Jump to content

Horæ Apostolicæ


Resource Manager
 Share

Recommended Posts

No. III

 

Rom. 16:3, 5. “Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my helpers in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epenetus, who is the first fruits of Achaia (Asia, Bengel, Griesb. Scholz.) unto Christ.”

 

In No. II. of the Horæ, this passage is adduced for several congruities which it supplies respecting the character and resi­dence of Aquila and Priscilla. The present commendation is referred by Paley to their conduct during their stay with the apostle at Corinth. In this one particular his view seems to admit of correction and improvement, while a new light is thrown on the reality of the whole statement.

 

And first, the words are most natural, if the occurrence itself was of recent date. It would then be impressed more vividly on the mind of the apostle, and be more suitable for a commendation of Aquila and Priscilla to the brethren at Rome. The abode at Corinth, however, was five or six years before, and the apostle laboured in that city without actual peril of death, since he had the distinct promise from the first, “No man shall set on thee to hurt thee; for I have much people in this city.” The abortive attempt of the Jews only recoiled upon themselves.

 

Only nine or ten months, however, before the date of this letter, as may be deduced by a careful comparison of many notes of time, the apostle had suffered the most imminent danger at Ephesus. In the last epistle before the present one, he speaks of it in the strongest terms. “We would not have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, inso­much that we despaired even of life.” And again, “Who delivered us out of so great a death, and doth deliver, in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us.”

 

But since Aquila and Priscilla were now at Rome, was it possible or probable that they should be present with the apostle in this time of trouble? The answer is found in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, written, as I have shown, about a month before the tumult: “Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord.”

 

Is there, however, any hint or likelihood that they en­dangered their own lives for the apostle at this time? If we turn to the history, we have a statement which tallies well with the supposition, though Aquila is not named. “And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre. And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not.” Now we know from the epistle that Aquila and Priscilla were then at Ephesus, and from the history that they were St. Paul’s most intimate friends. Hence it follows, almost of necessity, that they were among those disciples who interfered to prevent him from endangering his life still more in the theatre. It is true that the history does not supply the fact mentioned in the letter; but it supplies every circumstance, when compared with 1 Cor. 16:, which could make such an occurrence highly pro­bable;—their intimate friendship with the apostle, their presence at Ephesus just before the tumult, his imminent peril, so that he despaired of life, the love of the disciples, which kept him back from almost certain destruction, and the enduring rancour of the Jews of Ephesus, as proved by their outcry not long after at Jerusalem. We cannot doubt that Aquila and Priscilla would be foremost, in that hour of danger, with their most strenuous exertions to save the apostle; and at such a crisis it would be, almost certainly, at the peril of their own lives.

 

The words that follow are a further coincidence. For all the best critics adopt the reading, which seems undoubtedly correct. “Salute my well-beloved Epenetus, who is the first fruits of Asia unto Christ.” If the apostle had just re­verted to his peril in Asia, he would naturally, by association of thought, continue his salutation with one who was “the first fruits of Asia” among all his acquaintances at Rome. It is also a very reasonable conjecture that Aquila, Priscilla, and Epenetus, had all been compelled to leave Ephesus soon after the tumult, in consequence of their zeal in defence of the apostle at that time.

 

One possible objection alone remains. If the allusion were to this Gentile tumult, why should the apostle specify “the churches of the Gentiles” as those on whose gratitude Aquila and Priscilla had so strong a claim? It is a sufficient reply, that St. Paul was confessedly the apostle of the Gentiles, and the preservation of his life, by whatever enemies it was endangered, would be a solid ground for this appeal to the Gentile churches. And besides, it is certain that Jewish opposition was uncommonly bitter at Ephesus, and quite pos­sible that, even at the time of the tumult, the immediate danger which Aquila incurred was from the malice of the Jews, rather than of the Gentiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Resource Manager

    187

No. IV.

 

The salutations which occupy the last chapter of the epistle, being addressed to a place which St. Paul never visited, until the close of St. Luke’s history, it becomes impossible, from the want of materials for comparison, to bring to fight many coincidences. Yet there are not a few marks of reality, of a more general nature, which may be detected even here. It may be convenient to include these in one miscellaneous article, with one or two slight corrections of Paley’s observa­tions.

 

First, it may seem strange that there should be so large a list of salutations in this letter to a church which St. Paul had never visited. But when we remember that Rome was the grand centre of intercourse, and the metropolis of the world, and that Jews from Rome were present and converted, even on the day of Pentecost, we shall find in this circumstance one mark of consistency and truth.

 

“Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour upon us.” This Jewish name was so common, that the person intended could only be known by the circumstance of her having ministered personally to the apostle. It seems also implied that the numbers of the church were comparatively small, and the members, with the leading facts of their previous life, known to each other.

 

“Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” This passing tribute of honour was only possible from the peculiar facts of St. Paul’s history. There was no other apostle who could have addressed such a statement with truth to any individual in any of the churches. The other phrase is obscure, and that very obscurity is a sign of historical truth. Its most natural meaning is, that they were conspicuous among a class here called apostles. Yet it is certain that they were not apostles of Christ, like St. Paul and the twelve. But the difficulty is removed by another passage, 2 Cor. 8:23, where St. Paul writes of the two companions of Titus, in his visit to Corinth: “They are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.” It is quite natural that these kinsmen of St. Paul, who were con­verted before him, and had suffered imprisonment along with him, should hold a conspicuous place among these messengers of the churches, whose honour was inferior only to that of the apostles themselves.

 

Again, this is the only letter where Timothy is present, and not joined in the superscription. The reason of the dif­ference is clear. Since Paul had not been at or near Rome, his ground for addressing them rested solely on his apostolic office, and not on his personal labours among them. Hence Timothy is excluded from the superscription with the same propriety which accounts for his mention in the other cases. For even in the epistle to Colosse, though Paul and Timothy had probably not visited it, they had preached together in all the surrounding region, both in Pamphylia to the east, and Asia to the west.

 

Paley has remarked, that of the seven names in the saluta­tion, three are found with Paul on leaving Macedonia, a coincidence as great as could be expected from reality, though less than would have been produced by design. It is tolerably clear that two only are the same. For the Gaius in the epistle is a Corinthian, but the Gaius in Acts is of Derbe in Asia Minor. And it seems that a third Gaius, a Macedonian, is mentioned in the previous chapter. It is certainly possible that Gaius of Derbe, and Gaius the Macedonian, might be the same, one being his native place, and the other his home; but it is hardly possible that the host of the whole church at Corinth, and one of the first believers baptized in that city, should be a Macedonian, or a native or inhabitant of Derbe. But when we remember that Gaius was nearly the most common name among the Romans, the setting aside of a spurious coincidence only reveals another feature of internal probability.

 

The conjecture that Lucius may be the same with Lucas, is also probably unfounded. The double form, Silas and Silvanus, implies that Lucanus, and not Lucius, would be the only alternative form of the name of the evangelist. And since Titus does not appear in the list, nor Tychicus or Tro­phimus, it may be inferred that all those messengers who were sent to Corinth returned to Macedonia before the present letter was written. It is possible that he is the same with Lucius of Cyrene. Yet another conjecture is more natural. Jason, we know, was of Thessalonica, and Sosipater, or Sopater, of Berea; and it is probable that, since Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, were the three successive stations and centres of St. Paul’s labours in Macedonia, one companion from each would attend him to Corinth, and that Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, were from those towns respectively. We shall still have this imperfect coincidence, that Lucius alone of the three was a Roman name, and that Philippi alone of the three cities was a Roman colony.

 

The greeting from Erastus not only accords with the pas­sage in the second to Timothy, but with the statements in the book of Acts. He was one of those who ministered to the apostle, and was sent before him into Macedonia along with Timothy. Yet Timothy is among his companions on leaving Macedonia, but not Erastus. It is thus implied that he stayed behind, either in Macedonia or Achaia. The letter indirectly explains the circumstance. He held, it seems, a public station at Corinth, and, after an absence of more than a year, his stay might be almost necessary.

 

These correspondencies, though separately they may be somewhat hypothetical, form a cumulative presumption of reality, which has no little weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER VI.

 

THE EPISTLES TO ASIA FROM RΟΜΕ.

 

It is generally agreed that the three letters to the Ephesians, the Colossians, and Philemon, were written from Rome during the two years’ imprisonment, with which the sacred history closes. The usual opinion is, that they were written very nearly together, and dispatched by the same messengers in one single journey. In this case it is plain, from the letter to Philemon, that their date was towards the close of that im­prisonment. The first of them is almost entirely destitute of historical allusions, and the two others are addressed to a place which St. Paul seems not to have visited. These reasons conspire with their date, at the very close of the book of Acts, to prevent us from expecting numerous coincidences. The twelve articles in the Horæ have nearly exhausted the subject; but still a short chapter may be usefully occupied with a few topics, which deserve, and will perhaps repay, a fuller examination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I.

 

Eph. 1:1.— “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faith­ful in Christ Jesus.”

 

In the Horæ Paulinas, Paley has touched on the much debated question, whether the present epistle were addressed to Ephesus or Laodicea, and has decided in favour of the latter view. Grotius, Wetstein, and others before him, and more recently Mr. Greswell in his Dissertations, give the same decision. There is a third alternative which he has not considered, in the view of archbishop Usher, Hammond, Koppe, Hug, Michaelis and others, that it was a circular epistle, designed for several churches, including both Ephesus and Laodicea.

 

The claim of Ephesus lies in the external evidence, since the name occurs in nearly all the existing manuscripts and versions. But there are two or three facts which diminish its force considerably. Marcian is blamed by Tertullian for calling it the letter to the Laodiceans. Again, in the Vatican manuscript, the words, “in Ephesus,” are only in the margin, though by the same hand. But the chief testimony is that of Basil, writing against Eunomius, in these words—

 

“For in another place also the same apostle, speaking by the Spirit of God, calls the Gentiles ‘things which are not,’ from their being deprived of the knowledge of God, saying that God hath chosen the things which are not. For since God is in truth and life, they who are not united by faith to the God who is, but are settled in disobedience and falsehood by the delusion of idolatry, through their privation of the truth, and alienation from the life, are reasonably, I think, styled ‘those who are not.’ Nay, moreover, writing to the Ephesians, as truly united by knowledge to Him who is, he called them distinctively, ‘those who are,’ saying ‘to the saints who are, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus.’ For so those who lived before us have handed down, and we have found it so in the ancient copies (καὶ μες ἐν τοῖς παλαίοις τν ντιγράφων ἐυρήκαμεν)”

 

Three or four manuscripts, old in the time of Basil, if they were now extant, would be held to balance or outweigh in authority all the rest. Yet from this express declaration, we may be almost as certain that the words, “in Ephesus,” were then absent in several earlier manuscripts, as if they were now under our own eyes. And hence the argument from external consent is almost, if not altogether, neutralized by this very plain testimony, that a different reading, without name of place, was very usual in the earliest times.

 

Next, the words in the epistle to the Colossians are a decisive proof that the other was designed, at least, in­clusively for the Laodiceans. “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” It is plain that the allusion is to some other letter of the apostle, which was to reach Colosse by way of Laodicea, after being publicly read in that church. Now this must plainly be the actual letter to the Ephesians. For this was written at the same time, and forwarded by the same messenger, besides the agreement in the general cha­racter of both letters. Hence that letter must have been intended, by express instructions of the apostle, to be sent to the Laodiceans, and read publicly in their church.

 

Thirdly, the letter was not properly or exclusively to the Laodiceans; for this is opposed to all the external and also to internal evidence.   All the existing manuscripts read, “to the saints in Ephesus,” and all those early manuscripts which Basil consulted, “to the saints which are,” without any name of place; but we have no testimony to any manuscript with the reading, “to the saints in Laodicea.” And again, if it were properly a letter to the Laodiceans, why should not St. Paul have so described it, instead of the more general phrase, denoting the place where it would be found, not necessarily the parties addressed— “the letter from Loadicea?”

 

Again, it is very unlikely that St. Paul, writing from Rome by Tychicus, an Ephesian, should entirely overlook the church where he laboured three years, and address two letters to two places he had never visited, within fifty miles of each other. This internal difficulty is perhaps even more decisive than the one just explained, against an exclusive direction to Laodicea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, that it was not exclusively designed for the church at Ephesus, as Paley has shown, rests on the strongest in­ternal evidence. We must set aside all those marks of con-gruity, by which every other letter proves itself so admirably suited for its specific object, before we can acquiesce in such a view. On this hypothesis, the letter addressed to the church where St. Paul laboured the longest is precisely the most devoid of local and personal allusions. Nor is this, however grave, the sole difficulty. Let us weigh the two following passages, and their inconsistency with such an ex­clusive destination is apparent.

 

“Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers.”

 

“For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles—if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to youward, how that by reve­lation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may be able to understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) .... whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.”

 

These reasons, when all combined, serve to establish the view of Usher, adopted since by Koppe, Hug, Michaelis and others, that the present was a circular epistle, designed for several churches of Lydian Asia, and in which the name of the place was left vacant, to be supplied by the reader in each of the churches for which it was designed.

 

It may perhaps be objected, as it is by Mr. Greswell, who advocates an exclusive address to Laodicea, that if Ephesus were included, the conjecture leaves us in the same perplexity as before. But the objection is clearly groundless. A letter expressly designed for the use of many churches, must have been adapted to the state of the greater number; and if none of them, except Ephesus, had been visited by the apostle, the letter must have assumed its present character, just as if Ephesus had been excluded entirely.

 

Again, it may seem incongruous, that a circular letter should be sent to several churches, including one where St. Paul had stayed so long, and a distinct letter to Colosse, which he had never visited. But here also the solution is easy. The mission of Onesimus rendered it necessary that St. Paul should write to Philemon. In this case it was only suitable and natural that he should write also to the church at Colosse, of which Philemon was a private member. On the other hand, the instruction added for a mutual communication with Laodicea, removes all appearance of inequality. And besides, Colosse was in Phrygia, and might be viewed as representing the churches of another province.

 

But if the letter was a circular, for what churches was it designed, and how may we suppose that it was communi­cated to them? The most natural reply is, to the seven churches, afterwards addressed by St. John, or those of them which already existed, and this might be true already of the whole number. The view of Michaelis, that St. Paul had several copies written, and filled with the name of different places, is highly improbable, and will not explain the reading to which Basil refers. We may suppose rather that Tychicus and Onesimus landed with it at Ephesus, and read it first in that church, supplying the name in the public reading, and communicating orally whatever was special to that place in the instructions of the apostle. They might then proceed in order through the other churches, to Laodicea, where they might leave it to be copied and then forwarded, while they went on to fulfil their mission at Colosse. It would thus be, by the instructions of St. Paul himself, the letter from Lao­dicea,  when  it  reached   the Colossians.    Tychicus would probably wait at Colosse till its arrival, and then return with it to Ephesus, and there deposit it in the custody of the parent church, the first in order of those to which it was ad­dressed. We thus account at once for the absence of any name in the ancient copies which Basil consulted, which would be exact copies of the autograph, and from the in­sertion of Ephesus alone in all the others, since the custody of it was committed to that church. This view alone seems to remove all difficulty, and to reconcile the internal and external evidence. The obscure text in Colossians thus becomes a remarkable coincidence, and the key to explain the peculiar character of the letter, and to reconcile the statements of Basil with the actual text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. II.

 

Eph. 6:21. “But that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things.”

 

In these words we have a probable confirmation of the above, and that the letter was not addressed to Ephesus alone. For in this case it would be as natural for St. Paul to say here of Tychicus as he does of Onesimus in the letter to Colosse, “the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you.”

 

It is assumed in the Hora that this journey of Tychicus is the same as when he conveyed, along with Onesimus, the two other letters to Colosse. Since, however, professor Hug views them as distinct, and even places the second Epistle to Timothy between them, a few words in proof of their identity seem desirable, to preclude all doubt of the force of Paley’s observations. It is indeed strange that the learned writer, could suppose a letter, so totally different in its character and tone, to have intervened between these, where the resem­blance is so marked and peculiar. The hypothesis would entirely set aside all possibility of inferring the comparative date from the general style. But in reality, the conclusions from the style, and from the historical marks, agree perfectly together.

 

The hypothesis of professor Hug is the following:— “Ty­chicus carried both epistles to Asia, but at different times; first, that to the Ephesians and the second to Timothy, then those to the Colossians and Philemon; the first two at the beginning of his imprisonment, before Paul was examined, and the last two in the following year, when his fortune gradually brightened; for in the Epistle to Philemon, the apostle expects his speedy liberation.

 

“When the Epistle to the Ephesians was written, Timothy was not with him, but joined him at a later period, and in the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon his name stands side by side with the apostle’s. Secondly, Luke was in com­pany with St. Paul, (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24). Thirdly, Mark was also with him at the date of these two later epistles. Fourthly, Tychicus was at that time a letter-bearer and a deacon, and sent especially to Asia, Eph. 4:21; Col. 4:7, 8. All these circumstances appear again in the second to Timothy. He was not with Paul, but was sum­moned by him. Secondly, Luke was with him. Thirdly, he desires Mark to come with Timothy, so that he must have been with him during the imprisonment. Fourthly, Tychicus was present as the letter-bearer, and sent especially to Asia, 2 Tim. 4:11, 12.”

 

These remarks merely prove how seductive and dangerous a proof of identity may be which rests only on a selection of particulars. That Timothy, Mark, and Luke should be present with St. Paul in each imprisonment, and that in each of them Tychicus should be sent to Asia, is surely not at all improbable. Yet this is the whole amount of the argument. For the absence of Timothy, at the date of the letter to the Ephesians, is inferred much too confidently from the usage in other epistles. He was present when St. Paul wrote to Rome, and still his name does not appear in the super­scription.

 

The three arguments of Paley are decisive. First, Demas had forsaken St. Paul at the date of the letter to Timothy, but he is still present in those to Colosse and Philemon, which the hypothesis fixes later. Next, it would be needless to tell Timothy that Erastus stayed at Corinth, if the reference were to the journey in Acts, since Timothy was with St. Paul at the time. Thirdly, Trophimus was not left at Miletus on that journey, but attended St. Paul to Jerusalem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But other objections remain of equal weight. If the letter to Timothy was written in the first year of that imprison­ment, and he was expected to arrive from Asia before winter, it must have been written not much later than midsummer, only three or four months after St Paul arrived at Rome. But Aristarchus was present with St Paul as a fellow-pri­soner on that voyage, and at the date of the letter to Colosse. It is morally certain, then, that he continued a prisoner with him during the interval, or at the very least, that if he were absent, St. Paul would have mentioned his departure. But no mention occurs either of the presence or absence of Aris­tarchus in the letter to Timothy. There is the same silence respecting Jesus Justus, and Epaphras. When St. Paul parted from Asia before that imprisonment, not only Timothy was with him, but there was no such desertion as is described 2 Tim. 1:15. It is improbable, again, that Titus would be sent to Dalmatia at a time when St Paul had not visited that province, and hardly approached its border, and the instruc­tion respecting the cloak at Troas becomes very unnatural, if we suppose that the interval was one of three years, as in this case it must have been. Why should not the apostle have sent for it during his stay for two years at Cæsarea, when his acquaintance were allowed to visit him, and messengers or converts from that district must have so often come to Pales­tine. That all should forsake the apostle within a few months after his  arrival is most improbable, when we observe that his accusers, the Jews, had not even ventured to send in their charge, and Festus and Agrippa had both declared before the voyage that there was no ground for sending him to Borne but his own appeal. An interval of three years, instead of six or seven, is much less likely, for the return of Aquila and Priscilla to Ephesus, who had left it for Rome during the apostle’s last visit to Greece in the book of Acts.

 

The disproof of Hug’s hypothesis being thus complete, we may safely infer that Tychicus was sent once only to Asia during the first imprisonment, and that the three letters, as Paley assumes, were carried to their destination in one and the same journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. III.

 

Col. 4:10. “Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him.)”

 

The coincidence in the words before the parenthesis has been unfolded by Paley, in No. II. on this epistle. But the parenthesis itself offers another more easily overlooked, and therefore perhaps even more striking.

 

First, why should a special direction be given them, to receive Mark, when no similar instance is found in all the epistles? Let us turn to Acts 15:37-40, and the reason will be plain.

 

“And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed to Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.”

 

Mark, it is thus plain, was for a time under a kind of ban or disgrace with the apostle, such as had occurred with no other Christian teacher. To undo the effects of this public censure at a later period, there would probably be required some special instruction to the churches.

 

Next, why should this allusion be found only in the letter to Colosse? It was a church which St. Paul had not founded, or even visited, as appears from Col. 2:1, and the strain of the whole letter. How should they know of this censure under which Mark had lain, and why should they need in­struction to receive him, as if otherwise they would have repelled him with a watchful suspicion?

 

The answer here also is very simple, though I am not aware whether it has been suggested by any commentator on the epistle. It was at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13:13; 15:38) that Mark deserted Paul and Barnabas, and “went not with them to the work.” Now Colosse is only about a hundred and ten miles from Perga, and less than twenty from the confines of Pisidia, throughout which province Paul and Barnabas preached on their return during the same jour­ney. Perga and Antioch in Pisidia are the nearest to Colosse of all the stations of St. Paul recorded in the history. On his next journey, after the separation, through the central parts of Asia Minor, his displeasure against Mark, and the reason why Silas and not Barnabas was with him on the mission, would be deeply impressed on the Pisidian and Phrygian churches. Now, since these were the nearest to Colosse, and were evangelized several years before Ephesus, it is morally certain that Colosse would receive the gospel from them, and partake in their prejudice against Mark, as a deserter from the work of the Lord. In this local relation of Colosse to Perga, and to the theatre of those two early circuits through­out Pisidia and Phrygia, we have a coincidence as real as it is evidently undesigned.

 

A third question arises, how and when could the Colos­sians have received this commandment, reversing the sentence against Mark, and recognising his return to the favour and confidence of the apostle? It is quite possible that such a message might have been sent from Rome, as soon as the apostle had found the comfort of Mark’s help in the gospel. Yet we have no hint in the letters of such a previous message to Asia, and it seems rather unlikely that St. Paul should have sent one before to Colosse for such a purpose. Nor is it natural to suppose that ten years elapsed before the reconciliation.

 

But the history itself supplies a simpler and more probable key to this passage. After, the separation and first journey of Paul and Silas through Pisidia and Phrygia they passed into Europe and stayed long at Corinth. The apostle then re­turned to Jerusalem at some feast, probably that of Pente­cost. On this visit, he would be likely to meet with Mark and Barnabas, at Cæsarea or Jerusalem, returning to the same feast; or if not, at least he would be sure to hear of the consistent labours of the evangelist since they parted. Soon afterwards, St. Paul went down to Antioch, and then passed through Galatia and Phrygia, before he came down to the coast, and resided at Ephesus. It is therefore most likely that he would instruct the churches of Phrygia respecting his change of feeling towards Mark, and give them a charge to receive him with due honour whenever he should visit them as an evangelist of Christ. Now Colosse, though St. Paul had not visited it, belonged to the province of Phrygia. And if Mark was now proposing to visit Asia, and St. Paul had still fuller experience of his worth, it was very natural that he should enforce his general instruction to the Phrygian churches some years before, by a special admonition to Colosse, “Touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him.”

 

The coincidence here 13, to a certain extent, inferential and constructive.    But it can scarcely be denied that the explanation just proposed is highly probable; that it brings to light a beautiful and concealed harmony, and that it lies far removed from all suspicion of design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IV.

 

Col. 4:18. “The salutation by the hand of me Paul. Remember my bonds.    Grace be with you.    Amen.”

 

Philem. 19. “I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it: albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self besides.”

 

These two letters were sent by the same messenger, one to the church of Colosse, and the other to Philemon. Yet we learn from these verses that, while in one letter St. Paul merely added the subscription, he wrote the other entirely with his own hand. Nothing can be more natural than the mention of the circumstance in the second case, to confirm the truth of his promise respecting Onesimus. And yet how appropriate and delicate the compliment to Philemon, that the apostle who wrote to the church by an amanuensis, should in his case deviate from his own ordinary practice, and prove his interest in the, reconciliation of Onesimus to his master, by writing the whole letter with his own hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER VII.

 

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

 

This epistle, as it appears from the internal evidence, was written near the close of St. Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome, almost at the same point of time where the narrative in the book of Acts comes to an end. Short as it is, Paley has detected in it seven distinct marks of reality, which are developed very clearly in the Horæ. Enough still remain to reward our further inquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I.

 

Phil. 1:1. “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.”

 

This is the earliest letter of St. Paul where bishops and deacons are mentioned, and the only one where they are separately addressed in the salutation.

 

Now, here we may trace an agreement with the probable course of events, deduced alike from the letters and the his­tory. While the apostles were constantly visiting the young churches, whether in person or by messengers, the appoint­ment of regular pastors would either be delayed, or be felt of less importance. But when some of them were removed by death, and others removed to a distant sphere, or shut up in prison, it would be needful to provide for the permanent order of the various churches. Hence the three letters, which come later than the present one, are mainly occupied with instructions on these points, or warnings of the evils that would assail the church after the departure of the apostle. The previous letter to Colosse implies also that a pastoral ap­pointment had recently occurred in that place. “Say to Ar­chippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.”

 

It agrees exactly with this new want of the church, when other apostles had been martyred or removed far away, and St. Paul imprisoned for two years, in doubt of his life, and was now already “Paul the aged,” that bishops and deacons should be prominent, for the first time, in the opening salu­tation. It is like an admonition of the Spirit, that the churches were to acquire the habit of looking up with reverence to their own pastors and teachers, now that the miraculous gifts were beginning to pass into God’s ordinary providence, and the presence of the inspired apostles, the immediate dispensers of those gifts, was to be speedily withdrawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. II.

 

Phil. 2:19, 23-25. “But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. . . . Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me. But I trust in the Lord that I also myself shall come shortly. Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epa­phroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellow­soldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.”

 

Here three visits to Philippi are proposed in a distinct order. Epaphroditus was to set out at once, and plainly to be the bearer of the letter. Timothy was to follow imme­diately after the apostle’s liberation was decided, but not before. St. Paul himself hoped also to revisit them before long.

 

But why, we may ask, this complex arrangement? Was it not more natural that Epaphroditus should delay till Timothy could accompany him, or that Timothy should hasten his journey to travel with Epaphroditus, or delay it, so as to accompany the apostle? The brief statement in the text, though rapid and condensed, supplies a full key to the arrange­ment. Epaphroditus had been delayed by sickness beyond the natural time of his absence, and thus had caused great anxiety to the Philippians. On his recovery, the apostle did not think it right to detain him still longer, to go with Timothy, and therefore dismissed him with the present affectionate letter. But why should not the journey of Epaphroditus spare the need of another of Timothy? Because he was to stay at Philippi, and what the apostle desired was more recent tidings of their prosperity. Then why should not Timothy go at once, along with Epaphroditus? Because he was to rejoin the apostle, while on a journey. If he had set out before the apostle knew the decision of his cause, and the time of his freedom, he must either have lost time in waiting for Timothy at Rome, or Timothy have been ignorant where to proceed, so as to bring tidings at once from Philippi. But why should not the apostle, if his deliverance was near, proceed at once to Philippi, and spare Timothy this separate journey? We shall see, from the later epistles, that he had decided on a much wider circuit, by Crete, Jerusalem, and Asia, before he could reach Macedonia. Finally, if St. Paul had heard of them so lately by Epaphroditus, why this urgent desire to hear from them again by Timothy? First, the letter implies that they were actually exposed to fierce opposition; and next, an illness of considerable length had intervened, so as to make the actual interval considerable. It is very probable that he would be sent from Philippi in the spring or summer of the second year. His illness would delay his return until the winter season rendered his departure unadvisable, and then the apostle, as soon as navigation became easy, sent him back to Philippi. Hence nearly a year might have passed since he sent out to Rome, and the apostle be desirous of later information. Thus every feature of the arrangement, though tried by these various tests, approves itself to the judg­ment, and becomes a pledge of the historical reality of the whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. III.

 

Phil. 2:20. “For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.”

 

This verse, at first sight, appears startling. St. Paul, when he wrote to Colosse, had Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, Luke, Jesus Justus, and Epaphras, all with him. Does he mean here to condemn the fellow-prisoner and companion, who had partaken in all the perils of his voyage, and who seems to have stood before so high in his esteem? Or does he intend, when Timothy was about to visit Philippi, to teach him on his arrival his superiority to Luke and Mark, and Aristarchus, all probably his superiors in age, and apparently not less constant in their love to the apostle in this imprisonment?

 

On turning to the close of the epistle, this doubt is removed. Neither Mark, Luke, nor Aristarchus are there named as present, though two of them, at least, were well known at Philippi, and their greeting was sent to Colosse, which they probably had never visited. This is in itself a strong pre­sumption that they had left him before this time: and this is confirmed by other reasons. Before this time, at the date of the letter to the Colossians, Mark seems to have purposed returning to Asia. The book of Acts, again, was most pro­bably written about the close of St. Paul’s imprisonment, and it is not unlikely that St. Luke would leave Rome, and return to Cæsarea or Antioch, before he began its composition.  Aristarchus, having been detained so much longer with the apostle than was contemplated at the outset of the journey, might also very probably have already left Rome, on his return to Thessalonica. It is a further presumption for this view, that none of their names appear in the Epistle to the Hebrews, written soon after from Italy, though all of them were well known to the Christians of Cæsarea and Jeru­salem. This coincidence is imperfect, from the want of fuller evidence; but so far as the evidence extends, it is satisfactory and complete. The expression used in praise of Timothy would seem invidious and perplexing, if Mark, Luke, and Aristarchus were with St. Paul at the time, as we know that they were a little before. But the absence of their names, both at the close of this letter and of that to the Hebrews, the hint respecting Mark in Colossians, the probable time and place when the book of Acts was written by Luke, and the home of Aristarchus, are all presumptive signs that they had left the apostle before now, when his full assurance of a speedy liberation rendered their stay no longer necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IV.

 

Phil. 3:4-6. “If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.”

 

This passage has been noticed by Paley, in his Introduc­tion, as one where the coincidence is so direct and clear, as to be unfit for his line of argument. “It is made up of par­ticulars so plainly delivered in the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, and the Epistle to the Galatians, that I cannot deny it would be easy for an impostor, who was fabricating a letter in the name of St. Paul, to collect these articles into one view. This, therefore, is a conformity which we do not adduce.”

 

There is much truth in this remark. Yet, even after this admission, the passage may fairly claim a subordinate place in the general argument.

 

And first, let it be observed on what a limited hypothesis the explanation of such a forgery becomes possible. The particulars may be collected from three other writings, the book of Acts, and the two letters to the Romans and Gala­tians. Assuming their genuineness, this passage will not prove that the letter to the Philippians might not be framed out of them. But who would ever seriously maintain a hypothesis so peculiar? Who would concede the genuine­ness of the two other letters, and deny that of the letter to the Philippians?

 

On the other hand, when the simpler question is proposed, whether the letters could be forged out of the history, or the history compiled out of the letters, the passage becomes evi­dence once more. For the history never states that St. Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin; which is mentioned here, and also in the Epistle to the Romans, and in both in the most incidental manner, along with particulars which the history does record.    Yet it is, perhaps, an indirect coincidence, in the habitual association of thought, that while Stephen passes at once to the reign of David, St. Paul dwells distinctly on his royal namesake, of his own tribe, in his summary of the sacred history. “And afterward they desired a king, and God gave unto them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years,” Acts 13:21. This is either a coincidence, or very much resembles it, and is clearly undesigned, since the historian never tells us to what tribe the apostle belonged.

 

Again, the fact that St. Paul was a Pharisee is very promi­nent in the history, which states also that he was the son of of a Pharisee. Yet this brief clause “as touching the law, a Pharisee,” is the only one in all the letters where that sect is so much as named. Nor is he here called the son of a Phari­see, but simply a Hebrew of Hebrews, where the language, and not the sect, of his father seems to be specified. Yet if he were the son of a Pharisee, how natural the occasion when it is mentioned, in his defence before the Jewish council. “Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question,” Acts 23:6.

 

There is a further peculiarity in this passage, compared with 2 Cor. 11:21, 22, and Rom. 11:1, which marks their common reality. In all of them there is an apparent tautology. If the apostle were a Benjamite, he would, of course, be an Israelite; and if an Israelite, then a Hebrew in the wider sense, or if a Hebrew-speaking Jew, then an Israelite. So in Romans, if a Benjamite, of course he was an Israelite, and if an Israelite, of course of the seed of Abraham. In Corinthians we have the same triple enumeration. A double explanation is possible; that these phrases, being in frequent use at the time, had each a distinctive and conventional shade of meaning, now lost; or else that their pride of descent led the Jews to multiply and vary the terms by which it was described. Either explanation implies the historical reality of the state­ment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.V.

 

Phil. 3:2, 3. “Beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

 

There is a remarkable gradation in the language of the apostle respecting this Jewish ordinance, when we compare the epistles in the order of time.

 

In the first recorded discourse of the apostle, at Antioch, though circumcision is not named, it is included in the nega­tive description, as a part of the law which could not justify. “By him, all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” Acts 13:39.

 

In the epistle to the Galatians, the first where it is named, and written six or seven years later, its spiritual inefficiency is argued, defensively, against those who would impose it on the Gentile converts. It is left as the proper and distinctive title of the Jews. “That we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision.” “Fearing them of the circumcision.” “In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith, which worketh by love.” “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncir­cumcision, but a new creature.” The same point of indiffe­rence is continued in the next epistle to the Corinthians. “Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncir­cumcised? Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God,” 1 Cor. 7:18,19.

 

In the later Epistle to the Romans, we advance a step further, and the substance of the ordinance is claimed for every true believer, while only the shadow is assigned to the un­believing Jews. “For he is not a Jew which is one out­wardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circum­cision is of the heart, in spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God,” Rom. 2:28, 29.

 

Still later, in the epistle to the Colossians, this idea of the true circumcision as the exclusive privilege of the Christian believer, is expounded more fully. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circum­cision of Christ.” While the indifference of the outward rite is asserted once more: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision: but Christ is all and in all.”   Col. 2:11; 3:11.

 

Last of all, in the present passage, not only the true circumcision is claimed for the Christian believer, but the very name is denied, and an expressive term of reproach substituted, for those who, resting in their outward circumcision, rejected or perverted the gospel. “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

 

There is an evident gradation and progress in these state­ments. The outward rite, once obligatory on all the people of the covenant, then reduced simply to a national distinction by the call of the Gentiles, on the footing of liberty from the law of ceremonies, was more and more associated, in the apostle’s experience, with the open hostility of the unbelieving Jews, and the perverse teaching of false brethren.

 

Now this coincidence is the most multiform and indirect which can be well imagined. It only comes to light as the result of those many hints, some of them plain, others complex and obscure, by which we determine the relative place of the whole series of letters. It is like a delicate golden thread of truth, running through and connecting the whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. VI.

 

Phil. 4:2,3. “I beseech Euodia, and beseech Syntyche, that they be of the same mind in the Lord. And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, along with Clement also, and with other my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life.”

 

There is some obscurity in this passage in the common version, which is removed by a more exact rendering. There is no real doubt, from the text, that the same persons are meant in both verses, and hence that Euodia (not Euodias) and Syntyche, are the names of women. It is not so likely, however, that the “true yokefellow” was charged to promote their reconciliation, as to cooperate with them, when recon­ciled; nor is it clear that the difference amounted to a quarrel, but only to some decided opposition of judgment, in their mode of helping forward the gospel.

 

The history gives us the following account of the first rise of the Philippian church:—

 

“And on the sabbath day we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.”

 

Of all the places named in the history, Philippi is the only one where women are said to have been the first hearers of the gospel, and one of them the earliest convert. Of all the letters, this to Philippi is the only one where a special in­struction is given to women, who had laboured with St. Paul in the gospel. It is plain that, in these early churches, priority of conversion formed one main rule in the selection of their first teachers and spiritual officers. Euodia and Syntyche might very likely be two of the women, who resorted to the proseucha by the river side, and among the very first converts. The history, when closely examined, will be found to allude, not to one single sabbath day, but to a course of repeated in­struction (ἤκουεν)  and to the continued attention of Lydia and others. None would be so likely, as the women then con­verted, to take an active part in teaching the younger female disciples, who were called at a later period.

 

Who is meant by the “true yokefellow,” we have not suffi­cient evidence to decide. Yet since it has been shown to be very probable that Luke and Aristarchus had now left the apostle, it is quite possible that one of them was gone to Philippi; and the phrase would be peculiarly appropriate to either of them, as the companions of St. Paul in his voyage and double imprisonment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. VII.   

 

Phil. 4:17. “Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account.”

 

At the close of the Epistle to the Romans we meet with a similar expression. “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.”

 

The resemblance here is not simply in the metaphor of fruit, applied to acts of Christian liberality, but in its associa­tion with another metaphor, and the harshness of the transition, “fruit which may abound to your account,—when I have sealed to them this fruit? The sealing has evidently a secret refer­ence to the idea of an account or receipt, which has been properly ratified and confirmed. This indirect, but real analogy in a peculiar transition of thought, is a proof, to use the words of Paley, “that the same mind dictated both passages.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. VIII.

 

Phil. 4:22. “All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Cæsar’s household.”

 

Why should the saints of Cæsar’s household claim a special place in this brotherly greeting? One probable reason may be assigned, and two others that are certain. First, Philippi, as we read in Acts, was a Roman colony, and hence there might be official or family bonds of intimacy between these Roman colonists, and the native Roman converts m the impe­rial palace. Secondly, there was a numerous church at Rome before St. Paul arrived. But the saints in Cæsar’s household, like the Philippian church, were converts of the apostle him­self, and hence there would be a special link of spiritual bro­therhood. Finally, the apostle had been imprisoned at Phi­lippi, as he was now a prisoner at Rome, and in each case his sufferings had been one chief cause of the conversions that followed. On this account, also, the saints of Cæsar’s house hold, the spiritual sons of the apostle, in his bonds, like Onesimus, would feel a peculiar ground of sympathy with the Philippian Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHAPTER VIII.

 

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

 

This letter, unlike the others, does not bear the name of St. Paul, though it is ascribed to him by the almost universal tradition of the early church. Some, however, ascribe the authorship, in whole or in part, to Barnabas, to Luke, to Clement, and to Apollos. Many critics within the last cen­tury have also rejected the claim of the apostle, from supposed inconsistencies of style; but their objections have been fully sifted by Mr. Foster and professor Stuart, in two independent works, and received a decisive and complete refutation. Even on the ground of style only, there is no other claim which at all rivals that of St. Paul himself. The historical allusions, while they further establish the same truth, offer also several examples of undesigned coincidence. Mr. Biley has traced these with considerable force and accuracy, though one or two important modifications seem required, and will be found to increase the consistency and clearness of the whole argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I.

 

Let us consider, in the first place, the evidence in the epistle itself, that St. Paul was the author. First, the writer sup­poses himself to be well known to the Hebrew or Palestine Christians, ch. 10:34; 13:18. Secondly, he had been im­prisoned in Palestine, where many of them had ministered to him, 10:34. It is true that here the reading is disputed, but still the external evidence seems really to favour strongly the received text, and the internal still more. Thirdly, Timothy was well known to be his intimate companion, and the writer expected that he would accompany him to Jerusalem. Fourthly, he uses generally the language of apostolic autho­rity, though in a modified form, as writing evidently to Chris­tians of the mother church, 13:1-6. Fifthly, he reproves the great body of that church for their slowness and dulness of spiritual understanding, 5:11-14. Sixthly, he charges them, as with authority, to be in obedience to their own pastors and rulers, 13:7-17. Finally, he was in Italy when he wrote the letter, and was authorized to convey the greeting of all the Italian Christians, 13:24. There is no one with whom all these marks can possibly agree, but the great apostle of the Gentiles; and no time, except about the close of his long imprisonment at Rome.

 

The absence of his name, in the opening of the letter, is often made an objection to this view. Yet in reality it is a strong, indirect confirmation of its truth. It is impossible that any one else, who wished the letter to pass for one of the apostle’s, should omit his name; but St. Paul himself, under the actual circumstances, had sufficient and weighty motives for this omission. We learn, from the book of Acts, how bitterly he was hated by the Jews on his last visit to Jeru­salem. The whole city was filled with uproar, and the mul­titudes shouted after him— “Away with such a fellow from the earth, for it is not fit that he should live.” The chief cap­tain had great difficulty in rescuing him from their violence, which seemed ready to break out in an open rebellion. Forty Jews deliberately bound themselves, by a dreadful oath, to effect his murder, and this too with the assent of the chief priests; and to escape from their malice, he was sent away in the night, with an escort of nearly five hundred men. Even among the great body of the Christian Jews there was con­siderable prejudice against him. “Thou seest, brother, how-many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: 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, neither to walk after the customs,” Acts 21:20, 21.

 

These violent prejudices of the unbelieving Jews would have abated very little during the two years of his absence. And hence the insertion of his name, in the opening of the letter, might have been a complete bar to every hope that the truths it unfolds so powerfully, would reach their ears.    On the other hand, the topics of the letter, and the manner in which they are treated, were eminently suited to arrest the attention of multitudes who were not converts to the faith. It was clearly designed to be read publicly in the Christian assemblies of Palestine, where many inquirers might be pre­sent.    If not repelled by the name of St. Paul at the opening, they would be powerfully impressed by a style of argument so thoroughly adapted to the Jewish mind.   And thus there was a most weighty motive of Christian expediency, why the apostle should forbear to prefix his name.    That the writer intended to be clearly recognised by the believers to whom he wrote, is plain, from the close of the letter; but such an indirect discovery of himself, in a way so unobtrusive and silent, could have none of the mischievous effect, which would naturally follow, upon the insertion of a name so obnoxious in the opening verse.    Its absence is therefore, in reality, a beautiful instance of congruity between the situation of the apostle, and his actual conduct, and an additional pledge of its authenticity, as his writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. II.

 

Heb. 13:23, 24. “Know that our brother Timothy is set at liberty (or sent away, πολελύμενον); with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.”

 

The exact meaning of this verse is rather ambiguous, and needs to be determined, before we can safely reason upon it. Professor Hug, Mr. Greswell in his Dissertations, and Mr. Biley, in his Supplement to the Horæ, all assume the correctness of the received version. “The epistle,” observes the last writer, “speaks of an imprisonment of Timothy, of which we have no mention anywhere else.” Yet it is clear that the rest of the verse points to the other version, dismissed, or sent away, which is rather more usual in the New Testament. The true meaning of the word, in every case, is a dismissal after some previous detention, but sometimes one idea is prominent, sometimes the other. Sometimes the dismissal may be only from the court of justice, or the precincts of a prison, and sometimes the detention may be only that of duty, or urgent business. Now the dismissal of Timothy would ex plain his absence, and the uncertainty about his return; but a mere release from prison, even if there were other evidence of the fact, which there is not, would explain neither the one nor the other. Hence a great number of the best critics, with good reason, prefer the other rendering, dismissed, or sent away. The word is the same which is used for the dismissal of Saul and Barnabas on their first mission, and for that of Judas and Silas, after their message to Antioch was fulfilled.

 

Mr. Greswell, indeed, charges this view with an absurdity. “If the writer was in Italy, waiting to be joined by Timothy, and knowing that Timothy was already on his road to him, he could not speak in so much uncertainty about his joining in a certain time or not. Not so, if he merely knew that he was at liberty to set out, that he was his own master, and might travel in any direction, or within whatever time he pleased.” But this is a double oversight. If Timothy was sent away on a mission from Italy, it does not follow that the apostle knew him to be on his road back again, and his uncertainty about the time, though the return itself was certain, is just what we should expect to occur. Unforeseen delays might well occur in the double journey, and in the business itself, whether he were sent to Greece or Asia. On the other hand, it is totally to misconceive the relation of Timothy to the apostle, if we suppose that his movements were independent, and not in strict reference to instructions he had received. And be­sides, the suppositions that Timothy had been imprisoned at Rome, after the date of the letter to the Philippians, that St Paul had left him in prison, and gone elsewhere, that the Christians of Palestine had heard of this imprisonment, and that St. Paul, being in Italy, should be doubtful whether Timothy would soon rejoin him, after being released at Rome, are one and all of them highly improbable. The other explanation is simple and complete. If Timothy had been sent by St. Paul on a mission to Greece, the time of his return would be uncertain. If it were long delayed, the apostle might think it necessary to visit Jerusalem before it took place. He was so accustomed to give the greeting of Timothy, and he had parted from him so recently, that he thinks it well to explain the seeming omission.

 

The verse, thus explained, tallies remarkably with the pro­mise in the Epistle to the Philippians. At that time Paul was still a prisoner, but confident of a speedy release. Till his case was decided, he purposed to detain Timothy, but to send him away to Philippi, “so soon as he should see how it would go with him.” In the letter to the Hebrews, the writer “sees how it will go with him,” and plans the course and time of his visit to Palestine— “With whom, if he come rather soon, I will see you.” But he is still in Italy, for he sends the greeting of the Italian Christians. Timothy, also, as it now appears, has been sent away to some distance, and not to Palestine, for the Christians there are to learn of his absence by this letter. This absence, however, followed some detention, the cause of which is supposed to be already known. And this would naturally be true, if any message had reached Palestine from Rome, about the time of the letter to Philippi, or even earlier.

 

Timothy is first detained to be near the apostle, while a prisoner; then sent away to Philippi, as soon as Paul’s liberty is secured; then is absent, having been thus dismissed, and expected to return, while the apostle is ready to start for Jerusalem; then is found journeying with him, as he passes near Ephesus, and finally stays behind, while the apostle visits Philippi according to his promise, the place which Timothy would have visited not long before. No dovetailing of sepa­rate hints could be more complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. III.

 

Heb. 13:22. “And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.”

 

When St. Paul writes to the Gentile churches he had founded, as those of Corinth and Galatia, he speaks with a tone of authority, and insists at length on his apostolic character. When he writes to the Romans, where the church, though perhaps a majority were Gentiles, was founded by others, he uses greater delicacy. Though he states his own authority, as the apostle of the Gentiles, he mingles a gentle apology for the freedom of his exhortations. “I am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you (partly, as putting you in mind), because of the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”

 

In the above passage, the same principle is carried a step further. St. Paul and the other apostles, as it would seem, had agreed that the Gentiles should be his peculiar province, and the Hebrews, or Jewish Christians, their own, Gal. 2:9 Since, therefore, he is here writing to Jews and not to Gen tiles, and to a church founded before his own conversion, he forbears to insist directly on his apostolic authority, and uses rather the language of courteous entreaty. “I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation, for I have written a letter to you in few words.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IV.

 

Heb. 5:11, 12. “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God.”

 

It may seem strange at first, that St. Paul himself should use such language as this, in addressing the churches of Judæa, which were the earliest in receiving the gospel, and had since enjoyed the presence and labours of all the apostles for many years. The history, however, explains the reproof, and proves that they were in a state, which St. Paul would certainly regard as one of immaturity in the faith. In his last visit, St. James and the elders had counselled him as follows:—

 

“Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law: 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, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? The multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: we have four men which have a vow on them: them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from (things) strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.”

 

With this description of the actual state of the Jewish Christians, that they were all zealous for the ceremonial law, and disposed on this account to regard the apostle with sus­picion, after all his abundant labours, and extraordinary suc­cess in spreading the gospel, let us compare those statements, which the apostle includes in the doctrine of perfection, and for which he endeavours to prepare them by this affectionate rebuke. Heb. 7:11, 12, 18, 19. “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?    For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.....For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for. the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

 

When we consider this contrast between the place held by the ceremonial law, in the minds of these Jewish Christians, and in the argument of the apostle, can we be surprised that he should preface his statement by that earnest reproof of their spiritual dulness— “When for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat?”

 

This coincidence, between the state of the Jewish believers, the larger views of the apostle, and the rebuke he here ad­ministers, is one which could be produced by reality alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. V.

 

Heb. 10:34. “For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.”

 

Let us compare the passage in the history, relating to St. Paul’s imprisonment at Cæsarea. “And Felix commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or to come to him.....He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him: wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him. But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix’ room: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.”

 

These passages have every sign of being independent. The letter mentions neither the time nor the place, nor one circum­stance of the imprisonment, nor even the name of the writer. The history, on the other hand, makes no direct mention of any compassion shown to St Paul by the Palestine Christians, nor any confiscations to which they were exposed.

 

Yet there is a real harmony between these two accounts. For the history implies that the acquaintance of Paul did visit him, as they were allowed to do, and show him great sympathy, which, perhaps, encouraged Felix to hope for a large ransom. Again, the known rapacity of the governor, implied also in the narrative, and the bitter hatred of the Jewish rulers, make it highly probable that those who were most forward in their love to the apostle, would be exposed to heavy loss, and possibly to fines. The words of the writer imply, further, that his own imprisonment had been one of the most signal occasions on which the Jewish believers had been called to suffer for the gospel. And no one can read the narrative carefully, without feeling that such a result would be almost inevitable, from the cool, sordid covetousness of Felix, the deliberate malice of the rulers, and the maddened passions of the multitude at Jerusalem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. VI.

 

Heb. 13:7. “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God.”

 

Ver. 17. “Obey them that have the rule over you, and sub­mit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.”

 

Ver. 24. “Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints.”

 

This threefold mention of the rulers is quite peculiar, and occurs in no other epistle. In other cases, St. Paul does not name any rulers, distinct from the body of the church, or else he includes them in the same exhortation. But here the whole address is limited to the general body of the church, in con­trast with these rulers, to whom they are charged to yield a reverent submission. Now this feature is just what might be expected, when the apostle of the Gentiles was writing to the Palestine Christians, among whom James, and the other eleven apostles, had exercised a more immediate authority. It was most important that he should not seem to place himself in opposition to their actual guides, but rather strengthen their hands, and enforce their exhortations. No authority is claimed, directly or indirectly, over these rulers themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...