Horæ Apostolicæ

[Resource Manager]

No. VII.

 

Heb. 13:18. “Pray for us: for we trust that we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.”

 

This language certainly seems strange in the lips of an apostle. Why should he not only conceal his name, but use a plea of such extreme modesty in desiring their prayers?

 

There are two passages in the history, which seem to throw light on the expression. The first is in the defence before Ana­nias, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias com­manded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and com­mandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?” 23:1-3.

 

The second is in his defence before Felix, soon after, “And herein do I exercise myself to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men,” 24:16.

 

The third is in the speech of James and the elders, respect­ing the impressions of the Jewish Christians, “And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, nor lo walk after the customs,” 21:21.

 

It has been thought that St. Paul betrayed a sinful impa­tience in his reply to Ananias, and that the recollection of his fault accounts for this language of diffidence and humility, in writing to those who might have witnessed that scene. But this view is disproved by Acts 24:20, 21, where he clearly disclaims the consciousness of a fault in his behaviour before the council. Indeed his words were a direct prophecy, ful­filled soon after, and probably dictated, according to Christ’s promise, by immediate inspiration. Also the proper meaning of the passage before us is to express confidence, and not doubt. “We are persuaded, (πεποίθαμεν) that we have a good conscience.”

 

Yet though this explanation is certainly erroneous, there is here a tacit and beautiful reference to the circumstances of his trial and long imprisonment. He had been charged with being a pestilent fellow, who had gone about to profane the temple. When he professed his own uprightness before the council, he had been brutally interrupted and insulted by the high priest himself, in the presence of a great multitude. When he re­newed the statement before Felix, it was practically answered by a two years’ imprisonment. When a third time he offered the like plea before Festus, it availed as little as before, and he was constrained to appeal unto Cæsar. Even the Jewish believers themselves had been ready to entertain calumnious reports against him, and his desire to remove their groundless and injurious suspicions, had been the very occasion of all his protracted troubles. Now, after shipwreck, and two years more of imprisonment, his cause had been heard, and his innocence practically declared by his restoration to liberty. How suitable and emphatic, at such a time, the de­claration in which he entreats their prayers, when about to revisit Judæa, and how delicate the rebuke of those injurious suspicions against him, on their part, which had led to these heavy trials! “Pray for us: for (in spite of your former jea­lousy, and the malicious charges of my enemies) we are per­suaded that we have a good conscience, in all things desiring to live honestly.” What coincidence can be less obtrusive, or more deeply inwrought into the moral texture of the apostle’s whole history?”

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER IX.

 

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

 

There has been a great division of opinion on the date of this epistle, and the journey into Macedonia, which is named in the opening verses. Most early commentators refer it to the second visit of St. Paul to that province, after the tumult at Ephesus. Paley, however, has adopted the view of bishop Pearson, that it was a journey later than the first imprison­ment at Rome; and most writers since, who have attended specially to the subject, including Greswell, Biley, and Canon Tate, concur in his opinion. Yet since the earlier date has still several advocates, as Dr. Burton, and Canon Townsend, and the author of the Literary History of the New Testament, the question seems to require a further examination. The two following articles will, therefore, be devoted to it. In the first, the hypothesis of the early date will be sifted more fully; while the second will examine the objections which may be urged against the view of Paley and bishop Pearson, and present their hypothesis in a modified and more unob­jectionable form.

[Resource Manager]

No. I.

 

1 Tim. 1:3. “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine.”

 

The main difficulty of the earlier date, advocated by so many critics, is that it requires Timothy to be left behind at Ephesus, there to await Paul’s return, at the very time when the book of Acts affirms him to have been sent into Macedonia, or when the second letter to the Corinthians, by its superscrip­tion, proves that he was with the apostle on his circuit through that province. In professor Hug’s introduction, we have, perhaps, the most ingenious and laborious attempt to remove this great objection. The present article will, therefore, be devoted to an examination of this theory.

 

The date which he assigns to the letter, is between the first and the second of those to Corinth, almost as soon as the apostle had reached Macedonia on his second visit. Timothy, he assumes, accompanied Stephanas and the others on their return to Corinth, as the deputy of the apostle; and setting out the first week in March, and going round by Macedonia, they might reach Corinth the first week in April, or before the passover. If he returned by sea, he might reach Ephesus thirty-four days, if by land, nineteen days, before Pentecost, and the departure of Paul was only very slightly hastened by the tumult. Titus was sent to Corinth rather later than Timothy, to observe the effects of the letter, and report them to the apostle, and then rejoin him at Troas. When the apostle was obliged to leave Ephesus, he left Timothy behind, and gave him the com­missions named in the letter. It was written, almost as soon as he reached Macedonia, or the instructions might have come after the work was completed. But the danger compelled Timothy to leave, as soon as his commission was fulfilled. The apostle spent at least four months in the circuit of Mace­donia. And hence Timothy might remain two months at Ephesus, and still have two months to overtake the apostle, so as to be with him at the date of the second letter to Corinth. This explanation, though it looks well on a distant and general view, breaks down at every point, when we submit it to a close and exact inquiry.

 

1. First, the book of Acts tells us that Timothy and Erastus were sent before the apostle into Macedonia. This does not exclude a further commission to Corinth, but it proves that they did not merely pass through Macedonia as travellers, but were sent expressly to visit the churches, and prepare them for St. Paul’s own arrival. We must suppose that they visited Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, and probably Troas, and stayed at least a week in each place. This delay of a month must be added to the time of Timothy’s absence, as arranged in the above scheme. Allowing with the pro­fessor, thirty-one days for the journey, we have thus a total of fifty-nine days before reaching Corinth. We must suppose a delay of one week in that city, and with sixteen days allowed by the professor for the return, we have a total of eighty-two days. He is supposed to have started a month be­fore the passover; and therefore he would only reach Ephesus a few days after Pentecost, when the apostle had already left, being hastened by the tumult.

 

2. The history mentions only Erastus as the companion of Timothy. But, on the above view, he was accompanied by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus. When the number, two, is specified, there is something very like a contradiction.

 

3. If Timothy was the bearer of the letter, St. Paul could have no uncertainty about his coming to Corinth. Yet he expresses this uncertainty in the letter itself. “Now if Timotheus come, see that he be with you without fear.”

 

4. Fourthly, as we have seen how unlikely it is that Timothy could rejoin Paul at Ephesus, allowing a moderate time for his commission in Macedonia, so the letters prove that St. Paul did not expect him till after his departure. He says, in the first letter, “If Timotheus come, conduct him forth in peace, for I look for him with the brethren.” These brethren, it is plain, are Titus and others, who were sent direct to Corinth from Ephesus. Hence St. Paul expected Timothy, at the earliest, to return with them. But it appears from the second letter, that he expected them, not at Ephesus, but at Troas (2 Cor. 2:12, 13). This fully confirms our previous reckoning by the apostle’s own statement.

[Resource Manager]

5. Fifthly, if Timothy had been the bearer of the letter to Corinth, and had since rejoined the apostle at Ephesus, how is it possible that not one allusion to the fact should occur through­out the second letter? It is full of St. Paul’s joy at their reception of Titus, and at the report which Titus brought to him, but not one word about their reception of Timothy and tidings received by him also. This alone is a fatal objection to the whole scheme.

 

6. Sixthly, if St. Paul had heard from Corinth by Timothy, a few days before leaving Ephesus, and since they received the letter, why this intense anxiety to meet with Titus at Troas? On this view, his eagerness is quite inexplicable. It is clear from that chapter that Titus was to bring him the first tidings from Corinth.

 

7. Seventhly, if St. Paul was obliged to leave Ephesus, because of the imminent danger, was it likely that he would leave the youthful Timothy, at such a moment, to face the peril which compelled him to withdraw? How unlike would this be to the boldness of the apostle, and his tender care for his son in the faith!

 

8. Again, if Timothy were deliberately left at Ephesus, when the danger was at its height, it is most unlikely that he would desert his charge, when the peril must have diminished. The charge of St. Paul in the letter is distinctly given, “Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine,” 1 Tim. 4:13. How unnatural that St. Paul should never once allude, in the letter, to the contingency of Timothy being compelled to leave; and that, without one such allusion, or even a tacit permission, his deputy should forsake his post, and return to the apostle, within a month after receiving these instructions!

 

9. The instructions themselves exclude the idea of a very brief stay. They contain directions as to the choice of bishops and deacons; continued attendance to reading, exhortation, and doctrine; a constant meditation of the work, so that his pro­gress and advancement in zeal might become conspicuous to others; admonitions to elders and younger men, in cases of offence; the selection of widows to be sustained by the alms of the church; the marriage of younger widows; degrees of honour to the elders, according to their various diligence; rules for the treatment of any charges that might be brought against them, and the ordination of fresh persons to the office. That all this should be the work of one, or even of two months only, is clearly impossible.

 

10. Tenthly, in the letter St. Paul contemplates a return to Timothy before very long. “These things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly.” But when he reached Macedonia on his second visit he already had formed a distinct purpose to spend the summer in that province, and to winter at Corinth (1 Cor. 16:6), before returning to Asia. In other words, he reckoned on a delay of nine months. This is clearly incompatible with the words just quoted from the Epistle to Timothy.

[Resource Manager]

11. On the same hypothesis, this letter was written to Timothy after an absence of only two or three weeks, when they had met just before at Ephesus. How unreasonable to suppose that the apostle would give him his instruc­tions by letter after so short an interval, when he might have conveyed them still more fully by a verbal communication just before!

 

12. Finally, this hypothesis, as it would require us to fix the letter to Timothy immediately after he had parted from the apostle, compels us also to place the second letter to Corinth, near the close of St. Paul’s circuit in Macedonia, and only about a month before he arrived in Achaia. Now this contradicts several marks of time in that letter. He alludes in it to his trouble in Asia as a recent event, of which no dis­tinct report might possibly have reached them. His meeting with Titus, whom he expected at Troas, must have been soon after he crossed into Macedonia. But his renewed commission seems not to have been long delayed, both from the forward­ness of Titus himself, and the desire of the apostle to express his joy on their repentance and obedience. And, besides, the work of preparing their contribution beforehand must natu­rally have required several weeks. Allowing a fortnight for their journey, we cannot well suppose a less interval than two months between their departure and the arrival of the apostle at Corinth, and a still earlier date is more probable. It would therefore be hardly possible for Timothy to have rejoined him, after any reasonable allowance for his stay at Ephesus. And, besides, how entirely it destroys the force of the allusion to his own troubles of Asia, if he had left Timothy to endure them after he was gone, and they had compelled his young companion to neglect his instructions, and to rejoin the apostle shortly before the letter was written!

 

Every one of these reasons is weighty. When they are all combined, they constitute an insuperable mass of evidence, to disprove the proposed date of the present letter to Timothy. And there is no other modification of the view, by which the inconsistency can be remedied. The main features are deci­dedly opposite in the two cases. On his second journey to Greece, Paul sent Timothy from Ephesus into Macedonia to prepare for his own arrival, and overtook him in that province before Timothy had reached Corinth, after which they con­tinued together, till they reached Miletus again. At the date of the letter, Paul left Timothy behind at Ephesus, while he himself went forward to Macedonia; wrote to him after some considerable interval, charging him to continue there till his own return; appointed him business that would occupy several months; expressed his hope of returning very soon to Asia, but left it uncertain, and gave no permission, and indulged no hope, as to meeting Timothy in Europe, or before his own return. Thus every feature is a total contrast. We have seen already how minutely the details correspond with each other, when we compare the history and the two letters to Corinth on that second visit. But the attempt to interpolate the letter to Timothy out of its place falsifies every point of real agreement, contradicts the scope of the letter itself, and turns a series of delicate harmonies into a string of inconsistencies and historical contradictions.

[Resource Manager]

No. II.

 

The view of Paley has now to be examined, with the objections to which it is exposed, and the partial modification it may require. He supposes that St. Paul, after his libe­ration, “sailed into Asia, taking Crete in his way; that from Asia, and from Ephesus, the capital of that country, he pro­ceeded into Macedonia, and, crossing the peninsula in his progress, came to the neighbourhood of Nicopolis. We have thus a route which falls in with everything. It executes his intention of visiting Colosse and Philippi, as soon as he was set at liberty at Rome. It allows him to leave Titus at Crete, and Timothy at Ephesus, as he went into Macedonia, and to write to both not long after from the peninsula of Greece, thus bringing together the dates of these two letters, and thereby accounting for the affinity between them.”

 

There are two chief reasons which have been urged against this date of the epistle, and the route which is here supposed. The former is soon removed, but the other constitutes a serious difficulty.

 

And, first, the epistle, according to professor Hug, suggests the idea that the teachers and superintendents of the church were not yet nominated. This, however, took place a few months afterwards, when St. Paul on his return appointed them to meet him at Miletus, that he might see them in their new vocation, and impress on them the obligations of their new office.    Hence the epistle was previous to that return.

 

Now, in reality, this very subject furnishes a powerful argument against the earlier date; for the epistle clearly sup­poses that there were many elders already in the church, and only gives directions to Timothy as to fresh appointments. At the very opening, he is directed to charge some that they teach no strange doctrine, and these must plainly have been elders of the church. So also the directions, chap. 5:1,17,19, imply clearly that the church had many elders when the apostle wrote. The passage in Acts, also, contains no proof whatever that the elders had been recently appointed; and since the apostle intended leaving at Pentecost, and was only driven away a few days before, it is morally certain that he would not have left such an important business to his young com­panion, but have completed it before his own departure. On the other hand, after an absence of six years, new appoint­ments would be needful, and the commission to Timothy would be highly appropriate and consistent. The instruction, also, to prove the deacons before appointing them, could never apply to a hurried stay of Timothy for two months at the most, in a time of disquiet and extreme danger. Hence this objection is really a powerful argument for the date after the first imprisonment.

 

The other difficulty is far more serious. St. Paul had declared to the elders at Miletus, “And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.” A later visit to Ephesus, such as Paley has supposed, appears directly to falsify this prediction.

 

Two or three explanations have been offered, to remove this difficulty. And, first, Dr. Paley conceives that St Paul might give merely his own mistaken impression, from the repeated warnings of bonds and afflictions in every city. To confirm this view, he argues from Phil. 1:25, 2:23, 24, that the apostle uses the same phrase in a case where he was still un­certain. But this is clearly a mistake. There is nothing in Phil. 2:23, 24, when correctly translated, which implies any doubt of a favourable issue. The only uncertainty relates to the exact time when he could send Timothy. In reality, the predictions, Acts 20:29, and Phil. 1:25, according to Paley’s own view, were both of them accurately fulfilled. And since the phrase here is exactly the same, the solution appears to be quite untenable.

 

Mr. Biley, again, suggests that the word ovketi, does not denote here, never again, but simply, no longer, or that his intercourse would be suspended for a season. This, however, had been the case already for almost a whole year, so that such a meaning is evidently excluded by the facts of the his­tory. And, besides, this would not explain their grief at the statement. “Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they would see his face no more.” This solution, then, is inadmissible, like the other.

 

Again, Mr. Greswell supposes that the word, all, receives the emphasis. St Paul, on this view, does not mean to say that none of them would see him again, but simply, that they would not, all of them, see him any more. This, however, is too usual a result of temporary absence, when the parties are numerous, to account for their deep emotion. All these explanations, which lower and neutralize the natural meaning of this affecting passage, leave the difficulty in its full strength. Why should the deep emotion of the elders be so carefully noted, if either Paul was in error himself, or they had mis­taken his real meaning?

[Resource Manager]

Does then the epistle, assuming the truth of its date after the apostle’s liberation, affirm distinctly a later visit to Ephesus? This has been assumed far too lightly, both by the advocates and opponents of that date; and, if it were true, would leave a painful sense of contradiction to the dis­course at Miletus, which no proffered explanation could entirely remove. But the letter compels us to no such admission. Its words are abundantly satisfied, if the apostle passed once again near to Ephesus, and desired Timothy, instead of accompanying him further, to leave him at the nearest point of the route, and stay at that city. Indeed, this view agrees better with the instructions of the apostle, since it is most natural to suppose that he had no opportunity of giving those commands in person, which he commissions Timothy to deliver in his name.

 

One reason, however, has been given by Paley for the opposite view. “If the apostle executed his purpose, and came to Colosse, it is very improbable that he would omit to visit Ephesus, which lay so near it, and where he had spent three years of his ministry.” To which we may add, that if he refrained from a visit, merely to secure the truth of his former prediction at Miletus, that warning loses much of its force and beauty, though not so entirely as on the other view. But, in reality, the length of his previous stay might form one reason for declining an actual visit. He was now aged, and might possibly be warned, like Peter, that the time of his departure was at hand. He had many places to visit, and several, like Colosse, which he had never visited before. No place had enjoyed so large a share of his time and labour as Ephesus, and other churches might justly advance a more powerful claim on the little time which now remained to him. Besides, the opposition to which he was there exposed was peculiarly bitter; and though fear alone would not have deterred him, duty would require him to husband his remaining years for the church of God, and not to expose himself again to the malice of the Jews of Asia by a second visit, while other places were eagerly desiring his presence. His plan for win­tering at Nicopolis implies that this circuit was chiefly devoted to those outlying churches which had enjoyed little or nothing of his personal instructions before. Crete, Colosse, and Epirus, were all, it appears, visited now for the first time. Hence he might very naturally avoid a needless delay, by visiting Ephesus; where his absence, after that solemn parting, might preach to them more powerfully than even his presence would have done.

 

On the whole, this hypothesis, that St. Paul passed near to Ephesus on his route, without an actual visit, maintains equally the coincidence in the time of his route from Colosse to Philippi, while it removes a very serious difficulty, amount­ing almost to a direct and inexplicable contradiction. The return to Timothy, which he contemplated, might be of the same kind; so that they might meet again at Miletus or Troas, and continue the rest of their journey together, or, at least, that he might give him still fuller instructions in a per­sonal interview.

[Resource Manager]

No. III.

 

1 Tim. 2:11-14. “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression. Not­withstanding, she shall be saved in childbearing, if they con­tinue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”

 

With this passage we may compare 1 Cor. 14:34. “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not per­mitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”

 

The same general precept is here given in both cases, and confirmed by an appeal to the Old Testament. The resem­blance, so far, is direct and clear, and would be equally possible, whether the letters were fictitious or genuine. But there is a more secret relation between the two passages, which may prove that they really proceeded from the apostle. In the earlier letter, to the Corinthians, the particular text of the Pentateuch is not named, but the description applies only to Gen. 3:16: “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” In the other letter, the writer en­forces the same duty; but instead of quoting the law of God, referred to before, he reasons from the context of the same passage: from the creation, Gen. 2:18-24; the fall, 3:1-6; and the promise connected with the sorrows of childbirth, 3:15, 16. This is an indirect agreement, which would result from a real association of thought in the mind of the apostle, and can be easily explained in no other way. The express law of God is alluded to, but not specified, in the letter to the church; but in a later epistle to the apostle’s companion, who was familiar with the Scriptures, and had read that former letter, other reasons from the context are substituted in its stead.

[Resource Manager]

No. IV.

 

1 Tim. 5:17,18. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”

 

1 Cor. 9:8-10. “Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.”

 

In both passages the same text of the law is applied to establish the same general duty; while the use of it is charac­teristic and peculiar. This tends to prove that the writer is the same. But there are two features of contrast, which, from their congruity with the circumstances, form a proof that both passages are genuine, and from the apostle’s own pen. In the letter to the Corinthians, the writer reasons out his application of the text, since otherwise his meaning might be doubtful and obscure. In the Epistle to Timothy, who must have seen the other letter, and was also quite familiar with St. Paul’s train of thought, the text is simply quoted without one word of explanation. Again, it is applied in the first letter to the general duty of supporting the preachers of the gospel. In the second, it is applied to a further and more special duty, of proportioning the honour or reward to the actual labour. These minute diversities are fully explained by a comparison of the dates of the letters, and of the parties to whom they were addressed, but is far too delicate and unobtrusive to be explained in any other way.

[Resource Manager]

No. V.

 

1  Tim. 5:19, 20. “Against an elder receive not an accu­sation, but before (with, ἐπὶ) two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”

 

2 Cor. 13:1-4. “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were present, the second time; and being absent now, I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all the others, that, if I come again, I will not spare.”

 

The agreement between these two passages is apparent. In one of them, St. Paul states the rule which would guide his own conduct, when administering discipline at Corinth; and in the other, he prescribes a rule to Timothy for his exer­cise of a like discipline in the church of Ephesus. It is the harmony of a general precept with a particular example.

 

But perhaps this agreement may be thought too plain and simple for our object, since the rule is only borrowed from the Mosaic law. We may observe, then, a minute and observable variation, which bespeaks reality in each case. In his con­duct, St. Paul merely states that no charge should be held to be proved, unless by the consent of two or three witnesses. Timothy, however, is directed to require the same amount of testimony, even before the charge is received for further inves­tigation. Whence this important difference between the apostle’s precept and his own example? The reason is plain, that the precept related solely to accusations against elders. A due regard for their office, and perhaps also a secret refer­ence to the youth of Timothy, invested with a perilous autho­rity over his superiors in age, required a double caution in entertaining charges of this peculiar kind. This variation, while it illustrates the practical wisdom of the apostle, proves also that the letters are genuine. The difference is more in the idea than in the words, and is easily overlooked without a close examination.

[Resource Manager]

No. VI.

 

1 Tim. 3:14, 15. “These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,— ”

 

These words, as we have seen, are a full disproof of the earlier date of the epistle. When St. Paul entered Macedonia on his second visit, he plainly did not intend to return to Asia until after the winter, an interval of nine months, and he fully purposed in the spirit that he would return at that time on his way to Jerusalem. It remains now to see what light they throw on his later journey, on which they were actually written.

 

From the opening of the letter it has been inferred, by Paley and most others, that St. Paul wrote it in Mace­donia. But this conclusion seems to be ill-founded; for the words are still more appropriate, if he had now left Mace­donia, and proceeded onward to Greece. It is not likely that he would write to Timothy as soon as he left him, but rather after some considerable interval. Indeed this passage implies that he had now almost completed his original plan, and was deliberating whether he ought to prolong it, by visiting some other field of labour before his return. It would doubtless have been his original design to visit Macedonia and Achaia, in succession, as he had done twice before; and his doubt might be, whether to return at once from the peninsula, or to extend his journey up its western side, through Epirus and Dalmatia. He would probably choose for writing to Timothy some point of the circuit where the communication with Ephesus was rapid and easy; and no place would be so suitable as Co­rinth, or Cenchrea, its eastern port Towards the close of his stay in that place, his first plan would be nearly complete, but he would naturally desire to extend his labours by a visit to Epirus and Dalmatia. In this case, he would return to Asia by the Egnatian road, Neapolis, and Troas, and his meet­ing with Timothy be very considerably delayed. And this will fully explain his double statement. “These things I write, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the house of God.”

 

Are there now any internal signs, which tend to confirm the view that the letter was written in or near Corinth? There are several indications, although slight in themselves, which rather countenance this opinion. First, the three coincidences just observed are with the two letters to Corinth. We have seen that the explanation, by an intermediate date, is demon­strably untrue. But if the apostle were now in the very place where these directions had been enforced, as to the silence of the women in the churches, the mode of receiving accusations, and the maxim of due provision for teachers, it is still more natural that traces of them should reappear in the present letter.

 

Again, there are two passages, which imply rather strongly that the apostle had before his eyes the preparation for some public games. “But exercise thyself rather unto godliness; for bodily exercise profiteth for little; but godliness is profitable unto all things.” “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life” (ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα). Both of these allusions are doubly emphatic, if the apostle was at Corinth not long before a celebration of the Isthmian or Olympic games. A further presumption for this view, as to the place from which the letter was sent, will arise in considering the Epistle to Titus, which comes next in order.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER X.

 

THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.

 

No. I.

 

Tit. 1:5. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.”

 

Besides the view of Paley, who places the visit here spoken of on the return of St. Paul from Rome, and dates the letter from Greece on his subsequent circuit, there have been two other chief varieties, which both assign it a much earlier date. The first is that of professor Hug, who places the visit on the voyage, Acts 18: from Corinth to Ephesus; and the second that of Michaelis, who supposes an excursion of St. Paul from Corinth to the island during his long stay. In this first article these two alternatives will be examined.

 

The first view supposes that St. Paul embarked at Cenchrea, and that the ship was either bound for Crete, or driven to the island by stress of weather, when one of the perils by sea (2 Cor. 11) may have happened. He left Titus behind, and wrote the letter to him on arriving at Ephesus. Apollos had al­ready reached that city, and St. Paul instructs Titus to forward him on his journey, probably by way of Crete to Corinth, The Nicopolis (Tit 3:12) is that in Cilicia, between Antioch and Tarsus, which would be the best known to Titus, a Greek of the Asiatic provinces, and also lay quite in the route of the apostle.

 

This hypothesis seems encumbered, in every part, with fatal objections. First, the island lies quite in the way from Corinth to Syria, but out of the way from Corinth to Ephesus. We can account for St. Paul taking Ephesus in his way only by one of two reasons, that the vessel was bound thither, or that the winds compelled it to a more northward course. In the latter case, a circuit by Crete was plainly impossible. On the other view, either the vessel could keep her course or was driven from it. If she could, she would make the port of Ephesus, without sailing to Crete. But if driven southward to Crete, the wind would favour St. Paul’s progress to Syria, and hinder his return to Ephesus, and consequently he would not have returned thither at all.

 

Next, if St. Paul sailed by Crete to Ephesus, there seems no reason why the historian should not have noticed the fact, as well as the visit to Ephesus itself. Either was an episode to the main object, the voyage to Jerusalem; and if one were mentioned, the other, which was a greater deviation from the natural route, would almost certainly have been noticed also.

 

Thirdly, the apostle was pressed for time on this voyage. From analogy with the other voyage it is probable that he left Corinth after the Passover, and that he aimed to reach Jerusalem by the Pentecost. He would then have time for the circuit by Ephesus, and for a short delay there, but cer­tainly not for a further circuit by Crete, and a stay there of some continuance. Even if he set out at the beginning of March, we must allow near thirty days for the double voyage to Crete and Ephesus, one of them almost certainly with a head-wind. The epistle implies a stay of some length in the island, which would require six or seven weeks, in order to visit a few of its principal towns only. And hence it is most unlikely that time would be left for the apostle to go back to Ephesus before sailing into Syria.

 

Fourthly, it is quite plain from the book of Acts that Apollos did not reach Ephesus until Paul had left it, and that the apostle did not return to it after the circuit through the upper parts until Apollos was at Corinth. The order in the history is perfectly clear. St. Paul leaves Aquila and Pris­cilla at Ephesus. After he is gone, and while he is in some part of the Asiatic circuit, Apollos arrives, and Aquila and Priscilla instruct him in the absence of the apostle. They and other brethren give him letters, and he arrives at Corinth. After his arrival, Paul, having completed his circuit in the upper parts, comes down to Ephesus. And hence it be­comes absolutely certain that the letter to Titus could not be written during that short stay at Ephesus.

[Resource Manager]

The explanation of Nicopolis is equally unsatisfactory. What possible reason can be given why the apostle should winter there, rather than in Tarsus or Antioch, the two great centres of the church in that immediate vicinity? Either of them would be a far more likely place for Titus to rejoin him.

 

Finally, at the date proposed, the gospel had scarcely reached Ephesus, and it is very doubtful whether Tychicus, the Ephe­sian, could have been already a convert. His proposed mission to Crete, so early in the history, is another improbability. But the two objections, from the route of the apostle, and from the mention of Apollos, are alike fatal to the whole hypothesis.

 

The second opinion is that of Michaelis and others, that St. Paul took a voyage to Crete during his stay at Corinth, and was driven to Epirus by stress of weather on his return; that he spent the winter there, and preached the gospel among them, and then resumed his stay at Corinth again.

 

The objections to this view are equally decisive. First, it is plain that Apollos did not reach Corinth till St. Paul had left it, nor even till he had left Ephesus, and apparently, not until he was far advanced on his circuit in Asia Minor. Other­wise, his abode at Corinth would be a very imperfect definition of the time when St. Paul reached Ephesus. It is thus quite impossible that St. Paul should commend Apollos to Titus at this time, when it is clear that they had not hitherto met, and that Apollos, until some time later, was merely a disciple of John.

 

Again, the history tells us that St. Paul settled (ἐκάθισέ) at Corinth a year and six months. The phrase itself is ad­verse to the notion of such a voyage. But let us consider the definition of time more closely. Since he left it about March or April, he must have reached it about September. It is plain that he would not take a voyage to Crete, leaving his new post, before the winter began. We must therefore suppose that he spent the second winter at Nicopolis, and then sailed in the next spring to Corinth. But he left Corinth in March or April, and had tarried there a good while before this voyage began. Also before that delay, his assiduous labours in the place led to the insurrection of the Jews against him. This does not agree at all with an absence at Crete and Epirus for six months previous. For he would hardly undertake the voyage after the autumnal equinox, and must therefore have been absent from August until the next February. On this account, as well as the former, the hypothesis is untenable.

 

Again, if Tychicus was to be sent to Crete from the apostle, he must have been with him before the voyage. But that Tychicus the Ephesian should be an active and trusty helper of St. Paul two years or more before the gospel was planted at Ephesus, is utterly improbable. These three reasons appear quite decisive against the second hypothesis, and we are thus compelled, by demonstrative evidence, to place the visit of the apostle after his return from Rome.

[Resource Manager]

No. II.

 

Let us now examine whether all these difficulties are not removed by the later date of the epistle, and succeeded by as many points of observable harmony.

 

First, St. Paul, in his latest letter from Italy, had expressed his hope of soon visiting the believers of Palestine. Since he coasted Crete, while a prisoner, on his voyage from Cæsarea to Rome, he would naturally pay it a visit on returning from Italy to Cæsarea. We have no need to suppose adverse winds, or a voyage of which no hint occurs, but only that St. Paul fulfilled his deliberate purpose, when he would certainly pass by the island, and having never visited it before, would be sure to visit it now, that he might strengthen and establish the disciples

 

Next, since the island was large, and St. Paul could stay only a short time, consistently with his promises to the Colos­sians and Philippians, as well as the Christians of Palestine, much would remain for Titus to do after his departure. Nor is it likely that the apostle would write to him very soon after their separation. At the date of the letter it is clearly ex­pected that Titus would almost have fulfilled his commission. Now if St. Paul made a circuit by Cæsarea, Antioch, Colosse, and Philippi, some considerable interval must have elapsed before he came round into the neighbourhood of Crete, so as to write the present letter. Hence it is likely that Titus would nearly have fulfilled his task, as the apostle clearly expected, at the time when the letter was written.

 

Thirdly, on the same view, Apollos had already met the apostle at Ephesus six or seven years before the date of the letter, and Tychicus had already been employed for the same number of years as one of his helpers and fellow-labourers. Hence the mention of them both is consistent and natural, while it is a fatal objection to either of the two earlier dates from Corinth or Ephesus.

 

Fourthly, the Actian Nicopolis was both the most cele­brated and flourishing at the time, and also the nearest to the island of Crete. Hence, in the abstract, it is by far the most likely to be intended by the apostle. But if he had reached the peninsula of Greece, and wrote from almost any part of it to Titus, that city would be a very natural place of meeting, before a further mission along its western side in the direction of Illyricum and Dalmatia.

 

Finally, by this means the epistles to Timothy and to Titus, which have so strong a resemblance, are shown to be written almost together, during the apostle’s final circuit through the peninsula of Greece.

 

The general view, therefore, which places the epistle during this last journey, is established by the firmest reasons. But there is still some variation in the time and place assigned to this and the former epistle. Paley supposes the letter to Timothy to have been sent from Macedonia, and the present one to Titus from Nicopolis or its neighbourhood. Mr. Greswell reverses the order, and supposes that St. Paul wrote to Titus from Macedonia, and to Timothy, not long afterwards, from Nicopolis.

[Resource Manager]

Each of these opinions, though certainly not very wide of the truth, is open to real objection. If the one letter does not imply that St. Paul was still in Macedonia, the direction to Titus implies still less that the apostle had reached Nicopolis. On the contrary, the appointment implies the joint interval between two separate messages, and of a direct and return voyage before Titus could arrive at Nicopolis. If St. Paul resolved to winter there, it is probable that he would arrange not to arrive at the place long before the winter season. His words to Timothy are most natural, if he had already left Macedonia, and the instructions to Titus clearly suppose that he would not reach Nicopolis until some weeks or months later.

 

What, then, would be the most likely place for a message to Crete from the peninsula? Of all those where St. Paul is known to have been, unquestionably Corinth. After an absence of six years, he could hardly fail to pay that church a visit, as well as Colosse and Philippi, and would probably make a short circuit to other stations in the province of Achaia. He would then be at the most favourable point for sending a message, either to Crete or Ephesus, while his prolonged ab­sence from Timothy and Titus would render a letter peculiarly seasonable. The resemblance of the epistles is thus accounted for, even more fully than by the two other schemes mentioned above.

 

Which letter, again, must we suppose to have been first written? This question, also, allows of a distinct answer. When St. Paul wrote to Timothy, he had some hope of returning to Asia shortly, but thought it possible that he might make a longer delay. When he wrote to Titus, he had come to a resolution (the word implying, perhaps, a pre­vious suspense of judgment) to spend the winter at Nicopolis on the western coast. This decision not only would necessi­tate a continued absence from Asia, but presuppose a visit to Epirus and the adjoining districts in the spring, and an in­tention of returning across Macedonia by a longer route before coming to Asia again. We may suppose the letter to Timothy to have been written, therefore, soon after his arrival at Co­rinth, before he had resolved on this western circuit, but when its desirableness first began to appear; and the letter to Titus, near the close of that same residence, when he had planned one part of his journey until the winter, and designed to continue it, perhaps by coasting, with the first days of spring. The analogy of the two letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians is thus retained, the second in each case being shorter than the first, and a brief repetition of the same instructions to other parties.

[Resource Manager]

No. III.

 

There is one difficulty which may be started against the conclusion just established, that the epistle was written from Corinth or its neighbourhood, on St. Paul’s return to Greece after his long imprisonment. Since his stay at Crete must have been short, on that return voyage, to be consistent with his promises to others, how is it likely that elders should need so soon to be ordained in every city?

 

Now here the facts disclosed in the history, compared with the position of Crete, will supply a full answer, and turn the difficulty into a mark of truth. Even on the day of Pentecost Cretan Jews were present, and some of them were probably numbered among those first converts. Cyprus received the gospel as early as the persecution of Stephen (Acts 11:19), more than twenty-five years before the date of this letter. It was more fully visited by Paul and Barnabas on their first journey, and again by Barnabas and Mark after the separation. Corinth and Achaia had received the gospel on Paul’s first visit to Eu­rope, ten or eleven years previous, and he had stayed there no less than eighteen months. He had since continued between two and three years in Ephesus, so that all who were in Asia heard the word of God. When he was last at Corinth, five years before his visit to Crete, there was a numerous church at Rome, and had been for many years. Apollos was from Alexandria, and there is little doubt that Egypt must have received the gospel not later than Ephesus. Several of the first preachers of the gospel, at the time of Paul’s conversion, were Jews of Cyrene (Acts 11:20). Now Crete lay in the intersection of all the routes, from Judea to Rome, from Gyrene to Cyprus and Antioch, from Alexandria to Corinth, and from Corinth to Cyrene, to Alexandria, and to Cæsarea. The winds of the Levant are favourable to a voyage from the Peloponnesus to the island, and from Argos near Corinth, to Cydonia, would be only two days’ voyage with a prosperous wind. Thus it is morally certain that the gospel would have been preached extensively in Crete for eight or ten years before St. Paul re­turned from Rome. It is not unlikely that Barnabas and Mark, after preaching in Cyprus, might proceed thither, and make it their next missionary station.

 

The brief statement in the letter is thus highly consistent with the probable course of events. Since this had been the first visit of the apostle to the island, he would naturally stay one or two months, to confirm the churches where probably no apostle had been before him. This time, however, would be far too short for the wants of so large an island, and other engagements were pressing, and would forbid a longer stay. Hence he might, with much propriety, desire Titus to stay behind, and to complete more at leisure those ecclesiastical arrangements he himself had begun. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou mightest set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city.”

 

The selection of Titus for this post, though it might be caused by many reasons now hidden from us, agrees well with the slight notices in the history and the previous letters. He is mentioned last as the messenger to Corinth, just before St. Paul’s second visit. The history never speaks of him, but proves, by the list of Paul’s companions when he sailed from Philippi, that Titus did not accompany him on his course to Jerusalem. He is not mentioned in any one of the four letters, written from Rome during the first imprisonment. From his forwardness in visiting Corinth at his last mission, and the fact that he had been sent thither twice before, and walked consistently in the same spirit and steps with the apostle, he was perhaps left to superintend the churches of Achaia, before St. Paul set out on that voyage. In this case, during the five years’ interval he would most likely have gone to Crete, to extend the gospel in that island, which adjoined so closely to the churches of Achaia. And thus we have a very probable explanation why he might be selected by St. Paul for his present commission, to ordain elders throughout the Cretan cities.

[Resource Manager]

No. IV.

 

Tit. 3:12. “When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter. Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their journey diligently, that nothing be wanting unto them.”

 

The Actian Nicopolis was the nearest to Crete, and the most noted city of that name. It has been shown above that it is certainly intended in this passage. The words do not imply that St. Paul was already there, but the reverse, that he was proceeding on a circuit, to end at Nicopolis about the winter. The letter, then, was written in the summer or autumn, and probably, as we have seen, from Corinth. A circuit through Ætolia, Acarnania, and part of Epirus, might well occupy the apostle until winter. A large and flourishing sea-port would be an excellent place for his labours during the winter season, and he could then pursue his circuit north­ward along the coast with the early spring.

 

Now this view agrees well with the notice, that Tychicus was with the apostle. He had been sent to Ephesus and Colosse from Rome, when St. Paul hoped to visit Philemon before long. He would probably remain in that neighbour­hood, and await his arrival. But St. Paul had now paid his visit to Colosse, and crossed over into Europe, and it is pro­bable that he would retain Tychicus for some time, after their long separation. The doubt as to the messenger might arise from his having been made the bearer of the letter to Timothy a few weeks before, so that the time of his return would be rather uncertain.

 

The commission about Apollos has been variously explained. Some, as Hug, refer it to his first journey from Ephesus to Corinth, which is clearly disproved by the history. Canon Tate has supposed that Apollos and Zenas might be the bearers of the letter to the Hebrews. But this involves clearly a great anachronism, since not only the letter must have reached Pales­tine before now, but St. Paul would have paid them his visit, and pursued his journey by Colosse and Philippi into Greece. Mr. Biley supposes that they were now with Titus, and that St. Paul desired him to bring them along with him, or help them on their way to join himself. It is far more simple to explain it thus, that they were the bearers of this letter to Titus, and then were about to proceed elsewhere; so that St Paul seized the occasion of sending a letter by them, though a further message would be necessary before Titus could return. Now the last previous mention of Apollos (1 Cor. 16:12) implied his fixed purpose of visiting Corinth again, and it has been shown that St. Paul was in or near Corinth at the date of this letter. Again, Apollos was a Jew of Alexandria; and whether he were journeying to Palestine, to one of the national feasts, or returning to his native place, on either supposition Crete would be exactly in the line of his journey. The coincidence here, though inferential, has a high probability, and is certainly free from the remotest suspicion of design. It supplies also a beautiful lesson, that the last mention of Apollos shows him to have fulfilled his promise to the Corinthians; that he was there in fellowship with the apostle, where their names had once been the signal of unholy rivalry; that he willingly un­dertakes to be the bearer of the apostle’s message to Titus; while the apostle, in his turn, commends him most affection­ately to the care of his youthful friend, in providing for his comfort on his proposed journey.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER XI.

 

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

 

That this letter was written during St. Paul’s second im­prisonment has been argued already, in the remarks on the epistle to the Ephesians, and is so generally allowed, that perhaps further proof is needless. It will be enough to trace at once, in succession, those secret harmonies of truth which are detected, when the epistle is thus referred to its proper date.

[Resource Manager]

No. I.

 

2 Tim. 1:6. “Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.”

 

In Acts 8:18, 19, at the time when the gospel was preached by Philip in Samaria, we have a remarkable state­ment with regard to the conduct of Simon Magus.

 

“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”

 

We are thus taught by the history, before the date of Saul’s conversion, that to communicate the gifts of the Spirit by imposition of their hands was a privilege peculiar to the apostles. Here, again, in the latest letter of the apostle, on the eve of his death, he reminds Timothy of the gifts of the Spirit he had received, and that it was by the imposition of his own hands he had received them. The coincidence is simple and complete. It is the more observable, because in the former letter he had mentioned Timothy’s reception of these gifts, without any assertion of this important particular, “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given by prophecy, with laying of the hands of the presbytery.”

[Resource Manager]

No. II.

 

2 Tim. 1:15. “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me, of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.”

 

This passage, at first sight, may well occasion some perplexity. How could the whole church of Ephesus, where St. Paul laboured with such zeal for nearly three years, have apostatized from the faith, or perseveringly renounced their friendship for the apostle? How is it that Timothy is informed thus briefly of the defection of the whole flock, where he had been appointed to labour, and to establish the disciples, not long before?

 

The first step towards a removal of the difficulty consists in a simpler and more exact version. “This thou knowest, that all they who are in Asia turned away from me.” When St. Paul wrote to Timothy before, he was journeying, and at liberty, but now he is a prisoner at Rome. We are not told where he was apprehended, but the last town on his route to which we can trace him, is Miletus, where he left Trophimus sick. The words before us allude, when translated simply, to some particular occasion which had intervened, and was known to Timothy, though not stated fully in the letter. Hence we may infer that he was apprehended somewhere in the province of Asia, and examined by some provincial governor, before he was sent a prisoner to Rome. On this view we find an exact parallel to the present verse at the close of the letter. “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me, that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear.”  (2 Tim. 4:16.)

 

If the Christians at Rome all forsook the apostle in this crisis, it is not surprising that the same should be true of those in Asia, whatever the town where he was seized, and brought for his defence before the Roman deputy. The time of Nero’s cruelty was now begun, and hence the danger was far greater than in the former imprisonment. The fact, that two names only are specified, out of the whole number of believers, implies that some special occasion was meant, already known to Timothy, and that the charge has an im­portant limitation. All those of Asia who were near at hand, and had it in their power to befriend him in his hour of danger, drew back through fear, and two are named, as more guilty than the, rest, whether from their special opportunities of helping him, or from their station in the church. The com­parison, then, removes the strangeness of the declaration, while it reveals a secret harmony between the two descriptions of the guilty timorousness of the Christians, both in Asia and at Rome.

 

Still, if Timothy were now at Ephesus, it seems unnatural that he should be informed in this manner of facts which would seem to involve him in a share of the guilt, and to have passed under his own eyes. Now if we examine the rest of the letter, this difficulty will also be removed. Timothy, it seems, was not at Ephesus, but at some distance to the east or north. For he is told of the mission of Tychicus to Ephesus, and of Trophimus having stayed at Miletus, and is charged to bring the cloak from Troas. Hence it seems pretty clear that he was not actually in any of those cities, though he might have to pass through them on his journey to Rome. This absence of Timothy from Ephesus, which is obscurely implied, completes the explanation of a verse which at first sight is almost inexplicable. Long before the letter arrived, Timothy would have learned the place and time of the apostle’s apprehension, and the conduct of the Christians around him, when he was thus arraigned. Hence the notice of the fact is so brief, that it now appears almost hopelessly obscure.

[Resource Manager]

No. III.

 

2 Tim. 4:9,10. “Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me: for Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia; Titus unto Dalmatia”

 

Two of these names are familiar to us in the letters, but Crescens is mentioned here only. This is the kind of coin­cidence which we should look for in a history of real occurrences. St. Paul had several constant, and others, more numerous, who were occasional companions in his journeys.

 

The mention of Titus supplies a very circuitous coincidence, of the reality of which, on close inquiry, there is little doubt. In his letter, the apostle requested him to rejoin him at Nico­polis. This has been shown to be Nicopolis in Epirus, and the letter to be from the neighbourhood of Corinth. Hence the purpose of the direction was clearly that Titus might be with the apostle in Epirus during the winter, and resume his labours along with him up the western coast of the Adriatic early in the next spring. If time was pressing, and other churches to the north required a visit, St. Paul would naturally send Titus, one of his most faithful and trusty helpers, to fulfil the same office as in Crete the previous year. On crossing over to Troas, he seems to have been arrested in Asia, and sent off at once a prisoner to Rome. Since Timothy was absent elsewhere in Asia Minor, this letter might give him the first account of that absence of Titus which made his own return the more necessary. The intervals of time will quite agree with this view. Titus might leave the apostle in April for Dalmatia, possibly near Dyrrachium. St. Paul might reach Miletus towards the end of May, and, after his arrest, be conveyed to Rome by the beginning or middle of July, and examined in the same month. He might write to Timothy in August, who was then in Asia, and not at the sea coast; and since he had several commissions to fulfil on the way, he would require diligence to rejoin the apostle at Rome before the winter was set in.

 

To detect the secret coincidence in this case, how many steps are necessary! We have first to ascertain carefully the true date of both letters, and the neighbourhood where the one to Titus was written, all of them points that require the most careful examination, as is proved by the mistakes of so many learned men. We have next to infer, from the message to Titus, the probable route of the apostle after that winter was over, and from this letter to Timothy, the place of his apprehension, and the fact of his return to Rome. We have also, by minute observation, to discover the absence of Timothy from Ephesus and Miletus, and, by a complex estimate of the journeys, to ascertain that the two winters, in the two letters, are those of two successive years. Thus, by this complicated inquiry, where every link, however, seems to be firm, we obtain a result which not only clears Titus from the suspicion of wilfully deserting the apostle, but accounts for his absence in Dalmatia, a province never once named elsewhere either in the history or the other letters.

[Resource Manager]

No. IV.

 

2 Tim. 4:11. “Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.”

 

The last mention of Mark was in the Epistle to Colosse, from which it appeared that he was intending to visit that neighbourhood about the close of the former imprisonment, which was probably about two years before the present message.

 

Timothy, also, seems now to have been absent from Ephesus, in the interior of Asia Minor. And hence the instruction that he should bring Mark along with him is readily explained.

 

But why is the remark added, “for he is profitable to me for the ministry?” If we turn to the history, we find that Mark had “ministered” to Paul and Barnabas in their first journey; that he forsook them at a critical moment, and fell under Paul’s displeasure; that on the next journey, he parted from Barnabas on this very account, because he thought Mark disqualified to be their companion, and that, after their sepa­ration, he selected Timothy to fill the very post which Mark had occupied before him. There is thus a double propriety in this brief commendation. The aged apostle, now on the point of death, would not only leave it on record how com­pletely the breach had been healed by the faithfulness of the evangelist in later years, but would also guard his beloved son in the faith against a self-complacent comparison with an elder brother, by bequeathing to him this beautiful and simple tes­timony to the value of Mark’s services in the gospel. What secret allusion could be more beautifully delicate and refined, and further beyond the reach of fraudulent imitation!

[Resource Manager]

No. V.

 

2 Tim. 4:13, 21. “The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

 

“Do thy diligence to come before winter.”

 

The deep and touching significance of this direction, how­ever trivial it may seem, has been beautifully explained by Mons. Gaussen, in his Theopneustia.

 

“During near thirty years he had been poor, in labours more abundant than others, in stripes above measure beyond them, in prisons more frequent than they: of the Jews he had five times received forty stripes save one, thrice he had been beaten with rods, once stoned, thrice shipwrecked, in journey-ings often, in perils at sea, in towns, in deserts, among the heathen, and among his own countrymen, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, with the care of all the churches. He was now Paul the aged, and in his last prison at Rome, expecting the sentence of death, and ready to be offered; he had fought a good fight, finished his course, and kept the faith.    Even his friends had shrunk from him on his first arraignment; only Luke was with him, the rest had left or forsaken him; the winter was about to set in, and in the chilly dungeons of Rome he was in want of his cloak, which he had left with Carpus at Troas, two hundred leagues away. The writer was himself in Rome last year, at the commencement of November; and with what vivid reality, under the influence of the evening cold, could he imagine the aged apostle in the dungeons of the Capitol, dictating the last of his letters, regretting the absence of his cloak, and begging Timothy to bring it before winter.”

 

In another view, these passages bear the same impress of reality. The apostle had wintered at Nicopolis, journeyed northward early in the spring, dismissed Titus to Dalmatia, crossed Macedonia by the Egnatian Way to Neapolis, and embarked for Troas; proceeded to Miletus, and in that neigh-bourhood been seized, examined, and sent off to Rome, from whence he writes to Timothy, in time for him to return, but only with a speedy journey, before winter sets in again. From this outline, deduced by a careful comparison of many scattered hints, about what time would he have passed through Troas? Most probably, about the month of May. How natural for him to leave his cloak behind, when the summer months were now begun, and especially if he purposed to return by the same route, so as to winter in Thrace or Macedonia! Yet, as Mr. Biley has justly observed, “there is no allusion to the season in the first letter to Timothy; no allusion to the proposed return to Asia after the winter, in that to Titus; no allusion to the winter at Nicopolis, or to the second interview with Timothy, in the present letter. The harmony is as completely hidden below the surface as it could possibly be.”

[Resource Manager]

No. VI.

 

2 Tim. 4:14. “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.”

 

1 Tim. 1:19, 20. “Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning the faith have made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenæus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blas­pheme.”

 

Acts 19:33. “And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. And Alexander beckoned with his hand, and would have made his defence unto the people. But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.”

 

These three passages have all some affinity with each other. In each of them an Alexander is mentioned, but in so general a way, that it is by no means clear, whether one, or two, or three parties are really intended. It is not even clear, from the statement in this letter, that Alexander the coppersmith lived at Ephesus. In the second passage, the phrase “whom I have delivered to Satan,” requires a reference to another epistle, to fix its meaning, and no record is given in the history of the place or time of his excommunication. Some have conceived that the Alexander in the book of Acts was a Christian, and others, that the Alexander of the first epistle was simply a heretic, but Alexander the coppersmith, a heathen or Jewish adversary. Yet I think that an exact inquiry will go far to remove this obscurity, and reveal, at least with considerable probability, a concealed and indirect coincidence.

 

First, Hymenæus is named, in both letters to Timothy, as an example of heresy. The former letter was addressed to him for his guidance, when at Ephesus; and the second, in a great measure for the same purpose, though with instructions also for his journey to Rome, when Ephesus would be in his way. We may infer that Hymenæus belonged to Ephesus, or the Asian province. The description is similar in both places, and hence, the same party is designated in both letters.

 

Next, the Alexander of 1 Tim. 1:20, and the Philetus of 2 Tim. 2:17, since they are coupled with Hymenæus, were probably also of that province, and perhaps of Ephesus, and ringleaders in heresy, or in some kind of opposition to the truth.

 

Thirdly, in each letter to Timothy, when at or near Ephesus, only one Alexander is named as an enemy to the gospel. The Alexander of the former letter, had been excommunicated, that he might be taught not to blaspheme, and continued im­penitent, about a year before the date of the second letter. In that second letter itself, Alexander the coppersmith is described as the most malignant enemy of the apostle, who had greatly withstood his words. It was only in rare and extreme cases that St. Paul singled out any one by name for such severe re­probation. It is surely improbable that at the same time, in the same district, there were two Alexanders thus pre-emi­nent in wickedness, and that one of them should be named in each epistle, without some clearer mark of distinction between them. But no such mark can be found in these passages. Alexander might be sufficiently defined in the first passage by his being joined with Hymenæus; but where he was named alone, some surname would be needful, to avoid all risk of mistaking the party, and hence the mention of his trade, in this case only, may be readily explained, without recourse to the supposition that it was some different person.

[Resource Manager]

It has been supposed, however, that Alexander the copper­smith did not live at Ephesus, but in Macedonia, or at the station next to Troas, in the route of Timothy. There seems no solid reason for this view. The journey of Timothy was to be as speedy as possible; and during its course, he would not be likely to incur any risk from this adversary, merely because he had to pass rapidly through some town in Macedonia, where he might happen to live. The danger could only refer to Timothy’s ordinary residence, in or near Ephesus, and the injury done to Paul must relate either to the time of his long stay in that city, or to his recent appre­hension, which took place in Asia. The phrase “he hath greatly withstood our words,” may refer either to the whole course of St. Paul’s teaching, or to his recent defence in Asia before the Roman deputy, when this Alexander might have been forward among his accusers. Everything points to a residence in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, where Timothy had a charge, where Paul had preached so long, and where he had been lately apprehended as a disturber of the peace, and sent to Rome for trial. The Alexander of the first epistle is coupled with Hymenæus, as if they were excommunicated together, and this implies that he also lived in or near Ephesus.

 

Now, if this identity is thus rendered highly probable, we may next inquire, what was the time of the excommunication of Hymenæus and Alexander? The words are simply, “whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.” Hence there is nothing in the expression to prove that it was a very recent event. It is rather spoken of, as one already notorious.    It has been shown to be probable that St. Paul did not really visit Ephesus after his return from Rome. The excommunication, therefore, if inflicted when he was present, must have been during his last visit, and since the church was founded during the same visit, it was probably towards its close, a short time before the tumult drove the apostle from the city. Now Timothy had been sent into Macedonia at that very time, before St. Paul left Ephesus; and thus the excommunication, if it were near the close of that residence, would occur during Timothy’s absence. Hence it would be more natural for St. Paul thus to remind him of it, than if he had actually witnessed it with his own eyes.

 

We are thus led to conclude that Hymenæus and Alexander had been excommunicated by the apostle at Ephesus, not very long before the tumult arose; that Hymenæus had continues ever since to propagate his heresy, and had been joined in it by Philetus also; that Alexander, far from repenting of his sin, and his railing against the gospel, had persevered in it, and become the most malignant opposer of the apostle, and that he was probably the occasion of his being apprehended on this journey, and sent a prisoner to Rome.