o iL_i_3is_a_sy °

DIVINITY SCHOOL'
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

J

GIFT OF
Professor Benjamin W. Bacon

T. & T. CLARK'S PUBLICATIONS.

Just Published, in Two Volumes, Demy 8vo, price 21s.,
History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Testament.
Translated from the German of E. W. Hengstehberg, late Doctor and
Professor of Theology in Berlin.
_ ' One of the very pleasantest books to read we have met with for a very considerable
time. In many respects it may be considered an Introduction to the Old Testament, so
comprehensive and so thorough is its treatment of the subject. ... It is a most service
able companion to tho Old Testament.'— Literary Chwchman.
In One Volume, Demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
The Prophecies of Ezekiel elucidated. By E. W. Hengstenberg,
late Doctor and Professor of Theology in Berlin.
'Professor Hengstenberg was a man of boundless energy, of immense learning,
ingenuity, and acuteness, and of an ardent, resolute, and- persistent spirit. . . . No
German writer has exerted a greater influence over English theological thought, and
very few men have rendered greater service to Biblical truth. . . . The Commentary
on Ezekiel, in breadth of research and accuracy of learning, in critical acumen and
evangelical sentiment, is inferior to none of the author's well-known works.' — British
^Quarterly Review. In Two Volumes, Demy 8vo, price 21s.,
An Introduction to the New Testament. By Friedrich Bleek,
Professor of Theology, University of Bonn. Translated from the Second
German Edition, by Rev. W. Urwick, M.A.
1 The eminent learning and distinguished abilities of Professor Bleek make this work
of rare value ; and the more so as this was his favourite branch, to which he devoted
many years of faithful toil. . . . The whole discussion is exceedingly instructive, and
throws a most welcome light on the structure, relations, and characteristics of the several
Gospels. The laborious research of the author, his vast stores of learning, and complete
mastery of his subject, make it both profitable and delightful to prosecute these studies
with such assistance.' — Princeton Review.
In Two Volumes, Demy 8vo,. price 21s.,
Manual of Historico-Oritical Introduction to the Canonical
Scriptures of the Old Testament. By Karl Friedrich Keil. Translated
from the Second Edition, with Supplementary Notes from Bleek and
others, by George C. M. Douglas, B.A., D.D., Professor of Hebrew,
Free Church College, Glasgow.
' This is a very careful and complete treatment of the matters discussed. Dr. Eeil's
work will be invaluable to all theological students and biblical scholars.' — English
Independent. 1 We heartily commend this valuable addition to the Foreign Theological Library.' —
British Quarterly Review. In Two Volumes, Demy 8vo, price 17s.,
Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. By Joseph Addison
Alexander, D.D.4 Princeton, Author of Commentaries on the Psalms,
Mark, Acts, etc. New and Revised Edition. Edited, with a Preface, by
John Eadie, D.D., LL.D.
' I regard Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander as incomparably the greatest man I ever
knew, — as incomparably the greatest man our Church has ever produced.' — Dr. Hodge.

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

A TREATISE ON THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION. Second
Edition. 2s. 6d.
A TREATISE ON JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 3s.
THE PRIMEVAL WORLD : A Treatise on the Relation of Geologt
to Theology. 3s.
A TREATISE ON THE RESURRECTION. 2s. 6d.
PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY: The Signs and Duties of the Chris
tian Life. 2s. 6d.
TRANSLATION OF THE COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE
* APOSTLES BY LECHLER AND GEROK, in Lange's Bibelwerk.
£1, Is.
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS
OF THE APOSTLES. In Two Volumes. £1, Is.

INTRODUCTION

EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.

PRINTED BT MURRAY AND GIBB,
-OK
T. & T. CLAKK, EDINBUEGH.
LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN  JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, . . . SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE PAULINE EPISTLES.

BY

PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.,
MINISTER OF GALASHIELS,
AUTHOR OF 'A COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,' ETC.

EDINBUEGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOKGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXXIV.

FN20
G5U

PREFACE.

-T1HIS work is intended as an Introduction to the Epistles
J- of St. Paul. It does not profess to treat of these
Epistles exegetically, or to deal with them in detail, but only
to discuss those points which properly form the topics of an
Introduction, as their authenticity, design, date, the circum
stances under which each was written ; the adequate compre
hension of which is a necessary preliminary to the intelligent
study of the Epistles themselves. It has been found con
venient to discuss certain special difficulties of importance
and points of peculiar interest in separate dissertations,
appended to the Epistle out of which they arise. The only
work in the English language of a somewhat similar character
with which the author is acquainted, is the earlier Intro
duction to the New Testament by Dr. Davidson, — a work of
;great excellence and erudition, to which he has been under
considerable obligations, but which has been in some degree
superseded by the later Introduction of the same learned
author, in which the opinions expressed in the earlier edition
have been materially modified. The author has had specially
in view to combat the opinions expressed in the Apostet Paulus
(a translation of which is now in the course of being pub
lished) of Dr. F. C. Baur of Tubingen, a theologian who has
exercised greater influence on modern theological thought than
any recent writer, not excepting Strauss or Eenan.
In composing the present work, the author has derived
great assistance from the Introductions to the Commentaries

Vlll PREFACE.
of Meyer. It is a matter of congratulation that these un
rivalled Commentaries are now in the course of being translated,
and made accessible to theological students who are not suffi
ciently masters of the German language to study them in the
original. But it is hardly to the credit of our theologians,
that the greatest modern exegete should have recently passed
away with such slight notice, at least in our English periodi
cals, of his literary works and vast erudition.
It is proper to add, that, by the kind permission of the
learned editor of the British and Foreign Evangelical Review,
the substance of two articles — the one on " the Lost Epistles
of St. Paul," and the other on " the Interpretation of St. Paul's
Epistles" — which appeared in that Eeview has been intro
duced in the present work, but in a somewhat altered form.
Manse of Galashiels, January 1874.

CONTENTS.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

I. Paul, the Author of the Epistles — His Parentage — His Conversion —
His Missionary Journeys — His Imprisonments — His Martyrdom —
Nature and Extent of his Education — His Character. II. Number
and Order of the Pauline Epistles — Paul's extant Epistles — Their
Chronological Order — Mode of their Preservation and Transmission
— On Paul's lost Epistles — A lost Epistle to the Corinthians — A lost
Epistle to the Laodiceans — Indications of other lost Epistles — The
Sufficiency of Scripture. III. Style and Matter of the Pauline
Epistles — The Style of the Epistles — Its Argumentative Character
— Its Vigour — Its Obscurity — Its Depth — Its Refinement — The
Greek of Paul — Specimens of his Eloquence — The Matter of the
Epistles — Difference between the earlier and later Epistles — Develop
ment of Paul's teaching — Distinctive Peculiarities of the Sacred
Writers. IV. Interpretation of the Pauline Epistles — Necessity of
Candour and Sympathy — Inspiration must modify our Interpreta
tion — Necessity of Faith — -Analogy of Faith — Application of Prin
ciples. V. Authenticity of the .Pauline Epistles — The External
Evidence — Catalogues of Paul's Epistles — Versions — The Peshito
and Old Latin — Quotations from the Fathers — The Internal Evi
dence — Language, Style, Form, etc. — Paley's Hora; Paulina, . 1-78

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
I. The Authenticity of the Epistle — External and Internal Evidence —
Examination of Baur's Objections — Coincidences with the Acts —
Apparent Discrepancies. II. The Church at Thessalonica — The
City of Thessalonica — Planting of Christianity in it. III. The
Occasion of the Epistle. IV. The Contents of the Epistle. V. The
Date of the Epistle. VI. The Peculiarities of the Epistle— It-
Difference from Paul's other Epistles. Dissertation: Paul's Views
of the Advent— Stress laid by Paul on the Advent— Whether Paul
believed in its Immediateness — The Meaning of his "Words — Time
of the Advent excluded from Revelation — Our Lord's Prophecy, . 79-106

CONTENTS.

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
The Authenticity of the Epistle — External and Internal Evidence —
Objections against it stated and answered — The Instances given in
Paley's Hora Paulines. II. The Occasion of the Epistle — The
State ofthe Church. III. The Contents of the Epistle. IV. The
Date of the Epistle— The Order of the Two Epistles to the Thessa
lonians. V. The Peculiarities of the Epistle— Its Apocalyptic
Nature — Commentaries. Dissertation : The Man of Sin — Paul's
Prediction — Opinions of the Fathers — Of the Reformers — Of the
Romanists — And of the Greek Church — Views of those who hold
that there is no Prophecy — The Praeterists, who refer the Prophecy
to the Destruction of Jerusalem — The Futurists, who regard the Man
of Sin as an Individual — Resemblance between Romanism and the
Prophecy — Objections to this View,  107-135

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
I. Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence — Internal Evidence.
II. The Churches of Galatia — History of the Galatians — Galatia,
not the Roman Province — Paul's Visits to Galatia — Composition of
the Galatian Churches. III. The Occasion of the Epistle — Paul's
Opponents in Galatia — The Relapse of the Galatians. IV. The
Contents of the Epistle. V. The Date of the Epistle— Different
Opinions — The probable Date. VI. Peculiarities of the Epistle —
Its Tenderness and Severity — Resemblance to the Romans — Written
by Paul's own hand — Commentaries. Dissertation : Paul's Relation
to Judaism — On the Judaizing Teachers — Opposition between them
and Paul — Views of the Jewish Christians — Paul's personal Re
lation to Judaism — Baur's View of an Opposition between Paul and
the Twelve— The Council of Jerusalem— The Dispute with Peter —
The Character of James— Paul, the Apostle of Freedom— The Ebion-
ites and Marcionites,  136-168

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
The Authenticity of the Epistle— External Evidence—Internal Evi
dence. II. The Church of Corinth— The City of Corinth— Paul's
Visit to Corinth— Supposition of a Second Visit — Composition of
the Church. III. The Occasion of the Epistle— Paul's Opponents
at Corinth— Epistle from the Corinthians— Missions of Timothy
and Titus. IV. The Contents of the Epistle. V. The Date of
the Epistle— Written from Ephesus. VI. The Peculiarities of
the Epistle— Christian Casuistry— State of the Primitive Church—
The Character of the Apostle. Dissertation I. : The Factions in
the Corinthian Church— Number of these Factions — The Petrine
Party— The Pauline Party— The Apolline Party— The Christ Party
—Views of Eichhorn, Storr, Neander, Schenkel, and Baur— Pro-

CONTENTS. XI

bability of the case. Dissertation II. : The Agapae and the Lord's-
Supper — Disorders in the Corinthian Church — Institution of the
Agapae — Abuse of it among the Corinthians — Separated from the
Lord's Supper— Its Discontinuance — How far an Apostolic Insti
tution,  169-202

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
I. The Authenticity of the Epistle— External Evidence — Internal Evi
dence—Coincidences with the Acts — Integrity of the Epistle. II.
The Supposition of an intermediate Epistle. III. The Occasion of
the Epistle — Circumstances of the Apostle — Information by Titus —
Design of the Epistle — Its Bearers— Its Effects. IV. The Contents
of the Epistle. V. The Date of the Epistle— Written from Mace
donia. VI. The Peculiarities of the Epistle — Its Style — Commen
taries. Dissertation : Paul's Bodily Infirmity — Notices of it — Not
Spiritual Trials or External Opposition— Conditions of the Question
— Different Opinions — Headache — A Defect of Utterance — Weak
ness of Sight — Epilepsy — Result of the Discussion — Mental Activity
combined with Bodily Weakness,  203-226

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
I. The Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence — Undesigned
Coincidences — Integrity of the Epistle disputed — Objections to
Chapters xv. and xvi. — The concluding Doxology. II. The Church
of Rome — Its Origin — The Church then numerous — Its Composition
— Gentile Converts — Jewish Converts — Professor Jowett's View —
, State of the Church on Paul's subsequent Visit. III. The Object
of the Epistle — To instruct the Roman Christians in Christianity
— Baur's Opinion of a Polemic Design. IV. The Contents of the
Epistle. V. The Date of the Epistle— Written from Corinth— Its
Language. VI. The Peculiarities of the Epistle — Its Dogmatic
Nature — Commentaries. Dissertation : Paul's Theological Terms —
Difficulties in the Epistle to the Romans— Paul's peculiar Dogmatic
Views — Meaning of the Terms ti/tat, hxaioruim, «'utrn, %£pis, <r£ji%,
and sniS/M  227-263

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
I. The Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence— Internal Evi
dence — By whom disputed — Objections of Mayerhoff — Objections of
Baur— Ewald's Opinion. II. The Church of Colosse— The City of
Colosse— The Church there not founded by Paul— Its Origin— It-
Composition. III. The Occasion of the Epistle — Information of
Epaphras— Bearers of the Epistle. IV. The Contents of the Epistle.
V. The Date of the Epistle— Supposition that it was written from
Csesarea— Written from Rome — Order of the Epistles of the Cap
tivity. VI. The Peculiarities of the Epistle— Characteristics of

Xll CONTENTS. PAGE
the Epistles of the Captivity— Specialities of the ColossianS— Com
mentaries. Dissertation : The False Teachers at Colosse — Tendency
to Judaism— Mixture of Philosophy— Worship of Angels— View of
Christ — Ascetic Practices — Not unconverted Jews, nor the Followers
of Heathen Philosophy — Jewish Christians— Supposed to be Chris
tian Essenes — Their Relation to the Ebionites and to Cerinthus —
The Germs of Gnosticism,  264-293
THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
I. The Authenticity of the Epistle— External and Internal Evidence-
Examination of Bajir's Objections. II. The Person addressed —
History of Philemon — Place to which the Epistle was sent. III.
The Occasion of the Epistle— On Onesimus. IV. The Contents of
the Epistle. V. The Peculiarities of the Epistle— Tact and Cour
tesy displayed in it— Remarks on Slavery— Commentaries, . 294-306
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
I. The Authenticity of the Epistle— External Evidence— Internal Evi
dence — By whom disputed — Examination of Dr. Davidson's Objec
tions. II. The Church of Ephesus— City of Ephesus— Introduction
of Christianity into it — Composition of the Church — The Epistle
supposed not to be addressed to the Ephesians — Opinion that it is
the Laodicean Epistle — Opinion that it is a circular Epistle. III.
The Occasion of the Epistle. IV. The Contents of the Epistle.
V. The Peculiarities of the Epistle — Its Sublimity — Commentaries.
Dissertation : Connection between Ephesians and Colossians —
Table of Parallels — Character of these Resemblances — Points of Dis
similarity—Explanation of this Resemblance — No Argument against
either Epistle — Comparison of the Epistles, .... 307-336
THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILLIPIANS.
I. The Authenticity of the Epistle — External Evidence— Internal Evi
dence — Objections of Baur — Unity of the Epistle — Number of the
Philippian Epistjfs. II. The Church of Philippi— The City of
Philippi — Paul's Visit to it — The Condition of the Church — Later
Notices of the Church. III. The Occasion of the Epistle— The Gift
bf the Philippians — Epaphroditus the Bearer of the Epistle. IV.
The Contents ofthe Epistle. V. The Date of the Epistle— Written
from Rome — The Church at Rome. VI. The Peculiarities of the
Epistle — Absence of the Dogmatic Element— Commentaries. Dis
sertation : Paul's Roman Imprisonment — Statement of different
Opinions — Argument derived from the Conclusion of the Acts —
Argument derived from Tradition — Testimony of Clemens Romanus,
the Muratorian Canon, Eusebius, etc. — Argument derived from the
Pastoral Epistles — Hypothesis of Wieseler — Objections to a two
fold Imprisonment — Result of the Discussion— Paul's supposed
Journeys,  337-368

CONTENTS. X1U

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
I. The Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles — Relation of these Epistles
— External Evidence — Internal Evidence — By whom disputed —
Want of Historical Data — Statement of Objections : 1. The Heretics
are Gnostics ; 2. The Church Polity is post-apostolic ; 3. Un-
Pauline Words and Phrases — Bleek's Objections to First Timothy.
II. The Person addressed — Notices of Timothy. HI. The Occasion of
the Epistle — The Heretics of the Pastoral Epistles — Jewish Gnostics
— Their Relation to the Colossian Heretics. IV. The Contents of
the Epistle. V. The Date of the Epistle — Various Opinions dis
cussed — After the first Imprisonment — Order ofthe Pastoral Epistles.
VI. The Peculiarities of the Epistle — Characteristics of the Pastoral
Epistles. Dissertation : Church Polity of the Pastoral Epistles —
The Ministry a Divine Institution — Extraordinary and Ordinary
Rulers — 1. Deacons : their Origin, Qualifications, and Duties ; 2.
Presbyters — Identity of Bishops and Presbyters — Their Origin,
Qualifications, and Duties — Case of Timothy and Titus — Position of
James in Jerusalem — The Angels of the Apocalypse— Development
of Episcopacy— Result of the Discussion, .... 369-411

THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
The Person addressed — Notice's of Titus — On Crete — Origin of the
Church there. II. The Occasion of the Epistle— Its Design — Sup
posed want of Adaptation to its Contents — The False Teachers.
III. The Contents of the Epistle. IV. The Date of the Epistle-
Opinions of Michaelis, Wieseler, and Lardner — Paul's Visit to
Crete— On Nicopolis— The Place of Writing  412-424

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
The Occasion of the Epistle — Its Design— Place to which it was
written. II. The Contents of the Epistle. III. The Date of the
Epistle — Chronological Data — Not written during the Caesarean
Imprisonment, nor during the First Roman Imprisonment — When
Paul was arrested — Desertion, of his Companions — Traditions of his
-Martyrdom. IV. The Peculiarities of the Epistle — Paul's Last
Epistle — Commentaries,  425-436

APPENDIX : THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE
HEBREWS.
Reasons of this Appendix— I. The External Evidence— Testimonies in
favour of Paul : Clemens Romanus, Pantaenus, Clemens Alexan-
drinus, Origen, Dionysius, Eusebius — Testimonies opposed to Paul :

XIV CONTENTS.

Marcion, the Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Caius, Hippo-
lytus, Cyprian — Statement of Jerome — Position of the Epistle in
the Manuscripts — Result of the External Evidence. II. The In
ternal Evidence — Particular Intimations — Pauline Doctrines —
Pauline Phraseology — Pauline Digressions — Objections to Pauline
Authorship : 1. Want of Inscription ; 2. Objection from Heb. ii. 3 ;
3. Un-Pauline Doctrines ; 4. Difference in Quotation ; 5. Ignorance
of the Temple ; 6. Discrepancy of Style — Result of the Internal
Evidence. III. Particular Hypotheses — Views of the Reformers —
Opinions of recent Critics— Assigned to Clemens Eomanus, Luke,
Silas, Barnabas, and Apollos — Opinion that the Thoughts are
Paul's, but the Language another's — Result of the whole Dis
cussion,  . . 437-472

LIST OF WOEKS, WITH THEIE EDITIONS, MADE USE OF.

Alford's Greek Testament. Third Edition, 1857-62.
Baur's Apostel Paulus. Zweite Auflage. Leipzig, 1866.
Baur's Kirchengeschichte. Erster Band, Dritte Auflage. Tiibingen, 1863.
Baur's Neutestamentliche Theologie. Leipzig, 1864.
Baur's Pastoralbriefe. Tubingen, 1835.
Billroth On the Corinthians. Clark's Translation. Edinburgh, 1838.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Clark's Translation, 1869.
Bleek's Brief an die Hebriier. Berlin, 1828.
Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul. New Edition, 1862.
Cremer's Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N. T. Greek. Clark's Translation, 1872.
Davidson's Ecclesiastical Polity of the N. T.. London, 1848.
Davidson's Introduction to the N. T. London : Bagster & Sons, 1849.
Davidson's Introduction to the History of the N. T. London : Longmans, 1868.
Davies' Epistles of St. Paul to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.
London, 1866.
Delitzsch's Commentary on the Hebrews. Clark's Translation, 1868.
De Wette's Einleitung neues Testaments. Sechste Ausgabe. Berlin, 1860.
Eadie On the Colossians. Glasgow, 1856.
Ebrard On the Hebrews. Clark's Translation, 1853.
Ellicott's St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians. Third Edition. London,
1866.
Essays and Reviews. Eighth Edition. London, 1861.
Eusebii Historia Ecclesiastica.
Ewald's Apostolisches Zeitalter. Zweite Ausgabe. Gbttingen, 1858.
Ewald's Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus. Gbttingen, 1857.
Fairbairn's Hermeneutical Manual. Edinburgh, 1858.
Foster's Apostolical Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London, 1838.
Guericke'3 Neutestamentliche Isagogik. Dritte Auflage. Leipzig, 1868.
Home's Introduction to the Scriptures. Tenth Edition. London, 1857.
Huther's Pastoralbriefe. Dritte Auflage. Gbttingen, 1866.
Jacob's Ecclesiastical Polity of the N. T. London, 1871.
Jones On the Canon. Oxford Edition, 1827.
Jowett's St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans.
Second Edition, 1859.
Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung d. neutest. Kanon. Zurich, 1842.
Lange's Apostolisches Zeitalter. Braunschweig, 1853.
Lardner's Works. 5 vols, quarto. London, 1815.
Lechler's Das apostolische Zeitalter. Zweite Auflage. Stuttgart, 1857.
Lewin's Life and Epistles of St. Paul. London, 1851,
Lightfoot's St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians. Second Edition. London, 1866.
Lightfoot's St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. Second Edition. London,
1869.
Liinemann's Brief an die Thessalonicher. Gbttingen, 1867.

XVI LIST OF WORKS MADE USE OF.
Liinemann's Brief an die Hebraer. Dritte Auflage. Gbttingen, 1867.
Macknight On the Epistles. London, 1843.
Meyer On the Romans. Clark's Translation, 1873.
Meyer's Galaterbrief. Vierte Auflage. Gbttingen, 1862.
Meyer's Epheserbrief. Vierte Auflage. Gbttingen, 1867.
Meyer's Brief an die Philipper, Kolosser, und an Philemon. Dritte Auflage.
1865.
Michaelis' Introduction to the N. T. Marsh's Translation.
Neander's Church History. Bohn's Edition.
Neander's Planting of Christianity. Bohn's Edition.
Olshausen's Commentaries. Clark's Translation.
Oosterzee's Pastoralbriefe. Bielefeld, 1861.
Paley's Hone Paulinae.
Renan's Saint Paul.
Reuss' Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T. Vierte Ausgabe, 1866.
Reuss' Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age. Vol. i. Translation, 1872.
Schaffs History ofthe Apostolic Church. Edinburgh : Clark, 1854.
Schenkel's Epheser, Philipper, und Kolosser. Leipzig, 1867.
Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism ofthe N. T. Cambridge, 1861.
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible.
Stanley's St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. Third Edition. London, 1865
Stuart's Commentary on the Hebrews. London, 1828.
Tholuck On the Romans. Clark's Translation. Second Edition, 1842.
Tholuck On the Hebrews. Clark's Translation, 1842.
Westcott On the Canon. Second Edition. London, 1866.
Whitby's Commentary.
Wieseler's Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters. Gbttingen, 1848.
Wieseler's Untersuchung uber den Hebraerbrief. Kiel, 1861.
Wiesinger On Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. Clark's Translation, 1851.
Winer's Grammar of the N. T. Translated by Masson. Fourth Edition.
Wordsworth's-Greek Testament : St. Paul's Epistles. Sixth Edition, 1871.

THE PAULINE EPISTLES.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
I. PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES.
THE Epistles treated of in the present work are, by the
general consent of the, Christian Church, attributed to
the Apostle Paul. The sources of our knowledge of his life
are twofold — the Acts of the Apostles composed by Luke, one
of his fellow-travellers, and these Pauline Epistles. The tradi
tions of the Church concerning him are surprisingly few, when
we consider his missionary labours and apostolic influence,
and are so mixed with obvious fable as to be quite unavailing
for biographical purposes. Neither do the Acts profess to be
a biography of Paul, but a history of the growth of Chris
tianity, and, therefore, only those events in the life of the
apostle are mentioned which were of a public character ; whilst
in the Epistles there are only incidental allusions to his
history. The biography of the apostle, then, is derived from
the Acts, supplemented by the incidental notices which occur
in the Epistles. The one source of information not only
corroborates, but completes the other. Were it not for the
Acts, we would know little of the public life of the apostle ;
and were it not for the Epistles, we would have a very im
perfect idea of his private life and character. It is chiefly
from the Acts that we learn Paul's external history — his
miraculous conversion, his missionary labours, his imprison
ments ; while it is chiefly from the Epistles that we obtain
an insight into his inner life. In the one, the life of Paul,
the apostle of the Gentiles, is described ; in the other, the
character of Paul, whose life is hid with Christ in God, is
portrayed.

2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
It does not belong to the plan of this work to narrate in
detail the life of Paul, a task which has been repeatedly so
well performed i1 it will be necessary merely to advert to
some particulars in his life, education, and character which
serve to illustrate his Epistles.
Paul was the son of Jewish parents, of the tribe of Ben
jamin, and was born in Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia (Acts xxi.
3 9, xxii. 3). Jerome, indeed, informs us that he was born in
Gischalis, a town in Judea ; and that his parents emigrated
from it on its being captured by the Eomans.2 But this is
merely an erroneous tradition, based on what happened during
the Jewish war, which .occurred many years after the birth of
the apostle. Paul, indeed, calls himself a " Hebrew of the
Hebrews " (Phil. iii. 5) ; but he does not in that passage
employ the term " Hebrew " to denote a Palestinian Jew in
distinction from a Hellenist, but merely to assert his purely
Jewish descent.3 He was a Hellenistic Jew, his native lan
guage being Greek. By birth he possessed the rare and valu
able privilege of Eoman citizenship, then conferred on few
Jews4 (Acts xxii. 28). This privilege certainly did not belong
to him, as some suppose, because he was a native of Tarsus ;5
for that city, although highly favoured both by Julius Caesar
and Augustus, was not, like Philippi, a Eoman colony. There
were several ways in which Eoman citizenship could be
acquired. It might be purchased at considerable cost (Acts
xxii. 28); it was sometimes bestowed as a reward for service
1 On Paul's life the following books are worthy of mention : Conybeare and
Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul ; Lewin's Life and Letters of St. Paul,
1851 ; Schrader's der Apostel Paulus, 1830-1836 ; Hemsen's der Apostel
Paulus, 1830 ; Oertel's Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte, 1868 ; Lechler's D as
Apostolisclie Zeitalter, 1857 ; Renan's Saint Paul, 1869 ; Baur's Apostel
Paulus, 1866 ; Wieseler's Ghronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, 1848 ;
Hausrath's der Apostel Paulus. ,
2 Paulus de tribu Benjamin et oppido Judcem Gischalis fuit, quo a Somanis
capto cum parentibus suis Tarsum Oilicke commigravit (Catal. iUust. vir. c. 5).
Gischalis, according to Josephus, was a small town in Galilee, Bell. Jud ii
20. 6.
3 Nothing more seems to be meant by the phrase " a Hebrew of the
Hebrews," than that he was a Jew both on the side of his father and of his
mother. * Joseph. Ant. xiv. 10. 13 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 11. 9.
s Compare Bengel on Acts xvi. 37.

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 3
done to the Emperor ; and it was the result of the emancipa
tion of a slave, effected according to certain forms. In one of
these ways Paul's family acquired this privilege. It would
also appear that Paul possessed a good social position, not
only because he was by birth a Eoman citizen, but from his
being sent to Jerusalem to complete his education, and from
the fact that he was employed by the Sanhedrim in the im
portant commissidn to Damascus.
The apostle is known to us by two names — 'Saul and Paul.
In the first part of the Acts he is called Saul, and in the latter
part he is almost exclusively called Paul. 1. or this, various
reasons have been assigned ; * but the most probable opinion
is, that Saul was his Jewish and Paul his Eoman name.2 It
was then Customary, especially among the Hellenists or Greek
Jews, to have two names, the one Hebrew and the other
Greek or Latin. "We have other instances of this in the New
Testament: thus John bore also the Latin name Marcus
(Acts xii. 12), Joseph Barsabas was surnamed Justus (Acts
i. 23), Simeon was called Niger (Acts xiii. 1), and Jesus
Justus (Col. iv. 11); and of the apostles, Simon was called
Peter, and Thomas Didymus. Sometimes these Greek or
Latin names were translations of the Hebrew ; and in other
cases there seems to have been merely a vocal similarity
between them, as in the case of " Saul, who also is called
Paul " (Acts xiii. 9). It is by his Latin name, Paul, that he
designates himself in all his Epistles ; and as his mission was
chiefly to the Gentiles, he seems to have dropped his Jewish
name entirely.
It would seem that Paul was educated to a particular trade ;
for we are informed that he joined Aquila and Priscilla at
Corinth because he was of the same craft with them, for by
occupation they were tent-makers (Acts xviii. 3).3 Prom the
1 One reason very generally adopted is that given by Jerome (in Ep. Philem. ),
that the change of name is connected with the conversion of Sergius Paulus.
This opinion is adopted with some variations by Bengel, Olshausen, Baum-
garten, Meyer, Ewald, Baur, and Stier.
2 So Schrader, Winer, De Wette, Wieseler, Lechler, Neander, Davidson, and
Alford. 3 It is disputed what is the precise meaning of the term ««_-«'«, here
rendered a tent-maker. The most probable interpretation is a maker of tent-

4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
fact that Paul followed a particular trade there is no inference
to be drawn as to his social position; because it was then
the custom of the Jews, even of the richest families among
them, to teach their children some useful trade, so that amid
the insecurity of the times they might have something to fall
back upon if deprived of their wealth. " He," says Eabbi
Judah, " that teaches not his son a trade, does the same as
if he taught him to be a thief." There is little mention of
Paul's relatives in Scripture. His father belonged to the sect
of the Pharisees. He had a sister, and mention is made of
her son as resident in Jerusalem (Acts xxiii. 1 6).1 His kins
men are adverted to in the salutations contained in the Epistle
to the Eomans (Eom. xvi. 7, 11); but the word crvyyeveis so
rendered most probably denotes fellow-eountrymen. He him
self was never married (1 Cor. vii. 7, 8).2
At an early age Paul repaired to Jerusalem to complete his
education. He speaks of himself as avaTedpa/ji,/j,ivo<} iv rfj
iroXet ravrj], " brought up in this city " (Acts xxii. 3) ; and
appeals to the Jews as being cognisant of his manner of life,
because it was air apyfl's, from the beginning, among his own
nation in Jerusalem (Acts xxvi. 4) ; expressions which imply
that he must have been comparatively young when he first
came to Jerusalem, possibly not older than eighteen. If this
were the ease, then Paul was in Jerusalem during the lifetime
of our Saviour ; and it is an interesting question, whether he
ever saw Christ during any of His visits to Jerusalem — whether
he was even present at the crucifixion ? There is nothing
improbable in the supposition ; indeed, we can hardly imagine
a young man of Paul's inquiring disposition failing to come in
contact with Christ, and even to be an occasional listener to

cloth ; a trade which was much practised in Paul's native country Cilicia, where
tent-cloth was manufactured from the hair of the Cilician goats and called
xiXixia. See Michaelis, Introduction N.T., vol. vi. pp. 183-186: "Of St.
Paul's profession or trade ; " Kuinoel's Libri Historici, vol. iii. p. 276.
1 Riickert infers from 2 Cor. viii. 22 that Paul had a brother. Ewald sup
poses that the whole family settled in Jerusalem.
2 Clemens Alexandrinus, from a false interpretation of 1 Cor. ix. 5, asserts
that Paul was married. — Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 30. Renan makes the extrava
gant supposition that Paul might have been married to Lydia. — Renan's Saint
Paul, pp. 148 ff.

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 5
His discourses.1 But, on the other hand, if Paul had actually
seen Christ, we would have expected several allusions to it in
his Epistles ; whereas the only possible reference to it is when
he speaks of having once known Christ after the flesh (2 Cor.
v. 16), an expression which from the connection need not
necessarily imply an acquaintance with our Lord when He
was in this world. At Jerusalem he studied under the cele
brated Gamaliel, who is described as " a doctor of the law, had
in reputation among all the people " (Acts v. 34), and who
was distinguished for his learning and liberal spirit.2
The first time Paul is mentioned in Scripture is in connec
tion with the death of Stephen. " The witnesses laid down
their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul"
(Acts vii. 58). He does not appear to have taken any active
part in the martyrdom ; though his presence showed that he
evidently approved of it. Paul entered upon public life as
a persecutor of the Christians. Armed with authority and a
commission from the Sanhedrim, he proceeded to Damascus to
persecute the disciples of the Lord, when the great crisis of
his life took place — that event which revolutionized his whole
character and destinies, and transformed him from Saul, the
persecutor of the Christians, to Paul, the apostle of the Gen
tiles. The exalted Eedeemer Himself appeared to him ; the
light of truth shone into his soul ; and from that crisis Paul
came forth for ever altered.
It would appear from the Epistles, that Paul, after remain
ing a few days in Damascus, withdrew into Arabia (Gal. i.
1 5-1 8). His retirement was not for the purpose of preaching
the gospel, but for reflection and prayer.3 The great change
which had come over him would urge him to retirement to
meditate upon this great crisis of his life ; and no place
appeared more suitable for this purpose than the solitudes of
Arabia in the neighbourhood of Damascus.4 It was here, in
1 See this point discussed by Ewald in his Geschichte des Volhes Israel, Sechster
Band, p. 339. Ewald even supposes that Paul might be that young man men
tioned in Mark's Gospel who, at the arrest of Christ, followed at night with a
linen cloth cast about his naked body.
2 On Gamaliel, see author's Commentary on ihe Acts, vol. i. pp. 190-192.
3 This against the view of Neander, Planting of Christianity, vol. i. p. 91.
4 There is nothing to determine the duration of Paul's residence in Arabia.

6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
all probability, that he received those revelations of gospel truth
which qualified him for being the independent apostle of the
Gentiles. " I neither," says he, " received the gospel of man,
neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ "
(Gal. i. 11, 12). Not that the mere external facts of the life
of Christ were revealed to him independently of the truths
connected with them, and which facts might be learned by the
ordinary methods of communication ; but that those truths were
revealed which were beyond human knowledge, and which
could be learned only by divine revelation.1
From Arabia, Paul returned to Damascus ; and, driven from
that city by the persecution of the Jews, he repaired to Jeru
salem. Here he remained only a few days, and then withdrew
' to his native city Tarsus. Prom Tarsus he was brought by
Barnabas to Antioch, and after labouring about a year in that
city, he, along with Barnabas, was solemnly consecrated by the
Holy Ghost to be the apostle of the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 2).
Then commenced his great missionary career, when, as a
preacher of the cross of Christ, he visited distant nations, and
planted Christianity in the most renowned cities of the
Eoman empire. We have in the Acts an -account of three
missionary journeys of the apostle. In his first missionary
journey he was accompanied by Barnabas. Crossing over to
Cyprus, they preached the gospel in Salamis and Paphos, its
two chief cities, and converted the Eoman governor of the
island. From Cyprus they re-crossed to Perga in Pamphylia,
and planted Christianity in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra,
and Derbe ; and returned to Syrian Antioch, from which they
had set out. The second missionary journey was much more
extensive than the first, and was conducted on a larger scale. •
Paul was accompanied by several fellow -labourers, among
whom were Silas, Timothy, and Luke. He first revisited the
cities where he had preached the gospel on his former journey ;
The apostle merely states that three years after his conversion he went up to
Jerusalem, but he does not tell the portions of that period which he spent in
Arabia and in Damascus. See on St. Paul's sojourn in Arabia, Lightfoot On
Galatians, pp. 87-90 ; and Jowett's note on Gal. i. 18.
1 See Davidson's Introduction (old edition), vol. ii. pp. 75-80. He supposes
that Paul had then a full revelation of the gospel, which did not admit of fur
ther development.

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 7
then planted Christianity in the districts of Phrygia and
Galatia ; and then crossed over to Europe, and founded the
church in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, cities of Mace
donia, in Athens, and in Corinth, where he remained a year
and' a half (Acts xviii. 11). Prom Corinth he returned to
Antioch by way of Ephesus. In his third missionary journey
he revisited Phrygia and Galatia, and came to Ephesus, where
he abode for nearly three years. From Ephesus he went
through Macedonia to Corinth, where he spent a winter.
From Corinth he returned by land through Macedonia, abode
for some time in Philippi, sailed to Alexandria Troas, and then,
partly by sea and partly by land, made his last journey to
Jerusalem. In these three missionary journeys, by his preach
ing and efforts, he contributed more to the diffusion of Christi
anity than any of the other apostles. He planted Christianity
in the great cities of Proconsular Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia.
Through his preaching, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica,
Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus — cities then renowned for their
wealth, commerce, or learning — received the gospel. We may
form some idea of the extent of his missionary journeys from
an incidental expression in one of his early Epistles : " From
Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully
preached the gospel of Christ " (Eom. xv. 1 9).
But the question occurs, What was Paul's mode of evange
lizing ? What method did he employ in preaching the gospel,
and what was the nature of the gospel which he preached ?
The New Testament was not in existence ; there was no written
revelation : to what, then, could he appeal ? To understand
this, it is necessary to endeavour to restore the circumstances
and conditions of those early ages. In order to have a more
vivid representation, let us take the instance of Paul's labours in
Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 1-9). Thessalonica was a large com
mercial maritime city, and the capital of Macedonia. It was
inhabited by a numerous colony of Jews, who came thither for
the sake of commerce. The principal synagogue of the district
(r/ cvvaywyrf) was there.1 The Jewish synagogue was then
as now open to all, and was frequented by several Greeks, the
1 The article denotes that it was the chief, if not the only, synagogue in the
district.

8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
so-called proselytes of the gate, who, dissatisfied with idolatry,
were attracted to the purer religion of Judaism. The report
of the new religion, which would then be regarded as a Jewish
sect, must have reached Thessalonica ; rumours would be pre
valent about the doings of those strange teachers who had
been accused in Philippi of turning the world upside down.
Paul and his two companions, Silas and Timothy, arrived at
Thessalonica. As Jews they repaired on the Sabbath-day to
the synagogue ; and, being known to be the teachers of the new
religion,* they were asked to preach. For three successive
Sabbaths, Paul taught in the synagogue. The gospel which he
preached, we are informed, was that the Messiah of the Jews
must suffer and rise from .the dead ; and that Jesus of Naza
reth, whom the Jews in Jerusalem crucified, did rise from the
dead, and was the Messiah (Acts xvii. 3). In developing
this argument, he would necessarily dwell on the incidents of
the life of Jesus, His sufferings and resurrection, and would
show the correspondence between the life of Jesus and the
prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament. The result
of these discourses, we are informed, was that only a few of
the Jews believed and consorted with Paul and Silas ; but
that his success was much greater among the devout Greeks
who frequented the synagogue, and who, being less bigoted
and more religiously inclined, were more susceptible of impres
sion (Acts xvii. 4). After this, Paul and his companions were
expelled the synagogue by the unbelieving Jews ; but the
nucleus of a Gentile congregation had been formed. From the
Acts we might at first be led to infer that, owing to the dis
turbances created by the Jews, Paul was compelled soon after
to quit Thessalonica, but that he left the infant church under
the care of Timothy. But when we supplement the account
in the Acts by what we read in the Epistles, we are led to the
conclusion that Paul remained at Thessalonica for a longer
period, and that, finding the Jews obdurate and the synagogue
closed against him, he addressed himself to the Gentiles.1 The
result of his labours in Thessalonica was that a considerable
church was formed, composed chiefly of Gentile converts. We
1 For the duration of Paul's residence at Thessalonica, see special introduction
to the first Epistle to the Thessalonians.

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 9
can form from what took place at Thessalonica no inaccurate
idea of the mode in which the Christian Church was founded
among the cities of Greece and Asia.
It is, however, to be observed that Paul would suit his mode
of preaching to his audience, and that in particular the topics
of his discourse would vary greatly, according as it was ad
dressed to Jews or Gentiles. To the Jews he would insist
chiefly on the Messiahship and resurrection of Jesus. The Old
Testament revelation was a common ground of argument.
With them, Paul's mode of reasoning was after some such
form as this : There are various prophecies in the Old Testa
ment, whose divine authority you admit, which declare that
the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead ; all these
prophecies are fulfilled in the person of Jesus of Nazareth :
therefore this Jesus whom I preach to you is the Messiah (Acts
xvii. 3, xviii. 5). We have an example of the apostle's method
of reasoning with the Jews, in his address in the synagogue
of Pisidian Antioch. With the Gentiles, on the other hand,
the ground which the apostle took was necessarily different.
They knew little, and cared less, about the Jewish Messianic
prophecies ; but still on the principles of natural religion there
was common ground. Paul could appeal to that God who
made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things
therein, who never left Himself without a witness of His
existence and benevolence ; whose offspring we feel ourselves
to be ; who cannot possibly be like to gold, or silver, or stone,
to an image of art or of man's device ; and who has now made
a revelation of Himself by Jesus Christ.1 We have examples
of his method of preaching to the Gentiles, in his address to
the rude inhabitants of Lystra and the polished audience of
the Athenians. His preaching would at first be very simple,
— Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, — Jesus, appointed by God
to be the Judge of the world. The more special doctrines of
Christianity would be taught, not so much to the unconverted
1 To the Jews, Paul's chief appeal was to prophecy ; to the Gentiles, to
miracles. Thus, when reasoning with the Jews, he mentions the resurrection
of Christ as the fulfilment of prophecy ; whilst, in reasoning with the Gentiles,
he mentions it as the assurance that God has given to all men that He will judge
the world in righteousness (Acts xvii. 31).

1 0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Jews and Gentiles, as to those who were already Christians,
for the edifying of the Church of Christ. Paul appears first
to have simply preached the gospel and brought men to
Christ, and made their further instruction a matter of after
consideration. The apostle's missionary journeys, so far as they are recorded
in the Acts, terminate on his arrival at Jerusalem, at the close
of his third missionary journey. There he was arrested by
his enemies, the unbelieving Jews, rescued from them by the
Eomans, and delivered to Felix, the procurator of Judea, by
whom he was unjustly detained as a prisoner at Csesarea for
two years (Acts xxiv. 27). These two years are a complete
blank in the life of the apostle ; we know not how he was
engaged ; and no epistles written by him during that period
have come down to us.1 Probably, after the stir and excitement
of his busy life, a period of retirement was necessary, that he
might turn his thoughts inward, and develope the divine life
within him ; and thus, by deeper experience of the internal
power of the gospel, be the better qualified for writing those
spiritual epistles which he afterwards composed. " Divine grace,
while it uses its instruments for the advancement of the truth
among others, sometimes takes those instruments themselves to
school for their own personal improvement." 2
From Csesarea, Paul was sent as a prisoner to Eome. Here,
we are informed, " Paul dwelt two whole years in his own
hired house, and received all that came unto him, preaching
the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern
the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding
him" (Acts xxviii. 30, 31). With these words the Acts of the
Apostles close, and that source of information fails us. We
know from the Epistles that several, at least four, were written
during this Eoman imprisonment. Whether Paul was released,
and again for a time laboured as a preacher and missionary
of the gospel, is a point disputed among commentators, and is
1 Some (Beza, Bbttger, Thiersch, Meyer, Reuss, Schenkel) affirm that the
Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philemon were written from Csesarea,
— a point which will be discussed when we come to consider the Epistles of the
first imprisonment.
2 Olshausen Ore the Gospels and the Acts, vol. iv. p. 491, Clark's translation.
See Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 354.

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 11
reserved as a subject for future consideration.1 Be this as it may,
it is generally agreed by all writers that Paul closed his life
by martyrdom at Eome. This may be clearly inferred from
the Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Tim. iv. 6, 7), and is suffi
ciently attested by the traditions of the Church, though the
circumstances of his martyrdom are obscured by fables.2
It is to be observed that the account which we have of the
life of Paul, taken from these sources, the Acts and the Pauline
Epistles, is extremely imperfect. There are great gaps not
filled up ; there are long periods passed over in a few words ;
there are numerous incidents unrecorded. This imperfection
of the record is evident from an enumeration which the apostle
makes of his trials in one of his early Epistles : " Of the Jews
five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I
beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck,
a night and a day I have been in the deep " (2 Cor. xi. 24, 25).
Of these hardships only two are alluded to in the Acts. Not
one of the five times when he was scourged by the Jews is
mentioned; only one scourging with rods at Philippi is re
corded ; the stoning at Lystra is related ; but history is. entirely
silent about his three shipwrecks,3 — a proof how very small a
portion of the sufferings and labours of the apostle is related
to us.With regard to the chronology of Paul's life, there are two
dates on which we may with some degree of certainty rely —
the death of Herod Agrippa, and the accession of Festus to the
procuratorship of Judea. Herod Agrippa died, as we learn
from Josephus, A.D. 44 ; * and the ablest chronologists state the
accession of Festus at A.D. 6 0. Now a chronology of the life
of Paul may be formed by going backwards from the year a.d.
60. Paul was two years imprisoned in Csesarea before Festus
came to the province, which brings us to Pentecost of AD. 58.
He left Ephesus at the Pentecost of the preceding year, a.d.
1 See special introduction to the Epistle to the Philippians.
2 The traditions concerning the martyrdom of Paul are afterwards considered
in the special introduction to the Second Epistle to Timothy.
3 We need hardly observe that his shipwreck on his voyage to Rome occurred
after the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written.
4 Joseph. Ant. xix. 8. 2. This date, however, does not give us much assist
ance in determining the chronology of Paul's life.

12 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
5 7. He remained three years at Ephesus, so that he must
have come there in a.d. 54. Before this he spent a year and a
half at Corinth, and made a hasty visit to Jerusalem, which will
bring us back to A.D. 52. The previous part of his second mission
ary journey would extend about a year, and directly before that
journey he went up to attend the celebrated Council of Jeru
salem, which accordingly occurred A.D. 5 1 ; and he himself dates
his conversion fourteen years before this (Gal. ii. 1), A.D. 37.
With regard to the probable age of Paul we have little in
formation. At the martyrdom of Stephen he is called a young
man {veavlas, Acts vii. 58), whereas thirty years afterwards
he speaks of himself as being such a one as Paul the aged
(7./.-<-/-.t?7?, Phil p.m. 9). Both terms are somewhat indefinite.
Varro says that a man is young (juvenis) till forty-five, and
aged at sixty. Paul must have been about thirty at the death
of Stephen, as, if he were under that age, the Sanhedrim would
hardly have entrusted him with a duty so important as the
commission to Damascus, nor would he thirty years afterwards
have called himself aged. Chrysostom supposes that at the
time of Stephen's death Paul was thirty-five.2
The nature and extent of Paul's education has been much
disputed among the learned. Extreme views on both sides
have been adopted. Still, it is almost universally admitted that
he was superior to all the other apostles both in birth and in
education. They were the tax-gatherers, fishermen, and peasants
of the remote province of Galilee, and in the estimation of their
enemies unlearned and ignorant men (Acts iv. 13); he was the
Eoman citizen, educated under the most celebrated rabbinical
teacher of the day, and learned in Jewish customs and ques
tions. Nor does he appear to have been deficient in Greek
learning. Greek was his native language, and as an educated
man he would read the classics. His letters and speeches prove
that he was acquainted with Greek literature. He quotes three,
if not four times, from the Greek poets. In his address to the
1 The ablest work on the chronology of Paul's life is Wieseler's Chronologie des
apostolischen Zeitalters. Chronological tables are given by Meyer, Wieseler,
Olshausen, Davidson, Alford, Wordsworth, Conybeare and Howson, and in the
author's Commentary on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 36, 37.
2 On this supposition, Paul would be born about the commencement of the
Christian era.

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 13
Athenians, the words tov jap Kai <yevo<; eafiev (Acts xvii. 28)
are an exact quotation from the Cilician poet Aratus {Pheno
mena, 5) ; and also a probable allusion to the hymn of Cleanthes
to Jupiter, etc crov jevo<; ea/xiv {Hymn, in Joven. 5). He also
quotes from Menander in 1 Cor. xv. 33, and Epimenides in
Tit. i. 12.1 Tarsus, Paul's native city, was then one ofthe
most celebrated universities in the world, inferior only to
Athens and Alexandria ; and the schools of that city might
not be without their influence on the apostle's early training.2
Gamaliel, his teacher, was liberal in his views, and addicted to
the study of Greek philosophy, and it may be supposed that
he would inspire his scholars with a similar taste. On the
whole, it is probable that Paul, though not in the strict sense
of the term a Greek scholar, yet was by no means ignorant of
the literature of his native tongue. Paulum scisse, licet non
ad perfectum, sceculares litter as (Jerome, ad Galat. iv. 24).
Still, however, the apostle's early education was more Jewish
than Greek. His father, as a Pharisee, would be jealous of the
influence of profane literature on his son. He quitted Tarsus
at an early age, and pursued his studies under Gamaliel, and,
as he himself expresses it, was taught according to the strictness
of the ancestral law (Acts xxii. 3). We see the traces of this
learning in his Epistles, in his apt quotations from the Old
Testament, in his mode of reasoning on the difference between
the promise made to Abraham and the law given to Moses
(Gal. iii. 17-21), in the stress which he places upon the word
seed (Gal. iii. 1 6), and in the allegory which he makes from the
fact that Ishmael was the son of a bond woman, and Isaac
the son of a free woman (Gal. iv. 22-31). This rabbinical
learning was consecrated to the service of Christianity, aiid
through the influences of the Spirit was an important means
of deriving rich gospel truths from the types and shadows of
the Old Testament.
1 See Lewin's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 12, 13. Other sup
posed references to _Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides are, however, far-fetched.
Home's Introduction to the Scriptures, vol. iv. pp. 502, 507, tenth edition.
2 At the same time, it is not in itself probable that Paid studied in the Greek
schools of Tarsus, owing to the pharisaical views of his father ; their influence
on his culture must have been rather indirect than direct. Besides, he quitted
Tarsus at an early age.

14 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
The character of the apostle, however much it' may be
depreciated by Eenan, and others of the school which he
represents,1 cannot' be too highly estimated. He was in every
respect a great man — great in mental endowments, but greater
still in moral qualities. We know none of the, apostles so
completely as Paul : his character is impressed upon his writ
ings. Its most prominent feature was entire devotedness to
the cause of Christ ; everything was sacrificed for the gospel ;
sufferings were cheerfully endured, and life itself was not valued:
he could truly say, " To me to live is Christ." Self seemed to
be entirely abolished ; he had no private interests to promote,
no private wishes, to gratify. He had only one thing to do,
and that was to promote the spread of the gospel. Hence the
extreme seriousness of his character ; his mind was so preoccu-.
pied with heavenly and spiritual realities, that the concerns of
the world had little interest for him.2 The works of genius at
Athens excited within him no feelings of admiration, but called
forth his moral indignation at the idolatrous worship which
they fostered. He could not detach the intellectual from the
moral. He could not view men otherwise than as the moral
subjects of God, and destined for immortality.
Another distinguishing feature in Paul's character was his
sincerity. He was sincere in all his beliefs and attachments ;
he admitted of no half measures ; lukewarmness was entirely
foreign to his nature. Before his conversion as well as after
it, he was the same earnest, high-minded man. In persecut
ing the disciples of Christ, as well as in preaching the gospel,
1 Jowett's remarkable essay on the character of Paul must also be regarded
as in some respects a depreciatory view of the apostle. Jowett's St. Paul's
Epistles, vol. i. pp. 351-372. Since these pages were written, my attention
has been directed to Dean Howson's work Ore the Character of St. Paul, which
contains an excellent delineation of the character of the great apostle, though I
must dissent from the remarks made on the weaknesses of Paul, especially on his
liability to fear, and undue sensitiveness to public opinion.
2 Jowett perhaps puts it too strongly, when he observes : "There is no reason
to suppose that the apostle took any interest in the daily life of men, in the
great events which were befalling the Roman Empire, or in the temporal fortunes
of the Jewish people. But when they came before him as sinners, lying in dark
ness and the shadow of God's wrath, then his love was quickened for them
he was willing to die with Christ, yea, even to be accursed from Him, that he
might save some of them. "

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 15
he was actuated by the same spirit of truth ; he ever acted up
to his convictions : " I verily,'; says he, " thought that I ought
to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." 1
Paul's character was also marked by strong determination
of will. He possessed decision in an eminent degree. His
zeal was perfectly unconquerable ; no temptation whatever
could cause him to desist from what he conceived his duty ;
he was equally indifferent to flattery and threatening; and
when once he had decided on the proper course of action,
entreaties could not induce him to alter his determinations,
and no dangers could deter, him (Acts xxi. 13). "We see
him," observes Paley, "in the prosecution of his purpose,
travelling from country to country, enduring every species of
hardship, encountering every extremity of danger, assaulted
by the populace, punished by the magistrates, scourged, beat,
stoned, left for -dead ; expecting, wherever he came, a renewal
of the same treatment and the same dangers, yet, when
driven from one city, preaching in the next ; spending his
whole time in the employment, sacrificing to it his pleasures,
his ease, his safety; persisting in this course to old age,
unaltered by the experience of perverseness, ingratitude, pre
judice, desertion ; unsubdued by anxiety, want, labour, perse
cutions ; unwearied by long confinement, undismayed by the
prospect of death." 2
Yet Paul, although one of the most decided and zealous
of men, was no fanatic. He did not run unnecessarily into
danger; he never courted martyrdom. His zeal was kept
thoroughly under the subjection of his reason, and was
tempered by prudence. He used all lawful means to escape
danger. He often put into practice our Lord's advice," When
they persecute you in one city, flee ye to another." Thus he
fled from Damascus, from Thessalonica, and from Berea. On
two occasions he appealed to his privilege of a Eoman citizen.
When the Jews formed a conspiracy to take away his life by
violence, he threw himself upon the protection of the Eoman
captain. And when he found that Festus was inclined to
1 Sincerity formed a marked line of demarcation between Paul in his uncon
verted state, and the ordinary Pharisees.
2 Paley's Horw Paulines.

16 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
comply with the solicitations of the Jews, and to deliver him
up to them, he. appealed to Caesar.1
Further, Paul, although uncompromising where duty or
truth was concerned, was remarkable for almost womanly
tenderness. He wept over the defections of his disciples ; he
cherished them even as a nursing mother cherisheth her
children ; he could wish himself accursed from Christ, for his
brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh ; he felt keenly
the sufferings and the sicknesses of his friends ; and in
describing the qualities of charity, he evidently wrote from
the fulness of love in his own heart. So far from being stern,
severe, and forbidding, like some of the reformers, he was
sympathizing, kind, and loving. We have only to read his
Epistles ' to the Corinthians to see how prominent was this
feature in his character ; with what tenderness he seeks to
win them back to the truth, and with what reluctance he
censures and warns them.2
Paul is the apostle of freedom ; he was possessed of great
liberality of mind. Although brought up in the straitest sect
of the Jewish religion, and at one period of his life a most
bigoted Pharisee, yet, when he embraced Christianity, he
carried with him nothing of the intolerance and narrowness of
that Jewish sect ; he was at once transformed from a Jewish
bigot into a Christian philanthropist, the apostle of the
Gentiles. He, among all the apostles, was the great advocate
of Christian liberty ; he would not permit the Gentiles to be
trammelled with Jewish ordinances ; he supported their cause
at the Council of Jerusalem ; and withstood Peter to his face,
when that apostle appeared to lend his sanction to Jewish
exclusiveness. Humility was also a distinguishing characteristic of the
apostle. Though superior to the other apostles in acquire
ments and natural abilities, though more blessed than they
1 See this feature in Paul's character well stated by Lewin in his Life and
Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 985.
2 Dean Howson directs attention to the care which Paul took for the health of
others, Acts xxvii. 33, 34 ; Phil. ii. 27, 28 ; 1 Tim. v. 23. His disinterested
ness in sacrificing his own comfort, his susceptibility of friendship, his gratitude
for favours received, and his regard for the feelings of others, are also other
features of Paul's tenderness of character.

PAUL, THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLES. 1 7
in spiritual gifts and successful achievements, yet he was
clothed with humility. As self was entirely lost sight of,
pride was foreign to his character. He styles himself " the
least of the apostles, and not meet to be called an apostle,"
and "less than the l^ast of all saints." He exercised no lord
ship over his converts, and indignantly repudiates the idea of
being exalted by them as the head of a party. And when,
in his own defence, and in vindication of his ministry, he is
obliged to allude to his labours, he does so with extreme
reluctance, as if he were making the painful disclosure of
some secret faults : "I am become a fool in glorying ; ye
have compelled me : for in nothing am I behind the very
chiefest apostles, though I be nothing " (2 Cor. xii. 1 1).
The courtesy, and, if we might use the expression, the
gentlemanly bearing of the apostle, are also remarkable. He
was no reviler of dignities, but exhorted his converts to obedi
ence to authority, and to render honour to whom honour was
due. And what he preached he practised. A noble courtesy
marked his conduct, as seen in the frank apology made to the
high priest, " I wot not, brethren, that he was the high priest ;
for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy
people ; " in his courteous reply to Festus, when rudely inter
rupted by that governor, and charged with madness, " I am
not mad, most noble Festus, but speak forth the words of truth
and soberness;" and in his polite address to Agrippa, "I
would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me
this day, were both almost and altogether such as I am, except
these bonds." 1
To us, Paul after his conversion appears an almost perfect
man ; the nearest approach that has been made to the character
of our Saviour ; one who carried human virtues to the greatest
extent to which they can be carried on this side the grave.2
The only fault that strikes us is an occasional warmth of temper
1 The courtesy of the apostle is especially seen in the Epistle to Philemon.
2 Dr. Davidson accuses him, in assenting to the advice of the elders at Jeru
salem, of having resorted to an artifice, for the purpose of conciliating the Jews
(Acts xxi. 26), and of committing a similar fault when he divided the Sanhedrim
on the question of the resurrection (Acts xxiii. 6). — Introduction to If. T. (old
edition), pp. 92, 93. In both instances we judge that his conduct was perfectly
justifiable. See author's Commentary on the Acts.
B

18 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
not always under control, if indeed this be a fault, and not the
natural product of the earnestness of his disposition. We do
not know if he was altogether free of blame in that sharp
contention (7. apf _-_7_o?) between him and his old companion
Barnabas, when the latter wished Mark to accompany them
(Acts xv. 3 9) ; 1 nor is, perhaps, his passionate address to the
high priest Ananias to be altogether justified (Acts xxiii. 3).
But in both cases it was the moral earnestness of his character
that could not endure the vacillating spirit of Mark, or the
injustice and violence of Ananias.
It has been often observed that there is a remarkable resem
blance between Paul and Luther. And certainly in many points
there is a resemblance : the same heroic zeal, the same decision,
the same sincerity, the same indefatigable energy, the same
sympathy with humanity, the same liberality of mind actuated
both. But Paul was a much higher type of man than the
great Eeformer : his unworldliness was more complete, his
charity was more universal, his joyfulness was more spiritual,
his temper was more heavenly. And yet, notwithstanding,
Luther is perhaps the nearest approach which has been made
to Paul in modern times ; certainly much closer than the saints
of the middle ages.2

II. NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
However influential Paul was in his lifetime, by his mis
sionary labours, in planting Christianity in so many' countries,
and in the most renowned cities of the Eoman Empire, he has
been1 still more influential after his death by his writings. His
missionary labours were limited to the first ages of Christianity,
1 Paulus severior, Barnabas clementior : uterque in suo seme abundat. Et
tamen dissensio habet aliquid humance fragilitatis (Jerome).
! "The saints of the middle ages are in many respects unlike St. Paul, and
yet many of them bear a far closer resemblance to him than is to be found in
Luther and the Reformers. "—Jowett's St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 361. We
rather on this point agree with Renan : " En somme, le personnage historique
qui a le plus d'apalogie avec Saint Paul, c'est Luther. "—Renan's S. Paul, p.
569. ^ There is no trace of humour in Paul, as was so observable in Luther ;
Paul's character was of too lofty and serious a nature.

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 19
and extended at the utmost only to a period of thirty years ;
and, though extensive, were restricted to a small portion of the
earth's surface. The influence of his writings, on the other
hand, has been felt throughout the Christian world for more
than eighteen centuries, and will doubtless continue to be felt
to the end of time.1 In them, Paul, "being dead, yet speaks "
even more powerfully and more effectually than when he was
charged at Thessalonica with turning the world upside down,
or when he preached the unknown God in the Areopagus of
Athens, or caused the worshippers of the Ephesian Diana to
tremble for their gains. Paul is the most copious writer in the
New Testament: nearly one half of its books are ascribed to him.
And not only is he the most copious, but also the most influ-
. ential of the sacred writers, at least among Western Christians.2
The Pauline view of Christianity, as distinguished from the
Johannean, the Petrine, and the Jacobean, has hitherto been
the most prevalent, and has given rise to most discussion.
Paul is generally regarded as the most dogmatic of the sacred
writers ; and his views of human nature and divine grace have
moulded the religious opinions of Christians in all ages. And
especially is this the case with Protestants : s the phase of
Christianity which exerted the greatest influence at the Ee-
formation, and still leavens all Protestant communities, is the
Pauline — the doctrine of justification, and the supremacy of
faith. Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are expressly
ascribed to the Apostle Paul, and are received as genuine by
the Christian Church in general. The authenticity of some of
them has never been doubted, whilst that of others has been
more or less impugned. Baur, perhaps the most destructive of
all the German critics, whilst he reduces the number of Paul's
genuine epistles to four, yet admits the genuineness of the
1 And this notwithstanding Renan's assertion : " Apr.s avoir .te depuis trois
cents ans le docteur chretien par excellence, gr_ce au protestantisme orthodoxe,
Paul voit de nos jours finir son rfegne. "
2 Perhaps the influence of John is still greater among the Eastern Christians
and the Greek Church.
3 And so far as the writings of St. Augustine have influenced the Romish
Church, Paul's influence has been felt there ; for the theology of St. Augustine
is as strongly Pauline as the theology of Luther.

20 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
largest — the Epistles to the Eomans and the Galatians, and the
two Epistles to the Corinthians. Besides these thirteen, many
of our most eminent critics have added a fourteenth — namely,
the Epistle to the Hebrews. The reasons assigned for this
opinion, if not entirely convmcing, are so powerful as to lead
to a strong presumption that this may be the case ; certainly
this epistle is written in a style somewhat similar to that of
the apostle's, and exhibits his peculiarity of thought : if not
Paul's, it is at least Pauline.
The thirteen epistles of Paul have been variously classified
by different critics.1 They are addressed either to a circle of
churches, as the Epistle to the Galatians ; or to a particular
church, as the Epistles to the Thessalonians; or to individuals, as
the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.2 Perhaps the best
classification' is according to the order of time in which they
were written. According to this view, they admit of a three
fold arrangement : first, the " earlier epistles," written before
the first Eoman imprisonment, of which there are six; secondly,
" the epistles of the captivity," written during the first Eoman
imprisonment, of which there are. four ; 3 and thirdly, the later
or so-called " pastoral epistles," written after the first Eoman
imprisonment, of which there are three. The order given in
the Bible is not chronological, but according to their length
and supposed importance. Epistles to churches are placed
first, and afterwards those to individuals. The Epistle to the
Eomans stands first, as Eome was the capital of the Eoman
Empire ; then the two Epistles to the Corinthians, on account of
their length ; then the Epistle to the Galatians, as Galatia was a
country in which there were several churches ; then the Epistle
to the Ephesians, as next in point of length, and because Ephesus
1 Baur, adopting the method of Eusebius, classifies them into S/tokoyoipsva, of
which, according to him, there are four ; "whilst the other nine belong to the
_». ;A.syo,_Eii„ : he considers the pastoral epistles as Ma. — Baur's Apostel Paulus,
vol. i. p. 276.
2 Nine epistles are addressed to churches, and four to individuals. The four
first are sometimes called the major, and the rest the minor, Pauline epistles.
3 This may be considered as in one respect an erroneous division, as 2d
Timothy was also written in captivity, though a later captivity ; "the epistles
of the captivity " are so called in a technical sense, to denote the epistles written
during the first Roman imprisonment, — namely, the Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, and Philemon.

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 21
was the capital of proconsular Asia ; then the Epistle to the
Philippians, probably because Philippi was a Eoman colony,
and erroneously considered to be the capital of Macedonia ;
then the Epistles to the Colossians and the Thessalonians, for
which order it is difficult to assign any reason; then the
epistles to individuals according to their length; and the Epistle
to the Hebrews follows last, because it was doubted whether
it was actually the work of Paul.1
Different opinions have been formed regarding the true
chronological order, and perhaps it is impossible to determine it
with absolute certainty. This arises from the incomplete nature
of the account of Paul's life given us in the Acts, and from the
uncertainty of the apostle's fate after that history closes. The
decision of the question whether Paul was or was not released
from his Eoman imprisonment, must materially affect any
opinion as to the arrangement of his Epistles. It is also a
point of dispute whether three of his Epistles — the Ephesians,
Colossians, and Philemon — belong to his Csesarean or to his
Eoman imprisonment. Accordingly, different arrangements have
been adopted by different writers. This subject will be fully
discussed when the date of each epistle is considered ; and
therefore, without at all entering upon the subject at present,
we merely state the chronological order which, after careful
consideration, appears the most probable. That order is as fol
lows : the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, the
Epistle to the Galatians, the First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians, and the Epistle to the Eomans, constituting the
first class, or the "earlier epistles;" the Epistle to the Colossians,
the Epistle to Philemon, the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the
Epistle to the Philippians, constituting the second class, or the
" epistles of the captivity;" the First Epistle to Timothy, the
Epistle to Titus, and the Second Epistle to Timothy, constituting
the third class, or the " later epistles."2
A table is subjoined, containing the probable dates of the
1 This is the opinion adopted by Lardner : Works, vol. iii. p. 457. See also
Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. pp. 1, 2.
2 Ewald supposes the epistles were written in the following order : 2 Thessa
lonians, 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philip
pians, Philemon, Colossians. He does not admit the Ephesians and the pastoral
epistles to be genuine. <

22

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

epistles, and the names of the places from which they were
probably written.

EPISTLES.

PLACES.

A.D.

1 Thessalonians,

Corinth,

52 -

2 Thessalonians,

Corinth,

53

Galatians 

Ephesus,

55
1 Corinthians, .
Ephesus,
57
2 Corinthians, .
Philippi,
57
Romans, ....
Corinth,
58
Colossians,
Rome,
63
Philemon, ....
Rome,
63
Ephesians,
Rome,
63
Philippians,
Rome,
63
1 Timothy,
Macedonia,
67
Titus, ....
Macedonia,
67
2 Timothy,
Rome,
68'
There is little difficulty in accounting for the preservation
of the Pauline Epistles : they were, with the exception of those
written to individuals, sent to particular communities. It
may safely be assumed that these communities, valuing what
was written by an inspired apostle, and the founder of most
of their churches, would preserve them as a sacred deposit.
They were also enjoined to read them publicly in their
religious assemblies, and provision Was made for the inter
change of epistles addressed to neighbouring churches. Thus,
writing to the Thessalonians, the apostle gives this solemn
»
1 The following are the dates of the Pauline epistles according to the chief
authorities : —
Names or the Epistles.
¦s
3
_ _
_
V a
_? c
y •X
s
¦E o
<•
<_>
cj<_>
-=> >>
§
<_>w
- =
n
¦1 Thessalonians,
2 Thessalonians,
Galatians, .
1 Corinthians,
2 Corinthians,
Romans, . .
Colossians, . .
Philemon, . .
Ephesians, . .
Philippians, .
1 Timothy, .
Titus, . . .
2 Timothy, .
51
52
49
57 57
5861-2
61-261-261-25856
65
52
52 5356
57
5861
626262
565661
51
5250
56-756-7
57-860-1
6161
61-2 64
62?66
52
5354-5
57 57
5862
6262
62666667
525357
57575862
6262
6267 67
68
54 54
5557575861-2
61-261-26256
57 63
52-353-455-6
5858
58-9 62?62?
63
NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 23
injunction : " I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be
read to all the holy brethren " (1 Thess. v. 27); and he com
mands the Colossians not only to read his epistle among
themselves, but to send, it to Laodicea, that it might be read
in the church of that city, and that they should . also read
" the epistle from Laodicea " (Col. iv. 1 6). Thus the epistles
would be gradually circulated among the different Christian
communities, and copies of them would be made. At the
same time, considering the trouble and difficulty of the circu
lation of books in that age, and the comparatively limited
extent of Christianity, the circulation must necessarily have
been slow, and it must have been a considerable time before
a collection of the sacred books was made ; and hence the
comparatively late formation of the canon, about the latter
half of the second century,1 so far from being a matter of
surprise or of difficulty, is what we would a priori have
expected. But the question arises, Have we all the epistles of Paul ?
Are these thirteen, or, including the Epistle to the Hebrews,
fourteen epistles, all that he ever wrote ? 2
This question has been generally answered in the affirma
tive. It has been laid down, as if it were an undoubted pro
position, that God would not permit any writing which He
had inspired to be lost ; that to suppose such to have been
the case, is contrary to our notions of the nature and import
ance of inspiration ; and -hence it is affirmed, either that Paul
never wrote any more epistles than those which have come
down to us, or that, if he did, they were uninspired, and of no
importance to the Christian Church. Besides, it is added,
the precautions taken for the preservation of these epistles,
their being written to the churches, which would carefully
preserve and readily communicate them to others, and their
being read in the public assemblies of the saints, are all con
siderations which must induce us to think that no inspired
1 It is generally agreed that the Peshito or Syrian version was made about this
time. It contains all the epistles of Paul.
2 On this question, see Professor Jowett's dissertation, "On the Probability
that many of St. Paul's Epistles have been lost. "—Jowett's St. Paul's Epistles,
vol. i. pp. 195-201.

24 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
writing of an apostle could ever be lost.1 The argument is
well put by Dr. Macknight: "The writings of the apostles
and evangelists being early and widely dispersed among the
disciples of Christ, I think it cannot be doubted that the
persons who obtained copies of them, regarded them as precious
treasures of divine truth, and preserved them with the utmost
care. We are morally certain, therefore, that none of the
inspired writings, either of the evangelists or of the apostles,
have been lost ; and, in particular, that the suspicion which
some have entertained of the loss of certain epistles of Paul,
is destitute of probability. His inspired writings were all
sent to persons greatly interested in them, who, while they
preserved their own copies with the utmost care, were no
doubt very diligent in circulating transcripts from them among
the other churches ; so that, being widely dispersed, highly
respected, and much read, none of them, I think, could perish.
What puts this matter beyond doubt is, that while all the
sacred books which now remain are often quoted by the most
ancient Christian writers whose works have come down to us,
in none of them, nor in any other author whatever, is there
so much as a single quotation from any apostolical writing
that is not at present in our canon ; nor the least hint from
which it can be gathered, that any apostolical writing ever
existed which we do not at present possess." 2 So also Dr.
Alexander of America undertakes to demonstrate the proposi
tion that " no canonical book of the New Testament has been
lost." Of course, if by a canonical book be meant a book
that has been admitted into the canon, the statement is a
mere truism. \ But by a canonical book he seems to mean a
book written by inspiration, and designed for the good of the
Church. And hence he asserts, that if Paul, or any other
apostle, did write letters other than those preserved to us,
there is no reason to think that these were inspired ; or if
inspired, they were probably written for a particular occasion,
and to rectify some disorder in a particular church, and so
might have been lost without injury to the canon.3 But all
1 See Lardner's Works, vol. iii. pp. 465-467.
2 Macknight On the Epistles, the second preliminary essay.
3 Alexander On the Canon, p. 282.

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 25
these arguments are only subjective considerations, which at
the utmost amount to mere probabilities ; and much that is
said is a mere begging of the question. Epistles of Paul
may, notwithstanding these considerations, have been lost;
and if any have perished, they may, for anything we know to
the contrary, have been as much inspired as those which have
been preserved.
There are, so far as we can see, no cogent presumptive
arguments against the supposition that some of Paul's epistles
may be lost. Whether this is actually the case is a different
question. The discourses of Paul were as inspired as his
writings ; and yet it is only a mere fraction of these dis
courses that have been preserved to us in the Acts : by far
the greater number of them have been lost, and have left no
trace behind them in the writings of the Fathers. And the
same is the case with the words and actions of our Lord
Himself. We have four narratives of His life ; but yet here
also we have a mere fragment of His discourses and conversa
tion. John, at the close of his Gospel, tells us that " Jesus
did many other signs in the presence of His disciples which
are not written in this book " (John xx. 3 0) ; and he asserts
that " there are also many other things which Jesus did, the
which if they should be written every one, I suppose that
even the whole world itself would not contain the -books
that should be written" (John xxi. 28).1 Now the dis
courses of the apostles, and above all, the discourses of our
Lord, were as inspired, and would probably have been as
useful to the Church, as the sacred writings. If, then, such
inspired discourses have undoubtedly been lost to the Chris
tian Church, what possible reason is there to lay it down
dogmatically as an axiom, that it is impossible to suppose
that God should suffer an inspired writing, which might' be
of use to the Church, to be lost ?
But not only are there no cogent presumptions against the
1 So also, the prophecies of the minor prophets which have been preserved are
inconsiderable, when we reflect on the length of time during which they con
tinued to prophesy. For example, Micah prophesied in the reigns of Jotham,
Ahaz, and Hezekiah, and we cannot suppose that all he predicted is contained
in the short book which bears his name. See also 2 Kings xiv. 25, and com
pare it with the prophecies of Jonah.

26 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
notion that some of Paul's epistles may possibly be lost, but
there are probable reasons which favour this opinion : (1.) The
nature of Paul's connection with other churches is a reason
why we can hardly suppose that his correspondence was of
such a limited extent, as we must believe that it was, if all
his writings are extant. It is highly probable that Paul,
who was burdened with the "care of all the churches"
(2 Cor. xi. 28), besides those churches mentioned in his
genuine epistles, wrote to others with which he was intimately
related: as, for example, the Church of Antioch, where he
had laboured for so many years; the Church of Tarsus, to
which he must have been peculiarly attached, not- only as
probably its founder (Acts ix. 30), but because Tarsus was
his native city ; not to mention the Churches of Cyprus,
Pisidian Antioch, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, Berea, and Athens,
which he had founded. (2.) The character of the extant epistles
is such as would lead us to infer that Paul was accustomed
to epistolary correspondence. They are all, with the ex
ception of the Epistles to the Eomans and the Ephesians,
epistles called forth by the wants of the churches to which
he wrote, or answers to inquiries made to him ; they all
imply a familiar acquaintance with the state of each par
ticular church ; and suggest that messengers must have been
frequently going between him and the different Christian
communities. (3.) The loving disposition of the apostle sup
plies a further presumption in favour of a more extensive
correspondence than what remains. The Epistle to Philemon
is the only extant example of a private letter, — the Epistles
to Timothy and Titus being rather pastoral addresses ; but,
considering Paul's affectionate nature, we cannot suppose
that this was the only letter of that description which he
ever wrote. (4.) And further, when we reflect on the periods
when his extant letters were written, the argument in favour
of his having written other letters is greatly strengthened.
If what has come down to us were his only epistles, then we
must suppose that he wrote several letters all in a short
period, whilst during long intervals he wrote nothing. The
First Epistle to the Thessalonians, his earliest extant epistle, was
not composed earlier than the middle of his second missionary

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 27
journey, fifteen years after his conversion. His three longest
epistles, the Epistle to the Eomans and the two Epistles to
the Corinthians, were in all probability written within the
course of a single year.1 During his two years' imprison
ment at Csesarea, although he had free access to his friends,
and might have sent them as messengers to the churches, he
wrote nothing. The four epistles of the captivity were all
written about the same period, toward the close of his first
Eoman imprisonment, whilst during the greater part of the
two years which he spent at Eome his pen was idle. All
this favours the presumption that Paul must have written
other epistles which have not come down to us.2
But we are not left to reason on these mere conjectural
considerations. We believe that there are clear allusions
in the extant writings of Paul to at least two lost epistles,
besides more doubtful indications of others. The two more
distinctly alluded to are an epistle to tha Corinthians, written
before the two which have been transmitted to us, and an
epistle to the Zaodiceans.
In 1 Cor. v. 9 we have the following sentence : eypayjra vfiv
iv tP} eTrio-To\fi, pjf] avvava/Mvyvvcrdai Tropvot? ; which literally
rendered is, " I wrote to you in the epistle (not in ' an epistle,'
as in our version) not to keep company with fornicators."
Now to what epistle does the apostle here refer. There
can be only two possible answers : either it was the epistle
he was then writing, or it was an epistle which is now lost.3
Those who maintain the opinion that none of Paul's
epistles are lost, are constrained to adopt the former alterna
tive, that by r) lirurrokn the apostle means the epistle which
he was now writing ; so that the words are equivalent to, " I
1 "Suppose," observes Jowett, "we take this as the criterion of the probable
amount of his lost writings, and that during each year of his ministry, which
extended over a period of at least twenty -five years, he wrote an equal quantity,
the result would have been a volume three times the size of the New Testa
ment." — Jowett's Epistles of Paul, vol. i. p. 198.
2 Dean Alford, perhaps somewhat too strongly, asserts : " Those who regard
not preconceived theories, but the facts and analogies of the case, will come
rather to the conclusion that very many (of Paul's epistles) have been lost."—
Greek Testament, vol. ii. ; Prolegomena, p. 58.
3 A third possible alternative, that it was 2 Corinthians, being excluded from
the nature of the case.

28 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
have written to you (or, according to some, ' I shall write to
you ') in this epistle not to keep company with fornicators."
This is the opinion adopted, with various modifications, by
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Lardner, Bloomfield, Whitby,
Macknight, Alexander, Stanley, and others. Paul, it is as
serted, in the beginning of the fifth chapter, had given the
prohibition mentioned; and f) iirta-ToXi] denotes "this epistle."1
But there are several reasons against our adoption of this
view of the subject. It is not the most natural meaning of
the sentence — not that which would at first suggest itself.
There is no express prohibition of the kind mentioned in the
preceding part of the epistle ; and it can only be found there
by a strained interpretation. And if the words do actually
refer to what, was written immediately before, then iv tj}
eiriaToXfj would be superfluous and unmeaning. It is true
that the expression 17 eino-ToXr) is sometimes used by the
apostle with reference to the letter in which it occurs ; but
in these cases it is at the close, as if a postscript, and not,
as here, in the middle of the epistle (Eom. xvi. 22; 1 Thess.
v. 27; Col. iv. 16).
Accordingly, several who have felt the force of these
objections have endeavoured by various shifts to avoid them ;
but the theories resorted to are still more untenable. Though
not in the preceding, yet in the succeeding part of the epistle,
there are clear prohibitions against keeping company with
fornicators ; and hence they attempt to refer the words not to
what precedes, but to what succeeds. Thus Lardner, violat
ing the meaning of the aorist, supposes that the words are a
strong asseveration of what the apostle intended doing, and
that the sense is equivalent to, " I shall in this epistle" de
liver some cautions against a dangerous and offensive intimacy
with idolaters."2 Dean Stanley supposes that the whole
passage, v. 9-vi. 8, may have been a note or postscript in
serted subsequently to the rest of the epistle, and referring
especially to vi. 9-20. The reference of the phrases iv 777
1 Thus Macknight : "By requiring you to clean out the old leaven (ver. 7),
I have virtually ordered you in this epistle not to keep company with fornica
tors." — In loco.
2 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 469.

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 29
€7no-ToXy and eypa^ra to the present epistle, he supposes,
" may be partially explained by the fact of the amanuensis,
who might regard the whole letter which he was transcribing
as ' the epistle ' distinct from himself." J Whitby adopts the
extraordinary opinion that Paul, after writing the epistle,
corrects it, and mentions the correction : " I had written to
you in the epistle, before I was fully acquainted with the state
of your affairs, not to keep company with fornicators ; but
now, since I have been more exactly informed of the state of
your church, I have changed my style, and have written to
you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother
be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater," etc. 2 All which
explanations are mere attempts to get rid of supposed diffi
culties. The most natural meaning of the passage — that which an
ordinary reader would derive from it — undoubtedly is, that
the apostle had previously written to the Corinthians an epistle
(now lost), in which he had given them the injunction in ques
tion; but that this epistle being misunderstood, he explains what
he meant in the epistle he was now writing. The expression
iv rfj iirta-ToXy, referring to a former epistle, creates no diffi
culty, as the same expression is used by Paul in his Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, when alluding to the first or earlier
epistle (iXvTrr)<ra i)(ia<; iv tj) iirio-ToXfi, 2 Cor. vii. 8). Nor is
the verb eypayfra used in a different sense in ver. 9 (I wrote)
from what it is used in ver. . 1 1 (vwl Be eypayjra), as vvvl
there is not a particle of time (as rendered in our version),
but of connection, and ought to be rendered " but now " (the
case being so, as it is, namely, that you are obliged to. associate
with fornicators among the heathen) : " I wrote to you not
to associate with fornicators among the brethren ; that was
the true meaning of what I wrote." This opinion — that we
have in this passage a reference to a lost epistle — is adopted,
among others, by Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Bengel, De
Wette, Neander, Bleek, Ewald, Meyer, Eeuss, Alford, Ellicott,
1 Stanley Ore the Corinthians, pp. 80, 81. We are not sure if we clearly under-
staud Dean Stanley's meaning. The passage does not seem expressed with his
usual perspicuity.
2 Whitby, in loco.

30 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Wordsworth, and Conybeare and Howson. "The epistle of
which he speaks," observes Calvin, " is not at this day extant.
Nor is there any doubt that many others are lost. It is enough,
however, that those have been preserved to us which the Lord
foresaw would suffice."1
Of course it is impossible to tell what was contained in this
epistle, except that there was a command im] crwavapiryvvo-Oai
iropvoK, which had been misunderstood, and which mistake
the apostle rectifies. Dean Alford further supposes that it
contained an announcement of a plan of visiting them on his
way to Macedonia, and again on his return from Macedonia
(2 Cor. i. 15, 16); and that there were directions given with
regard to the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem.2
An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, which professes to be
the epistle in question, has been found in manuscripts of the
New Testament written in the Armenian language, and entitled
" The Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians." It was
first published at Amsterdam in 1719.3 Its genuineness was
defended by Whiston, and more recently by Einck,4 whose
arguments have been answered by Ullmann. But it cannot
be doubted that it is spurious. It is destitute of external
authority, its style and doctrine are entirely different from the
manner and teaching of Paul in his genuine epistles, and it is
now universally rejected.
Another allusion to a lost epistle is* contained in Col. iv. 1 6 :
Kai orav avayvaxTdf} Trap' ifuv r\ iirurrdkri, irot,rj<7aTe Xva Kai
iv tj) AaoBiKewv iKKXr)crla dvayva>a6jj' Kai ttjv iic AaoBiKeia<}
Xva koi vpA<s a. 07. wt6 ; which is rendered with sufficient cor
rectness in our version : " 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." The
question is, What is meant by 97 eV.o-T oX_) ./_ _lao_t/.e_a? ? is it
a lost epistle of Paul to the Church of Laodicea ?
Various opinions which are perfectly untenable need not be
1 Calvin, ire loco. 2 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. ii. ; Prolegomena, p. 52.
3 The last translation of it was made jointly by Lord Byron and Father Aucher
and published in Moore's Life of Byron, vol. vi. pp. 269-275. It is also given
by Stanley in an appendix to his Commentary on the Corinthians.
4 Das Sendschr. d. Kor. an den Ap. P. und dritte Sendschr. P. an die Kor.
Heidelberg 1823.

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 31
discussed : as that of Schulthess, that the epistle in question
is the Epistle to the Hebrews ; that of Theophylact, that it is
the First Epistle to Timothy ; and that of Lightfoot, that it is
the First Epistle of John. Three other theories have, however,
been advanced to exclude the view that it is a lost epistle,
which deserve consideration : (1) that it is an epistle from the
Laodiceans to Paul, (2) that it is the Epistle to the Ephesians,
and (3) that it is the Epistle to Philemon.
The first of these opinions, that the allusion is to an epistle
written by the Laodiceans to Paul, and not to an epistle of Paul
to the Laodiceans, is adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Calvin,
Beza, Erasmus, Alexander, and others. Their chief argument
is, that this is the natural meaning of the passage. But what
would be the object or benefit of the Colossians reading an
epistle written by the Laodiceans ? Paul puts the two epistles
on an equality, and we can hardly suppose that he would in
the same words command an epistle written by himself, and
one written to him by his Laodicean converts, to be publicly
read in the religious assemblies of Christians. Besides, had
the Laodiceans written to him, he would have answered them
directly, and not merely made this allusion to their letter in
an epistle written to another church. Nor do the words i)
hnaToXr) e« AaoBiKela? naturally mean an epistle written by
the Laodiceans. The preposition m, rendered from, denotes
properly out of, and, as Winer observes, has a pregnant mean
ing, and expresses the foree of two prepositions : it denotes not
the letter written from Laodicea, but the letter written to
Laodicea, and sent again from Laodicea.1 Paul puts himself
in the position of the Colossians, who, by sending, were to
receive the letter from Laodicea. The letter, then, is clearly
not an epistle from the Laodiceans to Paul, but an epistle from
Paul to the Laodiceans.
The second opinion above stated is, that the epistle to the
Laodiceans is identical with the Epistle to the Ephesians. This
is the usual view of the subject, and has been adopted, with
various modifications, by distinguished critics. Some (Grotius,
Paley, Wetstein) suppose that the Epistle to the Ephesians was
actually directed to the Laodiceans, and that the words iv
1 Winer's Grammar ofthe New Testament, p. 651 ; Olshausen on Col. iv. 16.

32 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
'Eo_eo-p are an error of transcribers, and should have been iv
AaoBtKela.1 But this opinion, with the exception of the testi
mony of Marcion, is unsupported by manuscripts, versions, or
patristic evidence, and is now generally relinquished. The
most prevalent form in which the opinion is now expressed is,
that the Epistle to the Ephesians was not directed to any par
ticular church, but was a circular epistle sent to the churches
of proconsular Asia, and that either there was nothing in it
corresponding to the words iv 'Ecpeatp, or the space was left
blank, and afterwards filled in by the names of the churches
to which copies were sent ; so that one manuscript might have
in it " in Ephesus," another " in Laodicea," a third " in Hiera-
polis," a fourth " in Philadelphia," and so on.2 This view of
the subject is adopted by Usher, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Schrader,
Neander, Anger, Harless, Bleek, Conybeare and Howson, and
other distinguished writers. It is argued that the Epistle to
the Ephesians bears internal marks of being a circular epistle,
and that in the two oldest manuscripts, the Vatican and the
Sinaitic, the words iv 'E^eo-a are omitted in the text, hut
written on the margin. Postponing as a subject of future con
sideration the question to whom the Epistle to the Ephesians
was originally addressed, it may be sufficient here to observe
that this opinion is opposed to the preponderance of the autho
rity of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers, which is decidedly
in favour of the genuineness of the words iv 'E(j>e<r<p.3 Others,
again (Lardner, Macknight), suppose- that Paul sent the Ephe
sians word by Tychicus, the bearer of the letter, to send a
copy of it to the Laodiceans, with an order to them to com
municate it to the Colossians, — an hypothesis which has no
support, and is merely adopted to escape a difficulty.
A most ingenious hypothesis has been advanced by Wieseler
in his Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, and supported with
much learning and plausibility. He supposes that the epistle
to the Laodiceans is identical with the Epistle to Philemon.
The steps by which he arrives at this opinion are as follows :
1 This is the supposition advanced by Paley in his Ho rw Paulines.
2 Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 488.
3 This point is further discussed in the Introduction to the Epistle to the
Ephesians,

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 33
Directly after the apostle had told the Colossians to read the
epistle from Laodicea, he sends a message to Archippus (CoL
iv. 1 7), from which it is inferred that Archippus resided in
Laodicea ; but the Epistle to Philemon was directed not only
to Philemon, but among others to Archippus (Philem. 2),
and hence the destination of that epistle was Laodicea. The
reason why the Laodiceans are saluted in the Epistle to the
Colossians, is because that epistle was to be sent to them ;
whereas such salutations would have been inappropriate in the
Epistle to Philemon, which was a private epistle, being a letter
of recommendation given to Onesimus. And the reason why
the apostle was desirous that the private letter to Philemon
should be read to the Colossians was that it had reference to
Onesimus, who. was one of them (o? io-riv ii; v/jluv, Col. iv. 9).
And, further, Wieseler observes that it is undesirable to
multiply unnecessarily the epistles of the apostle, especially
as in the present case he sent three contemporaneous epistles
to the same district — to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and
to Philemon.1 It cannot be denied that the arguments
adduced are very ingenious, but they are not convincing :
they rest on an inference, which is by no means proved, that
Archippus was a native of Laodicea, and not of Colosse.2
On the whole, none of these hypotheses appear satisfactory ;
and the more simple and natural conclusion, against which
there is nothing material to be opposed, seems to be that there
is here another indication of a lost epistle — the epistle to the
Laodiceans. When this epistle was written cannot be deter
mined, but in all probability it was some time before the
contemporaneous Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and
Philemon ; for if sent at the same time, the Laodiceans would
have been saluted in their own epistle, and not in that to the
Colossians. The opinion .that the Laodicean epistle is lost is
adopted by Doddridge, De Wette, Olshausen, Davidson, Alford,
Jowett, EUicott, Davies, Eadie, and others.
An epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans has come down to us :
it is found in several manuscripts of the Vulgate, placed after
1 Wieseler's Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 450-455.
2 See Bleek's Introduction to If. T. 30 ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. p.
137 (old edition) ; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p-_H4.
C

34 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
the Epistle to the Colossians. It is a small document, consist
ing of nineteen short verses, and is a feeble imitation of the
epistles of Paul, being chiefly made up of extracts from the
Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians. Its
composition was suggested by Col. iv. 16, and it ends with
these words : " Cause this epistle to be read to the Colossians,
and that ye likewise read the epistle from Colosse."
Besides these two passages, iri which there are plain indica
tions of lost epistles, there are other references of a somewhat
similar but more doubtful nature, on which, taken by them
selves, we should lay no stress, but which, combined with the
fact that there are these two plain indications, we regard also
as traces of lost epistles. Thus Paul, in writing to the
Corinthians relative to the general collection which he was
making for the Christians at Jerusalem, says : " And when I
come, whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send by letters"
(Bt,' .7t.c7toXw- : not, as in our version, " Whomsoever ye shall
approve by your letters, them will I send ") " to bring your
liberality to Jerusalem " (1 Cor. xvi. 3) ; thus intimating that
it was the apostle's custom to give letters of recommendation.
" Hence we see," observes Meyer, " how common in Paul's
practice was the writing of epistles. Who knows how many
private letters of his, not addressed to churches, have been
lost ? The only letter of the kind which remains to us (that
of Philemon) owes its preservation perhaps to the mere cir
cumstance that it is at the same time addressed to the church
in his house." In 2 Cor. x. 1 0 we read : " For his letters,
say they, are weighty and powerful ; but his bodily presence is
weak, and his speech contemptible." But if the opinion that
Paul wrote no letters except those which have come down to
us be correct, the- Corinthians had only received one letter,
and therefore could hardly speak of it in the plural. Paul
sends the salutation of Mark to the Colossians, with the
following addition : " Touching whom ye received command
ments : if he eome unto you, receive him " (CoL iv. 1 0). This
may imply that he had written instructions to the Colossians
concerning their reception of Mark, especially as he could not
have given them by word of mouth, having never been at
Colosse ; though, of course, these commandments might have

NUMBER AND ORDER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 35
been entrusted to messengers, and orally communicated by
them. In the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians the apostle
alludes to their receipt of a letter as from him (2 Thess. ii. 2).
That is probably a forged epistle j1 but • this would seem to
imply that it was not an unusual or strange thing in the
apostle to write an epistle, whereas if those which are extant
are all that he composed, this was only the second epistle
which he wrote. And the same epistle is concluded with the
following words : " The salutation of Paul with mine own hand,
which is the token of every epistle : so I write " (2 Thess. iii.
1 7). But Paul, if we have all his writings, had only written
one epistle before. Much stress, however, cannot be laid on
this, as the words may only express the rule which would
guide the apostle in all his future epistles. And in regard to
all the above passages, it may be again observed that they
deserve notice rather as harmonizing with the hypothesis sup
ported otherwise, that Paul's writings were more numerous
than those with which we are acquainted, than affording
independent evidence of the existence of particular writings.
It would thus appear that the question, whether these
thirteen or fourteen extant epistles of Paul are all that he
ever wrote, must be answered in the negative. And the
Church has to deplore the loss of two, possibly of several,
epistles of the great apostle, — works which have perished in
the first ages of the Church, and of which now hardly any
traces remain. It is admitted that none of the Fathers quote
either from the lost epistle to the Corinthians or from that to
the Laodiceans, or indeed perhaps from any epistle of Paul not
found in the canon. Polycarp, indeed, writing to the Philip
pians, says that Paul, when absent, wrote epistles to them (o?
xai a-Kwv vfdv eypaijrev eirMrroXds), as if there were more than
one ;2 and Bleek and others think that it may be inferred from
Phil. iii. 1, that Paul had written a previous letter to the
Philippians which is now lost. But this remark of Polycarp
cannot be considered as of great importance. The apostolic
1 This appears to be the meaning of the expression, S. inirroXiis us h' fi/i£*.
See Ellicott, in loco.
2 Polycarp, ad Philippens, c. 3. The word Wierixm is, however, often used to
signify only one epistle.

36 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Fathers seldom quote from Scripture, and if any of Paul's
epistles are lost, they must have perished at an early period ;
for had they been preserved for any length of time, they would
doubtless have been transmitted to us from the reverence of
the early Christians for the writings of the apostles.
But the question still occurs, How has it come to pass that
these two epistles in particular are lost ? Two epistles to the
Corinthians have come down to us ; and if there was another,
is it not reasonable to expect that it also would have been
preserved ? And the argument that the epistle to the Laodi
ceans, if ever existing, would have been preserved, is even
stronger. Paul enjoined it to be read not only in the Church
of Laodicea, but in the Church of Colosse, so that one would
think we have a guarantee for its preservation. And in the'
earliest of his extant epistles, he gives the solemn injunction
that his letter should be publicly read : " I charge you by the
Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren"
(1 Thess. v. 27). The preservation of thirteen of Paul's
epistles, the value which the apostle himself puts upon his
writings as containing a revelation from God, and the reverence
with which the early Church regarded them as sacred books,
no doubt might lead to the expectation that none of them
would be lost. And it must be admitted that these circum
stances are not without weight. There is a certain improba
bility that an inspired book should be lost j1 but such pre
sumptions do not overcome the positive evidence that at least
two epistles are wanting. Perhaps the reverence for the
apostolic writings among the early Christians was of gradual
growth, and hence it might happen that Paul's first epistles
were not preserved. Or it may be that the fact of his inspired
discourses being of equal value tended to cause the early
Christians to overlook the value of his inspired writings for
future generations. Inspiration was not then a very rare gift,
and there was then no reason to suppose that it would fail in
the Church.
The thirteen or fourteen genuine epistles of Paul are all
1 Note here the distinction between inspiration and communication. A book
may have been inspired, and yet not designed by God to be transmitted to the
universal Church.

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 37
that God in His providence considered requisite for the edi
fication of the Church. We have in them, and in the other
sacred writings, a sufficient rule for our belief and practice.
What is lost, for example, of the words of Jesus, or of the
writings of Paul, was indeed equally precious as what remains,
but was not essentially necessary. In such an important
matter as revelation, God would doubtless, by His superin
tending providence, preserve those inspired writings which
were designed for our guidance, whilst He allowed other in
spired documents to drop into oblivion. The early period at
which these epistles of Paul must have been lost, entirely
forbids the supposition that they will ever be discovered ; but
whilst it may be matter of regret that such writings should
have disappeared, it ought to be a subject for thankfulness
that so many of the epistles of the> great apostle have been
preserved.

IH. STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES.1
It is a common remark that the works of an author on
religious or moral subjects, if written with a practical purpose,
are a reflex of his character, and bear the impress of his in
dividuality. Whether this assertion will always hold true
may well be questioned, but undoubtedly it is true in the case
of the Apostle Paul ; no writings more certainly reveal their
author. There is an artless candour, a transparency about
them, that at once convinces us that the sentiments -expressed
spring from his inward disposition. Paul writes " out of the
abundance of his heart." We see before us the same Paul
whose actions are recorded and character depicted in the
history of the apostles. The moral earnestness which con
strained him to devote his life to the diffusion of Christianity,
is impressed upon every page of his epistles. The love which
caused him to . spend and be spent in promoting the spiritual
1 See Macknight's preliminary essay, Ofthe Apostle Paul's Style and Manner of
Writing ; Dr. Davidson on the "Style of the Apostle Paul," Introduction to
If. T. vol. ii. pp. 144-156 (old edition) ; Olshausen and Tholuck's Introduc
tions to the Epistle to the Romans; Michaelis' Introduction, vol. i. pp. 149-159.

3"8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
welfare of others, is written in golden characters in the
thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. The tenderness dis
played in his farewell address to the Ephesian elders, is ex
hibited in his affectionate interest for his converts, and
especially in his loving exhortations and rebukes to the erring
Galatians and Corinthians. The liberality with which, in
the council of Jerusalem, he advocated the freedom of the
Gentiles,, is manifest in his Epistles to the Corinthians and
Galatians, in his discussions on eating things offered to idols,
and in his contentions with the Judaizing teachers. And the
courtesy which he exhibited toward Agrippa and Festus, is
conspicuous in his Epistle to Philemon. The Paul of the
Acts is the Paul of the Epistles.
One peculiarity of Paul's style is its argumentative cha
racter. This is especially seen in his earlier epistles, above
all in the Eomans and Galatians. The apostle addresses
himself not only to the affections, but even still more to the
reason. He 'appeals to our judgment; he argues; he estab
lishes propositions; he starts objections in order to refute
them ; he draws inferences ; he aims at our convictions ; and
he fortifies his statements by proofs drawn from the Scriptures
of the Old Testament. He is by far the most argumentative
of the sacred writers ; so much so, that on this point he almost
stands alone. The other writers address the conscience;
Paul appeals to our intellectual nature. " I speak," says he,
"unto wise men; judge ye what I say" (1 Cor. x. 15).
Hence it is that his epistles abound with logical particles, such
as yap, ov'v, oti, 6Vg)?, and Xv a ; or with inferential phrases ;
or he makes use of participles instead of inferential conjunc
tions ; and sometimes he formally states the conclusion arrived
at (Xoyi,&fie6a ovv, Eom. iii. 28).1 At the same time, it must
be admitted that the reasoning of the apostle is not precisely
that to which we are accustomed, and is not to be strictly
judged by the rules of modern logicians. Paul was an
Oriental, educated in the rabbinical schools. The method
which he generaUy employs is first to prove his subject, then
! See, on the argumentative character of Paul's style, Davidson's Intr oduction
(old edition), vol. ii. pp. 145, 146, and Tholuck's Introduction to the Epistle to
the Romans.

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 39
to take into account the objections to it, which he frequently
does in the form of question and answer; and sometimes his
answers to the objections are expressed as interrogative re
joinders (Eom. iii. 1-10, vi. 1, 2, 15, 16, ix. 19-21). All
this occasions a certain degree of obscurity to us, who are
accustomed to the syllogistic form of reasoning.
Perhaps, however, the chief characteristic in the style of
the apostle is its fervour. It bears the impress of moral
earnestness. His thoughts crowd upon him faster than fitting
words can be found to express them ; and his fervour creates
a certain impatience, which leads him to break off abruptly
what he has on hand, in order to express at once the thought
which at the moment struck him. His style is removed as
far as possible from monotony or cold correctness, and is on
the contrary abrupt, rugged, and vehement. Well might the
Corinthians say, " His letters are weighty and powerful "
(2 Cor. x. 10). "When I read Paul," says Jerome, "I seem
to hear not words, but thunder-peals." x Hence his epistles
abound with strong expressions, with an accumulation of
superlatives : as, for example, when he speaks of himself as
" less than the least (eXa'^icTTOTepo'f) of all saints ; " and when
he describes afflictions as working out for believers "a far
more exceeding (jcad' imepfSoXrjv eh virep^oX^v), even an eternal
weight of glory." Hence also his frequent use of compounds
with virep, in order to strengthen his words and render them
emphatic. No writer in the New Testament deals so much
in climax ; and one of his great masterpieces; the eighth
chapter of the Eomans, may be described as one unbroken
chain of fervent eloquence, rising gradually from note to note,
beginning with the announcement of the sinner's forgiveness,
and closing with the grand climax in which the apostle
challenges all creation to separate the believer from the love
of Christ. This fervour and, so to speak, impetuosity of spirit gives
rise to those numerous digressions or parenthetic clauses which
are found in Paul's writings, — a peculiar kind of digression
which has been not inappropriately termed " going off at a
1 Paulum proferam, quern quotiescunque lego, videor mihi non verba audire
sed tonitrua. — Ep. 48, ad Pammachiam.

40 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
word." Paley thus alludes to it : " There is another singu
larity in Paul's style, which, wherever it is found, may be
deemed a badge of authenticity ; because, if it were noticed, it
would not, I think, be imitated, inasmuch as it almost always
produces embarrassment and interruption in the reasoning.
This singularity is a species of digression which may properly,
I think, be denominated going off at a word. It is turning
aside from the subject upon the occurrence of some particular,
word, forsaking the train of thought then in hand, and enter
ing upon a parenthetic sentence, in which .that word is the
prevailing term."1 Mirny instances of such digressions are
to be found in the epistles. But digressions are not merely
occasioned by peculiar words, but still more so by new
thoughts suggested at the time the apostle was writing. He
suddenly breaks off his train of thought, and inserts in a
parenthetic clause the new idea suggested, and then without
any notice returns to his original subject. Thus it sometimes
happens that his writing appears to be a series of parentheses
or relative clauses, and his sentences become somewhat long
and involved. So also there is often a long train of ideas,
the one suggesting the other, without any break in the sentence.
This characteristic, which is seen in all his epistles, is espe
cially noticeable in the Epistle to the Ephesians. Eph. i.
3-14, for example, is but one sentence, containing a series of
thoughts ; whereas, in an ordinary writer, it would have been
broken up into several clauses.2
From this arises a considerable obscurity of style. It is
ofteri difficult to trace the connection of the apostle's ideas,
and to observe where the parenthetic clause terminates and
there is a return to the subject on hand. Hence, also, in
terruptions occur in his reasoning, so that it is difficult to
follow his line of argument. The obscurity of Paul's writings
is adverted to by Peter in his second epistle, when he says that
in them " there are things hard to be understood" (Sv<rv6r)Ta,
2 Pet. iii. 16). No doubt there are other causes of obscurity,
1 Paley's __..<_ Paulines, chap. vi. N. iii. The instances which Paley gives
are : 2 Cor. ii. 14-16, iii. 1-3, iii. 12-16 ; Eph. iv. 8-11, v. 12-15. The number
of examples might be increased.
2 See also Rom. i. 1-7 ; Eph. iii. 2-12 ; 2 Thess. i. 3-10.

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 41
altogether independent of style. One of these is our ignorance
of the circumstances under which the epistles were composed.
Allusions obvious to those to whom the epistles were written,
are unintelligible to us (2 Thess. ii. 5 ; 1 Cor. i. 12 ; 2 Cor.
xii. 7) ; and circumstances are adverted to of which we are
ignorant. Besides, the apostle had necessarily an immense
difficulty in selecting words to express his ideas. These ideas
were often foreign to the Greek mind, and hence there were
no adequate terms for them. He was therefore obliged to
attach a new meaning to words, or at least to give them a
signification which hardly belonged to them, and which signi
fication is discernible only from the context.1 But, notwith
standing all these allowances, it must be acknowledged that
there is a considerable obscurity in the apostle's style, — a
want of perspicuity, — occasioned chiefly by the fervour of his
temperament. Hence, in reading his epistles, constant atten
tion, amounting to a strain on the mind, is required.
Another cause of obscurity, arising partly from the nature
of the subjects on which he wrote, and partly from his tem
perament, is the apostle's depth or profundity of thought. Paul
wrote on subjects on which it was hardly possible to be clear,
because their full comprehension is beyond our mental powers.
Such are the dispensations of God to man, the decrees of God,
the mysteries connected with election, the origin of moral evil,
and the freedom of the human will : all which are certainly
among the things in Paul's writings which are Bvo-vor)ra —
" hard to be understood." And not only in those epistles
which are peculiarly doctrinal, as the Galatians and Eomans,
but even still more in the later epistles, as the Ephesians
and Colossians, where the dogmatic element is less apparent,
there is a depth of meaning which it is extremely difficult
to fathom.2Another obvious characteristic of Paul's style is its refine-
1 As, for example, iixxios, vrio-ns, %*i>is, ouT-nfia., -_/)§, vvsuf&u, oixeiopeTv, di_/3o. as,
i!>ay,yixi%t<rfai, ixxXniria, Xfurris. See Cremer's Biblisch-Theologisches Worter
buch der Neutestamentlichen Gracitat, a translation of which has been published
by T. & T. Clark. Since the translation was made, there is a second German
edition. 2 An extreme instance of obscurity is seen in Gal. iii. 20, to which, according
to Meyer, 430 different meanings have been assigned.

42 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
ment. The courtesy and tenderness of the apostle are dis
tinctly impressed upon his writings. Thus, in censuring his
converts, he does so with extreme reluctance : he softens his
rebukes, he makes every allowance for them, he yearns over
them as a father over his prodigal children ; and he who stood
undaunted before kings and rulers, writes to his erring dis
ciples with many tears (2 Cor. ii. 4; Phil. iii. 18). The
same refinement is visible in the self-commendations forced on
him by the unjust aspersions of his enemies. He often in
terrupts the train of thought by such expressions as, " I speak
as a fool ; " " ye have compelled me ; " and in describing the
visions which were vouchsafed to him, he speaks in the third
person, "I knew a man in Christ." And in alluding to
shameful vices and sins, which ought not to be even named
among Christians, but were practised by the heathen without
shame, he does so with a refined delicacy and a modest
reserve.1 Another feature in Paul's style, adverted to by critics, is
what is termed paronomasia. It has been remarked that there
is a frequent play upon words, or a choice of words from a
similarity of sound, — a feature which is often lost in transla
tion, from the impossibility of retaining these paronomasice?
This imparts a liveliness and a terseness to the apostle's
writings. Perhaps too much has been made of this peculi
arity ; but still, ariy one who reads the Pauline epistles in the
original with attention may see traces of it.s
Another characteristic of Paul's writings is his frequent
citation of the Old Testament. The references to the Old
Testament in the sacred writings — as, for example, in the
epistles of Peter and James — are perhaps as numerous as in
the Pauline epistles ; but, with the exception of the evange
list Matthew, no writer directly quotes so often as Paul from
the sacred books of the Jews. In the Epistle to the Eomans,
for example, there are said to be fifty-three direct quotations.
' For examples, see 1 Cor. v. 1, 2, vii. 1-7 ; 2 Cor. vii. 11 ; 1 Thess. iv. 6.
* But also sometimes illegitimately inserted, as : Be not conformed (. -5x»,__-
TiZurh) to this world ; but be ye transformed {fiircc/iofipimah) by the renewing of
your mind (Rom. xii. 2).
3 For examples of paronomasice, see Rom. i. 20, v. 19 ; 1 Cor. vii. 31 • 2 Cor.
iv. 8, v. 4 ; Phil. iii. 2, 3 ; 2 Thess. iii. 11 ; 2 Tim. iii. 4 ; Philem. 11.'

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 43
This is a proof not only that the apostle was thoroughly
acquainted with the Old Testament, but that he had a great
aptness in its application :J perhaps the result of his training
in the rabbinical school of Gamaliel. It is also to be observed
that, when writing to those churches which we know from
other grounds to have been chiefly composed of Gentile con
verts, there are no quotations from the Old Testament, — as, for
example, in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and Philippians,
— an incidental proof of the genuineness of these epistles.
The quotations themselves are generally taken from the Sep
tuagint. Paul was doubtless well acquainted with the Hebrew'
Scriptures, and could read them freely ; but he was a Hellenist,
whose native language was Greek, and therefore it was the
Septuagint which he usually employed, — in the. same manner
as an English theologian, though well acquainted with his
Greek Testament, in general quotes from the Anglican version.2
Paul's Greek is certainly not pure or classical. There are
many anacolutha, or false constructions, in his writings. This
arose chiefly from the insertion of parenthetic clauses. When
he returns to his original topic, the syntactical connection is
often overlooked, and the sentence is continued by a different
construction. Perhaps this may be also partially due to the
fact that Paul dictated his epistles. These anacolutha do not
exhibit a want of knowledge of Greek, for other portions of
the epistles prove Paul's mastery of the language, but only a
certain carelessness of style. The absorption of his thought in
the object caused him to overlook linguistic niceties. He was
evidently a rapid composer, and did not aim at purity of
style. There are also sufficient Hebraisms to prove that the
epistles are the writings of a Jew ; yet these are not so
numerous as in some other of the writers of the New Testa
ment, and are nearly all taken from the Septuagint. Some
critics put too much importance on this Hebraistic element,
and often regard certain expressions as Hebraistic which are
1 Compare the character given to Apollos, iumris i> reus yfa.ipa.1s.
2 See Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 401-416 ; essay " On the Quota
tions from the Old Testament in the Writings of St. Paul. " See also remarks on
Paul's quotations from the Old Testament in Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp.
310 ff.

44 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
pure Greek, and thus destroy the beauty and force of the
expression. Jerome asserts that there are also Cilicisms in
the epistles.1 Paul was a native of Tarsus in Cilicia ; and
although Greek was the native language of Cilicia, yet we
may reasonably conclude that it was not free from provin
cialisms. Jerome accordingly remarks that several provincial
terms are to be found in the Pauline epistles, and that these
idioms were used in Cilicia even in his own age. He gives as
examples, viro dvOpairwrj^ rjiiepas (1 Cor. iv. 3), ov KaTevapK-qaa
ifiwv (2 Cor. xii. 13), and jivBeh fyi.? KaTe^pa^eveTm (Col.
ii 18). Whether, however, he has proved his point has been
questioned by scholars ; and, indeed, from our ignorance of
what are proper Cilicisms, it must remain always doubtfuL
Notwithstanding the occasional obscurity in Paul's style,
yet his vigour and fervour, — his intellectual grasp of the
subject, — rank him high among eloquent writers. Longinus
ranks Paul of Tarsus with Demosthenes, Isocrates, and the
first orators of ancient times.8 And certainly there are speci
mens in Paul's speeches and writings, which, viewed merely
as pieces of oratory, will bear a comparison with the writings
of the most celebrated rhetoricians of antiquity.4 In the Acts
of the Apostles we have examples of his speeches : his oration
to the Athenians on Mars' hill, his farewell address to the
Ephesian elders, and his apology before Festus and Agrippa,
are specimens of true oratory. And in his epistles there are
passages which can scarcely be equalled by the finest writers
of antiquity. For example, the description of the Christian
life and hopes in the eighth chapter of the Eomans, the
1 Quatestiones ad Algasiam, 10.
2 See Michaelis' Introduction to If. T., translated by Marsh, vol. i. p. 151,
" Of the Cilicisms discovered in the Writings of St. Paul."
3 Longinus, Frag. I. The genuineness of this fragment has been questioned,
but is defended by Hug and other eminent critics.
4 "When," observes Beza, " I more narrowly consider the whole genius and
character of Paul's style, I must confess that I have found no such sublimity of
speaking in Plato himself, as often as the apostle is pleased to thunder out the
mysteries of God ; no exquisiteness of vehemence in Demosthenes equal to his,
as often as he had _ mind either to terrify men with a dread of the divine
judgments, or to admonish them concerning their conduct, or to allure them to
the contemplation of the divine benignity, or to excite them to the duties of
piety and morality."

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 45
masterly personification of charity in the thirteenth chapter
of First Corinthians, the statement of the doctrine of the re
surrection in the fifteenth chapter of the same epistle, and
his apology of himself in the twelfth chapter of Second Corin
thians ; all these are passages distinguished alike for sublimity
of sentiment and beauty of diction. Besides these larger
portions, there are numerous other smaller pieces of exquisite
beauty, which prove that the apostle was a master of elo
quence ; as, for example, when he asserts that believers shall
be transformed by the contemplation of Christ, in the following
terms : " We all, with unveiled face beholding in a mirror the
glory of the Lord, are being transfigured into the same image,
from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit " (2 Cor.
iii. 18) ; and when he thus describes the nature of the raised
bodies of believers : " Who shall change the body of our
humiliation, that it may be fashioned into the body of His
glory, according to the working of His power, whereby He is
able even to subdue all things unto Himself" (Phil, iii; 21).
Whilst such is the general style of the apostle, — argumen
tative, fervent, vigorous, refined, yet somewhat obscure, — we
find at the same time that he suits himself to those to whom
he writes, and so adapts his style to their various peculiarities.
Thus there are specialities in the different epistles ; each is
distinguished by its own style and diction. For example,
the Epistles to the Eomans and Galatians are dogmatic, and
the Epistle to the Galatians in particular is likewise pole
mical. In the two Epistles to the Corinthians, tender ex
postulation is the predominant element; the apostle mourns
over his erring converts, and seeks to restore them in the
spirit of love. In the Epistle to the Philippians we see
more of the inner sympathy of the apostle than in any of his
other epistles ; he is evidently writing to his favourite church.
In the Epistles to the Thessalonians the same spirit of love is
seen combined with anxiety about the spiritual welfare of his
converts. In the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians,
the subjective phase of Christianity is displayed. In the
Epistle to Philemon, we notice especially the courtesy of the
apostle. And in the Pastoral Epistles there is greater par
ticularity than in the other epistles ; they are official letters

46 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
relating to the duties of the office-bearers of the Church.
But still in all, the peculiar characteristics of Paul's style are
more or less discernible.
Besides, there is in Paul's epistles a certain uniformity in
order and method, which distinguishes them from the other
sacred writings.1 After saluting the particular church by
name, and invoking grace and peace from God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ,2 the apostle first renders thanks to
God for what good is in the Church, and for what God has
wrought for it, — the Danksagung of the epistle, as the Germans
express it.3 He then enters upon the main topic — the de
sign of his writing ; and this main portion is generally divided
into two parts, the first doctrinal, and the second practical.
The conclusion is occupied with salutations, informations, and
directions ; and the epistle closes as it commenced, with in
voking the blessing of God : " The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ be with you all." 4
There are other minor peculiarities. In nearly all the
epistles to the churches, the apostle associates others with
himself in the salutation ; the only exception to this being
the Epistles to the Eomans and the Ephesians. Though this
is the case, yet it is undoubted that the sentiments are those
of the apostle only, and not the conjoint expressions of him
self and those associated with him. Paul also appears to
have dictated his epistles. Thus one Tertius was the amanu
ensis employed in writing the Epistle to the Eomans (Eom.
xvi. 22).5 To this the Epistle to the Galatians is an excep
tion, for the apostle informs us that he himself wrote it (Gal.
1 On this point see Ewald's Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus, pp. 5-11 ; and
Reuss' Geschichte der heil. Sch. N.T., p. 64.
2 The apostle commences all his epistles with invoking grace and peace for his
converts. In the pastoral epistles, however, it is grace, mercy, and peace. In
Tit. i. 4 the reading is doubtful.
8 This is omitted in the Epistle to the Galatians.
4 We find a similar salutation, containing the word grace, at the close of all
the Pauline epistles. Bishop Wordsworth supposes that this is the token which
Paul attached to every epistle ; and he derives from this a proof of the Pauline
origin of the Hebrews.
5 Ewald supposes that Timothy was the chief amanuensis whom Paul em
ployed, and that this is the reason why he is so often conjoined with him in
the epistles.

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 47
vi. ll).1 Paul authenticated the epistles by writing the con
cluding salutation : " The salutation of Paul with mine own
hand, which is the token in every epistle : so I write. The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."
(2 Thess. iii. 17, 18.)
Lists of Pauline words and phrases have been given by
several critics.2 Too much stress ought not to be laid on
them; as, although every writer may have a few favourite
expressions, yet these alter as a man advances in hfe. And
therefore to argue that an epistle is not genuine, because
it is destitute of Pauline words and phrases, — even although
that should be proved, — appears to be precarious reasoning.
In judging of the matter of Paul's epistles, we must always
bear in mind their epistolary nature. None of them are
treatises on Christianity; even the Epistle to the Eomans
must not be considered as a dissertation : they are all letters
addressed to particular churches or individuals, often in answer
to other letters received by the apostle. There is not in them
the method which belongs to a treatise, but the freedom which
is characteristic of epistolary composition. The statements
of doctrine arise from the nature of the circumstances under
which the apostle wrote. For example, the opposition of the
Judaizing teachers among the Galatians caused him to assert
the doctrine of justification in his epistle to that Church ;
the errors of certain teachers, allied to those who afterwards
appeared as Gnostics, called forth the statements concerning
the nature of Christ in the Epistle to the Colossians ; and the
denial of the resurrection among the Corinthians (1 Cor. xv.
1 2) was the cause of the sublime exposition of this doctrine
in the first epistle to that Church.
It is an interesting question whether there is any difference
in matter between Paul's earlier and later epistles ? This has
been variously regarded by different writers, according to their
preconceived views of the nature and extent of inspiration.
1 Others suppose that the Epistle to the Galatians is not an exception, and
that Gal. vi. 11 only refers to the concluding portion of the epistle. See Pro
fessor Lightfoot's Commentary, in loco.
2 For a list of Pauline words and phrases, see Davidson's Introduction (old
edition), vol. ii. pp. 155, 156 ; De Wette's Einleitung, p. 270.

48 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
When we compare the earlier epistles, especially Eomans, 1st
and 2d Corinthians, and Galatians, with the " epistles of the
captivity," — namely, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians,
— we think that we can discern a certain difference. The
earlier epistles are more controversial, more directly opposed
to the doctrine of false teachers, more pbjective, so to speak,-
than the epistles of the captivity.1 Perhaps this difference
may be accounted for by the change of circumstances under
which the earlier and later epistles were written. The " earlier
epistles " were written when Paul was in the full bustle of
the world, engaged in his missionary journeys. The " epistles
of the captivity" were composed in retirement, when he was
Paul the aged, withdrawn from the world, and confined as a
prisoner at Eome. In the later epistles also the apostle dwells
more upon Christ's nature, His divinity, His creation of the
world, His pre-eminence above all creatures, His being in the
form of God, His glorious exaltation (Eph. i. 20-23, iii. 9 ; Phil.
ii. 6-11 ; Col. ii. 9, 10). There is, however, not the slightest
indication of any change in Paul's opinions ; it is the same
gospel, indeed the same Pauline phase of Christianity, that
appears in all his epistles. Some suppose that Paul altered
his views concerning the second coming of Christ : that in his
earlier epistles he expressed his belief that he and the majo
rity of those whom he was addressing might be alive at . the
time of the Lord's advent (1 Thess. iv. ; 1 Cor. xv.), but that
in his later epistles he renounced this hope, and expressed his
willingness to depart (Phil. i. 23).2 The full consideration of
this opinion is reserved to another portion of this work ;3 but
meantime it need only be remarked that it seems a ground
less hypothesis, unwarranted by the words of the apostle.
But another question arises : Allowing that there is a differ
ence in matter between the earlier and the later epistles, can
we trace in that difference a development of the apostle's
teaching ? Are his views of Christianity more enlarged, more
1 Were it not for certain expressions in the Epistle to the Romans, especially
in the eighth chapter, we would be inclined to say that the " epistles of the
captivity " were more spintaaZ—related more in the inner life— more Johannean,
so to speak, than the ' ' earlier epistles. "
2 Olshausen Ore the Romans, p. 11 ; Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 527.
3 See special introduction to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 49
symmetrical, more complete, in the later epistles ? It can
hardly be affirmed that this question is at once to be dis
missed and answered in the negative, as being incompatible
with the inspiration of the apostle. Inspiration does not
necessarily exclude development. For all that we know,
revelation might be progressive in the minds of the apostles,
just as it was in the Church generally — Christianity itself
being but a development of Judaism. The inspired apostles
might grow in religious knowledge, as they undoubtedly did
in holiness. Higher revelations might from time to time be
vouchsafed to them. Nay, we find that in one remarkable
instance this was actually the case. Even after the outpour
ing of the Spirit at Pentecost, and after the minds of the
apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost, their views con
cerning the relation of the Gentiles to Judaism were obscure,
and it required a new revelation to convince Peter that the
Gentiles could be admitted into the Christian Church without
circumcision. But although there seems nothing in the idea
of a progressive revelation inconsistent with inspiration, yet
we have completely failed to trace any such development in
the writings of Paul.1 His earlier epistles are as full as his
later ; nay, if it were asked which was the most developed of
Paul's epistles, the answer would probably be, the Epistle to
the Eomans. Although Paul may dwell more in his later
epistles on the exalted nature of Christ, yet the same senti
ments are expressed in outline in his earlier writings.2
It is also to be observed, that not only is the style of Paul
different from that of the other sacred writers, but there is
also a peculiarity in the views which he takes of divine truth :
there is a Pauline phase of Christianity. Although all the
sacred writers were inspired by the same Spirit, and wrote the
same divine truths, none of them being at variance with or
contradicting another, so that the whole of their writings may
be considered as the product of the divine mind ; yet we
1 This against Usteri's view of the development of Paul's doctrine — Entwicke-
lung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffes.
2 There is here no development, as if Paul's views of the nature of Christ be
came more enlarged ; but in the later epistles he was induced to dwell upon this
subject from the circumstances of the churches to which he wrote, which only
then gave occasion for a written exposition of these views.
D

50 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
must not suppose that the faculties of the sacred writers were
entirely superseded, so that they lost all voluntary agency,
and were converted into mere machines — the amanuenses,
so to speak, of the Holy Ghost. Such a mechanical view of
inspiration has no foundation in the sacred writings them
selves, is contradicted by their contents, and opposed to the
free agency of man. We find, on examination, that each
writer preserves his own style and mental qualities ; and
although all exhibit one gospel, yet e'ach presents a peculiar
phase of Christianity. Thus, in the four Gospels, Matthew
gives us the life of Jesus as the Messiah of the Jews, the
prophet like unto Moses ; Mark describes Him as the Son of
God, authenticating His mission by the working of miracles ;
Luke, as the Saviour of the human race, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles; and John, as the eternal Logos,
dwelling chiefly upon His internal life. So also the writers of
the Epistles differ from each other in their representation of
Christian doctrine. There are especially three distinct phases
of Christianity — the Pauline, the Johannean, and the Jaco
bean.1 Paul is the apostle of faith, John of love, and James
of works. The grand peculiar doctrine of Paul is justification
by faith ; of John, spiritual union with Christ ; and of James,
the necessity of practical religion. " To disown these phases,"
observes Nitzsch, "in favour of a one-sided dogmatism, is to
abandon that completeness and solidity which these modes of
contemplating the Christian faith impart, while they recipro
cally complete one another ; it is to slight that by which
Scripture truth maintains its elevation above all conflicting
systems." 2
The two most important and distinct phases of Christianity
are the Pauline and the Johannean. Although Paul and John,
inspired by the same Spirit, announce the same glorious truths,
yet they express themselves each according to his peculiar
gifts and character. John presents the subjective, and Paul the
objective phase of Christianity. Contemplation is the peculiar
1 Stftne writers also distinguish a Petrine phase of Christianity, and regard
Peter as the apostle of hope, whose peculiar doctrine is a future life ; but the
Petrine phase is not so distinctly marked as the other three.
2 Quoted in Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 414.

STYLE AND MATTER OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 51
feature of John's character : he discourses entirely on the
spiritual aspect of Christianity ; he addresses himself to the
affections. Paul, on the other hand, though not devoid of a
contemplative nature, appeals' chiefly to the intellect.1 John
dwells on what is revealed to us of God and Christ — he dis
closes the heart of God ; Paul on what is revealed of the
divine dealings to the human race — he makes known to us
the way of salvation. The abuse of the one system is mysti
cism ; the abuse of the other is rationalism. John is in a
peculiar sense the apostle of Eastern, and Paul of Western
Christianity. " As the grain of corn," observes Olshausen,
" though one, opens itself into two halves on the unfolding of
the grain, or as the magnet from a middle point discharges at
the same time a positive and a negative power ; so the two
chief tendencies of the Church — the Eastern and the Western
— which mutually complete each other, are represented in the
earlier ages by the great apostles, John and Paul." 2
No one can attentively read the Epistle to the Eomans
without discerning that Paul has formed a well-developed
system of theology. He proceeds in this epistle, step by step,
to unfold the principles of Christianity. "Paul," observes
Olshausen, "is the author of a precisely defined doctrinal
language, and the founder of theology, as a science, in the
Church of Christ. In him is represented the necessity of
science for the Church, even in the very narrow circle of those
on whom the Holy Spirit was first poured forth." 3 Paul is
not merely by his moral earnestness and missionary labours
the Luther, but also by his theology, as disclosed in his
writings, the Calvin of the primitive Church. He combines
in himself, in a much higher degree than either, the qualities
of these two great leaders of the Eeformation, without their
faults ; he unites the characters of the devoted missionary and
the profound theologian ; and whilst we admire and value his
unparalleled labours for the cause of Christ, we owe still more
1 As the Germans would express it, Vernunft was the organ of John, and
Verstand that of Paul.
2 Olshausen, An die Romer, p. 13, and p. 10 in the excellent translation of that
commentary. According to others, Petrinism is the Church of the middle ages,
Paulinism the Protestant Church, and Johanneanism the Church of the future.
3 Olshausen Ore the Romans, p. 9.

52 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
to those writings which he has left as the inheritance of the
Church.

IV. INTERPRETATION OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
The interpretation of the Pauline epistles is a subject of
great consequence and peculiar interest. It is impossible to
over-estimate the importance of these writings, or the neces
sity of exercising great care in their interpretation. They
form the most important record of the doctrines of Christianity,
and a very considerable part of divine revelation, constituting
nearly one-half of the books of the New Testament. Nor is
their interpretation so simple a task as might at first sight
appear. We have to contend not only with the difficulties
proper to the author,-r-the peculiar Greek dialect, of which there
are elsewhere few remains, — the style, though masculine and
powerful, yet somewhat involved and obscure, — and the matter
often profound and difficult of apprehension ; but we have also
to take into account the element of inspiration which dis
tinguishes the sacred writings from all other books, and it is
an inquiry of considerable difficulty how far this element
affects or modifies the ordinary rules of interpretation. Ac
cordingly, in point of fact, very different ideas of interpretation
have been adopted in the Christian Church ; and, probably as
a consequence, the most opposite opinions in theology claim
support from the epistles of Paul.
It is evident that, whatever modification may be necessi
tated by the element of inspiration, the ordinary methods of
interpretation must be applied in the first instance. A
book written in a dead language is handed down to us from a
remote period, and we have to endeavour to ascertain its true
meaning. First of all, it is necessary to obtain a pure and
authentic text, so far as that is possible ; and for that purpose
we must examine manuscripts, versions, quotations, and apply
in that examination just the same tests as we would were we
determining the text of Homer or Sophocles. The next task
is to obtain the true sense of the words, and to attend to the
true force of the construction ; and the more minutely we do

INTERPRETATION OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 53
so, the more accurate will be our translation. In this work
of translation, we must pay special attention to the niceties of
the peculiar dialect of the New Testament, and the diver
gencies of meaning which words may have undergone. Here,
also, we must make use of everything that can throw light
on Paul's epistles, such as the topography of the places men
tioned, the history of the times, and the manners and customs
of the age and of the different nations referred to. And we
must interpret contextually, not regarding the statements of
the apostle as mere abstract declarations, nor resting any
argument on detached expressions, but looking narrowly at the
context, and thus endeavouring to give to the precepts and
doctrines of Paul's epistles their true and full significance.
We must also interpret Paul in consistency with himself ;
that is, we must not make him say one thing in one part
of his writings, and another thing in another. This is a
general canon of criticism which applies to all works. It is,
of course, not in general to be affirmed without qualification,
for there is nothing unusual in an author holding and express
ing different opinions at different times, while some develop
ment or modification of view is inevitable ; but there is a
certain consistency in a writer of any mark, which ought as
much as possible to be recognised and respected. Thus, in a
passage of doubtful interpretation, we rightly give a preference
to that meaning which is in harmony with the views of the
writer elsewhere expressed. But this rule is especially appli
cable to the writings of Paul ; because, as. we shall afterwards
see, inspiration at once supposes and guarantees consistency,
and prevents the writer from contradicting himself. There
fore, if a difficulty occur in any passage ; if, when grammatically
rendered, it seem to admit of more than one meaning ; and if
the context throw no light on it, that meaning is to be pre
ferred which is in correspondence with Paul's usual mode of
thought. Not that by this is meant that we must first form
a general conception of the Pauline phase of Christianity, and
then bring Paul's writings into harmony with it, but merely
that in doubtful passages the consistency of the apostle should
be preserved. What is true of the apostle's sentiments is also.
true of his words — the usus scribendi of the writer. Words

54 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
and phrases which admit of a certain variety in meaning, and
which, from the particular passages in which they occur, are
of somewhat doubtful import, are to be taken in that sense in
which the apostle elsewhere employs them.
One great requisite for the interpretation of Paul's epistles
is candour. From various causes, and especially from sec
tarian bias, we are liable to err in this particular ; and, indeed,
it is difficult for one who has adopted a peculiar creed to come
to the study of biblical interpretation without prepossession.
Still it is evidently the duty of the true interpreter not to
come with a preconceived creed, and to force Paul into an
agreement with it, softening what is harsh, modifying what
seems to be opposed, and giving unnatural meanings in order
to get rid of difficulties. But he must reverse the process,
and come to the study of Scripture with an unprejudiced
mind and a susceptible heart, and derive his creed directly
from it ; to find out without prepossession Paul's opinions
from his own writings : not to assert dogmatically that such
must be the meaning of Paul, because such is the doctrine
we believe ; but the reverse, such is the doctrine we believe,
because such is the obvious meaning of Paul. Not what we
think should be meant, but what the apostle really means,
ought to be the object of inquiry. " We must not," says
Luther, " make God's word mean what we wish : we must
not bend it, but allow it to bend us, and give it the honour
of being better than we can make it, so that we must let it
stand." This evident rule has often been violated by sec
tarian efforts. A Unitarian will force Paul to teach TJni-
tarianism, a Eomanist Eomanism, a Lutheran Lutheranism,
a Calvinist Calvinism, an Arminian Arminianism, and an
Anglican Anglicanism, Each one comes with his rule, and
squares Paul's writings so as to harmonize with it ; explains
away what is apparently opposed, and magnifies what is
apparently in agreement; often indeed unconsciously, but
frequently also with an evident purpose.
It is especially necessary for the student of Paul's epistles
to sympathize with and endeavour to put himself in the place
of those whom the apostle addresses. The writings of Paul
are letters to certain churches, written with an evident design

INTERPRETATION OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 55
of being understood by them, whatever ulterior design the
Spirit of God may have intended in their composition.1 We
must therefore, by a combined act of the imagination and
judgment, put ourselves into the state of those to whom the
epistles were first written ; we must try and realize their
circumstances, feel their wants and difficulties, picture to our
selves their internal and external condition, and examine
especially those occurrences which occasioned the composition
of the epistles. Just as the true historian throws himself
back into the times of which he writes, enters into the feel
ings of those times, imbibes their spirit and politics, lives in
thought at that period ; so must the true interpreter of the
epistles of Paul transfer himself to the age of the apostle,
visit those churches which he has planted, try and understand
their views and difficulties, their temptations from the corrup
tions of the heathen world without, and from the proselytizing
zea.1 of false teachers within. Take, for the sake of illustra
tion, the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It is evidently
impossible fully to understand it, unless we realize the state of
the Corinthian Church — the converts of whom it was com
posed, the factions which were formed within it, the corrup
tions of life and the errors of doctrine which had arisen, the
questions which perplexed them, the abuses which arose in
the exercise of their spiritual gifts, the disorders in their
public worship, the false teachers who had entered in among
them, and the relation in which they stood to the apostle ;
and, in short, become, as it were, a member of the Church
of Corinth, at the time the apostle wrote this epistle. It is
evident that the more thoroughly this mental process is gone
through, the more qualified will we be to understand the
epistle. 1 There is considerable truth in the remark of Professor Jowett, when restricted
to Paul's epistles, that "the office of the interpreter is not to add another (to the
numerous interpretations which have been given), but to recover the original one ;
the meaning, that is, of the words as they struck on the ears, or flashed before
the eyes, of those who first heard and read them." — Essays and Reviews, p. 338.
Not, however, that it can be affirmed that those to whom the epistles were
written perfectly understood their full meaning ; that, probably, was impossible
from the nature of the truths they contained, and, we may also believe, on
account of the ulterior design of the Spirit who inspired them.

5 6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Not only must we sympathize with those to whom the'
apostle wrote, but also with the apostle in writing. We must
put ourselves in his position. His writings are not abstract
treatises on Christianity, but vivid and living appeals, called
forth by particular and, in general, pressing circumstances.
We must inquire into the circumstances which occasioned the
writing of these epistles ; what the definite purpose was which
the apostle had in view ; in other words, we mast try and dis
cover the design of each epistle. We shall thus be the better
enabled to enter into its spirit, to trace its train of thought,
to follow its arguments, and to understand the emotions ex
pressed. Thus, for example, in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, we must inquire what the apostle felt when he
heard of the corruptions, disorders, and factions of the Corin
thian Church, the mixture of indignation and pity which
must have filled his soul, his earnest longings toward the
Corinthians, similar to the feelings experienced by a fond
mother at hearing the excesses of her prodigal son. And hence
we can clearly understand and appreciate that stern invective
and that persuasive tenderness which, like alternate shades arid
lights, are impressed upon this epistle. And hence it further
follows, that no one can fully understand Paul's epistles with
out a correct appreciation of his character.
Much of what has been hitherto said applies, in a greater
or less degree, to all criticism, at least to criticism unmodified
by the element of inspiration. It is, however, necessary to
consider what modification in the rules of interpretation that
element introduces. Many biblical interpreters refuse to admit
of any modification ; their words imply that we must interpret
Scripture as any ordinary book ; that precisely the same rules
are applicable to it as are applicable to the Iliad or the
JEneid. This appears to be the meaning of Professor Jowett
in his remarkable essay on the " Interpretation of Scripture."
" The interpretation of Scripture," he observes, " has nothing
to do with any opinion respecting its origin. The meaning of
Scripture is one thing ; the inspiration of Scripture is another.
It is conceivable that those who hold the most different views
about the one, may be able to agree about the other. . . . The
question of inspiration, though in one sense important, is to

INTERPRETATION OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 57
the interpreter as though it were not important ; he is in no
way called upon to determine a matter with which he has
nothing to do, and which was not determined by the Fathers
of the Church. And he had better go on his way, and leave
the more precise definition of the word to the progress of
knowledge and the results of the study of Scripture, instead of
entangling himself with a theory about it."1 All this is very
unsatisfactory. It would rather appear that a biblical critic
cannot avoid the question, Whether, assuming inspiration, the
ordinary rules of interpretation are entirely applicable ? It is
absolutely necessary either to reje'ct the doctrine ; or if, on the
contrary, it be accepted, to consider how it affects the question
of interpretation. It seems impossible (as Professor Jowett
appears to do) both to accept and to ignore it.
It is entirely foreign to this work to enter upon any
lengthened discussion of the doctrine of inspiration, either in
proof of its truth, or in explanation of its nature and extent.
That task belongs to the department of dogmatics. Our
blessed Lord, on the eve of His departure, promised such an
inspiration to His apostles : the Holy Spirit was to enlighten
their minds in the knowledge of the truth, to guide them into
all truth, to show them things to come, to reveal those "many
things" which Christ had not disclosed, and to assist them in
their defences before kings and rulers. " These things have I
spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Com
forter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send
in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you"
(John xiv. 25, 26). As it was promised by our Lord, so it
was claimed by the apostles. "All Scripture," says Paul,
referring to the Jewish Scriptures, " is given by inspiration of
1 Essays and Reviews, pp. 350, 351. So also, in the same essay he observes :
" Interpret ihe Scripture like any other book. There are many respects in which
Scripture is unlike any other book : these will appear in the results of such an
interpretation" (p. 377). " Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which
is to be gathered from itself, without reference to the adaptations of fathers or
divines, and without regard to a priori notions about its nature or origin.. It is
to be interpreted like other books, with attention to the character of its authors,
and the prevailing state of civilisation and knowledge, with allowance for
peculiarities of style and language, and modes of thought and figures of speech "
(p. 404).

58 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
God" (deo-n-vevaTos, 2 Tim. iii. 16). And Peter, speaking of
the prophets of the Old Testament, says : " Prophecy came not
in old time by the will of man ; but holy men of God spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. i. 21). Now,
what is true of the Old Testament also holds good of the New.
The apostles regarded their writings as holy scriptures (2 Pet.
iii. 16), and ranked them along with those of the prophets
(Eph. ii. 20 ; 2 Pet. iii. 11). Paul especially, in numerous
passages in his epistles, asserts his own inspiration — that the
gospel which he taught was made known to him by revelation ;
that, in short, it was not so much he, Paul, who spoke and
wrote, as the Holy Ghost who was the inspirer of his words
and writings.1 " We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,
even the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world
unto our glory. Which things also we speak, not in the words
which maris wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth" (1 Cor. ii. 7, 13). And again: "I certify you,
brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not
after man. For I neither received it- of men, neither was I
taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 11, 12).
If we explain away these strong assertions of the apostle,
and consider inspiration merely as "the idea of Scripture
which each man gathers from his knowledge of it," and as
being compatible with opposite views of truth, with the sacred
writers changing their minds and correcting themselves, and
with numerous errors and variations of fact,2 then we admit
that such an inspiration cannot modify our method of inter
pretation, and indeed it is a matter of little consequence
whether the sacred writers were thus inspired or not. The
nature of inspiration is, indeed, left in Scripture undefined.
We do not know how the Holy Spirit acted upon the minds
of the apostles. Evidently it was not by superseding their
faculties ; but rather by so adapting His influences, that to each
sacred writer were left his own style and mental peculiarities :
1 This is not contradicted by 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, where the apostle makes a dis
tinction between his words and those of the Lord. He there means that in
the one case the Lord Himself had already decided (1 Cor. vii. 10) ; but in
the other case the Lord had determined nothing, and therefore he, the inspired
apostle, gave his judgment (1 Cor. vii. 12).
2 See Jowett's "Essay on Interpretation," Essays and Reviews, pp. 346-348.

INTERPRETATION OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 59
these were not abolished, but permeated by the Spirit. The
freedom of the writers was not destroyed, but guided, directed,
and controlled by influences from above. And so also the
extent of inspiration is left undefined. We cannot assert,
with some, that it extended only to the thoughts and ideas,
but not to the words — that it was an inspiration of suggestion :
because the meaning of an expression often depends not merely
on the selection of a single word, but also on the particular
tense of a verb, the insertion or omission of the article, and
the choice of a particular particle ; and generally, an alteration
of the words is an alteration of the sense. But one thing
appears evident, that inspiration must preclude all error
either in doctrine or in morals. An inspiration which is con
sistent with error is a contradiction in terms ; for there can
be no possible criteria by which we can judge whether the
doctrinal statements of the sacred writers are true or false.
If error were possible, certainly there could be no possible
doctrinal system ; truth would be a variable quantity ; each
man would be left to himself to choose what to accept and
what to reject.
Now if this element of inspiration be admitted to exist, it
cannot with any fairness be disregarded, but must of logical
necessity materially modify our methods of interpretation;
and, in particular, it appears that a certain quality of mind
must be admitted in the interpretation of Scripture, which
has no scope in the interpretation of any other book, and that
is faith. We must come to the study of Scripture with a
humble mind, not calling in question its declarations, however
transcending the notions of our reason, but submitting our
judgments to the announcements of infinite wisdom. In
reading Paul's epistles, for example, we must do so under
the impression that he wrote under the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost ; that the doctrines which he taught were not the
¦ words of human wisdom, not the result of his own delibera
tions, but a revelation of the divine will ; in short, they were
God's thoughts expressed in human language. We must not
attempt to explain away the deep things of Scripture, because
we do not understand them ; but receive and believe them
according to the measure in which they are revealed. A

60 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
man's notion of the degree of inspiration will materially
influence his judgment as an interpreter; he who denies or
overlooks inspiration, must give a different explanation of the
statements of gospel mysteries, from the man who admits that
the apostles wrote under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, and
were kept free from error. Nowhere is this difference more
perceptible than in the method of interpretation employed by
Paulus of Heidelberg, and the school which he represents.
As they denied the supernatural and miraculous, so they were
constrained to explain away all allusions to miracles, and to
have recourse to mere naturalistic explanations.
Further, by inspiration a unity is imparted, not only to all
the writings of Paul, but to the whole of the books of Scrip
ture. We are led to regard the word of God not merely as a
collection of books, written at different times and by different
persons, but also as one book, inspired by one Spirit. The
same mind or Spirit pervades the whole : both the Old Testa
ment and the New are one revelation. The Spirit of Christ,
who inspired the apostles, spoke through the prophets. Just
as the thirteen epistles of Paul are all the productions of the
same apostle, and all bear the marks of the same master mind ;
so, in a higher sense, all the books of Scripture may be truly
said to be the composition of one mind, namely the divine.
But whilst there is this substantial unity of doctrine, there
is also a variety of style and form. The sacred writers,
indeed, taught the same gospel, yet each preserves his own
style, his own marked peculiarities, his own views of sacred
truth ; but all harmonize ; the one supplements the other ; there
is one Spirit and one gospel ; all declare the words of eternal
life. " The books of Scripture," observes Bengel, " were not
handed down to us by chance or accident; neither are we
to regard them only as a manual of sayings and examples,
or as isolated relics of antiquity, from which no perfect whole,
no comprehensive' and finished plan, can be educed ; but as a
matchless regular account of God's dealings with man through
every age of the world, from the commencement to the end
of time, even to the consummation of all things. They
indicate together one beautiful, harmonious, and gloriously
connected system. For though each scriptural book is in

INTERPRETATION OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 61
itself something entire, and though each of the inspired pen
men has his own manner and style of writing, one and the
same Spirit breathes through all; one grand idea pervades
all."1 Now from this it follows, that as we interpret any particu
lar writer in consistency with himself, so we must interpret
Scripture in consistency with itself ; or, as it is otherwise
expressed, "the Bible is its own interpreter." Truth must
ever be consistent; and therefore, as Scripture contains only
truth, one passage of Scripture cannot contradict another:
there can be no conflicting truths ; there must be a reconcil
ing principle between two apparently conflicting propositions.
Hence we are entitled, in the interpretation of Scripture, to
compare the writings of one apostle with those of another, and
to draw our views from the whole. The principle here stated
is the canon usually given by biblical critics, that we should
interpret according to the analogy of faith? Its import is thus
clearly stated by Dr. Campbell : " When a passage appears
ambiguous, or is susceptible of different interpretations, that
interpretation is to be adopted which is most conformable to
the whole scheme of religion, in respect both of doctrine and
of precepts, delivered in the sacred oracles." 3 Thus stated,
there is nothing objectionable in the rule. It is the same
principle applied to Scripture as a whole on the ground of
its inspiration, which we apply to a particular book. Still
the principle is apt to be abused, and must be very cautiously
employed: It can only be' of use when there is an ambiguity
in the interpretation, and when the true meaning cannot
otherwise be obtained.
Various objections have been made to this principle of
interpretation. It is asserted that we set up tradition as a
standard of interpretatiori, — as, for example, when we employ
the " Apostles' Creed " as a rule of faith ; that we commit
1 Life and Remains of Bengel, p. 254.
2 The expression "analogy of faith '' is derived from Scripture — __._ t»«
_ir_x«yi'_v r'ris vifrtus (Rom. xii. 6). But it may be questioned if it is happily
chosen. It is ambiguous, and liable to be abused. It would be more advisable
to say, "that Scripture is to be interpreted in consistency with itself."
3 Campbell's Fourth Dissertation. See also Fairbairn's Hermeneutical
Manual, pp. 103-109 ; Ernesti's Institutes, translated by Bishop Terrot.

62 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
an anachronism by attributing to the sacred writers abstract
notions of Christian truth, which sprang up after their days
in the Christian Church ; x that we are reasoning in a circle,
first forming a creed from Scripture, and then interpreting
Scripture in conformity with that creed ; and that such a rule
is at variance with the spirit of candour, which is so essential
a requisite in the case of every interpreter of Scripture.2
It is not to be denied that there is some plausibility in the
above objections, and there is no doubt whatever that this
principle of the analogy of faith has been often abused. But
the abuse of a principle ought not to prevent the cautious use
of it. We are not first to form a creed, and then to square
our interpretations of Scripture in conformity with it ; but in
doubtful interpretations, it is permissible to. be guided by the
general scope and spirit of Scripture, and to use those passages
which are clear and simple for the purpose of elucidating those
which are dark and obscure.
It has already been observed, as one great rule of interpre
tation, that in reading the epistles of Paul we must acquaint
ourselves with the circumstances of those to whom he wrote ;
but we have now arrived at a higher idea of these epistles, and
must regard them as designed, not for the good of this or that
particular church, but for the use of the Church universal.
For example, it was not merely to correct certain disorders in
the Church of Corinth that the epistles to the Corinthians
were written ; but in the intention of the Holy Ghost, the
primary author of the epistles, it was for the guidance of the
Church at large ; and hence these epistles are to be interpreted
with a view to this higher employment of them. " The Scrip
tures," observes Lord Bacon, " being written to the thoughts
1 "To attribute to St. Paul or the twelve the abstract notion of Christian
truth which afterwards sprang up in the Catholic Churfth, is the same sort of
anachronism as to attribute to them a system of philosophy. It is the same
error as to attribute to Homer the ideas of Thales or Heraclitus, or to Thales the
more developed principles of Aristotle and Plato. "— Jowett, Essays and Reviews,
p. 354.
2 These objections are well and forcibly stated by Principal Campbell in his
fourth preliminary dissertation. He represents "the analogy of faith" as
importing that we first form a system of doctrine for ourselves,— as, for example,
that of Luther, Calvin, or Arminius,— and then go to Scripture, not to ascertain
the true doctrine, but to find confirmation for the particular system adopted.

INTERPRETATION OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 63
of man, and to the succession of all ages, are not to be inter
preted only according to the latitude of the proper sense of
the place, and respectively towards that present occasion
whereupon the words' were uttered, but have infinite springs
and streams of doctrine to water the Church in every part ; so
that I much condemn the interpretation of Scripture which
is only after the manner as men use to interpret a profane
book."1 Paul, indeed, may have been ignorant of this extended
use of his epistles ; he may have had no thought of the uni
versal Church, but only of the necessities of the particular
churches to which he wrote ; in like manner as the prophets
had no idea of ministering to later ages, while so earnestly
addressing their own. It is not so much with what Paul
intended that we have to do, as with what the Holy Ghost
intended, and He certainly designed them for the edification
of the Church of Christ.
In Paul's epistles there are broad principles laid down,
which admit of application to all ages and to all states of
society : they are epistles not to Eome or Corinth merely, but
to the human race. The disputes among the early Christians
have passed away ; but the principles by which these disputes
were settled abide. There is now no longer any controversy
between clean and unclean meats ; but the noble principles of
Christian charity and self-sacrifice, which Paul inculcated in
connection with that controversy, are eternal. The disputes
and heart-burnings as to the use of spiritual gifts are ended
by the withdrawal of these gifts ; but the " more excellent
way " which the apostle sketched out, the love which over
comes all disputes, remains. The bitter contentions between
Paul and the Judaizing teachers have disappeared ; but the
gospel of the apostle, the doctrine of free justification by faith
in Christ which he asserted, is the everlasting inheritance of
the Church. The party factions of the Corinthian Church have
ceased ; but the great principles of Christian unity and tolera
tion are indelibly written in the pages of inspiration for the
instruction of Christians in all ages. The disorders which
prevailed at the celebration of the Lord's Supper at Corinth
can hardly be repeated ; but the exposition of that sacrament,
1 Bacon On ihe Advancement of Learning, p. 265.

64 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
called forth by these disorders, is at once our warrant and our
directory in the celebration of the holy communion. These
applications, though they might not be discovered by the first
readers, or even intended by the apostle, were designed by the
Spirit, the inspirer of the epistles. In short, the spirit, all
that is valuable in the epistles, remains, however much the
circumstances which originated their composition may have
changed. From these remarks results another special requisite for a
correct understanding of Paul's epistles, and that is a reli
gious spirit.1 The epistles of Paul were written for our use ;
they are a revelation to us from God ; and to interpret them
aright we must enter into their spirit, there must be a sym
pathy between our feelings and their contents. Nor is this
special to our study of Paul's epistles or of the other sacred
books of Scripture : it is true generally of all books, namely,
that our disposition or attainments must bear a correspondence
to the nature of the book which we study, in order to a full
comprehension of its meaning. For example, a philosophical
spirit is necessary for the study of Plato ; a poetical spirit for
a due appreciation of Milton's Pa,radise Lost; a logical and
mathematical mind for the comprehension of the Principia of
Newton; a sympathy with nature for relishing the poems of
Wordsworth : so no less is it true, that a religious mind is ,
an indispensable qualification for a true interpretation of the
epistles of Paul. And thus we may understand, in some
measure, what the apostle meant when he said : " The natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness unto him :, neither can he know them, because they
are spiritually discerned " (1 Cor. ii. 14). Thus we require the
assistance of a higher spirit than our own, even the Spirit of
God, the great inspirer, to enable us to understand His word ;
we must be in sympathy with the great Author. Pectus est
quod theologum facit.
1 This over and above faith, the mere intellectual belief, in the truth of the
statements already postulated.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 65

V. AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES.
It is a point of primary importance to be fully satisfied
that the epistles which profess to be written by Paul are
really genuine; and accordingly it is the object of this
section to examine the external and internal evidences bear
ing on the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles. It is to be
observed that only the thirteen acknowledged epistles of Paul
are here considered, excluding the fourteenth, or the Epistle
to the Hebrews ; because, though its Pauline origin may be
probable, it does not directly profess to have been written by
Paul, and because the question of its authorship was a matter
of dispute in the early Church. The remarks made in this
section are entirely general : the special consideration of the
authenticity of each epistle, and the examination of the objec
tions brought against it, are reserved as matters for future
consideration. Until a comparatively recent period, the authenticity of the
thirteen Pauline Epistles was universally acknowledged in the
Christian Church. In the primitive Church no doubt of their
authorship appears to have been raised.1 Eusebius (a.d. 3 1 5),
in his. classification of the books of the New Testament, ranks
them among the ofioXoyovfieva, or those apostolic writings
which were undisputed. Even those early heretical sects,
such as the Ebionites, Encratites, and Severians, who rejected
them as apostolic writings, did so not because they questioned
their, genuineness, but from purely dogmatic grounds, because
they were opposed to their opinions.2 With the Epistle to
the Hebrews it was somewhat different. Whilst the thirteen
epistles were universally admitted to have been written by
Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews was assigned by some to one
or other of the apostolic fathers, as Luke, Barnabas, or Clement.
In recent times, however, the genuineness of several of Paul's
1 De Wette observes : "Antiquity has unanimously received thirteen epistles
of Paul as genuine ; only the fourteenth, the Epistle to the Hebrews, was con
tested." — Einleitung, p. 270.
2 Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, p. 171. These heretics did not assert that
the epistles were not written by Paul, but they regarded that apostle as a false
teacher. E

66 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
epistles has been questioned. The previous universal consent
of the Christian Church, which had endured for centuries, has
been disturbed, and a destructive criticism has sought to
undermine this groundwork of our faith. The grounds of this
criticism have been rather subjective than historical ; indeed,
the historical evidence has to a considerable extent been
ignored. Certain epistles of Paul haye been rejected, not
because they were unsupported by external testimony, but
rather because, in the opinion of the critics referred to, they
are un-Pauline in their sentiments and expressions. This
subjective and destructive mode of criticism was introduced
by Semler, a Lutheran divine, toward the close of last cen
tury.1 Afterwards objections were brought against particular
books of the New Testament, and among them against some
of Paul's epistles. Schleiermacher challenged the authenticity
of First Timothy, and in this he was followed by Bleek, whilst
Eichhorn rejected the " Pastoral Epistles " in general. De
Wette objected to the Epistle to the Ephesians, Mayerhoff to the
Epistle to the Colossians, and Schrader to Second Thessalonians.
But still more recently the German rationalistic criticism has
advanced far beyond such special and exceptional objections,
and Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, and other writers of the Tubingen
school, have by a process of speculation and internal criticism
rejected the whole of the Pauline Epistles, except the Epistles
to the Eomans and Galatians, and the two Epistles to the
Corinthians.2 1. In judging of the authenticity of a book, it is unques
tionably the external evidence which is of paramount im
portance. Internal evidence affords, at best, evidence of a
secondary kind. Now with regard to the Pauline Epistles,
the external evidence is strong and convincing.
The first catalogue of Paul's epistles must be regarded,
considering the obstacles to their diffusion, as an extremely
early ' one, namely, that given by the Gnostic Marcion.
1 Untersuch. d. Kanon, Halle, pp. 1771-75.
2 These four epistles are all that Baur admits to be genuine. As already ob
served, he classifies the Pauline Epistles into o/ioXcyou/avx, of which, according to
him, there are these four ; whilst the other nine belong to the an-Xsya^sva. He
considers the Pastoral Epistles as tit*. — Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 276. Bruno
Bauer went a step further, and denied the authenticity of all Paul's epistles.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 67
Marcion, according to Eusebius, lived in the time of Polycarp,
and was alive when Justin Martyr wrote his apology in the
reign of Antoninus Pius (a.d. 108-140).1 His heresy con
sisted in carrying Paulinism to an extreme. He considered
the God of the Jews, whom he named Brj/Movpyos, as an inferior
being to the God and Father of Jesus Christ.2 In conformity
with these views, he rejected all the books of the New Testa
ment except the Gospel of Luke (which he is accused of cor
rupting) and some of the Pauline' Epistles. His Apostolicon
omitted the "Pastoral Epistles" and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, but contained the other ten epistles of Paul. The
order in which he enumerated them, according to Epiphanius,
was as follows :- Galatians, First and Second Corinthians,
Eomans, First and Second Thessalonians, Ephesians (which he
called the Epistle to the Laodiceans), Colossians, Philemon,
and Philippians.3 It is not easy to assign a reason for his
omission of the " Pastoral Epistles ;" but considering the
summary way in which he treated the other books of the
New Testament, it cannot be regarded as an argument against
their genuineness : he was guided not by critical rules, but
by his dogmatic opinions.4
The next catalogue is the Muratorian Canon. This cele
brated fragment, mutilated both at the beginning and end,
first published by Muratori in 1740,5 was discovered in the
Ambrosian library in Milan. It is in a manuscript of the
seventh century, in the Latin language, and is by the best
critics supposed to be a translation from the Greek of a writ-
1 Eus. Hist. Eccl. iv. 14 and iv.' 11. According to Bleek, Marcion formed
his system not later than a.d. 140.
2 For an account of Marcion and his views, see Bleek's Introduction, vol. i.
pp. 139-154 ; Lardner 's Works, vol. iv. pp. 589-611 ; Neander's Church History,
vol. ii. pp. 129 ff. "
3 Epiphan. heer. xiii. 9 ; Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, p. 363. The same
order in Marcion's catalogue is given by Tertullian, except that Philippians
precedes Philemon. — Adv. Marc. v. It is utterly improbable that Marcion was
the first to collect the Pauline Epistles : the collection was already formed, and
he made a selection from it.
* The Pastoral Epistles were anti-Gnostic in their sentiments, and therefore
must have been offensive to the Gnostic Marcion.
b Anliquitates Italices, iii. 851 ff., Milan 1740. Since then it has been
frequently reprinted, and translated into various languages. Not only is it a
fragment, but the text is much corrupted.

68 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
ing belonging to the second century.1 It professes to have
been written by a contemporary of Pius I., Bishop of Eome,
and is therefore to be placed about the year A.D. 170. Its
genuineness has been generally acknowledged. This fragment
contains all the thirteen epistles of Paul, and gives them in
the following order : First and Second Corinthians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, First and Second Thessa
lonians, Eomans, Philemon, Titus, First and Second Timothy.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is omitted.2
Caius, the Eoman presbyter, who lived about A.D. 210,
expressly mentions thirteen epistles of Paul. " He makes
mention," observes Eusebius, " of only thirteen epistles, not
reckoning that to the Hebrews among the rest."3 And
Jerome also gives the same testimony. " Caius, in the time
of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Eome, had a very notable dispute
with Proclus, a follower of Montanus ; and in the same book,
reckoning up only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says the
fourteenth, which is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his."4
Eusebius himself (a.d. 315), in his classification of the books
of the New Testament, asserts that Paul's thirteen epistles
were universally received and acknowledged. " The epistles
of Paul are fourteen, all well known, and beyond doubt.6 It
should not, however, be concealed that some have set aside
the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it was disputed as
not being one of Paul's epistles ; but we shall in the proper
place also subjoin what has been said by those before our
time respecting this epistle."6 And the council of Laodicea
(a.d. 363) gave an authoritative catalogue of the epistles
of Paul in the same order as given in our Bible, except that
the Epistle to the Hebrews comes after Second Thessalonians
and before First Timothy.7
Besides the early catalogues of the Pauline Epistles, there
are also the early translations, all of which contain the whole
of Paul's epistles. Perhaps the earliest translation of the
1 So Hug, Thiersch, Guericke, Westcott.
2 A transcript of the Mur^torian Canon is given by Westcott in his Canon of
the New Testament, pp. 466-480.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. vi. 20. 4 Hieron. de vir. Illustr. c. 59.
5 To. 'Si n___a. irf%Yi\ni xai catyits eel S.*„ . s_ _ aaEj.
6 Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 3. i Westcott Ore the Canon, p. 384.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 69
New Testament was the Peshito or ancient Syriac.1 Some
critics, as Jones and Michaelis, have placed the date of this
translation very early, either at the end of the first or the
beginning of the second century ; 2 but it is now generally
agreed that it belongs to the middle of the second century
(a.d. 1 6 0).3 This early date is a strong evidence in favour of
the genuineness of the Pauline Epistles. The Peshito, whilst
it omits some of the catholic epistles and the Apocalypse,
contains all the epistles of Paul, including that to the
Hebrews. The next translation in order of time is the old Latin, the
so-called Vetus Latina. This does not appear to have been
made for the use of the Eoman Church. That Church was
at first not Latin but Greek. The names of its first fifteen
bishops are, with four exceptions, Greek; and not only was
the Epistle to the Eomans written in Greek, but the early
Eoman fathers, for the first two centuries, wrote in Greek.
The first Latin father belonged not to the Eoman but to the
African Church. Accordingly it has been conjectured by
Wetstein, Eichhorn, and others, that the locality of the old
Latin version was Northern Africa, whose capital was Carthage.4
Tertullian alludes to the existence of a Latin version, and
gives citations from it, so that it must have been made before
his time ; but we have no evidence to determine how long it
1 Whatever be the age of the Curetonian Syriac, it only contains fragments of
the Gospels.
2 Jones' Canon of the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 81-107 ; Michaelis' Intro
duction to the N. T., translated by Marsh, vol. ii. pp. 29-39.
3 We want data to determine the age of the Peshito. It is generally admitted
that it was in existence in the second century. Westcott observes: "There is
no sufficient reason to desert the opinion, which has obtained the sanction of the
most competent scholars, that its formation is to be fixed within the first half
of the second century. " — Westcott On the Canon, p. 211. Some, however, put
it later, and assign its age to the close of the second century. — See Scrivener's
Introduction to the Criticism ofthe N. T, pp. 229 ff.
4 See Westcott On the Canon, pp. 215-218. He observes: "Rome itself
under the emperors was well described as a ' Greek city ; ' and Greek was its
second language. As far as we can learn, the mass of the poorer population, to
which the great bulk of the early Christians everywhere belongpd, was Greek
either in descent or in speech. " — See also Wiseman's Essays on Various Subjects,
vol. i. pp. 46-66 ; Scrivener's Introduction to tlie Criticism of the N. T., pp.
252-256.

70 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
previously existed. It has been referred by competent critics
to ad. 170. The old Latin, like the Peshito, contains all the
epistles of Paul.
Besides the concurrent testimony of ancient catalogues and
versions, there is also the testimony of the fathers. This is
given us by Lardner with such impartiality and care, that
his accuracy both as regards dates and quotations has seldom
been called in question. Kirchhofer also gives us a valuable
collection of' authorities for the several books of the New
Testament. The following are the chief testimonies of the
principal fathers down to the middle of the third century.
Clemens Eomanus (a.d. 96), the earliest extra-canonical
Christian writer whose remains have come down to us, in his
epistle to the Corinthians mentions the First Epistle of Paul
to that Church : " Take into your hands the epistle of the
blessed Paul, the apostle. What did he at first write unto
you in the beginning of the gospel ? Verily he did by the
Spirit admonish you concerning ' himself, and Cephas, and
Apollos, because even then you did form factions." 1 Ignatius
(a.d. 115) 2 ascribes the Epistle to the Ephesians to Paul, and
alludes to several other of the apostle's epistles. Writing to
the Ephesians, he says : " Ye are the companions of Paul in
the mysteries of the gospel, who throughout all his epistles
makes mention of you in Christ Jesus."3 Polycarp (a.d.
1 1 6),4 writing to the Philippians, mentions the Epistle of Paul
to that Church : " For neither I nor any one like me can
come up to the wisdom of the blessed and renowned Paul,
who, when absent, wrote to you epistles." 5 Irenaeus (a.d.
1 Ep. i. ad Corinth, c. 47.
2 Ignatius, according to Lardner, suffered martyrdom in the "tenth year of
the reign of Trajan, a.d. 107." Merivale fixes the date at A.D. 115. The latter
date is the more probable.
3 Ad Ephes. c. 12. The genuineness of these words of Ignatius have, how
ever, been questioned. They are not found in the larger Greek rescension and
Syriac version.
4 Polycarp suffered martyrdom in the reign of Marcus Antoninus, about A.D.
167, in his 86th year.. — Eus. H. E. iv. 15. His epistle to the Philippians was
written shortly after the martyrdom of Ignatius, as is inferred from chaps. 9
and 13 of his epistle. Others fix the date about A.D. 140. The former date is
the more probable. — See Ritschl, Entstehung d. altkath. Kirch., pp. 584-601.
6 Ad Philippens, c. 3.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 71
178) quotes twelve epistles of Paul, most of them with the
names of the churches and persons to whom they were sent.
The only one of the thirteen epistles which he omits is the
Epistle to Philemon, for which its brevity and the nature of
its contents readily account. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch
(a.d. 1 8 1), refers to the Epistles of Paul to the Eomans, First
and Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,
First Timothy, and Titus. Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 194)
quotes frequently and expressly all the epistles of Paul, with
the exception of Philemon ; and Eusebius informs us that in
his work called Hypotyposds, Clement has given us abridged
accounts of all the canonical Scriptures, not even omitting
those that are disputed.1 Tertullian (A.D. 200) received
thirteen epistles of Paul, but ascribed the Epistle to the
Hebrews to Barnabas.2 Origen (a.d. 230) received the
thirteen epistles of Paul ; and Cyprian (ad. 248) quotes them
all, with the exception of Philemon. 3 Nor are these quota
tions and references few, but in several of the writings of the
fathers are more numerous than in modern works of theology ;
so that Lardner observes : " In the remaining works of
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian (though some
works of each of them are lost), there are perhaps more and
larger quotations of the small volume of the New Testament,
than of all the works of Cicero, though of so uncommon
excellence for thought and style, in the writers of all characters
for several ages ; insomuch that we have reason to think a
late learned and judicious divine did not exaggerate beyond
the truth, when he said 'that the facts upon which the
Christian religion is founded have a stronger proof than any
facts at such a distance of time ; and that the books which
convey them down to us may be proved to be uncorrupted
and authentic, with greater strength than any other writings
of equal antiquity.' " 4
This remark can hardly be considered as an exaggeration
when applied to the thirteen epistles of Paul. The evidence
1 Eusebius, Hiat. Eccl. vi. 14. 2 Depudicit. c. 20.
"See Lardner's recapitulation of authorities, Works, vol. iii. pp. 99-110;
Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 171 ff.
* Lardner's Works, vol. iii. -p. 106.

72 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
of their genuineness is superior to the evidence of the genuine
ness of many classical writings of equal antiquity, such as the
history of Livy or the geography of Strabo. The genuine
ness of both classes of writings is proved on the same grounds,
namely, because they have been acknowledged in an age
nearly contemporary as the writings of those whose names
they bear. But the reasons for the genuineness of Paul's
epistles are in point of fact stronger than those which can be
adduced in support of the genuineness of the classical writings.
They are mentioned by a greater number of writers, belonging
to different nations, several of whom lived at no great distance
in time from the apostolic age ; they have been at an early
period translated into several languages, as the Syriac and the
Latin ; and their genuineness has not been disputed even by
those who questioned the sentiments they contained.1 The
external evidence alone is sufficient to attest the authenticity
of the Pauline Epistles, and to overcome all those objections
of a subjective nature raised against particular epistles, even
independent of the corroboration which the internal evidence
affords ; but when the external evidence is combined with
such corroboration, and especially with the ingenious argument
of Paley in his Soraz Paulince, the authenticity of the epistles
is placed beyond all reasonable doubt.
2. The internal evidence of the authenticity of any writing
is, from its nature, not so strong as the external ; it is rather
presumptive than conclusive. Still there are some internal
marks of genuineness in Paul's epistles which afford a strong
corroborative evidence, and especially Paley's argument
amounts in many cases almost to actual demonstration.
The language in which Paul's epistles are written affords a
presumption that they were composed about the period when
they profess to have been written, that is, in the latter half of
the first century. It is a species of Hebraistic Greek, that is,
Greek mixed with Hebraisms, such as would then have been
employed in the composition of a Jewish Christian. Now such
a dialect soon ceased in the Christian Church. Shortly after
the death of the apostles, the Jewish Christians seceded from
1 See some excellent remarks of Michaelis on this subject, Introduction to
N. _., vol. i. pp. 24-26.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 73
the Church, and formed the sects of the Nazarenes and
Ebionites. We find scarcely any traces of Hebraisms in the
writings of the early fathers ; indeed, the greater number of
them were ignorant of Hebrew, and were only acquainted with
the Old Testament through the medium of the Septuagint.
The dialect of the New Testament belongs to the first ages of
the Christian Church, and therefore attests that age as the
period of its composition.
The style of the epistles is another internal mark of genuine
ness. Paul's style is very marked, and is extremely difficult
to imitate. His repeated digressions and parentheses impart to
it a certain degree of obscurity, and along with these digressions
must be taken into account the anacolutha or false construc
tions which are so numerous in Paul's writings. Such a style
is found in no other part of the New Testament. Now this
style can be traced in all the epistles, and is perhaps nowhere
so strongly marked and discernible as in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, to which exception has been specially taken in
modern times.
The general form of the epistles may also be adverted to as
another internal mark. It has been previously observed that
the Pauline Epistles are all cast after a particular form, not
only as regards the introductory and concluding parts, but also '
as regards the general structure. This form is not in any two
epistles precisely the same : it admits of considerable varia
tion, but yet is distinctly traceable in each of the thirteen
epistles : it is general uniformity along with particular
diversity. This diversity occasions a greater difficulty of
imitation than if there had been a precise sameness ; and
although the argument must not be pushed too far, yet there
is a certain Pauline form which, when it exists in any epistle,
is a presumption in favour of its genuineness.
Baur, with much skill and ingenuity, endeavours to employ
the internal evidence as an argument against the genuineness
of certain of Paul's epistles.1 He admits the genuineness of
the four first epistles in our Bible. From these unquestionably
authentic epistles he forms a certain standard of Pauline doc
trine, and then takes this standard and applies it as a test
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, Zweiter Theil.

74 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
to the examination of the other epistles, and decides against
their authenticity, because, according to his opinion, they contain
sentiments which are un-Pauline. Thus, for example, Baur
rejects the Epistle to the Colossians, because in his view the
sentiments contained in it are Gnostic, and not Pauline. The
argument he employs is entirely subjective : the epistles must
be in conformity with what he supposes Paul must write ;
they must be measured by his standard of Pauline doctrine.
Now this is certainly carrying the subjective argument to an
extreme.1 The four epistles assumed to be genuine all belong
to the earlier epistles, and no allowance is made for the change
which time may have effected on Paul's diction, or for the
alterations which the very different circumstances in which he
was placed may have made on his statements.2 Paul, in the
prime of life, in the full bustle of the world, and in constant
conflict with false teachers, would naturally write differently
from Paul the aged, and a prisoner at Eome. And besides,
the circumstances of the Christian Church were also somewhat
changed. The Judaizing teachers who disturbed the peace of
the churches in Galatia had been vanquished, and new forms
of heresy, which afterwards developed into Gnosticism, arose,
especially in the churches of Proconsular Asia; and hence there
was of necessity a difference in sentiment between the Epistles
to the Galatians and Colossians, as the heresies which these
epistles opposed were different. And besides, as Eeuss well
remarks, " the destructive criticism has rendered its assertions
the more improbable, because in the progress of doubt it has
increased the number of authors, and has made a whole class
of false Pauls, each of whom must not only be brought into
an unintelligible relation with the genuine Paul, but with one
another."3 It is further to be observed, that be the force of the sub
jective evidence what it may, it can never overthrow positive
1 "How an author ought to have written, is a question in which imagination
has a wide range. A meagre induction gathered from a few short works is not a
sufficient criterion of how he must have written everywhere and at all times." —
Jowett, Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 19.
2 See on this defect of Baur's method of criticism, Davidson's Introduction,
NT., vol. i. p. 25, last edition.
3 Reuss' Geschichte der heil. Schrif.N. T., p. 64.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 75
historical evidence. The presumption drawn from internal
indications that an event would not happen, cannot possibly
overthrow the positive testimony of unprejudiced witnesses
that it did happen. Subjective evidence depends almost
entirely on the views of the individual critic. It is admitted
that in certain circumstances the subjective argument may be
legitimately used, as when external testimony is imperfect, and
when the opinions of a writer are obvious. We may then
reject a book whose authenticity is only doubtfully supported
by external evidence, and whose views appear to us to be dif
ferent from the expressed sentiments of the supposed author
in his acknowledged works. But the argument must be very
carefully employed, as it is liable to many abuses. In the
analogous case of biblical criticism, where certain readings are
doubtful, and where the balance of authorities is nearly equal,
subjective criticism, when used by a skilful critic, as Lach-
mann or Tischendorf, is a valuable auxiliary. But where the
preponderance of the external authorities is unmistakeable,
such evidence is inapplicable. Thus no subjective considera
tions ought to be permitted to influence our belief in favour
of the genuineness of the text containing the testimony of the
heavenly witnesses (1 John v. 7), because the preponderance
of external authorities against it is too decided. And so also
with regard to the epistles of Paul. The external evidence
in their favour cannot be shaken by any supposed subjective
evidence against them. The testimony of Polycarp, for
example, in favour of the Epistle to the Philippians — a testi
mony which Baur omits to mention — is not weakened because,
in the opinion of Baur or any other critic, that epistle con
tains un-Pauline sentiments and expressions.
One of the most ingenious internal arguments in favour of
the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles is that advanced by
Paley in his Eoroe, Paulinm. The validity of the argument
has recently been questioned, and therefore it is proper to con
sider its nature and force.
Paley takes the Acts of the Apostles and the thirteen
epistles of Paul, omitting the Epistle to the Hebrews. He
makes no assumption regarding the genuineness of either of
these works. "The reader," he observes, "is at liberty to

76 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
suppose these writings to have been lately discovered in the
library of the Escurial, and to come to our hands destitute of
any extrinsic or collateral evidence whatever." And what he
proposes to show is "that a comparison of the different
writings would, even under these circumstances, afford good
reason to believe the persons and transactions to have been
real, the letters authentic, and the narrative in the main to be
true." x It is a mistaken view to suppose that Paley rests his
argument on the mere similarity or agreement between the
Acts and the Pauline Epistles. He is very guarded in his
remarks. Mere general agreement, he admits, proves nothing :
the epistles might be compiled from the history, or the history
might be fabricated to correspond with the epistles. But his
argument rests on the many undesigned coincidences which
are to be found between the history and the epistles ; coin
cidences so undesigned as to prove that the history was not
taken from the epistles, nor the epistles from the history;
that they are independent writings, and yet so exact, that
both agree in the main particulars. The multitude and variety
of these undesigned coincidences increase the force of the
argument, so that in reference to several of the epistles it
amounts almost to demonstration. " As to the authenticity of
the epistles," observes Paley, " this argument, where it is suffi
ciently sustained by instances, is nearly conclusive ; for I
cannot assign a supposition of forgery, in which coincidences of
the kind we inquire after are likely to appear."
There have not, however, been wanting objections to this
mode of reasoning. The ingenuity of the Horoz Paulinos has
been generally admitted, but its validity has been severely
criticised. It has been asserted that Paley here, as generally
in all his writings, exhibits too much the tact of an advocate
and not the impartiality of a judge ; that he is to be placed
in the rank of apologists and not of impartial writers ; that he
overlooks difficulties, and omits discrepancies in the epistles ;
that he carries his argument too far, and thus weakens
its force ; that his work is an ex parte statement ; and that
the argument may be equally applied against the authenticity
of the Pauline Epistles, for there are not only coincidences,
1 Paley's Horos Paulinos, cap. i.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 77
but, as is asserted, manifest discrepancies between the Acts
and the epistles.1
Now there is no doubt, that the logical acumen of Paley
gives him the appearance of an advocate rather than a judge,
and perhaps prejudices some against him, as if he were a
partial writer ; but this, though it may cause us to exercise
caution, yet does not diminish the force of his arguments. It
is also admitted that in ' some cases his inferences seem far
fetched, and perhaps, when examined, may appear even
fallacious ; but this, though it weakens or destroys the argu
ment in these particular cases, yet does not affect other instances
to which no such exception can be taken. As Paley himself
remarks, " If the reader meets with a number which contains
an instance that appears to him unsatisfactory, or founded in
mistake, he will dismiss that number from the argument, but
without prejudice to any other." And with regard to the
supposed discrepancies between the Acts and the epistles, it is
erroneous to suppose that these are intentionally omitted by
Paley. On the contrary, they are met and discussed ; but, at
the same time, so far from being regarded by him as an
objection to his argument, they are looked upon as a confirma
tion, — as a proof that there could be no possible collusion
between the writer of the Acts and the writer of the epistles.
According to him, these discrepancies are for the most part
only apparent, or if not, an acquaintance with all the cir
cumstances of the case might lead to their solution. Nor is
there the slightest reason to charge him with unfairness or
want of candour in the discussion of these discrepancies. The
ingenuity of many of his remarks, so far from being a fault, is
one of his great merits.
Upon the whole, the Horaz Paulinas must be regarded as a
masterpiece of polemical theology, eminent for ingenuity,
originality, and conclusiveness. "It must be conceded,"
observes Jowett — no partial judge — " that no author has done
as much as Paley in the ITorce Paulina; to raise up a barrier
against unreasoning scepticism, and to place the epistles on an
historical foundation. The ingenuity of his arguments, the
minuteness of the intimations discovered by him, the remote-
1 Jowett Ore the Epistles of St Paid, vol. i. pp. 204, 227, 397.

78 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
ness and complexity of his combinations, leave the impression
on the mind of absolute certainty in reference to the great
Epistles to the Eomans and Corinthians, and of high probabi
lity in refererice to most of the others. And even though
some • of his defences may be untenable, it is true also that
other lines of argument first indicated by him admit of being
carried further than he has carried them. Such are those from
undesigned coincidences of style and character, that is, from
similarities which, with a previous knowledge of the style
and character of an author, are capable of being recognised and
appreciated, and yet so latent and complex, that no forger could
have invented them."1
It would tend to show more clearly the nature and validity
of Paley's argument, were we to illustrate it by one or two
examples, taking especially those instances to which objections
have been made, or on which eminent critics have arrived
at different conclusions. But instances of this kind will
frequently occur in discussing the several epistles, and it
appears unnecessary to anticipate them here. It would be a
great matter were the works of Paley more appreciated and
read, instead of being depreciated and attacked by a certain
school of theologians. We would then have a more healthy
theology ; our conclusions would be more logical, resting less
on mere individual opinions and arbitrary assumptions, and
more on the eternal grounds of truth. And notwithstanding
that it is the fashion of this age to decry Paley, his arguments
have been .seldom fairly met, and still more rarely confuted.
1 Jowett Ore Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 204.

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

TN a special introduction to an epistle, there are six points
-J- which merit observation : first, its authenticity ; secondly,
the circumstances of the particular church to which the epistle
was written ; thirdly, the occasion of the epistle ; fourthly, its
contents ; fifthly, its date ; sixthly, its distinctive peculiarities.
Any difficulties or controversial questions arising from the
epistle are discussed in separate dissertations.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians is one of those
epistles of Paul whose genuineness has been almost univer
sally acknowledged. It has only recently been questioned by
Baur, and even his objections have not been adopted by all
the disciples of his school.1 The external evidence in its
favour is very strong. It is true that the allusions to it in
the apostolic fathers, given by Kirchhofer, are obscure and
doubtful;2 but it is directly attested by Irena_us, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Tertullian. Thus Irenaeus (a.d. 178) writes :
" And on account of this the apostle, explaining himself, has
set forth the perfect" and spiritual man of salvation, saying
thus in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians : ' And may the
1 Hilgenfeld, for example, maintains the genuineness of First Thessalonians.
2 Clemens, Ep. ad Corinth, c. 38 ; Ignatius, ad Polycarp, c. 1 ; ad Ephes. c.
10 ; Polycarp, ad Philipp. c. 2 and 4.

80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
God of peace sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit
and soul and body be preserved without complaint until the
advent of the Lord Jesus Christ'" (1 Thess. v. 23).1 And
again, " The apostle thus speaks, ' When they shall say, Peace
and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them'"
(1 Thess. v. 3).2 Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) observes,
" This St. Paul clearly signified, saying, ' When We might have
been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ, we were gentle
among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children'" (1 Thess.
ii. 7).3 And again, " ' Bear all things,' says the apostle, ' and
retain what is good'" (1 Thess. v. 21).4 And Tertullian (a.d,
200) thus writes: "What these times are, learn with the
Thessalonians; for we read, 'After what manner ye were
turned from idols to serve the living and true God, and to
expect His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead,
even Jesus'" (1 Thess. i. 9, IO).6 And again, "And there
fore the majesty of the Holy Spirit, which discerns such
senses, suggests in this very Epistle to the Thessalonians:
' But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that
I write to you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day
of the Lord will come as a thief in the night'" (1 Thess. v.
1, 2).e And over and above these direct quotations, the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians is contained in the catalogue of
Marcion (a.d. 130), in the Muratorian Canon (a.d. 170), and
in the Syriac (a.d. 160) and Latin (a.d. 170) versions.
1 Adv. hesres. v. 6, 1. Et propter hoc apostolus seipsum exponens, explanavit
perfectum et spiritualem salutis hominem, in prima epistola ad Thessalonicenses
dicens sic : " Deus autem pacis sanctificet vos perfectos, et integer vester spiritus,
et anima, et corpus sine querela in adventum Domini Jesu Christi servetur. "
2 Adv. hceres. v. 30, 2. Hoc et apostolus ait : " Cum dixerint, pax, et munitio,
tunc subitaneus illis superveniet interitus. "
3 Pcsdagog. i. C 5. Touro roi cfa.tpitrra.Ta. o f&axdptos TlavXos uffitryfAwuro tl<ruv Sy voi-
fisvoi h ficcpii irjai us Xpiffrou a.noffro'Koi, iysvnfaf&sv vrrioi iv fjcitru ^.v, as av rpotpos
-_>..¦. t _ ea.rsJs tsxv_.
* Strom, i. C. 11. n_i>. _ ds o'oxipcci^Ers, o knotr . o\os tyviffi, xa.) ro xx\iv xa.ri%in.
6 De resurrect, earn. c. 24. Quse haee tempora, cum Thessalonicensibus disce.
Legimus. enim : Qualiter conversi sitis ab idolis ad serviendum vivo et vero Deo,
et ad exspectandum e ccelis filium ejus, quern suscitavit e mortuis, Jesum."
6 De resurrect, earn. c. 24. Et ideo majestas Spiritus sancti perspicax
ejusmodi sensuum, et in ipsa ad Thessalonicenses epistola suggerit : " De tem-
poribus autem et temporum spatiis, fratres, non est necessitas scribendi vobis.
Ipsi enim certissime scitis, quod dies Domini, quasi fur nocti, ita adveniet."

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 81
The internal evidence is equally strong. The character of
Paul is impressed on this Epistle : his anxiety about his con
verts (iii. 1, 2) ; his earnest desires for their spiritual good
(iii. 8-11) ; his almost womanly tenderness (ii. 7); his joy when
he hears from Timothy of the stedfastness of their faith (iii.
6, 7) ; and his sympathy with them in their distress (iv. 13,
1 8). So also the style of this Epistle is undoubtedly Pauline.
We have examples of Pauline digressions and expansions
(i. 2-6, v. 2-6), of climax (i. 5, 8, ii. 8), of delicate allusions
(v. 6), of a play upon words (ii. 4, iv. 9), and of numerous
Pauline expressions and modes of thought (i. 6, ii. 2, 19, v.
23).1 The language employed regarding the advent (iv. 15-
1 7, v. 4) is also, as Paley remarks, a strong internal proof of
genuineness ; for whatever construction such language may
bear, it is coloured with the possibility of the immediate
coming of the Lord, and would not have been employed by a
forger of the second century, when the lapse of time had dis
appointed such an anticipation.2 In short, as Professor Jowett
well remarks, " It has been objected against the genuineness
of this Epistle, that it contains only a single statement of doc
trine. But liveliness, personality, similar traits of disposition,
are far more difficult to invent than statements of doctrine. A
later age might have supplied these, but it could hardly have
caught the very likeness and portrait of the apostle." " Such
intricate similarities of language, such lively traits of cha
racter, it is not within the power of any forger to invent, and,
least of all, of a forger of the second century." 3
The objections urged by Baur are not formidable, and are
all of a subjective and arbitrary nature : the external evidence
is left untouched. The following is a summary of his objec
tions : 1. In the collection of the Pauline Epistles there is none
which is so devoid of individuality and doctrinal statements.
It consists entirely of instructions, admonitions, and wishes,
with only one doctrinal statement on the advent of Christ
(1 Thess. iv. 13-18). 2. The Epistle betrays a dependence on
1 The internal evidences are well stated by Professor Jowett in his Commentary
on St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. pp. 27-29.
2 Paley's Horcs Paulines on 1 Thessalonians, No. I.
3 Jowett's St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. pp. 28, 29.
F

82 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the Acts of the Apostles and on the other epistles of Paul,
especially on the two Epistles to the Corinthians.1 3. There
is internal evidence that the Epistle belongs to a later age ;
for when .mention is made of wrath having come upon the
Jews to the uttermost (1 Thess. ii. 16), there is an evident
allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem. 4. The Epistle itself
evidently professes to have been composed only a few months
after Paul's first visit to Thessalonica, yet it contains a descrip
tion of the church — that their faith was spread abroad in
every place, and that they had a regular church government
— rwhich is only suited to a later date. 5. The Epistle, in
common with the Second Epistle, is far too apocalyptic in its
tone to induce us to regard it as the composition of the
Apostle Paul.2
The mere statement of these objections is sufficient to prove
their weakness. Their arbitrary nature renders them difficult
to answer. As De Wette remarks, " Such objections rest on
mere subjective considerations, to which other similar consi
derations might easily be opposed."3 The comparative absence
of dogmatic statement is easily explained, by considering the
circumstances of the church to which the apostle wrote. The
agreement with the Acts of the Apostles, so far from being an
objection, is an argument in favour of the genuineness of this
Epistle, this agreement being of an undesigned nature, and
there being several apparent discrepancies between the history
and the Epistle.4 The similarity of expressions with those
found in the Epistles to the Corinthians is in conformity with
the style of Paul, who has his favourite expressions ; and
besides, is really not so strong as the verbal similarity between
1 The resemblances between First Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Corin
thians, as stated by Baur, are the following : — i. 5, as compared with 1 Cor. ii. 4 ;
i. 6, with 1 Cor. xi. 1 ; ii. 4-10, with 1 Cor. ii. 4, iv. 3, 4, ix. 15, 16, 2 Cor.
ii. 17, v. 11, xi. 9. — Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 95, 96.
2 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 94-107. Baur does not make any
regular statement of his objections, but those given above are what he chiefly
insists upon.
3 De Wette's Einlettung, p. 279.
4 As, for example, the different statements regarding the movements of Silas
and Timothy, the duration of Paul's residence at Thessalonica, and the composi
tion of the Thessalonian Church. These apparent discrepancies are afterwards
discussed.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 83
the Epistles to the Eomans and Galatians, both of which are
regarded by Baur as indisputably authentic. It would hardly
have struck any one that there is a direct allusion in 1 Thess.
ii. 1 6 to the destruction of Jerusalem ; but even supposing
this were the case, the condition of the Jewish nation led
many among the Jews themselves to anticipate the Jewish
war and its fatal issue. It is admitted that the strong proba
bility is that this Epistle was composed only a few months
after Paul's visit to Thessalonica ; but the circumstances men
tioned in the Epistle which would seem to indicate a later
date may easily be accounted for, by admitting an interval of
six months between the visit and the writing of the Epistle.
And as to the last objection, the apocalyptic nature of the two
Epistles, it is not permissible to judge a priori whether such
statements are inconsistent with Paul's style and manner ; and
we see evident reasons in the disturbed state of the Thessa
lonian Church why Paul in his epistles to it should especially
dwell on the kingdom of Christ and the doctrine of the
advent.1 The points of agreement with the Acts of the Apostles are
circumstantial and undoubted. Of these the three following
are mentioned by Paley:2 — 1. In the Acts we learn that
Paul, accompanied by Silas and Timothy, came to Philippi,
where Paul and Silas were scourged, thrown into prison, and
had their feet made fast in the stocks. In the Epistle, written
in the name of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, there is an allusion
to this treatment at Philippi : " Even after 'that we had
suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at
Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak to you the gospel
of God with much contention " (1 Thess. ii. 2). 2. In the
Acts we learn that a similar treatment befell Paul and Silas
at Thessalonica : " The Jews which believed not set all the
city in an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason (where
Paul and Silas lodged), and sought to bring them out to the
1 The objections of Baur are ably discussed and answered in Liinemann's Brief e
an die Thessalonicher, pp. 10-15 ; Jowett on St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. pp. 18-
27 ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 455-460 (old edition), vol. i. pp. 21-
25 (new edition) ; and by Lightfoot in the article " The Epistles to the Thessa
lonians " in Smith's Dictionary.
2 Paley's Hores Paulines on 1 Thessalonians, No. III.

84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
people " (Acts xvii. 5). In the Epistle there is the following
reference : " When we were with you, we told you before that
we should suffer tribulation ; even as it came to pass, and ye
know " (1 Thess. iii. 4). 3. In the Acts we are informed that
Silas and Timothy joined the apostle at Corinth : " And when
Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia (to Corinth),
Paul was pressed in the spirit " (Acts xviii. 5). The Epistle is
written in the joint name of these three persons, and speaks
of their conjunct ministry at Thessalonica as a recent occur
rence : " We, brethren, being taken from you for a short time
in presence, not in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to
see your face with great desire" (1 Thess. ii. 17). There can
be no question as to the harmony on these points between the
Epistle and the history ; and yet the allusions in the Epistle to
these historical occurrences are quite incidental and perfectly
natural, and do not in the least degree favour the supposition
of Baur, that the writer of the Epistle took his materials from
the Acts.
The apparent discrepancies between the Acts and the
Epistle are not difficult to reconcile, and yet are of such a
nature as to render all idea of collusion impossible. Some of
these will be referred to, when we consider the circumstances
of the church at Thessalonica ; one only is mentioned at pre
sent, as having given rise to a diversity of opinion. In the
Acts we are informed that Paul, Silas, and Timothy were
together at Berea, but that there they separated. Paul went
to Athens, and Silas and Timothy remained behind. Paul sent
a message from Athens requesting them to join him there, and
we are informed that he waited for them (Acts xvii. 14-16) ;
but it would seem, from the history, that they did not join
him until he came to Corinth (Acts xviii. 5). In the Epistle
to the Thessalonians, however, we read : " Wherefore, when
we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at
Athens alone ; and sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister
of God, and our fellow-labourer in the gospel of Christ, to
establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith"
(1 Thess. iii. 1, 2). From this it is inferred that Timothy
actually joined Paul at Athens, but was sent back by him to
Thessalonica to inquire into the state of the converts in that

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 85
city. Hence De Wette and Meyer assert that there is a real
discrepancy between the Epistle and Luke's narrative, and that
all attempts to reconcile it are unavailing : that Luke was
ignorant that Timothy joined the apostle at Athens.1 Most
critics (Michaelis, Paley, Bleek, Neander, Ewald, Jowett, Ellicott,
Davidson) admit that Timothy did actually join Paul at Athens.
Paley, so far from seeing in this a discrepancy, regards it as
an undesigned coincidence. He supposes that Timothy's visit
to Athens is indicated in the history by the command of Paul
that Silas and Timothy should join him at Athens, by Paul
waiting for them there, and by the fact that his departure from
Athens was not in any sort hastened or abrupt. " The Epistle
discloses a fact which is not preserved in the history ; but
which makes what is said in the history more significant,
probable, and consistent."2 But be this as it may, the mere
omission by Luke of Timothy's visit to Athens and return to
Thessalonica cannot be considered a discrepancy, as the cir
cumstance had no bearing upon his narrative. If Timothy
had remained with the apostle at Athens, and thus had not
rejoined him at Corinth, the case would have been different.
But, after all, it is a mere assumption that Timothy was sent
by the apostle from Athens to Thessalonica : no such assertion
is made in the Epistle. Accordingly others (Hug, Hemsen,
Burton, Eeuss, Wieseler, Alford) suppose that Timothy was
sent by Paul to Thessalonica from Berea, and not from Athens ;
and that he and Silas went direct from Macedonia to Corinth.3
If Paul had given this direction before he left Berea, and if
circumstances had prevented Silas and Timothy joining him at
Athens, he might well say, " We thought it good to be left at
Athens alone." Or it may be supposed that Paul sent a
message from Athens to Berea, that Timothy should go to
Thessalonica. In either case there is a perfect harmony
between the Epistle and the history.
' Meyer's Apostelgeschichte, p. 346 ; De Wette's Apostelgeschichte, p. 134.
2 Paley's Horce Paulines on 1 Thessalonians, No. IV.
3 See especially Reuss' Qeschichte N.T., p. 68. He very pertinently asks :
" To what purpose so many journeys ? "

86 ' THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

II. THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA.
Thessalonica was a large maritime and commercial city,
situated on the slope of a hill at the northern end of the
Thermaic Gulf, now called the Gulf of Saloniki. Its former
name was Thermae. It was rebuilt by Cassander, who called
it Thessalonica after his wife, the sister of Alexander the
Great,1 — Thessalonica herself having received her name on
account of the victory of her father Philip over the Thessa
lonians on the day of her birth. Under the Macedonians,
Thessalonica flourished as their most important seaport ; and
its prosperity greatly increased when the country was attached
to the Eoman empire. It was first made the capital of the
second of the four districts into which Macedqnia was divided ;
and afterwards, when the province of Macedonia was formed,
it became the metropolis, and the residence of the Eoinari
proconsul. It received the privilege of a free city, and was
governed by its own magistrates (TroXiTap^ai, Acts xvii. 6).
Strabo, in the first century, mentions it as the most populous
city in Macedonia.2 Its inhabitants were chiefly Greeks, with
a mixture of Eomans, and a large colony of Jews who had
. settled there on account of trade. Such was the condition of
the city when Paul visited it, and announced in the synagogue
Jesus as the Christ. Since that time Thessalonica has had
few reverses. Until the founding of Constantinople, it was
the most important city of Achaia., Macedonia, Thrace, and
Illyricum ; after the empire became Christian, it became an
important episcopate, and received the designation of "the
orthodox city." For centuries it stood as a strong bulwark of
Christendom against the encroachments of the Mahometans.
It was finally captured by the Turks under Amurath II. in
1430 ; and at present it is considered the second city of
European Turkey, having a population of 70,000. The
greater part of its population is composed of Greek Christians,
with a large proportion of Jews, who are estimated at the
1 Strabo, vii., Frag. 24.
2 Strabo, vii. 7, 4.

THE CHURCH OF THESSALONICA. 87
lowest at 10,000.- Its modern name is Saloniki, an evident
corruption of the ancient Thessalonica.
An account of the origin of the church in Thessalonica is
given in Acts xvii. Paul and his fellow-labourers Silas and
Timothy, being driven out of Philippi, came to Thessalonica.
Here was the principal synagogue of the country, and Paul,
according to his custom, entered into it and taught. For three
Sabbaths he preached to the Jews and the devout persons who
came to worship, testifying that Jesus was the Christ. The
result of his preaching is thus related by the sacred historian :
" And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and
Silas ; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the
chief women not a few '' (Acts xvii. 1-4). We are afterwards
informed that the Jews excited the rabble to raise a tumult
against the Christian preachers, in consequence of which Paul
and Silas were forced to leave the city secretly by night for
Berea. From the narrative of the Acts, it would at first sight
appear that the apostle remained only three weeks in Thessa
lonica, and that the tumult which expelled him from the city
took place immediately after the third Sabbath ; but this
account has to be supplemented by what we read in the
Epistle. We find that a large and flourishing church, chiefly
composed of Gentile converts, was formed (1 Thess. i. 8) ; that
Paul worked for his own support (1 Thess. ii. 9) ; and that
the Philippians sent twice to supply his necessities (Phil.
iv. 16), the distance between the two cities being a hundred
miles : so that Paul must have remained a longer time at
Thessalonica. Olshausen, indeed, refers the repeated contri
butions of the Philippians not to the first sojourn of Paul in
Thessalonica, but to the second, which occurred after his
departure from Ephesus (Acts xx. 1) ; 2 but such a view is
excluded by the apostle's own words, when he says that it
was "in the beginning of the gospel" (Phil. iv. 10) —
that is, at the introduction of Christianity into Macedonia —
that the Philippians contributed to his support. The proba-
1 According to some authorities, they amount to 35,000, or nearly one half of
the population. — Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. i. p. 383, note.
2 Olshausen Ore the Tloessalonians, p. 394, Clark's translation.

88 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
bility is, that the three Sabbaths mentioned in the Acts relate
to Paul's preaching in the synagogue ; that afterwards, finding
the Jews obstinate, he, according to his usual custom in other
cities, desisted, and turned to the Gentiles ; and that it was
his increasing success among the Gentiles that excited the
envy of the Jews {^ijXdoa-avTes, Acts xvii. 5), and led to the
tumult. Still, though not necessarily limited to three weeks,
it is evident, both from the spirit of the Epistle and from the
history, that Paul's residence at Thessalonica was compara
tively short, and that he was constrained to leave, in a some
what imperfect condition, the church which he had established.
It would appear from both Epistles, that Paul when at
Thessalonica dwelt much on the kingdom of Christ and His
coming as Judge of the world. The burden of his preaching
was, that they should wait for the Son of God from heaven,
that the day of the Lord shall come suddenly and unexpectedly,
and that the Lord Himself shall be revealed from heaven ;
and he dwelt upon the hindrance which prevented the advent
of Christ (2 Thess. ii. 5). It would seem that certain
expressions of his were either misinterpreted or wilfully per
verted, as if he taught that Jesus was a rival monarch to
Caesar : " These men do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, say
ing that there is another king, one Jesus " (Acts xvii. 7).1
From the Epistle, it is evident that the Church of Thessa
lonica was chiefly composed of Gentile Christians. They are
represented as those who turned to God from idols to serve
the living and true God (1 Thess. i. 9), — a description applicable
to converted Gentiles, but not to converted Jews. And in
both Epistles to the Thessalonians there is not a single quota
tion from, and hardly an allusion, to, the Old Testament. Now
when we turn to the Acts, we find an apparent discrepancy,
and a real agreement. We are informed, as the result of
Paul's three Sabbaths' preaching in the synagogue, that " some
of the Jews believed, and consorted' with Paul and Silas ; and
of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief
women not a few " (Acts xvii. 4). If we adopt the reading
approved by Lachmann, tcov re o-efio/iivoov Kai 'EXXtfvcov iroXv
1 There is in this an undesigned coincidence between the history and the
Epistle, not alluded to by Paley.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 89
•n-Xrjdos (and of the devout persons and of Greeks a great
multitude), there is a perfect harmony. But, admitting the
correctness of the received text, it is evident from the narra
tive that Paul's success was limited among the Jews, but great
among the devout Greeks, that is, among those religious
Gentiles who, without being proselytes, attended the Jewish
synagogue, and were formerly idolaters. And if we admit
that Paul remained longer than the three weeks preaching to
the Gentiles with much success (1 Thess. i. 5), we can easily
perceive how the church would be composed chiefly of
Gentile converts. It is also to be observed, that there are
indications in the Epistle that the church increased during
Paul's absence (1 Thess. i. 7, 8), — perhaps by the labours of
Timothy, who appears to have been left for a time behind
(Acts xvii. 10), and who a second time visited the city at the
request of the apostle (1 Thess. iii. 1, 2).
III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
It would appear that the persecution excited against the
Christians at the instigation of the Jews, which had arisen
during Paul's presence, continued in his absence (1 Thess.
ii. 14) ; and besides, Paul feared that, by reason of the short
ness of his residence, his converts were only partially in
structed in the nature of Christianity. He was therefore
filled with anxiety on their account, lest they should fall
from the faith. Twice he had attempted to visit them, but
had been prevented. He had therefore sent Timothy, who
had laboured with him in founding the church at Thessalonica,
to ascertain their state, " to establish and comfort them con
cerning their faith" (1 Thess. iii. 2). Timothy had now
rejoined the apostle at Corinth, and the information which he
brought was the occasion of this Epistle. That information
was, upon the whole, satisfactory. Believers, in spite of perse
cution, continued stedfast in their faith and in their attach
ment to Paul, their spiritual father (1 Thess. iii. 6, 7), so that
they became examples to all that believe in Thessalonica and
Achaia (1 Thess. i. 7) : their faith was everywhere spread
abroad, and their love to one another abounded. The infor-

9 0 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
mation, however, was not wholly satisfactory. The know
ledge of the Thessalonians was defective, and the apostle.
required to supply that which was lacking in their faith
(1 Thess. iii. 10) ; there were those among them who had not
ceased from the prevalent vices of their heathen neighbours
(1 Thess. iv. 1-7) ; and in consequence of certain fanatical
views concerning the advent of Christ, some had become
disorderly, and neglected to work for their own support
(1 Thess. iv. 11, 12). It would also appear that some of the
converts had died, and the Thessalonians were distressed
about the fate of their deceased friends, especially lest they
should not participate in the blessings to be bestowed at the
coming of the Lord Jesus (1 Thess. iv. 1 3).1
The general design of this Epistle, then, was to confirm the
Thessalonians in the Christian faith, to exhort them to re
linquish those vices in which they, still indulged, to comfort
them in the sufferings to which they were exposed, to console
them under the loss of their friends, and to exhort them to
make further progress in every department of the Christian
character.

IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle is divided into two distinct parts. The first
part, comprehending the first three chapters, may be termed
historical, and contains an account of the apostle's anxiety for
the Thessalonians. The second part, including the two last
chapters, is practical, and contains various admonitions and
exhortations concerning their Christian conduct. In the first
part, the apostle commences with thanking God for all the
grace bestowed upon the Thessalonians in their reception of
the gospel (i. 1-10). He then reminds them of his labours
among them, and of his conduct when in Thessalonica, and
thanks God for the stedfastness of their faith, in spite of the
persecution to which they were exposed (ii. 1-16). He
expresses his great anxiety on their behalf, his repeated
attempts to come to them, the reason why he sent Timothy,
1 The occasion of the First Epistle to the Thessalonians is well stated by
Lunemann in his Commentary, pp. 3-5.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 91
and the great joy which he experienced at the information
which was brought to him (ii. 1 7— iii. 13). In the second
part, Paul exhorts them to continue in holiness, to avoid the
vices of the Gentiles, to abound in Christian love, and instead
of being led away by excitement, to be diligent in the per
formance of their earthly duties (iv. 1-12). He then com
forts them concerning the fate of their deceased friends, and
exhorts them to be watchful and prepared for the coming
of Christ (iv. 13-v. 11). Then follow several exhortations,
adapted to the circumstances of the Thessalonians, to cultivate
the virtues of Christianity ; and the Epistle concludes — after
a solemn charge that it be publicly read — with the apostolic
blessing (v. 12-28). V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
There is little dubiety as to the time when this Epistle was
written. When Paul .and his associates Silas and Timothy
left Thessalonica, they came to Berea. Here Paul left them,
with directions to Timothy to return to Thessalonica, and pro
ceeded alone to Athens. He alludes to his solitary residence
at Athens in the Epistle (1 Thess. iii. 1). From Athens he
went to Corinth, where Silas and Timothy rejoined him (Acts
xviii. 5). Now, as the Epistle is written iri the names of
Paul, Silas, and Timothy (1 Thess. i. 1), it is evident that it
was not composed until they all met together at Corinth ; and
it must have been written there, as this is the last time that
we read of Silas being in company with Paul. It is also
evident that some time must have elapsed between the intro
duction of Christianity and the writing of this Epistle. The
faith of the Thessalonians was spread abroad in Macedonia
and Achaia (1 Thess. i. 8) ; Paul had made two attempts to
visit them (1 Thess. ii. 17,18); and it would seem that some
of the members of the church had died (1 Thess. iv. 13).1
But still the interval could not be long. The circumstance
of Paul's visit to Thessalonica was fresh upon his memory
(1 Thess. ii. 17); his anxiety for the spiritual welfare of his con
verts was great ; and as the information brought by Timothy
1 Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 411.

92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
was the direct occasion of the Epistle, it would probably be
written shortly after that evangelist's return. Besides, the
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was also written during
the same residence at Corinth (2 Thess. i. 1) ; and some time
must be allowed for the growth of those opinions which are
combated in that Epistle. We may therefore fix the date of
the composition of this Epistle toward the close of the year 52
or at the beginning of 5 3, that is, during the early part of
Paul's residence of a year and a half at Corinth (Acts xviii.
11)- Other dates have been assigned to the Epistle, but they do
not require any refutation, as the arguments in favour of the
above date are so convincing that it is now almost universally
adopted. Michaelis and Benson suppose that the Epistle was
written during the latter part of Paul's residence at Corinth,
and after he bad made several excursions from that city;1
Schrader fixes the date during the apostle's journey to Mace
donia and Greece, after his departure from Ephesus (Acts xx.
1-3) ;2 and Kohler and Whiston3 suppose that it was among
the last of Paul's epistles, and was not written until after his
release from his Eoman imprisonment, at a period beyond the
history contained in the Acts of the Apostles.
It follows that the place of writing was Corinth. In our
Bible, at the end of this Epistle, there is the following note :
" The First Epistle unto the Thessalonians was written from
Athens." But this is an evident mistake, arising from a care
less inference drawn from the words, " We thought it good to
be left at Athens alone." Paul speaks of his sojourn at
Athens as a past event ; and it was not at Athens, but at
Corinth, that he was joined by Silas and Timothy. These
subscriptions at the end of the epistles are of no authority, as
not belonging to the original text ; and although perhaps in
general correct, yet occasionally, as in the present instance,
they are erroneous.
1 Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. vi. pp. 23-25.
2 Schrader's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. pp. 90 and 164.
3 Kbhler's Versuch iiber die Abfassungszeit der apostolischen Schriften, p. 112
et seq. ; and Whiston's Primitive Christianity Revived, vol. iii. pp. .46, 47.

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 93

VI. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
The great distinctive peculiarity of this Epistle consists in
its being the first of Paul's extant epistles.1 Whether it is the
first epistle he ever wrote may be doubtful, but it is certain
that it is the first which has . come down to us, — perhaps the
earliest of all the books of the New Testament. The priority
of this Epistle is now a point which is generally admitted by
all those who allow its genuineness.2
It is interesting to compare this Epistle with those of Paul's
later years.3 About three years intervened between these
Epistles to the Thessalonians and the Epistle to the Galatians,
the next in the series, and at least ten between them and the
epistles of the captivity. The great outlines of the gospel —
the kingdom of Christ, the atoning death of Christ, the reign
of Christ in heaven, the resurrection of believers, and the
second advent of Christ — are contained in all the epistles.
Nor is there any development of doctrine, properly so called.
Still it is true that, compared with the other epistles, — for
example, Eomans, Galatians, and Ephesians,- — there is an
absence of doctrinal statement in this Epistle to the Thessa-.
Ionians. Indeed, what is considered the peculiar Pauline
doctrine, that of justification by faith, is not even mentioned ;
there is no contrast between faith and works, — no statement
of the peculiar provinces of the law and the gospel. The
reasons for this are obvious enough. The circumstances of
the churches to which the apostle wrote were the occasion of
his doctrinal statements. It was chiefly the opposition of the
Judaizing teachers that caused him to assert the doctrine of
justification ; but when he wrote the Epistle to the Thessa-
1 The inner essential peculiarity consists in the reference to the second advent.
This is reserved as the subject of a separate dissertation.
2 The order of the two Epistles to the Thessalonians is afterwards discussed.
3 See this comparison carried out by Professor Lightfoot, in his able article on
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians in Smith's Biblical Dictionary. He
notices three points of difference between this Epistle and Paul's later letters : —
1. In the general style of these earlier letters there is greater simplicity and less
exuberance of language. 2. The antagonis-m to St. Paul is not the same. Here
the opposition comes from the unconverted Jews ; afterwards Paul's opponents
are Jewish Christians. 3. The doctrinal teaching of the apostle does not bear
quite the same aspect as in the later epistles.

94 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Ionians, such an opposition, though it had already arisen, was
not so strong as it afterwards became, and does not seem to
have affeqted the churches of Macedonia. The opponents of
Paul at Thessalonica were not Jewish Christians, but uncon
verted Jews. It was "the Jews who believed not" (ol _-_-.--,
6ovvre<s 'IovBalot) who were the instigators of the tumult
against the apostle (Acts xviii. 5),, and who forbade him to -
preach to the Gentiles that they might be saved (1 Thess. ii.
1 6). Hence the circumstances of the Thessalonian church did
not require that the apostle should dwell upon the doctrine of
justification in opposition to the Judaizing Christians, but rather
on the doctrine of the 'second advent, for the consolation of the
persecuted believers.
The observation of Baur, that this Epistle to the Thessa
lonians is the least doctrinal of all the. Pauline Epistles,1, is
perfectly correct, and the state of the Thessalonian church
accounts for this peculiarity. The Epistle which it most
resembles is that addressed to the sister church of Macedonia
— the church of Philippi. In both we have an insight into
the heart of Paul ; in both there is more of commendation
than of blame. The churches of Macedonia were perhaps the
fairest examples of the Pauline churches : their charity and
liberality abounded (2 Cor. viii. 1-5) ; and once and again they
are held forth as examples of faith and love to the churches
of Achaia (1 Thess. i. 7 ; 2 Cor. ix. 1-4).

PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE ADVENT.
It is evident, from the perusal of the Thessalonian Epistles,
that the Christians of Thessalonica expected the immediate
advent of our Lord. An impression prevailed among them,
that at the most in a few years the Lord Jesus Christ would
1 In der ganzen Sammlung der paulinischen Briefe gibt es keinen, welcher alien
andern in Hinsicht der Eingenthiimlichkeit und Gewichtigkeit des Inhalts so
sehr nachsteht wie 1 Thess. ; mit Ausnahme der iv. 13-18 enthaltenen Vor-
stellung tritt nicht einmal irgend eine dogmatische Idee mit besonderer Bedeu-
tung hervor. — Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 94.

PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE ADVENT. 95
come down from vheaven, destroy their enemies, and establish
His Messianic kingdom. Whether they thought that, accord
ing to the Jewish notion, His kingdom was to be erected in
this world; or whether they supposed that the earth, was to be
destroyed, and the saints with their Lord were to be trans
ferred to heaven; does not appear. In consequence of this
expectation, great excitement prevailed, and the Thessalonian
church was thrown into a state of confusion. Men's minds
were withdrawn from their ordinary duties ; the interests of a
world which was in a few years to pass away appeared insig
nificant ; the awfulness of the impending advent preoccupied
their thoughts ; secular business was neglected, and idleness
and disorder were the inevitable result, Hence the repeated
exhortations of the apostle to the quiet performance of their
earthly duties : " to study to be quiet, and to do their own busi
ness, and to work witn their own hands ;" " to walk honestly
toward them that are without, so that they might have lack of
nothing" (1 Thess. iv. 11, .2; 2 Thess. iii. 9-13). Some
also were in perplexity and distress concerning the fate of
their deceased friends, fearing that these would miss those
blessings which they expected Christ to confer at His advent
(1 Thess. iv. 13). It was with special reference to these dis
orders and opinions that the apostle wrote his first epistle ; but
it would appear that the excitement, instead of being allayed,
had rather increased. The Epistle had been misinterpreted.
Enthusiastic men, who supposed themselves privileged with
revelations and visions, taught that the day of the Lord was
at hand. A spurious epistle of the apostle had been circulated,
announcing the immediate advent of Christ (2 Thess. ii. 2).
Paul's preaching when at Thessalonica had either been per
verted or misunderstood. And thus the Thessalonian con
verts "were shaken in mind and troubled" (2 Thess. ii. 1, 2).
It has already been observed that Paul, when at Thessa
lonica, had directed the special attention of his converts to the
kingdom of Christ, and to His coming as the Judge of the
world. He comforted them amid persecution with the prospect
of Christ's final victory over all their enemies ; exhorted them
to possess their souls in patience, and to " wait for the Son of
God from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus,

96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
which delivered us from the wrath to come " (1 Thess. i. 1 0) ;
and he announced that the Lord Himself would descend from
heaven, accompanied with His mighty angels (1 Thess. iv. 1 6).
And indeed in all his epistles Paul lays great stress on the
advent,— it occupies a prominent part in his teaching. He
held it forth as the object of the believers' faith and hope, and
the great motive to stir them up to watchfulness, holiness,
unworldliness, and a patient endurance of those sufferings to
which, as Christians, they were exposed. " The grace of God,"
writes the apostle in one of his last epistles, " that bringeth
salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, deny
ing ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,
righteously, and godly in this present world ; looking for that
blessed hope, and the manifestation of the glory of the great
God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ " (Titus ii. 1 2). And
again : " Let your moderation be known unto all men ; the
Lord is at hand " (Phil. iv. 5). Paul seldom refers, as we
do, to the solemnity and uncertainty of death as a motive to
watchfulness and obedience. The "coming of the Son of
man" was not used by him in a metaphorical sense, and in
reference to Christ's coming at death, but it was a real and
actual advent, for which all ought to be prepared. Believers
should hold themselves in a state of constant preparation, not
so much because all must die, but because the Judge standeth
at the door.
It has been plausibly argued that the reason why Paul
places so much stress on the second advent is because he
believed that Christ would come in his own day ; in short, it
is asserted that he believed and taught, especially in this First
Epistle to the Thessalonians, the immediateness of the advent.
Thus the Thessalonians were not guilty so much of misunder
standing Paul's declarations, as of perverting them : their error
did not consist in erroneously imagining that the apostle
taught that Christ would soon come, but in deriving from this
notion false consequences. " St. Paul himself," observes Dean
Howson, "shared in that expectation, but being under the
guidance of the Spirit of truth, he did not deduce therefrom
any erroneous • practical conclusions." 1 It is affirmed that
" 1 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. i. p. 475.

PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE ADVENT. 97
Paul speaks of the advent in such terms as would warrant the
supposition that he and those to whom he wrote would be
alive at the time of its occurrence. " This I say unto you by
the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain
unto the coming of the Lord " (Sri i)/j,el<s ol £o_. Te. ol TrepiXenro-
fievot. e_? ttjv irapovcriav tov Kvplov) " shall not prevent them
which are asleep " (1 Thess. iv. 15-17). Here "those who
are alive and remain " are distinguished from " those who are
asleep," in which former class the apostle, by prefixing fifieh,
includes himself and his readers.1 And a similar declaration
is contained in the First Epistle to the Corinthians : " We
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed " (1 Cor. xv.
51).2 Nor indeed, it is asserted, was this the opinion of Paul
only, but was shared in by the other sacred writers. " Be ye
also patient," writes James ; " stablish your hearts : for the
coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against
another, brethren, lest ye be condemned : behold, the Judge
standeth before the door " (Jas. v. 8, 9). " The end of all
things," writes Peter, " is at hand : be ye therefore sober, and
watch unto prayer " (1 Pet. iv. 7). " Little children," writes
John, " it is the last time : and as ye have heard that anti
christ shall come, even now are there many antichrists ;
whereby we know that it is the last time" (1 John ii. 18).
And the Apocalypse closes with words announcing the imme
diate advent : " Surely I come quickly " (Eev. xxii. 2 0).3 And
to the positive declarations of Paul are to be added, as con
firmations, all those passages in which he exhorts his converts
" to wait for the coming of the Lord Jesus " (1 Cor. i. 7) ; " to
wait for the Son of God from heaven " (1 Thess. i. 10) ; " and
to wait patiently for Christ " (2 Thess. iii. 5), — expressions
which seem to make the certainty of Christ's immediate
advent the direct motive to vigilance and patience. And it is
further asserted that this opinion appears to receive justifica
tion from the words of our Lord Himself. In His prediction
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., note on 1 Thess. iv. 15.
- Another but inferior reading of this verse, adopted by Lachmann, is : " We
shall all sleep, but we shall not be changed : " meaning, " All men shall die, but
all shall not experience the glorious transformation ofthe blessed."
3 See Reuss' Geschichte NT., pp. 25, 26, where a list of passages is given,
supposed to refer to an immediate advent. G

98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
of the destruction of Jerusalem, He tells His disciples that
" immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun
be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the
stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken : and then shall appear the sign of the Son
of man in heaven : and then shall all the tribes of the earth
mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory." And He adds,
" Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled" (Matt. xxiv. 29, 30, 34). Now it
has been said that whatever explanation may be given to
these words after the fulfilment of the prophecy in the de
struction of Jerusalem, yet before that occurrence they must
have been understood as indicating the immediate coming of
the Son of man.
Such a view, that Paul not only expected but inculcated
the immediateness of the advent, has been adopted by Grotius,
Olshausen, Koch, Neander, Lechler, Baur, Winer, Eeuss,
Liinemann, and among English divines by Alford, Jowett,
Stanley, and Conybeare and Howson. " The belief in the
near approach of the coming of Christ," observes Professor
Jowett, " is spoken of or implied in almost every book of the
New Testament : in the discourses of our Lord Himself as
well as in the Acts of the Apostles ; in the Epistles of St. •
Paul no less than in the book of the Eevelation."1 Some
suppose that on this point Paul changed his views. In the
beginning of his ministry and in his first epistles, he taught
the immediateness of the advent ; but as time rolled on, and
he became " Paul the aged," this doctrine made less impression
on him, until the expectation faded' away, and he was led,
toward the close of his ministry, to entertain the desire to
depart and to be with Christ. " In this single point," observes
Olshausen, " can we discern in his later writings a different
form of doctrinal statement from that contained in his earlier
epistles. In his earliest epistles, St. Paul expresses a hope
that he himself may live until the time of the Lord's return
(see 1 Thess. iv. ; 2 Cor. v.), but in the later he renounced
1 Jowett Ore the Epistles of Paul, vol. i. p. 108.

PAULS VIEWS OF THE ADVENT. 99
this hope, and longs to depart and to be with Christ" (Phil.
i. 23).1 An insidious use has been made of this opinion by Gibbon
in assigning the causes for the rapid propagation of Christianity.
Among these causes, he mentions the belief in the approaching
end of the world as taught by Paul, and perhaps countenanced
by the discourses of our Lord Himself ; and he asserts that
such a belief, though erroneous, was permitted to continue,
because it was found helpful in gaining converts to Christianity.
" It was universally believed that the end of the world, and
the kingdom of heaven, were at hand. The near approach of
this wonderful event had been predicted by the apostles ; the
tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples ; and
those who understood in their literal sense the discourses of
Christ Himself, were obliged to expect the second and glorious
coming of the Son of man in the clouds, before that generation
was totally extinguished which had beheld His humble con
dition on earth, and which might still be witness of the
calamities of the Jews under Vespasian or Hadrian. The
revolution of seventeen centuries has instructed us not to press
too closely the mysterious language of prophecy and revelation ;
but as long as, for wise purposes, this error was permitted to
subsist in the Church, it was productive of the most salutary
effects on the faith and practice of Christians, who lived in
the awful expectation of that moment when the globe itself
and all the various races of mankind should tremble at the
appearance of their divine Judge."2
Now if Paul did inculcate the immediateness of the advent ;
if he did assert that he and his Thessalonian converts would
actually be alive at the coming of Christ ; then unquestionably
he was mistaken and in error ; and to admit that an erroneous
doctrine could be taught by him must materially influence our
1 Olshausen, Der Brief an die RSmer, p. 14 ; also Clark's translation of
Olshausen on the Romans, p. 11. See also Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 182,
and Alford on 1 Thess. iv. 15. " His expectation," observes Alford, " does not
seem to have been so strong toward the end of his course."
2 Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap, xv., the Second
Cause. In _ note he observes : "This expectation was countenanced by the
24th chapter of St. Matthew, and by the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessa
lonians."

100 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
idea of inspiration — we must relinquish the infallibility of
revelation.1 Nor is it any answer to affirm that the time of
the advent was expressly excluded by our Lord Himself from
being a matter of revelation,2 because, according to the above
opinion, Paul taught definitely concerning it. To assert its
uncertainty, and the consequent possibility of its occurrence
in the lifetime of himself and of his converts, was not at
variance with inspiration ; but to affirm definitely that it
would happen in his days is another matter, and appears to be
utterly at variance with the character of an inspired teacher
of truth. And it is to be observed that in the very passage
on which the view in question is founded, the apostle asserts
his inspiration, and affirms that the statement which he makes
was by the word of the Lord (tovto yap vfiiv Xeyop,ev iv Xoym
Kvplov)? plainly appealing to the authority of Christ for what
he was about to say ;4 so that if he were mistaken, either our
Lord Himself must err with him, or the apostle had no such
divine authority for the statement which he made.
But in truth it is an error to suppose that Paul either
entertained the belief of Christ's immediate advent or asserted
it, and this appears even from what he himself says in these
two Epistles to the Thessalonians.5 This is especially evident
from the language of the Second Epistle. In it the apostle
tells them directly that the day of Christ was not at hand, but
that a series of events would take place before its occurrence.
" Now we beseech you, brethren, concerning the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and concerning our gathering unto Him,
that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by
spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day
1 This is the alternative which Professor Jowett adopts. See his work on St.
Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 120.
2 The answer given by Dean Alford.
3 'E» xiyu Kvpiov, " in a word of the Lord," that is, according to, in conformity
with, the word ofthe Lord,— alluding not to any particular saying, but to a special
revelation. 4 Liinemann gets over this difficulty by asserting that the xiyos Kvplou refers to
the relation of those who sleep to the living, but not to the persons who will
belong to the one class or the other at the advent. — Kommentar, p. 130. See also
Olshausen in loco.
5 See an excellent sermon by Professor Butler on the " Practical Uses of the
Uncertainty of Christ's Coming, " First Series, Sermon I.

PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE ADVENT. 101
of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means :
for that day shall not come, except there come the apostasy
first " (2 Thess. ii. 1-3), — words which would seem almost to
exclude the notion of an immediate advent. Nor can it be
affirmed that the apostle, in consequence of the continued
disorder of the Thessalonian Church, here intimates a change
of opinion from what he entertained when he wrote the First
Epistle, in which he speaks of himself and his converts being
alive at the coming of the Lord; because he had told the
Thessalonians about this apostasy when he was in Thessalonica,
and consequently before the First Epistle was written. " Ee-
member ye not that, when I was with you, I told you these
things ." (2 Thess. ii. 5). And in the First Epistle he represses
the curiosity of the Thessalonians about the precise time of the
advent, by telling them that it was beyond the sphere of his
teaching, and shrouded in mystery and uncertainty : " But of
the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I
write unto you : for yourselves know perfectly that the day of
the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night " (1 Thess. v. 1,
2). And in the Epistle to the Eomans he asserts that before
the coming of Christ, the fulness of the Gentiles and the con
version of the Jews would occur, — in other words, the world
would be Christianized (Eom. xi. 24-27), — which was evidently
a matter of time. So also in various passages he looks forward
to death, and speaks in the same comprehensive terms of being
raised from the dead, as those in which he speaks of believers
being alive at the coming of Christ, so that the one expression
must modify the other : " God hath both raised up the Lord,
and will also raise up us by His own power" (1 Cor. vi. 14).
And in a somewhat similar form : " Knowing that He which
raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and
shall present us with you" (2 Cor. iv. 14).1 And in the
same Epistle, in which he makes the announcement, " The
1 "It is evident, whatever force may be in the expression, 'We the living,
who remain at the coming of the Lord,' to prove that Paul thought he was to be
one of the living at Christ's coming to judgment, the expression found in
2 Cor. iv. 14, ' He who raised up Jesus shall raise us up also by Jesus, and
shall present us with you, ' must be of equal force to prove that Paul thought
he would be of the number of the dead who are to be raised by Jesus at His
coming." — Macknight Ore the Epistles, note on 1 Thess. iv. 15.

102 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Lord is at hand," he looks forward not to being alive at the
coming of the Lord, but to his own death : " Christ shall be
magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by death. For
to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. I have a desire to
depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better " (Phil.
i. 20-23). Accordingly most critics have adopted the opinion, that
when the apostle says, " We which are alive and remain unto
the coming of the Lord," he speaks neither of himself nor of
his contemporaries, but of a later age of Christianity. This
opinion, with considerable variations in the interpretation of
the words, is adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Q_cumenius,
Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Bengel, Lange, Dod
dridge, Whitby, Macknight, Ellicott, and Wordsworth. There
are, however, several explanations of the words which are to
be rejected, as a straining of the passage and as manifestly
erroneous. For example, that of Turretin : " We, if we survive
and remain ; '' that of G_cumenius, that ol t/odVTe? are the souls
and ot KotfinOevTes the bodies of Christians ; and that of
Joachim Lange : " We who survive in our posterity." 1 The
words must be taken in their plain grammatical meaning.
Now there does not seem to be any violence done to the
passage, if we suppose that the apostle here speaks as a
member of the Christian Church ; that he uses a common
form of expression, " we Christians," but not at all intending
to express his confidence that he himself and his converts
would be actually alive at the advent. " He spoke," says St.
Chrysostom, " not of himself, but of Christians that would be
alive at the day of judgment." "He is speaking," says
Theodoret, " of the faithful who will then be alive, and will
be caught up in the air." The reason why he classes himself
among the ol %&v Te., and not among the ol KoipnOevTes, is
because he then belonged to that class when he wrote the
Epistle. It is admitted that the words are also susceptible of
the meaning, that the apostle taught that he and his converts
would be alive at the coming of Christ ; but this meaning is
excluded by contrary statements in other portions of his
writings, and therefore the other meaning, that he speaks of
1 See Liinemann's Briefe an die Thessalonicher, pp. 128-130.

PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE ADVENT. 103
Christians generally, equally justified by the words, is to be
adopted.1 The apostle must be interpreted in consistency with
himself. The same remarks are applicable to the similar
passage in First Corinthians : " We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed" (1 Cor. xv. 51).
It is to be observed that the time of the advent is expressly
excluded by our Lord from the sphere of revelation : it is one
of those secret things not to be revealed, which the Father
has reserved to Himself. Christ and His inspired apostles
announced the certainty of the advent, — that the day of the
Lord would come ; but neither Christ nor His inspired apostles
were commissioned to announce the time of the advent, —
when the Lord would come. In the same prophecy, where our
Lord asserts that immediately after those days the sign of the
Son of man shall be seen in the heavens, He adds, " But of
that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of
heaven, but rny Father only" (Matt. xxiv. 36). And before
His ascension He checks the curiosity of His disciples on
this point, saying, " It belongs not to you to know the times
and the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own
power " (Acts i. 7). And in a similar manner, in a passage
formerly adverted to, Paul announces the uncertainty of the
time of the advent, and that the only point that was known
about it was, that it would come unexpectedly (1 Thess.
v. 2, 3).
Such being the case, the time of the advent being a point
not revealed, — indeed, being expressly excluded from the sphere
of revelation, — the Church was to be kept in a state of expec
tation and watchfulness. The inspired apostles were them
selves in ignorance when Christ should come. It was to them,
as well as to other Christians, a matter of uncertainty, veiled
in an impenetrable mysteriousness ; here they were obliged
to confess their ignorance : they knew neither the day nor the
hour when the Son of man would come.' Hence it was
obviously impossible for them to teach anything definite or
certain on the subject. The Lord might come at any time.
1 See long and interesting notes on the passage in Wordsworth's St. Paul's
Epistles, and EUicott On the Thessalonians. Both of these commentators adopt
the view that Paul did not teach the immediateness of the advent.

104 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
The fact that Christ had so lately left the world, the warm
impressions which His presence made having not yet cooled,
and the recent promises of His return, would impress more
deeply upon the minds of the early Christians the desire for
His second advent, and may perhaps in part account for the
great stress which the sacred writers put upon that event.
They were so near to the first advent, that they felt in a
stronger manner than we can possibly do the importance of
the second. It may be that the apostles did not regard the
advent, as we are apt to do, as far removed into the distant
future, as wholly impossible to happen in their days, but as
an occurrence which might at any time take place. They
had perhaps but little conception that eighteen centuries
afterwards believers would be in the same position as-.them-
selves, looking forward to the coming of the Lord as a future
event.1 Hence it was that they exhorted their disciples to
hold themselves in constant readiness, so that if the Lord came
in their days, He might not find them unprepared. Although
they taught nothing definite as to the time, yet its very
indefiniteness and uncertainty was to the apostles the strongest
reason why they and their converts should be watchful, wait
ing for the return of the Lord. The attitude of Christians
was not to be an impatient and restless longing, but a patient
waiting for the coming of the Son of God; and the great
lesson which its uncertainty was designed to teach them was
vigilance. " That day is concealed," observes St. Augustine,
" that all days might be- observed," 2- — in conformity with our
Lord's 6wn application of the subject, " Watch therefore : for
ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of
man cometh. Therefore be ye also ready : for in such an
hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh " (Matt. xxiv.
42, 44).
There is no reason, then, for the somewhat rash assertion
that Paul shared in the erroneous views of the Thessalonians
concerning the immediateness of the advent. Such an opinion
he did not teach. The passage on which it is founded is clearly
susceptible of another meaning, more in accordance with his
1 Jowett's St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 114.
2 Ergo latet ille dies, ut observentur omnes dies.

PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE ADVENT. 105
declarations elsewhere expressed. On the contrary, he wrote
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians with the express
purpose of refuting that opinion. His office was to proclaim
the certainty of the advent, — that the Lord would surely come,
and would come unexpectedly ; but it was no part of his
mission to declare when He would come. Nay, it would
appear from his predictions of the previous coming of the man
of sin and of the conversion of the world, that he himself
did not expect the coming of Christ in his own days, and
that he looked forward to death, and not to translation, as the
end of his course ; 1 though at the same time there seems
nothing at variance with inspiration in supposing that Paul,
whilst he abstained from all definite statements, might hope
that Christ would come speedily. So that what Paul taught
was the uncertainty of the time of the advent, or at the
most the possibility of its occurrence in his days, and the
consequent necessity of living in a state of constant prepara
tion. The Thessalonian Church — and indeed, it would seem, the
early Christians in general — went beyond this teaching of Paul,
and it appears to have been not an unusual belief among them
that Christ would come in their days. Various causes served
to originate and foster this belief. Certain expressions in our
Lord's prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem might
be construed as if they inculcated that opinion. Before its
fulfilment in the actual destruction of Jerusalem, it must have
been very difficult, if not impossible, to understand the double
sense of the prophecy, and to separate those portions of it
which refer to the destruction of Jerusalem from those which
refer to the coming of Christ as the Judge of the world ; and
therefore it is not at all wonderful that the early Christians
saw in this prediction the announcement of an immediate
advent. Even to us, with all the knowledge which the fulfil
ment of the prophecy and the experience of the past afford,
there is still considerable difficulty in its interpretation, arising
1 " In view of all the circumstances, we must believe that Paul, when he wrote
ii/iiis ol Zuvtis ol *ipiXu*ifiivoi, knew this much, that the time of Christ's coming
was more distant than to allow of himself or any of his contemporaries living
to see it."— Davidson's Introduction to N. T. (old edition), vol. ii. p. 465.

106 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
in all probability from the fact that the complete fulfilment is
yet future ; but how much more difficult must it have been
for the' early Christians, who did not possess our advantages !
The state of the early Church was another reason why
Christians were led to believe in the speedy advent of the
Lord. Christianity was then fresh and new to the world : its
truths must have made a far stronger impression on believers
in those days than they do now. The Church, as a whole;
possessed the deep feelings which are in general only now ex
perienced on the first flush of conversion. Besides, as already
remarked, the fact that Christ had so lately left the world
would impress more deeply upon their minds the desire for
His return. Further, the Church was then in a persecuted .
condition, and therefore would naturally long for deliverance,
and anticipate the coming of their great Deliverer and King.
The state of the world may be mentioned as an additional
reason. The wars and commotions abroad; the earthquakes,
famines, and pestilences ; the condition of the Jewish people ;
the rise of Christianity, — all seemed to be the precursors of some
great crisis. And if, even in our days, important crises cause
many to believe in the approaching advent of Christ and the
end of the world, such crises must have created a still stronger
influence on the early Christians, when the promise of Christ's
coming was fresh, and when time had not yet falsified the idea
that it was at hand. The early Christians would naturally
read in all remarkable occurrences the signs and forerunners
of the Son of man in the heavens. For all these reasons, we
are not to wonder at the> erroneous views concerning the
advent entertained by the Thessalonians and other early
Christians ; indeed, it is rather a matter of surprise that they
were not more prevalent than they appear to have been, and
certainly would have been, had they been actually entertained
by Paul and the other sacred writers.1
1 For the opposite view of the subject, see Professor Jowett's able dissertation
"on the belief in the coming of Christ in the apostolic age," St: Paul's
Epistles, vol. i. pp. 118-124.

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
THE authenticity of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
has been more disputed by recent critics than the First.
This has been mainly on account of the predictions contained
in it relating to "the man of sin." It was universally ac
knowledged as Paul's until the beginning of the present
century, when it was first questioned by Schmidt. The
external testimonies in its favour are, however, if anything,
even stronger than those in favour of the First Epistle. It is
admitted that the following supposed allusion to it by Polycarp
(a.d. 1 1 6), given by Lardner and Kirchhofer, is doubtful : " Be
ye also moderate, and count not such as your enemies, but call
them back as suffering and erring members" (2 Thess. iii. 15).1
But the allusion by Justin Martyr (a.d. 140) seems unques
tionable : " When also the man of apostasy, who speaketh
great things against the Most High, shall dare to commit
unlawful deeds against us Christians" (2 Thess. ii. 3).2 The
Epistle is also, directly quoted by Irenaeus, Clemens Alex-
andrinus, and Tertullian. Thus Irenaeus (a.d. 178) writes:
" And again in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, speak
ing of Antichrist, he [Paul] says : ' And then shall that wicked
one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the
spirit of His mouth, and destroy with the presence of His
, ' Ad Philipp. c. 11. Sobrii ergo estote et vos in hoc ; et non sicut inimicos
tales existimetis, sed sicut passibilia membra et errantia eos revocate, ut omnium
vestrum corpus salvetis.
2 Dial, cum Tryph. c. 110. "Or _* xxi o rns iiroo-rao-ias at/puns, o xa,i us tov
u^irrov £|«XX„ X„X_v, W) rns y*s avofia. roXfirtiry us hpa* rovs ^.piffnttvovs,
107

108 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
coming ' " (2 Thess. ii. 8).1 And again : " Concerning whom
the apostle in the Epistle which is the Second to the Thessa
lonians thus speaks : ' Except a falling away come first, and
the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition ; who opposeth
and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is
worshipped'" (2 Thess. ii.' 3, 4).2 Clemens Alexandrinus
(a.d. 190) says : " There is not in all of us, says the apostle,
that knowledge. But pray ye that we may be delivered from
unreasonable and wicked men : for all men have not faith "
(2 Thess. iii. 2).3 And Tertullian (a.d. 200) writes : "And in
the Second Epistle to the same persons, he [Paul] writes with
greater solicitude, ' But I beseech you, brethren, by the coming
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering to Him, that ye
be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, namely of false prophets, nor by epistle, namely
of false apostles, as from us, as that the day of the Lord is at
hand ' " (2 Thess. ii. 1, 2).4
Nor is the internal evidence in favour of this Epistle by any
means defective. The character of Paul is impressed upon it :
his lively sympathy with his converts (i. 4),' his tenderness
when censuring them (iii. 14, 15), his commendation of them
(i. 5), his characteristic mention of himself (iii. 7-9), and his
desire for an interest in their prayers (iii. 1). The style is
also undoubtedly Pauline. We have examples of Pauline
digressions and expansions (i. 3-10), of paronomasia (iii. 3,
11), of anacoluthon (ii. 3), and of numerous Pauline expres
sions and phrases (ii. 13, 15, iii. 6, 9), — in short, as many
1 Adv. hcsres. iii. 7, 2. Et iterum in secunda ad Thessalonicenses, de anti-
christo dicens : "Et tunc revelabitur iniquus, quem Dominus Jesus Christus
interficiet Spiritu oris sui, et destruet prsesentia adventus sui ilium. "
2 Ibid. v. 25," 1. De quo apostolus in epistola, quae est ad Thessalonicenses
secunda, sic ait : "Quoniam nisi venerit abscessio primum, et revelatus fuerit
homo peccati, Alius perditionis, qui adversatur et extoUit se super omne quod
dicitur Deus, aut colitur. "
3 Stromata, V. 3, 17. Ou_ Iv train, tpwiiv o a^'oirroXos, n yvuo-is- irpottuxurh Ti
'ita. pvirQup.iv avo rruv aroTfuv xai irovnpuv avSpuftuv' oh yap vravruv *j v'taris.
4 De resurrect, cam. c. 24. Et in secunda pleniore sollicitudine ad eosdem :
Obsecro autem vos, fratres, per adventum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et con-
gregationem nostram ad ilium, ne cito commoveamini animo,. neque turbemini,
neque per spiritum, neque per sermonem, scilicet pseudoprophetarum, neque
per epistolam, scilicet pseudoapostolorum, ac si per nostram, quasi insistat dies
Domini.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 109
internal proofs of Pauline origin as could be expected to be
found in so short an epistle.1 Many of them are beyond the
power of imitation ; and, all combined, prove that the Epistle is
undoubtedly the composition of Paul. " None of the writings
of the New Testament," observes Ewald, " have so much of the
living freshness of the first age of the gospel, or present so
vivid a picture of the hopes of the first believers, as the
Epistles to the Thessalonians." 2
But notwithstanding these external and internal evidences,
this Epistle, of all the Pauline Epistles with the exception of
the Epistle to the Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles, has
been most severely assailed, and that not on historical
grounds, but chiefly on account of the prophecy of Antichrist
contained in it. The first to question its genuineness was
Schmidt in 1801, in his Bibliothek fur Kritik und Exegcse des
N. T? De Wette followed in the first edition of his Introduc
tion, but in subsequent editions he modified his opinions ; and
latterly in his fourth edition, and in his commentaiy on the
Thessalonian Epistles, he declares himself decidedly in favour
of its genuineness. Schrader, in his Apostel Paulus, in
various notes and in his paraphrase of the Epistle, attacks its
authenticity. Kern assails the Epistle on the ground of its
being subsequent to the time of the apostle, proceeding on the
assumption that the man of sin was Nero.4 Baur, in his
Apostel Paulus, as well as in his TJieological Journal for 185 5,
argues against the Epistle, stating the objections of former
opponents with his usual ability and skill.5 And more recently,
in 1862, Hilgenfeld calls in question the genuineness ofthe
Epistle, and assigns it to the age of Trajan.6 It has as yet
been assailed by no theologian of any note in Britain.
Besides objections similar to those urged by Baur against
1 Professor Jowett gives a very clear statement of the internal evidences in
his St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. pp. 146-149.
2 Ewald's Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, >p. 13, quoted by Professor
Jowett, vol. i..p. 145.
3 Also in his Einleitimg in das N. T., vol. ii. p. 256 ff.
4 Tubing. Zeitschr.f. Theol. 1839, ii. pp. 145-214.
6 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 99-107 ; Theolog. Jahrb. 1855, voL ii.
pp. 141-168.
c Zeitschr.f ilr wiss. Theol, Halle 1862, p. 242 ff.

110 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the First Epistle, and which have already been considered, this
Second Epistle has especially been assailed on account of the
prophetic portion iri the second chapter. The following is a
summary of these special objections : — •
1. The prediction of Antichrist is pronounced to be un-
Pauline, and to indicate a later Montanist origin. This pre
diction certainly distinguishes the Epistle from the other
writings of Paul, but only as regards the subject treated, not
the style or phraseology of the passage, which is undoubtedly
Pauline. To argue that the subject is one which Paul would
not discuss, is certainly very precarious reasoning, being a
point which we have no right a priori to determine. And to
assert that it indicates a Montanist origin is very arbitrary ;
rather it may be affirmed to be a Jewish notion derived from
the prophecies of DanieL though at the same time there is
no reason why it should not be considered as original and
underived. 2. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, it is alleged,
contradicts the First. In the First Epistle, Paul declares that
the day of the Lord is at hand, and expresses his expectation
that he and his converts would live to see the coming of
Christ. But in the Second Epistle the coming of Christ is
deferred, and declared to be not immediate. " That day shall
not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of
sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2 Thess. ii. 3).1 But it
has already been shown, in the remarks on Paul's views of the
advent, that there is no contradiction between the First and
the Second Epistles, as there is no reason to suppose that the
apostle ever taught the immediate advent of Christ. But even
supposing that there is an apparent discrepancy between these
two epistles, yet this would rather appear to be an argument
in favour of genuineness, as such a discrepancy would have
been avoided by a forger.
3. Kern asserts that the prophecy concerning Antichrist
refers to a later period, after the death of PauL He assumes
that the Antichrist, whose coming is described as impending,
is Nero, who after his death was supposed to be alive, and
whose speedy return from the East to the throne was dreaded
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 103 ff.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. Ill
as Antichrist by several among the early Christians : x he that
withholdeth (6 k_jt _x_w) is Vespasian, with his son Titus, who
was then besieging Jerusalem ; and the apostasy (fi diroaTaala)
is the general falling away of Jews and Christians. The
temple of Jerusalem, however, must have been still standing,
as the prediction speaks of Antichrist sitting in the temple of
God. Hence, according to Kern, the Epistle must have been
composed between the years 68 and 70, after the death of
Nero and before the destruction of Jerusalem. Hilgenfeld, on
the other hand, supposes that the statements in the prediction
suit the time of Trajan ; because it was then that the Gnostic
heresy first arose, which, according to him, is the apostasy ad
verted to ; and because the persecution mentioned in 2 Thess.
i. 4-10 suits the reign of Trajan, when the Christians
were for the first time generally persecuted throughout the
Eoman empire, the Neronian persecution being confined to
Eome. But to affirm with Kern that the man of sin is Nero,
and the restrainer Vespasian, are mere gratuitous assumptions
which have no foundation in the prediction, and are at best
only ingenious hypotheses worked out of the superstitious
notions prevalent after the death of Nero.2 The opinion of
Hilgenfeld, that the apostasy is the Gnostic heresy, is equally
arbitrary, and is without warrant in the Epistle. And the
.various local persecutions recorded in the Acts are a sufficient
explanation of 2 Thess. i. 4-10.
4. The authentication given at the end of the Epistle,
"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the
token of every epistle : so I write " (2 Thess. iii. 1 7), is
objected to by Baur as an evident desire of the writer to
represent the epistle as Paul's, and because Paul could not
thus mention this authentication as the token of every epistle,
inasmuch as this was only the second epistle which he had
composed.3 But the same authentication is expressly given
at the close of First Corinthians and Colossians (1 Cor. xvi.
1 This popular belief that Nero was alive was not confined to the Christians :
• it is alluded to by Tacitus in his History, ii. 8,, and by Suetonius (Nero, 57).
2 See a statement and a refutation of Kern's views in Liinemann's Brief e an
die Thessahnicher, pp.^170-175 ; and in Wieseler's Clironologie des aposiolischen
Zeitalters, p. 265.
3 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 105.

112 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
2 1 ; Col. iv. 1 8) ; and it is extremely probable that the con
cluding salutation of all Paul's epistles was written by his own
hands, as a voucher of their genuineness ; for it is the saluta
tion, " The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all "
(2 Thess. iii. 18), which the apostle here asserts to be the
token in every epistle. It is a mere assumption that this is
only the second epistle which Paul wrote ; but even if it
were, Paul may here only express the rule which he intended
to follow in all future epistles. And such an authentication
in this epistle was the more necessary and appropriate, if we
admit, as is probable, that a spurious epistle had' been circu
lated among the Thessalonians, and had occasioned those dig-
orders which disturbed the peace of the Church (2 Thess.
ii. 2).The undesigned coincidences which refer to this Epistle,
given by Paley in the Soros Paulince, are neither numerous
nor important. They amount only to three, and the third is
inconclusive. They are as follows : —
1. The obscurity of the prophetical part can only be ac
counted for on the supposition of the genuineness of the Epistle.
The whole passage is involved in mystery, and is probably
inexplicable. But what is obscure to us, may not have been
obscure to the Thessalonians. The passage refers to a con
versation which the author had with them on the subject :
" Eemember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you
these things ? And now ye kpow what withholdeth that he
might be revealed in his time " (2 Thess. ii. 5, 6). If such a
conversation actually passed, it follows that the Epistle is
authentic. " No man," observes Paley, " writes unintelligibly
on purpose. But it may easily happen that a part of a letter
which relates to a subject upon which the parties had con
versed together before, which refers to what .had been before
said, which is in truth a portion or continuation of a former
discussion, may be utterly without meaning to a stranger who
should pick up the letter upon the road, and yet be per
fectly clear to the person to whom it is directed, and with
whom the previous communication had passed. And if, in a
letter which thus accidentally fell into my hands, "I found a
passage expressly referring to a former conversation, and

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 113
difficult to be explained without knowing that conversation,
I should consider this very difficulty as a proof that the con
versation had actually passed, and consequently that the letter
contained the real correspondence of real persons." The
argument is ingenious, and, so far as appears, conclusive ; at
least it is exceedingly improbable that it would have occurred
to a forger to take such a roundabout mode of making his
writing appear to be genuine, certainly not to such clumsy
forgers as those of the second century.
2. In the Epistle we read : " Neither did we eat any man's
bread for nought ; but wrought with labour and travail night
and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you"
(2 Thess. iii. 8). It is evident from this, that during his
residence in Thessalonica the apostle received nothing from
the church of the Thessalonians ; and this fact is asserted by
implication in the Epistle to the Philippians : " Now, ye
Philippians, know also, that in the beginning of the gospel,
when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated
with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only"
(Phil. iv. 15). And the apostle also states the motive which
induced him to decline support from the Thessalonians : " Not
because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ex
ample unto you to follow us " (2 Thess. iii. 9). Now in the
Acts we are informed that the same conduct was pursued by
the apostle at Ephesus, and that the motive which induced
him to do so was the same, namely, to set an example to his
converts. Thus, in his farewell address to the Ephesian elders,
he is represented as saying, " Yea, ye yourselves know, that
these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them
that were with me. I have showed you all things, how
that so labouring ye ought to support the weak" (Acts xx.
34, 35).
3. The third instance mentioned by Paley is a supposed
reference to the First Epistle, contained in 2 Thess. ii. 1,2 : " Now
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and by our gathering unto Him, that ye be not soon
shaken in mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by
word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at
hand." From these words Paley argues that the apostle here
H

114 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
alludes to a misconstruction which the Thessalonians had put
upon his words in the First Epistle (1 Thess. iv. 1 5-1 7, v. 4),
But, as will afterwards be observed, the most natural meaning
of this passage is that the reference is to a forged epistle
which had been circulated among the Thessalonians ; so that
there is here no allusion to the First Epistle. But, on the other
hand, such an allusion appears to be contained in 2 Thess.
ii. 15: " Therefore, - brethren, stand fast, and hold the tradi
tions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our
epistle."

II. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle appears to have been occasioned by the intelli
gence brought back to the apostle by the bearer of the First
Epistle, or through some other channel. The circumstances of
the Thessalonian Church had not materially altered. The
same persecutions continued, and the same fanatical views of
the advent prevailed. But with this general agreement there
was some change. Progress had been made in Christian virtue,
especially in the cardinal graces of faith and love. The
apostle was enabled to thank God that their faith grew ex
ceedingly, and that their charity toward each other abounded ;
and to glory in them among the churches of God, for the
remarkable patience with which they endured their persecu
tions and trials (2 Thess. i. 3, 4). Their anxiety for the fate
of those who had died before the advent of Christ had been
allayed by the instructions of the apostle, given in the First
Epistle ; but the idea of an immediate advent had taken a
stronger hold on their minds. This had occasioned fear and
alarm among some, and an impatient longing for the coming
of Christ among others. In consequence of this, there were
several who had left off working for their subsistence, and the
Church in general was in danger of falling into a state of
religious fanaticism. Hence the apostle was constrained to
employ still stronger terms than in the First Epistle, in cen
suring them for their idleness and unsteadiness : " For even
when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any
man would not work, neither should he eat. For we hear that

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 115
there are some which walk among you disorderly, working
not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we
command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with
quietness they work, and eat their own bread " (2 Thess. iii.
10-12). To this increased disorder in the Thessalonian Church the
apostle alludes, when he beseeches them not " to be troubled,
neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us "
(jiijre Bo e.. to- to\?js _>? Bt tj/awv), " as that the day of Christ is
at hand " (2 Thess. ii. 2). Some suppose that the reference
here is to a misinterpretation of the First Epistle,1 — that the
Thessalonians erroneously supposed that the apostle taught
the immediateness of the advent, whereas he only insisted on
its suddenness and unexpectedness. But the words _j? Bi
r]jxwv, which can only signify " as purporting to proceed from
us," seem rather to point to a spurious epistle. It would
thus appear that not only were the words of the apostle per
verted (p-rjTe Bio, Xoyov), but that a false epistle, purporting to
be the apostle's (fj-rjre Bt iiriaToXfi'i), had been circulated,
announcing the immediate advent of Christ ; and that this,
and not a mere misunderstanding or perversion of the words
cf the former Epistle, was the cause of the increase of the
excitement.2 Such then appears to have been the state of matters which
occasioned the writing of this Second Epistle. The main
design of the apostle was to correct the prevailing error con
cerning the advent of Christ, — to refute the mistaken notion
" that the day of Christ is at hand." And, along with this
correction of error, was the removal of abuses to which it had
given rise : the apostle sought to warn his converts against that
idle and disorderly state into which they had fallen. But, at
the same time, he was enabled to praise and commend them
for the progress which they had made in faith and love, and
to exhort them to perseverance.
1 Bleek's Introduction, vol. i. p. 415 ; Paley's Hores Paulines, Second Thessa
lonians, No. III. ; Reuss' Geschichte N.T., p. 71.
2 See Ellicott in loco ; Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 204 ; Liinemann in loco.
So also Alford. Jowett's opinion is that the apostle is not referring definitely
to any particular epistle, but to the possibility only of some one or other being
used against him.

116 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

III. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle is divided into three distinct parts. The first
part is eucharistic, and contains the thanksgiving of the apostle
on behalf of the Thessalonians (i. 1-12). The second part is
apocalyptic, and contains the prediction concerning the man of
sin (ii. 1-1 2). And the third part is practical, and contains
warnings against idleness and disorder, and admonitions to
honesty and diligence (ii. 13— iii. 18). In the first part, the
apostle thanks God for the progress which the Thessalonians
had made in faith and love, praises their patience in the
endurance of persecutions, encourages them to perseverance
by the prospect of victory and recompense at the advent of
Christ, and prays for their further perfection in Christianity.
In the second part, he adverts to their error of regarding the
day of Christ as at hand, admonishes them not to be shaken
in mind or troubled concerning it, and reminds them of his
former conversations with them on this subject, — how he had
told them that the coming of Antichrist must precede the
coming of Christ. In the third part, he exhorts them to
continue in the instructions which he had delivered to them ;
requests an interest in their prayers that he might be delivered
from his enemies, and that the cause of Christ might continue
to prosper in the world ; admonishes them to walk worthy of
the gospel, especially warns them against that unsteadiness
and idleness which prevailed among them, and exhorts them
to a diligent performance of their earthly duties ; and con
cludes the Epistle by appending with his own hand his
apostolic benediction. IV. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
There is very little controversy concerning the date of this
Epistle, among those who' admit its genuineness. It was
evidently written shortly after the first. The circumstances
both of the apostle and of the Thessalonian Church remained
in a great measure unchanged. Paul was still in the company
of Silas and Timothy, whose names are attached with his own
to this Epistle (2 Thess. i. 1). But after Paul left Corinth,

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 117
these two fellow-workers were never again together with him.
Timothy rejoined Paul at Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), but there
is no further mention of Silas in the Acts of the Apostles.
Besides, the relations and wants of the church are similar to
those which are presupposed in the First Epistle : similar com
mendations, warnings, instructions, and prayers are contained in
both Epistles.1 This Epistle, then, like the first, was written
during Paul's residence of a year and a half at Corinth. It
cannot, however, with any certainty be determined how long
after, the writing of the First Epistle it was composed. We
must allow time for further information concerning the Thessa
lonian church to have reached the apostle, and also for the
progress which the Thessalonians appear to have made in
Christian virtues. An indication of time is supposed to be
contained in 2 Thess. iii. 2, when the apostle entreats the
Thessalonians to pray for him that he might, be delivered from
unreasonable and wicked men ; which is supposed to allude
to that outbreak of Jewish hatred and fanaticism which
occurred toward the close of Paul's residence at Corinth
(Acts xviii. 12, 13). The allusion, however, is doubtful.
Still we cannot be far wrong in fixing the date of the com
position of this Epistle in the year 5 3, during the latter part
of Paul's residence at Corinth.
Some (Grotius, Ewald, Baur, Laurent, Davidson, 2d ed.)
reverse the order of the Epistles, and suppose that the Second
Epistle was in reality the first. Grotius supposes that it was
written to Jewish Christians who had fled from Judea, even
before Paul had been at Thessalonica. The reason of this
strange supposition was a desire to identify the man of sin
with Caligula, who demanded to be worshipped as God, and
attempted to place his statue in the temple of Jerusalem.2
Ewald thinks that there are in the Epistle itself evidences of
its priority, and that it has been placed second on account of
its brevity. The Second Epistle, it is argued, alludes to con
versations which the apostle had with the Thessalonians ; and
the authentication attached to it, as the token in every
epistle, agrees best with the fact of its being the first which
1 See Liinemann's Briefe an die Thessahnicher, p. 167.
2 Suetonius' Caligula, 22, 23 ; Josephus, Ant. xviii. 8.

118 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
the apostle wrote to them ; besides, there are indications in
the First Epistle which presuppose a longer lapse of time than
merely a few months.1 Accordingly Ewald supposes that the
Second Epistle was written from Berea before the apostle came
to Corinth, and that the First Epistle was written at the close
of the Corinthian residence.2 But the reasons given are
without weight. Eather the Second Epistle refers to the First.
The First Epistle describes how the Thessalonians received the
gospel, whilst the Second mentions their advancement in faith
and love ; the First Epistle alludes to the commencement, the
Second to the progress of the Christian life. And indeed the
First Epistle seems to be directly mentioned in the Second :
" Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which
ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle "
(2 Thess. ii. 15). It is a mere evasion to assert that the
Epistle here mentioned may be an epistle now lost, an
assertion which is destitute of all probability.
The place of composition was Corinth. The note at the
end of the Epistle, " The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
was written from Athens," 3 is of no authority, and is un
doubtedly erroneous. This, then, is the second in order of the
extant epistles of Paul.
V. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
The great distinctive peculiarity of this - Epistle is its
apocalyptic nature — the prediction of Antichrist contained in
the second section (2 Thess. ii. 1-12). This distinguishes
that section from all the other writings of Paul, and allies it
to the prophecies of Daniel or the apocalyptic visions of John.
Paul here glances into the future, and reveals what is to
happen. It is almost the only purely prophetical portion in
his writings. (See, however, Eom. viii. 19-24, xi. 25 ;
2 Tim. iii. 1-5.) Still, as already observed, the difference is
1 Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament (new edition), vol. i. pp.
30-33. ! Ewald's Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, pp. 16-18 ; Geschichte des apos-
tolischen Zeitalters, p. 455.
3 This is the superscription in AKL ; other MSS. read __. "Paipuis.

THE MAN OF SIN. 119
one of subject rather than of style or phraseology. " The
passage in question," observes Dean Alford, " will be found on
comparison to bear, in style and flow of sentences, a close
resemblance to the denunciatory and prophetic portions of the
other epistles. Compare, for instance, ver. 3 with CoL ii.
8, 16; vers. 8, 9 with 1 Cor. xv. 24-28; ver. 10. with
Eom. i. 18, 1 Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. ii. 15; ver. 11 with Eom.
i. 24, 26; ver. 12 with Eom. ii. 5, 9, and Eom. i. 32." 1
And although this passage has been much objected to by
modern critics, yet there is scarcely any passage in the New
Testament which is more frequently alluded to by the early
fathers, and that without the slightest doubt that it formed a
part of a genuine epistle of Paul.
Besides the important commentaries of Calvin, Bengel,
Olshausen, De Wette, Alford, and Wordsworth, in their works
on the New Testament, the following are the best exegetical
commentaries on the Epistles to the Thessalonians : those of
Lunemann (third edition, 1867) in Meyer's Kritisch exeg.
Commentar iiber das Neue Testament, Jowett (second edition,
1859), and EUicott (third edition, 1866).2

THE MAN OF SIN.3
As already observed, the reason why the Second Epistle to
the Thessalonians has been so much assailed is the prediction
cpncerning the man of sin contained in chap. ii. 1-12.
Although it cannot be admitted that this is any objection to
the genuineness of the Epistle, yet it must be allowed to be
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii, Prolegomena, p. 55.
2 Liinemann's commentary is of peculiar excellence, hardly if at all inferior
to the commentaries of Meyer himself ; Jowett's commentary is excellent for
the detached dissertations and the sympathy exhibited with those to whom the
apostle wrote ; and Ellicott's commentary is peculiarly valuable for its exe
getical remarks.
3 For dissertations on the " man of sin," see Liinemann's Briefe an die Thessa-
lonicher, pp. 214-229; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, pp. 55-
68 ; Jowett Ore the Thessalonians, vol. i. pp. 178-194 ; and Wordsworth's Greek
Testament, in loc. ; also Bishop Newton's Dissertation on St. Paul's Prophecy of
the Man of Sin.

120 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
perhaps the obscurest passage in the writings of Paul ; cer
tainly it is to be classed among those things in his epistles
which "are hard to be understood" (2 Pet. iii. 16). But it
is to be observed that the description of the man of sin,
though obscure to us, was not necessarily obscure to the
Thessalonians. They had information on this point which we
do not possess. The apostle, when at Thessalonica, had dis
coursed to them on this subject : " Eemember ye not that
when I was yet with you, I told you these things ? And
now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in
his time" (2 Thess. ii. 5, 6). Nor was the information which
the apostle imparted to them indefinite and general, but
definite and precise. He had described to them the nature
of the apostasy, the characteristics of the man of sin, and the
influences which retarded his appearance (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4) ;
and if these three points were known to us, as they were to
the Thessalonians, we would in all probability possess the key
to the interpretation of the passage.
A literal translation is here given, adopting the text of
Tischendorf as the best : " But we beseech you, brethren, con
cerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gather
ing together unto Him, that you be not soon shaken from your
[sober] mind nor be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word,
nor by epistle as from us, to the effect that the day of the
Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means,
because [that day shall not come] except there come the
apostasy first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of per
dition, who opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is
called God or is an object of worship, so that he sits in the
temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Eemember
you not that when I was with you, I told you these things ?
And now you know what restraineth that he might be revealed
in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already work
ing, only until he who restraineth is removed ; and then shall
the lawless one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy
by the spirit of His mouth, and annihilate by the brightness
of His coming ; [even him] whose coming is after the working
of Satan, in all power and signs and wonders of falsehood,
and in all deceit of unrighteousness in them that perish,

THE MAN OF SIN. 121
because they receive not the love of the truth that they might
be saved. And for this cause God sends to them the working
of error that they might believe the lie ; that they all might
be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness." A few exegetical notes are necessary for the interpretation
of the passage. Verse 1 : inrep is not to be translated " by,"
as in our version, as if it were a form of oath, but " in behalf
of," " in regard to," " concerning." Verse 2 : craXevdfjvai, dirb
tov .oo?, literally " shaken '' — agitated like the waves by a
storm, as the word signifies — " from your mind." The nearest
approach to this is " disconcerted " or " unsettled," — " that
ye be not soon disconcerted." Verse 3 : i) airoaTaala, not " a
falling away," but " the falling away," namely that on which
the apostle had orally instructed his readers. " The article
added," as Erasmus remarks, " signifies that before predicted
apostasy." So also 6 avOpcoiros t-^? dfiapTta<;, " the man of
sin." Verse 4 : The words to? Qeov are to be rejected, as the
authority of manuscripts is against them. Verse 6 : The
restraining influence is in this verse in the neuter gender
(to KaTexpv), " what restraineth," whereas in verse 7 it is in
the rilasculine (o KaTe%a>v), " he who restrains." ' Verses 7, 8
are to be rendered : " For the mystery of lawlessness is already
working, until he who now restrains is' removed ; and then
shall the lawless one be revealed :" the meaning being, that so
long as the restraining influence exists, the lawless one will
work secretly ; but whenever it is removed, he will work
openly. There will be no longer the mystery of lawlessness,
but the revelation of lawlessness. Verse 9 : yjrevBovs is not to
be restricted, as in our version, to ripao-i, " lying wonders," but
belongs to all the three substantives, — " in all power, and signs,
and wonders 6f falsehood."
The apostle evidently represents 6 avQpmros t?j. dp,apTta<;
as the counterpart of Christ. It is Antichrist (6 <_- ti^ho-to?,
1 John ii. 1 8) who is here described. He is the " man of
sin," the personification or incarnation of iniquity ; whereas
Christ is the righteous One, the personification of righteous
ness. He is the mystery of lawlessness (to (ivaTrjiov t%
avofitaf) ; whereas Christ is the mystery of godliness (to

122 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
(ivo-Tjjpiov tj}s e_-o-e/3e_a?). His coining (fj irapovcrla) is de
scribed by the same word as the coming of Christ. He is
represented as sitting in the temple of God, which is the
proper seat of Christ. He shows or exhibits himself as God ;
whereas Christ is the true manifestation of the Godhead.
His coming is after the working of Satan ; whereas Christ's
coming is in the power of the Holy Ghost. He, under the
influence of Satan, performs signs and wonders, but they are
miracles of falsehood, the counterpart of the real miracles
which Christ performed. In short, the kingdom of light
which Christ has established has its counterpart in the Mng-
doiri of darkness.1
Nor is this the only passage in which the doctrine of Anti
christ is taught. Paul elsewhere alludes to it when describing
the apostasy of the latter days : " Now the Spirit speaketh
expressly, that in the latter days some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils ;
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with
a hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain
from meats, which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth "
(1 Tim. iv. '1-3). But especially there is a remarkable
resemblance between this passage of Paul and the prophecy of
Daniel concerning Antichrist (Dan. xi.). That prophecy may
refer primarily to Antiochus Epiphanes, the great persecutor
of the Jews, but the concluding portion is applicable to Anti
christ, of whom that monarch was a type, and finds its com
plete .fulfilment in him. The imagery employed by the
prophet and the apostle is the same. Paul predicts an
apostasy ; and Daniel tells us that the king shall have intelli
gence with them that forsake the holy covenant (Dan. xi. 30).
Paul tells us that the man of sin shall sit in the temple of
God, displaying himself as God ; and Daniel, in a passage
quoted by our Lord, speaks of the abomination of desolation
being set up in the holy place (Dan. xi. 31). Paul foretells
that the man of sin shall oppose and exalt himself against all
that is called God, or is an object of worship ; and Daniel tells
us that the king shall exalt and magnify himself above every
1 See Ewald's Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, p. 28.

THE MAN OF SIN. 123
god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of'
gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished
(Dan. xi. 36).1 And so also this doctrine of Antichrist is
unfolded at great length by St. John in the Apocalypse, as
the beast coming out of the sea to whom the dragon gave his
power, and his seat, and great authority (Eev. xiii. 2). And
in his Epistle, St. John speaks of Antichrist as a person in
volving a plurality : " Little children, it is the last time : and
as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are
there many antichrists" (1 John ii. 18).2
There was comparative unanimity among the early fathers
concerning this prediction of Paul in all its chief points. In
general, they considered that the fulfilment of the prediction
was future; that the man of sin, or Antichrist, was an indi
vidual; and that the restraining influence was the Eoman
empire, — to txaTeyov denoting the empire, and 6 KaTeyasv the
succession of emperors.3 " We Christians," observes Ter
tullian, " are under a peculiar necessity of praying for the
emperors, and for the complete stability of the empire, because
we know that dreadful power which hangs over the world,
and the conclusion of the age, which threatens the most
horrible evils, is only retarded by the continued existence of
the Eoman empire. This is what we would not experience.
And while we pray that it may be deferred, we hereby show
our good-will to the perpetuity of the Eoman state."4 There
was a diversity of opinion regarding the meaning of "the
temple of God" in which Antichrist was to seat himself.
1 For the resemblance between this prediction of Paul and the prophecy of
Daniel, see Jowett Ore St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 183 ff. ; Ellicott On the Thessa
lonians, p. 110 (third edition) ; Hofmann's Schr iftbeweis, vol. ii. p. 614 ff. Such
also was the opinion of the fathers : Irenaeus, adv. Juer. v. 25.
2 The Antichrist in St. John's Epistle is, however, differently characterized.
The error consisted in denying that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (1 John
iv. 3), consequently it consisted in Gnosticism ; and hence the reason why some
commentators connected the man of sin with the errors of the Gnostics. It is
also to be observed that the term ivri^pio-ros is in Scripture only employed by St.
John in his Epistles.
3 Irenseus, adv. hesr. v. 25, 1 ; Tertullian, d. Resurr. c. 24 ; Justin Martyr,
dial, cum Tryph. c. 110. 3, 4; Origen, contr. Cels. vi. 64; Chrysostom, in loc;
Augustine, de civit. Dei, 20, 19 ; Theodoret, in loc.
4 Tertullian, Apol. c. 32. So also Lactantius, Divin. Instit. vii. 25.

124 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
Some of the fathers (Chrysostom, Augustine) interpreted the
expression figuratively, as denoting the Christian Church ;
whilst others (Irenaeus, Cyril) took it literally, and referred it
to the temple of Jerusalem, supposing that Antichrist would
rebuild the temple. It was a prevalent opinion, continued
even to the close of the fourth century, that Nero was Anti
christ. He was the first emperor who persecuted the Chris
tians, and was therefore held in abhorrence. After his death,
there was a general impression that he was not really dead,
but was in concealment in Parthia, and that he would return
to regain his kingdom. With this notion the early Christians
connected the idea of Antichrist. And as time went on, the
notion took the shape of a return of Nero to life.1 This
strange opinion appears to have received its support from a
misinterpretation of Eev. xvii. 10,11: " And there are seven
kings : five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet
come ; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and
is of the seven, and goeth to perdition." By the five kings
they understood the five emperors who had already reigned ;
by the sixth, Vespasian, the reigning emperor ;2 by the seventh,
Titus, his son and successor ; and the eighth, who was also
one of the seven, was Antichrist, or Nero restored to life.3
The opponents of Eomanism regarded the pope as Anti
christ, and considered the passage as a prediction of the origin
and growth of the papacy. This view was entertained before
the Eeformation by the Waldenses, the Albigenses, the Wick-
liffites, the Hussites, and all those sects who were in opposi
tion to the Eoman hierarchy.4 The reformers in general
adopted this opinion. Such was the view of Luther, Calvin,
Zuinglius, Melancthon, and Beza. According to them, ' the
apostasy is the falling away from evangelical doctrine to the
1 See Lardner's Works, vol. ii. p. 94; Bleek's Introduction to NT., vol. ii.
p. 220.
2 Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were omitted, as their reigns were short.
3 Bleek considers that this is not a misinterpretation, but the meaning which
the author of the Apocalypse intended to convey. — Introduction to N. _., vol. ii.
p. 221.
* See Hurd Ore Prophecy, Sermon vii, where a history is' given of the doctrine
of Antichrist.

THE MAN OF SIN. 125
traditions of men — the corruptions of popery. " The man of
sin," or Antichrist, is not, as the fathers conceived, an indi
vidual, but the succession of popes : it is to be understood of
a series et successio hominum, just as "he who restraineth,"
o KaTe%<ov, is understood to be the succession of Eoman
emperors. And the restraining power, to KaTe%ov, is the
Eoman empire, out of whose ruins the papacy arose.
The Eomanists, on the other hand, were naturally led by
opposition to consider the passage as a prediction of the rise
and growth of Protestantism. The apostasy was the falling
away from the Eomish Church by the doctrines of the Eefor
mation. " The man of sin," or Antichrist, denoted the heretics
generally, but especially Luther, the chief of the reformers.
" That which restraineth" was the German empire, considered
as the continuation of the Eoman empire."1
The Greek Church was naturally led to regard the prophecy
as a prediction of Mahometanism. The apostasy was the
falling off of many Greek and Oriental churches to Mahome
tanism ; the man of sin was Mahomet ; and the restraining
influence the power of the Eoman empire. Some of the
reformers (Melancthon, Bucer) considered that there were two
antichrists, one belonging to the. Eastern Church, and the other
to the Western. The Eastern Antichrist was Mahomet, and
the Western was the pope. It is to be observed that all '
three — the Protestants, the Eomanists, and the Greek Church
— were at one as regards the restraining influence (to KaTe%ov) :
this they regarded as the imperial influence, — the Eoman
empire either in itself, or as continued in the Greek or
German empire.
The modern views concerning the " man of sin" are chiefly
four : those who consider that there is here no prediction ;
the Praeterists, who consider the prophecy as already fulfilled ;
the Futurists, who regard the fulfilment as still future ; and
those who, like the reformers, consider popery to be the
fulfilment of the prophecy.
1 See Estius. This, however, was the opinion only of some of the Roman
theologians : the common opinion in the Church of Rome is that Antichrist was
an individual who should flourish for three years and a half, and then be de
stroyed. Newman supposes that the rationalism of the Protestant Churches is
Antichrist.

126 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
1. Some (De Wette, Liinemann, Jowett, Davidson) regard
all the usual interpretations as proceeding upon a mistaken
view of the passage as if it were a prediction, whereas in
reality there is no prophecy at all : the apostle is only stating
his impressions of what might be the future state of the
Church, from a consideration of the circumstances of the time
in which he lived. Thus De Wette observes : " He goes
altogether wrong who finds here any more than the apostle's
subjective anticipation, from his own historical position, of the
future of the Christian Church."1 So also Liinemann considers
that Paul was so entirely engrossed by his ideas of the proxi
mity of the advent, that, carried away by his individuality,
he endeavoured to settle more exactly the circumstances and
historical relations of the coming of Christ than is permitted
to a man to know, even thongh he were an apostle filled with
the Spirit of Christ.2 " Such passages (Eph. vi. 1 2)," observes
Professor Jowett, " are a much safer guide to the interpreta
tion of the one we are considering, than the meaning of similar
passages in the Old Testament. For they indicate to us the
habitual thought of the apostle's mind, — ' a falling away first,'
suggested probably by the wavering which he saw among his
own converts, the grievous wolves that were entering into the
church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 29), the turning away of all
them of Asia (2 Tim. i. 15). When we consider that his
own converts, and his Jewish opponents, or half converts,
were all the world to him, — that through them, as it were in a
glass, he appeared to himself to see the workings of human
nature generally, — we understand how this double image of
good and evil should have presented itself to him, and the
kind of necessity which he felt that Christ and Antichrist
should alternate with each other. It was not that he foresaw
some great conflict, decisive of the destinies of mankind.
What he anticipated far more nearly resembled the spiritual
combat in the seventh chapter of the Eomans." 3 And Dr.
Davidson remarks : " The passage does not contain a prophecy,
but rather the writer's notions on a subject which did not
1 Einl. Handb. ii. 132.
2 Liinemann, Brief _ are die Thessalonicher, pp. 229, 230.
3 Jowett's St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 189.

THE MAN OF SIN. 127
concern the proper faith and duty of mankind. Those notions
were shaped by the floating belief of his day, and have
nothing beyond a historical interest. They belong to the past
of Christianity, to its infantine state, when it was emerging out
of Judaism, and assuming that independent position to which
no man contributed so much as the apostle of the Gentiles."1
Such a view seems at variance with the notion of inspira
tion, in other words, with the supposition that the apostle
was guided in writing by a higher Spirit than his own. The
supernatural is entirely overlooked : the apostle writes accord
ing to his own fancies ; he is led astray by his erroneous
opinions. How such a view is " entirely consistent with the
apostle's inspiration," is difficult to understand, even although
we employ the term inspiration in a very broad sense. The
power of foretelling the future, it would seem, is here denied
to the sacred writers.2 It is, however, evident that the
apostle gives here a prediction of what shall take place ; and
therefore, if there were no real prediction, he was on this point
mistaken and in error, and consequently uninspired. If we
admit inspiration, we must receive the truths declared as the
revelation of God : the Scripture contains truths to be received,
and not the mere opinions of fallible men to be canvassed.
2. Others (Grotius, Wetstein, Hammond, Le Clerc, WJiitby,
Kern, Usteri, Wieseler) regard the prediction as already ful
filled. The views of these praeterist interpreters agree in this
point, that the prophecy refers to Christ's coming to destroy
Jerusalem, although they differ widely in details.3 Grotius,
for example, supposed that the man of sin was Caligula,
who demanded universal worship as God, and ordered his
statue to be erected in the temple of Jerusalem ; he who
restrained was Vitellius, the proconsul of Syria, who refused
1 Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament (new edition), vol. i. p. 14.
2 "We take them," observes Dr. Davidson, " as guides to faith and practice
generally, without adopting all that they propounded, or believing that they
could foretell future events " — (new edition), vol. i. p. 15.
3 Even Professor Lightfoot appears to adopt these views. He observes : "It
seems on the whole probable that the Antichrist is represented especially by
Judaism. With a prophetic insight, the apostle foresaw, as he contemplated the
moral and political condition of the race, the approach of a great and over
whelming catastrophe. " — Article, Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, Smith's
Dictionary.

128 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
to obey the order of Caligula ; and the lawless one was Simon
Magus. This interpretation involves an anachronism, as Second
Thessalonians was written after the death of Caligula. Wet-
stein entertained the very extraordinary opinion that the man
of sin was Titus, whose army brought their idolatrous ensigns
into the captured temple and offered sacrifices there ; he who
restrained was Nero, whose death was necessary for the rule
of Titus. Hammond imagined that by the man of sin,
Simon Magus, together with the Gnostics, was meant ; the
apostasy was the falling away of Christians to the heresy of
the Gnostics ; and the restraining influence was the apostles,
who, by still preaching to the Jews, preserved the union still
subsisting between Jews and Christians.1 Le Clerc supposed
that the apostasy was the revolt of the Jews from the Eomans ;
the man of sin was the rebellious Jews, and especially their
leader, Simon the son of Giora ; and the restraining power was
the chiefs of the Jewish nation, who were against the revolt.
Whitby considered the Jewish nation, and especially the
Sanhedrim, as Antichrist ; the apostasy was the revolt of the
Jews from the Eoman empire, or from the faith; he who
restraineth was the Emperor Claudius, during whose reign the
Jews' could not rebel, as they were under great obligations to
him.2 m Kern conceives that Antichrist is Nero ; he that re- '
straineth is Vespasian and his son Titus ; and the apostasy is
the revolt of the Jews against the Eomans, or the defection of
Christians. Much more ingenious is the opinion of Wieseler.
He also considers the prophecy as a prediction of the destruc
tion of Jerusalem. " He that restraineth" must be some good
influence which delayed the destruction of Jerusalem, and
this he considers to be the pious Jews then living, particularly
the Christians ; and if the singular requires a particular person,
then 6 Kare^tov is James the Just, the Lord's brother. Not
until James was murdered, and the Christians had removed
from Jerusalem, was the city destroyed. Then he that
restrairieth was taken out of the way.3
1 Hammond on the N. T. , in loco.
2 Whitby's Commentary, pp. 813-818, London, Thomas Tegg, 1842. So
Hitzig ; see Liinemann's Commentary, pp. 225-227 ; and Newton On tlie
Prophecies, Diss, xxii., from which the above list of opinions is chiefly taken.
3 Wieseler's Chronologic des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 268-273.

THE MAN OF SIN. 129
All these views are, however, indequate as an interpreta
tion of the prophecy. They do not satisfy the different
particulars, and have only a general and fancied resemblance.
It is fatal to them that the coming of Christ alluded to is
evidently not His coming in spirit to destroy Jerusalem, but,
as the context shows, His coming in person to establish His
spiritual kingdom. Besides, the Thessalonians were too dis
tant from Jerusalem to be much troubled by the destruction of
that city.
3. A third class of interpreters (Olshausen, Alford, EUicott)
consider the fulfilment of the prediction as entirely future, so
that we are not to look for any past occurrence as answer
ing to it. Their great argument is that "the man of sin"
(d avQpu>iro<i Trfi dp,apTia<i), or the lawless one (d dvop,o<i), is an
individual, and that no individual has yet lived to whom all
the characteristics mentioned in this prediction belong, although
there may frequently have been types and examples of him.
The restraining principle, according to them, is moral order or
government. Thus, according to Olshausen, Antichrist is un
doubtedly a person. All the manifestations of evil, the revolt
of the Jews from the Eomans, Nero, Mahomet, the develop
ment of popery, the French Eevolution with the abolition of
Christianity in 1789, and the present diffusion of infidelity
and atheism, are the prefigurations of Antichrist ; but they are
only some of the characteristics, not all : the union of all the
characteristics in one person will constitute Antichrist.1 " The
av 0/.09," observes Dean Alford, " in the full prophetic sense,
is not yet come. Though 1800 years later, we stand with
regard to him where the apostle stood, — the day of the Lord
not present, and not to arrive until this man of sin be mani
fested; the fivo-T^piov t?;? dvofiias still working, and much
advanced in its working ; the KaTeypv still hindering it.
And let us ask ourselves, what does this represent to us ? Is
it not indicative of a state in which the dvofj,la is working on,
so to speak, underground, under the surface of things, gaining,
throughout these many ages, more expansive force, more
accumulated power, but still hidden and unconcentrated ?
And might we not look, in the progress of such a state of
1 Olshausen Ore the Thessalonians, pp. 488, 489, Clark's translation.
I

130 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
things, for repeated minor embodiments of this dvofita —
dvo/Moi and dmi^bo-Toi TroXXoi (1 John ii. 18) springing up
here and there in different ages and countries, — the aTroaTaala
going onward and growing, just as there were, of Christ Him
self frequent types and minor embodiments before He came
in the flesh ? Thus in the papacy, where so many of the pro
phetic features are combined, we see as it were a standing
embodiment and type ofthe final Antichrist — in the remarkable
words of Gregory the Great, the precursor Antichristi,; and in
Nero, and every persecutor as he arose, and Mahomet, and
Napoleon, and many other forms and agencies of evil, other
more transient types and examples of him."1 And Bishop
EUicott remarks : " The adversary, d avfiKelfievos, though
assimilating one of the distinctive features of Satan, is clearly
not to be confounded with him, whose agent and emissary he
is, but, in accordance with the almost universal tradition of
the ancient Church, is Antichrist, — no mere set of principles or
succession of opponents, but one single person, being as truly
man as He whom he impiously opposes." And he observes,
" The restraining principle is the power of well-ordered human
rule, the principles of legality as opposed to those of dvofila,
of which the Eoman empire was the then embodiment and
manifestation."2 Of course, according to this notion, the fulfilment being yet
future, we cannot apply to its truth or falsehood the features
given us in the prophecy itself. But the ground on which it
is founded, that the " man of sin " is an individual, is by no
means certain. There is no reason why he may not be a
corporate body. Thus the restraining power, which is at one
time in the neuter and at another time in the masculine
gender, is, as is almost universally supposed, not a person, but
either the Eoman empire or the succession of emperors. So
in like manner the "man of sin" may be a succession of
individuals ; at least there is no necessity, arising from the
terms of the prophecy, to regard him as a person, especially as
he is called fivaTijpoov tj)s dvofiUK.
4. The fourth opinion is that of the reformers, that we
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 67.
2 Ellicott, in loco.

t>

THE MAN OF SIN. 131
have here a prediction of popery. Besides the early re
formers, this opinion is also advocated by Hooker, Hurd,
Newton, Turretin, Benson, Bengel, Doddridge, Macknight,
Michaelis, and Wordsworth.
According to these interpreters, d KaTe^wv is the Eoman
emperor, and to KaTe%ov the Eoman empire. This opinion
was that of the early fathers,1 and was generally adopted with
various modifications by Eomanists and Protestants. Now, in
the' Protestant view of the subject, the prediction was verified.
No sooner was the restrainer removed, than Antichrist was
revealed. As long 'as the Eoman emperor continued heathen
and resided at Eome, no ecclesiastical power was permitted to
exalt itself; but no sooner did the emperor remove from
Eome to Constantinople, than popery arose ; and after the
dissolution of the Western Empire, the power of the pope
mightily increased.2 If 6 KaTeypv be the Eoman emperor,
we may understand the reason of the reserve of the apostle.
Paul refers to a conversation which he had on this point with
the Thessalonians, and appeals to their previous knowledge.
If he had directly stated that the restraining power was the
Eoman emperor, he would have been regarded as an enemy
to the Eoman government, because he taught the destruction
of the empire, and would have involved the Christians in
persecution. Prudence required a discreet silence on this
point. This reason for reserve was recognised by the early
fathers. " If St. Paul," observes Chrysostom, " had said that
the Eoman empire will soon be dissolved, the heathen would
have destroyed him as a rebel, and all the faithful with him,
as persons who took up arms against the state. But St. Paul
means the Eoman empire ; and when that shall have been
taken away, then the "man of sin" will come."3
1 Quis nisi Romanus status ? — Tertullian, De Resurr. c. 24.
2 Olshausen has a singular observation on the relation of h xarl%u* to Ihe
Roman empire. His objection to this is, that the Roman or Germanic empire
was destroyed by Napoleon in 1806, and that, as Antichrist and the advent were to
arise immediately after this dissolution, o xxri^uv cannot be the empire, unless
the German, that is, Roman empire, would be again restored, as it was restored by
Charlemagne in 800, after the destruction of the Western Roman empire in 476.
— Commentary on tlie Thessalonians, pp. 492, 496, Clark's translation.
3 Chrysostom, in loco.

132 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
But the great point is:' Is there a sufficient resemblance
between this prophecy and Eomanism, so that we may con
clude that they are related to each other as prediction and
fulfilment ? Now, certainly the points of resemblance are
both numerous and striking. An apostasy is predicted, and
there is in Eomanism a falling away from the pure gospel to
the traditions of men. The man of sin is represented as
opposing and exalting himself against all that is called God
or is an object of worship ; and this is considered as receiving
its fulfilment in the pope exalting himself above all human
and divine authority, claiming the title of "king of kings
and lord of lords," and asserting his power to dispose of the
kingdoms of the earth.1 It is further said that he sitteth in
the temple of God, showing or exhibiting himself as God.
The temple of God is here understood to be the Christian
Church, and the pope places himself in it as its supreme
head. He shows himself as God by claiming divine attributes,
as holiness and infallibility, assuming divine prerogatives, as
the power of pardoning sins, and using such blasphemous
titles as " our Lord God the pope," " another God on earth." 2
Every pope, on his election, is placed on the high altar of
St. Peter, and receives the adoration of the cardinals. It is
further observed that the coming of Antichrist is after the
working of Satan in all power, and signs, and wonders of
falsehood ; and this is considered to find its fulfilment in the
false miracles of popery, in the impositions of relics, indul
gences, and purgatory, in the substitution of angels and saints
as mediators in the place of Christ, and in the pretended
power of working miracles which the Church of Eome still
claims. God is represented as punishing sin by sin, — " send
ing to them the working of error that they might believe the
lie." The popish legends, which have gained such credit as
1 In the remarkable words of Gregory the Great, in opposition to the patriarch
of Constantinople : " Whoever ealls himself universal bishop is the precursor of
Antichrist." ¦
2 Dominus Deus noster papa ; Alter Deus in terra. These and such like
titles are quoted in Jewel's Apology, Poole's Annotations, Newton Ore the
Prophecies. See also Barrow's Treatise on tlie Pope's Supremacy ; Stillingfleet
Ore Popery, chap, xviii. ; and Luthardt's Saving Truths of Christianity, pp. 395,
396 (second edition), translation, T. & T. Clark.

THE MAN OF SIN. 133
to be admitted among their ceremonies, and especially the
monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation, are ' regarded as the
fulfilment of this part of the prophecy.1 And besides, in the
other passage, where Paul predicts the apostasy of the latter
times, the marks which he gives find their counterpart in the
corruption of popery : " Giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils ; speaking lies in hypocrisy ; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meats " (1 Tim. iv. 1-3).
Paul represents the system as working in his days. " For
the mystery of lawlessness already worketh " (2 Thess. ii. 7).
It worketh secretly (evepyetTat) ; it is a mystery (jivo-Trjpiov),
something concealed and unknown until it is revealed.
According to Paul, the germs of the antichristian system were
already in the Christian Church : the leaven of corruption
was at work. And we find both in the Acts (Acts xx. 29)
and in Paul's epistles frequent allusions to false doctrines
and superstitious practices. Now it is to be observed that
there is a close resemblance between those false doctrines
and superstitious practices and the doctrines and practices of
Eomanism, — as, for example, the worship of angels (Col. ii. 8),
the abstinence from certain foods (1 Cor. viii. 8), bodily
mortification (Col. ii. 23), the traditions and doctrines and
commandments of men (Col. ii. 8, 22) ; so that, as Bishop
Newton observes, "the foundations of popery were laid
indeed in the apostle's days, but the superstructure was raised
by degrees, and several ages passed before the building was
completed, and the man of sin was revealed in full per
fection." 2
The complete fulfilment of the prophecy, on this view of
the subject, is still future. The destruction of Antichrist, that
is, of Eomanism, is also predicted : " Whom the Lord Jesus
will destroy by the spirit of His mouth, and annihilate by
the brightness, of His coming" (2 Thess. ii. 8). Various
explanations of these words have been attempted. "The
spirit" or breath "of His mouth" has been understood to
1 See Macknight's Commentary, and Wordsworth's Greek Testament in loc. ;
comp. also Bishop Newton's Dissertation on the Man of Sin.
2 Newton Ore the Prophecies, Dissertation xxii.

134 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.
denote the preaching of the pure gospel, the diffusion of the
word of God by the Eeformation, and the revival of evan
gelical doctrines, which will gradually undermine popery, and
lessen its hold on the minds of men ; and by " the bright
ness of His coming " is meant the lustre with which Christ
will cause the true doctrine to shine, or rather the final
destruction of popery by the coming of Christ to judgment.
As this portion of the prophecy is unfulfilled, it would be
better not to hazard any explanations. The interpretation of
unfulfilled prophecy is probably beyond the powers of the
human mind : the fulfilment is the only correct interpretation.
To this view of the subject various objections have been
raised. There are two which merit consideration. 1. Even
admitting all the striking coincidences, yet the idea of popery
does not and never did fulfil the prophecy in ver. 4. So far
from the pope opposing and exalting himself above all that is
called God or is an object of worship, his abject adoration of
and submission to Xeyo/j,evot, QeoL and cre/3dafw,Ta has ever been
one of his most notable peculiarities.1 But to this it may be
replied, that the arrogance of the pope, his maintenance of
superiority above all the kings of the earth, his assertion that
he is as God on the earth, his claim of infallibility, which has
lately been conceded to him, are a distinct fulfilment of the
prediction. 2. If the papacy be Antichrist, then has the
manifestation been made, and endured now for nearly 1500
years, and yet that day of the Lord has not come, which by
the terms of our prophecy such manifestation is immediately
to precede.2 But it is not asserted that the day of the Lord
follows directly on the advent of Antichrist, but merely that
Antichrist will precede. Besides, it may be that there is a
development of Antichrist, and that his final destruction by
the coming of the Lord will not occur until his full develop
ment. Thus, for example, the spiritual power of popery may
be unfolding itself : the mystery of lawlessness may be still
working, as was lately seen in the introduction of two new
dogmas into the Eomish Church, — the immaculate conception
of the Virgin, and the personal infallibity of the pope. The
career of Antichrist has not yet run.
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 66. 2 Idem.

THE MAN OF SIN. 135
Upon the whole, the points of resemblance between this pro
phecy of Paul and popery are numerous, varied, and striking ;
so that, although a positive conclusion on such a subject may
appear to many unwarranted, yet the presumption is that the
prophecy of " the man of sin " is a prediction of popery.
Such an opinion may be considered as uncharitable and unjust,
when popery is viewed as it presently exists, divested of its
power to persecute, and as it is seen in the culture, refine
ment, and piety of many of its adherents; but when the
wickedness and horrible atrocities of the popes and their
agents before and at the time of the Eeformation, and the
general corruption of the whole system, are taken into con
sideration, such an opinion may be founded on truth, and so
be neither uncharitable nor unjust.

THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
IT is unnecessary to discuss at any length the authenticity
of this Epistle, as this is almost universally admitted.
The only one who has called it in question is Bruno Bauer
(1850); whilst Baur himself and the other writers of the Tubin
gen school assert its Pauline origin.1 The allusions to it by the
apostolic fathers, Clemens Eomanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp,
given by Lardner and Kirchhofer, are somewhat obscure.2
Justin Martyr (ad. 140) probably refers to it when he uses
the expression, " Be ye as I am ; for I am as ye are " (Gal.
iv. 12) ; and this probability is increased by the words
" hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, and such like "
(Gal. v. 20, 21), following in the same sentence;3 so that it
is almost certain that Justin knew and used the Epistle. The
Epistle is expressly ascribed to Paul by Irenaeus, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Tertullian. Thus Irenaeus (a.d. 178)
writes : " And again in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul says,
' When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, that we might re
ceive adoption ' " (Gal. iv. 4, 5).4 Clemens Alexandrinus (ad.
1 Baur's Paulus, vol. i. pp. 280-287. Hilgenfeld has written a commentary
on the Galatians.
2 Clemens, Ep. i ad Corinth, c. 49. Ignatius, ad Philadelph. c. 1 ; ad Magnes.
c. 8. Polycarp, ad Philippens, c. 12; ibid. c. 5.
3 Cohort, ad Grose, p. 40. By some critics the genuineness of this work is
questioned. 4 Adv. hesres. iii. 16, 3. Et iterum in epistola, quae est ad Galatas, ait Paulus :
Cum autem venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum, factum ex muliere,
factum sub lege, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret, ut adoptionem percipiamus.
136

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 137
190) says: "Wherefore Paul, also writing to the Galatians,
says, 'My little children, of whom I travail in birth again
until Christ be formed in you'" (Gal. iv. 19).1 And Ter
tullian (a.d. 200) writes: " Of this we need say no more, if
it be the same Paul who, writing to the Galatians, reckons
heresy among the works of the flesh " (Gal. v. 2 0).2 Besides,
the Epistle to the Galatians is contained in the catalogue of
Marcion (a.d. 140) and in the Muratorian Canon (ad. 170),
and is recognised by such heretics as Tatian (a.d. 172) 3 and
the Valentinians (a.d. 170).4
The internal evidence is even stronger than the external.
The Epistle bears throughout the impress of the character of
Paul. The vehemence of temper, the earnest longings for the
spiritual welfare of the Galatians, the desire to be present
among them, the mixture of severity and tenderness in the
censures, and the uncompromising maintenance of the great
principle of Christian liberty which pervade the Epistle, all
remind us of Paul, and are all beyond the art of a forger of
the second century. So also the numerous apparent discre
pancies between the Epistle and the Acts, especially in the
number and order of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, and in his
interview when there with the Apostles James, Peter, and
John, are proofs that these are two independent narratives,
and that the Epistle could not have been taken from the
history, nor the history fabricated from the Epistle.5 The
narrative of the relation of Paul to the other apostles, and
especially of his dispute with Peter, is such as would never
have been invented by any Christian writer ; and the attempts
of the early fathers to explain away that dispute 6 are proofs
how distasteful it was to the Christian Church, and how
utterly improbable was its invention. " Nor," as Professor
Strom, iii. 15. A/a xtt.) XlaZXos TaXariais Xftiffr'lWuv, tynai' rixvia. [cov, ous
rra'/.tv uoivu, a%pts ov fj.op<poi6n ^.piffros iv v/&7v.
2 De presscript. hceret. c. 6. Nee diutius de isto, si idem est Paulus, qui et
alibi hsereses inter carnalia crimina numerat, scribens ad Galatas.
3 Hieron. Comment, in Gal. vi. 8. 4 Iren. adv. hesres. i. 3, 5.
5 These apparent discrepancies are treated of in the author's Commentary on
the Acts of the Apostles, vol. ii. section vi.
0 Origen, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret suppose that there was a collu
sion between the apostles ; Clemens Alexandrinus, that the Cephas mentioned
in the Epistle was not the Apostle Peter, but some obscure disciple.

138 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Lightfoot remarks, " would it serve any conceivable purpose
which a forger might be supposed to entertain. The Gnostic,
who wished to advance his antipathy to Judaism under cover
of St. Paul's name, would have avoided every expression of
deference to the apostles of the circumcision. The Ebionite
would have shrunk with loathing from any seeming deprecia
tion of the cherished customs or the acknowledged leaders of
his race, as the tone of the author of the Clementines shows.
The Catholic writer, forging with a view to " conciliation,"
would be more unlikely than either to invent such a narrative,
anxious as he would , be to avoid any appearance of conflict
between the two great teachers of the Church." 1 And the style
of the Epistle is eminently Pauline : it abounds in Pauline
words and phrases, in anacolutha and involved constructions
(Gal. ii. 3, 4), in digressions (Gal. ii. 2-8), in vigour and
fervour (Gal. vi. 14), in tenderness (Gal. iv. 19), and in refer
ences to the Old Testament, some of them of an allegorical
nature (GaL iii. 16, iv. 22-31).2
II. THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA.
Galatia, or Gallogrsecia, was a district of country bounded
on the north by Bithynia, on the east by Pontus and Cap
padocia, on the south by Pamphylia and Cilicia, and on the
west by Proconsular Asia. Although mountainous, it was
highly fertile, particularly along the banks of the river Halys.
Its principal cities were Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and
Gordium. The Galatians were the descendants of the Gauls who in
the third century before Christ (b.c. 280) invaded Greece and
Asia.3 The Gallic tribes the Trocmi and the Tolistobogii,
together with the Tectosagi, supposed by some to be a Ger
manic tribe, under the leadership of Lutarius and Leonnarius,
invaded Thrace, and, on the invitation of Nicomedes king of
1 Lightfoot Ore the Galatians, ,p. 58.
2 For a clear statement of the internal evidences, see Jowett On St. Paul's
Epistles, vol. i. pp. 245-247.
3 The Galli of the Romans are the same as the Galata. of the Greeks. The
Romans also borrowed the Greek name GalatiB, but they restricted its use to
denote the Asiatic Gauls.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 139
Bithynia, crossed the Hellespont to Asia (Strabo, xii. 5, 1).
Here they extended their conquests, and were for many years a
scourge to the various provinces of Asia Minor (Liv. xxxviii.
16). They were at length defeated by Antiochus Soter king
of Syria and Attalus king of Pergamus (b.c. 238), and were
restricted to a district of Phrygia, to which they gave the name
of Galatia. In B.C. 189 they were reduced to a nominal
dependence on the Eomans by Cneius Manlius (liv. xxxviii.
12 ; 1 Mace. viii. 2), but were ruled by their own chiefs.
According to Strabo, each of the three tribes was divided into
four portions called tetrarchies, and had its own tetrarchs, and
the whole country was governed by a council of three hundred
(Strabo, xii. 5, 1). Afterwards they were ruled by kings, the
first of whom, Deiotarus,1 received his crown from Pompey.
Their last king, Amyntas, was rewarded by Augustus for his
desertion of Antony with a large extension of territory, com
prehending Pisidia and the greater part of Lycaonia (Dio
Cass. xlix. 32). On his murder (b.c. 26), Augustus converted
his kingdom into the Eoman province of Galatia (Dio Cass.
liii. 26).2
Galatia, when, Paul visited it, was inhabited by a mixed
population. The majority were Galatians, or the descendants
of those ancient Gauls who, more than three hundred years
before, had passed over into Asia. Mingled with them were
the relics of the original inhabitants of the country, the
ancient Phrygians, celebrated for the peculiarities of their
religious rites and for the worship of Cybele.3 The Greeks
were such an important element, that it was their language
which was chiefly spoken, and hence the inhabitants were
called Gallo-Grecians. The Eomans also, the last conquerors,
left the impress of their nationality, as is seen in the monu
ments and works which still remain. And along with these
nations there was a considerable colony of Jews, who were
attracted to the commercial cities of Galatia. Antiochus the

1 The same whom Cicero defended. Cicero pro rege Deiotaro.
2 Fo. an account of Galatia, see Winer's Worterbuch ; Lange's apostolisches
Zeitalter ; Smith's Dictionary : Conybeare and Howson 's St. Paul ; Meyer's
Brief an die Galater; Lightfoot Ore tlie Galatians ; Davidson's Introduction, etc.
3 The Galatians adopted the Phrygian religion.

140 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Great settled two thousand Jewish families in Lydia and
Phrygia (Jos. Ant. xii. 3, 4}; and Augustus granted special
privileges to the Jews resident in Ancyra, the capital of the
Eoman province of Galatia (Jos. Ant. xvi. 6, 2). And it is
evident from this Epistle that the influence of the Jews and
of the Jewish religion was very considerable among the
Galatians.1 The language of the Galatians proper was at first Celtic, or,
as others think, Teutonic, but they soon learned Greek. But
along with Greek they retained their original language.
Jerome tells us that even in his time a dialect was spoken at
Ancyra which bore some resemblance to that spoken at
Treves ; 2 and Jerome was a competent judge, as he had visited
both Treves and Galatia. Perhaps there may be some
relation between this Galatian dialect and the speech of the
Lycaonians (Acts xiv. ll).3
Fickleness was a striking feature in the character of the
Galatian converts. No country embraced the gospel so readily
and cordially. They received Paul with such gratitude and
respect, as if he were an angel of God, yea, as if he were
Jesus Christ Himself ; and they were willing, if it would have
benefited the apostle, to have plucked Out their own eyes and
to have given them to him (Gal. iv. 14, 15). But no church
fell so quickly from the faith. Soon converted, they soon
'relapsed into Judaism. Impulsive and easily acted upon by
the apostle, they were as easily acted upon by false teachers.-
The apostle had to express his surprise that they were so soon
removed from the gospel (Gal. i. 6). He regarded them as
persons under some strange fascination (Gal. iii. 1) ; and him,
1 See Lightfoot Ore the Galatians, pp. 8-11.
2 Hieron. ad Epist. ad Gal. lib. ii. prasf. : Galatas excepto sermone Grseco,
quo omnis Oriens loquitur, propriam linguam eandem pene habere quam Treveros.
Treves is now in Rhenish Prussia, and the language there spoken is German ;
and hence some infer that it was also the case in the days of Jerome ; so that
the original language of the Galatians was Teutonic, not Celtic. " Some think,"
says Luther, "that we Germans are descended from the Galatians." "The
conversion of the Galatians," observes Meyer, "is the beginning of German
Church history." But the Treveri are expressly called by Caesar Belgians or
Gauls.— B. G. ii. 4, 24. See Lightfoot's dissertation : "Were the Galatians Celts
or Teutons ? "
8 Jablonsky, de lingua Lycaon. p. 23.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA 141
whom formerly they considered as an angel of God, they
now looked upon as an enemy (Gal. iv. 16). Their conduct
was in some respects similar to that of the Lystrians, who
first worshipped Paul as a god, and then stoned him, until
they thought he was dead (Acts xiv. 12, 19). In this fickle
ness of disposition, commentators recognise the same character
which distinguished their race (Caesar, B. G. ii. 1, iii. 19,
iv. 5).1
Galatia is a term of indefinite signification : it may either
denote the original district of Galatia, or it may be used in a
wider sense to signify the Eoman province, including, besides
Galatia proper, the districts of Pisidia and Lycaonia, and
therefore comprehending the cities of Antioch in Pisidia, Derbe,
and Lystra, but not Iconium. It is of importance to deter
mine the meaning of the term in Scripture ; for on this
depends the date of the introduction of Christianity into
Galatia, and also the date of the Epistle to the Galatians.
Some (Paulus, Ulrich, Thiersch, Bdttger) suppose that the
Eoman province is here meant, and that accordingly the
Epistle was not addressed to the Galatians properly so called,
but to the inhabitants of Pisidian Antioch, Derbe, and Lystra,
whom Paul had visited on his first missionary journey. ( But
in the Acts the term Galatia is not used politically to denote
the Eoman province, but ethnologically to denote the district
inhabited by the Galatians. I. Antioch is expressly said to be
in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 14), and Lystra and Derbe to be cities
of Lycaonia (Acts xiv. 6), although at the time these cities
were in the Eoman province of Galatia, and there were no
such political provinces as Pisidia and Lycaonia. Besides,
Lycaonia is distinguished from Galatia ; for after the history
had mentioned that Paul preached the gospel in Derbe and
Lystra (in Lycaonia), it is added that he went throughout
Phrygia and the region of Galatia (Acts xvi. 1-6).2 And
generally throughout the Acts the names of countries are
given as mere geographical districts, without respect to their
1 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 284, 285 ; Meyer's Brief an
die Galater on Gal. i. 6.
2 De Wette's Apostelgeschichte, p. 127 ; Meyer's Brief an die Galater, pp.
2, 3 ; Wieseler's Chronologic d. apost. Zeital. pp. 281, 282.

142 i THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
variable political significance, as Mysia, Phrygia, Pisidia, and
Lycaonia ; so that it is now almost universally admitted that the
term Galatia is to be restricted to the district properly so called,
exclusive of the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Derbe, and Lystra.
We have only a summary account in the Acts of the plant
ing of Christianity in Galatia by Paul. We are informed
that after the council of Jerusalem, he proceeded on his second
missionary journey, accompanied by Silas. After visiting the
churches which he had formerly planted, he passed through
Phrygia and the region of Galatia (Acts xvi. 6). From the
narrative of the Acts, it. would seem that he made merely a
passing visit ; but this brief notice has to be supplemented by
what we read in the Epistle. There we are informed that Paul
preached the gospel to them at the first through (or " on
account of") infirmity of the flesh (Bi' do-Qeveiav t?}? o-ap/co?,
Gal. iv. 1 3), which would seem to imply that he was detained
in Galatia by some bodily affliction.1 What cities he visited,
and how long he remained in the district, is not mentioned ;
but it is evident that his labours were eminently successful,
and that flourishing churches were planted in several cities of
, Galatia. " My temptation," he writes, " which was in my
flesh, ye despised not, nor rejected ; but received me as an
angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" (Gal. iv. 14). About two
or three years after this, he paid a second visit to Galatia.
At the commencement of his third missionary journey, when
proceeding from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus, we are informed
that he " went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in
order, strengthening all the disciples" (Acts xviii. 23). Some
(Paulus, Bottger, Macknight) suppose that he paid a visit to
Galatia prior to these two, on his first missionary journey. It
is said that Paul and Barnabas fled from Pisidian Antioch to
Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that
lieth round about (rr]v irepi^mpov, Acts xiv. 6). By " the region
that lieth round about" Galatia is supposed to be meant.2
But 7re/.^;_.|005 evidently denotes the places in the vicinity of
1 Jowett renders the expression "amid infirmity of the flesh," ire loc. ; but
the other translation, as he himself admits, is the more literal. See Winer's
Grammar ofthe N. _., p. 418 ; Meyer's Commentary, in loc.
2 Macknight's Introduction to the Epistle to the Galatians.

THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA. 143
Lystra and Derbe, hence the adjacent parts of Lycaonia, and
not Galatia proper, which was situated on the other side of
Lycaonia. The names of the cities in which the churches of Galatia
(Gal. i. 2) were planted, are not given us. If the importance
of the Galatian cities is a ground of judgment, we may sup
pose Ancyra, the capital of the Eoman province, inhabited by
numerous Jews, and a city of great commercial importance ;
Pessinus, celebrated for the worship of Cybele and of the
image which fell down from Jupiter, as Ephesus was for the
worship of Diana (Strabo, xii. 5, 3) ; Gordkim, the ancient
capital of Phrygia, and situated in the centre of the country ;
and Tavium, the ancierit capital of the Trocmi.1 The Epistle
is not directed to one particular church, as the Epistles to
the Thessalonians and Philippians, but to the churches of a
district, as the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which is
inscribed to the churches of Achaia as well as to the church
of Corinth.
Paul would doubtless, according to his usual custom, preach
the gospel first to the Jews, who were very numerous in
Galatia;2 still it is evident from the Epistle that the great
majority of his converts consisted of Gentiles. He speaks of
them as formerly ignorant of God, and doing .service to them
which by nature are no gods (Gal. iv. 8), — a description appli
cable only to the Gentiles. It would also appear that they
were uncircumcised (Gal. vi. 14) ; and the danger to which
they were exposed was their becoming converts to Judaism,
suffering themselves to be circumcised, and so mixing up the
Jewish with the Christian religion. The frequent references
to the Old Testament, however, prove that they had been
accustomed to Jewish teaching, and were familiarized with
the Jewish Scriptures. This is accounted for by the numerous
Jews resident in the district, by the probability that many of
the converts before they had embraced Christianity had been
1 Lightfoot's Galatians, p. 20 ; Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii.
pp. 320, 321.
2 So Neander, De Wette, and Wieseler. Schneckenburger, Baur, and Hilgen
feld take an opposite view. They suppose that there were no Jewish converts
among the Galatians. — Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 280.

144 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
attracted to Judaism (the so-called proselytes of the gate), and
by the proselytizing activity of the Judaizing teachers.1 The
Jewish religion, at the time of the entrance of Christianity,
exercised a powerful influence upon the Gentiles, especially
upon the female part of the community, and thus formed in
some respects a bridge of connection between heathenism and
Christianity.2 But although the churches of Galatia were
chiefly composed of Gentile Christians, yet there were not
wanting among them Jews and proselytes who believed on
Jesus as the Christ.3

III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle to the Galatians is eminently controversial,
being directed against the Judaizing tendencies in the churches. -
Paul's opponents consisted chiefly of Judaizing teachers who
came from without, perhaps from Palestine, inculcating the
necessity of circumcision and the observance of Jewish rites,
without which, in their view, Christianity was imperfect and
without benefit, — :in short, asserting that the Gentiles could
only be converted to Christianity through the medium of
Judaism. Probably also these Judaizing teachers were joined
by several of the Jewish Christians in Galatia, and by some
of the Gentile Christians whom they had persuaded to become
converts to Judaism (Gal. vi. 13).4 The views which they
propagated were the extreme Judaistic views which had
already been repudiated at the council of Jerusalem. Thus a
systematic opposition was set up to the teaching of Paul. His
opponents attempted to undermine his authority, and to destroy
his influence among the Galatians. They affirmed that he was
not an apostle chosen by Christ, and that therefore he occu
pied an inferior position to the apostles of Jerusalem; that
the gospel which he taught was different from that of the
twelve, that it was defective and required to be supplemented ;
1 Meyer's Brief an die Galater, p. 4 ; Jowett Ore St. Paul's Epistles, vol. i.
pp. 232-235.
2 According to Josephus, almost all the married women in Damascus were
attached to the Jewish religion (Bell. Jud. ii. 20, 2).
3 This against Hilgenfeld.
4 Neander's Planting, vol. i. 220, note.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 145
that he was inconsistent in his teaching, perhaps appealing to
the fact of his having circumcised Timothy ; and that in teach
ing the freedom of the Gentiles from the Jewish law, he was
in reality undervaluing the revelation from God.
These Judaizing teachers were only too successful in leading
the Galatians astray. Their fickle and impressible disposition
was shown in forsaking the teaching of Paul, and in embracing
that of his opponents. " I marvel," writes the apostle, " that
ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel : which is not another ; but
there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel
of Christ" (Gal. i. 6, 7). Not that they had actually em
braced Judaism to the extent of being circumcised, but they
were in imminent danger of doing so, — they were drifting
away from the pure gospel of Christ. Some (Credner, Buckert,
Eeuss, Wieseler) suppose that the change had come over the
Galatians before Paul's second visit to them (Acts xviii. 23).
On his first visit they received him as an angel from heaven,
but on his second visit he had to speak sharply with them :
he had to testify against their Judaizing practices, and to tell
them that if they were circumcised, Christ would profit them
nothing; he had become their enemy, because he then told
them the truth.1 But, on the other hand, the information of
the relapse of the Galatians into Judaism was a surprise to
the apostle (Gal. i. 6, iii. 1). Assuming that this epistle was
written after Paul's second visit, as was likely the case, the
probability is that the false teachers had commenced their
work before Paul's second visit; that he had discerned the
germs of false doctrine ; that the danger was not yet present,
but only threatened ; and that in " confirming the churches "
he had to warn and admonish them ;2 and consequently his
surprise would be the greater, when, shortly after his departure,
he learned that they had fallen into that very danger against
which he had warned them.
The design of the apostle in writing this Epistle was to
correct the Judaizing errors into which the Galatians had
1 Wieseler's Chronologic des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 278 ; Reuss, Geschichte
N. T., p. 72.
' Lechler's Apostolisches Zeitalter, p. 383. K

146 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
fallen, and to bring them back to the simple faith of the
gospel. For this purpose he was obliged to vindicate his
apostolic character, and to assert his equality with the twelve.
He draws a broad line of distinction between the law and the
gospel, proclaims the great doctrine of justification by faith,
and asserts and maintains the liberty of the Gentiles from
legal observances. IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle may be conveniently divided into three parts,
although the distinction between them is not constantly kept.
The first part is apologetic, and contains the apostle's vindica
tion of himself in the form of a narrative (chap. i. ii.). The
second part is dogmatic, and contains the statement of the
relation of the law to the gospel (chap., iii-v. 1 2). And the
third part is practical, and contains observations on the necessity
of a holy life (chap. v. 1 3-vi). In the first part, the apostle,
after the usual salutation, but without the usual commendation,1
proceeds at once to vindicate his apostolic authority in oppo
sition to the depreciatory assertions of the Judaizers. He
asserts that he had received his gospel by a direct revelation
from heaven ; that he did not owe it to the original apostles ;
that they recognised its truth and his independence ; and that,
when Peter came to Antioch, so far from relinquishing his
apostolic authority, he rebuked that apostle because he was
guilty of temporizing. In the second part, he maintains the
doctrine of justification by faith, and the freedom of the
Galatians from the Jewish law ; he warns them of the danger
of mixing up faith with works, expresses his earnest desire to
be again present with them that he might regain their confi
dence, and earnestly beseeches them to stand fast in the
liberty of the gospel. In the third part, he exhorts them not
to abuse their liberty, to guard against party spirit, to avoid
the works of the flesh, to cultivate the fruits of the Spirit, to
deal gently with the erring, and to be active in the perfor
mance of good works. He again adverts to the great question
1 This is the only epistle which wants the thanksgiving of the apostle for the
spiritual welfare of his converts : even the Epistles to the Corinthians have it.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 147
in dispute, asserts the indifference of circumcision or uncir-
cumcision, and the supreme importance of the new creation,
and closes the Epistle with his apostolic benediction.
V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
It is a matter of considerable difficulty to fix upon the time
when this Epistle was written, and consequently a great diver
sity of opinion on this point exists. Some suppose it to be
the earliest of all Paul's epistles, and others the last. Marcion
places it the first on his catalogue.1 So also Michaelis,
Bottger, Pajdus, Ulrich, and Macknight think that it is the
first of Paul's extant epistles.2 On the other hand, Schrader
and Kohler suppose it to be tlie last, — Schrader dating it in
A.D. 64, at the close of Paul's Eoman imprisonment, and
Kohler in A.D. 69, two years after the death of Nero." All
these are untenable suppositions. Some (Baumgarten, Words
worth) place its composition between Paul's two visits to
Galatia (that is, between Acts xvi. 6 and Acts xviii. 23), and
suppose it to have been composed either during Paul's journey
through Macedonia, or during his residence of a year and a
half at Corinth (Acts xviii. 1 1), and thus to be contempora
neous with the Epistles to the Thessalonians.3
We can only approximate to a determination of the exact
time. The Epistle was certainly written after the council of J
Jerusalem (Acts xv.), as it is now generally agreed that this
is the rrfeeting with the apostles alluded to in Gal. ii. 2.4
Whether it was composed after the apostle's second visit (Acts
xviii. 2 3) is a more difficult question. There are in the Epistle
1 It is not evident, however, that Marcion's catalogue is arranged in a chrono
logical order.
2 Michaelis' Introduction by Marsh, vol. vi. p. 8. Macknight On the Epistles,
p. 319. Macknight thinks that it was written from Antioch after the council,
and before Paul set out on his second missionary journey. Michaelis dates it
from Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 1).
3 Wordsworth Ore St. PauVs Epistles, pp. 36-41. He gives, as the result of
his observations, that the Epistle was written at Corinth on Paul's first visit to
Greece, a.d. 53 or a.d. 54.
4 For the discussion of the identity of Paul's visit at the council of Jerusalem
(Acts xv. 1-21) with the visit mentioned in Gal. ii. 1-10, see the author's Com
mentary on the Acts, vol. ii. pp. 80-85.

148 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
itself some slight intimations of a second visit. The following
expressions — " As we said before, so say I now again, If any
man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 9) ; " Of the which I
tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they
which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God"
(Gal. v. 21) — seem to point to a second visit, as such warnings
and admonitions would not be so necessary at the first visit,
when the Galatians so gladly received the gospel. And the
words, " Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I
preached the gospel unto you at the first" (eiayyeXto-d/jLrjv i/uv
to irpoTepov, Gal. iv. 13), would seem to indicate two visits,
as to irpoTepov properly denotes the " former occasion ;" and
if there is a "former occasion,", there must. also be a "latter
occasion."1 Besides, time must be given to the Judaizing
teachers to propagate their doctrines so successfully as they
seem to have done among the Galatians. And therefore,
although on this point certainty is unattainable, the strong
probability is that the Epistle was written after Paul's second
visit to Galatia.
I As Paul repaired directly from Galatia to Ephesus, the
/earliest time at which this Epistle could have been written
I was during the apostle's three years' residence in Ephesus.
This is the most prevalent opinion, and is adopted by Eichhorn,
Winer, Neander, Olshausen, Wieseler, Eeuss, Ewald, Meyer,
Guericke, Baur, Alford, and Ellicott. The great argument
which they employ is that the Galatians soon fell from the
faith : " I marvel that ye are so soon (ovtod Ta^em?) removed
from him that called you" (Gal. i. 6), — that is, either so
soon after their conversion to Christianity (Meyer, Olshausen,
Alford), or so soon after Paul's visit to them (Wieseler,
Bengel). This falling away, then, must have occurred not
long after Paul's second visit, and consequently during his
three years' residence at Ephesus. The apostle would quickly
1 See Meyer's Brief an die Galater, p. 5 ; Jowett on St. Paul's Epistles, vol.
i. p. 248 ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. i. p. 89, last edition. It is admitted
that the expression may only denote a time antecedent to that in which he now
wrote, but the other interpretation is the more probable. See Alford on Gal.
iv. 16.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 149
receive information, as the communication between Galatia
and Ephesus was comparatively easy. And doubtless, when
ever the apostle became aware of this declension of the Gala
tians, he would lose no time in writing this Epistle. Those
who adopt this opinion fix" the date of the Epistle between the
years 54—56, and on Ephesus as the place of its composition.
Others (Bleek, Conybeare, Lightfoot, Davidson, 2d ed.) sup
pose that the Epistle was written during Paul's winter residence
at Corinth (Acts xx. 3), and hence fix its date at A.D. 5 7.1 They
found this opinion on the striking resemblance between this
Epistle and the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and especially
the Epistle to the Eomans, — a resemblance which they con
sider goes to prove that it was written after the Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, and before that to the Eomans. But we
know from other sources that the Epistle to the Eomans was
written during that residence of Paul at Corinth. As the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians are, from' their
resemblance, regarded as contemporaneous, so it is argued the
Epistles to the Galatians and the Eomans are on the same
account to be also considered as contemporaneous.2
It is certainly an undeniable fact that there is a remarkable
resemblance between the Epistles to the Galatians and the
Eomans, — the same great doctrine of justification insisted on^,
the same illustration of Abraham's faith employed, the same
privilege of adoption affirmed, the same contest between the
flesh and the spirit described, the same distinction between
the law and the gospel traced,3 — so that there is certainly a
probability that these epistles were written about the same
time. But, on the other hand, this probability is balanced by
the reason given for an earlier composition, namely, that the
Galatians had quickly departed from the faith, and that the
apostle would write immediately on information of their relapse.
1 Bleek's Introduction,' vol. ii. p. 2 ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. i. p. 95
(new edition).
2 This point is discussed at great length and with great ability by Professor
Lightfoot in his commentary, pp. 36-56. His arguments, if not entirely con
vincing, go the length of leaving the question a matter of doubt.
3 For the points of resemblance between the Epistles to the Galatians and the
Romans, See Lightfoot On the Galatians, pp. 45-48, and Davidson's Introduction
to N. T, vol. i pp. 91-93 (new edition).

150 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
It can hardly be supposed that o_V_> Ta%e_>? extended over a
period of five years.1 Although, then, it is admitted that the
close resemblance of this Epistle to the Epistle to the Eomans
leaves the question open to doubt, yet that fact is not sufficient
to overthrow the usual opinion, that the Epistle was written
from Ephesus. According to this opinion, the Epistle to the
Galatians immediately succeeds the Epistles to the Thessa
lonians, and the order is, First and Second Thessalonians,
Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, Eomans. Whereas,
according to the other view, the Epistles to the Corinthians
intervene, and the order is, First and Second Thessalonians,
First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Eomans.

VI. PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
This Epistle resembles in spirit the Epistles to the Corin
thians. 'There is the same mixture of tenderness and severity.
The mental character of the apostle is strongly impressed upon
it. At one time he sternly rebukes them as the foolish
Galatians, who had suffered themselves to be bewitched ; at
another time he affectionately beseeches them as his little
children, of whom he travailed in birth again until Christ
was formed in them. At one time he threatens them with
being accursed from Christ ; but more frequently he entreats
them as a father does his erring children. The heart of Paul
is disclosed to us, — stern against sin and error, but full of
tenderness and pity toward the sinful and erring.
But whilst this Epistle resembles in spirit the Epistles to
the Corinthian's, it resembles in doctrine that to the Eomans.
Both epistles are eminently dogmatic ; in both the train of
thought is similar ; in both Christian liberty is asserted and
maintained. But yet, with these points of agreement, there
are also notable points of difference. ( In the Eomans there is
a general statement of doctrine without reference to particular
circumstances, whereas in the Galatians there is an immediate
reference to the special errors of the Judaizers. } The one re-
1 Professor Lightfoot endeavours, but without success, to evade the force of
this by rendering radius "readily, rashly," ie. quickly after the opportunity is
offered. See in loc.

PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 151
sembles a treatise rather than an epistle ; the other is an
epistle called forth by the particular and pressing wants of
those addressed. Both are highly dogmatic. I But whereas the
Eomans is purely doctrinal, the Galatians is also controversial.1
As Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, wrote this Epistle
in opposition to the doctrinal views of the Judaizers, the
pharisaical and ritualistic portion of the Church, so Luther,
the apostle of Protestantism, made use chiefly of this Epistle
in his attacks upon the doctrinal views of the Eomanists, who
may be regarded as the pharisaical and ritualistic portion of
the Christian Church in our times. The great reformer entered
thoroughly into the spirit of the Epistle ; and his commentary
upon it, though not at all critical, is eminently polemical.2
In the monks and doctors of the Eomish Church he saw the
antitypes of the Judaizing teachers, and in their ceremonies
the return to the beggarly elements of the law ; and here also
he found clearly revealed his favourite doctrine of justification.
This Epistle may be distinguished among all the other epistles
of Paul as the epistle of Protestantism.
Another peculiarity belonging to this Epistle, is that there is
some ground for believing that it was written by the apostle's >
own hand. All the other epistles to the churches were written
by the aid of an amanuensis, the apostle adding the concluding
salutation as a mark of its authenticity. But in this Epistle
we have the following words : "IBeTe irrfKlKoi,<: v/uv ypdfifiaaiv
eypatya t§ ip,§ %«/_ . (Gal. vi. 1 1), which we translate, " Ye
see how large a letter I have written unto you with my own
hand." It is admitted that the translation is faulty : it ought
to be, " See with what large letters I have written unto you
with my own hand."3 But still, admitting this alteration, the
question remains, Does it apply to the whole epistle ? or, Is
it restricted only to the words which follow ? The opinions
1 On the points of resemblance and difference between the Epistles to the
Galatians and the Romans, see Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i pp. 240,
241.
/ 2 "The Epistle to the Galatians," says Luther, "is my epistle; I have I
| betrothed myself to it ; it is my wife. "
3 ypa/i/uo is never used by Paul for ixttraXi ; and even if it did admit of this
meaning, yet its being in the dative plural, ypappac-i, proves that it must be
translated, not "I have written a letter," but " I have written with letters. "

152 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of critics are divided. Some (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theo
doret, Calvin, Olshausen, Neander, Lardner, Ewald, Bleek,
Kirchhofer, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Davidson, Alford,
Wordsworth) refer it to the whole epistle. Others (Jerome,
Theodore, Grotius, Meyer, Conybeare, Lightfoot, Jowett) sup
pose that the epistle was written to dictation, and that the
apostle added only the last words, writing them in large letters
in order to make them emphatic.1 The meaning of the words
is certainly obscure. The past tense of the verb eypayjra instead
of the present ypdcjxo, as in 2 Thess. iii. 19, would seem to
indicate that the words apply to what the apostle had written,
and not to what he was about to write ; whilst at the same
time the other interpretation gives a better explanation to
the words 7rij\t«ot? ypdfip.aaiv.2
The Epistle to the Galatians has been often commented on.
The most important commentaries are those of Winer (Leipzig,
first edition, 1821; fourth edition, 1859), Eiickert (Leipzig,
1833); Olshausen (Konigsberg, 1848), De Wette (Leipzig,
1845; third edition, 1864), Meyer (Gottingen, 1851 ; fifth
edition, 1870),3 Hilgenfeld (Leipzig, 1852), Wieseler (Gbttin
gen, 1860) ; and in our own country, EUicott (London, 1854;
fourth edition, 1867), Jowett (London, second edition, 1859),
Lightfoot (London, 1865; third edition, 1869), Eadie (Edin
burgh, 1869), — besides the notes contained in the Greek
Testaments of Alford and Wordsworth.

ST. PAUL'S RELATION TO JUDAISM."
The Epistle to the Galatians is distinguished among Paul's
epistles by its controversial nature. False teachers had
1 Meyer's Brief an die Galater, p. 278.
2 Alford, after advocating the opinion that Paul wrote the whole epistle with
his own hand, adds : "And he wrote it, whether from weakness of his eyes, or
from choice, in large characters." — Alford on Gal. vi. 11.
3 Meyer's commentary excels all others in fulness and critical acumen. He
who studies and masters it requires no other critical commentary on the Gala
tians. Since the above was written, a translation of this commentary has been
published by T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1873. ,
4 For discussions on this subject, see Lechler's das apostolisclie Zeitalter;

ST. PAUL'S RELATION TO JUDAISM. 153
entered in among the Galatian converts, and had seduced
them from the simplicity of the gospel. These persons were
not, as Michaelis supposes,1 unbelieving Jews who took ad
vantage of the diffusion of Christianity to make proselytes
among the Gentiles, but Jewish Christians, who were zealous
for the law and the prerogatives ..""Judaism. They enter
tained the same views as those did who formerly disturbed the
peace of the church of Antioch, and " who taught the brethren,
saying, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses,
ye cannot be saved " (Acts xv. 1) ; and who, we are informed, ¦
were " certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed "
(Acts xv. 5). It is to be observed that these men did not
object to the conversion of the Gentiles : they did not think
that the blessings of the Messianic salvation should be re
stricted to the Jews ; on the contrary, they accepted our Lord's
command that the gospel should be preached to the whole
world. Their principles arose from a reaction of Judaism
against Paulinism. They held strong anti-Pauline views on
the perpetuity of the law of Moses, and asserted that the
Gentiles could only be converted to Christianity through the
medium of Judaism, — that they must first be Jews before they
could be Christians. Hence they taught the necessity of cir
cumcision, as the initiatory rite of the Jewish religion, for
salvation ; for with circumcision they included the observance
of the whole law (Gal. v. 3). These views had before this
been repudiated by the apostles and the Christian Church at
the council of Jerusalem, and the liberty of the Gentiles
affirmed ; but they were now reasserted in a similar form by
the Judaizing teachers in Galatia.
Such extreme Judaistic views were then more plausible
than they now appear to us, especially when we take into
consideration that those teachers before conversion belonged
to the Pharisees, the strictest sect of the Jewish religion.
Judaism was of God ; circumcision was the sign ofthe covenant
Lange's das apostolisclie Zeitalter; Baur's Apostel Paulus ; Baur's Kirchen-
geschichte, vol. i. section ii. ; Jowett on St. Paul' s Epistles ; Essay on "St. Paul
and the Twelve ; " Lightfoot Ore the Galatians; Essay on " St. Paul and the
Three ;'' Ritschl's Entstehung der allkatholischen Kirche, pp. 108-152.
1 Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. vi. p. 17.

154 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
which God made with their fathers : and hence it was not
easy for these strict Jews to admit that its observance was to
be abrogated, or at least rendered unnecessary. It was one of
the hardest things for them to understand that Christianity
was ultimately designed to abolish Judaism, the religion
divinely communicated to their fathers. All the attachment
of a Jew to his national religion, all his pride in his peculiar
privileges as the favourite of Heaven, and all his hopes that
the Gentiles would ultimately embrace his faith, were opposed
to this notion. This was the great obstacle which stood in
the way of the conversion of the Jews to Christianity ; and
this lay at the foundation of the principles of the Judaizers,
who, although they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, yet
clung with tenacity to their Jewish faith. The apostles
themselves could with difficulty be brought to embrace the
opinion that the Gentiles were to be admitted to equal privi
leges with themselves, — that the distinction between Jew and
Gentile was abolished by the gospel; and therefore we are
not to wonder at the extreme conservatism of a section of the
Jewish converts.
The point in dispute was one of supreme importance. It
was not the mere question of the freedom of the Gentiles,
whether they should be burdened with all the impositions of
the Jewish law — though that in itself was a matter of moment
— but whether Christianity was to become a universal religion,
free from the restrictions of Judaism, or whether it was to
be confined within the narrow circle of a Jewish sect, and to
exist only, if it could under these restrictions exist at all, as a
modified and extended Judaism.1 If the views of the Juda
izing teachers prevailed, the whole purpose of Christianity
would be frustrated : the freedom of the gospel would be lost.
Salvation would then depend not simply on faith in Christ,
but, along with this, on the observance of the institutions of
the Mosaic law ; and the spirituality of the gospel would
necessarily be transformed into the performance of certain
formal rites and ceremonies. According to Paul's liberal views,
circumcision and uncircumcision were matters of indifference
(1 Cor. vii. 19 ; Gal. v. 6, vi. 15). Abstractly considered, it
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 283.

st. Paul's relation to judaism. 155
mattered not whether a man were circumcised or remained
uncircumcised ; but to regard circumcision as essential to
salvation, would be to overthrow Christianity, to substitute
works for faith, the law for the gospel, and thus ,to render
nugatory the death of Christ and the salvation which He had
procured. " Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify
again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to
do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect to you, who
soever of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen from
grace " (Gal. v. 2-4).
In several of Paul's epistles we meet with traces of an
opposition between him and these Judaizing teachers. In the
two Epistles to the Thessalonians there is no mention of it,
probably because it had not so early developed itself, or at
least had not extended itself to the churches of Macedonia. It
is found not only in the Epistle to the Galatians, but equally
strongly expressed in the Epistles to the Corinthians, in a
form somewhat modified in the Epistles to the Eomans and
Philippians, and is traceable even in the last epistle which
Paul wrote, the Second Epistle to Timothy. These Judaizing
teachers appear designedly to have followed the footsteps of
the apostle ; to have exerted themselves in opposing his
doctrine and counteracting his influence ; to have called in
question his apostolic authority ; and to have endeavoured to
alienate the minds of his converts. They do not appear to
have acted as missionaries among the heathen, or to have
endeavoured to convert them to Christianity, but rather,
animated by a sectarian bitterness, to have gone among "those
who were already Christians, and attempted to convert them to
Judaism.1 And as they thus opposed Paul, so they met with
the most determined opposition from him. He showed them
no forbearance, no compliance. His epistles are full of attacks
upon them and denunciations against them. " Such are false
apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the
1 "This systematic hatred of St. Paul by the Judaizing party," observes Pro
fessor Lightfoot, "is an important fact, which we are too apt to overlook, but
without which the whole history of the apostolic age will be misread and mis
understood." — Commentary on the Galatians, p. 300.

156 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
apostles of Christ" (2 Cor. xi. 13).1 It would appear as if it
were his great mission to be the apostle of freedom, — to stand
up in opposition to the narrowness, bigotry, and intolerance
of the Judaizing faction of the Jewish-Christian Church.
But whilst the relation of Paul to the Judaizers, who
wished to impose Judaism on the Gentiles, was one of de
cided antagonism, it was different with regard to the Jewish
'Christians in general. The decree of the council of Jeru
salem, whilst it guaranteed the freedom of the Gentiles, with
certain restrictions in the way of compromise (Acts xv.
28, 29), did not refer to the Jewish Christians, — it did not
touch upon the question of their relation to the Mosaic law,
nor determine whether obedience to it was absolutely indis
pensable, or whether they also were released from its require
ments. This was a point jwhich. was as yet unsettled.2 Now
it would appear that, in Jerusalem at least, a large proportion
of Jewish Christians, although baptized and acknowledging
Jesus as the Messiah, clung to the Mosaic law. They dili
gently observed its peculiar rites, circumcised their children,
kept up the distinction between clean and unclean meats,
attended the daily worship in the temple, and strictly observed
the Jewish Sabbath, — indeed, were to all appearance a Jewish
sect, who differed from other Jews only in the belief that
Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah. " Thou seest,
brother," said James to Paul, " how many thousands of Jews
there are who believe ; and they are all zealots of the law "
(tyjXcoTai tov vofiov, Acts xxi. 20). And indeed it could
hardly be otherwise in Jerusalem. Christians there would
not come in contact with the Gentiles, and the question of
the obligation of the Jewish law would not arise ; besides, if
they forsook the law, they would have been persecuted by the
Sanhedrim as apostates. And the same observance of the
1 The pernicious nature ofthe opinions these teachers inculcated, the greatness
ofthe principle involved, and the bad character of several among them, justified
these strong assertions of the apostle. At the same time, it is not necessary to
suppose that all the Judaizers were designing men. See Lechler's Apost. Zeital.
p. 381.
2 See on the non-reference of the apostolic decrees to the Jewish Christians,
Lechler's das apostolische Zeitalter, p. 418 ; Reuss' History of Christian Theo
logy, vol. i pp. 278 ff.

ST. PAUL'S RELATION TO JUDAISM. 157
law would be practised in a greater or less degree by the
Jewish Christians in the cities of the Gentiles. It was not
to be expected that they could free themselves all at once
from their peculiar habits and practices, especially as the ¦
temple of Jerusalem yet stood in all its glory, the great
Jewish festivals were still frequented, and the ordinances of
Judaism observed. At the same time, the legal restrictions,
especially as regards the use of food, must have been a great
obstacle to communion and social intercourse between Jewish
and Gentile Christians, and must have given rise to unbrotherly
feelings, even although there was no wish on the part of the
Jewish Christians to impose these observances on the Gentiles.
Now the attitude of Paul toward these Jewish Christians
— those zealots of the law, who united the practice of the
rites of Judaism with Christianity — was one of forbearance.
He regarded their distinctions between clean and unclean
meats as needless scruples (1 Cor. viii. 8). In his view all
meats were sanctified in Christ Jesus, and all distinctions
between Jew and Gentile were abolished; yet he respected
these scruples. He was perfectly at one with the apostles
at Jerusalem in thinking that the Gentiles should " abstain
from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled," out of deference to the opinions or prejudices of
the Jewish Christians. ; and he strongly inculcated ?this prin
ciple of Christian forbearance in his Epistles to the Eomans
and the Corinthians. He enunciates the grand principle of
Christian love and sacrifice — reverence for the scruples of our
ill-instructed brethren, — a principle unknown in heathen
morality. " Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I
will eat no flesh whilst the world standeth, lest I make my
brother to offend" (1 Cor. viii. 13).
But it is asked : What was Paul's own personal relation to
Judaism ? Did he observe its rites, or had he freed him
self from them, and did he live in all respects like a Gentile
Christian? Was the statement of James concerning him,
that he walked in the observance of the law (Acts xxi. 24), a
fact or an exaggeration ? It would appear that Paul acted in
conformity to the maxim, that in things indifferent he might
become all things to all men, in order to promote the cause of

158 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the gospel. He preserved to himself liberty of action ; and,
as he regarded the legal distinctions as things indifferent,
lived as a Gentile among the Gentiles, and as a Jew among
the Jews. " Though," says he, " I am free from all men, yet
I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the
Jews ; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that
I might gain them that are .under the law ; to them that are
without law, as without law (being not without law to God,
but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are
without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might
gain the weak. I am made all things to all men, that I
might by all means save some '' (1 Cor. ix. 1 9—2 1). Hence,
then, he did not inculcate among the Jewish Christians, as
the Judaizing teachers represented him, apostasy from Judaism
(diroo-Taala diro Mcovaem^), that " they should forsake the law,
and cease to circumcise their children " (Acts xxi. 2 1) ; x he
left this to the influence of the spirit of the gospel. On the
contrary, he inculcated a mild conservatism : " Is any 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. Let every man
abide in the same calling wherein he was called " (1 Cor. vii.
18-20). His opposition to circumcision in the Epistle to the
Galatians did not refer to the continuance of that rite among
the Jewish converts, but to its imposition on the Gentiles.
And in his own conduct he often showed the example of
keeping the law, as when he shaved his head at Cenchrea
because he had a vow ; circumcised Timothy, one of his com
panions in the mission ; attended several of the great Jewish
festivals;2 came up to Jerusalem with, alms and offerings;
assented to the proposal of James to partake in the purifica-
1 Certainly, however, he would not inculcate the opposite, that _ Jewish
Christian was bound, as necessary to salvation, to continue to observe the
Mosaic law. — See Reuss' History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,
book iii. chap. v.
2 During the whole of his ministry, which lasted twenty years, Paul appears
to have gone up only four or five times to Jerusalem ; so that he very seldom
attended the great national feasts.

ST. PAUL'S RELATION TO JUDAISM. 159
tions and sacrifices of the Nazarites ; and with the Jews lived
as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews. It would then
appear that he himself did not absolutely renounce Judaism, —
that he kept, though perhaps with no great strictness, the
ceremonies of the law, and that he felt himself at liberty to
accommodate himself to others in those matters which he
considered indifferent.
This conduct of Paul — at one time living as a Jew, and at
another time as a Gentile — gave rise to the plausible charge
of inconsistency with which the Judaizing teachers taunted
him, as if he himself once preached circumcision (Gal. v. 11).
And this difference of conduct is especially seen in two
memorable instances, in one of which he did of his own
accord what he resolutely refused to do in the other,- — he
circumcised Timothy, whilst he refused to permit the circum
cision of Titus. But the circumstances of the two cases made
all the difference : in the one case he acted on a principle of
forbearance to the. Jews,1 and in the other case on a principle
of antagonism to the Judaizers. With regard to the circum
cision of Timothy, we are informed that Paul, wishing him to
be his companion on his missionary journey, " took and cir
cumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those
quarters ; for they all knew that his father was a Greek "
(Acts xvi. 3), and therefore knew that he was uncircumcised.
It is easy to see how the want of circumcision in Timothy
would have hindered the entrance of the gospel among the
Jews, whilst his circumcision would promote that object.
There was no principle involved here, but merely a question
as to the best method of contributing to the success of the
gospel. Paul acted on the principle which Luther promul
gated when he says, "Just as I myself in the present day,
if I were to go among the Jews, and had to preach the
gospel, but saw that they were weak, should be willing and
ready to submit to circumcision, and to eat and abstain as
they did. For in whatever respect I did not adapt myself to
them, I should shut the door against myself, and against the
gospel that I preached."2
1 Not to the Jewish Christians, but to the unbelieving Jews.
-' For discussions on this question, see Neander's Planting, vol. ii. p. 119 ;

160 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
The case of Titus was entirely different,— here a question of
principle was involved. The Judaizers demanded the circum
cision of Titus as a sign of the subjection of the Gentiles to
the Jewish law. Here Paul's position was not compliance,
but antagonism. "But neither Titus, who was with me,
being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that
because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in
privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us to bondage : to whom we gave place
by subjection, no, not for an hour ; that the truth of the gospel
might continue with you" (Gal. ii. 3-5). Eiickert, indeed,
strangely imagines that Titus was actually circumcised ; and
that the meaning of the passage is, that though there was no
question of compulsion, yet, on account of the weaknesses of
the false brethren, Paul had voluntarily circumcised Titus,
without, however, relinquishing his principles.1 It is admitted
that the construction of the passage is irregular ;2 but if this
were its meaning, the whole question would be given up, — the
liberty of the Gentiles would not only be imperilled, but
surrendered. This was not a time for compliance, but for
resolute resistance. Besides, the words, "to whom we gave
place by subjection, no, not for an hour,"3 would be unmean
ing. The reason of Paul's refusal to permit the circumcision
of Titus is obvious : it was to preserve the freedom of the
Gentiles, — " that the truth of the gospel might continue among
them." But though there is a difference of conduct in these
two cases, there is no moral inconsistency. Under other
circumstances, - for the sake of charity, and in order to con
ciliate enemies, Paul would have circumcised Titus even as he
did Timothy ; but the false brethren with their demands pre-
Lekebusch's Quellen der Apostelgeschichte, p. 273 ; Meyer's Apostelgeschichte,
p. 322 ; Biscoe Ore the Acts, pp. 566-577 ; Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 147.
1 So also Tertullian, adv. Marcion, v. 8.
2 Riiekert supplies, "because of false brethren I allowed Titus to be circum
cised." See the excellent note of Meyer on the' passage, Meyer's Brief an die
Galater, pp. 64-69.
3 111 D1 and certain fathers, Irenseus, Tertullian, Victorin, the words ..
oLYtare omitted; and if this is the- correct reading, then the sense would be:
" Titus was not indeed compelled to be circumcised, but I yielded for a time on
account of false brethren. " Such a reading, however, is not sufficiently attested,
and is evidently only made to evade the difficulty of the construction.

ST. PAUL'S RELATION TO JUDAISM. 161
vented him doing so. In the case of Timothy, Christian
charity and forbearance were exercised ; in the case of Titus,
Christian courage and opposition to deadly error were dis
played. A recent school of critics hold that not only was there an
antagonism between Paul and the Judaizers, but that also the
second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians shows that
there was an opposition between Paul and the Jewish apostles.
Baur and his school suppose that the other apostles had really
adopted these Judaistic principles which were afterwards
developed outside the Christian Church by the Ebionites.1
According to Baur, it was not individual pharisaical Chris
tians who agitated the question, but we have here a conflict
between Pauline and Jewish Christianity. The original
apostles, so far from remaining neutral, took part rather with
the Judaizing teachers than with Paul : they also had adopted
the opinion that circumcision and the Jewish law should be
imposed upon the Gentiles. Those who were regarded as
false brethren were so only in the church of Antioch, but not
in the church of Jerusalem. The constraint which was
attempted to be put upon Paul to circumcise Titus was by
the original apostles ; and when Paul resisted them, the dis
pute ended with a compromise or concession, — that each should
be allowed to propagate his own views, — that the gospel of the
uncircumcision should be committed to Paul and Barnabas,
whilst the gospel of the circumcision should be committed to
Peter and the other apostles. The Jewish apostles yielded
because they could not withstand the power of circumstances
and the force of Paul's character.2 "There was," observes
Baur, "inside of Jewish Christianity a stricter and a milder
party. The stricter party wished to see the principle, common
1 According to Baur, Ebionism was primitive Christianity, and this was
supplanted by Paulinism. In his Kirchengeschichte he mentions three stages of
development : 1. The state of conflict between Judaism and Paulinism — die
Gegensatze. 2. The attempts at conciliation or mediation — die Vermittelung. 3.
Catholicism — das johanneische Christenthum. Such speculations, however, be
long to the department of Church history. — Kirchengeschichte, vol. i, Zweiter
Abschnitt.- 2 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. pp. 137-144 ; Baur's Kirchengeschichte, vol. i.
pp. 49-51. L

162 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to all Jewish Christians, that no one could be saved without
Judaism, extended in all its consequences to the Gentile
Christians. This class of Jewish Christians could not be
indifferent to Pauline Christianity, — they must ever oppose
and resist it. . . . The milder party agreed entirely with the
stricter party in principle, and yet, after the concession made
by the Jewish apostles to the Apostle- Paul, they could not
oppose him in the same manner, — they dispensed with carrying
out their principle, and limited themselves to Judaism with
the application of their principle. We cannot think other
wise than that the Jewish apostles stood at the head of this
party. But the other party, which, as the strict and consistent
party, could not permit themselves to be restrained by haK
measures, must become, in the nature of things, historically
the more important."1
In the account of the council of .Jerusalem given us in the
Acts of the Apostles, there is not the least semblance of
opposition between Paul and the other apostles. James and
Peter are at one with Paul as to the freedom of the Gentiles
from the Jewish law. The church of Jerusalem is almost
unanimous. The only dissentients are certain of the sect of
the Pharisees who believed. This is admitted by Baur.2 His
whole argument rests on the narrative given in the Epistle to
the Galatians. But here also an evident distinction is made
between the Judaizers and the three Jewish apostles. The
one are called " false brethren ;" of the other it is said that
" they were of reputation," and " seemed to be pillars of the
Church." Nor is it in any way indicated that it was the
Jewish apostles who wished to compel Titus to be circum-
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, ¦ vol. i p. 145. Professor Jowett's view may be
regarded as in some respects a modification of Baur's. He represents the rela
tion of Paul to the twelve as consisting in "independence of each other in their
ministry and apostleship ; antagonism of the followers, and on one or two occa
sions of the leaders also ; some difference of spirit, together with great personal
hostility on the part of the Judaizers to St. Paul, but not of St. Paul to the
twelve." And he describes it as similar to the relation of Wesley to Whitfield,
or of Luther to Calvin.
2 According to Baur, the Acts is >.. work of "conciliation," written in the
beginning of the second century, with a view to reconcile 'Pauline and Jewish or
Petrine Christianity. See this view examined in the author's Introduction to
the Acts of the Apostles.

ST. PAUL'S RELATION TO JUDAISM. 163
cised : the most natural and obvious meaning is that this
demand was made by the false brethren,1 — -the Judaizing
party of the Church. And when Paul speaks of the apostles
as " those who seemed to be somewhat" (ol feowre? elvat ti,
Gal. ii. 6), he does not use these words in any depreciatory or
ironical sense, but merely asserts in strong terms that however
exalted the apostles might be, yet they communicated nothing
to him, he derived no advantage from their instructions, his
gospel was independent of them.2
According to Baur, there is mention here of two different
gospels. Although the Jewish apostles yielded to Paul, yet
this did not destroy the difference between them. "There
is a evar/yeXtov t?)? Trepi/Top,^, and a evayyeXiov ttj? aKpofivcr-
T.C-J, an diroaToXr) e_? ttjv TteptTopJpv, and an diroaToXr) et. Td
e6vn : in the one the Mosaic law is valid, and in the other it
is not, but both exist together as yet unreconciled."3 But
such a view has no foundation in the passage. It is evident
from the connection that by the gospel of the circumcision and
the gospel of the uncircumcision are not meant two different
doctrinal systems, as if there was a Christianity adapted to
the Gentiles and a different kind of Christianity adapted to
the Jews, but the same gospel addressed to two different
classes of hearers, — that Paul and Barnabas should go to the
Gentiles, and the other apostles to the circumcision (Gal. ii.
9). And, as Meyer not too strongly expresses it, the passage
could not have been more grossly misunderstood than it is by
Baur.4 The statement that the gospel of the uncircumcision
was committed unto Paul, and the gospel of the circumcision
unto Peter (Gal. ii. 7), contradicts neither Paul's ministry to
the Jews, nor Peter's to the Gentiles, but merely asserts that
1 Professor Lightfoot takes an opposite view. He thinks that the original
apostles recommended St. Paul to yield the point as a charitable concession to
the prejudices of the Jewish converts ; but convinced at length by his represen
tations that such a concession at such a time would be fatal, they withdrew their
counsel and gave him their support. — Commentary on the Galatians, p. 105.
2 For answers to Baur, see especially Lechler's Apostolisches Zeitalter passim,
and Wieseler's Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 189-198.
3 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 143 ; Baur's Kirchengeschichte, vol. i p. 51.
4 Meyer on Gal. ii. 7, Brief an die Galater, p. 77. See also Ritschl, Entste-
hung d. altkath. __., pp. 127, 128.

164 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Paul's ministry was chiefly confined to the Gentiles, and
Peter's to the Jews.1
But it is strongly insisted that this opposition between Paul
and the Jewish apostles broke out in the encounter between
Peter and Paul at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11-14).2 According to
the narrative given us in the Epistle, Peter came from Jeru
salem to Antioch. He lived for some time freely among the
Gentiles, undeterred by any legal scruples. Shortly after
wards, some Christian Jews came from James, and Peter,
out of deference to them, and for fear of giving offence, with
drew from the society of the Gentile converts, and again
observed the legal distinctions of clean and unclean meats. It
is to be observed that Peter did not here, as Baur assumes,
wish to impose circumcision on the Gentiles : the question
was entirely as to eating or associating with the Gentiles.
And further, there was here no difference of opinion between
the two apostles, but an inconsistency in conduct on the part
of Peter, — a sinful compliance with the prejudices of the Jews.
Paul accuses him of dissimulation (_-7.0_7.io.?), and says that
he was condemned (otl KaTeyvcoafievo? tjv)? His previous
conduct condemned him ; and he was especially to be blamed,
seeing that he had been taught by special revelation the
abolition of legal distinctions (Acts x. 8-16). The opinions
of Paul and Peter regarding the gospel were one : on this
occasion Peter acted against his convictions. And this is
entirely in conformity with the character of that apostle, as
it appears in the Gospels, — at one time bold, and at another
time timid and wavering, — impulsive, and susceptible of im
pressions from without. The same apostle who asserted his
readiness to go to prison and to death with his Master, and
1 The agreement made could not long be carried out, as Peter and John soon
left Jerusalem. Professor Lightfoot strangely imagines that the distinction
hetween Jewish and Gentile Christians was kept up at Rome, — that there was a
Jewish Christian Church presided over by St. Peter, and a Gentile Christian
Church presided over by St. Paul ; and that it was not until the death of these
apostles that these two sections of the Christian Church were united under the
presidency of Clement. — Lightfoot On the Galatians, pp. 322, 323.
2 Baur's Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. p. 52.
3 Not because he was to be blamed (reprehensibilis : Vulgate, Calvin, Beza) ;
but quia condemnatus erat, namely, by the Christians of Antioch. See Meyer
in loc.

st. Paul's relation to Judaism. 165
afterwards in the hour of danger denied Him, acted in a
similar manner at Antioch. In Jerusalem he advocated the
freedom of the Gentiles ; but at Antioch, for fear of offending
his Jewish brethren, he was chargeable with temporizing.
This conduct of Peter is in many points instructive ; but
we are not at liberty to infer from it that he entertained
an opposite view of the gospel from that of the Apostle
Paul. There is certainly an opposition between these two
apostles, but it is an opposition not of opinion, but of
practice.1 James, however, rather than Peter, is regarded as the head
of the Jewish Christian Church. Whether he was one of the
original apostles is a point which is undetermined ; but he
was certainly a person of great importance in the early Church.
He is known in ecclesiastical history as the bishop of Jeru
salem, and appears after the dispersion of the apostles to have
continued his residence in that city. He presided at the
council of Jerusalem; he is reckoned along with Peter and
John as one of the pillars of the Church ; and he was at the
head of the church in Jerusalem at Paul's last visit. From
the advice which he gave to Paul, it is evident that he had
not relinquished Jewish ceremonies (Acts xxi. 20, 24) : living
entirely among the Jews, he had no inducement nor call to
do so. He is described in ecclesiastical history as having
strong legal sympathies, being a strict observer of the Mosaic
law. " He was consecrated," says Hegesippus, " from his
mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink,
and abstained from animal food. No razor ever touched his
head ; he did not anoint himself with oil ; he did not use the
bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary (et? Td
cvyta). He wore no wool, but fine linen. He was in the
habit of entering the temple (vabv) alone, and was found upon
his bended knees interceding for the forgiveness of the people,
so that his knees became as hard as camels' in consequence
of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God."2 The
account is in many respects untrustworthy and legendary,
1 See Olshausen On the Galatians, p. 41 ; SchafFs History of the Apostolic
Church, vol. i. p. 304 ; Lechler's apost. Zeitalter, p. 426.
2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 23.

166 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
but there may be a substratum of truth in its representation
of the legal character of that apostle.
Now in the account of the dispute at Antioch, there is a
passage which is considered to indicate a connection between
James and the Judaizing party.1 The persons who were the
occasion of the disturbance are said to have been certain who
came from James (Tti>e? divo 'IaKtofiov, Gal. ii. 12). Who were
those persons ? Were they sent by James, or did they come
of their own accord ? And if sent, for what purpose ? Was
it to enforce the decrees, — to promote reconciliation between
the Jewish and Gentile Christians (Hemsen), or was it to
admonish the Jewish converts of their obligations from which
the Gentiles were free (Alford) I The passage is obscure, and
no answer can be afforded to these and such like questions.
We are as ignorant of the reason why these Jewish Christians
came from James, as we are of the reason why Peter came to
Antioch (Meyer). The supposition that they belonged to the
Judaizing party (Winer, Schott) is opposed to 'the fact that
they came from James ; for at the council of Jerusalem that
apostle had plainly shown that he had no sympathy with
thdt party. Some translate the words, "certain followers of
James " — " persons who gave themselves out as belonging to
the party of James " (Usteri, Zeller) ; others, " those who pre
tended to have been sent by James " (Olshausen) ; and others,
" those who came from Jerusalem, where James presided "
(Beza, Grotius). Probably they resembled those who formerly
troubled the church of Antioch, who went out from the
apostles at Jerusalem, but to whom no injunctions were given
(Acts xv. 24).2 They seem to have been Jewish Christians,
zealous of the law, and who took offence at Peter and the
other Jews at Antioch for disregarding the distinction of
meats, and freely eating with the Gentiles.
It was certainly Paul's mission to be the apostle of freedom.
He was placed in a different position from the other three
apostles, Peter, James, and John. Their mission was as yet
chiefly confined to the Jews : they were the apostles of the
circumcision. Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles ; and hence
1 Renan's Saint Paul, pp. 78-86.
2 See Meyer's excellent note on Gal. ii. 12.

ST. PAUL'S RELATION TO JUDAISM. 167
in the course of his ministry he had to encounter continued
opposition from the Judaizing teachers. It was he chiefly
whom they attacked. It was against him chiefly that the
Jewish nation were incensed. The other apostles appear for a
time to have remained undisturbed in Jerusalem ; but when
ever Paul made his appearance, the whole city was in an
uproar. This arose chiefly from the peculiarity of his posi
tion.1 But at the same time it was also the case that the
Pauline phase of Christianity was more antagonistic to the
views of the Judaizers than the Jacobean, the Johannean, or
the Petrine. There was no such antagonism between Paul
and these three' apostles as that which existed between Paul
and the Judaizers ; but whilst there was a perfect harmony
in their opinions, each apostle regarded Christianity from his
own point of view. Now the grand peculiar doctrine of Paul
is justification by faith, and this doctrine was specially opposed
to the legal views of the Judaizers. It may be also that
Paul, from his continual contact with the Gentile Christians,
and it may be from a greater breadth of character, was more
liberal in his views than the other apostles, and saw more
clearly the end of that dispensation which was soon to be
abolished. In the next age the opposition between the Judaizers and
Paulinism was pushed to extremes ; and two heretical sects,
whose views are opposite, are mentioned in ecclesiastical
history, — the Ebionites and the Marcionites. The Ebionites
were the successors of the Judaizing Christians. There are
said to have been two classes among them, — the Nazarenes,
who observed the Jewish law, but did not wish to impose it
upon' the Gentiles, answering to the Jewish Christians of
Jerusalem ; and the Ebionites proper, who still held that the
law was binding on the Gentiles, answering to the Judaizers.2
The strict class of Ebionites regarded Paul as a false teacher,
and rejected his writings. In the Clementine Homilies he is
1 We are, however, comparatively ignorant of the history of the other apostles,
and so cannot tell what opposition they also encountered from the Judaizers.
James at least, we know, was put to death by the Jews shortly before the outbreak
of the Jewish war.
2 Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 47 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 27.

168 THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
covertly attacked under the name of Simon Magus, as the
opponent of Peter.1 On the other hand, the Marcionites carried
Paulinism to excess. They depreciated the other apostles and
exalted Paul. They rejected all the books of the New Testa
ment except the Gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul.
They not only held that the Jewish law was abolished, but
considered that the God of the Old Testament was an inferior
being to the God of the gospel.2 Both Ebionism and Mar-
cionism were alike condemned by the Christian Church, and
both have long since disappeared.3
1 For an account of the Ebionites and their antagonism to St. Paul, see Light
foot Ore ihe Galatians, pp. 305-322 ; Ritschl's Enlstehung d. altkat. Kirche, p.
152 ff.
2 Neander's Church History, vol.'ii. pp. 129-150, Bohn's edition.
3 Both sects continued even unto the fourth century.

THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
THE authenticity of the First Epistle to the Corinthians
has been almost universally admitted.1 None of Paul's
epistles is so strongly attested by external evidence. The
allusions to it by the apostolic fathers are direct and incon
trovertible. Thus Clemens Eomanus (a.d. 96), the earliest
extra-canonical Christian writer whose works have survived,
in an epistle addressed to the Corinthians themselves, directly
ascribes this epistle to Paul : " Take up the epistle of the
blessed Apostle Paul. What did he at first write to you in
the beginning of the gospel ? Of a truth he wrote to you by
the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, for even
then you formed factions." 2 So also Ignatius (a.d. 115) quotes
from this epistle when he says : " It becomes you therefore in
everything to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ who has glorified
you, that in one obedience you may be perfectly joined together
in the same mind, and the same judgment, and may all
speak the same thing " (1 Cor. i. 1 0).3 Polycarp (ad. 116)
writes : " Know you not that the saints shall judge the world ?
as Paul teaches " (1 Cor. vi. 2).4 Justin Martyr (a.d. 140),
1 Called in question only by Bruno Bauer, 1851.
2 Ep. ad Corinth. C 47. 'Av„„_/3fi. s rm l<riffroXhv rou f&axapiov UavXou rou
axoffroXav. Ti vrpurov vp.iv Iv ap%y rod lliayysXiav sypaipsv ; la*' aXvifaias vrvsvparixas
SWB- ruXlv tlfiiv, vripi avrov re, xai Knpa. ti, xai 'AvroXXu, _i_ ro xai rors vrpotrxXiaus
Vfiat qrwoiYiffSai.
3 Ep. ad Ephes. C. 2. TIpsirov oZv Iffrtv xara. irdvra rp'airav -3|„£-/v 'lyffoZv
'S.pio'rov rev oo^do'oivra ti/iais, 'iva iv (iia vffarayy jjVs xarTjpriirfiivoi roi aiiru voi xai ry
avry yvupiy xai ro avro Xlyyrl vrdvrss.
4 Ep. ad Philippens, c 11 : " An nescimus, quia sancti mundum judicabunt ?
sicut Paulus docet. " 169

170 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
who seldom directly quotes from Scripture, probably refers to
this epistle when he says : " Christ was the passover, who was
afterwards sacrificed for us " (1 Cor. v. 7).1 Irenaeus (ad. 178)
writes : " This also the Apostle (Paul), in the Epistle to the
Corinthians, manifestly declares : ' I would not have you to be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ' "
(1 Cor. x. 1, 2).2 Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) says:
" Therefore the blessed Paul has most manifestly solved this
problem in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, writing thus :
' Brethren, be not children in understanding : howbeit in malice
be ye children, but in understanding be ye perfect ' " (1 Cor.
xiv. 20).3 And Tertullian (ad. 200) writes: "Paul, in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, mentions those who denied
or doubted a resurrection" (1 Cor. xv. 12).4
Nor is the internal evidence less convincing. Paul's
character is distinctly impressed upon this Epistle. The
severity and vehemence with which sin is rebuked, the ten
derness at the same time shown toward the erring, the earnest
longings for the reformation of offenders, the Christian liberty
asserted and maintained, the restraints which nevertheless
charity puts upon that liberty, the pre-eminence given to love,
the self-denying spirit exhibited, the reluctance with which
the writer alludes to himself, and the calmness, wisdom, and
soberness of the answers given tq questions propounded, are
all highly characteristic of Paul, and are traits of character
beyond the skill of a forger, to invent. The undesigned coin
cidences between this Epistle and the Acts are numerous,
varied, striking, and convincing. Thus in the Epistle we are
informed that Apollos watered the church which Paul had
planted (1 Cor. iii. 6) ; and in the history we are told that
1 Dial, cum Tryph. : 'Hv yap ro vatr^a o Xpurros, o rahis virripov.
2 Adv. Hasres. iv. 27, 3 : Et hoc autem apostolum in epistola, quse est ad
Corinthios, manifestissime ostendisse, dieentem : " Noli enim vos ignoscere,
fratres, quoniam patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, et omnes in Mose bap-
tizati sunt in nube, et in mari. "
3 Pmdagog. i. 6 : Za<p so- rara youv o ftaxdpios TlavXos airijXXaif.v hfta; rris _ . ii' e_s
\v .ji vporkpa npos VLoptvtlious, liritmXt) uii rrus ypdtpuv' 'AbiXQoi fn nitiiia. ymah
ruts Qptffiv aXXa tjj xctxia vn^t'ia\iri, rats o*l Qpsffh riXtiot yiveaH.
4 De presscription. c. 33 : Paulus in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores et
dubitatores resurrectionis.

THE CHURCH OF CORINTH. 171
Apollos passed over from Ephesus to Achaia, the province of
which Corinth was the capital, and helped the disciples much
who had believed through grace (Acts xviii. 27). In the
Epistle the Corinthians are informed of a mission of Timothy
to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 1 7) ; and in the history we are told that
Paul, purposing to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, sent
before him into Macedonia Timothy and Erastus (Acts xix.
21, 22) ; and although Achaia is not here directly mentioned,
yet it is included, as Timothy was sent before Paul, and
Achaia was one of the countries which Paul intended to visit.
In the Epistle, written from Ephesus, salutations are sent
from Aquila and Priscilla (1 Cor. xvi. 19) ; and we learn from
the history that these two persons were then with Paul at
Ephesus (Acts xviii. 24-27). In the Epistle Paul states
his purpose of journeying through Macedonia to Corinth, and
there wintering (1 Cor. xvi. 5, 6) ; and in the history we learn
that this purpose was carried into effect (Acts xx. 1-3). In
the Epistle we are informed that Paul baptized Crispus, — an
exception to his general custom (1 Cor. i. 14); and the
history gives us the reason of this exception, stating that
Crispus was distinguished as one of Paul's first converts, and
as the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue (Acts xviii. 8).
In short, the coincidences are so varied and numerous as to
form an almost irresistible proof of the genuineness of the
Epistle.1 II. THE CHURCH OF CORINTH.
Corinth, originally called Ephyra, was situated on the
isthmus which connects the Peloponnesus with the rest of
Greece, and separates the _Egean from the Ionian sea. It lay
at the foot of a hill called the Acrocorinthus, rising to the
height of 2000 feet, so difficult of ascent as to be deemed
impregnable. This hill formed the citadel, and was to Corinth
what the Acropolis was to Athens. On account of its situation,
1 For the coincidences between First Corinthians and the Acts, see Paley's Horm
Paulinas, chap. iii. Professor Jowett observes : " The ingenuity of Paley's
arguments, the minuteness of the intimations discovered by him, the remote
ness and complexity of his combinations, leave the impression on the mind of
absolute certainty in reference to the great Epistles to the Romans and Corin
thians."—^. Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 204.

172 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Corinth was in a military point of view of great importance,
as it commanded the entrance into the peninsula ; and hence
it was called by Xenophon " the gate of the Peloponnesus."
It was equally favourably situated for the commerce both of
the. East and West. It had two ports, the western, Lechseum,
about a mile and a half from the city, and the eastern, Cen-
chraea, about eight miles distant, — the former destined for the
Italian, and the latter for the Asiatic commerce. Corinth did
not rise to eminence until the later days of Grecian history,
when it became the head of the Achaean league. It was then one
of the richest cities of the world ; arts and sciences flourished ; .
it was the abode of learning and philosophy; and was re
garded as "the light of all Greece" (totius Grmcice lumen).
The glory of Greek Corinth was of short duration : the town
was totally destroyed by the Eomans under Lucius Mummius,
B.C. 146, and its works of genius and art were burned by
those who knew not their value.1 After lying in ruins for about
a hundred years, Corinth was rebuilt by Julius Caesar, and
converted into a Eoman colony. Eoman Corinth soon became
a populous and flourishing city. It was constituted the
capital of the province of Achaia, and the commerce of the
East and West again flowed into it. It was celebrated for its
wealth and magnificence, as well as for the refinement of its
inhabitants. It was, however, infamous for its licentiousness.
Venus, whose temple adorned the Acrocorinthus, was its
favourite goddess ; and sensuality took the form of a religious
rite. " The temple of Venus at Corinth," observes Strabo,
"was so rich, that it had more than a thousand courtesans
consecrated to the service of the goddess. The city was
frequented and enriched by multitudes who resorted thither
on that account." 2 So infamous did Corinth become, that
Dio Chrysostom terms it " a city the most licentious of all
that are or ever have been." 3 This is a feature which has to
be borne in mind when we read Paul's Epistles, as it explains
1 We are informed, that the historian Polybius saw pictures thrown upon the
ground, and soldiers playing at dice upon them. — Strabo, viii. 6, 23.
2 Strabo, viii. 6, 20.
3 Impurity prevailed to such an extent, that xopivliaZ,uv, "to live like a Corin
thian," was equivalent tp iraipiuuv, "to commit fornication."

THE CHURCH OF CORINTH. 173
the cause of the extreme corruption of the Corinthian church,
and the vehemence of the apostle's rebukes. The inhabitants
of Eoman Corinth were a mixed race. The Greek element
was the prevailing one, and Greek was the language spoken.
But, along with the Greeks, there were numerous Eomans,
chiefly the descendants of free men who had been settled
there by Julius Caesar. People from all countries were drawn
thither by trade ; and the Jews were numerous, being attracted
to this rich commercial city.1
Paul visited Corinth during his second missionary journey.
It would appear that he came alone from Athens, unaccom
panied by any of his fellow-workers, a stranger in the heart
of this great cosmopolitan city. He was fortunate enough to
find friends, perhaps even Christians. A pious Jewish couple,
Aquila and Priscilla, expelled from Eome by the decree of
Claudius, had lately come to Corinth ; and because they and
the apostle were of the same trade, they associated together.2
Paul, according to his usual custom, repaired on the Sabbath
to the Jewish synagogue, and for several weeks preached
Jesus as the Messiah to his fellow-countrymen and to the
Greeks. Shortly after this he was joined by Silas and
Timothy; and the presence and encouragement of these fellow-
labourers served to increase his zeal. In consequence of this,
a crisis took place : many Jews and Greeks believed, and
among others Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue.
Expelled from the synagogue by the unbelieving Jews, Paul
betook himself to the adjoining house of one Justus, and there,
encouraged by a vision from the Lord, he continued a year
and a half preaching the gospel to all who came to him. The
Jews, moved with envy, raised a tumult against him, and
dragged him before Gallio, the Eoman governor ; but their
designs were frustrated by the wisdom and inflexible deter
mination of that enlightened judge, who refused to take up
1 See Winer's Worterbuch; Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, chap. xiii. ;
Lange's Apostolisches Zeitalter, pp. 233, 234 ; Kuinoel's Novi Testamenti libri
historici, vol. iii. p. 275 ; Renan's St. Paul, pp. 212-214.
2 It is a disputed point whether Aquila and Priscilla were already Christians
when Paul met them. Meyer, De Wette, and Lechler consider they were not ;
whilst Neander, Wieseler, and Ewald adopt the opposite opinion. — See author's
Commentary on the Acts, vol. ii. p. 168.

1 74 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the matter, as not falling under his jurisdiction. After this,
Paul continued for some time longer ; and then, leaving behind
him Silas and Timothy,1 he departed for Ephesus. The result
of Paul's labours at Corinth was that a large and flourishing
church was formed, composed of Jews and Gentiles. " Many
of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized."
After Paul's departure, the work so successfully begun was
carried on by Apollos. This remarkable man was a Jew of
Alexandria, probably educated in the school of Philo; an
eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures. He had come
to Ephesus after Paul's departure, and taught in the synagogue.
His knowledge of Christianity was then imperfect, but he
received further instruction from Paul's fellow-workers, Aquila
and Priscilla. Eeceiving from them letters of recommen
dation, he repaired to Corinth, and, as we read, " helped them
much who had believed through grace ; for he mightily con
vinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures
that Jesus was Christ" (Acts xviii. 27, 28). And to his
successful labours the apostle alludes when he says, " I have
planted, Apollos watered " (1 Cor. iii. 6).
Some suppose, from certain expressions contained in the
Second Epistle, that Paul, before he wrote this First Epistle,
paid another visit to Corinth, not recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles. This opinion is adopted with various modifications
by Chrysostom, Calvin, Macknight, Anger, Michaelis, Bleek,
Billroth, Neander, Meyer, Wieseler, Credner, Buckert, Eeuss,
Neudecker, Olshausen, Schaff, Alford, EUicott, Conybeare
and Howson, and Davidson (second edition). In the Second
Epistle, Paul writes in such a manner as would lead us to
infer that the visit which he intended to make to Corinth
was not a second but a third visit : " Behold," he says, " the
third time I am ready to come unto you, and I will not be
burdensome unto you ; for I seek not yours, but you " (2 Cor.
xii. 14). And again: "This is the third time I am coming
unto you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every .
word be established" (2 Cor. xiii. 1). And indications of
1 There is no mention of Silas and Timothy accompanying the apostle from
Corinth to Ephesus. Timothy afterwards rejoined Paul at Ephesus (Acts xix.
22) ; Silas' name does not again occur in the Acts.

THE CHURCH OF CORINTH. 175
this second visit are supposed to be contained in other portions
of that epistle, as when the apostle says, " I determined this
with myself, that I would not come again to you in heaviness "
(iv Xvirrj, 2 Cor. ii. 1), which, it is argued, can refer only to a
second visit, for in his first visit the apostle did not coine in
heaviness.1 Now such a visit cannot be placed in the interval
between the First and Second Epistles, as Ewald supposes,2
for the statements in the Second Epistle (2 Cor. i. 15, 16, 23)
exclude such a visit ; and, besides, as we shall afterwards see,
the First Epistle was written toward the close of the apostle's
sojourn at Ephesus, and the Second soon after, during his
journey through Macedonia, on which he set out from Ephesus.
Those who adopt the hypothesis of a second visit, vary in
their opinions as to the time of its occurrence. Some (Mac
knight, Anger, Schott) suppose that the apostle, during his
residence of eighteen months at Corinth, made an excursion
from that city into Achaia, and that his return from that
excursion formed the second visit. Neander thinks that it
occurred in the interval between the apostle's departure from
Antioch (Acts xviii. 22, 23) and his settlement at Ephesus
(Acts xix. I).3 The most common and plausible opinion is
that it occurred during the apostle's three years' residence at
Ephesus; for we are not to suppose that this residence was
continuous : it might have been interrupted by a short excur
sion to Corinth. No great stress is put on Luke's omission
of this journey, as the narrative in the Acts is defective,
omitting entirely Paul's residence in Arabia, and mentioning
only in a few words his important journey when the churches
of Galatia were founded (Acts xvi. 6).
An opposite opinion is adopted by other critics, who sup
pose that Paul visited Corinth only once before he wrote his
Epistles, namely, when he founded the church in that city
(Acts xviii. 1-18). This view is held by Beza, Grotius, Paley,
De Wette, Baur, Whitby, Doddridge, Davidson (1st edition),
Stanley, and Wordsworth. There are, it is asserted, passages
1 See Bleek's Introduction N. T., vol. i. p. 424 ; Wieseler's Chronologie des
apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 232-235.
2 Ewald's Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus, p. 226.
! Neander's Planting, vol. i. pp. 253-255.

176 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
in the Second Epistle which counteract the impression made by
those other passages adduced in favour of a second visit. Of such
a nature is the following : " And in this confidence I was minded
to come unto you before, that ye might have a second benefit ;
and to pass by you into Macedonia, and to come again out of
Macedonia unto you, and of you to be brought on my way to
wards Judea" (2 Cor. i. 15, 16). If, it is argued, Paul had
been twice in Corinth, he would have spoken of a third benefit.
But to this it has been replied, that the apostle here means
that he had intended to see them twice, — once by sailing
directly from Ephesus to Corinth, and a second time on his
return from Macedonia ; and this certainly appears to be the
meaning of the passage. Another argument is derived from
2 Cor. xiii. 2, where the apostle says, " I have said before, and
foretell, as if I were present, the second time (»? irapcov to
BeiiTepov), and now being absent to them which heretofore
have sinned, and to all others, that, if I come again, I will not
spare."1 It is affirmed that the natural meaning of these
words is that the apostle now tells them what he would have
said and done had he been present with them a second
time, and consequently that he had been only once in Corinth.2
It is also against the notion of a second visit, that there is no
-mention or allusion to it in the First Epistle. "If," as De
Wette observes, " the condition of the Corinthian church at
the time of this visit was such as to give uneasiness to the
apostle, as is inferred from 2 Cor. xii. 21, ii. 1, it is riot easy
to understand how in the First Epistle he should have avoided
all mention of that visit, and of his efforts to counteract the
disorders which he witnessed. If the condition of the church
was not then disordered, the explanation of the passages re
ferred to 3 falls to the ground ; and it is not easy to under
stand how the church should have become in so short a time
so disordered, as the (supposed) visit of the apostle occurred
1 yp&tpu in the textus receptus is by the best critics omitted from the text.
See Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 216, 217 (old edition).
2 Alford avoids this objection by translating the words : " I have said already,
and now say beforehand, as when I was present the second time. " But the
translation given in the text appears to be more correct.
3 Namely, 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, xii. 21, ii. 1, on which the advocates of a
second visit ground their opinion.

JHE CHURCH OF CORINTH. 177
not long before he wrote the First Epistle.1 Besides, it is to
be observed that the apostle speaks of these disorders not
from personal experience of what he saw during his supposed
second visit, but from information received from others (1
Cor. i. 11, v. 1, xi. 18). As to the two passages which seem
to establish a second visit, it is asserted that they admit of
another interpretation. When the apostle says, IBoii Tpvrov
eVot/-_j? e^_) eXQelv irp6<i fyta? (" Behold, the third time I am
ready to come to you," 2 Cor. xii. 14), Tpkov may refer to
iTolfMO? e^a as well as to eXdelv, and thus may allude to the
readiness or intention of the apostle to come ; and we know
that the apostle once altered his intention, and was accused
of fickleness on that account (2 Cor. i. 15-17) ; so that what he
means maybe : "This is the third time that I have intended to
come to you."2 And the other passage wherein he says, Tpkov
¦¦ toxjto epyofiat trph<; v/-5? (" This is the third time I am coming
to you," 2 Cor. xiii. 1), may also be similarly explained of a
threefold intention to come, especially as the verse which
follows, " I told you before, and foretell you, as if I were
present the second time " (<_ ? nrapoav to BexiTepov), rather seems
to favour only one visit. He had come once; he had in
tended to come a second time, but had altered his plans ; and
now a third time he was again intending to come to them.3 The
language of the apostle is certainly somewhat ambiguous ; but
as there is no mention of a second visit in the Acts, and no
allusion to it in the First Epistle, the probability is that it did
not take place, although otherwise there is nothing objection
able in the supposition that it occurred during the three years'
residence at Ephesus. The matter is invested with more
importance than it really deserves, as it has only a remote
reference to the interpretation of the Epistle.
The Corinthian Church was composed both of Jews and
Gentiles ; but the Gentile element decidedly preponderated.
Paul was expelled the synagogue only a few weeks after his
1 De Wette's Einleitung, p. 289. Wieseler replies to this objection by a re
ference to the lost epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, in which Paul probably
alluded to his visit. — Chronologie, p. 237.
2 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 338.
' Wordsworth's Commentary, note on 2 Cor. xiii. 1 ; Davidson's Introduction,
vol. ii. pp. 215-217 (old edition). M

178 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
arrival; and during the greater part of the eighteen months
spent by him at Corinth, he taught in the house of Justus.
The greater part of the Epistle has reference to questions
which would naturally arise among Gentile converts ; and
Paul could say of the church collectively, " Ye know that ye
were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols even as ye
were led " (1 Cor. xii. 2).1 It would also appear that few of
the rich and noble in Corinth embraced the gospel. The
church was poor, and this was perhaps one reason why it did
not contribute to the apostle's support. " Ye see your calling,
brethren," writes the apostle, " how that, not many wise men
after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called "
(1 Cor. i. 26). To this, however, there were exceptions.
Mention is made of Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, Erastus,
the chamberlain of the city, and Gaius, who is represented as
the host of the apostle and of the whole church (Eom. xvi. 23).
III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
The church of Corinth, which Paul had left in such a
flourishing condition, and which had been privileged with the
labours of Silas, Timothy, and Apollos, had fallen into a state'
of great disorder. This seems to have arisen from Judaizing
teachers who intruded into the church from without. These
restless opponents of Paul came to Corinth with letters of
recommendation (2 Cor. iii. 1), perhaps from Judea. They
endeavoured to alienate the affections of the Corinthians from
the apostle. They, however, adopted a different course from
that attempted in Galatia. They did not insist on circum
cision and the strict observance of the law. These views
would not have succeeded among the free-minded Corinthians.
They rather attempted to undermine the authority of Paul,
knowing that if they succeeded in this, they would soon sub
vert his doctrines.2 They represented him as inferior to the
other apostles, as inculcating an erroneous gospel, as fostering
a spirit of licentiousness. Their efforts .were not without
1 But see, on the other hand, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2.
2 See the character of these Corinthian Judaizing teachers well described in
Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 297.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 179
success, at least among the Jewish portion of the church ;. and
it would appear that a faction was formed who called them
selves the Petrine party, appealing to the authority of Peter
as the chief of the apostles. The followers of Paul also carried
matters to an extreme, and formed in opposition the Pauline
party. Michaelis supposes that these disorders were caused
by a single teacher, who appeared as a rival to the apostle,
and gave himself out as his superior.1 This, however, does
not seem to have been the case. The opponents of Paul —
the false apostles — are represented in this Epistle as many.
The apostle received information of the disorders of the
Corinthian church from certain persons who had come from
Corinth to Ephesus. Perhaps the information received from
Apollos on his return was not altogether satisfactory ; but the
news were brought to him chiefly by certain members of the
household of Chloe 2 (1 Cor. i. 1 1). It represented a sad state
of things. The church was split up into factions : one party
called themselves by the name of Peter, the apostle of the
circumcision ; another by the name of Paul, the founder of the
Corinthian church ; and a third by the name of Apollos, the
most eloquent preacher. Sins of uncleanness, so prevalent
and regarded with indifference at Corinth, had polluted the
Corinthian church ; the Christians had not completely cast off
the old man; and especially an offence of this nature of a
peculiarly aggravated description had occurred, and the offender
had not been expelled from the Christian community. A
litigious spirit had arisen. Disputes had been carried to such
an extent, that Christian arbitration was rejected, and brother
went to law with brother, and that before unbelievers. The
religious assemblies of the church frequently exhibited scenes
of confusion : several prophesied at once ; others spake with
tongues, when there was no interpreter ; women appeared in
these assemblies in unbecoming attire ; and even the Agapae
and the Lord's Supper were so profaned, that excess in eating
1 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. pp. 46-48. So also Conybeare and Howson,
Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. Ill ; and Ewald, Sendschreiben des
Apostel Paulus, p. 225.
2 We are entirely ignorant about this Chloe, — whether she was a Corinthian,
or, as Meyer supposes, an Ephesian having friends residing in Corinth.

180 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
and drinking was not infrequent at their celebration. Several
Christians, also, making a parade of their liberty, seem to have
attended the sacrificial banquets held in the heathen temples.
And there were some who went the length of denying or call
ing in question the doctrine of a resurrection, — perhaps even
the idea of a future life.
Besides this information brought by those of the house of
Chloe, it would also appear that the Corinthians had written
a letter to the apostle, perhaps in reply to one (which is
now lost) sent by him (1 Cor. v. 9).1 This letter from the
Corinthians has not been preserved, but from this Epistle we
may easily discover the points to which it referred. In
it they asked the apostle's advice on certain matters which
caused dispute and difficulty. One of these points referred to
marriage (1 Cor. vii. 1). On this subject various perplexing
questions would necessarily arise, — as, for example, in the
case where one of the parties was converted to Christianity and
the other remained a heathen, or where the unbeliever refused
to dwell with his Christian wife.2 Another important point
of inquiry referred to eating things offered in sacrifice to idols
(1 Cor. viii. 1). What was the proper duty of Christians in
reference to this ? Were they to eat all things without restric
tion ? Or if not, what restrictions did Christianity necessitate ?
If, for example, they were asked by an unbeliever to a feast, were
they at liberty to accept his hospitality, and to eat whatever
was set before them ? (1 Cor. x. 27). A third question related
to the exercise of spiritual gifts in their public assemblies
(1 Cor. xii. 1). Here some restrictions to the exercise of these
gifts seemed absolutely necessary, — their assemblies were fall
ing into a state of spiritual excitement and disorder. But what
restrictions were to be imposed ? Was the Spirit of God who
spoke by the prophets to be restrained ? These questions were
not trifling, but matters of great importance to the infant
Church, and required for their solution all the wisdom of
the inspired apostle. They were questions which naturally
1 On this lost epistle of Paul to the Corinthians see pp. 27-30.
2 The difficulty in the case of polygamy, where a man before his conversion had
several wives, had not then occurred ; it has arisen in the later days of Christian
missions.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 181
arose from the new state of things introduced by Chris
tianity. Accordingly the design of this First Epistle to the Corinthians
was twofold,—--first, to correct those disorders which had arisen
in the church ; and, secondly, to answer the inquiries proposed
by the Corinthians. Perhaps a third and subordinate object
was to promote the collection which the apostle was making
throughout the churches of the Gentiles for the poor saints
at Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi. 1-3).
The bearer of this Epistle was not, as the subscription in
dicates, Timothy. That evangelist was not with the apostle
when he wrote the Epistle. He had been sent previously to
Macedonia and Achaia (Acts xix. 22), probably to promote the
collections for the saints in these districts, and perhaps also to
correct the abuses which had arisen in the church of Corinth.
The Corinthians were informed of this mission of Timothy to
Corinth : " For this cause I have sent to you Timotheus, who
is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring
you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I
teach everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. iv. 17). " Now if
Timotheus come, see that he may be with you without fear"
(1 Cor. xvi. 10). Timothy had left before the Epistle was
written, but Paul did not expect him to arrive at Corinth until
after the Corinthians had received the Epistle, because, instead
of sailing directly from Ephesus to Corinth, he went through
Macedonia.1 Some suppose that Timothy did not reach Corinth
on this occasion, because there is no mention of his visit in the
Second Epistle (2 Cor. xii. 18) ;2 but the omission probably
arose from the fact that the Second Epistle is written in the
names of Paul and Timothy conjointly.
Titus seems to have been the bearer of this Epistle.3 Paul
sent him, along with another fellow-labourer whose name is
unknown, in company with the three individuals, Stephanas,
Fortunatus, and Achaicus, who had brought the epistle from the
1 We have here an undesigned coincidence between the Epistle and the Acts ;
see Paley's Hores Paulines, ch. iii. No. 4.
2 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. pp. 25 and 108 ; Neander's Planting,
p. 266.
3 Stanley Ore the Corinthians, p. 19.

182 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Corinthians (1 Cor. xvi. 17). Thus in the Second Epistle the
apostle writes : " I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother"
(2 Cor. xii. 18). It was necessary in such a critical state of
matters that some influential person should be sent ; and as
Timothy was absent, Titus supplied his place. It would ap
pear that Paul wished Apollos to go to Corinth, but that
evangelist declined, probably because he thought that his pre
sence might only increase the factious spirit which prevailed :
" As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to
come to you with the brethren : but his will was not at all to
come at this time; but he will come when he shall have a con
venient time" (1 Cor. xvi. 12).
IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The contents of this Epistle are, from the nature of the case,
more varied than any other of Paul's letters. Nor does there
seem to be any regular method pursued. The apostle first
deals with the disorders of the church, then answers the in
quiries of the Corinthians, and then returns to the former
subject. After the usual salutation and thanksgiving (chap.
i. 1—9), Paul proceeds to find fault with the Corinthians for
the party divisions which existed among them, and for pre
ferring a false philosophy to the simple preaching of the cross
of Christ (chap. i. 10-iv. 16). After referring to the mission
of Timothy and his own intended visit (chap. iv. 17-21), he
next reproves them for the immorality which prevailed, and
especially that flagrant case of the incestuous marriage which
had occurred among them (chap. v. 1-13). He censures
them, for their litigious spirit, in prosecuting their brethren
before heathen tribunals, instead of settling their disputes
among themselves (chap. vi. 1-8). He again urges them to
guard against that vice of uncleanness which was so prevalent
in Corinth (chap. vi. 9-20). Having thus endeavoured to
correct some of their disorders, he proceeds to answer the
questions which had been proposed to him. He first discusses
the questions referring to marriage (chap. vii. 1—40), and
then those referring to meats offered to idols, treating at great
length, in connection with these, the subject of Christian

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 183
liberty (chap. viii.-xi. 1). Having thus reprimanded them
for their faults, and answered their inquiries, he next proceeds
to reform the irregularities which existed in their mode of
conducting public worship, — such as the behaviour of women
in overstepping the modesty of their sex (chap. xi. 2-16) ;
the improper mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper (chap. xi.
17-34); the abuse of spiritual gifts, especially those of pro
phesying and speaking with tongues, pronouncing an eulogium
on charity as the greatest of all spiritual gifts, and as that
which solves all difficulties and corrects all disorders (chap.
xii-xiv.). He then proceeds to discuss the doctrine of the
resurrection, which some of the Corinthians doubted or denied
(chap. xv.). And he concludes the Epistle with directions
about the collection for the saints, information regarding his
coming to Corinth, and salutations from those friends who
were with him (chap. xvi).

V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
The date of this Epistle is easily determined. It was
written from Ephesus. " I will," says the apostle, " tarry at
Ephesus until Pentecost" (1 Cor. xvi. 8). And salutations
are sent from the churches of Asia (1 Cor. xvi. 1 9). But it
could not have been written before Paul's second residence at
Ephesus (Acts xix. 1), because Apollos had already preached
at Corinth, and that was subsequent to Paul's first visit (Acts
xviii. 26, 27). It was also toward the close of Paul's
second residence that this Epistle was written ; for the apostle
was already forming his plans of departure from Ephesus
to 'Macedonia, and had already sent Timothy and Erastus
before him (Acts xix. 22). Some suppose that there are inti
mations in the Epistle that it was written at Easter, from
the allusions to the Passover (1 Cor. v. 6-8) ;x but such inti
mations are slight, although it may be probable that the cele
bration of the Passover suggested these allusions to the apostle.
It may then with considerable certainty be affirmed that the
date of the Epistle was shortly before the Pentecost of the
year 57, but whether before or after the tumult at Ephesus
1 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 291.

184 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
must remain undetermined. This opinion has been adopted
by all critics, with two exceptions. Kohler supposes that it
was written after the first Eoman imprisonment, toward the
end of the year 64 j1 and Bbttger thinks that it was written
in Achaia on a voyage which the apostle made from Ephesus,
without touching at Corinth.2 It follows that the subscrip- ¦
tion to the Epistle, stating that it was written from Philippi, is
erroneous. Probably this arose from a mistaken inference
drawn from the words, " Now I will come to you when I pass
through (Biepxo/Mu) Macedonia ; for I do pass through Mace
donia" (1 Cor. xvi. 5) ; as if the apostle was actually on his
journey through Macedonia.
VI. PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
This Epistle is eminently practical. Especially it gives us
an insight into the manner in which Paul dealt with questions
belonging to Christian casuistry. Questions of conscience had
been proposed to him for solution, as, for example, the law
fulness or unlawfulness of eating things offered in sacrifice to
idols. Paul gives two rules for determining these and such
like questions, — rules of universal application. The one, " Let
all things be done with charity," — beware of casting a
stumblingblock in the way of others ; the other, " Be fully
persuaded in your own mind," — beware of violating your own
conscience. An insight is given us in this Epistle into the state of the
primitive Church. The church of Corinth was highly favoured.
Paul had planted it, and laboured in Corinth for the space of
eighteen months. He had left behind him Silas and Timothy.
And Apollos had carried on that work which Paul and his
fellow-workers had commenced. And yet the view given of
the church of Corinth is by no means flattering. There is
little appearance of that high-toned piety, purity of con
duct, fervour of love, and heavenly-mindedness which we are
apt to attribute to the early Church. On the contrary, the
1 The reason why Kohler adopts this view is because he supposes that the
second (supposed) visit of Paul to Corinth is that recorded in Acts xx. 2.
2 Wieseler's Chronologie, p. 321.

PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 185
church is polluted by heinous sins ; its public assemblies are
often scenes of disorder ; and the Lord's Supper is converted
into an occasion of excess. Even our worst congregations
might stand a comparison with the Corinthian church. And
yet Paul never thinks of denying its claims to be a true
church of Christ ; nor does he omit in his Epistles to thank
God for the grace which was given them by Jesus Christ
(1 Cor. i. 4). When the abominations of heathenism, and
especially those practised in the city of Corinth, are con
sidered, it is hardly to be expected that the Christian converts
could all on a sudden divorce themselves from these abomina
tions : the old nature was not so easily destroyed. Perhaps,
however, the church of Corinth was not a fair specimen of other
churches ; and certainly, in reading the Epistle to the Philip
pians, the impression left upon us is that the church of
Corinth was far inferior in purity to the church of Philippi.1
But this Epistle to the Corinthians not merely gives an
insight into the state of the primitive Church, but also reveals
at the same time the noble character of the great apostle.
Here he is exhibited as a watchful shepherd of the flock of
Christ. He has for every error of conduct a stern reproof,
for every perversion of the gospel a strong rebuke, but also
for every human weakness a tender care and helping hand.
There is in his character a wonderful mixture of tenderness
and severity. At one time he rebukes with impassioned and
vehement severity ; at another time he entreats with the ten
derness of a loving mother mourning over her erring children.2
Here also the varied gifts .of the apostle are displayed,- — the
wisdom with which he solves questions of casuistry ; the in
sight which he has into the spiritual world ; and the largeness
and breadth of character, rising above all littlenesses, and yet
everywhere regulated by love and forbearance. Nor is this
Epistle less a monument of his eloquence. There are in it
some of the most eloquent passages found in his writings, — as,
for example, his application of the Isthmian foot-race to our
1 And yet in none of Paul's Epistles have we such minute particulars of the
internal condition of a Christian church as in these Epistles to the Corinthians.
2 See Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften NT., p. 87 ; Guericke's Isa-
gogik, p. 303 ; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii, Prolegomena, p. 56.

186 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. *
Christian life and calling (1 Cor. ix. 24-27); his contrast
between the gospel and the philosophy of the Greeks (1 Cor.
i. 18-25); and the reference to his own labours, and the
claims which, as their spiritual father, he had upon the Corin
thians (1 Cor. iv. 8-15). Especially the personification of
love in the thirteenth chapter, and the statement of the
doctrine of the resurrection in the fifteenth, are pieces of com
position which will bear no unfavourable comparison with the
.sublimest writings of ancient or modern times.

THE FACTIONS IN THE COEINTHIAN CHUECH.1
The chief cause of the disorders which prevailed in the
church of Corinth was the existence of parties or factions.
There was no controlling central power to regulate the worship
and maintain the discipline of the church. " Now I beseech
you, brethren," writes the apostle," by the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there
be no divisions (a^ia^aTa) among you ; but that ye be per
fectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my
brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there
are contentions (eptSe?) among you. Now this I say, that
every one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and
I of Cephas ; and I of Christ" (1 Cor. i. 10-12). No blame
can be attached to the teachers, who are here named as the
leaders or heads of these factions. Paul indignantly repudi
ates such a leadership, and severely censures the Corinthians
for their divisions ; Apollos entertained the same views with
Paul, and would never have allowed his name to be used
as the head of a rival sect; and Peter not only preached
the same gospel, but had no personal connection with the
1 This subject is discussed in Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. i. chap.
xiii. ; Davidson's Introduction (old edition), vol. ii. pp. 223-238'; Neander's
Planting of Christianity, vol. i pp. 226-240 ; Olshausen's Commentary on the
Corinthians, pp. 2-10 ; Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. pp. 289-326 ; Schaffs
Apostolic History, vol. i. pp. 334-341 ; Stanley Ore the Corinthians, pp. 26-30 ;
Billroth On the Corinthians, Introduction ; Schenkel's de ecclesia Corinthiaca, etc.

THE FACTIONS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. 187
Corinthians. The leaders were innocent : their admirers or
followers were alone to blame for these schisms and strifes.
It does not appear that these factions in the Corinthian
church ever proceeded to such an extent as to cause actual
separation, as Eichhorn supposes, so that there were at
Corinth three or four different Christian communities. Cer
tainly the expressions which the apostle employs are strong :
he speaks of divisions (a^la/jtaTa) and heresies (alpeaet<;) as
existing in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. xi. 18, 19); but
neither of these terms necessarily denotes actual separation,
— they appear rather to signify dissensions within the church.1
The parties met together in the church (iv tjj tKKXno-ia, 1 Cor.
xi. 18). There was in the apostolic Church nothing similar
to our modern sects, — dissentient communities outside of the
Church ; these did not arise until after the days of the apostles.
But although there was no separation from the Church, yet
there was dissension within it: there were belonging to it
persons holding very different views on the nature, obligation,
and perpetuity of the Jewish law ; and this dissension appears
to have taken a specially definite shape and form in the
church of Corinth.
There is an uncertainty concerning the number of factions
in the Corinthian church. Some, taking the words in their
obvious sense, suppose that there were four factions, calling
themselves by the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ.
Others suppose that there were only three, — -the Christ-party
being the orthodox members of the church, who called them
selves by no human name. And others think that there were
only two great divisions, — the Pauline and the Petrine ; that
the parties who ranged themselves under the names of Paul
and Apollos were substantially one ; and so also were the
parties who called themselves by the names of Cephas and
Christ. There can be little dubiety about the Petrine party. Those
who belonged to it constituted the Judaizing faction of the
Corinthian church, — the . great opponents of Paul and his
teaching. They called themselves by the name of Peter, not
1 See a valuable dissertation on the meaning of the terms r%io-ft.ara and alpitus
in Campbell On the Gospels, vol. i. Dissertation x.

188 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
because that apostle sympathised with them, or indeed had
any communication with them, but because he was regarded
as the chief of the apostles of the circumcision. They appear,
as has already been observed, to have intruded themselves
into the church of Corinth from without (2 Cor. iii. 1). The
views of the Judaizing party were definite, although they
might be variously maintained. They insisted on the im
portance of the law of Moses. Some of them asserted, not
withstanding the decree of the council of Jerusalem to the
contrary, that the Mosaic law should be imposed upon the
Gentiles ; others maintained that although not precisely obli
gatory, yet it was advisable as a symbol of perfection ; and
all insisted on its perpetual obligation on the Jewish Chris
tians. They regarded themselves as superior to the Gentile
Christians, and thus perpetuated the divisions which the law
made between Jews and Gentiles. In Corinth, they appear
not so much to have inculcated their peculiar Jewish views,
as to have attacked the authority of Paul. They represented
him as inferior to Peter and the apostles of the circumcision ;
as having never, like them, seen the Lord Jesus, nor been
instructed by Him; as entertaining doubts about his own
apostleship, seeing that he did not dare to claim the right of
maintenance ; and as inculcating an erroneous or at least a
defective gospel. They were the weak brethren, to whom the
apostle alludes when discussing the eating of things offered
in sacrifice to idols, as they still maintained the Jewish dis
tinction between clean and unclean meats. And it is against
them chiefly that the apostle's severe rebukes are directed in
the Second Epistle, when he defends his apostleship against
their unjust aspersions. He denounces the leaders of this
faction as "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into the apostles of Christ" (2 Cor. xi. 13). In
this faction we see the germ of Ebionism, — a species of
Jewish Christianity.
The views of the Pauline party were directly opposed to
those of the Petrine or Judaistic party. As the Petrine party
were chiefly composed of Jewish Christians, so the Pauline
party were chiefly composed of Gentile Christians. Those
who belonged to it were the converts and admirers of Paul,

THE FACTIONS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. 189
and doubtless constituted the majority of the Corinthian
church, in which the Gentile element was predominant.1
Probably, in the spirit of antagonism to the Judaistic teachers
and their narrow views, the Pauline party carried the opinions
of their master to an extreme. They were the liberal party
of the Corinthian church. In their opposition to the Juda
izers, they exhibited too much bitterness of sentiment and
feeling. They appear to have made a boast of their Christian
liberty, and to have carried it to a most unwarrantable extent.
Not only did they not hesitate to shock the feelings of their
Jewish brethren, by openly eating things offered in sacrifice
to idols, but some of them seem actually to have partaken of
the sacrificial banquets in the heathen temples (1 Cor. viii. 10).
Liberty was with some but another name for licentiousness.
Paul severely rebukes them for their divisions, uncharitable-
ness, and extreme liberalism. He thanks God that although
he had converted them to Christianity, yet he had baptized
few of them ; he indignantly repudiates the party name ; and
asserts that they are not the disciples of any human teacher,
but of Christ, into whose name they were baptized. " Is Christ
divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the
name of Paul ?" (1 Cor. i. 13). As in the Petrine faction we see
the germ of Ebionism, so in the Pauline faction we see the
germ of Marcionism, — a species of anti-Judaistic Christianity.
A third faction called themselves by the name of Apollos.
Apollos succeeded Paul in Corinth ; he confirmed the disciples
in the faith, and, being mighty in the Scriptures, confuted the
objections of the unbelieving Jews. His labours are honour
ably mentioned by Paul, who considered him as having
watered that church which he had planted. In truth he
was one of Paul's fellow-workers (Tit. iii. 13), and was with
him at Ephesus when he wrote this Epistle (1 Cor. xvi. 12).
There was no difference in the views of these two great
preachers, — even their phase of Christianity was the same,
namely, the Pauline. Still there may have been a difference
1 " The Corinthians, "'observes Baur, "had not apostatized from the apostle :
they had formed factions ; and the members of the church who remained faithful
to the apostle formed always, as is evident from the contents of both epistles,
the overwhelming majority." — Apostel Paulus, p. 289.

190 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
in their mode of teaching. Paul purposely renounced all
excellency of speech and wisdom (1 Cor. ii. 1) — all the arts of
human oratory — when he preached the gospel at Corinth.
" My speech and my preaching," he observes, " was not with
the enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of
the Spirit and of power : that your faith should not stand in
the wisdom of men, but in the power of God " (1 Cor. ii. 4, 5).
But Apollos, being an- Alexandrian Jew, and an eloquent man,
may have employed his eloquence and Alexandrian wisdom in
preaching the gospel, and thus have in some measure adapted
it to the Grecian mind and taste.1 It is not improbable that
his admirers carried matters further, and mixed Grecian philo
sophy with the teachings of revelation, and thus in a certain
degree corrupted with their false wisdom the gospel of Christ.
Accordingly the Apolline party would consist of those who
embraced a philosophical Christianity.2 It is against this
party that the three first chapters of this Epistle are directed.
In them the apostle contrasts the false wisdom of the world
with the simple preaching of the cross of Christ. Not that
Paul attributed this false wisdom to Apollos himself, but to
his self-styled followers. This intermixture of philosophy
with the gospel was pregnant with evil consequences, and
was the cause of those numberless heresies which distracted
the Church during the second and third centuries. In the
Apolline faction we see an early phase of Gnosticism, — a
species of philosophic Christianity.
Hitherto there has been some definite ground to go upon ;
but the real difficulty of the discussion is the consideration of
the fourth party, who called themselves by the name of Christ
(iyd> Be XpiaTov, 1 Cor. i. 12). Some (Estius, etc.) avoid the
difficulty by supposing that such a party had no existence, —
that three, and not four parties are here specified. They ac
cordingly read the words, " And I of Christ," as if they were
an observation of the apostle himself, — as if the meaning were,
" Every one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and
I of Cephas : but I say I am of Christ." And it is supposed
1 Neander's Planting of Christianity, vol. i. pp. 230-232.
2 De Wette, on the other hand, considers the ApoUine party to consist of those
who had been converted and instructed by Apollos. — Einleitung, p. 287.

THE FACTIONS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. 191
that this view is favoured by 1 Cor. iii. 22, where only Paul,
Apollos, and Cephas are mentioned. But the words will not
bear this meaning, — iya> Be Xpia-Tov, is as much a party name
as any of the other three. If it had been intended to place
these words in opposition, Paul would have required to have
written, iya> Be TLavXos XptaTov, or some similar expression.
The supposition that Paul wrote KpUnrov, which was mistaken
by the transcribers for Xpio-ToD, is a mere critical conjecture,
without the slightest external authority to justify it.
In other parts of the Epistles to the Corinthians, there are,
it is supposed, allusions to this Christ-party. Thus Paul, in
maintaining his apostolic authority, writes : " Am I not an
apostle ? am I not free ? have I not seen Jesus Christ our
Lord?" (1 Cor. ix. 1), — as if his opponents asserted that
having seen Christ and been instructed by Him was essential
to constitute a true apostle. So also he observes : " If any
man trust in himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself
think this again, that as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's "
(2 Cor. x. 7). Here the allusion to the Christ-party appears
more manifest : they asserted that in a peculiar sense they
were Christ's (Xpto-Tov elvai) ; and the apostle here claims a
similar relation. It is also possible, where Paul speaks of
" knowing Christ after the flesh " (2 Cor. v. 1 6), that there is
an allusion to the Christ-party, who may have prided them
selves on their personal relationship to Christ.
A variety of views have been entertained concerning the
opinions of this fourth faction or the Christ-party in the
Corinthian church. All these views are liable to, objections,
arising from the uncertainty which rests upon the subject,
and the scantiness of our information. The most important
and plausible are here noticed.
Eichhorn -supposes that by the Christ-party are meant the
_neutr als, who, in distinction from the other contending parties,
maintained that they belonged neither to Paul, nor Apollos,
nor Cephas, nor any other human teacher, but only to Christ.1
1 Einleitung in das N T., vol. iii. p. 107. "Whilst," he observes, "the
parties of Paul, of Apollos, and of Cephas were contending with each other,
there was formed a party of neutrals, who maintained that they held neither
with Paul, nor Apollos, nor Peter, but only with Christ."

192 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
They would call no man master upon earth, seeing that Christ
was their only master. This opinion, with various modifica
tions, has been adopted by Pott, Schott, Eiickert, Meyer, and
Bleek.1 The Christ-party is thus no definite faction, but con
sisted of the orthodox members of the church who repudiated
all these divisions and party names. But if this view be
correct, they merited the commendation of the apostle, as
being the true promoters of unity.2 Instead of this, however,
it would seem that they also as well as the other parties are
censured as being the promoters of division ; for the words
which follow the enumeration of parties, "Is Christ divided?"
apply to all the four without distinction.
Starr 3 supposes that the Christ-party were those members of
the Corinthian church who were the followers of James the
Lord's brother, and who, on account of his~re_atioriship tothe
lord, Trailed themselves by the name of Christ. The apostle
is supposed to allude to this assumption of a carnal relation
ship to Christ in the expression, to " know Christ after the
flesh" (2 Cor. v. 16) ; and with similar reference to the same
party to have mentioned " the brethren of the Lord " (2 Cor.
ix. 5). A similar opinion is adopted by Bertholdt, Hug, Hei-
denreich, and Dean Stanley.4 But the scriptural allusions
here adduced are far-fetched. Besides, the followers of James
are supposed to have been extreme legalists, who insisted on
circumcision and the strict observance of the law ; whereas it
does not appear that the Judaizing teachers did so at Corinth,
nor is there any refutation of such notions in the Epistles to
the Corinthians as there is in the Epistle to the Galatians.
Moreover, such a party would hardly have styled themselves
ol tov XptaTov, but rather ot tov Kvplov, or, in conformity
1 Pott's Commentary ; Schott's Isagogik, p. 233 ; Riickert arid Meyer's Com
mentaries ; Bleek's Introduction to N. _., p. 427.
2 Unless, indeed, we are to suppose that this party prided themselves on their
superior sanctity, and looked down upon all the other members of the church
as their inferiors in piety.
* Notitke historices epistolarum P. ad Cor. interpretationi servientes : Opuscula
Academica, vol. ii. p. 246.
- Bertholdt, Hist. krit. Einl. ; Hug's Einleihmg in die Schriften des N. T. ;
Heidenreich, Commentary on First Cor., vol. i. p. 31 ; Stanley On First
Corinthians, p. 30.

THE FACTIONS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. 193
with the other parties, after the name of their leader, ot tov
'IaKmfiov (Gal. ii 12).
Neander's view is very ingenious. He supposes that the
Christ-party were those who not only renounced the names of
all human teachers, but all human authority ; who rejected |
the teaching of the apostles, and formed a Christianity for \
themselves, according to their own subjective notions. " There
were those," he observes, "who, while they renounced the
apostles, professed to adhere to Christ alone, to acknowledge
Him only as their Teacher, and to receive what He announced
as truth from Himself without the intervention of any other
person. This was such a manifestation of self-will, such an
arrogant departure from the historical process of development
ordained by God in the appropriation of divine revelation, as
would in the issue lead to arbitrary conduct respecting the
contents of Christian doctrine ; for the apostles were the
organs ordained and formed by God, by whom the doctrine of
Christ was to be propagated, and its meaning communicated to
all men. But it might easily happen, while some were dis
posed to adhere to Paul alone, others to Apollos, and a third
party to Peter, at last some persons appeared who were averse
to acknowledge any of these party names, and professed to
adhere to Christ alone, yet with an arrogant self-will which
set aside all human instrumentality ordained by God." x
According to Neander, this party, desirous of attaching them
selves to Christ alone independently of the apostles, might
construct a Christianity derived from their own minds either
in a mystical or in a rational manner. Neander himself con
sidered the rational method as the predominant, and referred
the origin of such a party to au_Gj^aan_j}lement. These
persons were impressed with the sublimity and spirituality of
the gospel, and thus believed on Christ as the great Eeformer
of the religious condition -of mankind. It may be, also, that
they had a document containing a collection of the memorable
actions and discourses of Jesus, and thus by means of it they
might construct a peculiar form of Christian doctrine, modelled
according to their Grecian subjectivity.2 A similar opinion
1 Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 236.
2 Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 241.
N

194 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
was formerly adopted by Beza and Bengel, who considered
the Christ-party as consisting of philosophical Christians who
adapted Christianity to the philosophy of the Grecian schools.
Olshausen and Guericke also maintained a similar opinion.1
The views of this party, according to Neander, were rational
istic : it was they who doubted the resurrection of the dead.
There is a plausibility in the idea that such a party would
arise, especially in a city so famous for its philosophy as
Corinth. But, on the other hand, we know that few of the
wise men in Corinth were converted to Christianity (1 Cor.
i. 26) ; and although the apostle assails those who questioned
his own personal authority, there is no allusion to such a
universal rejection of apostolic authority generally as this
theory supposes.
An important modification of the theory of Neander is
made by Schenkel.2 He supposes that the mystical element
was the predominant one. He considers the Christ-party as
consisting of mystics and visionaries, who spiritualized the
truths and facts of religion. They gloried in their internal
union with Christ, by means of which they - held themselves
to be independent of all apostolic authority, and considered
themselves to be equally inspired as those admired teachers,
Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. They explained the resurrection
as spiritual and already past. To this view of the Christ-
party Schenkel refers what the apostle says in 2 Cor. xii. 1
of his visions and revelations, to which he felt himself con
strained to allude, as his opponents boasted of their visions and
revelations of Christ, on account of which they had rejected
all apostolic authority. This opinion is adopted by De Wette.3
He considers this party as somewhat similar in tlie-jTviews
to the false teachers in- the church of Colosse, and whom he
supposes to have been Judaizing Gnostics. It is not im
probable that there were such mystics in the apostolic
Church, as indeed there have been in the Christian Church in
1 Olshausen's Commentary on First Corinthians, pp. 2-10 ; Guericke's Isa-
gogik, p. 301.
2 In his tract De ecclesia Cormthiaca primcsvafactionibus turbata, Basil 1838.
3 Emleitung in das N. T., pp. 287, 288, and also in his Commentary on First
Corinthians.

THE FACTIONS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH. 195
all ages, — men who allowed their imagination to get the better
-of their judgment in matters of religion, and who would
naturally designate themselves by the name of Christ.1 But
the reasons are too precarious to induce us to identify the
representation of such views with the Christ-party here men
tioned by the apostle.
Another opinion has been advanced and maintained with
much logical acumen by Baur.2 He maintains that there are
substantially only two parties mentioned, who took opposite
views of the great controversy which agitated the apostolic
Church — the relation of Judaism to Christianity. The factions
of Paul and Apollos formed the Pauline party ; and the fac
tions of Cephas and Christ the Petrine party. " The apostle's
object," he observes, ," in accumulating so many names might
be to depict the party spirit prevalent in the Corinthian
church, which showed itself in their delighting in the multi
plication of sectarian names, which denoted various tints and
shades, but not absolutely distinct parties." 3 Thus the Petrine
party called themselves by the name of Cephas, because Peter
was the chief of the Jewish apostles ; and by the name of
Christ, because they considered direct connection with Him
as the chief sign of genuine apostolic authority. This opinion
of Baur has been modified by dividing the Judaistic faction
into two distinct classes, — the Petrine party, or the more
moderate portion, who, whilst they retained their opiniohTToT
the superiority of Jewish Christianity, were not decidedly
antagonistic to Paul; and the Christ-party, or the extreme
section, who insisted on the imposltiSlr of Judaism upon the
Gentiles, and did all that they could to oppose and counteract
Pauline Christianity* " The same individuals," observes
Billroth, " did not call themselves at one time ' of Cephas,'
and at another ' of Christ ; ' but each one of those who had
been led astray by the false teachers, in speaking of his party,
1 As in our days a mystical sect call themselves the Church of Christ, in
opposition to all party names.
2 Baur's opinion is stated at great length, and with great learning and in
genuity. — Apostel Paulus, vol. i pp. 289-326.
3 Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 295.
4 Baur himself, in another portion of his work, distinguishes between a stricter
and a milder party among the Judaistic Christians. — Apostel Paulus, p. 145.

196 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
applied to it that name which best suited his own views." 1
This opinion of Baur, with various modifications, has been
adopted by Billroth, Credner, Schwegler, Thiersch, Eeuss,
Davidson, and Conybeare and Howson. 2 It certainly recom
mends itself as the simplest solution of the difficulty, resolving
the factions into different views of the great controversy of
the apostolic age ; and it also imparts a symmetry to the
enumeration given by the apostle, — there being two subdivi
sions of the Pauline party, and in like manner two of the
Petrine. Such are the chief theories which have been formed con
cerning the Christ-party. It is difficult, if not impossible, to
arrive at any definite conclusion on the subject. We can
form tolerably definite views concerning the other three parties,
and discern the development of their opinions in the Ebionism,
Marcionism, and Gnosticism of the succeeding age ; but our
views concerning the Christ-party are obscure and indefinite.
To the Corinthians the apostle's allusion to the factions which
disturbed their peace was perfectly plain, — they required no
information as to what he meant by the Christ-party ; but to
us this is one of those portions in Paul's Epistles which is ob
scure for the want of that information which the first readers
of the Epistle possessed. We cannot now restore the state of
matters at Corinth. It is to be acknowledged that there is
considerable plausibility in the modification of Baur's view
proposed by Billroth, who considers the Christ-party as an
extreme section of Judaizing Christians, though the reason is
not obvious why such a party should designate themselves by
the name of Christ. But there is also an equal if not greater
plausibility in the modification of Eichhorn's view proposed
by Eiickert,3 who considers them as asserting, in opposition to
the other factions, who called themselves by human names,
that they belonged to Christ, but yet in a somewhat arrogant
1 Billroth's Commentary on the Corinthians, vol. i. p. 16 (English translation).
2 Billroth. Commentary, vol. i. pp. 12-16; Credner's Einleitwng in's N. _.;
Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 162 ; Thiersch, die Kirche im apos-
tolischen Zeitalter, p. 143 ; Reuss' Geschichte d. Schrif.N. T., p. 86; Davidson's
Introduction (new edition), vol. i. pp. 40, 41 ; Conybeare and Howson 's St. Paul,
vol. i pp. 524-526.
3 Riickert, der erste Brief Pauli an die Korinthier, Leipzig 1836.

THE LORD'S SUPPER AND THE AGAPiE. 197
and self-righteous spirit, — not remaining as neutrals merely,
but forming themselves into a party. In the former case
the Christ-party were the worst and the most blameworthy
of the four ; in the latter case they were the best, and almost
excusable in their antagonism to the other factions.

THE LOED'S SUPPEE AND THE AGAP_3E.1
The perversion of the Lord's Supper by the Corinthians,
and the disorders which occurred at its celebration, as recorded
in this Epistle, were of so extraordinary and monstrous a
nature, that it is difficult to realize them. Taken in its plain
sense, the description would seem to imply that the Corin
thians actually transformed the Lord's Supper into a scene of
excess ; that acts of intemperance occurred at its celebration ;
in short, that it somewhat resembled the sacrificial banquets
of the heathen. " When ye come together therefore into one
place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating
every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is
hungry, and another is drunken. What ! have ye not houses
to eat and drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and
shame them that have not?" (1 Cor. xi. 20-22). Some
attempt to modify the representation here given, by supposing
that o? Se fieOvet (and another is drunken) does not mean
actual intoxication, but is used in opposition to o? fiev ireiva
(one is hungry) ; so that the sense of the passage is, " one," that
is, the poor, " is hungry," — has not sufficient ; " another," that is,
the rich, "is drunken," — has more than enough.2 But even
this modification, if allowable, still exhibits a strange state of
matters. It is utterly impossible that the Lord's Supper
shoidd be similarly profaned in our days. From the manner
in which it is now celebrated, no amount of wickedness and
1 This subject is discussed in Stanley's Commentary on the Corinthians, pp.
205-209 ; Davidson's Introduction (old edition), vol. ii. pp. 242-244 ; Neander's
Church History, vol. i. pp. 450-460 ; Bingham's Antiquities, book xv. chap. 7.
2 Such a rendering, however, is hardly allowable : the words of Scripture are
not to be softened. As Meyer observes, "Paul draws the picture in strong
colours, and who can say that the reality was less strong? "

1 9 8 * THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
no degree of extravagance could possibly convert it into a
scene of excess. In order to account for the disorders in the
Corinthian church, there must have beeri some essential
difference in their mode of celebrating the Lord's Supper from
that practised among us.
The institution of the Agapae or love-feasts, and their con
nection with the Lord's Supper, explain these abuses among
the Corinthians. When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper,
He and His apostles partook of it after the Passover ; and
perhaps, in imitation of this, a supper or evening meal fre
quently accompanied the .communion in the primitive Church.
Both were regarded as one religious service ; and hence the
name here given by the apostle to the ordinance, .SetTrvov
KvpiaKov, as it was a real supper. It was a social Christian
feast of love, and hence the name Agape (dydirrj). The rich
brought to it provisions for the entertainment of their poorer
brethren. All partook together: the rich and the poor,
masters and slaves, bearing the same relation to Christ, their
common Master, sat down as brethren at one common table.1
There appear to be allusions to this practice in the Acts of
the Apostles. Thus we are informed that " the disciples con
tinued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and
in breaking of bread and prayers ; " and that " they, continuing
daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from
house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and single
ness of heart" (Acts ii. 42, 46). This breaking of bread
(/c\a_-t? tov apTov) was evidently some act of religious service,
and is generally supposed 2 to have been a meal similar to the
Agapae, accompanied by the celebration of the Lord's Supper ;
for with evident reference to the Lord's Supper Paul uses the
expression, "The bread which we break" (1 Cor. x. 16).
And it is undoubtedly certain that the Agapae existed in the
apostolic times. They are directly mentioned by the Apostle
Jude when he says, " These are spots in your feasts of charity
(iv Tali; dydiraif ifi&v — in your Agapae) when they feast
with you" (Jude 12) ; and are most probably alluded to by
1 In some cases the Agapse were preceded, and in others concluded, by the
Lord's Supper.
2 See author's Commentary on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 115, 116.

THE LORD'S SUPPER AND THE AGAP.E. 199
Peter when he says, " Spots they are and blemishes, sporting
themselves in their own deceivings when they feast with
you"1 (2 Pet. ii. 13).
Pleasing descriptions of these Christian feasts are given us
by the early fathers. Thus Tertullian observes : " Our feast
shows its character by its name : it bears the Greek name of
love ; and however great may be the cost of it, still it is gain
to be at cost in the name of piety, for by this refreshment we
make all the poor happy. As the cause of the supper is a
worthy one, estimate accordingly the propriety with which all
the rest is managed : it is throughout such as its religious
end demands. It admits of nothing vulgar, nothing unbe
seeming. No one sits down at the table till prayer has first
been offered to God ; we eat as much as hunger requires, we
drink no more than .consists with sobriety ; while we satisfy
our appetites, we bear in mind that the night is to be con
secrated to the worship of God. The conversation is such as
might be expected of men who are fully conscious that God
hears them. The supper being ended, and all having washed
their hands, lights are brought in, and every one is invited to
sing, either from Holy Scripture, or from the prompting of his
own spirit, some song of praise to God for the common edifi
cation." 2 So also Chrysostom observes : " The first Christians
had all things in common, as we read in the Acts of the
Apostles; and when that ceased, this came in its room.
Although the rich did not make all their substance common,
yet on certain appointed days they made a common table, and
when service was ended, and they had all communicated in
the holy mysteries, they met at a common feast, the rich
bringing provisions, and the poor, and those who had nothing,
being invited, they all feasted in common together." 3 And
it is highly probable that Pliny alludes to the Agapae in his
celebrated letter to Trajan. " They (the Christians accused)
affirmed that the whole of their fault or error lay in this, that
they were wont to meet together on a stated day, before it
1 Instead of !» t_"- _•. _ . _ . airSv, the Vatican and other mss. read iv ra's
ayiorais a.vru,v — "in their Agapse. "
2 Apologet. c. 39, quoted by Neander, Church History, vol. i. p. 451.
3 Chrysostom, Hom. 27 ore First Corinthians.

200 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
was light, and sing among themselves, alternately, a hymn to
Christ as God ; and to bind themselves by a solemn oath not
to commit any wickedness, not to be guilty of theft, or robbery,
or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a pledge
committed to them, when called upon to return it. When
these things were performed, it was their custom to separate,
and to come together again to a meal which they ate in
common, without any disorder ; but this they had forborne
since the publication of my edict, by which, according to your
commands, I prohibited assemblies." 1
Now it was the abuse of the Agapae that gave rise to the
disorders which prevailed in the Corinthian church at the
celebration of the Lord's Supper. As the community of
goods — that early apostolic institution, the earliest mani
festation of the love of the youthful Church — was profaned
by the falsehoods of Ananias and Sapphira, so these feasts of
love were desecrated by the uncharitableness of the Corin
thians. The factions which arose among them gave rise to
strife and divisions ; and where love was wanting, the Agapae
necessarily degenerated, and lost their true character and
object. The Lord's Supper (KvpiaKov Beiirvov) degenerated
into their own supper (t_ioz> Beiirvov). That which was
designed to be a feast of love became an occasion of discord.
The richer members of the church partook of the provisions
which they had brought, before the poor were permitted to
eat ; and thus some wanted, and others had more than enough.
It is also to be observed that the Corinthians, in their uncon
verted state, were accustomed to sacrificial banquets in the
heathen temples, and it was perhaps by imitating these
banquets that the Agapae so far degenerated. Though con
verted from heathenism, yet old habits were not so easily
laid aside ; and especially when the abominations of such a
wicked city as Corinth are considered, our wonder is lessened
when we read of the disorders, of even of the immoralities, of
the Corinthian church.2 Conversion is not a magical work
1 Pliny, Epist. lib. x. ep. 97 ; Lardner, vol. iv. pp. 10-43.
2 Indeed it is an evidence of the divine power of Christianity, that a church,
and that a numerous one, should be planted in such a corrupt city as Corinth
at all.

THE LORD'S SUPPER AND THE AGAPJE. 201
which changes a man in a moment of time from a sinner to a
saint : it is the implantation of the germ of holiness, and the
whole future life of the converted is the development of that
germ. Similar abuses in other churches gave rise to changes in
the mode of the observance of the Lord's Supper, to its
separation from the Agapae, and at length to the entire dis
continuance of the Agapae. When the first love of the early
Church declined, these love-feasts gradually degenerated ; in
some instances they became mere lifeless forms, no longer
animated by the spirit of brotherly love; and in other
instances, as among the Corinthians, they were converted
into ordinary meals to satiate the bodily appetites. Nor does
the practice seem to have been universal : in some churches
the Agapae do not appear to have existed at all. The daily
celebration mentioned in the Acts (Acts ii. 46) was changed
into a weekly celebration. The Lord's Supper was separated
from the Agapae, and observed at a different time. Thus,
from the letter of Pliny above quoted, it would appear that
the Lord's Supper was partaken of in the morning of the
Lord's day, and the Agapae in the evening. By degrees the
Agapae fell into disuse, so that there is little notice taken of
them in the writings of the later fathers ; and in the places
where they were still retained, their nature was perverted.
At length, in consequence of frequent abuse, the Agapae were
forbidden to be held in churches by the Council of Laodicea
(a.d. 363) and other ecclesiastical councils.1 Among the
great majority of Christian communities of our day, there is
nothing resembling these love-feasts of the early disciples.2
To some it may appear that the Agapae are an apostolic,
and therefore divine institution, and that therefore their
discontinuance is wrong and unwarranted. And certainly
strong arguments may be urged in favour of their apostolic
origin. The breaking of bread mentioned in the Acts, if not
the same, at least strikingly resembles these feasts ; and they
1 Bingham's Antiquities, book xv. chap. 7, sec. 9. In France it was prohibited
by the second Council of Orleans, a.d. 541 ; yet we find traces of the practice
in the seventh century.
2 They are still observed by the Sandemanians or Glassites.

202 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
are undoubtedly adverted to by the sacred writers (Jude 12;
2 Pet. ii. 13). But they appear to have been ordinances
suitable to the early days of Christianity, the observance of
which has now ceased, in consequence of their unsuitability
to our circumstances. The history of the Agapae resembles
that of the community of goods. Both in a certain sense
were apostolic institutions, — at least both existed in the apos
tolic Church ; but neither was universally practised, and both
gradually fell into disuse. Some suppose that Paul, in saying,
" One is hungry, and another is drunken. What ! have ye not
houses to eat and drink in?" (1 Cor. xi 21, 22) forbids the
Agapae altogether.1 But this does not appear to be the case :
he only condemns their abuse. He censures the practice of
the Corinthians, in converting these Christian social feasts into
ordinary meals, and in bringing to these feasts of love hearts
filled with uncharitableness. But there does not appear to be
any condemnation of the Agapae themselves, — any apostolic
authority for their abolition. But, on the other hand, there
is no direct apostolic authority for their continuation. The
true state of the case seems to be, that, like several other
institutions in the primitive Church, the Agapae were not
strictly of apostolic origin, but arose from the peculiar cir
cumstances of the early Church,2 and were not designed for
universal observance; but when the circumstances of the
Church were changed, and abuses had perverted the purpose
and character of the Agapae, their observance was no longer.
advisable, and in some cases no longer practicable.3
1 Others take an opposite view, and suppose that the apostle here sanctions
the Agapae.
2 A great number of those converted at Pentecost would be sojourners in Jeru
salem, and these ayavxi would be peculiarly serviceable to them.
3 For example, where the congregations were large. For the discussion on the
gift of tongues in the Corinthian church, see the author's Commentary on the
Acts, vol. i. pp. 80-90.

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
THE Second Epistle to the Corinthians is one of those four
Pauline Epistles, the genuineness of which has been
acknowledged by the writers of the Tubingen school. The
external evidence in its favour is indeed not so strong as that
in favour of the First Epistle ; but these two Epistles are so
inseparably connected, that the confirmation of the one may be
regarded as the confirmation of the other. The allusions to
it by the apostolic fathers are few, and somewhat obscure.
The most explicit is that of Polycarp (a.d. 1 1 6), who says :
" He who raised Christ from the dead shall raise up us also>
if we do His will"1 (2 Cor. iv. 14). But it is directly and
frequently quoted by other Christian writers of the second
century. Thus Irenaeus (a.d. 178) says: "For the apostle
says in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ' Since we are
unto God a sweet savour of Christ, both in them that are
saved, and in them that perish : to the one we are the savour
of death unto death ; and to the other the savour of life unto
life'"2 (2 Cor. ii. 15, 16). And again : "Paul has said plainly
in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ' In whom the god
of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers' "3 (2 Cor.
Ad PhilippenS, C. 2 : *0 .e lyeipas aurov Ix vlxpuv, xai .!__? \yipii, la* vroiuftiv
aitrou ro 0i\*if*a.
2 Adv. Hceres. iv. 28, 3 : Nam et apostolus ait in epistola secunda ad Corin
thios : "Quoniam Christi suavis odor sumus Deo, et in his qui salvi fiunt, et
in his qui pereunt ; quibusdam quidem odor mortis in mortem, quibusdam autem
odor vitse in vitam."
3 Adv. Hesres. iii. 7, 1 : Quod autem dicunt, aperte Paulum in secunda ad
Corinthios dixisse : "In quibus Deus sseculi hujus excsecavit mentes infidelium. "
203

204 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
iv. 4). Clemens Alexandrinus (ad. 190) says : " These things
the apostle observes concerning knowledge. In the Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, he calls the common doctrine of
faith a savour of knowledge"1 (2 Cor. ii. 14). And Tertul
lian (ad. 200) writes: "For indeed they suppose that Paul,
in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, forgave the same
fornicator, whom in the First he had declared should be
delivered over unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh."
The internal evidence is most convincing. No one can
read the two Epistles to the Corinthians with attention, with
out being satisfied that the writer of the, First was also the
writer of the Second. The character of the author is the
same : there is the same combination of severity and tender
ness ; at one time the stern reprover of sin, and at another
time the tender parent mourning over the delinquencies of his
children ; at one time threatening the Corinthians that if he
should come again he would not spare (2 Cor. xiii. 2), and at
another time writing unto them with many tears (2 Cor. ii. 4).
The style is undoubtedly that of Paul. No one can fail to re
mark the digressions and repetitions, the frequent antitheses, the
parenthetic clauses, the accumulation of superlatives, the hurried
fervour of spirit, so that the thoughts flow faster than words can
be found to express them, the extreme reluctance and delicacy
with which the author alludes to himself, — features which we
have already noted as the characteristics of the apostle's style.
The allusions in the Second Epistle to the First are so nume
rous and undesigned as to evince an unquestionable connection
between them. Thus in the First Epistle the apostle announces
his intention to come to them from Ephesus by way of Mace
donia (1 Cor. xvi. 5) ; and in the Second Epistle we find that
part of this journey was accomplished : he had already arrived
at Macedonia, and was about to pass over into Achaia (2 Cor.
ix. 2-4). In the First Epistle Paul reprimands the Corinthians
for their connivance at the crime of the incestuous individual,
1 Strom, lib. iv. C 16 : Tavra p.tv mpi r^s yvunus a avinrroXos* rvtv Se xotvhv
£<-_- xaXtav rns viffnus, oo-f&nv yvuffius tlpvtxev, Iv .5} "hivripa. irpos THopivd'tovs .
2 De pudk.it. c. xiii. : Revera enim suspicantur, Paulum in secunda ad Corin
thios eidem fornicatori veniam dedisse, quem in prima dedendum Satanae in
interitum carnis pronuntiarit.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 205
and commands them to expel him from their society (1 Cor.
v. 1-5) ; and in the Second Epistle we are informed that not
only this was done, but the man and the church generally were
brought to repentance (2 Cor. ii. 7, 8, vii. 7-9). In the First
Epistle the collection for the saints in Jerusalem is recom
mended (1 Cor. xvi. 1) ; and in the Second Epistle we learn
that this collection was not only begun, but had now nearly
approached its completion (2 Cor. ix. 1, 2).1
The undesigned coincidences between this Second Epistle
and the Acts of the Apostles are also numerous and striking.
Thus in the Epistle we are informed that the gospel had been
preached at first among the Corinthians by Silas and Timotheus
in concert with Paul (2 Cor. i. 19); and in the history we are
told that these two fellow-labourers joined the apostle at
Corinth (Acts xviii. 1 5). At the commencement of the Epistle,
the apostle alludes to a danger to which he had been exposed
in Asia, so great that he despaired even of life (2 Cor. i. 8) ;
and we know from the history that shortly before he wrote
this Epistle the great riot at Ephesus occurred, when Paul's
life was, humanly speaking, saved by the interposition of cer
tain of the chief of Asia, who would not permit him to expose
himself to the multitude (Acts xix. 23-41, xx. 1). In the
Epistle, Paul, enumerating the dangers through which he had
passed, mentions his escape from Damascus through a window
in a basket (2 Cor. xi. 32, 33) ; and the history, with several
variations of detail, relates his escape in a similar manner,
stating that "the disciples took him by night, and let him
down by the wall in a basket" (Acts ix. 23-25). In the
Epistle Paul mentions the probability of his coming to Corinth
in company with certain from Macedonia (2 Cor. ix. 4) ; and
the history relates that among others there accompanied him
from Corinth into Asia, " of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and
Secundus " (Acts xx. 4). In the Epistle, among other trials,
Paul mentions his having once been stoned (2 Cor. xi. 25);
and the history gives us an account of this stoning at Lystra
(Acts xiv. 19), and also mentions a previous attempt at
stoning, which failed, at Iconium (Acts xiv. 3). " Had," as
Paley observes, " this assault at Iconium been completed, — had
1 See Paley's Horcs Paulines, chap. iv. No. 1.

206 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the history related that a stone was thrown, as it relates that
preparations were made both by Jews and Gentiles to stone
Paul and his companions, — or even had the account of this
transaction stopped, without going on to inform us that Paul
and his companions were ' aware of their danger and fled,' — a
contradiction between the history and the Epistle would have
ensued. Truth is necessarily consistent; but it is scarcely
possible that independent accounts, not having truth to guide
them, should thus advance to the very brink of contradiction
without falling into it."1
The apparent discrepancies and variations between this
Epistle and the Acts are a proof that the one was written
independently of the other. For example, some assert that
there is mention in this Epistle of a visit to Corinth (2 Cor.
xii. 14, xiii. 1) not recorded in the Acts ; and although others
assert that this opinion arises from a misinterpretation of the
words of the Epistle, yet there is certainly an ambiguity of
expression which would have been avoided had the writer of
the Epistle copied from the history. So also in the accounts
of the apostle's escape from Damascus, we have a proof of the
independence of the writers : in the Epistle we are told that it
was the governor under Aretas the king who attempted to
apprehend the apostle ; whilst in the history we are informed
that it was the Jews who watched the gates day and night to
kill him.2 Numerous trials and hardships which befell the
apostle are also recorded in the Epistle (2 Cor. xi. 24, 25), of
which there are no traces in the history.
But although the authenticity of the Epistle is undisputed,
yet its integrity has been questioned. On account of a certain
difference in tone between the first and second half, the Epistle
has been divided into several parts, and is supposed to have
been made up of several epistles to the Corinthians written at
different times. Thus Semler divides it into three distinct
epistles ; 3 Ewald thinks that the section chap. vi. 1 6-vii. 7
1 Paley's Horcs Paulinos on 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25, chap. iv. No. 9.
2 For the reconcilement of this apparent discrepancy, see author's Commentary
on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 334-336.
3 De duplici appendice epistoke ad Romanos, Halle 1767. According to him,
the real epistle is composed of chap, i.-viii. and xiii. 11-13, along with Rom.
xvi. 1-20.

THE SUPPOSITION OF AN INTERMEDIATE EPISTLE. 207
is an interpolation from another epistle written by some other
apostolic writer ; J and Weisse supposes that it is made up of
three different epistles, written at different times to the church
of Corinth, of which the first part of our present Epistle (chap.
i.-vii) was the last composed.2 Wieseler solves the difficulty
of this diversity in the two portions of the Epistle, by supposing
that the first portion (chap, i— vii. 1) was written before the
apostle had received information of the state of the church
from Titus, and that the second portion (chap. vii. 2-xiii) was
written after the arrival of Titus- According to him, in the
first part Paul writes from information received from Timothy,
and in the second part, from subsequent information received
from Titus.3 All these are unwarranted conjectures : there is
not the least evidence in manuscripts of any disintegration of
the Epistle ; and the severer tone of the later portion may be
easily accounted for, by the fact that the apostle there addresses
the opposing or Judaizing faction of the church. As Hug well
remarks, " It would be just as reasonable to suppose the irepl
o-Te<pdvov of Demosthenes to be two orations, because in the
former part the orator defends himself calmly and in detail,
and in phe latter breaks out into fierce and bitter invective."4
II. THE SUPPOSITION OF AN INTERMEDIATE EPISTLE.
Bleek considers that there was an intermediate epistle,
written by the apostle between our First and Second Epistles,
which is now lost. Mention is made in the First Epistle of the
intended mission of Timothy to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 10), and
when Paul wrote the Second Epistle, Timothy had rejoined him
(2 Cor. i. 1) ; whereas there is no account of his visit in the
Second Epistle, but only of the information which was brought
to the apostle, not by Timothy, but by Titus. Mention is also
made in the Second Epistle of a previous visit of Titus (2 Cor.
xii. 18), of which there is no account in the First Epistle,
and it is considered very improbable that Titus would be sent
1 Sendschreiben des Paulus, pp. 231 and 282.
2 Philosoph. Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 145 ; De "Wette's Einleitung, p. 294.
3 Chronologie des ap. Zeitalter, pp. 356-358.
« Quoted by Alford, Greek Testament, vol. ii., Prolegomena, p. 58.

208 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
by the apostle to Corinth without a letter. Bleek accordingly
supposes that Paul, having received information of the dis
ordered state of the church from Timothy, wrote a severe
letter to them, which he sent by Titus.1 This hypothesis, he
considers, is supported by the fact that there are references
in the Second which are not satisfied by the First Epistle.
Bleek especially founds his argument on 2 Cor. vii. 12, where
the apostle says : " Wherefore, though I wrote to you, I did it
not for his cause that had done the wrong (tov dSiKtfo-avTos),
nor for his cause that suffered wrong (tov d_t__7#_- to?), but that
our care for you in the sight of God might appear unto you."
The common interpretation of this verse is to refer the person
who had done the wrong to the incestuous individual men
tioned in 1 Cor. v. 1-5, and the person who suffered the
wrong to his father. But such a reference Bleek considers as
quite inapplicable and highly improbable ; and, according to
him, the passage only becomes plain if we suppose that the
apostle refers to a personal adversary as the one who had done
the wrong, and to himself as the one who had suffered the
wrong ; and consequently the letter to which the apostle
alludes as being written by him about this matter was not the
First Epistle, but a subsequent one now lost.2 He accordingly
supposes that Timothy, whom the apostle had expected from
Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11), had brought unfavourable reports
of the church there, especially of the opposition of an individual
who called in question the apostle's authority, and that in con
sequence Paul sent Titus to Corinth (2 Cor. vii. 6) with a letter
written in stronger and severer terms than the First Epistle.3
This ingenious hypothesis of Bleek has been adopted by
Credner, Olshausen, Neander, and Ewald.4 Conybeare and
Howson consider it not impossible,6 and Ellicott admits that it
1 This would account for there being no mention of Timothy's visit in the
Second Epistle, and no allusion to Titus' mission in the First Epistle.
2 Other references in Second Corinthians, which, according to Bleek, do not
answer to First Corinthians, are 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, iii. 1.
3 Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 432-437.
4 Credner's Einleitung, p. 371 ; Olshausen Ore the Corinthians, p. 19 ; Neander's
Planting, vol. i. pp. 266-269, and vol. ii. pp. 132-136 ; Ewald's Sendschreiben,
p. 227.
6 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 105,

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 209
has considerable plausibility.1 Most critics have, however,
declared against it. It has been opposed by Biickert, De
Wette, Meyer, Baur, Wieseler, Beuss, and Davidson. Upon
the whole, it seems an unnecessary hypothesis. There is quite
enough of severity in the First Epistle, as Meyer observes, to
call forth the apostle's affectionate anxiety, and to satisfy all
those references in the Second Epistle which Bleek adduces.
It is admitted that there is some obscurity in 2 Cor. vii. 12,
especially with regard to the person who suffered wrong (tov
a.t/tjj^-- to?), for to suppose that the father of the incestuous
person is here referred to is not altogether satisfactory. But
this is a precarious foundation on which to build the hypo
thesis of another epistle.2 And with respect to the visits of
Timothy and Titus, it is to be observed that it is possible, as
Beuss remarks,3 that Timothy never came to Corinth, or that
he rejoined the apostle in Macedonia in company with Titus ;
and, as we have seen, there is reason to suppose that the
epistle with which Titus was sent to Corinth was the first
canonical epistle. III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
Paul, having despatched the First Epistle with Titus,
remained for a short time longer at Ephesus, probably until
Pentecost (1 Cor. xvi. 8). He then journeyed to Troas. Here
he evidently expected to have met Titus with tidings respect
ing the church of Corinth. In this, however, he was disap
pointed; and his anxiety was so great, that although a door
was opened to him of the Lord at Troas to preach the gospel,
yet he departed and hastened forward to Macedonia to meet
Titus (2 Cor. ii. 12, 13). Here the same anxiety followed
him, accompanied, it would seem, with external opposition.
" When," he writes, " we were eome into Macedonia, our flesh
had no rest, but we were troubled on every side ; without were
fightings, within were fears " (2 Cor. vii. 5). The anxiety of
1 Article on Second Corinthians in Smith's Dictionary.
2 The meaning proposed by Bleek, that the apostle here refers to himself, is
equally unsatisfactory.
3 Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften N. T., p. 88.
0

210 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
the apostle was occasioned by the state of the Corinthian
church. This church was the apostle's own planting; it
was chiefly composed of Gentile converts ; and yet, from the
information he had obtained, it would seem on the point of
apostatizing into Judaism. He had written a severe letter
to them, and he was ignorant of what might be its effect, —
whether the Corinthians would be led to repentance or con
firmed in their opposition.1
Titus at length joined the apostle in Macedonia. The
information which he brought was of a mixed description, but
upon the whole it was satisfactory. Titus informed the apostle
that he had been well received by the Corinthians ; that the
great body of the church had returned to their allegiance ; that
the incestuous person had not only been excommunicated, but
brought to repentance ; that the Corinthians mourned over
their disorders, and were greatly desirous to see him ; and that
they were now ready to acknowledge his authority as the
apostle of Christ. " Nevertheless," writes the apostle, " God,
that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the
coming of Titus ; and not by his coming only, but by the con
solation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us
-your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward
me ; so that I rejoiced the more" (2 Cor. vii. 6, 7). And thus
the apostle was enabled to express his gratitude to God for
the consolation which was granted him, and especially because
the severity of his former epistle had not incensed his converts,
but brought them to repentance (2 Cor. vii. 8). So far his
fears had been quieted, and his expectations fulfilled (2 Cor.
vii. 8).
The information, however, brought by Titus was not entirely
satisfactory: the majority of the Corinthian church had 'sub
mitted, but there was still a restless faction who opposed the
apostle. The enmity of the Judaizing party had increased :
they had been brought to the point, and had now declared
1 It is to be remembered that the Christian Church was then passing through
a great crisis : the struggle was going on between Christianity and Judaism.
It was to be decided whether Christianity was to be a universal religion, freed
from the trammels of Judaism, or whether it was to be restricted within the
narrow confines of a Jewish sect ; and Corinth was the field where this battle
was to be fought.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 211
themselves openly against the apostle. The two parties in
the church — the Pauline and JiMaizing factions — were more
separated and embittered against each other. Perhaps in the
interval the Judaizing party had received an accession by the
arrival of certain anti-Pauline teachers, who had come to
Corinth with letters of commendation (2 Cor. iii. 1). Their
animosity to the apostle was greater than when he wrote the
First Epistle. They brought forward new charges. They
accused Paul of lightness and irresolution, — changing his mind,
purposing at one time to come and at another time resolving
not to come, as if he were afraid (2 Cor. i 16-18). They
charged him with pride and arrogance, — seeking to exalt him
self above them, and to exercise a dominion over their faith
(2 Cor. i. 24). They insinuated that he was artful and
cunning in his conduct (2 Cor. xii. 16). They openly denied
his apostleship, and refused to acknowledge his authority
(2 Cor. xii. 11, 12). And they contrasted the severity and
boldness of his letters with the weakness and contemptible
nature of his personal appearance. "His letters, say they,
are powerful ; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech
contemptible" (2 Cor. x. 10). Some suppose that these
opponents belonged to the Petrine, and others to the Christ
faction of the Corinthian Church ; but it is more probable that
they are to be classed indiscriminately as the Judaizing party,
those great enemies of Paul and his preaching.
In consequence of this information brought by Titus, the
apostle felt constrained to write a second epistle to the Corin
thians. His design was obviously twofold, — to commend and
confirm the obedient portion of the church ; and to refute the
calumnies of his opponents, and establish his authority. Along
with these, there was a subordinate object,- — to promote the
collection which he was making throughout the Gentile
churches for the saints in Jerusalem.
The bearers of this Epistle, we are informed, were Titus
and two other brethren. Titus was sent back to Corinth,
apparently at his own request (2 Cor. viii. 16, 17). Along
with him was sent another, of whom it is said that his " praise
is in the gospel throughout all the churches," and that he was
chosen by the churches to convey their contributions to

212 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
Jerusalem (2 Cor. viii. 18, 19). The most common opinion,
found even in the writings of the fathers,1 is that this brother
was the evangelist Luke. Some suppose that this is a mistake
founded on the word gospel, as if it were Luke's written Gospel
that was meant ; but plausible reasons may be adduced in
confirmation of it. Luke had been left behind at Philippi by
Paul on his former visit (Acts xvi. 40), and must now have
rejoined him ; but it is not until Paul's return from Corinth
that the narrative assumes the direct form (Acts xx. 5). Hence
it has reasonably been inferred that during the apostle's visi
tation, of the churches of Macedonia, and which appears to
have extended to Illyricum (Bom. xv. 19), Luke was not with
the apostle, but had been sent by him to Corinth in company
with Titus. He also, it is to be observed, was one of the
messengers of the churches who accompanied the apostle to
Jerusalem. A third bearer of the Epistle is also mentioned :
"And we have sent with them our brother, whom we have
oftentimes proved diligent in many things, but now much
more diligent, upon the great confidence which I have in you "
(2 Cor. viii. 22). He has been identified with Sosthenes,
whose name the apostle conjoins with his own in the First
Epistle (1 Cor. i. 1) ; with Apollos, who intended to visit
Corinth (1 Cor; xvi. 1 2) ; and Biickert supposes him to be
Paul's own brother (tov dBeX<pbv r)fj.a>v). In all probability,
from the manner in which he is described, he was that un
known brother who accompanied Titus on his former mission
to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 18).
There is little information given us respecting the effects
of this Epistle ; but, from various indications, it may be
assumed that the opposition to the apostle was destroyed, and
his authority over the whole church re-established. Paul
fulfilled his intention of visiting Corinth, and remained there
three months (Acts xx. 2, 3). During this long visit, he
would settle the disorders which still existed in the Corinthian
church, and silence his opponents, if not by persuasion, yet by
that power which the Lord had given him for edification and
not for destruction (2 Cor. x. 8, xiii. 10). When at Corinth,
1 This was the opinion of Origen and Jerome : it is found in the subscription
to the epistle.

THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 213
he wrote his Epistle to the Bomans, and in it he mentions
the contributions which were made in Achaia for the poor
saints at Jerusalem (Bom. xv. 26), and sends salutations from
various members of the Corinthian church (Bom. xvi. 21-23).
And in the epistle of Clemens Eomanus to the Corinthians,
although we learn that factions still existed among them, yet
Paul was regarded by them as a divine apostle, and his epistles
were confidently appealed to as of unquestioned authority.
IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians admits of a threefold
division. The first part is hortatory, and is addressed chiefly,
though not exclusively, to the obedient portion of the church
(chap, i.-vii). The second part is explanatory, and contains
directions and explanations about the collection for the saints
(chap. viii. ix.). And the third part is apologetic, and contains
a defence of Paul's apostolic authority, in opposition to the
Judaizers (chap, x.-xiii).
In the first part, the apostle, after a special thanksgiving to
God for the consolation granted him amid all his trials and
dangers, expresses his satisfaction that the Corinthians had at
length obeyed his commands regarding the incestuous person,
and exhorts them, now that that individual has been brought
to repentance, to forgive and restore him to the communion
of the church (chap. i. — ii. 11). He informs them of the great
anxiety which he experienced on their behalf, until he received
information respecting them from Titus (chap. ii. 12-17).
He describes the glorious nature of the gospel with which he
was entrusted, and contrasts it with the law of Moses. Diffi
culties and distresses were encountered and welcomed in its
publication; the future recompense of reward cheered and
supported him ; and the love of Christ was the mainspring of
his life (chap, iii-v.). He beseeches them, by his sufferings for
the gospel and his love to them, to abstain from all ungodli
ness, to guard against all unnecessary connection with the
idolatrous heathen, to avoid all impurity, and to perfect holi
ness in the fear of the Lord (chap, vi.-vii. 1). He again
reverts to his anxiety about them, and informs them how the

214 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
good tidings which Titus brought had greatly refreshed his
spirit (chap. vii. 2-1 6). The second part refers to the collec
tion for the saints. The apostle informs the Corinthians of
the generosity of the churches of Macedonia, urges them to
a praiseworthy imitation, mentions the mission of Titus in
company with two brethren for the purpose of forwarding the
collection, and exhorts them to have their contributions com- ¦
pleted before his arrival among them (chap. ix. x.). In the
third part the tone of the apostle is changed: it becomes
severe and threatening, showing that he now addresses the
impenitent portion of the church. He asserts his .apostolic
authority, answers the calumnies of his opponents, and with
the greatest reluctance alludes to what he himself had done
and endured in the cause of the gospel, and to the visions and
revelations which had been granted him (chap. xi. xii.). He
announces his intended visit ; threatens that then he would
not spare, but would, if necessary, use sharpness, according to
the apostolic power conferred upon him ; and then, with a fare
well exhortation and with his apostolic benediction, concludes
the Epistle (chap. xiii).
V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
The date of this Epistle is easily determined. The apostle
had left Ephesus, and crossed over from Troas to Macedonia
(2 Cor. ii. 12, 13). It is also evident that he was still in
Macedonia when he wrote the Epistle (2 Cor. ix. 2). This
visit to Macedonia is recorded in the Acts in few words (Acts
xx. 1, 2) ; but it is probable that it extended over some
months, and that the apostle visited the various churches in
that district, in order to promote among them the collection
for the saints. It is also to this period that the preaching of
the gospel in Illyricum (Bom. xv. 19) is to be assigned. ' Now
we learn from the Epistle that the collection in Macedonia
was considerably advanced (2 Cor. viii. 1-4), and that the
apostle was intending soon to leave that country and to come
to Corinth (2 Cor. xiii. 1). It was therefore toward the
close of this visit to Macedonia that this Epistle was written.
As, then, the apostle left Ephesus about Pentecost of the year

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 215
57, and spent the winter in Corinth, it may almost with cer
tainty be affirmed that this Epistle was written in Macedonia
about the end of the autumn of the year 5 7.
The place of writing is not mentioned. The subscription
at the end of the Epistle states that " the Second Epistle to
the Corinthians was written from Philippi" This is so far
not impossible, as Philippi was a city of Macedonia ; but it
is improbable. Philippi was the first Macedonian city at
which Paul would arrive on his route from Troas; but it
is most likely that he had already left this city, seeing that
he could write to the Corinthians of the generosity of the
churches of Macedonia (2 Cor. viii. 1). His apostolic visita
tion of these churches would be considerably advanced before
this Epistle was written. Some other Macedonian city nearer
to Corinth, as Thessalonica or Berea, is more probable.1
VI. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
The peculiarities of this Epistle are very similar to those
of the First, at least in the insight which is given us into
the state of the primitive Church and into the character of
the apostle. In the First Epistle, however, we see more of
the condition of the church, and in the Second Epistle more
of the personal character of the apostle. Indeed, this Epistle
may be said to be the most egotistical of all the Pauline
Epistles. Paul feels constrained to commend himself: he
recounts his trials and difficulties, his visions and revelations,
his works and sufferings. He discloses to us his inmost
nature, so that we see into his very heart. "None of his
other . letters," observes Schaff, "give us so clear a view of
his noble, tender heart, the sufferings and joys of Ids inward
life, his alternations of feeling, his anxieties and struggles for
the welfare of his churches. These were his daily and hourly
care, as his children whom he had brought forth in travail ;
and the mortification their conduct had caused him, far from
cooling his affection for them, only inflamed his love and his
holy zeal for their eternal salvation."2
1 See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. ii., Prolegomena, pp. 59, 60.
2 SchafPs History of the Apostolic Church, vol. i. p. 344.

216 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
The diction of this Epistle has been severely criticised by
Eichhorn and De Wette. The Greek is said to be inferior to
that of Paul's other epistles. This, it has been suggested,
is accounted for by the emotion felt by the apostle at the
time he wrote. " That this Epistle," observes De Wette, " is
written in a much harsher, more awkward, and looser style
than the other epistles, is explained from the deep emotion
and distraction in which the apostle appears to have been
at the time of its composition."1 The statement of these
critics has been called in question, as at least exaggerated.
There is, however, a considerable degree of fervour, and as it
were impatience of style : the apostle evidently writes under
deep emotion. This is especially seen in the third part of
the Epistle, where he feels constrained to enter upon his self-
commendatory apology. "The excitement and interchange of
the affections," observes Meyer, " and probably also the haste
with which Paul wrote this Epistle, certainly render the ex
pressions often obscure and the constructions difficult; but
serve only to exalt our admiration of the great oratorical
delicacy, art, and power, with which this outpouring of Paul's
spirit, especially interesting as a self-defensive apology, flows
and streams onward, till at length in the sequel its billows
completely overflow the opposition of the adversaries."3 The
twofold character of the Epistle — the first portion being com
paratively calm and commendatory, and the last portion being
fervent and threatening — is easily accounted for, on the sup
position that in the first portion of the Epistle Paul has in
view the body of the church, who had now returned to their
obedience, and in the second portion the Judaizing faction,
who yet resisted his authority.
The most important commentaries on the two Epistles to the
Corinthians are those of Billroth (Leipzig 1833, translated in
Clark's Biblical Cabinet), Buckert (Leipzig 1836, 1837),
Olshausen (Konigsberg 1840, translated in Clark's Foreign
1 De Wette's Einleitung, p. 293.
2 Other critics give a very different estimate of this Epistle. Thus Riickert
views it as a masterpiece, worthy of comparison with the finest orations of
Demosthenes. 3 Quoted by Alford, Greek Testament, vol. ii., Prolegomena, p. 61.

Paul's bodily infirmities. 217
Theological Library, 1869), De Wette (Leipzig 1845, Berlin
1855), Osiander (Stuttgard 1847, 1858), Meyer (Gottingen
1845, 1862); and in our own country, Stanley (London
1865, third edition), besides the commentaries in the Greek
Testaments of Alford and Wordsworth. There is also an in
teresting and suggestive commentary — not, however, of an
exegetical character — by the late F. W. Bobertson of Brighton.

PAUL'S BODILY INFIRMITIES.!
The enumeration which Paul gives in this Epistle of his
labours and journeys, his trials and persecutions (2 Cor. vi.
4—10, xi. 23-33), and the account, although very imperfect,
which we have of them in the Acts of the Apostles, would
naturally lead us to suppose that he possessed a Herculean
frame, — that he was endowed with a body incapable of fatigue,
and not liable to disease. But instead of this, there are cer
tain statements in his epistles which assert the contrary, and
intimate that he was continually oppressed with some boddy
infirmity. That powerful and heroic mind was lodged in a
frail tabernacle.
There are two passages in which the apostle directly adverts
to his bodily infirmities. The one is in this Epistle. After
enumerating his visions and revelations of the Lord, he adds :
"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the
abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn
in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should
be exalted above measure " (2 Cor. xii. 7). This affliction
was connected in some way with the revelations which were
granted to the apostle : it was in a certain sense the result of
them ; it was given to him, doubtless by God,2 to prevent his
being uplifted, and to keep him in a state of constant de-
1 For discussions on this subject, see Alford's Commentary on 1 Cor. xii. 7 ;
Lightfoot's dissertation on St. Paul's infirmity in the flesh, Comm. on Gal. , pp.
183-188 ; Lewin's St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 213-218 ; Stanley Ore the Corinthians,
pp. 545-552, " The Apostle's Sufferings. "
2 Not by Satan, as some suppose : the verb 'iiiln excludes this idea.

218 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
pendence. The apostle calls it o-koXo^ tt} aapKt, rendered in
our version "a thorn in the flesh." XkoXo^, in classical
Greek, signifies a sharpened stake or pile ; and hence Dean
Stanley supposes that the reference is to the punishment of
impalement •} hence o-KoXoin^elv, to impale. The word does
not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. It is, however,
employed in the Septuagint to signify a thorn (Num. xxxiii.
55 ; Ezek. xxviii. 24; Hos. ii. 6) ; and therefore it is most
probable that such is its meaning in this passage, and that
it has been correctly rendered in our translation. The two
datives iBodn p,oi ctkoXo^ t§ aapKt are here used, the one to
describe the person, and the other to specify the part of the
person : " a thorn was given to me to (that is, in) my flesh."2
The phrase ayyeXos XaTav — to be rendered, not the angel
Satan or a hostde angel, but, as in our translation, a mes
senger of Satan 3 — is in apposition to cmoXoty t% aapKl. The
affliction, although given by God, was yet a messenger of
Satan. Outward evds are in Scripture traceable to Satan. He
was permitted to afflict Job (Joh ii. 7, 8) ; our Lord declares
that the woman whom He cured of a spirit of infirmity of
eighteen years' standing had been bound by Satan (Luke
xiii. 16) ; and Paul orders the incestuous member of the
Corinthian church to be delivered over unto Satan, for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved
(1 Cor. v. 5).4
The other passage is in the Epistle to the Galatians : " Te
know how through infirmity of the flesh " (or rather, on account
of infirmity of the flesh, St' dcrOiveiav tj}? o-ap/co?)6 " I preached
the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which
was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected ; but received
me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus " (Gal. iv. 13, 14).
1 See Stanley's Commentary on the Corinthians on 2 Oor. xii. 7 : o-x'oXo^, he
observes, is equivalent to o-ravpis, — "the cross " and "the stake."
2 Winer's Grammar of the New Testament, p. 234.
3 Other mss. have the genitive «¦ „ . _v_, the reading adopted by Stanley.
4 " As ' an angel ' of the Lord (MyytXos Kvp'iou) is spoken of when the object is
to assist God's servants, or to punish His enemies, so an angel of Satan (ayytXos
_zt») is spoken of when the object is to torment God's servants. " — Stanley Ore
tlie Corinthians, p. 540.
4 "Winer's Grammar ofthe N T., p. 418.

PAUL'S BODILY INFIRMITIES. 219
Paul's bodily infirmity detained him in Galatia, and his first
preaching the gospel to them was in consequence of this de
tention. There is a difference in the reading of this passage
which has some bearing on the subject under discussion. The
chief manuscripts — the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexan
drian1 — read, tov iretpacrp.bv v/m&v iv rrj crapxl /mov, "Your
temptation which was in my flesh ; " and this is the reading
generally adopted by our best critics.2 The apostle's infirmity
was of such a humiliating nature that it tempted the Galatians
to despise and reject him : as Hooker says, " The teacher's
error is the people's trial ; " and the same holds good of the
teacher's infirmity. There are other incidental references to
the apostle's infirmity, — as when he speaks of " being with
them in weakness" (1 Cor. iii 3), of "glorying in _ the things
which concern his infirmities " (2 Cor. xi. 30), and when he
mentions his personal appearance and speech as a matter of
reproach among his opponents : " His letters, say they, are
weighty and powerful ; but his bodUy presence is weak, and
his speech contemptible " (2 Cor. x. 1 0).
The nature of Paul's infirmity is concealed from us, and all
hypotheses concerning it are mere conjectures. This is one
of those things which were perfectly well known to those to
whom the apostle wrote, and which required no explanation
from him, but which, for that very reason, are now unknown
to us. Such, as we have found, is also the case with the
description of the man of sin (2 Thess. ii. 5, 6), and the nature
of the Christ-party among the Corinthians (1 Cor. i. 12).
Still, although little that is positive concerning the apostle's
infirmity can be asserted, yet it may negatively be determined
in what it did not consist.
The apostle does not here allude to any spiritual trial. The
opinion of many theologians of the Bomish Church, that Paul
refers to the sensual temptations to which he was exposed,
may safely be passed over as derogatory to the apostle and
unworthy of examination. Such an interpretation was adopted
1 So also the Vulg., Copt., Cyril, Jerome, Augustine.
2 This is the reading preferred by Griesbach, and adopted by Lachmann, Meyer,
and Alford. Tischendorf and Olshausen, however, retain the reading of the
textus receptus.

220 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
by Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius,
and other distinguished Bomanists. But such a temptation
could not be given by God, nor could the apostle glory in
such infirmities. We may well say with Luther : < " Ah no !
blessed Paul, it was no such trial which afflicted thee !"
The early Protestants, as Luther,1 Calvin, Calovius, Osiander,
on the other hand, supposed that the thorn in the flesh was
spiritual distress,— such as blasphemous thoughts, mental
struggles, temptations of Satan, the so-called "fiery darts of
the devil." " The flesh," observes Calvin, " does not here mean
the body, but the spiritual nature of man, so much as is not
yet regenerated." 2 Hence, then, the apostle does not here
complain of bodily infirmity, but of that carnal mind which
still existed within him: it is the same struggle which is
described by him in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the
Bomans. And certainly ttj aapai may be used metaphorically ;
but this is not here its most obvious meaning ; nor could the
apostle glory in such spiritual distresses. The thorn in the
flesh, whatever it was, was given to him by God, and therefore
must have been wholly unconnected with personal sin or
spiritual imperfection.
Others suppose that external opposition was the thorn in the
flesh to which the apostle alludes. Some think the reference
is to the Judaizing teachers who followed the footsteps of the
apostle and opposed him wherever he went, particularly in the
churches of Galatia and Corinth.3 They were as thorns in
his sides, torments to him, obstructions to his preaching the
gospel. Others refer the allusion to his persecutors. Paul
speaks of his reproaches and persecutions as his infirmities,
and yet at the same time as infirmities in which he might well
glory, as they were endured for the sake of Christ and His
gospel (2 Cor. xii. 10) ; and he calls his opponents the mini
sters of Satan (2 Cor. xi. 13, 14). Such was the opinion
eloquently advocated by Chrysostom, and also adopted by
Theodore, Theophylact, and Theodoret, and in recent times by
1 See Luther on Gal. iv. 13, 14
2 Calvin's Commentaries, on 2 Cor. xii. 7.
3 Some think that Paul alludes to an individual opponent in Corinth, and
whom he here compares to a thorn in the flesh, and calls the messenger of Satan.

Paul's bodily infirmities. 221
Schrader in his Apostel Paulus.1 But the infirmity to which
the apostle alludes is not something external to himself, — not
outward opposition ; it is something personal, something in
separably connected with him, — " in the flesh." Nor would
the apostle, if it were external opposition, have so earnestly
besought Christ for deliverance from it, for he well knew
that such opposition was the inseparable concomitant of his
ministry. The apostle, then, undoubtedly alludes to some bodily in
firmity. The infirmity on account of which he preached the
gospel to the Galatians was " the infirmity of the flesh ;" the
temptation to which they were exposed was " in his flesh ; "
and the affliction which God gave to him was " a thorn in the
flesh." The words are to be taken in their most obvious and
natural meaning. And so also it was his " boddy presence "
that was the occasion of offence to his opponents : it was with
its weakness and the contemptible nature of his speech that
they upbraided him (2 Cor. x. 10).
Most probably the apostle's infirmity was the result of those
visions and revelations with which he was honoured by God.
Strong mental excitement through the nervous system affects
the body, and often permanently injures the health ; and thus
" the abundance of the revelations " of the apostle may have
superinduced some boddy infirmity. There are several ex
amples in Scripture of such effects arising from supernatural
visions. Thus Jacob, in consequence of the appearance of God
to him at Peniel, halted on his thigh, and became permanently
lame (Gen. xxxii. 32). Daniel relates that he fainted and was
sick many days after one of his remarkable visions (Dan. viii.
27). And Paul himself is an example; for he was struck
with blindness, which lasted for three days, in consequence of
the brightness of that hght which shone upon him on his way
to Damascus (Acts ix. 9). And hence it is probable that this
infirmity, this thorn in the flesh, was also the result of the
apostle's supernatural visions. And this probabdity is greatly
increased, and almost converted into certainty, when it is
recollected that Paul adudes to it in connection with his
1 Luther also wavers in his interpretation between spiritual trials and per
secutions.

222 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
visions and revelations of the Lord, and especially in connec
tion with a remarkable vision which occurred fourteen years
before he wrote this Epistle, and on account of which the thorn
in the flesh was given to him (2 Cor. xii. 1-7). In this vision
he was caught up to paradise, and such was his mental
condition that he could not tell " whether he was in the body
or out of the body ;" and hence we may well believe that the
glories of this revelation permanently affected his boddy health,
— just as our eyes would be permanently injured were we' to
gaze for a few moments on the sun.
There are several particulars which must be taken into
account in the consideration of this subject. It was a bodily
infirmity, daQkveia tjJ? aapKo<i. It was painful. This is implied
in the word o-KoXoty, a thorn or stake. It was permanent, —
some chronic affection. Paul besought the Lord thrice that it
might be removed ; but, for wise reasons, his request was not
granted. It was apparent to others. This is evident from
the aUusion to it in the Epistle to the Galatians. " Your temp
tation which was in my flesh ye despised not nor rejected "
could only be said of what was visible. It was a hindrance
to his preaching the gospel: ayyeXo<; Xarav, Xva fie KoXacpigr).
In Galatia he preached the gospel through infirmity of the
flesh, and in Corinth he had to struggle against personal weak
ness. It was humdiating, and apt to make him an object of
scorn to others. The Galatians were tempted by it to despise
and reject the apostle, and their resistance of that temptation
is mentioned to their praise ; and his adversaries in Corinth
reproached him on account of the weakness of his bodily
presence. It was nevertheless the object of his glory. There
was something connected with it which gave rise not merely
to resignation, but to calm satisfaction on the part of the
apostle. " Most gladly," he observes, " will I glory in my
infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Cor.
xii. 9). All these conditions met in this affliction of the apostle,
and therefore any interpretation which answers not these con
ditions must be erroneous.
A diversity of opinion exists concerning this infirmity of the
apostle. Almost all the diseases to which man is heir have
been ascribed to him. All are, however, mere conjectures. It

PAUL'S BODILY INFIRMITIES. 223
may not be uninteresting to notice a few of these opinions
which are commended either by respectable authority or in
herent plausibility.
An opinion very common among the fathers is that Paul's
thorn in the flesh was headache (KetpaXaXyia). Thus Tertul
lian says : " It is reported that it was a pain of the ear or of
the head ; " 1 and Jerome : " The tradition is that he often suf
fered from a most grievous pain in the head." 2 Such seems
to have been the favourite opinion among the fathers. The
tradition was tolerably general, although its origin cannot be
conjectured. And certainly such an infirmity would be a
great hindrance to the mental activity of the apostle in preach
ing the gospeL Stdl the opinion is only deserving of men
tion on account of the authority by which it is supported, and
as being a tradition which comes nearest to the time of the
apostle ; in other respects it completely fails. It could not
have rendered the apostle contemptible to others, nor indeed
could have been very visible.
A more plausible opinion is that the thorn in the flesh was
a defect of utterance. This opinion, advanced by Whitby, has
been adopted by Macknight, Doddridge, and Eadie. It is
supposed that the view the apostle had of the celestial glories
affected his nervous system in. such a manner as to occasion
some paralytic symptoms, and particularly a stammering in his
speech, and perhaps some distortion in his countenance.3 It
is asserted that there are several allusions which seem to point
this way. The apostle speaks of himself as "rude in speech"
(t'SttuTi?? to) Xoy<p, 2 Cor. xi. 6) ; and it was the reproach of
his opponents that his " speech was contemptible " (o 71070?
iijov6evr)fi4vo<;, 2 Cor. x. 1 0). Such, it has been observed, must
have been a heavy trial to the apostle, as before the attack he
was so eloquent that at Lystra he was mistaken for Mercury,
the god of eloquence (Acts xiv. 1 2). Now it must be acknow
ledged that such an hypothesis answers all the conditions.
Although such an infirmity was a great hindrance to his
1 Per dolorem, ut aiunt, auriculas vel capitis". — Tertullian, De Pudic. c. 13.
2 Tradunt eum gravissimum capitis dolorem ssepe perpessum. — Jerome, ad Gal.
iv. 13.
3 Doddridge's Family Expositor, in loc.

224 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
preaching the gospel, yet it was also the subject of his glory,
inasmuch as it reminded him of those revelations of the Lord
— those special tokens of the Saviour's love — by which it was
occasioned. It was the visible evidence of his apostleship, —
the mark of the Lord Jesus ; and the grace of Christ vouch
safed to him was abundantly sufficient to support and strengthen
him under his infirmities. But stiU it is a mere conjectural
hypothesis, and rests on too few passages to be maintained.
'_".t_JT?j? tg> Xoytp does not denote one who is not eloquent
as a speaker, but one who has not learned eloquence in the
rhetorical schools.1 The affliction befell the apostle fourteen
years before he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
and therefore several years before he came to Lystra, where the
inhabitants mistook him for the god of eloquence, which they
would hardly have done had there been an impediment in his
speech ; and it cannot be supposed that the man who delivered
the oration before Agrippa was defective in eloquence.
The most common opinion in recent times is that the apostle
was afflicted with ophthalmia, or weakness of sight. This
opinion has been maintained with much ingenuity by Alford
and Lewin. It is supposed that the apostle's sight was per
manently affected by the appearance of the Lord to him at his
conversion (Acts ix. 9), and that the miraculous cure effected
by Ananias was incomplete. " The apostle at the time of his
conversion," observes Lewin, " had been subjected to the blaze
of the heavenly light, and his eyes may ever afterwards have
been more or less affected. For a time he was perfectly blind;
the scales then fell from his eyes by the touch of Ananias, but
a memento of his sinful career stiU remained. The climate,
too, of Damascus is peculiarly injurious to the sight, and nearly
all the inhabitants suffer from ophthalmia ; and as Paul resided
there for three years after his conversion, a permanent affection
of the vision may have been contracted." 2 There are supposed
to be several incidental adusions to this defect of vision in
Scripture. Thus on two occasions it is observed in the Acts
of the Apostles that Paul looked stedfastly (aTevtcra<;), as if his
sight were bad, — once when he announced the punishment to
1 See Wordsworth on 2 Cor. xi. 6.
2 Lewin's Life and Letters of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 214.

PAUL'S BODILY INFIRMITIES. 225
be inflicted on Elymas the sorcerer (Acts xiii. 9), and another
time when he rebuked the high priest Ananias (Acts xxid. 1).
So also, after alluding to the infirmity of his flesh to the Galatians,
he adds, " For I bear you record, that if it had been possible,
ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given
them to me " (Gal. iv. 1 5), as if the Galatians were willing,
had it been possible, to give him their own eyes to supply his
lack of vision. And his mention of the large letters (irrjXlKa
ypdfipMTa) with which he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians
(Gal. vi. 11) is supposed to be an adusion to his defective eye
sight. But certainly these are most trivial grounds on which
to build an hypothesis. All the passages adduced have no
necessary connection with the apostle's weakness of eyesight.
The apostle's blindness at his conversion was merely tem
porary, and was completely cured by the miracle performed by
Ananias. And even if this were not the case, the thorn in the
flesh can have no possible connection with it, as it happened to
the apostle at least six years after his conversion.1
Another opinion is that Paul's thorn in the flesh was
epilepsy. This opinion was adopted by Ziegler and Holsten,
and is suggested as probable by Professor Lightfoot, on account
of the closeness of the parallel between such an infirmity
and the conditions of the problem.2 It, however, derives no
support from any scriptural intimations, and hence is a mere
unauthorized conjecture. Several other diseases might be
named which would as completely answer the particulars men
tioned. Nothing can with certaity be determnined regarding the
nature of the apostle's infirmity, — that thorn in the flesh
which constantly troubled him. The Corinthians required no
explanation, and, as we already remarked, their knowledge is
the reason of our ignorance. And it is as wed that we are
left in ignorance. Every one who is afflicted with any ailment
can refer to the case of the apostle, and derive comfort from
the consolation imparted to him. Their earnest prayers for
1 Second Corinthians was written a.d. 57 : fourteen years before that, the in
cident alluded to occurred (2 Cor. xii. 2) ; whereas the apostle's conversion
occurred twenty years previously.
2 Lightfoot Ore the Galatians, p. 188. P

226 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
deliverance are justified by the apostle's example ; and if their
prayers are apparently unanswered, and the affliction is un-
removed, they can console themselves with the thought that this
is no evidence of wrath or proof that God does not hear prayer,
for the experience of the apostle was the same ; and the answer
of the Lord to him — the true reply to his earnest requests —
is the answer to them : " My grace is sufficient foj thee : for
my strength is perfected in weakness." Thus the subject is of
manifold application : the thorn in the flesh may be applied
to every calamity which befads us : the account of it is written
for our admonition ; whereas, if we had been told wherein it
consisted, we might have been tempted to restrict the. consola
tions which the subject is so wed calculated to afford, and the
lessons which it teaches, to some particular bodily infirmity.
It is also to.be observed that, although Paul's infirmity seemed
to him to be a hindrance to his preaching the gospel, yet in
the result it was not so. Tne strength of Christ was magnified
in the apostle's weakness. The gospel, preached through in-
firmity of the flesh, proved itself to be the power of God. " We
have," says the apostle, " this treasure in earthen vessels, that
the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." As
has been wed observed, " When Paul was weakest as a teacher
of the present, he was strongest as the apostle ofthe future."1
1 Instances have frequently occurred of great mental activity conjoined with
bodily weakness. The mind sometimes triumphs over the weakness of the body,
and in spite of disease, of pain, of infirmity, performs achievements which throw
all the works of ordinary men completely in the shade. There have been instances
of great generals, profound philosophers, historians, and other authors, who have
struggled successfully against constitutional weakness, a morbid state of body, a
palsied frame, and physical pain. To this class of great men the Apostle Paul
belonged. He succumbed not under his infirmity of the flesh, but asserted the
superiority of mind to body. A noble example of a similar kind occurs in the
great preacher Robert Hall. From the account given us by his biographer, he
was a martyr to constant pain: the thorn was fixed indelibly in his flesh, and was
his companion through life ; and yet that man preached the gospel with an
eloquence and power never heard before, and his writings will endure as long
as the English language.

THE EPISTLE TO THE EOMANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
i
THE authenticity of the Epistle to the Bomans has been
generady admitted. It is, according to De Wette,
raised above all doubts.1 Even the destructive criticism of
the Tubingen school has only ventured to question the
genuineness of the two last chapters. The quotations from it
by the apostolic fathers and Christian writers of the second
century are numerous and unmistakeable. Thus Clemens
Eomanus (a.d. 9 6) writes : " Casting off from us ad un
righteousness and iniquity, avarice, contentions, malignities,
and deceits, whisperings and backbitings, hatred of God, pride,
boasting, vain-glory, and ambition. For they that do such
things are hateful to God ; not only they who do them, but
they also who have pleasure in them" (Bom. i. 29-32).2
Ignatius (a.d. 115) says : " Our Lord was truly of the race of
David according to the flesh, the Son of God according to the
will and power of God" (Bom. i 3, 4).3 Polycarp (a.d. 118)
observes : " For we are ad before the eyes of the Lord and
God, and must ad stand before the tribunal of Christ, and
every one give account of himself" (Bom. xiv. 10, 12).4
In the epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons (a.d. 177),
we have the fodowing quotation : " Showing indeed that the
1 Die Aechtheit des Briefes ist iibef alle Zweifel erhaben.
2 Ep. i chap. 35 : ' Aotoppi-tyavris atp' tauruv <jra.&av aotxiuv xai avofotav, crXiovifyav,
%pus, xaxanQtias . * __) o*oXous, etc.
3 Ad Smym.C. 1 : 'AX«_a. ovra Ix y'ivovs AajS/. __t« ffapxa, viav Bsov xara ffiXtipa
xai iuvaptiv 6f0. •
* Ad PhilippenS, C. 3 : ' A^fivavrt yap ruv rou VLopiou xai &sou iff/iiv ItpGaXftuv, xai
t_v. _- SeT rrapaer rnvtzi roi firman rov Xpiifrov, xai \xaaros -frso laurou Xoyov douvai.
227

228 THE EPISTLE 'TO THE ROMANS.
sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared
with the glory that shall be revealed in us" (Eom. vid. 18).1
Irenaeus (a.d. 178) writes: "The same thing Paul has ex
plained, writing to the Bomans : ' Paul, an apostle of Jesus
Christ, separated unto the gospel of God, which He has
promised by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning
His Son,' etc. And again, writing to the Bomans concerning
Israel, he says : ' Whose are the fathers, and of whom as con
cerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for
ever'" (Eom. i. 1, ix. 5).2 Theophilus of Antioch (a.d. 181)
says : " He wdl search ad things and judge justly, rendering
to ad according to the desert of their actions : to them who
by patient continuance in wed-doing seek for immortality, He
wdl give eternal life : . . . but to the unbelieving, and them
that obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shad be
wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish" (Eom. ii.
6-9).3 Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) says: "In like
manner Paul in the Epistle to the Eomans writes : ' How
shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?' " (Eom.
vi. 2).4 And 'Tertullian (a.d. 200) writes: "I wdl by no
means say . Gods and Lords ; but I wid follow the apostle, so
that if the Father and the Son are mentioned together, I wdl
say God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord. But when I
mention Christ only, I wdl call Him God, as the same apostle
does : ' Of whom Christ came, who is,' says he, ' over all, God
blessed for ever ' " (Eom. ix. 5).5
1 Hist. Eccl. V. 1 : "Ovrus i<jrihuxvup.ivoi, on obx a\ia ra. vaHf^ara rou vuv xaipou
irpos rnv fx.iXXouo'av q~o%xv avroxaXvQQnvai us vi/zas-
2 Adv. hceres. iii. 16, 3 : Hoc ipsum interpretatus est Paulus, scribens ad
Romanos : "Paulus apostolus Jesu Christi, predestinatus in evangelium Dei,
quod promisit per prophetas suos in scripturis Sanctis de filio, qui factus est,"
etc. Et iterum ad Romanos scribens de Israel dicit : "Quorum patres et ex
quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est Deus super omnes benedietus in
ssscula. "
3 Ad AutolyC. lib. ii. p. 79 : 'Eg-T_- u .a ordvra xai xpivu ro o"txaiov avoo'iSou;
txaffru xara ag/_v ruv p,i<r6uv, ro7s /_ev xaS' uvofiovhv _i„ 'ipyuv ocya6uv Zvtrovffi rhv
anptiaptriav, "hupvifftrat £.ubv aiuviov, etc.
* Stromata, lib. iii. u. 11 : 'Of&aius -e __' o HauXos Iv . jj *pos 'Vufjoaious toriirroXn
ypatyti, oinvis avrz6avofAtv r SJ a/iapria, vrus 'iri Z)7io'o[/,zv iv aurri;
6 Adv. Praxeam, c. xiii. : Itaque Deos omnino non dicam nee Dominos ¦ sed
apostolum sequar, ut si pariter nominandi fuerint pater et Alius, Deum patrem
appellem et Jesum Christum Dominum nominem. Solum autem Christum potero

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 229
The internal evidence is equally convincing. The style,
the manner, and the matter are all undoubtedly Pauline.
But especiady the undesigned coincidences between this
Epistle and the Acts and the other epistles of Paul are so
convincing, as to amount to a demonstration of the authen
ticity of the Epistle. Three of these undesigned coincidences
are here given as examples. 1. In the Epistle mention is
made of a collection which the apostle had made in the
churches of Achaia and Macedonia for the Christians in
Jerusalem : " But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto
the saints. Por it hath pleased them of Macedonia and
Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints
which are at Jerusalem" (Eom. xv. 25, 20). Now we learn
the circumstances here mentioned from three separate writings.
In the Acts we are informed that Paul came up to Jerusalem
from Achaia and Macedonia to bring alms to his nation, and
offerings (Acts xxiv. 17). In the First Epistle to the Corin
thians, we find directions given for a contribution in the
churches of Achaia for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor. xvi.
1-3). And in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, we are
informed that a similar codection was made at the same time
in the churches of Macedonia (2 Cor. vid. 1-4). Each of
these circumstances is limited to a particular time, the last
journey of the apostle to Jerusalem.1 2. In the Epistle the
apostle expressed his earnest desire and repeated endeavours
to see Eome : " Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren,
that oftentimes I purposed to come to you, but was let
hitherto" (Eom. i. 13). "But now having no more place in
these parts, and having a great desire these many years to
come unto you ; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I
wdl come to you : for I trust to see you in my journey "
(Eom. xv. 23, 24). In the Acts we are informed that the
apostle expressed a similar desire some time before this
Epistle was written : " After these things were ended, Paul
purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia
Deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus : Ex quibus Christus qui est, inquit, Deus
super omnia benedictus in fevum omne. — For numerous other testimonies, see
Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 198-204, Lardner's Works, etc.
' Hores Paulinas, the Romans, No. I.

230 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been
there, I must also see Eome" (Acts xix. 21). "The con
formity," observes Paley, " between the history and the Epistle
is perfect. In the quotations from the Epistle, we find that
a design of visiting Eome had long dwelt in the apostle's
mind; in the quotation from the Acts, we find that design
expressed a considerable time before the Epistle was written.
In the history we find that the plan which St. Paul had
formed was to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, after that
to go to Jerusalem, and when he had finished his visit there,
to sad for Eome. When the Epistle was . written, he had
executed so much of his plan as to have passed through
Macedonia and Achaia, and was preparing to pursue the
remainder of it, by speeddy setting out towards Jerusalem ;
and in this point of his travels he teds his friends at Eome
that, when he had completed the business which carried him
to Jerusalem, he would come to them. The very inspection
of the passages wid satisfy us that they were not made up
from one another. In the Epistle to the Eomans, we are
informed of Paul's intention to go to Spain. If, then, the
passage in the Epistle was taken from that in the Acts, why
was Spain put in ? If the passage in the Acts was taken
from that in the Epistle, why was Spain left out ? If the
two passages were unknown to each other, nothing can account
for their conformity but the truth." x 3. In the Epistle Paul
expresses his fears that the journey which he was about to
make from Corinth to Jerusalem would be disastrous. He
there beseeches the Eoman Christians to strive together in
their prayers to God for him, that he might be delivered from
them who do not bedeve in Judea (Eom. xv. 30). In the
history the same sense of danger in approaching Jerusalem,
on the same journey, is expressed : " Behold, I go bound in
the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shad
befad me there : save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every
city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me" (Acts xx.
22, 23). The only difference is, as Paley remarks, that in
the history his thoughts are more inclined to despondency
than in the Epistle, which is no other alteration than might
1 Horrn Paulinos, the Romans, No. III.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 231
wed be expected, since these ' prophetic intimations to which
he refers when he says, " The Holy Ghost witnesseth in every
city," had probably been received by him in the course of his
journey.1 But although the authenticity of the Epistle is undisputed,
yet its integrity has frequently been questioned. The two
last chapters, and particularly the doxology at the close, have
been specially challenged. Origen tells us that Marcion, for some
unknown reason, rejected both chapters.2 Heumann supposes
that chap, xii.-xv. is a separate letter, written at a different
time, and that chap. xvi. is the conclusion to chap. xi. Sender3
supposes that the last chapter, though written by Paul, was
not addressed to the Eomans, but to some other church.
Paulus thinks that chap. xv. is a special epistle addressed to
the more enlightened members of the Eoman church, and that
chap. xvi. is addressed only to the bishops and deacons of the
church. Schulz, Ewald, and Eeuss think that chap. xvi. does
not properly belong to the Epistle to the Eomans, and has
been attached to it by the mistake of transcribers ; and that
it is in reaHty the fragment of an epistle of Paul to the
Ephesians.4 But whdst these critics admit the Paudne origin
of these chapters, Baur and Schwegler question their genuine
ness, and regard them as spurious. Dr. Davidson, in the last
edition of his Introduction, agrees with Baur in the rejection
of the last chapter only.8
The objections which Baur adduces against the fifteenth
chapter are not formidable. He asserts that chap. xv. 1—13
contains nothing but what the apostle had already better
expressed in former chapters, and that it is a poor ddution of
Paudne views ; that chap. xv. 17-20 is borrowed from 2 Cor.
x. 13-18; and that the whole was written by a Pauline
Christian, with a view to concdiate the Jewish Christians
toward Paudne Christianity, by causing Paul to make ad
possible concessions to Judaism.6 But these objections, which
1 Horcs Paulinas, the Romans, No. V. 2 Comment, in Ep. ad Rom. in loco.
3 Semler, Diss, de duplici appendice Ep. Pauli ad Romanos.
4 Schulz in Stud. u. Krit., 1829 ; Ewald's Sendschreiben des Paulus, pp. 428-
430 ; Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schrif. N. T., p. 98.
6 Davidson's Introduction (last edition), vol. i. pp. 137-139.
6 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. pp. 394-401.

232 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
arise from Baur's own subjective views, have no weight.
Chap. xv. is inseparably connected with chap, xiv., — indeed,
ought not to have been separated from it. At the close of
chap. xiv. the apostle is discoursing on the differences of the
views of the Eoman Christians concerning the lawfulness or
unlawfulness of eating certain meats ; and in chap. xv. he
proceeds to exhort the dberal-minded among them to have
respect to the scruples of their weaker brethren. " We then
that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and
not to please ourselves " (Eom. xv. 1). Nor is there anything
un-Pauline either in the sentiments or in the language of this
chapter. The apostle's object is to draw the Jewish and
Gentile Christians together : he teds the free-minded Gentde
Christians not to please themselves, but to imitate the example
of Christ, in pleasing and receiving -others as members of
the same spiritual kingdom; and he reminds the Jewish
Christians that the admission of the Gentdes into the Church
of Christ was the accomplishment of their own prophecies
(Eom. xv. 1-14). The remainder of the chapter contains
information about his own movements, in accordance with his
usual manner in other epistles.
The objections of Baur against chap, xvi, if not more con
vincing, are at least more plausible. The long list of persons,
he observes, to whom the apostle sends salutations, is given in
order to represent Paul as connected by kinship and friend
ship with the principal persons of the early Eoman church.
When the relation of Paul to the Eoman community became
afterwards a party question, this would easdy appear to be of
importance to a Paudnist. It is impossible to suppose that
the apostle, who had never been at Borne, could have been
acquainted with such a number. Aquila and Priscida, who
are among the number saluted (Eom. xvi. 3), are, according
to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, written a few months
before, residents not in Eome, but in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 9) ;
and three of the persons saluted, as wed as three of the per
sons from whom salutations are sent, are represented as
kinsmen (en^ei/et?) of the apostle (Eom. xvi. 7, 11, 21), — a
circumstance which is highly improbable.1
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. pp. 404-409.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 233
But the fact that Paul should be acquainted with so many
persons at Eome is by no means so improbable as Baur repre
sents. Eome was then the great rendezvous of persons from
all parts of the Eoman empire. Paul had been preaching
the gospel for several years, and therefore it is natural to sup
pose that he may have made the acquaintance of, and come
in contact with, many who were then resident in Eome ; and
hence also the reason why nearly all those saluted were in
some way personally related to the apostle.1 There is there
fore no reason, with Beuss and Ewald, to suppose, against all
external evidence, that this sixteenth chapter is a fragment of
an epistle to the Ephesians.2 The Epistle to the Bomans was
written several months — at least eight — after the Pirst Epistle
to the Corinthians,3 so that there was ample time for Aquda
and Priscilla to remove from Ephesus to Eome, which they
would be naturady incdned to do, as Eome was their former
place of residence (Acts xviii. 2). _J.7-ye.e1? does not neces
sarily denote relations by blood, but may signify fedow-
countrymen (Bom. ix. 3) ; but even if blood-relations were
its meaning, as we are ignorant of Paul's family, the impro
bability of his having so many relations with him and at
Eome cannot be asserted.4 It is, besides, to be observed that
the internal evidence in favour of chapters xv. and xvi. is
most convincing : of the eight undesigned coincidences men
tioned by Paley, no less than six are taken from these two
chapters.5 , The concluding doxology (Eom. xvi. 25-27) is speciady
objected to, even by those who admit the genuineness of the
chapter in which it is contained. There is a remarkable
difference in its position, as found in different manuscripts.
The principal mss. — the Sinaitic, the Vatican, the Codex
1 " It is easier to conceive," observes De "Wette, " that the intercourse of the
East with Rome had drawn all these Christians to it, than that this chapter did
not belong to the Epistle." — Einleitung, p. 301.
2 Reuss, Geschichte N T., p. 98 ; Ewald's Sendschreiben, p. 429.
3 First Corinthians was written before Pentecost of the year 57 ; Romans was
written in the spring of the year 58.
4 Lewin makes the observation that, according to Strabo, xiv. 5, the Tarsians,
inhabitants of Paul's native city, abounded at Rome. — Life of Paul, p. 536.
<¦ Horcs Paulines, Romans, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

234 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Ephremi and the Codex Claromontanus, the Syriac and
Vulgate versions — and the Latin fathers have it, as in our
translation, at the close of , the Epistle; but nearly all the
cursive MSS., amounting to more than two hundred, and the
Greek fathers, have it- at the end of chap. xiv. In the Alex
andrine MS. it is found in both places. Our greatest textual
critics— Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Meyer — retain it in its
present position. It is to be observed that the MSS. vary
with regard to its position, but not with regard to its genuine
ness.1 The external evidence, therefore, is decisive with regard
to its being a portion of the Epistle to the Bomans. Nor is
the internal evidence adverse. The construction is certainly
difficult ; but the expressions, as is admitted even by those who
question its genuineness, are Paudne.2 Indeed, as Fritzsche
observes, " In all Paul's writings there are no verses more
Pauline than these."3 It is difficult to assign a reason why
it should be found in different manuscripts occupying different
places, but it may probably be explained by the Epistle having
been considered as already finished by the usual apostodc
benediction (Eom. xvi. 24), and the supposition that the
doxology must have belonged to some earlier part. It would
almost appear that Paul, after having finished the Epistle,
added the concluding doxology as a postscript. Its position
is undoubtedly at the close of chap. xvi. ; for to place it at
the close of chap. xiv. would be inappropriate, and would
interrupt the apostle's argument.
II. THE CHURCH OF ROME.
According to ancient tradition, adopted by the Eomish
Church, the church of Eome was founded by the Apostle
Peter.4 It is asserted that Peter visited Eome in the second
1 It is wanting in the Codex Augiensis and in the Codex Boernerianus ; but in
this last MS. there is a space left.
2 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. i. p. 136.
3 Quoted by Davidson (old edition), vol. ii. p. 194.
4 So Dbllinger, Cliristenth. u. Kirche, p. 95 ff. Several theologians of the
Romish Church — as, for example, Hug and Feilmoser — however, disclaim this
opinion. It is defended by Bertholdt, Thiersch, and a few other Protestant
theologians.

THE CHURCH OF ROME. 235
year of Claudius, and, after filling the office of a bishop there
for twenty-five years, suffered martyrdom. The eardest notice
of this tradition is in the Clementine Homides, written at the
close of the second century. Eusebius informs us that in
the reign of Claudius, Peter encountered and vanquished
Simon Magus at' Eome ; 1 and he mentions that Dionysius
of Corinth. relates that Peter and Paul first planted the Chris
tian Church both at Corinth and at Eome.2 But this ancient
tradition cannot by any possibility be founded on truth.
Peter was thrown into prison by Herod Agrippa in Jerusalem,
in the fourth year of Claudius ; and he was present at the
council of Jerusalem in the eleventh year of the same
emperor. Besides, there is no allusion to the presence of
Peter in Eome in any of Paul's Epistles. In the Epistle to
the Eomans, although the salutations are numerous, yet there
is no salutation sent to Peter ; and in the four epistles which
Paul wrote during his Eoman imprisonment, there is no salu
tation sent from Peter. Even in Paul's last epistle, the second
to Timothy, written shortly before his martyrdom, Peter is
unnoticed. This could hardly have been the case, if, as ancient
tradition supposes, Peter were then resident at Eome.
The origin of the church of Eome is unknown. Chris
tianity was not introduced into it by Peter, nor probably by
any of the other apostles. The church existed before Paul
visited it. When it is considered that Eome was a place of
general resort, it is highly probable that Christianity was
introduced by some unknown evangedsts at an early period.'3
Eoman sojourners were present at Jerusalem on the day of
Pentecost (Acts d. 16); and there is nothing improbable in
the supposition that some of them were there converted, and
on their return to Eome introduced Christianity. Or Christian
preachers may have penetrated to Eome after the dispersion
of the church in Jerusalem, in consequence of the persecution
that arose concerning Stephen. There is reason to suppose
that there were Christians at Eome when Claudius expeded
1 Hist. Eccl. ii 14. 2 Hist. Eccl. ii. 25.
3 Meyer supposes that Christianity might have been introduced into Rome
even during the lifetime of our Lord. — Commentary on the Romans, p. 21,
translation, T. & T. Clark.

236 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
the Jews from that city, and that, as the Christians would
not at that early period be distinguished from the Jews, they
shared the same fate. Aquila and Priscilla, who were among
the number of the banished, were in ad likedhood Christians
when they joined the apostle at Corinth.1 The words of
Suetonius, in relating this decree of expulsion, are very re
markable : " Claudius banished the Jews from Borne, who were
continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus."
It is known that Christus was often mispronounced by the
Eomans, Chrestus ; 3 and hence Kuinoel and Gieseler suppose
that the cause of the disturbance was a tumult raised by the
Jews against the Christians, which we find from the Acts was
their frequent practice, and that Claudius, without examining
which party was in the wrong, banished them ad from Eome.
The church would be then partiady broken up, but would
soon be re-estabdshed by the influx of new converts, by the
conversion of Gentiles, and by the return of many of those
banished, as Aquda and Priscilla, after the decree of Claudius
was reversed, or at least ceased to be acted upon. Some of
the Eoman Christians whom Paul salutes were converted
before himself (Eom. xvi. 7). It would also appear that there
was a strong Pauline element in the Eoman church : many of
the preachers, as is seen from the list of salutations, were
closely related to Paul, either as his converts, or as his fellow-
workers ; so that some suppose, not without reason, that though
the church of Eome was not directly planted by Paul, yet that
it owed, if not its origin, at least its prosperity, to the converts
of Paul.4 At the time Paul wrote this Epistle, the church of Eome
\ was numerous and ina flourishing condition. Their faith was
spoken of throughout the whole world (Eom. i 8). Their
obedience was come abroad to ad men (Eom. xvi. 19). It is
true that there is no mention in the Epistle of ecclesiastical
office-bearers, bishops, and deacons (Phd. i 1), but there are
_ adusions to three separate places of meeting (Eom. xvi. 5,
14, 15). As the church of Eome had not yet been visited
1 See author's Commentary on the Acts, vol. ii. p. 168.
2 Judseos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit (Claudius 25).
3 Tertullian, Apol. 3. 4 Tholuck Ore the Romans, vol. i. pp. 2, 3.

THE CHURCH OF ROME. 237
by any apostle, it may not have had, as Bleek supposes,1 any
regular organization. Elders had not as yet been appointed.
Six years after this, the great Neronian persecution broke out ;
and we have the testimony of Tacitus concerning the vast
numbers of Christians who were then resident in Eome.
" Christus," he observes, " the founder of that name, was put
to death as a criminal by Pontius Pdate, procurator of Judea,
in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition,
repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea,
where the mischief originated, but through the city of Eome
also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all
quarters as to a common receptacle, and where they are en
couraged." And he informs us that a vast multitude were
convicted.2 And besides, the very number of salutations sent
by Paul to the Eomans proves that the church must have
been considerable.
There is a considerable diversity of opinion among critics as
to the composition of the Eoman church. Some (Neander,
Meyer, Eiickert, De Wette, Olshausen, and Tholuck) suppose
that it was chiefly composed of Gentde Christians. Others
(Baur, Schwegler, Thiersch, and Wordsworth) think that the
Jewish Christians constituted the majority. The determina
tion of this point influences our opinion of the object or design
of the Epistle.
That the church of Eome was, to all intents and purposes,
a Gentile church, is the view supported and maintained chiefly
by Neander and Olshausen. " It is not improbable," observes
Neander, " that at an early period the seed of the gospel was
brought by Jewish Christians to the Jews at Borne, as at that
time, if we may judge from the salutations at the end of the
Epistle, persons who were among the oldest Christians lived at
Eome ; but these certainly did not form the main body of the
church, for the greater part evidently consisted of Christians
of Gentile descent, to whom the gospel had been preached by
men of the Pauline school, independently of the Mosaic law,
to whom Paul, as the apostle of the Gentdes, felt himsed called
to write, and whom, in consequence of the relation, he could
1 Bleek's Introduction to N. T., vol. i. p. 443.
2 Annalium, lib. xv. 44. He calls them multitudo ingens.

238 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
address with greater freedom."1 A number of passages in the
Epistle are appealed to in proof of this opinion. Paul writes
as the apostle of the Gentiles to the Eomans : " By whom we
have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith
among all Gentiles,2 for His name : among whom (Gentdes)
are ye also the caded of Jesus Christ" (Eom. i 5, 6). The
community whom he addresses is regarded by him as a
Gentde community. " Now I would not have you ignorant,
brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, but was
let hitherto, that I might have some fruit among you, even as
among other Gentdes" (Eom. i 13). He expressly addresses
them as Gentiles : " For I speak unto you Gentdes, inasmuch
as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magmfy my office "
(Eom. xi. 1 3). Whereas, when he speaks of the Jews, it is in
the third person, as if he were writing to the Gentiles : " My
heart's desire and prayer to God for them 3 is, that they might
be saved" (Eom. x. 1). He declares that, as the minister of
Christ to the Gentdes, he sought to offer up the Gentiles,
among whom he classed the Eoman Christians, unto God :
" Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto
you in some sort, 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 Gentdes might
be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost " (Eom. xv.
15, 16).
It might be thought that these passages are decisive as
to the Gentile character of the Eoman church ; but strong
arguments are brought forward to prove its Jewish composi
tion. The great advocate of this opinion is Baur. " If it is,"
he observes, " correctly supposed that the part of the Eoman
church to whom this Epistle was directed is the majority, we
must assume that Jewish Christians constituted the principal
part of the Eoman church, which is in itself entirely credible,
as the early origin of a Eoman church can only be explained
from the fact that there were a great number of Jews at
' Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 280.
2 Wm, to be translated Gentiles, not nations.
3 . Trip auruv is the true reading, not untp rou 'itrpuhx.

THE CHURCH OF ROME. 239
Eome." * There are, it is admitted, only' a few passages in
the Epistle itself which appear to point to the Jewish character
of the church. Thus the apostle speaks of Abraham as the
father of those to whom he wrote : " What shad we say that
Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found ? "
(Eom. iv. 1, 12). And he addresses the Eoman Christians as
being well acquainted with the Jewish law, which, it is
asserted, they could not have been unless they were Jewish
Christians : " I speak to them that know the law " (Eom.
vii 1). But the principal argument in favour of the Jewish
character of the church arises from the numerous quotations
in the Epistle from the Old Testament. In none of Paul's
Epistles are there such numerous references to the Jewish
Scriptures ; and hence it must be concluded, that those to
whom he wrote were thoroughly acquainted with those
Scriptures. But if the Bomans were directly converted from
heathenism, their acquaintance with the Old Testament must
have been very dmited. Hence the inference is drawn that
the apostle is throughout this Epistle addressing not Gentiles,
but Jews.
Here then is an apparent discrepancy : the Eoman church
is in various parts of the Epistle asserted to be of Gentde
origin, whereas it is addressed as if it were composed of
Jewish Christians. Professor Jowett seeks to solve the diffi
culty, by supposing that the church was chiefly composed of
Gentde converts who had previously been proselytes of the
gate ; that they were not converted directly from heathenism
to Christianity, but through the medium of Judaism. " The
Eoman church," he observes, " appeared to be at once Jewish
and Gentile; — Jewish in feedng, Gentile in origin. Jewish,
because the apostle everywhere argues with them as Jews ;
Gentile, because he expressly addresses them as such. In
this double fact there is now seen to be nothing strange or
anomalous : it typifies the general condition of the Christian
Church, whether founded by St. Paul or by the apostles of
the circumcision. It was not only in idea that the Old
Testament prepared the way for the New, by holding up the
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 370. See also Baur's Kirchengeschichte,
vol. i p. 63.

240 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
truth of the unity of God, but the spread of that truth
among the Gentdes, and the influence of the Jewish Scrip
tures, were themselves actual preparatives for the gospel." 1
There may be some truth in this view of the subject. Jewish
proselytism, as we learn from several heathen writers, prevailed
to a great extent, especiady at Eome.2 It is not, indeed, to be
supposed that the Eoman proselytes to Judaism were actually
circumcised ; but that, dissatisfied with their own redgion,
and attracted by the monotheism of the Jews, they frequented
the synagogues, and so became acquainted with the Old
Testament.3 When the gospel was preached, these devout
men would be naturady disposed to embrace it ; and thus the
law of Moses became their schoolmaster to lead them to
Christ. Probably many of the Eoman converts belong to
this class, — Gentiles, but not ignorant of the Jewish redgion.
There must also have been a considerable number of pure
Jews. The origin of the church was undoubtedly Jewish,
and the Jews were numerous at Eome. But notwithstand
ing this Jewish element, the Judaizing views do not appear
at this time to have made any progress among the Eoman
Christians. There were no disputes among them concerning
the necessity of circumcision : the only difference of opinion
appears to have been about the lawfulness of eating certain
kihds of meat.4
Some suppose that there is a considerable discrepancy
between this view of a flourishing church at Eome given us
in this Epistle, and the account in the Acts of the state of the
church at Paul's subsequent visit to Eome. The unbedeving
Jews are represented as affirming that they had no knowledge
of the Christian Church at Borne except from hearsay : " We
desire to hear from thee what thou thinkest : for as concerning
1 Jowett's Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 23. Similarly Beyschlag.
2 Horace, Sat. iv. 143 ; Tacitus, Hist. . . 5 ; Cicero, pro Flacco, c. 28 ; Joseph.
Ant. xiii. 9. 1 ; 15. 4, xviii. 3. 5.
3 See some excellent remarks on this subject in Reuss' History of Christianity
in the Apostolic Age, vol. i. pp. 86, 87, English translation .
* Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 191. Professor Lightfoot
observes : "It seems probable that the Roman Church at this time was com
posed of Jews and Gentiles in nearly equal portions." The Gentiles, however,
seem to have formed the more numerous portion, as Paul frequently addresses
the Roman Christians as such. — See Bleek's Introduction, yo\. i. p. 444.

'THE CHURCH OF ROME. §41
this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against "
(Acts xxvdi 22). "A church," observes Baur, " which had
for long so greatly attracted the attention of the Apostle Paul,
that he wished to come to Borne ; a church which appeared
to him so important, that he wrote to it a large and weighty
epistle ; a church of which he himself says that its faith was
known throughout the whole world ; a church which must
have particularly excited the interest of the Eoman Jews, as
consisting for the most part of their countrymen, resident with
them in the same city ; yet, according to the narrative of the
Acts, such a church remained unknown to them, as a thing
with which they had not come in contact, and knew only from
report." 1 Different answers have been given to this objection.
Olshausen thinks that since the expulsion of the Jews by
Claudius, both Jews and Christians maintained a designed
separation.2 Neander observes that, considering the immense
size of the metropolis, it is not inconceivable that the worldly
Jews knew little or nothing of the Christian church, which
was composed chiefly of Gentde converts.3 Tholuck considers
that the Jews dissimulated, and purposely concealed their
better acquaintance with Christianity. Phdippi supposes that
the Jews were guarded in their statements for fear of bringing
themselves into trouble. And Meyer thinks that there was
an intentional reserve, in order that Paul might explain him
self freely.4 But too much seems to be made by German
critics of this objection. It does not appear to be any objec
tion at all. There is no assertion of ignorance on the part of
the Jews. With fud knowledge of the existence of a Christian
church among them, they might with perfect truthfulness
express themselves as they do : " Concerning this sect, we
know that it is everywhere spoken against." s
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 364 ; see also Zeller's Apostelgeschicht
pp. 293, 294.
2 Olshausen Ore the Gospels and the Acts, vol. iv. p. 505 ; Ore the Romans
p. 38.
3 Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 311.
4 Meyer's Apostelgeschichte, p. 518.
s Author's Commentary on the Acts, vol. ii. pp. 445, 446.

242 • THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

III. THE OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE.
The object of this Epistle must be distinguished from the
occasion of its composition. The occasion arose from Paul's
earnest desire to see Eome, and to impart unto the Christians
there some spiritual gift (Bom. i. 7). For many years he had
desired to visit Borne, but hitherto he had been prevented
(Eom. i. 13-15). Paul must have been deeply conscious of
the importance of the church in Borne. It was as if Chris
tianity were established in the very heart of heathenism. No
church could possibly occupy a more important position.
Eome was not. only one of the largest cities in the world, but
the capital of civilisation and the centre of influence. The
Christian religion estabhshed in it would be as a dght shining
in a dark place, and diffusing its influences over the world.
Hence the great importance of the estabdshment of a pure
Christianity, unmixed with Judaizing errors or phdosophical
notions. An opportunity presented itself of sending to the
Eoman Christians an epistle : Phoebe, a deaconess of the
church of Cenchraea, was about to leave for Eome (Bom.
xvi. 1), and to her charge Paul committed this important
epistle. The object of this Epistle was general, not special. Paul
had no special errors to correct, no disorders to reform. The
-Eoman church was not connected with him, as other churches,
by direct personal visitation. The design of the Epistle was
to impart to the Eoman Christians a correct view of Chris
tianity. This, with several minute variations, is the opinion
adopted by De Wette, Olshausen, Tholuck, and Alford. " The
Epistle to the Eomans," observes De Wette, "is the only
epistle of the apostle wherein he designedly represents his
doctrine in its full connection, whilst in his other epistles he
takes cognizance of peculiar wants, doubts, and errors, and
presupposes the knowledge of his doctrine." 1 The theme or
subject-matter of the Epistle is supposed to be expressed at
its commencement ; and the whole Epistle is a proof or de
velopment of that theme, namely, that " the gospel of Christ
is the power of God unto salvation to every one that belieVeth ;
1 Erklarung des Briefs an die Rb'mer, Introduction.

THE OBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 243
to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile " (Eom. i 1 6). In
short, this Epistle very nearly approaches to a doctrinal
treatise ; so that, if a few verses at the beginning and two
chapters at the end were omitted, all that is personal would
be removed. But although the general object of this Epistle
was to instruct the Boman Christians in Christianity, yet
this does not prevent subordinate objects. The inculcation
of the truth of the gospel would necessarily remove error,
reconcde differences, prevent mistakes, and supply wants.1
An opposite view of this Epistle is taken by Baur. He
supposes that it has a direct polemic design. It is addressed
to Jewish Christians ; and its object is to answer their objec
tions, to remove their prejudices, and to inculcate a Pauline
Christianity.2 The Jews objected to Paul's universalism.
According to them, Israel was the chosen people of. God ; the
reception of the Gentdes into the Church of God was an
act of unrighteousness toward them, — a contradiction of the
promises made by God. The theocratic primacy of their
nation was endangered by the inculcation of Paudne univer
salism. Hence the Epistle was written with a view to this
state of feeling in the Eoman church, and is to be regarded,
if not as a defence, yet as an apology for Pauline Christianity.3
According to Baur, the central idea and essence of the whole
Epistle, and to which all the rest is subsidiary, is contained in
chap, ix.— xi. The first eight chapters are only introductory,
to prepare the Jewish Christians for the discussion of the
question.4 Such an extreme view is whody inadequate to
explain the Epistle. It would make the most important
portion of the Epistle subsidiary to that which is evidently
subordinate. It supposes a degree of variance between Jewish
and Gentde converts, of which there is no trace in the Epistle.
1 See Olshausen On the Romans, p. 41.
2 According to Baur, the object of the Epistle to the Romans was the confirma
tion of Pauline universalism, in opposition to Jewish particularism. " This and
nothing else," he observes, "is the proper theme of the epistle." — Kirchen.
geschichte, vol. i. p. 64.
3 Bishop Wordsworth's idea is very similar : the Epistle to the Romans, he
observes, may be called an apology for the gospel against Judaism. — St. Paul's
Epistles, p. 189. Certainly here extremes meet.
4 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. pp. 347-360.

244 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
And it proceeds upon the hypothesis, already shown to be
erroneous, that the Boman church consisted almost entirely
of Jewish converts.
Stid there is partial truth in this hypothesis of Baur.
Though the Epistle was not written to convert the Jewish
Christians to Paulinism, yet the reconcdiation of Jews and
Gentdes in a universal Christianity is prominently taught.
This is not the principal object of the Epistle, as Hug supposes,1
but it is a subordinate object. There could not fail to be a
difference in the doctrinal views of Jewish and Gentde
Christians. The one would have a tendency to magnify, and
the other to depreciate Judaism. And this Epistle to the
Eomans frequently dwells on the relations of both parties to
the gospel. Moreover, although Judaizing notions do not
seem as yet to have infected the church of Eome, yet there
was a partial dissension between Jews and Gentdes with
regard to clean and unclean food, and this seems to have
given rise to unchristian feelings. Hence it is that the
apostle exhorts them to mutual forbearance ; to avoid all
doubtfid disputations ; and to respect the conscientious
scruples of each other (Eom. xiv. 1, 2). And hence also the
reason of the warning at the close of the Epistle, lest by Juda
izing errors the harmony of the church should be disturbed.
" Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that cause divisions
and offences contrary to the doctrine whieh ye have learned ;
and avoid them " (Eom. xvi. 1 7).2
IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle is divided into two wed-marked portions : the
first portion is dogmatic (chap. i.-xi), and the second portion
is ethical (chap, xii.-xvi). The dogmatic portion admits of a
subdivision into two parts — i.-vid., and ix.-xi.
In the dogmatic portion, the apostle, after the salutation
and thanksgiving to God on behalf of the Eomans, states the
great theme of his Epistle, that the gospel is the power of
God for salvation both to Jews and Gentdes (chap. i. 1-17).
1 Hug's Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 361 (second edition).
2 See Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 174-176 (old edition).

THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 245
He proves the impossibility of justification or salvation by law,
first as regards the Gentiles, and then as regards the Jews ;
and, after answering some objections of the Jews, he draws
the general inference, that by works of law there shad no
flesh be justified (chap. i. 18 -iii. 20). Having proved nega
tively that there is no salvation possible by law, he proceeds
affirmatively to develope and explain the doctrine, appdcable
alike to Jews and Gentiles, of justification and salvation
through grace and faith in Christ (chap. di. 21-31). He
points out that even in the Old Testament dispensation this
doctrine was not unknown, and adduces the examples of
Abraham and David (chap. iv.). He then proceeds to show
the blessed consequences of justification, — peace with God,
access to Him, comfort in affliction, and a happy sense of
reconciliation (chap. v. 1-13). Then follows a comparison
between Christ and Adam (chap. v. 16-21). The objection
that such a method of salvation by faith without works would
give rise to immoradty, is next met and answered ; its opposite
tendency to inculcate holiness is shown ; and the contest
between the flesh and the spirit, — the lower and higher prin
ciples in our nature, — with the final victory of the spirit, is
described (chap. vi. vii). The apostle depicts at great length,
and with glowing eloquence, the blessedness of being justified
by faith, and ends his- description with a chadenge to ad the
powers of earth and hell to separate the believer from the
love of Christ (chap. viii). The next three chapters may be
considered as an appendix. In them the apostle shows the
bearing of this method of salvation chiefly upon the Jews :
that their present rejection was foretold by their prophets,
and was necessary for the admission -of the Gentiles; that
salvation was provided for them, if they would accept it ; that
even now the rejection was not universal, — that there was a
remnant according to the election of grace ; and that the time
would yet arrive when all Israel would be saved, and Jew
and Gentde united in one universal Church of Christ (chap.
ix.-xi). In the ethical part, various admonitions are given, perhaps
suited to the peculiar circumstances of the Eoman church.
The apostle enjoins universal holiness, humility, due subor-

246 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
dination to each other, unity, ddigence, forbearance, subjection
to magistrates, love, and watchfulness for the coming of the
Lord (chap. xii. xiii.). He then adverts to the different views
which they had with regard to meats ; and exhorts those who
were strong in the faith, and liberal in their views, not to
despise those who were weak, — rather to yield than assert
their independence, — and thus to dve at peace among them
selves (chap, xiv.-xv. 13). He apologizes for having written
to a church which he had never visited, mentions his intention
of soon coming to Eome, and entreats an interest in their
prayers (chap. xv. 14-33). And he concludes the Epistle by
sending his salutations to his acquaintances in Eome, along
with the salutations of those friends who were with him ; and
closes with his apostolic benediction and an ascription of
praise to God (chap. xvi.).
V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
There is no controversy concerning the time when this
Epistle was written. The Epistle ' itself informs us that it
was written after the apostle had finished the codection for
the Christians of Jerusalem in Macedonia and Achaia, and
when he was on the point of setting out for Jerusalem (Eom.
xv. 25, 26). Now from the Acts of the Apostles and the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, we learn that Paul left Ephesus
at Pentecost of the year 57, made a circuit through the
churches of Macedonia, and wintered in Corinth ; and that
in early spring he left Corinth on his way to Jerusalem (Acts
xx. 1-3). Hence then this Epistle was written at the close
of AD. 5 7, or more probably in the beginning of AD. 5 8.
The place where this Epistle was written may also be deter
mined to be Corinth. The Epistle was sent by Phoebe, a servant
of the church which is at Cenchraea (Eom. xvi. 1) ; and Cen-
chraea was one of the harbours of Corinth. A salutation is
sent from Erastus, who is described as " the chamberlain of
the city" (o ot/to-./io? t^? .r_\e_>?, Eom. xvi. 23), which
must adude to some city known to the Eomans, and which,
after the mention of Cenchraea, can only be Corinth.1 Another
1 Erastus is mentioned as having been previously sent by the apostle, in com-

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 247
salutation is sent from Gaius, who is described as "the
apostle's host, and of the whole church" (Eom. xvi 24), and
who was consequently most probably resident in the city;
and, as we learn from the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
Gaius was one of those few Corinthians whom the apostle
baptized : " I thank God I baptized none of you, but Crispus
and Gaius " (1 Cor. i. 1 2). The names of those who accom
panied the apostle from Achaia to Asia are given in the Acts ;
namely, " Sopater of Berea ; of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus
and Secundus ; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus ; and of
Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus " (Acts xx. 4) ; and of these
seven persons, two at least, namely, Sopater (or Sosipater) and
Timotheus (Bom. xvi. 21), are joined in the salutations to the
church of Eome.1 It may thus safely be concluded that the
Epistle to the Eomans was written toward the close of Paul's
residence of three months at Corinth (Acts xx. 3). The
subscription at the end of the Epistle, " Written to the Eomans
from Corinthus," is in this instance correct.
Bellarmine, Salmeron, Cornelius a Lapide, and Harduin,
after the Syriac scholiast on the Peshito, assert that this Epistle
was written in Latin. For this opinion there is not the
slightest foundation. The Epistle was beyond ad question
written in Greek. The Eoman church was not Latin, but
Greek.2 The Eoman fathers for the first two centuries, as
Clemens Eomanus, Hermas, and Justin Martyr, wrote in
Greek. The Christian apologies to the Eoman emperors were
written in Greek; and, as we learn from undoubted testi
monies, Greek was at this time spoken at Borne almost as
pany with Timothy, to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), and most probably to Corinth
(1 Cor. xvi. 10). And in the Second Epistle to Timothy, it is said of him,
" Erastus abode at Corinth" (2 Tim. iv. 20), which he would naturally do if it
were his native city.
1 Paley's Horcs Paulines, Romans, No. 2. The Gaius of the epistle and the
Gaius of the history, however, seem to have been different persons, — the one a
native of Corinth, and the other of Derbe in Lycaonia. Gaius is the Greek form
of the Latin Caius, one of the most common names among the Romans. There
are at least four persons of this name mentioned in Scripture : (1) Acts xix. 29 ;
(2) Acts xx. 4 ; (3) 3 John 1 ; (4) Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 14.
2 See Westcott's History of the Canon, p. 215 ; Milman's Latin Christianity,
vol. i. 27 ff. ; and Lightfoot On the Philippians, p. 19 ff. See also p. 69 of this
work.

'248 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
much as Latin.1 The Greeks were numerous in Eome. A
large proportion of the lower orders and of the middle classes
were of Greek origin ; and it was of them that the Christian
church was chiefly composed. And even the, rich and noble
Eomans learned the language and affected the manners of the
Greeks. There is nothing, then, strange in Paul writing an
epistle in the Greek language to the Christians resident in
Eome. VI. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
This Epistle is distinguished among all the other epistles
of Paul by its dogmatic character. As already observed, it
might almost be regarded as a theological treatise on justifica
tion. Hence its great importance for theology.2 There is no
book of the New Testament which is more frequently quoted
by divines of the most opposite schools in support of their
respective dogmas. Here the Pauline view of Christianity,
as it respects the relation of God to man, is fully developed.
The condemnation of man by the law, and his salvation by
faith in Christ,- are the two points discussed and dlustrated.
It is tiue that there is not that systematic arrangement, that
precision, and that logical exactness which we expect in a
purely theological treatise. There is sometimes the freedom
of epistolary composition, and an occurrence of those paren
thetic clauses and digressions which characterize the apostle's
style. Still, especially in the first eight chapters, there is
much regularity and Connection in the reasoning. The point
to be proved is first announced, — that the gospel is the saving
power both to the Jews and the Gentiles ; this saving power
is first denied with regard to the law, and then affirmed with
regard to the gospel; objections are started and refuted; illus
trations are drawn from the Old Testament ; abuses of this
doctrine are repelled, and the blessed consequences of this
gospel salvation are announced. It must not, however, be
1 Tacit, de Orat. c. 29 ; Ovid, de Arte Amor. ii. 121 ; Juvenal, Sat. vi. 185 ;
Martial, Epigr. lib. xiv. 58.
- ' ' This epistle, " observes Luther, " is the masterpiece of the New Testament,
and the purest gospel. It can never be too much read or studied ; and the more
is handled, the more precious it becomes, and the better it tastes. "

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 249
considered that the whole of the Christian faith, or even of
the Paudne conception of- Christianity, is developed in this
Epistle. This is only treated as it bears on the relation of God
to man, — the fall of man, and his redemption through Christ.
The nature of God Himself, and the high mysteries connected
with the divine nature, are rather discussed in the Epistle to
the Ephesians. In the language of theologians, the Epistle to
the Eomans proceeds from an anthropological and soterio-
logical, whilst the Epistle to the Ephesians proceeds from a
christological point of view.
No epistle has been so frequently commented on. The
fathers directed their special attention to it. A commentary
of Origen is stid' extant in a Latin translation by Eufinus.
Augustine, whose theological system bears the closest resem
blance to it, has left only the fragments of a commentary ;
whereas a commentary by his great opponent Pelagius has
come down to us preserved in the works of Jerome. The
Epistle also was often commented on by the Eeformers.
Luther himself has only left an admirable preface to the
Epistle ; but commentaries or annotations were written by
Calvin, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Beza, Bugenhagen, Bucer, and
G_colampadius, and other early Eeformers.
The modern commentaries on the Epistle to the Eomans
are also very numerous. The most important of these are
those of Tholuck (Hade, first edition, 1824; fifth edition,
1856 ; translated in Clark's Biblical Cabinet, 1842) ; Biicke_.
(Leipzig, 1831; second edition, 1839); Eeiche (Gottingen,
1834); Olshausen (Kbnigsberg, 1835; translated in Clark's
Foreign Theological Library, 1864) ; Meyer (Gbttingen, 1836 ;
fifth edition, 1872 ; translated by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh,
1873); Fritzsche (Halle, 1836-43); De Wette (Leipzig,
fourth edition, 1847); Phdippi (Frankfort, second edition,
1856); Ewald (Gottingen, 1857). And in our own language,
besides the general commentaries of Alford and Wordsworth,
there are the special commentaries of Stuart (1832) and
Hodge (1835, new edition) of America, Jowett (London, second
edition, 1859), and Dr. Forbes' (of Aberdeen) Analytical Com
mentary (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh). There is also an
important work on the doctrine of Paul by Usteri, entitled

250 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Entwichelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs (Zurich 1834). Also
Baur's exposition of the Pauline doctrine in Vorles. ii. N. T.
Theologie, sec. ii.

PAUL'S THEOLOGICAL TEEMS.
The Epistle to the Eomans surpasses the other Pauline
Epistles in difficulty of comprehension. This difficulty arises
in part from a certain obscurity of style.1 The train of thought
is often interrupted by long parentheses and digressions, and
resumed without any intimation. A notable instance of this
occurs in the passage containing the comparison between Christ
and Adam, where, according to our version, there is a digres
sion extending over five verses (Eom. v. 12-21). Abstract
notions are personified, and the struggle of different emotions
within us is described as if it were a contest of two opposing
powers without us. Objections are stated and answered in a
series of interrogative clauses, in such a manner that it is
sometimes difficult to know whether it is the objector or the
apostle who speaks.
Another cause of difficulty arises from the nature of the
subjects discussed. Many of these — such as election, free-wid,
the relation of Adam to his posterity, the vicarious nature of
Christ's sufferings, and the imputation of His righteousness —
surpass the limits of natural reason, or at least have never as
yet been adequately explained. Others — such as the greatness
of human depravity, the inefficacy of good works to atone for
sin, the condemnation of the human race, the punitive justice
of God, salvation the gift of God's grace, and other simdar
doctrines which are plainly taught — are highly unacceptable :
they are so humbling to human pride, and so opposed to our
natural incdnations, that the will revolts against them ; and
thus, instead of simple acquiescence in the statements of the
apostle, attempts are made to explain them away.2 Much in
1 See remarks on the obscurity of the apostle's style in pp. 40, 41 of this work.
2 " There is good reason," observes Archbishop Whately, " to believe that the
chief objection to Paul's writings is not from the things hard to be understood
which they contain, but from the things easy to be understood ; from doctrines

PAUL'S THEOLOGICAL TERMS. 251
this Epistle is the embodiment of the experience of the apostle,
as is especially seen in the contest described in the seventh
chapter, and can only be properly understood by those who
have passed through a somewhat simdar experience. In the
language of the apostle, " the natural man (ylrv%iKo<; avdpwrros,
man by his own unassisted powers) receiveth not the things'
of the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him :
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually dis
cerned" (1 Cor. d. 14).
But perhaps the chief cause of the difficulty of under
standing this Epistle arises from the apostle's use of words.
Language must always be an imperfect instrument to express
abstract ideas ; and this imperfection must accompany its em
ployment in the sacred Scriptures. But it was especially an
imperfect instrument in the case before us. However perfect
may have been Paul's knowledge of Greek, yet that language
was itself destitute of words adequate to express his ideas.
Many of the doctrines of revelation were totally unknown to
the Greeks, and had never been taught in their schools of
philosophy. Hence the apostle was reduced to the necessity
of employing old words to express new ideas ; and he often
could not avoid using them in a sense differing considerably
from their popular meaning. A number of words of this kind
occur which appear to have been used by the apostle with
some variation in their meaning, so that a very strict attention
to the context is necessar}' to understand the ideas which they
are employed to express. Such, for example, are faith, right
eousness, spirit, and law. These words have become almost
technical terms in Pauline theology, and yet no definition is
given of them ; and it is frequently only from the connection
that their exact import can be ascertained.1
It is not within the scope of this work to enter upon any
lengthened explanation of Paul's peculiar dogmatic views, which
humbling to the pride of the human heart and unacceptable to the natural man. "
— Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul, eighth edition, p. 57.
1 See an able dissertation by Professor Jowett " On the Abstract Ideas of the
New Testament," Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. pp. 96-109. He especially directs
attention to the importance of determining the sense of various expressions from
the context. His remarks, however, on the looseness of Paul's language are un
warranted.

252 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
are especially unfolded in this Epistle to the Eomans.1 The
doctrine to which especial prominence is here given is that of
justification.2 The chief ideas on which the apostle dweds are
those expressed by the terms law, faith, -atonement, and right
eousness. He proceeds in a systematic manner to develope the
principles of his system. He insists negatively on the fact
that a man cannot be justified, by the works of the law. All
have broken the law. Jews and Gentiles are both under sin ;
therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified in the
sight of God (Eom. iii. 2 0). He then unfolds God's method of
justification. The righteousness of God, which is not attainable
by the law, is given through Christ. Christ has made an atone
ment for sin ; through Him we may be forgiven ; if we believe
on Him, if we rely on His atonement, we shall be saved. Faith,
in opposition to works, is the means of salvation. " A man is
justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Eom. iii. 28).
Thus justification has its source in the grace of God, and not
in any merit in man. But it is ever fodowed by a change of
heart and life : new principles are implanted within the be
liever ; the law of the spirit of life takes the place of " the law
of sin and death" (Eom. viii. 2). This is briefly Paul's doctrine
in the first eight chapters of this Epistle, which he labours to
explain and establish, to clear from objections, and to fodow
out to its consequences.
Certain terms are employed in the statement and develop
ment of these views, on which it is desirable to offer a few
exegetical remarks. These terms are, law, righteousness,
faith, grace, the flesh, and the spirit.3 All of them are em-
1 See a statement of Pauline doctrine given in Neander's Planting, vol. i. pp.
416-531 ; Baur's N T. Theologie, pp. 128-207 ; and Baur's Apostel Paulus,
vol. ii. pp. 123-315. See also Usteri's Entwichelung des paulinischen Lehr-
begriffes ; Ritschl's Entstehung des alikatholischen Kirche, pp. 52-103.
2 The Pauline doctrine of justification is well stated by Baur, Apostel Paulus,
vol. ii. pp. 145-183, though exceptions may be taken to some of his statements.
It is singular that the most destructive" of German critics, in describing the
Pauline doctrine, should approach so closely to the generally received views of the
Evangelical Church. The doctrine of imputation is clearly and forcibly stated.
3 The reader is referred for the signification of these terms in the Greek to
Cremer's Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, translated by T.
and T. Clark, Edinburgh. See also Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament,
and the various exegetical commentaries on the Romans.

PAUL'S THEOLOGICAL TERMS. 253
ployed with a considerable latitude of meaning, often differing
from their classical usage.
I. What does the apostle mean by law (vo/j,o<s), which he
pronounces insufficient for justification . Does he allude to
the moral or the ceremonial law ? Is it the law of Moses or
the law of nature ? Often he appears to use the term in
opposite senses : in one passage he calls it the law of sin ;
in another, he asserts that it is holy, just, and good. He
speaks not only of the law of God, but of " the law of his
members " and " the law of his mind." The term v6fio<;, which
he employs, is the Greek word for custom, right, an ordinance,
law. It is used in the New Testament to denote the law of
Moses. It has been affirmed that v6p,o^, when used with the
article, refers to the Jewish law, but when used without the
article, means law in general.1 This rule, however, does not
hold universady : in several passages vofios without the article
means the Mosaic law (Eom. v. 13). Nor does there appear
to be any good reason for the modern assertion that the apostle
distinguishes between the moral and the ceremonial law of the
Jews ; nor, for all that appears, does it seem that such a
distinction was made by the Jews in his day. The law of
Moses was regarded as one, — moral and ceremonial require
ments were united (Gal. v. 3 ; Phil. iii. 5, 6). But besides
the Mosaic law, the apostle recognises another law,- — a law
written upon the consciences of the Gentiles, — a law which
embraces both Jews and Gentdes. It is evidently this general
law, this moral law of God, that he pronounces insufficient
for justification ; for he proves that both Jews and Gentiles
have broken it, and therefore cannot be justified by it. Nop,o<;
is also employed by him to denote any commanding principle
that rules over us ; hence he applies the term even to our
corrupt nature : he speaks of two laws in opposition to each
other, — the law in the members and the law of the mind,
— the law of sin and the law of God.2 Indeed, the meaning
1 See article " Law " in Smith's Dictionary.
2 It would almost seem that the apostle calls the evil principle in our nature
and the moral law by the same name, — "the law of sin," i vipo; .« apaprias
(Rom. vii. 23, 25, viii. 2).

254 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
of the term and its application in any particular instance can
only be ascertained by a strict regard to the context.
The view which the apostle appears to take of the law is
not so much that it is a rule of obedience, as the occasion, and
in some sense the cause, of sin. " By the law is the know
ledge of sin" (Bom. iii. 20). "The strength of sin is the
law " (fj 8vvafu<} tjj? dfiapTta<; 6 vo/ios, 1 Cor. xv. 5 6). " The
law was added because of transgressions " (Gal. iii. 1 9). If
there were no law, there could be no sin. There must be
some rule to transgress, before there can be transgression.
The law imparts the consciousness of sin. Without the law,
sin is dead ; but whenever the law is revealed in its extent
and purity, then are our defections and transgressions also
revealed.1 " I had not known sin," says the apostle, " but by
the law : for I had not known lust, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the com
mandment, wrought in me ad manner of concupiscence. For
without the law sin was dead " (Bom. vii. 7, 8). Nor is this
true merely of the law of Moses, but of the law written on
the consciences of the Gentiles : they, having not a revealed
law, are a law unto themselves ; the work of the law is written
on their hearts (Eom. ii. 14, 15). Sin and the law — dfiapTut
and v6fio<s — are thus, according to the apostle, inseparably
connected ; but this arises not from any defect in the law,
but from a defect in our moral nature. The law is not sin
(Eom. vd. 7), but gives rise to the consciousness of sin : it is
the light which, shining into our hearts, reveals to us the im
parities which lodge there ; and the clearer our views of the
law, so much the more conscious are we of sin.2
Thus, then, in the theology of Paul, the law possesses- a
condemning power. It reveals sin and condemns sin. So far
from imparting dfe, it is the cause of death. Hence he calls
1 "What," observes Baur, "imparts to sin its importance and reality, what
makes it to be what it is, what causes it to be sin, is the law." — N. T. Theo-
logie, p. 141.
2 There is certainly, according to Paul, an intimate connection between sin
and the consciousness of sin. But he does not regard them as identical ; so
that, as Baur expresses it, "where there is no consciousness of sin, there is no
sin." What the apostle asserts is : Where there is no law, there is no transgres
sion. Comp. Baur's N. T. Theologie, p. 150.

Paul's theological terms. 255
it " the law of sin and of death " (Eom. viii. 2), as it is the
occasion both of sin and of death.1 So also he uses various
strong expressions, as if he depreciated the law, and regarded
it as antagonistic to the gospel; whdst at other times he
praises it as the rule of perfect righteousness. In short, the
law may be regarded in two points of view, — as the expression
of the righteousness of God, and as the cause of condemnation
to the sinner ; and according as it is regarded in the one point of
view or in the other, different and apparently opposite quadties
are assigned to it.
II. Another equally important term in the theology of Paul
is righteousness (BtKaioaivn). This word is in the New Testa
ment often employed to signify righteousness in general, but
in connection with Pauline thought and doctrine it denotes
that moral perfection which the law demands. The law is
the rule by which righteousness is to be measured. This
righteousness of the law, if personal, consists in perfect
obedience to the law, — a righteousness which, as the apostle
demonstrates, no man can possess. But there is another
righteousness, the righteousness of faith, which is not per
sonal but imputed, — not in ourselves, but conferred on us by
God, and which is avadable for our justification.2 The apostle
mentions these two kinds of righteousness together when he
expresses his desire to be found in Christ, not having his
own righteousness which is of the law (17 BtKaioo-vvq iK
vofiov), but that which is through the faith of Christ, the
righteousness which is of God by faith (rf BtKatoavvn ix
Trio-Tew?, PhiL id. 9). So also, when the apostle speaks of
the righteousness of God (?? BiKatoo-vvrj 0eov) being revealed
to us by the gospel (Eom. i. 17), he does not mean that
righteousness which God confers, or that righteousness which
is an attribute or quality in God, but that righteousness
1 Several commentators, however, suppose that- by viftos a/txpriac xai iavirov
is meant, not the moral law, but the evil principle within us, equal to . »«,_«
iv rois pixitri ; but the context favours the meaning above given.
2 See this distinction well stated in Baur's N. T. Theologie, pp. 174, 175.
He, however, in conformity with his principles of an opposition between Paul
inism and Judaism, asserts that tixaiourfai il Xpyuv vo/iou is as characteristic for
Judaism as iixaiou r S xi i_ rlrrmt is for Christianity.

256 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
which is valid with God, and on the ground of which God
justifies.1 The cognate verb (BtKaioco), so frequently employed by the
apostle, is used by him in the sense of " to declare righteous."
It never in any instance denotes to make righteous.2 It is
a forensic term, and is the declaration of a judge from his
tribunal.3 This declaration may be either on the ground of
personal or imputed righteousness ; or, in the language of
Paul, of " the righteousness of the law," or of " the righteous
ness of faith." In the first sense, no man can be declared
righteous, because all have sinned ; in the second sense,
believers are declared righteous, because they appropriate to
themselves the righteousness of Christ. It is also to be
observed that Paul does not employ BiKaioco as entirely
synonymous with " to acquit," " to forgive," but in the strong
sense of " to declare righteous," — to be possessed of the right
eousness of God. " But now," he observes, " the righteousness
of God without the law is manifest, being witnessed by the law
and the prophets ; even the righteousness of God which is by
faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon ad them that believe ;
for there is no difference : for ad have sinned, and come short
of the glory of God : being justified freely by His grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Bom. id. 21-24).
There is little doubt that the doctrine of the imputation of
righteousness, however transcending man's reason and unac
ceptable to his natural incdnation, is the prominent doctrine
of Paul, and lies at the foundation of his view of justification.
He regards the death of Christ as a satisfaction for our sins.
The law pronounces a curse upon transgression, and Christ
has redeemed us from this curse of the law by becoming a
curse for us (Gal. id. 13). This curse can be nothing else
1 See an excellent note on lixxioe-u w Buu, by De Wette, given by Alford in his
Commentary, on Rom. i. 17 ; see also Baur's N. T. Theologie, p. 133.
2 Rev. xxii. 11 . o tixaios "iixaiulnru tn — " he that is righteous, let him be
righteous still "—may appear as an exception ; but, according to Tischendorf, the
correct reading is o fixates dixaioffuvnv 9roiyica.ru 'in.
3 This is so evidently the meaning of the term, that one of the great opponents
ofthe Protestant doctrine of justification frankly acknowledges, " But one pas
sage can be produced where it is used for 'making righteous,' and there the
reading is doubtful. " — Newman On Justification, p. 75.

paul's theological terms. 257
than the punishment of our sins. Thus He became our
substitute, so that He suffered the penalty of our sins on the
cross, in order that we might not only be forgiven, — freed
from that penalty, — but have His righteousness imputed to
us. The imputation, according to the apostle, is mutual, — our
gudt imputed to Him, and His righteousness imputed to us.
" God hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ;
that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him "
(2 Cor. v. 21). "In this sense," as Baur wed expresses it,
" the apostle calls the death of Christ a IXaaT^ptov, — a sin-
offering, — and that for a declaration of the righteousness of
God, which must cause the punishment of sin to fodow the
guilt of sin. This righteousness of God must be satisfied, by
the punishment of sin being actually endured."1
III. Faith (..-art?) is another important word with Paul;
indeed, as compared with the other writers of the New Testa
ment, he may be regarded as the apostle of faith. In classical
Greek, tt .or.? is generally employed in an active sense, to
denote trust or trustfulness, but occasionally also in a passive
sense, to signify faithfulness or trustworthiness. In the Old
Testament, however, the Hebrew verb V®$\!, answering to
irto-Tevo), to trust, had no corresponding substantive sigmfying
trust. nJie^: denotes fidelity. This is the uniform meaning
of the term in the Old Testament, except in Hab. d. 4, quoted
by the apostle, "The just shall live by faith" (Eom. i. 17),
where the meaning is doubtful.2 In the New Testament, on
the contrary, ttUjtls is generally employed in the active sense,
denoting trust, confidence, conviction; rarely in the passive
sense, denoting the virtue of fidedty (Matt. xxid. 23 ; Eom.
in. 3 ; Tit. ii. 1 0).3 Sometimes it is opposed to sight (2 Cor.
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 165. Throughout the whole of his remarks
on the doctrine of justification, Baur strongly insists on the vicarious nature of
Christ's sufferings. See also his Neutestamentliche Theologie, p. 157 ff.
2 Even there the meaning of the word in the Hebrew seems to be fidelity or
faithfulness: " The just shall live by Ms fidelity. " See the Lexicons of Gese
nius, Cremer, and Robinson. The Septuagint varies from the Hebrew original,
and has, " The just shall live by my faith, " — S _s Vixaios ix ruvult fcou Xfio-irxi.
3 For some excellent remarks on the meaning of the term ¦xio-ns, and the
variations which it undergoes, see Professor Lightfoot's Commentary on the
Galatians, " Tlie Words denoting Faith," pp. 152-156.
R

258 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
v. 7 ; Heb. xi. 1), but this is not an essential element in the
conception. The proper antithesis to faith, according to the
Paudne mode of thought, is works or the law. A man is
justified by faith without the works of the law. It is of faith,
that it might not be by works. Faith and works — tt tort?
and epya — are regarded as mutuady exclusive.
Faith is chiefly used by Paul in connection with Christ.
It is not the mere general feeling of trust, but trust directed
to Christ. Externady considered, it proceeds from the preach
ing of the gospel, and is a belief in the declarations of Scrip
ture (..tern? tov evayyeXiov) ; ,but as the essential theme of
the gospel is the work of Christ in accomplishing our salva
tion, faith is especiady directed toward His person (7. £rr « iv
Xpiaro)); and as our salvation was chiefly accompdshed by
His death, it is, more narrowly considered, faith in His blood
(7. .art? eV t& aXfiaTt, avTov).1 Thus, according to Paul, it
would appear that faith is not so much a bedef in certain
dogmas, as confidence in a person, — in other words, trust in
Christ. " I know," says Paul, " in whom I have believed," —
that is, in whom I have trusted, — " and am persuaded that He
is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against
that day" (2 Tim. i. 12).
Faith is regarded by Paul as the subjective condition of
our justification. The righteousness of Christ is offered to us ;
and faith is that principle which accepts this offer and appro
priates the righteousness. It is the necessary condition of
appropriation. We must trust in the atonement of Christ,
otherwise its benefits wdl not avail us. Hence also faith is
that which unites us to Christ, so that there is a mutual
transference of our sins to Him and of His righteousness to
us. The believer is regarded as one with Christ. He suffered
in Christ, and rose with Him. In Christ he paid the penalty
of the law, and in Christ he perfectly fulfilled its require
ments. And thus by faith he receives the righteousness of
Christ, which justifies him before God.
IV. As faith is the subjective condition by which man can
come into that relation with Christ on account of which he is
1 See Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 161.

PAUL'S THEOLOGICAL TERMS. 259
justified, so grace (%«/--?) is the objective principle, on the part
of God, of the Paudne doctrine of justification. Xdpi<;, as used
in classical Greek, primarily denotes gracefulness ; and in this
sense it is also employed in the Scriptures (Luke iv. 22 ; Col.
iv. 6 ; Eph. iv. 29). But it is also used in a secondary sense,
to denote grace in disposition, kindness, benevolence, good-
wid, favour ; and it is in this sense that it is chiefly employed
by PauL The grace of God (;\;a/.t? 0eov) denotes the favour
of God, the freeness of His love, — that benevolence which
induced Him, without any regard to merits on our part, to
bestow on us salvation. Hence the natural antithesis to grace
is works (epya). /Works and grace are two opposites which
mutually exclude each other. If righteousness can be obtained
by the works of the law, there is no room for the exercise of
grace ; whereas, if the law pronounces sentence of condemna
tion, then grace is manifested in our forgiveness. " If by
grace," says the apostle, " then it is no more of works : other
wise grace is no more grace " (Eom. xi. 6). And so also the
apostle uses the term grace in opposition to the law. The law
commands, and promises life as a reward for obedience ; grace,
on the other hand, freely bestows eternal dfe on those who
believe. The righteousness of the law is founded on merit ;
the righteousness of faith has its source in grace. Hence the
apostle represents believers as not under the law, but under
grace (Eom. vi. 14).
Grace, then, is the ultimate source of salvation. Paul traces
up everything in the Christian dispensation to the free grace
of God. It was His infinite love that induced Him to send
His Son to be a propitiation for our sins. "The declaration
(ev S etf t?) of His righteousness (BiKaioo-vvrj) in the death of Jesus,"
observes Baur, " could not have taken place, had He not, before
He manifested Himself as the righteous One, been the God of
grace, who gave the greatest proof of His grace, in that He has
exacted the punishment of sin, in order to render satisfaction
to His righteousness, not on men themselves, but on another
in their place." x The manifestation of the righteousness of
God was in order that His mercy might be freely extended
toward the penitent and believing. " God hath set forth
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 167.

260 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
Christ to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to
declare at this time His righteousness; that He might be just,
and the justifier of him which believeth on Jesus " (Eom. id.
25, 26).
V. The flesh (<rdp%) and the spirit (¦_-- ev/ui),.. the carnal
(aapKiKos) and the spiritual (•_-. e./-aTi«:o?), are also expressions
which enter largely into the Paudne theology.
The word flesh (o-dpfj) is employed by Paul with a great
breadth of meaning. Its primary signification is flesh, as in
Luke xxiv. 39 : "A spirit hath not flesh and bones." Then
its meaning is extended to denote the body, mankind in
general, human nature. Paul employs it in a somewhat dif
ferent sense, to denote the sinful condition of human nature.
The flesh is the seat of sin. " I know that in me, that is, in
my flesh, dwelleth no good thing " (Eom. vii. 1 8). Nor does
the apostle by flesh denote merely the body (o-mfia), the cor
poreal part of our nature, but he evidently intends our whole
fallen nature, both soul and body. Among the works of the
flesh he mentions several sins, such as wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies, envyings, which have their seat not so much in the
body as in the mind. He does not inculcate an inherent
depravity in the body to the exclusion of a mental depravity.
The corresponding adjective o-apKtKo<; or crdpKivo<; denotes that
which pertains to the o-dp%, — carnal. The carnal are they who
are in the flesh, in an unregenerate state, and cannot please
God (Eom. vid. 8).
The word spirit (irvevjia), corresponding to the Hebrew
n-n, primarily denotes the wind (John iii. 8). Hence breath,
the element of dfe, life, the spirit or the principle of life.
Paul, however, in discoursing on justification, employs it in a
i peculiar sense. According to him, it is opposed to the flesh,
and signifies human nature as sanctified or renewed by the
Spirit of God.1 As the <. a/_£ is the seat of sin, so the irvev/na
is the seat of holiness. " Ye are not in the flesh, but in the
1 In several passages where the apostle uses the term mtf/ui, it is extremely
difficult to decide whether he means the sanctified nature of man or the Holy
Spirit. Uvtufix is also occasionally used in a bad sense, to denote an evil spiritual
influence (Eph. ii. 2).

PAUL'S THEOLOGICAL TERMS. 261
spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwed in you" (Bom. vid.
9). So also the corresponding adjective nrvevfiaTiKo? denotes
that which pertains to the irvevp,a, — spirituaL The spiritual
are they who are in the spirit, in a regenerate state, led by the
Spirit of God, under the law of the Spirit of dfe which is in
Christ Jesus (Bom. vid. 2).
Thus then, according to Paul, there are two principles in i
human nature,—— the o-dpjj and the irvevfia. By the o-dp% he I
means human nature in its sinful condition ; and by the irvev/ia,
human nature, as it becomes by grace, in its renewed condition.
The works of the _-<_/.£ are all sinful feelings and actions ; the
fruits of the irvevfia are all holy graces (Gal. v. 19-23). The
believer is actuated by both principles; and between them
there is a continued contest. " The flesh lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary
the one to the other ; so that ye cannot do the things that ye
would " (Gal. v. 1 7). This appears to be the contest described
in the seventh chapter of the Eomans, — a contest carried on
in the hearts of the regenerate. Both principles rule in the
regenerate : with the spirit or mind they serve the law of God,
— that law which requires holiness ; but with the flesh the
law of sin, — that sinful principle which impels them to do
evd (Eom. vii. 25).1
There is another term which Paul uses as almost equiva
lent to o-apKiKo<;, namely i|rin£__o?. This has been differently
rendered in our version by the words natural (T Cor. d. 14,
xv. 44) and sensual (Jas. iii. 15; Jude 19). The word
¦tyvyfi, from which it is derived, corresponding to the Hebrew
B'fflJ, denotes the dfe, breath, the soul of man. It is difficult
to distinguish between the irvev/Jta and the ^vyf), or what we
term the spirit and the soul ; and yet in the mind of Paul
there is evidently a considerable difference. It would seem -
that the irvevp-a is a higher principle than the •^rv)(fj ;
so that ^v)(fi may denote the sensual or animal dfe, and
7rvevp.a the higher or spiritual life, — that which is susceptible
of being acted upon by divine influences, — the religious
nature. The corresponding adjective tyv%iK6<; signifies that
1 Perhaps the usual idea is that the contest described in Rom. vii. is a contest
carried on in the heart, not of the regenerate, but of the unregenerate.

262 THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
which pertains to the <fvyf\, — breathing, living. But in the
New Testament, so far from corresponding wfth 7. vey/iem/.-?,
it is contrasted with it, and appears to denote that which
pertains to the animal dfe uninfluenced by the spirit. Hence
it is not improperly rendered in our version by the term
natural, — that which pertains to us by nature. Thus Paul
says : " It is sown a natural body (cr&ixa ¦^tv^ikov), it is
raised a spiritual body " (cr&fia 7rvevfiaTiKov, 1 Cor. xv. 46) ;
the difference being between our present and our raised bodies.
So also he says: " The natural man" (i/rv^tKo? av$payiro<;) — that
is, man as he is by nature, unassisted by grace — " receiveth not
the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he know them,
for they are spirituady (77-. e-^aT wee.?) discerned " (1 Cor.
d. 14). Again, in the Epistle of James, the wisdom which
cometh not from above is said to be yjrv^iKfj (Jas. id. 15),
that is, not sensual, as it is rendered in our version, but natural,
uninfluenced by the Spirit. In a simdar manner, in the Epistle
of Jude, those who separate themselves are said to be -t/ru^iKot,
irvev/jua p,rj e%ov tc? (Jude 19), that is, such as they are by
/nature, destitute of the Spirit. From this it fodows that
V^w%i/-o? is somewhat equivalent to crapKiKo<;. The difference
between them seems to be that yfrv^tKb<; is the man who is
led by the dght of natural reason, — the natural man; and
o-apKiKos, the man who is led by his sin|uldisposition, — the
carnal man. The element of sin enters more strongly into
the latter term than it does into the former ; both are, how
ever, opposed to 7r- evptaftKos, as both are regarded as desti
tute, of the influences of the Spirit.
Some suppose that Paul teaches that there is in man a
threefold nature, — that he is composed of adpt- (or aa>/u,a),
tyvxfj, and irvevfia, — the body, the animal soul, and the
immortal spirit. This, it is affirmed, is taught us not only
by the employment of the adjectives corresponding to these
words; — o-apKtKO'i, i/ru^t/-.?, and irv eu/wm/eo?, — but directly by
the apostle when he says, " I pray God your whole spirit and
soul and body (oX6KXrjpov vjm&v to irvev/ia Kai rj Tjri^j) Kai to
o-m/ia) be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. v. 23).1 Such a notion does not
1 "xviu/tx," observes Cremer, "is the divine life-principle, . ¦tyuxp the indi-

paul-'s theological terms. 263
essentially enter into the theology of Paul, and is probably
a far-fetched inference. Eevelation is as dttle designed to
teach us psychology, as it is to instruct us in any of the
natural sciences. Man may possess a threefold nature, but
no argument can be derived in proof of it from the words of
Paul. In other parts of Scripture, man has only a twofold
nature ascribed to him, being possessed of a _-<_-/__*. and a
tyvxf) (Matt. x. 28). Whenever metaphysicians attempt to
reconcde Scripture with their ideas, they corrupt the word of
God with an admixture of human phdosophy, and fad into
the error of the Gnostics. Science, whether relating to mind
or matter, is left to be developed by our natural faculties, and
forms no part of revelation ; for this is designed to teach us,
not what we could, but what we could not know by our
unassisted powers : it makes known to us the way of salva
tion, and does not initiate us into the principles of mental
philosophy, except so far as these are connected with the
mysteries of redemption.
vidual life in which the rrvtuftx is manifested, and - upx the material organism
vivified by the -vf-u^ii." On the other hand, Dean Alford gives a different view
of the distinction between the mtupa and the iJ-b^ .• He regards the xnvpu, as
the immortal and responsible soul, and the -^_£>i as the lower or animal soul,
— that which we have in common with the brutes.

THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
THE Epistle to the Colossians is sufficiently attested both
by external and internal evidence. It is true that the
adusions to it by the apostolic fathers are few and vague ;
but it is referred to by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophdus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and other fathers of the
second century. Justin Martyr (a.d. 140) frequently applies
the term irpcaTOTOKo^ — most probably taken from this Epistle
— to Christ : as when he says, " Christ is the first-born of ad
things made ; " " The first-born of every creature ; " " The
first-born of God, and before ad creatures" (Col. i. 15).1
Irenaeus (a.d. 178) writes : "And in the Epistle to the Colos
sians Paul says, ' Luke the beloved physician greets you ' "
(Col. iv. 1 4).2 And again : " On account of this, the apostle
in the Epistle to the Colossians says, 'You, when ye were
sometime adenated and enemies in your mind by wicked
works, but now reconciled'" (Col. i. 21).3 Theophilus of
Antioch (ad. 181) says: "When God determined to make
those things about which He had taken counsel, He brought
forth this emanated Word, the first-born of every creature "
(Col. i. 15).4 Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 1 9 0) writes : "And
1 Dial, cum Tryph. pp. 310-326 ; Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 347.
2 Adv. Hesres. iii. 14, 1 : In epistola, quse est ad Colossenses, ait : Salutat vos
Lucas medicus dilectus.
3 Adv. Hesres. v. 14, 2 : Et propter hoc apostolus in epistola, quae est ad Colos
senses, ait : " Et vos cum essetis aliquando alienati, et inimici cogitationi ejus
in operibus malis, nunc autem reconciliati, " etc.
4 Ad Autoyc. ii. p. 100 : 'Osr.. - 'ii rtliXwiv i 0s« TTomcai 'Ita ipovXswxro,
rourov rh Xoyov iytvwiai vrpopopixov, vpuroroxov vratrtis xr'iaus.
264

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 265
in the Epistle to the Colossians he (Paul) writes : ' Admonish
ing every man and teaching every man in ad wisdom, that we
may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus ' " (Col. i. 28).1
And Tertullian (a.d. 200) writes: "From which things the
apostle restraining us, expressly cautions us against phdo-
sophy, saying, 'Beware lest any man spod you through
phdosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, and
not after the instruction of the Holy Spirit ' " (Col. ii. 8).2
The internal evidence is by no means defective. The
Epistle bears the impress of its Pauline origin. The cha
racter of Paul is discernible in the writer: his anxiety for
the spiritual welfare of the Colossians (i 9, ii. 5) ; his gratitude
to God for the good report which he had received of their
faith and love (i. 4) ; his earnest desires for their spiritual
improvement and increased holiness (i 9, 10) ; his liberality
and freedom from carnal ordinances (ii. 1 6) ; and his solici
tude for an interest in their prayers (iv. 3). The style, also,
with some variations, accounted for by the nature of the
subject, is decidedly Paudne. There are examples of Pauline
accumulation of sentences (i. 3-8, 9-20, ii. 9-15) ; of strong
assertions (i. 6, 23); of depth of meaning (ii. 9-11); of
anacolutha- (ii. 10, iii. 16); and of numerous Paudne expres
sions and modes of thought.
On account of the brevity of the Epistle, and its nature,
the undesigned coincidences between it and the Acts of the
Apostles and the other writings of Paul are few, but not
unimportant. In the Epistle, Aristarchus is mentioned as one
of those from whom salutations are sent (Col. iv. 1 0) ; and in
the Acts we learn that Aristarchus accompanied Paul when
he sailed as a prisoner to Eome (Acts xxvii. 2). In the
Epistle, a salutation is also sent from Mark, who is caded the
sister's son -(dv e\|rto?) to Barnabas ; and this affords a reason
for the peculiar interest which Barnabas is in the Acts repre-
1 Strom, i. C. 1 : Kav Tii itpas KoXorraus £-*<- f-XJi* vounlou vrts, ypxipu, travra
xvSpuxov, xai "hihaffxovns iv vraffy ffotpia, Iva vrapaffrntrupciv TTavra avSpwxov riXuov s~
Xpiirra/. 2 De prcsscript. advers. Hcsr. cap. vii. : A quibus nos apostolus refrenans
nominatim philosophiam contestatur caveri oportere scribens ad Colossenses:
" Videte, ne quis vos circumveniat per philosophiam et inanem seductionem
secundum traditionem hominum prater providentiam Spiritus sancti."

266 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
sented as taking in Mark in the dispute which arose with
Paul concerning him (Acts xv. 37). In the Epistle, saluta
tions are first sent from those of the circumcision, and then
fodow salutations from others, among whom Luke is men
tioned, from which it has been inferred that Luke was a
Gentde (Col. iv. 11, 14); and in the Acts, written by Luke,
there is a clause which has been construed to show that the
writer was not a Jew. Describing the field purchased with
the reward of the iniquity of Judas, it is said : " That field is
caded in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is, the field of
blood" (Acts i 19). The words "in their proper tongue" are
more appropriate as the writing of a Gentde than a Jew. In
the Epistle, Onesimus is mentioned as a Colossian (Col. iv. 9).
From the Epistle to Phdemon we learn that Onesimus was
the runaway slave of Phdemon ; Archippus is mentioned in
that Epistle as belonging to the household of Philemon
(Phdem. 2) ; and in the Epistle to the Colossians Archippus
is saluted as a minister of that church (Col. iv. 17), from
which it fodows that Onesimus also belonged to the same
city1 The Epistle to the Colossians, after remaining for eighteen
hundred years unchadenged, has recently been questioned by-
some German critics. The first who cast doubts upon it was
Schrader ;2 afterwards Mayerhoff, in a posthumous work,
entirely rejected it, supposing it to be a spiritless abridg
ment of the Epistle to the Ephesians ;3 Baur fodowed, reject
ing both Ephesians and Colossians ;4 and his views have been
adopted by Schwegler.8 The objections of these critics proceed
entirely on subjective grounds.
Mayerhoff's objections to the Epistle are as fodows : — 1.
Both language and style are un-Pauline ; various Paudne
terms are not employed ; there are numerous (_..«£ Xey6/j,eva ;
and such an expression as " neither Greek nor Jew " (Col. id.
1 For these and other undesigned coincidences, see Paley's Hor as Paulinos,
' ' On the Colossians. "
2 Apostel Paulus, vol. v. p. 175 ff.
3 Der Brief an die Kolosser mit vornehmlich Beruchsichtigung der drei Pas
toralbriefe Krit. gepruft, Berlin 1838.
Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 3-49.
6 Nachapost. Zeitalter, vol. ii. pp. 325-330.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 267
11), instead of Jew being put first, is decidedly un-Paudne.
But such objections are frivolous. Paul was no mechanical
writer, bound to certain words and phrases. The number of
a-jraf; Xeyo/ieva is easdy accounted for from the subject on
which he wrote, being a refutation of the errors of false
teachers of a Gnostic'character. All the peculiarities of the
Epistle are greatly outweighed by its decided Pauline cha
racter. 2. It is objected that there are un-Paudne repre
sentations of doctrine, and that the Epistle is poor in ideas.
But an objection drawn from a peculiarity of doctrine may be
made against any epistle written on a pecudar subject. The
statements of doctrine were caded forth by the necessities of
the church to which the apostle wrote. With regard tp the
poverty of thought in this Epistle, this is a mere question of
opinion, which is certainly not shared in by the majority of
critics. 3. It is asserted that the Epistle is so related to the
superior Epistle to the Ephesians, that it must be considered
as copied from it. The connection of these Epistles, the
nature and extent of which wid afterwards be considered,
may be accounted for by the circumstances that they were
written at the same time, and addressed to churches whose
wants were similar. The Epistles to the Galatians and
Bomans are somewhat simdarly related, though not to the
same extent ; but this similarity has never been urged as an
objection to either epistle. 4. It is affirmed that the opinions
of the false teachers of Colosse are those of Cerinthus, who
dved after the days of the apostles. This is a mere assertion
which is incapable of proof. The germs of the opinions of
Cerinthus may have already been in the Colossian church.
Nor is the age of Cerinthus accurately determined ; according
to several of the fathers, he lived in the apostodc age.1
The objections of Baur are much more ingenious, and con
sist in an attempt to prove that the views contained in this
Epistle are those of the Gnostics, who did not arise untd the
beginning of the second century, and consequently that the
Epistle could not have been written by Paul. The Epistle,
1 Mayerhoffs objections are stated and answered at length by Meyer, Kom-
mentar : Brief an die Kolosser, pp. 177-179 ; and by Olshausen Ore the Colossians,
pp., 288-292.

268 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
he observes, is fud of Gnostic expressions and resemblances,
such as irXriptofia^ fivo-Ti]piov, aocpla, yv&cns, Bwafiets, <£w?,
aKOTia, Koo-/j,oKpdT(op.ald>v, 7TjOO)totoko? irdcrr]'; «Ttcre&)?, etc. It
bears the closest resemblance to the views of the Gnostic Valen-
tinus. The false teachers are supposed to be the Judaizing
Christians, then formed into the sect of the Ebionites. Baur
thinks that the Epistle was concdiatory, designed to effect a
union between Jews and Gentdes, or the Petrine and Pauline
Christians. The universadty which is there inculcated is not
the union of ad things in heaven and in earth in Christ Jesus,
but the abolition of the distinction between Jews and Gen
tiles. This, and nothing higher, according to the writer of this
Epistle, is the .great design of the death of Christ.1
These objections are subjective, and derive their whole force
from Baur's pecudar views of the nature of primitive Chris
tianity. Many of the terms objected to are found in Paul's
unchadenged epistles. It was very probable that the germs
of Gnosticism, which was afterwards developed into a system,
appeared in the apostolic times. It is, however, more likely
that the Gnostics would derive their terms from the Epistle to
the Colossians than that the writer of the Epistle would copy
from the Gnostics. Although some of the terms are simdar,
yet there is no resemblance between the views inculcated.
The fulness (ifXripafia) of the Godhead which dwelt in Christ is
very different from the Gnostic pleroma, consisting of a series
of aeons. The creation of the world by the Son is a very
different statement from the Gnostic theory of creation by the
Demiurge, an aeon who had wandered away from the pleroma.
And Baur's suggestion as to the design of the Epistle is
extremely improbable and fanciful, — indeed, is so concealed,
that until the time of Baur it was never suspected. " It was
strange and incomprehensible," as Eeuss observes, " that an
orthodox cathode Christian, who wrote with a design of recon-
cding Pauline and Petrine Christianity, should have known no
more certain means than to borrow a dialect — equady strange
to both parties — of heretics repudiated on ad sides."2 In short,
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 21, 22, 41, 42 ; Baur's Kirchengeschichte,
vol. i. p. 116 ff.
2 Reuss' Geschichte der heil. Schr. N. T. p. 110.

THE CHURCH OF COLOSSE. 269
as Meyer observes, " the forgery of such an epistle would be
far more marvedous than its genuineness." x
Ewald's view is peculiar. He thinks that the matter of the
Epistle is Paul's, but that the style and expression, with the
exception of the concluding sentences, is Timothy's. He sup
poses that Paul suggested to Timothy what to write, and that
Timothy did so, using his own style and language.2 This
opinion is adopted to account for some linguistic peculiarities
in the Epistle. It is, however, unnatural and unnecessary, and
has never been adopted by any other writer.
II. THE CHURCH OF COLOSSE.
Colosse, or, as it is written according to the best manuscripts,
Colasse (KoAao-crat?),3 was a town in that part of Phrygia which
was in the apostodc age attached to the Eoman province of
Proconsular Asia, and was situated on the river Lycus, not far
from its junction with the Maeander, in the neighbourhood of
Hierapods and Laodicea. It was formerly a city of con
siderable importance. Herodotus cads it a great city,4 and
Xenophon describes it as prosperous and large.8 It, however,
decdned as Laodicea rose in importance. Strabo cads it TroXia/j,a,
a little town, and contrasts it with Laodicea.6 Pliny, however,
reckons it one of the most celebrated towns of Phrygia;7 but this
was probably with reference to its past greatness. Colosse after
wards received the name of Chone (Xa>vat) ; and a village called
Chonas still remains, which is supposed to mark its ancient site.
The words of the Epistle (Col. ii. 1) would seem to intimate
that Paul had never as yet visited Colosse. This view has
been contested ; and it has been supposed that the church of
Colosse was founded by the apostle. This opinion is adopted
by Theodoret, Lardner, Macknight, Schulz, Schott, Neudecker,
Wiggers, and Wordsworth. Lardner argues the point at great
' Meyer's Kolosser, p. 177. Baur's objections are answered by Bleek, Intro
duction to N. T. vol. ii. 35 ; Davidson's Introduction (new edition), pp. 178, 179 ;
and Meyer, are die Kolosser, p. 177.
2 Ewald, Sendschreiben des Apostel Paulus, p. 467 ; Meyer's Kolosser, p. 180.
3 The reading adopted by Tischendorf. • 4 _•__•» peyaXw, Herod, vii. 30.
'' toXiv oixouptivfiv, xaj tuixifiovx, xai fttyaXtiv. — Xen. Andb. i 2. 6.
6 Strabo, xii. 8. ' Pliny, H. N. v. 41.

270 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
length, and adduces no less than sixteen reasons in its support.1
The principal argument, however, is that in the Acts of the
Apostles mention is made of two visits paid by Paul to
Phrygia, and it is considered highly improbable that on neither
of these occasions did he visit Colosse, and especiady the cele
brated city of Laodicea. On the first occasion, we read that
Paul, accompanied by Sdas and Timothy, passed through
Phrygia and the region of. Galatia (Acts xvi. 6) ; and this was
not a mere flying visit, for then he founded the churches of
Galatia. And on the second occasion, we are informed that he
went over the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strength
ening the disciples (Acts xviii. 2 3). It is also argued that the
Epistle to the Colossians shows such intimate relations to the
church of Colosse as presupposes a personal connection with it.
Salutations are sent to it from Paul's friends ; and Archippus,
a native of Colosse, and Nymphas, a native of Laodicea, are
saluted by name. It would also appear from the Epistle to
Philemon, that Philemon was a native of Colosse, and a convert
of the apostle. And with regard to the passage (CoL ii. 1)
which seems to exclude Paul's personal presence at Colosse, it
is affirmed to be susceptible of a different meaning. " For I
would that ye knew what great conflict I have for you, and
for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face
in the flesh Qcal ocrot ovft ecopaKacn to "irpocrwirov /u,ov iv crapKC)."
Kai is here supposed to denote also, as if two classes of Chris
tians were denoted, — those who had seen Paul's face in the
flesh, namely the Colossians and Laodiceans, and also those
who had not seen him.2 " Paul's meaning is," observes Theo
doret : " ' I have much anxiety not only for you, but also even
for those who had never seen me.' " 3
The opposite view, namely, that Paul had never visited
Colosse, is adopted by the majority of critics. And this
is the more natural interpretation of the apostle's words,
although it is admitted that the language is somewhat am-
1 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. pp. 362-366.
2 Others refer the clause, " such as have not seen my face in the flesh," to those
members of the Colossian and Laodiftean churches who were personally un
acquainted with the apostle.
3 Theodoret, torn. iii. pp. 342, 343 ; Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, p. 313.

THE CHURCH OF COLOSSE. 271
biguous. "Ocrot, ov% ecopdicaai to irpoaairov fiov iv crapxi is
not to be taken in contrast to those of Colosse and Laodicea,
but as including them, and other Christians in the district :
ocrot ov% ewpaKaai, etc. are the general class to which the
Colossians and Laodiceans belong. This has indeed been
disputed on account of the words which fodow : " That their
hearts may be comforted (Xva trapaKXnQSjcnv al KapBLat avTwv),
being knit together in love " (Col. ii. 2). Those who adopt
the opinion that Paul had been at Colosse, restrict the avT&v
of verse 2 to the oVot ov% icopaKaat, etc.1 Thus Theodoret ob
serves : " The apostle says that their hearts may be comforted.
He does not say your hearts, but the hearts of those who have
not seen me." But the natural meaning is to refer the words
to the whole category : the pronoun is put in the third person
on account of ocrot, which precedes. " The avT&v of verse 2,"
observes Conybeare, "comprehends and binds together the Colos
sians and the Laodiceans with the ocrot,."2 Besides, on Paul's
previous visit to Phrygia, he traversed the northern part of the
country, whereas Colosse and Laodicea lay to the south. In
his first visit, he passed from Derbe and Lystra to Phrygia,
thence northward to Galatia and Troas ; and on this second
visit, we are informed that he passed through the upper coasts
and came down to Ephesus (Acts xix. 1). Phrygia was a very
populous district, and is said to have possessed sixty-two towns,
so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that Paul may
never have visited two of these towns, Colosse and Laodicea.
In short, Paul appears to have been in that part of Phrygia
which belonged to the Eoman province of Galatia, — not in that
portion which was attached to Proconsular Asia. Paul's con-
1 " If," observes Lardner, " the Colossians had been among those who had not
seen him, he would have expressed himself in this manner : ' I would that ye
knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea, and for as many
as have not seen my face in the flesh, that your hearts might be comforted. ' But
upon the mention of such as had not seen him, he says, ' that their hearts might
be comforted. ' " — Works, vol. iii. p. 365.
2 See Meyer ire loc. Bishop Wordsworth admits that the first impression
made on the mind on hearing these words is, that the Colossians whom he was
addressing had never seen the apostle. See also Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii.
p. 23 ; Wieseler's Chronologie, p. 440 ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 402
(old edition) ; EUicott in loc; Schenkel ire loc. The argument is not so con
vincing as to admit of no dubiety.

272 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
nection with Colosse may be accounted for by bis long residence
at Ephesus, by the church at Colosse being founded by some
of his fedow-labourers, and perhaps by his coming into per
sonal contact with some of the Colossians.
The church of Colosse, then, dke the church of Eome, was
not founded by Paid. When and by whom it was founded,
are questions to which only a doubtful answer can be given.
It was probably after Paul's second visit to Phrygia (Acts
xviii. 2 3) that Christianity was first introduced into Colosse ;
for on that journey it is said that he went through Galatia and
Phrygia in order, strengthening the disciples, and consequently
he would not have omitted Colosse, had there been a church
in that city. The most likely supposition is, that the gospel
was introduced into Colosse during Paul's long residence at
Ephesus. Ephesus was a centre for the diffusion of Christi
anity : many from the other cities of Proconsular Asia resorted
to it, and dstened to the preaching of the great apostle. " Ad
they that dwelt in Asia,'\ the sacred historian informs us,
" heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks."
And Demetrius the silversmith complained "that not alone
at Ephesus, but almost throughout ad Asia, this Paul hath
persuaded and turned away much people " (Acts xix. 10,2 6).
Epaphras and Phdemon, both Colossians, may have come in
contact with the apostle at Ephesus, and been converted by
him to Christianity, and on their return may have been the
instruments of disseminating the gospel in their native city.
Indeed, there is good reason for supposing that Epaphras was
the founder of the Colossian Church. The apostle ascribes
their first knowledge of the gospel to him : " As ye also learned
of Epaphras, our dear fellow-servant, who is for you a faith
ful minister of Christ " (Col. i 7).1 Little is known of this
fedow-labourer of the apostle. He was a Colossian by birth,
as in the salutation sent to Colosse he is designated, " Epaphras
who is one of you " (6 ef vfiwv , Col. iv. 1 2). His zeal for
the Colossians and for the neighbouring churches of Laodicea
and Hierapolis is commended (Col. iv. 1 3), being probably the
founder of Christianity in all three cities. In the Epistle to
Phdemon, the apostle calls him his fedow-prisoner (awavjfjta-
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii, Prolegomena, p. 35.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 273
\t_To?, Philem. 23) ; but it is doubtful whether this alludes to
an actual imprisonment, or merely to his sympathy with Paul
in his bonds. Grotius and others have identified him with
Epaphroditus, the messenger of the church of Philippi (PhiL
ii. 25). It is doubtful if Epaphras is a contraction for Epa
phroditus : the one was a Colossian, and the other most
probably a Macedonian.
The church of Colosse was chiefly composed of Gentde
Christians. The apostle speaks of them as having been not
carnady but spiritually circumcised. " In whom ye also are
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in
putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circum
cision of Christ. And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with
Him " (Col. ii. 11, 13). There were certainly Jewish elements
In the church, and the Colossians were in danger of being
corrupted by Jewish false teachers, but still the church was
mainly composed of Gentde converts.
III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle to the Colossians is polemical, being directed
against false teachers, who were drawing away the disciples
from the simplicity of the gospel. The character of these
false teachers and their pecudar views are reserved for future
consideration. At present it is sufficient to observe that they
were Jewish Christians, but of an entirely different character
from the Judaizing teachers who disturbed the peace of the
churches of Galatia and Corinth. That they were Jews,
is evident from their insisting on the importance of circum
cision, and on the observance of new moons and sabbath-days
(CoL ii. 11, 16); and that they were Christians, is evident
from the manner in which the apostle describes them (Col.
ii. 19). From the Judaizing teachers they are chiefly distin
guished by not insisting so strongly on the Mosaic law, and
by mixing Judaism with phdosophical speculation. The views
which they promulgated were extremely pernicious, especiady
as regards the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they
seem to have regarded as belonging to the angelic order.

274 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
The apostle received information of the state of the Colos
sian church from Epaphras, who was then in Eome, perhaps
sent by the Colossians to consult the apostle on the affairs of
their church. The information which he brought was partly
of a satisfactory nature. The apostle heard from him of their
" faith and love to all the saints ; " and Epaphras " also declared
unto him their love in the Spirit " (Col. i 4, 8). But along
with what was satisfactory, there was much of an opposite
character. The church was threatened by dangerous heresies,
— heresies which struck at the very root of the faith (Col.
ii. 18, 19). These heresies were promulgated by the false
teachers of Colosse, and had met with some success. The
simplicity of the gospel was corrupted by an admixture of
heathen phdosophy ; the supreme dignity and glory of Christ
was denied ; the worship of angels was introduced into the
church ; and principles of an ascetic nature and tendency were
inculcated and practised.
The existence and influence of these false teachers at Colosse
was the occasion of this Epistle. The apostle wrote with a
design to refute and correct their errors. For this purpose he
dweds upon, the supreme glory of Christ, — His exaltation above
ad angelic powers ; and he warns the Colossians against the
admixture of heathen phdosophy with the truths of the gospel.
The bearers of the Epistle were Tychicus, an Asiatic by birth,
one of those who accompanied Paul on his last journey to
Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4), and who is here described as "a
beloved brother and a faithful minister and fedow-servant
in the Lord ; " and Onesimus, a Colossian, once the runaway
slave of Philemon, but now Paul's "faithful and beloved
brother" (CoL iv. 7-9).
IV . THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle to the Colossians is divided into two distinct
parts : the first part is polemical, and contains a refutation of
the false teachers of Colosse (chap. i. d.) ; and the second part
is practical, and contains exhortations to hodness (chap. id. iv.).
After the usual salutation and thanksgiving on behalf of
the Colossians, the apostle expresses his earnest desire for

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 275
their spiritual improvement, in the form of a prayer (chap.
i. 1—14). He then describes, in opposition to the false
teachers, the supreme glory of Christ as the image of the
invisible God, the Creator and Preserver of ad things, and the
Head of the body, the Church (chap, i 15-23). He expresses
his dedght in the office to which he was called, as a minister
of reconcfdation, and his readiness to suffer in the cause
of Christ (chap. i. 24-29). He informs them of the great
anxiety which he had for them, on account of the danger to
which they were exposed by heretical teachers, and earnestly
warns them against the principles of a false philosophy, the
worship of angels, intrusion into the invisible world, and other
false doctrines and practices (chap. ii). In the ethical portion
of the Epistle, the apostle exhorts to heavenly-mindedness, to
a renunciation of ad fleshly lusts and irascible passions, to
the avoidance of falsehood, to the performance of the duties
of domestic dfe, and to a circumspect conduct in the world
(chap, iii.— iv. 6). He then informs them of the mission of
Tychicus and Onesimus, sends the salutations of the friends
who were with him, salutes the brethren of Laodicea, and
closes the Epistle with his apostodc benediction (chap. iv.
7-18). V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
The date of this and of the contemporary Epistles to the
Ephesians and Phdemon has been much disputed. Whdst
it is generady admitted that the Epistle to the Philippians
was written from Eome,1 the other three Epistles of the
captivity — Ephesians, Colossians, and Phdemon — are by some
supposed to have been written during the imprisonment at
Caesarea, and by others during the imprisonment at Borne.
The latter is the usual opinion; but the former has been
embraced by some of our greatest modern critics.
The hypothesis that the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians,
and Phdemon were written from Caesarea, has been adopted
by Beza, Schulz, Schott, Bottger, Schneckenburger, Thiersch,
1 Bottger is an exception to this ; he supposes that the Epistle to the Philip
pians was written from Csesarea.

276 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Holtzmann, Meyer, Eeuss, Schenkel, and other distinguished
scholars in Germany.1 The arguments in favour of this
opinion are ably stated by Meyer.2 They are as fodows : —
1. It is more natural and probable that Onesimus fled from
Colosse to Caesarea, than that he undertook a long sea voyage
to Eome. 2. If the Epistles to the Ephesians and Coloesians
were sent from Eome, Onesimus and Tychicus (Col. iv. 8, 9)
would first arrive at Ephesus and then at Colosse, which
renders the omission of Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephe
sians inexplicable ; whereas, if they were sent from Caesarea,
Onesimus and Tychicus would first arrive at Colosse, where
Onesimus would be left with his master Phdemon, and
Tychicus would proceed alone to Ephesus, which accounts for
the omission of Onesimus. 3. In Eph. vi. 21, Xva Be elBfJTe
Kai i/iet? Td kot e/ie ("but that ye also may know my
affairs "), /cat shows that Tychicus had already reported the
affairs of the apostle to others, namely, to the Colossians
(Col. iv. 8), whom Paul knew that he would visit first, — a -
circumstance which is in favour of a journey not from Eome,
but from Caesarea. 4. In Philem. 22, Paul requests Philemon
to prepare him a lodging, which assumes a direct journey to
Phrygia; whereas it appears from Phil. d. 24 that Paul, when
released from his Eoman imprisonment, designed to go into
Macedonia. These arguments are, however, more ingenious than sodd.
It is as probable that Onesimus would escape to Eome as to
Caesarea,— indeed, more probable, as he would have greater
opportunity of concealment in the metropods. There was no
need to mention Onesimus in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
as Onesimus had no connection with Ephesus; whereas his
connection with Colosse was personal and intimate, — it was
his native town, and his master Philemon dwelt there. The
argument drawn from Eph. vi. 21 is far-fetched. There does
not appear to be any special reference to the Epistle to the
Colossians : the words are a mere incidental remark that
Tychicus would inform the Ephesians of his affairs, so that
1 De Wette expresses himself in a hesitating manner. — Einleitung, p. 303.
5 Meyer's Epheser, pp. 17-19 ; see also Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii.,
Prolegomena, p. 21, where Meyer's arguments are given and combated at length.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 277
they might know them as wed as others. At Csesarea, Paul
had his eye fixed on Eome, not on Proconsular Asia, which
he had lately left with a presentiment that he would not
return. To preach the gospel at Eome was the great desire
of his heart, which he had for many years entertained. A
proposed visit to Colosse is suitable if Paul wrote from Eome,
but not if he wrote from Caesarea.
The usual opinion, that the Epistles to the Ephesians,
Colossians, and Philemon were written from Eome, is adopted
by Bleek, Wieseler, Guericke, Davidson, Conybeare and How
son, Lightfoot, Alford, Lange, and other distinguished critics.1
The reasons on which this opinion is founded are certainly
only presumptive, as there are no adusions to Eome in any
of these Epistles. The arguments in favour of it are chiefly
two, — the nature of the Boman imprisonment, and Paul's
companions at Borne. 1. At Borne Paul seemed to have had
more freedom in preaching the gospel than at Caesarea. At
Caesarea we are only informed that Paul's acquaintances were
adowed to visit him (Acts xxiv. 23) ;2 whereas at Eome,
Paul was not in prison, but in his own hired house, and re
ceived all who came unto him, preaching the kingdom of God
and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus with
ad confidence, no man forbidding him (Acts xxvid. 30, 31).3
Now this greater liberty in preaching the gospel at Eome
corresponds with what we read in these Epistles. Paul
requests the Ephesians to pray for him, that utterance might
be given to him that he might open his mouth boldly to make
known the mystery of the gospel (Eph. vi. 19, 20) ; and a
simdar request is made to the Colossians : " Withal praying
also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance,
to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds :
1 Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 21 ; Wieseler's Chronologie, pp. 394-398 ;
Guericke's Isagogik, pp. 321, 322 ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. i. (new
edition), p. 425 ; Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 472 ; Lightfoot
On the Philippians, pp. 1-28 ; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii. , Prolegomena,
pp. 20-22 ; Lange's Apostol. Zeitalter, vol. i. p. 351.
2 " The permission of Felix," observes EUicott, " can scarcely be strained into
any degree of liberty to teach or preach the gospel."
3 See author's Commentary on tlie Acts, vol. ii. pp. 448-450 ; Lightfoot Ore
the Galatians, "St. Paulin Rome," pp. 1-28.

278 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak " (Col. iv.
3, 4). 2. The companions of Paul, mentioned in the Epistles,
suit Eome better than Caesarea. Two of them, Aristarchus
and Luke, accompanied the apostle to Eome. And it was
in the great metropods, the resort of ad nations, that Paul
would meet with his friends and fedow-labourers, rather than
in Caesarea, which, although the Boman capital of Palestine,
was not a town of much importance to those who were not
Jews. The preponderance of argument is decidedly in favour
of the Eoman imprisonment.
Paul's imprisonment at Eome does not appear, at least
during the early part of it, to have been severe. His dberty
was, indeed, in some measure restricted. He was in custodia
militare. He could not go where he would. He had to
confine himself to his own house. But it was his own house
in which he dwelt : no restriction was put upon his receiving
visitors, and perfect dberty was granted to him to preach the
gospel. He was also under the protection of the Eoman
government, and met with no molestation either from the
unbelieving Jews or the ignorant multitude. He stid 'con
tinued to be burdened with the care of all the churches, whose
messengers went to and came from him. He took a dving
interest in their wants, and wrote epistles for their instruction
and guidance.
Three of the Epistles of the captivity were contemporaneous.
The Epistles to the Colossians and Phdemon were evidently
written together. They are both sent in the joint name of
Paul and Timothy. The companions of the apostle mentioned
in these Epistles are the same, with the single exception of
Jesus called Justus (CoL iv. 11). Onesimus is the bearer of
both, and Archippus is saluted in both. In short, they were
sent at the same time, by the same bearer, and to the same
town. So also the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians
were written at the same time. This is evident, not only from
their remarkable resemblance in expressions, but also from the
circumstance that they were sent by the same bearer. Tychicus,
the bearer of the Epistle to the Colossians (Col. iv. 7, 8), is
also the bearer of the Epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. vi. 21).1
1 See Wieseler's Chronologie des apostolischen Zeitalters, pp. 431, 432.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 279
The order in which the Epistles to the Ephesians and
Colossians were written, is a matter of no great importance.
Some (Eichhorn, Schneckenburger, Credner, Guericke, Eeuss,
Wordsworth) consider that the Epistle to the Ephesians was
first written ; others (Harless, Neander, De Wette, Olshausen,
Bleek, Meyer, Schaff, Alford) give the priority to the Epistle
to the Colossians. There are very slight grounds to go on,
and a definite conclusion can hardly be attained. Some, on
the supposition that the epistle from Laodicea (Col. iv. 16).
is the same as the Epistle to the Ephesians, argue for the
priority of that Epistle ; but for this supposition we have
seen there is no ground, and even if it were the case, it would
not settle the question. Others suppose that in Eph. vi. 21,
"va Be elBrjTe Kai vfieh Ta Kar ip,e, there is a reference to
what the apostle had already written in Col. iv. 7 j1 but this
also, as we have already remarked, is a far-fetched conclusion.
Some slight reason in favour of the priority of the Epistle
to the Colossians may be thought to arise from the fact that
that Epistle was caded forth by the particular circumstances
of the church, whereas the Epistle to the Ephesians was more
general. " The Epistle to the Colossians," observes Neander,
"was written first, for the apostle's thoughts there exhibit
themselves in their original formation and connection, as they
were caded forth by his opposition to that sect whose senti
ments and practices he combats in that epistle." 2
Bleek, with some hesitation, considers it probable that the
Epistle to the Phidppians is of prior date to the other three.3
This opinion has been adopted and defended with much
ingenuity by Professor Lightfoot.4 He considers the Epistle
to the Philippians as the link which connects Paul's earlier
with his later epistles, and that it bears a closer resemblance
to the Epistle to the Eomans, to which, according to him, it
stands next in chronological order, than to the Epistles to the
Ephesians and Colossians. These two Epistles, he considers,
• Olshausen Ore the Ephesians, p. 125.
2 Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 329 ; see also SchafPs History ofthe Apostolic
Church, vol. i. p. 378.
3 Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 15.
4 Lightfoot Ore the Philippians, pp. 29-45.

280 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
exhibit an advanced stage in the development of the church.
The heresies which the apostle there combats are no longer
the crude materialistic errors of the early chddhood of Chris
tianity; but the more subtle speculations of its maturer age.
These reasons are, however, not sufficient to overturn the
generady accepted opinion of the later date of the Epistle
to the Phidppians. When Paul wrote that Epistle, his im
prisonment was coming to a crisis. His long-deferred trial
was about to take place, and the question regarding his
dedverance or death was to be decided. The Epistle to the
Phidppians, we infer, was written toward the close of his
imprisonment, when, as is most probable, he was restored to
dberty. No argument can be deduced from the subject-
matter of these Epistles, as this varied according to the cir
cumstances of the churches to which the apostle wrote. The
church of Phdippi was comparatively uncontaminated with
error, whilst the churches of Colosse and' Ephesus were
threatened with the heresies of false teachers.
At the same time, there does not appear to have been a
long interval between the composition of the Epistle to the
Phdippians and the other three Epistles. It is probable that
ad four were written toward the close of the last year of Paul's
imprisonment (a.d. 63). Not only in the Epistle to the
Phidppians does he mention the probabidty of his release
and his expectation of shortly coming to Macedonia (Phd. ii.
24), but in the Epistle to Philemon he makes a similar
intimation (Phdem. 22). Circumstances had occurred which
led the apostle to suppose that his imprisonment was coming
to its close, although he could not ted with certainty whether
his trial would end in his liberation or in his martyrdom.
VI. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
The three great Epistles of the first Eoman captivity —
Ephesians, Phdippians, and Colossians — have certainly marked
pecudarities which distinguish them from the other epistles
of Paul. Whdst the other epistles treat chiefly of redemp
tion as effected by the reconciliation of man to God, these
Epistles treat chiefly of the character ahd nature of Christ:

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 281
they are more christological than the other epistles. There
is in them a nearer approach to the Johannean type of
Christianity, — to the doctrine of the Logos. The apostle dweds
upon the divine nature of Christ, His pre-eminence above ad
creatures, His possession of the fulness of the Godhead, His
appearance as the visible manifestation of God, and His being
in the form of God.1 But it is not to be supposed that there
is here any change in the apostle's views, as if, when writing
his earder epistles, he had held lower views of Christ's nature.
There are no grounds for such an opinion. The difference
arose from the circumstances of the churches to which he
wrote, and the errors which he combated. His views were
the same in his earlier epistles, though not so fully expressed.
At the same time, it may be admitted to be not impossible
that there may have been higher revelations communicated
to him of the relation in which Christ stood to the angelic
natures, and of the great design of redemption, to reconcde
all things in Christ, whether they be things in earth or things
in heaven (Col. i. 20), — mysterious truths, of which we have
the hints and outlines in these epistles, but which we can only
imperfectly comprehend.
The Epistle to the Colossians, as distinguished from the
Epistle to the Ephesians, to which it bears such a close
resemblance, is chiefly remarkable for the great number of
dira^ Xeyofieva contained in it, amounting to thirty-four. The
reason of this, as has been already remarked, arises from the
polemical nature of this Epistle, and from the pecudarities
of the errors against which it was directed. This is evident
when it is considered that the greater number of these words
are found in the seeond chapter, where these errors* are
specially discussed.2
The most important commentaries on the Epistle to the
Colossians are those of Olshausen (Konigsberg 1840), Huther
(Hamburg 1841), De Wette (Leipzig 1845), Meyer (Gottin-
1 For the difference between the earlier epistles of Paul and those of the
captivity, see some good remarks in Davies' Epistles of St. Paul to Ephesians,
Colossians, and Philemon, pp. 78-87 ; see also pp. 47-49 of this work.
2 For the _V_£ Xiyipuva in the Epistle to the Colossians, see Alford's Greek
Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 40.

282 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
gen 1848; third edition, 1865); and in our own country,
Eadie (Glasgow 1856), Eldcott (London 1858), and Davies
(London 1866).

THE FALSE TEACHEES AT COLOSSE.1
It has been already remarked that the Epistle to the Colos
sians is polemical, being directed against the errors of certain
false teachers. The apostle warns the Colossians to beware
lest any man should spod them through philosophy and vain
deceit, — a mixture of the pure doctrines of the gospel with
the traditions of men, — a theosophy founded on the principles
of this world's wisdom, and not on the revelation of Jesus
Christ. In opposition to this false theosophy, he dwells on
the divinity and supreme glory of the Lord Jesus Christ :
that in Him dwedeth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;
and that He is the Head of all principality and power. He
teds them that the true circumcision is not carnal, but
spiritual, — putting ¦ off the sins of the flesh ; that although
they belonged to the uncircumcision, Christ has forgiven them
all trespasses, removed by His cross those legal obstacles
which hindered their salvation, and conquered all their
spiritual enemies ; and therefore they are now no longer to
judge one another 'Concerning the observances of Jewish prac
tices,- — such as the distinctions of meats and drinks, and the
observance of the feasts, the new moons, and the sabbaths of
the Jews. He further warns them against a false humidty,
the worship of angels, and a prying curiosity into the mysteries
of the unseen world, as having a tendency to draw away their
thoughts and affections from Christ, who is the only Head of
the body the Church, and the only source of life and spiritual
nourishment. And, lastly, he cautions them against ascetic
practices, — subjection to ordinances, abstinence from things
1 This subject is discussed in Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 30-34 ;
Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 25-27 ; Davidson's Introduction (old edition),
vol. ii. pp. 407-424 ; Eadie Ore the Colossians, Introduction, pp. 30-39 ; Meyer's
Kolosser, pp. 173-176 ; Lange's Das apostolisclie Zeitalter, vol. ii. pp. 353-356 ;
Neander's Planting, vol. i. pp. 319-326 ; and Olshausen On the Colossians, pp.
292-299. .

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSE. 283
which God had permitted, and bodily mortifications founded
on the commandments and doctrines of men (Col. ii. 8-2 3).
It has been disputed whether the errors thus adverted to
belong to one class of heretics, or whether the apostle censures
several classes of false teachers, and opposes totady different
tendencies of the human mind. Some suppose that the apostle
combats the errors of teachers belonging to different schools.
Thus Heinrichs thinks that there were at Colosse both Juda
izers and Gnostics, — both those who attached too great im
portance to the Jewish law, and those who undervalued it.
And certainly, at first sight, there seems some ground for
this supposition. The reference to spditual circumcision, the
mention of the handwriting of ordinances, and the caution
against judging one another concerning meats and drinks and
the observance of holy days, new moons, and sabbaths, points
to Judaizing principles ; whereas the warnings of the apostle,
" Beware lest any man spoil you through phdosophy and vain
deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the
world, and not after Christ " (Col. ii. 8), and " Let no man
beguile you of your reward into a voluntary humility and
worshipping of angels " (Col. ii. 1 8), have an anti-Gnostic
appearance. At the same time, it is to be remembered that
Colosse was a small town, and that consequently the church
there must have been smad, so that it is improbable that
several heretical sects should have been found there. There
is also a unity in the admonitions of the apostle, which is
hardly consistent with the supposition that he is combating
the errors of different heretics. And the Judaizing and Gnostic
tendencies had not separated and defined themselves so early
as the days of the apostle ; whereas we learn from ecclesias
tical history there appears to have existed in the eardest age
a sect of Judaizing Gnostics.1
There was a tendency to Judaism in the doctrines of these
false teachers. This is evident from spiritual circumcision
being insisted on by the apostle (Col. ii. 11), which presupposes
that these teachers dwelt on the importance of circumcision ;
and also from his caution against Jewish practices (Col. d. 16),
i For a refutation of the opinion of Heinrichs, see Olshausen On the Colossians,
p. 294 ; and Davidson's Introduction (old edition), p. 407.

284 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
implying that Judaistic elements mingled in their doctrines.
At the same time, the false teachers at Colosse were not pre
cisely similar to the Judaizing teachers who disturbed the
peace of the churches of Galatia and Corinth, and against
whom the apostle warns the Phdippians (Phil, iii 2, 3).
They do not seem to have asserted the necessity of circum
cision for salvation, but rather as a counsel of perfection,
conferring greater privileges on those who submitted to the
rite.1 There were two tendencies in Judaism, — the one prac
tical, insisting on the observance of the rites and ceremonies
of the law as absolutely essential for salvation, and this was
the tendency which Paul had to oppose in the Epistle to the
Galatians ; and the other theoretical, rather contemplative
than active, attending more to the spiritual than to the
ceremonial elements of Judaism, and this seems to have been
the tendency which the apostle had to oppose in the Epistle
to the Colossians. The one tendency was represented in the
Jewish Church by the sect of the Pharisees, who were legalists
and formalists, and the other tendency by the sect of the
Essenes, whose leanings were to speculation in doctrine and
asceticism in practice.
Along with these Judaistic elements there was a mixture
of heathen philosophy, which stid more evidently distinguished
these Colossian heretics from the Judaizing teachers, and adied
them to the Gnostics. Hence the warning addressed to the
Colossians, " Beware lest any man spoil you through phdo
sophy" (Col. ii. 8). This philosophy is described as "vain
deceit " («e. r] dnraTr)), the source of pride and self-deception ;
as " after the traditions of men," in contradistinction to the
revelation of Christ ; as " after the rudiments of the world,"
the principles of worldly wisdom ; as " not after Christ," being
opposed to His gospel ; and as professing humdity, yet " vainly
puffed up by a carnal mind." Such a mixture of phdosophy
with Judaism was then not uncommon. The strict Pharisees,
indeed, were jealous of all foreign admixture ;2 but the more
1 Lechler's Das apostolische Zeitalter, p. 389.
2 The sect of the Pharisees were subdivided into two parties, — the stricter
faction, or the school of Schammai, and a more liberal faction, or the school of
Hillel. The school of Hillel permitted the study of Greek philosophy. Gamaliel
belonged to this school.

-

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSE. 285
liberal Jews cultivated the Greek phdosophy, and thus either
unwittingly or designedly introduced it into their redgion.1
This was especiady the case among the Jews of Alexandria,
where there was at that time a flourishing school of philosophic
Judaism, — the school of Phdo, which arose from a union of
Judaism and Platonism.2
This false philosophy appears to have occupied itself with
discussions concerning the nature of angels and the hierarchy
of the heavenly world. Hence the warning of the apostle
against the worship of angels : " Let no man beguile you of
your reward into a voluntary humdity and worshipping of
angels (OprjaKela to. dyyeXwv), intruding into those things
which he hath not seen " (Col. d. 1 8). Angels occupied an
important place in the Jewish religion. They frequently
appeared to the patriarchs. The law was given by the
ministry of angels. An angel (6 ayyeXos) is represented as
guiding the Israedtes through the wilderness. And in the
book of Daniel angels are described as the rulers of kingdoms.
From being venerated, they came to be worshipped by the
Jews. Thus in the book of Tobit angels are represented as
mediators with God, and as presenting the prayers of good
men to God (Tobit xii. 12, 13). Philo taught that angels
are ambassadors and mediators between God and man.3
In an apocryphal book, written about the middle of the
second century, entitled " The Preaching of Peter " (Krjpvyfm
TIeTpov), the Jews are described as worshippers of angels.
Nor was angelolatry unknown among Christians. The
Gnostic sects especially worshipped angels, as the aeons who
constituted the pleroma. At the councd of Laodicea, a.d.
363 (a city in the immediate neighbourhood of Colosse), the
worship of angels was forbidden in a special canon.4 And
Theodoret, in his commentary on this Epistle, teds us that in
his days this superstition was stid practised in Phrygia, and
1 "From whatever cause," observes Dr. Davies, "the most actively eclectic
minds in those ages were Jewish minds." — Epistles of St. Paul, p. 131.
2 There is also a considerable element of Oriental philosophy in Philonism.
3 See Whitby's note on Col. ii. 18.
4 on ou ds. Xpimavous iyxaraXltoruv rhv ixxXttrixv rou Btou xai ayyiXous ovo/ta^u* :
that Christians should not leave the Church of God, and invoke angels. — Canon
xxxv.

286 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
that there were in the district to be found oratories dedicated
to the Archangel Michael.1
It would further appear, from the manner in which the
apostle so strongly insists on the divinity of Christ, that this
false theosophy assigned an inferior position to the Lord
Jesus Christ. The apostle, in opposition to this theosophy,
asserts that in Christ dwedeth ad the fulness of the Godhead
boddy (Col. ii, 9) ; that He is the image of the invisible God,
the first-born of every creature, the Creator of heaven and
earth, exalted above ad thrones and dominions and principad-
ties and powers (Col. i 15, 16); and that He is the Head
both of His body the Church (KecpdXr) tov o-aparos tj}?
eKKXrjaia'i, Col. i. 18), and of ad principality and power
(KeepaXr) irdarfi dpxfjs Kai e'fovo-ta?, Col. d. 10). It is not
certain whether these Colossian heretics entertained Docetic
views concerning the person of Christ, and distinguished
between the Christ and the man Jesus. It would rather
appear that they regarded Him as belonging to the angedc
order, and that their views were somewhat similar to those
which were afterwards developed ' by Arius. Analogous
opinions were entertained by the Ebionites, — some of whom,
indeed, considered Christ to be a mere man, but others
assigned to Him a high rank in the angelic order. So also
the Gnostics regarded Christ as an aeon or divine power,
who descended from the pleroma upon the man Jesus.
Whdst the doctrines of these Colossian heretics were mystic,
their practice was ascetic. They gained credit for superior
hodness and humdity by reason of their self-imposed penances.
"If," says the apostle, "ye be dead with Christ from the
rudiments of the world, why, as though dving in the world,
are ye subject to ordinances, 'Touch not, taste, not, handle
not' (which ad are to perish with the using), after the com
mandments and doctrines of men ? Which things have indeed
a show of wisdom in wdl-worship and humdity, and neglect
ing of the body ; not in any honour to the satisfying of the
flesh" (Col. ii 20-23). They seem, like many of the Greek
phdosophers, t o have regarded matter as evd, and the body as
the seat of sin, which must be mortified. Perhaps also they
1 Theodoret on Col. ii. 18.

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSE. 287
were among the number of those who not only commanded to
abstain from meats, but also forbade to marry (fir] ayjrn, fj,vBe
yevo-y, /ir/Be 6irfy$), and thus in both points bore a resemblance
to the Essenes. They may also, on the ground of the inherent
depravity of matter, like the false teachers in Corinth, have
denied the resurrection of the body, and explained it away as
a spiritual resurrection. It does not, however, appear, from
anything that is here said, that they went the length of
denying the resurrection of Christ.
Such mystic notions and ascetic practices found a congenial
sod in Phrygia. This country was notorious for the fanatical
and mystic nature of its redgion, and for the boddy mortifi
cations practised by the worshippers of Cybele. Numerous
Jews had been transplanted into it by Antiochus the Great.
That monarch, as we are informed by Josephus, removed two
thousand Jewish families out of Mesopotamia and Babylon
into Lydia and Phrygia.1 It would seem that these Jews
had imbibed the Phrygian spirit of speculation ; and from this
cause probably arose that mixture of Judaism, mysticism, and J
asceticism, against which Paul cautions the Colossians. In
like manner, it was from Phrygia that, in the second century,
the mystical and wide spread heresy of Montanism had its •
origin. Such were the opinions of the false teachers at Colosse.
Our next inquiry is, who they were. On this point very
different opinions are entertained by modern critics. The
most important are here noticed.
Some (Schottgen, Eichhorn, Schneckenburger, and Hug)
suppose that they were unconverted Jews, who sought to gain
proselytes to Judaism from among the Colossian Christians.
Schottgen supposes that they were Pharisees ; Eichhorn, that
they were indirect rather than avowed opponents of Chris
tianity, who by an appearance of extraordinary sanctity imposed
upon the Colossians ; 2 Schneckenburger, that they were uni-
versadsts or eclectics, who subordinated Christianity as wed
as phdosophy to Judaism ; 3 and Hug, that they were Jews

lius, Ant. xii. 3, 4.
2 Eichhorn's Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 289.
3 Schneckenburger's Beitrage zur Einleitung, pp. 146-152.

288 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
who had imbibed the Chaldean or Magian philosophy.1 That
they were Jewish teachers, is evident from their insisting on
Jewish rites and ceremonies ; but it is also evident, from the
manner in which the apostle describes them, that they were
I not unconverted Jews, but Jewish Christians. He indeed
accuses them of not holding the Head (ov KpaT&v ttjv KecpaXrjv,
Col. ii. 1 9) ; but it is evident from the context that this does
not imply that they disbedeved in Christ as the Messiah, or
that they renounced Him, but that they lowered His nature,
and caded in question His supreme dignity, and thus did not
maintain His exclusive prerogative as the only Saviour and
Mediator. Nor does the apostle warn the Colossians against
the denial, but against the perversion of Christianity, — not
I against apostasy, but against heresy. The false teachers were
not without, but within the church : they did not wish to
subvert, but, according to their notions, to perfect Chris
tianity. Others (Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cadxtus, and
Grotius) think that they were unconverted Gentiles, the
fodowers of heathen phdosophy. This appears to have been
the common opinion among the fathers. Clemens Alexan
drinus supposes that they were Epicureans, and Tertuldan
that they were eclectics, belonging to no definite school. So
also Grotius regards them as Pythagoreans, and Heumann as
uniting the Platonic and Stoic doctrines. Paul indeed warns
the Colossians against philosophy (Col. ii. 8), — that is, against
the union of heathen phdosophy with Christianity, — and the
false teachers certainly inculcated such phdosophy. But stdl
they were not the mere disciples of any phdosophic sect,
whether Epicureans or Stoics, Pythagoreans or Platonists,
but philosophic Christians; and as it was not unusual for
the Jews, especially those of Alexandria, to cultivate Greek
j phdosophy, they appear to have been Jewish Christians
I who attempted to introduce Judaism and phdosophy into
Christianity. Michaeds supposes them to have been Jews of Alexandria
converted to Christianity, and thinks that they were the
converts of Apodos before he was perfectly instructed in the
1 Hug's Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 361 ff. .

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSE. 289
nature of Christianity, — a species of half Christians i1 an
opinion for which there is no historical basis, and which is
destitute of all probabdity. It is not probable that Apodos
for any length of time inculcated a defective Christianity;
and any false impression arising from his preaching, he would
be careful to rectify when his views became more enlightened.
The false teachers at Colosse, then, were Jewish Christians.
Conybeare and Howson, indeed, suppose that they were rather
of Gentile than of Jewish origin ; that their views had a
closer resemblance to Gnosticism than to Ebionism ; and that
their adoption of certain superstitions of Judaism does not
mditate against this opinion.2 But the whole description
given us of these her-etics is against this view : Jewish
elements were not mere secondary, but primary principles in
their teaching.
Some suppose that these Jewish teachers were Christian
Pharisees, and that, with some sdght variations, they were
the same as those who wished to impose the yoke of circum
cision on the neck of the Gentde converts, and who every
where opposed the preaching of Paul. But, as has already
been observed, this does not appear to have been the case.
Their admixture of phdosophical speculation with Judaism
distinguishes them from the Judaizing teachers. Besides, it
does not appear from this Epistle that they caded in question
the apostodc authority of Paul, or actively opposed his doctrine
concerning the universality of Christianity. They did not
so much impugn the doctrine of justification by faith, like the
Judaizing teachers, as the doctrine of Christ's divinity, like
the Ebionites and Gnostics of the second century.
Others suppose that these false teachers were Christian
Essenes. This opinion is adopted by Chemnitz, Storr,
Credner, Thiersch, Guericke, Ewald, Eitschl, and is favoured
by Meyer.3 And certainly their views suggest a closer re
semblance to the Essenes and the cognate Jewish sect of the
1 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. pp. 85-88 (Marsh's translation). De Wette
also supposed that the Apolline party at Corinth entertained views similar to
those of the Colossian heretics.
2 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. i p. 530.
3 Meyer's Kolosser, p. 174 ; Ritschl's altkat. Kirche, p. 233.
T

290 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
Therapeutae in Egypt than to the Pharisees.1 There is no
mention in the historical books of Scripture of the gospel
ever coming in contact with the Essenes; yet there are
many points of resemblance between the views of that Jewish
sect and those of the Colossian heretics. The Essenes were
ascetic in their practice : they mortified the body, abstained
from certain meats and drinks, rejected pleasures as an evil,
avoided marriage, were stricter than the other Jewish sects
in the observance of the Sabbath, and regarded the soul as
immortal, but the body as corruptible. They were contem
plative rather than active, and thus were habituated to the
study of philosophy. It does not distinctly appear whether
they worshipped angels ; but Josephus states that they re
ligiously observed the names of angels.2 At the same time,
with these points of resemblance, there are also points of
difference. The Essenes were not a numerous sect among
the Jews, and generally dwelt in seclusion. They were not
much given to proselytize, and avoided intercourse with others.
They practised community of goods. Their speculation was
not so much of a metaphysical as of a'practical and ethical
character. The resemblance between them and the Colossian
heretics is, however, too general to identify them, and suits
other manifestations.3 It is probable that several of the
principles of the Essenes were adopted by Jews who did not
belong to their sect. Asceticism is a very common feature in
all periods of religious excitement, and pervades almost ad
religions. Although, then, it would be unwarranted to affirm
that these false teachers were Essene Christians, yet they were
ascetic Jews who carried their asceticism into Christianity.
These teachers not only bore a relation, by reason of their
asceticism, to Essenism, but also, by reason of their philosophy,
to Phdonism. The school of Philo was then flourishing in
Alexandria.4 A mystical and adegorical sense was attached
1 We have two important accounts of the Essenes, — the one given us by
Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 8), and the other by Philo in his treatise on the freedom
of the virtuous man. The Therapeutae are described by Philo in his treatise on
a contemplative life. See for a description of the Essenes and Therapeutse,
Ritschl's altkat. Kirche, pp. 179-204.
2 Josephus, Belt. Jud. ii. 8. 6. 3 Schenkel, are die Kolosser, p. 168.
* Philo was born about b.o. 20. He went on a deputation to Caligula, a.d. 40.

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSE. 291
to the Jewish Scriptures. The historical incidents recorded
were merely the outward clothing of the spiritual meaning.
Philosophical Judaism spread from Alexandria as a centre,
and exerted a powerful influence on the Jewish mind during
the first century ; and it is highly probable that it formed a
considerable element in the phdosophy of these Colossian
teachers.1 Baur supposes that the Colossian teachers were Ebionites,
or those Jewish Christians who departed from the Church in
the second century; and he sees in this fact a proof of the
spuriousness of the Epistle. He points out the remarkable
resemblance between the Colossian teachers and the Ebionites.
The Ebionites rejected flesh, which they regarded as poduting ;
they considered it also as forbidden to taste wine. The rite
of circumcision and the observance of the Sabbath were the
commandments of the Jewish religion which were peculiarly
sacred to them. They not only attached great importance to
the doctrine of angels and to their religious worship, but also
placed Christ in the closest connection with the angels, and
considered Him as one of them.2 The Ebionites were also
more aided to the Essene than to the Pharisaical phase of
Judaism. It is extremely probable that the germs of Ebionism
may have already been in the Colossian church. Christian
Judaism may have taken that shape and form which was after
wards developed into the Ebionism of the' second century. But
stid Ebionism proper was much more strongly anti-Pauline
and Judaistic than the teaching of those heretics appears to
have been. Paul was regarded by the Ebionites as a false
apostle, and is compared in the Clementine Homdies to
Simon Magus ; whereas, in the Epistle to the Colossians,
Paul does not feel himself constrained to assert and defend
his apostolic authority, as he had to do when writing to the
Corinthians. Others suppose that the tenets of the Colossian heretics
bore the closest relation to the opinions of Cerinthus. This
view of the subject is adopted by Neander, Nitzsch, Mayer-
1 It is also to be observed that the sect of the Therapeuta? resided in Egypt, so
that the union of Essene ascetism and Philonian theosophy is easily accounted for.
2 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 32-34.

292 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
hoff, Lange, and Meyer.1 " Though," observes Neander, " the
account given by Epiphanius of the conflict between Cerinthus
and the Apostle Paul is not worthy of credit, yet at least be
tween the tendency which Paul here combats and the tendency
of Cerinthus the greatest agreement is found to exist; and,
judging by internal marks, we may consider the sect here
spoken of to be allied to the Cerinthian." 2 Cerinthus lived in
Asia Minor about the close of the apostolic age ; indeed, there
is nothing improbable in the account of his encounter with
the Apostle John at Ephesus, given by Irenaeus, who received
it by tradition from Polycarp.3 What were the opinions of
Cerinthus is somewhat doubtful, but he may be justly con
sidered as the intermediate dnk between Ebionism and Gnos
ticism.4 According to Neander, he taught that there were
numberless angedc beings, divided into different classes, inter
mediate between God and the world, and that the world was
created by these angels ; for he considered it beneath the
dignity of the Supreme Being to eome into immediate contact
with the material world. His Christology appears to have been
Docetic. He denied the miraculous conception, and taught
that Jesus was a mere man, the earthly Messiah (o /c<_t_>
XptaTosi), and that the Holy Spirit (irvevpM XptaTov) as the
heavenly Messiah (o dv co XpiaTos) descended upon Him at
His baptism, and withdrew from Him at His crucifixion.
" Cerinthus," observes Irenaeus, '' represented Jesus as having
not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and
Mary according to ordinary generation, whde he was more
righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after
His baptism, Christ descended upon Him in the form of a dove
from the Supreme Buler, and then He proclaimed the unknown
1 Neander's Planting, vol. i. p. 325 ; a note by Nitzsch in Bleek's Introduction,
vol. ii. pp. 26, 27 ; Mayerhoffs Brief an die Kolosser mit vernehmlich Beruch-
sichtigung der drei Pastoralbriefe ; Lange's ap. Zeitalt. vol. ii. p. 355 ; Meyer's
Kolosser, p. 175.
2 Neander's Planting, vol. i p. 325.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 28, and iv. 14.
4 "Cerinthus," observes Neander, "is best entitled to be considered as the inter
mediate link between the Judaizing and the Gnostic sects. It may well be dis
puted whether he ought to be placed in the former or latter class of these sects,
for in him elements alike of Ebionism and Gnosticism are found united." 
Church History, vol. ii. p. 42.

THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSE. 293
Father and performed miracles. But at last Christ 'departed
from Jesus, and then Jesus suffered and rose again, whde
Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as He was a spiritual
being."1 But with these Gnostic views there were also Judaistic
elements. Cerinthus maintained the perpetual obligation of
the Mosaic law, and looked forward to the universal establish
ment of the Messianic kingdom.2 He was himself a Jewish
Christian. It is supposed that in the views of the Colossian
heretics we see the germs of Cerinthianism. The errors may
be said to be Cerinthian, but it was Cerinthianism in a crude
state ; in particular, the distinction between the earthly and
the heavenly Christ does not seem to have been taught.
The false teachers of Colosse, then, were a species of Jewish |
Gnostics, combining Judaism with Gnostic theosophic views. '
If, indeed, Gnosticism is to be considered as anti-Judaistic, as
it afterwards became in its development in the middle of the
second century, and as the direct antagonism to Ebionism,3
then the Colossian teachers were not Gnostics. But if we take
Gnosticism in an enlarged sense, — as the introduction of specu
lation into Christianity, the pretension to a higher gnosis, the
mixture of Orientadsm or Platonism with Christianity, what
Paul cads dvTtdeaei<; T?y? tyevBasvviAov yvooaew; (1 Tim. vi. 2 0), —
then these Colossian teachers were Gnostics. There appears to
have been an amalgamation between Judaism and Gnosticism
before these principles were separated : there were Gnostics
who believed in the divinity of the Jewish redgion. As the
result of the whole discussion, there were in the doctrines and
practices of the false teachers at Colosse germs of two different
tendencies of early Christian thought, which were afterwards
found united as a system in the heresy of Cerinthus, but which
soon after diverged from one another into two distinct and oppo
site heresies, — Ebionism and Gnosticism, — the one Judaistic
and the other anti-Judaistic.

1 Adv. hasr. i 26. 1.
' Neander's Church History, vol. ii. pp. 42-47 (Bohn's edition). See also
Hippolytus, Ref. Hesres. vii. 21.
3 " We find," observes Dr. Burton, "all the Gnostics agree in rejecting the
Jewish Scriptures, or at least in treating them with contempt." — Lectures, p. 39.

THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
JEBOME asserts that in his days there were some who
either doubted or entirely rejected the Epistle to
Philemon, because they conceived it beneath the dignity of
the apostle to concern himself about a runaway slave ; and
even if it were written by the apostle, they regarded it as a
private epistle, and not designed for pubdc edification. To
these objections Jerome replies, that there was nothing in this
epistle unworthy of the apostle ; that simdar matters of a
private nature are mentioned in other epistles ; and that it had
been received as genuine by the Church throughout the world.1
It is admitted that the Epistle", being small, and in a doctrinal
point of view comparatively unimportant, is not so frequently
referred to by the early Christian writers as the other epistles
of Paul ; stid it is by no means destitute of external evidence.
The references to it, supposed to occur in the Ignatian epistles,
are indeed obscure and indefinite.2 The. first who distinctly
notices the Epistle is Tertudian (a.d. 200). "This epistle," he
observes, " alone had an advantage from its brevity, for hereby
it has escaped the falsifying hands of Marcion. Nevertheless
I wonder that when he receives an epistle to one man, he should
reject two to Timothy, and one to Titus, which treat of the
government of the Church." 3 Origen (a.d. 230) says : " Which
1 Comment, in Ep. ad Philem. — Lardner's Works, vol. ii. p. 557.
2 Ad Ephes. c. 2 ; Ad Magnes. c. 12 ; Ad Polycarp, c. 6.
3 Adv. Marcion, v. 21 : Soli huic epistolse bi .vitas sua profuit, ut falsarias
manus Marcionis evaderet. Miror tamen cum ad unum hominem literas factas
receperit, quid ad Timotheum duas, et unam ad Titum de ecclesiastico statu
compositas recusaverit. 294

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 295
Paul knowing, said to Philemon, in the Epistle to Phdemon
concerning Onesimus, ' That thy benefit should not be of
necessity, but widingly ' " (ver. 14).1 And again : " As Paul
says to Phdemon, ' We have great joy and consolation in
thy love, because the bowels of the saints are refreshed by
thee, brother' " (ver. 7).2 " Of Paul it is said (in the Epistle)
to Phdemon, ' Being such an one as Paul the aged,' when
he was a young man at the time Stephen was stoned for the
testimony of Christ " (ver. 9).3 This Epistle is also contained
in the catalogue of Marcion (a.d. 140), in the Muratorian
Canon (a.d. 170), in the Peshito (ad. 160), and Latin (ad.
170) versions, and is ranked by Eusebius among the 6fio-
Xoyopieva? The internal evidence in favour of this Epistle is sufficiently
convincing. The style and diction, as is evident from examina
tion, are Paudne.5 The character of Paul pervades the whole
Epistle. The sense of apostodc dignity, combined with deep
humdity and love, the Christian spirit infused into the common
relations of dfe, the delicacy, courtesy, and tact of the address,
and the earnestness with which he urges his suit, bear through
out the irnpress of Paul. There is also an artless character in
the Epistle : the occasion of writing is simple and natural, and
fudy accords with the warmth of the apostle's temper. There
1 Homil. in Jerem. 19 : "0*. sp xai o UauXos itflffraf&svos, tXtytv iv ry ffpos QiXripovx
itftfroXy ru iiXrifiOvi tipi rou 'OwifftfAOU' iv_ (&rt xar avayxnv ro ayaQov trou yt, aXXa

xar ixouffiov.

2 Comments, in Matt. , tract. 34 : Sicut Paulus ad Philemonem dicit : ' 'gaudium
enim magnum habuimus, et consolationem in charitate tua, quia viscera sanc
torum requieverunt per te frater."
3 Ibid., tract. 33 : De Paulo autem dictum est ad Philemonem : " hunc autem
ut Paulus senex " cum esset adolescentulus quando Stephanus pro Christi testi
monio lapidabatur.
4 Hist. Eccl. iii. 25.
5 Critics mention two examples of paronomasia, — a figure of speech in which the
apostle sometimes indulges. In verse 11 we read, 'Ovvto- ipov, rov Tori trot a^prio-rov,
mw Ss . _ x_i !,_.->; iu^pwrov : " Onesimus, who was formerly unprofitable to thee,
but is now profitable both to thee and to me. " Here there is a play on the mean
ing of the word, — -Onesimus signifies profitable, — " formerly he was not Onesimus
to thee, but now he is Onesimus both to thee and to me." So also in verse 20 we
read, Na), aSexps, iyu trou ova.iy.riv iv Kupia, : "Yea, brother, let me have profit of
thee in the Lord. " ' Ovai/x n v is supposed to be an allusion to the name of the slave
'Ovwift.os. See Winer's Grammar of the N. T., p. 660. It is, however, very
doubtful if these paronomasia} were intended by the apostle.

296 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
can be no possible intention to deceive, as there is no doctrine
prominently brought forward.1
There are also in this Epistle to Philemon numerous un
designed adusions to the Epistle to the Colossians, so that
these two epistles mutuady corroborate each other. Thus in
the Epistle to the Colossians the mission of Onesimus to Colosse
is mentioned : " Ad my state shad Tychicus declare unto
. you, whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, with
' Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you "
(Col. iv. 7-9) ; and in the Epistle to Philemon the same mis
sion of Onesimus is aduded to : "I beseech you for my son
Onesimus, whom I have sent again" (Philem. 1 0—1 2). In the
Epistle to the Colossians Paul mentions his imprisonment :
" Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a
door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I
am also in bonds " (Col. iv. 3) ; and in the Epistle to Phdemon
there is a similar allusion: "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus,
whom I have begotten in my bonds" (Philem. 10). In the
salutations contained in the Epistles to the Colossians and Phile
mon, there is a.general similarity in the names, with minute dif
ferences, proving that the one catalogue was not copied from
Ithe other. In both epistles salutations are sent from Epaphras,
Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. In both epistles Timothy
is joined with Paul in the superscription. Jesus called Justus
occurs in the Epistle to the Colossians, whdst he is omitted in
the Epistle to Philemon. In the Epistle to Phdemon Epaphras
is called by Paul his fedow-prisoner (Phdem. 23) ; whdst in the
Epistle to the Colossians that title is not given to Epaphras,
but is conferred on Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10). Such an un
designed correspondence can only be accounted for on the sup
position, that those persons who sent their salutations were
really with the apostle when he wrote these epistles.2
The Epistle to Philemon has been questioned only by Baur3
and the school of Tubingen. Baur does not so much object
to the Epistle in itself, — indeed he admits that were the other
1 There are some good remarks on this point in Paley's Horcs Paulinas, Phile
mon, No. IV.
2 Paley's Horcs Paulinos, Philemon, No. II.
3 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 88-94.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 297
epistles, said to have been written in the same imprisonment,
placed beyond ad doubt, there would be nothing to object
against this Epistle, — but as he denies the authenticity of the
other epistles of the captivity, he feels constrained also to reject
the Epistle to Philemon. His objections are as fodows : — 1.
The diction of the Epistle is un- Pauline. He observes that
there are in it several words and expressions which are either
not found at all in Paul's Epistles, or only in those epistles
which are (by Baur) disputed ; 1 ahd that the word airXdyyva,
though a Pauline word, is suspicious, because it occurs three
times.2 But Paul was not confined to certain words ; and in
the only famdiar letter of the apostle which is extant, it was
to be expected that some words should occur which are not
found in his didactic epistles. 2. Baur objects to the contents
of the Epistle. It supposes, he asserts, an occurrence of for
tuitous circumstances of a very improbable kind : a runaway
slave of a Christian master, who was a native of Colosse in
Phrygia, and a trusted friend of the Apostle Paul, betakes
himself to Borne ; there he comes in contact with Paul, im
prisoned in that city, and is by him converted to Christianity.
But although in all this the hand of Providence may clearly
be discerned, there is nothing so improbable as to render the
truth of the narrative suspected. It is not improbable that
Onesimus would betake himself to Eome, in the hope of being
better concealed in the great metropolis than elsewhere. He
may through Philemon have previously known Paul, or at least
been aware of the apostle's acquaintance with his master, and
therefore there is nothing strange in his repairing to the apostle
in his difficulties. 3. To account for the origin of the Epistle,
Baur makes the strange supposition that it is a religious
romance, of a similar character with the Clementine Homilies,3
written with a design to teach that what man loses in time in
1 These words amount to ten. Several of them are to be found in those
epistles of Paul which are disputed by Baur.
2 The occurrence of rvXay%va, such a decided Pauline word, one would think,
would be an argument rather in favour of the genuineness of the Epistle to
Philemon. Baur's words are, " auch der zwar nicht unpaulinische, hier aber
dreimal nach einander vorkommende Ausdruck o-trxiy^va, vers. 7, 12, 20, muss
auffallen. " — Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 90.
3 Embryo einer christlichen Dichtung.

298 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
this world he regains for ever in Christianity, or that the world
and Christianity are related together as separation and union,
as time and eternity ; and that the spirit of the historical nar
rative is expressed in the words of ver. 15:" For perhaps he
hath departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for
ever." 1 Such an explanation carries with it its own refutation,
and deserves the censure which Alford pronounces : " I am
persuaded, if the section on the Epistle to Philemon had been
first pubdshed separately and without the author's name, the
world might wed have supposed it written by some defender
of the authenticity of the Epistle, as a caricature on Baur's
general line of argument." 2 Indeed, Baur himself confesses
that in objecting to the Epistle to Phdemon he subjects him
self to the reproach of hypercriticism, of an excessive distrust,
and of a scepticism attacking everything.3
I The Epistle to Phdemon was probably preserved because
it was sent along with the Epistle to the Colossians, to which
' it may be considered as an appendix. When the Colossian
Epistle was read in the church, it would be read along with
it. Besides, Archippus, one of the persons to whom it is
addressed, was connected with the ministry of the church of
Colosse, (Col. iv. 17).- II. THE PERSON ADDRESSED.
This Epistle was primardy addressed to Phdemon, the
master of Onesimus. Along with him are mentioned Apphia,
who is generady supposed to be his wife, and Archippus, a
minister of Colosse, whom some regard as his son, and the
church which assembled in the house of Philemon (Phdem. 1, 2).
\ It would appear that Phdemon was one of the apostle's
converts ; for this is implied in the words, " Albeit I do
not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 98.
8 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 113.
3 " Bei keinem andern Brief e kommt die Kritik mehr in Gefahr, sich den
Vorwurf der Hyperkritik, eines iibertriebenen Misstrauens, einer alles angrei-
fenden Zweifelsucht zuzuziehen, als bei dem Briefe an den Philemon, wenn sie
auch ihn nach der Berechtigung seines apostolisohen Namens fragt." — Baur's
Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 89.

THE PERSON ADDRESSED. 299
self besides " (Phdem. 1 9). Paul had never been at Colosse ;
but Philemon may have come in contact with him at Ephesus
during the apostle's residence of three years in that city, and
perhaps along with Epaphras may have been one of the
instruments in introducing Christianity into his native city.
Paul calls Philemon a fedow-worker (awepyo*;), from which
some infer that he was an office-bearer in the church of
Colosse. Grotius, Doddridge, Neander, and Lange1 suppose
that he was one of the presbyters or bishops, whilst Michaelis
thinks that he was a deacon.2 There is, however, no' sufficient
reason for either opinion : the word o-vvepyos might well be
employed by Paul to denote any active Christian. Hence the
usual opinion is that he was a layman, a man of substance
and position in Colosse. A church, probably under the charge
of Archippus, met in his house. Ecclesiastical tradition names
him bishop of Colosse,3 and causes him to suffer martyrdom
in the reign of Nero. According to another tradition, he was
bishop of Gaza. His supposed house at Colosse was, accord
ing to Theodoret, stid pointed out in the fifth century.
Wieseler supposes that Philemon was a native of Laodicea,
and that consequently the Epistle was sent not to Colosse, but
to Laodicea. This view was adopted in support of his opinion
that the Epistle to Phdemon is the same as the epistle to
Laodicea alluded to in Col. iv. 16. His argument is, that
immediately after the Colossians were exhorted to read the
epistle from Laodicea, the apostle adds, " Say to Archippus,
Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received of the
Lord, — that thou fulfil it " (Col. iv. 16, 17); from which it is
inferred that Archippus belonged to Laodicea. But Phdemon
was of the same city with Archippus (Philem. 1, 2), and there
fore must also have been a native of Laodicea.4 The futdity
of this argument has already been discussed, in considering
the number of Paul's Epistles.6 The injunction et7.aTe
'__^i-. 7. &> is addressed to the Colossians, and not to the church
of Laodicea ; and, besides, we are expressly informed that
1 Lange's apostolisclie Zeitalter, vol. ii. p. 858.
2 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. p. 115. 3 Const. Apost. vii. 46.
4 Wieseler's Chronolgie des apost. Zeital., pp. 450, 451. '
6 See pp. 32, 33 of this work.

300 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
Onesimus, the slave of Phdemon, was a Colossian : "with Onesi
mus, who is one of you " (o? iartv e'£ vficov, Col. iv. 9). Both
Phdemon and Archippus, then, were natives of Colosse, and
therefore the Epistle was sent to that city, and not, as Wieseler
supposes, to Laodicea. Indeed, as Paley observes, we have
here an instance of an undesigned coincidence. " An assertion
in the Epistle to the Colossians, namely, that ' Onesimus was
one of them,' is verified, not by any mention of Colosse, any
the most distant intimation concerning the place of Philemon's
abode, but by stating Onesimus to be Philemon's servant, and
by joining in the salutation Philemon with Archippus ; for
this Archippus, when we go back to the Epistle to the
Colossians, appears to have been an inhabitant of that city,
and, as it would seem, to have held an office of authority in
that church. The case stands thus: Take the Epistle to the
Colossians alone, and no circumstance is discoverable which
makes out the assertion that Onesimus was ' one of them.'
Take the Epistle to Philemon alone, and nothing at all
appears concerning the place to which Phdemon or his
servant Onesimiis belonged. For anything that is said in the
Epistle, Phdemon might have been a Thessalonian, a Phidppian,
or an Ephesian, as wed as a Colossian. Put the two epistles
together, and the matter is clear." And he adds : " All that is
necessary to be added in this place is, that this correspondency
evinces the genuineness of one epistle as wed as of the other." 1
The date of the Epistle has already been determined in
discussing the Epistle to the Colossians. Both epistles were
sent by the same bearer, Onesimus, and to the same town,
Colosse ; and in both, salutations were sent from the same
persons. Which epistle was written first, must, from the
nature of the case, remain undetermined. The Epistle to
Philemon, then, was written by Paul at Eome in A.D. 63,
toward the close of his imprisonment.
III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
\ The Epistle is a letter of recommendation of Onesimus to
'his master Phdemon. Onesimus was the runaway slave of
1 Paley's Horcs Paulinas, Philemon, No. I.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 301
Philemon. From the expression, " If he hath wronged thee
or oweth thee aught, put that to my account" (Philem. 18),
some suppose that Onesimus had been gudty of the crime of
robbing his master, and had fled to escape punishment. Hence
Conybeare and Howson represent him as belonging to the
" dregs and offal of society." 1 But this is going beyond the
record. Onesimus wronged Phdemon by depriving him of his
services : it is not necessary to impute any additional crime
to him. He does not appear to have been of a bad natural
disposition. Whatever may have been the motive of his
desertion, he fled to Eome, that general resort of ad nations.
Here he came in contact with Paul, and was by him con
verted to Christianity ; hence the apostle calls him " my son
Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds" (Phdem.
10). He became eminently serviceable to the apostle, and
obtained a large share in his affections. The runaway slave of
Philemon was transformed into Paul's " faithful and beloved
brother " (Col. iv. 9). Not only was his character renewed
by the Spirit, but there must have been something exceedingly
amiable and attractive in his natural disposition. The apostle
says that " he was a brother beloved by him both in the flesh "
— according to his natural disposition — " and in the Lord,"
— according to his renewed character2 (Phdem. 16). Paul
would have retained him that he might minister unto him in
the bonds of the gospel, but he felt that he could not do so
without the permission of Phdemon, and therefore he de
termined to restore him to his master. An opportunity of
doing so having occurred, Paul sent Onesimus to Colosse,
bearing with him this letter to Philemon.
The design of this Epistle was to procure a favourable
reception for Onesimus. The apostle entreats Phdemon to
forgive him, and to restore him to his favour; to receive
him not now as a slave, but as a brother beloved both in
the flesh and in the Lord ; and he adds, " Having this confi
dence in thy obedience, I write unto thee, knowing that thou
wilt also do more than I say" (Phdem. 21). We are not
1 .Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 467.
2 See some excellent remarks on the character of Onesimus in Dr. Hackett 's
able article in Smith's Dictionary.

302 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. .
informed what were the effects of this Epistle, but these can
hardly be doubted. Such a letter, so feelingly and dcdcately
expressed, written by Paul's own hand, could not have been
sent in vain to Phdemon, Paul's own convert. As Chrysostom
expresses, it, Philemon must have been no Christian, nor even
man, but a stone or a beast, if he did not grant ad Paul's
requests. Doubtless Onesimus would be kindly received,
his desertion and ad his past offences would be forgiven, and
he would occupy a far higher position in his master's affection
and confidence than before his flight. Philemon would feel
that, in receiving him, he was receiving a brother in the
Lord. Nay, it cannot be doubted that Phdemon would attend
to the hint conveyed in these words, " Knowing that thou
( wdt also do more than I say," and would restore Onesimus
to liberty.According to ecclesiastical tradition, Onesimus was dberated
by his master and returned to Paul, by whom he was ordained
bishop of Berea in Macedonia, and afterwards suffered martyr
dom at Borne.1 In the epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,
an Onesimus is mentioned as bishop of Ephesus, and hence
some suppose that he was the manumitted slave of Phdemon ;2
but for this supposition there is no other reason than the
identity of names. IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle to Phdemon commences with a salutation
addressed to Phdemon and the church in his house, and with
a thanksgiving to God for the love of Philemon toward ad
saints, his faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ, his zeal in the
service of Christ, and his beneficence toward believers (vers.
1-7). The apostle then enters upon the special object of
his Epistle. He tells Phdemon that he has a favour to ask, —
that although as an apostle of Christ he might command his
obedience, yet that rather as aged and a prisoner he addressed
him on behalf of his son, whom he had begotten in his bonds,
1 Constitutt. apost. vii. 46 ; Niceph. H. E. iii. 11.
2 Ad Ephes. c. 1.

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 303
Onesimus,1 who, though formerly unprofitable, was now highly
serviceable in the ministry ; he besought him to receive him
into favour, to forgive the wrong he had done, to welcome
him as if he were Paul himself. He, Paul, would repay any
loss sustained, although Philemon was indebted to him for his
salvation. He expresses his confidence that Phdemon would
not only grant his request, but would even go beyond it, and
do more than he asked (vers. 8—2 1). He then desires him to
prepare for him a lodging, as he had the near prospect of
deliverance, and intended soon to visit Colosse. He sends
to him salutations from those friends and fellow-workers who
were with him, and concludes the Epistle with his apostolic
benediction (vers. 22-25).
V. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
Ad the other epistles, with the probable exception of the
Epistle to the Galatians, were written by means of amanu
enses ; but Paul was so anxious about the reception of
Onesimus, that he wrote this Epistle himself. " I Paul have
written it with my own hand " (Philem. 1 9). It also differs
from the other epistles, in being a private epistle : it was a
letter of friendship addressed to an "individual. Those to
Timothy and Titus were likewise addressed to individuals,
but they had a certain official character which this Epistle
wants : they were pastoral addresses. There is no distinct
statement of doctrine in this Epistle : it is entirely occupied
with the private concerns of a Christian family at Colosse.
It can hardly be doubted that the apostle wrote several such
letters. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he offers to
send letters of commendation (1 Cor. xvi. 3), showing that it
was not unusual for him to do so ; yet this is the only private
letter of the apostle remaining, and certainly it is a precious
remnant of his epistolary correspondence.
The Epistle to Phdemon has gained the admiration of all
commentators for the courtesy, tact, and address displayed in
1 The emphatic position of 'Ovwipov at the end of verse 10, not observed in
our translation, merits attention : "I beseech thee concerning my son, whom I
have begotten in my bonds, Onesimus."

304 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
it. The apostle, whdst he maintains a dignified demeanour,
not omitting to mention his apostolic dignity and the obliga
tion under which Philemon lay to him, yet combines ad this
with love and humdity : he does not wish the acquiescence of
Philemon to proceed from necessity, but from his own free
will. He commends Onesimus with admirable tact and
address. He does not extenuate the wrong committed, but
urges the change to the better, the services which Onesimus
rendered to himself, and the love which he bore to him. He,
as it were, takes the place of Onesimus : Phdemon is to
receive Onesimus as he would receive Paul, and he is to
treat Paul as if he had committed the faults of Onesimus :
" If thou count me therefore a partner, receive him as myself.
If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on
mine account ; I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I
will repay it" (Philem. 17—19). And he adds that he cannot
entertain a doubt that his request wid be abundantly granted.
"The qualities," as Dr. Davidson observes, "which dictated
the composition of this epistle are eminently attractive.
Dignity, generosity, prudence, friendship, affection, politeness,
skilful address, purity, are apparent. Hence it has been
called with great propriety, the polite epistle. True dedcacy,
fine address, consummate courtesy, nice strokes of rhetoric,
make it a unique specimen of the epistolary style. It shows
the perfect Christian gentleman. Doddridge has compared it
to an epistle of Pliny, supposed to have been written on a
similar occasion, pronouncing it far superior as a human
composition, though antiquity furnishes no example of the
epistolary style equal to that of the younger Pdny to Sabi-
nian." 1 Luther also, as quoted by Alford, has the following
striking remarks : " This Epistle showeth a right noble, lovely
example of Christian love. Here we see how Paul layeth
himself out for the poor Onesimus, and with ad his means
pleadeth his cause with his master, and so setteth himself as
if he were Onesimus, and had himself done wrong to Phdemon.
Yet all this doeth he not with power or force, as if he had
' Davidson's Introduction to the N. _., vol. i. p. 166 (new edition). See for
similar commendations, Meyer's Der Brief an Philemon, p. 356; Ewald's Send-
schreiben, pp. 458-460.

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 305
right thereto ; but he strippeth himself of his right, and thus
enforceth Philemon to forego his right also. Even as Christ
did for us with God the Father, thus also doth Paul for
Onesimus with Phdemon ; for Christ also stripped Himself
of His right, and by love and humility enforced the Father to
lay aside His wrath and power, and to take us to His grace
for the sake of Christ, who lovingly pleadeth our cause, and
with ad His heart layeth Himself out for us. For we are ad
His Onesimi, to my thinking."1
The relation in which Christianity stands to slavery is seen
from this Epistle and from that to the Col.pssi.ans, In the Epistle
to the Colosgians, Paul sends special admonitions to slaves
and masters. He enjoins obedience on slaves, and assigns, as
a motive, a regard to Christ, who is their great Master, and
exhorts thern to look forward for the reward of faithful service,
not in this world, but in the next (Col. id. 22—24). And he
commands roasters to give unto their slaves those things
which are just and equal, and to reinember that they also
have a Master in heaven (CoL iv. 1). It is tp be observed
that Christianity does not direptly forbid slavery : Paul does
not enjoin njasfers fo emancipate their slaves, nor does he
order Phileinon to dberafe Onesimus. On the contrary, he
asserts that Christianity made no alteration on their social
position ; it conferred spiritual freedom, but did not break the
bonds of servitude, or bestow dberty from earthly masters.
But stid the indirect effects of Christianity naturally resulted
in freedom. The spiritual equadty conferred by it was too
great to admit of such a discrepancy as master and slave :
both were made by the gospel beloved brethren iii Christ ;
and hence the master could no longer receive the slave as a
slave, but above a slave, as a brother beloved in the Lord
(Phdem. 1 6). " The gospel of Christ," observes Bishop Words
worth, " by christianizing the master, enfranchised the slave.
It did not legislate about names and forms, but it went to the
root of the evd. It spoke to the heart of man. When the
heart of the master was stirred with divine grace, and was
warmed with the love of Christ, the rest would soon follow.
The dps would speak kind words, the hand would do dberal
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 115.
U

306 THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.
things. Every Onesimus would be treated by every Phdemon
as a beloved brother in Jesus Christ." 1
The most important commentaries on the Epistle to Phde
mon are those of Koch (Zurich 1846), Meyer (Gottingen
1848 ; third edition, 1865), De Wette (Leipzig 1847),
Wiesinger (Konigsberg 1850), Ewald (Gottingen 1857).
1 Wordsworth's Greek Testament : St Paul's Epistles, p. 336. " That short
letter," he well observes, "dictated from 'the hired house ' of the aged apostle,
' Christ's bondsman ' at Rome, may be called a divine act of emancipation : one
far more powerful than any edict of manumission promulgated by sovereigns and
senates, — one from whose sacred principles all human statutes for the abolition
of slavery derive their yirtue/'

THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
WITH the exception of the Pastoral Epistles, the Epistle
to the Ephesians has been more objected to by recent
critics than any of the other Paudne Epistles. This seems to
arise from its general nature and its want of any special
references, rather than from any defect in the evidence by
which its authenticity is supported. The external evidence in
its favour is not defective ; and the internal evidence, arising
from its style and diction, is at least equal to that of any
other of the Pauline Epistles. The testimony of Ignatius
(ad. 115) is indeed somewhat doubtful, and is perhaps not to
be insisted upon. Writing to the Ephesians, he says : " Ye
are initiated in the mysteries of Paul, the holy, the martyr,
worthy of ad blessing, who in ad his epistles (eV ttda-i)
iirio-ToXrj) makes mention of you in Christ Jesus."1 If the
genuineness of these words were undoubted, there is here a
clear assertion of the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the
Ephesians. Some, indeed, assert that the words iv irdo-r]
i-Tno-ToXrj can only mean " in every epistle ; " but this cannot
be their meaning in accordance with the context : Paul does
not make mention of the Ephesians in every epistle. The
words can only here mean, " in the whole epistle," that is,
throughout the Epistle which Paul wrote to the Ephesians ;
in a simdar manner as irdcra oikoBo/mtj (Eph. d. 21) 2 does not
1 Ad Ephes. C'. 12 : TX&uXov' fup.ftuo'rxt rou aytxffftivou, rou psf&aprapnpLvw,
a.\iaft.axapi<rrov, os iv irdrry fariffroXy izvnfx.ovtuu ufiuv iv Xptbrry 'lijo-ov.
2 The correct reading ; not _•_. a r) oixobopri, as in the textus r'eicptus. See
Winer's Grammar ofthe New Testament, p. 123.
307

308 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
signify " every building," but " the whole building." But the
genuineness of the words is doubtful. They are only found
in the shorter Greek recension, whdst in the larger irdvTOTe
is used in their stead ; x and in the Syriac recension, the whole
chapter from which they are taken is wanting. The adusion
by Bolycarp (ad. 116) is inore unquestionable : " I trust ye
are wed exercised in the Holy Scriptures. As in these
Scriptures it is said, ' Be ye angry, and sin not ; let not the
sun go down upon your wrath'" (Eph. iv. 26).2 Here there
is an express quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians;
and the objection of Meyer, that, from the use of the phrase
" Holy Scriptures," Polycarp must mean the Old Testament,3
is without weight, considering the exactness of the quotation.
Valentinus (a.d. 130), as we learn from Hippolytus, quoted
Eph. iii. 14-18, employing it in support of his Gnostic
opinions;-4 Marcion (a.d. 140), as Tertullian informs us, ad
mitted the Epistle to the Ephesians into his catalogue, though
he caded it the Epistle to the Laodiceans.5 Irenaeus (a.d.
178) observes : "As Paul says in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
' For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His
bones'" (Eph. v. 30).6 Clemens Alexandrinus (ad. 196)
observes : " Writing to the Ephesians, Paul has unfolded that
which is inquired after, saying, ' Till we ad come in the unity
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a
perfect man, unto the measure of the- stature of the fulness of
Christ ' " (Eph. iv. 1 3).7 And again : " Therefore he says in
the Epistle to the Ephesians, 'Be ye subject one to another
in the fear of the Lord'" (Eph. v. 21).8 And Tertudian, in
1 The larger Greek recension reads, fa vravron iv rai$ tirto-zeiv auroti i^wtfAoviuu
i)/xuv : ' ' who is always mindful of us i,n his .prayers. "
2 Ad Philippens, c. 12 : Confido enim yos bene exercitatos esse in sacris
literis. Ut his scripturis dictum est: " Irascimini, et nolite peccare." Et
" Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram."
3 Meyer's Epheser, p. 27.- 4 Hippolytus, Refutat%o Hesfes. vi. 29.
6 Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, v. 17.
6 Adv. Hesres. V. 2, 3 ' Ka__j HaZXos Qltiriv, iv ry wpos 'Eipurious tTiffroXrt- o-ri
fifiXvt ifff/Xv to- truparos, ix rou trapxos auroZ, xai ix ruv Iffriuv ahrov.
7 Posdag. i. c. 5 : 'EQsriois ypaQuv, avsxaXuips ro Z,nroup.ivov, __s _¦_¦*¦ Xiya/v
Mi%pt xaravrvtcruiJ.lv oi vravres US rm ivorvtra rrts vriirrius xai rns Wiyvunus rou Blou,
sis avo'pa rlXuov, us fiirpov r)Xl#ias rou vXr,pu[taros rov Xpiffrpu.
8 Strom, iv. c. 8 : Aio xai iv . if xpos 'Eftriov; ypxfir ivToratro-if&svoi aXXttXois iv
tpof&u QtoZ.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 309
his refutation of Marcion, says : " I pass on to another epistle
which we have ascribed to the Ephesians, but the heretics to
the Laodiceans."1
The internal evidence is even stronger than the external ;
ad the striking peculiarities of the Paudne style are to be
found in this Epistle. The fervour and warmth of the
apostle's temperament are marked by a frequent use of super
latives, strong expressions, and compounds of virep. He speaks
of the exceeding greatness (to IhepfidXXov fieyedos, Eph. i. 1 9)
of the divine power ; of the exceeding riches (tov imepftaXXovTa
•jtXovtov, Eph. ii. 7) of the divine grace ; of himself as less
than the least (tw eXa^iaTOTepcp, Eph. iii. 8) of all saints ; of
knowing the love of Christ which passeth knowledge (inrep-
fidXXovatv ttj? yv __o-ea>?, Eph. iii. 19) ; and of Christ ascending
far above ad heavens (virepdva> irdvToav t&v ovpavuv, Eph.
iv. 10). There are also numerous examples of lengthened
periods, formed by an accumulation of sentences without any
intimation of a pause, one idea pressing upon another, which
is so highly characteristic of the style of the apostle. Thus,
for example, Eph. i. 3-14, 15-23, ii. 1-7, iii. 1-12, are but
single sentences, containing several ideas connected by a series
of participles. So also, as Paley remarks, there is a frequent
use of the word riches (7. Xo.to?) in a metaphorical sense, a
favourite expression of the apostle, which is often employed
in his other epistles, but nowhere so frequently as in this
Epistle : " The riches of His glory" " the riches of His grace,"
"the riches of Christ," "the riches of the glory of His in
heritance" (Eph. i 7, 18, ii. 7, ni. 8, 16). And it is ob
served that this metaphorical use of the word, though so
frequently employed by Paul, does not elsewhere occur in the
New Testament, except once in the Epistle of James (Jas.
d. 5).2 There is also that notable characteristic of Paul's
writings, — the species of digression or parenthesis, which
Paley cads " going off at a word." There are two instances of
this in this Epistle : the one in Eph. iv. 8-11, where a paren
thetic clause is introduced at the word ascended; and the
1 Adv. Marcion, v. 11 : Prcetereo his et dealia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios
prsescriptam hahemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos.
2 Paley's Horcs Paulinos : Ephesians, No. II.

310 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
other in Eph. v. 12-15, when the same occurs at the word
light} The first critic who cast doubts on the genuineness of this
Epistle was Schleiermacher ; he was fodowed by Usteri ; and
De Wette afterwards completely rejected it, supposing it to
be a mere imitation of the Epistle to the Colossians.2 Baur,
Schwegler, and other writers of the school of Tubingen,
followed.3 Ewald regards it as spurious, and omits it in his
Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Weisse and Hausrath reject it ;4
and in our own country, Dr. Davidson, in the last edition of
his Introduction to the New Testament, has decided against its
reception. De Wette considers the Epistle to be a verbose expansion
(eine wortreiche Erweiterung) of the Epistle to the Colossians.
He describes it as entirely dependent upon that Epistle, as a
writing unworthy of the apostle, as the work of an imitator,
as rich in words but poor in thoughts, and as deviating from
the genuine epistles of Paul both in doctrine and diction.5
These objections have been frequently met and answered.
Meyer, in his excellent commentary, discusses them;6 and
Dr. Davidson, in the old edition of his Introduction, treats of
them in detail, and with reasoning so convincing, that it is
difficult to understand the grounds on which he appears from
his later edition to have rejected the Epistle.7
The objections of De Wette are reproduced with greater
freshness and vigour by Dr. Davidson in his last edition.
His objections to the genuineness of the Epistle may be
summed up in the fodowing particulars : 1. There is such a
striking resemblance between this Epistle and the letter to the
Colossians, that it must be considered as a mere reproduction
1 Paley's Hor as Paulines : Ephesians, No. III.
2 Schleiermacher's Vorl. iiber Einl. N. T. p. 165 ; Usteri's Paulin. Lehrbegr.;
De Wette's Einleitnng N. T. p. 312 if.
3 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 3 if. ; Schwegler's Nachapost. Zeital. ii.
p. 330 ff.
4 Weisse's Dogmat. i. p. 146 ; Hausrath's Apostel Paulus.
6 De Wette's Einleitung N. T. pp. 313-320.
6 Meyer's Epheser, pp. 21-26. See also Olshausen On the Ephesians, pp. 117-
121 ; Hemsen's der Apostel Paulus, p. 629 ff. ; and Alford's Greek Testament,
vol. iii., Prolegomena, pp. 8-10.
7 Davidson's 'Introduction (old edition), vol. ii. pp. 352-360.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 311
of the latter, with certain verbal modifications. 2. TJn-
apostodc ideas and phrases, and also numerous un-Paudne
words, occur. 3. The mode of writing and style are per
ceptibly inferior to Paul's. 4. The Epistle betrays a want of
specific purpose.1 For these reasons, Dr. Davidson considers
that the Epistle was not Paul's, but was composed by some
imitator after his death, before the close of the first century.
Let us examine these objections in detad.
1. The first objection adduced by Dr. Davidson is that this
Epistle is but an imitation of the Epistle to the Colossians.
" The writer," he observes, " is dependent on the other to so
great an extent as to put an apostle out of the question.
Paul could not have been so poor in ideas and words as to
reproduce himself in an inferior degree."^ That there is a
closer resemblance between these two Epistles than between
any other two of Paul's epistles, is undoubted; but then it
is not such a resemblance as proves servde imitation. Its
nature and extent are reserved as the subject of future con
sideration;3 and, to avoid repetition, it is only necessary at
present to observe that in the doctrinal parfcs of the Epistles
it is a resemblance rather of words than of ideas.4 The
resemblance has been sufficiently explained from the fact
that the two Epistles were written at the same time, and to
churches not far apart from each other, and in a simdar moral
condition.5 2. Dr. Davidson objects that there are in the Epistle un-
Pauline ideas and words.6 The phrase " apostles and prophets "
(Eph. iii. 5, iv. 11, ii. 20) is said to betray a post-apostodc
age. This, however, is an assertion which is incapable of
proof. It is also a mere assumption to suppose, as Dr.
Davidson does, that by " prophets " are here meant Chris
tian prophets, and not rather the prophets of the Old
Testament. So also it is asserted that the statement of the
doctrine of justification in Eph. ii. 8-10, — "By grace are ye
saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gdt
1 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol! i pp. 384-392.
* Idem, vol. i pp. 384, 386. 3 See dissertation attached to this Epistle.
1 See Reuss, Geschichte N. T. p. 103. 5 See Meyer's Epheser, p. 24.
8 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. i. pp. 385-388, 391, 392.

312 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
of God : not of works, lest any man should boast. For we
are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them,"
— is strange and inappropriate. But there is nothing inappro
priate in Paul insisting on the great doctrine of justification ;
and there is nothing un-Paudne in the mode of statement.1
It is the same doetrine of justification by grace and through
faith, which estabdshes the law, and transforms men into
servants of righteousness, which is taught by Paul in the
Epistle to the Bomans. The admonition against steadng
(Eph. iv. 28) is said to be unsuitable to a church where the
apostle had laboured three years,- espeeiady the mild form it
assumes. But it was no more unsuitable to warn the Ephe
sians against that vice than it is in our days to warn profess
ing Christians against it ; nor is there any reason to suppose
that the primitive Christian communities were freer from that
vice than those of our own day.2 The demonological doctrine,
espeeiady where the devil is described as " the prince of the
power of the air " (Eph. d. 2), is said to be un-Paudne. But
the doctrine of evil spirits is decidedly Pauline, and we are
not at liberty to affirm that any pecudar statements on the
subject in this Epistle are not in accordance with Paul's views :
they do not contradict bis former statements, but only add to
them. The phrase, " by nature the chddren of wrath " (Eph.
ii. 3), is considered un-Paudne, because Paul nowhere ex
presses the idea that the natural state of mankind is one in
which they are subject to the wrath of God. But the doctrine
of human depravity enters largely into the Pauline theology ;
and although the precise terms " chddren of wrath " are not
elsewhere used, yet it is asserted that men are under the
curse (Gal iii. 1 0), — a phrase which may justly be considered
as nearly equivalent. The explanation given of Ps. lxviii.
1 8, in chap. iv. 8, which is objected to, is not dissimilar to
Paul's typological interpretation of the Old Testament in his
other epistles, and indeed bears a close resemblance to a
1 The same objection is made by De Wette, who maintains that it is un-
Pauline : he is answered by Neander, Planting, vol. ii. p. 147.
* The same observation applies to the admonition against drunkenness (Eph.
v. 18), which is also objected to as inappropriate.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 313
simdar explanation of Deut. xxx. 12 in Bom. x. 6, 7. With
regard to' the alleged un-Paudne words — the so- caded aira%
Xeyofieva — it is to be observed that it is highly unreasonable
to consider Paul as restricted to the use of certain words and
phrases, and that these aira^ Xeryofieva are less numerous than
in the Epistle to the Colossians.
3. Dr. Davidson further objects to the degeneracy of style
which he considers is apparent in the Epistle to the Ephesians
when compared with the Epistle to the Colossians. " There
is," he observes, " a fulness of expression which partakes of
the verbose and redundant. The words are manifold, without
conveying proportionate ideas. A poverty of meaning is often
observable beneath a superfluity of terms."1 This is a mere
subjective reason, founded on individual opinion. Even
although its truth were admitted, yet it could hardly be
regarded as a proof of spuriousness. Many critics consider
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians as inferior to the First,
but this inferiority has never been advanced as an objection
to the genidneness of that Epistle. But the ground of this
objection is far from being admitted by many students of
Scripture. The Epistle to the Ephesians has been praised as
the subdmest and most profound of ad Paul's epistles. Luther
reckons this Epistle as among " the noblest books of the New
Testament, which show Christ to you, and teach you ad things
which is necessary to know, although you should never see or
hear any other book or doctrine."2 So also Coleridge remarks :
" In this, the divinest composition of man, is every doctrine of
Christianity : first, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity ;
and secondly,- those precepts common to it with natural
redgion." 3 When such a difference of opinion exists, it is
1 Davidson's Introduction (new editioti)^ vol. i; pp. 388-391.
2 Quoted by Meyer, Epheser, p. 29.
3 Table Talk, p. 82, quoted by Eadie, Ephesians, Introductiou, p. 38. Dr.
Davidson himself, in his earlier edition, observes : "It is surprising that _
writer of De Wette's taste should pronounce the Epistle a verbose enlargement
of the Colossian, charging it with multiplicity of words and poverty of ideas.
Nothing appears to us more groundless than the alleged poverty of thought.
The language is rich and copious, but it is everywhere pregnant with meaning.
If the Epistle has more words than that sent to the Colossians, it has more ideas. "
—Vol. ii. pp. 358, 359.

314 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
surely unreasonable to affirm that the Epistle displays such a
poverty of ideas that it cannot be Paul's.
4. The last objection of Dr. Davidson is that the Epistle
betrays a want of specific purpose : it deals in generalities, so
that the reader can neither discover the occasion that caded it
forth, nor the peculiar conditions of the persons to whom it
was addressed.1 And the same objection was made-byDe
Wette : " The Epistle is destitute of ad speciadty in design
and references, and is almost nothing else than a verbose
expansion of the Epistle to the Colossians."2 The general
object of the Epistle, the want of ad special purpose, and the
absence of personal references, are admitted, and , in these
respects there is a difference between this Epistle and the
other epistles of Paul. But then these circumstances are also
against the idea of its being the work of a copier ; " for," as
Credner remarks, " if the Epistle has a want of specific pur
pose, it will follow that the forger could have no design in
writing it."3 This is, however, impossible to suppose. A
forger or copier must have some design in his imposition.
And especially, a forger of an Epistle to the Ephesians — a
church to which Paul was so closely connected by a residence
of three years — would not write without inserting in the
Epistle references to what occurred to the apostle in Ephesus,
and sending salutations to Christians resident in that city.
Baur's objections are of a different character. He takes
the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians together, and
endeavours to prove that they contain Gnostic elements, and
could not have been composed before the second century,
when the Gnostic system was developed. These objections
have abeady been discussed when considering the Epistle to
the Colossians, and do not again require to be adverted
to. They are opposed by Dr. Davidson, and shown to be
untenable.4 1 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. i. p. 391 .
1 De Wette's Einleitiung, p. 313. 3 Guericke's Isagogik, p. 335.
4 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. i. pp. 396-401.

THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS. 315

II. THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS.

Ephesus, the capital of Ionia, and under the Bomans of
Proconsular Asia, was, at the time when the apostle wrote his
Epistle, a large and flourishing city. It was situated on the
river Cayster, not far from the coast, between Smyrna and
Miletus, and was budt partly on Mount Prion, partly on
Mount Coressus, and partly on the vadey which separates
these hills. The situation of the city was favourable, not
only for maritime, but also for inland commerce, as it lay on
the main road of traffic between the East and the West.
The magnificent temple of Artemis or Diana, reckoned one of
the seven wonders of the world, added to the celebrity of the
city. Its erection commenced even before the Persian Empire.
Croesus, king of Lydia, and ad the Greek cities of Asia, con
tributed to the building. After being burned by Herostratus
on the day on which Alexander the Great was born (b.c 355),
it was rebudt with greater splendour. In the time of Paul,
the temple of Diana was in ad its glory, and pdgrims from
ad nations flocked to its shrine. Ephesus is famous in the
history of the Church. Here, as tradition informs us, the
Apostle John spent his later years and died in old age ;' and
here also, as was adeged, the Virgin Mary was buried. Here
one of the five famous councds of the Church was held. The
glory of Ephesus has long since departed, and nothing remains
of the metropods of Asia but a heap of ruins and a small
vidage caded Ajasoluk or Asalook, said to be a corruption of
ayios OeoXoyoi, the name by which the Apostle John was
known.1 Christianity was introduced into Ephesus by Paul during
his second missionary journey. After spending three months
at Corinth, he sailed to Ephesus (Acts xvid. 19). Here he
preached Christ in the synagogue, with such acceptance that
he was requested to remain. At this time, however, his stay
was short, and he departed to keep the feast at Jerusalem.
He left behind him his converts and fellow-labourers, Aquila
and Priscida, and they, afterwards assisted by Apodos, carried
on that work which Paul had so favourably commenced. On
1 See author's Commentary on the Acts, voL ii. p. 193 ff.

316 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
his third missionary journey, Paul returned to Ephesus (Acts
xix. 1). On this occasion he remained three years, choosing
Ephesus as a centre for the diffusion of Christianity. At first
he preached in the Jewish synagogue ; but when the Jews
continued obstinate and unbelieving, he abandoned it, and
taught in the school of Tyrannus. From the account in the
Acts, it would appear that a numerous church was formed ;
the word of God grew mightily, and prevailed ; ad who dwelt
in Asia heard the word of the Lord ; and the jealousy of the
fabricators of the shrines of Diana was excited lest their gains
should disappear (Acts xix. 2 6). After the uproar occasioned
by the worshippers of Diana, Paul departed from Ephesus.
He did not visit it on his last journey to Jerusalem, but met
with the elders of the church at Miletus, and delivered there
his parting address (Acts xx. 17). It is uncertain whether he
revisited Ephesus on his release from his Eoman imprison
ment ; but it would appear that at least his First Epistle to
Timothy was sent to Ephesus. " As I besought thee," writes
the apostle; " to abide stid at Ephesus when I went into
Macedonia " (1 Tim. i 3).
The church of Ephesus, as appears from the contents of the
Epistle, was composed both of Jews and Gentiles. The apostle
addresses both parties, and insists on the unity which Chris
tianity had established between them. Still the Gentile.
element preVaded to such an extent, that the church might
be regarded as on the whole of Gentile composition. This is
evident from the manner in which the apostle addresses them :
" Wherefore remember'; that ye being in time past Gentdes in
the flesh, who are caded uncircumcision by that which is
called circumcision in the flesh made by hands " (Eph. ii. 1 1).
And again : " For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesys
Christ for you Gentiles " . (Eph. iii. 1). And this seems to
have been the case with all the churches founded by Paul.
The nucleus was Jewish,- but after a time the Gentile element
so greatly preponderated that they might be regarded as
Gentile churches. And this fact is, as regards the Ephesian
church, in perfect accordance with what we read in the Acts
of the Apostles. At first, Paul preached to the Jews, and
gained some converts among them ; but afterwards it was the

THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS. 317
Gentdes who chiefly received the gospel. And the success of
the gospel among the worshippers of Diana was so great, that
the mystical books which they brought together and burned
amounted in value to a vast sum of money ; and not only in
Ephesus, but throughout ad Asia, many of the worshippers of
false gods turned to the Lord (Acts xix. 19, 26). The riot
at Ephesus was occasioned by the large number of converts
which Paul made among the Gentdes. Hence, then, the state
ments in the Epistle, that those to whom Paul wrote were
chiefly Gentiles, are not to be regarded — as is frequently
done — as a reason in proof of the opinion that this Epistle
was not addressed to the Ephesians ; because such statements
are in entire conformity with the account of the state of the
church as given in the Acts.
Many critics, who admit the genuineness of this Epistle, do
not suppose it to have been addressed primarily or exclusively
to the Ephesians. The arguments on which they ground their
opinion are partly the state of the text, but chiefly indications
in the Epistle.
The reading of the first verse is disputed : the genuineness
of the words iv 'E(pio-(p is regarded as doubtful ; and if these
words are omitted, there is nothing in the Epistle itself to prove
that it was addressed to the Ephesians. These words are
wanting in the two oldest manuscripts. The Vatican (B) and
the Sinaitic (a) have the words not in the text, but written
on the margin, and that, according to Tischendorf, by later
hands. In another much inferior manuscript (No. 6 7, belong
ing to the eleventh century) the words were originady in the
text, but have been erased by a later hand.
The opinion of the Fathers is also regarded as doubtful.
Tertullian observes : " I pass by here another Epistle which
we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but heretics (the fodowers
of Marcion) to the Laodiceans. According to the true testimony
of the Church, we suppose this Epistle to have been sent to
the Ephesians ; but Marcion has sought to alter (or interpolate,
interpolare) the title (titulum), as d he had made a most
ddigent inquiry into the matter. Yet the titles are of no im
portance, since the apostle wrote to ad when he wrote to some. " *
1 Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, v. 11 and 17 • Ecclesise quidem veritate epis-

318 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
Marcion, according to Tertuldan, altered or interpolated the
title or subscription of the epistle ; but whether he also altered
the text is not affirmed. It may be, though this is doubtful,
that in the manuscript which he used the words iv 'E<peo-a>
were omitted, and that he inserted iv AaoBiKela. 'We are not,
however, with Meyer and Bleek, to infer from this that Ter-
tudian himself did not read iv 'Eipio-q), because, as they allege,
if he had, he would have charged Marcion not simply with
altering the title, but with corrupting the text, and would
have appealed to it, and not to the testimony of the Church.1
But the testimony of the Church could only have been founded
on the reading of the text, and therefore these two must be
regarded as substantiady the same.
The fodowing passage in the writings of Basil is also appealed
to : " And writing to the Ephesians, as truly united by know
ledge to Him who is (to) ovn), he called them in a peculiar
sense those who are (6vTa<;), saying, ' To the saints wlw are
(toi? oiicnv), and the faithful in Christ Jesus.' For so those
before us have transmitted it ; and so we have found it in the
ancient copies." 2 We have nothing to do with the chddish
nature of Basd's argument, his play on the words Tot? ovo-tv.
It must be admitted that the " ancient copies," to which he
refers, omitted the Words iv 'Eobecnp ; for only on this sup
position can any sense be attached to his words.3
The meaning of the simdar statement of Jerome is. not so
evident. " Some," he observes, " think that the saints and
faithful at Ephesus are addressed by a term descriptive of
essence, as d they had been named they who are from Him
who is. But others suppose that the Epistle was written not
simply to those who are, but to those who are at Ephesus, saints
tolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei
titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quare et in isto diligentissimus explorator.
Nihil autem de tit_lis interest, cum ad omnes apostolos scripserit, dum ad
quosdam. 1 Meyer's Epheser, p. 4 f. ; Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 41, 42.
2 Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 19 : TVs 'EQtirlois est;. riXXuv, _,- yvytr ius rtvupivoi;
ry ovn ./' ivriyvu&sois, ovras aurous tb'tafyvrus uvof&affsv utfuv ro7s ayiois rois ouffiv xai
vritrrots iv 'X.ptffrM 'Ijj.-.' o'uru yapoi orpo vtfAvt irapabiouxao't, xai tipits iv roTs vraXatoTs
ruv avnypatyuv lupytxxftlv.
3 See Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 327-330 (old edition).

THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS. 319
and faithfuL" * Here it is possible that Jerome is speaking
of two classes of manuscripts, one of which wanted and the
other contained the words iv 'Ecpecrcp ; but it is also probable,
as Meyer observes, that he is speaking of persons who attached
a mystical meaning to the words toi<; ovo-iv, without any in
dication of the omission of the words iv 'Eo.ec. 9. Jerome
cannot therefore be adduced as a decisive authority in favour
of the omission of these words.
Thus, then, the external evidence for the omission of iv
'E<peo-q} amounts to this : the words are wanting 2 in B, K,
and were found omitted in certain mss. by Marcion, Basd, and
possibly Jerome. The external evidence in their favour is, on
the other hand, overwhelmingly greater. Ad other manuscripts
extant, and all versions whatever, possess them; and the Fathers
universady, even Basd and Jerome, received the Epistle as
addressed to the Ephesians. Besides, ad the other epistles of
Paul are addressed to some church, even those which were of
a circular character, as the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
which is addressed to " the church of God which is at Corinth,
with ad the saints which are in ad Achaia " (2 Cor. i 1), and
the Epistle to the Galatians, addressed " to the churches of
Galatia " (Gal. i. 2). The omission of an address is a thing
unprecedented. Besides^ if the words iv 'Ecpearp were omitted,
the passage would yield no sense : " To the saints which are,
and to the faithful in Christ Jesus." This is evident from the '
various attempts which have been made to derive, a meaning
from it. Thus Schneckenburger renders it, " To the saints who
are so in very deed ; " Weiss, " To the saints who are also
believers in Christ Jesus;" and Credner, "To the saints who
are in Very deed also believers."
How the words iv '__¦<£-_-&> ever came to be omitted need not
be inquired into. It may have been from an error in transcrip
tion, in a simdar manner as the words iv 'Pco/ty (Eom. i, 1)
are omitted in several manuscripts. Or it is very possible
1 Jerome, ad Eph. i. 1 : Quidam putant eos qui Ephesi surit sancti et fideles
essentia! vocabulo nuncupatos ut ab eo qui est, hi qui sunt appellentur. Alii
vero simpliciter non ad eos qui sunt, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sunt, scrip-
turn arbitrantur.
3 "ihe Vatican and the Siflaitic have itpis 'Eps. /_«; in the title.

320 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
that the general character of the Epistle, and the want of any
specific references, caused certain transcribers to reject them,
as it appeared doubtful whether the Epistle was addressed to
the Ephesians. This seems to have been the reason which
induced Marcion to alter the title, and to suppose the Epistle
to have been inscribed to the Laodiceans.1
The external evidence for the omission of iv ''Efyeo-w is
therefore weak, and hence greater stress is placed on internal
considerations. It is objected that there are no personal
references in the Epistle. The Epistle assumes to be addressed
to the Ephesians, with whom the apostle was intimately
acquainted, among whom he had laboured three years, and
many of whom he numbered among his converts and friends.
And yet in the Epistle, with the sole exception of a notice of
Tychicus, there are no personal references, no salutations sent
from any of Paul's friends, and no member of the church of
Ephesus saluted. Even Timothy, who is united with the
apostle in the contemporaneous Epistles to the Colossians and
Phdemon, is omitted. But it is to be observed that Paul's
custom with regard to salutations is by no means mdform.
Other epistles as well as the Epistle to the Ephesians are
destitute of them. In First Corinthians no person is saluted,
and only one salutation is sent — namely, that from Aquila
and Priscida. In Second Corinthians, Galatians, Phdippians,
First and Second Thessalonians, and First Timothy, there are
no salutations of either kind. And therefore the omission of
them in Ephesians is not an anomaly.2 Besides, as has been
often observed, Tychicus was entrusted with the special com
munications of the apostle to the Ephesians (Eph. vi. 21, 22).
The omission of Timothy is indeed singular, and no reason
can be assigned for it, espeeiady as he is conjoined with Paul
in the salutations in the contemporaneous Epistles to. the
Colossians and Phdemon, and was undoubtedly with the
1 For the various reasons assigned for the omission of these words, see Meyer's
Epheser, pp. 8, 9.
2 See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 13. The total
want of special references, however, in the Epistle is a striking fact, and, it is
admitted, distinguishes this Epistle.

. THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS. 321
apostle when he wrote this Epistle j1 but the same difficulty
of assigning a reason for this omission holds good whatever
theory on the subject is adopted, and to whatever church or
churches we may suppose the Epistle addressed.
It is further argued, that it appears from the Epistle that
there was little previous acquaintance between Paul and those
to whom he wrote : the Epistle is similar to that of the Colos
sians, which was written to a church which Paul never visited.
Paul, it is asserted, speaks of the Ephesians as if he knew of
their conversion only by report : " Wherefore I also, after
that I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love to all
the saints " (Eph. i. 1 5). But these words do not refer to the
conversion of the Ephesians, but to their spiritual progress.
He knew that they were Christians, and now he had a
favourable report of the stedfastness of their faith in Christ,
and of the warmth of their love to all saints. A precisely
similar expression is used with reference to Philemon, who
was one of Paul's own converts : " Hearing of thy faith and
love which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all
saints " (Philem. 5). So also it is affirmed that the Ephesians
are represented as strangers to Paul ; it was doubtful if they
knew the nature of the gospel which he preached : " If (e'iye)
ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which
was given me to you-ward " (Eph. iii. 2). But the con
junction etiye does not necessarily denote dubiety, but is used
for assumption : so that the words mean, " assuming, taking for
granted, that ye have heard." Others render it, " since, inas
much as ye have heard." There are, besides, other portions of
the Epistle which presuppose an acquaintance with Paul, and
an interest taken in his sufferings : thus he desires them not to
faint at his tribulations for them, which is their glory (Eph.
iii. 13). It is admitted that there is a generadty about this
Epistle ; but there is nothing to intimate either an ignorance
of the Ephesians on the part of Paul, or an ignorance of Paul
on the part of the Ephesians.
Some suppose that this Epistle was addressed, not to the
1 It is a mere evasion to assert, with Lardner, that Timothy was not at Rome
when Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians. The Ephesians and the
Colossians were written at the same time.

322 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
Ephesians, but to the Laodiceans. They think that iv
AaoBtKeia, is the correct reading, and has been altered by
transcribers into iv 'Etpeaw. This, the opinon of Marcion, has
been adopted by Grotius, Hammond, Mid, Pierce, Whiston,
Wetstein, Lewin, and Paley.1 It has already been adverted
to in considering the number of Paul's epistles.2 It has
evidently originated from Col. iv. 16, where the apostle
directs the Colossians to send for the epistle from Laodicea
(tt)v etc AaoBtKeia<;) ; and as there was no epistle in the canon
with this title, and as the contents of the Epistle to the
Ephesians were considered to be unsuitable to the church of
Ephesus, it was supposed that this might have been the
Laodicean epistle, and that it was erroneously ascribed to the
Ephesians. But such an opinion is whody untenable. All
authorities are against it. In two manuscripts the words iv
'E(peo-<p are wanting ; but in no manuscript are they suppded
by iv AaoBtKeia. Marcion is the only authority ; but even
he did not read iv AaoBtKeia, in any manuscript, and he is
charged by Tertullian with altering the title. Besides, it is
utterly inconceivable how the words "in Laodicea," if they
were in the original, could ever have been changed in ad
manuscripts and versions into "in Ephesus." Purther, the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians were written at the
same time, and sent together by the same messenger. Now
in the Epistle to the Colossians, a salutation is sent to the
church of Laodicea (Col. iv. 15). But if the Epistle to the
Ephesians was in reality addressed to the Laodiceans, the
¦messenger who brought it would convey the salutations of the
apostle, and consequently a salutation sent in another epistle
is unsuitable. Indeed, the opinion that this is the Laodicean
epistle is so untenable, that it is now abandoned by all com
petent scholars.3
Another opinion, much more widely adopted, and still
maintained, is that the Epistle to the Ephesians was not
addressed to any church in particular, but is a circular or
encyclical epistle addressed to all the churches of Proconsular
1 Paley's Horos Paulinos., Ephesians, No. IV.
2 See pages 31, 32 of this work.
3 See this opinion refuted in Meyer's Epheser, pp. 10- 12.

THE CHURCH OF EPHESUS. 323
Asia. This opinion first originated with Archbishop Usher,
and has since been adopted with some variations by Bengel,
Benson, Michaeds, Eichhorn, Hug, Guericke, Schneckenburger,
Neander, Eiickert, Credner, Harless, Olshausen, Stier, Eeuss,
Bleek, Schaff, Lange, and Conybeare and Howson. There is
considerable variety in the mode of statement. Usher con
ceived that several copies were made of the Epistle, and that
they were filled up with the names of different churches ;
thus one copy would be addressed to Ephesus, a second to
Laodicea, a third to Hierapolis, and a fourth to Smyrna.1 So
also Michaelis observes, " At the beginning of the Epistle, after
the words Tot? .-yt'ot? toi? ovatv, Paul added the name of the
church to which the copy was to be sent, so that in the copy
intended for the Ephesians he would write iv 'Ecpeaep, in the
copy intended for the Laodiceans ev AaoBtKeia,, and in like
manner in the other copies." 2 Others (Schneckenburger,
Credner) suppose that there was no address in the original,
and that the reading of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts,
toi? dylo t? Tot? overt Kai 7Tto-Tpt? ev XpicrTtp 'Ir/aov, is the true
text. Bleek goes the length of asserting that Ephesus was
not one of the churches to which the Epistle was directed ;
but that it was sent to those churches in the neighbourhood
of Laodicea, where the gospel had been introduced but a short
time before, and where believers were personady unknown to
the apostle.3
This opinion is equally unsupported by external authority.
If different copies were differently addressed, some evidence
would be found of this in the manuscripts; each church
would watch with a jealous care over the honour conferred on
it by the apostle. But no manuscript has been found with a
different address ; no church except Ephesus is mentioned.
Besides, if the Epistle had been circular, this would have been
noted in the address : the words ev "Acna, or some similar
expression would have been added, as t§ ^A^ala, is in Second
Corinthians, and Tat? e'/c/cX^o-tat? t-j)? raAaw-s? is in Galatians.
The entire omission of the address, as Meyer observes, would
1 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 489.
2 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. p. 139.
3 Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 46.

324 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
constitute the Epistle not circular, but catholic.1 Besides, this
opinion is in entire variance with the whole spirit of the
Epistle. There are sufficient specialities about it to prove that
it was written to one particular church. The apostle hears
of the faith and love of those whom he addresses; he is
acquainted with their spiritual condition ; he desires them
not to faint at his tribulations for them ; and he sends
Tychicus to make known unto them ad things, and to comfort
their hearts (Eph. i. 15, iii. 13, vi. 21, 22).
The conclusion arrived at is, that the title of this Epistle,
7T/30? 'Ecpeatovi, is correct. The external evidence is decidedly
in favour of iv 'E^io-op ; and the internal arguments which
have been brought to bear against this reading, even if they
were much stronger than they are, would not be sufficient to
shake it. There is nothing in the Epistle to favour the idea of
its having been written to a number of churches. The opinion
that the Epistle was written to the Ephesians was adopted by
all the Fathers of the Christian Church, and has in recent
times been adopted by Whitby, Doddridge, Wieseler, Kirch
hofer, Meyer, Schenkel, Alford, Davidson (old edition), and
Eadie.

ill. THE OCCASION OF THE EPlSTLE.
The special occasion of writing this Epistle seems to have
been the mission of Tychicus into Asia. Paul had written a
letter to the church of Colosse, with a view to the refutation
of certain errors that had sprung up in that church, and was
about to send it by Tychicus and Onesimus. He embraced
this opportunity of sending Tychicus to the neighbouring
church of Ephesus, with which he was so intimately connected,
not only to impart oral communication concerning his affairs,
and to receive information concerning their state (Eph. vi.
21, 22), but also to dedver an epistle, in which he exhorted
them to stand firm in the faith of the gospel. It woidd also
appear that the apostle had lately received information of
their faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto ad the saints
(Eph. i. 15); and this was a further inducement to take this
1 Meyer's Epheser, p. 13.

CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 325
opportunity of expressing his gratitude to God# on their be
half, and his earnest prayers for their spiritual welfare.
The object which the apostle had in view in writing was
very general, namely, to strengthen the faith and encourage
the hopes of the Ephesians. He appears to have had no errors
of doctrine to correct, and but few faults in practice to re
prove.1 There are no traces of Jewish Gnostic errors, as there
are in the cognate Epistle to the Colossians.2 The Epistle
is not polemical, but entirely doctrinal and practical. The
apostle does not aim at the suppression of error, but at the
estabdshment of truth.

IV. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle is divided into two distinct parts. The first
part is mainly doctrinal (chap, i.-iii), and the second part
mainly practical (chap, iv.-vi).
In the first part of the Epistle, the apostle, after saluting
the Ephesians, renders thanks to God in their behalf for ad
the spiritual blessings conferred on them in Christ, for theb
election to eternal life, their acceptance in the Beloved, the
manifestation of divine grace, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and
the promise of an eternal inheritance (chap. i. 1-14). He
expresses his earnest desires for them in prayer, beseeching
God that they might be still further enlightened in the
knowledge of His wdl, and in those unspeakable blessings
which -were conferred upon them (chap. i. 15-23). He is
then led to contrast their former condition as Gentiles with
their present condition as Christians : formerly they were, as
Gentiles, strangers to the covenants of promise ; but now, as
Christians, they are admitted into ad the privileges of God's
chddren, brought nigh by the blood of Christ, fellow-citizens
with the saints, and of the household of God, and budded
together as a great spiritual temple, a habitation of God
through the Spirit (chap. ii. 1-22). This leads him to dis
course on the great mystery of the cad of the Gentiles to be
1 Nullum speciatim errorem aut vitium refulat aut redarguit, sed generatim
ineeclit.—BRXGEh's Gnomon on Eph. i. 3.
2 The only allusion to false doctrine is in Eph. iv. 14.

326 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
fellow-heirs with the Jews, and sharers of the promised bless
ing, thus exhibiting to the heavenly host the manifold wisdom
of God (chap. iii. 1-12). And he concludes this doctrinal
part of the Epistle by again praying that they might make
further progress in the knowledge and experience of the love
of Christ, and so be filled with all the fulness of God (chap.
id. 13-21).
In the practical part of the Epistle, the apostle exhorts the
Ephesians to cultivate unity, to recodect that each had his
appointed calling and gifts from Christ, all conducive to the
edifying of the Churchy and not to allow themselves to be
carried away by every wind of doctrine (chap. iv. 1-16).
He exhorts them to renounce their former heathen conduct,
and to cultivate ad the virtues of the Christian character ; to
avoid falsehood, anger, theft, and corrupt communication; to
mortify their irascible passions, and to practise gentleness arid
forbearance ; to guard against all sensual lusts, and to be pure
in thought and action (chap. iv. 17-v. 19). Then fodows
an exhortation to a Christian performance of the duties of
domestic life (chap. v. 20-vi. 9). The apostle then repre-
sertts believers in a noble metaphor as warriors, exhorting
them to array themselves with the whole armour of God, and
contend against the powers of evil (chap. vi. 1 0-2 0). He in
forms them of the mission of Tychicus, and closes the Epistle
with his apostolic benediction. '
The date of this Epistle has already been determined, when
we considered the Epistle to the Colossians. The place of
writing was Eome, and the time toward the close of the
second year of Paul's Eoman imprisonment, or A.D. 63.
V. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
This Epistle, by reason of its long sentences and its nume
rous parentheses and digressions, is unusually difficult of
interpretation.1 The style and diction are attended with con
siderable obscurity. " Each single word," observes Michaelis,
1 Alford observes that "this Epistle is by far the most difficult ofthe writings
of St. Paul ; " but this is an extreme view of the subject. The Epistle to the
Romans is at least as difficult to comprehend.

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 327
" is perfectly intelligible ; but the sentences are so long, and
the members of which each sentence consists are at the same
time so short, that they are frequently capable of many
different constructions, of which we cannot easdy determine
which is the right one. If a passage of this Epistle were
taken unpointed, some would place the commas in one place,
some in another ; and what increases the difficulty is, that in
our common editions of the Greek Testament the points are
placed with much less judgment in this Epistle than in any
other part." 1
- The peculiar characteristic of this Epistle is sublimity.2 No
epistle has been so differently estimated. Those who reject it
consider its inferiority to the other epistles of Paul as an
evidence of spuriousness ; whilst those who accept it assign
to it a high position. It deals with heavenly things,- — with
the glorious mysteries of Christianity, — with those inestimable
blessings which Christ has conferred on our race. The apostle
appears to labour to find expressions sufficiently strong to
describe the privileges of believers : in no other epistle does
he make such a frequent use of superlatives ; for example,
what sublimity, and force of expression, and fulness of mean
ing, are contained in that noble prayer which Paul offers up
for his converts : " That God would grant you, according to
the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His
Spirit in the inner man ; that Christ may dwell in your hearts
by faith ; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be
able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and
length, and depth, and height ; and to know the love of Christ,
which passeth knowledge, that ye might be fided with all the
fulness of God" (Eph. di 16-19). This is one of those
epistles which, in order to be understood, must be spiritually
discerned (1 Cor. ii. 14) ; experience of the blessings described
is essential for their comprehension. There is a deep spiri-
tuadty pervading the Epistle, a comparative want of objec-
tiveness, distinguishable indeed in all the epistles of the
captivity, but here most strongly marked, forming the link of
1 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. p. 151.
2 Rerum sublimitatem, adsequans verbis snblimioribus, quam ulla unquam
habuit lingua humana. — Grotius.

328 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
connection between the writings of Paul and those of the
Apostle John — between Pauline and Johannean Christianity.
This Epistle has been commented on by Eiickert (Leipzig,
1834), Harless (Erlangen, 1834; second edition, 1860), Ols
hausen (Konigsberg, 1860), De Wette (Leipzig, 1843), Stier
(Berlin, 1848), Meyer (Gottingen, 1853 ; fourth edition,
1867), Bleek (Berlin, 1865); and in our own country by
Edicott (London, 1855; second edition, 1859), Eadie (Lon
don, second edition, 1861), and Davies (London, 1866).

CONNECTION BETWEEN EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.
It is undeniable that a closer connection exists between
these two than between any other two of Paul's epistles.
They are aided by points of resemblance which nowhere else
.occur in the writings of the apostle. Opposite opinions have
been entertained regarding this connection and these points
of resemblance by those who consider one Epistle as the
original, and the other as the copy or imitation. Mayerhoff
gives the preference to the Epistle to the Ephesians, whdst
he considers the Epistle to the Colossians to be a spbitless
abridgment, written in a style and diction unworthy of the
apostle.1 De Wette, on the other hand, gives the preference
to the Epistle to the Colossians, and supposes the Epistle to
the Ephesians to be a diffuse enlargement, rich in words, but
poor in thoughts, full of repetitions, digressions, and uncon
nected sentences.2 The former questions the authenticity of
the Colossians, the latter the authenticity of the Ephesians,
— both judging the Epistles, not according to the external
evidence for their genuineness, but from their own subjective
points of view. Baur and Schwegler, combining the objec
tions of Mayerhoff against the Colossians, and those of De
Wette against the Ephesians, reject both Epistles, and con
sider them to be post-apostolic writings of the second cen-
1 Der Brief an die Kolosser mit vornehmlich Beruclisichtigung d. Pastoralbriefe
gepruft, p. 105 ff.
2 De Wette's Einleitung, pp. 313, 319.

CONNECTION BETWEEN EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 329

tury j1 and certainly with greater consistency, for these two
Epistles are so intimately related that they must stand or fall
together. But, as has already been proved, the external
evidence in their favour is convincing, and the internal
evidence is by no means defective ; and it is now proposed to
show that even this intimate connection between them, so far
from being an objection against either, is rather an argument
in favour of the authenticity of both.
De Wette, in his Introduction to the New Testament, has
given a table of paradels, fully drawn out, between these two
Epistles.2 The table is instructive, but open to some remarks.
It is a list of points of resemblance, some of which are merely
verbal ; attention is paid to the mere sound of the words,
rather than to the connection or dissimilarity of the ideas.
Even where the same word or phrase is used in both Epistles,
in different connections and with reference to different sub
jects, the passages are noted in the table as parallels. A
careful perusal of this table wid show that there is such a
combination of simdarity and dissimilarity- — simdarity in ex
pression, and dissimilarity in ideas- — as to prove that the one
Epistle could not have been a copy of the other, but that there
was in both an untrammeded exercise of thought. And,
further, these paradels are often overdrawn ; passages being
marked as showing resemblance which have only one word in
common,- — as, for example, Eph. ii. 1 compared with Col. i. 21.
Still the points of resemblance between the Epistles are
undoubtedly very evident and numerous. The fodowing is a
table of parallels, taken from De Wette, omitting those where
the resemblances are sdght and obscure : 3 —

DOCTRINAL PORTIONS.

PRACTICAL PORTIONS.

Eph. i. 7.

Col. i. 14.

Eph. iv. 1.

Col. i. 10.

Eph. i. 10.

Col. i. 20.

Eph. iv. 2-4.

Col. iii. 12-14.

Eph. i. 15-17.

Col. i. 3, 4.

Eph. iv. 15, 16.

Col. ii. 19.

Eph. i. 18.

Col. i. 27.

Eph. iv. 22-24.

Col. iii. 8, 9.

Eph. i 21.

Col. i. 16.

Eph. iv. 31.

Col. iii. 8.

1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 1 ff. ; Schwegler's Nachapost. Zeital. vol.
ii. p. 330 ff.
2 De Wette's Einleitung, pp. 313-318.
3 Similar tables are given by Meyer, Epheser, p. 23 f. ; Davidson, Introduc
tion, vol. ii. p. 344, old edition; Paley, Horcs Paulinos, Ephesians, No. I.;
Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, p. 309 f.

330 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

DOCTRINAL PORTIONS.
Eph. i. 22, 23. Col. i. 18, 19.
Eph. ii. 5. CoL ii. 13.
Eph. ii. 11. Col. ii. 11.
Eph. ii. 16. Col. i. 20.
Eph. iii. 2, 3. Col. i. 25, 26.
Eph. iii. 7. Col. i. 23.*

PRACTICAL PORTIONS.
Eph. iv. 32. Col. iii. 12.
Eph. v. 6. Col. iii. 6.
Eph. v. 15, 16. Col. iv. 5.
Eph. v. 19, 20. Col. iii. 16, 17.
Eph. v. 22. Col. iii. 18.
Eph. vi. 1. Col. iii. 20.
Eph. vi. 5-8. Col. iii. 22-25.
Eph. vi. 9. Col. iv. 1.
Eph. vi. 18-20. Col. iv. 3, 4.
Eph. vi. 21, 22. Col. iv. 7, 8.
In judging of these points of resemblance, it is to be
observed that sometimes the same sentences occur in both
Epistles ; but more frequently the same words and phrases
are common to both. The following passages are verbatim
the same, or the same with a very sdght variation : — Eph. i. 7
and Col. i. 14; Eph. i. 10 and Col. i. 20 ; Eph. iii. 2 and
Col. i. 25 ; Eph. v. 19 and Col. iii 16 ; Eph. vi. 22 and Col.
iv. 8. In these passages, not only are the ideas the same, but
even the precise words, evidently proving that there is here
more than an accidental resemblance. There are also nume
rous examples of the same words and phrases found in both
Epistles, several .of them being pecudar to these Epistles,
though at the same time they may be found in different
connections. Thus, we have the following phrases in both
Epistles : — d 7.\ovto? t?}? Sof ?;?, Eph. i 1 8 and Col. i 27; to
•jrXripmfia, Eph. i. 23 and CoL i. 19 ; ¦jreptTop.r) ^et/307rotijTo?, Eph.
ii. 11, and ireptTOfir) d^etpoTrolr/TO';, Col. d. 11; diroKaTaXXd^at,,
Eph. d. 16 and Col. i. 20 ; to fivo-Trjptov, Eph. iii. 3 and Col.
i. 26 ; d 7ra\at_s dv6pco7ro<;, Eph. iv. 22 and Col. di. 9.
In general, it is correct to say that in the Epistle to the
Ephesians the ideas contained in the Epistle to the Colossians
are expanded. But it is erroneous to affirm that the Ephesians
is only an expansion of the other Epistle ; on the contrary, it
sometimes happens, as Meyer observes,1 that the expansion
is found in the Colossians, and the abbreviation in the
Ephesians, — as, for example, Eph. i. 15, 16, compared with
Col. i 3-6 ; Eph. ii. 16 compared with Col. i. 20 ; Eph. iv. 32
compared with Col. iii. 12, 13.
But with these evident points of similarity between the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, there are also strong
1 Meyer's Epheser, p. 24.

CONNECTION BETWEEN EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 331
points of dissimdarity ; indeed, so great a dissimilarity as to
constitute them very different Epistles in their nature and
tendencies. The designs which the apostle had in writing
these Epistles are different. The Colossian church was
tainted with error ; false teachers of a Jewish-Gnostic charac
ter had corrupted the church with their errors and ascetic
practices ; and it was to refute these errors and correct these
practices that Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians.
Nothing of this kind seems to have existed in the church of
Ephesus : it was comparatively free from error ; the false
teachers had not yet established themselves there ; and hence
Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians, not so much with a
view to refute error, as to exhort believers to continue stedfast
in the faith. Hence it happens that,- although there is much
that is common to both, there is also much that is different.
In the Colossians there are warnings against false philosophy,
the worship of angels, and ascetic practices, which are not
to be found in the Ephesians. The nature of Christ is pro
minently brought forward in the' Colossians, in opposition to
the errors of false teachers, whereas it is merely incidentally
mentioned in the Ephesians (Eph. i 10, 21, 22). On the
other hand, the doctrines of election and the unity of the
church, so prominent in the Ephesians, are omitted in the
Colossians.1 There is also, as may be seen by glancing at the
table, a greater resemblance in the practical (Eph. iv.-vi. ; Col.
id., iv.) than in the doctrinal portions of the Epistles (Eph.
i. — iii. ; Col. i., ii). In the practical portions there is a strong
similarity in the exhortations ; the same prohibitions and
commands ; the same inculcation of social and domestic duties :
the similarity is generady not merely one of words, but of
ideas. In the doctrinal portions it is otherwise : here different
subjects are treated ; the same words and phrases may be
employed, but they are in different connections : the resem
blance is in language rather than in ideas.
The relation between these two Epistles is generady ex
plained from the fact that Paul wrote them at the same time,
to churches not far distant from each other, and requiring
1 For the dissimilarity between these Epistles, see Reuss' Geschichte d. heil.
Schrif. N. T. pp. 103, 104.

332 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
similar admonitions and exhortations. And this explanation
appears perfectly sufficient ; it is verified by the experience of
daily dfe. In letters written at the same time to different
correspondents, upon similar subjects, there is often much
that is common both of thought and language. When Paul
wrote to the Ephesians, his mind was still occupied with
those sentiments which he had just committed to writing in
an Epistle to the Colossians : his thoughts were running in
the same direction. So also these two churches were in a
somewhat similar moral condition : the exhortations which
were given to the one equady applied to the other ; the same
vices had to be avoided, and the same vdtues cultivated ;
the same" corrupt customs of oriental heathenism had to be
renounced ; and hence the apostle, fresh from writing to the
Colossians, gives the same exhortations to the Ephesians.
Indeed, the resemblance between these two Epistles is of the
very nature that would occur between two contemporaneous
letters written on cognate subjects. Even Baur does not
consider that such a resemblance proves a diversity in the
authorship, — that the one is an imitation of the other, — but
admits that the two Epistles may have been written by the
same person. " That," he observes, " the Epistle to the Ephe
sians stands in a secondary relation to the Epistle to the
Colossians, is evident ; but whether it was written much later,
and had a different author, may well be doubted. Might not
both Epistles have come together, as twin-brothers, into the
world?"1 The resemblance between these two Epistles is not without
example, though certainly not to the same extent, in Paul's
writings. The Epistles to the Bomans and Galatians simdarly
resemble each other : peculiar words and phrases are common
to both ; the same train of thought is often indulged in.
Nearly a year elapsed between the composition of these two
Epistles ; had only a few days intervened, who can doubt that
the resemblance would have been stid greater, — probably as
great as that between the Epistles to the Ephesians and
Colossians .
This resemblance affords no argument against the authen-
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 47.

CONNECTION BETWEEN EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 333
ticity of either Epistle. The similarity in the time of com
position and in the moral Condition of the churches sufficiently
accounts for it. Nor can it be successfudy maintained that
either the one or the other exhibits poverty of thought ; and
the speciadties in each Epistle prove that the one is not taken
from the other. " The similarity of the two Epistles," observes
Neander, " is of such a kind, that we see in it the work of the
same author, and not an imitation by another hand. Let us
remember that Paul, when he wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians,
was still full Of those thoughts and contemplations which
occupied his mind when he wrote the Epistle to the Colos
sians : thus we can account for those points of resemblance
in the second, which was written immediately after the first."1
Let it be granted that the Epistle to the Ephesians is in some
respects an expansion of the Epistle to the Colossians ; yet it
is rash to conclude that this infers a servile imitation : the
more natural conclusion appears to be that it was Paul him
self, who adapted what he wrote to the Colossians to the
necessities of the EphesianSi2 The idea of a forger or imitator
is beyond probability. Such a"n one could not have written
the Epistle to the Ephesians, which was apparently destitute
of any special purpose, the language of which was similar to
that of the Colossians, but the ideas very different. Such an
adept of the Pauline style would have borrowed from other
epistles, and not restricted himself to one ; and the particular
purpose he had in view would have appeared more distinctly
on the face of this Epistle.3
So far from this resemblan.e being an abjection to the
authenticity of either Epistle, Paley states it as an internal
evidence of the authenticity of both.* He first proves that
these Epistles were contemporaneous, and then shows that
their nature coincides with this fact. " The Epistle to the
Ephesians," he observes, " and the Epistle to the Colossians,
import to be two letters, written by the same person, at or
1 Neander's Planting, vol. i p. 329.
2 Harless rightly observes, that the assertion that the Ephesians is only a ver
bose expansion of the Colossians can only be proved, if it were shown that it
had only more words and not more ideas, and that it had only the same, but not
a different design, from the Epistle to the Colossians.
3 Meyer's Epheser, p. 25. i Paley's Horcs Paulinos, Ephesians, No. I.

334 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
nearly at the same time, and upon the same subject, and to
have been sent by the same messenger. Now everything in
the sentiments, order, and diction of the two writings corre
sponds with what might be expected from this cdcumstance
of identity or cognation in their original." This he shows by
a variety of particulars. He observes that the same expres
sions, and sometimes whole sentences, might be expected in
both Epistles ; for such expressions and sentences as were yet
fresh in the author's mind from the writing of the first would
be repeated in the second letter. Often also the author would
find himself employing some principal terms, but in a dif
ferent order from that in which he had already used them.
A certain similarity in the train of the author's thoughts might
also be expected. All these points of resemblance, as may
be seen by an inspection of the table of parallels, occur in
these two Epistles. " The argument," observes Paley, " stands
thus : No two other epistles contain a circumstance which
indicates that they were written at the same, or nearly at the
same time. No two other epistles exhibit so many marks of
correspondency and resemblance. If the original which we
ascribe to these two Epistles be the true one, — that is, if they
were both written by St. Paul, and both sent to their respec
tive destinations by the same messenger, — the similitude is,
in all points, what should be expected to take place."
These two Epistles are simdar, and yet dissimdar : simdar
in their language and practical exhortations ; dissimilar in
their design and mode of doctrinal treatment. The Epistle
to the Colossians is polemical, and aims at the refutation of
heresy ; the Epistle to the Ephesians is dogmatic, and serves
to the estabdshment of truth. The one is special, and deals
with the errors of the Jewish Gnostics ; the other is general,
and is designed for the edification of bedevers. The one is a
Christian apology ; the other is a doctrinal treatise on election
and grace. " Paul's Epistle to the Colossians," observes
Alford, "^is his caution, his argument, his protest — is, so to
speak, his working-day toil, his ddect pastoral labour ; and
the other is the flower and bloom of his moments, during
those same days of devotion and rest, when he wrought not so
much in the Spirit, as the Spirit wrought in him. So that

CONNECTION BETWEEN EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS. 335
while we have in the Colossians system defined, language
elaborated, antithesis and logical power on the surface ; we
have in the Ephesians the free outflowing of the earnest
spirit, to the surface-reader without system, but to him that
delves down into it, in system far deeper, and more recondite,
and more exquisite, — the greatest and most heavenly work of
one whose very imagination was peopled with things in the
heavens, and even his fancy wrapt into the visions of
God."1 -•Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 42.

THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE.
THE Epistle to the Philippians is wed attested both by
external and internal evidence. Polycarp (a.d. 116),
in an epistle addressed to this very church of Philippi, written
about fifty years after, make's mention of it. "Neither I,"
he observes, " nor any like me, can attain to the wisdom
of the blessed and glorious Paul/ who, when he was among
you, with those who then lived, taught accurately and firmly
the word of truth; and When absent wrote to you epistles,
into which if you look, you wid be able to edify yourselves in
the faith which has been delivered unto you." 1 And again :
" But I have neither seen nor' he__d any such things in you,
among whom the b'le'ssed Paul laboured, and who are named
in the beginning of his Epistle ; for he glories over you in ad
the churches which then alone knew God." 2 In the epistle
of the churches of Vienne and Lyons (ad. 177), preserved by
Eusebius, there is the fodowing distinct adusion : " They
were also so zealous in the imitation of Christ, who, though
in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God" (PhiL ii. 6).3 Irenseus (a.D. 178) writes: "As Paul
1 Ad FhHippGTlS. u. 3 : Ours ya,ji lya/ otlrt cLXKos oftoios iftoi ^vvetrai xuTUxoXouOnffai
tt\ ffotpioe. tou fAUxetpiou xa) Ivoo^ov TlccuXoV o$ ytvafAivos Iv vfttv x.ara, vrpoffcuvrov tmv rbrt
oLvflpa/tfatyj lotdafyv UKpifi&ts xoct (&$(&ut6i$ Toy vttpi aX^&ias Xoyoy- os xai avrav uf*,7v '(ypa^iy
itftffToXos, us &S £«v syxU-rTJjTE, ^uwiMffSfffa oiK'j^ofit7trda.t us tjjv %oH7ffav ufrfv vritrnv.
2 Ibid. «_. 11: Ego autem nihil tale sensi in vobis, vel audivi, in quibus labo-
ravit beatus Paulus ; qui estis in principio -epistolse ejus. De vobis enim
gloriatur in omnibus ecclesiis qu_e Deum solas tunc cognoverant.
3 Eus. Hist. Eccl. V. 2 : O. xai lar) Toirovrov %%Xarai xai f&iftyirai Xpitrrov lyivovro.
05 Iv f&op<P*i Gtou uTap%uv ov% up<rccyf,t,ov yyyio'otTO to uvat 'Ua. Qsa. .
33(5

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 337
also says to the Philippians : 'lam fidl, having received from
Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour
of a sweet smed, acceptable, wed-pleasing unto God ' " (Phd.
iv. 18).1 Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 194) says: "Paul con
fesses of himself, 'Not as though I had attained, or were
already perfect'" (Phil. iii. 12).2 And Tertuldan (ad. 200) :
" Of which hope he (Paul), being himself in suspense, when
he writes to the Philippians, says, ' If by any means I might
attain unto the resurrection of the dead ' " (Phd. id. ll).3
The internal evidence is equady strong. "No epistle of
the apostle," observes Schenkel, "according to our observa
tions, bears the impress of authenticity in such unmistakeable
characters as the Epistle to the Phdippians." 4 If the Epistle
to the Ephesians bears clearly the impress of Paul's style, the
Epistle to the Phdippians bears no less clearly the impress of
Paul's character. The intense devotion to Christ (Phd. i 21),
the ardent affection for his converts (Phd. i 7, 8, iv. 1), the
earnestness in prayer for their spditual welfare (Phd. i -4),
the womanly tenderness (Phil. iii. 10), the dedcate courtesy
displayed in the reception of the gifts of the Phdippians
(Phd. iv. 14-19), the noble elevation above ad earthly cares
(Phil. iv. 12), the personal humility combined with the
assertion of apostodc authority (Phd. iii. 4-11), and the
dberadty of mind (Phd. i. 18), are all distinguishing features
in the character of the great apostle. So also the style is
Pauline : there are the same breaks, parentheses, and digres
sions that occur in his other epistles ; and the description of
the Christian dfe as a race (Phil. di. 13, 14) is a favourite
figure with the apostle, and peculiar to his writings.5 Nor
1 Adv. Hesres. iv. 18. 4 : Quemadmodum et Paulus Philippensibus ait : "Re-
pletus sum acceptis ab Epaphrodito, qua; a vobis missa sunt, odorem suavitatis,
hostiam acceptabilem, placentem Deo." »
2 Posdag. i c. 6 : AuroZ opooXoyouvros roZ TlauXov ortpi lauroZ' au% on «_»¦ '(Xafiov,
n no rt nnXtiuftai.
3 De resurrect, earn. c. 23 : Ad quam (sc. spem resurrectionis) pendens et ipse
quum Philippensibus scribit : "si qua," inquit, "concur. am in resurrectionem,
qua: est a mortuis." For additional references, see Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung,
pp. 216-220 ; Lardner's Works ; and Davidson's Introduction (old edition), vol.
ii. pp. 386, 387.
* Schenkel, Der Brief an die Philipper, p. 112.
'' Heb. xii. 1, 2, may be regarded by some as an exception to this remark,
though others see in it a proof of Pauline origin.
Y

338 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
can any possible motive be assigned for forgery or imitation.
The Epistle treats of no controversial points, it has no special
design, and there is a freshness and simplicity about its whole
tone beyond the power of imitation. Schwegler, indeed,
supposes that it has a concdiatory design to unite the Pauline
and Petrine Christians ; and he entertains the strange notion
that Euodia and Syntyche, mentioned in Phd. iv. 2, are sym
bolical: that Euodia represents the Jewish Christian, and
Syntyche the Gentde Christian party ; and that the true
yoke-fedow (arv£vyo<;) is Peter, who is here represented as the
fedow-labourer (the syzygy) of Paul.1 Such an opinion needs
only to be mentioned to carry with it its own refutation.
The undesigned coincidences between this Epistle and the
¦other Paudne Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles are few,
but, so far as they go, convincing. In the Epistle, Paul men
tions that he was accustomed to receive gifts from the Phdip
pians (Phd. iv. 15-18); and in Second Corinthians, we are
incidentady told that the Macedonians suppded his wants
when at Corinth (2 Cor. xi 8, 9). In the Epistle, Timothy
is conjoined with Paul, and the apostle asserts that the
Phidppians knew by experience his value, seeing that as a
son with a father he had served with him in the gospel
(Phd. ii. 22) ; and in the Acts we learn, not from any direct
assertion, but from a comparison of passages, that Timothy
was with Paul when he introduced Christianity into Philippi
(Acts xvi). In the Epistle, Paul refers to the sufferings
which he endured when at Phdippi (Phd. i 30); and we
learn from the Acts that he was there scourged and thrown
into prison. In the Epistle, we are informed that Paul, though
a prisoner, had considerable dberty in preaching the gospel,
so much so that his bonds in Christ were manifest in ad the
palace, and in ad other places (Phd. i. 23) ; and this corre
sponds with the account of his Boman imprisonment in the
Acts, for we are there told that for two years he preached the
' kingdom of God, and taught the things concerning the Lord
Jesus Christ, no man forbidding him (Acts xxvdi. 31).2
Olshausen observes that the Epistle to the Philippians
1 Schwegler's Nachapost. Zeitalter, ii. p. 135.
2 For further instances, see Paley's ___.ee Paulines, chap. vii.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 339
belongs to the few writings of the New Testament whose
genuineness has never been questioned.1 Since his days, how
ever, this Epistle has been attacked by the school of Tubingen.
Baur and Schwegler both reject it.2 Their opinion, however,
has not been endorsed by ad their fodowers. Hdgenfeld
maintains the authenticity of the Phidppians. The objections
of Baur have been answered by Schenkel, Lange, Eeuss, and
Dr. Davidson, and at still greater length by Wiesinger in his
continuation of Olshausen's Bibelwerh ; 3 besides by Liine
mann and Bruckner in two special treatises.4
The objections of Baur are. not formidable. They are as
fodows : — 1. The Epistle contains Gnostic ideas and expres
sions, and therefore must belong to the second century. The
only passage, however, adduced in proof of this assertion is
Phil. ii. 6-8 : " Who, being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no repu
tation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was
made in the likeness of men ; and being found in fashion as a
man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross." Here, according to Baur, we
have a description of Sophia, the Valentinian ./Eon, who aimed
at an equadty with God ; and besides, the expressions " form
(ptopjtrj) of a servant," " fashion (<ryfjfm) as a man," have a
docetic meaning.6 But the doctrine contained in these words
is the Pauline doctrine of the humiliation and obedience of
the Son of God (Gal. iv. 4 ; 2 Cor. vid. 9). The words ov%
dprratyfibv rjyrjaaTo, according to the context, denote that
although Christ was in the possession of the divine nature,
yet He did not eagerly assert it, but made Himself of no
reputation ; instead of appearing in His divine glory, He took
upon Himself the form of a servant. Nor have the words a
1 Wiesinger Ore the Philippians, p. 8.
2 Baur's Paulus, vol. ii. p. 50 ff. ; Schwegler's Nachapost. Zeitalter, vol.
ii. p. 133 ff.
' Schenkel, An die Philipper, p. Ill ; Lange's Apost. Zeitalt. vol. i. p. 30 ff. ;
Reuss' Geschichte N. T. p. 124 ; Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. i.
pp. 197-202 ; Wiesinger Ore the Philippians, pp. 8-22.
* Liinemann, Pauli ad Phil, epist. contra Baurum defendit; Bruckner, Epist.
ad Phil. Paulo auctori vmdicata contra Baurum.
B Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 50-59.

340 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
docetic meaning. The apostle is recommending the example
of Christ's humdity as a pattern to the Phdippians ; but if
Christ were not actuady, but only apparently man, the example
would lose its entire force. 2. Baur objects to the Epistle on
account of its poverty of thought. " Tender and pleasing," he
observes, " as the thoughts and sentiments are, it is not to be
overlooked that a monotonous repetition, a want of internal
connection, and a certain poverty of thought, appear to have
oppressed the author, so that he excuses himself, ' To write
the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for
you it is safe.' " 1 He also attempts to prove that what is
Pauline in the Epistle is borrowed from Paul's other epistles,
and espeeiady from Second Corinthians. But this mere sub
jective reason depends entirely on the objector's own standard:
to other minds the Epistle does not display any poverty of
thought, and certainly there is no want of naturalness. There
is no close resemblance between it and Second Corinthians;
and the many Paudne expressions contained in it afford a
strong presumption that Paul was the author. 3. Baur de
duces an opinion adverse to the Epistle from the mention of
Clement (Phd. iv. 3). This Clement he supposes to be the
disciple of Peter, the Bishop of Borne, the supposed author of
the Clementine Homilies, and whom he thinks the primitive
Church confounded with Plavius Clement, the relative of
Domitian. Hence the mention of the gospel having pene
trated into Caesar's household, as if some of the relatives of
the emperor had embraced Christianity. " It is not without
design," he observes, " that the author places here the Boman
Clement, that genuine disciple of Peter, as a fedow-labourer by
the side of Paul : he was to form a new bond of union between
the two chief apostles." 2 But this objection proceeds on an
entire mistake. The Clement in the Epistle is not a member
of the church of Eome, but of the church of Philippi, and
seems to have been one of the presbyters of that church ; so
that it is extremely doubtful if he be the same as he who
afterwards became Bishop of Eome.3 4. Baur objects that
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 59. 2 Ibid. p. 70 ff.
3 See in Lightfoot Ore the Philippians an interesting note on Clement, pp.
166-169.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE. 341
there aVe in the Epistle un-Paudne particulars and expressions.
Paul receives gifts from the Phidppians, whereas in the First
Epistle to the Corinthians he declares that he acted upon the
principle of preaching the gospel without charge, and that he
would take no support from the churches (1 Cor. ix. 14, 15).1
But Baul there refers speciady to the church of Corinth, and
we learn from the Second Epistle to that very church that he
did take contributions from other churches (2 Cor. xi. 9). The
description of the Judaizing teachers is said to be severe and
coarse (Phd. id. 2).2 But it is even less severe than 2 Cor.
xi. 13, 14, and is analogous to what is said in Gal. v. 12.
And with regard to the un-Pauline expressions,3 as has already
been observed, it is unreasonable to dmit the apostle to certain
phrases ; and besides, it is most unfair to argue that the Pauline
expressions are a proof of imitation, and the un-Paudne ex
pressions a proof of invention by another hand: so that it
would seem, whether the expressions were Pauline or not, they
equady prove the spuriousness of the Epistle.
The unity of the Epistle has been questioned. Heinrichs
and Paulus suppose that it is composed of two letters, — the
first containing chap, i— di. 1 as far as the words iv Kvpltp,
and also including chap. iv. 21-23 ; and the second com
mencing with Td aind ypdcpetv, chap. id. 1, and ending at
chap. iv. 2 0. They suppose that the first letter was addressed
to the Church in general, and the second to the bishops and
deacons. Weisse divided the Epistle differently: the first
letter included chap. i-id. 3, and the second chap. di. 4-iv. 23,
whilst he supposes that the beginning of the second letter is
lost.4 The opinion of Heinrichs and Paulus rests on the words,
To Xofjrbv, dBeXcpot fiov, %alpeTe iv Kvptai (Finady, my brethren,
rejoice in the Lord, Phd. iii. 1), which are regarded by them
as the conclusion of an epistle. But this expression is alto
gether insufficient ground on which to build such an opinion.
The same apparently valedictory terms to Xotirbv occur in
1 Thess. iv. 1, at a similar distance from the close of that
Epistle. Some (Grotius, Bheinwald) suppose that the apostle
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii p. 83.
8 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 60. 3 Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 87, 88.
* Weisse, PhUos. Dogm. vol. i. p. 144.

342 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
intended to conclude his Epistle with these words, but was
afterwards led to add a supplement; but even this sup*
position is unnecessary.
Bleek considers that we have in the Epistle evidence of
another letter which the apostle wrote to the Phidppians, and
which is now lost. " It may, I think," he observes, " with
. tolerable certainty be inferred from chap. id. 1 (".a avTd ypdfyeiv
vfiiv) that Paul had written a letter to the Philippians previous
to the one that has come down to us, and after his last visit.
This, indeed, we might naturady suppose to have been the case,
when we consider the warm affection subsisting between the
apostle and" the church, and their communicating with him
in his necessity." x This opinion has also been adopted by
Wiesinger and Meyer.2 There is nothing improbable in such
a supposition, but the words adduced do not warrant it. - " To
write the same things to you" may indeed refer to what the
apostle had written in a former epistle, but the phrase may
also adude to the oral communications which the apostle made
when at Phdippi, — a meaning adopted by Calvin, Beza, and
Bheinwald. — It is also affirmed that Polycarp mentions a
pluradty of epistles. In his Epistle to the Philippians, he
observes that Paul, when absent, wrote to them epistles (o .
Kai dTrtov vp!iv eypayjrev eVwroXa.).3 But these words are in
definite, and even Bleek does not depend on them. In another
portion of his letter, Polycarp speaks of the Epistle of Paul in
the singular, and it was not unusual to employ iirio-ToXal to
denote one letter.4 Lardner supposes that by iirio-ToXd<i Poly
carp intends the Epistle to the Phdippians and the two Epistles
to the Thessalonians.8 If Paul had written another epistle
to the Philippians, it must have been lost before the time
of Polycarp ; for if it survived so long, it would have been
transmitted to us.6
1 Bleek's Introduction to the N. T. vol. ii. p. 16.
2 Wiesinger Ore the PhiUppians, p. 23 ; Meyer's Philipper, p. 5 ; and on Phil.
iii. 1, p. 100.
3 Polycarp, ad PhiUppens. c. 3.
4 Ibid. c. 11. For the use of WurroXa! to denote a single letter, see Lightfoot
On tlie PhiUppians, p. 138.
6 Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 3.28.
6 See Lightfoot On tlie Philippians, on ' ' The lost Epistles to the Philippians, "
pp. 136-140.

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 343

II. THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI.

Philippi was situated about ten mdes from the sea, with
which it communicated by its port Neapods. Its original
name was Crenides, or the Fountains, from the abundance of
springs in the neighbourhood. It was rebuilt and fortified by
Philip, the father of Alexander the Great, who caded it
Phdippi, after himsed (b.c. 358). In the neighbourhood were
gold mines, which were worked by Philip with such advantage,
that it is said, by means of the wealth they furnished him,
he acquired the supremacy of Greece. Phdippi is celebrated
in history as the battle-field where the destiny of Borne was
decided by the victory of Augustus and Antony over the re-
pubdcan forces of Brutus and Cassius. Augustus constituted
it a Eoman colony, and conferred on it the name of Colonia
Augusta Julia Phdippensis. It is caded in the Acts the first
city of the district of Macedonia (irpoyrn -WJ. p;eptSo<; -nj.
MaKeBovia<s 7ro\.., Acts xvi. 12), which cannot mean that it
was the capital of Macedonia, for that was Thessalonica ; nor
the chief town of the first part of Macedonia (Macedonia
prima), for that was Amphipolis; nor that irpoiTn was an
honourable title conferred on it, as was the case with several
cities of Proconsular Asia, for no such title has been found on
its coins ; but the words are to be understood geographicady,
that Philippi was the first city of Macedonia at which Paul
arrived, inasmuch as at that period Neapods did not belong to
Macedonia, but to Thrace.1 To Christians, Philippi is espeeiady
interesting as the first city in Europe where Paul preached
the gospel : the bloody victory of Augustus and Antony pales
before the peaceful triumph of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Christianity was introduced into Phdippi by Paul during
his second missionary journey. Arrived in the course of his
travels at Alexandria Troas, he was admonished by a vision
to cross the _Egean Sea to Macedonia. Accordingly, accompa
nied by three fellow-labourers, — Sdas, who had gone with him
from Antioch ; Timothy, whom he had taken with him from
Lystra ; and Luke, who had joined him at Troas, — he landed
at Neapods, and without halting, proceeded to Philippi. Here
1 See author's Commentary on the Acts, vol. ii. pp. 114, 115.

344 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Paul preached the gospel at first to certain women, Jewesses
and proselytes, who worshipped at a proseucha outside of the
city. His first convert was Lydia, and many others bedeved.
The expulsion of a demon from a female slave was the oc
casion of his being scourged and imprisoned ; and after his
miraculous deliverance, he left the city. It would appear
that his stay was short ; and the church which he left was
smad. Luke, and probably Timothy, remained behind, and
under their fostering care the church increased and prospered.
Paul kept up a regular correspondence with the church which
he had founded. The Phdippians contributed twice to his
support when he was at Thessalonica, and at least once when
he was at Corinth. The messengers of the apostle frequently
visited the city, and brought reports of the stedfastness of
their faith in Christ, and of their affection toward himself.
During his residence of three years at Ephesus, Paul sent
Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia (Acts xix. 22), and the
church of Phdippi would not be overlooked. At length, five
years after his first visit, the apostle came again to Phdippi
on his way to Corinth (Acts xx. 1) ; and on his return from
Corinth, before he set out on his last journey to Jerusalem,
he paid them a third visit, and remained among them during
the days of unleavened bread (Acts xx. 6). And -we learn,
from this Epistle, that he proposed again to visit them, when
ever he was released from imprisonment (Phd. d. 24).
The church of Phdippi was chiefly of Gentde composition,
as is evident from the manner in which circumcision is men
tioned (Phil. iii. 2, 3). This entirely corresponds with the
narrative in the Acts. There were few Jews at Phdippi ; they
had no synagogue, but only a proseucha at the water-side,
where certain Jewish women and proselytes met for worship.
It would also appear that the church was then suffering from
persecution ; the apostle exhorts them not to be terrified by
their adversaries, but to count it an honour that they were
caded to suffer for the sake of Christ (Phil. i. 28-30).
Although Christianity was not then declared to be an illicit
redgion, yet the Christians would be exposed to many annoy
ances from their heathen neighbours, and especially in such a
city as Philippi, which had shown its hatred to Christianity by

THE CHURCH OF PHILIPPI. 345
its treatment of the apostle. There were also certain internal
disorders in the church, not, however, arising from the prose
lytizing zeal of false teachers, but from some private quarrels
between certain of its influential members (Phd. iv. 2). Not
withstanding this partial disunion, the church of Philippi
was inwardly in a most flourishing condition. None of Paul's
epistles is so fud of commendation, so free from censure. No
doubts are expressed of the stedfastness of their faith ; and
the warnings given are not directed against existing errors,
but threatened dangers. No church exhibited such a strong
affection for the apostle : they ministered repeatedly to his
necessities ; indeed, they appear to have had the peculiar
honour of doing so, or at least were honoured by the apostle
with his acceptance of their gifts. And this affection was
reciprocal : the church of Philippi was Paul's favourite church ;
to them he opens his heart, aiid on them he lavishes his
affections. There is a cordiadty and intimacy expressed in
this Epistle greater than in any other of Paul's epistles.
Some suppose that the church of Phidppi was not alto
gether pure — that the Judaizing element was by no means
wanting. Storr, Eichhorn, Bheinwald, Matthies, and others,
conceive that the Judaizing teachers had propagated their
errors among the Philippians ; that the church was divided on
doctrinal points ; and that a Jewish faction was formed ad
verse to the apostle; in short, that the church of Phdippi
was, dke the churches of Corinth and Galatia, spdt into
parties. , Hence the repeated exhortations to unity ; hence the
severe and emphatic denunciations of Judaizing tendencies :
" Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the con
cision " (Phil. id. 2) ; hence the tenderness with which the
apostle mourns over the moral defections of his converts :
" For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now
ted you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross
of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their bedy,
whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things "
(Phd. iv. 18, 19). But this opinion is entirely erroneous.
No polemic design is discernible in the Epistle. If the faith
of the Phdippians had been so perverted, and their moral
conduct so corrupt, as this opinion supposes, the Epistle would

346 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
not have been so highly commendatory, so free from ad those
censures and rebukes which pervade the Epistles to the Corin
thians and Galatians. Besides, from the absence of Jews in
the city, the Jewish element must have been comparatively
smad. Paul here rather warns them against a threatened
danger, than censures them for existing errors. When he
wrote this Epistle at Borne, he himself was exposed to the
annoyances and attacks of the Judaizers, and hence the
forcible manner in which he cautions the Phidppians against
their machinations. Nor does the apostle, in adverting to
the immoralities then prevalent, adude to the Phdippians in
particular, but merely makes a general observation that there
were many who thus turned the grace of God into dcentious-
ness. The Phdippians, as a church, were comparatively sound
in the faith and pure in morals ; and therefore the apostle
could exhort them to stedfastness in words of commendation
and affection: "Therefore, my brethren, dearly 'beloved and
longed for, my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my
dearly beloved. " (Phil. iv. 1).
About forty or fifty years after this Epistle was written,
Ignatius, on his way to martyrdom at Borne, passed through
Phdippi, and was warmly received by the Christians in that
city.1 Polycarp wrote to the Phidppian church his celebrated
epistle. This is also an epistle of commendation : there are
no warnings against false doctrine, no appearances of defec
tion ; the church of Phdippi appears stid to have maintained
its high character for purity in faith and conduct. After this
it is seldom mentioned in the history of the church ; even the
city itself graduady disappears, and its site is now occupied
by a wretched village stid bearing its ancient name, corrupted
into Filiba. " Of its destruction or decay," observes Professor .
Lightfoot, " no record is left ; and among its ruins traveders
have hitherto faded to find any Christian remains. Of the
church which stood foremost among ad the apostodc com
munities in faith and love, it may literally be said that not
one stone stands upon another. Its whole career is a signal
monument of the inscrutable counsel of God. Born into the
1 Ignatius was martyred, according to some, A.D. 107 ; or according to others,
A.d. 115.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 347
world with the highest promise, the church of Philippi has
dved without a history, and perished without a memorial."1
III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
No special design is manifest. The Epistle is not, as some
suppose, polemical, and directed against . the errors of the
Judaizing heretics ; rather it is the expression of the apostle's
love to his favourite church, and of his gratitude for their
repeated acts of kindness. The Phdippians had repeatedly
sent contributions to the apostle. In the beginning of the
gospel, on the first introduction of Christianity among them,
when the apostle departed from Macedonia, they were the
only church that showed their gratitude and affection by
ministering to his wants. In Thessalonica they had sent
once and again to his necessities (Phd. iv. 15, 16). They
were doubtless the brethren which came from Macedonia who
supplied his wants in Corinth (2 Cor. xi 8, 9). And now
again, when he was imprisoned at Borne, notwithstanding
their great distance, they sent Epaphroditus their messenger
with further contributions. " I have ad," writes the apostle,
" and abound ; I am fud, having received of Epaphroditus the
things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell,
a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God" (Phd. iv. 18).
This renewed expression of their love made a deep impression
upon the apostle. Epaphroditus was about to return, and the
apostle embraced the opportunity of writing to the Philippians
this letter of thanks, in testimony of his approbation of thed
conduct. It is surprising that Paul should have been adowed by the
Christians at Borne to be in want, and have been obdged to
receive suppdes from such a distance as Phdippi. But we
do not know ad the circumstances of the case. Paul refused
to receive pecuniary assistance where his doing so might be
misinterpreted, and impede the progress of the gospel : on
this principle he acted when at Corinth, and he may also have
done so at Borne. Besides, in other cities he supported him
self in part by the labour of his own hands ; whereas, as a
1 Lightfoot Ore the Philippians, p. 64.

348 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
prisoner, he would be prevented doing so at Eome, and conse
quently his wants would be greater. The church of Eome
certainly fell short of the generosity of the Philippians. Paul
himsed complains of their selfishness and want of devotion :
"Ad seek their own, and not the things which are Jesus
Christ's." (Phil. d. 21). Paul was a prisoner, and perhaps
persecution had commenced, or at least was threatening, and
the love of many had waxed cold.
The object of this Epistle was to return thanks to the
Phidppians for their gifts : it was a letter of gratitude. But,
besides this object, there was evidently another design : the
Epistle is also admonitory. Paid seeks to reconcile the
differences which had arisen in the Phidppian church : he
exhorts to unity (Phd. iv. 2). He also warns them against
threatened error — the artifices of the Judaizing teachers
(Phil. di. 2, 3). He had abundant experience how these men
fodowed his footsteps, and sowed their tares among the good
seed of the word ; and now at Eome he felt himself opposed
and hindered by their exertions ; and hence he feared lest his
beloved church of Phidppi — that church which had hitherto
manifested such fidedty and affection — might be corrupted
by them. The Jewish teachers were at present outside the
church of Philippi, but they might soon obtain an entrance
into it.
The bearer of this Epistle was Epaphroditus. Paul de
scribes him as his brother and companion in labour, and
fellow-soldier, but their messenger (a7._0-7--.v-.), and he who
ministered to their wants (Phil. d. 25). He had come from
Philippi with the gift of the Phdippians to Paul, and was now
on the point of returning.1 Epaphroditus had been attacked
by some dangerous idness, which had deeply affected both the
apostle and the Phidppians. This sickness was connected
with the promotion of the gospel: it was for the work of
Christ that he was nigh unto death (Phd. d. 30). Probably
he had exerted himself beyond his strength in the diffusion of
Christianity : he had waxed confident by reason of the bonds
1 As already observed, Epaphroditus and Epaphras, although the names may
be the same, are different persons : the one was a native of Philippi (Phil. ii. 25),
and the other of Colosse (Col. iv. 25).

THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 349
of the apostle, not regarding his life in the cause of Christ.
He had now, to the great joy of the apostle, recovered, and
had expressed his natural desire to return to Phdippi
IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle to the Phdippians admits of no distinct
divisions : the doctrinal and practical parts are interwoven.
The apostle, after the usual salutation, expresses his affec
tionate remembrance of the Phidppians, his confidence in their
continued obedience, and his earnest prayers for their progress
in knowledge and hodness (chap, i 1-11). He informs them
of his condition at Eome, that the gospel was rather advanced
than retarded by his imprisonment ; that there was a crisis in
his condition, that it was about to be decided whether he
should be dberated or condemned ; and that, although ready
either for dfe or death, yet the probabdity was that he should
be set at dberty (chap. i. 12-26). He exhorts them to culti
vate all Christian vdtues, not to be terrified at the persecutions
to which they were exposed, to be united with one another in
love, to avoid ad strife and vainglory, and to aim at humdity,
- — imitating in this respect the example of the Lord Jesus
Christ, who, although in the form of God, for their sakes humbled
Himself to the death of the cross (chap, i 27-d. 11). He
exhorts them to be more earnest in working out their salva
tion ; not only to hold fast, but to hold forth, the word of dfe,
and to be examples of all that is holy in the midst of a wicked
world (chap. ii. 12-18). He then returns to personal matters;
he promises soon to send Timothy, holds out an expectation
of his own coming, and mentions that in the meantime he
sends their messenger Epaphroditus (chap. ii. 19-30). He
warns them against false teachers of a Judaizing tendency,
shows the falsehood of their calumnies against himsed, and the
vanity of their boasting ; even his own attainments were as
nothing ; he renounced ad dependence on himself, and trusted
entirely on the righteousness of Christ ; he continuady pressed
forward toward higher attainments in the divine life (chap.
di.-iv. 1). He urges Euodia and Syntyche — probably influ
ential members of the church — to be reconcded, and subjoins

350 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
various admonitions to Christian moderation and contentment
(chap. iv. 2-9). He returns thanks to the Phidppians for
their seasonable liberality, expresses his hopes that God will
reward them, and concludes the Epistle with his apostolic
benediction (chap. iv. 10-23).
V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
The date of this Epistle has been already determined in
considering the Epistle to the Colossians. The place of
writing was Eome, and the time was toward the close of
Paul's imprisonment of two years in that city. These points
have seldom been caded in question. Oeder supposes that
the Epistle was written during the apostle's residence of a
year and a half at Corinth (Acts xvid. 1 1) ; x but for this
supposition there is no foundation. This Epistle was written
when the apostle was in imprisonment, and there is no mention
of his being so at Corinth. Others (Paulus, Bottger, Thiersch)
refer the Epistle to the imprisonment at Caesarea. The
apology (diroXoyia, Phd. i. 17) was that before the procurator
Fedx; the palace (irpatTcoptov, Phd. i. 13) was Herod's judg
ment had (irpaiTooptov tov 'Hpd>Bov, Acts xxdi. 35). This
opinion has already been fudy discussed, and it has been
shown that ad " the epistles of the captivity"2 belong not to
the Csesarean, but to the Eoman imprisonment. Even Meyer,
who asserts that the Ephesians, Colossians, and Phdemon
were written from Csesarea, assigns the Phidppians to Eome.3
Csesar's household (oIkuz Kato-apos, Phd. iv. 22) points to
Eome; and it was at Eome, and not at Csesarea, that the
apostle expected the final decision of his trial, whether his
imprisonment should terminate in dfe or in death.
It has also been shown that the Phdippians was the last
of the " epistles of the captivity." 4 Paul had already spent
a considerable time at Eome. This is evident from the notices

1 Schenkel's der Brief an die Philipper, p. 110.
2 The reader is reminded that by the "epistles of the captivity" are meant
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon.
3 Meyer's Philipper, pp. 2, 3.
- This is opposed to the view of Professor Lightfoot.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 351
given concerning Epaphroditus. Three or four journeys must
have occurred. The Phdippians had heard of Paul's arrival
at Eome. Epaphroditus had been sent by them with contri
butions. He had fallen sick, and the Philippians had heard
of his sickness. Epaphroditus had heard how much they had
been affected by the information (Phd. d. 25, 26). This
interchange of messages must have occupied a considerable
time.1 Besides, the gospel had made considerable progress at
Eome : it had penetrated into the palace of Nero. It would
also appear that Paul's imprisonment was drawing to a close :
there was every probabdity that some definite resolution re
garding it was about to be formed. Indeed, it is not improbable
that this Epistle was written during the interval between the
apostle's trial and the pubdc declaration of the sentence. He
speaks of his apology (Phd i. 17); he weighs the alternatives
of dfe and death, and expresses his hope of a speedy dedver-
ance : " I trust in the Lord that I also myself will come
shortly" (Phd. i. 24). Afford supposes that there was at
this time a change in the mode of Paul's imprisonment to the
worse ; that he was removed from his own hired house to
the prsetorium, or barrack of the praetorian guards attached
to the palace, and put in stricter custody, with threatening of
immediate perd of his dfe. This change, he supposes, arose
from the altered circumstances in the imperial government.
Burrus, the wise and moderate praetorian praefect, was dead,
and was succeeded by the unprincipled Tigedinus ; Nero had
divorced Octavia and married Poppsea, a proselyte to Judaism ;
Seneca had lost his moral influence, and Nero had now com
menced his career of crime.2 Ad these are, however, mere
suppositions : it cannot be proved that these events coincided
with the termination of Paul's imprisonment; and although
the apostle expected a crisis in his fate, yet he looked forward
with confidence to restoration to dberty (PhiL i 25, 26).
We have here some insight into the apostle's condition
and the state of the Christian church at Eome. Although a
prisoner, yet a certain degree of dberty was granted him in
preaching the gospel. He was not indeed permitted to go
1 Paley's Horos Paulinos, Philippians, No. V.
2 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 31.

352 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
where he pleased; he was confined to his own hired house,
but none were forbidden to come to him.- The messengers
of the churches came to and went from him. He had also
with him fellow-labourers, such as Epaphras, Epaphroditus,
Timothy, and Luke, who under his superintendence preached
the gospel at Eome. His imprisonment was the means of
increasing their zeal and earnestness. " Many of the brethren
of the Lord," writes the apostle, "waxing confident by my
bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear "
(Phd. i. 14). There were saints in Caesar's household (PhiL
iv. 22). It is not to be understood from this that any of
the relatives of Nero, or of the distinguished officers of his
court, embraced Christianity; that, as is fancifudy imagined
by some, either Poppaea or Seneca were converts; but that
some of the household slaves, either by coming in contact
with Paul through the medium of the praetorian guards, or by
means of some of his fedow-labourers, had been induced to
declare themselves Christians. It was a great triumph of the
gospel, that it had secured for itself a place in the palace of
the Caesars.1
There, however, appears to have been a faction in the
Boman church opposed to Paul : some preached Christ
through envy and strife, of contention, not sincerely, sup
posing to add affliction to his bonds (Phd. i. 15, 16). The
church of Eome was chiefly composed of Gentde Christians,
but the Jewish element was strong among them ; the Juda
izers had obtained a footing. Indifference also to a consider
able extent prevaded ; men sought to advance their private
interests, instead of the interests of Jesus Christ ; Paul had
no such sympathizing friend among all the converts at Eome
as Timothy (Phd. ii. 20, 21). What had become of those
numerous friends to whom he sent such tender greetings in
his Epistle to the Eomans, we know not.2 Perhaps the church
of Eome, by increasing in extent, had decreased in purity and
1 See an interesting note on " Caesar's Household," in Lightfoot Ore the
Philippians, pp. 169-175. See also Reuss' Geschichte N. T. p. 123.
2 Professor Lightfoot supposes them included in the saints of Caesar's house
hold. " We are," he observes, " led to look for them in the long list of names
saluted by St. Paul some years before in the Epistle to the Romans." — Ore tlie
Philippians, p. 171.

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 353
zeal ; a great sifting season was at hand ; a fiery trial was
necessary to purify them, and that fiery trial soon overtook
them in the Neronian persecution.1
VI. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE.
Nowhere do we see so deeply into the heart of Paul. As
the Epistles to the Corinthians reveal to us the internal nature
of the Corinthian church, so the Epistle to the Phidppians
discloses to us the inner character of the great apostle. He
gives full vent to the expressions of his affection for his
Phdippian converts ; he mentions his earnest prayers for
their spiritual wedare, his tender sodcitations, his joy at the
stedfastness of their faith and the purity of their conduct.
The whole Epistle is a mixture of love and joy, — love for his
converts, and joy at their spiritual welfare. The apostle and
his converts are united in the bonds of the gospel : their love
is reciprocal, and the joy of the one is the joy of them ad.
They feel themselves one in Christ,- — one in their inmost
being, — their joy and their love one. Wed may this Epistle
be caded the epistle of joy. Summa epistolce : Gaudeo,
gaudete (Bengel).2
Another distinguishing quadty is the comparative freedom
from doctrinal discussions : it is the least dogmatic of all the
apostle's letters. Paul is the theologian of Christianity. Most
of our proofs of doctrine are derived from his writings : the
Epistles to the Bomans and Galatians are espeeiady dogmatic.
But as there were no errors of doctrine to correct in the church
of Phidppi, — no Judaizing or Gnostic teachers to combat, — :-
there is here a comparative want of the dogmatic element.
Christianity is exhibited in its results, — in the influence which
it ought to have upon our dves and conduct, — in constituting
us dving epistles of Jesus Christ, known and read of ad men.
Here we find the grand summary of apostolic practice couched
1 See Reuss' Geschichte N T. p. 123, who, however, states the matter too
strongly ; he represents Paul as feeling himself to the last somewhat isolated
among his Roman friends : "in Rom blieb er zuletzt mit seinen fremden Freun-
den vereinzelt."
2 "This epistle of love," observes Meyer, " may be called the apostle's swan
song. " Z

354 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
in these eloquent and comprehensive words : " Finady, brethren,
whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, what
soever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever
things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there
be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things"
(Phd. iv. 8).
The most important commentaries on this Epistle are those
of De Wette (Leipzig, 1847), Meyer (Gottingen, 1847; third
edition, 1865), Wiesinger (Konigsberg, 1850; translated into
English in Clark's Theological Library), Ewald (Gottingen,
1857); and in our own country, Edicott (London, 1857;
second edition, 1861) and Lightfoot (London, 1868; second
edition, 1869).

PAUL'S EOMAN IMPEISONMENTS.i
In the Epistle to the Phidppians, Paul expresses consider
able confidence that his case was about to take a favourable
turn, and that he would soon be restored to liberty. It is
probable that his long-deferred trial had at last taken place,
and the sentence of acquittal or condemnation was about to be
pronounced ; and, as if he had received some revelation from
heaven, Paul felt assured of a favourable issue : " Having this
confidence, I know that I shad abide and continue with you
ad, for your furtherance and joy in faith: that your rejoicing
may be more abundant in Christ Jesus for me by my coming
to you again " (Phd. i 25,2 6). He promises to send Timothy
to the Philippians so soon as his fate shad be determined, and
he holds out to them the expectation of a visit from himself:
1 This subject has been already discussed by the author in his Commentary on
the Acts, vol. ii. pp. 451-456, and the present dissertation is in some respects an
expansion of that discussion. The subject is also treated in Alford's Greek
Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, pp. 87-97 ; Conybeare and Howson's_?«. Paul,
Appendix II. ; andHuther's Pastoralbriefe, pp. 29-39, — in support of the theory
of two imprisonments ; and in Wieseler's Chronologic des apostolischen Zeit-
alters, pp. 286-315 ; Schaff's History of the Apostolic Church, vol. i pp.
384-401 ; and Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 96-106 (old edition), — in
support of the opinion of one imprisonment.

Paul's roman imprisonments. 355
" But I trust in the Lord that I also mysed shad come shortly "
(Phil. ii. 23, 24). And even in an earlier epistle he mentions
the same expectation of dedverance ; for, writing to Phdemon,
a native of Colosse, he says, " But withal prepare me also a
lodging ; for I trust that through your prayers I shad be given
unto you" (Phdem. 22). Now the question is, Were these ex
pectations fulfided ? Was Paul, after the expiration of his two
years' imprisonment, restored to liberty, and did he revisit the
scenes of his former labours ? The strong expectations of the
apostle are not in themselves conclusive ; they may afford a
presumption, but nothing more. The apostle may not have
spoken by revelation ; the future of his life may have been
concealed from him ; his expectations may have been disap
pointed ; circumstances may have occurred which altered the
whole aspect of affairs ; the trial may have taken an unfavour
able turn, and the influences employed against Paul may have
prevaded. In this very Epistle to the Phidppians, he seems
to admit the possibdity of such an unfavourable issue : " Yea,
and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith,
I joy and rejoice with you ad " (Phd. d. 17).
Nor does the conclusion of the Acts of the Apostles afford
us much assistance in the solution of the question. The history
ends abruptly, without any mention of the subsequent fate of
the apostle : " And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own
hired house, and received all who came in unto him, no man
forbidding him" (Acts xxvid. 30, 31). What happened after
the lapse of these two years, the historian does not inform us.
Some suppose that Luke designed to write a thdd treatise ; a
others that he carried down the history to the point of time
at which he was writing, and that no change in Paul's con
dition had occurred ; 2 and others that he had accomplished the
purpose which he intended in the composition of his work, —
the history of the diffusion of Christianity from Jerusalem to
Borne.3 Perhaps Luke did not mention the fate of Paul,
because it was wed known to the immediate readers of his
history ; and he specifies " two whole years," because at thed
close some important change took place in the apostle's cdcum-
1 So Heinrichs, Ewald, and Meyer. 2 So Alford and Schaff.
3 So Baumgarten, De Wette, and Lekebusch.

356 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
stances.1 If that change were martyrdom, the probabdity is
that Luke would not have omitted it; but if it were the
liberation of the apostle, and his entrance upon a fresh career
of missionary labours and journeys, and if, when the Acts of
the Apostles was written, he were stid engaged in preaching
the gospel, the omission is more easdy accounted for.2 The
conclusion of the Acts then supports, though only slightly, the
opinion that Paul was released from confinement. But stid it
is admitted that it does not prove anything; it can with no
degree of certainty be affirmed from it, that Paul's imprison
ment terminated with these two years : it may have been that
his condition was unchanged, and that Luke had nothing
further to relate.
The Christian Fathers from the fourth century were almost
unanimous in their opinion that Paul, after suffering an im
prisonment for two years at Borne, was restored to dberty; but
in recent times the question has been much debated. Some
hold that after the lapse of two years, Paul was tried and
acquitted (ad. 6 3) ; that he then left Eome, and for several
years preached the gospel in Macedonia, Proconsular Asia,
Achaia, Crete, and perhaps accompdshed his intended journey
to Spain (Bom. xv. 24) ; that he was arrested and imprisoned
for the second time at Borne, and suffered martyrdom,
towards the close of the reign of Nero (ad. 68). Others
maintain that Paul was never released, but that his imprison
ment terminated with martyrdom. Baronius, Hug, Mosheim,
Michaeds, Feilmoser, Schott, Credner, Heidenreich, Guericke,
Gieseler, Neander, Neudecker, Bertholdt, Bleek, Baumgarten,
Bunsen, Ewald, Delitzsch, Olshausen, Huther, Wiesinger, Edrch-
hofer, Lange ; and of English divines, Usher, Pearson, Lardner,
Whitby, Doddridge, Paley, Macknight, Alford, Humphry, Lewin,
Eldcott, Davies, Howson, Wordsworth; and Dr. Hackett of
America, are among the advocates for the hypothesis of two
imprisonments. Whereas, on the other side of the question,
are to be named Petavius, Schrader, Schmidt, Hemsen, Eich
horn, Matthies, Winer, De Wette, Wieseler, Baur, Zeder,
Hdgenfeld, Thiersch, Eeuss, Schenkel, Hausrath, Schaff,
1 So Wieseler, Lekebusch, and Bleek.
2 See Bleek's Introduction to N. T. vol. ii. p. 62.

PAUL'S EOMAN IMPRISONMENTS. 357
Ebrard, Benan; and of distinguished English divines, only
Davidson. The positive arguments in favour of a second Eoman im
prisonment may be arranged under two heads : the argument
derived from the tradition of the Church, and the argument
derived from certain adusions in the Pastoral Epistles.
I. Among the traditions of the Church there is the early
and important testimony of Clemens Eomanus (a.d. 96).
" Paul," he observes, " also obtained the reward of his patience,
having been imprisoned seven times, having been scourged,
having been stoned. Having preached the gospel in the East
and in the West, he received the glorious reward of his faith,
having taught the whole world righteousness, and having come
to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before
the rulers. Thus he departed out of the world, and went into
the holy place, having given a striking example of patience."1
It is to be observed that the text of the Epistle of Clement,
found only in one manuscript, namely the Codex Alexandrinus
of the New Testament, is defective, and the lacunae have in
several places to be suppded by conjectural emendation.2
Still, however, in this portion of the Epistle, the sense may be
made out with tolerable accuracy. The chief point is, What
is to be understood by the extremity or boundary of the West
to which Paul came V (eV t to Teppta .-»}? Bvaew; iX6d>v.) Some
(Ernesti, Schrader, Lardner) suppose that Eome is here meant,
as it was at one extremity, namely, at the beginning of the
West. But this cannot be its meaning in this connection, as
Clement, after mentioning that Paul had preached in the East
and in the West, adds that he came to the extremity of the
West, which evidently implies that he had proceeded farther
into the West. Others (Baur, Schenkel) think that the ex
pression is used subjectively with reference to Paul ; that the
apostle had reached the terminus or goal of the West appointed
1 Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. i c. 5 : Aix Z,rtXov I n__ x« ufopovrts fSpafiuov 'irso-^tv,
sorrdxis iso-'pia tpopio-as, vratSuifais, XiXaffh'iS' K«^y£ yivo/zlvos iv ry avxroXy, xai iv rn
iuffu, ro ysvvaTov rrts if'terioii aurou xXios 'iXafilv o*ixatoffuvnv SiSajja*- oXov rov xoffpov
xai (-.} ro ripfia rrts o'ufflus iXtteuv xai piaprvprtffas ivri ruv rtyaupivuv. Ourus avrrjXXayn
rou xoo-f&ou xai tis rov ayiov roorov iiroplu6rt, uorof&ovtts yivof&svos fityirros uiroypapipios-
¦ By Young (Junius), Wotton, Cambridge 1718 ; and Jacobson, Oxford 1838
(fourth edition, 1863).

358 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
to him, namely Eome.1 But such a figurative and rhetorical
meaning is unnatural. Wieseler considers that the words
have no reference to locadty ; and as the reading was then
thought to be doubtful, he would substitute virb for eirl. He
would accordingly translate the words virb to Teppta 7-775 Bvcreco ?
— "before the highest tribunal of the West."2 But not to
insist that such a rendering is in itsed objectionable, it is
now an ascertained fact that eirl is the correct reading of the
manuscript, there being here no lacunae.3 It is to be remem
bered that to Clement, who wrote from Borne, the phrase
" the extremity of the West " would denote some country west
of Borne, perhaps Spain, which the apostle proposed to visit
(Eom. xv. 20). Ewald, although he rejects the Bastoral
Epistles, and consequently the argument derived from them,
yet from the testimony of Clement maintains that the apostle
was released from his Eoman imprisonment, and journeyed
to the West. " These words of Clement," he observes, " in
their entire connection, are so clear that one cannot compre
hend how in our times they could be so much misunderstood,
or rather perverted." 4
The next testimony is that .of the Muratorian canon (ad.
170). The words, according to the corrupt text, are, "Acta
autem omnium apostolorum sub uno dbro scribta sunt. Lucas
obtime Theofile conprindit, quia sub praesentia ejus singula
gerebantur, sicute et semote passionem Betri evidenter declarat,
sed profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis ;" 5
which have been rendered as fodows : " The Acts of ad the
Apostles are written in one book. Luke relates to the excel
lent Theophdus the events of which he was an eye-witness, as
also in a separate place he evidently declares the martyrdom
of Peter, but (omits) the journey of Paid from the city to
1 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. i. p. 255 ff. ; Schenkel in the Studien und Kritiken
for 1841.
2 Wieseler's Chronologie, pp. 525-580. Schaff agrees with Wieseler — Schaff s
Apostolic Church, vol. i. p. 400.
3 Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 59, and note ; Meyer Ore the Romans (trans
lated by T. & T. Clark), vol. i. p. 18. Tischendorf also attests the existence of
4 Ewald's Geschichte des apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 631.
6 See Westcott On the Canon, pp. 466-473 ; and Huther's Pastoralbriefe,
p. 35.

Paul's roman imprisonments. 359
Spain." The text is both defective and corrupt, and is con
sequently difficult of interpretation. In order to make sense
of it, critics have felt themselves obliged to supply omittit
after proftciscentis, to which they are led by the use of the
adversative conjunction sed; so that what the writer is sup
posed to mean is, that although Luke elsewhere adverts to the
martyrdom of Peter (perhaps in Luke xxii. 31-33), he omits
entirely the journey of Paul to Spain. Wieseler supposes that
the journey to Spain is here denied, because Luke has omitted
all mention of it. But the more probable meaning is, that
the journey of Baul to Spain is here taken as a fact, although
not recorded by Luke in his history. The sense, however, is
ambiguous, and the corrupt state of the text detracts from the
value of this testimony.
Eusebius (ad. 315) is the first Father who distinctly men
tions Paul's release from captivity. " Paul," he observes,
"after pleading his cause, is said (X070. e^ei) to have again
gone forth to preach the gospel, and after a second visit to
the city he finished his dfe with martyrdom. While he was
a prisoner, he wrote his Second Epistle to Timothy, in which
he mentions both his first defence and his impending death.
Hear, on these points, his own testimony concerning himsed :
' In my former defence no one was present with me, but all
deserted me. May it not be laid to their charge ! But the
Lord was with me, and strengthened me, that through me the
preaching of the gospel might be fuddled, and all nations
might hear it; and I was rescued out of the lion's mouth.'
He plainly intimates in these words — that on the former occa
sion he was rescued from the lion's mouth, that the preaching
of the gospel might be accomplished — that it was Nero to whom
he referred by this expression, probably on account of his
cruelty. Therefore he did not subsequently subjoin any such
expression as ' He wid rescue me from the lion's mouth,' for
he saw in spirit how near his approaching end was. Hence
after the expression, ' and I was rescued from the lion's mouth,'
he adds, ' the Lord will rescue me from every evd work, and
wid save me unto His heavenly kingdom,' indicating the
martyrdom that he would soon suffer. . . . Thus much we
have said to show that the martyrdom of the apostle did not

360 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
take place at that period of his stay at Eome when Luke
wrote his history." 1 From these words it appears that
Eusebius asserts a twofold imprisonment of Paul at Eome.
To this, however, it is objected that he states this fact not as
his own opinion, but as a tradition or report : " it is said "
(Xoyos e%et). But Eusebius uses this expression to denote
what was the opinion of the Church ; and he asserts that it
was his own opinion, and confirms it by a citation from
2 Tim. iv. 16, 17.2 It is no argument against his testimony
that he uses the words of the Epistle incorrectly, understand
ing by eppvo-Qr\v ./. o-Topuno? XtovTos the apostle's dedverance
from his first imprisonment ; because it is on the ground
of the apostle's release that he gives this interpretation ; not .
conversely, that he infers the apostle's release from the state
ment in the Epistle.3
After the time of Eusebius, the fact of a second imprison
ment is frequently mentioned. Chrysostom says, " Paul, after
a residence in Eome, departed for Spain;"4 and Jerome teds
us that " Paul was dismissed by Nero, that he might preach
the gospel in the West."6 These Fathers, however, lived at
too distant a period to be cited as authorities.
Upon the whole, the testimony of ecclesiastical tradition is
decidedly in favour of a second imprisonment. If the words
of Clemens Eomanus were unambiguous ; if he had distinctly
affirmed that Paul came to Spain, or to some country to the
west of Eome, as he is supposed to have meant, the question
would be decided ; for Clement must have known the fact,
as he dved in Borne itself in apostodc times. This argument
derived from the traditions of the Church is confirmed by
the stid stronger argument derived from the Pastoral Epistles :
indeed, so much so, that if the authenticity of these Epistles
be admitted, the release of Paul from his first Boman impri
sonment must be regarded as an ascertained fact of history.6
1 Hist. Eccl. ii 22.
2 Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, p. 175.
3 See Huther's Pastoralbriefe, p. 31 ; Conybeare and Howson 's St. Paul, vol.
i. p. 539.
4 Chrysostom on 2 Tim. iv. 20. 5 Hieron. Catal. Script.
8 The argument which follows depends on the assumption of the authenticity
of these Epistles, — a point which will hereafter be considered.

PAUL'S ROMAN IMPRISONMENTS. 361
II. There are allusions to journeys and incidents in the
Pastoral Epistles which do not coincide with what is recorded
in the Acts, and which can only be accounted for by the
supposition that Paul was released from his imprisonment,
and again visited the East. The minute consideration of
these journeys and incidents is reserved untd the date of
each of these Epistles is considered in the special introduc
tions to them. Meanwhde, it is sufficient to observe that in
each of the three Epistles there are such journeys and inci
dents alluded to.
In the First Epistle to Timothy, Paul says : " I besought
thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia "
(1 Tim. i 3). Now, in the only journey of the apostle from
Ephesus to Macedonia recorded in the Acts (chap. xx. 1),
Timothy was not left behind, but accompanied, or rather
preceded, the apostle into Macedonia. This is evident from
his being associated with Paul in the superscription to
Second Corinthians (2 Cor. i 1), which was written at that
time. In the Second Epistle to Timothy— admitted by ad who
hold its authenticity to have been written at Eome toward
the close of the apostle's life — Paul mentions having left
certain articles with Carpus at Troas, which he wished
Timothy to bring with him to Eome (2 Tim. iv. 13). But
if Paul were not released from imprisonment, and did not
revisit the East, it was more than five years since he had
been at Troas, and Timothy had been repeatedly with him
since. In the same Epistle, the apostle mentions that he had
left Tropldmus at Mdetum sick (2 Tim. iv. 30). But Tro-
phimus accompanied the apostle from Miletum to Jerusalem,
and was the innocent occasion of his arrest (Acts xxi. 29) ;
and on his voyage to Eome it does not appear that Trophimus
was with him, nor did the ship touch at Mdetum : so that on
neither of these occasions was he left at Mdetum.
In the Epistle to Titus, the difficulties are stid more
insuperable. Mention is made of an evangelistic visit which
the apostle paid to Crete, on which occasion he left Titus
behind him (Tit. i. 5). But the only time, according to the
Acts of the Apostles, that the apostle was at Crete, was on

362 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
his voyage to Eome ; and he was then a prisoner, his stay
was short, and he had no opportunity of preaching the gospel.
In the same Epistle, Paul mentions his intention of spending
the winter at Nicopolis (Tit. di. 12), — in ad probabdity, the
city of that name in Epirus ; but of this there is no mention,
and for its accompdshment there is no room, in the Acts of
the Apostles.
All these journeys and incidents are outside of the Acts,
and, on the assumption of the genuineness of the Pastoral
Epistles, must have occurred after the release of the apostle from
his Eoman imprisonment. Ad attempts to make them agree
with the narrative of Paul's journeys have signady failed. The
only plausible hypothesis is that of Wieseler.1 He supposes
that the circumstances relate to a journey of the apostle, not
recorded in the Acts, made during his residence of three years
at Ephesus. -The same opinion had been previously advanced
by Mosheim and Schrader : the former supposes that Paul,
about the commencement of that residence, after his expulsion
from the Jewish synagogue (Acts xix. 10), made an excursion
to Macedonia and Crete, which occupied nine months ; and
the latter places the supposed journey toward the close of the
Ephesian visit, and supposes that it occupied two years.2
Wieseler frees the hypothesis from ad the glaring defects
which were attached to the views of his predecessors. Accord
ing to him, Paul, after labouring for two years at Ephesus,
departed from it on a journey of visitation, — first to Mace
donia (1 Tim. i 3), and then to Corinth, and returned to
Ephesus by Crete, where he left Titus (Tit. j. 5) ; and he
further supposes that it was after his final departure from
Ephesus, as mentioned in Acts xx. 1, that he proposed
spending the winter in Nicopods (Tit. id. 12), a city of
Epirus, in the province of Achaia (Acts xx. 3), where Titus
was to join him. Wieseler further supposes that the Fdst
Epistle to Timothy was written during the course of this"
journey, the Epistle to Titus on his return to Ephesus, and
1 Wieseler's Chronologie, pp. 347-354.
2 Schrader supposes that Paul went to Macedonia, Corinth, Crete, Nicopolis
in Cilicia, Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia, and back to Ephesus : Der Apostel
Paulus, vol. i. p. 100 ff.

PAUL'S ROMAN IMPRISONMENTS. 363
the Second Epistle to Timothy at the close of his im
prisonment.1 The hypothesis is most ingeniously supported and drawn
out, and recommends itself by its plausibility :2 it is, however,
exposed to several objections. It supposes that Paul's resi
dence at Ephesus was interrupted by a distant journey that
must have occupied a considerable time, which seems at
variance with the apostle's assertion to the Ephesian elders,
that for the space of three years he had not ceased to warn
every one (Acts xx. 31). It supposes that the apostle, shortly
before he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians, had been
in Corinth itself, which would take away the occasion for
writing that Epistle. It supposes that Timothy must have
remained a short time alone at Ephesus, during the period of
Paul's absence ; whereas the directions given in the Epistle to
him imply a lengthened superintendence. And it supposes that
Titus, contrary to the directions in the Epistle (Tit. i. 5), must
have left Crete almost immediately, as we find him shortly
after engaged in a mission to the Corinthians (2 Cor. xd.
18), from which mission the .apostle, after leaving Ephesus,
anxiously expected his return (2 Cor. ii. 13). The statement
that Paul left Trophimus at Miletum sick (2 Tim. iv. 20) can
only be made to correspond with the narrative in the Acts by
a most arbitrary supposition. Wieseler supposes that Tro
phimus sailed with the apostle for Eome, in order as a witness
to testify to his innocence, but left at Myra (Acts xxvd. 5, 6),
with the understanding that he should proceed in the Adra-
myttian vessel to Miletum.3
But besides the journeys and incidents already adverted to,
some critics (Huther, Guericke, Alford, Eldcott, Howson)4 lay
' Dr. Davidson, in his former edition, agrees in all essential points with
Wieseler, except that he omits the unrecorded visit to Corinth : Introduction,
vol. iii. p. 13 ff. Schaff also agrees in essential points.
2 Wieseler invests all his hypotheses, however contrary they may be to the
received opinions of the Church, with a wonderful plausibility. His Chronologie
des apostolischenZeitalters is one ofthe most ingenious books in German theology.
s Wieseler's Chronologie, pp. 466, 467. Grotius, contrary to all authorities,
proposes to read iv MiXiVi- (in Malta) instead of iv MiXvru.
1 Huther's Pastoralbriefe, p. 29 ; Guericke's Isagogik, p. 353 ; Alford's Greek
Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 87; Ellicott Ore the Pastoral Epistles,
Introduction, p. 19 ; Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, pp. 655, 656.

364 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
pecudar stress upon the nature and character of the Pastoral
Epistles. They argue that the heresies mentioned in these
Epistles imply a development of false doctrine, which could
only occur in the later days of the apostle. They are not
the same as those heresies which disturbed the churches of
Galatia and- Corinth; but are of a Jewish-Gnostic type, — a
development of the errors combated in the Epistle to the
Colossians. There is a close resemblance between these
heresies and those we read of in the Second Epistle of Peter
and the Epistle of Jude. These errors had not infected the
Ephesian church at an early period : for in his farewell address
at Miletum, their rise was a matter of prediction, not yet of ful
filment (Acts xx. 29, 30); and even in the Epistle to the Ephe
sians, written from Eome, there is no adusion to such errors.1
It has been further observed (Michaeds, Paley, Wordsworth),
that there is a remarkable difference between the imprisonment
in which the Epistles to the Ephesians, Phdippians, Colossians,
and Phdemon were written, and the imprisonment mentioned
in Second Timothy ; from which it has been inferred that these
imprisonments were not the same. When the former Epistles
were written, Paul was surrounded by many friends from whom
he sent salutations to the churches ; but in Second Timothy he
complains that at his first answer no man stood by him, but
ad men forsook him (2 Tim. iv. 16). In the former Epistles,
Timothy was with Paul at Eome, and unites with him in
writing the Epistles to the Phdippians, Colossians, and Phde
mon ; but in Second Timothy, he is requested to come with all
haste (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21). In the former Epistles, salutations
are sent from different persons than those mentioned in Second
Timothy : Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia (2 Tim. iv. 2 1)
are not mentioned in any of Paul's epistles. In the former
Epistles, Paul is represented as enjoying a certain degree of
dberty, in conformity with what we read in the Acts,: — that he
dwelt in his own hired house ; whereas, in Second Timothy, he
1 Thus Alford observes : " No amount of ingenuity will suffice to persuade us,
that there could have been, during the long sojourn of the apostle at Ephesus in
Acts xix., such false teachers (as those mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles). No
amount of ingenuity, again, will enable us to conceive a state of the Church like
that which these Epistles disclose to us, at any time of that period, extending
from the year 54 to 63, during which the other Epistles were written."

PAUL'S ROMAN IMPRISONMENTS. 365
is in close confinement; and it is mentioned in praise of
Onesiphorus, that when he was at Borne he was not ashamed
of the apostle's chains, but sought him diligently, and found
him (2 Tim. i. 16, 17). In the former Epistles, Paul looked
forward to his liberation from confinement, and to his speedy
departure from Eome ; but in Second Timothy, the only release
which he expects is martyrdom : " I am now ready to be offered,
and the time of my departure is at hand" (2 Tim. iv. ll).1
Stid this difference in the surroundings and feedngs of the
apostle while writing is rather a presumption than a conclusive
proof in favour of a second imprisonment. The main stress of
the argument lies in the want of correspondence between the
journeys and incidents recorded in the Pastoral Epistles and
the history of the apostle given us in the Acts.
Those who adopt the hypothesis of only one imprisonment
have no positive arguments to produce. They rest thed opinion
on the mere negative ground that the theory of two imprison
ments has not been proved. Two objections are, however,
adduced by them which require consideration.
Paul, in his farewell address to the elders at Ephesus, states
his conviction (olBa) that they would see his face no more
(Acts xx. 2 5) ; whereas, according to the supposition of a
second imprisonment, he must again have visited Ephesus
(1 Tim. i. 3).2 It must be candidly admitted that, if the
theory be true, Paul did revisit Ephesus. It wid not do to
avoid this admission, as Bishop Wordsworth does, by asserting
that Paul expresses a hope to see Timothy himself, but does
not say that he intends to see Ephesus (1 Tim. iii. 14).3 The
natural meaning of the words is, that Paul left Timothy at
Ephesus, when he departed from that city to go to Macedonia
(1 Tim. i. 3). Besides, in the Second Epistle to Timothy,
mention is made of his having been at Troas and Miletum.
Paul, then, was again in Proconsular Asia, and it can hardly be
supposed that he should be in the immediate neighbourhood
of Ephesus without visiting it. But admitting this, there is
1 Paley's Horm Paulinos, the Second Epistle to Timothy, No. I. ; and
Michaelis, Introduction, vol. vi. pp. 165, 166.
8 Davidson's Introduction, vol. iii. p. 15 (old edition).
3 Wordsworth Ore St. Pauls Epistles, p. 431.

366 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
no force in the objection. Paul expresses in still stronger
terms (ireirotd^ olBa) than those used at Mdetum, his con
fidence that he would revisit Phdippi (Phd. i. 25), and con
sequently be released from his imprisonment. Either in the
one case or in the other, the apostle was mistaken in his con
fidence : if he was released from his imprisonment, he was
mistaken when he said to the Ephesian elders that he should
see their faces no more ; if he was not released, he was mis
taken when he wrote to the Phdippians that he would come
and see them again.
A stid more plausible objection against the hypothesis of a
second imprisonment is drawn from the fact that Timothy is
spoken of in the Pastoral Epistles as a young man.1 In the
First Epistle to Timothy, Paul says, " Let no man despise thy
youth" (1 Tim. iv. 22) ; and in the Second Epistle, he warns
Timothy against youthful lusts (2 Tim. ii. 22). But on the
supposition that Paul was released from his Eoman imprison
ment, and that the two Epistles to Timothy were written some
years after (ad. 67), it must have been sixteen years since
Timothy first joined the apostle (ad. 51). It is to be observed
that when Timothy joined Paul he was probably very young.
A similar caution against despising him is given in First Corin
thians : " Now if Timotheus come, see that he be with you
without fear ; for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also
do. Let no man despise him" (1 Cor. xvi. 10, li). And he
is throughout the epistles spoken of as a young man, " serving
with the apostle as a son with a father" (Phd. ii. 22). Sup
posing that he was eighteen when he joined Paul, he would
be only thirty-four when the apostle wrote these Epistles to
him. And among the ancients such an age was regarded as
young. Paul himsed was caded a young man (Acts vii. 58)
when he was probably thirty-five.2 Besides, we must take
into account the important office which Timothy was to occupy,
and the high authority entrusted to him as superintendent of
the church of Ephesus. The age of thirty-four would be con
sidered young for such a position.
1 Wieseler's Chronologie, p. 312 ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. iii. p. 30 ff.
(old edition).
2 See author's Commentary on the Acts, vol. i. p. 263.

PAUL'S ROMAN IMPRISONMENTS. 367
The reasons, then, in favour of a second imprisonment
decidedly preponderate, and raise the opinion almost to an
historical certainty.1 It is to be observed, that in recent
times, ad those who deny the genuineness of the Pastoral
Epistles, with the exception of Ewald and Credner,2 likewise
deny the reality of a second imprisonment ; whereas those who
admit the genuineness of these Epistles, with the exception of
Wieseler, Schaff, and perhaps a few others, are maintainers of
a twofold imprisonment.
The remainder of the life of the apostle is involved in
obscurity. His two years' imprisonment ended in the spring
of the year 63, and he must have been released before the
summer of the year 64, when the great persecution of the
Christians in the reign of Nero occurred. In all probability
he visited Phdippi, Colosse, Ephesus, perhaps Spain, went
into Crete, where he left Titus, and purposed spending a
winter at Nicopolis in Epirus. Ad detaded statements of his
journeys rest on unsupported conjecture. Huther supposes
that the apostle accompdshed ad this in one year ; that he
was released in the spring of a.d. 63, and perished in the
Neronian persecution of AD. 64 ;3 but the time adowed is
evidently too short. Dean Howson supposes that five years
intervened between Paul's first and second imprisonment ; and
that he suffered martyrdom, in accordance with the testimony
of Jerome, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Nero (ad.
68). He thus arranges Paul's supposed journeys: Immedi
ately on his liberation, Paul left Borne by the usual route,
crossing the Adriatic from Brundusium to Dyrrachium, and
then by the Egnatian road to Philippi (Phil. d. 24) ; he then
journeyed to Proconsular Asia, and visited Colosse (Philem.
22), Laodicea, and Ephesus. From Ephesus he undertook
his long premeditated journey to Spain, where he remained
two years, returning in A.D. 66. Departing again from
Ephesus, he went to Macedonia (1 Tim. i 3), where he wrote
the First Epistle to Timothy. From that he went to Crete
(Tit. i. 5), returned to Ephesus, and wrote the Epistle to Titus.
1 Of course, on the assumption of the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles.
2 Ewald's Geschichte, p. 631 ; Credner's Gesch. des N. T. Canon, p. 55.
" Huther's Pastoralbriefe, p. 37.

368 THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.
Leaving Ephesus for the last time, he journeyed by Miletum,
where Trophimus was left sick (2 Tim. iv. 30), by Troas,
where he left his parchments (2 Tim. iv. 1 3), and by Corinth,
where Erastus remained behind (2 Tim. iv. 20), to Nicopolis
in Epdus, where he intended to winter (Tit. id. 12). Here
it is supposed that he was arrested and sent for trial to Eome,
where he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy.1 All this is,
however, purely conjectural; and the frequency with which
the apostle is made to visit Ephesus, shows how unlikely is
the route described.2 Any attempt to fid up the outline of
Paul's life after his first Eoman imprisonment must be sure to
fad. If the statement of Jerome concerning the date of Paul's
martyrdom be correct, there was an interval of several years,
sufficient to accomplish all those journeys incidentally alluded
to in the " Pastoral Epistles," and even to pay a visit to Spain,
which we know Paul intended to make, and which, if the
usual interpretation of the words of Clemens Eomanus be
correct, he actuady accompdshed.
1 Conybeare and Howson's St, Paul, vol. ii. p. 547 ff.
2 Guericke gives the following route : From Rome to Philippi, Crete, Miletum,
Ephesus, Troas, Macedonia, Corinth, and wintered at Nicopolis ; then Italy and
Spain, from which he Was sent as a prisoner to Rome.— _sagfO<7i_-, pp. 363, 364.

THE FIKST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

I. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
THE First and Second Epistles to Timothy, and the Epistle
to Titus, are known by the. name of the "Pastoral
Epistles," because they are official letters addressed to Paul's
fedow - labourers, and contain instructions concerning the
government of the Church and its office-bearers. They com
prise a distinct class of epistles, and differ in many respects
from the other writings of Paul. The connection between
them is so close as to prove that they must have been written
about the same time, and with a simdar intention. There is
a similarity in their contents : the descriptions given of the
heretics, and the directions concerning ecclesiastical govern
ment, are almost identical in each. There is a stid greater
similarity in their language : words and phrases frequently
occur in each which are not found, or at least but rarely,
in the other writings of Paul; and what is stid more re
markable, there is a certain definite pecudarity of expression
even when the ideas are famidar in the other epistles. Ex
amples of this wid present themselves to every reader of the
Pastoral Epistles. The salutation of First and Second Timothy1
is threefold — xa/w, -A.. _, elprjvr], whereas in the earlier epistles
it is twofold : evaefieta is used to represent the nature of the
Christian lde; cruxppwv and its derivatives are prominently
brought forward as Christian virtues ; ptvdot, ty)Tr)o-et%, and'
yeveaXoytat are employed to denote false doctrine, and uyw;.
and its derivatives to denote right doctrine ; kirupdveta, instead
1 The reading of Tit. i. 4 is. doubtful.
2 A

370 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
of irapovo-ia, is the term employed to denote the second ad
vent ; Beo-TTOTiTi, instead of «_¦/«_., is used for an earthly
master ; and Trior. ? 6 Xoyo? is a favourite expression to intro
duce any important declaration (1 Tim. i 15, di. 1, iv. 9;
2 Tim. ii. 11 ; Tit. iii. 8).1 Hence also the objections which
are brought against these epistles — being entirely of an in
ternal nature, relating to their matter and diction — apply to
ad. First Timothy has certainly been most objected to, and
it is true that, some of the objections adduced do not apply
with equal force to either of the other two Epistles ; but with
most critics, these Epistles are made to stand or fall together.
It is therefore of advantage to discuss the authenticity of the
Pastoral Epistles together, as we shad thus escape an other
wise unavoidable repetition.
The external evidence in favour of the Pastoral Epistles is
by no means defective ; indeed, is as strong as .that in favour
of most of Paul's other letters. Various supposed adusions
in the works of the early Fathers, espeeiady Clemens Eomanus
and Ignatius, have been given by Lardner and Kirchhofer ;
but these are so uncertain, that they can hardly be adduced
as proofs. There is, however, a sentence in the Epistle of
Polycarp (a.d. 116) which appears to be an evident adusion
to First Timothy : " The love of money is the beginning of ad
evils. Knowing, therefore, that as we brought nothing into
the world, so neither can we carry anything Out, let us arm
ourselves with the armour of righteousness " (1 Tim. vi. 7, 1 0).2
Baur evades the force of this testimony by the gratuitous
assumption that Polycarp did not here quote from Fdst
Timothy, but that the author of First Timothy quoted from
the Epistle of Polycarp.3 Hegesippus (a.d. 173) is represented-
by Eusebius as saying : " When the sacred choir of the apostles
became extinct, then the combinations of impious error arose
by the fraud of false teachers, who henceforth attempted to
preach their science falsely so caded (i{revB(ovvp,ov yv&cnv)
1 For a list of similar words and phrases in these epistles, see Huther's Pastoral
briefe, p. 9.
2 Ad Philippens, c. 4 : 'Apxb -s vrdvruv %aXsoruv QiXapyupia- sitiorss ovv Un outisv
sitrnv'syxuf&sv sis rov xofff&ov, aXX' otitis i^svsyxstv n s%optsv o-rXtirufAstla rots HvrXeis rrts
lixaiogivrts. Other supposed references are to be found in chaps. 5, 9, and 12.
3 Baur's Pastoralbriefe, p. 137.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 371
against the gospel of truth " (1 Tim. vi. 2 0).1 Here also it is
admitted that the coincidence of language is not accidental;
but the argument is met by Baur in the same convenient
manner, by asserting that the words in the Epistle are taken
from Hegesippus.2
After this, the testimony in favour of the Epistle is ddect
and incontrovertible. Irenaeus (ad. 178) writes: ".Some,
having rejected the truth, brought in lying words and vain
genealogies which minister questions, as the apostle says, rather
than godly edifying which is in faith " (1 Tim. i. 4).8 " Of
Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy " (2 Tim.
iv. 2 1).4 " As Paul says, A man that is a heretic, after the
first and second admonition reject" (Tit. iii. IO).5 Clemens
Alexandrinus (a.d. 194) observes: "Of which the apostle
writing, says, ' 0 Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so caded ' " 6 (1 Tim. vi. 2 0). " This doctrine
the apostle thus recognising as divine, says, ' Thou, 0 Timothy,
from a chdd hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to
make thee wise unto salvation ' " 7 (2 Tim. id. 1 5). " Some
mention Epimenides the Cretan, whom the Apostle Paul recog
nises as a Greek prophet, and also mentions him in his Epistle
to Titus after this manner : ' One of themselves, a prophet of
their own, said, The Cretans are always dars'"8 (Tit. i 12,
1 EuS. Hist. Eccl. iii. 32 : 'fls tis ispos ruv dffotrroXuv %opos tiidtpopav siXrttpu roZ fi'iou
r'sXos, . . . rrtvixaurot rrts affsou prXdvrts rrtv ap^rtv iXdpifiavsv h truoratris, tiia rrts
ruv iripotiitiaffxdXuv dprdrrts, ol xai . . . ru rrts aXrthtas xrtpuyfian rrtv tpsutiuvupav
yvutriv dvrixnpurrliv s&s%sipouv.
2 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 111.
3 Adv. Hesres. i 1. 1 : Tr)v dXrthtav ^rapaTSficrofiSVoi rivss, Wliffdyouffl Xoyous ypsutisTs
xai yiviaXoyias pcaraias, airivss ^rtrtttrsis pcaXXov ^tap's^ouffi, xatius o dv'oaroXos Qritriv,
it oixotioftrtv ©saw rhv Iv peiaru.
4 Ibid. iii. 3. 3: Aivou UavXos iv rals vrpos Tifiohov i-ritrroXais pc'ipovrtrai.
^ Ibid,, iii. 3. 4 : 'flff xai HaZXos 'itpwrtv' aipsrixov avSpuprov fisra (/.'tav xai dsurspav
vou6sfiav prapatroZ.
0 Strom, ii. C. 11 : Tlspi tis o dtfoffrpXos ypdtpuv u Tipcohs, tpniriv, rrtv prapaSrtxrtv
IfuXa^ov, ixrpsprifisvos ras jhifirtXovs xivoQuvlas xai avnSipus -iff -J,iutiuvjfiou yvutrsus.
7 Admonit. ad Gent. chap. ix. : _u tis, u Tipi'ohs, Cipro fipitjlous ra ispd ypdfiftarx
oihtts, ra tiuvd/ASva ffs aoQiffui sis ffurrtp'tav.
8 Strom, i. C. 14 : 0/ 5s 'Eprif&svitirtv rov Kpriru, ov 'EXXrtvixov o'ltis prpotyrlrrtv, ou ft'spc-
vrtrai i dprotroXos Tiaukos iv ry prpos TTrov iriirroXy, Xsyuv oirus% EiVi> ns ii; auruv
itiios icpo^rtrrts purus, Kprirss As) ^,susrai, «««i Hpia, yaeripss ipyai.

372 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
13). Tertullian (ad. 200) observes: "Paul used this word
(depositum) to Timothy, ' 0 Timothy, keep that which is com
mitted to thy trust ' (1 Tim. vi. 20); and again, ' That good
thing which is committed to thee keep'"1 (2 Tim. i. 14).
" But of this we need say no more, if it be the same Paul who,
writing to the Galatians, reckons heresies among the works of
the flesh, and who directs Titus to reject a man that is a
heretic after the first admonition ; knowing that he that is such
is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself " 2 (Tit.
iii. 10, 11). These three Epistles are also contained in the
Muratorian Canon (ad. 170), and in the Peshito and Old Latin
versions, made toward the close of the second century. Eusebius
has no hesitation in placing them among the 6p.oXoyovp.eva.
The Pastoral Epistles, however, did not receive a favourable
reception from the heretics. They were omitted in the catalogue
of Marcion (ad. 140). The reason of this omission can hardly
be that Marcion was ignorant of them,3 considering his recep
tion of the smaller Epistle to Phdemon and the earder testimony
of Polycarp. It seems rather to have been from dogmatic
reasons, as these Epistles were more opposed to the Gnosticism
taught by him than the other Pauline Epistles. Nor is this
omission of any value as an argument against the genuineness
of these Epistles, _ as Marcion exercised extreme arbitrariness
with regard to the books of Scripture, rejecting all except the
Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul's epistles. Tatian (a.d. 175),
another Gnostic, and the founder of the sect of the Encratites,
received the Epistle to Titus, but rejected the two Epistles to
Timothy. The probable reason for this was, that the Epistle
to Titus represents the -false teachers as Jews (Tit. i 10, 14,
iii. 9), and is not so directly antagonistic to Gnosticism as the
two other epistles.
With regard to the internal evidence, it is admitted that the
style and diction are somewhat different from that of Paul's
1 De prescript, hoeret. c. 25 : Et hoc verbo usus est Paulus ad Timotheum :
"OTimothee, depositum custodi. " Etrursus: " Bonum depositum serva. "
2 Ibid. c. 6 -. Nee diutius die isto, si idem et Paulus, qui et alibi hsereses inter
carnalia crimina enumerat, scribens ad Galatas, et qui suggerit, hominem hsere-
ticum post primam correptionem recusandum, quod perverstis sit ejusmodi et
delinquat ut a semetipso damnatus.
3 Baur's Pastoralbriefe, pp. 138-140.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 373
other epistles ; still, as wid afterwards appear, the difference
is not so great but that it may be accounted for from the cir
cumstances under which they were written. The character of
the great apostle is distinctly impressed upon these Epistles, —
the same fervour of spirit displayed in numerous parentheses
and digressions, the same tendency to run off at a word, the
same humility and self-depreciation, the same earnest desde
after the spiritual wedare of his converts, the same habit of
aduding to his own sufferings for the gospel, and the same
vehemence in expression as are seen in the other epistles, are
traceable in these. There are also specialities and adusions
which are so natural and apparently so unimportant, that they
would never have occurred to a forger : as, for example, the
apostle's fatherly anxiety about the health of Timothy (1 Tim.
v. 23); and the reference to the cloak, books, and parchments
which he had left behind him at Troas, and which he desired
Timothy to bring with him to Eome (2 Tim. iv. 13).1 Nor
could there be any possible motive for forgery. The design
could not have been to combat the Gnostics of the second
century, otherwise their errors would have been more clearly
stated ; nor is there any trace of an attempt to support hier
archical pretensions, as the ecclesiastical government described
is of the simplest kind, and no distinction is made between
bishops and presbyters.2 The Epistles are what they profess
to be— directions sent for the guidance of two of Paul's trusty
friends in the circumstances in which they were placed.3
Notwithstanding these proofs, none of Paul's epistles have
been more attacked in recent times. Schmidt4 was the first to
question the genuineness of First Timothy. In this he was
followed by Schleiermacher.8 The objections of this eminent
1 Conybeare and Howson also advert to the numerous persons mentioned in
these Epistles, amounting in all to twenty-two. If these Epistles were forged, as
De Wette supposes, about A.D. 90, some of these persons would be alive and
detect the forgery.
2 This point — the absence of all motive for forgery — is well stated by Guericke,
Neutestamentliche Isagogik, p. 876.
3 For additional internal marks of genuineness, see Paley's Hores Paulines,
chap, xi.-xiii.
* Schmidt's Einleitung.
6 Weber den sogenannten ersten Br. des Paulus an den Tim. Ein Send-
schreiben an Gass, Berlin 1807.

374 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
theologian were purely of a subjective nature. He considered
the First Epistle to Timothy to be a compilation ofthe Second
Epistle and the Epistle to Titus. He adeges that it bears the
impress of a later time ; that its language is un-Paudne, and
its sentiments are weak and unconnected; that there is no
place in the life of the apostle for its composition, and that it
is destitute of ad personal references.1
Eichhorn perceived that most of these objections appded
with equal force to the other two Epistles, and hence he re
garded them ad as spurious.2 He considered that they contain
notes or recodections. of Paul's teaching concerning the govern
ment of the Church, which were reduced to writing by some
of the zealous disciples of the apostle after his death. Schott
even went the length of considering that the author was Luke.3
Eichhorn was fodowed by De Wette, who, however, rested his
argument on mere negative criticism, dweding chiefly upon the
style, diction, and sentiments of the Epistles as un-Paudne.4
But, as Baur remarks, these mere negative objections are in
sufficient, — the impossibdity that Paid is the author of these
Epistles is not so great as to overbalance the contrary sup
position. It is necessary to bring forward positive data which
wid transfer them from the apostle's time to another age.5
Accordingly, Baur in his Apostel Paulus, and at stid greater
length in his Pastoralbriefes des Apostel Paulus, undertakes to
prove that the Pastoral Epistles were written after the death
of Paul. He supposes that they were directed against Gnos
ticism, and particularly the form of it inculcated by Marcion ;
and that they were written about the middle of the second
century. His arguments are as follows : The form of error
opposed is Gnosticism, as developed in the second century ;
the government and external institutions of the Church men
tioned are post-apostolic ; the circumstances aduded to in the
Epistles cannot be made to correspond with the life of Paul ;
and the words and phrases are un-Paudne. According to
Baur, these Epistles were written from Borne by moderate
1 The objections of Schleiermacher were fully answered by Planck, Weg-
schneider, and Beckhaus.
2 Einleitung in N. T. 3 Schott's Isagoge, p. 324.
4 De Wette's Einleitung, p. 336 ff. 5 Baur's Pastoralbriefe, p. 4.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 375
Paulinists, with a view to correct the extreme Paudne views
of the Montanists, and to reconcde Petrine and Pauline
Christianity. He supposes that the first of them in date was
Titus, then Second Timothy, and last of ad First Timothy,
which was a combination of the two other Epistles. In these
views Baur was followed by his disciple Schwegler, who
regarded the Bastoral Epistles as written against the Gnostics,
espeeiady the Valentinians and Marcionites.1
Several other German critics reject the Pastoral Epistles,
either in whole or in part. Credner, Neudecker, and Ewald
regard them all as spurious. Usteri,2 Liicke, and Bleek3,
reject the Fdst Epistle to Timothy, whilst Neander expresses
himself as doubtful. " I confess," he observes, " that I am not
convinced of the genuineness of the Fdst Epistle to Timothy
with the same certainty as of the Fauline origin of ad the
other Paudne Epistles, and of the two other Pastoral letters,
and the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians." 4 Eeuss
expresses himself with uncertainty concerning First Timothy
and Titus, but strongly maintains the genuineness of Second
Timothy.6 Dr. Davidson, in the new edition of his Introduc
tion to the New Testament, argues against all three Epistles :
his views in general correspond with those of De Wette.
These objections have been answered with great acuteness by
Huther, in his introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, and at
still greater length by Wiesinger. So also there are replies
to them by Alford in his Prolegomena, and by Professor
Plumptre in his article on Fdst Timothy in Smith's Dic
tionary. One great objection brought against the Pastoral Epistles
is, that the incidents mentioned in each of them do not corre-
1 Schwegler's Nachapost. Zeital. vol. ii. pp. 138-153.
2 Usteri, Entwickelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, p. 2.
3 Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 82 ff.
* Neander's Planting, vol. i p. 338.
6 He observes: "Among all the Pauline Epistles attacked by criticism, none
(next to the Epistle to Philemon) bears the stamp of genuineness so evidently
as Second Timothy." — Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T. p. 113. Bleek
makes the same remark with reference to Second Timothy : " Genuineness is
stamped on the letter throughout, so clearly and unmistakeably that we cannot
for a moment entertain the idea of its being a forgery." — Introduction, vol. ii.
p. 73.

376 'THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
spond with the history of Paul as recorded in the Acts. It
is readily acknowledged that this is the case ; all attempts
to make them correspond— though many of them are most
ingenious, especially the hypothesis of Wieseler — have ended
in failure. If, then, it could be proved that the life of Paul
terminated with his two years' imprisonment at Eome, or that
he was never released from that imprisonment, the genuine
ness of the Pastoral Epistles must be rednquished. " The
supposition of a second Eoman imprisonment," observes,
Olshausen, "is the only way in which the genuineness of
the Pastoral Epistles can be proved. This concession alone
can solve the serious difficulties."1 But on this supposition,
the objection arising from the want of historical data is at
once removed; because the history of Paul in the interval
between his first and second imprisonments is unrecorded,
and it cannot be proved that he did not make those journeys
alluded to in these Epistles. And, as has been elsewhere
shown, there exist traditionary notices of Paul's release from
his Eoman imprisonment.2
The objections brought against the Pastoral Epistles may be
arranged under three heads : 1. The heretics mentioned are
anti- Judaic Gnostics, who dved after the death of Paul. 2.
The polity and institutions of the Church referred to are post-
apostodc. 3. The words, phrases, and sentiments of the
Epistles are un-Paudne.
1. The first objection is, that the heretics of the Pastoral
Epistles are anti-Judaic Gnostics. It is on this objection that
Baur lays the chief stress of his argument.3 He supposes
these heretics to be the fodowers of Marcion (a.d. 140).
According to him, the endless genealogies (1 Tim. i 4) refer
to the aeons of the Valentinians ; the command to abstain
from meats rests on the Gnostic view of matter as the seat of
sin ; the prohibition to marry corresponds with the views of
Marcion ; the teachers of the law are Antinomians, who depre
ciated the law ; and the phrase, " the oppositions of science,
falsely so called" (avTideo-ea 7% ¦^revBtovvp.ov yvd>creco<i, 1 Tim.
1 Wiesinger Ore First Timothy, p. 221.
2 See dissertation on Paul's Roman imprisonments.
* Baur's Pastoralbriefe, pp. 10-29 ; Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 109 ff.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 377
vi. 20), points to the work of Marcion termed 'AvTtOeaets. The
doxologies contained in the Epistles, and the Christology, are
also regarded as Gnostic. 1 Tim. di 1 6 is a series of Gnostic
and anti- Gnostic propositions antitheticady arranged.
But such a view of the subject is certainly unnatural. It
is especially unnatural to consider the teachers of the law
(vop,oBiBdo-KaXot, 1 Tim. i. 7), not as Jewish teachers who
maintained the permanence of the law, but anti-Judaic
Gnostics who taught that the law was not from God,. and who
were called " teachers of the law " merely because they were
continually speaking about the law. When the writer of the
Epistle asserts that the law is good • (KaXbs 6 vop,o<;, 1 Tim.
i. 8), he is not arguing, as Baur asserts, against the Gnostics,
who held the contrary opinion, and denied the divine authority
of the law, but conceding the point to those teachers of the
law against whom he writes ; for he adds, "da man use it
lawfudy." Besides, the express assertions in the Epistles,
that the heretics were those of the circumcision, and their
errors Jewish fables (Tit. i. 10, 14), at once show that they
were not written against the anti-Judaic Gnostics of the
second century. It is to be observed that this extreme view
of Baur concerning the character of these heretics, and the
late origin of these Epistles, is not entertained by De Wette
and Dr. Davidson.1
2. The second objection brought against the Pastoral Epistles
is, that the church polity contained in them is post-apostolic.
" A second point," observes Baur, " which is to be taken into
account in the criticism of the Pastoral Epistles, refers to what
is related in them concerning the government and external
institutions of the Church."2 Mention is made of bishops,
presbyters, and deacons. A prominence is given to church
government which is nowhere else to be found in Paul's
genuine epistles. Baur admits that iirlaKOTrot and Trpeo-fiv-
Tepot are names applied to the same persons ; but he asserts
that they are so caded from different points of view. As
presidents of smad congregations, they were bishops ; as com
pared with each other, they were presbyters. We have here,
1 Davidson's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 190-192 (new edition).
5 Baur's Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 112.

378 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
according to him, the germ of Eoman episcopacy : the Epistles
were written with a hierarchical tendency.1
But the church polity in these Epistles is extremely simple,
and shows no trace of a post-apostolic development. Deacons
were a very early institution, apparently owing their origin to
the election of the seven almoners in the church of Jerusalem
(Acts vi.) ;2 and although there is no mention of the origin of
presbyters, yet there is frequent adusion to them in the Acts
of the Apostles. Paul ordained elders in every church which
he had founded (Acts xiv. 23), and at Miletus he caded to
him the elders of the church of Ephesus (Acts xx. 1 7). The
Epistle to the Phidppians is addressed to the bishops and
deacons (Phd. i. 1). And even in those few epistles which
Baur admits to be genuine, there is mention of the diaconate
(BtaKovta), of teaching, and of the gifts of church government
(Eom. xii. 17; 1 Cor. xii. 28). The identity of bishops and
presbyters as stated in First Timothy and Titus is a proof of
the early age of these Epistles ; for, as is seen from the Epistles
of Ignatius, the bishops were regarded, in the age immediately
succeeding that of the apostles, as forming an ecclesiastical
order higher than that of the presbyters. At the same time,
the qualifications' of the bishop — that he must not be a
novice, and that he must be apt to teach — show that these
Epistles must have been written at a late period in the life of
the apostle, after the churches had been for some time in
existence.3 In the First Epistle to Timothy there is a description of a
supposed ecclesiastical institution composed of widows (1 Tim.
v. 3-16), which is regarded by the objectors to this Epistle as
post-apostolic. Schleiermacher considers them to be deacon
esses. Baur proceeds further : he thinks that two classes
of widows are here distinguished — widows indeed, and those
who were only widows by an official designation. From a
passage in one of the epistles of Ignatius, he shows that the
1 Baur's Pastoralbriefe, pp. 78-96.
2 See author's Commentary on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 210, 211. It is not main
tained that the office of "the seven" was precisely the same as that of the
deacons, but that the latter office grew out of the former.
, 3 See Huther's Pastoralbriefe, p. 63.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 379
term xVRa was applied to virgins (irapdevov; t«? Xeyoptevas
XVPa$) who devoted themselves to the service of Christ ; 1
and he thinks that the adusion in the Epistle is to this
ecclesiastical institution of the second century.2 But this dis
tinction is not borne out by the passage in question. It must
be evident to every attentive reader, that only actual widows
are here mentioned. If we are to suppose that it is the
ecclesiastical office of- deaconess that is here adverted to,
stid it is erroneous to consider this office as post-apostolic.
Phoebe is mentioned as a deaconess of the church of Cenchrea
(Eom. xvi. 1). It is, however, disputed whether these widows
were deaconesses. Mosheim, with whom Alford partiady
agrees,3 thinks that they were employed in spiritual offices, —
a species of female presbyters ; as, for example, in the educa
tion of orphans and the instruction of female catechumens.
But the probability is, that " the admission into the number "
(1 Tim. v. 9) referred to a dst of those widows who were to be
supported by the funds of the Church, — an institution similar
to that of which mention is made in the church of Jerusalem
(Acts vii. I).4 This agrees with the description given. A
widow was not to be taken into the number under threescore
years ; if a widow had children or grandchddren, they were to
support her, and the Church was not to be burdened; the
Church was to relieve them that are widows indeed.
3. The third objection, which is chiefly insisted upon by
De Wette, is, that the Pastoral Epistles are fud of un-Paudne
words and ' phrases.3 De Wette gives a long list of peculiar
1 Ignatius, ad Smyrn. c. 13. The passage in Ignatius is suspected of being an
interpolation. There are no writings in the post-apostolic age about which
there is So much dispute as the Ignatian Epistles. Bunsen considers those con
tained in the Syriac version — namely, the epistles to Polycarp, to the Ephesians,
and to the Romans — as only genuine, and the other four as spurious.
2 Baur's Pastoralbriefe, -pp. 43-48 ; Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. p. 113.
3 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii, Prolegomena, p. 78.
4 These widows might perhaps be expected, in return for the bounty of the
church, to devote their time to the education of orphans, attention to strangers,
and ministering to the sick, under the superintendence of the elders and deacons,
but without any official character (1 Tim. v. 10). See Jacob's Ecclesiastical
Polity of the Church, pp. 166-171 ; Neander's Planting, vol. i. pp. 153, 154 ;
Huther's Pastoralbriefe, pp. 64-67 ; Davidson's Ecclesiastical Polity of tlie
N. T., pp. 179-181.
6 De Wette's Einleitung, pp. 336, 337.

380 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
words — the dira^ Xeyopteva found in these Epistles.1 Simdar
lists are given by Dr. Davidson in his new Introduction, and
by Conybeare and Howson in an appendix to their Life and
Letters of St. Paul} And certainly it is in this point that the
chief objection to these Epistles lies. It must be admitted
that their phraseology and diction are somewhat different from
that of Paul's other epistles. This point, however, has been
frequently overstrained. The number of these dira^ Xeyopteva
is not greatly out of proportion; in the Fdst Epistle to
Timothy there are 81, in the second 63, and in the Epistle to
Titus 44. In the other epistles of Paul similar peculiar ex
pressions occur. Thus, it is said that in the Epistle to the
Galatians there are 57, in the Epistle to the Philippians 54,
and in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, taken
together, 143.3 Besides, this is a most uncertain test. It is
unreasonable to restrict such a fervid writer as Paul to a
certain number of words ; his mind was not stationary ; words
would certainly be employed by him in his later which do
not occur in his earlier epistles. The circumstances under
which these Epistles were written must also be taken into
account. Peculiar errors are mentioned which would occasion
the employment of new words in order to describe and refute
them. Church government, and the qualifications and duties
of ecclesiastical office-bearers, which are dwelt upon only in
these Epistles, would necessitate a difference in language.
The Epistles were not addressed to communities, but to private
friends, and therefore would admit of greater freedom in
epistolary correspondence. And probably several years inter
vened between them and the other letters of Paul. Such
considerations as these, if they do not entirely remove the
difficulty, at least greatly diminish its force.
But De Wette also objects that there are not only un-
Pauline words, but un-Paudne sentiments ; the doctrine con
tained in the Epistles is not that of Paul. Good works are
1 De Wette's Einleitung, pp. 336, 337.
2 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. ii. pp. 182-184 ; Conybeare and
Howson's St Paul, vol. ii. pp. 663, 664.
3 Oosterzee's Pastoralbriefe in Lange's Bibelwerk, p. 3 ; Guericke's Isagogik,
p. 380.

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 381
strongly insisted on, if not to the exclusion, at least to the
depreciation of faith.1 The same objection is urged by Dr.
Davidson.2 This difference in doctrine does not appear; on
the contrary, the Epistles are eminently Paudne in sentiment.
It is surely not un-Pauline to insist strongly on the necessity
of holiness ; and it is to be expected that, after the foundation
had been laid, this feature of Paudne Christianity would
appear most prominent in the later epistles. But while it
may be admitted that a peculiar prominence is given to good
works, yet these works are represented as springing from the
grace of God, and as the effect of believing on Christ. The
distinguishing Pauline doctrines of grace, and of the inefficacy
of good works for justification, are as distinctly stated in these
as in Paul's other epistles. " Who hath saved us, and caded
us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but accord
ing to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in
Christ Jesus before the world began " (2 Tim. i. 9). " Not
by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and the renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being
justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to
the hope of eternal dfe " (Tit. iii. 5-7).
But not only are un-Paudne, but also Pauline expressions
objected to. It is affirmed that the writer of these Epistles
copied from the genuine epistles of Paul.3 But certainly this
is carrying fault-finding to an excess. Whether the expres
sions are Pauline or un-Pauline, they thus equady prove the
spuriousness of the Epistles. The fad argument rather is, that
the expressions used are Pauline, because Paul was the author
of the Epistles. The resemblance is in no respects of such a
nature as to excite the suspicion of forgery.
There are, however, several eminent critios who admit the
genuineness of Second Timothy and Titus, but reject Fdst
1 De Wette's Einleitung, p. 337.
5 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. ii. p. 170 : "Instead of faith,"
he observes, "having the specific importance which Paul gives it, the general
idea of godliness or piety is put in its place. "
3 Davidson's Introduction (new edition), vol. ii. p. 180 ; see also Huther's
Pastoralbriefe, p. 69.

382 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Timothy. It is therefore necessary to attend to the special
objections against this Epistle. They are best given by Bleek
in his Introduction to the New Testament ; 1 and are chiefly
as fodows : — 1. The Epistle contains much that is akin to the
.two other Pastoral Epistles, to which it is inferior. But the
resemblance may be accounted for by the supposition that First
Timothy and Titus at least were written about the same time,
and with similar designs. The resemblance is similar to that
between the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, and
indeed is not so great. The inferiority of First Timothy is a
mere matter of taste. 2. In 1 Tim. i 20, Paul pronounces a
sentence of excommunication against Hymenaeus ; whereas in
2 Tim. d. 17, 18, Hymenaeus is mentioned as a false teacher
in Ephesus, who believed that the resurrection was already
past ; there is here an opposition which it is difficult to re
concile. But there is no discrepancy between these passages :
Hymenaeus might well be excommunicated by Paul, and yet
remain at Ephesus as a teacher of false doctrine, outside of the
Christian Church. 3. The words in 1 Tim. iv. 12, "Let no
man despise thy youth," are inconsistent with the age of
Timothy, as the Epistle must have been written many years
after he had associated with Paul. This objection has abeady
been met in the dissertation on Paul's Eoman imprisonments,
and it has been shown that Timothy need not have been
more than thirty-four, which was comparatively young for so
responsible an office. 4. In 1 Tim. v. 1 8, Christ's words con
tained in the Gospel of Luke, " The labourer is worthy of his
hire" (Luke x. 7), are quoted as a declaration of Scripture.
But it is by no means proved, as Bleek affirms, that Luke's
Gospel was written after the apostle's death; and though
improbable, there is nothing unapostodc in its being quoted
by Paul as Scripture. It is, however, doubtful whether the
words are a scriptural citation ; they may be only a pro
verbial expression, quoted both by our Lord and Paul as such.2
1 Bleek's Introduction, vol. ii. pp. 84-90.
2 Thus Calvin observes : "He does not quote this as a passage of Scripture,
but as a proverbial saying which common sense teaches to all. In like manner,
when Christ said the same thing to the apostles, He brought forward nothing
else than a statement approved by universal consent." — Calvin on 1 Tim. v. 18.

THE PERSON ADDRESSED. 383
5. In 1 Tim. ii. 14, 15, it is said of the woman that she
shad be saved through chdd - bearing (amOrjaeTat Bid 777.
TeKvoyovlas) ; it is strange to affirm that chdd-bearing should
be given as the ground of the salvation of the woman. But
these words are confessedly difficult to understand, so that no
objection can be founded on them. If they adude, as many
critics affirm, from the presence of the definite article (through
the chdd-bearing), to the incarnation of Christ, — His being
made of a woman, — then not only is the objection entirely
removed, but a great truth declared, that as by woman sin
entered into the world, so by woman came redemption.1
As the result of the whole of this long discussion, it is to
be remarked that the external evidence in favour of these
Epistles is clear and convincing, and is not weakened by their
rejection by certain heretics; that the internal evidence is
also considerable ; that the objections brought against the
Epistles are not of such a nature as to overcome the evidence
in their favour ; and espeeiady, that the attempt of Baur to
prove them to be writings of the second century entirely
fads. II. THE PERSON ADDRESSED.
Timothy was the offspring of a mixed marriage : his mother,
whose name was Eunice (2 Tim. i. 5), was a Jewess, and his
father a Greek. He was a native not of Derbe, as some sup
pose,2 but of Lystra (Acts xvi. 1). He was probably converted
by Paul along with his mother on the apostle's first visit to
that town (Acts xiv. 8). On the second missionary journey,
when Paul came again to Lystra, he chose Timothy as his
companion, probably in the capacity of minister or attendant
to himself and Sdas, as formerly Mark was to himself and
Barnabas (Acts xiii. 5). In order to remove all occasion of
offence, Timothy was circumcised by the apostle, because it
was well known that his father was a Greek. Timothy after-
1 Others explain the verse by supposing that the term nxvoyovia refers not to
the mere bearing of children, but to the religious training of children.
2 The opinion of Wieseler, who founds on Acts xx. 4, uniting AspfiaTos with
xxi Tipbfaos.

384 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
wards became the constant companion of Paul : he accom
panied the apostle to Phdippi; then to Thessalonica and
Berea; when Paul was at Athens, he was sent back to
Thessalonica to strengthen the church there (1 Thess. di.
1-5), but afterwards joined the apostle at Corinth (Acts
xvdi. 6). The two Epistles written from that city to the
Thessalonians are in the conjoint names of Paul, Sdvanus,
and Timotheus. He was with the apostle during his three
years' residence at Ephesus, and was sent by him into Mace
donia (Acts xix. 22), with a commission also to go the length
of Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10, 11). When Paul left
Ephesus to go to Macedonia, Timothy either accompanied
him, or more probably joined him in that country (2 Cor. i. 1).
He was among the number of those who accompanied the
apostle from Achaia through Macedonia into Asia (Acts xx. 4).
Here for a time we lose sight of Timothy ; he does not appear
to have followed the apostle to Jerusalem, or to have saded
with him to Eome. He was, however, with the apostle during
the later period of his first imprisonment, for he is united
with him in his salutations to the Colossians, Phdippians, and
Philemon. It would appear that the apostle designed to send
him from Eome to Philippi (Phd. d. 1 9). From First Timothy
we learn that Paul, after his release from imprisonment, was
with Timothy at Ephesus, and left him there to settle the
government of the church, and to refute and sdence the false
teachers who disturbed its peace (1 Tim. 13). At a later
period Paul was again a prisoner at Eome, and he wrote an
urgent request to Timothy to come to him with all haste
(2 Tim. iv. 9), — a request with which we cannot doubt
Timothy would comply. Timothy is also mentioned in the
Epistle to the Hebrews : " Know ye that our brother Timothy
is set at liberty, with whom if he come shortly, I wid see
you" (Heb. xiii. 23) ; but to what period of the lde of
Timothy this refers, or from what imprisonment he was
delivered, we have no means of determining.1
The traditionary notices of Timothy are few and unim
portant. Eusebius mentions that he was bishop of Ephesus :
1 Alford gives a chronological table of the principal events in the life of
Timothy; Greek Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, p. 100.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 385
" Timothy is recorded as having first received the episcopate
at Ephesus, as Titus also was appointed over the churches in
Crete."1 This tradition, however, evidently arose from the
commission given to Timothy by Paul, which was most pro
bably of a temporary nature ; nor does the tradition agree
with the more widely-spread tradition of the residence and
death of the Apostle John in Ephesus. Nicephorus states
that Timothy suffered martyrdom in the reign of Domitian.2
III. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
One design of the First Epistle to Timothy was to refute
the errors of false teachers. There is a great resemblance in
the descriptions given of these false teachers in each of the
Pastoral Epistles; so that it is now generady admitted that one
and the same class of heretics is described. They were of
Jewish origin. They are described as " teachers of the law "
(1 Tim. i. 7), and " those of the circumcision" (Tit. i 10) ; the
errors which they propagated are caded " Jewish fables " (Tit.
i 1 4) ; and they introduced " contentions and strivings about
the law " (Tit. iii. 9). But with this tendency to Judaism,
there was also an admixture of phdosophy. The apostle
charges Timothy to avoid " the oppositions of science falsely
so caded " (1 Tim. vi. 20) ; and these teachers occupied them
selves with " foolish questions and endless genealogies " (1
Tim. i. 4 ; Tit. iii. 9). Their practice was of a pernicious
ascetic character; they forbade to marry, and commanded to
abstain from meats (1 Tim. iv. 3).8 Along with this, there
was unavoidably much superstition : the apostle cads thed
views old wives' fables, profane and vain babblings, and foodsh
questions ; probably legends and idle stories which led away
men's minds from the great realities of the gospel and the
practice of true goddness. Some of them denied the resur
rection, probably explaining it spirituady. Many of them
appear to have been hypocrites : persons who pretended to a
1 Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 4 ; comp. also Const. Apost. vii. 46.
! Niceph. Hist. Eccl. iii. 11.
3 Although this is stated as a prediction of what would happen, yet it is pro
bable that the germs of such practices were then present.
2 B

386 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
form of goddness, but were strangers to its power ; covetous
men, who supposed that godliness was gain, and who made
their religion a pretext to advance theb temporal interest.
Although they strove about the law, yet it was merely to
advance their theoretical views, not to practise its holy com
mandments. Whether they were actuady dcentious in their
conduct does not clearly appear, although it seems to be
impded.1 There is a striking resemblance between the heretics men
tioned in the Pastoral Epistles, and those mentioned in the
Epistle to the Colossians. Like them, they were Jewish
teachers, dissimdar to the Judaizers whom the apostle en
countered in the early portion of his ministry, and against whom
he wrote in the Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians.
Error had changed its nature ; it had passed that stage of
development. The heretics mentioned in the Epistle to the
Colossians and in the Pastoral Epistles did not insist on the
indispensableness of circumcision ; they were n6t strict Phari
sees, who carefudy. guarded against ad admixture of foreign
elements : on the contrary, their Judaism was combined with
philosophical speculation. Nor were they, as Michaelis2 and
Eitschl3 suppose, Essenes, or, as others think, Therapeutae: for
although there are some elements in common between them and
these Jewish sects, yet in many points they differ ; and besides,
the Essenes do not seem to have spread beyond the confines of
Judea, and the Therapeutae were confined to Egypt. Wiesinger
thinks that they were Jews, who spent their time in idle and
unprofitable speculations about Jewish genealogies, with which
speculations were combined many foolish and unprofitable
myths and legends. " It was not," he observes, " an opposi
tion of a dogmatic kind, — a heresy properly so caded, — but
rather certain perversities, as wed of a theoretical as of a
practical kind, which are to be viewed as proceeding chiefly
from Jewish Christians, and which in themselves did not
directly contradict the faith, but which might easdy lead to a
1 See Guericke's Isagogik, pp. 366, 367.
2 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. pp. 79-83. So also Heinrichs, Wegschneider,
and in part Credner.
3 Ritschl, Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, p. 233.

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 387
falling away from the faith."1 Hence the endless genealogies
(yeveaXoylais d-wepaifrovs, 1 Tim. i 4), which the apostle cen
sures, are Jewish registers. But d the error of these false
teachers was of this comparatively innocuous form, — rather
superstition than positive heresy, — the apostle would not have
censured it with such extreme severity ; nor would such a form
of error ever prevad in a church so greatly composed of Gen
tde converts as was the church of Ephesus. The false teachers
had certainly a Jewish element in their heresy, but combined
with that there was also a Gentde element which recom
mended it to the Gentde Christians : it was a combination of
Judaism and Gentde philosophy.
The heretics in the Pastoral Epistles, then, were, like the
Colossian heretics, Jewish theosophists. The Jewish redgion
was then in a state of disintegration, and thus assimilated to
itself foreign elements from many quarters. Hence these
heretics busied themselves about spirits, entertaining notions
simdar to the angelolatry condemned in the Epistle to the
Colossians. Their endless genealogies probably resembled the
Gnostic doctrine of aeons, rather than the Jewish cabbadstic
fancies. In short, they were Jewish Gnostics, forming a
transition to the true Gnostics of the second century. They
were intermediate between the Judaizers and the Gnostics
proper ; with the former they stid adhered to the permanence
of the Mosaic law, and with the latter they adopted their
speculations about spirit, holding views somewhat simdar to
those of the Jewish Gnostic, Cerinthus, though not so fully
developed. " The germ of a Judaizing Gnosticism," observes
Neander, " or a Judaizing theosophic-ascetical tendency, such
as shows itself in the two Epistles to Timothy, must a priori
be presupposed as existing at this period, as the heresies of
the second century point back to such a tendency gradually
evolving itself out of Judaism." 2
Stid the views of the Jewish Gnostics in the Pastoral
Epistles must not be mistaken for those of the true Gnostics
of the second century. The heresy in the Pastoral Epistles
1 Wiesinger's Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles, p. 193 (Clark's trans
lation). 2 Quoted by Wiesinger, p. 163.

388 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
arose from a corruption -of Jewish Christianity with phdosophy;
whereas pure Gnosticism had its origin in a corruption of
Gentde Christianity. There is not the sdghtest trace of the
Demiurge as the creator of the world, or of any depreciation
of the Jewish religion, as not proceeding from God; which
were characteristic features of true Gnosticism. Nor do the
heretics in the Pastoral Epistles appear to have inculcated
Doceticism : there is nothing to lead us to suppose that they
considered the manifestation of Christ as an appearance merely,
but not a reality ; whereas the Gnosticism of the second century
is decidedly docetic. In all these points these heretics dif
fered from true Gnostics : error had yet to take another phase
— to be stid further developed — before it manifested itself in
pure Gnosticism.1
The heresies referred to in the Pastoral Epistles bear the most
striking resemblance to the errors combated in the Epistle to
the Colossians; they are the same Jewish Gnostic errors, though
in a more advanced stage. " This tendency," observes Huther,
" agrees in essentials with that combated in the Epistle to the
Colossians. The difference is only that this heresy was at the
time of the composition of the Pastoral Epistles in a stage of
further development: the doctrine of angels had already received
the form of emanations, and the contrast between spdit and
matter was yet more marked, whdst the selfish motives in the fol
lowers of the heresy were more prominently brought forward."2
Timothy had been left by Paul at Ephesus to refute error,
——to charge some that they should teach no other doctrine,
neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies (1 Tim. i.
3, 4). He had also been commissioned to settle the govern
ment of the church — to select and ordain elders and deacons.
With a view to these points the Epistle was written, conveying
the instructions of the apostle. The design of the Epistle may
be regarded as twofold — -to instruct and charge Timothy to
oppose false teachers who were subverting the doctrines of the
gospel, and to impart to him directions concerning church
government. 1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iii,, Prolegomena, p, 76; Huther's Pastoral-
briefe, pp. 53, 54.
3 Huther's Pastoralbriefe, p. 55.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 389

IV. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
No definite order or proper division can be discerned in the
Epistle : it is written with all the freedom of one writing to
his friend. After the salutation, the apostle reminds Timothy
that the purpose for which he was left behind at Ephesus was to
oppose certain false teachers whose principles he characterizes
(chap. i. 1-11). He thanks God that he who had been before
a persecutor was appointed a- minister of that glorious gospel
(chap. i. 1 2-1 7). He charges Timothy to hold fast by the
faith, and to refute gainsayers (chap. i. 18-20). Directions
fodow in respect of public prayer, and the behaviour of men
and women at pubdc worship (chap. ii). The qualifications
of bishops or presbyters and deacons are described (chap. iii).
The apostle then returns to the false teachers, and further
describes the nature and tendency of their teaching, and
Timothy's conduct with reference to them : he must warn the
brethren against them, and not adow his youth to lessen
the weight of his censures or the force of his opposition
(chap. iv.). His conduct with reference to the elder members
of the Church is stated, with a special reference to the case of
widows, who, if destitute, are to be supported by the funds
of the church (chap. v. 1-16). Timothy is instructed how
to behave toward the presbyters, and rules are given for the
selection of persons for ordination and official appointment in
the church (chap. v. 17-25). To this are added observations
concerning slaves, cautions against coveteousness, exhortations
to be given to the rich; and the Epistle closes with the apostodc
benediction (chap. vi).
V. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
We have already stated that the date of Fdst Timothy must
be placed after Paul's release from his first Eoman imprison
ment. The only intimations of time given us in the Epistle
are that Paul, when on his way to Macedonia, left Timothy at
Ephesus (1 Tim. i. 3), and that he expected soon to return
(1 Tim. iii. 14). But, along with these data, we must take
into consideration the fact that the three Pastoral Epistles

390 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
were composed nearly at the same time, as is proved from the
simdarity of their contents and diction. All these considera
tions fix the time to a period after Paul's first imprisonment.
Various contrary opinions have been maintained. Calvin
supposes that the Epistle was written after Paul's first visit to
Ephesus (Acts xvdi. 19), — a supposition utterly untenable, as
the church of Ephesus was at that time hardly founded, and
as the apostle did not then go into Macedonia, but to Jerusalem.
Others (Theodoret, Grotius, Michaelis, Heinrichs, Lardner, Hug)
think that it was written on Paul's departure from Ephesus
after his three years' residence in that city (Acts xx. 1). On
that occasion certainly he went from Ephesus into Macedonia ;
but several insuperable objections are opposed to this opinion.
Timothy was not left behind (1 Tim. i. 3) ; he had been
previously sent by the apostle into Macedonia (Acts xix. 22)
and Achaia (1 Cor. iv. 1 7) ; and although he may have returned
before Paul's departure, yet he was with him in Macedonia
when the apostle wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians
(2 Cor. i. 1), and accompanied him into Achaia and Asia.
Besides, the apostle had not then the intention of returning
soon to Ephesus (1 Tim. iii. 14), but of proceeding to Corinth,
and thence to Jerusalem. Others (Schrader, Mosheim, Wieseler,
Beuss, Schaff, Davidson, first edition) suppose that the Epistle
was written during the apostle's three years' residence at
Ephesus, when he made an excursion, not recorded in the
Acts, into Macedonia and Greece. This opinion has been
discussed in the dissertation on Paul's Eoman imprisonments,
and there shown to be inadmissible. Others (Berthold,
Matthies) think that the Epistle was written during the return
of the apostle from Achaia to Macedonia on his way to
Jerusalem (Acts xx. 3).1 They suppose that Timothy was
sent from Corinth to Ephesus, and that the apostle wrote to
him instructions from some place in Achaia or Macedonia.
In order to support this view, iropev6puevo<s in 1 Tim. i. 3,
against all rules of grammar, is made to refer not to Paul, but
to Timothy : " I besought thee to abide stid at Ephesus, when
thou wentest into Macedonia." And whereas Luke mentions
1 See Wiesinger's Commentary, p. 351 ff. ; Huther's Pastoralbriefe, pp.
12-14.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 391
Timothy as accompanying Paul to Troas (Acts xx. 4, 5), it is
asserted that Luke is somewhat inaccurate in his statement.
In order to make the history accord with their opinion, an
error must be ascribed to the evangelist. In short, every
attempt to fix the date of this Epistle before Paul's Eoman
imprisonment completely fads.
The Pastoral Epistles were almost contemporaneously written;
and as Second Timothy was written when Paul was a second
time a prisoner at Eome, and in prospect of martyrdom, it
fodows that they were composed toward the close of the
apostle's dfe (a.d. 68 ?). The First Epistle to Timothy and
the Epistle to Titus were written in the interval between the
first and second imprisonments ; and the Second Epistle to
Timothy during the second imprisonment. It is impossible
to say whether First Timothy or Titus was written first.
Conybeare and Howson suppose that it was First Timothy,
but the reason which they assign is not convincing. " In the
Epistle to Titus," they observe, " we find that Paul had lately
left Crete, and that he was now about to proceed to Nicopolis
in Epdus, where he meant to spend the approaching winter ;
whereas in Fdst Timothy he meant soon to be back to
Ephesus, and he was afterwards at Miletus and Corinth
between First Timothy and Second Timothy. Hence Titus
must have been written later than First Timothy."1
The place of writing cannot with any precision be deter
mined. Paul left Timothy at Ephesus when he went into
Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3) ; hence it is generally supposed that
it was written from some place in Macedonia or in the neigh
bourhood. In the superscription at the end of the First
Epistle, it is said to have been " written from Laodicea, which
is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana."2 But this is of no
authority: it probably arose from a desire to identify this
Epistle with the epistle from Laodicea (itno-ToXrj e« _laoSt-
KeitK, Col. iv. 1 6). Thus Theophylact observes, " This Epistle
was the First Epistle to Timothy, for it was written from
Laodicea." 1 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 662.
2 A geographical division existing in the fourth century.

392 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

VI. PECULIARITIES OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
Paul's Epistles, as has already been observed, are divisible
into three classes, marked by distinct pecudarities, — the early
Epistles, the Epistles of the captivity, and the Pastoral
Epistles. These three Epistles, then, constitute the third
class of the Pauline Epistles. They were probably written
four or five years after the Epistle to the Philippians, the
nearest to them in date, which may account for the difference
of style between them and that Epistle. They differ in their
contents from Paul's other epistles ; they treat chiefly of the
government of the Church. Christianity had already been
for some time established in the different cities, and hence
Christians required to be formed into a regular society, with
their proper office-bearers. The qualifications of bishops and
deacons could now be more definitely determined. So also,
as has adeady been observed, there is greater prominence
given to good works. The fundamental doctrines of Chris
tianity having been laid, the superstructure was now to be
erected ; those who bedeved in Christ were enjoined to be
careful to maintain good works. But stid the great Pauline
doctrines Of salvation by grace, and of the inefficacy of good
works for justification, were maintained ; hodness is described
not as the cause of justification, but the effect (Tit. ii. 13-15).
The Epistles also contain painful forebodings : the apostle
foresees the corruptions that were to prevail, the heresies that
were to arise, the defections from the pure doctrine ; abundant
symptoms of which were seen in the errors of the false
teachers at Ephesus. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly,
that in the latter times some shad depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devds"
(1 Tim. iv. 1-3) : a prediction which received its fulfilment
in the rise and growth of the Gnostic philosophy in the
succeeding century, but which has a stid deeper meaning,
and probably yet awaits its complete fulfilment in the latter
days. There is also in these Epistles a stronger spirit of
authority. Here occur "the faithful sayings," — declarations
of gospel truth which cannot be gainsaid, but must be accepted
as the axioms of Christianity.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 393
ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTOEAL EPISTLES.1
The Pastoral Epistles afford most valuable materials for the
study of the constitution of the Church. They impart to us
information concerning the state of the Church in the apostolic
age ; mention the qualifications and duties of two orders of its
office-bearers — presbyters and deacons ; and lay down the
broad principles of ecclesiastical podty.2 These Epistles were
not written for the sake of Timothy and Titus only, but were
designed by the Holy Spirit who inspired them for the edifi
cation of the Church in ad succeeding ages. They are not
mere private letters, but official documents given by Him who
is the Head of the Church.
Our Lord did not intend that His disciples should live
separate and apart, but that they should associate together,
and form themselves into a Church. He estabhshed a com
munity, which, although in the world, was not of the world.
The Church was, as its name (iKKXriala) imports, composed of
those who were called out of the world. Now it is evident
that every society requires some regulations for maditaining
order and government, and the appointment of certain officers
to secure fulfilment of these regulations, and to perform the
various functions and duties to which such an association
gives rise. Without these, the society could not exist for any
time ; it would inevitably fad into disorder, and would event
ually be dissolved. The Church of Christ, being a society of
men, is subject to the same laws : office-bearers are essential
for its government and its very existence ; for without some
government, the Church could not as a community continue
together. Accordingly, the apostles, under the authority of
the Lord, appointed a ministry, consisting of various office
bearers in the Church.
1 For further information on this subject, see Ritschl's Entstehung der altkath.
Kirche; Dr. Jacob's Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament; Professor
Lightfoot's admirable dissertation on the Christian Ministry, attached to his
Commentary on the Philippians; and Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, by
Principal Campbell of Aberdeen, — a work which deserves to be more read than
it is in the present day.
2 " In his dual/us epistolis (First and Second Timothy) quasi in viva tabula
depictum habemus verum Ecclesios regimen." — Calvin.

394 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
This apostolic appointment of a ministry or office-bearers
in the Christian Church was designed chiefly for the sake of
order, and did not constitute any "class of men into a separate
or superior grade, intervening between Christ and His people.
This was, in a certain sense, the case with the priestly order
under the Old. Testament dispensation. But the Christian
ministry, though a divine institution, is no priesthood — no
sacred and privileged class of men. They are never called
priests in a technical sense ; bdt " the ministers of Christ, and
the stewards of the mysteries of God " (1 Cor. iv. 1). There
is no mystical distinction between the clergy and the laity.
The Christian priesthood, unlike the Levitical priesthood, is
common to all bedevers. " Ye are," says Beter, " a royal
priesthood " (1 Pet. d. 5). Free access is afforded to ad men
through Christ unto God ; Christ is the only Mediator and
Intercessor ; His disciples are a consecrated people, set apart
to offer spiritual sacrifioes acceptable unto God. Ministers
have now no priestly functions to perform. The one great
sacrifice for sin being offered up, has done away with ad those
other sacrifices which were its types and emblems. There are
now no consecrated places, no temples, no altars, — no resem
blance, in short, between Christian ministers and the priests
under the law.1 Ministers are now taken from no privileged
class, but chosen from among- ad bedevers. They bear a
resemblance to the rulers of the synagogue, rather than to the
officers of the temple.2
In the Pastoral Epistles there appear to be only two classes
of office-bearers mentioned — deacons, and presbyters or bishops;
but there are three passages in the earder epistles of Paul
which give a different and fuder enumeration. In the Epistle
to the Eomans, the apostle says : " Having then gifts, differing
' Much confusion has arisen from the ambiguous nature of the English term
"priest." Philologieally, it is the same as presbyter ; but as used by us, it is
equivalent to the Greek Upt&t — one who offers sacrifices.
2 The worship of the synagogue and of the temple was entirely distinct. The
rulers of the synagogue were taken from the Jewish people in general ; the
priests of the temple were restricted to the descendants of Aaron. It is a gross
mistake and perversion to assert, as some do, that the three orders of the Chris
tian church — bishops, presbyters, and deacons — correspond to those of high
priests, priests, and Levites under the law.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 395
according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy,
let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith ; or
ministry, let us wait on our ministering ; or he that teacheth,
on teaching ; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation ; he that
giveth, let him do it with simpdcity; he that ruleth, with
diligence ; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness " (Eom.
xd. 6-8). In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle
observes : " God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles ;
secondardy, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; after that miracles ;
then gifts of headngs, helps, governments, diversities of
tongues " (1 Cor. xii. 28). And the enumeration in the
Epistle to the Ephesians is as follows : " And he gave some
apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some
pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ "
(Eph. iv. 11, 12). It is to be observed that all these titles
refer to what has been denominated " the ministry of gifts ; "
the persons who occupied these offices were endowed with
supernatural powers. This is evident in "miracles, gifts of
healing, diversities of tongues," and also in the extraordinary
nature of the offices of apostles and prophets ; but even " the
pastors and teachers " are mentioned with reference to special
gifts of government and teaching. The offices enumerated in
these earder epistles are of a temporary character, instituted
with a view to the first promulgation of the gospel, and not
designed to be a permanent ministry for the good of the Church
in ad ages. A permanent ministry may have grown out of
them. When these miraculous gifts became rare in the Church,
the importance of permanent office-bearers would be more
sensibly felt. Hence, then, it is in the later rather than in
the earder Pauline Epistles that the ordinary rulers of the
Church are mentioned. Whdst the apostles and prophets of
the earder epistles have passed away, the presbyters and
deacons of the Pastoral Epistles remain.
The rulers of the Church, then, may be arranged into two
classes : those who were extraordinary, and whose ministry
was temporary; and those who were ordinary, and whose
ministry was permanent.
Among the extraordinary rulers of the Church are apostles,

396 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
prophets, and evangelists. The office of the apostle was to
testify to the life of Christ, and espeeiady to be a witness of
His resurrection (Acts i. 22). The apostles had no local
limitation ; thed commission was to preach the gospel to all
nations. They were endowed with peculiar authority by
Christ, and were the founders of His Church. Among those
included in the apostleship are to be reckoned the twelve who
were chosen by Christ when on earth, Matthias caded to
succeed Judas, Paul the apostle of the Gentiles, and probably
his codeague Barnabas (Acts xiv. 14).1 The office of a pro
phet was not so much to foreted the future, as to reveal the
wid of God. They were men gifted with inspiration, who
delivered divine communications to the Church. Among the
prophets mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles are Agabus
(Acts xi. 2 8), Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene,
Manaen, and Saul (Acts xiii. 1), and Judas and Sdas (Acts
xv. 31). Evangelists seem to have occupied an office similar
to that of missionaries in modern times, except that they were
endowed with miraculous powers for the diffusion of the
gospel. They were set over no particular church, but preached
the gospel among the heathen ; they were itinerant preachers,
and in a certain sense the substitutes of the apostles. Philip,
who was " one of the seven," is caded an evangelist (Acts
xxi. 8), and Timothy is exhorted to do the work of an evan
gelist (2 Tim. iv. 5). Afterwards the name became appro
priated to the four writers of the dfe of Christ. Hence the
Apostle John is surnamed in a pecudar manner " the Evan
gelist," to distinguish him from John the Baptist.
The ordinary rulers of the Church mentioned in the Pastoral
Epistles are two — deacons, and bishops or presbyters.
I. The Deacons. — The origin of the diaconate is generally
referred to the erection of the seven almoners in the church of
Jerusalem. A complaint arose among the Hellenists that their
widows were neglected in the daily ministration of food or money.
To aday this discontent, and to provide for the better manage
ment of the charities of the Church, a new order of office-
1 The term is also employed in the sense of messenger ; thus the apostle
speaks of the apostles of the churches (dprorroXoi ixxXwriuv, 2 Cor. viii. 23).

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 397
bearers was appointed. Seven men, whose qualifications were
that they should be of good report, fud of the Holy Ghost and
wisdom, were elected by the church, and appointed by the
apostles over this business (Acts vi. 3). In this appointment
many eminent writers see the institution of the diaconate.
The expressions employed, BtaKovia, Kadnp-epivy (ver. 1), and
BtaKovetv Tjoa-n- e£at. (ver. 3), are considered to imply that the
office is that of a deacon. The primitive Church generady
supposed that we have here the account of the institution of
the diaconate (Irenaeus, Origen) ; and for this reason they
limited the number of deacons in their churches to seven.1
Others (Bitschl, etc.) suppose them to have been presbyters ; 2
and others (Lange, etc.) think that the office of the seven
was at a later period divided into the two orders of bishops
and deacons.3 Some (Olshausen, Neander, Meyer, Mosheim,
Kuinoel, Cook) refer the origin of the diaconate to a stid
earlier period in the history of the Church, and suppose that
the young men (vecoTepot) mentioned in connection with the
death of Ananias and Sapphda were deacons (Acts v. 6).
Others think that the . diaconate was a later institution, and
that the office of the seven was merely temporary, to suit a
present emergency.4 It is observed that the name diaconate
is never appded to it, and that when Philip, one of the seven,
is mentioned, he is not caded a deacon, but an evangelist.
Perhaps it is nearest the truth, to suppose that the office of
the seven is not the diaconate properly so caded, but that
this later office grew out of it. When the churches became
numerous, men with functions somewhat similar to those of
the seven were appointed to watch over the temporal concerns
of the Church, and to administer its charities.5 The first
direct mention which we have of deacons is in the Epistle to
the Philippians, which is addressed to the bishops and deacons
of Phdippi (Phd. i 1).
1 Eusebius informs us that in his time there were in the church of Rome only
seven deacons, although there were forty-six presbyters, and numerous other
office-bearers. — Hist. Eccl. vi. 43.
2 Ritschl's Entstehung d. altkat. Kirche, p. 355.
3 Lange's Apost. Zeit. vol. ii. p. 75.
* So Chrysostom : Homilies on the Acts, Hom. xiv.
' See Gieseler's Church History, vol. i. p. 170.

398 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
The qualifications of deacons are mentioned with reference
to the duties which they had to perform. They were to be
grave and sober — men of good report. They were not to be
greedy of filthy lucre, so that they might not be tempted to
appropriate to themselves the funds of the Church. And they
were to show a good example' in the government of their
households. These quadfications were first to be proved, and
then they were to use the office of a deacon, being found
blameless (1 Tim. iii. 8-10).
The duties of deacons seem to have been chiefly of a secular
nature. They were to take charge of the temporalities of the
Church, to see to the support of the poor and the sick, and to
provide what was necessary for the maintenance of religious
ordinances. As the seven almoners were appointed to be
assistants to the apostles, so the deacons were simdarly ap
pointed to be assistants to the presbyters. It does not appear
that preaching was one of their duties, and hence aptitude to
teach is omitted in the list of their qualifications ; but at the
same time, as they came into constant contact with the sick and
dying, numerous opportunities for communicating religious in
struction would present themselves.1 Some suppose that the
diaconate was but a step to the' higher order of the presby-
terate : that before one could be a presbyter, he must first
be a deacon. This opinion is founded on these words of the
apostle : " They that use the office of a deacon wed, purchase
to themselves a good degree (fiaOpbv eawrot. koXov irepvjroi-
ovvTai), and great boldness in the faith (-n-oXXrjv irappno-tav iv
ivlo-Tei) which is in Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. iii. 13). But these
words do not bear out the meaning which is put on them :
they rather signify that the faithful deacon wid earn to him
self an honourable position in the church of which he is a
deacon, — not that he shad secure ecclesiastical preferment, and
be advanced to the presbyterate.2
It would also appear that there was an office of deaconess
1 The order of deacons is not general in the Christian Church. Their duties
were somewhat similar to those of the ruling elders in Presbyterian Churches
and to the vestrymen in the Church of England.
2 The word /W/tfc was afterwards used to denote a step or degree in the way
of promotion. See Huther's Pastoralbriefe, in loco, pp. 153-155.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 399
in the apostodc Church. Phoebe, the bearer of the Epistle to
the Bomans, is called the deaconess of the church of Cenchrea
(oicrav BtaKovov t-j}? iKKXrjcrla^ tPjs iv Keyxpeals, Bom. xvi. 1).
So also, in ad probability, were Tryphena and Tryphosa, and
the beloved Persis, who are described as labouring in the Lord
(Eom. xvi. 12). And in the Epistle to the Phdippians, men
tion is made of those women who laboured with Paul in the
gospel (Phil. iv. 2). Some suppose, also, that the directions
given in the First Epistle to Timothy are not addressed to
the wives of deacons, but to the special order of deaconess
v (1 Tim. di. ll).1 Whether, however, the widows mentioned in'
that Epistle (1 Tim. v. 9-1 3) were deaconesses, is doubtful. The
probability rather is, that the apostle alludes to those who were
to be supported by the funds of the Church, although they might
also be caded upon to visit the sick and take care of orphans.
The duties of the deaconesses would be to attend to the female
portion of the Church. This was espeeiady necessary in the
East, owing to the great seclusion of the female sex ; and be
sides, by the institution of deaconesses, an opportunity would
be afforded for Christian women to exercise their gifts and
graces in the cause of Christ. Thus, dke those women who
in the Gospels ministered of their substance to Christ, they
would be enabled to devote themselves to His service, and to
assist in the promotion of His gospel. To the deaconesses
would be assigned the care of widows, the poor, and the sick,
the' redgious education of chddren, and perhaps the instruction
of female catechumens : they were " to bring up children, to
lodge strangers, to relieve the afflicted, and ddigently to fodow
after every good work"2 (1 Tim. v. 10).
II. Tlie Presbyters. — The title presbyter was doubtless bor
rowed from the synagogue, whose rulers were caded elders (QH?t_).
The name is simdar to the yepovo-la ofthe Greeks, and the senatus
of the Eomans.3 Whdst presbyter was of Jewish origin, bishop
1 So Chrysostom, Theophylact, De Wette, Wiesinger. See Wiesinger's Com
mentary, p. 424. On the other hand, Huther regards them as the wives of the
deacons— Huther's Pastoralbriefe, pp. 152, 153.
2 The order of deaconess has now fallen into a state of disuse, at least in the
Protestant Church.
3 So also the aldermen of our own country.

400 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
was derived from the Greek. Among the Greeks, particularly the
Athenians, this title was conferred on those who were appointed
as delegates from the parent city to its colonies. The title
passed over to the Church, and was used among the Gentile
Christians to denote their ecclesiastical overseers. Both names
apply to the same office : rrrpeo-t3vTepo'i refers to the dignity of
the office, and eerier kottos to its duties. Besides these two
names, mention is made in the earlier Pauline Epistles of
" pastors and teachers " (Eph. iv. 1 1). It is disputed whether
these terms refer to the same office, or to two distinct classes
of rulers. From the manner in which they are mentioned
together, it has been argued that they refer to the same class
of persons.1 Certainly the pastors and teachers there aduded
to are extraordinary rulers, endowed with miraculous gifts;
but after these gifts were withdrawn, the work of rudng and
teaching still remained. The pastors and teachers may thus
be regarded as the same with the presbyters or bishops. The
presbyters are exhorted to feed the Church of Christ (irotpLaiveiv,
to do the work of a pastor, Acts xx. 28) ; and one of their
qualifications is, that they should be apt to teach (BiBaKTiKo .,
skided in the work of a teacher). Thus, then, these four
names — presbyter (-irpeo-fivTepos), bishop (i-rrlaKoiro's), pastor
(iroiptrjv), and teacher (-..aavcaA. .) — would seem to refer to the
same class of office-bearers in the Christian Church.2
It is now admitted by almost ad writers on the subject,
notwithstanding the difference in their views of ecclesiastical
polity, that in the New Testament the names bishop and pres
byter are synonymous. They never occur together in such a
manner as would imply a reference to different orders : there
is in Scripture no enumeration of a threefold ministry, — bishops,
presbyters, and deacons,- — -such as frequently occurs in the
ecclesiastical writings of the second century. On the con
trary, bishops and presbyters are in several passages identical.
Thus, at Mdetus, Paul is represented as calling together the
presbyters of Ephesus ; yet he afterwards addresses them as
1 If different officers were alluded to, we would have expected rols til protpsvas,
rtiis 2s SilxtrxdXous, in conformity with what precedes, ' ¦ and some pastors, and
some teachers." It is not, however, a point of much importance.
2 Davidson's Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament, pp. 155-157.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 401
bishops (Acts xx. 17, 28). In the Epistle to Titus, the names
are appded to the same persons : " 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 : d any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having
faithful chddren, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop
must be blameless, as the steward of God " (Tit. i. 5-7). And
in the First Epistle of Peter, the same identity is manifest :
" The elders (irpecrfivTepovs) which are among you I exhort, who
am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and
also a partaker of the glory that shad be revealed. Feed the
flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof"
(iTno-KOT-ovvTes, acting as bishops, 1 Pet. v. 1, 2). So also
bishops and deacons are mentioned together in such a manner
as to show that by bishops are meant presbyters, otherwise
that important office would be omitted. The Epistle to the
Phdippians is addressed to the bishops and deacons (Phd. i. 1).
" Bishops here," observes Jerome, " must signify presbyters, ^
because there could be no more bishops than one, properly so
caded, in one city." In the First Epistle to Timothy, the
qualifications of bishops and deacons are enumerated ; those- of
the bishops are simdar to the qualifications of the presbyters
in the Epistle to Titus ; and in subsequent chapters of First
Timothy, the elders are mentioned as if identical with the
bishops. In the Epistle of Clemens Eomanus, the eardest
extant writing of the Fathers, there is no distinction between
the bishops and presbyters. " The apostles," he observes, " ap
pointed their first-fruits, having first proved them by the Spirit,
to be bishops and deacons of them that should believe." 1 And
again : " We should incur no sdght gudt, if we eject from the
bishopric those who have holdy and unblameably presented
the offerings. Blessed are the presbyters who have gone be
fore, who have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure ; for
they have no fear lest any should turn them out of their place."2
The two titles, then, were identical in the apostodc Church.
" The title iirlo-KOTros," observes Dean Alford, " as appded to
one person superior to the -irpeo-fiirrepot, and answering to our
bishop, appears to have been unknown, in apostodc times."
1 Ep. ad Corinth, c. 42. 2 Ibid. c. 44.
2 C

402 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Baur admits that the titles apply to the same persons, but
he asserts that they have a certain difference of meaning.
" The ruler," he observes, " in so far as he is considered by
himself, or in relation to the church at whose head he stands,
is caded cn-to-co.. 09, as one who like a shepherd has the over
sight of the flock entrusted to him. But if several iirlo-Koirot
presiding over single congregations are taken together, and are
designated by a common name, they are, as a rule, caded
"irpeo-fivTepot."1 Thus, according to him, -7rto-«:o7ros refers to
the ruler of a particular congregation, and Trpeafimepob to
these rulers viewed conjointly. Hence he considers that the
government of the Church was at first neither democratic nor
aristocratic, but monarchical According to him, Timothy and
Titus do not so much represent the later relation of bishops
to presbyters, as the relation of the archbishop to bishops.2
But, even admitting that each congregation had only one
presbyter or bishop, it does not fodow that the government of
the Church was monarchical : if the individual presbyter was
independent of his brethren, we have the principle of inde
pendency ; if he was not independent, but the presbyters of
the several congregations were united as a common codege,
we have the principle of presbyterianism, — both of which
forms are rather democratic than monarchical. It would,
however, appear that the distinction advanced by Baur rests
on no proper foundation. Each congregation had several
elders attached to it. Titus was enjoined to ordain elders in
every city (Kara iroXtv).3 This is also more analogous to the
government of the synagogue, which consisted of a plurality
of elders (Acts xiv. 23, xv. 4, xx. 7 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Jas.
v. 14).4 There is no account in Scripture of the origin of the elder .
ship. It probably arose, like the diaconate, from the necessity
of the case. Deacons, or at least officers -similar to them, were
instituted to redeve the apostles from the care of the poor, in
1 Baur's Pastoralbriefe, p. 82. 2 Ibid. pp. 84, 85.
3 That is, in every city considered singly : not one elder in each city. So
also in the similar expression, xara ixxXno-ias, in Acts xiv. 23 ; the meaning
being, that Paul ordained several elders in each church.
* See Gieseler's Church History, vol, i. p. 91, note (Clark's translation).

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 403
order that they might restrict themselves to the ministry of
the word. So, when churches were multiplied and the apostles
were absent, it would be necessary that some individuals
should be appointed to take the government of the church,
to preserve order, and exercise a general superintendence.
Both the name (irpecrfivTepos) and the office appear to have
been borrowed from the synagogue. Such officers would first
be appointed over congregations of Jewish Christians, and
would be caded by the name with which these Christians were
famidar; whdst among the churches of Gentde Christians,
the same office-bearers were caded by the Greek name —
bishops or overseers. The first notice which we have of
presbyters is when the Christians of Antioch sent thed offer
ings to the church of Jerusalem : we are informed that they
sent them to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul
(Acts xi. 30). They are there mentioned as a wed-known
class of rulers, so that the office must have been instituted at
an earlier period. When Paul and Barnabas, on thed retufn,
visited the towns where they had founded Christian churches,
they ordained them elders in every church (Acts xiv. .23).
And when a deputation was sent up from the church of
Antioch to the church of Jerusalem, with reference to the
controversy about circumcision, they were received by the
apostles and elders (Acts xv. 4).
The qualifications of presbyters are mentioned in the
Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. di. 1-7 ; Tit. i. 5-9). They were
to be blameless — possessed of an unblemished moral cha
racter. They were to rule their own households wed, in
order that they might be quadfied to rule the Church of God.
They were to be apt to teach — fitted to communicate instruc
tion. They were not to be novices, — that is, new converts,
persons who had recently embraced Christianity. They were
to be the husbands of one wife ; which cannot be a prohibi
tion of polygamy, for that was not then prevalent among
either the Jews or Greeks ; nor is it dkely that it was a pro
hibition of second marriages, on account of any peculiar sanctity
in bishops : it is rather to be understood as an injunction
against a bishop putting away his wife and marrying another, ¦
— a practice exceedingly common among both Jews and

404 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Greeks, and which -is not only forbidden to bishops, but
prohibited by Christ Himself to all His followers.
The duties of presbyters, generady considered, consisted in
the superintendence of the congregations over which the Holy
Ghost had made them overseers (Acts xx. 28). In particular,
they were to govern and to teach. Government was their
special province : they were bishops or overseers — pastors of
the flock. It was their duty to preserve order in the Church,
to admonish the unruly, to rebuke gainsayers, to keep the
doctrine of the Church uncorrupt, and to preside over the pubdc
worship of the congregation. To these points their duties were
probably at first restricted. It would appear, from the Epistles
to the Corinthians, that any who felt themselves inspded with
the gift of prophecy were at dberty to preach ; inspired pro
phets were then the teachers of the Church: the office of
preaching was not restricted to any body of men.1 But when
ndraculous gifts were gradually withdrawn, the work of teach
ing became an important part of the duties of elders. Hence
aptitude to teach is laid down in First Timothy as an indis
pensable qualification of a bishop (1 Tim. id. 2) ; and in the
Epistle to Titus it is required of an elder, " that he should
hold fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he
may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince
gainsayers " (Tit. i 9). Some suppose that when the apostle
says, " Let the elders that rule wed be counted worthy of
double honour, especially they who labour in word and doc
trine " (1 Tim. v. 1 7), two classes of elders are mentioned —
ruling elders and teaching elders.2 It would certainly appear

from this, that there were elders who were not teachers. But
that the apostle here distinguishes two classes of elders, is an
assertion which can hardly be supported, espeeiady as " apt
to teach " (BtBaKTtKo?) is assigned as a quadfication of elders
generally (1 Tim. iii. 2).
1 "The capacity for instructing," observes Gieseler, "was considered as a
free gift of the Spirit (xdpio-pta prvsupanx'ov), which manifested itself in many
Christians, although in different modes (prpotprtms, tiildo-xaXos, yXutro-rt XaXsTv, 1
Cor. xii. 28-31, xiv.)," — Church History, vol. i p. 90. — .
2 A distinction first made by Calvin. See Principal Campbell's Ecclesiastical
History, vol. i. pp. 176-180 ; Schaffs Apostolic Church, vol. ii. p. 212 ; David
son's Ecclesiastical Polity of the N. T. pp. 181-194.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 405
Although it is in general admitted that bishops and pres
byters are equivalent terms, and that in the Pastoral Epistles
the quadfications of only two orders — presbyters and deacons
— are given; yet it is asserted that the thdd order is not
omitted, inasmuch as Timothy and Titus occupied a position
equivalent to that of modern bishops. Timothy was enjoined
to ordain presbyters by the imposition of hands (1 Tim. v. 22) ;
and Titus was left at Crete to set in order the things that
were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city (Tit. i. 5).
" Timothy and Titus," observes Bishop Wordsworth, " were
not apostles, not being of directly divine appointment, as all
the apostles, including St. Matthias, St. Paul, and St. Barnabas,
were,— they were never so called ; and they were not mere
presbyters, for they are commanded by St. Paul to ordain, to
charge, to rebuke presbyters, and to superintend the doctrine
and conduct of both presbyters and deacons, and this with ad
authority (pterd iraey*: iTriTayfjs), but Par in parem non habet
imperium."1 Hence he infers that they were superintendents
of the clergy and laity simdar to the apostles. It is admitted '
that Timothy and Titus were neither apostles nor presbyters,
in the ordinary sense "~<5f~ these terms. They were evanggliats
sent by the apostle, either to plant Christianity in heathen
countries, or to make regulations for the government of Chris
tian churches. They belonged to the extraordinary rulers of
the Church. Their office, aduded to in the Pastoral Epistles, '
was of a temporary character. Timothy was employed by
Paul as one of the messengers of the Church, and he was soon
caded from Ephesus to Borne ; and Titus was ordered, after he
had arranged matters in Crete, to join the apostle at Nicopods
(Tit. iii. 1 2).2 At the same time, it is probable that the posi-
tion of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus atTCrete was one of
the occasions of the rise of episcopacy ; the temporary office
was converted into a permanent officeby the appointment of
resictenF superintendents.
1 Wordsworth's Theophilus Anglicanus, pp. 95, 96.
. 2 " It is," observes Professor Lightfoot, " the conception of a later age which
represents Timothy as bishop of Ephesus, and Titus as bishop of Crete. St
Paul's own language implies that the position which they held was temporary.
In both cases their term of office was drawing to a close, when the apostle writes. "
— On tlie Philippians, p. 197.

406 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
r A second argument in favour of episcopacy is derived from
the position which James, the brother of the Lord, occupied in
the church of Jerusalem.1 In the Acts of the Apostles, he
appears as a person of great importance in the Church. Peter
ddects that information of his escape should be sent to him
(Acts xd. 17); he presides over the celebrated council at
Jerusalem (Acts xv. 1 3) ; and Paul, on his arrival at Jerusalem,
repairs to James and the elders (Acts xxi. 18). In the tradj-
tions of the Church, he is known as bishop of Jerusalem, and
the 'inost extravagantnonours are conferred on him. Epiphanius
teds us that Christ committed to him His throne on earth ;2
and Chrysostom affirms that he was made bishop of Jerusalem
by Christ Himsed.3 It is argued that in this dignified posi
tion of James we have an example of a superiority over
.presbyters simdar .to that of the later bishop. But the
superiority, which undoubtedly existed, may as wed be ac
counted for from the consideration of the personal character
of James. It is uncertain who he was — -whether he was one of
the apostles, James the son of Alphaeus, or whether he was the
real brother of our Lord, but not an apostle.4 If he was an
apostle, this at once accounts for his superiority, as such a supe
riority belonged to the apostleship. If he was not an apostle,
stid his relationship to the Lord, combined with his high per
sonal character, would account for his position and influence in
the church of Jerusalem. It is precarious to budd a theory
on this one instance, which admits of various explanations.
A third argument for episcopacy is derived from the angels
of the seven Asiatic churches. These are addressed as the
representatives of the churches, and as responsible for their
spditual character ; each church has its own angel ; and hence
it is inferred that bishops, in the later sense of the term, are
here described. There are different opinions concerning these
apocalyptic angels. Some (Vitringa, Winer) suppose that they
correspond to the deputies of the Jewish synagogue ; others
1 "James, the Lord's brother, alone, " observes Professor Lightfoot, "within the
period compassed by the apostolic writings, can claim to be regarded as a bishop
in the later and more special sense of the term." — On the PhiUppians, p. 195.
2 Hesres. 78. 7. 3 Hom. 78 on 1 Cor. xv.
4 See a dissertation on James, the Lord's brother, in the author's Commentary
on the Acts, vol. i. pp. 422-429.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 407
(De Wette), that they are the guardian angels of these par
ticular churches ; others, that they represent the spirit of the
churches ; others (Bunsen), that they are a personification of
the churches themselves ; and others, that they are the rulers
of the churches, either codectively as a body (Eitschl, Heng
stenberg), or individuady as actual bishops (Thiersch).1 It
must be admitted that the last opinion, that they are the
actual bishops of the churches, is the most plausible, and that
there is a presumption here in favour of episcopacy.2 It is,
however, difficult to see how the bishop can be caded the
angel of the church.3 A responsibility is assigned to him
greater than that which can be properly attributed to any
ruler; and besides, the symbodsm of the whole book pre
vents us determining the meaning of its various figures with
certainty. It is an undoubted fact, that the system of episcopacy was
developed soon after the apostodc age. There is a period of
nearly had a century (A.D. 70-1 15,.. from the death of the
apostles to the writings of the apostodc Fathers, which forms
almost an entire blank in the history of the Church;4 and it
wasdAmng__this_geriod that episcopacy was developed. In
the Epistle of Clemens Eomanus (a.d. 9 6) there is no trace of
it ; but in the Epist_es*oTTgnatius (a.d. 115) the three orders
of bishops, presbyters, and deacons are distinctly stated, and
the bishop is invested with a supreme authority over the other
two. " Give heed," writes that Father, " to the bishop, that
God also may give heed to you. I give my lde for those who
are obedient to the bishop, to presbyters, to deacons." 5 It is
true that the Ignatian Epistles are much interpolated, but
1 For the variety of opinion concerning these angels of the churches, see
SchafFs Apostolic History, vol. ii. pp. 221-223. v
N 2 Professor Lightfoot, however, takes a different view, and asserts that the
angels in the Apocalypse coidd not possibly be bishops. — Commentary on the
Philippians, pp. 197, 198. -^
¦ — -"-The bishop might be called the angel or messenger of God ; but to call him
" the angel of the church" conveys no intelligible meaning, unless the term be
used in the sense of guardian, from the idea of guardian angels.
* The only exception is the short epistle of Clemens Romanus.
6 Ep. ad Polyc. vi. For other testimonies from the Ignatian Epistles, see
Lechler's Apostolisclie Zeitalter, p. 522; and Ritschl, Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche,
p. 403 ff.

408 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
stid it must be acknowledged that episcopacy was developed
at that early period. Several , individual bishops are men
tioned in the first half of the second century.1 Nor are the
causes of this development far to seek. The apostles, the
acknowledged rulers of the Church, were dead. Dissensions
among presbyters were frequent in different churches. The
Gnostic heresy had arisen, and diffused its baneful influence.
The faith once dedvered to the saints was endangered. Be
sides these disturbances within the Church, there were also
dangers without. The Eoman Empire had become decidedly
hostde. The decree of Trajan, making Christianity an illicit
religion, was pubdshed ; and persecution was now sanctioned
and commanded by the civil government. In these circum
stances, episcopacy was regarded as the safeguard of the
Church — as a centre of unity and a source of strength, at a
time when the Church was attacked by heresy within and
persecution without. " Amidst cdcumstances so embarrassing,"
observes Neander, " amidst conflicts so severe from within and
from without, the influence of individuals distinguished for
piety, firmness, and activity, would be particularly felt, and
the general danger would increase their authority. Thus the
permanent authority of individuals who, as moderators over
the codege of presbyters, were denominated bishops, might
perhaps have grown up insensibly out of the cdcumstances
of the times in which the Christian communities were multi-
pded. This may have been the case even in the absence of
any intentional design of remodeding the earder constitution
of the Church."2
Eothe supposes that, though not stated in the New Testa
ment, episcopacy is of apostolic authority, and was established
by a second apostolic councd, presided over by the Apostle
John. He thinks that after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter,
and of James the brother of the Lord, the Apostle John, in
1 As Ignatius, bishop of Antioch ; Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna ; Onesimus,
bishop of Ephesus ; Simeon, bishop of Jerusalem, etc.
2 Neander's Church History, vol. i. p. 265. Professor Lightfoot traces three
stages of development in episcopacy : the age of Ignatius, when the bishop was
regarded as a centre of unity ; the age of Irenaeus, when he was looked upon as
the depositary of primitive truth; and the age of Cyprian, when he became the
vicegerent of Christ.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 409
concert with others of the twelve who yet dved, in order to
provide against the want which would so soon be occasioned
by the removal of ad the apostles, instituted episcopacy, thus
appointing bishops to be the successors of the apostles in the
Christian Church. This, he considers, can give the only
reasonable account of the immense difference in the constitu
tion of the Church as represented in the Bastoral and Ignatian
Epistles. This theory he supports by several very ingenious
arguments, and thinks that he can discern traces of the truth
of his hypothesis in the traditions of the Church.1 The argu
ments, however, adduced by Eothe are not conclusive ; and the
traditions mentioned by him are vague and uncertain, and
did not appear untd a hundred years after the death of John.
The change in the constitution of the Church is certainly
apparently rapid ; forty years, however, elapsed from the death
of the apostles before there is any mention of it ; and the
circumstances in which the Church was placed toward the
close of the first century sufficiently account for the change,
without having recourse to the interposition of an apostodc
authority. A common opinion entertained by writers of the Angdcan
school of theology, is that the later bishops are the successors
of the apostles. The reason why bishops are not prominently
mentioned in the New Testament is that the apostles were
stid adve ; and it was not untd the death of the apostles that
the episcopal office acquded its fud importance. The three
orders of the ministry were, however, always in the Church :
at first they were apostles, presbyters, and deacons; and
afterwards bishops, presbyters, and deacons. According to
this opinion, the apostles appointed their successors, and
these again others ; and so on, in a line of continued suc
cession. Thus, as Paul appointed Timothy to be bishop, so
Timothy was commissioned to entrust the same unto " faithful
men, who shad be able to teach others also " (2 Tim. d. 2).
But not to mention that no such unbroken line of apostodc
succession can possibly be traced, the opinion has no founda-
1 Rothe, Die Anfange der christi. Kirche, pp. 354-392. For a statement of
his hypothesis, see Lightfoot Ore Philippians, pp. 199-205 ; and for a refutation,
see Ritschl's Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche, pp. 410-415.

410 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
tion in Scripture. No special powers are transmitted through
the apostles. No special gifts are communicated through
such a succession, no blessings conferred by it. Bishops are
not the successors of the apostles, in the sense either of suc
ceeding to their powers or of performing their duties. The
apostolic office is different from the episcopal The apostles
were ddectly appointed by Christ, and were endowed with
miraculous powers; they were at once prophets and evan-
gedsts— commissioned to give inspired communications, and
to preach the gospel to ad nations ; they planted Christianity
among heathen nations, and besides, exercised supervision over
ad the churches ; they bore a more striking resemblance to
the missionaries of the middle ages than to the bishops of
recent times.1
As the result of the whole discussion, it may be' inferred
that the claim of episcopacy to be of divine authority appears
groundless ; and the theory that it was an institution of the
apostodc age is, to say the least, doubtful : the arguments by
which it is supported are not conclusive.2 On the other
hand, there does not appear to be anything contrary to epis
copacy in Scripture. The orders of deacons and presbyters
were instituted to meet existing emergencies in the apostodc
Church; and so also the episcopal order was instituted to
meet emergencies in the post-apostodc Church. There is no
church on earth whose polity is precisely the same as that of
the' 'ap^stolic^n-TurcE^ TTecause the circumstances of the Church""
are~now entirely altered : then it was in direct opposition to
the civd government — the empire was heathen ; now it is in
agreement — the nation is Christian. And so also there is an
equally great alteration in the state of society. As has been
well remarked, " there is no Leviticus in the New Testament ;

1 See Lightfoot Ore Philippians, pp. 193, 194 ; Jacob, Ecclesiastical Polity of
N. T. pp. 416-421 ; Principal Campbell's Lectures on Ecclesiastical History,
Lecture v.
f 2 Ritscjil, after a careful discussion of the question, comes to the conclusion
" that the origin of episcopacy in the ecolesiastical sense cannot be placed earlier
than the time of Ignatius," and that it did not originate with the apostles. —
Mitstehung d. altk. Kirche, p. 410.
3 As is seen from the want in many churches of the order of deacons ; the
general disuse of the order of deaconess, and of a plurality of presbyters.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 411
there are no apostodc constitutions truly so named." Eccle
siastical podty, as laid down by the apostle, is to a consider
able extent general and expansive, and admits of a certain
degree of modification suited to the times and to the cdcum
stances and social state of different nations; and although
presbyterianism appears to bear a closer resemblance to the
church podty of the Pastoral Epistles, yet episcopacy perhaps
derives some support from the Apocalypse ; it may be a
legitimate development of the principles laid down in Scrip
ture, and it appears to have been a wise adaptation to the
circumstances of the post-apostolic age.1 " In ad that relates
to the outward dfe and polity of the Church," observes Dr.
Jacob, " the apostles did not begin with promulgating a code
of laws, and then shape the new community into conformity
with them ; stid less did they record a series of fixed rules for
the church government or ceremonial of future times. On
the contrary, they began with the formation of Christian
communities ; necessardy giving them such directions as each
case immediately required, but enforced as of general or per
manent obligation only a few principles or obvious truths
which admitted of great variety in their practical appdcation ;
and leaving each community to exercise a large amount of
independent discretion, and to develop its organization from
within itsed, if any further development should be necessary."2
' 1 Episcopalians have no right to attack Presbyterians, nor Presbyterians Epis
copalians, as if either the one system or the other were opposed to the word of
God. ,
2 Jacob's Ecclesiastical Polity, p. 39,

THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.

THE authenticity of this Epistle, and the objections urged
against it, have already been considered. The special
objections which do not apply to the other two Pastoral
Epistles are unimportant, and refer chiefly to a supposed
want of adaptation in the contents of the Epistle to the
apostle's object in writing it : they wid be examined when
the occasion of the Epistle is considered. Meantime, it may
be observed that no critic who has received either of the two
other Pastoral Epistles, has rejected the Epistle to Titus.
I. THE PERSON ADDRESSED.
The notices of Titus in Scripture are fewer than those of
Timothy. He is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
Some manuscripts and versions, indeed, read Titus Justus in
Acts xvdi. 7, as the name of that devout person in Corinth to
whose house Paul repaded after he left the synagogue ; but
the reading is weakly attested, and is not accepted by any
critic of eminence.1 Different reasons have been assigned for
this omission, the most probable being that Titus was never
with Paul when Luke was in his company. Titus was a
Greek by bdth, and never became a proselyte to Judaism by
cdcumcision (Gal. ii 3). He was converted by Paul, who
calls him " his own son after the common faith " (Tit. i. 3) ;
and afterwards became one of the apostle's fellow-labourers
1 The reading Tirou is Jhat of s, E, Arm. , Vulg. ; T. . _» '\oitrou is found in B, D
(corrected) ; whereas A, D (original), G, H read simply 'loitrou. Wieseler is the
only writer of eminence who appears to favour Tlrou, but even he does not
accept it. 412

THE PERSON ADDRESSED. 41 3
and attendants. Paul calls him "my partner and fedow-
helper " (Kotva>vb<i iptbs Kai crvvepy6<;, 2 Cor. vid. 23). Titus
accompanied Paul and Barnabas to the celebrated councd at
Jerusalem, being one of the " certain others " (Ttvas dXXov<i)
mentioned in the Acts (Acts xv. 2). On this occasion the
Judaizing party of the Church demanded that he should be
circumcised ; but this demand was strenuously resisted by the
apostle, in order that the dberty of the Gentdes from the
Jewish law might be confirmed (Gal. d. 1-5). Titus was
afterwards employed in various missions to Corinth. He
was the bearer of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and
was sent by the apostle from Ephesus to examine into the
state of the church at Corinth, to correct abuses, and to begin
the codection for the saints at Jerusalem (2 Cor. xii. 18).
Paul was anxious about the results of this mission ; and when
he departed from Ephesus, and came to Alexandria Troas,
although a favourable opportunity presented itself of preach
ing the gospel, yet he left that city, because he found not Titus
his brother, and went into Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13). Here
Titus met with him, and gave, upon the whole, a satisfactory
account of his mission (2 Cor. vii. 6-13). From Macedonia,
Titus was sent back to Corinth, at his own request, as the
bearer of the Second Epistle, and in order to complete the
collection for the church of Jerusalem which he had begun
(2 Cor. viii. 6, 16, 17). He does not appear to have accom
panied the apostle on his last journey to Jerusalem. After
this, we hear nothing of Titus untd Paul's release from his
Boman imprisonment, when he accompanied the apostle on a
missionary journey to the island of Crete. Here he remained
behind to complete what the apostle was obliged to leave
unfinished, and especially to appoint a regular ministry in the
various churches of Crete (Tit. i 5). His stay was temporary ;
for he is directed on the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus to
repair to Nicopods in Epirus, where the apostle designed to
pass the winter (Tit. di. 12). The last notice which we have
of Titus is in the Second Epistle to Timothy, where it is said,
"Titus is departed to Dalmatia" (2 Tim. iv. 10). From the
manner in which this statement is made, some suppose that
Titus, dke Demas, forsook the apostle in, the hour of his

414 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
trial j1 but this is an unwarrantable and uncharitable inference.
It is more probable that Titus was not with the apostle in Eome
at his last imprisonment, but was sent by him from Nicopods
in Epirus to the neighbouring country of Dalmatia.2
The traditionary notices of Titus are unimportant, and not
to be reded on. Eusebius mentions that .he was the first
bishop of Crete, as Timothy was of Ephesus,3 — a tradition
evidently occasioned by a misunderstanding of the temporary
nature of the mission of Titus to that island. He is said to
have been the apostle of the Dalmatians, and is regarded as
the patron saint of Crete. According to tradition, he died in
Crete as bishop of Gortyna, at the advanced age of ninety-
four.4 Crete, the modern Candia, where Titus was left to estabdsh
the churches, is one of the largest islands in the Mediterra
nean. It is, from east to west, about 150 mdes long, with an
average breadth of 30 miles. It is more celebrated in mytholo
gical than in real history. In ancient times it was exceedingly
populous: Homer cads it -/-<_T./-.r o\t9, from its possessing a hun
dred cities. It was conquered by the Eomans under Metellus
Criticus (b.c. 6 7), and, along with Cyrene in Africa, converted
into a Eoman province. We learn from Tacitus, Josephus,
and Philo, that it was the residence of numerous Jews.
Tacitus teds us that the Jews were of Cretan origin,5 probably
confounding them with the Phdistines, who appear to have
come from Crete.6 Josephus mentions that the pseudo-Alex
ander, the pretended son of Herod the Great, landed at Crete,
1 So Macknight and Alford. Conybeare and Howson also observe : " We are
unwilling to suppose that Titus could have yielded to such unworthy fears, and
may be allowed to hope that his journey to the neighbouring Dalmatia was
undertaken by the desire of Paul." — Vol. ii. p. 573. There are really no grounds
for such suspicions.
2 Oosterzee mentions an ingenious conjecture of Marcker, that Titus is no
other than Silas, and that his full name was Titus Silvanus. This would
account for the intimate relation in which Titus stands with the church of
Corinth, and for his apparent omission in the Acts. But the fact that Silas was
a Jewish, and Titus a Gentile Christian, is an insuperable objection to this
hypothesis. 3 Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 4. 4 Butler's Lives of the Saints, Jan. 4.
5 Tacitus, Hist. v. 2 : Judasos Cretd insuld profugos.
6 1 Sam. xxx. 14, comp. with Ezek. xxv. 16, Zeph. ii. 5. See Winer's
Worterbuch, " Philister ; " and Smith's Biblical Dictionary, "Cherethims."

THE PERSON ADDRESSED. 415
and imposed upon the numerous Jews in that island.1 And
Philo observes, that not only are the continents full of Jewish
colonies, but also the most celebrated islands, as Euboea,
Cyprus, and Crete.2 The character which the apostle gives
of the Cretans is far from being compdmentary. He quotes
the words of one of their own poets, and asserts that his
testimony was true : KprjTe? del "ty-evo-Tat, icaicd 6r]pla, yaaTepev
dpyal: "The Cretans are always dars, evil beasts, slothful
bellies " (Tit. i. 1 2). This testimony is abundantly corrobo
rated by similar assertions from ancient writers.3 The poet
whom Paul quotes is said by Theodoret and Theophylact to
have been Caldmachus ; but Cadimachus was of Cyrene, and
Jerome teds us that he (Cadimachus) borrowed from the
Cretan poet Epimenides, who lived six hundred years before
Christ, and was regarded as a prophet (77/30^57x^9, Tit. i. 12).4
From the Acts, we learn that Paul touched at Crete on his
voyage to Eome (Acts xxvii. 7). His residence at that time
was short, the ship waiting only for a favourable wind ; and
besides, he was a prisoner, and was not at dberty to go into
the interior of the island. Hence it is not surprising that
there is no mention of Christians in Crete. These might have
been there, residing in some other part of the island, and so
Paul might not at that time have come in contact with them.
From the Epistle to Titus, it would appear that Christianity
had existed for some time in the island before the apostle's
visit to it in company with Titus. There were churches in
several cities; heresies had sprung up among them; and
there were Christian men of approved character who could be
appointed as bishops. There is nothing to lead us to suppose
that Christianity was first planted on the occasion of this
visit : neither Paul nor Titus was the founder of the churches

1 Joseph. Ant. xvii. 12. 1 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 7. 1.
2 Philo, Leg. ad Caium, 36.
* Alford refers to the work of Meursius on Crete, and gives numerous quota
tions from classical authors, such as Livy, Polybius, Plutarch, etc. — Greek
Testament, vol. iii., Prolegomena, pp. 110, 111.
4 See Matthiae's Greek and Roman Literature, p. 42 ; Whitby's Commentary,
on Tit. i. 12. Callimachus lived B.C. 280, and consequently three hundred
years after Epimenides. Jerome tells us that he himself found the verse in the
writing of Epimenides, ptspi xpote-ptZv, See also Socrates, Hist. Eccl. iii. 16.

416 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
of Crete. Christianity in Crete rather appears to have been
of early origin — perhaps introduced by converts made at
Pentecost. Mention is made of Cretes in the dst of nations
who, on that memorable day, heard the apostles speak in thed
own tongues the wonderful works of God (Acts ii: 11). The
first converts would be Jews ; and in ad probabdity, the
churches of Crete chiefly consisted of Jewish Christians, and
thus in this respect were different from those churches which
were founded by Paul. There does not, however, appear to
have been any regular ministry : the churches were in a state
of disorder, devoid of office-bearers, infected with heresy, and
strongly tainted with the national character of the Cretans for
falsehood, ferocity, and sensuality.
II. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. '
The immediate occasion of the Epistle was to communicate
instructions to Titus regarding his superintendence of the
churches of Crete (Tit. i. 5.), and also to request him to come
to Nicopolis before winter (Tit. iii. 12). The design of the
Epistle may be regarded as twofold. The first and chief pur
pose was to impart directions to Titus concerning the appoint
ment of office-bearers. In this Epistle, as in First Timothy,
there is no distinction between bishops and presbyters (Tit. 1
5, 7) ; and, differing from First Timothy, there is no mention
of deacons, as an order distinct from the presbyters. The
ecclesiastical government to be estabhshed in Crete was of
the simplest nature ; in ad probabdity, the church was not
so highly organized as at Ephesus, so that there would be no
need of deacons. The second design of the Epistle was to
instruct and charge Titus to refute and oppose false teachers.
It is more than probable that Titus met with much opposition ;
several despised him, and others openly attacked him. Paul,
therefore, by this, Epistle, invests him with his apostodc autho
rity, and commands him to exhort and convince gainsayers, to
stop the mouths of vain talkers and deceivers, to rebuke them
sharply, and to reject heretics if not brought to repentance
after two admonitions. " Paul," observes Calvin, " writes with
this design, to arm Titus with his authority, that he may be

THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE. 41?
able to bear so great a burden ; for undoubtedly there were
some who fearlessly -despised him, as being but one of the
ordinary rank of pastors. Hence we may infer that this was
not so much a private epistle of Paul to Titus, as a pubdc
epistle to the Cretans* It is improbable that Titus is blamed
for having, with too great indulgence, raised unworthy persons
to the office of bishop, or that, as an ignorant man and a novice,
he is told what is that kind of doctrine in which he ought to
instruct the people ; but because due honour was not rendered
to him, Paul clothes him with his own authority, both in
ordaining ministers and in the whole government of the
church." x
De Wette objects that the contents of the Epistle do not
correspond with the state of the church in Crete, and with the
design of the apostle in writing. " The Epistle," he observes,
" does not correspond with its design, or the presupposed state
of matters. 1. In churches , which were not yet brought into
order, and were destitute of elders, many false teachers are.
said to be present and active. 2. Titus, who was left behind
in Crete, does not give information of these teachers to the
apostle ; but the apostle, who is absent, gives information to
Titus, who is present. 3. The declaration in Tit. i. 12, 13 is
unjust toward a population where Paul had found so great
a susceptibility for the gospel, and the want of all thank
ful recognition is remarkable (comp. 1 Thess. i 2). 4. An
existence of Christianity in the island for some length of time
is presupposed (Tit. i. 6). 5. The precepts in Tit. i. 6-9 are
trivial ; and the polemics against the false teachers, and the
description of them in Tit. i 10-16, iii. 9, are whody vague;
whdst the moral precepts in Tit. d. 1-10, iii 1, are superficial
and trivial." 2
These objections are of no great weight. The supposition
that Christianity was not recently introduced into the island,
but had existed there for a considerable period, is a sufficient
answer to most of them. This accounts for the existence and
activity of false teachers, and for the apostle's knowledge of
them. The want of a regular ecclesiastical government is not
1 Calvin's Introduction to ihe Epistle to Titus.
2 De Wette's Einleitung N. T. p. 335.
2 D

418 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
remarkable, nor is the corrupt state of the churches which
merited such a severe rebuke from the apostle in itself in
credible. The national character of the Cretans was bad ; and
it was not to be expected that this character should ad at once
be eradicated among the converts to Christianity, espeeiady
when the noxious influence of false teachers is taken into con
sideration. It is also to be remembered that the Epistle was
not primardy addressed to the Cretans, but to Titus ; and there
fore there was no necessity for a thankful recognition of the
faith of the Cretans, espeoiady if there was not much to com
mend in thed character. The qualifications of bishops men
tioned are not to be judged by what are deemed essential in
the present day, but by the state of matters in the apostodc
times ; and viewing them in this light, far from being trivial,
they are important, pertinent, and exhaustive. The nature of
the false teachers was known to Titus ; and therefore all that
was necessary was to give prominence to their pernicious
influences, in order to stir him up to an active opposition to
them. And so far from the moral precepts being superficial
and trivial, they are eminently Paudne^ being connected with
the hopes and privdeges of the gospel : good works are through
out described, not as the cause of justification, but as the
effects of faith.
The false teachers mentioned in this Epistle are simdar to
those alluded to in First Timothy, except that the Jewish
element is apparently stronger among the false teachers of
Crete than among those of Ephesus. They are described as
those of the.cdcumcision, and their doctrines are caded Jewish
fables (Tit. i. 10, 14). They are represented as vain talkers
and deceivers, teaching things that they ought not ; as being
actuated by a desire of gain — -diffusing errors for filthy lucre's
sake : they were condemned by thed own conscience ; they
appear to have been immoral, turning the grace of God into
lasciviousness ; they busied themselves about Jewish fables,
and foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
strivings about the law ; they stdred up divisions in the
church, subverted whole famdies, and turned away the disciples
from the truth (Tit. i. 10-12, 14, iii. 9). Like the false
teachers of Colosse and those mentioned in the Epistles to

THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 419
Timothy, they were Jewish Gnostics; whose doctrines con
sisted of an admixture of Judaism with heathen philosophy.1
The bearers of this Epistle are said to have been Zenas
and Apodos : " Bring Zenas the lawyer and Apodos on their
journey ddigently, that nothing be wanting unto them " (Tit.
di. 1 3). This may possibly be the case ; but the words do
not necessardy imply it. Zenas and Apodos may have been
already in Crete, or they may have had the intention of coming
afterwards.

III. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Epistle admits of no regular division. The apostle,
after saluting Titus, reminds him of the purpose for which he
had left him in Crete— -that he might ordain elders in every
city ; and in order to direct him, he mentions the qualifica
tions of a bishop, espeeiady that he must hold fast the sound
doctrine, and be able both to exhort and to convince g'ain-
sayers (chap. i. 1-10). This leads him to describe the false
teachers, who appear to have been of Jewish origin, and to
remind him of the bad character of the Cretans, as it was
described centuries ago by their own poet Epimenides (chap.
i. 11—16). Next fodow various rules of conduct for the
different classes of Christians : the instructions which Titus
was to give to the aged and the young; the exhortation to
show himself in all things a pattern of good works ; the ad
monitions to be given to slaves, that they should be faithful to
thed masters, — ad founded on the fact that the great design
of Christ's mission into the world was to purdy to Himself a
peculiar people, zealous of good works (chap. ii. 1-15). Then
fodows the exhortation that Titus should command Christians
to be obedient to thed rulers, and forbearing toward ad men ;
resting these duties on the manifestation of the grace of God
in our regeneration and justification, and on the faithful saying
that believers should be careful to maintain good works (chap.
iii. 1-8). A caution is given to avoid vain and unprofitable
questions, and a charge to excommunicate those false teachers
who resolutely continued in their erroneous doctrine (chap. di.
1 See Huther'. Pastoralbriefe, p. 42.

420 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
9-11). Then follow some personal notices; and the Epistle,
like ad Paul's other letters, concludes with the apostolic bene
diction (chap. iii. 12-15),
IV. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
The historical notices in the Epistle itself which bear upon
the date are three. 1. Paul and Titus had been in Crete,
which Paul had left, leaving Titus behind (Tit. i 5). We
are not informed what time elapsed between Paul's visit to
Crete and the date when he wrote the Epistle ; but probably
it was short, as it is not dkely that the apostle' would leave
Titus long without instructions. This visit to Crete cannot
possibly be that which Paul made on his voyage to Eome, as
Titus did not then accompany him, nor was Paul at liberty
to make his own arrangements with regard to wintering at
Nicopolis.1 2. Paul expresses a design of wintering at
Nicopolis (Tit. iii. 12), probably the celebrated city of that
name in Epirus. 3. Mention is made in the Epistle of
Tychicus and Apodos, as attendants on Paul (Tit. id. 13).
Tychicus is first mentioned as accompanying Paul on his last
journey to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4) ; he was afterward em
ployed by Paul during his Eoman imprisonment, as the bearer
of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians ; and he is
mentioned in 2 Tim. iv. 1 2 as having been sent by the apostle
to Ephesus. Apodos was not converted to Christianity until
after Paul's first residence at Ephesus (Acts xvdi. 24-28).
It has elsewhere been observed that the above circumstances,
taken in connection with the fact that, the' Pastoral Epistles
must ad have been written about the same time, can only be
accounted for on the supposition that the Epistle to Titus was
written in the interval between Paul's first and second Eoman
imprisonments.2 Contrary opinions are, however, maintained
by several critics. These opinions may be classe,d into those
which place the composition of the Epistle before, during, or
after Paul's three years' residence at Ephesus.
1 Grotius is the only eminent writer who identifies the visit to Crete mentioned
in this Epistle with Paul's touching at Crete in his voyage to Rome.
2 See dissertation on Paul's Roman imprisonments.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 421
Several critics place the date of the Epistle before this
residence of the apostle at Ephesus. Some (Michaeds, Towns-
end) suppose that it was written during Paul's residence of
eighteen months in Corinth (Acts xvid. 1-18). Michaeds
thinks that Paul made an excursion from Corinth to Crete,
and that on his voyage back he was driven by a storm to
Nicopolis in Epirus, where he spent the winter, and preached
the gospel in Idyricum.1 But this is inconsistent with the
narrative in the Acts, which says that he remained (iKadicre)
ad that time at Corinth ; and although short excursions from
it are admissible, yet not such a long voyage as to Crete, and
a winter spent at Nicopolis, which would indeed leave little of
the eighteen months to be spent in Corinth. And the reference
in the Epistle to Apodos, who was not converted until after
wards, proves conclusively the untenableness of this opinion.
Others (Hug, Hemsen, Schott) think that the visit to Crete
was made during Paul's voyage from Corinth to Ephesus
(Acts xviii. 18, 19), and that the Epistle was written shortly
afterwards. The Nicopolis where Paul proposed to spend the
winter, was, according to this opinion, Nicopods in Cilicia,
to which it is supposed Paul proposed to repad after his visit
to Jerusalem (Acts xvid. 21). Here also the gratuitous sup
position has to be made, that Paul was driven out of his
straight course by a storm to the coasts of Crete. The fact
that Paul did not meet Apollos on his first residence at
Ephesus, and so had not at that period made his acquaintance,
is a sufficient refutation of this opinion. Others (Credner,
Neudecker) suppose that the voyage to Crete was made on
Paul's return from Jerusalem to Ephesus : an opinion which
is whody untenable, and contradictory to the narrative of the
Acts, which gives a particular account of Paul's travels on
that occasion (Acts xviii. 21T23).
Wieseler argues with great ingenuity and acuteness, that
the visit to Crete alluded to in the Epistle was made during
Paul's residence of three years at Ephesus, and that the
Epistle to Titus was written on his return. This opinion
has also been adopted, with some variations in the details,
by Anger, Burton, Otto, Davidson (first edition), Beuss, and
1 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. p. 37.

422 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
Schaff.1 According to Wieseler, Paul, after having spent nearly
two years in Ephesus, passed over into Macedonia (1 Tim. i 3),
and. thence to Corinth ; from Corinth he saded in company
with Titus to Crete, whom he left behind on his departure ;
thence he returned to Ephesus, and from that city wrote the
Epistle to Titus. Afterwards he sent Tychicus or Artemas to
Crete, and requested Titus to return to him, and then sent .him
to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 18). Wieseler also shows that, in all
probabidty, both Tychicus and Apodos were then with the
apostle at Ephesus, and could thus be employed by him as
messengers to the churches.2 This most ingenious hypothesis
has abeady been discussed.3 The omission of such an ex
tensive journey in the Acts of the Apostles is a presumption
against it. The residence of Titus in Crete must have been
of short duration, as he is sent off immediately to Corinth.
And besides, it must be supposed that Paul, shortly after
writing the Epistle, altered his intention ; for instead of en
joining Titus to meet .him at Nicopolis, he requests him to
return to Ephesus. This hypothesis, although it agrees with
some particulars, and is certainly the most plausible of the
views which dispense with a second imprisonment, yet entdely
fails to answer ad the conditions of the case.4
There are not many critics who suppose that the Epistle
was written in the interval between Paul's departure from
Ephesus and his imprisonment at Borne. Some (Baronius,
Lardner) conceive that Paul visited Crete on his journey from
Ephesus to Corinth (Acts xx. 1, 2), probably sading from
Macedonia to Greece. The time, however, wdl not admit of so
long a voyage. Only a year elapsed between Paul's leaving
Ephesus at Pentecost and his arrival at Jerusalem at the en
suing Pentecost, and three months of it were spent in Corinth.
Lardner, indeed, gets oyer the difficulty by supposing that
there was an interval of two years ; s but the chronology of the
Acts wdl not admit of that supposition. Others (Schmidt,
1 Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. iii p. 85 ; Reuss'
Geschichte N. T. p. 75 ; Schaffs Apostolic History, vol. i. p. 390.
2 Wieseler's Chronologie, pp. 348-352. 3,See page 362 of this work.
4 See an able refutation of Wieseler's hypothesis by Huther, Pastoralbriefe,
pp. 18, 19.
6 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. pp. 294, 295.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 423
Heinrichs, Matthies) think that Paul made an excursion to
Crete during his residence of three months in Greece (Acts
xx. 3), and that when he returned from Crete he spent the
winter in Nicopolis. But these three months were the season
of- winter, when the ancients made no voyages. Besides, it is
evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians that Paul spent
that winter, not at Nicopods, but at Corinth (1 Cor, xvi. 6, 7),
where his presence was so greatly requded.
Thus, then, ad the hypotheses which attempt to place the
visit of Paul to Crete, and the composition of the Epistle to
Titus, within the period recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,
completely fad ; and we are constrained to have recourse to
our former hypothesis, that the visit was made and the letter
written after Paul's release from his Eoman imprisonment.
At what particular time the visit to Crete was made, cannot
be more exactly determined. It is probable that Paul, as he
had resolved (Phd. ii. 24; Philem. 22), would immediately on
his release repair to Macedonia, and from that to Proconsular
Asia, and that he would at a later period sail to Crete. Ad
this is, however, conjectural, as there are no certain data to go
upon. The Nicopolis, where Paul proposed to winter, is generady
supposed to be in Epirus. It is a name common to several
towns. Bleek mentions no less than eight towns, each of
which has been supposed to be the Nicopolis in question: a
town in Epirus, on the sea-coast ; another in Macedonia, on
the river Nestus, not far from Phdippi ; another in Thrace ;
another in Armenia, budt by Pompey ; another in Cidcia ;
another in Bithynia; another in Pontus; and another in
Egypt.1 Titus would be wed aware what town Paul meant,
because he knew the route that he would take. The super
scription at the end of the Epistle mentions Nicopods of
Macedonia : eypdcpr] dirb NtKovoXews Trjs MaKeBovias ; that is,
Nicopolis on the Nestus. But this is a mere conjecture, and of
no authority, though the objection to this opinion made by
Michaelis and De Wette, that that city was built by Trajan,
and consequently did not exist in the time of Paul,1 appears to
1 Bleek's Introduction to the N. T. vol. ii. p. 66.
2 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. p. 33 ; De Wette's Pastoralbriefe, p. 21.

424 THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.
be a mistake.1 Nicopolis, the seaport on the coast of Epirus,
is, on ad accounts, the most probable. This city was budt by
Augustus in commemoration of his victory over Antony at
Actium, and soon became a flourishing Boman colony. " Nico
pods," observes Strabo, "is well peopled, and is improving
every day. It has a large territory, and is adorned with the
spods of war." 2 Here probably Paul spent his last winter
before his arrest and martyrdom at Eome. Conybeare and
Howson suppose that he was there arrested, and forwarded to
Eome for trial.3
The place of writing cannot be determined. It was not
Nicopolis, for the word e/.ee (Tit. id, 12) proves that Paul had
not as yet repaired thither, but that he only proposed to go.
Some (Guericke, Howson) suppose that it was Ephesus, to
which Paul, after visiting Crete, returned in accordance with
an intimation to Timothy (1 Tim. iii. 14).4 Others think that
the Epistle was written in Macedonia or Achaia, or some
country in the neighbourhood of Nicopolis.5 These points
must, however, be left undetermined, as there is nothing but
vague conjecture on which to proceed.
1 See Smith's Biblical Dictionary, Nicopolis.
* Strabo, vii. 7. 6. See also Meriyale's . History of the Romans, vol. iii. pp.
328, 329 ; Wordsworth's Greece, p. 232,
3 Perhaps the same winter as is mentioned in' 2 Tim. iv. 21. Paul may only
have intended to spend the winter at Nicopolis, but may have been prevented
from doing so by his arrest. — Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 573.
4 Guericke's Isagogik, p. 36c4 ; Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii.
p. 5.66,
5 Huther's Pastoralbriefe,. p. 41.

THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

THE authenticity of this Epistle, the person to whom it was
addressed, and the character of the false teachers men
tioned in it, have adeady been- discussed in the remarks made
on First Timothy. Ad that remains as requisite for the special
introduction to this Epistle is to consider the occasion on which
it was written, its contents, the date of its composition, and
its distinctive peculiarity, as being the last epistle of the great
apostle. I. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLE.
The Second Epistle to Timothy is not so official a letter as
either the First Epistle or the Epistle to Titus. It contains
no instructions relative to the appointment of office-bearers —
no mention of the duties and quadfications of either bishops
or deacons ; and, on the other hand, there is a greater number
of personal notices, salutations to individuals, and private in
timations. Paul here addresses Timothy rather as his beloved
son after the common faith, than as his representative in the
church of Ephesus. The immediate occasion of the Epistle
was to request Timothy to come with ad haste to Eome.
Paul's lde was in imminent danger ; he foresaw that his course
was wed-nigh run, and that he was about to suffer martyrdom;
and he was anxious to see' his beloved son in the faith before
he suffered. " Do thy ddigence to come unto me ; " and
again, with an earnest repetition of the request : " Do thy
ddigence to come before winter" (2 Tim. iv. 9, 21). He also
desdes him to bring Mark along with him, as being profitable
unto him for the ministry (2 Tim. iv. ll),1 supplying the place
1 Mark was thus fully restored to the favour of Paul, after the dispute con
cerning him which occasioned the separation between Paul and Barnabas.
425

426 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
of those fedow-labourers who either were necessardy absent or
had deserted him. As, however, his fate was uncertain, and
as he might not survive untd the arrival of Timothy, he writes
this Epistle with a view to stir up and encourage that evan
gelist in his ministry; he exhorts him not to be ashamed of
the gospel of Christ, to stand up boldly for the faith, and to
endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ ; and he
warns him against those false teachers, who were perverting
the minds of the disciples, eating as a canker into the very
life of religion (2 Tim. ii. 1 7). This Epistle, then, is a pastoral
charge of the great apostle of the Gentdes, primardy designed
for Timothy, but applicable to ad ministers and to ad con
gregations in the Christian Church. In ad these Pastoral
Epistles there are earnest exhortations to ministerial fidelity,
and cautions and warnings against false teachers. The apostle
exhorts his fellow-labourers not only to avoid these pernicious
errors, but by sound doctrine, the manifestation of the truth,
and the exercise of a wholesome discipline, to oppose and refute
gainsayers. There is a difference of opinion with regard to the place to
which this Epistle was sent. The most common opinion is,
that Timothy was stdl at Ephesus. In the First Epistle,
mention is made of Hymenaeus and Alexander, among the
false teachers at Ephesus who had made shipwreck of their
faith, and whom the apostle had excommunicated (1 Tim.
i. 20). Now these two names occur again in the Second
Epistle, as persons of whom Timothy was to beware : " Their
word wid eat as doth a canker : of whom is Hymenaeus and
Phdetus " {2 Tim, ii. 1 7). " Alexander the coppersmith did
me much evd ; the Lord reward him according to his works.
Of whom be thou also ware " (2 Tim. iv. 14, 15). Alexander
was certainly a common name, and the individual here referred
to might have been a different person from the Alexander
mentioned in First Timothy ; but Hymenaeus is not so com
mon, and he could hardly be different from the Hymenaeus of
1 Tim. i 20.
Michaelis, however, objects that there are two passages in
this Epistle which prove that Timothy was not at Ephesus.1
1 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. pp. 163, 164.

THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 427
Paul says : " Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus " (2 Tim. iv.
12). Hence it is argued that Timothy was not at Ephesus ;
for if he had been there, he would have known of the arrival
of Tychicus without being informed of it by Paul. But to
this it is repded, that the aorist direaTetXa may be used
according to the idiom of classical letter-writing, and signify,
" I herewith send Tychicus to Ephesus," — namely, as the
bearer of this Epistle.1 Or the words may mean, that
Paul had sent Tychicus to supply the place of Timothy
during his absence ; but they do not necessarily imply that
Tychicus had arrived at Ephesus before the Epistle. Again,
Paul says : " Trophimus have I left at Mdetum sick " (2 Tim.
iv. 20). Here it is argued, that if Timothy had been at
Ephesus, he must have known this circumstance, as Mdetum
was not far distant ; especially as Trophimus was an Ephe
sian (Acts xxi. 29). But it is not necessary to suppose that
Paul here writes to communicate information to Timothy, but
rather to assign the reason why in the hour of his extremity
he was left so destitute of friends ; and why, consequently, it
was so important that Timothy should come to him without
delay.2 II. THE CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
This letter is written with the freedom of epistolary corre
spondence, without any definite arrangement. After saluting
Timothy, Paul expresses his earnest desde to see him, cading
to remembrance the sorrow with which they had parted, and
being assured of his unfeigned faith (chap, i 1-5). He ex
horts Timothy to increased activity and fidelity, to stir up
those gifts which had been imparted to him, not to be afraid
of those sufferings to which Christianity exposed its professors,
but to reflect on the manifold grace of God, and on those
future blessings winch the gospel confers (chap. i. 6-14).
1 Conybeare and Howson's St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 592.
2 Michaelis supposes that Paul himself did not know in what city of Pro
consular Asia Timothy would receive the Epistle he was writing to him, but
entrusted it to a safe person to be delivered to Timothy wherever he found him.
This opinion is partially adopted by Conybeare and Howson, vol. ii. p. 582.

428 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
He informs him of the desertion of the Asiatics, and of the
kindness and fidelity of Onesiphorus, who at some personal
risk visited him in his imprisonment (chap. i. 15-18).
Timothy is directed to commit the doctrine, received from the
apostle, to faithful men who should be able to teach others.
He himself, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, was to endure
hardness, to practise fortitude in suffering, even as the apostle
himself endured ad things for the elect's sake, that they might
obtain eternal salvation : he was to oppose ad false teachers,
espeeiady those who denied the truth of the resurrection ; but
yet his opposition was to be conducted in the spirit of meek
ness, and with earnest prayer for the recovery of the offenders
(chap. ii. 1-26). The apostle, with a prophetic spirit, indi
cates the moral corruption which would soon infect the
Christian Church, describes the character of the false teachers,
earnestly exhorts Timothy to hold fast the faith according as
he had been taught, and ' to be deeply versed in the Holy
Scriptures, so that he might be thoroughly furnished unto ad
good works (chap. id. 1—17). Then fodows a solemn charge
to Timothy, as in the presence of Jesus Christ, the Judge of
the quick and the dead, to perform his ministerial duties with
all fidelity, as the time would soon come when error would
overspread the Church, and sound doctrine be despised (chap.
iv. 1—5). The apostle alludes in a most affecting manner to
his approaching end ; he foresees that his apostolic course is
well-nigh run, and that the hour of his departure is at hand
^chap. iv. 6-8). Then fodow several personal notices, infor
mation concerning his fedow-labourers, messages, exhortations,
salutations to Christians at Ephesus, and from Christians at
Borne, an urgent request to come to him before winter, and
finally the apostodc benediction, with which the Epistle con
cludes (chap. iv. 9-22).
III. THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE.
There are in this Epistle several chronological statements
which determine its date. The apostle, when he wrote it,
was in imprisonment at Eome (2 Tim. i. 16, 17). Mention
is made of a journey to Mdetum, where he left Trophimus,

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 429
and most probably to Corinth, where Erastus remained be
hind (2 Tim. iv, 20). Timothy is also requested to bring
with him certain articles which the apostle had left at Troas
(2 Tim. iv. 13).
It is evident that the imprisonment mentioned in this
Epistle was a Eoman imprisonment. Of Onesiphorus it is
said : " The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus ; for
he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain. But
when he was at Borne, he sought me out very ddigently, and
found me" (2 Tim. i. 16; 17). Notwithstanding this ex
press declaration, Oeder and Bottger suppose that it is the
imprisonment at Caesarea that is here mentioned. Oeder1
translates the words yevop,evo<; iv 'Poopy, " after he had been
at Eome," which would be a remark wholly irrelevant ; and
Bottger2 gets over the difficulty by supposing, contrary to all
authorities, that the words are an interpolation.
The imprisonment here adverted to, then, is undoubtedly a
Eoman imprisonment ; but whether it was the imprisonment
mentioned at the close of the Acts, or a second Eoman im
prisonment, is a matter of dispute. Those who suppose that
Faul was never liberated, of course assert that this Epistle was
written during the so-caded first imprisonment; an opinion
also adopted by some, as Lardner and Hug, who bedeve in
two imprisonments.3 This opinion is adopted by Baronius,
Hemsen, Heinrichs, Mat-hies, Schrader, Wieseler, Eeuss,
Davidson (first edition), and others. The order in which the
Epistles are to be arranged has been differently stated.
Matthies places the Second Epistle to Timothy before the
four Epistles of the captivity, — namely, Ephesians, Colossians,
Phdemon, and Phidppians. Lardner and Hug place it after
the Epistle to the Ephesians, and suppose it to have been
written at the beginning of the two years' imprisonment.4
1 Conject. de difficilior. S.S. locis centuria, p. 733.
2 Beitrage, iv. 42 ff.
3 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. pp. 303, 304.
4 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 315. So also Reuss supposes that the Epistle
was written at the commencement of Paul's two years' imprisonment, later
than the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, which he refers
to the Cassarean imprisonment, but before the Epistle to the Philippians. —
Geschichte N T. p. 111.

430 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
But most of those critics, who consider this Epistle as belong
ing to that imprisonment, place it at the close of that period,
and not only suppose that it was written later than the other
four Epistles, but also after the two years mentioned in the
Acts.1 And certainly, if we are to limit the date of the
Epistle to this Eoman imprisonment, this last opinion must
be considered as correct. Paul's friends were different :
Timothy, whose name is conjoined with that of the apostles
in three of the Epistles of the captivity, was absent ; and salu
tations are sent from other persons who are not elsewhere
mentioned. The imprisonment of the apostle was also en
tirely different. He no longer dwelt in his own hired house ;
he had to be sought out and found with difficulty ; it was
hazardous to visit him ; and he looked forward, not, as in the
Epistles to Philemon and the Phdippians, to acquittal, but to
martyrdom. His imprisonment had evidently taken a dif
ferent turn : it was severer and stricter.
But it has already been shown, in the dissertation on Patd's
Eoman imprisonment, that there are insuperable objections
connected with the opinion that this Epistle was written
during the same imprisonment as that recorded in the Acts.
The entire omission of Paul's former companions at Eome,
with the exception of Luke, and the mention of new com
panions, would seem to prove that both time and circum
stances were different. The statement that Paul had left
Trophimus at Mdetum sick (2 Tim. iv. 20) cannot, as adeady
observed, be made to harmonize with the account of Paul's
journeys in the Acts, for although Trophimus was with Paul
at Miletum (Acts xx. 4), yet, so far from being left behind
sick, he accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 29) ;
and therefore can only harmonize with the supposition of a
second imprisonment. And the same remarks hold good with
the statement made by the apostle concerning the articles left
at Troas : " The cloak that T left at Troas with Carpus, when
thou contest, bring with thee ; and the books, but espeeiady the
parchments " (2 Tim. iv. 1 3) ; as, on the supposition that
Paul was not released from imprisonment, nearly five years
1 Davidson's Introduction to N. T. (old edition), vol. iii. p. 52 ; Bleek's
Introduction to N. T. vol. ii. p. 73 ; De Wette's Einleitung, p. 330.

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 431
had elapsed since he had been at Troas, and Timothy had
been with him in the interval.
Thus, then, we infer that the place from which the Second
Epistle to Timothy was written, was Borne (2 Tim. i. 16, 17);
and the time of writing was during Paul's second imprisonment,
shortly before his martyrdom. " I am now," he writes, " ready
to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand " (2 Tim.
iv. 6). A closer indication of time is given us in the request
of the apostle, that Timothy should come to him before winter
(2 Tim. iv. 21). Paul was probably put to death in the year
67 or 68, being the last year of the reign of Nero. It cannot
be determined whether Timothy reached Eome in time to
receive the last blessing of the apostle ; but we cannot be
wrong in fixing the date of the Epistle as the last year of the
apostle's dfe, a.d. 67 or 68.
The route of the apostle after his release from his Eoman
imprisonment is a matter of conjecture, and consequently so
also is the place of his arrest. Conybeare and Howson sup
pose that it was Nicopods in Epdus, where, according to the
Epistle to Titus, the apostle had designed to winter.1 Neander
thinks that Paul was arrested in Spain.2 Lange supposes
that it was Ephesus. He thinks that there are allusions to
this event in the Epistle. " Some hints," he observes, " would
lead us to the supposition that Paul was dedvered up in
Ephesus by this informer (Alexander the coppersmith) to
the Eoman authority. Why did Timothy take leave of him
with many tears ? Why did Paul leave Trophimus at Mdetum
sick ? Does not his departure from Troas, leaving behind
him his cloak and books, indicate a forced and hurried journey ?
And why is it said that Onesiphorus was prompted to minister
to him at Ephesus ?"3 Others, again (Macknight, Michaeds),
suppose that he ventured back to Eome, and was there arrested.4
Ad these are mere conjectures on a point on which no cer
tainty is attainable.
1 Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. 573.
2 Neander's Planting, vol. i p. 344.
3 Lange's Apostolisclie Zeitalter, vol. ii p. 396. So also Lewin's Life and
Letters of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 933.
4 Macknight's Introduction to Second Timothy ; Michaelis' Introduction, vol.
vi. p. 176.

432 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
Paul mentions that he was almost alone at Eome.1 Luke
was the only one of his old companions with him (2 Tim.
iv. 11). He indeed sends salutations from Eome to Timothy,
from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and aU the brethren
(2 Tim. iv. 21); but these persons appear to have been
private members of the Boman church, who had never been
employed as his fellow-labourers. He complains that they of
Asia (ol iv Trj ' 'Ao -(a) had deserted him, of whom are Phygellus
and Hermogenes (2 Tim. i. 15). Demas, mentioned in other
epistles as present with the apostle at Eome (Col. iv. 14 ;
Philem. 24), had forsaken him, having loved this present
world ; Crescens had gone, probably at the request of the
apostle, to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10).
Tychicus had been sent to Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 1 2), Trophimus
had been left at Miletum sick, and Erastus remained behind
at Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20). Thus the apostle stood almost
alone at Eome. This absence of his former friends may be
accounted for from various causes. Some of them, as Demas
and the Asiatics, had evidently deserted him through fear :
they did not wish to expose themselves to danger ; they
dreaded persecution, perhaps martyrdom ; they were ashamed
of the apostle's chains. Others, as Titus- and Tychicus, had
been sent by the apostle himself on various missions to the
churches. Others, who had formerly been with the apostle
at Eome, as Timothy himself and Mark, were then in other
parts of the world. But perhaps the great reason was, that, a
few years before, the church of Eome had been broken up by
the persecution under Nero. Many of those to ' whom the
apostle had sent salutations in his Epistle to the Eomans,
and some from whom salutations were sent in the epistles
written from Eome during his former imprisonment, must
have perished in that fiery trial which laid waste the Church,
when, according to Tacitus, vast multitudes were put to death.
Three or four years had elapsed, and the fury of the persecu
tion had abated, but stid during the remainder of Nero's dfe
it must have been dangerous to profess Christianity.
According to the Epistle, Paul had already undergone part
1 Reuss refers this to the period of Paul's arrival at Rome, mentioned in the
Acts, when he wrote this Epistle to Timothy in a state of depression,

THE DATE OF THE EPISTLE. 433
of his trial. Probably he was accused of several supposed
crimes ; as, for example, the attempt to cause the Bomans to
apostatize from their national religion, treason against Caesar,
etc. On one of these charges he had been tried, and it would
appear had successfudy defended himself. Although deserted
by his friends, yet the Lord Jesus had so strengthened and
inspired him, that he was enabled to plead the cause of his
Master in the public court. " At my first answer no man
stood with me, but all men 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 preach
ing might be, fully known, and that all the Gentiles might
hear : and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion"
(2 Tim. iv. 16, 17). It would appear that it was on this
occasion that Alexander the coppersmith (o -^aA/eew) injured
the apostle (2 Tim. iv. 14). Perhaps he appeared at Eome as
a witness or accuser against him ; or perhaps he acted the part
of an informer at Ephesus, and by his means Paul was arrested.1
The employment of informers (delatores), from the encourage
ment which they received from Nero, had then become a pro
fession, and was amply rewarded. It is extremely doubtful
whether this was the same Alexander, the Jew, who years
before this stood up in the theatre of Ephesus to defend the
Jews and accuse the Christians (Acts xix. 33): he seems rather
to be the Alexander of 1 Tim. i 20, — a false Christian, whom
Paul had excommunicated, and who in this manner revenged
himself. But although Paul had thus succeeded in defending
himself against one charge, yet there were other charges ; and
he looked forward, not to acquittal, but to martyrdom. Stid
the trial might be prolonged, as was the case during his former
imprisonment; and hence he wrote to Timothy to come to him.
At length the trial actually took place — whether sooner than
he expected, we know not — and the great apostle of the Gen
tdes, the prince of missionaries, was, like his Divine Master,
condemned by the Bomans, but, as a Eoman citizen, was saved
the horrors of crucifixion, and perished by the executioner's
axe. 1 See Lewin's St. Paul, p. 944 ; Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles
of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 576 ; Wieseler's Chronologie, p. 464.
2 E

434 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
The traditionary accounts of the martyrdom of Paul are
less numerous than we would have expected, and are mixed
with much fable.1 We have the early testimony of Clemens
Eomanus (a.d. 96) in a passage already quoted, but he men
tions neither the place nor the mode of martyrdom; and
although he adudes to the death of Peter, yet he does not
assert that both apostles perished together.2 Dionysius of
Corinth (a.d. 170) is the first who connects together the death
of Paul and Peter. Writing to the Eomans, he observes :
" Thus also you, by means of this admonition, have mingled
the flourishing seed that had been planted by Paul and Peter
at Eome and Corinth. For both of these having planted us at
Corinth, dkewise instructed us ; and having in dke manner
taught in Italy, they suffered martyrdom about the same time
(«-<_-.« Tbv avTov Katpov)."3 Tertullian (a.d. 200) observes,
that at Eome Peter died by crucifixion dke the Lord, and Paul
by being beheaded dke the Baptist.4 Caius of Eome (a.d. 212)
says : " I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you
wdl go to the Vatican or to the Ostian road, you wid find the
trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church • "s
evidently aduding to the Vatican as the place of Peter's, and
to the Ostian road as the place of Paul's martyrdom. Eusebius
observes : " Paul is said to have been beheaded at Borne, and
Peter to have been crucified under Nero. This account is
confirmed by the fact that the names of Peter and Paul stdl
remain in the cemeteries of that city even to this day." 6 And
Jerome is still more explicit : he informs us that Paul was
put to death on the same day with Peter, being beheaded in
the fourteenth year of Nero (ad. 6 8), and buried on the Ostian
road.7 It is probably an historical fact that Peter suffered martyr
dom at Borne, and that by crucifixion ; but that he suffered on
' For legends connected with St. Paul's death, see Conybeare and Howson's
St. Paul, Appendix IV.
2 Epist. ad Cor. i 5. See page 357 of this work. 3 Eus. Hist. Eccl. ii. 25.
* Romas Petrus passioni Dominicas adequatur, Paulus Johannis exitu coronatur.
— De Pressor. Hcsret. c. 36.
5 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 25. 6 Rid.
7 Hie ergo decimo quarto Neronis anno (eodem die quo Petrus) Romas pro
Christo capite truncatus sepultusque est in vid Osliensi.

THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE. 435
the same day with Paul, as Jerome informs us, is undoubtedly
mythicaL There is no mention of Peter in any of the epistles
which Paul wrote from Eome ; whereas, if he had been there,
he would undoubtedly have been named. And it is evident
from this Epistle, that, at the time of Paul's martyrdom, Peter
was not at Eome. The date of Paul's martyrdom is uncertain;
but admitting the fact of a twofold imprisonment, the state
ment of Jerome is probably not far from the truth, that he
was beheaded in the fourteenth year of Nero (a.d. 68). The
particular day fixed on in the legends of the Church is the
29th of June.

IV. THE PECULIARITIES OF THE EPISTLE,
The distinguishing characteristic of this Second Epistle to
Timothy is, that it is, in all probabdity, the last epistle which
Paul wrote, — certainly the last which has come down to us.
It contains Paul's dying advice, written in the immediate pro
spect of martyrdom. He looks forward calmly to the grave,
and, with the executioner's axe in the foreground, he pens this
letter to his favourite disciple ; he solemnly charges him before
God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shad judge the quick and
the dead at His appearing and His kingdom, to be faithful to
the charge committed to him (2 Tim. iv. 1, 2). We see here
the very heart of Paul, — his affection for Timothy, his un
quenchable zeal for the promotion of Christ's kingdom, the
calmness with which he looks forward to the grave, the con
fidence with which he looks upward to heaven. Now old in
years, and worn out with many trials, deserted in a great
measure by his friends, he waits with calmness and with a
certain degree of satisfaction his approaching martyrdom. He
must, indeed, be destitute of ad sense of what is truly noble and
heroic in life who can read those last words of the aged apostle
without emotion : " I am now ready to be offered, and the
time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight,
I have finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth
there is lajd up for me a crown of righteousness, which the
Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day ; and not
to me only, but unto ad them that love His appearance" (2 Tim.

436 THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
iv. 6-8). His longing desire to see Timothy, the urgency
with which he entreats him to come to him with ad ddigence,
the sadness with which he mentions the desertion of his friends,
the feedng of loneliness, the craving after human sympathy in
this the hour of his trial, are ad natural touches of the state
of Paul's feelings, and vividly represent him before us as one
who, although standing on the verge of heaven, was yet not
raised above the common feedngs of humanity.
The most important commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles
are those of De Wette (Leipzig 1844), Huther, being a con
tinuation of Meyer's commentaries (Gbttingen 1850; third
edition, 1866), Wiesinger, being a continuation of Olshausen's
commentaries (Konigsberg 1850 ; translated, with the excep
tion of Second Timothy, in Clark's Theological Library), and
in our pwn country, Eldcott (London, 4th edition, 1869).

APPENDIX.

AUTHOESHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE
HEBEEWS.1
PALEY, in his Rorm Paulinm, omits all mention of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, probably because he was doubt
ful whether it was justly to be considered as one of the epistles
of PauL And for the same reason, we have seldom aduded
to it. As, however, many eminent critics have considered it
a genuine epistle of Paul, and as there is a considerable
amount of evidence in favour of this opinion, the entire omis
sion of it, in a work speciady designed to serve as an intro
duction to the Paudne Epistles, would doubtless be regarded
as a grave defect. On the other hand, considering that the
authorship cannot be determined with the same certainty as
that of the other Pauline Epistles, it may be advisable in the
meantime to limit our remarks to this special point. Hence
our examination of the Epistle to the Hebrews is added by
way of appendix ; and ad that it is designed to do is to consider
its authorship, omitting entirely ad discussion on other points,
such as its canonicity, its original language, the persons to
whom it is addressed, the occasion on which it was written,
and the time and place of its composition, except so far as
1 This subject is discussed at considerable length in Alford's Greek Testament,
Prolegomena, vol. iv. pp. 1-90 ; Bleek's Der Brief an die Hebrder erlautert,
vol. i. pp. 82-430 ; Davidson's Introduction to the N. T. (old edition), vol. iii.
pp. 163-277 ; Delitzseh's Commentary on the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 1-22 ; Ebrard
On the Hebrews, pp. 389-426 ; Forster's Apostolical Authority of the Epistle to
the Hebrews ; Liinemann's Der Hebraerbrief, pp. 1-56 ; Moses Stuart Ore the
Hebrews, vol. i pp. 1-343 ; Tholuck Ore the Hebrews, voL i. 1-78 ; and
Wieseler's Untersuchung uber d. Hebraerbrief. 437

438 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
they have an incidental reference to the subject under discus
sion. The subject is one of considerable difficulty, and per
haps no definite conclusion can be. ultimately arrived at. As
Dedtzsch remarks: "May we not say that this Epistle re
sembles the Melchizedek of sacred story, of which its central
portion treats ? Like him, it marches forth in lonely, royal,
and priestly dignity, and dke him it is dyevedXoy7]T0<; ; we
know not whence it cometh and whither it goeth." 1
I. THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.
An argument in favour of the Pauline authorship of this
Epistle has been derived from the fodowing words of Peter :
" Account the long-suffering of our Lord salvation ; even as
our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given
unto him, hath written unto you ; as also in ad his epistles,
speaking in them of these things; in which are some things
hard to be understood" (2 Pet. id. 15, 16). Some (Cramer,
Bengel, Whitby, Home, and Forster) suppose that the epistle
of Paul, to which Peter specially alludes, is the Epistle to the
Hebrews.2 They argue that Peter writes to the Jewish Chris
tians, the same who are here addressed; that in the Epistle to the
Hebrews there are things hard to be understood (Heb. v. 11) ;
and that it treats of the advent of Christ, to which the words
of Peter refer. But such arguments are weak and untenable.
It is a mere supposition that the Second Epistle of Peter is
addressed to the Jewish Christians; and no passage in the
Epistle to the Hebrews can be adduced exactly corresponding
to the statement here made by Peter — that the long-suffering
of the Lord is salvation.3
Clemens Eomanus (a.d. 96) is the earliest extra-canonical
authority for the books of the New Testament. There are, in
his Epistle to the Corinthians, adusions to several of the
epistles of Paul ; but he quotes or adudes to no writing so
1 Delitzsch, Commentary on the Hebrews, p. 4.
2 Bengel's Gnomon, on 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16 ; Whitby, in loco ; Home's Introduc
tion to the Scriptures, vol. iv. p. 573 ; Forster's Apost. Authority of the Hebrews,
pp. 625-644.
3 The Epistle which treats specially of the second advent is not the Hebrews,
but Second Thessalonians.

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 439
frequently and so definitely as the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Kirchhofer gives no less than twelve adusions to this Epistle
in the short epistle of Clement.1 Sometimes the very words
of the Epistle are cited. One extract out of many must
suffice : " Who, being the brightness of His majesty, is so
much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance
obtained a more excedent name than they. For so it is
written : ' Who maketh his angels spirits, and His ministers a
flame of fire.' But concerning His Son, thus said the Lord :
' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee. Ask of
me, and I will give thee the heathen for Thine inheritance,
and the utmost parts of the earth for Thy possession.' And
again He saith to Him, ' Sit Thou on my right hand, until I
make Thine enemies Thy footstool' " (Heb. i. 3-1 3).2 This
frequency of allusion is thus noticed by Eusebius : " In which
epistle, Clement, after giving many sentiments taken from the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and also literally quoting the words,
most clearly shows that this work is not a late production.
Hence it is probable that this also was numbered with the
other writings of the apostles." 3 Clement certainly nowhere
ascribes this Epistle to Paul ; but this is no argument against
its Pauline origin, because, in alluding to the other epistles
of Paul, with the exception of the First Epistle to the Corin
thians, he never mentions either author or title. On the
other hand, this frequent reference to the Epistle to the
Hebrews not only demonstrates its high antiquity, but proves
that it was a work of considerable, if not apostolic, authority ;
and therefore has justly been regarded as a presumption that
1 Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 233-238. See also Lardner's Works,
vol. i pp. 299, 300 ; Forster's Apostolical Authority, pp. 575-594 ; and David
son's Introduction (old edition), vol. iii. pp. 259-266. Davidson increases the
number of allusions to fifteen.
2 Ep. ad Cor. C 36 : nOs uv dfauyairfia rrts po&yaXoffuvns auroZ, rotroiiru ptuZ.uv
iariv dyysXuv, otru tiiaQopurspov bvapta xsxXnpovopcnx&v. T'sypavrai yap ourus* O voiuv
roils dyyiXaus aurou prvsup&ara, xai rous Xstrovpyoiis aurou pevpos (pXoya* sprt os ru uiu
aurou o'iirus slptsv o tiiffpr'oms* uios f&ou si vii, iyu trrtptspov ysysvvnxd - £• airntrai PTap
IptoZ, xai tiuffu ffoi £. v« rrtv xXrjpavopoiav ffou, xai rrtv xardtr^sffiv ra ptspara rrts yvtS'
Ka) prdXiv Xsysi prpos aurov KdSou ix os^iuv fiov, '(us av $u rous i%Qpous ffou uptovTooiov
ruv otopuv ffou.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 38. A similar statement is made by Jerome,
Catal. Scrip. Eccl. c. 15.

440 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
it was written by Paul, to whom only of ad the apostles it
can be ascribed.1
Justin Martyr (a.d. 140) most probably alludes to the
Epistle to the Hebrews when he says, " This is He who,
according to the order of Melchisedec, is Eang of Salem, and
eternal Priest of the Most High God" (Heb. v. 9, IO).2 In
another place he says of Christ, that " He is called both angel
and apostle." 3 As He is nowhere else caded an apostle ex
cept in Heb. iii. 1, this is considered to be an allusion to that
Epistle. Justin certainly nowhere mentions Paul as the
author of this Epistle ; but this is of small consequence, as he
never mentions any writer of the New Testament by name.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is found in the Peshito or
Syriac version (ad. 160). It is there, however, placed after
the thirteen epistles of Paul : consequently its inclusion can
not be regarded as an argument in favour of its Paudne origin
(Guericke, Delitzsch) ; nor can its position be viewed as an
objection (Wieseler).:4 it was probably put last, because it
was anonymous. It was afterwards, in the fourth century,
considered by the Syrian church as a genuine epistle of Paul.5
The Epistle to the Hebrews is also contained in the old Latin
version, or the Vetus Itala (a.d. 170); but this cannot be
adduced as an argument in favour of its Pauline origin, as we
know that the Latin Church in general, for the first three
centuries, did not regard.it as Paul's.
The earliest authority, known to us, who distinctly asserted
the authorship of Paul, is Pantaenus of Alexandria (ad. 1 8 5).
In a passage, preserved by Eusebius, from the HypotyposSs of
Clemens Alexandrinus, that Father (Clement) observes : " But
now, as the blessed presbyter used to say, since the Lord, who
was the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews,
1 The supposed allusions to the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Epistles of Igna
tius and Polycarp, given by Kirchhofer, are too doubtful to be depended on.
Ignatius, adMagnes. c. 8, ad Ephes. c. 16 ; Polycarp, adPhilippen. c. 4andc. 12.
2 Dial. C. 33 : Ourbs itrriv o xard rrtv rd\iv MsX-£/. e$6» (ZafftXsil; laXript. „_J
atuvios ispsus u^iorou itordp%uv.
3 Apol. i : Kai dyysXos tis xaXstrai xai dprbffroXos.
' Wieseler's Untersuchung iiber d. Hebraerbrief, pp. 8-11.
5 It is acknowledged as such by Jacob of Nisibis (a.d. 325) and Ephrem the
Syrian (a.d. 378).

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 441
Paul, from modesty, as if sent to the Gentdes, did not sub
scribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews ; but from reverence
to the Lord, and because he wrote of his abundance to the
Hebrews, as a herald and apostle of the Gentiles."1 It is
generady admitted, that by " the blessed presbyter," Clement
meant his master Pantaenus; and here we have a distinct
assertion by that Father of the authorship of Paul.
Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 194) frequently quotes the
Epistle to the Hebrews as the work of Paul. He never
expresses a doubt regarding its Pauline origin, whilst he
mentions his doubts concerning other writings. Thus, for
example, he says : " Writing to the Hebrews, who had de
clined from faith to the law, Paul says, ' Ye have need that
one teach you again what are the first principles of the oracles
of God, and are become such as have need of milk, and not
of strong meat'"2 (Heb. v. 12). And in the passage from
the Hypotypostts preserved by Eusebius, above quoted, Clement
makes the fodowing important observation: "The Epistle to
the Hebrews was written by Paul to the Hebrews, in the
Hebrew tongue ; but it was carefully translated by Luke, and
published among the Greeks. Whence one finds the same colour
of expression in the Epistle as in the Acts."3 It is to be ob
served that Clement here expresses no doubt as to the author
ship of Paul ; but, recognising a difference between the style of
the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of Paul's other epistles,
states, in explanation of that circumstance, that we have a
translation by Luke from the original Hebrew of Paul.
Whether this was a tradition, or the mere private opinion of
Clement, we have no means of ascertaining; but the latter
1 Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14 : "Htin tis - - b pjiaxdpios sXsys pepsff{iurspos, iprsi b xupios
aprbffroXos uv rou pravroxpdropos, aprsffraXrt prpbs 'Efipaious, tiid fisrpibrrira b HaZXos us
dv sis ra shrt avsffraXpisvas, obx iyypdtpsi saurbv 'Efipatuv epprbffroXav Sid rs rrtv irpbs rov
xuptov npthv, tiia tis rov ix prspioutrixs xai rois 'Ejipaiois Wtffr'sXXsiv ihuv xrtpuxa ovra xai
xproffroXov. ^ Stromata, vi. C 8 : Alb xai rois 'Efipaiois ypdQuv, roTs ipravaxdfiorrouffiv sis vbftov ix
TiffrsusfH praXiv, Qnffi, xps'iav s%srs roZ tiitidtrxsiv upids, riva ra ffrot^fia rrts dpxfts
ruv Xoyiuv roZ &soZ, xa) ysybvars %psiav e%ovrss yaXaxros, xai ou ffrspsas rpotprts.
3 EUS. Hist. Eccl. vi. 14 : K_) rrtv prpbs 'Efipaiaus tis ipritrroXriv, UauXou ftsv sivai
pprtffi, ysypdtpPai bt 'Efipaiois 'Efipai'xr Quvy* Aouxav tis QiXorlptus aurnv [Ls6sp(Jt.YivsuBavra,
ixtioZvai rois"EXXtiffiv ohv rev aurbv %pura supiffxsffSai xara rnv ip/ittvsiar, raurns rs rrts,
_*i ruv prpd\iuv.

442 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
view is the more probable, from the comparison which he
mentions between the style of the Epistle and that of the
Acts. Origen (a.d. 230), according to Kirchhofer, cites the Epistle
to the Hebrews more than two hundred times, and that in
different ways. Sometimes he quotes with the words "the
apostle," " the Epistle to the Hebrews says ; " but most
frequently he attributes the Epistle ddectly to Paul. Thus :
" In the Epistle to the Hebrews Paul says, ' In the last days
He hath spoken to us by His Son' "-1 (Heb. i. 2). He recog
nises a difference of opinion in the Church concerning the
authorship of the Epistle. " But possibly," he observes,
" some one pressed with this argument will take refuge in
the opinion of those who reject this Epistle [to the Hebrews],
as not written by Paul ; against whom we use, on the proper
occasion, other arguments to prove the Epistle to be Paul's."2
His mature judgment is thus given in two fragments pre
served by Eusebius : " The style of the Epistle with the title
' to the Hebrews,' has not that rudeness of diction which
belongs to the apostle, who confesses that he is rude in
speech, that is, in phraseology. But that this Epistle is
more Hellenic in the composition of its phrases, every one
wdl acknowledge who is able to discern differences of style.
Moreover, the ideas of the Epistle are admirable, and not
inferior to any of the books acknowledged to be apostolic.
Every one will confess the truth of this who attentively
reads the apostle's writings. In another passage he says:
I would say that the thoughts are the apostle's, but the
diction and phraseology belong to some one who wrote
down what the apostle said, and reduced, as it were, to com
mentaries the things spoken by his master. If, then, any
church considers this Epistle as coming down from Paul, let
it be commended for this ; for the ancient 'men did not deliver
it as such without cause. But who wrote the Epistle, God
1 Origenes Opp. iv. p. 60: Kai iv rrt prpbs 'Efipaiavs, b aurbs TLauXos (Qrtffiv, spr3
iir^drou ruv ripcspuv sXdXrtffsv ripuv iv vtu.
2 Epist. ad Afric. : 'A.XX* slxbs nva QXifibpttvov kprb rns sis ravra dprotisifyus,, ffuy-
•ftprtsaffSat ru {houXripnari ruv dhrouvruv rrtv ipriffroXrtv, us au HauXu yiyeay.ff.vnv prpbs
ov ebXXaiv xbyuv xar' itiiav %pnZ,oft.sv sis dprctiu\iv rou i'/vui llavXou rrtv iriffroXtiv.

The external evidence. 443
only truly knows. The account that has come down to us is,
according to some, that Clement, who was the bishop of Eome,
wrote the Epistle ; according to others, that it was written by
Luke, who wrote the Gospel and -the Acts."1
These words of Origen, recorded by Eusebius, have been
much commented on ; and there certainly appears to be some
ambiguity in them. Origen's own opinion is, that the author
of the Hebrews is Paul ; but he feels the force of the objec
tion arising from the dissimilarity of style. He does not,
however, attempt to remove the difficulty, like Clemens Alex
andrinus, by supposing that the Epistle to the Hebrews is a
translation ; but he considers the thoughts to be the apostle's,
whilst the phraseology is* another's ; but who that other was,
he observes, God only knows. By the ancient men (ol dp^aiot
dvBpe'f), who asserted that the Epistle was Paul's, he evidently
means men of a former age, in ad probability belonging to the
Alexandrian church, to which Origen himself belonged. The
expression, however, can hardly be limited to Pantaenus and
Clement (Bleek), as these were almost his contemporaries;
but yet it cannot be carried so far back as to denote " men who
stood close upon the apostolic age" (Hug, Tholuck), as the
phrase is evidently to be taken comparatively. When he
says, " Who wrote the Epistle, God truly knows " (tm Be 6
ypdifrai ttjv eirtcTToXrjv to ptev dXrjOes &eb<s olBev), he can hardly
adude to the original and independent author (Alford), for he
asserts that the contents of the Epistle are Paul's ; but must
refer to the person who put the thoughts of Paul in writing,
*• Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25 : "On b %apaxrttp rrts Xs\sus rrts Prpbs 'Efipaiovs ivriysypapt-
pisvns ipriffroXrts, oux %%si rb iv Xoyu 'ibiunxov rou dproffroXou, bpj.oXoyrtffavros saurbv
itiiurnv sivai ru Xoyu, roursffn rn tppdffsr dXXd iffriv it ipriffroXrt ffuvS'sffSi rrts Xs\sus
sXXnvixurspa, pras b ipriffrdpcsvos xpivsiv tppdffsuv Siatyopds, bpooXoyrtffai _¦ <yraXiv rs au
on rd vov/iara rrts ipriffroXrts 6auptdffia ion, xai ou tisurspa ruv drtoffroXixuv bpooXoyou-
fi'svuv ypa/i/idruv xai rouro dv ffupttprtffat stvai aXrtQis PTas o prpoffi%uv rrj dvayvuffst rrt
dproffroXixrt. Tourots f/.s6' srspa ioriipipsi Xsyuv. 'Eyai OS drTotpaivopisvos s'tprotpjo dv, oVi rd
fiv voripca.ro. rou dproffr'oXov iffriv rt 'tis tppdffis xai rt ffuvhffts, dToptvnpiovsvffavrbs rivos rd
aPtoffraXtxd, xai ufforspsi trfcoXtoypatyrtffavros rd siprtpjosva uprb roZ SitiaffxaXow s'l ris euv
ixxXrtff'ta l^si raurrtv rrtv iprtffroXnv us IlauXou, aurrt sutioxtpistru xai ipri rouru' ob yap
itxri 01 dp%a7oi dvtipss us HavXau, aurrtv orapatistiuxaffr ris tis a ypd^as rrjv ioriffroXrtv,
rb pilv dXrtiis Bsbs oTtisv ft tis sis r)p&ds <p8dffaffa iffrepia, uvrb rivuv pt.lv Xsybvruv, on
KXrtpttis b ysvbptivos ioriffxopros 'Pupiaiuv lypa^i rrtv ipriffroXrtv upt'o rivuv tis en Aouxds
b ypdipas rb suayysXiov xai rds orpd%sis.

444 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
who was either the amanuensis to whom Paul dictated (Bom.
xvi. 22), or rather the editor who composed the Epistle from
the sentiments of Paul. Others think that, besides the view
which attributed the Epistle to Paul, Origen found another
opinion, referring it to Clemens Eomanus or Luke (Bleek).1
Still his own opinion was in favour of the Pauline origin of
the Hebrews.
Dionysius of Alexandria (ad. 247) also maintains the
Paudne origin of the Hebrews. In his letter to Fabius, the
bishop of Antioch, concerning the persecution at Alexandria,
he observes : " The brethren retired and gave way, and like
those to whom Paul bears witness, they regarded the plunder
of their goods with joy" 2 (Heb. x. 34).
Eusebius of Caesarea (ad. 315) classes the Epistle to the
Hebrews among the optoXoyovpteva, at the same time admitting
that it was doubted by some. " The Epistles of Paul are
fourteen, ad well known and certain. It is not, however,
right to conceal that some have set aside the Epistle to the
Hebrews, saying that it was disputed by the Eoman church,
as not being one of Paul's Epistles." 3 Elsewhere he adopts
the opinion of Clemens Alexandrinus, that Paul wrote the
Epistle in Hebrew, and that it was translated into Greek by
Clemens Eomanus or Luke.4 In another place, out of deference
to the doubts of the Eoman church, he appears to rank it
among the avrtXeyopteva or disputed epistles. He remarks
that Clemens Alexandrinus, in his work entitled The Stromata,
makes use of testimonies from the dvTiXeyopteva, and among
these he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews.6 His own
opinion, however, clearly was, that the author of the Hebrews
is Paul. After this, the Epistle to the Hebrews was generady
received by the Oriental Church as the work of PauL6
1 Bleek's Introduction to N. T. vol. ii. pp. 105, 106.
2 Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 41 : 'E^sxXivov til xai upravs%upouv oi dtisXQor xai rrtv apprayrtv
ruv uprap-^bvruv, bfAoius ixsivois oTs xai TlauXos ipiaprupnffs, [Lira %apds prpoffstii\a.vro.
3 Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 3 : Tau til HauXov prpob'riXoi xai ffatpsis ai "tisxar'sffffapss' on
ys firjv nvls rthrrtxatrt rrtv prpbs 'Ef&paious, prpbs rrts 'Tupiaiuv ixxXvtffias us pjcM TtauXou
oSffav aurrtv avriXsylffdai tprtffavrss, oil Vixatov dyvosiv.
* Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 38. 6 Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 13.
6 So Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssene, Basil, Athanasius, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom.

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 445
To these testimonies in favour of the authorship of Paul,
there are, however, opposing testimonies.
Marcion (a.d. 140) omits it, as well as the Pastoral Epistles,
in his catalogue of Paul's Epistles. On this circumstance,
however, no weight is to be placed, as Marcion was ex
ceedingly arbitrary in his selection, being guided by dogmatic
views. The omission of the Epistle in the Muratorian canon (a.d.
170) is more important, inasmuch as it is a document of
greater authority. Here there is a dst of Paul's thirteen
epistles, but no mention of the Hebrews. There is, however,
an allusion to a spurious epistle to the Alexandrians, by which
some suppose is meant the Epistle to the Hebrews. " More
over, there is in circulation an epistle to the Laodiceans, and
another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul,
bearing on the heresy of Marcion." 1 If the Epistle to the
Hebrews is here meant (Wieseler), we have a denial of its
authenticity ; but there is not the slightest evidence for this
supposition. The testimony of the Muratorian canon is purely
negative. The testimony of Irenaeus (ad. 178) is, to say the least,
doubtful. We have the statement of Stephen Gobar, a tri-
theistic writer of the sixth century, in a passage preserved by
Photius, that neither Irenaeus nor Hippolytus recognised the
Epistle to the Hebrews as Paul's. This statement is certainly
a late testimony, and on that account not to be much depended
on ; but it is some corroboration of its truth, that in the extant
works of Irenaeus there is no allusion to the Epistle to the
Hebrews.2 All the epistles of Paul are mentioned by name
except the Epistle to Philemon, for the omission of which its
brevity and character may wed account. We, however, learn
from Eusebius that Irenaeus was not ignorant of it, but fre
quently quoted from it in a work now lost : " There is also a
work of Irenaeus on various disputes (fitfiXlov BiaXegeav Bia-
tfioptvv), in which he mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews, and
the book called the Wisdom of Solomon, quoting certain pas-
1 Westcott Ore the Canon, p. 190.
2 The references to the Hebrews by Irenaeus, given by Kirchhofer, are indefinite
and obscure — Adv. Hesres. ii. 30. 9, iv. 11. 4, v. 5. 1.

446 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
sages from them." 1 He may not, however, have quoted it as a
work of Paul. A fragment also has recently been ascribed to
Irenaeus, in which there is a distinct quotation from the Hebrews;
but it is now universally acknowledged to be spurious.2
The testimony of Tertullian (ad. 200) is very remarkable
and important. Arguing in favour of Montanism, he observes :
"Nevertheless I am wddng, over and above, to adege the
testimony of a companion of the apostle. For there is an
epistle of Barnabas, inscribed to the Hebrews, a man of such
authority that Paul places him with himself in the same course
of abstinence : ' Or I only, and Barnabas, have we not power of
doing this ? ' And certainly the epistle of Barnabas is more
generally received by the churches than the apocryphal pastor
of adulterers (i.e. the Pastor of Hermas). Admonishing his
disciples, he says : ' Leaving ad first principles, rather go on to
perfection, and not lay again the foundation of repentance from
dead works ; for it is impossible, says he, for those who were
once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and were
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good
word of God, if they fall away now at the end of the world,
to renew them again to repentance ' " (Heb. vi. 1— 8).8 Here
Tertullian expressly ascribes the Epistle, not to Paul, but to
Barnabas. Besides this passage, there are in the writings of
Tertullian several allusions to the Hebrews, but he nowhere
else mentions the name of the author. This opinion is sin
gular ; Jerome mentions it, but gives Tertuldan as his only
authority : 4 it is improbable that it was the view of the African
church. It is difficult to assign a reason for this singular
opinion. In ad probability, Tertudian confounded the Epistle
to the Hebrews with the epistle of Barnabas. Bishop Words-
1 Eus. Hist. Eccl. v. 26. 2See Bleek's Brief an die Hebraer, vol. i. p. 118.
3 De pudicit. c. 20 : Exstat enim et Barnabse titulus ad Hebrseos, adeo satis
auctoritatis viro, ut quem Paulus juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore : "Aut
ego solus et Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem ? " Et utique recep-
tior apud ecclesias epistola Barnabse illo apocrypho pastore moachorum. Monens
itaque discipulos, omissis omnibus initiis, ad perfectionem magis tendere, nee
rursum fundamenta pcenitentiaa jacere ab operibus mortuorum : " Impossibile est
enim, inquit, eos qui semel illuminati sunt, et donum coeleste gustaverunt, et
participaverunt Spiritum sanctum, et verbum Dei dulce gustaverunt, occidente
jam sevo quum exciderint rursus revocariin pcenitentiam. "
* Catal. Script. Eccles. c. 5.

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 447
worth supposes that the Epistle to the Hebrews may have
been read by Tertuldan in a manuscript commencing with the
epistle of Barnabas; and the Epistle to the Hebrews not having
any name prefixed to it, may therefore have been supposed by
Tertullian to have been written by that apostolic Father.1
Caius of Eome (a.d. 210) also denies the authorship of
Paul. " There is," observes Eusebius, " a discussion that has
come down to us of Caius, a most learned man, held at Eome
in the time of Zephyrinus, against Proclus, who contended for
the Phrygian (Montanist) heresy, in which, whdst he sdences
the rashness and daring of his opponents in composing new
books, he mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle,
not reckoning that to the Hebrews with the rest ; as there are,
even to this day, some of the Eomans who do not consider it
to be the work of the apostle." 2
Hippolytus (a.d. 220), according to Stephen Gobar, denied
the Epistle to the Hebrews to be the work of Paul; and
Photius tells us that he read in the Church History of that
Father the statement that " the Epistle to the Hebrews is not
the Apostle Paul's." Certainly, in the extant works of Hip
polytus, there is no direct allusion to the Hebrews.
Cyprian (ad. 248), in all his works, never mentions the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and there are no certain adusions to
it. Indeed, he appears expressly to exclude it ; for he says
that Paul wrote only to seven churches, which leaves no place
for the Hebrews. " Paul, who was mindful of this legitimate
and definite number, writes to seven churches. And in the
Apocalypse the Lord writes His divine commands and heavenly
precepts to seven churches." 3 These seven churches are Eome,
Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colosse, and Thess&lonica.
It may be answered that the Hebrews were not a local church ;
but to this the reply is obvious : neither was Galatia an indi
vidual church, but comprised a multitude of churches.
Novatian (ad. 251), in his contests with the orthodox
1 Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, p. 363, note.
2 Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 20 : Tuv roZ ispou dprotrr'oXov tisxarpiuv pibvuv ipriffroXuv
pbvrtptovsuit, rrtv irpbs 'Efipaieus fin ffuvapiSpcnffas ra7s Xaipra7s.
a De exhort, mart. c. 11 : Et apostolus qui hujus legitimi numeri et certj
meminit ad septem ecclesias scribit. Et in apocalypsi Dominus mandata sua
divina et prsecepta coelestia ad septem ecclesias scribit.

448 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
party, does not appeal in any of his extant works to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, although the passage, quoted by
Tertullian (Heb. vi. 1-8), which seemed to teach the impossi-
bidty of repentance to the lapsed, was favourable to his
views. It was not until the middle of the fourth century that the
Epistle to the Hebrews was acknowledged to be Paul's by the
Latin Church.1 The first direct testimony which we have
from that Church in favour of Paul, is in the writings of
Hdary of Poitiers (ad. 354).2 Afterwards this appears to
have been the usual opinion of the Eoman church.
This change of opinion in the Latin Church was chiefly
brought about by the decisions of the general councds and by
the authority of the two distinguished Latin Fathers — Jerome
and Augustine. Jerome (a.d. 392), in two remarkable pas
sages, gives us the state of opinion on the question in his
days. " The Epistle entitled ' to the Hebrews ' is not thought
to be Paul's, because of the difference of argument and style ;
but to be either Barnabas', as Tertullian thought ; or Luke's,
the evangelist, according to some others ; or Clement's, after
wards bishop of Borne, who, as some think, being much with
him, clothed and adorned Paul's sense in his own language ;
or if it be Paul's, he might decdne putting his name in the
inscription, on account of the Hebrews being offended with
him. Moreover, he wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, in
pure Hebrew, it being his own language ; whence it came to
pass that, being translated, it has more eloquence in the
Greek than his other epistles. This, they say, is the reason
of its differing from the rest of Paul's writings."3 And in his
epistle to Dardanus, Jerome observes : " This is said by ours,
that this Epistle which is inscribed 'to the Hebrews,' is
received as Paul's not only by the oriental churches, but ad
the ecclesiastical Greek writers of former ages ; though most
ascribe it either to Barnabas or Clement. But it matters
1 The testimony of Lactantius (a.d. 300) is doubtful. He appears, from
various references in his works, to have made use of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
but without any mention of its author.
2 Lardner's Works, vol. ii. p. 413.
3 Catal. Script. Eccles. c. 5 ; Lardner's Works, vol. ii. p. 556,

THE EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. 449
not whose it is, since it belongs to an ecclesiastical man, and
is daily read in the churches. But if the Latins do not
commonly receive it among the canonical Scriptures, the
Greeks likewise reject the Apocalypse of John. ¦ We, however,
receive both, being influenced not by the custom of the present
time, but by the authority of ancient writers."1
The words of Jerome are somewhat ambiguous, and per
haps exaggerated. The statement that the Epistle to the
Hebrews was received as a work of Paul, ab omnibus retro
ecclesiasiicis Grceci sermonis scriptoribus, is incorrect ; for at least
Irenaeus and Hippolytus are exceptions. Further, there is an
apparent contradiction in the statement : Jerome first asserts
that the Epistle was received as Paul's by ad ecclesiastical
Greek writers of former ages, and then affirms that most
(plerique) ascribe it either to Barnabas or Clement. In order-
to preserve the consistency of his statement, some (Tholuck,
Delitzsch, Stuart) suppose that plerique refers to the Latin
authors, nostrorum being understood ; and that they are here
contrasted with the Greek writers who admitted the author
ship of Paul.2 Others think that Jerome reverts to the opinion
of Origen — that the thoughts are Paul's, but the language that
of Barnabas or Clement; this hypothesis being adopted by
him to remove the objection arising from the difference of
style between this Epistle and Paul's writings.3
The position which the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies in
1 Epist. ad Dardanum : Illud nostris dicendum est, hanc epistolam quae
inscribitur ad Hebraeos, non solum ab ecclesiis orientis, sed ab omnibus retro
ecclesiasticis Graeci sermonis scriptoribus quasi Pauli apostoli suscipi, licet
plerique earn vel Barnabas, vel Clementis arbitrentur : et nihil interesse cujus
sit, quum ecclesiastici viri sit, et quotidie ecclesiarum lectione celebretur.
Quod si earn Latinorum consuetudo non recepit inter scripturas canonicas, nee
Graecorum quidem ecclesiae apocalypsin Joannis eadem libertate suscipiunt ; et
tamen nos utraque suscipimus ; nequaquam hujus temporis consuetudinem, sed
veterum scriptorum auctoritatem sequentes.
2 Stuart, without any note, translates the passage, " although most [Latins]
think that Barnabas or Clement is the author. "— Commentary on the Hebrews,
p. 154.
3 The opinion of Augustine is in favour of the Pauline authorship, but he
does not appear to have been altogether sure about the question. He admits
that there are doubts on the subject, and often appears not to consider the
Epistle as of equal authority with the other epistles of Paul. See Lardner's
Works, vol. ii. pp. 585-587. 2 F

450 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the most ancient manuscripts favours its Pauline origin. It
is not found, as in our authorized version, after Paul's epistles,
as if it were doubtful whether it belonged to them ; but after
the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and before the Pastoral
Epistles and the Epistle to Phdemon. Such is its position in
the Sinaitic MS. (_:), the Alexandrian MS. (A), the Vatican MS.
(B), the Codex Ephrem (C), and the Codex Cosilianus (H).
In the Codex Clarmontanus (D) it occupies the fourteenth
place ; in the Codex Augiensis (F) it is found in Latin, but
. not in Greek ; and in the Codex Boernerianus (G) it is
wanting. It would appear from this examination of the external
evidence, that there is a great diversity of testimony on the
point in question ; but what is most remarkable is, that there
are two streams of tradition. The Oriental, espeeiady. the
Alexandrian Church, appears, from the testimony of Pantaenus,
Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Dionysius, to have recog
nised the Epistle as Paul's ; whereas the Fathers of the Western
Church, Irenasus, Tertudian, Caius, Hippolytus, and Cyprian,
either denied or ignored its Pauline origin. Some (Hug,
Wetstein, Wordsworth) have attempted to assign a reason for
this rejection of the Epistle as Paul's by the Western Church.
They have affirmed that the Latin Church was then harassed,
first by the Montanists, and then by the Novatians. Both of
these sects held severe views concerning the reception of the
lapsed, and appealed to a passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(chap. vi. 1-8), which seemed to assert the impossibdity of
recovery to those who had faden away. The Boman Church,
unable to answer this argument, was induced to regard the
authorship of the Epistle as doubtful, and some of their con
troversialists were led to affirm that it was written by some
other than Paul.1 But not to dwell on the discredit which
such a supposition throws on the candour and honesty of the
Latin Fathers, such an opinion is incorrect, because Tertudian
himself, a Montanist, did not recognise the Pauline origin of
the Hebrews, though he had every inducement to do so ; nor
did Novatian ever appeal to it in his controversy with the
Catholic Fathers of the Western Church.
1 Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, p. 367.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 451
Whilst the Orientals, espeeiady the Alexandrians, recog
nised Paul as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, yet
many of them adopted an intermediate opinion, regarding the
thoughts as Paudne, but the diction either as a translation
from the Hebrew (Clemens Alexandrinus), or as the composi
tion of another (Origen). The Syrian Church was, in the
fourth century, unanimous in favour of a Pauline authorship.
In attempting to balance these opposing testimonies, a pre
ference must be given to the Alexandrian theologians, as more
learned and critical than those of the Western Church, so that
the external evidence is in favour of at least a modified view
of the Pauline authorship.1 And this opinion is strengthened
by taking into account the numerous adusions made to the
Epistle by Clemens Eomanus, which, as already remarked,
afford a presumption in favour of the authorship of Paul. At
the same time, the opposite view of the Western Church is, on
the supposition of a Pauline authorship, difficult to be explained,
and is certainly a ground for considerable doubt. We must
then inquire whether this presumption in favour of a Pauline
origin is confirmed or weakened by the internal evidence.
II. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE.
The particular intimations given in the Epistle, though by
no means conclusive, are rather in favour of the authorship of
Paul. They are few in number, as the Epistle is almost desti
tute of personal reference. 1. The writer beseeches the
Hebrews to pray for him, that he might be restored to them
the sooner (Heb. xdi. 1 9) ; and he mentions his intention of
coming shortly to them (Heb. xiii. 23). If the Epistle was
written by Paul, it may have been written either during his
Eoman imprisonment, and then the mention of his intention
of coming is simdar to like intimations in the Epistles to the
Philippians (Phil. ii. 24) and Phdemon (Philem. 22) ; or it
may have been written after his release, when he was master
of his own movements. The intention of visiting Judea —
understanding that the Epistle is addressed to the Palestinian
Jews — cannot be asserted to be opposed to the hypothesis
1 See Davidson's Introduction to N. T. (old edition), vol. iii. p. 196.

452 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBR*EWS.
«
that Paul is the author, because we have no record of his
journeys during the interval between his first and second
Eoman imprisonments. 2. Another intimation is contained in
the words : " Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at libert)'',
with whom, if he come shortly, I wid see you " (Heb. xdi. 23).
The appedation " brother Timothy" is in accordance with Paul's
manner when writing of Timothy to others (2 Cor. i 1 ;
1 Thess. id. 2), though it might also be employed by other
friends of Timothy. Some (Chrysostom, Stuart) translate the
word diroXeXvptevov "sent away," and refer the words to the
mission of Timothy to Phdippi (Phd. ii. 19).1 Such a mean
ing is not inadmissible (Acts xiii. 13, xv. 30), but is not so
natural as that in our version, " set at liberty." 2 We have no
account of any imprisonment of Timothy, but we cannot assert
that it could not have occurred during Paul's dfetime. 3. The
statement, " They of Italy salute you " (Heb. xiii. 24), has been
variously interpreted. Some (Eichhorn, Bleek, Credner, De
Wette, Wordsworth) suppose that the words ol dirb 7-79 ,lTciklaM
refer not to the locality where the author was living, but to the
locadty of those from whom he sends the salutations — " they
from Italy ; " and that therefore they are a proof that the
author, when he wrote the Epistle, was absent from Italy.3
But the words simply denote the Italians 4 (comp. ol dwb -.779
@ea-cra,XovlKr]<; 'IovBatot, Acts xvii. 13), and are consequently
not inconsistent' with the idea of the author being in Italy.
It is also asserted that the words are a proof that the author
was not in Borne, otherwise the expression would have been
" they of Eome ;" but this is a far-fetched assumption. The
apostle, writing from Ephesus to the church of Corinth, says,
" The churches of Asia salute you " (1 Cor. xvi. 19) ; and so,
in writing from Eome, he might well say, " They of Italy
salute you." There does not, then, appear to be anything
in these intimations opposed to the opinion that the Epistle
to the Hebrews was written by Paul from Borne at the close
1 Stuart's Commentary on the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 160-164.
2 Bleek's Brief an die Hebraer, vol. i pp. 276, 277.
3 Bleek's Introduction to N. T. vol. ii. p. 95.
* Winer's Grammar of the N. T. p. 651 ; Wieseler's Chronologie, p. 515 ;
Stuart Ore the Hebrews, p. 170.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 453
of his first imprisonment ; though, at the same time, they
cannot be employed as an argument in favour of a Pauline
origin : they lead to no solution of the question.
The doctrines of the Epistle are Pauline. This is admitted
even by those who are the most decided opponents of its
Paudne origin. " In respect of the ideas and whole circle of
thought," observes Bleek, " our Epistle has an affinity with
no other writings of the New Testament so great as with
those of Paul."1 This is espeeiady the case with the Christo
logy of the Epistle — the view which it gives of the person
and work of Christ. Christ is there represented as the
Creator and Preserver of ad things — " by whom God made
the worlds" (Heb. i. 3 ; Col. i. 16, 17). He is the visible
image of the invisible God — " the brightness of His glory,
and the express image of His person " (Heb. i 3 ; 2 Cor. iv.
4; Col. i 15). His death is a propitiation for sin: "He
tasted death for every man " (Heb. d. 9 ; Eph. i 1 0 ; Eom.
vdi. 22). His exaltation followed in consequence of His
humiliation : " Made a little lower than the angels for the
suffering of death, He is crowned with glory and honour"
(Heb. ii. 9 ; Phil. ii. 8, 9). He is " the Mediator of the new
covenant," standing in a peculiar relation betweenGod and
man (Heb. viii. 6 ; 1 Tim. d. 5). He makes intercession for
His people (Heb. vii. 25 ; Eom. vid. 34). He is set down at
the right hand of God, until His enemies be made His foot
stool (Heb. x. 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25 ; CoL iii. 1). And He
shad come again, not. as a Saviour, but as the Judge of the
world : " He shad appear the second time, without sin, unto
salvation" (Heb. ix. 27; Eom. vid. 24; Tit. d. 13). These
and numerous other instances prove that the doctrine of the
Hebrews is Paudne.2 Stid it must be confessed that the
argument is not so entirely convincing as to enable us to
infer that Paul was the author. There are also evident
variations from the Pauline doctrine ; for example, the priestly
1 Bleek's Der Brief an die Hebrder, vol. i p. 303. See also Liinemann's
Der Brief an die Hebrder, p. 14. On the other hand, Kostlin, Ritschl, Weiss,
and Riehm suppose that the Epistle is un-Pauline in its sentiments.
2 See, on this subject, Tholuck Ore the Hebrews, vol. i. pp. 27, 28 ; Ebrard On the
Hebrews, p. 414 ; and Davidson's Introduction (old edition), vol. iii. p. 211 ft:

454' AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
nature of Christ, which forms such a prominent doctrine in
this Epistle, is not much dwelt upon in Paul's writings. The
utmost that the argument drawn from the doctrines of the
Epistle proves, is that the author held the Pauline type of
doctrine. But he might have been a disciple or fodower
of Paul, deeply imbued with his doctrines, and not necessardy
Paul himself.1
The phraseology of the Epistle is Pauline. This is an
argument much more to be depended on. Long lists of
Pauline words and phrases are given by Lardner, Macknight,
Davidson (first edition), Foster, Stuart, and Bishop Words
worth.2 Certainly there is a remarkable resemblance between
the words and phrases of this Epistle and those employed by,
Paul, — a resemblance so striking that it affords a presumption
that he was the author. The most obvious of these examples
are here given. " If the word spoken by angels was stedfast "
(Heb. ii. 2) corresponds with the declaration that "the law
was ordained by angels " (Gal. iii. 1 9). That Christ, " though
a Son, learned obedience by the things which He suffered "
(Heb. v. 8), is equivalent to what the apostle says of His
" becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross "
(Phil. ii. 8). The expression regarding mdk as food for babes,
and strong meat for fud-grown men (Heb. v. 12), is parallel
to what the apostle says : " I have fed you with milk, and not
with meat ; for hitherto ye were unable to bear it " (1 Cor.
iii. 2). The term Mediator (peo-iTrjs;), as applied to Christ
(Heb. vid. 6), is employed by Paul only (1 Tim. d. 6). The
law considered as " a shadow of good things to come " (Heb.
x. 1), is the same with the declaration that the legal cere
monies are " a shadow of things to come " (Col. d. 7). The
quotation, " Vengeance belongeth to me, I will recompense,
saith the Lord" (Heb. x. 30), is also made by Paul in the
Epistle to the Bomans (Eom. xii. 1 9). The statement that be-
1 The doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews has been differently regarded :
by some as an argument in favour of its Pauline origin, and by others as an
objection against it. This will be again adverted to.
2 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 333 ; Macknight Ore the Epistles, Introduction
to the Hebrews ; Davidson's Introduction, vol. iii. pp. 235-239 ; Foster's
Apostolical Authority of ihe Hebrews, pp. 69-344 ; Stuart On the Hebrews, vol.
i. pp. 196-204 ; Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, pp. 372, 373.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 455
devers were " made a gazing-stock (or spectacle — Bearpt^opevot)
both by reproaches and afflictions" (Heb. x. 33), is parallel to
the declaration, "We are made a spectacle (deaTpov) to the
world " (1 Cor. iv. 9). The metaphor drawn from the Grecian
games, by which the Christian dfe is compared to a race (Heb.
xii. 1), is a favourite image with Paul, and almost peculiar to
him. The exhortation to " follow peace with ad men " (Heb.
xii. 14) is but a repetition of the command to "live peaceably
with all men" (Eom. xii. 18). The request, "Pray for us"
(Heb. xiii. 18), occurs in almost ad Paul's epistles. The
title given to God as the " God of peace " (Heb. xiii. 2 0) is
found nowhere else than in Paul's writings, where it is
frequent. And the concluding salutation, " Grace be with
you ad" (Heb. xid. 25), is the token of every one of his
epistles. The digressions in the Epistle are Paudne. Here we have
several examples of thaf remarkable species of digression
which Paley cads " going off at a word," and which he con
siders as a characteristic mark of the style of the Apostle
Paul.1 Indeed, in no epistle is this peculiarity so strikingly
exemplified. Instances of it are found in Heb. di. 2-6, at
the word house; in Heb. iii. 7-15, at the word to-day ; in
Heb. iv. 2-1 0, at the words rest and to-day ; and in Heb. xii.
18, 19, at the word shook ; — ad of these strongly remind us
of the style of Paul.2
Several objections of an internal character are brought for
ward, with a design to prove that the Epistle cannot be ascribed
to Paul. Of these objections, the most apparent is the want of in
scription. In all Paul's admitted epistles his name is prefixed,
but here it is omitted ; and it is urged that if he were the
author, this would not have been the case. Different solutions
of this difficulty have been proposed. Pantaenus considered
that Paul, by reason of his inferiority to Christ, the true Apostle
of the Hebrews, abstained, from a feeling of humdity, from
calling himself an apostle. Jerome and Augustine think that
1 Paley's Horcs Paulines : the Ephesians, No. II.
2 See Davidson's Introduction, vol. iii. p. 241 (old edition) ; Foster's Apos
tolical Authority, pp. 379-389.

456 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Paul declined to put his name in the inscription, lest it should
give offence on account of the prejudice which the -Jewish
Christians entertained against him. Theodoret assigns the
reason, that Paul was the apostle, not of the Jews, but of the
Gentdes. Steudel supposes that the omission arose from the
work being more of the form of a treatise on the relation of
Judaism to Christianity than an epistle. And Hug thinks
that the rhetorical style with which the Epistle commences
rendered a formal declaration of the author's name inap
propriate. The omission of the name was evidently not for
the sake of concealment ; for, from the special references at
the close, the Hebrews must have known who wrote the Epistle:
salutations are sent to them from the Italians, and the author
proposes to visit them in company with Timothy. Nor is it
a sufficient answer to say, with Stuart, that other books of the
New Testament are also without the names of their authors :
the First Epistle of John, for example, is altogether destitute
of the author's name ; 1 for such an omission was certainly not
Paul's custom. Indeed, no satisfactory reason for this departure
from his usual custom has as yet been stated ; 2 and the want
of inscription must be admitted to be un-Paudne. But still
the objection does not prove much. There may have been
reasons for Paul deviating from his custom in this particular
instance which cannot now be ascertained : such as the un
settled state of Judea on the threshold of the Eoman war,
which may have rendered it a point of prudence to withhold
his name ; since the connection of the Jewish Christians with
one who was regarded by the unbelieving Jews as the great
apostate and enemy of thed religion, might expose them to
persecution from their fanatical countrymen.
It has been objected that in the Epistle the author declares
that he owed his knowledge of Christianity to former teachers, and
consequently that he was not an apostle, but a disciple. This
declaration is supposed to be contained in these words : " How
shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the
first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto
1 Stuart Ore the Hebrews, vol. i. p. 214.
2 That of Steudel is the most plausible, that the work is not an epistle, but
a treatise. If this be admitted, the want of inscription is accounted for.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 457
us by them that heard Him ?" (Heb. ii. 3). Here it is affirmed
that the author admits that he received the gospel at second
hand ; contrary to the manner of Paul, who asserts the in
dependence and originality of his revelation in the strongest
terms. This objection was noticed and urged by the great
reformers Luther and Calvin, and has been pressed in recent
times by Bleek, Liinemann, Alford, and most of those critics
who deny the Bauline origin of the Epistle.1 But too much
stress has been laid upon it ; an incidental statement has been
converted into an authoritative declaration. Two answers have
been given, either of which is perfectly sufficient to remove the
supposed difficulty. The author here, by a common rhetorical
figure, includes himself with those to whom he writes, without
however intending that the words are to be too strictly pressed.
Such a mode of address is natural, and is frequent among all
writers. Or it may be affirmed that such words may well be
employed by Paul himself, even so as, not merely nominally,
but ready, to include himself. Although he lays claim to an
independent reception of the gospel, and asserts that he received
it neither from man nor by man, but by the revelation of
Jesus Christ, yet he was not an eye and ear witness ; he did
not hear the Lord Jesus Christ Himself when on earth ; he
must have been indebted to others for his knowledge of many
of the facts in the life of Christ, and probably of many of the
sayings of Christ. These facts and sayings " were confirmed
unto him by them who heard Him." " Paul himself," observes
Ebrard, " could not have written otherwise here ; he, too, could
and must include himself, along with his readers, among those
who had not themselves been witnesses of the life of Jesus." 2
It has been further objected, that the doctrinal contents- of
the Epistle are un-Pauline. There is an omission of many
of the peculiar doctrines of Paul, as wed as a statement
of peculiar views of. divine truth, which, though not contra
dictions of Pauline theology, yet are deviations sufficient to
distinguish this letter from Paul's acknowledged epistles.
These supposed un-Pauline views are fairly stated by Bleek,
1 Bleek's Hebrder, vol. i. pp. 285-295 ; Liinemann's Der Brief an die Hebrder,
p. 10 ; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, p. 44.
2 Ebrard On tlie Hebrews, p. 408.

458 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
in his excedent commentary on the Hebrews.1 He dweds
especially upon four points of difference : — 1. The author of
the Epistle goes further than Paul, and asserts the abodtion
of the old covenant, with all its laws and ordinances, not only
for the Gentiles, but even for the Jews. 2. He omits all
reference to the Gentiles, and their share in the kingdom of
God; in short, ad adusion to the Pauline doctrine of the
universality of redemption. 3. Whdst Paul places the greatest
stress on the resurrection of Christ, and speaks of His death
almost always in connection with that event, the author of the
Hebrews only adudes to it once, and that incidentally (Heb.
xiii. 20), and gives special prominence to the death of Christ,
as that of a High Priest offering up a sacrifice for sin. 4. But
espeeiady the idea involved in the term 7.-0--. .9 is different
from that of Paul; its opposition to epya is entirely over
looked, and there is no reference to the great Paudne doctrine
of justification by faith. Simdar objections are made and
drawn out at considerable length by Baur, Liinemann, and
Davidson.2 Now, it must be admitted that these remarks are not with
out foundation, and that there is a certain difference in point
of doctrinal statement between this Epistle and Paul's un
doubted writings ; but yet this difference is not so great as
appears at first sight. We do not consider the abodtion of the
ceremonies of the Jewish religion, as well for the Jewish as
for the Gentde Christians, a stage beyond the views of Paul,
but as directly following from his principles (Gal. di. 24 ;
Col. d. 17).3 The omission of ail mention of the Gentdes
arises from the nature and design of the Epistle as addressed
peculiarly to the Jews. The resurrection of Christ, so much
insisted on by Paul, though seldom aduded to, is yet pre
supposed in the frequent reference to Christ's session at the
right hand of God ; and the priestly office of Christ, and the
relation of the sacrifices of the law to the sacrifice of Christ,
though more fully developed, are not wholly omitted in Paul's
1 Bleek's Brief an die Hebrder, vol. i. pp. 303-313.
2 Baur's Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. p. 112 ft. ; Liinemann's Hebrder, pp. 14, 15 ;
Davidson's Introduction, vol. i pp. 241-246 (new edition).
3 Even Bleek seems inclined to grant this.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 459
epistles (Eph. v. 2 ; Eom. viii. 34). IHcttk, it is admitted,
appears rather to express confidence in God than faith in
Christ (Heb. xi), and there is no contrast drawn between faith
and works : the Pauline doctrine of justification (BiKatoavvn
irlo-Tem) can hardly be traced. But along with these ad
missions, it is to be observed that this objection is mostly of
a negative kind, founded chiefly on the omission of Pauline
doctrines, and no great stress can be laid on such an argu
ment : a like omission occurs in the Epistles to the Thessa
lonians. The design of the Epistle, and the character of those
to whom it was written, fully account for its peculiarities. Its
object is to show the relation of Judaism to Christianity, —
namely, that Christianity was the spiritual realization of
Judaism ; and hence the necessity of dweding on the rites
and ceremonies of the law, and of giving prominence to the
priestly character of Christ. And in general, we think that
undue weight is given to such subjective considerations as
those under discussion ; as if the introduction of new views of
divine truth, or the omission of certain doctrines, were an
objection to the Pauline origin of an epistle.1
Another objection to the Paudne origin of the Hebrews is
drawn from the difference in the nature and mode of the quota
tions from the Old Testament. Paul quotes generally from
the Septuagint, but often freely, as if from memory ; and where
the Septuagint differs materially from the Hebrew, he often
translates from the Hebrew, — thus showing that he was con
versant both with the Hebrew original and with the Greek
translation. The author of the Hebrews, on the other hand,
follows with one exception (Heb. x. 30) the Septuagint, and
quotes verbatim ; and even when the Septuagint differs from
the Hebrew (e.g. Heb. x. 5-7) he follows it, and reasons upon
it. He seems never to have consulted the Hebrew. The
mode of citation is also different. Paul uses various formulae :
as, " it is written," " the Scripture saith," " David says," " Moses
says," " Isaiah says ; " the author of the Hebrews, on the con
trary, with one exception (Heb. ii. 6), refers his citations to
God, 'or to the Spirit of God, even in those passages where
1 These objections of Bleek are refuted at length by Ebrard : Commentary on
the Hebrews, pp. 409-413.

460 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
God is not the immediate speaker.1 Now, such a difference
in the nature and mode of citation from the Old Testament
must be admitted ; but different opinions may be formed ,as
to the force of the objection arising from it. It may be
questioned whether it is adverse to the Pauline origin of the
Hebrews, as the apostle may have been led from the nature
of his work to be very exact in his references. And as to
his reasoning from those quotations, where the Greek varies
from or even misinterprets the Hebrew, we cannot affirm
that this is .opposed to the method of Paul (comp. Eom.
xv. 12).
It is also asserted that the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews was ignorant of the arrangements of the temple. He -
mentions, as contained in the holy of holies, the golden censer,
or, as others render it, the golden altar of incense (OvpttaT^piov),
the ark of the covenant containing the golden pot that had
manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the
covenant (Heb. ix. 3, 4) ; whereas, in reality, the holy of
holies at that time was empty, and even in Solomon's temple
contained only the ark and the two tables of stone (1 Kings
vdi. 9). The altar of incense sto'od outside, directly before
the veil that separated between the holy place and the holy
of holies. Hence it is argued that the author of this Epistle
could not be Paul, as he dved for a long time in Jerusalem, and
could not have been ignorant of the arrangements in the temple.2
But it is a mere assumption that the writer here speaks either
of the temple of Solomon or of that of Herod. It is more
natural to suppose that he speaks of the tabernacle as con
structed by Moses. Now, we know that Aaron's rod and the
pot of manna were laid up before the ark in the holy of holies
(Num. xvii. 1 0 ; Ex. xvi. 3 3). The meaning of Ovp,taTr\piov,
rendered in our version censer, is doubtful. Some (Calvin,
Bleek, De Wette, Wieseler, Liinemann, Dedtzsch, Ebrard)
understand by it the altar of incense, which was not in
1 This objection is very forcibly stated by Bleek in his Brief an die Hebrder,
vol, i pp. 338-381 ; and in Liinemann's Hebraerbrief, pp. 15, 16.
2 This objection has been urged by Bleek, Brief an die Hebrder, vol. i. ppj
381-387. He argues from this that the writer of the Hebrews was a native of
Alexandria, and not of Judea.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 461
the holy of holies, but outside the veil. Others (Luther,
Michaelis, Kuinoel, Stier, Stuart, Davidson (first edition),
Alford, Wordsworth) suppose it to be the censer which was
brought into the holy of holies by the high priest once a
year. To remove the difficulty, some propose to understand
the participle e^ovaa in the text in a modified sense, as
meaning belonging to the holy of holies.1 Others think that
there was a golden censer, not elsewhere mentioned, kept
within the holy of holies, in which the incense was kindled
within the ved (Lev. xvi. 12, 13).2
The great objection, however, to the Pauline origin of the
Hebrews is derived from the difference in style between it and
the other Paudne Epistles. This difference was aduded to by
the Fathers of the Alexandrian school, and various solutions
were .proposed. Thus we have seen that Clement of Alex
andria supposes that the Epistle was translated from the
Hebrew by Luke, and that this is the reason why one finds
the same character of style and phraseology in it as in the
Acts. For the same reason, Origen considered that the
thoughts were the apostle's, but that the language belonged
to some one who recorded the sentiments of the apostle.
Eusebius conceived that the Epistle was a translation. "As,"
he observes, " Paul addressed the Hebrews in the language of
his country, some say that the evangedst Luke, others that
Clement, translated the Epistle; which also appears more
like the truth, as the Epistle of Clement and that to the
Hebrews preserve the same features of style and phraseology,
and because the sentiments in both these works are not very
different."3 Philaster, bishop of Brescia, mentions this dif
ference of style as the reason why some denied it to be Paul's.
" Some," he observes, " rejected it, as- being more eloquent than
the apostle's other writings." 4 This critical judgment on the
difference of style has been acquiesced in by the most cele
brated critics of recent times, although they held different
1 Ebrard Ore the Hebrews, in loc. But if %xoura is so read, that modification
of meaning must extend to all the other particulars.
2 Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, in loc.
3 Eus. Hist. Eccl. iii. 38.
' Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 338.

462 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
opinions as to the authorship of the Epistle, and cannot now
with any degree of success be questioned.1
The Greek of the Hebrews is much purer than that of
Paul's epistles. The Hebraisms found in it are mostly those
which are derived from the Septuagint. There are no ana--
colutha such as occur so frequently in Paul's writings. Even
in the longest parentheses and digressions the construction is
regular.2 Calmness is maintained throughout ; there is want
ing that fervour of the apostle which carried him along,
regardless of grammatical accuracy.3 The style is laboured,
rounded, and rhetorical. For example, whilst the session of
Christ at the right hand of God is expressed by Paul simply
by the words, " He sitteth at the right hand of God " JeV Begta
tov Qeov Kadriptevo^, Col. iii. 1), the author of the Hebrews
uses for the statement of the same thought various rhetorical
expressions, as, " He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty
on high " (Heb. i. 3) ; " He is set on the right hand of the
throne of the Majesty in the heavens " (Heb. viii. 1) ; " He is
set down at the right hand of the throne of God " (Heb. xii. 2).4
A simdar difference is seen in the mode of the statement of
other doctrines. " The main difference for us," observes Dean
Alford, " which wid also set forth the characteristic pecudarity
of this Epistle, is, that whereas Paul is ever, as it were,
struggling with the scantiness of human speech to pour forth
his crowding thoughts, thereby fading into rhetorical and
grammatical irregularities, the style of our Epistle flows
regularly on, with no such suspended constructions. Even
where the subject induces long parentheses, the writer does
not break the even flow and equdibrium of his style, but
returns back to the point where he left it. Again, the greatest
pains are bestowed on a matter which does not seem to have
engaged the attention of the other sacred writers, even in
cluding Paul himself, — namely, rhetorical rhythm and equi-
1 As, for example, by Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, Ebrard, and Delitzsch. It
has, however, been questioned by Foster and Stuart.
2 See Bleek's Brief an die Hebrder, vol. i p. 97.
3 Neander well observes; " The author of this Epistle seems to stand to the
apostle in the same relation as Melancthon to Luther : the one quiet and gentle,
the other ardent and energetic. "
4 See Lunemami's Brief an die HebriXer, p. 13.

THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 463
librium of words and sentences. In Paul's most glorious
outbursts of eloquence, he is not rhetorical. In those of
the writer of this Epistle, he is elaborately and faultlessly
rhetorical." x
Various answers have been given to this objection. It has
been said that the Holy Spirit might have inspired the apostle
to write in this particular style. But this is not an answer,
-but an evasion, and would render ad discussions on this sub
ject useless. The style of each sacred writer has been pre
served ; the writings of Paul are clearly distinguishable from
those of John or James. The most common hypothesis is to
suppose, with Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and Jerome,
that we have here a translation ; and that the excedence of
style is attributable to the translator. But this opinion has
been discarded by most recent critics. Some of the reasons
which they give are, however, not convincing ; the numerous
paronomasias of the Epistle might be found in a version, and
the linguistic niceties might only prove the excellence of the
translation. But the want of any traditionary notice of the
existence of a Hebrew original, the reasoning from the words
of the Septuagint when it differs from the Hebrew, the use of
certain Greek terms for which there are no proper Hebrew
equivalents, and the employment of BtaQr\K7] in the sense of
testimony (Heb. ix. 15-20), instead of covenant, which the
Hebrew synonym only means, render the idea of a transla
tion improbable.2 Lardner supposes that the difference of
style arose from the superior knowledge of Greek which the
amanuensis, to whom Paul dictated the Epistle, possessed.
" My conjecture," he observes, " is, that Paul dictated the
Epistle in Hebrew ; and another, who was a great master of
the Greek language, wrote down the apostle's sentiments in
his own elegant Greek."3 Others refer the difference to
Paul's versatility. They suppose that Paul was able to write
in the rhetorical style of the Hebrews ; indeed, that several of
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, p. 79. See also, on the style
of Paul, Bleek's Hebrder, pp. 315-338.
2 We do not here discuss the question as to whether the Epistle to the
Hebrews is a translation, but merely note some of the reasons which render that
opinion improbable.
3 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 339.

464 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
his speeches given in the Acts, as his oration to the Athenians
and his apology before Agrippa, are equally rhetorical, and bear
a close resemblance in style to the Hebrews.1 " It can scarcely
be supposed," observes Bishop Wordsworth, " that the divmely
inspired Apostle St. Paul could not write in different styles
on different occasions and to different persons.- Even unin
spired men can do this. Great masters can paint in different
manners ; and great authors can write in different styles." 2
Others resolve the difference into the greater literary care
which the apostle took in the composition of this Epistle.
The inaccuracy of Paul's Greek does not arise from defective
knowledge of the language, but from a certain carelessness of
style arising from the fervour of his spirit.3 Now, it might
happen that he took pecudar pains with this Epistle, perhaps
because it partook more of the nature of a treatise than of a
letter : the fervour of his spirit was kept under restraint, as
would naturady be the case in writing on an abstract subject ;
and hence the remarkable difference in style might in some
measure be accounted for. The argument arising from style
ought not to be pushed too far, as many circumstances may
occur, such as the difference of subject, the amount of labour
bestowed, the peculiarities of situation, the difference of age,
and even the state of bodily health, which materially affect
and alter an author's style. It is to a large extent a matter
of private judgment and taste, whether Paul could or could not
have written in a style simdar to that of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. Eminent critics have formed opposite opinions.4
In summing up the internal evidence, it is difficult to arrive
at any definite conclusion. The doctrines and phraseology of
the Epistle point to a Pauline origin ; whdst the want of in
scription, and the mode of citation from the Old Testament, are
un-Pauline. The great objection is the difference of style;
but we must put against this difference the pecudar Pauline
1 Perhaps, however, the diction of these speeches was Luke's, not Paul's.
* Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, p. 371.
3 See remarks formerly made on Paul's style, p. 43 of this work.
4 Stuart and Bishop Wordsworth, both proficients in Greek, notwithstanding
the difference in style, yet consider Paul as the author of the Hebrews. Bleek,
Liinemann, and Alford, on the other hand, consider this difference an insuper
able objection to the Pauline authorship.

PARTICULAR HYPOTHESES. 465
digressions with which the Epistle abounds. If the external
evidence in favour of Paul had been stronger, we might have
disregarded the internal ; but stid we think, taking ad things
into consideration, that the preponderance of evidence is in
favour of a Paudne authorship ; at least no person has yet
been suggested as better entitled to be considered the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

III. HYPOTHESES CONCERNING THE AUTHOR OF THE HEBREWS.
Toward the close of the fourth century, the Epistle to the
Hebrews was received both by the Western and Eastern
Churches as a genuine work of Paul. This opinion was left
almost entirely undisturbed untd the time of the Eeformation.1
It is a fact, not generady known, that almost ad the great
Eeformers denied the Pauline origin of the Epistle. Such was
the opinion both of Calvin and Luther. " As to the author of
the Epistle," observes Calvin, " we need not be very sodcitous.
Some think the author to have been Paul, others Luke, others
Barnabas, and others Clement, as Jerome relates ; yet Eusebius,
in the sixth book of his Church History, mentions only Luke and
Clement. I wed know that in the time of Chrysostom it was
everywhere classed by the Greeks among the Pauline Epistles ;
but the Latins thought otherwise, even those who were nearest
to the times of the apostles. I indeed cannot be persuaded
to recognise Paul as the author ; 2 for they that say that he
designedly suppressed his name, because it was hateful to the
Jews, deduce nothing to the purpose : for why did he men
tion the name of Timothy, as by this he betrayed himself ?
But the manner of teaching and the style sufficiently show
that Paul was not the author ; and the writer himself pro
fesses in the second chapter that he was one of the disciples
of the apostles, which is whody different from the way in
which Paul spoke of himsed." 3 And so also, commenting on
Heb. ii. 3, Calvin observes : " This passage indicates that this
1 At the time of the Reformation, both Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, in the
Romish Church, rejected the Pauline origin of the Hebrews.
2 Ego ut Paulum agnoscam auctorem, adduci nequeo.
3 Calvin Ore the Hebrews : Introduction. 2 G

466 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Epistle was not written by Paul ; for he did not usually speak
so humbly of himself, as to confess that he was a disciple, of
the apostles." The opinion of Luther is precisely simdar:
" That this Epistle to the Hebrews," he observes, " is not St.
Paul's or any other apostle's, is evident from chap. ii. 3, where
it is said, This doctrine has come to us, and been received by
us from those who heard it from the Lord. From this it. is
evident that the author speaks of the apostles, as a disciple —
that he has received his doctrine from the apostles. But St.
Baul strongly testifies that his gospel is not of man, neither
by man, but from God Himself." 1 So also Melancthon did
not consider that the Epistle was Paul's. Beza wavered ; but
he also is probably to be reckoned among those who rejected
the Pauline origin.2 In the Lutheran. Bible the Epistle to
the Hebrews is separated from Paul's Epistles, and placed
among the catholic epistles, between the Epistles of John and
the Epistle of James.
Modern critics are much divided in their opinions on this
subject. They may be arranged into three classes : those who
regard Paul as the author ; those who deny the Paudne
authorship ; and those who adopt an intermediate opinion,
and, like Origen, conceive that the thoughts are Paul's, but
the language another's. Those who maintain the Pauline
origin of the Epistle reckon among their numbers Doddridge,
Whitby, Lardner (?), Macknight, Hallet, Paulus, Bengel, Storr,
Hug (?), Stuart of America, Foster, Hofmann, Bloomfield, and
Wordsworth.3 Those who deny the Pauline origin of the
Epistle number among their advocates such distinguished
critics as Grotius, Michaelis, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, De Wette,
Baur, Schwegler, Twesten, Bleek, Wieseler, Neander,4 Credner,
Biehm, Kostlin, Neudecker, Ewald, Tholuck, Ullmann, Eeuss,
1 Luther, Preface to the Hebrews.
2 So also Osiander, Limborch, etc., rejected the Pauline authorship.
3 Lardner considers that Paul's amanuensis used his own style, and Hug
thinks that Luke improved Paul's diction. The Pauline authorship of the
Hebrews is chiefly defended by Stuart of America in his commentary, and by the
Rev. Charles Foster in his learned work entitled The Apostolical Authority
of the Epistle to the Hebrews.
* Neander's view is, that the Epistle to- the Hebrews was written by an apostolic
man of the Pauline school; but he does not suggest any name. — Planting of
vol. i. p. 347.

PARTICULAR HYPOTHESES. 467
Liinemann, Eitschl, Alford, and Davidson (second edition).
Those who hold that the Epistle was written under the special
infiuence of Paul, but not by his own hand, comprehend
Ebrard, Delitzsch, Dbllinger, Stier, Guericke, Thiersch, and
Davidson (first edition).
The Epistle to the Hebrews has been assigned to others
besides Paul. One theory is, that Clemens Eomanus was the
author. This hypothesis was especially favoured by Erasmus,
and adopted by Franciscus Junius, the first who edited the
Epistle of Clement. It has not been maintained by any recent
writer. Eusebius supposes that Clement might have been the
translator of the Epistle ; 1 and Origen suggests that he might
have put Paul's thoughts into his own language. The main
argument in favour of this opinion is drawn from the numerous
allusions to the Hebrews which occur in the Epistle of Clement.
These allusions are not regarded as quotations, but as Clement's
own sentiments. There is a certain plausibility in this view ;
and it would account for the testimony of Clement being never
appealed to by the Fathers in proof of the authorship of Paul.
But the hypothesis is- contradicted by the nature of Clement's
epistle. There is no resemblance between it and the Epistle
to the Hebrews, in point either of diction or profundity of
thought: both writings could not have proceeded from the
same individual. Clement also was, in ad probabdity, a Gen
tile Christian, and therefore could not have written an epistle
which implies in its author an intimate acquaintance with the
ordinances of the Jewish religion.
Others refer the Epistle to the 'evangelist Luke. This
opinion was adopted by Grotius. There are also several
modifications of it. Clemens Alexandrinus thinks that Luke
was the translator of the Epistle written in Hebrew by Paul.
Origen mentions him, along with Clemens Eomanus, as one of
those who may have written the Epistle under Paul's direc
tion. And in recent times, several eminent critics who have
adopted the intermediate opinion (Ebrard, Guericke, Delitzsch,
Doldnger, Hug), suppose that the style and diction of the
Epistle belong to Luke. The great argument in support of
this opinion is a supposed resemblance between the style of
1 Hist. Eccl. iii. 38.

468 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
this Epistle and that of Luke, espeeiady in the latter half of
the Acts. Points of resemblance have been traced by various
writers ; terms and phrases, found nowhere else, are common
to Luke's writings and the Hebrews. It has been objected
that Luke could not have been the independent author of the
Hebrews, because he was a Gentde Christian (Col. iv. 14),
and consequently comparatively unacquainted with Jewish
ordinances. But this does not affect the question whether
he might not have been employed to write down Paul's views,
and thus be, in a secondary sense, the author, — a point to
which we shall again recur.
Others suppose that Silas is the author of the Hebrews.
This opinion is adopted by Bohme and Mynster, and is
regarded by Biehm as possible.1 Sdas was a Jewish Christian,
and a fellow-worker with Paul. But there are here no
grounds to go upon. We possess none of the writings of
Silas, with which to compare the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and
we are ignorant of his character and mental qualities. The
supposition is a mere groundless hypothesis.
Others refer the authorship to Barnabas. For this they
can appeal to the testimony of Tertudian.2 This opinion has
been adopted by Schmidt, Udmann,3 and Twesten, and has
been supported with his wonted acuteness and ingenuity by
Wieseler.4 A modification of this hypothesis has been ad
vanced by Thiersch, who conceives that the Epistle to the
Hebrews is the joint production of Paul and Barnabas. Bar
nabas, it is asserted, was eminently qualified to be the author
of the Epistle. He was a man of apostodc dignity, the com
panion of Paul and friend of Timothy, and expressly called
an apostle in the Acts (chap. xiv. 14). He was not only a
Jew, but a Levite, and therefore must have been intimately
acquainted with the Levitical service. He was a native of
Cyprus, an island closely connected with Alexandria, and
therefore was probably educated in the Alexandrian school of
1 Riehm's Lehrbegr. des Hebrderbr. p. 893.
2 Tertullian, de pudicit. c. 20.
3 Stud. u. Krit. 1828, ii. pp. 377-399.
4 Wieseler's Chronologie, pp. 504-513 ; Untersuchung uber der Hebraerbrief,
vol. i. pp. 60-67.

PARTICULAR HYPOTHESES. 469
Jewish phdosophy, represented by Phdo, which would account
for the Alexandrian method of viewing the Old Testament as
typical, which characterizes this Epistle. And whereas it is
asserted that Barnabas was inferior to Paul in oratory, this is
not at variance with his being an eloquent and rhetorical
writer. It is admitted that there is no resemblance or com
parison, either in style or matter, between this Epistle and the
extant Epistle of Barnabas ; but it is affirmed, and not without
reason, that the so-caded Epistle of Barnabas, which has come
down to us, is spurious. Such are the arguments on which
Wieseler builds his hypothesis. But however ingenious, they
are wholly insufficient to produce conviction. There is no
writing of Barnabas with which to compare this Epistle ;
others as wed as he possessed the necessary quadfications ;
and the statement of Tertudian is, so far as is known, com
pletely unsupported by other testimony.
The hypothesis which has had most advocates in recent
times is, that Apollos wa*s the author of the Epistle. This
opinion was first advanced by Luther. Commenting on Gen.
xlvdi. 20, he observes: "Auctor epistolae ad Hebraeos, quis-
quis est, sive Paulus, sive ut ego arbitror Apodos, eruditissime
adegat hunc locum." 1 ¦ It has since been adopted with some
modifications by Semler, Osiander, Le Clerc, Credner, De
Wette, Schott, Tholuck, Lutterbeck, Bleek, Bunsen, Eeuss,
Fedmoser, Liinemann, Alford, and Davidson (second edition).
The description given of Apodos in the Acts, it is affirmed,
eminently suits the author of the Hebrews : " A Jew born in
Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures "
(Acts xvdi. 24). The fact that he was a Jew accounts for
his intimate acquaintance with the Jewish worship ; that he
was an Alexandrian Jew, affords a reason for the Alexandrian
mode of interpretation which pervades the Epistle ; his reputa
tion as an eloquent man suits the eloquence, purity, and
-rhetorical nature of its diction ; and his being mighty in the
Scriptures corresponds with that intimate knowledge of the
Jewish Scriptures which is displayed in this Epistle. Apodos
was also a companion of Paul, and would consequently adopt
1 So also, commenting on 1 Cor. iii. 4, Luther remarks, "This Apollos was
a highly intelligent man : the Epistle to the Hebrews is perhaps his."

470 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
the Paudne phase of Christianity, and would be acquainted
with Timothy.1 It is to be observed that this hypothesis is
totally unsupported by external evidence. Apodos is never
mentioned by any of the Fathers in connection with this
Epistle, either as its author or its translator : the origin of the
hypothesis was a mere incidental remark of Luther. The
internal evidences are mere assumptions, resting on a small
foundation; for there is no writing of Apollos with which a
comparison can be made. If Apollos, a native of Alexandria,
had been the author, we would have expected some traces of
this fact in the school of Alexandria ; whereas the Alex
andrian Fathers, with one voice, attribute the matter of the
Epistle to Paul, whatever difference there may be in their ,
views as to its form.
The opinion of the third class of critics yet remains to be
considered : that of those who think that the thoughts are
Paul's, but the language another's ; in other words, that the
matter is Pauline, but the form uh-Pauline. This was the
view of Origen, and has since been adopted by Stier, Guericke,
Ebrard, Dedtzsch, Hug, and Davidson (first edition).2 Stier
considers that the actual writer of the sentiments of Paul is
unknown ; but the other critics agree in fixing on Luke as
the writer or editor of the Epistle, from a supposed resem
blance of style. As, however, the personal notices are at
variance with a twofold authorship, Guericke supposes that
Paul added the concluding part with his own hand ; 3 whilst
Ebrard thinks that the personal allusions refer to the person
who drew up the Epistle according to Paul's directions.
Ebrard assigns to Luke a greater share in the composition of
the Epistle than either Guericke or Delitzsch, and almost
exalts him into an original author. He gives his opinion as
fodows: "Paul, we suppose, intended to have fully talked
over the subject with Luke, perhaps to have given him a
1 The ablest defence of the Apolline authorship of the Hebrews is by Bleek in
his Brief an die Hebrder, pp. 423-430. See also Alford's Greek Testament, vol.
iv., Prolegomena, pp. 58-62.
2 Dr. Davidson, in the first edition of his Introduction, supported a modified
view of the Pauline authorship ; but in his second edition he leans to the opinion
that Apollos was the author.
3 Guericke's Isagogik, p. 405.

PARTICULAR HYPOTHESES. 471
scheme or preparatory work in writing ; he himself was de
prived of the leisure necessary for the composition by the
legal procedure against him, which precisely at that time
(Phil. d. 23) had passed into a new stage. Luke worked out
the Epistle for Paul, and as in his name ; not, however, in
Eome, where perhaps he himself might have been involved
in the procedure against Paul, but in another place in Italy,
somewhere in the neighbourhood of Theophdus." 1 Hug, with
whom Dr. Davidson 2 partially agrees, supposes that all the
share which Luke had in the composition of the Epistle was
merely to polish the diction of Paul. Similar instances of
such co-operation are found in Scripture. Thus, for example,
the speeches of Paul recorded in the Acts are in matter Paul's,
but in diction Luke's : Luke used the materials freely, and
impressed upon them his own style. The hypothesis is
ingenious, and is not to be set aside without consideration.
At the same time, it must be confessed that it bears the
appearance of improbability, being avowedly formed to escape
a difficulty. Besides, many critics affirm that the resemblance
between Luke's style and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews
is by no means so strong as to prove identity.
Of all the theories which suppose an independent author
ship of the Epistle, that which ascribes it to Paul is the
only one which is supported by external authority.3 No
other name can be substituted with any appearance of equal
reason. Whether the difference of style is a sufficient reason
for denying Paul's direct authorship, or whether this difference
may be accounted for on the supposition of greater care in
composition on the part of the apostle; whether the inter
mediate hypothesis of Origen, that the thoughts are Paul's
and the diction another's, is admissible ; whether the author
of the Epistle is whody unknown, as is the case with many
of the inspired books of the Old Testament : these are points
which cannot easily be determined. The question stdl re-
1 Ebrard On the Hebrews, p. 426.
2 In the first edition of his Introduction.
3 Tertullian's testimony in favour of Barnabas is the solitary exception to this
remark. Luke and Clement have also been mentioned, but rather as editors or
translators than as independent authors.

472 AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
mains in a considerable state of dubiety, and after sixteen
hundred years we have hardly advanced beyond the state
ment of Origen : " The thoughts are Paul's ; but who wrote
the Epistle, God only truly knows." As the result of the
whole discussion, we appear constrained, though not without
reluctance, to come to the same conclusion as Michaeds :
"After ad, then, we must confess that we do not know
whether St. Paul wrote this Epistle or not. An absolute
decision on this subject is indeed to be wished, but, in my
opinion, not to be obtained." 1
1 Michaelis' Introduction, vol. vi. p. 157. We do not, however, agree with
Michaelis in supposing that the balance of evidence is against, but rather con
sider that it is in favour of, a Pauline authorship.

INDEXES.

I. -TEXTS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATED OR
EXPLAINED.

Acts.
xx. 25, .
xxviii. 30, 31,
Romans.
i 17, . .
viii. 2,

PAGE 365 355

255255

1 Corinthians.
v. 9, . . 27-30
vii 10, 12, . . 58
xvi 3, . 34
2 Corinthians.
iii 18, . . . 45
xii. 7, 217, 218
xii. 14, . . . 177
xiii. 1, . 17.
Galatians.
ii 3-5, . . . 160
ii. 7-9, . 163
ii. 11, . . 164, 165
ii. 12, . . . 166
iv. 13, 14, 218, 219
vi 11, . . 151

Ephesians.

PAGE 317

ii. 6-8,
iii. 21,
iv. 22,

Philippians.

339 45
352

Colossians.
ii. 1, . . 270, 271
iv. 16, . . 30-33
1 Thessalonians.
iii. 1, 2, . 84, 85
iv. 15, . . . 102
2 Thessalonians.
ii 2, . . 35, 115
ii. 1-12, . 120, 121

1 Timothy.
ii. 14, 15,
iii. 2, . . .
iii. 13, .
v. 3-16,

383
403398
378

iv. 20,

2 Timothy.

iii. 12,

Titus.

18,

Philemon.

F-GB 430423 301

Hebrews.
ii. 3, . . 456, 457
ix. 4, . . 460
xiii. 23, . . 452
xiii. 24, . 452
James.
iii. 15, . . 262
2 Peter.
iii. 15, 16, . . 438
Jude.
12, 198
19, 262
Revelation.
xxii. 11, 256

II. —INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Advent, Paul's views of, 94-106.
Agapse, the, 198-202.
Alexander on the Canon, referred to,
24.
Alford, Dean, on Paul's lost epistles,
27 ; on the lost Epistle to the Cor
inthians, 30 ; Paul's views on the
advent, 97 ; on the Man of Sin,
129, 134 ; comparison between the
Ephesians and Colossians, 334, 335 ;
on the identity of bishops and

presbyters, 401 ; on the style of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, 462 ; sup
poses Apollos to be the author of
the Hebrews, 470.
Anacolutha in Paul's epistles, 43.
Analogy of faith, 61, 62.
Angel-worship, 285.
Antichrist, 121-123 ; opinions of the
Reformers, 124 ; of the Roman and
Greek Churches, 125.
Apocalyptic angels, the, 406.

474

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Apolline party in the Corinthian
church, 189, 190.
Apollos supposed to be the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 469,
470.
Apostolic succession, 409, 410.
Aratus, quoted by Paul, 13.
Augustine on the concealment of the
time of the advent, 104; on the
authorship of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, 449.
Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles
in general, 65-78 ; First Thessa
lonians, 79-85 ; Second Thessa
lonians, 107-114; Galatians, 136-
138 ; First Corinthians, 169-171 ;
Second Corinthians, 203 - 207 ;
Romans, 227-234 ; Colossians, 264-
269 ; Philemon, 294-298 ; Ephesians,
307-314 ; Phdippians, 336-342 ;
the Pastoral Epistles, 369-383.
Authorship of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, 437-472.
Bacon, Lord, on the universal appli
cation of Scripture, 63.
Barnabas not the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 468.
Basil on the omission of iv 'Epiiru in
Eph. i. 1, 318.
Baur's classification of Paul's epistles,
20 ; his views on Paul's epistles,
73-75 ; objections to First Thessa
lonians, 81-83 ; objections to Second
Thessalonians, 109-112 ; his views
on the opposition between Paul and
the twelve, 161-165 ; his view of
the Christ party at Corinth, 195,
196 ; objections to Rom. xv. and
xvi., 231-233; on the Jewish
character of the church of Rome,
238, 239; on the design of the
Epistle to the Romans, 243, 244 ;
on the Pauline doctrine of justifica
tion, 252, 257, 259 ; objections to
the Colossians, 267, 268 ; supposes
that the Colossian heretics are
Ebionites, 291 ; objections to Phile
mon, 296-298 ; objections to the
Ephesians, 314 ; objections to the
Philippians, 339-341 ; objections to
the Pastoral Epistles, 374-379 ; his
views on episcopacy, 402.
Bellarmine, referred to, 247.
Bengel on the unity of Scripture, 60.
Beza on Paul's eloquence, 44.
Billroth's Commentary on the Corin
thians, 195.
Bingham's Antiquities, referred to,
197, 201.
Biscoe on the Acts, 160.

Bishops identical with presbyters, 400.
Bleek on the date of the Epistle to
the Galatians, 149 ; his supposition
of an intermediate epistle to the
Corinthians, 207-209 ; supposes that
the Epistle to the Philippians was
written before Ephesians and Colos
sians, 279 ; on a lost epistle to the
Philippians, 342 ; objections to First
Timothy, 382 ; his Brief an die
Hebraer, quoted or referred to, 453,
457 460 470.
Bodily infirmities of Paul, 217-226.
Bottger on the date of First Corin
thians, 184 ; on the date of the
Philippians, 350 ; on the date of
Second Timothy, 429.
Caius of Rome, his catalogue, 68 ; on
Paul's martyrdom, 434 ; denies that
the Hebrews was written by Paul,
447.
Calvin, on the lost epistle to the Corin
thians, 30 ; on Paul's thorn in the
flesh, 220 ; on the design of the
Epistle to Titus, 417 ; denies the
Pauline authorship of the Hebrews,
465.
Campbell, Principal, of Aberdeen, on
the analogy of faith, 61, 62.
Cerinthus, opinions of, 291-293.
Character of Paul, 14-18.
Christ party in the church of Corinth,
190-197.
Chronology of Paul's life, 11, 12.
Chrysostom on the age of Paul, 12 ;
meaning of 1 Thess. iv. 15, 102 ;
description of the Agapae, 199.
Cilicisms in Paul's epistles, 44.
Clemens Alexandrinus, his testimony
to First Thessalonians, 80 ; to
Second Thessalonians, 108 ; to
Galatians, 137 ; to First Corin
thians, 170 ; to Second Corinthians,
204 ; to the Romans, 228 ; to the
Colossians, 265 ; to the Ephesians,
308 ; to the Philippians, 337 ; to
the Pastoral Epistles, 371 ; to the
Hebrews, 441.
Clemens Romanus, his testimony to
First Corinthians, 169 ; to the
Romans, 227 ; on Paul's release
from his Roman imprisonment,
357 ; recognises no distinction
between bishops and presbyters,
401 ; on Paul's death, 434 ; his
testimony to the Hebrews, 438 ;
supposed to be the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, 467.
Colossians, Epistle to the, its authen
ticity, 264-269 ; the church to which

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

475

it was written, 269-273 ; the occa
sion of the epistle, 273, 274 ; its
contents, 274 ; its date, 275-280 ;
its peculiarities, 280-282.
Contents. See under each epistle.
Conybeare and Howson's Life and
Epistles of St. Paul, quoted or re
ferred to, 96, 240, 293, 323, 367,
414.
Corinth, the city of, 171-173 ; plant
ing of Christianity in it, 173, 174 ;
supposed second visit of Paul to it,
174-177 ; composition ofthe church,
177.
Corinthians, lost epistle to, 30.
Corinthians, First Epistle to, its
authenticity, 169-171 ; the church
to which it was written, 171-178 ;
occasion of the Epistle, 178-182 ; its
contents, 182, 183 ; its date, 183,
184 ; its peculiarities, 184-186.
Corinthians, Second Epistle to, its
authenticity, 203-207 ; supposition
of an intermediate epistle, 207-209 ;
occasion of the Epistle, 209-213 ; its
contents, 213, 214; its date, 214,
215 ; its peculiarities, 215-217.
Council of Jerusalem, 162, 163.
Credner, referred to, 314.
Cremer's Biblisch-Theologisches Wor
terbuch referred to, 41, 252, 262.
Crete, the island of, 414 ; origin of
the church there, 415, 416.
Cyprian, quoted, 447.
Dates of Paul's epistles, 22.
Davidson, Dr. S., on the faults of
Paul, 17 ; the order of the two
Epistles to the Thessalonians, 117 ;
on the Man of Sin, 126, 127 ; on the
character of the Epistle to Phile
mon, 304 ; objections to the Epistle
to the Ephesians, 310-314 ; objec
tions to the Pastoral Epistles, 381 ;
his Ecclesiastical Polity of the New
Testament referred to, 400, 404;
opinion concerning the authorship
of the Hebrews, 470.
Davies' Epistles of St. Paul to Ephe
sians, Colossians, and Philemon,
281, 285.
Deacons, their origin, 396; their
qualifications and duties, 398.
Delitzseh's Commentary on the
Hebrews, referred to, 438.
De Wette on the authenticity of Paul s
epistles, 65 ; on the objections of
Baur to First Thessalonians, 82 ;
his Apostelgeschichte referred to,
85, 141 ; on the Man of Sin, 126 ;

on PauFs supposed visit to Corinth,
176, 177 ; on the diction of Second
Corinthians, 216 ; objections to the
Ephesians, 310-314 ; table of paral
lels between the Epistles to the
Ephesians and Colossians, 329 ; ob
jections to the Pastoral Epistles,
379-381 ; objections to the Epistle
to Titus, 417.
Digressions characteristic of Paul's
style, 39 ; in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, 455.
Dionysius of Alexandria ascribes the
Hebrews to Paul, 444.
Dionysiusof Corinth on Paul'smartyr-
dom, 434.
Doddridge's Family Expositor, 223.
Dollinger's Christenthum und Kirche,
234,
Eadie on tbe Colossians, 282.
Ebionites, their tenets, 167, 168.
Ebrard's Commentary on the Hebrews,
457, 470.
Ecclesiastical polity of the Pastoral
Epistles, 393-411.
Education of Paul, 12, 13.
Eichhorn, his view of the Christ
party, 191, 192; rejects the Pastoral
Epistles, 374.
EUicott, his commentary on the
Thessalonians, 103 ; his view of
the Man of Sin, 130.
Eloquence of Paul, 44.
Ephesians, Epistle to the ; its authen
ticity, 307-314 ; the church to which
it was written, 315-324 ; the occa
sion of the Epistle, 324, 325 ; its
contents, 325; its peculiarities, 326-
328 ; connection between it and the
Colossians, 326-335.
Ephesus, the city of, 315 ; planting of
Christianity in it, 315, 316.
Epimenides, referred to, 13, 415.
Epiphanius, referred to, 406.
Episcopacy, development of, 407-411.
Epistles of Paul, their number, 18,
19 ; their classification, 20 ; their
chronological order, 21-23 ; lost
epistles, 23-37; their specialities,
45, 46 ; their matter, 47-51 ; their
interpretation, 52-64; their authen
ticity, 65-78.
Erasmus, referred to, 467.
Essays and Reviews, referred to, 55,
57.
Essenes, the, 289, 290, 386.
Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., referred to, 68,
71, 235, 359, 434, 439, 444, 461, 467.
Evangelists, on, 396.

476

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Ewald's Geschichte des Volkes Israel,
referred to, 5, 358 ; Sendschreiben
des Apostel Paulus, referred to, 21,
46, 109, 118, 122, 207, 269.
Factions in the Corinthian church,
186-197.
Fairbairn's Hermeneutical Manual,
referred to, 61.
Faith, Paul's view of, 257, 258.
False teachers in the Colossian church,
282-293.
Forster's Apostolical Authority of the
Hebrews, 438, 454, 466.
Galatia, on the country of, 138, 139 ;
its language, 140 ; introduction of
the gospel into, 142-144.
Galatians, Epistle to the ; its authen
ticity, 136-138 ; the churches to
which it was written, 138-144 ; the
occasion of the Epistle, 144-146 ; its
contents, 146 ; its date, 147-150 ;
its peculiarities, 150-152.
Gibbon on the immediateness of the
advent, 99.
Gieseler's Church History, referred
to, 402, 404.
Gnostics, their relation to the Co
lossian heretics, 291-293 ; and to
the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles,
387.
Gobar, Stephen, quoted, 445.
Grace, Paul's view of, 259, 260.
Greek Church, its reception of the
Ejiistle to the Hebrews, 450.
Grotius on the date of Second Thessa
lonians, 117 ; his view of Antichrist,
127 ; supposes Luke to be the
author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, 467.
Guericke on Paul's journeys between
his first and second Roman im
prisonment, 368 ; his opinion con
cerning the authorship of the
Hebrews, 470.
Hammond, his view of Antichrist,
128.
Harless on the similarity between
the Ephesians and Colossians, 333.
Hausrath's Apostel Paulus, 310.
Hebraisms in Paul's Epistles, 43.
Hebrews, Epistle to the : its author
ship, 436 ; external evidence, 438-
451 ; internal evidence, 451-465 ;
particular hypotheses, 465-472.
Hegesippus, his description of James
the Lord's brother, 165 ; his testi
mony to First Timothy, 370.

Heinrichs on the Colossian heretics,
283 ; questions the unity of tbe
Philippians, 341.
Heretics, Colossian, 282-293 ; of the
Pastoral Epistles, 385-388.
Hilary of Poitiers ascribes the Hebrews
to Paul, 448.
Hilgenfeld objects to the authenticity
of Second Thessalonians, 109, 111.
Hippolytus asserts that the Hebrews
was not written by Paul, 447.
Hofmann's Schriftbeweis, 123.
Home's Introduction to the Scrip
tures, referred to, 13.
Howson's Character of St. Paul, re
ferred to, 14, 16.
Hug's Einleitung, referred to, 244,
287.
Hur d's, Bishop, Lectures on Prophecy,
124, 131.
Huther on the supposed journeys of
Paul after his release from his
Roman imprisonment, 367 ; his
Pastoralbriefe, 419.
Ignatius, his testimony to First Corin
thians, 169 ; to Ephesians, 307 ; on
the authority of bishops, 407.
Inscription, want of, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, 455, 456.
Inspiration must modify our inter
pretation, 56-61.
Interpretation of the Pauline Epistles,
32-64.
Irenaeus, his testimony to First Thes
salonians, 79, 80 ; to Second Thessa
lonians, 107, 108 ; to Galatians,
136 ; to First Corinthians, 170 ; to
Second Corinthians, 203 ; to the
Romans, 228 ; to the Colossians,
264 ; to the Ephesians, 308 ; to the
Philippians, 337 ; to the Pastoral
Epistles, 371 ; never refers to the
Hebrews, 445.
Jacob's Ecclesiastical Polity of the
New Testament, referred to, 393,
411.
James the Lord's brother, account of,
by Hegesippus, 165 ; his supposed
episcopal office, 406.
Jerome, on Paul's birth-place, 2 ; on
Paul's name, 3 ; on Paul's learning,
13 ; on Paul's fervour, 39 ; Cilicisms
of Paul, 44 ; on Caius of Rome, 68 ;
on the language of the Galatians,
140; on the Epistle to Philemon,
294 ; his testimony to the Epistle
to the Ephesians, 318, 319 ; on the
identity of bishops and presbyters,

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

477

401 ; on Paul's martyrdom, 434 ;
his opinion concerning the author
ship of the Hebrews, 448, 449.
Jones' Canon of the New Testament,
69.
Josephus, quoted or referred to, 2,
144, 290, 414.
Jowett, on the character of Paul, 14 ;
on Paul's lost epistles, 27 ; on the
interpretation of Scripture, 55-57 ;
on Baur's views, 74 ; remarks on
Paley's Horse Paulinse, 77, 78 ; on
the authenticity of First Thessa
lonians, 81 ; on Paul's views of the
advent, 98 ; on the Man of Sin,
126 ; on the relation of Paul to the
twelve, 162 ; on the composition of
the Roman church, 239, 240.
Judaism, Paul's relation to, 152-168.
Judaizers, referred to or described,
153-156, 161-164; 178.
Justification, the doctrine of, as
taught by Paul, 255-257.
Justin Martyr, his testimony to
Second Thessalonians, 107 ; to Ga
latians, 136 ; to First Corinthians,
170 ; to the Hebrews, 440.
Kern, objects to the authenticity of
Second Thessalonians, 109, 110 ;
on the Man of Sin, 128.
Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, re
ferred to, 70, 360, 439.
Koehler's Versuch iiber die Abfas-
sungszeit der epistolischen Schrif
ten, 92, 147, 184.
Kuinoel's Novi Testamenti libri His-
torici, 173.
Lachmann, various readings of, 88,
97.
Lactantius, referred to, 448.
Lange's Apostolisches Zeitalter, 153,
299, 397, 431.
Language, original, of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, 463.
Laodicea, Council of, 68, 285.
Laodicea, the epistle from, 30-34;
supposed to be the Epistle to the
Ephesians, 322.
Lardner, on the biblical order ot
Paul's epistles, 21 ; interpretation
of 1 Cor. v. 9, 28 ; quotations from
the Fathers, 70, 71; supposes that
Paul was the founder of the Colos
sian church, 270; on the number of
the Philippian epistles, 342 ; on the
date of Second Timothy, 429 ; on
the style of the Epistle to the tie-
brews, 463.

Latin not the original language of the
Epistle to the Romans, 247.
Latin Church, its opinion concerning
the authorship of the Hebrews, 450.
Law, Paul's view of, 253-255.
Lechler's Apostolisches Zeitalter, 145,
152, 156, 163, 284, 407.
Lekebusch's Quellen der Apostel
geschichte, 160.
Lewin's Life and Letters of St. Paul,
quoted or referred to, 16, 224, 233,
433.
Lightfoot, Professor, comparison of
Paul's earlier and later epistles, 93 ;
his view of the Man of Sin, 127 ; the
authenticity of the Epistle to the
Galatians, 138; on the date of the
Epistle to the Galatians, 149 ; the
hatred of the Judaizing party to
Paul, 155 ; his view of Paul's in
firmity, 225 ; the priority of Philip
pians to Ephesians and Colossians,
279 ; present state of Philippi, 346 ;
on episcopacy, 408.
Longinus, referred to, 44.
Lord's Supper, abuse of it in the
' Corinthian church, 197-202.
Lost epistles of Paul, 23-37.
Luke, not the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, 467.
Liinemann on Paul's views of the ad
vent, 100 ; his Brief an die Thessa-
lonicher, 119 ; on the Man of Sin,
126; his Brief an die Hebraer, re
ferred to, 457, 462.
Luther, compared with Paul, 18 ; on
the necessity of candour, 54; his
Commentary on the Galatians, 151 ;
on the Epistle to Philemon, 304,
305; on the Epistle to the Ephe
sians, 313 ; asserts that the Hebrews
was not written by Paul, 466 ; sup
poses Apollos to be the author,
469.
Macknight, on the improbability of
any of Paul's epistles being lost, 24;
on Paul's -views of the advent, 101 ;
on the date of the Epistle to the
Galatians, 147.
Man of Sin, the, 119-135.
Marcion, his catalogue of Pauls
epistles, 66, 67 ; his testimony to
the Ephesians, 308, 317, 318; rejects
the Pastoral Epistles, 372; omits
the Hebrews, 445.
Martyrdom of Paul, traditions con
cerning it, 434, 435.
Matthiae's Greek and Roman htera
ture, referred to, 415.

478

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Mayerhoff's objections to the Colos
sians, 266, 267.
Melancthon, referred to, 466.
Menander, quoted by Paul, 13.
Meyer, on Paul's practice of writing
letters, 34 ; his Commentary on the
Galatians, referred to, 141, 148, 152,
160; on the diction of Second Corin
thians, 216 ; supposes that ' ' the
Epistles of the Captivity" were
written from Csesarea, 276, 277.
Michaelis, his Introduction to the New
Testament, 4, 44, 69, 92, 147, 153,
288, 323, 327, 421, 426, 472.
Mosheim, referred to, 379.
Muratorian canon, 67, 68, 358, 445.
Neander, his view of the Christ party
in Corinth, 193 ; on the composition
of the church at Rome, 237 ; on the
order of the Epistles to the Colossians
and Ephesians, 279; on the Colos
sian heretics, 292 ; on the similarity
between the Epistles to the Ephe
sians and Colossians, 333; doubts
First Timothy, 375; on the origin
of episcopacy, 408 ; bis view of the
authorship of the Hebrews, 466.
Nero, supposed to be Antichrist, 110,
111, 124.
Newman, Father, his view of Anti
christ, 125; his work on Justifica
tion, referred to, 256.
Newton, on the Prophecies, referred
to, 119, 133.
Nicephorus' Hist. Eccl., referred to,
385.
Nicopolis in Epirus, mentioned in the
Epistle to Titus, 423.
Nitzsch on the phases of Christianity,
50.
Novatian, quoted, 447.
Objections to the authenticity of First
Thessalonians, 81, 82 ; Second Thes
salonians, 109-112 ; Colossians, 266-
269 ; Philemon, 296-298 ; Ephesians,
» 310-314; Philippians, 339-341; and
the Pastoral Epistles, 373-383.
Obscurity of Paul's style, 40, 41.
Oeder's Conjectuarum de difl_ eilioribus
Novi Test, locis centuria, 429.
Olshausen on Paul's imprisonment at
Csesarea, 10; on the difference be
tween Paul and John, 51 ; his Com
mentary on First Thessalonians, 87;
Paul's views of the advent, 98; on
Antichrist, 129.
Onesimus, on, 300-302.
Oosterzee's Pastoralbriefe, 380, 414.

Ophthalmia supposed to be Paul's in
firmity, 224, 225.
Origen, his testimony to Philemon,
295; his opinion concerning the
authorship of the Hebrews, 442.
Origin of the church of Rome, 234-
236.
Paley, on the zeal of Paul, 15 ; on
the Epistle to the Laodiceans, 30,
31 ; on Paul's digressions, 40 ; value
of the Horse Paulines, 75-78 ; on
First Thessalonians, 81-85 ; Second
Thessalonians, 112-114 ; Second Co
rinthians, 205, 206 ; Romans, 229-
231; Colossians, 265, 266; Philemon,
296, 300 ; Ephesians, 309, 310 ; sup
poses the Epistle to the Ephesians
to be the Epistle to Laodicea, 322 ;
similarity between the Ephesians
and Colossians, 333, 334; on Philip
pians, 338.
Pantaenus of Alexandria, his testimony
to the Hebrews, 440.
Parallels, table of, between the
Epistles to the Ephesians and Co
lossians, 329, 330.
Paronomasia in Paul's epistles, 42 ; in
the Epistle to Philemon, 295.
Pastoral Epistles, relation to each
other, 369 ; their authenticity, 370-
383 ; their date, 389-391 ; their
peculiarities, 392 ; their ecclesiasti
cal polity, 393-411.
Paul, his birth-place, parentage, 2 ;
names, 3 ; life before conversion, 4;
conversion, 5 ; missionary journeys,
6-10 ; imprisonment at Rome, 10 ;
chronology of his life, 11; education,
12, 13 ; character, 14-18 ; number
and order of his epistles, 18-23 ;
lost epistles, 23-37 ; style, 37-46 ;
matter of his epistles, 47-51 ; differ
ence between him and John, 50, 51 ;
his relation to Judaism, 152-168 ;
his bodily infirmities, 217-226 ; his
theological terms, 250-263 ; his
Roman imprisonments, 354-368; his
martyrdom, 433-435.
Pauline party in the Corinthian church,
188, 189.
Pauline words and phrases, 47.
Peshito, Syriac version of the New
Testament, its age, 69.
Peter, not the founder of the church
of Rome, 234, 235.
Petrine party in the Corinthian church,
187, 188.
Philastrius, bishop of Brescia, quoted,
461.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

479

Philemon, the Epistle to, its authen
ticity, 294-298; to whom addressed,
298-300; occasion of the Eoistle,
300-302 ; its contents, 302 ; its'pecu-
liarities, 303-306.
Philippi, the city of, 343 ; planting of
Christianity in it, 343, 344; the
condition of the church, 344-346 ;
later notices of the church, 346,
347.
Philippians, the Epistle to, its authen
ticity, 336-342; the church to which
it was written, 343-347 ; occasion of
the Epistle, 347, 348 ; its contents,
349; its date, 350-352; its peculi
arities, 353, 354.
Philo, referred to, 285, 290, 415. r
Pliny, referred to, 199.
Polycarp, his testimony to Second
Thessalonians, 107 ; to First Corin
thians, 169 ; to Second Corinthians,
203 ; to the Romans, 227 ; to the
Ephesians, 308 ; to the Philippians,
336 ; to First Timothy, 370.
Presbyters, their titles, 399 ; identity
with bishops, 400-402 ; their origin,
402 ; qualifications, 403 ; and duties,
404. •
Priesthood, the Christian ministry not
a, 394.
Reformers, their opinion concerning
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 465, 466.
Renan's Saint Paul, referred to, 4, 18,
19.
Reuss, his Geschichte der heiligen
Schrift, referred to or quoted, 74,
85, 97, 115, 209, 231, 268, 353, 375,
429 ; his History of Christian Theo
logy, referred to, 156, 158, 240.
Riehm's Lehrbegriff des Hebraer-
. briefes, 468.
Rinck's Das Sendschreiben der Ko-
rinther an den Apostel, 30.
Ritschl's Entstehung der altkatho-
lischen Kirche, 153, 163, 168, 386,
397, 410.
Roman imprisonment of Paul, disser
tation on, 354-368.
Roman citizenship, how acquired,
2, 3.
Romans, Epistle to the ; its authenti
city, 227-234 ; the church to which
it was written, 234-241 ; object of
the Epistle, 242-244 ; its contents,
244-246 ; its date, 246-248 ; its
peculiarities, 248, 249.
Rome, the church of : its origin, 234r-
237 ; its composition, 237-240 ; its
condition, 351, 352.

Rothe, his hypothesis on the origin of
episcopacy, 408.
Ruckert, supposes that Paul circum
cised Titus, 160 ; on the Christ
party in Corinth, 196.
Schait's History of the Apostolic
Church, referred to, 215, 407.
Schenkel, deEcclesiaCorinthiacaprim-
seva factionibus turbata, referred to,
194 ; Brief an die Philipper, referred
to, 337.
Schleiermacher rejects the Epistle to
the Ephesians, 310; and First
Timothy, 373.
Schmidt objects to Second Thessalo
nians, 109 ; and to First Timothy,
373.
Schneckenburger's Beitrage zur Ein-
leituDg, 287.
Schrader's Apostel Paulus, 92, 109,
221.
Schwegler's Nachapost. Zeitalter, 338,
375.
Scrivener's Introduction to the Criti
cism of the New Testament, 69.
Semler's Untersuchung d. Kanon, 56 ;
De duplice appendice epistolse ad
Romanos, 206, 231.
Septuagint, quotations from, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, 459, 460.
Silas, not the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, 468.
Slavery, its relation to Christianity,
305, 306.
Spain, Paul's supposed journey to,
367.
Stanley, his Commentary on the Cor
inthians, referred to, 28, 218.
Stier, his view of the authorship of
the Hebrews, 470.
Storr, his view of the Christ party,
192.
Strabo, referred to, 86, 139, 172, 424.
Stuart, Moses, his Commentary on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, 449,
452, 456.
Style of Paul, 37-46 ; of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 461^464.
SuetoDius, referred to, 117, 236.
Syrian Church, its reception of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, 440.
Table of the dates of the Pauline
Epistles, 22 ; of parallels between
the Ephesians and Colossians, 329,
330.
Tacitus, referred to, 237, 414.
Tatian rejects the Epistles toTimothy,
372.

480

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Tenderness of Paul, 16.
Tertullian, his testimony to First
Thessalonians, 80 ; to Second Thes
salonians, 108 ; on Antichrist, 123 ;
testimony to Galatians, 137 ; to
First Corinthians, 170 ; his descrip
tion of the Agapae, 199 ; testimony
to Second Corinthians, 204 ; to the
Romans, 228 ; to the Colossians,
265 ; to Philemon, 294 ; to the Ephe
sians, 309; onthereadingof Eph.i. 1,
317, 318; testimony to the Philip
pians, 337 ; to the Pastoral Epistles,
372 ; ascribes the Epistle to the
Hebrews to Barnabas, 446."
Theodoret, quoted, 102, 270, 456.
Theological terms of Paul, 250-263.
Theophilus of Antioch, his testimony
to the Romans, 228 ; to the Colos
sians, 264.
Therapeutse, considered to be the
heretics of the Pastoral Epistles,
386.
Thessalonians, First Epistle to the, its
authenticity, 79-85 ; the church to
which it was written, 86-89 ; occa
sion of the Epistle, 89, 90 ; its con
tents, 90, 91 ; its date, 91, 92 ; its
peculiarities, 93, 94.
Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the,
its authenticity, 107-114; its occa
sion, 114, 115; its contents, 116; its
date, 116-118 ; its peculiarities,
118, 119.
Thessalonica, the city of, 86 ; planting
of Christianity in it, 87-89.
Thiersch, referred to, 468.
Tholuck, on the style of Paul, 39, 40 ;
his Commentary on the Hebrews,
453.
Timothy, his mission to Corinth, 181 ;
his personal history, 383-385.
Timothy, First Epistle to, its authenti
city, 369-383; the person addressed,
384 ; occasion of the Epistle, 385-
388 ; its contents, 389 ; its date,
389-391 ; its peculiarities, 392.
Timothy, Second Epistle to, its occa
sion, 425-427 ; its contents, 427 ;
its date, 428-435 ; its peculiarities,
435, 436.
Titus, the bearer of the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, 181, 182 ; his
personal history, 412-414.
Titus, Epistle to : the person ad
dressed, 412-416 ; occasion of the

Epistle, 416-419 ; its contents,
419 ; its date, 420-424.
Trade of Paul, 3, 4.
Trophimus, left at Miletum sick, 430.
Twesten supposes that Barnabas is
the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, 468.
Ullmann argues in favour of Barna
bas as the author of the Hebrews,
468.
Unity of the Epistle to the Philip
pians, 341, 342.
Usher, Archbishop, his opinion that
the Epistle to the Ephesians was a
circular Epistle, 323.
Usteri's Entwickelung des paulin
ischen Lehrbegriffes, 49, 375.
Valentinians, supposed to be the
heretics in the Pastoral Epistles,
376.
Vetus Itala, referred to, 69.
Weisse questions the unity of the
Epistle to the Philippians, 341.
Westcott on the Canon, quoted or
referred to, 69, 445.
Wetstein, his view of the Man of Sin,
128.
Whately's difficulties in the writings
of St. Paul, 250.
Whitby, referred to, 29, 128, 415.
Wieseler, his hypothesis regarding the
Epistle to the Laodiceans, 32, 33 ;
his view of the Man of Sin, 128 ;
supposes that Philemon was a na
tive of Laodicea, 299 ; his hypo
thesis regarding Paul's journeys
mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles,
362, 363 ; on the date of the Epistle
to Titus, 421 ; supposes that Bar
nabas is the author of the Hebrews,
468.
Wiesinger on the numberof the Philip
pian Epistles, 342 ; his Commentary
on the Pastoral Epistles, 390.
Winer's Grammar of the New Testa
ment, referred to, 31, 142, 218, 307,
452.
Wordsworth's St. Paul's Epistles, 103,
147, 177, 243, 271, 305, 365, 450,
464 ; Theophilus Anglicanus, 405.
Zeller's Apostelgeschichte, referred
to, 241.

MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

PUBLICATIONS OF
T. AND T. CLARK,
38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.
LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO.

Just published, in One Volume, 8.0, 640 pp., price 15..,
HISTORY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By Professor E. EEUSS, D.D.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION.
CONTENTS.— Introduction. Book First :— History of the Origin of the New
Testament Writings— History of the Literature. Book Second :— History
of the Collection of the New Testament Writings— History of the Canon.
Book Third : — History of the Preservation of the New Testament Writings
—History of the Text. Book Fourth :— History of the Circulation of
the New Testament Writings— History of the Versions. Book Fifth :—
History of the Theological Use of the New Testament Writings— History
of Exegesis.
' It would be hard to name any single volume which contains so much that is helpful
to the student of the New Testament. . . . Considering that so much ground is covered,
the fulness and accuracy of the information given are remarkable. Professor Reuss's
work is not that of a compiler, but of au original thinker, who throughout this encyclo
paedic volume depends much more on his own research than on tbe labours of his
predecessors. . . . The translation is thoroughly well done, accurate, and full of life.'—
Expositor. 'One of the most valuable volumes of Messrs. Clark's valuable publications. ... Its
usefulness is attested by undiminished vitality. . . . His method is admirable, and he
unites German exhaustiveness with French lucidity ahd brilliancy of expression. .
The sketch of the great exegetic epochs, their chief characteristics, and the critical
estimates of the most eminent writers, is given by the author with a compression and
a mastery that have never been surpassed.' — Archdeacon Farkar.
'I think the work of Reuss exceedingly valuable.' — Professor C. A. Briggs, D.D.
1 1 know of no work on the same topic more scholarly and at the same time readable,
and I regard the work as one of real value to scholars.' — President Alvah Hovey.
Newton Theological Institute.
' A work of rare and long-tested merit. ... I am sure that every theological teacher
will be glad to be able to refer his students to it.' — Professor P. H. Seknstka,
Cambridge, Mass. Just published, in crown 8vo, price 5.. 6d.,
CREATION;
OR, THE BIBLICAL COSMOGONY IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN SCIENCE.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS.
By Professor ARNOLD GUYOT, LL.D.
' Written with much knowledge and tact, . . . suggestive and stimulating.' — British
Quarterly Review.
' The issue of this book is a fitting conclusion to a beautiful career. . . . This, his last
book, coming from the author's deathbed, will serve two causes ; it will aid science by
showing that it is a friend of the faith, and it will aid Christianity by showing tLat it
need not fear the test of the latest scientific research.' — Presbyterian Review.

In Three Volumes, Imperial 8vo, price 24s. each,
ENCYCLOPAEDIA

OR

DICTIONARY OF
BIBLICAL, HISTORICAL, DOCTRINAL, AND
PRACTICAL THEOLOGY.
BASED ON THE REAL-ENCYKLOPADIE OF HERZOG, PLITT, AND HADCK.
EDITED by
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNION" THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.

'As a comprehensive work of reference, within a moderate compass, we know
nothing at all equal to it in the large department which it deals with.' — Church Bells.
' The work will remain as a wonderful monument of industry, learning, and skill. It
will be indispensable to the student of specifically Protestant theology ; nor, indeed, do
w e think that any scholar, whatever be his especial line of thought or study, would
find it superfluous on his shelves.' — Literary Churchman.
' We commend this work with a touch of enthusiasm, for we have often wanted such
ourselves. It embraces in its range of writers all the leading authors of Europe on
ecclesiastical questions. A student may deny himself many other volumes to secure
this, for it is certain to take a prominent and permanent place in our literature.' —
Evangelical Magazine.
' Dr. Schaff' s name is a guarantee for valuable and thorough work. His new Encyclo
pedia (based on Herzog) will be one of the most useful works of the day. It will prove
a standard authority on all religious knowledge. No man in the country is so well fitted
to perfect such a work as this distinguished and exact scholar.' — Howard Crosby, D.D.,
LL.D., ex-Chancellor ofthe University, New York.
'This work will prove of great service to many; it supplies a distinct want in our
theological literature, and it is sure to meet with welcome from readers who wish a
popular book of reference on points of historical, biographical, and theological interest.
Many of the articles give facts which may be sought far and wide, and in vain in our
encyclopaedias.' — Scotsman.
1 Those who possess the latest edition of Herzog will still find this work by uo means
superfluous. . . . Strange to say, the condensing process seems to have' improved the
original articles. . . . We hope that no minister's library will long remain without a
copy of this work.' — Daily Review.
'For fulness, comprehensiveness, and accuracy,- it will take the first place among
Biblical Encyclopaedias.' — Wm. M. Taylor, D.D.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
REVELATION;
ITS NATURE AND RECORD.
By HEINRICH EWALD,
Late Professor in the University of Gottingen; Author of 'Syntax of the
Hebrew Language,' ' History of Israel,' etc.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN,
Bt Eev. Prof. THOS. GOADBY, B.A.

Contents.— Introductory : The Doctrine of the Word of God. — Part I.
The Nature of the Eevelation of the Word of God. — Part II. Eevelation in
Heathenism and in Israel. — Part III. Eevelation in the Bible.

Note. — This first volume of Ewald's great and important work, 'Die Lehre der
Bibel von G-ott,' is offered to the English public as an attempt to read Revelation,
Religion, and Scripture in the light of universal history and the common experience of
man, and with constant reference to all the great religious systems of the world. The
task is as bold and arduous as it is timely and necessary, and Ewald was well fitted to
accomplish it  The work has not simply a theological, but a high and significant
apologetic value, which those who are called upon to deal with the various forms
of modern scepticism will not be slow to recognise. — Extract from Translator's Preface.

' This volume is full of nervous force, eloquent style, and intense moral earnestness.
There is poetry of feeling in it also ; and, whilst it manifests an original mind, it is
accompanied by that spirit of reverence which ought always to be brought to the study
of the Holy Scripture. A masterly intellect is associated in Ewald with the humility of
a child.' — Evangelical Magazine.
• Ewald is one of the most suggestive and helpful writers of this century. This is
certainly a noble book, and will be appreciated not less than his other and_ larger
works. . . . There is a rich poetic glow in his writing which gives to it a singular
charm.' — Baptist Magazine.
' Full of original thought, eloquently expressed, and indicates the beautiful reverent
spirit of the author, and his marvellous insight into, and sympathy with, the Hebrew
mind.' — Preacher's Monthly. In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s.,
Volume I. now ready,
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGY.
By J. F. EABIGER, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in the University of Breslau.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN,
And Edited, with a Eeview of Apologetical Literature,
By Eev. JOHN MACPHBBSON, M.A.
'It is impossible to overrate the value of this volume in its breadth of learning, its
wide survey, and its masterly power of analysis. It will be a " sine qui non to all
students of the history of theology.'— Evangelical Magazine. «,_ -_,«__,_,.
'Rabiger is au able and learned theologian, and we are again indebted to the pubhshei .
for a valuable addition to our libraries  The survey is full ofmteres ; -Watchman.
'Another mo.t valuable addition to the library of the theological student. . . ; It is
characterized bv ripe scholarship and thoughtful reflection  It would resutmr.ch
gain to many .hurches if th.se volumes were placed by generous friends upon tbe
shelves of their ministers.' — Christian World.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Now complete, in Four , flumes, imperial 8vo, price 18s. each,
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT.
WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS.
Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.

CONTRIBUTORS.
The Very Rev. Dean Howson; The Very Rev. Dean Plumptre; Principal David
Bkown, D.D. ; J. Kawson Lumby. D.D. j W. Milligan, D.D.; W. F. Moulton,
D.D.; Rev. Canon Spence ; Marcus Dods, D.D. ; J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. ; Joseph
Angus, D.D. ; Paton J. Gloag, D.D. ; S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. ; William B. Pope,
D.D. ; Philip Schaff, D.D.; Matthew B. Biddle, D.D.
Maps and Plans — Professor Arnold Guyot.
Illustrations — W. M. Thomson, D.D., Author of ' The Land and the Book.'

Volume I. Volume II.
THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL, and
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Volume III. Volume IV.
EOMANS TO PHILEMON. HEBREWS TO EEVELATION.

' A useful, valuable, and instructive commentary. The interpretation is set forth with
clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the volumes to the
thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects great credit on the
publishers as well as the writers.' — The Bishop of Gloucester.
' I have looked into this volume, and read several of the notes on crucial passages.
They seem to me very well done, with great fairness, and with evident knowledge of
the controversies concerning them. The illustrations are very good. I cannot doubt
that the book will prove very valuable.' — The Bishop of Winchester.
' We have already spoken of this commentary with warm praise, and we can certainly
assert that the enterprise has now been brought to a close with really admirable work.'
^English Churchman.
' We congratulate Dr. Schaff on the completion of this useful work, which we are now
able to commend, in its complete form, to English readers of the Scriptures. ... It will
be seen that we have a high opinion of this commentary, of the present volume, and also
of the whole work. In this last respect it is perhaps of more uuiform excellence than
any of its rivals, and in beauty of appearance it excels them all.' — Church Bells.
'External beauty and intrinsic worth oombine in the work here completed. Good
paper, good type, good illustrations, good binding, please the eye, as accuracy and
thoroughness in matter of treatment satisfy the judgment. Everywhere the workman
ship is careful, solid, harmonious.' — Methodist Recorder.
1 There are few better commentaries having a similar scope and object ; indeed, within
the same limits, we do not know of one so good upon the whole of the New Testament.'
— Literary World.
' We predict that this work will take its place among the most popular of the century.
. . . The publishers have spared no pains to secure volumes that shall be worthy of the
theme, and of the scholarship of the age.' — Freeman.
' The commentators have given the results of their own researches in a simple style,
with brevity, but with sufficient fulness ¦ and their exposition is all through eminently
readable. ' — Record.
'From so many contributors we are led confidently to expect a well-considered,
careful, and edifying comment, constructed with sufficient learning and Biblical know
ledge. And this confidence will not be disappointed on examination. . . . We regard
tlie work as well done, and calculated both to instruct and to benefit those who consult
it. The printing, paper, illustrations, and all such matters are of unusual beauty and
excellence.'-— The Literacy Churchman.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in Two Volumes, _vo\i600 pages), price 28s.,
THE DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE.
A Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin
and Nature of the Old and New Testaments.
By GEORGE T. LADD, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF MENTAL AND MORAL PHILOSOPHY, YALE COLLEGE.
'It is not very easy to give an account of this very considerable and important work
within the compass of one short notice. ... It is one which will certainly be studied
by all scientific theologians, and the general reader will probably find here a better
summary of the whole subject than in any other work or series of works.' — Church Bells.
' A scientific method of treating the phenomena and place of the Bible such as this
will have special value in these days; as such we very heartily commend it to all
interested in the great question of Divine revelation through Jesus Christ of which the
Bible is the medium, and in which all its teachings find their reason and inspiration and
relations.' — British Quarterly Review.
' This important work is pre-eminently adapted for students, and treats in an exhaustive
manner nearly every important subject of Biblical criticism which is agitating the
religious mind at the present day.' — Contemporary Review.
Just published, in demy Svo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE KINGDOM OF GOD
BIBLICALLY AND HISTOEICALLY CONSIDERED.
(TENTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.)
By JAS. S. CANDLISH, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW.
'As to the ability of this volume there can be no question: it is of profound interest,
touches on time-present subjects, is free from all rhetorical display, is in no sense super
ficial, but scholarly and able, and is worthy of the reputation and position of its author."
— Evangelical Magazine.
'Able and learned. . . . Theological students will find it valuable, and to their
attention we most earnestly commend it.' — Watchman.
'Dr. Candlish treats his subject with an admirable combination of scholarly com
prehensiveness, historical candour, and regard to the practical demands of mankind.'-—
Christian World.
' Dr Candlish has in the present volume given evidence of great freshness of
thought, broad mental grasp, careful scholarship, and keen logical acumen, lighted up by
imaginative beauty, and quickened by fervent emotion. . . . Its historical review is clear,
succinct, and comprehensive; its hermeneutics are sound and judicious; its theology is
evangelical; its tone is healthy and inspiring; and altogether, it is a volume which is
sure to become a classic.'— Baptist Magazine.
' A charming book, written with unaffected ease and perfect lucidity, and therefore to
be read with delight. Perhaps a magic pen belongs to the house of Candlish. ... The
book is positively good, and ought to be thoroughly popular with the larger rehgious
public.'— Monthly Interpreter.
'An able historical, and dispassionate account of the working of the various theories
of Church unity in earlier ages.'— Literary Churchman.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10.. 6d.,
THE THEORY OF MORALS.
By PAUL JANET, Member of the Institute, Paris.
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATEST FRENCH EDITION.
CONTENTS.— Book I. :— Pleasure and Good— Good and Law-The Principle of
Excellence, or of Perfection — The Principle of Happiness — Impersonal Goods — The
True, the Good, and the Beautiful — Absolute Good. Book II. :— Nature and Basis
of the Moral Law — Good and Duty— Definite and Indefinite Duties — Bight and Duty —
Division of Duties — Conflict of Duties. Book III. : — The Moral Consciousness — Moral
Intention — Moral Probabilism— Universality of Moral Principles — The Moral Sentiment
— Liberty — Kant's Theory of Liberty — Virtue — Moral Progress — Sin — Merit and
Demerit, the Sanctions of the Moral Law— Eeligion.
1 As remarkable for the force and beauty of its form of expression as for its vast and
varied learning, its philosophical acumen, and its uniform attitude of reverence toward
religious and moral problems of the most transcendent interest to mankind.' — Literary
World. ' This book is really a valuable addition to tho literature of the subject. . . . Let
the student of morals and religion read it for himself. It is pleasant reading, and tlie
translation seems to us iu every respect admirable.' — Watchman.

By the same Author.
In One Volume, 8vo, Second Edition, price 12s.,
FINAL CAUSES.
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATEST FRENCH EDITION
By WILLIAM AFFLECK, B.D.
CONTENTS.— Preliminary Chapter— The Problem. Book I.— The Law of
Finality. Book II. — The First Cause of Finality. Appendix.
'This very learned, accurate, and, within its prescribed limits, exhaustive work. . . .
The book as a whole abounds in matter of the highest interest, and is a model of learn
ing and judicious treatment.' — Guardian.
' A great contribution to the literature of this subject. M. Janet has mastered the
conditions of the problem, is at home in the literature of science and philosophy, and has
that faculty of felicitous expression which makes French books of the highest class such
delightful reading ; ... in clearness, vigour, and depth it has been seldom equalled, and
more seldom excelled, in philosophical literature.' — Spectator.
' A wealth of scientific knowledge and a logical acumen which will win the admiration
of every reader.' — Church Quarterly Review.
In demy Suo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF MAN.
(SEVENTH SERIES OP CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.)
By JOHN LAIDLAW, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh.

' An important and valuable contribution to the discussion of the anthropology of the
sacred writings, perhaps the most considerable that has appeared in our own language.'
— Literary Churchman.
'The work is a thoughtful contribution to a subject which must always have deep
interest for the devout student of the Bible.' — British Quarterly Review.
'Dr. Laidlaw's work is scholarly, able, interesting, and valuable. . . . .Thoughtful
and devout minds will find much to stimulate, and not a little to assist, their meditations
in this learned and, let us add, charmingly printed volume.' — Record.
' On the whole, we take this to be th. most sensible and reasonable statement of the
Biblical psychology of man we have met.' — Expositor.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,
OLD AND NEW THEOLOGY:
A CONSTRUCTIVE CRITIQUE.
By Eev. J. B. HEARD, M.A.
' We can promise all real students of Holy Scripture who have found their way out
of some of the worst of the scholastic byelanes and ruts, and are striving to reach the
broad and firm high road that leads to the Eternal City, a real treat from the perusal of
these pages. Progressive theologians, who desire to find "the old in the new, and the
new in the old," will be deeply grateful to Mr. Heard for this courageous and able
work.' — Christian World.
' Among the many excellent theological works, whether English or German, published
by MeBsrs. Clark, there are few that deserve more careful study than this book. ... It
cannot fail to charm by its grace of style, and to supply food for solid thought.' — Dublin
Express. 1 W e predict an earnest welcome for this volume. . . . We could wish that the principles
and sentiments of this book were widely diffused among Christian people, in all Churches.
— Literary World. BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
Fifth Edition, in crown 8vo, price 6s.,
THE TRIPARTITE NATURE OF MAN:
SPIRIT, SOUL, AND BODY.
Applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New
Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body.
' The author has got a striking and consistent theory. Whether agreeing or disagree
ing with that theory, it is a book which any student of the Bible may read with pleasure.'
— Guardian.
' Au elaborate, ingenious, and very able book.' — London Quarterly Review.
' The subject is discussed with much ability and learning, and the style is sprightly
and readable. It is candid iu its tone, and original both in thought and illustration.' —
Wesleyan Methodist Magazine. Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s.,
THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
(NINTH SERIES OF THE CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.)
By Rev. GEO. SMEATON, D.D.,
Professor of Exegetical Theology, New College, Edinburgh.
'A valuable monograph. . . . The masterly exposition of doctrine given in these
lectures has been augmented in value by the wise references to current needs and
common misconceptions.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
Second Edition, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6rf.,
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT
AS TAUGHT BY CHRIST HIMSELF;
Or, The Sayings of Jesus Exegetically Expounded and Classified.
'We attach very great value to this seasonable and scholarly production. The idea
of the work is most happy, and the execution of it worthy of the idea. On a scheme
of truly Baconian exegetical induction, he presents us with a complete view of the
various positions or propositions which a full and sound doctrine of the atonement
embraces.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
' The plan of the book is admirable. A monograph and exegesis of our Lord's own
sayings on this greatest of subjects concerning Himself, must needs be valuable to all
theologians. And the execution is thorough and painstaking— exhaustive as far as the
completeness of range over these sayings is concerned.' — Contemporary Review.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

SCHAFF'S HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Just Published, in Two Vols., ex. 8vo, price 21s.,
MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY,
FROM GREGORY I. TO GREGORY VII.
(A.D. 590-1073.)
By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.
New Editions of the following have recently been published :—
Apostolic Christianity, A.D. i-ioo. 2 Vols. 21s.
Ante-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 100-325. 2 Vols. 21s.
Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 325-600. 2 Vols. 21s.

THE fourth section of Dr. Schaffs History of the Christian Church is an entirely
new work. It covers the Middle Ages from Gregory I. to Gregory VII., A.D.
590-1073, and relates to a most interesting but little known period of history
teeming with events of the greatest importance in the history of Christianity and of
civilisation, and with personages like Charlemagne, Alfred the Great, and Mohammed,
who have left the impress of their character on succeeding ages. This is the great
missionary period, in which Christianity was extended among the barbarians who
destroyed the Eoman Empire, but were civilised and trained under the influence of
the Church. The work opens with a general description of mediaeval Christianity, its genius
and distinctive features as compared with ancient and modern Christianity, its
nations, periods, and literature. The second chapter, which is by far the longest,
contains the missionary history or the conversion of the Saxons, the Irish, the Scotch,
the Franks, the Germans, the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes and Norwegians, the
Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles and Russians, with biographical sketches of the chief
missionary and religious characters. Mohammedanism in its rise, character, and
conflict with Christianity is the subject of the next chapter. Then follows an account
of the Papal hierarchy and the Holy Eoman Empire ; of the conflict of the Greek and
Latin Churches and their final separation ; and a picture of the lights and shades
of mediaeval morals and religion, and of the peculiar customs and institutions of the
time. Then come chapters on monasticism and the chief heroes of ascetic piety ;
on church discipline and ecclesiastical punishments, penances and' indulgences ; on
Church and State ; worship and ceremonies, doctrinal controversies, the heretical
sects, etc. The last two chapters are concerned with the state of sacred and secular
learning and educational institutions, presenting the noble efforts of Charlemagne
and of Alfred in England for the spread of education in their dominions, and con
taining biographical and literary sketches of the principal divines and scholars of the
early Middle Ages. As in former volumes, the author gives under each head a full
digest of the sources and literature, both English and American, as well as Con
tinental and Oriental. There is no work on the subject in which the discoveries and
researches of the last thirty years are so thoroughly worked up.
Four more volumes are in course of preparation, and may be expected to appear
at no distant time.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05118 6675