The Expositor's Bible: The Pastoral Epistles
by Alfred Plummer · English · Gutenberg #39628 · 741,033 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Expositor's Bible: The Pastoral Epistles
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The Expositor's Bible: The Pastoral Epistles
Author: Alfred Plummer
Editor: Sir W. Robertson Nicoll
Release date: May 5, 2012 [eBook #39628]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39628
Credits: Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Nigel Blower and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE: THE PASTORAL EPISTLES ***
Produced by Marcia Brooks, Colin Bell, Nigel Blower and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian
Libraries)
[Transcriber's Note:
This e-text is intended for users whose text readers cannot display
the Unicode (utf-8) version of the file. Greek words have been
transliterated and enclosed in equals signs, e.g. =didachê=.
_Italic words_ in the original have been enclosed in underscores in
this version.
As the oe ligature cannot be included in this file format, for
consistency both ae and oe ligatures have been replaced with the
separate letters throughout.
A few minor typographical errors have been silently corrected. Some
inconsistent hyphenation has been retained.
The Table of Contents and Index refer to original page numbers.]
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.
EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A.,
_Editor of "The Expositor."_
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
BY THE REV.
ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
TORONTO:
WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY AND BIBLE DEPÔT,
CORNER OF YONGE AND TEMPERANCE STREETS.
1888.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
BY THE REV.
ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.,
_Master of University College, Durham; formerly
Fellow and Senior Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford;
Author of "The Church of the Early Fathers," and
Editor of "The Gospel and Epistles of St. John," etc._
TORONTO:
WILLARD TRACT DEPOSITORY AND BIBLE DEPÔT,
CORNER OF YONGE AND TEMPERANCE STREETS.
1888.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
_INTRODUCTORY._
CHAPTER I.
THE CHARACTER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 3
_1 TIMOTHY._
CHAPTER II.
TIMOTHY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OF S. PAUL.--HIS LIFE AND
CHARACTER 19
CHAPTER III.
THE DOCTRINE CONDEMNED IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES A JEWISH FORM
OF GNOSTICISM.--THE GNOSTIC'S PROBLEM 32
CHAPTER IV.
THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE GNOSTICS.--ITS MODERN COUNTERPART 42
CHAPTER V.
THE LORD'S COMPASSION IN ENABLING A BLASPHEMER AND A
PERSECUTOR TO BECOME A SERVANT OF CHRIST JESUS AND A PREACHER
OF THE GOSPEL 52
CHAPTER VI.
THE PROPHECIES ON TIMOTHY.--THE PROPHETS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
AN EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF EDIFICATION 62
CHAPTER VII.
THE PUNISHMENT OF HYMENAEUS AND ALEXANDER.--DELIVERING TO
SATAN AN EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF PURIFICATION.--THE
PERSONALITY OF SATAN 72
CHAPTER VIII.
ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND
THANKSGIVING.--THE SOLIDARITY OF CHRISTENDOM AND OF THE HUMAN
RACE 82
CHAPTER IX.
BEHAVIOUR IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP.--MEN'S ATTITUDE OF BODY AND
MIND.--WOMEN'S ATTIRE AND ORNAMENT 94
CHAPTER X.
THE ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.--VARIOUS CERTAINTIES
AND PROBABILITIES DISTINGUISHED 104
CHAPTER XI.
THE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES.--ITS MEANING
AND PRESENT OBLIGATION 118
CHAPTER XII.
THE RELATION OF HUMAN CONDUCT TO THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS 130
CHAPTER XIII.
THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF BODILY EXERCISE AND OF GODLINESS 141
CHAPTER XIV.
THE PASTOR'S BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS WOMEN.--THE CHURCH WIDOW 151
CHAPTER XV.
THE PASTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN ORDAINING AND JUDGING
PRESBYTERS.--THE WORKS THAT GO BEFORE AND THAT FOLLOW US 164
CHAPTER XVI.
THE NATURE OF ROMAN SLAVERY AND THE APOSTLE'S ATTITUDE
TOWARDS IT.--A MODERN PARALLEL 175
CHAPTER XVII.
THE GAIN OF A LOVE OF GODLINESS AND THE UNGODLINESS OF A LOVE
OF GAIN 188
_TITUS._
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.--HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER 201
CHAPTER XIX.
THE CHURCH IN CRETE AND ITS ORGANIZATION.--THE APOSTLE'S
DIRECTIONS FOR APPOINTING ELDERS 212
CHAPTER XX.
CHRISTIANITY AND UNCHRISTIAN LITERATURE 224
CHAPTER XXI.
THE MEANING AND VALUE OF SOBERMINDEDNESS.--THE USE AND ABUSE
OF RELIGIOUS EMOTION 237
CHAPTER XXII.
THE MORAL CONDITION OF SLAVES.--THEIR ADORNMENT OF THE
DOCTRINE OF GOD 248
CHAPTER XXIII.
HOPE AS A MOTIVE POWER.--THE PRESENT HOPES OF CHRISTIANS 259
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE DUTY OF OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY WITH ITS LIMITS.--THE DUTY
OF COURTESY WITHOUT LIMITS 270
CHAPTER XXV.
THE CO-OPERATION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS IN EFFECTING THE NEW
BIRTH.--THE LAVER OF REGENERATION 282
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE MEANING OF HERESY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE APOSTLE'S
DIRECTIONS RESPECTING HERETICAL PERSONS 294
_2 TIMOTHY._
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE CHARACTER AND CONTENTS OF THE LAST EPISTLE OF
S. PAUL.--THE NEMESIS OF NEGLECTED GIFTS 309
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE HEARTLESSNESS OF PHYGELUS AND HERMOGENES.--THE DEVOTION
OF ONESIPHORUS.--PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD 319
CHAPTER XXIX.
THE NEED OF MACHINERY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND TRANSMISSION
OF THE FAITH.--THE MACHINERY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH 331
CHAPTER XXX.
THE CHRISTIAN'S LIFE AS MILITARY SERVICE; AS AN ATHLETIC
CONTEST; AS HUSBANDRY 343
CHAPTER XXXI.
THE POWER OF A BELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION AND THE
INCARNATION.--THE GOSPEL OF S. PAUL 353
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE NEED OF A SOLEMN CHARGE AGAINST A CONTROVERSIAL SPIRIT,
OF A DILIGENCE FREE FROM SHAME, AND OF A HATRED OF THE
PROFANITY WHICH WRAPS UP ERROR IN THE LANGUAGE OF TRUTH 364
CHAPTER XXXIII.
THE LAST DAYS.--THE BEARING OF THE MENTION OF JANNES AND
JAMBRES ON THE QUESTION OF INSPIRATION AND THE ERRORS CURRENT
IN EPHESUS 375
CHAPTER XXXIV.
THE PERILS OF RATIONALISM AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A
LIFELONG CONTACT WITH TRUTH.--THE PROPERTIES OF INSPIRED
WRITINGS 385
CHAPTER XXXV.
THE PARADOXICAL EXULTATION OF THE APOSTLE.--HIS APPARENT
FAILURE AND THE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE CHURCH.--THE GREAT
TEST OF SINCERITY 397
CHAPTER XXXVI.
THE PERSONAL DETAILS A GUARANTEE OF GENUINENESS 406
CHAPTER XXXVII.
THE APOSTLE FORSAKEN BY MEN BUT STRENGTHENED BY THE
LORD.--THE MISSION TO THE GENTILES COMPLETED.--THE SURE HOPE,
AND THE FINAL HYMN OF PRAISE 418
_INTRODUCTORY._
CHAPTER I.
_THE CHARACTER AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES._
"Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus."--1 TIM. i; 2 TIM. i. 1.
"Paul, a servant of God, and an Apostle of Jesus Christ."--TITUS i.
1.
The first question which confronts us on entering upon the study of the
Pastoral Epistles is that of their authenticity, which of late has been
confidently denied. In reading them are we reading the farewell words of
the great Apostle to the ministers of Christ? Or are we reading only the
well-meant but far less weighty counsels of one who in a later age
assumed the name and imitated the style of St. Paul? It seems necessary
to devote the first of these expositions to a discussion of this
question.
The title "Pastoral Epistles" could hardly be improved, but it might
easily be misunderstood as implying more than is actually the case. It
calls attention to what is the most conspicuous, but by no means the
only characteristic in these Epistles. Although the words which most
directly signify the pastor's office, such as "shepherd," "feed,"
"tend," and "flock," do not occur in these letters and do occur
elsewhere in Scripture, yet in no other books in the Bible do we find so
many directions respecting the pastoral care of Churches. The title is
much less appropriate to 2 Timothy than to the other two Epistles. All
three are both pastoral and personal; but while 1 Timothy and Titus are
mainly the former, 2 Timothy is mainly the latter. The three taken
together stand between the other Epistles of St. Paul and the one to
Philemon. Like the latter, they are personal; like the rest, they treat
of large questions of Church doctrine, practice, and government, rather
than of private and personal matters. Like that to Philemon, they are
addressed, not to Churches, but to individuals; yet they are written to
them, not as private friends, but as delegates, though not mere
delegates, of the Apostle, and as officers of the Church. Moreover the
important Church matters of which they treat are regarded, not, as in
the other Epistles, from the point of view of the congregation or of the
Church at large, but rather from that of the overseer or minister. And,
as being official rather than private letters, they are evidently
intended to be read by other persons besides Timothy and Titus.
Among the Epistles which bear the name of St. Paul none have excited so
much controversy as these, especially as regards their genuineness. But
the controversy is entirely a modern one. It is little or no
exaggeration to say that from the first century to the nineteenth no one
ever denied or doubted that they were written by St. Paul. It is true
that certain heretics of the second century rejected some or all of
them. Marcion, and perhaps Basilides, rejected all three. Tatian, while
maintaining the Apostolicity of the Epistle to Titus, repudiated those
to Timothy. And Origen tells us that some people doubted about 2 Timothy
because it contained the names of Jannes and Jambres, which do not occur
in the Old Testament. But it is well known that Marcion in framing his
mutilated and meagre canon of the Scriptures, did not profess to do so
on critical grounds. He rejected everything excepting an expurgated
edition of St. Luke and certain Epistles of St. Paul,--not because he
doubted their authenticity, but because he disliked their contents. They
did not fit into his system. And the few others who rejected one or more
of these Epistles did so in a similar spirit. They did not profess to
find that these documents were not properly authenticated, but they were
displeased with passages in them. The evidence, therefore, justifies us
in asserting that, with some very slight exception in the second
century, these three Epistles were, until quite recent times,
universally accepted as written by St. Paul.
This large fact is greatly emphasized by two considerations. (1) The
repudiation of them by Marcion and others directed attention to them.
They were evidently not accepted by an oversight, because no one thought
anything about them. (2) The evidence respecting the general acceptance
of them as St. Paul's is full and positive, and reaches back to the
earliest times. It does not consist merely or mainly in the absence of
evidence to the contrary. Tertullian[1] wonders what can have induced
Marcion, while accepting the Epistle to Philemon, to reject those to
Timothy and Titus: and of course those who repudiated them would have
pointed out weak places in their claim to be canonical, if such had
existed. And even if we do not insist upon the passages in which these
Epistles are almost certainly quoted by Clement[2] of Rome (c. A.D. 95),
Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 112), Polycarp of Smyrna (c. A.D. 112),
and Theophilus of Antioch (c. A.D. 180), we have direct evidence of a
very convincing kind. They are found in the Peshitto, or early Syriac
Version, which was made in the second century. They are contained in the
Muratorian canon, the date of which may still be placed as not later
than A.D. 170. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, states that "Paul
mentions Linus in the Epistle to Timothy," and he quotes Titus iii. 10
with the introduction "as Paul also says." Eusebius renders it probable
that both Justin Martyr and Hegesippus quoted from 1 Timothy; and he
himself places all three Epistles among the universally accepted books
and not among the disputable writings: _i.e._, he places them with the
Gospels, Acts, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the other Epistles of St. Paul, and
not with James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. In this arrangement he
is preceded by Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, both of whom quote
frequently from all three Epistles, sometimes as the words of Scripture,
sometimes as of "the Apostle," sometimes as of Paul, sometimes as of the
Spirit. Occasionally it is expressly stated that the words quoted are
addressed to Timothy or to Titus.
It would take us too far afield to examine in detail the various
considerations which have induced some eminent critics to set aside this
strong array of external evidence and reject one or more of these
Epistles. They fall in the main under four heads. (1) The difficulty of
finding a place for these letters in the life of St. Paul as given us in
the Acts and in his own writings. (2) The large amount of peculiar
phraseology not found in any other Pauline Epistles. (3) The Church
organization indicated in these letters which is alleged to be of a
later date than St. Paul's time. (4) The erroneous doctrines and
practices attacked, which are also said to be those of a later age. To
most of these points we shall have to return on some future occasion:
but for the present this much may be asserted with confidence. (1) In
the Acts and in the other Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle's life is
left incomplete. There is nothing to forbid us from supposing that the
remaining portion amounted to several years, during which these three
letters were written. The Second Epistle to Timothy in any case has the
unique interest of being the last extant utterance of the Apostle St.
Paul. (2) The phraseology which is peculiar to each of these Epistles is
not greater in amount than the phraseology which is peculiar to the
Epistle to the Galatians, which even Baur admits to be of unquestionable
genuineness. The peculiar diction which is common to all three Epistles
is well accounted for by the peculiarity of the common subject, and by
the fact that these letters are separated by several years from even the
latest among the other writings of St. Paul.[3] (3, 4) There is good
reason for believing that during the lifetime of St. Paul the
organization of the Church corresponded to that which is sketched in
these letters, and that errors were already in existence such as these
letters denounce.
Although the controversy is by no means over, two results of it are very
generally accepted as practically certain. (1) The three Epistles must
stand or fall together. It is impossible to accept two, or one, or any
portion of one of them, and reject the rest. (2) They stand or fall with
the hypothesis of St. Paul's second imprisonment. If the Apostle was
imprisoned at Rome only once, and was put to death at the end of that
imprisonment, then these three letters were not written by him.
(1) The Epistles stand or fall together: they are all three genuine, or
all three spurious. We must either with the scholars of the Early
Church, of the Middle Ages, and of the Renaissance, whether Roman or
Protestant, and with a clear majority of modern critics,[4] accept all
three letters; or else with Marcion, Basilides, Eichhorn, Bauer, and
their followers,[5] reject all three. As Credner himself had to
acknowledge, after having at first advocated the theory, it is
impossible to follow Tatian in retaining Titus as apostolic, while
repudiating the other two as forgeries. Nor have the two scholars[6] who
originated the modern controversy found more than one critic of eminence
to accept their conclusion that both Titus and 2 Timothy are genuine,
but 1 Timothy not. Yet another suggestion is made by Reuss, that 2
Timothy is unquestionably genuine, while the other two are doubtful. And
lastly we have Pfleiderer admitting that 2 Timothy contains at least two
sections which have with good reason been recognized as genuine (i.
15-18 and iv. 9-21), and Renan asking whether the forger of these three
Epistles did not possess some authentic letters of St. Paul which he has
enshrined in his composition.[7]
It will be seen, therefore, that those who impugn the authenticity of
the Pastoral Epistles are by no means agreed among themselves. The
evidence in some places is so strong, that many of the objectors are
compelled to admit that the Epistles are at least in part the work of
St. Paul. That is, certain portions, which admit of being severely
tested, are found to stand the test, and are passed as genuine, in spite
of surrounding difficulties. The rest, which does not admit of such
testing, is repudiated on account of the difficulties. No one can
reasonably object to the application of whatever tests are available,
nor to the demand for explanations of difficulties. But we must not
treat what cannot be satisfactorily tested as if it had been tested and
found wanting; nor must we refuse to take account of the support which
those parts which can be thoroughly sifted lend to those for which no
decisive criterion can be found. Still less must we proceed on the
assumption that to reject these Epistles or any portion of them is a
proceeding which gets rid of difficulties. It is merely an exchange of
one set of difficulties for another. To unbiassed minds it will perhaps
appear that the difficulties involved in the assumption that the
Pastoral Epistles are wholly or partly a forgery, are not less serious
than those which have been urged against the well-established tradition
of their genuineness. The very strong external evidence in their favour
has to be accounted for. It is already full, clear, and decided, as
soon as we could at all expect to find it, viz., in Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, and Tertullian. And it must be noticed that these witnesses
give us the traditional beliefs of several chief centres in Christendom.
Irenaeus speaks with full knowledge of what was accepted in Asia Minor,
Rome, and Gaul; Clement witnesses for Egypt, and Tertullian for North
Africa. And although the absence of such support would not have caused
serious perplexity, their direct evidence is very materially supported
by passages closely parallel to the words of the Pastoral Epistles found
in writers still earlier than Irenaeus. Renan admits the relationship
between 2 Timothy and the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and suggests that
each writer has borrowed from a common source. Pfleiderer admits that
the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp "displays striking points of contact
with 2 Timothy." Bauer's theory, that all three letters are as late as
A.D. 150, and are an attack on Marcion, finds little support now. But we
are still asked to believe that 2 Timothy was forged in the reign of
Trajan (98-117) and the other two Epistles in the reign of Hadrian
(117-138). Is it credible that a forgery perpetrated A.D. 120-135 would
in less than fifty years be accepted in Asia Minor, Rome, Gaul, Egypt,
and North Africa, as a genuine letter of the Apostle St. Paul? And yet
this is what must have happened in the case of 1 Timothy, if the
hypothesis just stated is correct. Nor is this all, Marcion, as we know,
rejected all three of the Pastoral Epistles; and Tertullian cannot think
why Marcion should do so. But, when Marcion was framing his canon, about
the reign of Hadrian, 2 Timothy according to these dates, would be
scarcely twenty years old, and 1 Timothy would be brand-new. If this
had been so, would Marcion, with his intimate knowledge of St. Paul's
writings, have been in ignorance of the fact; and if he had known it,
would he have failed to denounce the forgery? Or again, if we assume
that he merely treated this group of Epistles with silent contempt,
would not his rejection of them, which was well-known, have directed
attention to them, and caused their recent origin to be quickly
discovered? From all which it is manifest that the theory of forgery by
no means frees us from grave obstacles.
It will be observed that the external evidence is large in amount and
overwhelmingly in favour of the Apostolic authorship. The objections are
based on internal evidence. But some of the leading opponents admit that
even the internal evidence is in favour of certain portions of the
Epistles. Let us, then, with Renan, Pfleiderer, and others admit that
parts of 2 Timothy were written by St. Paul; then there is strong
presumption that the whole letter is by him; for even the suspected
portions have the external evidence in their favour, together with the
support lent to them by those parts for which the internal evidence is
also satisfactory. Add to which the improbability that any one would
store up genuine letters of St. Paul for fifty years and then use parts
of them to give substance to a fabrication. Or let us with Reuss contend
that in 2 Timothy "the whole Epistle is so completely the natural
expression of the actual situation of the author, and contains, unsought
and for the most part in the form of mere allusions, such a mass of
minute[8] and unessential particulars, that even did the name of the
writer not chance to be mentioned at the beginning it would be easy to
discover it." Then there is strong presumption that the other two
letters are genuine also; for they have the external evidence on their
side, together with the good character reflected upon them by their
brother Epistle. This result is of course greatly strengthened, if,
quite independently of 2 Timothy, the claims of Titus to be Apostolic
are considered to be adequate. With two of the three letters admitted to
be genuine, the case for the remaining letter becomes a strong one. It
has the powerful external evidence on its side, backed up by the support
lent to it by its two more manifestly authentic companions. Thus far,
therefore, we may agree with Baur: "The three Epistles are so much alike
that none of them can be separated from the others; and from this
circumstance the identity of their authorship may be confidently
inferred."[9] But when he asserts that whichever of this family of
letters be examined will appear as the betrayer of his brethren, he just
reverses the truth. Each letter, upon examination, lends support to the
other two; "and a threefold cord is not easily broken." The strongest
member of the family is 2 Timothy: the external evidence in its favour
is ample, and no Epistle in the New Testament is more characteristic of
St. Paul. It would be scarcely less reasonable to dispute 2 Corinthians.
And if 2 Timothy be admitted, there is no tenable ground for excluding
the other two.
II. But not only do the three Epistles stand or fall together, they
stand or fall with the hypothesis of the release and second
imprisonment of the Apostle. The contention that no place can be found
for the Pastoral Epistles in the narrative of the Acts is valid; but it
is no objection to the authenticity of the Epistles. The conclusion of
the Acts implies that the end of St. Paul's life is not reached in the
narrative. "He abode two whole years in his own hired dwelling," implies
that after that time a change took place. If that change was his death,
how unnatural not to mention it! The conclusion is closely parallel to
that of St Luke's Gospel; and we might almost as reasonably contend that
"they were continually in the temple," proves that they were never
"clothed with power from on high," because they were told to "tarry in
the city" until they were so clothed, as contend that "abode two whole
years in his own hired dwelling," proves that at the end of the two
years came the end of St. Paul's life. Let us grant that the conclusion
of the Acts is unexpectedly abrupt, and that this abruptness constitutes
a difficulty. Then we have our choice of two alternatives. Either the
two years of imprisonment were followed by a period of renewed labour,
or they were cut short by the Apostle's martyrdom. Is it not more easy
to believe that the writer did not consider that this new period of
work, which would have filled many chapters, fell within the scope of
his narrative, than that he omitted so obvious a conclusion as St.
Paul's death, for which a single verse would have sufficed? But let us
admit that to assert that St. Paul was released at the end of two years
is to maintain a mere hypothesis: yet to assert that he was _not_
released is equally to maintain a mere hypothesis. If we exclude the
Pastoral Epistles, Scripture gives no means of deciding the question,
and whichever alternative we adopt we are making a conjecture. But
which hypothesis has most evidence on its side? Certainly the hypothesis
of the release. (1) The Pastoral Epistles, even if not by St. Paul, are
by some one who believed that the Apostle did a good deal after the
close of the Acts. (2) The famous passage in Clement of Rome (_Cor._ v.)
tells that St. Paul "won the noble renown which was the reward of his
faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world, and _having
reached the furthest bound of the West_ (=to terma tês dyseôs=)." This
probably means Spain;[10] and if St. Paul ever went to Spain as he hoped
to do (Rom. xv. 24, 28), it was after the imprisonment narrated in the
Acts. Clement gives us the tradition in Rome (c. A.D. 95). (3) The
Muratorian fragment (c. A.D. 170) mentions the "departure of Paul from
the city to Spain." (4) Eusebius (_H.E._, II. xxii. 2) says that at the
end of the two years of imprisonment, according to tradition, the
Apostle went forth again upon the ministry of preaching, and on a second
visit to the city ended his career by martyrdom under Nero; and that
during this imprisonment he composed the Second Epistle to Timothy. All
this does not amount to proof; but it raises the hypothesis of the
release to a high degree of probability. Nothing of this kind can be
urged in favour of the counter hypothesis. To urge the improbability
that the labours of these last few years of St. Paul's life would be
left unrecorded is no argument. (1) They are partly recorded in the
Pastoral Epistles. (2) The entire labours of most of the Twelve are left
unrecorded. Even of St. Paul's life, whole years are left a blank. How
fragmentary the narrative in the Acts must be is proved by the
autobiography in 2 Corinthians. That we have very scanty notice of St.
Paul's doings between the two imprisonments does not render the
existence of such an interval at all doubtful.
The result of this preliminary discussion seems to show that the
objections which have been urged against these Epistles are not such as
to compel us to doubt that in studying them we are studying the last
writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles. If any doubts still survive, a
closer examination of the details will, it is hoped, tend to remove
rather than to strengthen them. When we have completed our survey, we
may be able to add our testimony to those who through many centuries
have found these writings a source of Divine guidance, warning, and
encouragement, especially in ministerial work. The experience of
countless numbers of pastors attests the wisdom of the Church, or in
other words the good Providence of God, in causing these Epistles to be
included among the sacred Scriptures.
"It is an established fact," as Bernhard Weiss rightly points out
(_Introduction to the New Testament_, vol. i., p. 410), "that the
essential, fundamental features of the Pauline doctrine of salvation are
even in their specific expression reproduced in our Epistles with a
clearness such as we do not find in any Pauline disciple, excepting
perhaps Luke or the Roman Clement." Whoever composed them had at his
command, not only St. Paul's forms of doctrine and expression, but large
funds of Apostolic zeal and discretion, such as have proved capable of
warming the hearts and guiding the judgments of a long line of
successors. Those who are conscious of these effects upon themselves
will probably find it easier to believe that they have derived these
benefits from the great Apostle himself, rather than from one who, with
however good intentions, assumed his name and disguised himself in his
mantle. Henceforward, until we find serious reason for doubt, it will be
assumed that in these Epistles we have the farewell counsels of none
other than St Paul.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Adv. Marc._, V. xxi.
[2] _Clem. Rom._ I. ii., xxix., lxi.; Ign. _Magn._ viii., _Pol. passim_;
Polycarp, iv; Theoph. _Autol._, III., xiv,; Iren., _Haer._, III. iii. 3,
4; Euseb. _H. E._, III. xxv., 2., xxvi. 4., xxxii. 8.
[3] "The wealth and mobility of the Pauline intellect ... must not be
fettered in mode of teaching or expression by a rule taken from a number
of older epistles arbitrarily selected."--BERNHARD WEISS, _Introduction
to the N. T._, i. p. 410 (Hodder: 1887).
[4] Among them Alford, Baumgarten, Beck, Döllinger, Fairbairn, Farrar,
Guericke, Herzog, Hofmann, Huther, Kölling, Lange, Lightfoot, Neander,
Oosterzee, Otto, Plumptre, Salmon, Schaff, Thiersch, Wace, Wieseler,
Wiesinger, Wordsworth.
[5] Among them Credner, S. Davidson, Ewald, Hausrath, Hilgenfeld,
Holtzmann, Mangold, Schenkel, and on the whole De Wette.
[6] Schmidt and Schleiermacher followed by Bleek.
[7] Similar admissions, which are quite fatal to the view that the three
Epistles are not genuine, are made by Hausrath, Immer and Lemme; while
Ewald, Hitzig, Krenkel, and Weisse think that Titus contains authentic
fragments. See the exposition of 2 Tim. iv. 9-21.
[8] What forger would have thought of the cloak (or book-case) left at
Troas with Carpus, or would have been careful to speak only of "the
_house_ of Onesiphorus," and not of himself, in two places?
[9] _Paul, his Life and Works_, Pt. II., ch. viii. Eng. Trans., p. 105.
[10] It cannot possibly mean Rome; least of all in a document written in
Rome. Rome was a centre, not a frontier.
_THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY._
CHAPTER II.
_TIMOTHY THE BELOVED DISCIPLE OF ST. PAUL. HIS LIFE AND CHARACTER._
"Timothy, my true child in faith."--1 TIM. i. 2.
"Timothy, my beloved child."--2 TIM. i. 2.
In the relation of St. Paul to Timothy we have one of those beautiful
friendships between an older and a younger man which are commonly so
helpful to both. It is in such cases, rather than where the friends are
equals in age, that each can be the real complement of the other. Each
by his abundance can supply the other's want, whereas men of equal age
would have common wants and common supplies. In this respect the
friendship between St. Paul and Timothy reminds us of that between St.
Peter and St. John. In each case the friend who took the lead was much
older than the other; and (what is less in harmony with ordinary
experience) in each case it was the older friend who had the impulse and
the enthusiasm, the younger who had the reflectiveness and the reserve.
These latter qualities are perhaps less marked in St. Timothy than in
St. John, but nevertheless they are there, and they are among the
leading traits of his character. St. Paul leans on him while he guides
him, and relies upon his thoughtfulness and circumspection in cases
requiring firmness, delicacy, and tact. Of the affection with which he
regarded Timothy we have evidence in the whole tone of the two letters
to him. In the sphere of faith Timothy is his "_own true_ child" (not
merely adopted, still less supposititious), and his "beloved child." St.
Paul tells the Corinthians that as the best means of making them
imitators of himself he has sent unto them "Timothy, who is my beloved
and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my
ways which be in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every Church" (1
Cor. iv. 17). And a few years later he tells the Philippians that he
hopes to send Timothy shortly unto them, that he may know how they fare.
For he has no one like him, who will have a genuine anxiety about their
welfare. The rest care only for their own interests. "But the proof of
him ye know, that, as a child a father, so he slaved with me for the
Gospel" (ii. 22). Of all whom he ever converted to the faith Timothy
seems to have been to St. Paul the disciple who was most beloved and
most trusted. Following the example of the fourth Evangelist, Timothy
might have called himself "The disciple whom Paul loved." He shared his
spiritual father's outward labours and most intimate thoughts. He was
with him when the Apostle could not or would not have the companionship
of others. He was sent on the most delicate and confidential missions.
He had charge of the most important congregations. When the Apostle was
in his last and almost lonely imprisonment it was Timothy whom he
summoned to console him and receive his last injunctions.
There is another point in which the beloved disciple of the Pastoral
Epistles resembles the beloved disciple of the Fourth Gospel. We are apt
to think of both of them as always young. Christian art nearly
invariably represents St. John as a man of youthful and almost feminine
appearance. And, although in Timothy's case, painters and sculptors have
not done much to influence our imagination, yet the picture which we
form for ourselves of him is very similar to that which we commonly
receive of St. John. With strange logic this has actually been made an
argument against the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. Myth, we are
told, has given to this Christian Achilles the attributes of eternal
youth. Timothy was a lad of about fifteen when St. Paul converted him at
Lystra, in or near A.D. 45; and he was probably not yet thirty-five when
St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to him. Even if he had been much older
there would be nothing surprising in the tone of St. Paul's letters to
him. It is one of the commonest experiences to find elderly parents
speaking of their middle-aged children as if they were still boys and
girls. This trait, as being so entirely natural, ought to count as a
touch beyond the reach of a forger rather than as a circumstance that
ought to rouse our suspicions, in the letters of "Paul the aged"[11] to
a friend who was thirty years younger than himself.
Once more, the notices of Timothy which have come down to us, like those
which we have respecting the beloved disciple, are very fragmentary; but
they form a beautiful and consistent sketch of one whose full portrait
we long to possess.
Timothy was a native, possibly of Derbe, but more probably of the
neighbouring town of Lystra, where he was piously brought up in a
knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures by his grandmother Lois and his
mother Eunice. It was probably during St Paul's first visit to Lystra,
on his first missionary journey, that he became the boy's spiritual
father, by converting him to the Christian faith. It was at Lystra that
the Apostle was stoned by the mob and dragged outside the city as dead:
and there is no improbability in the suggestion that, when he recovered
consciousness and re-entered the town, it was in the home of Timothy
that he found shelter. In any case Lystra was to the Apostle a place of
strangely mixed associations; the brutality of the pagan multitude side
by side with the tender friendship of the young Timothy. When St. Paul
on his next missionary journey again visited Lystra he found Timothy
already enjoying a good report among the Christians of that place and of
Iconium for his zeal and devotion during the six or seven years which
had elapsed since his first visit. Perhaps he had been engaged in
missionary work in both places. The voices of the prophets had singled
him out as one worthy of bearing office in the Church; and the Apostle,
still grieving over the departure of Barnabas with John Mark, recognized
in him one who with Silas could fill the double vacancy. The conduct of
the Apostle of the Gentiles on this occasion has sometimes excited
surprise. Previously to the ordination, Paul, the great proclaimer of
the abrogation of the Law by the Gospel, circumcised the young
evangelist. The inconsistency is more apparent than real. It was an
instance of his becoming "all things to all men" for the salvation of
souls, and of his sacrificing his own convictions in matters that were
not essential, rather than cause others to offend. Timothy's father had
been a Gentile, and the son, though brought up in his mother's faith,
had never been circumcised. To St. Paul circumcision was a worthless
rite. The question was, whether it was a harmless one. This depended
upon circumstances. If, as among the Galatians, it caused people to rely
upon the Law and neglect the Gospel, it was a superstitious obstacle
with which no compromise could be made. But if it was a passport whereby
preachers, who would otherwise be excluded, might gain access to Jewish
congregations, then it was not only a harmless but a useful ceremony. In
the synagogue Timothy as an uncircumcised Jew would have been an
intolerable abomination, and would never have obtained a hearing. To
free him from this crippling disadvantage, St. Paul subjected him to a
rite which he himself knew to be obsolete. Then followed the ordination,
performed with great solemnity by the laying on of the hands of all the
elders of the congregation: and the newly ordained Evangelist forthwith
set out to accompany Paul and Silas in their labours for the Gospel.
Wherever they went they distributed copies of the decrees of the
Apostolic Council at Jerusalem, which declared circumcision to be
unnecessary for Gentiles. Their true position with regard to
circumcision was thus made abundantly evident. For the sake of others
they had abstained from availing themselves of the very liberty which
they proclaimed.
In the Troad they met Luke the beloved physician (as indicated by the
sudden use of the first person plural in the Acts), and took him on with
them to Philippi. Here probably, as certainly afterwards at Beroea,
Timothy was left behind by Paul and Silas to consolidate their work. He
rejoined the Apostle at Athens, but was thence sent back on a mission to
Thessalonica, and on his return found St. Paul at Corinth. The two
Epistles written from Corinth to the Thessalonians are in the joint
names of Paul and Timothy. At Corinth, as at Lystra, Iconium, and
Philippi, Timothy became prominent for his zeal as an evangelist; and
then for about five years we lose sight of him. We may think of him as
generally at the side of St. Paul, and as always working with him; but
of the details of the work we are ignorant. About A.D. 57 he was sent by
St. Paul on a delicate mission to Corinth. This was before 1 Corinthians
was written; for in that letter St. Paul states that he has sent Timothy
to Corinth, but writes as if he expected that the letter would reach
Corinth before him. He charges the Corinthians not to aggravate the
young evangelist's natural timidity, and not to let his youth prejudice
them against him. When St. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia later
in the year, Timothy was again with him, for his name is coupled with
Paul's: and he is still with him when the Apostle wrote to the Romans
from Corinth, for he joins in sending salutations to the Roman
Christians. We find him still at St. Paul's side on his way back to
Jerusalem through Philippi, the Troad, Tyre, and Caesarea. And here we
once more lose trace of him for some years. We do not know what he was
doing during St. Paul's two years' imprisonment at Caesarea; but he
joined him during the first imprisonment at Rome, for the Epistles to
the Philippians, the Colossians, and Philemon are written in the names
of Paul and Timothy. From the passage already quoted from Philippians we
may conjecture that Timothy went to Philippi and returned again before
the Apostle was released. At the close of the Epistle to the Hebrews we
read, "Know ye that our brother Timothy hath been set at liberty." It is
possible that the imprisonment to which this notice refers was
contemporaneous with the first imprisonment of St. Paul, and that it is
again referred to in 1 Timothy (vi. 12) as "the good confession" which
he "confessed in the sight of many witnesses."
The few additional facts respecting Timothy are given us in the two
letters to him. Some time after St. Paul's release the two were together
in Ephesus; and when the Apostle went on into Macedonia he left his
companion behind him to warn and exhort certain holders of erroneous
doctrine to desist from teaching it. There were tears, on the younger
friend's side at any rate, to which St. Paul alludes at the opening of
the Second Epistle; and they were natural enough. The task imposed upon
Timothy was no easy one; and after the dangers and sufferings to which
the Apostle had been exposed, and which his increasing infirmities
continually augmented, it was only too possible that the friends would
never meet again. So far as we know, these gloomy apprehensions may have
been realized. In his first letter, written from Macedonia, St. Paul
expresses a hope of returning very soon to Timothy; but, like some other
hopes expressed in St. Paul's Epistles, it was perhaps never fulfilled.
The second letter, written from Rome, contains no allusion to any
intermediate meeting. In this second letter he twice implores Timothy to
do all he can to come to him without delay, for he is left almost alone
in his imprisonment. But whether Timothy was able to comply with this
wish we have no means of knowing. We like to think of the beloved
disciple as comforting the last hours of his master; but, although the
conjecture may be a right one, we must remember that it is conjecture
and no more. With the Second Epistle to him ends all that we really know
of Timothy. Tradition and ingenious guesswork add a little more which
can be neither proved nor disproved. More than two hundred years after
his death, Eusebius tells us that he is related to have held the office
of overseer of the diocese of Ephesus; and five centuries later
Nicephorus tells us, that he was beaten to death by the Ephesian mob for
protesting against the licentiousness of their worship of Artemis. It
has been conjectured that Timothy may be the "Angel" of the Church of
Ephesus, who is partly praised and partly blamed in the Apocalypse, and
parallels have been drawn between the words of blame in Rev. ii. 4, 5,
and the uneasiness which seems to underlie one or two passages in the
Second Epistle to Timothy. But the resemblances are too slight to be
relied upon. All we can say is, that even if the later date be taken for
the Apocalypse, Timothy may have been overseer of the Church of Ephesus
at the time when the book was written.
But of all the scattered memorials that have come down to us respecting
this beautiful friendship between the great Apostle and his chief
disciple, the two letters of the older friend to the younger are by far
the chief. And there is so much in them that fits with exquisite nicety
into the known conditions of the case, that it is hard to imagine how
any forger of the second century could so have thrown himself into the
situation. Where else in that age have we evidence of any such literary
and historical skill? The tenderness and affection, the anxiety and
sadness, the tact and discretion, the strength and large-mindedness of
St. Paul are all there; and his relation to his younger but much-trusted
disciple is quite naturally sustained throughout. Against this it is not
much to urge that there are some forty words and phrases in these
Epistles which do not occur in the other Epistles of St. Paul. The
explanation of that fact is easy. Partly they are words which in his
other Epistles he had no need to use; partly they are words which the
circumstances of these later letters suggested to him, and which those
of the earlier letters did not. The vocabulary of every man of active
mind who reads and mixes with other men, especially if he travels much,
is perpetually changing. He comes across new metaphors, new figures of
speech, remembers them, and uses them. The reading of such a work as
Darwin's _Origin of Species_ gives a man command of a new sphere of
thought and expression. The conversation of such a man as "Luke the
beloved physician" would have a similar effect on St. Paul. We shall
never know the minds or the circumstances which suggested to him the
language which has now become our own possession; and it is unreasonable
to suppose that the process of assimilation came to a dead stop in the
Apostle's mind when he finished the Epistles of the first imprisonment.
The result, therefore, of this brief survey of the life of Timothy is to
confirm rather than to shake our belief that the letters which are
addressed to him were really written by his friend St. Paul.
The friendship between these two men of different gifts and very
different ages is full of interest. It is difficult to estimate which of
the two friends gained most from the affection and devotion of the
other. No doubt Timothy's debt to St. Paul was immense: and which of us
would not think himself amply paid for any amount of service and
sacrifice, in having the privilege of being the chosen friend of such a
man as St. Paul? But on the other hand, few men could have supplied the
Apostle's peculiar needs as Timothy did. That intense craving for
sympathy which breathes so strongly throughout the writings of St. Paul,
found its chief human satisfaction in Timothy. To be alone in a crowd
is a trial to most men; and few men have felt the oppressiveness of it
more keenly than St. Paul. To have some one, therefore, who loved and
reverenced him, who knew his "ways" and could impress them on others,
who cared for those for whom Paul cared and was ever willing to minister
to them as his friend's missioner and delegate--all this and much more
was inexpressibly comforting to St. Paul. It gave him strength in his
weaknesses, hope in his many disappointments, and solid help in his
daily burden of "anxiety for all the Churches." Specially consoling was
the clinging affection of his young friend at those times when the
Apostle was suffering from the coldness and neglect of others. At the
time of his first imprisonment the respect or curiosity of the Roman
Christians had moved many of them to come out thirty miles to meet him
on his journey from Caesarea to Rome; yet as soon as he was safely lodged
in the house of his gaoler they almost ceased to minister to him. But
the faithful disciple seems to have been ever at his side. And when the
Romans treated Paul with similar indifference during his second
imprisonment, it was this same disciple that he earnestly besought to
come with all speed to comfort him. It was not merely that he loved and
trusted Timothy as one upon whose devotion and discretion he could
always rely: but Timothy was the one among his many disciples who had
sacrificed everything for St. Paul and his Master. He had left a loving
mother and a pleasant home in order to share with the Apostle a task
which involved ceaseless labour, untold anxiety, not a little shame and
obloquy, and at times even danger to life and limb. When he might have
continued to live on as the favourite of his family, enjoying the
respect of the presbyters and prophets of Lycaonia, he chose to wander
abroad with the man to whom, humanly speaking, he owed his salvation,
"in journeyings often," in perils of every kind from the powers of
nature, and from the violence or treachery of man, and in all those
countless afflictions and necessities, of which St. Paul gives us such a
touching summary in the second letter to the Corinthians. All this St.
Paul knew, and he knew the value of it to himself and the Church; and
hence the warm affection with which the Apostle always speaks of him and
to him.
But what did not Timothy owe to his friend, his father in the faith, old
enough to be his father in the flesh? Not merely his conversion and his
building up in Christian doctrine, though that was much, and the chief
item of his debt. But St. Paul had tenderly watched over him among the
difficulties to which a person of his temperament would be specially
exposed. Timothy was young, enthusiastic, sensitive, and at times showed
signs of timidity. If his enthusiasm were not met with a generous
sympathy, there was danger lest the sensitive nature would shrivel up on
contact with an unfeeling world, and the enthusiasm driven in upon
itself would be soured into a resentful cynicism. St. Paul not only
himself gave to his young disciple the sympathy that he needed; he
encouraged others also to do the same. "Now if Timothy come," he writes
to the Corinthians, "see that he be with you without fear; for he
worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do: let no man therefore despise
him." He warned these factious and fastidious Greeks against chilling
the generous impulses of a youthful evangelist by their sarcastic
criticisms. Timothy might be wanting in the brilliant gifts which
Corinthians adored: in knowledge of the world, in address, in oratory.
But he was real. He was working God's work with a single heart and with
genuine fervour. It would be a cruel thing to mar that simplicity or
quench that fervour, and thus turn a genuine enthusiast into a
cold-blooded man of the world. On their treatment of him might depend
whether he raised them to his own zeal for Christ, or they dragged him
down to the level of their own paralysing superciliousness.
The dangers from which St. Paul thus generously endeavoured to shield
Timothy, are those which beset many an ardent spirit, especially in
England at the present day. Everywhere there is a cynical disbelief in
human nature and a cold contempt for all noble impulses, which throw a
damp and chilling atmosphere over society. At school and at the
university, in family life and in domestic service, young men and young
women are encouraged to believe that there is no such thing as
unselfishness or holiness, and that enthusiasm is always either silly or
hypocritical. By sarcastic jests and contemptuous smiles they are taught
the fatal lesson of speaking slightingly, and at last of thinking
slightingly, of their own best feelings. To be dutiful and affectionate
is supposed to be childish, while reverence and trust are regarded as
mere ignorance of the world. The mischief is a grave one, for it poisons
life at its very springs. Every young man and woman at times has
aspirations which at first are only romantic and sentimental, and as
such are neither right nor wrong. But they are nature's material for
higher and better things. They are capable of being developed into a
zeal for God and for man, such as will ennoble the characters of all who
come under its influence. The sentimentalist may become an enthusiast,
and the enthusiast a hero or a saint. Woe to him who gives to such
precious material a wrong turn, and by offering cynicism instead of
sympathy turns all its freshness sour. The loss does not end with the
blight of an exuberant and earnest character. There are huge masses of
evil in the world, which seem to defy the good influences that from time
to time are brought to bear upon them. Humanly speaking, there seems to
be only one hope of overcoming these strongholds of Satan,--and that is
by the combined efforts of many enthusiasts. "This is the victory which
overcometh the world, even our faith." It will be a grievous prospect
for mankind, if faith in God, in ourselves, and in our fellow-men
becomes so unfashionable as to be impossible. And this is the faith
which makes enthusiasts. If we have not this faith ourselves, we can at
least respect it in others. If we cannot play the part of Timothy, and
go forth with glowing hearts to whatever difficult and distasteful work
may be placed before us, we can at least avoid chilling and
disheartening others; and sometimes at least we may so far follow in the
footsteps of St. Paul as to protect from the world's cynicism those who,
with hearts more warm perhaps than wise, are labouring manfully to leave
the world purer and happier than they found it.
FOOTNOTES:
[11] "Paul an ambassador, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ" is
probably right in Philemon; but even there "Paul the aged" would be
true.
CHAPTER III.
_THE DOCTRINE CONDEMNED IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES A JEWISH FORM OF
GNOSTICISM.--THE GNOSTIC'S PROBLEM._
"As I exhorted thee to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into
Macedonia, that thou mightest charge certain men not to teach a
different doctrine, neither to give heed to fables and endless
genealogies, the which minister questionings, rather than a
dispensation of God which is in faith; so do I now"--_1 Tim._ i. 2,
3.
This Epistle falls into two main divisions, of which the first continues
down to the 13th verse of chap. iii. It treats of three different
subjects: Christian doctrine; Christian worship; and the Christian
ministry. The first of these three subjects is introduced in the words
of the text, which in the original form an incomplete sentence. The last
four words, "so do I now," are not expressed in the Greek. But something
must be supplied to complete the sense; and it is more natural to
understand with the Revisers "So do I now exhort thee," than with the A.
V. "So do thou tarry at Ephesus." But the question is not of great
moment and cannot be decided with absolute certainty. It is of more
importance to enquire what was the nature of the "different doctrine"
which Timothy was to endeavour to counteract. And on this point we are
not left in serious doubt. There are various expressions used respecting
it in these two letters to Timothy which seem to point to two factors
in the heterodoxy about which St. Paul is anxious. It is clear that the
error is Jewish in origin; and it is almost equally clear that it is
Gnostic as well. The evidence of the letter to Titus tends materially to
confirm these conclusions.
(1) The heresy is _Jewish_ in character. Its promoters "desire to be
teachers of the Law" (ver. 7). Some of them are "they of the
circumcision" (Tit. i. 10). It consists in "Jewish fables" (Tit. i. 14).
The questions which it raises are "fightings about the Law" (Tit. iii.
9).
(2) Its _Gnostic_ character is also indicated. We are told both in the
text and in the Epistle to Titus (i. 14; iii. 9) that it deals in
"fables and genealogies." It is "empty talking" (ver. 6), "disputes of
words" (vi. 4), and "profane babblings" (vi. 20). It teaches, an
unscriptural and unnatural asceticism (iv. 3, 8). It is "Gnosis falsely
so called" (vi. 20).
A heresy containing these two elements, Judaism and Gnosticism, meets us
both before and after the period covered by the Pastoral Epistles:
before in the Epistle to the Colossians; afterwards in the Epistles of
Ignatius. The evidence gathered from these three sources is entirely in
harmony with what we learn elsewhere--that the earliest forms of
Christian Gnosticism were Jewish in character. It will be observed that
this is indirect confirmation of the genuineness of the Pastoral
Epistles. The Gnosticism condemned in them is Jewish; and any form of
Gnosticism that was in existence in St. Paul's time would almost
certainly be Jewish.[12]
Professor Godet has pointed out how entirely the relation of Judaism to
Christianity which is implied in these Epistles, fits in with their
being the last group of Epistles written by St. Paul. At first, Judaism
was entirely outside the Church, opposing and blaspheming. Then it
entered the Church and tried to make the Church Jewish, by foisting the
Mosaic Law upon it. Lastly, it becomes a fantastic heresy inside the
Church, and sinks into profane frivolity. "Pretended revelations are
given as to the names and genealogies of angels; absurd ascetic rules
are laid down as counsels of perfection, while daring immorality defaces
the actual life."[13] This is the phase which is confronted in the
Pastoral Epistles: and St. Paul meets it with a simple appeal to faith
and morality.
It is quite possible that the "fables," or "myths," and "genealogies"
ought to be transferred from the Gnostic to the Jewish side of the
account. And thus Chrysostom interprets the passage. "By fables he does
not mean the Law; far from it; but inventions and forgeries, and
counterfeit doctrines. For, it seems, the Jews wasted their whole
discourse on these unprofitable points. They numbered up their fathers
and grandfathers, that they might have the reputation of historical
knowledge and research." The "fables" then, may be understood to be
those numerous legends which the Jews added to the Old Testament,
specimens of which abound in the Talmud. But similar myths abound in
Gnostic systems, and therefore "fables" may represent _both_ elements of
the heterodox teaching. So also with the "endless genealogies." These
cannot well refer to the genealogies in Genesis, for they are not
endless, each of them being arranged in tens. But it is quite possible
that Jewish speculations about the genealogies of angels may be meant.
Such things, being purely imaginary, would be endless. Or the Gnostic
doctrine of emanations, in its earlier and cruder forms, may be
intended. By genealogies in this sense early thinkers, especially in the
East, tried to bridge the chasm between the Infinite and the Finite,
between God and creation. In various systems it is assumed that matter
is inherently evil. The material universe has been from the beginning
not "very good" but very bad. How then can it be believed that the
Supreme Being, infinite in goodness, would create such a thing? This is
incredible: the world must be the creature of some inferior and perhaps
evil being. But when this was conceded, the distance between this
inferior power and the supreme God still remained to be bridged. This,
it was supposed, might be done by an indefinite number of generations,
each lower in dignity than the preceding one, until at last a being
capable of creating the universe was found. From the Supreme God
emanated an inferior deity, and from this lower power a third still more
inferior; and so on, until the Creator of the world was reached. These
ideas are found in the Jewish philosopher Philo; and it is to these that
St. Paul probably alludes in the "endless genealogies which minister
questionings rather than a dispensation of God." The idea that matter is
evil dominates the whole philosophy of Philo. He endeavoured to
reconcile this with the Old Testament, by supposing that matter is
eternal; and that it was out of pre-existing material that God, acting
through His creative powers, made the world which He pronounced to be
"very good." These powers are sometimes regarded as the angels,
sometimes as existences scarcely personal. But they have no existence
apart from their source, any more than a ray apart from the sun. They
are now the instruments of God's Providence, as formerly of His creative
power.
St. Paul condemns such speculations on four grounds. (1) They are
_fables_, myths, mere imaginings of the human intellect in its attempt
to account for the origin of the world and the origin of evil. (2) They
are _endless_ and interminable. From the nature of things there is no
limit to mere guesswork of this kind. Every new speculator may invent a
fresh genealogy of emanations in his theory of creation, and may make it
any length that he pleases. If hypotheses need never be verified,--need
not even be _capable_ of verification,--one may go on constructing them
_ad infinitum_. (3) As a natural consequence of this (=haitines=) they
_minister questionings_ and nothing better. It is all barren speculation
and fruitless controversy. Where any one may assert without proof, any
one else may contradict without proof; and nothing comes of this see-saw
of affirmation and negation. (4) Lastly, these vain imaginings are _a
different doctrine_. They are not only empty but untrue, and are a
hindrance to the truth. They occupy the ground which ought to be filled
with the _dispensation of God which is in faith_. Human minds are
limited in their capacity, and, even if these empty hypotheses were
innocent, minds that were filled with them would have little room left
for the truth. But they are not innocent: and those who are attracted by
them become disaffected towards the truth. It is impossible to love
both, for the two are opposed to one another. These fables are
baseless; they have no foundation either in revelation or in human life.
Moreover they are vague, shifting, and incoherent. They ramble on
without end. But the Gospel is based on a Divine Revelation, tested by
human experience. It is an economy, a system, an organic whole, a
dispensation of means to ends. Its sphere is not unbridled imagination
or audacious curiosity, but faith.
The history of the next hundred and fifty years amply justifies the
anxiety and severity of St. Paul. The germs of Gnostic error, which were
in the air when Christianity was first preached, fructified with amazing
rapidity. It would be hard to find a parallel in the history of
philosophy to the speed with which Gnostic views spread in and around
Christendom between A.D. 70 and 220. Eusebius tells us that, as soon as
the Apostles and those who had listened "with their own ears to their
inspired wisdom had passed away, then the conspiracy of godless error
took its rise through the deceit of false teachers, who (now that none
of the Apostles was any longer left) henceforth endeavoured with brazen
face to preach their _knowledge falsely so called_ in opposition to the
preaching of the truth."[14] Throughout the Christian world, and
especially in intellectual centres such as Ephesus, Alexandria and Rome,
there was perhaps not a single educated congregation which did not
contain persons who were infected with some form of Gnosticism. Jerome's
famous hyperbole respecting Arianism might be transferred to this
earlier form of error, perhaps the most perilous that the Church has
ever known: "The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself
_Gnostic_."
However severely we may condemn these speculations, we cannot but
sympathize with the perplexities which produced them. The origin of the
universe, and still more the origin of evil, still remain unsolved
problems. No one in this life is ever likely to reach a complete
solution of either. What is the origin of the material universe? To
assume that it is not a creature, but that matter is eternal, is to make
two first principles, one spiritual and one material; and this is
perilously near making two Gods. But the belief that God made the world
is by no means free from difficulty. What was His motive in making the
world? Was His perfection increased by it? Then God was once not fully
perfect. Was His perfection diminished by the act of creation? Then God
is now not fully perfect; and how can we suppose that He would
voluntarily surrender anything of His absolute perfection? Was God
neither the better nor the worse for the creation of the universe? Then
the original question returns with its full force: What induced Him to
create it? We cannot suppose that creation was an act of caprice. No
complete answer to this enigma is possible for us. One thing we
know;--that _God is light_ and that _God is love_. And we may be sure
that in exercising His creative power He was manifesting His perfect
wisdom and His exhaustless affection.
But will the knowledge that _God is light_ and that _God is love_ help
us to even a partial solution of that problem which has wrung the souls
of countless saints and thinkers with anguish--the problem of the origin
of evil? How could a God who is perfectly wise and perfectly good, make
it possible for evil to arise, and allow it to continue after it had
arisen? Once more the suggestion that there are two First Principles
presents itself, but in a more terrible form. Before, it was the thought
that there are two co-eternal Existences, God and Matter. Now, it is the
suggestion that there are two co-eternal, and perhaps co-equal Powers,
Good and Evil. This hypothesis, impossible for a Christian and rejected
by John Stuart Mill,[15] creates more difficulties than it solves. But,
if this is the wrong answer, what is the right one? Cardinal Newman, in
one of the most striking passages even in his works, has told us how the
problem presents itself to him. "Starting then with the being of God
(which, as I have said, is as certain to me as the certainty of my own
existence, though when I try to put the grounds of that certainty into
logical shape, I find difficulty in doing so in mood and figure to my
satisfaction), I look out of myself into the world of men, and there I
see a sight which fills me with unspeakable distress. The world seems
simply to give the lie to that great truth, of which my whole being is
so full; and the effect upon me is, in consequence, as a matter of
necessity, as confusing as if it denied that I am in existence myself.
_If I looked into a mirror, and did not see my face, I should have the
sort of feeling which actually comes upon me, when I look into this
living busy world and see no reflection of its Creator._ This is, to me,
one of the great difficulties of this absolute primary truth, to which I
referred just now. Were it not for this voice, speaking so clearly in my
conscience and my heart, I should be an atheist, or a pantheist, or a
polytheist, when I looked into the world. I am speaking for myself only;
and I am far from denying the real force of the arguments in proof of a
God, drawn from the general facts of human society, but these do not
warm me or enlighten me; they do not take away the winter of my
desolation, or make the buds unfold and the leaves grow within me, and
my moral being rejoice. The sight of the world is nothing else than the
prophet's scroll full of 'lamentations, and mourning, and woe.' ... What
shall be said to this heart-piercing, reason-bewildering fact? I can
only answer, that either there is no Creator, or this living society of
men is in a true sense discarded from His presence. Did I see a boy of
good make and mind, with the tokens on him of a refined nature, cast
upon the world without provision, unable to say whence he came, his
birthplace or his family connexions, I should conclude that there was
some mystery connected with his history, and that he was one, of whom,
from one cause or other, his parents were ashamed. Thus only should I be
able to account for the contrast between the promise and condition of
his being. And so I argue about the world;--_if_ there be a God, _since_
there is a God, the human race is implicated in some terrible aboriginal
calamity. It is out of joint with the purposes of its Creator. This is a
fact, a fact as true as the fact of its existence; and thus the doctrine
of what is theologically called original sin becomes to me almost as
certain as that the world exists, and as the existence of God."[16]
But this only carries us a short way towards a solution. Why did God
allow the "aboriginal calamity" of sin to be possible? This was the
Gnostic's difficulty, and it is our difficulty still. Can we say more
than this by way of an answer? God willed that angels and men should
honour Him with a voluntary and not a mechanical service. If they
obeyed Him, it should be of their own free will, and not of necessity.
It should be possible to them to refuse service and obedience. In short,
God willed to be reverenced and worshipped, and not merely served and
obeyed. A machine can render service; and a person under the influence
of mesmerism may be forced to obey. But do we not all feel that the
voluntary service of a conscious and willing agent, who prefers to
render rather than to withhold his service, is a nobler thing both for
him who gives, and him who receives it? Compulsory labour is apt to turn
the servant into a slave and the master into a tyrant. We see,
therefore, a reason why the Creator in creating conscious beings made
them also moral; made them capable of obeying Him of their own free
will, and therefore also capable of disobeying Him. In other words, He
made sin, with all its consequences, possible. Then it became merely a
question of historical fact whether any angelic or human being would
ever abuse his freedom by choosing to disobey. That "aboriginal
calamity," we know, has taken place; and all the moral and physical evil
which now exists in the world, is the natural consequence of it.
This is, perhaps, the best solution that the human mind is likely to
discover, respecting this primeval and terrible mystery. But it is only
a partial solution; and the knowledge that we have still not attained to
a complete answer to the question which perplexed the early Gnostics,
ought to banish from our minds anything like arrogance or contempt, when
we condemn their answer as unchristian and inadequate. "The end of the
charge" which has been given to us is not the condemnation of others,
but "love out of a pure heart and a good conscience and faith
unfeigned."
FOOTNOTES:
[12] F. C. Baur himself contends that the false teachers here condemned
are "Judaizing Gnostics, who put forth their figurative interpretation
of the Law as true knowledge of the Law. Such were the earlier Gnostics,
such as the Ophites and Saturninus" (_Protestant Commentary_, note on 1
Tim. i. 7).
[13] _Expositor_, July, 1888, p. 42.
[14] _H. E._, VI, xxxii. 8.
[15] _Three Essays on Religion_, pp. 185, 186.
[16] _Apologia pro Vita Sua_ (Longmans, 1864), pp. 376-379.
CHAPTER IV.
_THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE GNOSTICS.--ITS MODERN COUNTERPART._
"But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully, as
knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and
profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
man-slayers, for fornicators, for abusers of themselves with men,
for men-stealers, for liars, for false swearers, and if there be any
other thing contrary to the sound doctrine; according to the gospel
of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust"--1
Tim. i. 8-11.
The speculations of the Gnostics in their attempts to explain the origin
of the universe and the origin of evil, were wild and unprofitable
enough; and in some respects involved a fundamental contradiction of the
plain statements of Scripture. But it was not so much their metaphysical
as their moral teaching, which seemed so perilous to St. Paul. Their
"endless genealogies" might have been left to fall with their own dead
weight, so dull and uninteresting were they. Specimens of them still
survive, in what is known to us of the systems of Basilides and
Valentinus; and which of us, after having laboriously worked through
them, ever wished to read them a second time? But it is impossible to
keep one's philosophy in one compartment in one's mind, and one's
religion and morality quite separate from it in another. However
unpractical metaphysical speculations may appear, it is beyond question
that the views which we hold respecting such things may have momentous
influence upon our life. It was so with the early Gnostics, whom St.
Paul urges Timothy to keep in check. Their doctrine respecting the
nature of the material world and its relation to God, led to two
opposite forms of ethical teaching, each of them radically opposed to
Christianity.
This fact fits in very well with the character of the Pastoral Epistles,
all of which deal with this early form of error. They insist upon
discipline and morality, more than upon doctrine. These last solemn
charges of the great Apostle aim rather at making Christian ministers,
and their congregations, lead pure and holy lives, than at constructing
any system of theology. Erroneous teaching must be resisted; the plain
truths of the Gospel must be upheld; but the main thing is holiness of
life. By prayer and thanksgiving, by quiet and grave conduct, by modesty
and temperance, by self-denial and benevolence, by reverence for the
sanctity of home life, Christians will furnish the best antidote to the
intellectual and moral poison which the false teachers are propagating.
"The sound doctrine" has its fruit in a healthy, moral life, as surely
as the "different doctrine" leads to spiritual pride and lawless
sensuality.
The belief that Matter and everything material is inherently evil,
involved necessarily a contempt for the human body. This body was a vile
thing; and it was a dire calamity to the human mind to be joined to such
a mass of evil. From this premise various conclusions, some doctrinal
and some ethical, were drawn.
On the doctrinal side it was urged that the resurrection of the body was
incredible. It was disastrous enough to the soul that it should be
burdened with a body in this world. That this degrading alliance would
be continued in the world to come, was a monstrous belief. Equally
incredible was the doctrine of the Incarnation. How could the Divine
Word consent to be united with so evil a thing as a material frame?
Either the Son of Mary was a mere man, or the body which the Christ
assumed was not real. It is with these errors that St. John deals, some
twelve or fifteen years later, in his Gospel and Epistles.
On the ethical side the tenet that the human body is utterly evil
produced two opposite errors,--asceticism and antinomian sensuality. And
both of these are aimed at in these Epistles. If the enlightenment of
the soul is everything, and the body is utterly worthless, then this
vile clog to the movement of the soul must be beaten under and crushed,
in order that the higher nature may rise to higher things. The body must
be denied all indulgence, in order that it may be starved into
submission (iv. 3). On the other hand, if enlightenment is everything
and the body is worthless, then every kind of experience, no matter how
shameless, is of value, in order to enlarge knowledge. Nothing that a
man can do can make his body more vile than it is by nature, and the
soul of the enlightened is incapable of pollution. Gold still remains
gold, however often it is plunged in the mire.
The words of the three verses taken as a text, look as if St. Paul was
aiming at evil of this kind. These Judaizing Gnostics "desired to be
teachers of the Law." They wished to enforce the Mosaic Law, or rather
their fantastic interpretations of it, upon Christians. They insisted
upon its excellence, and would not allow that it has been in many
respects superseded. "We know quite well," says the Apostle, "and
readily admit, that the Mosaic Law is an excellent thing; provided that
those who undertake to expound it make a legitimate use of it. They must
remember that, just as law in general is not made for those whose own
good principles keep them in the right, so also the restrictions of the
Mosaic Law are not meant for Christians who obey the Divine will in the
free spirit of the Gospel." Legal restrictions are intended to control
those who will not control themselves; in short, for the very men who by
their strange doctrines are endeavouring to curtail the liberties of
others. What they preach as "the Law" is really a code of their own,
"commandments of men who turn away from the truth.... They profess that
they know God; but by their works they deny Him, being abominable, and
disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Tit. i. 14, 16). In
rehearsing the various kinds of sinners for whom law exists, and who are
to be found (he hints) among these false teachers, he goes roughly
through the Decalogue. The four commandments of the First Table are
indicated in general and comprehensive terms; the first five
commandments of the Second Table are taken one by one, flagrant
violators being specified in each case. Thus the stealing of a human
being in order to make him a slave, is mentioned as the most outrageous
breach of the eighth commandment. The tenth commandment is not
distinctly indicated, possibly because the breaches of it are not so
easily detected. The overt acts of these men were quite sufficient to
convict them of gross immorality, without enquiring as to their secret
wishes and desires. In a word, the very persons who in their teaching
were endeavouring to burden men with the ceremonial ordinances, which
had been done away in Christ, were in their own lives violating the
moral laws, to which Christ had given a new sanction. They tried to keep
alive, in new and strange forms, what had been provisional and was now
obsolete, while they trampled under foot what was eternal and Divine.
"If there be any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine." In these
words St. Paul sums up all the forms of transgression not specified in
his catalogue. The sound, healthy teaching of the Gospel is opposed to
the morbid and corrupt teaching of the Gnostics, who are sickly in their
speculations (vi. 4), and whose word is like an eating sore (2 Tim. ii.
17). Of course healthy teaching is also _health-giving_, and corrupt
teaching is _corrupting_; but it is the primary and not the derived
quality that is stated here. It is the healthiness of the doctrine in
itself, and its freedom from what is diseased or distorted, that is
insisted upon. Its wholesome character is a consequence of this.
This word "sound" or "healthy" (=hygiainôn, hygiês=), as applied to
doctrine,[17] is one of a group of expressions which are peculiar to the
Pastoral Epistles, and which have been condemned as not belonging to St.
Paul's style of language. He never uses "healthy" in his other Epistles;
therefore these three Epistles, in which the phrase occurs eight or nine
times, are not by him.
This kind of argument has been discussed already, in the first of these
expositions. It assumes the manifest untruth, that as life goes on men
make little or no change in the stock of words and phrases which they
habitually use. With regard to this particular phrase, the source of it
has been conjectured with a fair amount of probability. It may have come
from "the beloved physician," who, at the time when St. Paul wrote the
Second Epistle to Timothy, was the Apostle's sole companion. It is worth
remarking that the word here used for "sound" (with the exception of one
passage in the Third Epistle of St. John) occurs nowhere in the New
Testament in the literal sense of being in sound bodily health, except
in the Gospel of St. Luke. And it occurs nowhere in a figurative sense,
except in the Pastoral Epistles. It is obviously a medical metaphor; a
metaphor which any one who had never had anything to do with medicine
might easily use, but which is specially likely to be used by a man who
had lived much in the society of a physician. Before we call such a
phrase un-Pauline we must ask: (1) Is there any passage in the earlier
Epistles of St. Paul where he would certainly have used this word
"sound," had he been familiar with it? (2) Is there any word in the
earlier Epistles which would have expressed his meaning here equally
well? If either of these questions is answered in the negative, then we
are going beyond our knowledge in pronouncing the phrase "sound
doctrine"[18] to be un-Pauline.
"Contrary to the sound doctrine." It sums up in a comprehensive phrase
the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Gnostics. What they taught was
unsound and morbid, and as a consequence poisonous and pestilential.
While professing to accept and expound the Gospel, they really
disintegrated it and explained it away. They destroyed the very basis
of the Gospel message; for they denied the reality of sin. And they
equally destroyed the contents of the message; for they denied the
reality of the Incarnation. Nor were they less revolutionary on the
moral side than on the doctrinal. The foundations of morality are sapped
when intellectual enlightenment is accounted as the one thing needful,
while conduct is treated as a thing of no value. Principles of morality
are turned upside down when it is maintained that any act which adds to
one's knowledge is not only allowable, but a duty. It is necessary to
remember these fatal characteristics of this early form of error, in
order to appreciate the stern language used by St. Paul and St. John
respecting it, as also by St. Jude and the author of the Second Epistle
of Peter.
St. John in his Epistles deals mainly with the doctrinal side of the
heresy,--the denial of the reality of sin and of the reality of the
Incarnation:[19] although the moral results of doctrinal error are also
indicated and condemned.[20] In the Apocalypse, as in St. Paul and in
the Catholic Epistles, it is mainly the moral side of the false teaching
that is denounced, and that in both its opposite phases. The Epistle to
the Colossians deals with the _ascetic_ tendencies of early
gnosticism.[21] The Apocalypse and the Catholic Epistles deal with its
_licentious_ tendencies.[22] The Pastoral Epistles treat of both
asceticism and licentiousness, but chiefly of the latter, as is seen
from the passage before us and from the first part of chapter iii. in
the Second Epistle. As we might expect, St. Paul uses stronger language
in the Pastoral Epistles than he does in writing to the Colossians; and
in St. John and the Catholic Epistles we find stronger language still.
Antinomian licentiousness is a far worse evil than misguided asceticism,
and in the interval between St. Paul and the other writers the
profligacy of the antinomian Gnostics had increased. St. Paul warns the
Colossians against delusive "persuasiveness of speech," against "vain
deceit," "the rudiments of the world," "the precepts and doctrines of
men." He cautions Timothy and Titus respecting "seducing spirits and
doctrines of devils," "profane and old wives' fables," "profane
babblings" and teachings that "will eat as doth a gangrene," "vain
talkers and deceivers" whose "mind and conscience is deceived," and the
like. St. John denounces these false teachers as "liars," "seducers,"
"false prophets," "deceivers," and "antichrists;" and in Jude and the
Second Epistle of Peter we have the profligate lives of these false
teachers condemned in equally severe terms.
It should be observed that here again everything falls into its proper
place if we assume that the Pastoral Epistles were written some years
later than the Epistle to the Colossians and some years earlier than
those of St. Jude and St. John. The ascetic tendencies of Gnosticism
developed first. And though they still continued in teachers like Tatian
and Marcion, yet from the close of the first century the licentious
conclusions drawn from the premises that the human body is worthless and
that all knowledge is divine, became more and more prevalent; as is seen
in the teaching of Carpocrates and Epiphanes, and in the monstrous sect
of the Cainites. It was quite natural, therefore, that St. Paul should
attack Gnostic asceticism first in writing to the Colossians, and
afterwards both it and Gnostic licentiousness in writing to Timothy and
Titus. It was equally natural that his language should grow stronger as
he saw the second evil developing, and that those who saw this second
evil at a more advanced stage should use sterner language still.
The extravagant theories of the Gnostics to account for the origin of
the universe and the origin of evil are gone and are past recall. It
would be impossible to induce people to believe them, and only a
comparatively small number of students ever even read them. But the
heresy that knowledge is more important than conduct, that brilliant
intellectual gifts render a man superior to the moral law, and that much
of the moral law itself is the tyrannical bondage of an obsolete
tradition, is as dangerous as ever it was. It is openly preached and
frequently acted upon. The great Florentine artist, Benvenuto Cellini,
tells us in his autobiography that when Pope Paul III. expressed his
willingness to forgive him an outrageous murder committed in the streets
of Rome, one of the gentlemen at the Papal Court ventured to remonstrate
with the Pope for condoning so heinous a crime. "You do not understand
the matter as well as I do," replied Paul III.: "I would have you to
know that men like Benvenuto, unique in their profession, _are not bound
by the laws_." Cellini is a braggart, and it is possible that in this
particular he is romancing. But, even if the story is his invention, he
merely attributes to the Pope the sentiments which he cherished himself,
and upon which (as experience taught him) other people acted. Over and
over again his murderous violence was overlooked by those in authority,
because they admired and wished to make use of his genius as an artist.
"Ability before honesty" was a common creed in the sixteenth century,
and it is abundantly prevalent in our own. The most notorious scandals
in a man's private life are condoned if only he is recognized as having
talent. It is the old Gnostic error in a modern and sometimes agnostic
form. It is becoming daily more clear that the one thing needful for the
regeneration of society, whether upper, middle, or lower, is the
creation of a "sound" public opinion. And so long as this is so, God's
ministers and all who have the duty of instructing others will need to
lay to heart the warnings which St. Paul gives to his followers Timothy
and Titus.
FOOTNOTES:
[17] 1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 2, 8.
[18] The Revisers as a rule render =didaskalia= by "doctrine," as here,
iv. 6, vi. 1, 3; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. i. 9, ii. 1, 7, 10 (but not in iv.
13, 16, v. 17; 2 Tim. iii. 10, 16), while they render =didachê= by
"teaching," as 2 Tim. iv. 2; Tit. i. 9, and frequently in the Gospels.
But =didaskalia=, as being closer to =didaskalos= "a teacher," is
"teaching" rather than "doctrine," and =didachê= is "doctrine" rather
than "teaching." See p. 238.
[19] 1 John i. 8-10, ii. 22, 23, iii. 4, 8, iv. 2, 3, 15, v. 1, 5, 16,
17; 2 John 7.
[20] ii. 9, 11, iii. 15, 17.
[21] ii. 16, 21, 23.
[22] Rev. ii. 14, 20-22; 2 Peter ii. 10-22; Jude 8, 10, 13, 16, 18.
CHAPTER V.
_THE LORD'S COMPASSION IN ENABLING A BLASPHEMER AND A PERSECUTOR TO
BECOME A SERVANT OF CHRIST JESUS AND A PREACHER OF THE GOSPEL._
"I thank Him that enabled me, even Christ Jesus our Lord, for that
He counted me faithful, appointing me to His service; though I was
before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: howbeit I
obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; and the
grace of our Lord abounded exceedingly with faith and love which is
in Christ Jesus."--1 TIM. i. 12-14.
In the concluding sentence of the preceding paragraph (vv. 3, 11) the
Apostle points out that what he has been saying respecting the erroneous
teaching and practice of the heterodox innovators is entirely in harmony
with the spirit of the Gospel which had been committed to his trust.[23]
This mention of his own high commission to preach "the Gospel of the
glory of the blessed God" suggests at once to him some thoughts both of
thankfulness and humility, to which he now gives expression. His own
experience of the Gospel, especially in connexion with his conversion
from being a persecutor to becoming a preacher, offer further points of
contrast between Gnosticism and Christianity.
The false teachers wasted thought and attention upon barren
speculations, which, even if they could under any conceivable
circumstances be proved true, would have supplied no guidance to mankind
in regulating conduct. And whenever Gnostic teaching became practical,
it frittered away morality in servile observances, based on capricious
interpretations of the Mosaic Law. Of true morality there was an utter
disregard, and frequently an open violation. Of the one thing for which
the self-accusing conscience was yearning--the forgiveness of sin--it
knew nothing, because it had no appreciation of the reality of sin. Sin
was only part of the evil which was inherent in the material universe,
and therefore in the human body. A system which had no place for the
forgiveness of sin had also no place for the Divine compassion, which it
is the purpose of the Gospel to reveal. How very real this compassion
and forgiveness are, and how much human beings stand in need of them,
St. Paul testifies from his own experience, the remembrance of which
makes him burst out into thanksgiving.
The Apostle offers thanks to Jesus Christ, the source of all his
strength, for having confidence in him as a person worthy of trust. This
confidence He proved by "appointing Paul to His service;" a confidence
all the more marvellous and worthy of gratitude because Paul had before
been "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious." He had been a
blasphemer, for he had thought that he "ought to do many things contrary
to the name of Jesus of Nazareth;" and he had been a persecutor for he
had punished believers "often-times in all the synagogues," and "strove
to make them blaspheme." That is ever the persecutor's aim;--to make
those who differ from him speak evil of what they reverence but he
abhors; to say they renounce what in their heart of hearts they believe.
There is, therefore, thus far an ascending scale in the iniquity which
the Apostle confesses. He not only blasphemed the Divine Name himself,
but he endeavoured to compel others to do the same. The third word,
although the English Version obscures the fact, continues the ascending
scale of self-condemnation. "Injurious" does scant justice to the force
of the Greek word used by the Apostle (=hybristês=), although it is not
easy to suggest a better rendering. The word is very common in classical
authors, but in the New Testament occurs only here and in Rom. i. 30,
where the A.V. translates it "despiteful" and the R.V. "insolent." It is
frequent in the Septuagint. It indicates one who takes an insolent and
wanton delight in violence, one whose pleasure lies in outraging the
feelings of others. The most conspicuous instance of it in the New
Testament, and perhaps anywhere, would be the Roman soldiers mocking and
torturing Jesus Christ with the crown of thorns and the royal robe. Of
such conduct St. Paul himself since his conversion had been the victim,
and he here confesses that before his conversion he had been guilty of
it himself. In his misguided zeal he had punished innocent people, and
he had inflicted punishment, not with pitying reluctance, but with
arrogant delight.
It is worth pointing out that in this third charge against himself, as
well as in the first, St. Paul goes beyond what he states in the similar
passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians, Philippians, and Galatians.
There he simply draws attention to the fact that he had been a
persecutor who had made havoc of the Church.[24] He says nothing about
blaspheming or taking an insolent satisfaction in the pain which he
inflicted. This has some bearing on the genuineness of this Epistle. (1)
It shows that St. Paul was in the habit of alluding to the fact that he
had been a persecutor. It was part of his preaching, for it proved that
his conversion was directly and immediately God's work. He did not owe
the Gospel which he preached to any persuasion on the part of man. It
is, therefore, quite in harmony with St. Paul's practice to insist on
his former misconduct. But it may be urged that a forger might notice
this and imitate it. That of course is true. But if these Epistles are a
forgery, they are certainly not forged with any intention of injuring
St. Paul's memory. Is it likely, then, that a forger in imitating the
self-accusation of the Apostle, would use stronger language than the
Apostle himself uses in those Epistles which are indisputably his? Would
he go out of his way to use such strong language as "blasphemer," and
"insolent oppressor"? But, if St. Paul wrote these Epistles, this
exceptionally strong language is thoroughly natural in a passage in
which the Apostle wishes to place in as strong a light as may be the
greatness of the Divine compassion in forgiving sins, as manifested in
his own case. He had been foremost as a bitter and arrogant opponent of
the Gospel; and yet God had singled him out to be foremost in preaching
it. Here was a proof that no sinner need despair. What comfort for a
fallen race could the false teachers offer in comparison with this?
Like St. Peter's sin in denying His Lord, St. Paul's sin in persecuting
Him was overruled for good. The Divine process of bringing good out of
evil was strongly exemplified in it. The Gnostic teachers had tried to
show how, by a gradual degradation, evil might proceed from the Supreme
Good. There is nothing Divine in such a process as that. The fall from
good to evil is rather a devilish one, as when an angel of light became
the evil one and involved mankind in his own fall. Divinity is shown in
the converse process of making what is evil work towards what is good.
Under Divine guidance St. Paul's self-righteous confidence and arrogant
intolerance were turned into a blessing to himself and others. The
recollection of his sin kept him humble, intensified his gratitude, and
gave him a strong additional motive to devote himself to the work of
bringing others to the Master who had been so gracious to himself. St.
Chrysostom in commenting on this passage in his Homilies on the Pastoral
Epistles points out how it illustrates St. Paul's humility, a virtue
which is more often praised than practised. "This quality was so
cultivated by the blessed Paul, that he is ever looking out for
inducements to be humble. They who are conscious to themselves of great
merits must struggle much with themselves if they would be humble. And
he too was one likely to be under violent temptations, his own good
conscience swelling him up like a gathering tumour.... Being filled,
therefore, with high thoughts, and having used magnificent expressions,
he at once depresses himself, and engages others also to do the like.
Having said, then, that _the Gospel was committed to his trust_, lest
this should seem to be said with pride, he checks himself at once,
adding by way of correction, _I thank Him that enabled me, Christ Jesus
our Lord, for that He counted me_ _faithful, appointing me to His
service_. Thus everywhere, we see, he conceals his own merit and
ascribes everything to God, yet so far only as not to take away free
will."
These concluding words are an important qualification. The Apostle
constantly insists on his conversion as the result of a special
revelation of Jesus Christ to himself, in other words a miracle: he
nowhere hints that his conversion in itself was miraculous. No
psychological miracle was wrought, forcing him to accept Christ against
his will. God converts no one by magic. It is a free and reasonable
service that he asks for from beings whom He has created free and
reasonable. Men were made moral beings, and He who made them such does
not treat them as machines. In his defence at Caesarea St. Paul tells
Herod Agrippa that he "was not _disobedient_ to the heavenly vision." He
might have been. He might, like Judas, have resisted all the miraculous
power displayed before him and have continued to persecute Christ. If he
had no choice whatever in the matter, it was an abuse of language to
affirm that he "was not disobedient." And in that case we should need
some other metaphor than "kicking against the goads." It is impossible
to kick against the goads if one has no control over one's own limbs.
The limbs and the strength to use them were God's gifts, without which
he could have done nothing. But with these gifts it was open to him
either to obey the Divine commands or "even to fight against God"--a
senseless and wicked thing, no doubt, but still possible. In this
passage the Divine and the human sides are plainly indicated. On the one
hand, Christ enabled him and showed confidence in him: on the other,
Paul accepted the service and was faithful. He might have refused the
service; or, having accepted it, he might have shown himself unfaithful
to his trust.
"Howbeit, I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief."
These words are sometimes misunderstood. They are not intended as an
excuse, any more than St. John's designation of himself as "the disciple
whom Jesus loved" are intended as a boast. St. John had been the
recipient of very exceptional favours. Along with only St. Peter and St.
James he had been present at the raising of Jairus's daughter, at the
Transfiguration, and at the Agony in the Gethsemane. From even these
chosen three he had been singled out to be told who was the traitor; to
have the lifelong charge of providing for the Mother of the Lord; to be
the first to recognize the risen Lord at the sea of Tiberias.[25] What
was the explanation of all these honours? The recipient of them had only
one to give. He had no merits, no claim to anything of the kind; but
Jesus loved him.
So also with St. Paul. There were multitudes of Jews who, like himself,
had had, as he tells the Romans, "a zeal for God, but not according to
knowledge."[26] There were many who, like himself, had opposed the truth
and persecuted the Christ. Why did any of them obtain mercy? Why did he
receive such marked favour and honour? Not because of any merit on their
part or his: but because they had sinned ignorantly (_i.e._, without
knowing the enormity of their sin), and because "the grace of the Lord
abounded exceedingly." The Apostle is not endeavouring to extenuate his
own culpability, but to justify and magnify the Divine compassion. Of
the whole Jewish nation it was true that "they knew not what they did"
in crucifying Jesus of Nazareth; but it was true in very various
degrees. "Even of the rulers many believed on Him; but because of the
Pharisees they did not confess, lest they should be put out of the
synagogue: for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God."
It was because St. Paul did not in this way sin against light that he
found mercy, not merely in being forgiven the sin of persecuting Christ,
but in being enabled to accept and be faithful in the service of Him
whom he had persecuted.
Two of the changes made by the Revisers in this passage seem to call for
notice: they both occur in the same phrase and have a similar tendency.
Instead of "_putting_ me into the _ministry_" the R.V. gives us
"_appointing_ me to His _service_." A similar change has been made in
_v._ 7 of the next chapter, where "I was _appointed_ a preacher" takes
the place of "I am ordained a preacher," and in John xv. 16 where "I
chose you and _appointed_ you" has been substituted for "I have chosen
you and _ordained_ you."[27] In these alterations the Revisers are only
following the example set by the A.V. itself in other passages. In 2
Tim. i. 11, as in Luke x. 1, and 1 Thess. v. 9, both versions have
"appointed." The alterations are manifest improvements. In the passage
before us it is possible that the Greek has the special signification of
"putting me into the ministry," but it is by no means certain, and
perhaps not even probable, that it does so. Therefore the more
comprehensive and general translation, "appointing me to His service,"
is to be preferred. The wider rendering includes and covers the other;
and this is a further advantage. To translate the Greek words used in
these passages (=tithenai, poiein, k.t.l.=) by such a very definite word
as "ordain" leads the reader to suppose these texts refer to the
ecclesiastical act of ordination; of which there is no evidence. The
idea conveyed by the Greek in this passage, as in John xv. 16, is that
of placing a man at a particular post, and would be as applicable to
civil as to ministerial duties. We are not, therefore, justified in
translating it by a phrase which has distinct ecclesiastical
associations.
The question is not one of mere linguistic accuracy. There are larger
issues involved than those of correct translation from Greek to English.
If we adopt the wider rendering, then it is evident that the blessing
for which St. Paul expresses heartfelt gratitude, and which he cites as
evidence of Divine compassion and forgiveness, is not the call to be an
Apostle, in which none of us can share, nor _exclusively_ the call to be
a minister of the Gospel, in which only a limited number of us can
share; but also the being appointed to any service in Christ's kingdom,
which is an honour to which all Christians are called. Every earnest
Christian knows from personal experience this evidence of the Divine
character of the Gospel. It is full of compassion for those who have
sinned; not because, like the Gnostic teachers, it glosses over the
malignity and culpability of sin, but because, unlike Gnosticism, it
recognizes the preciousness of each human soul, and the difficulties
which beset it. Every Christian knows that he has inherited an evil
nature:--so far he and the Gnostic are agreed. But he also knows that to
the sin which he has inherited he has added sin for which he is
personally responsible, and which his conscience does not excuse as if
it were something which is a misfortune and not a fault. Yet he is not
left without remedy under the burden of these self-accusations. He knows
that, if he seeks for it, he can find forgiveness, and forgiveness of a
singularly generous kind. He is not only forgiven, but restored to
favour and treated with respect. He is at once placed in a position of
trust. In spite of the past, it is assumed that he will be a faithful
servant, and he is allowed to minister to his Master and his Master's
followers. To him also "the grace of our Lord" has "abounded exceedingly
with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." The generous compassion
shown to St. Paul is not unique or exceptional; it is typical. And it is
a type, not to the few, but to many; not to clergy only, but to all.
"For this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ
show forth all His long-suffering, for an ensample of _them which should
hereafter believe on Him_ unto eternal life."
FOOTNOTES:
[23] It is worth while pointing out that the peculiar construction =ho
episteuthên egô= occurs in the New Testament, only in the Pastoral
Epistles and in other Pauline Epistles, the genuineness of which is now
scarcely disputed--1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 17; Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii.
7.
[24] 1 Cor. xv. 8, 10; Gal. i. 13, 23; Phil. iii. 6; comp. Acts xxii. 4,
5, 19.
[25] St. John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xxi. 7.
[26] Rom. x. 2.
[27] Comp. Acts xxii. 14 and 2 Cor. viii. 19; also Mark iii. 14 and Acts
xiv. 23. See on Tit. i. 5-7.
CHAPTER VI.
_THE PROPHECIES ON TIMOTHY.--THE PROPHETS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, AN
EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF EDIFICATION._
"This charge I commit unto thee, my own child Timothy, according to
the prophecies which went before on thee, that by them thou mayest
war the good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience; which
some having thrust from them made shipwreck concerning the faith: of
whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that
they might be taught not to blaspheme."--1 TIM. i. 18-20.
In this section St. Paul returns from the subject of the false teachers
against whom Timothy has to contend (vv. 3-11), and the contrast to
their teaching exhibited by the Gospel in the Apostle's own case (vv.
12-17), to the main purpose of the letter, viz., the instructions to be
given to Timothy for the due performance of his difficult duties as
overseer of the Church of Ephesus. The section contains two subjects of
special interest, each of which requires consideration;--the prophecies
respecting Timothy and the punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander.
1. "This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, _according to the
prophecies which went before on thee_." As the margin of the R.V. points
out, this last phrase might also be read "according to the prophecies
which _led the way to thee_," for the Greek may mean either. The
question is, whether St. Paul is referring to certain prophecies which
"led the way to" Timothy, _i.e._, which designated him as specially
suited for the ministry, and led to his ordination by St. Paul and the
presbyters; or whether he is referring to certain prophecies which were
uttered _over_ Timothy (=epi se=) either at the time of his conversion
or of his admission to the ministry. Both the A.V. and the R.V. give the
preference to the latter rendering, which (without excluding such a
view) does not commit us to the opinion that St. Paul was in any sense
led to Timothy by these prophecies, a thought which is not clearly
intimated in the original. All that we are certain of is, that long
before the writing of this letter prophecies of which Timothy was the
object were uttered over him, and that they were of such a nature as to
be an incentive and support to him in his ministry.
But if we look on to the fourteenth verse of the fourth chapter in this
Epistle and to the sixth of the first chapter in the Second, we shall
not have much doubt when these prophecies were uttered. There we read,
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee _by
prophecy_, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery!" and "For
which cause I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God,
which is in thee through the laying on of my hands." Must we not believe
that these two passages and the passage before us all refer to the same
occasion--the same crisis in Timothy's life? In all three of them St.
Paul appeals to the spiritual gift that was bestowed upon his disciple
"_by means of_ prophecy" and "_by means of_ the laying on of hands." The
same preposition and case (=dia= with the genitive) is used in each
case. Clearly, then, we are to understand that the prophesying and the
laying on of hands accompanied one another. Here only the prophesying is
mentioned. In chapter iv. the prophesying, accompanied by the imposition
of the presbyters' hands, is the means by which the grace is conferred.
In the Second Epistle only the laying on of the Apostle's hands is
mentioned, and it is spoken of as the means by which the grace is
conferred. Therefore, although the present passage by itself leaves the
question open, yet when we take the other two into consideration along
with it, we may safely neglect the possibility of prophecies which _led
the way_ to the ordination of Timothy, and understand the Apostle as
referring to those sacred utterances which were a marked element in his
disciple's ordination and formed a prelude and earnest of his ministry.
These sacred utterances indicated a Divine commission and Divine
approbation publicly expressed respecting the choice of Timothy for this
special work. They were also a means of grace; for by means of them a
spiritual blessing was bestowed upon the young minister. In alluding to
them here, therefore, St. Paul reminds him _Who_ it was by whom he was
really chosen and ordained. It is as if he said, "We laid our hands upon
you; but it was no ordinary election made by human votes. It was God who
elected you; God who gave you your commission, and with it the power to
fulfil it. Beware, therefore, of disgracing His appointment and of
neglecting or abusing His gift."[28]
The voice of prophecy, therefore, either pointed out Timothy as a chosen
vessel for the ministry, or publicly ratified the choice which had
already been made by St. Paul and others. But by whom was this voice of
prophecy uttered? By a special order of prophets? Or by St. Paul and the
presbyters specially inspired to act as such? The answer to this
question involves some consideration of the office, or rather
_function_, of a prophet, especially in the New Testament.
The word "prophet" is frequently understood in far too limited a sense.
It is commonly restricted to the one function of predicting the future.
But, if we may venture to coin words in order to bring out points of
differences, there are three main ideas involved in the title "prophet."
(1) A _for_-teller; one who speaks _for_ or instead of another,
especially one who speaks _for_ or in the name of God; a Divine
messenger, ambassador, interpreter, or _spokesman_. (2) A
_forth_-teller; one who has a special message to deliver _forth_ to the
world; a proclaimer, harbinger, or herald. (3) A _fore_-teller; one who
tells _beforehand_ what is coming; a predicter of future events. To be
the bearer or interpreter of a Divine message is the fundamental
conception of the prophet in classical Greek; and to a large extent this
conception prevails in both the Old and the New Testament. To be in
immediate intercourse with Jehovah, and to be His spokesman to Israel,
was what the Hebrews understood by the gift of prophecy. It was by no
means necessary that the Divine communication which the prophet had to
make known to the people should relate to the future. It might be a
denunciation of past sins, or an exhortation respecting present conduct,
quite as naturally as a prediction of what was coming. And in the Acts
and Pauline Epistles the idea of a prophet remains much the same. He is
one to whom has been granted special insight into God's counsels, and
who communicates these mysteries to others. Both in the Jewish and
primitive Christian dispensations, the prophets are the means of
communication between God and His Church. Eight persons are mentioned by
name in the Acts of the Apostles as exercising this gift of prophecy:
Agabus, Barnabas, Symeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen the
foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch, Judas, Silas, and St. Paul
himself. On certain occasions the Divine communication made to them by
the Spirit included a knowledge of the future; as when Agabus foretold
the great famine (xi. 28) and the imprisonment of St. Paul (xxi. 11),
and when St. Paul told that the Holy Spirit testified to him in every
city, that bonds and afflictions awaited him at Jerusalem (xx. 23). But
this is the exception rather than the rule. It is in their character of
prophets that Judas and Silas exhort and confirm the brethren. And, what
is of special interest in reference to the prophecies uttered over
Timothy, we find a group of prophets having special influence in the
selection and ordination of Apostolic evangelists. "And as they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me
Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them. Then when
they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them
away" (xiii. 2, 3).
We see, therefore, that these New Testament prophets were not a
regularly constituted order, like apostles, with whom they are joined
both in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (xii. 28) and in that to
the Ephesians (iv. 11). Yet they have this in common with apostles, that
the work of both lies rather in founding Churches than in governing
them. They have to convert and edify rather than to rule. They might or
might not be apostles or presbyters as well as prophets; but as
prophets they were men or women (such as the daughters of Philip) on
whom a special gift of the Holy Spirit had been conferred: and this gift
enabled them to understand and expound Divine mysteries with inspired
authority, and at times also to foretell the future.
So long as we bear these characteristics in mind, it matters little how
we answer the question as to who it was that uttered the prophecies over
Timothy at the time of his ordination. It may have been St. Paul and the
presbyters who laid their hands upon him, and who on this occasion at
any rate were endowed with the spirit of prophecy. Or it may have been
that besides the presbyters there were prophets also present, who, at
this solemn ceremony, exercised their gift of inspiration. The former
seems more probable. It is clear from chap. iv. 14, that prophecy and
imposition of hands were two concomitant acts by means of which
spiritual grace was bestowed upon Timothy; and it is more reasonable to
suppose that these two instrumental acts were performed by the same
group of persons, than that one group prophesied, while another laid
their hands on the young minister's head.
This gift of prophecy, St. Paul tells the Corinthians (1 Cor. xiv.), was
one specially to be desired; and evidently it was by no means a rare one
in the primitive Church. As we might expect, it was most frequently
exercised in the public services of the congregation. "When ye come
together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation,
hath a tongue, hath an interpretation.... Let the prophets speak by two
or three, and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to
another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For _ye all can prophesy
one by one_, that all may learn and all may be comforted; and the
spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." The chief object
of the gift, therefore, was instruction and consolation, for the
conversion of unbelievers (24, 25), and for the building up of the
faithful.
But we shall probably be right in making a distinction between the
prophesying which frequently took place in the first Christian
congregations, and those special interventions of the Holy Spirit of
which we read occasionally. In these latter cases it is not so much
spiritual instruction in an inspired form that is communicated, as a
revelation of God's will with regard to some particular course of
action. Such was the case when Paul and Silas were "forbidden of the
Holy Ghost to speak the word in Asia," and when "they assayed to go into
Bithynia, and the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not:" or when on his
voyage to Rome Paul was assured that he would stand before Caesar, and
that God had given him the lives of all those who sailed with him.[29]
Some have supposed that the Revelation of St. John was intended to mark
the close of New Testament prophecy and to protect the Church against
unwarrantable attempts at prophecy until the return of Christ to judge
the world. This view would be more probable if the later date for the
Apocalypse could be established. But if, as is far more probable, the
Revelation was written c. A.D. 68, it is hardly likely that St. John,
during the lifetime of Apostles, would think of taking any such decisive
step. In his First Epistle, written probably fifteen or twenty years
after the Revelation, he gives a test for distinguishing true from
false prophets (iv. 1-4); and this he would not have done, if he had
believed that all true prophecy had ceased.
In the newly discovered "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" we find
prophets among the ministers of the Church, just as in the Epistles to
the Corinthians, Ephesians, and Philippians. The date of this
interesting treatise has yet to be ascertained; but it seems to belong
to the period between the Epistles of St. Paul and those of Ignatius. We
may safely place it between the writings of St. Paul and those of Justin
Martyr. In the Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xii. 28) we have
"First apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then" those who
had special gifts, such as healing or speaking with tongues. In Ephes.
iv. 11 we are told that Christ "gave some to be apostles; and some
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." The Epistle to the
Philippians is addressed "to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons," where the plural shows that
"bishop" cannot be used in the later diocesan sense; otherwise there
would be only one bishop at Philippi. Prophets, therefore, in St. Paul's
time are a common and important branch of the ministry. They rank next
to apostles, and a single congregation may possess several of them. In
Ignatius and later writers the ministers who are so conspicuous in the
Acts and in St. Paul's Epistles disappear, and their place is taken by
other ministers whose offices, at any rate in their later forms, are
scarcely found in the New Testament at all. These are the bishops,
presbyters, and deacons; to whom were soon added a number of subordinate
officials, such as readers, exorcists, and the like. The ministry, as we
find it in the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles," is in a state of
transition from the Apostolic to the latter stage. As in the time of
St. Paul we have both itinerant and local ministers; the itinerant
ministers being chiefly apostles and prophets, whose functions do not
seem to be marked off from one another very distinctly; and the local
ministry consisting of two orders only, bishops and deacons, as in the
address to the Church of Philippi. When we reach the Epistles of
Ignatius and other documents of a date later than A.D. 110, we lose
distinct traces of these itinerant apostles and prophets. The title
"Apostle" is becoming confined to St. Paul and the Twelve, and the title
of "Prophet" to the Old Testament prophets.
The gradual cessation or discredit of the function of the Christian
prophet is thoroughly intelligible. Possibly the spiritual gift which
rendered it possible was withdrawn from the Church. In any case the
extravagances of enthusiasts who deluded themselves into the belief that
they possessed the gift, or of impostors who deliberately assumed it,
would bring the office into suspicion and disrepute. Such things were
possible even in Apostolic times, for both St. Paul and St. John give
cautions about it, and directions for dealing with the abuse and the
false assumption of prophecy. In the next century the eccentric
delusions of Montanus and his followers, and their vehement attempts to
force their supposed revelations upon the whole Church, completed the
discredit of all profession to prophetical power. This discredit has
been intensified from time to time whenever such professions have been
renewed; as, for example, by the extravagances of the Zwickau Prophets
or Abecedarians in Luther's time, or of the Irvingites in our own day.
Since the death of St. John and the close of the Canon, Christians have
sought for illumination in the written word of Scripture rather than in
the utterances of prophets. It is there that each one of us may find
"the prophecies that went before on" us, exhorting us and enabling us to
"war the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience." There will
always be those who crave for something more definite and personal; who
long for, and perhaps create for themselves and believe in, some living
authority to whom they can perpetually appeal. Scripture seems to them
unsatisfying, and they erect for themselves an infallible pope, or a
spiritual director, whose word is to be to them as the inspired
utterances of a prophet. But we have to fall back on our own consciences
at last: and whether we take Scripture or some other authority as our
infallible guide, the responsibility of the choice still rests with
ourselves. If a man will not hear Christ and His Apostles, neither will
he be persuaded though a prophet was granted to him. If we believe not
their writings, how shall we believe his words?
FOOTNOTES:
[28] Chrysostom _in loco. Hom._ v. _sub init._
[29] Acts xvi. 6, 7, xxvii. 24; comp. xviii. 9, xx. 23, xxi. 4, 11,
xxii. 17-21.
CHAPTER VII.
_THE PUNISHMENT OF HYMENAEUS AND ALEXANDER.--DELIVERING TO SATAN AN
EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF PURIFICATION.--THE PERSONALITY OF SATAN._
"Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from
them made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I
delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to
blaspheme."--1 TIM. i. 19, 20.
In the preceding discourse one of the special _charismata_ which
distinguish the Church of the Apostolic age was considered,--the gift of
prophecy. It seems to have been an exceptional boon to enable the first
Christians to perform very exceptional work. On the present occasion we
have to consider a very different subject--the heavy penalty inflicted
on two grievous offenders. This again would seem to be something
exceptional. And the special gift and the special punishment have this
much in common, that both of them were extraordinary means for promoting
and preserving the holiness of the Church. The one existed for the
edification, the other for the purification, of the members of the
Christian community.
The necessity of strict discipline both for the individual and for the
community had been declared by Christ from the outset. The eye that
caused offence was to be plucked out, the hand and the foot that caused
offence were to be cut off, and the hardened offender who refused to
listen to the solemn remonstrances of the congregation was to be treated
as a heathen and an outcast. The experience of the primitive Church had
proved the wisdom of this. The fall of Judas had shown that the
Apostolic band itself was not secure from evil of the very worst kind.
The parent Church of Jerusalem was no sooner founded than a dark stain
was brought upon it by the conduct of two of its members. In the very
first glow of its youthful enthusiasm Ananias and Sapphira conspired
together to pervert the general unselfishness to their own selfish end,
by attempting to gain the credit for equal generosity with the rest,
while keeping back something for themselves. The Church of Corinth was
scarcely five years old, and the Apostle had been absent from it only
about three years, when he learnt that in this Christian community, the
firstfruits of the heathen world, a sin which even the heathen regarded
as a monstrous pollution had been committed, and that the congregation
were glorying in it. Christians were boasting that the incestuous union
of a man with his father's wife during his father's lifetime was a
splendid illustration of Christian liberty. No stronger proof of the
dangers of lax discipline could have been given. In the verses before us
we have instances of similar peril on the doctrinal side. And in the
insolent opposition which Diotrephes offered to St. John we have an
illustration of the dangers of insubordination. If the Christian Church
was to be saved from speedy collapse, strict discipline in morals, in
doctrine, and in government, was plainly necessary.
The punishment of the incestuous person at Corinth should be placed
side by side with the punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander, as recorded
here. The two cases mutually explain one another. In each of them there
occurs the remarkable formula of _delivering_ or _handing over to
Satan_. The meaning of it is not indisputable, and in the main two views
are held respecting it. Some interpret it as being merely a synonym for
excommunication. Others maintain that it indicates a much more
exceptional penalty, which might or might not accompany excommunication.
1. On the one hand it is argued that the expression "deliver unto Satan"
is a very intelligible periphrasis for "excommunicate." Excommunication
involved "exclusion from all Christian fellowship, and consequently
banishment to the society of those among whom Satan dwelt, and from
which the offender had publicly severed himself."[30] It is admitted
that "handing over to Satan" is strong language to use in order to
express ejection from the congregation and exclusion from all acts of
worship, but it is thought that the acuteness of the crisis makes the
strength of language intelligible.
2. But the strength of language needs no apology, if the "delivering
unto Satan" means something extraordinary, over and above
excommunication. This, therefore, is an advantage which the second mode
of interpreting the expression has at the outset. Excommunication was a
punishment which the congregation itself could inflict; but this handing
over to Satan was an Apostolic act, to accomplish which the community
without the Apostle had no power. It was a supernatural infliction of
bodily infirmity, or disease, or death, as a penalty for grievous sin.
We know this in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira and of Elymas. The
incestuous person at Corinth is probably another instance: for "the
destruction of the flesh" seems to mean some painful malady inflicted on
that part of his nature which had been the instrument of his fall, in
order that by its chastisement the higher part of his nature might be
saved. And, if this be correct, then we seem to be justified in assuming
the same respecting Hymenaeus and Alexander. For although nothing is said
in their case respecting "the destruction of the flesh," yet the
expression "that they may be _taught_ not to blaspheme," implies
something of a similar kind. The word for "taught" =paideuthôsi= implies
discipline and chastisement, sometimes in Classical Greek, frequently in
the New Testament, a meaning which the word "teach" also not
unfrequently has in English (Judges viii. 16). In illustration of this
it is sufficient to point to the passage in Heb. xii., in which the
writer insists that "whom the Lord loveth He _chasteneth_." Throughout
the section this very word (=paideuein=) and its cognate (=paideia=) are
used.[31] It is, therefore, scarcely doubtful that St. Paul delivered
Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, in order that Satan might have power to
afflict their bodies (just as he was allowed power over the body of
Job), with a view to their spiritual amelioration. This personal
suffering, following close upon their sin and declared by the Apostle to
be a punishment for it, would teach them to abandon it. St. Paul
himself, as he has just told us, had been a blasphemer and by a
supernatural visitation had been converted: why should not these two
follow in both respects in his steps? Satan's willingness to co-operate
in such measures need not surprise us. He is always ready to inflict
suffering; and the fact that suffering sometimes draws the sufferer away
from him and nearer to God, does not deter him from inflicting it. He
knows well that suffering not unfrequently has the very opposite effect.
It hardens and exasperates some men, while it humbles and purifies
others. It makes one man say "I abhor myself, and repent in dust and
ashes." It makes another will to "renounce God and die." Satan hoped in
Job's case to be able to provoke him to "renounce God to His face." In
the case of these two blasphemers he would hope to induce them to
blaspheme all the more.
We may pass by the question, "In what way did Hymenaeus and Alexander
blaspheme?" We can only conjecture that it was by publicly opposing some
article of the Christian faith. But conjectures without evidence are not
very profitable. If we were certain that the Hymenaeus here mentioned
with Alexander is identical with the one who is condemned with Philetus
in 2 Tim. ii. 18 for virtually denying the resurrection, we should have
some evidence. But this identification, although probable, is not
certain. Still less certain is the identification of the Alexander
condemned here with "Alexander the coppersmith," who in 2 Tim. iv. 14 is
said to have done the Apostle much evil. But none of these questions is
of great moment. What is of importance to notice is the Apostolic
sentence upon the two blasphemers. And in it we have to notice four
points. (1) It is almost certainly not identical with excommunication by
the congregation, although it very probably was accompanied by this
other penalty. (2) It is of a very extraordinary character, being a
handing over into the power of the evil one. (3) Its object is the
reformation of the offenders, while at the same time (4) it serves as a
warning to others, lest they by similar offences should suffer so awful
a punishment. To all alike it brought home the serious nature of such
sins. Even at the cost of cutting off the right hand, or plucking out
the right eye, the Christian community must be kept pure in doctrine as
in life.
These two passages,--the one before us, and the one respecting the case
of incest at Corinth,--are conclusive as to St. Paul's teaching
respecting the existence and personality of the devil. They are
supported and illustrated by a number of other passages in his writings;
as when he tells the Thessalonians that "Satan hindered" his work, or
warns the Corinthians that "even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel
of light," and tells them that his own sore trouble in the flesh was,
like Job's, "a messenger of Satan to buffet" him. Not less clear is the
teaching of St. Peter and St. John in Epistles which, with those of St.
Paul to the Corinthians, are among the best authenticated works in
ancient literature. "Your adversary the devil as a roaring lion, walketh
about, seeking whom he may devour," says the one: "He that doeth sin is
of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning," says the other.
And, if we need higher authority, there is the declaration of Christ to
the malignant and unbelieving Jews. "Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is
a liar, and the father thereof."[32] With regard to this last passage,
those who deny the personal existence of Satan must maintain either (1)
that the Evangelist here attributes to Christ words which He never used;
or (2) that Christ was willing to make use of a monstrous superstition
in order to denounce his opponents with emphasis; or (3) that He Himself
erroneously believed in the existence of a being who was a mere figment
of an unenlightened imagination: in other words, that "the Son of God
was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil," when all
the while there was no devil and no works of his to be destroyed.
The first of these views cuts at the root of all trust in the Gospels as
historical documents. Words which imply that Satan is a person are
attributed to Christ by the Synoptists no less than by St. John; and if
the Evangelists are not to be believed in their report of Christ's
sayings on this topic, what security have we that they are to be
believed as to their reports of the rest of His teaching; or indeed as
to anything which they narrate? Again, how are we to account for the
very strong statements made by the Apostles themselves respecting the
evil one, if they had never heard anything of the kind from Christ.
The second view has been adopted by Schleiermacher, who thinks that
Christ accommodated His teaching to the ideas then prevalent among the
Jews respecting Satan without sharing them Himself. He knew that Satan
was a mere personification of the moral evil which every man finds in
his own nature and in that of his fellow-men: but the Jews believed in
the personality of this evil principle, and He acquiesced in the
belief, not as being true, but as offering no fundamental opposition to
His teaching. But is this consistent with the truthfulness of Christ? If
a personal devil is an empty superstition, He went out of his way to
confirm men in their belief in it. Why teach that the enemy who sowed
the tares is the devil? Why interpret the birds that snatch away the
freshly sown seed as Satan? It would have been so easy in each case to
have spoken of impersonal temptations. Again, what motive can Christ
have had for telling His _Apostles_ (not the ignorant and superstitious
multitude), that He Himself had endured the repeated solicitations of a
personal tempter, who had conversed and argued with Him?
Those who, like Strauss and Renan, believe Jesus of Nazareth to have
been a mere man, would naturally adopt the third view. In believing in
the personality of Satan Jesus merely shared the superstitions of His
age. To all those who wish to discuss with him whether we are still
Christians, Strauss declares that "the belief in a devil is one of the
most hideous sides of the ancient Christian faith," and that "the extent
to which this dangerous delusion still controls men's ideas or has been
banished from them is the very thing to regard as a measure of culture."
But at the same time he admits that "to remove so fundamental a stone is
dangerous for the whole edifice of the Christian faith. It was the young
Goethe who remarked against Bahrdt that if ever an idea was biblical,
this one [of the existence of a personal Satan] was such."[33] And
elsewhere Strauss declares that the conception of the Messiah and His
kingdom without the antithesis of an infernal kingdom with a personal
chief is as impossible as that of North pole without a South pole.[34]
To refuse to believe in an evil power external to ourselves is to
believe that human nature itself is diabolical. Whence come the devilish
thoughts that vex us even at the most sacred and solemn moments? If they
do not come from the evil one and his myrmidons, they come from
ourselves:--they are our own offspring. Such a belief might well drive
us to despair. So far from being a "hideous" element in the Christian
faith, the belief in a power, "_not ourselves_, that makes for"
wickedness, is a most consoling one. It has been said that, if there
were no God, we should have to invent one: and with almost equal truth
we might say that, if there were no devil, we should have to invent one.
Without a belief in God bad men would have little to induce them to
conquer their evil passions. Without a belief in a devil good men would
have little hope of ever being able to do so.
The passage before us supplies us with another consoling thought with
regard to this terrible adversary, who is always invisibly plotting
against us. It is often _for our own good_ that God allows him to have
an advantage over us. He is permitted to inflict loss upon us through
our persons and our property, as in the case of Job, and the woman whom
he bowed down for eighteen years, in order to chasten us and teach us
that "we have not here an abiding city." And he is permitted even to
lead us into sin, in order to save us from spiritual pride, and to
convince us that apart from Christ and in our own strength we can do
nothing. These are not Satan's motives, but they are God's motives in
allowing him to be "the ruler of this world," and to have much power
over human affairs. Satan inflicts suffering from love of inflicting it,
and leads into sin from love of sin: but God knows how to bring good out
of evil by making the evil one frustrate his own wiles. The devil
malignantly afflicts souls that come within his power; but the
affliction leads to those souls being "saved in the day of the Lord." It
had that blessed effect in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth.
Whether the same is true of Hymenaeus and Alexander, there is nothing in
Scripture to tell us. It is for us to take care that in our case the
chastisements which inevitably follow upon sin do not drive us further
and further into it, but teach us to sin no more.
FOOTNOTES:
[30] Dr. David Brown in Schaff's _Popular Commentary_, iii., p. 180.
[31] Heb. xii. 5, 11; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 25;
Luke xxiii. 16, 22: Soph., _Ajax_ 595; Xen., _Mem._ I. iii. 5.
[32] 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 14, xii. 7; 1 Pet. v. 8; 1 John iii. 8;
John viii. 44.
[33] Strauss, _Der alte und der neue Glaube_, p. 22.
[34] Herzog und Plitt, XV. p. 361.
CHAPTER VIII.
_ELEMENTS OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP; INTERCESSORY PRAYER AND
THANKSGIVING.--THE SOLIDARITY OF CHRISTENDOM AND OF THE HUMAN RACE._
"I exhort, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers,
intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men: for kings and all
that are in high places; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life
in all godliness and gravity"--1 TIM. ii. 1.
The first chapter of the Epistle is more or less introductory. It
repeats what St. Paul had already said to his beloved disciple by word
of mouth, on the subject of Christian doctrine, and the necessity of
keeping it pure. It makes a digression respecting the Apostle's own
conversion. It reminds Timothy of the hopeful prophecies uttered over
him at his ordination; and it points out the terrible consequences of
driving conscience from the helm and placing oneself in antagonism to
the Almighty. In this second chapter St Paul goes on to mention in order
the subjects which led to the writing of the letter; and the very first
exhortation which he has to give is that respecting Christian worship
and the duty of intercessory prayer and thanksgiving.
There are two things very worthy of remark in the treatment of the
subject of worship in the Pastoral Epistles. First, these letters bring
before us a more developed form of worship than we find indicated in
the earlier writings of St. Paul. It is still very primitive, but it has
grown. And this is exactly what we ought to expect, especially when we
remember how rapidly the Christian Church developed its powers during
the first century and a half. Secondly, the indications of this more
developed form of worship occur only in the letters to Timothy, which
deal with the condition of things in the Church of Ephesus, a Church
which had already been founded for a considerable time, and was in a
comparatively advanced stage of organization. Hence we are not surprised
to find in these two Epistles fragments of what appear to be primitive
liturgical forms. In the First Epistle we have two grand doxologies,
which may be the outcome of the Apostle's devotion at the moment, but
are quite as likely to be quotations of formulas well known to Timothy
(i. 17; vi. 15, 16). Between these two we have what looks like a portion
of a hymn in praise of Jesus Christ, suitable for singing antiphonally
(iii. 16; comp. Pliny, _Epp._ x. 96): and also what may be a baptismal
exhortation (vi. 12). In the Second Epistle we have traces of another
liturgical formula (ii. 11-13).
St. Paul of course does not mean, as the A.V. might lead us to suppose,
that in all Christian worship intercession ought to come first; still
less that intercession is the first duty of a Christian. But he does
place it first among those subjects about which he has to give
directions in this Epistle. He makes sure that it shall not be forgotten
by himself in writing to his delegate at Ephesus; and he wishes to make
sure that it shall not be forgotten by Timothy in his ministration. To
offer prayers and thanksgivings on behalf of all men is a duty of such
high importance that the Apostle places it first among the topics of his
pastoral charge.
Was it a duty which Timothy and the congregation committed to his care
had been neglecting, or were in serious danger of neglecting? It may
well have been so. In the difficulties of the overseer's own personal
position, and in the varied dangers to which his little flock were so
unceasingly exposed, the claims of others upon their united prayer and
praise may sometimes have been forgotten. When the Apostle had left
Timothy to take his place for a time in Ephesus he had hoped to return
very soon, and consequently had given him only brief and somewhat hasty
directions as to his course of action during his absence. He had been
prevented from returning; and there was a probability that Timothy would
have to be his representative for an indefinite period. Meanwhile the
difficulties of Timothy's position had not diminished. Many of his flock
were much older men than himself, and some of them had been elders in
the Church of Ephesus long before the Apostle's beloved disciple was
placed in charge of them. Some of the leaders in the congregation had
become tainted with the Gnostic errors with which the intellectual
atmosphere of Ephesus was charged, and were endeavouring to make
compromise and confusion between heathen lawlessness and Christian
liberty. Besides which, there was the bitter hostility of the Jews, who
regarded both Paul and Timothy as renegades from the faith of their
ancestors, and who never lost an opportunity of thwarting and reviling
them. Above all there was the ever-present danger of heathenism, which
confronted the Christians every time they left the shelter of their own
houses. In the city which counted it as its chief glory that it was the
"Temple-keeper of the great Artemis" (Acts xix. 35), every street
through which the Christians walked, and every heathen house which they
entered, was full of pagan abominations; to say nothing of the
magnificent temples, beautiful groves, and seductive idolatrous rites,
which were among the main features that attracted such motley crowds to
Ephesus. Amid difficulties and perils such as these, it would not be
wonderful if Timothy and those committed to his care had been somewhat
oblivious of the fact that "behind the mountains also there are people;"
that beyond the narrow limits of their contracted horizon there were
interests as weighty as their own--Christians who were as dear to God as
themselves, whose needs were as great as their own, and to whom the Lord
had been equally gracious; and moreover countless hosts of heathen, who
also were God's children, needing His help and receiving His blessings;
for all of whom, as well as for themselves, the Church in Ephesus was
bound to offer prayer and thanksgiving.
But there is no need to assume that Timothy, and those committed to his
care, had been specially neglectful of this duty. To keep clearly in
view our responsibilities towards the whole human race, or even towards
the whole Church, is so difficult a thing for all of us, that the
prominent place which St. Paul gives to the obligation to offer prayers
and thanksgivings for all men is quite intelligible, without the
supposition that the disciple whom he addresses was more in need of such
a charge than other ministers in the Churches under St. Paul's care.
The Apostle uses three different words for prayer, the second of which
is a general term and covers all kinds of prayer to God, and the first a
still more general term, including petitions addressed to man. Either
of the first two would embrace the third, which indicates a bold and
earnest approach to the Almighty to implore some great benefit. None of
the three words necessarily means intercession in the sense of prayer
_on behalf of others_. This idea comes from the context. St. Paul says
plainly that it is prayers and thanksgivings "for all men" that he
desires to have made: and in all probability he did not carefully
distinguish in his mind the shades of meaning which are proper to the
three terms which he uses. Whatever various kinds of supplication there
may be which are offered by man at the throne of grace, he urges that
the whole human race are to have the benefit of them. Obviously, as
Chrysostom long ago pointed out, we cannot limit the Apostle's "all men"
to all believers. Directly he enters into detail he mentions "kings and
all that are in high place;" and in St. Paul's day not a single king,
and we may almost say not a single person in high place, was a believer.
The scope of a Christian's desires and gratitude, when he appears before
the Lord, must have no narrower limit than that which embraces the whole
human race. This important principle, the Apostle charges his
representative, must be exhibited in the public worship of the Church in
Ephesus.
The solidarity of the whole body of Christians, however distant from one
another in space and time, however different from one another in
nationality, in discipline, and even in creed, is a magnificent fact, of
which we all of us need from time to time to be reminded, and which,
even when we are reminded of it, we find it somewhat difficult to grasp.
Members of sects that we never heard of, dwelling in remote regions of
which we do not even know the names, are nevertheless united to us by
the eternal ties of a common baptism and a common belief in God and in
Jesus Christ. The eastern sectarian in the wilds of Asia, and the
western sectarian in the backwoods of North America, are members of
Christ and our brethren; and as such have spiritual interests identical
with our own, for which it is not only our duty but our advantage to
pray. "Whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or
one member is honoured, all the members rejoice with it." The ties which
bind Christians to one another are at once so subtle and so real, that
it is impossible for one Christian to remain unaffected by the progress
or retrogression of any other. Therefore, not only does the law of
Christian charity require us to aid all our fellow-Christians by praying
for them, but the law of self-interest leads us to do so also; for their
advance will assuredly help us forward, and their relapse will assuredly
keep us back. All this is plain matter of fact, revealed to us by Christ
and His apostles, and confirmed by our own experience, so far as our
feeble powers of observation are able to supply a test. Nevertheless, it
is a fact of such enormous proportions (even without taking into account
our close relationship with those who have passed away from this world),
that even with our best efforts we fail to realize it in its immensity.
What shall we say, then, about the difficulty of realizing the
solidarity of the whole human race? For they also are God's offspring,
and as such are of one family with ourselves. If it is hard to remember
that the welfare of the humblest member of a remote and obscure
community in Christendom intimately concerns ourselves, how shall we
keep in view the fact that we have both interests and obligations in
reference to the wildest and most degraded heathens in the heart of
Africa or in the islands of the Pacific? Here is a fact on a far more
stupendous scale; for in the population of the globe, those who are not
even in name Christians, outnumber us by at least three to one. And yet
let us never forget that our interest in these countless multitudes,
whom we have never seen and never shall see in this life, is not a mere
graceful sentiment or empty flourish of rhetoric, but a sober and solid
fact. The hackneyed phrase, "a man and a brother," represents a vital
truth. Every human being is one of our brethren, and, whether we like
the responsibility or not, we are still our "brother's keeper." In our
keeping, to a very real extent, lie the supreme issues of his spiritual
life, and we have to look to it that we discharge our trust faithfully.
We read with horror, and it may be with compassion, of the monstrous
outrages committed by savage chiefs upon their subjects, their wives, or
their enemies. We forget that the guilt of these things may lie partly
at our door, because we have not done our part in helping forward
civilizing influences which would have prevented such horrors, above all
because we have not prayed as we ought for those who commit them. There
are few of us who have not some opportunities of giving assistance in
various ways to missionary enterprise and humanizing efforts. But all of
us can at least pray for God's blessing upon such things, and for His
mercy upon those who are in need of it. Of those who, having nothing
else to give, give their struggles after holiness and their prayers for
their fellow-men, the blessed commendation stands written, "They have
done what they could."
"For kings and all that are in high place." It is quite a mistake to
suppose that "kings" here means the Roman Emperors. This has been
asserted, and from this misinterpretation has been deduced the
erroneous conclusion that the letter must have been written at a time
when it was customary for the Emperor to associate another prince with
him in the empire, with a view to securing the succession. As Hadrian
was the first to do this, and that near to the close of his reign, this
letter (it is urged) cannot be earlier than A.D. 138. But this
interpretation is impossible, for "kings" in the Greek has no article.
Had the writer meant the two reigning Emperors, whether Hadrian and
Antoninus, or M. Aurelius and Verus, he would inevitably have written
"for _the_ kings and for all in high place." The expression "for kings,"
obviously means "for monarchs of all descriptions," including the Roman
Emperor, but including many other potentates also. Such persons, as
having the heaviest responsibilities and the greatest power of doing
good and evil, have an especial claim upon the prayers of Christians. It
gives us a striking illustration of the transforming powers of
Christianity when we think of St. Paul giving urgent directions that
among the persons to be remembered first in the intercessions of the
Church are Nero and the men whom he put "in high place," such as Otho
and Vitellius, who afterwards became Emperor: and this, too, after
Nero's peculiarly cruel and wanton persecution of the Christians A.D.
64. How firmly this beautiful practice became established among
Christians, is shown from their writings in the second and third
centuries. Tertullian, who lived through the reigns of such monsters as
Commodus and Elagabalus, who remembered the persecution under M.
Aurelius, and witnessed that under Septimius Severus, can nevertheless
write thus of the Emperor of Rome: "A Christian is the enemy of no one,
least of all of the Emperor, whom he knows to have been appointed by
his God, and whom he therefore of necessity loves, and reverences, and
honours, and desires his well-being, with that of the whole Roman
Empire, so long as the world shall stand; for it shall last as long. To
the Emperor, therefore, we render such homage as is lawful for us and
good for him, as the human being who comes next to God, and is what he
is by God's decree, and to God alone is inferior.... And so we sacrifice
also for the well-being of the Emperor; but to our God and his; but in
the way that God has ordained, with a prayer that is pure. For God, the
Creator of the universe, has no need of odours or of blood."[35] In
another passage Tertullian anticipates the objection that Christians
pray for the Emperor, in order to curry favour with the Roman government
and thus escape persecution. He says that the heathen have only to look
into the Scriptures, which to Christians are the voice of God, and see
that to pray for their enemies and to pray for those in authority is a
fundamental rule with Christians. And he quotes the passage before
us.[36] But he appears to misunderstand the concluding words of the
Apostle's injunction,--"that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in
all godliness and gravity." Tertullian understands this as a reason for
praying for kings and rulers; because they are the preservers of the
public peace, and any disturbance in the empire will necessarily affect
the Christians as well as other subjects,--which is giving a rather
narrow and selfish motive for this great duty. "That we may lead a
tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity," is the object and
consequence, not of our praying for kings and rulers in particular, but
of our offering prayers and thanksgivings _on behalf of all men_.
When this most pressing obligation is duly discharged, then, and only
then, can we hope with tranquil consciences to be able to live Christian
lives in retirement from the rivalries and jealousies and squabbles of
the world. Only in the attitude of mind which makes us pray and give
thanks for our fellow-men is the tranquillity of a godly life possible.
The enemies of Christian peace and quietness are anxiety and strife. Are
we anxious about the well-being of those near and dear to us, or of
those whose interests are bound up with our own? Let us pray for them.
Have we grave misgivings respecting the course which events are taking
in Church, or in State, or in any of the smaller societies to which we
belong? Let us offer supplications and intercessions on behalf of all
concerned in them. Prayer offered in faith to the throne of grace will
calm our anxiety, because it will assure us that all is in God's hand,
and that in His own good time He will bring good out of the evil. Are we
at strife with our neighbours, and is this a constant source of
disturbance? Let us pray for them. Fervent and frequent prayers for
those who are hostile to us will certainly secure this much,--that we
ourselves become more wary about giving provocation; and this will go a
long way towards bringing the attainment of our desire for the entire
cessation of the strife. Is there any one to whom we have taken a strong
aversion, whose very presence is a trial to us, whose every gesture and
every tone irritates us, and the sight of whose handwriting makes us
shiver, because of its disturbing associations? Let us pray for him.
Sooner or later dislike must give way to prayer. It is impossible to go
on taking a real interest in the welfare of another, and at the same
time to go on detesting him. And if our prayers for his welfare are
genuine, a real interest in it there must be. Is there any one of whom
we are jealous? Of whose popularity, so dangerous to our own, we are
envious? Whose success--quite undeserved success, as it seems to
us--disgusts and frightens us? Whose mishaps and failures, nay even
whose faults and misdeeds, give us pleasure and satisfaction? Let us
thank God for the favour which He bestows upon this man. Let us praise
our heavenly Father for having in His wisdom and His justice given to
another of His children what He denies to us; and let us pray Him to
keep this other from abusing His gifts.
Yes, let us never forget that not only prayers but _thanksgivings_ are
to be offered _for all men_. He who is so good to the whole Church, of
which we are members, and to the great human family to which we belong,
certainly has claim upon the gratitude of every human being, and
especially of every Christian. His bounty is not given by measure or by
merit. He maketh His sun to shine upon the evil and the good, and
sendeth His rain upon the just and the unjust: and shall we pick and
choose as to what we will thank Him for, and what not? The sister who
loves her erring or her half-witted brother is grateful to her father
for the care which he bestows upon his graceless and his useless son.
And shall we not give thanks to our heavenly Father for the benefits
which He bestows on the countless multitudes whose interests are so
closely interwoven with our own? Benefits bestowed upon any human being
are an answer to our prayers, and as such we are bound to give thanks
for them. How much more grateful shall we be, when we are able to look
on them as benefits bestowed upon those whom we love!
This is the cause of so much of our failure in prayer. We do not couple
our prayers with thanksgiving; or at any rate our thanksgivings are far
less hearty than our prayers. We give thanks for benefits received by
ourselves: we forget to give thanks "for all men." Above all, we forget
that the truest gratitude is shown, not in words or feelings, but in
conduct. We should send good deeds after good words to heaven. Not that
our ingratitude provokes God to withhold His gifts; but that it does
render us less capable of receiving them. For the sake of others no less
than for ourselves let us remember the Apostle's charge that
"thanksgivings be made for all men." We cannot give plenty and
prosperity to the nations of the earth. We cannot bestow on them peace
and tranquillity. We cannot bring them out of darkness to God's glorious
light. We cannot raise them from impurity to holiness. We can only do a
little, a very little, towards these great ends. But one thing we can
do. We can at least thank Him who has already bestowed some, and is
preparing to bestow others, of these blessings. We can praise Him for
the end towards which He will have all things work.--"He willeth that
_all_ men should be saved" (ver. 4), "that God may be all in all."
FOOTNOTES:
[35] _Ad Scapulam_, ii.
[36] _Apol._, xxxi.
CHAPTER IX.
_BEHAVIOUR IN CHRISTIAN WORSHIP: MEN'S ATTITUDE OF BODY AND MIND:
WOMEN'S ATTIRE AND ORNAMENT._
"I desire, therefore, that the men pray in every place, lifting up
holy hands, without wrath and disputing. In like manner, that women
adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and
sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly
raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through
good works. Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But
I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but
to be in quietness."--1 TIM. ii. 8-12.
In the preceding verses of this chapter, St. Paul has been insisting on
the duty of unselfishness in our devotions. Our prayers and
thanksgivings are not to be bounded in their scope by our own personal
interests, but are to include the whole human race; and for this obvious
and sufficient reason,--that in using such devotions we know that our
desires are in harmony with the mind of God, "who willeth that _all_ men
should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." Having thus
laid down the principles which are to guide Christian congregations in
the _subject-matter_ of their prayers and thanksgivings, he passes on
now to give some directions respecting the _behaviour_ of men and women,
when they meet together for common worship of the one God and the one
Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.
There is no reasonable doubt (although the point has been disputed) that
St. Paul is here speaking of public worship in the congregation; the
whole context implies it. Some of the directions would be scarcely
intelligible, if we were to suppose that the Apostle is thinking of
private devotions, or even of family prayer in Christian households. And
we are not to suppose that he is indirectly finding fault with other
forms of worship, Jewish or heathen. He is merely laying down certain
principles which are to guide Christians, whether at Ephesus or
elsewhere, in the conduct of public service. Thus there is no special
emphasis on "in every place," as if the meaning were, "Our ways are not
like those of the Jews; for they were not allowed to sacrifice and
perform their services anywhere, but assembling from all parts of the
world were bound to perform all their worship in the temple. For as
Christ commanded us to pray for _all_ men, because He died for all men,
so it is good to pray _everywhere_."[37] Such an antithesis between
Jewish and Christian worship, even if it were true, would not be in
place here. Every place is a place of private prayer to both Jew and
Christian alike: but not every place is a place of public prayer to the
Christian any more than to the Jew.[38] Moreover, the Greek shows
plainly that the emphasis is not on "in every place," but on "pray."
Wherever there may be a customary "house of prayer," whether in Ephesus
or anywhere else, the Apostle desires that prayers should be offered
publicly by the men in the congregation. After "pray," the emphasis
falls on "the men," public prayer is to be made, and it is to be
conducted by the men and not by the women in the congregation.
It is evident from this passage, as from 1 Cor. xiv., that in this
primitive Christian worship great freedom was allowed. There is no
Bishop, President, or Elder, to whom the right of leading the service or
uttering the prayers and thanksgivings is reserved. This duty and
privilege is shared by all the males alike. In the recently discovered
_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ nothing is said as to who is to offer
the prayers, of which certain forms are given. It is merely stated that
in addition to these forms _extempore_ prayer may be offered by "the
prophets." And Justin Martyr mentions that a similar privilege was
allowed to "the president" of the congregation according to his
ability.[39] Thus we seem to trace a gradual increase of strictness, a
development of ecclesiastical order, very natural under the
circumstances. First, all the men in the congregation are allowed to
conduct public worship, as here and in 1 Corinthians. Then, the right of
adding to the prescribed forms is restricted to the prophets, as in the
_Didache_. Next, this right is reserved to the presiding minister, as in
Justin Martyr. And lastly, free prayer is abolished altogether. We need
not assume that precisely this development took place in all the
Churches; but that something analogous took place in nearly all. Nor
need we assume that the development was simultaneous: while one Church
was at one stage of the process, another was more advanced, and a third
less so. Again, we may conjecture that forms of prayer gradually
increased in number, and in extent, and in stringency. But in the
directions here given to Timothy we are at the beginning of the
development.
"Lifting up holy hands." Here again we need not suspect any polemical
purpose. St. Paul is not insinuating that, when Gnostics or heathen lift
up their hands in prayer, their hands are not holy. Just as every
Christian is ideally a saint, so every hand that is lifted up in prayer
is holy. In thus stating the ideal, the Apostle inculcates the
realization of it. There is a monstrous incongruity in one who comes
red-handed from the commission of a sin, lifting up the very members
which witness against him, in order to implore a blessing from the God
whom he has outraged. The same idea is expressed in more general terms
by St. Peter: "Like as He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves
also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, ye shall be
holy; for I am holy" (1 Pet. i. 15, 16). In a passage more closely
parallel to this, Clement of Rome says, "Let us therefore approach Him
in holiness of soul, _lifting up pure and undefiled hands unto Him_,
with love towards our gentle and compassionate Father who made us an
elect portion unto Himself" (_Cor._ xxix). And Tertullian urges that "a
defiled spirit cannot be recognized by the Holy Spirit" (_De Orat._,
xiii). Nowhere else in the New Testament do we read of this attitude of
lifting up the hands during prayer. But to this day it is common in the
East. Solomon at the dedication of the temple "stood before the altar of
the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and _spread
forth his hands toward heaven_" (1 Kings viii. 22); and the Psalmist
repeatedly speaks of "lifting up the hands" in worship (xxviii. 2;
lxiii. 4; cxxxiv. 2). Clement of Alexandria seems to have regarded it as
the ideal attitude in prayer, as symbolizing the desire of the body to
abstract itself from the earth, following the eagerness of the spirit in
yearning for heavenly things.[40] Tertullian, on the other hand,
suggests that the arms are spread out in prayer in memory of the
crucifixion, and directs that they should be extended, but only slightly
raised, an attitude which is more in harmony with a humble spirit: and
in another place he says that the Christian by his very posture in
prayer is ready for every infliction. He asserts that the Jews in his
day did _not_ raise the hands in prayer, and characteristically gives as
a reason that they were stained with the blood of the Prophets and of
Christ. With evident reference to this passage, he says that Christian
hands must be lifted up pure from falsehood, murder, and all other sins
of which the hands can be the instruments.[41] Ancient Christian
monuments of the earliest age frequently represent the faithful as
standing with raised hands to pray. Eusebius tells us that Constantine
had himself represented in this attitude on his coins, "looking upwards,
stretching up toward God, like one praying."[42] Of course this does not
mean that kneeling was unusual or irregular; there is plenty of evidence
to the contrary. But the attitude here commended by St. Paul was very
ancient when he wrote, and has continued in some parts of the world ever
since. Like so many other things in natural religion and in Judaism, it
received a new and intensified meaning when it was adopted among the
usages of the Christian Church.
"Without wrath and disputing:" that is, in the spirit of Christian peace
and trust. Ill-will and misgiving respecting one another are
incompatible with united prayer to our common Father. The atmosphere of
controversy is not congenial to devotion. Christ Himself has told us to
be reconciled to our brother before presuming to offer our gift on the
altar. In a similar spirit St. Paul directs that those who are to
conduct public service in the sanctuary must do so without angry
feelings or mutual distrust. In the Pastoral Epistles warnings against
quarrelsome conduct are frequent; and the experience of every one of us
tells us how necessary they are. The bishop is charged to be "no
brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious." The deacons must not
be "double-tongued." Women must not be "slanderers." Young widows have
to be on their guard against being "tattlers and busybodies." Timothy is
charged to "follow after ... love, patience, meekness," and is reminded
that "the Lord's servant must not strive, but be gentle towards all, apt
to teach, forbearing, in meekness correcting them that oppose
themselves." Titus again is told that a bishop must be "not self-willed,
not soon angry," "no brawler, no striker," that the aged women must not
be "slanderers," that all men are to be put in mind "to speak evil of no
man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward
all men."[43] There is no need to assume that that age, or that those
Churches, had any special need of warnings of this kind. All ages and
all Churches need them. To keep one's tongue and one's temper in due
order is to all of us one of the most constant and necessary duties of
the Christian life; and the neglect cannot fail to be disastrous to the
reality and efficacy of our devotions. Those who have ill-will and
strife in their hearts cannot unite to much purpose in common
thanksgiving and prayer.
And just as the men have to take care that their attitude of body and
mind is such as befits the dignity of public worship, in like manner the
women also have to take care that their presence in the congregation
does not appear incongruous. They must come in seemly attire and with
seemly behaviour. Everything which might divert attention from the
service to themselves must be avoided. Modesty and simplicity must at
all times be the characteristics of a Christian woman's dress and
bearing; but at no time is this more necessary than in the public
services of the Church. Excessive adornment, out of place at all times,
is grievously offensive there. It gives a flat contradiction to the
profession of humility which is involved in taking part in common
worship, and to that natural sobriety which is a woman's fairest
ornament and best protection. Both reverence and self-reverence are
injured by it. Moreover, it may easily be a cause of offence to others,
by provoking jealousy or admiration of the creature, where all ought to
be absorbed in the worship of the Creator.
Here again St. Paul is putting his finger upon dangers and evils which
are not peculiar to any age or any Church. He had spoken of the same
thing years before, to the women of Corinth, and St. Peter utters
similar warnings to Christian women throughout all time.[44] Clement of
Alexandria abounds in protests against the extravagance in dress so
common in his own day. In one place he says; "Apelles the painter seeing
one of his pupils painting a figure thickly with gold colour to
represent Helen, said to him; 'My lad, you were unable to paint her
beautiful, and so you have made her rich.' Such Helens are the ladies of
the present day; not really beautiful, but richly got up. To these the
Spirit prophesies by Zephaniah: And their gold shall not be able to
deliver them in the day of the Lord's anger."[45] Tertullian is not less
emphatic. He says that most Christian women dress like heathen, as if
modesty required nothing more than stopping short of actual impurity.
"What is the use," he asks, "of showing a decent and Christian
simplicity in your face, while you load the rest of your body with the
dangling absurdities of pomps and vanities?"[46] Chrysostom also, in
commenting on this very passage, asks the congregation at Antioch: "And
what then is _modest apparel_? Such as covers them completely and
decently, and not with superfluous ornaments; for the one is decent and
the other is not. What? Do you approach God to pray with broidered hair
and ornaments of gold? Are you come to a ball? to a marriage-feast? to a
carnival? There such costly things might have been seasonable: here not
one of them is wanted. You are come to pray, to ask pardon for your
sins, to plead for your offences, beseeching the Lord, and hoping to
render Him propitious to you. Away with such hypocrisy! God is not
mocked. This is the attire of actors and dancers, who live upon the
stage. Nothing of this kind becomes a modest woman, who should be
adorned with shamefastness and sobriety.... And if St. Paul" (he
continues) "would remove those things which are merely the marks of
wealth, as gold, pearls, and costly array; how much more those things
which imply studied adornment, as painting, colouring the eyes, a
mincing walk, an affected voice, a languishing look? For he glances at
all these things in speaking of modest apparel and shamefastness."
But there is no need to go to Corinth in the first century, or
Alexandria and Carthage in the second and third, or Antioch in the
fourth, in order to show that the Apostle was giving no unnecessary
warning in admonishing Timothy respecting the dress and behaviour of
Christian women, especially in the public services of the congregation.
In our own age and our own Church we can find abundant illustration.
Might not any preacher in any fashionable congregation echo with a good
deal of point the questions of Chrysostom? "Have you come to dance or a
levée? Have you mistaken this building for a theatre?" And what would be
the language of a Chrysostom or a Paul if he were to enter a theatre
nowadays and see the attire, I will not say of the actresses, but of the
audience? There are some rough epithets, not often heard in polite
society, which express in plain language the condition of those women
who by their manner of life and conversation have forfeited their
characters. Preachers in earlier ages were accustomed to speak very
plainly about such things: and what the Apostle and Chrysostom have
written in their epistles and homilies does not leave us in much doubt
as to what would have been their manner of speaking of them.
But what is urged here is sufficient. "You are Christian women," says
St. Paul, "and the profession which you have adopted is reverence
towards God (=theosebeian=). This profession you have made known to the
world. It is necessary, therefore, that those externals of which the
world takes cognisance should not give the lie to your profession. And
how is unseemly attire, paraded at the very time of public worship,
compatible with the reverence which you have professed? Reverence God by
reverencing yourselves; by guarding with jealous care the dignity of
those bodies with which He has endowed you. Reverence God by coming
before Him clothed both in body and soul in fitting attire. Let your
bodies be freed from meretricious decoration. Let your souls be adorned
with abundance of good works."
FOOTNOTES:
[37] So Chrysostom _in loco_: but this is an exaggeration respecting
Jewish limitations.
[38] See Clement of Rome, _Cor._ xli.
[39] _Didache_, x. 7; Just. Mart., _Apol._, 1. lxvii. Justin probably
uses the term "president" =ho proestôs= in order to be intelligible to
heathen readers.
[40] _Strom._, VII. vii.
[41] _De Orat._, xiii., xiv., xvii.; _Apol._ xxx.; Comp. _Adv. Jud._, x.
[42] _Vit. Const._, IV. xv. 1.
[43] 1 Tim. iii. 3, 8, 11; v. 13; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Tit. i. 7; ii.
3; iii. 2.
[44] 1 Cor. xi. 2-16; 1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.
[45] _Paed._, II. xiii.
[46] _De Cult Fem._, II. i. ix.
CHAPTER X.
_ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY; VARIOUS CERTAINTIES AND PROBABILITIES
DISTINGUISHED._
"If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one
wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to
teach; no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover
of money; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in
subjection with all gravity; (but if a man knoweth not how to rule
his own house, how shall he take care of the house of God?) not a
novice, lest being puffed up he fall into the condemnation of the
devil. Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are
without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
Deacons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued, not given
to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the
faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then
let them serve as deacons, if they be blameless."--1 TIM. iii. 1-10.
This passage is one of the most important in the New Testament
respecting the Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does
not stand alone. Of the two classes of ministers mentioned here, one is
again touched upon in the Epistle to Titus (i. 5-9), and the
qualifications for this office, which is evidently the superior of the
two, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used in
the passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the
Pastoral Epistles would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to
arrive at some conclusions respecting the question of the primitive
Christian ministry; a question which at the present time is being
investigated with immense industry and interest, and with some clear and
substantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last word
will have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which
considerable difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable:
and those persons would seem to be least worthy of consideration, who
are most confident that they are in possession of the whole truth on the
subject. One of the first requisites in the examination of questions of
fact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is certain from what
is not certain: and the person who is confident that he has attained to
certainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant
certainty, is not a trustworthy guide.
It would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon
all the points which have been raised in connexion with this problem;
but some service will have been rendered if a few of the more important
features of the question are pointed out and classified under the two
heads just indicated, as certain or not certain. In any scientific
enquiry, whether historical or experimental, this classification is a
useful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of
certainties. When the group of certainties has been properly
investigated, and when the various items have been placed in their
proper relations to one another and to the whole of which they are only
constituent parts, the result is likely to be a transfer of other items
from the domain of what is only probable or possible to the domain of
what is certain.
At the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is
meant, in a question of this kind, by _certainty_. There are no limits
to scepticism, as the history of speculative philosophy has abundantly
shown. It is possible to question one's own existence, and still more
possible to question the irresistible evidence of one's senses or the
irresistible conclusions of one's reason. _A fortiori_ it is possible to
throw doubt upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the
assassinations of Julius Caesar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the
AEneid and of the Epistles to the Corinthians, among things that are not
certain. They cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid or an
experiment in chemistry or physics. But a sceptical criticism of this
kind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of
certainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the
nature of the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to
treat evidence as adequate, which they would be willing to recognize as
such in matters of very serious moment to themselves. There is a certain
amount of evidence which to a person of trained and well-balanced mind
makes a thing "practically certain:" _i.e._, with this amount of
evidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption that the
thing was true.
In the question before us there are four or five things which may with
great reason be treated as practically certain.
1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian
ministry, _has no practical bearing upon the lives of Christians_. For
us the problem is one of historical interest without moral import. As
students of Church History we are bound to investigate the _origines_ of
the ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that history:
but our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the
result of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution
consisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged
from the close of the second century to the close of the Middle Ages,
and which has existed down to the present day in all the three great
branches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and Anglican, is no
way affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church
during the century which separates the writings of St. John from the
writings of his disciple's disciple, Irenaeus, was as a rule episcopal,
collegiate, or presbyterian. For a churchman who accepts the episcopal
form of government as essential to the well-being of a Church, the
enormous prescription which that form has acquired during at least
seventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to
be serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of
the various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no
practical difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which
is already ample. To prove that the episcopal form of government was
founded by the Apostles may have been a matter of great practical
importance in the middle of the second century. But, before that century
had closed, the practical question, _if there ever was one_, had settled
itself. God's providence ordained that the universal form of Church
government should be the episcopal form and should continue to be such;
and for us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which
it became universal was through the instrumentality and influence of
Apostles. On the other hand, to prove that episcopacy was established
independently of Apostolic influence would detract very little from its
accumulated authority.
2. A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this
question, is, that _for the period which joins the age of Irenaeus to the
age of St. John, we have not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything
like proof_. The evidence has received important additions during the
present century, and still more important additions are by no means
impossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And the
evidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large
as compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in
itself, the literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty.
Secondly, the dates of some of the most important witnesses cannot as
yet be accurately determined. In many cases to be able to fix the date
of a document within twenty or thirty years is quite sufficient: but
this is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really
serious difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to
the date of some of the writings which are our principal sources of
information; _e.g._, the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, the Epistles
of Ignatius, the _Shepherd of Hermas_ and the _Clementines_. Here also
our position may improve. Further research may enable us to date some of
these documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty about
precise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that
with regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing
that can fairly be called proof is possible respecting the interval
which separates the last quarter of the first century from the last
quarter of the second.
This feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful
metaphor that the history of the Church just at this period "passes
through a tunnel" or "runs underground." We are in the light of day
during most of the time covered by the New Testament; and we are again
in the light of day directly we reach the time covered by the abundant
writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. But
during the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness, but
in a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an
occasional lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about
which the one thing that is certain is that many certainties are not
likely to be found in it, we pass on to look for our two next
certainties in the periods which precede and follow it.
3. In the period covered by the New Testament it is certain that the
Church had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not
discharged by ordinary Christians; in other words _a distinction was
made from the first between clergy and laity_. Of this fact the Pastoral
Epistles contain abundant evidence; and further evidence is scattered up
and down the New Testament, from the earliest document in the volume to
the last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly
the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St.
Paul beseeching the Church of the Thessalonians "to know them that
_labour among you_, and _are over you in the Lord_, and _admonish_ you;
and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work's sake" (v.
12, 13). The three functions here enumerated are evidently functions to
be exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not duties which
every one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St.
John, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest,
of the writings contained in the New Testament, the incident about
Diotrephes seems to show that not only ecclesiastical government, but
ecclesiastical government by a single official, was already in existence
in the Church in which Diotrephes "loved to have the pre-eminence" (9,
10). In between these two we have the exhortation in the Epistle to the
Hebrews: "Obey them that _have the rule over you_ and submit to them:
for they watch in behalf of your _souls_, as they that shall give
account" (xiii. 17). And directly we go outside the New Testament and
look at the Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth,
commonly called the First Epistle of Clement, we find the same
distinction between clergy and laity observed. In this letter, which
almost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read
that the Apostles, "preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed
their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be
bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in
no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and
deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a
certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their
deacons in faith"--the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the
LXX. of Isa. lx. 17. And a little further on Clement writes: "Our
Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife
over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause, therefore, having
received complete fore-knowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons,
and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall
asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those
therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of
repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered
unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and
with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with
all--these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their
ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those
who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily.
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe, for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have
displaced certain persons, though they were living honourably, from the
ministration which they had kept blamelessly" (xlii., xliv.).
Three things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what
has been found in the New Testament. (1) There is a clear distinction
made between clergy and laity. (2) This distinction is not a temporary
arrangement, but is the basis of a permanent organization. (3) A person
who has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter or
bishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to
Titus) holds that position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious
offence, to depose him is no light sin.
None of these passages, either in the New Testament or in Clement, tell
us very clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as
distinct from the laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these
functions were of a spiritual rather than of a secular character, that
they concerned men's souls rather than their bodies, and that they were
connected with religious service (=leitourgia=). But the one thing which
is quite clear is this,--that the Church had, and was always intended to
have, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they
ministered and over which they ruled.
4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of
the Church returns once more to the full light of day, in the last
quarter of the second century. Then we find two things quite clearly
established, which have continued in Christendom from that day to this.
We find a _regularly organized clergy_, not only distinctly marked off
from the laity, but distinctly _marked off among themselves by well
defined gradations of rank_. And, secondly, we find that _each local
Church is constitutionally governed by one chief officer_, whose powers
are large and seldom resisted, and _who universally receives the title
of bishop_. To these two points we may add a third. There is no trace of
any belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of these local
Churches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence (and
it is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the
latter part of the second century--say A.D. 180 to 200--were fully
persuaded that the episcopal form of government had prevailed in the
different Churches from the Apostles' time to their own. Just as in the
case of the Gospels, Irenaeus and his contemporaries not only do not know
of either more or less than the four which have come down to us, but
cannot conceive of there ever being either more or less than these four:
so in the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy
as everywhere prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any
previous time any other form of government prevailed. And although
Irenaeus, like St. Paul and Clement of Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops
under the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear that there were at
that time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not possess
episcopal authority. Irenaeus himself was such a presbyter, until the
martyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy
in the see of Lyons, which Irenaeus was then called upon to fill; and he
held the see for upwards of twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202.
From Irenaeus and from his contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we
learn not only the fact that episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in
not a few cases, the name of the existing bishop; and in some cases the
names of their predecessors are given up to the times of the Apostles.
Thus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is
connected with "the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul": and, in
the case of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been
appointed first bishop of that Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or
may not be correct: but at least it shows that in the time of Irenaeus
and Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only recognized as the
universal form of Church government, but was also believed to have
prevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times.[47]
5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the
Churches of Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty
from the obscure period which lies between the age of the Apostles and
that of Dionysius and Irenaeus. The investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn,
and Harnack have placed the genuineness of the short Greek form of the
Epistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact date cannot
as yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred
in the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be
later than A.D. 117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not
conclusive, and the letters be dated ten or twelve years later, their
testimony will still be of the utmost importance. They prove that long
before A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government
throughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks
of "the bishops that are settled _in the farthest parts of the earth_
(=kata ta perata horisthentes=)" they prove that, according to his
belief, episcopacy was the recognized form everywhere (_Ephes._ iii.).
This evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that, as all
sound critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius
were evidently not written in order to magnify the episcopal office, or
to preach up the episcopal system. The writer's main object is to
deprecate schism and all that might tend to schism. And in his opinion
the best way to avoid schism is to keep closely united to the bishop.
Thus, the magnifying of the episcopal office comes about incidentally;
because Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in
each Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will
be a security against all schismatical tendencies.
These four or five points being regarded as established to an extent
which may reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other
points about which certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of
a probable solution, while for others there is so little evidence that
we have to fall back upon mere conjecture. Among these would be the
distinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the clergy in the
first century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise
functions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With
regard to these questions three positions may be assumed with a
considerable amount of probability.
1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy
and stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles
(who are a much larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists.
Among the latter we have two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons,
as here and in the Epistle to the Philippians (i. 1) as well as in the
_Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_, presbyter or elder being sometimes
used as synonymous with bishop. This distinction between an itinerant
and a stationary ministry appears in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians (xii. 28), in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 11), and
perhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St.
John. In the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ it is clearly marked.
2. There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did,
and those who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title
of prophet was commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who
possessed this gift: and the _Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles_ shows a
great respect for prophets. But the distinction naturally died out when
these supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested. During the process of
extinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine prophet.
Some fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some
dishonest persons pretended to be prophets, when they were not such. The
office appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he
always means the prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably
a forlorn attempt to revive this much desired office after the Church as
a whole had decided against it. Further discussion of the gift of
prophecy in the New Testament will be found in a previous chapter (vi.).
3. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or
representatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be
discharged by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and
their successors or substitutes. Where the congregation selected or
recommended candidates, as in the case of the Seven Deacons (Acts vi.
4-6), they did not themselves lay hands on them. The typical act of
laying on of hands was always performed by those who were already
ministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was
still open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is
good reason for believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was
from the first reserved to the clergy, and that all ministers, excepting
prophets, were expected to use a prescribed form of words in celebrating
it.
But, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to
a close. In the ideal Church there is no Lord's Day or holy seasons, for
all days are the Lord's, and all seasons are holy; there are no places
especially dedicated to God's worship, for the whole universe is His
temple; there are no persons especially ordained to be His ministers,
for all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it
exists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places
holy ends in the desecration of all alike; and the theory that all
Christians are priests becomes indistinguishable from the theory that
none are such. In this matter let us not try to be wiser than God, Whose
will may be discerned in His providential guiding of His Church
throughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to
anticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the
conditions of Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous
confusion.
In conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They
come with special force from one who does not himself belong to an
Episcopalian Church.
"By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view
of what the Church is must be affected and moulded. We shall either
accept the idea of a visible and organized body, within which Christ
rules by means of a ministry, sacraments, and ordinances to which He has
attached a blessing, _the fulness of which we have no right to look for
except through the channels He has ordained_ (and it ought to be
needless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest
satisfied with the thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of
individual souls known to God alone, as invisible, unorganized, with
ordinances blessed because of the memories which they awaken, but to
which no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short, no thought of
a Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly
principle ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men.
Conceptions of the Church so widely different from each other cannot
fail to affect in the most vital manner the Church's life and relation
to those around her. Yet both conceptions are the logical and necessary
result of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a divinely appointed
and still living priesthood among men."[48]
FOOTNOTES:
[47] See an admirable article on the Christian ministry by Dr. Salmon in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1887; also the present writer's _Church of the
Early Fathers_, pp. 58 ff.; 92 ff.; 2nd ed. Longmans, 1887.
[48] Professor W. Milligan, D.D., on "The Idea of the Priesthood," in
the _Expositor_ for July, 1888, p. 7.
CHAPTER XI.
_THE APOSTLE'S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES; ITS MEANING AND PRESENT
OBLIGATION._
"The husband of one wife."--1 TIM. iii. 2.
The Apostle here states, as one of the first qualifications to be looked
for in a person who is to be ordained a bishop, that he must be "husband
of one wife." The precise meaning of this phrase will probably never
cease to be discussed. But, although it must be admitted that the phrase
is capable of bearing several meanings, yet it cannot be fairly
contended that the meaning is seriously doubtful. The balance of
probability is so largely in favour of one of the meanings, that the
remainder may be reasonably set aside as having no valid ground for
being supported in competition with it.
Three passages in which the phrase occurs have to be considered
together, and these have to be compared with a fourth. (1) There is the
passage before us about a bishop, (2) another in ver. 12 about deacons,
and (3) another in Tit. i. 6 about elders or presbyters, whom St. Paul
afterwards mentions under the title of bishop. In these three passages
we have it plainly set forth that Timothy and Titus are to regard it as
a necessary qualification in a bishop or elder or presbyter, and also in
a deacon, that he should be a "man of one woman" or "husband of one
wife" (=mias gynaikos anêr=). In the fourth passage (1 Tim. v. 9) he
gives as a necessary qualification of one who is to be placed on the
roll of church widows, that she must be a "woman of one man" or "wife of
one husband" (=henos andros gynê=). This fourth passage is of much
importance in determining the meaning of the converse expression in the
other three passages.
There are four
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/39628