VI. EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS.

The apostle speaks very confidently of a speedy release and restoration to the work of his apostolic office. Chaps. 1:19, 25, 26; 2:24. This language is important in connection with the two closely related questions, that of a second imprisonment at Rome and that of the date of the pastoral epistles. See below, No. 35.

29. Thecharacterof this epistle answers well to its occasion. It is a free outpouring of the apostle's heart towards his beloved Philippians, who had remembered him in his bonds and sent Epaphroditus to supply his wants. He bestows upon them no censure, unless the suggestion to Euodias and Syntyche be regarded as such, but commends them for their liberality, exhorts them to steadfastness in the endurance of persecution, and admonishes them to maintain a deportment which shall be in all things such as becomes the gospel, the several parts of which he specifies in the course of the epistle, but not in any very exact order. It is in connection with these admonitions that the apostle, while insisting on the duty of humility and self-sacrificing love, brings in that sublime description of the Saviour's original glory and equality with God, which he laid aside for our redemption, taking upon himself the form of a servant and submitting to the death of the cross; for which act of self-abasement he is now exalted to be Lord of heaven and earth. Chap. 2:5-11. Intermingled with the above named commendations, exhortations, and counsels, are frequent notices respecting himself, introduced in the most natural and artless manner, and unfolding for our edification some of the deepest principles of Christian character.

His faith in Christ and love for His cause raise him above the sphere of human jealousies. He rejoices that Christ is preached, whether of good-will or of envy, knowing that this shall turn to his salvation through the prayers of the Philippians and the supply of Christ's Spirit. Chap. 2:15-19.

He knows that for himself personally it is better to depart and be with Christ: but to continue in the flesh is more needful for the Philippians. He cannot, therefore, choose between life and death. Chap. 1:21-25. How different this from the spiritof some, who think of death only in connection with their own personal comfort, and how much higher the type of religion which it reveals!

So far as outward advantages are concerned, no man can have more occasion than he to glory in the flesh. But all these he has renounced and counted loss for Christ. His one ambition is to know Christ, and be united with him in his death and resurrection. His present attainments he forgets in his single purpose of pressing towards the goal for the prize of God's heavenly calling in Christ Jesus. Chap. 3:4-14.

He warmly commends the Philippians for their liberality, but wishes them to understand that he does not speak in respect to personal want; for every where and in all things he has been taught the lesson of contentment with present circumstances. Chap. 4:10-14.

30. The original name of Thessalonica wasTherme, whence the gulf at the head of which it is situated, was called the Thermaic gulf. The modern name of the city isSaloniki, and of the gulf, the gulf of Saloniki. In the apostolic age it was a large and wealthy city, and the metropolis of the second district of Macedonia. At the present day it is second only to Constantinople in European Turkey. Then as now a large number of Jews resided in it. In his second missionary tour the apostle, when driven from Philippi, went through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica. After his usual manner he first resorted to the Jewish synagogue "and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." After this a tumult was raised at the instigation of the unbelieving Jews, and the apostle was sent away by night to Berea. Acts 17:1-10. We cannot affirm that his stay at Thessalonica was limited to three weeks; yet it was very brief, and for this reason he was anxious to return again that he might impart further instruction and consolation to the converts there, who were undergoing a severe ordeal of temptation through persecution. Chaps.2:17-3:5. His labors at Thessalonica were not confined to the Sabbath-day and the Jewish synagogue. He preached the gospel to the Gentiles also, and his chief success seems to have been among them. 1 Thess. 1:9; 2:14, 16.

31.The First Epistle to the Thessalonianswas written during the apostle'ssecondmissionary journey, the same journey in which he first visited Thessalonica. This we gather from the fact that Silvanus (Silas) was with him (chap. 1:1), for Silas was Paul's travelling companion only during that journey (Acts 15:40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5); also from the notice of his being at Athens (chap. 3:1 compared with Acts 17:15, 16). He did not, however, write from Athens, as the subscription erroneously states, but fromCorinth; for it was at this place that Silas and Timotheus rejoined him, bringing good tidings from Macedonia respecting the church in Thessalonica. Chap. 3:1-6 compared with Acts 18:1-5. This is, then,the earliest of Paul's epistles, having been written about A.D. 53.

32. The epistle clearly indicates itsoccasion. In consideration of the brief time which the apostle had been able to spend at Thessalonica, and of the severe persecution to which the converts in that city were exposed, he was very desirous to make them a second visit. But having been twice frustrated in this purpose, he sent Timothy and Silas to learn the condition of the Thessalonian church and bring him word concerning it, which they did while he was at Corinth. Chaps. 2:17-3:6. The letter is an affectionate outpouring of his heart in view of the good tidings received through these brethren, into which are interwoven encouragements, instructions, and admonitions adapted to the circumstances of the brethren at Thessalonica, with abundant references to the apostle's own labors there. In the first chapter he commends, with devout thanksgiving to God, the faith and love and patience of the Thessalonian Christians. The second and third chapters are mainly occupied with a notice of his own labors and those of his colleagues at Thessalonica, of his strong desire to revisit them which he had thus farbeen hindered from carrying into execution, and of his joy at the good tidings brought by Timothy, the whole closed with a fervent prayer in their behalf. The two remaining chapters contain miscellaneous instructions suited to the condition of a church that had been recently gathered in great part from the ranks of heathenism. In the course of these he corrects an error into which the Thessalonian believers had fallen from the idea that they who should die before Christ's second coming might fail of their share in its glory and blessedness. Chap. 4:13-18. In both of the epistles he admonishes the Thessalonians against the neglect of their proper worldly business, a fault that was apparently connected with visionary ideas respecting the speedy second coming of our Lord, and which he rebukes in severe terms. 1 Thess. 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:10-12.

33.The second epistle to the Thessalonians, like the first, is written in the name of "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus," and seems to have been sent fromCorinthnot many months after the first. The apostle's maindesignwas to correct a pernicious error respecting the time of our Lord's second advent, which some at Thessalonica seem to have been strenuously engaged in propagating, and to give them further instruction respecting this great doctrine and their duty in relation to it. After the apostolic salutation he expresses his gratitude to God for the growth of their Christian faith and love, and comforts them under the pressure of the persecution to which they were subjected with the assurance of our Lord's second coming in glory to destroy his and their enemies and give rest to his suffering servants; but proceeds in the second chapter to show that this day is not yet at hand, and cannot come till there has first been a great apostacy, the characteristic features of which he proceeds to give (verses 3-12). The remainder of the epistle is occupied with commendations and encouragements to perseverence, mingled with admonitions. The latter have special reference to certain idle and disorderly members of the church, whom the apostle describes as "some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busy bodies" (chap. 3:11),and who also set themselves in opposition to his apostolic authority (verse 14). These disorderly persons seem to have been the same as those who were engaged in propagating erroneous notions respecting the time of our Lord's second advent. Their visionary views on this subject made them self-conceited, talkative, and self-willed, and led them to neglect the sober duties of daily life.

The apostle beseeches the Thessalonians not to be soon shaken in mind, or troubled, "neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." And he adds: "Let no man deceive you in any way"—in any of the ways specified or any other way. Chap. 2:2, 3. There were then persons at Thessalonica busily occupied in misleading the Thessalonians: (1) "by spirit," that is, by prophesies which they professed to have received from the Holy Spirit; (2) "by word," by oral teaching; (3) "by letter as from us," that is, purporting to come from the apostle. Or, perhaps, we should render: "nor by word nor by letter as from us:" that is, neither by oral teaching nor by written communication alleged to have come from me. We can well understand how the unwritten words of the apostle should have been perverted by these false teachers. The question remains: Did they pervert the meaning of his language in the first epistle, or did they employ an epistle forged in his name? The latter has been from ancient times a common interpretation of this clause, and it is favored by the words: "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." Chap. 3:17. Yet the supposition of such a forged epistle is something so improbable that many are inclined to adopt the former supposition.The question respecting "the man of sin" belongs to the commentator. In a brief introduction like the present, we cannot enter upon it farther than to say that, though we are not warranted in affirming that it has its exhaustive fulfilment in the Papacy, yet its chief embodiment thus far has been in that corrupt and persecuting power whose character answers so remarkably to the apostle's description.

The question respecting "the man of sin" belongs to the commentator. In a brief introduction like the present, we cannot enter upon it farther than to say that, though we are not warranted in affirming that it has its exhaustive fulfilment in the Papacy, yet its chief embodiment thus far has been in that corrupt and persecuting power whose character answers so remarkably to the apostle's description.

34. The epistles to the churches of Philippi and Thessalonica, both lying within the bounds of ancient Macedonia, have a remarkable agreement in their general tone and manner. In both cases we have the same affectionate outpouring of the apostle's heart towards the brethren to whom he writes, and the same abundant personal notices respecting himself and his ministry. Yet they differ precisely as we might suppose they wouldin view of the fact that the two to the Thessalonians are the earliest of Paul's writings, and are separated from that to the Philippians by an interval of ten eventful years. In writing to the Thessalonians he gives peculiar prominence to the doctrine of our Lord's second coming, perhaps because, in the persecutions which they were undergoing, they especially needed its strengthening and consolatory influence; perhaps also because in the continual maltreatment which he had encountered ever since he entered Macedonia—at Philippi (Acts 16:19-40; 1 Thess. 2:2), at Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-10), at Berea (Acts 17:13, 14), at Corinth (Acts 18:6-17)—he was staying his own soul on the same glorious hope. On the contrary, we find in these earlier epistles no mention of Judaizing Christians, nor any contrast between the two opposite systems of justification by faith and by the works of the Mosaic law, such as appears in his later epistles, that to the Philippians included. Phil. 3:4-9. His opponents at Thessalonica are not Judaizing Christians, but unconverted Jews, whose malignant opposition he describes in strong terms. 1 Thess. 2:15, 16. To the Thessalonians the apostle speaks of himself; but it is of his ministry, and the manner in which he has discharged its duties among them. To the Philippians he also speaks of himself; but then it is from a prison, with a trial for life or death before him, and the retrospect of a long ministry behind him. He unfolds, therefore, as is natural, his deep experiences as a Christian and an apostle of Christ. See above, No. 29. In this contrast between the earlier and the later epistles we have an evidence of their genuineness which is all the stronger because of its indirectness. It is such a mark of truth as no falsifier has power to imitate.

35. The attempt to find for the pastoral epistles a place in Paul's ministry as far as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is beset with difficulties which amount to impossibilities.

Among these difficulties are the following:(1.) Whoever carefully studies these three epistles in their connectionwith each other, and in contrast with the other Pauline epistles, must be profoundly impressed with the conviction that they all belong, as it respects style and tone of thought, to the same period of the apostle's life; and, as it respects subject-matter, to the same era when the churches were troubled by the same forms of error. But if we assume that they were written during that part of Paul's ministry of which Luke has left us the record, the second to Timothy must be widely separated from the other two. That was certainly written during Paul's last imprisonment near the close of his life. But when he wrote the first to Timothy and that to Titus he was at liberty and prosecuting his missionary labors in Asia Minor and the vicinity. It must have been then, upon this assumption, during his third missionary tour (when Apollos appears for the first time, Acts 18:24 compared with Titus 3:13), and before his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, his arrest there, his two years' imprisonment at Cesarea, his voyage to Rome, and his imprisonment there for the space of at least two more years.(2.) There is no part of Paul's history "between his first visit to Ephesus and his Roman imprisonment, which satisfies the historical conditions implied in the statements of any one of these epistles." Conybeare and Howson, vol. 2, Appendix 1. The student may see the arguments on one side in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament; and on the other in Alford, and other critical commentators. Reference may also be made to the biblical dictionaries.(3.) Upon the assumption that the first epistle to Timothy, whom Paul had left in charge of the Ephesian church, was writtenbeforehis recorded imprisonments at Cesarea and Rome, it must be earlier than his farewell address to the elders of Ephesus, and also his epistle to the Ephesians. But the contents of the epistle manifestly point to a later period, when the errors in doctrine and practice which he had predicted (Acts 20:29, 30), but of which he takes no notice in his epistle to the Ephesians, had already begun to manifest themselves. The more one compares with each other these two epistles, the deeper must his conviction be that the first to Timothy is not the earlier but the later of the two.(4.) The peculiar tone and diction of the pastoral epistles and the peculiar character of the errors combated in them all indicate a later period in the apostle's life, and a later stage in the history of the churches. To place the first and third of these among those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and the second, among those to Philemon, the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians, must appear forced and unnatural. It is much easier to assume the lapse of some years. Even then the contrast between these and the other epistles of Paul in respect to tone and diction is very striking. But it may be explained partly from the peculiar theme of the pastoral epistles, partly from the change which the lapse of timewith its manifold experiences had brought to the apostle's style and diction.We assume, therefore, that the apostle was released from the Roman imprisonment recorded by Luke; and that, not very long before his second imprisonment which was terminated by his martyrdom at Rome, he wrote the three epistles now under consideration. It is well known that this is in accordance with ancient tradition. See the testimonies in Conybeare and Howson, chap. 27; in Alford, and in other commentators.Against this view is urged the apostle's declaration to the elders of Ephesus that they should see his face no more; whereas, according to the present supposition, he visited Ephesusagainafter his first imprisonment. As a fair offset to this may be urged on the other side his equally strong declaration to the Philippians that his present imprisonment should have a favorable issue (Phil. 1:25); which was not the case upon the hypothesis of a single imprisonment at Rome. Such declarations, where no doctrine or fact of Christianity is concerned, are not to be taken as revelations of the Spirit. We know, for example, from Paul's own words, that he changed his declared purpose respecting a visit to Corinth, for which his enemies accused him of using lightness. 2 Cor. 1:15-18.It is urged again that when Paul wrote the pastoral epistles Timothy was ayoung man. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22. But according to ancient ideas one might be called a young man at any age under thirty-five or even forty years. Paul found Timothy in his second missionary journey, about A.D. 52. It is not necessary to assume that he was then more than twenty years old. At the time of Paul's martyrdom, then, about A.D. 67 or 68, he may have been, for anything that appears to the contrary, a young man in the ancient sense of the word.

Among these difficulties are the following:

(1.) Whoever carefully studies these three epistles in their connectionwith each other, and in contrast with the other Pauline epistles, must be profoundly impressed with the conviction that they all belong, as it respects style and tone of thought, to the same period of the apostle's life; and, as it respects subject-matter, to the same era when the churches were troubled by the same forms of error. But if we assume that they were written during that part of Paul's ministry of which Luke has left us the record, the second to Timothy must be widely separated from the other two. That was certainly written during Paul's last imprisonment near the close of his life. But when he wrote the first to Timothy and that to Titus he was at liberty and prosecuting his missionary labors in Asia Minor and the vicinity. It must have been then, upon this assumption, during his third missionary tour (when Apollos appears for the first time, Acts 18:24 compared with Titus 3:13), and before his last recorded journey to Jerusalem, his arrest there, his two years' imprisonment at Cesarea, his voyage to Rome, and his imprisonment there for the space of at least two more years.

(2.) There is no part of Paul's history "between his first visit to Ephesus and his Roman imprisonment, which satisfies the historical conditions implied in the statements of any one of these epistles." Conybeare and Howson, vol. 2, Appendix 1. The student may see the arguments on one side in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament; and on the other in Alford, and other critical commentators. Reference may also be made to the biblical dictionaries.

(3.) Upon the assumption that the first epistle to Timothy, whom Paul had left in charge of the Ephesian church, was writtenbeforehis recorded imprisonments at Cesarea and Rome, it must be earlier than his farewell address to the elders of Ephesus, and also his epistle to the Ephesians. But the contents of the epistle manifestly point to a later period, when the errors in doctrine and practice which he had predicted (Acts 20:29, 30), but of which he takes no notice in his epistle to the Ephesians, had already begun to manifest themselves. The more one compares with each other these two epistles, the deeper must his conviction be that the first to Timothy is not the earlier but the later of the two.

(4.) The peculiar tone and diction of the pastoral epistles and the peculiar character of the errors combated in them all indicate a later period in the apostle's life, and a later stage in the history of the churches. To place the first and third of these among those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans, and the second, among those to Philemon, the Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians, must appear forced and unnatural. It is much easier to assume the lapse of some years. Even then the contrast between these and the other epistles of Paul in respect to tone and diction is very striking. But it may be explained partly from the peculiar theme of the pastoral epistles, partly from the change which the lapse of timewith its manifold experiences had brought to the apostle's style and diction.

We assume, therefore, that the apostle was released from the Roman imprisonment recorded by Luke; and that, not very long before his second imprisonment which was terminated by his martyrdom at Rome, he wrote the three epistles now under consideration. It is well known that this is in accordance with ancient tradition. See the testimonies in Conybeare and Howson, chap. 27; in Alford, and in other commentators.

Against this view is urged the apostle's declaration to the elders of Ephesus that they should see his face no more; whereas, according to the present supposition, he visited Ephesusagainafter his first imprisonment. As a fair offset to this may be urged on the other side his equally strong declaration to the Philippians that his present imprisonment should have a favorable issue (Phil. 1:25); which was not the case upon the hypothesis of a single imprisonment at Rome. Such declarations, where no doctrine or fact of Christianity is concerned, are not to be taken as revelations of the Spirit. We know, for example, from Paul's own words, that he changed his declared purpose respecting a visit to Corinth, for which his enemies accused him of using lightness. 2 Cor. 1:15-18.

It is urged again that when Paul wrote the pastoral epistles Timothy was ayoung man. 1 Tim. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:22. But according to ancient ideas one might be called a young man at any age under thirty-five or even forty years. Paul found Timothy in his second missionary journey, about A.D. 52. It is not necessary to assume that he was then more than twenty years old. At the time of Paul's martyrdom, then, about A.D. 67 or 68, he may have been, for anything that appears to the contrary, a young man in the ancient sense of the word.

36. The false teachers with whom the apostle deals in these epistles are corrupt inpracticeas well as in doctrine. 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:16, 17; 3:6, 8; Titus 1:15, 16. They were chiefly Jews (1 Tim. 1:7; Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9); but not Jews who held to simple Phariseeism, like the false teachers among the Galatians. They more nearly resembled those who troubled the Colossians—Jews of a speculative turn of mind, who sought to bring into Judaism the semi-oriental philosophy of that day. They were not Gnostics; for Gnosticism was essentially anti-Judaistic, separating the God of the Jews from the God of Christianity, and placing the two in antagonism to each other. The speculations of these false teachers took a direction which was in some respects akin to the Gnosticism ofthe second century; but the allegation that they were themselves Gnostics rests upon the misinterpretation of certain passages in these epistles, or unwarrantable inferences from them.

37. Thegenuinenessof these epistles is sustained by the unanimous testimony of the ancient church. Only in modern times has it been called in question by certain writers, who rest their arguments wholly on alleged internal evidence.

So far as their objections are founded on the assumed early date of the pastoral epistles—before the close of Paul's imprisonment at Rome recorded by Luke, on their peculiar tone and diction, or on the supposed references in them to the Gnosticism of the second century, they have already been considered. But it is further alleged:(1.) That they reveal ahierarchical spiritforeign to the character of the apostle Paul. The answer is that no trace of such a spirit is discernible in them. The churches had from the first their officers—bishops or elders and deacons; and the apostle simply gives the necessary directions for the selection of these, with a few brief hints respecting the line of conduct to be observed towards them. 1 Tim. 5:1, 17, 19, 22.(2.) That theinstitution of widows(1 Tim. 5:9-16) belongs to a later age. Respecting the exact position of those who were enrolled in the class of widows there have been different opinions. One is that this class consisted of those who were to receive relief from the funds of the church; another, that they were matrons set apart for special service in the church, performing for their own sex duties analogous to those which the presbyters performed for the church generally. The latter opinion is the more probable of the two, as it explains the conditions insisted on by the apostle. But according to either view there is no difficulty in admitting the existence in apostolic times of such an arrangement.

(1.) That they reveal ahierarchical spiritforeign to the character of the apostle Paul. The answer is that no trace of such a spirit is discernible in them. The churches had from the first their officers—bishops or elders and deacons; and the apostle simply gives the necessary directions for the selection of these, with a few brief hints respecting the line of conduct to be observed towards them. 1 Tim. 5:1, 17, 19, 22.

(2.) That theinstitution of widows(1 Tim. 5:9-16) belongs to a later age. Respecting the exact position of those who were enrolled in the class of widows there have been different opinions. One is that this class consisted of those who were to receive relief from the funds of the church; another, that they were matrons set apart for special service in the church, performing for their own sex duties analogous to those which the presbyters performed for the church generally. The latter opinion is the more probable of the two, as it explains the conditions insisted on by the apostle. But according to either view there is no difficulty in admitting the existence in apostolic times of such an arrangement.

38. In these pastoral epistles we have the affectionate counsels of the great apostle to the Gentiles, when he was now ripe in years and Christian experience and about to close his earthly ministry, addressed to two young men whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers of the churches. They are a rich storehouse of instruction for all to whom God has committed the ministry of reconciliation. Let them, as they hope at last to render up an account of their stewardship with joy and not with grief, prayerfully study and reduce to daily practice these precepts of heavenly wisdom given by the Holy Spirit through the pen of "Paul the aged."

39.The first epistle to Timothy.—Thetimeof this epistle lies, as we have seen, beyond the recorded history of the apostle, and before his second and final imprisonment at Rome, perhaps about A.D. 65 or 66. It was addressed to Timothy at Ephesus not long after the apostle had left that city to go into Macedonia (chap. 1:3), but whether from Macedonia or some other province of the Roman empire cannot be determined. Theoccasionwe learn from the epistle. Paul had left Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church, and, being apprehensive of a protracted absence, he sends him these written instructions relating partly to his own personal demeanor as a Christian minister, but chiefly to his office as the overseer of the Ephesian church. In the discharge of this office he is (1) to withstand and keep down the growing heresies of the day; (2) to superintend the government of the church in various particulars which the apostle specifies.

Thecontentsof the epistle though not arranged in systematic order, are in harmony with its occasion and design. Into the first chapter, which is of an introductory character, the apostle, in the free intercourse of confiding affection, inserts a personal notice of himself, which breathes the spirit of devout gratitude and deep humility. He then proceeds to give directions pertaining to the public worship of God—prayer, the costume of women, and their place in the public assembly (chap. 2); and to the choice of bishops and deacons (chap. 3). After a digression in the fourth chapter respecting the character of the coming apostacy foretold by the Spirit, which is followed by admonitions to Timothy of a personal character, he proceeds in the fifth chapter to give directions respecting the appointment and treatment of elders, of the elder and younger women, and especially of widows, with personal counsel to Timothy. Then follows an admonition to servants, a notice of the false teachers, a warning to the rich with further counsels to Timothy, and an animating glance at the second coming of our Lord.

Eunice, the mother of Timothy, was a Jewess distinguished for her piety, as was also his grandmother Lois. Acts 16:1; 2 Tim. 1:5. Bythem he was carefully trained in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15), and had a good reputation among the brethren when Paul found him at Derbe and Lystra (Acts 16:1, 2). His father being a Greek, he had never been subjected to the rite of circumcision. But in consideration of his mixed descent Paul, to allay the prejudices of his countrymen, "took and circumcised him," while he would not allow this rite to be imposed on Titus, who was of unmixed Gentile origin. Timothy was one of the most trusty and beloved of Paul's fellow-laborers, as we learn from these and his other epistles, and he naturally desired the comfort and help of his presence in his final imprisonment at Rome. 2 Tim. 4:9, 21. His health was feeble (1 Tim. 5:23), and there are in Paul's epistles some indications that he was naturally timid and diffident (1 Cor. 16:10, 11; 2 Tim. 1:7, 8; 2:3). But grace made him faithful to the end.

40.The epistle to Tituswhich comes next in chronological order, has a remarkable agreement with the first to Timothy in both subject-matter and style. With the exception of what relates to widows and the demeanor of women in the public assemblies, it contains the same general precepts, with additional exhortations that young men be sober-minded, and that the Cretan Christians obey magistrates and be meek and gentle in their deportment. With these counsels the apostle interweaves, as in the first epistle to Timothy, exhortations to Titus of a personal character, and animating notices of God's grace in the gospel and of the second coming of our Lord.

Respecting the founding of the Cretan churches we have no information in the Acts of the Apostles. The only time mentioned by Luke when Paul touched at Crete was on his voyage to Rome as a prisoner (Acts 27:8); and then he had neither time nor liberty for the work of preaching the gospel in that island. Crete contained many Jews, some of whom were present at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:11). The apostle's visit to Crete referred to in this epistle we assume to have taken place between his first and second imprisonment at Rome. Whether the churches of the island were then founded for the first time or had previously existed, it is certain that Paul left them in an imperfect state of organization. For this reason he requested Titus to remain, that he might set in order the things that were wanting, and ordain elders in every city. Chap. 1:5.It is remarkable that we have no notice of Titus in the Acts of the Apostles. From the epistles of Paul we learn that he was his companion in travel, and intrusted by him at different times with missions to the churches. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas to the so-called Council of the Apostlesand Elders at Jerusalem, where, being a Greek, he was exempted from the necessity of circumcision. Gal. 2:1, 3. For other notices of him see 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18. His stay in Crete was not to be permanent; for the apostle directs that upon the arrival from him of Artemas or Tychicus he should rejoin him at Nicopolis—probably Nicopolis in Epirus. Chap. 3:12.

It is remarkable that we have no notice of Titus in the Acts of the Apostles. From the epistles of Paul we learn that he was his companion in travel, and intrusted by him at different times with missions to the churches. He accompanied Paul and Barnabas to the so-called Council of the Apostlesand Elders at Jerusalem, where, being a Greek, he was exempted from the necessity of circumcision. Gal. 2:1, 3. For other notices of him see 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18. His stay in Crete was not to be permanent; for the apostle directs that upon the arrival from him of Artemas or Tychicus he should rejoin him at Nicopolis—probably Nicopolis in Epirus. Chap. 3:12.

41.Second Epistle to Timothy.—The first epistle to Timothy and that to Titus are in a certain sense official; that is, they are largely occupied with apostolic counsels and directions to these two men respecting the administration of the churches which Paul had committed to their care. The present epistle is of a more private and personal character. It was written from Rome when Paul was a prisoner there (chaps. 1:8, 16, 17; 2:9), and expecting soon to seal his testimony with his blood (chap. 4:6). In his extremity, when fidelity to him could be shown only at the hazard of life, many of his friends had forsaken him. Chaps. 1:15; 4:10. He needed the presence and help of Timothy, and wrote urging him to come speedily, and to bring certain articles which he had left at Troas. Feeling that his end was near, he improved the occasion to give Timothy his affectionate apostolic counsel and encouragement. Hence the present epistle differs strikingly in its preceptive part from the other two. They contain specific directions for ordaining officers and managing the affairs of the churches; for in them the apostle writes to men in charge of specific fields of labor. In the second epistle to Timothy, on the contrary, the apostle's exhortations are general, for he is summoning him away from his particular field to give attendance upon himself at Rome. But all three of the pastoral epistles agree remarkably, as well in their general style and diction as in their description of existing errors and false teachers. It is generally thought that Timothy was at Ephesus; and with this opinion agrees the salutation to "the household of Onesiphorus," who was at Ephesus. Chap. 4:19 compared with 1:18. The words of chap. 4:12, however, "Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus," do not favor this supposition. Hence some have thought thatTimothy was not in that city, but only in its vicinity. The present is undoubtedly the last of Paul's epistles in the order of time. As such we cannot but peruse it with solemnity, as the closing testimony of one who has fought the good fight, finished the appointed course, and kept the faith; and who here instructs all, especially all preachers of the gospel, how they may do the same. "And thus we possess an epistle calculated for all ages of the church; and in which while the maxims cited and encouragements given apply to all Christians, and especially ministers of Christ, in their duties and difficulties—the affecting circumstances in which the writer himself is placed carry home to every heart his earnest and impassioned eloquence." Alford, Introduction to 2 Timothy.

42. In regard to theauthorshipof this epistle biblical scholars are not agreed. Each of the thirteen preceding epistles bears the name of Paul. But the present epistle is without either name or address, and it omits also at the beginning the apostolic salutation. Thus it commences in the form of an essay, though it closes in that of an epistle. These circumstances, in connection with its peculiar style and diction and the peculiar range of the topics discussed in it, have produced a diversity of opinion on the question whether Paul was its author, at least its author in the immediate sense in which he was the author of the preceding epistles. For the full discussion of the arguments on both sides the reader must be referred to the commentaries, some of which are accessible to all. Our limits will only permit us to indicate certain facts and principles which have a bearing on the authorship of the epistle and its canonical authority.

The unanimous belief of theEasternchurch, where we must suppose that it was first received and whence the knowledge of it was spread abroad, ascribed it to Paul as its author either immediately or virtually; for some, as Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 14) accounted for its peculiar diction by the suppositionthat Paul furnished the thoughts, while they were reduced to form by the pen of some other person. Another opinion was that Paul wrote in Hebrew, and that our present canonical epistle is a translation into Greek (Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 3. 38; Clement of Alexandria in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 14). In theWesternchurch Clement of Rome did indeed refer to the epistle as authoritative, but without naming the author. Yet its Pauline authorship was not generally admitted, nor was it received as a part of the sacred canon till the fourth century, when here too the opinion of the Eastern church was adopted. The Muratorian canon, which represents the belief of the Western church before the fourth century, omits this epistle. The Syriac Peshito, on the other hand, inserts it in accordance with its uniform reception by the Eastern church. This uniformity of belief in the Eastern church must have had for its starting point the Hebrews to whom the epistle was sent; and it is a strong argument for the supposition that it did originally come to them under the sanction of Paul's name and authority; whether dictated to an amanuensis, as were most of his epistles, or written with his knowledge and approbation by some inspired man among his attendants and fellow-laborers who was thoroughly conversant with his views on the subjects treated of in the epistle. This is as far as we have any occasion to go, since we know that the gift of inspiration was not confined to the circle of the apostles.

As we cannot affirm thatallwho were associated with the apostles in the work of the ministry had the gifts needful for the composition of writings that should be given to the churches as the authoritative word of God, so neither can we deny tosomethe possession of these gifts, as is plain from the examples of Mark and Luke. When men who stood in the second grade of relation to Christ—apostolic men, as we may conveniently call them—composed their works, it is not necessary to assume that they wrote under a formal apostolic supervision. The "discerning of spirits" is a gift which we must concede to all of the apostles. If, then, an associate of one of the apostles had such relations to him and wrote in such circumstances that we cannot suppose it to have been done without his knowledge and approbation formal or implied, we have for his work all needful authority. Whatfurther connection the apostle may have had with it in the way of suggestion or supervision is a question which we may well leave undetermined. In judging of this matter we consider first of all the testimony of the early churches, since they enjoyed the best means of ascertaining the origin of a writing; and then the character of the writing itself. Proceeding in this way we come to the full conviction ofthe canonical authorityof the epistle to the Hebrews, whether we believe, with many, that Paul was its immediate author, or, with Origen, that "the ancients not without reason have handed it down as Paul's; but on the question who wrote the epistle God only knows the truth."

43. That the apostle wrote for the instruction of Jewish Christians is manifest. The uniform tenor of the epistle indicates, moreover, that they wereJewish Christianswithout any admixture of a Gentile element. The salutations at the end further imply that the epistle addresses not Hebrew Christians in general, but some particular community of them, which is most naturally to be sought in Palestine, perhaps in Jerusalem. As to thetimeof the epistle, the manner in which it refers to the temple and its services makes it certain that the author wrote before the overthrow of Jerusalem, that is, before A.D. 70. The arguments adduced to show that Paul was its author, either immediately or virtually, carry it back beyond A.D. 67 or 68, when, according to ancient tradition, the apostle suffered martyrdom. It was probably written not many years before that event; but a more exact determination of the time is impossible. According to the most probable interpretation of chap. 13:24, the epistle was written from Italy. But that Timothy was not the bearer of it, as the subscription states, is plain from the preceding verse, in which he conditionally promises to come with Timothy at a future time.

The references in the epistle to the Levitical priesthood and the temple services connected with it are in thepresentor perfecttenses—"is ordained," "is encompassed," "he ought," "taketh this honor," "have a commandment to take tithes" "receive tithes" "hath given attendanceat the altar" (chap. 7:13), "have become" (chap. 7:21, 23), "maketh men high priests," "who serve," "hath made the first old" (the references in chap. 9:1-5 are to the ancient tabernacle), "enteralways into the first tabernacle" (chap. 9:6), "which heoffers" (verse 7), "the Holy Ghost this signifying that theway into the holiest placeshas not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacleis as yet standing" (verse 8), "gifts and sacrificesare offered" (verse 9), "sanctifieth," "are by the law purged," "can never," "standeth." It is to be regretted that our version has not in all cases observed this distinction of tenses.

44. Thecentral themeof this book is the superiority of the Christian over the Mosaic dispensation considered on the side of its divine Mediator and High-priest. In unfolding this great theme the writer dwells on the glory and dignity of Christ's person in contrast with the ancient prophets, with the angels, and with Moses, all of whom were connected with the first economy. He then proceeds to exhibit the divine efficacy of Christ's priesthood. This is the substance, of which the Levitical priesthood, with its altar, its offerings and all the temple-services connected with it, was only the shadow. In no book of the New Testament is our Lord's priestly office set forth with such fullness and rich variety of illustrations, always with reference to its divinely appointed type, the Levitical priesthood. This was especially needful to fortify the Hebrew Christians, who had been educated and lived under the constant impression of the splendid Mosaic ritual with its magnificent temple, against the danger of being turned from the simplicity of the gospel to reliance on the "carnal ordinances" of Judaism, which would have been virtual apostacy from Christ. This magnificent epistle constitutes in some sense a solemn requiem to the old temple service with its altar and priesthood, where the blood of bulls and goats that can never take away sin had flowed for so many centuries. This service had accomplished its end in prefiguring Christ the true "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," and it was destined soon to pass away forever "with tumult, with shouting, with the sound of the trumpet"—to pass away forever, that men might give their undivided faith to Christ, our great High-priest, who ministers for us in the heavenly tabernacle, presenting there before his Father's throne his own blood shed on Calvary to make propitiation for the sins of the world.

To the argumentative part of this epistle are appended exhortations (partly, indeed, anticipated in the preceding part) to constancy in the Christian profession, drawn from the awful doom that awaits apostates, from the examples of faith furnished by ancient worthies, and especially from the example of Christ himself and the glorious fellowship to which his gospel introduces us. To these are added some admonitions of a more special character. Thus the present epistle performs an office in the general system of revelation which is supplied by no other book of the Old or New Testament. To the book of Leviticus it may be said to hold the relation of substance to shadow, and it is its divinely appointed expositor.

1. Seven epistles, that of James and the six that follow, are calledCatholic, that is,generaloruniversal, as not being directed to any particular church. They were not all, however, addressed originally to believers generally, but some of them to particular classes of believers, or even to individuals, as the introductory words show.

2. The question respecting thepersonof James who wrote this epistle is one of great difficulty. That "James the Lord's brother," whom Paul names as one of the apostles (Gal. 1:19), is identical with the James mentioned by Luke in Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18, and is the author of the present epistle, is admitted by most writers, though not by all. That this James of Gal. 1:19 was the James who is named with Joses, Simon, and Judas, as one of our Lord's brethren (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), must be received as certain. But whether he was identical with "James the son of Alpheus," who was one of the twelve (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), is a question which has been much discussed and on which eminent biblical scholars are found arrayed on opposite sides. The question turns very much on the interpretation of the words "brother," and "brethren" and "sisters," in the passages above referred to. If we take them in their literal sense, as some do, then James the son of Alpheus and James the Lord's brother are different persons. But others understand them in the general sense of kindred or cousins, believing that our Saviour was the only child of Mary. A statement at length of the argumentsand objections that are urged on both sides does not come within the compass of the present work. Nor is it necessary. The author of the present epistle is beyond all reasonable doubt the James who gave the final opinion in the assembly of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-21), whom Paul names with Cephas and John as one of the "pillars" there (Gal. 2:9), and who elsewhere appears as a man of commanding influence in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 21:18; Gal. 2:12). If any one doubts his identity with James the son of Alpheus, who was one of the twelve, this cannot affect the canonical authority of the epistle. The position of this James in the church at Jerusalem and his relation to the apostolic college is such that, even upon the supposition that he did not belong to the number of the twelve, his writings must have to us the full weight of apostolic authority. See above chap. 30, No. 42.

3. Theplacewhere this epistle was written was manifestly Jerusalem, where James always resided; and thepersons addressedare "the twelve tribes who are in the dispersion" (chap. 1:1); that is, as the nature of the case and the tenor of the epistle make manifest, that part of them who had embraced Christianity. There is no allusion in the epistle to Gentile believers.

The dispersionis a technical term for the Jews living out of Palestine among the Gentiles. We need not hesitate to understand it here literally. The apostlewroteto his Jewish brethren of the dispersion because he could not visit them and superintend their affairs as he could those of the Jewish Christians in and around Jerusalem. Some take the term in a wider sense of the Jewish Christians scattered abroad in and out of Palestine, but this is not necessary.

4. With regard to thedateof this epistle also different opinions are held. Some place it early in the history of the church—earlier, in fact, than any other of the apostolic epistles—beforethe origin of the controversy respecting circumcision and the Mosaic law recorded in Acts, chap. 15; others quitelate, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The latter view best agrees with the contents of the epistle. Thedoctrine of justification by faith, for which Paul had contended, would naturally be abused precisely in the way here indicated, by the substitution of a barren speculative faith, for the true faith that works by love and purifies the heart and life from sin. The age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem was one of abounding wickedness, especially in the form of strife and faction. It had been predicted by our Lord that the effect of this would be to chill the love of many of his visible followers and withdraw them from his service. In truth the descriptions of these unworthy members of the Jewish Christian community which we find in this epistle, in the second of Peter, and in that of Jude, are but the realization, in most particulars, of the state of things foretold in the following remarkable words of the Saviour: "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." Matt. 24:10-13.

5. For thegenuinenessandcanonicalauthority of the present epistle we have a very important testimony in the Old Syriac version (Peshito), which represents the judgment of the Eastern churches where the epistle was originally circulated. The remaining testimonies prior to the fourth century are scanty and some of them not very decisive. They may be all seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, and in the critical commentaries generally.

It cannot be reasonably doubted that the words of Irenæus, "Abraham himself, without circumcision and without the observance of Sabbaths, believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God" (Against Heresies, 4.30), refer to James 2:23. Origen quotes the epistle as "current under the name of James," and intimates that some did not acknowledge its apostolic authority. But he elsewhere cites it as that of "James the Lord's brother," "the apostle James," "the apostle," and simply "James." See in Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, pp. 263, 264. Eusebius reckons the epistle among the books that were "disputed, but known nevertheless to many." Hist. Eccl., 3, 25. Elsewhere he says: "It is regarded as spurious; at least not many of the ancientshave made mention of it." Hist. Eccl., 2. 23. But these words cannot be regarded as expressing Eusebius' own opinion; for he himself quotes him as "the holy apostle," and his words as "Scripture." See in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 3, p. 336; Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, p. 264.

In the course of the fourth century the canonical authority of this epistle was gradually more and more acknowledged, and in the fifth its reception in the churches of both the East and the West became universal.

"This is just what we might expect: a writing little known at first, obtains a more general circulation, and the knowledge of the writing and its reception go almost together. The contents entirely befit the antiquity which the writing claims; noevidencecould be given for rejecting it; it differs in its whole nature from the foolish and spurious writings put forth in the name of this James; and thus its gradual reception is to be accounted for from its having, from early times, been known by some to be genuine (as shown by the Syraic version), and this knowledge being afterwards spread more widely." Tregelles in Horne, vol. 4, chap. 25. Davidson suggests that differences of opinion and perplexities respecting the number of the persons called James in the apostolic period, and the relation they bore to one another, and also the fact that the epistle was addressed solely to Jewish Christians, may have made its early circulation comparatively limited. Perhaps we may also add, as he does, its apparent contrariety to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, but this is by no means certain.

6. This epistle is eminently practical. If any part of it can be called argumentative, it is that in which the apostle shows that "faith without works is dead." Chap. 2:14-26. The sins which he rebukes with such graphic vividness and power were all preëminently the sins of his countrymen at that age—hearing God's word without doing it, resting in an empty faith that does not influence the life, inordinate love of worldly possessions and a self-confident spirit in the pursuit of them, wanton revelling in worldly pleasures, partiality towards the rich and contempt of the poor, defrauding the poor of their wages, ambition to assume the office of teaching, censoriousness, a lawless and slanderous tongue, bitter envying and strife, mutual grudging and murmuring, wars and fightings; all these with anunbelieving and complaining spirit towards God. But these are not merely Jewish vices. They are deeply rooted in man's fallen nature, and many a nominal Christian community of our day may see its own image by looking into the mirror of this epistle.

The alleged disagreement between Paul and James is unfounded. Paul's object is to show that the ground of men's justification is faith in Christ, and not the merit of their good works. The object of James is to show that faith without good works, like the body without the spirit, is dead. Paul argues against dead works; James against dead faith. Here we have no contradiction, but only two different views of truth that are in entire harmony with each other, and both of which are essential to true godliness.

7.The First Epistle of Peterwas unanimously received by the primitive church as the genuine work of the man whose name it bears. Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, made numerous citations from it. It was also referred to by Papias, according to the testimony of Eusebius. Hist. Eccl. 3. 39. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, etc. all quote it expressly. It is found in the Syriac Peshito version which contains but three of the catholic epistles. It is wanting in the Muratorian canon, but to this circumstance much weight cannot be attached when we consider how dark and confused is the passage referring to the catholic epistles.

8.The readersaddressed in the epistle are "the elect sojourners of the dispersion, of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," all provinces of Asia Minor. The words "sojourners"—or "strangers" as rendered in our English version—and "dispersion" are both the appropriate terms for the Jews living in dispersion. That the apostle, in an introduction of this kind, should have used the word "sojourners" in a simply figurative sense, to describe Christians as "pilgrims and strangers on the earth," is very improbable, especially in immediateconnection with the word "dispersion," which must be understood literally. We must rather understand the apostle as recognizing in the Christian churches scattered throughout the world the true "Israel of God," having for its framework the believing portion of the covenant people, into which the Gentile Christians had been introduced through faith, and thus made the children of Abraham. Compare Rom. 4:12-17; Gal. 3:7-9; and especially Rom. 11:17-24. Hence it comes to pass that while Peter addresses them as the ancient people of God, he yet includes Gentile Christians in his exhortations, as is manifest from various passages, especially from chap. 4:3.

9. According to chap. 5:13 theplacefrom which this epistle was written was Babylon. No valid reason exists why we should not understand here the literal Babylon. The old opinion that the apostle used the word enigmatically to signify Rome is nothing more than a conjecture in itself improbable. It has been urged not without reason that Peter names the provinces of Asia Minor in the order which would be natural to one writing from Babylon; naming Pontus first, which lay nearest to Babylon, and Asia and Bithynia, which were the most remote, last. The question of thedateof this epistle is connected with that of itsoccasion. This seems to have been a "fiery trial" of persecution that had already begun to come upon the Christians of the provinces named in the introductory address. Chaps. 1:6, 7; 2:12, 19, 20; 3:14, 16, 17; 4:1, 12-19; 5:9, 10. The exact date and character of this persecution cannot be determined. The majority of commentators assign it to the latter years of Nero's reign, which ended A.D. 68. The second epistle of Peter was written not long before the apostle's death, and after the epistles of Paul had become generally known in Asia Minor. As we cannot reasonably separate the two epistles by a great space of time (see below, No. 11), we infer that the first was written after Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, say somewhere between A.D. 63 and 67.

10. The general tone of the first epistle is in harmony with its occasion. The apostle seeks to animate and strengthen hisbrethren in view of the "fiery trial" of persecution that had already begun to come upon them. To this end he sets before them in glowing language the greatness and glory of the heavenly inheritance in reserve for them, which was purchased by the precious blood of Christ, and the dignity and blessedness of suffering for Christ's sake, with the assurance of God's faithful presence and protection. With these encouragements he intermingles admonitions suited to their circumstances. He exhorts them as strangers and pilgrims to abstain from fleshly lusts and all the other vices of their former life in ignorance; to commend their religion by a holy deportment which shall put to shame the calumnies of their adversaries; to perform faithfully all the duties of their several stations in life; to be humble, sober, vigilant, and ready always to give a reason of their Christian hope; and above all things to have fervent charity among themselves. The fervent spirit of the great apostle of the circumcision, chastened and mellowed by age, shines forth conspicuously in this epistle. The closing chapter, where he addresses first the elders, then the younger, then the whole body of believers, charms the reader by the holy tranquillity which pervades it throughout—a tranquillity deeply grounded in that faith which is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

11.The second epistle of Peter.Theaddressof this epistle is general (chap. 1:1); yet the reference which it contains to the first (chap. 3:1) shows that the apostle had in mind primarily the same circle of churches. The character of this reference—"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in which [two epistles] I stir up your pure minds by way of reminding [you]"—indicates that the second was not separated from the first by a very great space oftime, certainly not many years. The apostle wrote with the conviction that his decease was near at hand (chap. 1:13-15). There is a tradition, the correctness of which, however, is doubted by many, that he suffered martyrdom at Rome under the persecution raised by Nero against the Christians. This would be aboutA.D. 67. As to theplacefrom which the epistle was written we have no information.

12. The present epistle is one of thedisputedbooks. Chap. 5, No. 7, and Chap. 6. The question respecting its genuineness may be conveniently considered under the two heads ofexternalandinternalevidence.

Theexternaltestimony to the present epistle is scanty. Passing by some doubtful references we come first to Origen who says (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6. 25): "But Peter, upon whom is built the church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; a second also, if you will, for it is doubted of." In those of his works which are extant only in the Latin version of Rufinus, Origen in a number of passages quotes the present epistle as Scripture. It has been suspected that these passages were interpolated by Rufinus, who took many liberties with the text of Origen; but one of them, which occurs at the beginning of his seventh homily on Joshua, is so peculiar that we cannot well doubt that Origen himself was its author. In allusion to the procession of priests blowing with trumpets when the Israelites compassed the walls of Jericho (Josh. chap. 6), he compares the writers of the New Testament to so many sacerdotal trumpeters, assigning to them trumpets for each book, and mentioningevery book, as well the disputed as the acknowledged: "First Matthew in his gospel, gave a blast with his sacerdotal trumpet. Mark also, Luke, and John, sounded with their single sacerdotal trumpets. Peter also sounds aloud with the two trumpets of his epistles; James also, and Jude. But John adds yet again to blow with the trumpet through his epistles and Apocalypse; Luke, also, narrating the Acts of the Apostles. But last of all that man came, who said: 'I think that God has set forth us apostles last,' and thundering with the fourteen trumpets of his epistles, overthrew to their foundations the walls of Jericho, and all the engines of idolatry and dogmas of philosophers." The "epistles" through which the apostle John sounds are obviously his three epistles. The "fourteen trumpets" upon which Paul blows include the epistle to the Hebrews. In this remarkable passage, then, we have anexhaustive listof our present canonical books; and there is no ground for imputing any interpolation to the translator. It may be said, indeed, that this enumeration of the books of the New Testament is made in a popular way, and does not imply Origen's deliberate judgment that they were all of apostolic authority. If this be granted, it still remains evident from the form of the passage thatall the books of our present canon were in current ecclesiastical usein Origen's day, whatever doubts he may have had respecting some of them, and that they constituted, along with the writings of the Old Testament, that wholeof divine revelation which the Christian churches employed in assaulting the kingdom of Satan.The testimony of Eusebius himself is of the same general import as that of Origen—that the first epistle of Peter has been universally acknowledged; but that the one current as the second has not been received as a part of the New Testament; but yet, appearing useful to many, has been studied with the other Scriptures (Hist. Eccl., 3. 3); that among the writings which are disputed, yet known to many, are the epistles current as those of James and Jude, and the second epistle of Peter (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25).Jerome says that Peter "wrote two epistles that are called catholic, of which the second is denied by most persons on account of its disagreement in style with the first." Scrip. Eccl., 1. But he himself received the epistle, and explained the difference in style and character and structure of words by the assumption that Peter useddifferent interpretersin the composition of the two epistles (Epist. 120 ad Hedib., chap. 11); and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded as a part of the New Testament.The reader who wishes to investigate farther the question of external testimonies will find them all given in Davidson's Introduct. to New Test.; and Alford's Commentary, Introduction to 2 Peter. We simply repeat the remark already made (Chap. 6, No. 3) that although the universal and undisputed reception of a book by all the early churches cannot be explained except on the assumption of its genuineness, its non-reception by some is no conclusive argument against it. It may have remained (as seems to have been peculiarly the case with some of the catholic epistles) for a considerable period in obscurity. When it began to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of it would be a slow process both from the difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times, and especially from the slowness and hesitancy with which the churches of one region received anything new that came from another region. Chap. 2, No. 5. Jerome does indeed mention the objection from the difference of style between this epistle and the first of Peter; but it is doubtful whether in this matter he speaks for the early churches generally. The obscurity in which the epistle had remained, partly at least because it was not addressed to the guardianship of any particular church, seems to have been the chief ground of doubt.Theinternaltestimony for and against the genuineness of this epistle has been discussed at great length by many writers. The reader will find good summaries of them in the two works above referred to, also in the critical commentaries generally and the modern Bible dictionaries. If one would come to true results in this field of investigation it is important that he begin with true principles. There are what may be calledstaple peculiarities,which mark the style of one writer as compared with that of another—that of John, for example, in contrast with that of Paul. We cannot conceive of these as being wanting. But then we must allow to one and the same writer a considerable range of variation in style and diction, dependent partly on difference of subject matter, and partly on varying frames of mind of which no definite account can be given. If one would be convinced of this, he has only to read side by side the epistle of Paul to the Romans and his second to the Corinthians. Reserving now the second chapter of the present epistle for separate consideration, we do not find in the two remaining chapters, as compared with the first epistle, any such fundamental differences of style and diction as can constitute a just ground for denying the common authorship of the two epistles. For the particulars, as well as for the examination of other objections of an internal character, the reader must be referred to the sources above named. It is certainly remarkable that Peter should refer to the writings of Paul in such terms as to class them with the "Scriptures" of the Old Testament. Chap. 3:16. But, as Alford remarks, this implies not that the canon of the New Testament had been settled when the present epistle was written, but only that "there were certain writings by Christian teachers, which were reckoned on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures, and called by the same name. And that that was not the case, even in the traditional lifetime of Peter, it would be surely unreasonable to deny." We close this part of the discussion with the following words from the same author: "Our general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favor of the genuineness and canonicity of this second epistle; acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this epistle with some others of those called catholic, and several of the later writings of the New Testament; and on the other, that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive, than that which separates all those writings from even the earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our epistle is one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit on the apostles, which, not being intrusted to the custody of any one church or individual, required some considerable time to become generally known; which when known, were suspected, bearing, as they necessarily did traces of their late origin, and notes of polemical argument; but of which as apostolic and inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known, any general doubt; and which, as the sacred canon became fixed, acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential place among the books of the New Testament."

The testimony of Eusebius himself is of the same general import as that of Origen—that the first epistle of Peter has been universally acknowledged; but that the one current as the second has not been received as a part of the New Testament; but yet, appearing useful to many, has been studied with the other Scriptures (Hist. Eccl., 3. 3); that among the writings which are disputed, yet known to many, are the epistles current as those of James and Jude, and the second epistle of Peter (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25).

Jerome says that Peter "wrote two epistles that are called catholic, of which the second is denied by most persons on account of its disagreement in style with the first." Scrip. Eccl., 1. But he himself received the epistle, and explained the difference in style and character and structure of words by the assumption that Peter useddifferent interpretersin the composition of the two epistles (Epist. 120 ad Hedib., chap. 11); and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded as a part of the New Testament.

The reader who wishes to investigate farther the question of external testimonies will find them all given in Davidson's Introduct. to New Test.; and Alford's Commentary, Introduction to 2 Peter. We simply repeat the remark already made (Chap. 6, No. 3) that although the universal and undisputed reception of a book by all the early churches cannot be explained except on the assumption of its genuineness, its non-reception by some is no conclusive argument against it. It may have remained (as seems to have been peculiarly the case with some of the catholic epistles) for a considerable period in obscurity. When it began to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of it would be a slow process both from the difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times, and especially from the slowness and hesitancy with which the churches of one region received anything new that came from another region. Chap. 2, No. 5. Jerome does indeed mention the objection from the difference of style between this epistle and the first of Peter; but it is doubtful whether in this matter he speaks for the early churches generally. The obscurity in which the epistle had remained, partly at least because it was not addressed to the guardianship of any particular church, seems to have been the chief ground of doubt.

Theinternaltestimony for and against the genuineness of this epistle has been discussed at great length by many writers. The reader will find good summaries of them in the two works above referred to, also in the critical commentaries generally and the modern Bible dictionaries. If one would come to true results in this field of investigation it is important that he begin with true principles. There are what may be calledstaple peculiarities,which mark the style of one writer as compared with that of another—that of John, for example, in contrast with that of Paul. We cannot conceive of these as being wanting. But then we must allow to one and the same writer a considerable range of variation in style and diction, dependent partly on difference of subject matter, and partly on varying frames of mind of which no definite account can be given. If one would be convinced of this, he has only to read side by side the epistle of Paul to the Romans and his second to the Corinthians. Reserving now the second chapter of the present epistle for separate consideration, we do not find in the two remaining chapters, as compared with the first epistle, any such fundamental differences of style and diction as can constitute a just ground for denying the common authorship of the two epistles. For the particulars, as well as for the examination of other objections of an internal character, the reader must be referred to the sources above named. It is certainly remarkable that Peter should refer to the writings of Paul in such terms as to class them with the "Scriptures" of the Old Testament. Chap. 3:16. But, as Alford remarks, this implies not that the canon of the New Testament had been settled when the present epistle was written, but only that "there were certain writings by Christian teachers, which were reckoned on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures, and called by the same name. And that that was not the case, even in the traditional lifetime of Peter, it would be surely unreasonable to deny." We close this part of the discussion with the following words from the same author: "Our general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favor of the genuineness and canonicity of this second epistle; acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this epistle with some others of those called catholic, and several of the later writings of the New Testament; and on the other, that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive, than that which separates all those writings from even the earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our epistle is one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit on the apostles, which, not being intrusted to the custody of any one church or individual, required some considerable time to become generally known; which when known, were suspected, bearing, as they necessarily did traces of their late origin, and notes of polemical argument; but of which as apostolic and inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known, any general doubt; and which, as the sacred canon became fixed, acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential place among the books of the New Testament."

13. Theobjectof the present epistle is to warn believers against being led away with the error of the wicked so as tofall from their own steadfastness. Chap. 3:17. It contains accordingly extended notices of the gross errors in doctrine and morals which, as we know from the New Testament, abounded in the Christian church near the close of the apostolic period. The second chapter, which is occupied with a vivid description of the false teachers that had "crept in unawares" (chap. 2:1; Jude 4), is very peculiar in its contents; and its agreement with the epistle of Jude is of such a character as leads to the inference that the two writings are somehow connected with each other. It has been supposed that both writers drew from a common source unknown to us. More probable is the opinion that one of them had in view the words of the other. A comparison of the two writings will perhaps lead to the belief that Jude's was the original, though on this point biblical scholars differ. It matters not to us whether, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter employed, in a free and independent way, the words of Jude, or Jude those of Peter. Upon either supposition his writing is as much inspired as if he had written independently. The most prominent idea of Peter's first epistle is patience and steadfastness in the endurance of suffering for Christ's sake; that of this second epistle is caution against the seductions of false teachers. Thus each epistle fills an important place in the entire economy of revelation.

14.The first epistle of Johnbears throughout the impress of itsauthorship. That it was written by the same man who wrote the fourth gospel is too evident to be reasonably controverted. On this ground alone its genuineness and authenticity may be regarded as established on a firm basis. But the external testimonies to its authorship are also abundant from Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle, and onward. It is unnecessary to enumerate them. In respect to thedateof this epistle we have no certain knowledge. The common opinion is that it was written after the gospel, and towards the close of the first century. With this supposition the contents agree. It containsthe affectionate counsel of an aged apostle to his younger brethren, whom he addresses as his "little children." He writes, moreover, in "the last time," when, according to the prediction of our Lord and his apostles, many antichrists and false prophets are abroad in the world (chaps. 2:18; 4:1-3), and there are some who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (chap. 4:2, 3). As to theplaceof the apostle's writing, if we follow ancient tradition, which makes Ephesus his home in his old age, we may well believe that he wrote from that city, and that the epistle was addressed primarily to the circle of churches which had Ephesus for a centre.

Some of the ancients refer to the present epistle as written to theParthians. But this is a very improbable assumption, and rests apparently on some mistake. The apostle evidently writes to those who are under his spiritual care; and these are not the Parthians, but the Christians of Asia, to whom also the seven letters of the Apocalypse are addressed.

15. The epistle has unity throughout, but not the unity of systematic logical arrangement. Its unity consists rather in the fact that all its thoughts revolve around one great central truth,the incarnation of the Son of God in the person of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. With this truth he begins, and he affirms it authoritatively, as one of the primitive apostolic witnesses: "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." Chaps. 1:3; 4:6. He guards it also against perversion, when he insists upon the reality of our Lord's incarnation: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God" (chap. 4:2, 3), words which are with good reason understood as referring to a very ancient form of error, that of theDocet[oe], who maintained that the Son of God had not a real, but only an apparent body. The reception through faith of this great truth, that the Son of God has come in the flesh for man's salvation, brings us into blissful union and communion with the Father and the Son, and thus into the possession of sonship and eternal life. Chaps. 1:3; 3:1, 2; 4:15; 5:1, 13, 20. The rejectionof this truth is the rejection of God's own testimony concerning his Son (chaps. 2:22; 5:9, 10), and thus the rejection of eternal life; for out of Christ, the Son of God, there is no life (chap. 5:11, 12). But this reception of Christ is not a matter of mere theoretic belief. It is a practical coming to the Father and the Son, and a holy union with them. The proof of such union with God and Christ is likeness to God and obedience to God's commandments. They who profess to know God and to be in him, while they walk in darkness and allow themselves in sin, are liars and the truth is not in them. Chaps. 1:5-7; 2:4-6; 3:5-10, 24; 5:4, 5, 18. The sum of all God's attributes is love; and the sum of Christian character is love also. Chap. 4:16. But there can be no true love towards God where there is none towards the brethren; and such love must manifest itself "not in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." Chaps. 3:11-18; 4:7-11, 20, 21; 5:1. He that loves his brother abides in the light; but he that hates him abides in darkness and death. Chaps. 2:9-11; 3:14, 15. All believers have an abiding unction of the Spirit, which enables them to distinguish between truth and falsehood, and keeps them from the seductions of the many antichrists that are abroad. Chap. 2:18-27. Such true believers, whose hearts are filled with love, are raised above fear, and have confidence in prayer, and may look forward with joyful confidence to the day of judgment. Chaps. 2:28; 3:18-20; 4:17, 18; 5:14, 15. These fundamental truths the apostle reiterates in various forms and connections, intermingling with them various admonitions and promises of a more particular character. He dwells with especial fulness on the evidences of discipleship as manifested in the daily spirit and life. There is perhaps no part of God's word so directly available to the anxious inquirer who wishes to know what true religion is, and whether he possesses it. He who, in humble reliance on the illumination of the divine Spirit, applies to himself this touchstone of Christian character, will know whether he is of God, or of the world that lies in wickedness.

Back to Index Next