[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
It may be regarded as almost certain that St. Paul wrote this Epistle in Rome. He was a prisoner, as we see in Phil. i. 7, 13, 14, 17. He sends greeting from those of Caesar"s household (iv. 22). The first and last chapters imply that he is in the midst of an active Church, and that he is the centre to which messengers come and from which they go. This accords with the apostle"s treatment at Rome. One phrase, however, has been thought to suggest Caesarea rather than Rome. It is "the whole praetorium" (i. 13). This might mean the praetorium or palace of Herod Agrippa II. at Caesarea, but it is possible that it has quite a different meaning. It may either be the imperial guard or the supreme imperial court before which St. Paul had to be judged. The latter interpretation is that suggested by the great historian Mommsen, and seems to be the most satisfactory explanation.
The meaning of the phrase has an important bearing upon the date of the Epistle. If it was not written at Caesarea, it must have been written at Rome between A.D. 59 and A.D. 61. But the critics who are agreed that it was composed at Rome, are divided as to the place which it occupies among the Epistles which St. Paul wrote during his imprisonment. Some {191} place it first, because the vigorous style, and many of the phrases, suggest that it was written not very long after Romans. Others, with greater probability, place it last among the Epistles of the captivity. For even if it was written first among those Epistles, it was written more than three years after Romans. And the Epistle contains several indications of being written late in the captivity. If "praetorium" means the imperial guard, some time would have to elapse before such a large body of men could know much about St. Paul; and if it means the imperial court, the verse implies that he had already appeared before his judges. Phil. ii. 24 shows that he was expecting a speedy decision on his case. Epaphroditus, probably not the Colossian Epaphras who was with St. Paul at Rome (Col. iv. 12), had come as a delegate from the Philippians, bringing their alms to the apostle (ii. 25; iv. 18). After his arrival in Rome he was ill and homesick, and now he is returning to Philippi bearing this letter of thanks. This all seems to imply that Philippians was written a considerable time after the apostle"s imprisonment began, and we can therefore reasonably place it after Colossians and Ephesians, and date it early in A.D. 61.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
With the exception of 2 Corinthians, this is the most personal and intimate of St. Paul"s writings. In both he lays bare his heart. But the tone of the two Epistles is absolutely different. In 2 Corinthians he writes as a man who has been bitterly injured; he a.s.serts his claims to fickle believers whose ears have been charmed by his unscrupulous opponents. In Philippians we chiefly observe a note of frank and loving confidence; buffeted by the world, the apostle finds refreshment in the affection of his friends at Philippi.
After a salutation to all the "saints" at Philippi, including especially the _episkopoi_ and deacons, the apostle speaks of the joy which he feels in praying for them, and begs of G.o.d that their love may abound, and that they may approve the things {192} that are excellent, being filled with the fruits of righteousness (i. 1-11).
Then St. Paul tells how his captivity has been a means of spreading the gospel in the praetorium and elsewhere. Even the malicious activity of his opponents has been a means of proclaiming Christ, and with true grandeur of soul the apostle rejoices in the fact. So far as he is concerned, death would be a more attractive prospect than life, for death would mean admission into the presence of Christ, but for the sake of the Philippians he is glad to live. With wonderful cheerfulness he says that he is glad if his blood is to be offered like a libation poured over the living sacrifice of the souls and bodies which the Philippians offer to G.o.d (ii. 17). Before he speaks of this libation of his blood he makes a tender appeal to his converts to imitate the lowliness of Jesus Christ. He puts into the language of theology the story of the incarnation which his friend St. Luke draws with an artist"s pen in the first two chapters of his Gospel. He speaks to them of "the mind" of Christ Jesus, whose life on earth was self-sacrifice in detail. Christ had before the incarnation the "form"
or essential attributes of G.o.d, but He did not set any store on His equality with G.o.d, as though it were a prize,[2] but stripped Himself in self-surrender, and took the "form" or nature of a bond-servant. He looked like men as they actually are, and if men recognized His outward "fashion," they would only have taken Him for a man. And then He made Himself obedient to G.o.d up to His very death, and that the death of the cross. This was followed by His exaltation, and worship is now paid to Him in His glorified humanity (ii. 1-11).
In ii. 19 St. Paul returns to personal matters concerning Timothy and Epaphroditus; then he seems on the point of concluding the Epistle (iii. 1). But he suddenly breaks into {193} an abrupt and pa.s.sionate warning against the Judaizers. The pa.s.sage almost looks as if it were a page from the Epistle to the Galatians. The Judaizers are called "dogs," and as their circ.u.mcision was no longer the sign of a covenant with G.o.d, the apostle calls it a mere outward mutilation of the flesh (iii. 2). It is unlikely that Jewish influences were potent at Philippi. The explanation of this pa.s.sage appears to be that the apostle, before completing his letter, learnt of some new and successful plot of the Judaizers at Rome or elsewhere. Nervously dreading lest they should invade his beloved Philippian Church, he speaks with great severity of these conspirators. The conclusion of the chapter is apparently directed against the licence of certain Gentile converts. These seem to have been "enemies of the cross of Christ" in the looseness of their lives rather than in the corruptness of their creed. It is difficult in this case, as in that of the Judaizers, to know whether these errors already existed at Philippi or not. The pa.s.sage concludes with an exhortation to steadfastness (iii.
2-iv. 1).
Two women, Euodia and Syntyche, are exhorted to be "of the same mind."
A true yokefellow of the apostle, possibly Epaphroditus, and a certain Clement, possibly the Clement who was afterwards Bishop of Rome, are exhorted to try to bring about their reconciliation. All are exhorted to rejoice in the Lord, and are told that the peace of G.o.d, which pa.s.seth understanding, shall stand sentinel over their hearts and thoughts. Before returning again to personal matters and thanking the Philippians for their gifts, St. Paul urges them to follow whatsoever is true and lovely. His language here seems to consecrate all that was permanently valuable in the sayings of the Greek philosophers. It recalls to us the words of the ancient Church historian, Socrates: "The beautiful, wherever it may be, is the property of truth."
{194}
a.n.a.lYSIS
Salutation, thanksgiving, prayer (i. 1-11).
The position of affairs at Rome. His imprisonment has stimulated the preaching of the gospel; his own feelings are divided between the desire for death and a willingness to live for their sakes; an exhortation to boldness (i. 12-30).
An exhortation to imitate the humility of Christ, who took the form of man and was willing to die, and was after this abas.e.m.e.nt exalted above every created being (ii. 1-11).
An exhortation to obedience, quietness, purity, mission and commendation of Timothy and Epaphroditus; farewell (ii. 12-iii. 1).
Strong warning against Judaism, enforced by his own example; against claim to perfection, also enforced by his own example; against Antinomian licence as unworthy of "citizens of heaven", exhortation to steadfastness (iii. 2-iv. 1).
Advice to Euodia, Syntyche, and others; exhortation to think of all things true and lovely (iv. 2-9).
The apostle expresses his joy at the spirit shown by the offerings sent to him from Philippi. Doxology. Salutation (iv. 10-23).
[1] So E. Haupt, _Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe_, p. 3.
[2] The Greek is ordinarily translated as "a prize to be grasped," but it seems quite possible to translate the pa.s.sage, "He considered not equality with G.o.d to involve a process of grasping."
{195}
CHAPTER XVII
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES
[Sidenote: The Author.]
1 and 2 Timothy and t.i.tus form the fourth and last group of St. Paul"s Epistles, and are known as the Pastoral Epistles,[1] because they deal so largely with the duties and qualifications of the men entrusted with the pastoral care of the Church. St. Paul here teaches the teachers.
Their genuineness is more frequently denied than that of any other of St. Paul"s Epistles, and this attack upon their genuineness has been mostly based upon the character of their teaching about the office-bearers of the Church. Attempts have sometimes been made to separate some fragments supposed to be genuine from the remaining portions. All such attempts have failed. These Epistles must either be rejected entirely or accepted entirely. Otherwise we become involved in a hopeless tangle of conjectures.
The _external evidence_ is excellent. They are found in the Syriac and Old Latin versions, and in the _Muratorian Fragment_. They are all quoted by Irenaeus, and also by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.
Their authenticity was therefore regarded as a certain fact in the latter part of the 2nd century, and early in the 4th century Eusebius was unaware that any doubts concerning them existed in the Church.
Moreover, St. Polycarp, A.D. 110, quotes both 1 and 2 Timothy. The {196} combined evidence of these writers forms a very substantial argument. Against it we sometimes find urged the fact that the heretic Marcion rejected them. Such an objection borders on frivolity.
Marcion held a definite doctrinal heresy, and rejected everything which he could not make to coincide with his own belief. The value which is set on the Old Testament (_e.g._ 2 Tim. iii. 16), the a.s.sertion of a real incarnation (_e.g._ 1 Tim. ii. 5), and the sustained opposition to a false spiritualism, which these Epistles exhibit, must have been intensely distasteful to Marcion. We have therefore no reason for believing that he would hesitate to reject them, while knowing them to be genuine, any more than he hesitated to reject all the Gospels except Luke.
The _internal evidence_ is called in question for the following reasons.
1. _Historical difficulties._--We cannot place the journey referred to in 1 Tim. i. 3 during the three years" stay at Ephesus mentioned in Acts. The visit to Miletus in 2 Tim. iv. 20 cannot have taken place on the journey to Jerusalem in Acts xx., because Trophimus was with the apostle when he reached that city (Acts xxi. 29). Again, in 2 Tim. iv.
20 Erastus "abode at Corinth." But he had not been to Corinth for a long time before the journey to Rome recorded in Acts. In t.i.t. i. 5 we see t.i.tus left by St. Paul at Crete; he is to join the apostle in Nicopolis (iii. 12). But Acts allows no room for this, and the reference to Apollos (iii. 13) implies a later period than St. Paul"s stay at Corinth (Acts xviii.).
_Answer._--All three Epistles may quite well be later than the history related in Acts. There is no reason for denying that St. Paul was set free after his trial at Rome, and arrested again at a later date.
a.s.suming that this liberation did take place, all historical difficulties vanish. There are several points in favour of this liberation. First, the att.i.tude of the Roman government towards Christianity was fairly tolerant until Nero began his persecution in A.D. 64, and the state of the law would {197} have allowed St. Paul"s acquittal. Secondly, it was believed in the early Church that St. Paul was set free. The Muratorian Fragment says that he went to Spain, and St. Clement of Rome, writing from Rome about A.D. 95, says that he went "to the boundary of the west," which seems to point to Spain. Thirdly, the chronology implied in the ancient list of the bishops of Rome will not allow us to put St. Paul"s martyrdom earlier than A.D. 64.
Fourthly, the apostle himself expected to be set free (Phil. ii. 24; Philem. 22). There is therefore no historical reason for denying that St. Paul was set free from the imprisonment in which Acts leaves him.
2. _References to heresies._--It has been said that these Epistles contain references to heresies later than the apostolic age, such as the Gnosticism of the 2nd century. More especially, it is said that 1 Tim. vi. 20, which speaks of "oppositions of gnosis falsely so called,"
refers to a work by Marcion called the "Oppositions" (Ant.i.theses), in which he tried to demonstrate that the Old Testament was antagonistic to the New.
_Answer._--The heresies here rebuked are not so definitely described that we can determine their precise character. This fact is in favour of the idea that the heresies belong to the 1st century rather than to the 2nd. Stress has been laid upon statements which seem to imply Gnostic heresy, and heresy of a "Docetic" character, _i.e._ teaching a denial of the reality of our Lord"s human nature. But there is certainly nothing which suggests that the error here rebuked was as developed as the heresy rebuked by St. Ignatius, or even that denounced by St. John. It is most unlikely that the word "oppositions" can refer to a book bearing that t.i.tle. The pa.s.sage 1 Tim. vi. 20 does not suggest this. And if Marcion is really quoted in 1 Tim., how could Polycarp have quoted 1 Tim., as he does, before Marcion"s book was written? Something of a Gnostic tendency is betokened by the scorn of material life and the human body shown in 1 Tim. iv. 3, 8 and 2 Tim.
ii. 18. But the error is mainly Jewish. The false {198} teachers professed to be "teachers of the Law" (1 Tim. i. 7), which was exactly the t.i.tle claimed by the Jewish rabbis (see Luke v. 17). The general character of their teaching was "vain talking" (1 Tim. i. 6; cf. t.i.t.
i. 10; iii. 9). It consists of "profane babblings" (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. ii. 16). It is further characterized as "foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and fightings about the law . . .
unprofitable and vain" (t.i.t. iii. 9). It is summed up in the phrases "old wives" fables" (1 Tim. iv. 7), "Jewish fables" (t.i.t. i. 14). All this shows that the error was not a definite Gnostic heresy with a fundamentally false view of G.o.d. It was something intrinsically ridiculous. Therefore the "endless genealogies" (1 Tim. i. 4) can hardly be Gnostic genealogies of the semi-divine beings who took part in the creation. They are Jewish tales about the heroes of the Old Testament. The error is, in fact, primitive, and does not belong to the 2nd century.
3. _Church organization._--It is said that these Epistles lay down the rules for an organization of the Church which is later than the apostolic age, and resembles the Episcopal system, such as we find it in the 2nd century. t.i.tus and Timothy act as delegates of the apostle, and as the highest officials of the ministry, and they appoint presbyters and deacons. We thus find a threefold ministry which derives its sacred authority through the apostolate. The apostle lays his hands upon his delegate (2 Tim. i. 6), and this delegate lays his hands upon others (1 Tim. v. 22).
_Answer._--It is perfectly true that there is a threefold ministry mentioned in these Epistles. But there is no sufficient reason for denying that such a ministry is of apostolic origin. It seems quite certain that at Jerusalem the presbyters and deacons were under the authority of St. James, and after his death under that of Symeon. The same form of government can also be traced back in other places to apostolic times. Moreover, the organization which is mentioned in Acts is fundamentally the same as that in these Epistles. In Acts we {199} find the apostles first appointing deacons and then presbyters. All the additional evidence which has lately been discovered to support the genuineness of Acts therefore favours the genuineness of these Epistles. Finally, we must notice that the t.i.tles of the ministry in these Epistles do not correspond with the t.i.tles used in the 2nd century. The government is substantially "Episcopal," but the t.i.tle "episkopos" was in the 2nd century only applied to the chief dignitary who ruled over the "presbyters." But here the t.i.tle "episkopos" is applied to the presbyters themselves as the overseers of the congregation. We find the same thing in the letter of St. Clement, A.D. 95. St. Clement, although Bishop of Rome, still gives the t.i.tle of "episkopos" to the presbyters. This inconvenient practice was given up soon after that date, for we find that St. Ignatius, about A.D. 110, applies the t.i.tle "episkopos" only to the highest ministers of the Church. We conclude, therefore, that while the organization of the Church described in the Pastoral Epistles supports the belief that the threefold ministry, which we now call Episcopal organization, is of apostolic origin, it does not prove that these Epistles are forgeries.
And it is natural that St. Paul, knowing that his death must before long come to pa.s.s, should devote a large measure of attention to questions of Church government and discipline. The history of the Church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries proves to us that the organization of the Church was almost as important as the inspiration of the Church.
4. _Language._--This is an important difficulty. There are in these Epistles many words and phrases which do not occur in the other Epistles of St. Paul. We find different Greek words used for "Lord"
and for the second "advent," and a fondness for the words "wholesome,"
"G.o.dliness," and "faithful saying." The new element is most prominent in 1 Tim. and t.i.tus.
_Answer._--Private letters to individuals and friends in reference to one particular subject are not likely to resemble public letters which were written in reference to other subjects. It {200} would therefore be unreasonable to expect that the style of the Pastoral Epistles should be cast in the same mould as that of the other Epistles of St.
Paul. Nevertheless, the objection would have considerable weight, if St. Paul"s apt.i.tude for varying his vocabulary could not be shown. But it can be shown; for his other Epistles are marked by an astonishing variation in the Greek. Beneath this diversity there exists a unity.
The Pastoral Epistles have many Pauline phrases,[2] many graphic touches, many forcible and original statements, and glow with that personal devotion to Christ combined with a practical capacity for guiding Christians which St. Paul possessed in so singular a degree.
If the Pastoral Epistles are spurious, or if they are composite productions written by a forger who inserted some notes of St. Paul in his own effusions, it becomes almost impossible to account for the fact that 2 Tim. differs delicately both in language and subject from 1 Tim.
and t.i.tus. In view of this fact we can admire the sagacity of a recent opponent of their authenticity who deprecates "the possibility of extricating the Pauline from the traditional and editorial material"!
[3]