36. The false teachers with whom the apostle deals in these epistles are corrupt in _practice_ as well as in doctrine. 1 Tim. 1:6; 6:5; 2 Tim.
2:16, 17; 3:6, 8; t.i.tus 1:15, 16. They were chiefly Jews (1 Tim. 1:7; t.i.tus 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 G.o.d of the Jews from the G.o.d 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 of the second century; but the allegation that they were themselves Gnostics rests upon the misinterpretation of certain pa.s.sages in these epistles, or unwarrantable inferences from them.
37. The _genuineness_ of 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 a.s.sumed 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 a _hierarchical spirit_ foreign 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 the _inst.i.tution of widows_ (1 Tim. 5:9-16) belongs to a later age. Respecting the exact position of those who were enrolled in the cla.s.s of widows there have been different opinions. One is that this cla.s.s 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 s.e.x duties a.n.a.logous 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 G.o.d 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.--The _time_ of 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. The _occasion_ we 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.
The _contents_ of 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 grat.i.tude and deep humility. He then proceeds to give directions pertaining to the public worship of G.o.d--prayer, the costume of women, and their place in the public a.s.sembly (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. By them 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 circ.u.mcision. But in consideration of his mixed descent Paul, to allay the prejudices of his countrymen, "took and circ.u.mcised him," while he would not allow this rite to be imposed on t.i.tus, 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 t.i.tUS which 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 a.s.semblies, 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 t.i.tus of a personal character, and animating notices of G.o.d"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 a.s.sume 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 t.i.tus 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 t.i.tus 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 Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem, where, being a Greek, he was exempted from the necessity of circ.u.mcision. 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 t.i.tus 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 that Timothy 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 circ.u.mstances in which the writer himself is placed carry home to every heart his earnest and impa.s.sioned eloquence." Alford, Introduction to 2 Timothy.
VIII. EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
42. In regard to the _authorship_ of 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 the _Eastern_ church, 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 supposition that 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 the _Western_ church 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 Pes.h.i.to, 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 that _all_ who were a.s.sociated 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 G.o.d, so neither can we deny to _some_ the 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 a.s.sume 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 a.s.sociate of one of the apostles had such relations to him and wrote in such circ.u.mstances 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. What further 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 of _the canonical authority_ of 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 G.o.d 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 were _Jewish Christians_ without 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 the _time_ of 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 the _present_ or perfect _tenses_--"is ordained," "is encompa.s.sed," "he ought,"
"taketh this honor," "have a commandment to take t.i.thes"
"receive t.i.thes" "_hath given attendance_ at 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), "_enter_ always into the first tabernacle" (chap. 9:6), "which he _offers_"
(verse 7), "the Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holiest places _has not yet been made manifest_, while the first tabernacle _is as yet standing_" (verse 8), "gifts and sacrifices _are 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. The _central theme_ of 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 ill.u.s.trations, 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 const.i.tutes 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 G.o.d which taketh away the sin of the world," and it was destined soon to pa.s.s away forever "with tumult, with shouting, with the sound of the trumpet"--to pa.s.s 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, antic.i.p.ated 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.
CHAPTER x.x.xI.
THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
1. Seven epistles, that of James and the six that follow, are called _Catholic_, that is, _general_ or _universal_, as not being directed to any particular church. They were not all, however, addressed originally to believers generally, but some of them to particular cla.s.ses of believers, or even to individuals, as the introductory words show.
I. EPISTLE OF JAMES.
2. The question respecting the _person_ of 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 pa.s.sages 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 arguments and objections that are urged on both sides does not come within the compa.s.s 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 a.s.sembly 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 ident.i.ty 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. The _place_ where this epistle was written was manifestly Jerusalem, where James always resided; and the _persons addressed_ are "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 dispersion_ is a technical term for the Jews living out of Palestine among the Gentiles. We need not hesitate to understand it here literally. The apostle _wrote_ to 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 the _date_ of 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--_before_ the origin of the controversy respecting circ.u.mcision and the Mosaic law recorded in Acts, chap. 15; others quite _late_, not long before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The latter view best agrees with the contents of the epistle. The doctrine of justification by faith, for which Paul had contended, would naturally be abused precisely in the way here indicated, by the subst.i.tution 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 the _genuineness_ and _canonical_ authority of the present epistle we have a very important testimony in the Old Syriac version (Pes.h.i.to), 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 Irenaeus, "Abraham himself, without circ.u.mcision and without the observance of Sabbaths, believed in G.o.d, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of G.o.d"
(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 ancients have 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; no _evidence_ could 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 preeminently the sins of his countrymen at that age--hearing G.o.d"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 a.s.sume the office of teaching, censoriousness, a lawless and slanderous tongue, bitter envying and strife, mutual grudging and murmuring, wars and fightings; all these with an unbelieving and complaining spirit towards G.o.d. 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 G.o.dliness.
II. EPISTLES OF PETER.
7. The First Epistle of Peter was 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.