to me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well,” 2 Tim. 1:18. I adduce these testi­monies, because, had it been a competition of credit between the history and the epistle, I should have thought myself bound ‘to have preferred the epistle. Now, every epistle which St. Paul wrote to churches which he himself had founded, or which he had visited, abounds with references, and appeals to what had passed during the time that he was present amongst them; whereas there is not a text, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, from which we can collect that he had ever been at Ephesus at all. The two Epistles to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Philippians, and the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, are of this class; and they are full of allusions to the apostle’s history, his reception, and his conduct whilst amongst them; the total want of which, in the epistle before us, is very difficult to account for, if it was in truth written to the church of Ephesus, in which city he had resided for so long a time. This is the first and strongest objection. But further, the Epistle to the Colossians was addressed to a church in which St. Paul had never been. This we infer from the first verse of the second chapter: “For I would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.” There could be no pro­priety in thus joining the Colossians and Laodiceans with those “who had not seen his face in the flesh,” if they did not also belong to the same description.1   Now, his address to the Colossians, whom he had not visited, is precisely the same as his address to the Christians, to whom he wrote in the epistle which we are now considering: “We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since toe heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,” Col. 1:3. Thus, he speaks to the Ephesians, in the epistle before us, as follows: “Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers,” chap. 1:15. The terms of this address are observable. The words “having heard of your faith and love,” are the very words, we see, which he uses towards strangers; and it is not probable that he should employ the same in accosting a church in which he had long exercised his ministry, and whose “faith and love” he must have personally known.2 The Epistle to the Romans was written before St. Paul had been at Rome; and his address to them runs in the same strain with that just now quoted: “I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world:” Rom. 1:8. Let us now see what was the form in which our apostle was accustomed to introduce his epistles, when he wrote to those with whom he was already acquainted. To the Corinthians it was this: “I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ,” 1 Cor. 1:4. To the Philippians: “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,” Phil. 1:3. To the Thessalonians: “We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love,” 1 Thess. 1:3. To Timothy: “I thank God, whom I serve from my forefathers with pure conscience, that without ceasing I have remembrance of thee in my prayers night and day,” 2 Tim. 1:3. In these quotations, it is usually his remembrance, and never his hearing of them, which he makes the subject of his thankfulness to God.  

 

-------

1 Dr. Lardner contends against the validity of this conclusion; but, I think without success.   Lardner, vol. xiv. p. 473, edit. 1757

2 Mr. Locke endeavours to avoid this difficulty, by explaining “their faith, of which St. Paul had heard,” to mean the stedfastness of their persuasion that they were called into the kingdom of God, without subjection to the Mosaic institution. But this interpretation seems to me extremely hard; for in the manner in which faith is here joined with love, in the expression “your faith and love,” it could not meant to denote any particular tenet which distinguished one set of Christians from others; forasmuch as the expression describes the general virtues of the Christian profession.   Vide Locke in loc.

 



#75 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:52 PM

As great difficulties stand in the way of supposing the epistle before us to have been written to the church of Ephesus, so I think it probable that it is actually the Epistle to the Laodi­ceans, referred to in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians. The text which contains that reference is this: “When this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea,” ver. 16. The “epistle from Laodicea,” was an epistle sent by St. Paul to that church, and by them transmitted to Colosse. The two churches were mutually to communicate the epistles they had received. This is the way in which the direction is explained by the greater part of commentators, and is the most probable sense that can be given to it. It is also probable that the epistle alluded to was an epistle which had been received by the church of Laodicea lately. It appears then, with a considerable degree of evidence, that there existed an epistle of St. Paul’s nearly of the same date With the Epistle to the Colossians, and an epistle directed to a church (for such the church of Laodicea was) in which St. Paul had never been. What has been observed concerning the epistle before us, shows that it answers perfectly to that character.

 

Nor does the mistake seem very difficult to account for. Whoever inspects the map of Asia Minor will see, that a person proceeding from Rome to Laodicea would probably land at Ephesus, as the nearest frequented sea-port in that direction. Might not Tychicus then, in passing through Ephesus, com­municate to the Christians of that place the letter with which he was charged? And might not copies of that letter be mul­tiplied and preserved at Ephesus? Might not some of the copies drop the words of designation ἐν τῇ Λαοδικείᾳ,1 which it was of no consequence to an Ephesian to retain? Might not copies of the letter come out into the Christian church at large from Ephesus; and might not this give occasion to a belief that the letter was written to that church? And lastly, might not this belief produce the error which we suppose to have crept into the inscription?(v)

 

-------

1 And it is remarkable that there seem to have been some ancient copies without the words of designation, either the words in Ephesus, or the words in Lao­dicea. St. Basil, a writer of the fourth century, speaking of the present epistle. has this very singular passage: “And writing to the Ephesians, as truly united to him who is through knowledge, he (Paul) calleth them in a peculiar sense such who are; saying to the saints who are and (or even) the faithful in Christ Jesus; for so those before us have transmitted it. and we have found it in ancient copies.” Dr. Mill interprets (and, notwithstanding some objections that have been made to him, in my opinion rightly interprets) these words of Basil, as declaring that his father had seen certain copies of the epistle in which the words”in Ephesus”were wanting. And the passage, I think, must be considered as Basil’s fanciful way of explaining what was really a corrupt and defective reading; for I do not believe it possible that the author of the epistle could have originally written άγίοις τος οΰσιν, without any name of place to follow it.

 

(v) The subject is resumed in Horæ A post. cap. vx. No. I. Reasons are there given for adopting in preference the view of Archbishop Usher, received also by Michaelis, Canon Tate, Dr. Burton, and Olshausen, that the epistle was a circular letter to all the actual churches of Proconsular Asia, including the church of Laodicea, as well as Ephesus.—Ed.

 



#76 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:54 PM

No. V.

 

As our epistle purports to have been written during St. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, which lies beyond the period to which the Acts of the Apostles brings up his history; and as we have seen and acknowledged that the epistle contains no reference to any transaction at Ephesus during the apostle’s residence in that city, we cannot expect that it should supply many marks of agreement with the narrative. One coin­cidence however occurs, and a coincidence of that minute and less obvious kind, which, as hath been repeatedly observed, is of all others the most to be relied upon.

 

Chap. 6:19, 20, we read, "praying for me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in bonds." “In bonds” ν άλύσει, in a chain. In the twenty-eighth chapter of the Acts we are informed that Paul, after his arrival at Rome, was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. Dr. Lardner has shown that this mode of custody was in use amongst the Romans, and that whenever it was adopted, the prisoner was bound to the soldier by a single chain: in reference to which St. Paul, in the twentieth verse of this chapter, tells the Jews, whom he had assembled, “For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you, because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” τν λυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι. It is in exact conformity therefore with the truth of St. Paul’s situa­tion at the time, that he declares of himself in the epistle, πρεσβεύω ν άλύσει. And the exactness is the more remark­able, as λυσις (a chain) is nowhere used in the singular number to express any other kind of custody. When the pri­soner’s hands or feet were bound together, the word was δεσμι (bonds), as in the twenty-sixth chapter of the Acts, where Paul replies to Agrippa, “I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds,” παρεκτς τῶν δεσμν τούτων. When the prisoner was confined between two soldiers, as in the case of Peter, Acts, chap. 12:6, two chains were employed; and it is said upon his miraculous deliverance, that the “chains” (άλύσεις, in the plural) “fell from his hands.” Δεσμς the noun, and δέδεμαι the verb, being general terms, were applicable to this in common with any other species of personal coercion; but λυσις, in the singular number, to none but this.

 

If it can be suspected that the writer of the present epistle, who in no other particular appears to have availed himself of the information concerning St. Paul, delivered in the Acts, had, in this verse borrowed the word which he read in that book, and had adapted his expression to what he found there recorded of St. Paul’s treatment at Rome; in short, that the coincidence here noted was effected by craft and design; I think it a strong reply to remark that, in the parallel passage of the Epistle to the Colossians, the same allusion is not pre­served: the words there are, “praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds,” δι’ δ κι δέδεμαι. After what has been shown in a preceding number, there can be little doubt but that these two epistles were written by the same person. If the writer, therefore, sought for, and frau­dulently inserted, the correspondency into one epistle, why did he not do it in the other? A real prisoner might use either general words which comprehend this amongst many other modes of custody; or might use appropriate words which specified this, and distinguished it from any other mode. It would be accidental which form of expression he fell upon. But an impostor, who had the art, in one place, to employ the appropriate term for the purpose of fraud, would have used it in both places.



#77 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:02 AM

CHAPTER VII.

 

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS

 

No. I.

 

When a transaction is referred to in such a manner as that the reference is easily and immediately understood by those who are beforehand, or from other quarters, acquainted with the fact, but is obscure, or imperfect, or requires investigation, or a comparison of different parts, in order to be made clear to other readers, the transaction so referred to is probably real; because, had it been fictitious, the writer would have set forth his story more fully and plainly, not merely as conscious of the fiction, but as conscious that his readers could have no other knowledge of the subject of his allusion than from the information of which he put them in possession.

 

The account of Epaphroditus, in the Epistle to the Philip­pians, of his journey to Rome, and of the business which brought him thither, is the article to which I mean to apply this observation. There are three passages in the epistle which relate to this subject The first, chap. 1:7, “Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are συγκοινωνόι μου τῆς χάριτος, joint contributors to the gift which I have re­ceived.”*(w) Nothing more is said in this place. In the latter part of the second chapter, and at the distance of half the epistle from the last quotation, the subject appears again; “Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants. For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick. For indeed he was sick nigh unto death; but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. I sent him therefore the more carefully, that when ye see him again ye may rejoice, and that I may be the less sorrowful. Receive him therefore in the Lord with all gladness; and hold such in reputation: because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service towards me,” chap. 2:25-30. The matter is here dropped, and no further mention made of it till it is taken up near the conclusion of the epistle as follows: “But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound; everywhere and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. Not­withstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction. Now, ye Philippians, know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me, as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphro­ditus the things which were sent from you,” chap. 4:10-18. To the Philippian reader, who knew that contributions were wont to be made in that church for the apostle’s subsistence and relief, that the supply which they were accustomed to send to him had been delayed by the want of opportunity, that Epaphroditus had undertaken the charge of conveying their liberality to the hands of the apostle, that he had acquitted himself of this commission at the peril of his life, by hastening to Rome under the oppression of a grievous sickness: to a reader who knew all this beforehand, every line in the above quotations would be plain and clear. But how is it with a stranger? The knowledge of these several particulars is necessary to the perception and explanation of the references; yet that knowledge must be gathered from a comparison of passages lying at a great distance from one another. Texts must be interpreted by texts long subsequent to them, which necessarily produces embarrassment and suspense. The pas­sage quoted from the beginning of the epistle contains an acknowledgment, on the part of the apostle, of the liberality which the Philippians had exercised towards him; but the allusion is so general and indeterminate, that, had nothing more been said in the sequel of the epistle, it would hardly have been applied to this occasion at all. In the second quo­tation, Epaphroditus is declared to have “ministered to the apostle’s wants,” and “to have supplied their lack of service towards him;” but how, that is, at whose expense, or from what fund he “ministered,” or what was “the lack of service” which he supplied, are left very much unexplained, till we arrive at the third quotation, where we find that Epaphroditus “ministered to St. Paul’s wants,” only by conveying to his hands the contributions of the Philippians: “I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you:” and that “the lack of service which he supplied” was a delay or interruption of their accustomed bounty, occasioned by the want of opportunity: “I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity.” The affair at length comes out clear; but it comes out by piecemeal. The clearness is the result of the reciprocal illus­tration of divided texts. Should any one choose therefore to insinuate, that this whole story of Epaphroditus, or his journey, his errand, his sickness, or even his existence, might, for what we know, have no other foundation than in the in­vention of the forger of the epistle; I answer, that a forger would have set forth this story connectedly, and also more fully and more perspicuously. If the epistle be authentic, and the transaction real, then everything which is said concerning Epaphroditus and his commission would be clear to those into whose hands the epistle was expected to come. Considering the Philippians as his readers, a person might naturally write upon the subject, as the author of the epistle has written; but there is no supposition of forgery with which it will suit.

 

-------

* Pearce, I believe, was the first commentator who gave this sense to the ex­pression; and I believe also that his exposition is now generally assented to. He interprets in the same sense the phrase in the fifth verse, which our translation renders”your fellowship in the gospel; but which in the original is not κοινωνί τοῦ εὐαγγέλίον, or κοινωνί ἐν τ εὐαγγέλίφ; but κοινωνί εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.

 

(w) This is a very frigid exposition, and will not be accepted by those who have drunk largely of the spirit which pervades the apostle’s writings. The clear sense is, that the Philippians had been sharers of that grace which the apostle himself had received from God, to suffer imprisonment, and be exposed to contumely, in maintaining the cause of the gospel. Their work of love toward himself would probably be included in the apostle’s thoughts, but it is most unnatural to restrict the words to so limited a moaning.—Ed.

 



#78 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:02 AM

No. II.

 

The history of Epaphroditus supplies another observation: “Indeed he was sick, nigh unto death; but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.” In this passage, no intimation is given that Epaphroditus’s recovery was miraculous. It is plainly, I think, spoken of as a natural event. This instance, together with one in the second Epistle to Timothy, (“Tro­phimus have I left at Miletum sick,”) affords a proof that the power of performing cures, and, by parity of reason, of working other miracles, was a power which only visited the apostles occasionally, and did not at all depend upon their own will.   Paul undoubtedly would have healed Epaphroditus if he could. Nor, if the power of working cures had awaited his disposal, would he have left his fellow-traveller at Miletus sick. This, I think, is a fair observation upon the instances adduced; but it is not the observation I am concerned to make. It is more for the purpose of my argument to remark, that forgery, upon such an occasion, would not have spared a miracle; much less would it have introduced St. Paul pro­fessing the utmost anxiety for the safety of his friend, yet acknowledging himself unable to help him; which he does, almost expressly, in the case of Trophimus, for he “left him sick;” and virtually in the passage before us, in which he felicitates himself upon the recovery of Epaphroditus, in terms which almost exclude the supposition of any supernatural means being employed to effect it. This is a reserve which nothing but truth would have imposed.



#79 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:04 AM

No. III.

 

Chap. 4:15, 16. “Now, ye Philippians, know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Mace­donia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.”

 

It will be necessary to state the Greek of this passage, because our translation does not, I think, give the sense of it accurately.

 

Οἴδατε δὲ καὶ ὑμεῖς, Φιλιππήσιοι, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, οὐδεμία μοι ἐκκλησία ἐκοινώνησεν, ἐις λόγον δόσεως, καὶ λήμψεως, ἐι μὴ ὑμεῖς μόνοι, ὅτι καὶ ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ καὶ ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς ἐις τὴν χρείαν μοι ἐπέμψατε.

 

The reader will please to direct his attention to the corre­sponding particulars on and οτι και, which connect the words ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, with the words ἐν Θεσσαλονίκῃ, and denote, as I interpret the passage, two distinct donations, or rather donations at two distinct periods, one at Thessalonica, ἅπαξ καὶ δὶς, the other after his departure from Macedonia, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας.*    Ι would render the passage so as to mark these different periods, thus: “Now, ye Philippians, know also, that in the begin­ning of the gospel, when I was departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. And that also in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity.” Now with this exposition of the passage compare 2 Cor. 11:8, 9: “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And 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.”

 

It appears from St. Paul’s history, as related in the Acts of the Apostles, that upon leaving Macedonia, he passed, after a very short stay at Athens, into Achaia. It appears, secondly, from the quotation out of the Epistle to the Corinthians, that in Achaia he accepted no pecuniary assistance from the con­verts of that country; but that he drew a supply for his wants from the Macedonian Christians. Agreeably whereunto it appears, in the third place, from the text which is the subject of the present number, that the brethren in Philippi, a city of Macedonia, had followed him with their munificence, ὅτε ἐξῆλθον ἀπὸ Μακεδονίας, when he was departed from Macedonia, that is, when he was come into Achaia.

 

The passage under consideration affords another circumstance of agreement deserving of our notice. The gift alluded to in the Epistle to the Philippians is stated to have been made “in the beginning of the gospel.” This phrase is most naturally explained to signify the first preaching of the gospel in these parts; namely, on that side of the Ægean Sea. The succours referred to in the Epistle to the Corinthians, as received from Macedonia, are stated to have been received by him upon his first visit to the peninsula of Greece. The dates therefore assigned to the donation in the two epistles agree; yet is the date in one ascertained very incidentally, namely, by the con­siderations which fix the date of the epistle itself; and in the other, by an expression (“the beginning of the gospel”) much too general to have been used if the text had been penned with any view to the correspondency we are re­marking.

 

Further, the phrase, “in the beginning of the gospel,” raises an idea in the reader’s mind that the gospel had been preached there more than once. The writer would hardly have called the visit to which he refers the "beginning of the gospel,” if he had not also visited them in some other stage of it. The fact corresponds with this idea. If we consult the sixteenth and twentieth chapters of the Acts, we shall find, that St. Paul, before his imprisonment at Rome, during which this epistle purports to have been written, had been twice in Mace­donia, and each time at Philippi.

 

-------

* Luke 2:15. Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἀπῆλθον ἀπʼ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, “as the angels were gone away,” that is, after their departure, οἱ ποιμένες ἐἱπον πρὸς ἀλλήλους. Matt. 12:43. Ὅταν δὲ τὸ ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, “when the unclean spirit is gone,” that is, after his departure, διέρχεται. John 13:30. Ὅτε ἐξῆλθε (Ἰούδα?), “when he was gone,” that is, after his de­parture, λέγει Ἰησοῦς. Acts 10:7, ὡς δὲ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἄγγελος ὁ λαλῶν τ Κορνηλί, “and when the angel which spake unto him was departed,” that is, after his departure, φωνήσας δύο τῶν ὀικέτῶν, &c.

 



#80 Resource Manager

Resource Manager

    Forum Management

  • Administrators
  • 14460 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:04 AM

No. IV.

 

That Timothy had been long with St. Paul at Philippi is a fact which seems to be implied in this epistle twice. First, he joins in the salutation with which the epistle opens: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi.” Secondly, and more directly, the point is inferred from what is said concerning him, chap. 2:19: “But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort when I know your state. For I have no man like minded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.” Had Timothy’s presence with St. Paul at Philippi, when he preached the gospel there, been expressly remarked in the Acts of the Apostles, this quotation might be thought to contain a contrived adaptation to the history; although, even in that case, the averment, or rather the allusion in the epistle, is too oblique to afford much room for such suspicion. But the truth is, that in the history of St. Paul’s transactions at Philippi, which occupies the greatest part of the sixteenth chapter of the Acts, no mention is made of Timothy at all. What appears concerning Timothy in the history, so far as relates to the present subject, is this: When Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, “behold a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus. ... Him would Paul have to go forth with him.” The narrative then proceeds with the account of St. Paul’s progress through various provinces of the Lesser Asia, till it brings him down to Troas. At Troas he was warned in a vision to pass over into Macedonia. In obedience to which he crossed the Ægean Sea to Samothracia, the next day to Nea­polis, and from thence to Philippi. His preaching, miracles, and persecutions at Philippi, followed next: after which Paul and his company, when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, came to Thessalonica, and from Thessalonica to Berea. From Berea the brethren sent away Paul; “but Silas and Timotheus abode their still.” The itinerary, of which the above is an abstract, is undoubtedly sufficient to support an inference that Timothy was along with St. Paul at Philippi. We find them setting out together upon this progress from Derbe, in Lycaonia; we find them together near the conclusion of it, at Berea, in Macedonia. It is highly probable, therefore, that they came together to Philippi, through which their route between these two places lay. If this be thought pro­bable, it is sufficient. For what I wish to be observed is, that in comparing, upon this subject, the epistle with the history, we do not find a recital in one place of what is related in another; but that we find, what is much more to be relied upon, an oblique allusion to an implied fact.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users