Jump to content

Horæ Apostolicæ


Resource Manager
 Share

Recommended Posts

CHAPTER III.

 

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

 

The two epistles to the church at Corinth abound with local and personal allusions, and have naturally supplied Paley with the largest materials for his work. The Horæ contain twelve articles upon each letter, and many of the coincidences de­veloped in them are remarkably interesting and conclusive. After so large a harvest, it would occasion no surprise if we found only a scanty gleaning. This, however, is not the case. Several of the coincidences that remain are perhaps equally striking as those which he has already developed. Since the argument is cumulative, the chapter on this epistle in the Horæ should first be read, before examining the further coin­cidences, which will be given in the following pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Resource Manager

    187

No. I.

 

1 Cor. 1:1. “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth.”

 

These words, in the opening of the letter, are the subject of a note in the Horæ Paulinæ, which Paley has not inserted in the text, because the coincidence is made to depend on a various and less authentic reading. If however, we can dis­cover a probable coincidence, without recourse to critical violence, it may claim a lawful place in the argument.

 

First, it is remarkable that, while Silvanus and Timothy are joined in the superscription of two letters, and Timothy alone in four others, Sosthenes is joined here in the address to the Corinthians, while his name never occurs again in all the thirteen letters. Silvanus is named in the epistles four times, and Timothy eighteen times; but Sosthenes here only. Many others, as Luke, Demas, Aristarchus, are named re­peatedly, who are never joined in the superscription. It is natural to conclude that there must be some reason, peculiar to the church of Corinth, why Sosthenes is thus associated with the apostle in this letter only.

 

When we turn to the history of Paul’s abode at Corinth, we have the following statement:

 

Acts 18:12-17. “And when Gallio was deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law. And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you: but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters. And he drave them from the judgment seat. Then all the Greeks took Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment seat; and Gallio cared for none of these things.”

 

If Sosthenes had been beaten by the Jews, no one would have doubted that the same person was meant, here and in the epistle. Some manuscripts have that reading, while others omit either term. Paley conjectures that this last was the original text, and that various supplements have been added, according to the views of the transcribers. But besides the fact that most manuscripts read “all the Greeks,” it is required by the scope of the passage. When the Jews had been repelled with ignominy from the judgment seat, it would be a most unlikely moment for them to venture on an act of violence, even in Gallio’s presence; and not less unlikely that the actual ruler of the synagogue should be a Christian and not simply a Jew. The passage clearly speaks its own tale. On the contemptuous repulse of the Jews, the Greek mob, who disliked their religion, and still more their turbu­lence, seized the opportunity given them by this public dis­grace, to inflict a kind of rude justice, as they would reckon it, on the ruler of the synagogue, the leader of those Jews, whom Gallio had driven away as foolish and troublesome accusers. Gallio himself, secretly pleased that the mob should second his own contempt for the Jews, looked on coolly, and refused to interfere. It is thus morally certain that Sosthenes is here exhibited as the leader of the unbelieving and calum­nious Jews.

 

How, then, can the two passages be shown to coincide? Simply by a reference to the statement a few verses before. “And Crispus, the chief rider of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house.” If one chief ruler had already been converted to the faith, clearly the supposition is not at all violent, that the same change might also occur in the case of Sosthenes, his immediate successor in the office.    The history will even go still further, and suggest a very probable occasion of his conversion. It is plain that, after the repulse by Gallio, the Jews were the objects of popular odium, and endured a sort of temporary persecution. We are sure that Paul would have no sympathy with the Greek rioters; and it is almost certain, from his conduct on other occasions, that one of his first efforts would be to express his sympathy for the chief ruler of the synagogue, now in his turn the object of scorn and ill treatment from a licentious populace like that of Corinth. It would not be surprising if such an exhibition of love to an enemy, at such a time, were the means of bringing him to repentance, and turned the ringleader of opposition into "Sosthenes our brother.”

 

We have thus two imperfect presumptions in the history, from the case of Crispus his predecessor, and the probable con­duct of St. Paul at a critical season, to render the conversion of Sosthenes highly credible. His name, in the superscription of the letter, since it must be the name of some one well known at Corinth, and of influence there, turns this credible conjecture into a certainty. And now the history, in its turn, explains the superscription. For if Sosthenes had been the ruler of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, the leading adversary of the apostle, and since then a convert to the faith, and a beloved brother, no name could be so suitable and impressive to unite with his own in the opening salutation. Saul the persecutor and blasphemer, turned into Paul the apostle, and Sosthenes the leader in persecution against that apostle, now become Sosthenes our brother, were two trophies of Divine grace that might fitly stand side by side, and which, when combined, would appeal with double power to the church at Corinth. We have thus a coincidence, most indirect and circuitous, yet beautifully complete. The evidence of personal identity, though constructive, amounts to a moral certainty, while the previous history of Sosthenes is a complete key to his place in the superscription of this one epistle alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. II.

 

1 Cor. 1:4-7. “I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ; that in everything ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge,.... so that ye come behind in no gift.”

 

It appears from these opening words that the Corinthian converts had eminent gifts of “knowledge and utterance,” and hence, from the comparatively low moral standard they had attained, they must have been exposed to a great danger of pride in these endowments.

 

Now if we read the letter with care, we shall discover a peculiar style of remonstrance running through its whole course, and exactly suited to counteract and expose this evil. To show this, it is necessary to quote several passages, and if they are read in their own context, the truth will be placed in a still clearer light.

 

In the first chapter, towards the close, we have this animated appeal,— “Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

 

In the third chapter we have a double statement bearing on this main evil. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” And again, “If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”

 

In the fourth chapter, in reference to his own intended visit, he gives this warning, “I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.”

 

In the sixth chapter we have no less than five distinct appeals to them, with reference to their supposed knowledge, and the practical use to which it should be applied. “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?..... Know ye not that we shall judge angels? . . . Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? ... Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?... What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?”

 

The eighth chapter begins with an appeal that is still more pointed in its application, and where our translation needs improvement, to remove its obscurity, and bring out the true meaning.

 

“Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know (be­cause we all have knowledge; knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.   But if any man love God, the same is known of Him.) As touch­ing, then, the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world.”

 

In the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters the same indirect lesson re-appears. “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge, . . . and have not charity, I am nothing. . . . What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the com­mandments of the Lord.”

 

“Charity never faileth; but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.”

 

This unity of remonstrance and caution amidst such a variety of topics, this strain of delicate irony pervading the whole letter, when compared with the thanksgiving in the opening verses for their gifts of knowledge and utterance, is a mark of reality not to be mistaken. It is true that the coincidence is entirely within the limits of the letter itself, but it is not, on this account, the less complete and powerful. The harmony between that statement and these various reproofs could exist only for a mind like that of the apostle, who could thank God for the gifts they had received, while fully alive to the abuse of those gifts on the part of the Corinthians, and who could mingle reproof, in the gentlest and most indirect manner, with all the variety of instructions he had to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. III.

 

1 Cor. 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.”

 

Ch. 3:21, 22. “All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come.”

 

The agreement with the history, as to Paul and Apollos, has been noticed by Paley, in No. V. of his remarks on this epistle. But the mention of Cephas will supply another mark of reality, less obvious, but hardly inferior in strength.

 

We may clearly infer, from this repeated mention of Cephas, that there was a third party at Corinth, distinct from those of Paul and Apollos, who looked up to St. Peter as their favourite authority. From the order in both places, we may conclude that it was only the third in numbers and influence.

 

The history relates that St. Paul founded the church, and that it was greatly profited, after his departure, by the instruc­tions of Apollos. We have no hint respecting any visit of St. Peter. Mr. Greswell, indeed, would infer it from these very passages (Diss. ii. 106, 107). But if we observe that St. Paul mentions himself and Apollos only as having actually laboured at Corinth, we may fairly deduce from his words the very opposite, that Cephas or Peter had not preached at Corinth. How, in that case, could his name be placed after Apollos, as if his influence were inferior; or how could the history, which mentions the visit of Apollos, pass over his in silence? It is natural, however, that the partisans of Cephas who had never been at Corinth, should be fewer than those of Paul and Apollos, who resided so long among them.

 

But why should Peter, if he had not visited Corinth, have any distinct party there whatever? The explanation is very simple.  The church, there as elsewhere, began from the Jewish synagogue; and Crispus the chief ruler, and even Sosthenes his successor, as has just been shown, became con­verts. Hence there were many Jews among its members, though the majority were Gentiles. Now Peter was the most eminent apostle of the circumcision. And hence those Jewish converts, who clung most firmly to their national customs, would look to him as their favourite authority, although he had never paid a visit to Corinth.

 

Now when we compare the two epistles, it is plain that Judaism was not the chief danger at Corinth, as it was among the Galatians, but Gentilism, or undue conformity with hea­thenish customs. This is evident from the eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters of the first epistle, and the sixth chapter of the second. In fact, the greater part of the letters give us no trace of a Jewish party, distinct from the more powerful sections who gloried in the names of Paul and Apollos.

 

When we turn, however, to the close of the second epistle, this third party comes into view. Its existence is clearly implied in those questions of St. Paul with reference to the false teachers, who sought to disparage his authority, “Are they Hebrews? so am I.    Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.    Are they ministers of Christ?    I speak as a fool, I am more.”

 

We have thus an indirect proof, by comparing the history with the second epistle, of what is implied in these verses of the first epistle; that there was a Jewish party at Corinth, distinct from those of Paul and Apollos, and that it was weaker and less important than the two others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IV.

 

1 Cor. 4:17. “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ.”

 

In No. III. of the Horæ on this epistle, Paley traces out the undesigned agreement of these words with those in Acts 19:22. Since, however, Mr. Greswell supposes that the two were distinct missions, it is needful to examine the question anew.

 

And first, the hypothesis is highly improbable, on a bare in­spection of the two passages. For the mission in Acts was ex­pressly to prepare for St. Paul’s own journey. In like manner, the mission in the letter was when St. Paul was on the eve of that journey. “I will come unto you, when I have passed through Macedonia, for I do pass through Macedonia.” This proof alone is sufficient, without strong counter-evidence, and none such is to be found.

 

The first reason alleged is, that St. Paul had decided on his journey to Jerusalem and Rome at the time of the mission in Acts, but not at the time of the epistle. Of this latter assertion, however, there is no proof, nor even a reasonable presumption. For it is plain that the apostle, of set purpose, reserved the full statement of his plans from the Corinthians, until he should know the effect of his admonitions. He dis­closes more in the second letter than in the first, and more, doubtless, on his arrival than in the second letter, but no change of plan is implied in this gradual communication.

 

Next, it is alleged that, at the date of the epistle, he had not yet determined on passing through Macedonia, and so to Achaia, which he had determined at the time of the mission in Acts. But the text just referred to (1 Cor. 16:5,) proves the exact reverse, that this determination was already made.

 

The third reason is, that after the mission in Acts, Paul rejoined Timothy, and not Timothy St. Paul. But this is no presumption for a double mission, since the same might equally be true of the absence mentioned in the letter. It is true that St. Paul then expected Timothy to return, but it is equally certain that he himself left Ephesus sooner than he intended, and it is also probable that Timothy might be detained in Macedonia beyond the apostle’s expectation.

 

The last reason urged is, that in the second letter St. Paul speaks of being ready to come for the third time. Now there is such a promise in the first and also in the second epistle, but not a third, unless in the mission of Timothy,—either the one in Acts, or some prior mission. And the latter is thought more probable, because the Acts do not state that Timothy was sent into Achaia, but there is proof in the epistle that he was sent to Corinth.

 

There seems to be here a succession of errors. The natural meaning of the words— "this is the third time I am ready to come to you,” is that this would be the third visit, including the one of which he had been disappointed. Such is the view of Grotius and Paley, and is a simple explanation. But to explain it as a third purposing of this second visit is an im­probable view, refuted by the apostle’s words, who speaks of one change of purpose, and one only. Again, the silence about Achaia in the Acts is no proof that Timothy was not intended to visit Corinth; while that intention, as expressed in the letter, is no proof that he actually reached it. And thus every one of the three premises is quite baseless.

 

In fact, the double mission of Timothy is not only impro­bable, but irreconcilable with the plain scope of both passages. That the mission in Acts was very shortly before the apostle left Ephesus, is clearly expressed by the historian. But the mission in the letter was also shortly before that departure, since the apostle describes himself, as if setting out already. “I will come unto you when I have passed through Macedonia, for I do pass through Macedonia.” And again, soon after, “I will not see you just now by the way.” The hypothesis of a double mission is therefore on the indirect coincidence untenable, and the remarks of Paley are accurate and true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. V.

 

1 Cor. 5:9.— “I wrote unto you in an epistle, not to com­pany with fornicators; yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then ye must needs go out of this world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no, not to eat”

 

There has been a division of opinion on these verses, whether the apostle refers merely to the letter he was writing, or to some other, which is not extant. Many have embraced the former view, being unwilling to suppose that any letter of St. Paul should have perished. This is the construction of Chrysostom and Theodoret, and a great number of commen­tators. On the other hand, there are many critical authorities for the second view, which is held by Calvin, Grotius, Dod­dridge, Hug, Rosenmüller, and is plainly adopted by the translators of our English Bible. The words of Calvin are these— “Ista epistola, de quâ loquitur, hodie non extat. Nec dubium quin multœ aliœ exciderint; sed satis est, quod nobis supersunt quis sufficere Dominus providet.”* This question must first be settled, before we can trace any coincidence from these words.

 

Now if the reference be to the actual letter, it must either be to a command implied in the previous passage, or to the words just passing from his pen. It cannot, however, be the former. For the command of which he speaks is one so generally expressed, as to need limiting afterwards to the case of a Christian brother. But the only implicit command, de-ducible from the previous passage, is limited of its own nature to fellowship with a Christian brother; since the incestuous person was a member of the church. Hence the charge cannot be one implicitly contained in the preceding verses.

Is it then, perhaps, the charge he is actually writing? But in a passage of such intense feeling, how could he adopt such an indirect and ambiguous mode of expression, instead of that direct and simple form, which meets us in Ephesians, “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.” In such a case, he would doubtless have written here— “Have no fellowship with fornicators:” and the added words— “I have written to you in my letter,” would be nothing else than verbiage, weakening and obscuring the force of the appeal.

 

The reasons, then, for this view seem quite decisive. It is the natural construction, which would suggest itself instinctively to the general reader. The form of the phrase is exactly the same as in 2 Cor. 7:8, where the reference is to a former letter; and this sets aside the objection, that in this case he would have written τῇ παροτέρᾳ ἐπιστόλῇ. It is most probable that St Paul would write more letters in twenty years than the fourteen which are in the canon. There is also a plain contrast between the former direction, and the more specific instruction in the present passage.

 

The only ground of the opposite opinion is a reluctance to admit that any letters of St Paul can have perished. Yet there is no more real difficulty in supposing him to have written several, not now extant, than in the certain fact that so many inspired discourses of our Lord and his apostles were never written at all. Either in an oral or written message, inspiration alone would not constitute it a part of the canon. There would be needed an express purpose of the Holy Spirit, indicated to the writer or to others, that it was to be perma­nently recorded for the instruction of the whole church. An opposite view would imply that the apostles were wholly debarred from the natural use of writing, except for one very limited and peculiar purpose, which is surely most unreason­able. The existence, then, of such a previous letter is open to no solid objection of a theological nature, from the peculiar character of inspired writings.

 

If now we turn to the narrative, the view here maintained has the utmost historical probability in its favour. It was little more than two days’ sail from Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, to Ephesus, and there was a continual commerce between them. The stay of the apostle at Ephesus was be­tween two and three years. And hence, when we remember his long abode at Corinth, and his deep interest in the church he had founded, it is impossible that repeated communications should not have passed between them. It is also most unlikely that he should never once, till the very close of that time, have added a short written message by the hand of the messengers. The fact, therefore, implied in the above passage, taken in its only natural sense, has the highest degree of historical probability.

 

Let us now compare 2 Cor. 10:10, 11. The apostle there repeats the remark of some false teacher at Corinth, who disparaged his authority.   “For his letters, saith he, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters, when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.” Here, not only in the words which St. Paul quotes, but in his own rejoinder, we are taught that more letters than one had reached the Corinthians, For that the allusion is not to other letters, as those to Thessalonica, is plain from the contrast. “Such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present.” They were letters, therefore, of ad­monition and partial rebuke to the Corinthians themselves. Hence these two incidental notices agree perfectly with each other, while they are in equal harmony with the history, in the apostle’s long abode at Ephesus, within two or three days’ sail of Corinth.

 

-------

* That epistle, of which he speaks, is not now extant. Nor is it doubtful that many others have perished; but it is enough that those remain which the Lord foresaw to be sufficient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us see next whether we cannot trace these communi­cations a little further. The apostle had now received at least two reports or messages from Corinth, one by the house of Chloe, 1 Cor. 1:11, and another by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who seem to have brought a letter, with written cases for his decision, 1 Cor. 7:1; 16:17. Still earlier, however, Apollos, who was at Corinth when Paul reached Ephesus, (Acts 19:1,) had returned to Ephesus himself, and was there at the date of this letter, 1 Cor. 16:12. The report about the incestuous person seems to have reached the apostle from several sources, (1 Cor. 5:1), and from the order of its mention, most probably by some channel later than the report from Chloë’s household, and before the arrival of Stephanas with the Corinthian letter. Hence, even before that letter came, St. Paul had not only changed his plan of visiting Corinth on his way to Macedonia, but had informed them of the change, so as to have heard its effect upon their minds. “Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come unto you.” In the second epistle, he inquires, “Did I make a gain of you by any of them whom I sent unto you? "He mentions one instance, the mission of Titus with a brother, but implies evidently that he had sent other mes­sages beside. And even that journey of Titus is not the same as when he carried the first epistle, which we may infer as follows. The first epistle was written before the Pentecost, after the winter, and near to the time of the passover (see Horæ, No. XII.)    The second, when St Paul was still in Macedonia, some little time before he reached Corinth, not later probably than September. Yet the mission of Titus, to begin the contribution at Corinth, was then a full year distant, 2 Cor. 8:10; 9:2. And hence there must have been a mission of Titus in the previous year to that of the first epistle, of which he was also the bearer to Corinth.

 

We have thus four or five distinct occasions, when tidings might reach the apostle from Corinth; by the return of Apollos, by the house of Chloe, by nameless reporters, who told of the incestuous person, by the return of Titus the previous year, and lastly, by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, when they brought the letter from the church. We have also several messages to Corinth, even before the first epistle, by other brethren, 2 Cor. 12:17; by the former visit of Titus, and by those who announced his change of plan, before sending Timothy into Macedonia. For this must have been shortly before the first epistle, and not the same with the visit of Titus, to begin the contribution. All these hints agree with each other.

 

But the coincidence, on further investigation, becomes still more complete. The letter alluded to contained a charge, not to company with fornicators. We may fairly conclude that it was one of grave authority and faithful warning. Thus the words of the objector are explained, “his letters are weighty and powerful;” that is, they have a tone of dignity and authority. Such is clearly the character of the first extant epistle, and from the one hint that is left, was equally true of its predecessor.

 

Again, the change of route, 2 Cor. 1:23, was in order to spare the Corinthians, after St. Paul had learned of the disorders among them. It was after this change that Timothy was sent into Macedonia, with the intention that he should also proceed to Corinth. Now when the first epistle was written, St. Paul had already announced his purpose of delay­ing his visit; for he had heard that some were puffed up, as though in so doing he had treated them with indifference. A communication, we may infer with certainty, had taken place, since the tidings of the abuses had reached him. There is thus, gathered laboriously from the collation of hints easily overlooked, a full explanation of the statement respecting the previous letter, and its contents of faithful warning. “I wrote unto you in an epistle, not to company with fornicators.”

 

The direction at that time was more general. Now, after fuller intelligence, it is more carefully explained in its true limit, and rendered more specific in the application. “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator,... with such an one no not to eat.” And there is here also a probable and sufficient reason why the former letter should not be preserved. It was of the same general character with the first epistle now extant, but founded on more imperfect information, and more brief and general in its admonitions. And hence the apostle himself might be directed to forbid copies of it for the other churches, since every purpose it would fulfil was answered more completely by the one which followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. VI.

 

1 Cor. 5:7. “For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast.”

 

In No. XII. on this epistle, Paley infers from the above passage, compared with others, that the letter was written about the time of a passover. It is desirable to inquire whether its date can be more exactly determined, since the force of one or two other coincidences will be affected by it, and Mr. Greswell throws back its date to the very beginning of the year, or three complete months before the time of the Passover.

 

In favour of this opinion it is urged that the expression, “let us keep the feast,” could not be used with propriety, unless this festival were still in prospect. But this is an evident misinterpretation. The apostle’s allusion is rendered more vivid, if he wrote about the time of the Jewish feast, but clearly he is not enforcing an actual celebration, and simply transfers the type to its spiritual counterpart in the whole life of the Chris­tian, which was to be a rejoicing in the sacrifice of Christ in sincerity and truth.

 

There are several reasons of much greater force which prove that the letter was rather after the passover than before it. The intended limit of the stay at Ephesus was the feast of Pentecost, seven weeks after the other. But several hints imply that the actual interval was very short from the date of the letter. Though St. Paul intended to go through Mace­donia first, he still regards his visit to Corinth as near. “I will come to you shortly,” (4:19.)    He leaves many particulars to be set in order, “when I come,” (11:34.) He speaks of his journey almost as if begun, “I am passing through Mace­donia ... I will not see you just now by the way.” The manner in which he speaks of tarrying till Pentecost implies that it was only a few weeks distant, so that he might almost view himself as starting already on his way, and only prolonging his stay till a feast, probably because the absence of so many Jews might seem a favourable occasion for quitting a sphere, where they had been such bitter adversaries. Again, he had sent Timothy into Macedonia, and informed the Corinthians of his change of plan, before Stephanas set out from Corinth. And it is probable that Timothy would not be sent out until the winter was fairly over. The passover was celebrated in Judæa, where alone the sacrifices could be offered; and hence the allusion to it would be as natural at the time when the Jews were returning from thence to Ephesus, as at the actual time of celebration. This would be two or three weeks after the close of the feast. By comparing the two epistles, it appears that Titus was not directed to rejoin the apostle at Ephesus, but at Troas, which is a further proof that Pentecost, the intended limit, was not very distant. Hence, on the whole, the most probable date seems to be about three weeks after the passover-day, when multitudes of the Jews would be returning from Palestine after attending the feast, and four weeks before Pentecost. Since the departure of the apostle was hastened by the tumult, this might really be not more than a fortnight or three weeks, after the letter was written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. VII.

 

1 Cor. 15:30, 31. “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by my rejoicing for you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to­morrow we die.”

 

When the epistle was written, St. Paul was still in or near Ephesus, where he intended to stay until Pentecost. It was, therefore, prior to the tumult, Acts 19, after which he set out at once for Macedonia. Yet it could not, as we have seen, be much earlier, but probably was two or three weeks before the tumult arose.

 

There is thus a coincidence between the time when the letter was written, inferred very indirectly from several slight hints, which fix it only by their combination, and the danger of St. Paul, described in this animated passage. Besides the old hatred of the Jews, which led them to speak evil of that way before the multitude, the selfishness of the craftsmen, and the superstitious patriotism of the Ephesians, were now com­bining against him, and mounted soon to a perfect paroxysm of rage. It is true that the history gives us no details of the opposition before that final explosion, but it is morally certain that for several weeks, perhaps months, before such a universal mutiny of the populace, St. Paul would indeed “stand in jeopardy every hour,” and feel himself exposed daily, as he here assures the Corinthians in the most solemn manner, to the peril of death.

 

And this leads us to examine the other expression, which is involved in some doubt and obscurity. And first, the phrase κατ νθρωπον, in St. Paul’s epistle, denotes constantly “to speak after the manner of men,” as Rom. 3:5; 1 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 3:15. There are only two interpretations which seem possible, without great violence; that St. Paul refers to some actual and literal combat with wild beasts, or that he employs this metaphor to describe the fierceness of his adversaries. If the allusion be to a literal conflict, the manner of it will imply that the fact was well known to the Corinth­ians, and hence would be a moral proof that the letter is genuine. But the phrase itself points us to a different expla­nation. Why should St. Paul use the qualifying expression, “to speak as men,” if he referred to a literal conflict? Chrysostom explains it to mean, “so far as depended on man’s will,” or that the furious multitude demanded this punishment. But it is surely unnatural for the apostle to instance sufferings never inflicted, and to pass over those which were really en­dured. A recent popular commentator explains it, that he was thrown to the wild beasts, and had every human prospect of being destroyed. This, however, instead of being the fair and obvious meaning, is inconsistent with the words, and would require a different phrase. “If, after human appearance, I was slain by wild beasts at Ephesus.” On the other hand, it would be a mode of speech usual among men, to call his conflict with fierce adversaries a combat with wild beasts. The scope of the passage almost requires a reference to some continued danger, which might have been averted by a worldly course, but which he persevered in enduring through his hope of a better resurrection.

 

Now on this view, the only one which really satisfies the meaning of the whole phrase, we have an indirect and un­suspicious agreement with the history. The time is not that of the tumult itself, but still it was only a very few weeks earlier, possibly not more than a fortnight. Nothing could be more natural than for the apostle, living in the midst of such fierce enemies, and aware of their gathering hatred, to express his own sufferings by this vivid metaphor, which their violence and rage in the amphitheatre turned, very soon, into a direct prophecy. What could bear a closer resemblance to the raging of hungry wild beasts, let loose from their dens, than that scene at Ephesus? How vivid and appropriate is the description St. Paul here gives us of his own state, a few weeks before the catastrophe, when we compare it with the frightful spectacle itself! “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by my rejoicing for you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. Yet although, to speak in the language of men, I have contended with wild beasts here at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.” Let us renounce at once that course of zeal and faithfulness, which draws down upon me the rage of adversaries, furious as the beasts of prey, and purchase peace by joining in worldly revelry, instead of continuing to brave their fierce hatred.

 

What mark of reality can be more impressive than that which is furnished by this passage, when correctly explained, and then compared with the sacred history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. VIII.

 

1 Cor. 16:1. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.”

 

These words have been cited in the Horæ, from their coincidence with the statements of the history, that Galatia was visited shortly before St. Paul arrived at Ephesus, and with one hint in the Epistle to the Galatians. They are here adduced for a distinct purpose, to throw light on several indirect allusions in that former letter.

 

Reasons have been already given, to show that the Epistle to the Galatians was written from Corinth, about midway or later, in the apostle’s absence from them, and before his second visit. We find, in the case of Macedonia and Achaia, that St. Paul did not think it wise to set on foot a contribution for Judæa in the first infancy of these churches, but waited till their faith was confirmed. It would have made the gospel too much like a Jewish scheme for levying contributions for Palestine, if this duty had been very early enforced on the converts in their novitiate. It was just before the second visit to these places that the contribution was set on foot, and completed soon after. A time of doctrinal corruption, it is plain, would also be premature for enforcing such a duty, which would then be regarded with jealousy, or else made the food of self-righteous error. It was natural, then, and almost neces­sary, that St. Paul should not set on foot this contribution on his first visit to Galatia, nor during that interval of decay and false doctrine, which filled him with deep anxiety, but only when his rebukes had produced a wholesome repentance, and he had paid them a second visit, “strengthening all the dis­ciples.” So far, the coincidence is the same which Paley has noted, with one added feature of truth, in the special suita­bleness of the second visit, Acts 18:23, for those directions, which this passage in the letter proves to have been given at that time, and not before.

 

But a more delicate harmony remains still to be noticed. If St. Paul, when he wrote to the Galatians, felt their actual state unsuitable for any direct charge about the contribution, and yet designed fully to urge it upon them, in a second visit, if they were reclaimed by his letter, he would naturally seek to prepare their minds for it by hints in that letter, which might work their effect silently, and bear fruit in due season. Let us now see whether there are not unobtrusive, and still unquestionable tokens of such a secret purpose.

 

First, in his review of the history, what is the solitary point which he names, as the suggestion of the other apostles, the pillars of the church, with which he was prompt and ready to comply?” Only they would that we should remem­ber the poor (that is, of the Jewish believers), the same which I also was forward to do.”

 

What instruction does he give for their conduct towards all those from whom they received spiritual blessings?    “Let him that is taught in the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good things.” This is the very maxim on which he rests the contribution in the two later epistles to Corinth and Rome; that the Gentiles had been partakers from the Jews of spiritual things, and ought therefore to minister to them in carnal or temporal things.

 

Not satisfied with this double hint, bearing on the duty of liberality, he repeats it once more, in a form directly and plainly applicable to the future contribution. “And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have, therefore, opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to them who are of the household of faith.” Surely this is a prospective instruction, which he proposed to unfold more clearly, by the orders he afterwards gave to the churches of Galatia respecting the con­tribution for Judæa, before he reached Ephesus, and wrote similar instructions to Corinth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IX.

 

1 Cor. 16:6. “And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.”

 

The apostle, having once disappointed the Corinthians, though for a weighty and sufficient reason, would not lightly disappoint them again. He speaks with some doubt, because he was still uncertain what effect his letter would have, and he had determined not to visit them again, till he might do it with joy. Since, however, we learn from the second epistle that the result of the first even surpassed his hopes, we may be sure that he would keep his present engagement, if it were at all possible. His departure from Ephesus was only hastened, not hindered by the tumult, and thus would concur with the same design. Although in form it is a doubtful and conditional promise, we know that the main cause of doubt was removed, and hence may view it as a simple prediction.

 

Let us now turn to the history. We are there informed that Paul sent for the elders of the church to Miletus, for he “had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.” The urgent haste, which is essential to explain the summons of the elders, is only half accounted for by this fact alone, of the proposed termination of the voyage, unless we knew also its commence­ment; and for this reason, doubtless, the historian told us before, “We sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread.” One other note of time is given, the cha­racter of which is best shown by a full quotation.

 

“And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.”

 

Now if St. Paul and St. Luke sailed from Philippi after the passover, they probably reached it before the feast began. If companions were with them from Thessalonica and Berea, it is likely that the apostle touched at those places in his way, and gave  “a second benefit” to those churches as well as Philippi. He must therefore, it is probable, have left Corinth a month be­fore the passover began, or not later than the end of February or the first week of March. But since he spent three months in Greece or Achaia, and the phrase implies that these were complete, he must have reached it about the last week of No­vember, or the first of December. There was thus a punctual fulfilment of his conditional promise.— “It may be that I shall abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.” The only shade of difference between the promise and its accomplishment bears a further trace of real history. The apostle seems to have reached Corinth later in the winter season than he expected before leaving Ephesus, a very natural result of unforeseen delays in an extensive circuit through all Macedonia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. X.

 

1 Cor. 16:12. “As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time.”

 

It seems here implied that the Corinthians, in their message to St. Paul, expressed a desire for Apollos to come, if he him­self were hindered. It is plain that St. Paul urged his coming, and that Apollos declined the visit with equal perseverance.

 

All these circumstances are exactly what we might expect from the facts disclosed in these epistles, or detailed in the history. Yet the harmony is of a deep and hidden nature, since to perceive it the character of these eminent teachers requires to be thoughtfully weighed. St. Paul had founded the church, and Apollos had greatly helped its progress. There were two parties, forming the greater part of the whole church, who attached themselves to these leaders even with a sinful emulation. When St. Paul had expressed his resolu­tion to delay his visit, it was very natural that they should desire the return of Apollos, who also was now at Ephesus. It agrees well with the noble character of the apostle, and his freedom from all selfish jealousy, that he should urge Apollos to comply with their request. It was equally natural that Apollos, who had heard by the same messengers of these feuds in the church, and of the abuse of his own name in party rivalry to St. Paul himself, should decline the visit with similar earnestness. The same motive which led to the apostle’s solicitation would prompt his own persevering refusal. Yet St. Paul, as he could not yet disclose fully his own motive for delaying his visit, which he first reveals in his second letter after their repentance, was equally precluded from stating the motive of Apollos, which turned upon the same unhappy divisions. Hence he says only in general terms, which imply more than they express, “Altogether it was not his will to come at this time, but he will come when the time shall be convenient.”

 

The coincidence here is not of the letter with the history, but of a passing hint in the letter with the character and circumstances of Paul and Apollos, as deduced both from the letters and the history in the actual crisis of the Corinthian church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. XI.

 

1 Cor. 16:19. “The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.” Why this one word of emphatic addition in the mention of Aquila and Priscilla? If we turn to Acts 18:2, 3, we learn that they had stayed long at Corinth with the apostles, and been his most intimate companions, working with him daily in the same occupation of tent-makers. If we next consult the close of that same chapter, we find that they were the instructors of Apollos, who expounded to him the way of God more perfectly, and then joined with others in giving him letters of commendation to the believers in Achaia. Hence, from their long abode at Corinth, even longer than that of the apostle, their peculiar intimacy with St. Paul, dwelling in the same house, and working at the same trade, and their relation to Apollos as his spiritual helpers and instructors, they would have a threefold reason for special interest in that church which Paul had planted and Apollos watered. Yet how unstrained and unobtrusive the significance of that one little word,— “Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER IV.

 

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

 

The marks of earnest reality in every part of this letter are so conspicuous, that it seems like holding up a candle to the sun, to dwell on the consistency of particular passages as proof of its authenticity; and indeed so many of these have been traced already in the Horæ, in twelve articles, that any increase of their number may appear doubly needless. The remark of Paley on the first of them (2 Cor. 3: 3-11, Acts 19:23-41) is very just, that this alone would satisfy him the epistle was written by St. Paul, and by St. Paul under the actual circum­stances in which the history places him.

 

Yet, however superfluous they may be deemed in the way of proof, all such internal marks of congruity are of real value. They tend not only to confirm the faith of the Chris­tian, and to illustrate the superabundant evidence of these sacred records, but also to render our impressions of the narra­tive more vivid, and to give us a deeper insight into the more delicate and hidden harmonies of the word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I.

 

2 Cor. 1:1. “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia.”

 

Chap. 2:12,13. “Furthermore, 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.”

 

The agreement between the second of these verses, and the narrative of St. Paul’s return into Asia, has been noticed in the Horæ; but the careful comparison of both passages with the former epistle and the history gives rise to some further remarks, and seems to disclose a very indirect and still an in­disputable coincidence.

 

It appears from the first epistle that Timothy had already gone into Macedonia, and that he was intended by Paul to visit Corinth, and then to rejoin the apostle, we might naturally suppose, at Ephesus. Accordingly, those who refer the first Epistle to Timothy to this date, suppose that he did rejoin him, and was then left behind at Ephesus, till he afterwards rejoined him a second time in Macedonia.

 

Again, Mr. Biley supposes that Titus had directions on leaving Corinth to return by way of Macedonia and Troas, so as to explain the conduct of the apostle, who, when disap­pointed in meeting him at Troas, crossed at once into Mace­donia.

 

The former of these views is open to insurmountable ob­jections, and even the latter seems highly improbable. The passage in Acts implies that St. Paul rather intended to follow Timothy than to await his return to Ephesus, and his own departure was hastened by the tumult. Even if Timothy had time to rejoin him there, it is most unlikely that St. Paul would leave him behind, as if for a prolonged stay, when the storm compelled his own departure; and it is impossible that he should speak of returning thither shortly, when the double delay of a circuit through all Macedonia, and a winter abode at Corinth, were fully in view. It is certain that he could not expect to rejoin him in much less than a year, and improbable that Timothy should desert the post, if thus assigned him, and return to Macedonia, when the apostle charges him to stay till he himself shall come (1 Tim. 4:13). This view, then, is wholly untenable.

 

Again, it is most unlikely that Titus would be instructed to return by Macedonia, when the desire of St. Paul was evi­dently to gain the earliest tidings of his visit. There would be no purpose in his visit to Macedonia, since Timothy had already been sent thither with full instructions. The journey from Corinth to Ephesus, or even to Troas, is shorter than to Philippi, and hence the supposed circuit would involve a needless and improbable delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us now inquire whether the history and the two letters, compared together, will not supply their own key, though so difficult to discover, and as these attempts may show, very easy to misunderstand. We have seen it probable that Titus was sent to Corinth about a month before Pente­cost, the proposed limit of the apostle’s stay at Ephesus. Hence, with the double voyage and the probable delay, St. Paul could not expect him to return before his own departure. He would naturally, therefore, make an appointment to meet at the first station on his own route, which appears, both from Acts 20:6, and the above passage, to have been Troas. He thought it probable that Timothy would reach Corinth during the stay of Titus, though not certain (1 Cor. 16:10, 11), and in this case expected their return together. This return, however, would be to Troas, and not to Ephesus, as results from the previous conclusion. Two contingencies, however, were possible, that either Timothy or Titus might be delayed beyond their expectation. How would these be provided for? Since the object of the apostle was to meet Titus as soon as possible, and still to prosecute his route into Macedonia, he would naturally direct his return to Troas before some fixed time, rather later than Pentecost; but, if he were delayed longer, would instruct him to proceed at once to Philippi, the next station on his own journey. His hasty departure from Ephesus gave him rather more time than he had expected at Troas, so that there was a promising field open; but his eager desire to meet with Titus would not suffer him to stay when the fixed time was past, and he hastened forward into Mace­donia. Again, though Timothy probably set out before the journey of Titus had been decided upon, it was after the apostle had settled both his route and the time of his departure. Hence, if he were delayed in Macedonia a few weeks beyond his expectation, to return by way of Corinth to Ephesus, as he was instructed in case of a speedy visit, would become useless, since instead of rejoining the apostle at once he would actually be travelling away from him, without a chance of overtaking him till he had passed by Corinth, Ephesus, and Troas, into Macedonia again. He would therefore return to Philippi, and Titus would change his route and proceed thither, that both might report their success to the apostle at the first opportunity.

 

Every circumstance on this view is consistent and natural, yet how circuitous and indirect is the evidence by which it is proved. To obtain this harmonious result we need to deter­mine, with tolerable accuracy, the date of the first letter, which depends on three or four passages combined together. We need, secondly, to consider the arrangement which St. Paul was likely to make with Titus, that he might hear the report as soon as possible, on the double contingency of a shorter or longer delay. We need, in the third place, by the help of this conclusion, to interpret the passage (1 Cor. 16:11) as importing a return of Timothy along with Titus, not to Ephesus, but to Troas. We need, lastly, to consider the ground of the doubt in that expression— “Now if Timotheus come,” and to reflect on the most probable course that would be prescribed, if unexpected delays intervened at the very time when Paul had resolved to set out for Macedonia. Combining all these elements, at length we have a full expla­nation how Timothy should be present with the apostle in Macedonia, and how the disappointment in not meeting with Titus at Troas should lead the apostle to cross the sea at once, with the certain hope of meeting him somewhere in Macedonia. There is perhaps no one coincidence more in­direct, derived from more complicated elements, and, when duly weighed, more demonstrably complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Νο. II.

 

This epistle has been often charged with the want of a regular arrangement. And certainly the order is less easy to discern than in most of the others. Yet in reality there is a principle of arrangement running through the whole, which is so unobtrusive as to be hardly ever noticed, and can only be accounted for by its historical truth.

 

It is plain that the letter includes three main subjects, besides the introduction; namely, the explanation of the new covenant and the gospel ministry, the message respecting the contribution, and the vindication of his authority against the false teachers. But along with this general division there is a secret order of historical succession, the advice and exhorta­tions being interwoven, either briefly or at greater length.

 

The letter begins with an apostrophe of thanksgiving for his recent deliverance from the fury of the Ephesian popu­lace. We have, then, in regular sequence, the following events.

 

First, his original plan to visit Corinth on his way to Mace­donia. “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,” 1:15, 16.

 

Second, his change of plan, with its motive (1:17, 23), “I call God for a record upon my soul, that to spare you I came not as yet to Corinth.”

 

Thirdly, the writing of the first letter, with reflections arising out of it. “I wrote this same unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice,” 2:3-11.

 

Fourthly, his arrival at Troas, and disappointment, 2:12, 13.

 

Fifthly, his continued journey into Macedonia, 2:13.

 

Then follows the first main digression from the narrative, with an exposition of the character of the new covenant and the gospel ministry, occupying four chapters, or nearly one-third of the whole. The sequence is then resumed, as follows:

 

Sixthly, his troubles in Macedonia, after his arrival. “For when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side,” 7:5.

 

Seventhly, the arrival of Titus, and his report of the whole­some effects of the letter, 7:6-16.

 

Eighthly, his own account of the zeal and liberality of the Macedonian converts, 8:1-5.

 

Ninthly, the request that Titus would revisit Corinth, and his ready compliance, 8:6-17.

 

Tenthly, the choice of his companions, and instructions how to welcome them, 8:18-24.                                ·

 

We have then a chapter of advice on the contribution, two chapters of exhortation, on the more general and distant pros­pect of St. Paul’s own visit, and a final warning of it as very near at hand, with an anticipation of his own course upon his arrival at Corinth.

 

Now this perfect continuity, amidst long and various digres­sions, this thread of concealed narrative, interwoven with doc­trinal instructions and earnest practical appeals, is quite con­ceivable and natural in the apostle himself, writing in the midst of the events, but is without example in any spurious writing. I am not aware of any critic or commentator, who has ever detected this secret principle of arrangement; yet when once pointed out, its existence is evident, and becomes a conspicuous sign of historical reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. III.

 

2 Cor. 8:18,19. “And we have sent with him our 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, which is adminis­tered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind.”

 

Vers. 22, 23. “And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many things, but now much more diligent, upon the great confidence which he hath in you. Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellow-helper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.”

 

2 Cor. 12:18. “I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?”

 

This mode of introducing the companions of Titus, without so much as naming them, yet with a distinctive commendation of each, has a great air of reality. It is just what would be natural in St. Paul, who was sure that the Corinthians either knew their names already, or would learn them upon their arrival, but whose description of their merits was essential, to secure them a due welcome. Yet this mention could answer no object of a spurious writing, since to this hour there is a great diversity of opinion, who these companions really were. Let us see if we cannot discover a very probable solution, which bears the marks of a real coincidence.

 

First, is the brother in the second passage the same with the first or second of those in the former text, or distinct from both? It is sometimes assumed that he was the same with the former    Yet I think this the least likely of the three alternatives. For if this brother had visited Corinth so lately, and was therefore well known to them in person, would St. Paul have thought this full introduction requisite, which con­tains no allusion to his presence with them previously? On the other hand, the shorter description of the second brother, who had often been diligent in similar errands, will suit perfectly with the hypothesis that he had attended Titus once before. The force of the article is also better explained on this view, than if we suppose a third brother introduced in the second passage. The visit of Titus, however, it has been shown already, was not the same as when he brought the first epistle, but one still earlier, in the previous year, when he set on foot the contribution at Corinth.

 

Mr. Biley, in his Supplement to the Horæ, supposes that Erastus is meant by the first brother in this passage. He argues that there was no reason why St. Paul should speak to them in this way of a stranger, known merely as his com­panion, but only of a Corinthian. Now Erastus was a Corinth­ian, a companion of St. Paul in his travels, and was pro­bably with him when this letter was written, since he had been sent along with Timothy into Macedonia. Also that he would naturally delay his return, like Paul and Apollos, while the disorders prevailed, and hasten back when he learned the wholesome effect of the apostle’s letter.

 

To this view there is one decisive and fatal objection. The brother in question was not only a companion of St. Paul, but chosen by the churches to travel with him as a trustee of the pecuniary contribution. This is quite plain from ver. 20, 21. Hence he must be one who attended St. Paul to Jeru­salem. But this was not true of Erastus, for his name does not appear in the book of Acts among the companions of the apostle on that journey.

 

Indeed, the description of this brother seems more suitable, if he were almost or altogether a stranger to the Corinthians. Men do not give notes of introduction for a person to his intimate friends. It is a more natural inference, that the first brother, described more fully, was a comparative stranger to the Corinthians, and the other, more briefly introduced, either a Corinthian, or considerably better known among them.

 

Let us see now whether the marks given will not be enough to identify him, with the help of the history. He was chosen, we are told, by the churches, to travel along with St. Paul, as a kind of trustee in the business of the contribution. Now in Acts 20:4, we have a list of his companions at the outset, namely, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timothy, Tychicus, Trophimus, and Luke himself, the historian. To one of these our choice is therefore rigorously confined. So­pater, from the text, seems only to have gone as far as Asia. Timothy is not intended, since the apostle joins him in the superscription of the letter. The choice is thus restricted to Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus, and Luke. Three only of these are expressly shown in the history to have attended St. Paul as far as Jerusalem, namely, Luke, Aristarchus, and Trophimus. Hence it is much more pro­bable, at least, that one of these is the person intended by the apostle. To which of them, it remains to inquire, will the title most fully apply, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches? Even apart from the written gospel, it is clear that St. Luke has the fairest claim. For he was St. Paul’s companion in preaching the gospel at his first entrance into Europe (Acts 16:10), while Aristarchus was a Jew of Thessalonica (Acts 27:2; Col. 4:10, 11), and Trophimus, a Gentile of Ephesus (Acts 21:29), and there­fore most probably converted to the faith after the labours of St. Luke as an evangelist were already begun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The words, however, seem plainly used as a distinctive title, by which this companion of St. Paul might be discri-ininated from others. If the name of this brother had been given, we should naturally interpret the commendation as a simple statement, which might be equally true of many others besides. But here it replaces his name as a more expressive definition. Now we have seen already that our choice is limited, probably to three, certainly to six persons, indepen­dently of this phrase. And since one of these is distinguished from all the others, and indeed from all St. Paul’s companions, as the only author of a written Gospel, and of that Gospel which bears internal marks of being specially designed for the Gentile converts, we are shut up to the conclusion, that St. Luke, and he only, is the person really intended by this description.

 

The only ground for reasonable hesitation arises from the doubt whether his Gospel was written so early. Many critics, it is true, place it six or seven years later, though on very insufficient grounds.    In fact, this passage itself, which almost forces us to the conclusion above, is of far more weight, in such a minute question of chronology, than all the later evidence, which is of a very vague and uncertain kind. If the first Epistle to Timothy were written, as many critics hold, about the same time as this epistle, the question would be settled at once; since the Gospel of St. Luke is distinctly quoted in it as inspired Scripture. And even placing it more cor­rectly near seven years later, still the quotation of it, as of equal authority with the law of Moses, within so few years, must be a strong presumption that it was already in circula­tion at the earlier date.

 

The coincidence thus deduced is very striking. St. Paul, before he visits Corinth, sends with Titus “the brother, whose praise is in the gospel and throughout all the churches,” and whom they had chosen to assist in conveying their alms to Jerusalem. This seems to imply that he had resided some time among them before this visit of St. Paul, whose com­panion he was to be henceforward until the commission was fulfilled. In the history, St. Luke, one of the two evangelists who were not apostles, after parting from St. Paul at Philippi six years before, and having since then ceased to be his constant attendant in his journeys, as he silently marks by his change of the pronouns in his history, is found in his company in Macedonia after this visit to Corinth, and attends him after­wards to Jerusalem, and even to Rome, as an inseparable companion. Yet these facts are indicated in the most unob­trusive manner, by a mere change in the pronouns. “We sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread.”

 

It remains to inquire who is the second brother. We may here attain a probable, though not so certain a conclusion. He was not a Corinthian, or St. Paul could hardly have used those words, “whether our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches and the glory of Christ.” He was not a Macedonian, for then the contrast would be lost; “Lest haply if they of Macedonia come, and find you unprepared,” etc. If, as most probable, the same who had been sent with Titus before, (12:18,) he was then sent from Ephesus, and would probably be an Ephesian. If he took such a prominent part in forwarding the contribution at Corinth, he would be not unlikely to take a similar part in accompanying it to Jerusalem. Now this might possibly be true of Tychicus, but was certainly true of Trophimus only; and therefore it is likely that Trophimus was the second com­panion of Titus now, as well as his sole companion on the former visit, a year before.

 

It is true that the brief hints do not allow us to decide, in this case, with absolute certainty. Yet it is a strong sign of truth that we find two characters in the history in whom all these various hints, as to the second brother, would be satisfied, while there is one, and only one, who fully satisfies the more definite description of the brother whose praise in the gospel was throughout all the churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IV.

 

2 Cor. 11:32, 33. “In Damascus, the governor (or ethnarch) under Aretas the king guarded 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.”

 

Let us compare the passage in Acts: “And after many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: but their laying await 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.”

 

Paley has observed on these passages, that they agree in the main fact, but with such a difference of circumstances, as to make it utterly improbable that one was derived from the other. Hence their agreement can be explained only by the reality of the fact to which they refer as their common foun­dation.

 

This general remark admits of further confirmation. For these very differences, when closely examined, present new points of coincidence. The plot is ascribed to the Jews in the history; but in the epistle, to the governor or ethnarch under Aretas the king. Now the ethnarch, we may learn from other authorities, was a Jewish officer, to whom the heathen rulers gave separate authority over the Jews, in the large cities, where they were numerous, like Damascus and Alexandria. Also the ambush of the Jews, in Acts, is referred to a συμβουλη, or deliberate consultation, which almost implies a public or official, though a secret conspiracy.

 

Again, the historian says nothing of the window, nor the epistle, of its happening in the night.    Yet it is equally natural that a time of darkness should be chosen for his escape, and that a window in the upper part of the wall should be preferred, as less exposed to observation, than an attempt to let him down over the parapets.

 

The passage in the epistle appears like an after thought. It is added, when he has already given a rapid sketch of his sufferings, and confirmed it by that solemn declaration: “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is blessed for ever, knoweth that I He not.” Now the event itself was soon after his conversion, before the commencement of his labours as the apostle of Christ. It was the most remote instance of the persecutions he endured, and stood alone. How natural that it should have been omitted at first in this brief and con­densed catalogue; and that the apostle, after a pause of thought, reviewing his whole course a second time, should then revert to this earliest persecution, the pattern and warning of so many that were to follow. Any one writing later, or deriving his knowledge at second hand, would have mentioned the occurrence, if introduced at all, in its historical order, and have placed it at the head of the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. V.

 

2 Cor. 12:12,13. “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. For what is it wherein you were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you?    Forgive me this wrong.”

 

The former verse contains a distinct assertion, that St. Paul had wrought many miracles during his stay at Corinth. Yet the very next verse, when closely examined, discloses marks of historical reality beyond the reach of imitation.

 

First, it is implied that the Corinthians had not contributed to his support. And this is confirmed by the history, which says, that he abode with Aquila, and wrought there at tent­making; by the letter to the Philippians, where he says, that no other church contributed to his support at that time, “in the beginning of the gospel, when he departed from Mace­donia;” and by the former epistle: “Have we not power to eat and to drink?    But I have used none of these things.”

 

Next, it is further implied that a claim to such support was one privilege of the apostolic office. The turn of thought can only be explained by this key.    Every other sign, he tells them, was given them, except this one only. Now this view agrees with his own statement to the Thessalonians— “We might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ.” Next, in the former epistle: “Am I not an apostle? Have we not power to eat and to drink?” Lastly, with the principles he has twice or three times laid down, Rom. 15:27; 1 Cor. 9:11.

 

Finally, it is here implied, that his refusal of such support from the Corinthians was really the denial of a privilege, and a mark of their spiritual inferiority. Now that this was really the view of the apostle appears, first, from his words to the elders at Miletus, Acts 20:35: “I have showed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Next, from his state­ment to the Philippians: “No church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only .... Not be­cause I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.” Thirdly, from the reason before assigned for his own conduct: “As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting in the regions of Achaia. Wherefore? because I love you not? God knoweth. But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion.” It was the readiness of some among them to view his conduct with suspicion, which compelled him to withhold this mark of his full confidence. The same view of their spiritual backwardness appears also 1 Cor. 3:1-4.

 

Now it is only when these various hints are combined, that the exact meaning of the second verse comes to light, and the mingled justice and delicacy of the reproof. They ought to have felt it the denial of a privilege, and a mark of spiritual nonage, that St. Paul refused so perseveringly to borrow any part of his own support from them. In their actual state, Christian wisdom prescribed this conduct to him. But he felt it, as the more spiritual among them would also feel it, not so much the relieving them from a burden, as the denial of one sign of his apostleship, a natural result and open badge of their spiritual weakness. Hence the same words, which are a serious excuse for his conduct, as addressed to the more faithful among them, are a refined and delicate irony to the selfish and suspicious. “Wherein were ye inferior to other churches,” what other sign of my apostleship was withheld, “except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong.” Such a stroke of mingled satire and pathos, con­firmed in the fact it assumes and the principles on which the appeal is founded, by such a variety of coincidences, is inimi­tably real. Yet its whole force depends on the fact being notorious to all the Corinthian believers, that every other sign of apostleship had really been exhibited among them, “in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER V.

 

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

 

This letter of St. Paul, being addressed to a church he had never visited, is naturally less fertile in historical allusions than those to the Corinthians. Paley, however, has traced out, in eight distinct articles, many indirect coincidences with the history and the other letters, and most of them are peculiarly striking and impressive. Those which remain to be noticed are rather to be viewed as supplementary to his remarks than as opening fresh topics which had not been already touched upon. Yet some of them may perhaps deserve to be ranked as distinct arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I.

 

Rom. 14:1. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”

 

The whole passage, which begins with these words, has a remarkably close resemblance to another in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (8:1-13, 9:1-20). Let us compare them with each other.

 

The general subject, in both cases, is certain scruples of conscience with regard to particular kinds of food. In both, the apostle lays down the same principle, the lawfulness of these meats in themselves, and the duty of regarding the con­sciences of weak brethren. But the very phrases and suc­cession of thought are nearly the same.

 

Ch. 14:14. “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

 

1 Cor. 8:8.   “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.”               

    

Ch. 14:15. “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.”

 

1 Cor. 8:9-11. “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols? And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?”

 

Ch. 14:19. “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.”

 

1 Cor. 10:32, 33. “Give none offence, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”

 

Ch. 14:21. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

 

1 Cor. 8:13. “Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”

 

Ch. 15:2. “Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification.”

 

1 Cor. 10:24. “Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A view of the entire passage, in each case, will render the comparison still more striking. Now the circumstances of time and place, when combined together, render this agreement very natural. The interval of the letters was not great, being about nine or ten months, from April or May in one year until February in the year following. What explains it still more completely is, that the second letter was written from the very place to which the former was addressed; so that the apostle, for three months before, had doubtless been repeating his written instructions, by word of mouth, to the very parties for whom the letter was written. It is therefore doubly natural that, in writing to the Romans from Corinth, the same train of thought on this practical subject should reappear.

 

There is a further harmony with the facts in the difference of the two passages. The decree of the council, which con­firmed the liberty of the Gentiles, and still imposed a few simple restrictions out of regard to the habits of the Jews, would be exposed to infraction in two opposite ways. The Judaizers would desire to reimpose the whole of the cere­monial law, while an opposite party would urge the general principle, in order to supersede the restrictions that were still enjoined. St. Paul, in writing to the Galatians, has to defend the liberty of the gospel against the first class of adversaries. In writing to the Corinthians, where the Gentile party was much the most numerous, and pride of knowledge the besetting sin, he has to contend against the opposite extreme, and to urge the obligation of waving the use of an abstract liberty, whenever it served to perplex and confound the conscience of others. He thus vindicates against the Corinthian converts from among the Gentiles the restriction against the use of meats offered to idols, at the same time explaining under what circumstances the prohibition would really apply.

 

On the other hand, in writing to the Romans, whom he had not visited, and where the Gentile accessions hitherto were, perhaps, hardly a balance for the Jewish converts, he follows a middle course, and holds the scales with an even balance. Every caution against a needless scrupulosity is paired with another against an uncharitable laxity. “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.” “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” “I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

 

This one-sidedness in the reasoning with the Judaizing Ga­latians, and the Gentilizing Corinthians, and this studied balance of warning and caution to the Romans, where it is reasonable to believe that the parties were nearly balanced, or at least, where the apostle gave an abstract lesson to guard against probable evils, is just what might be expected in real letters. If the remarks are well founded, as careful observa­tion will prove, they exhibit a coincidence far too delicate and profound to be explained by anything else than the reality of the correspondence, and the deep wisdom of the great apostle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Νο. II.

 

Rom. 15:20-24. “Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation: but as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no longer a place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company.”

 

In No. III. on this epistle, Paley derives a striking argu­ment from the comparison of this passage with one in Acts 19: It will furnish another, however, scarcely less conclusive, by comparing it with 2 Cor. 10:14-16, which Paley has also adduced (No. ΧII.) for a different purpose.

 

“For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you; for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ: not boasting of things without our measure, 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, and not to boast in another man’s line of things made ready to our hand.”

 

The principle, on which the apostle declares himself to have acted, is the same in both passages, though under a different metaphor, from the measure of a field, or from the foundation and progress of a building. In one case, it is given simply by way of explanation; in the other, as a reproof to the vain­glory of false teachers, who sought to lessen his authority in a church which he alone had founded. The actual purpose in both cases is the same also, but stated with a similar diversity. When writing to Corinth, his chief object was to rebuke the self-conceit of these false apostles, and hence his plan is stated in the most general terms.   He hoped, if his visit to them were successful, to preach the gospel in certain regions beyond them, where Christ was not yet named. In writing to Rome, his object is to explain his plan for visiting them, and he therefore enters into a fuller statement. Spain, it now appears, is the region he had in view; but still he purposed to touch at Rome in his way, that he might impart to them some spiritual gifts, and be refreshed by their sympathy. Still, he would not make it his chief object, because the foundation had been already laid in that city by others. This substantial agreement of the two passages, while there is such a contrast in their explicitness of statement, and when we remark fur­ther how appropriate each of them is in its own context, and how pertinent to the design of the apostle, is a clear proof, even if it stood alone, that both letters grew out of real cir­cumstances, and are historically genuine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...