# commentaries

text:
ACTS<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES<p/><b>A Precious Book</b><p/> In one sense Acts is the most important book in the New Testament. It is the simple truth that if we did not possess Acts, we would have, apart from what we could deduce from the letters of Paul, no information whatever about the early Church.<p/>There are two ways of writing history. There is the way which attempts to trace the course of events from week to week and from day to day; and there is the way which, as it were, opens a series of windows and gives us vivid glimpses of the great moments and personalities of any period. The second way is the way of Acts.<p/>We usually speak of The Acts of the Apostles. But the book neither gives nor claims to give an exhaustive account of the acts of the apostles. Apart from Paul only three apostles are mentioned in it. In <a href='B:510 12:2'>Act 12:2</a> we are told in one brief sentence that James, the brother of John, was executed by Herod. John appears in the narrative, but never speaks. It is only about Peter that the book gives any real information, and very soon, as a leading character, he passes from the scene. In the Greek there is no The before Acts; the correct title is Acts of Apostolic Men; and what Acts aims to do is to give us a series of typical exploits of the heroic figures of the early Church.<p/><b>The Writer Of The Book</b><p/> Although the book never says so, from the earliest times Luke has been held to be its writer. About Luke we really know very little; there are only three references to him in the New Testament-- <a href='B:580 4:14'>Col 4:14</a>; <a href='B:640 1:24'>Phm 1:24</a>; <a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a>. From these we can say two things for sure. First, Luke was a doctor; second, he was one of Paul's most valued helpers and most loyal friends, for he was a companion of his in his last imprisonment. We can deduce the fact that he was a Gentile. <a href='B:580 4:11'>Col 4:11</a> concludes a list of mentions and greetings from those who are of the circumcision, that is, from Jews; <a href='B:580 4:12'>Col 4:12</a> begins a new list and we naturally conclude that the new list is of Gentiles. So then we have the very interesting fact that Luke is the only Gentile author in the New Testament.<p/>We could have guessed that Luke was a doctor because of his instinctive use of medical words. In <a href='B:490 4:35'>Luk 4:35</a>, in telling of the man who had the spirit of an unclean devil, he says "when the devil had thrown him down" and uses the correct medical word for convulsions. In <a href='B:490 9:38'>Luk 9:38</a> when he draws the picture of the man who asked Jesus, "I beg you to look upon my son" he employs the conventional word for a doctor paying a visit to a patient. The most interesting example is in the saying about the camel and the needle's eye. All three synoptic writers give us that saying (<a href='B:470 19:24'>Mat 19:24</a>; <a href='B:480 10:25'>Mar 10:25</a>; <a href='B:490 18:25'>Luk 18:25</a>). For needle both Mark and Matthew use the Greek raphis (<a href='S:G4476'>G4476</a>), the ordinary word for a tailor's or a household needle. Luke alone uses belone, the technical word for a surgeon's needle. Luke was a doctor and a doctor's words came most naturally to his pen.<p/><b>The Recipient Of The Book</b><p/> Luke wrote both his gospel and Acts to a man called Theophilus (<a href='B:490 1:3'>Luk 1:3</a>; <a href='B:510 1:1'>Act 1:1</a>). We can only guess who Theophilus was. <a href='B:490 1:3'>Luk 1:3</a> calls him "most excellent Theophilus." The phrase really means "your excellency," and indicates a man high up in the service of the Roman government. There are three possibilities.<p/>(i) Just possibly Theophilus is not a real name at all. In those days it might well be dangerous to be a Christian. Theophilus comes from two Greek words, theos (<a href='S:G2316'>G2316</a>) which means God and philein (<a href='S:G5368'>G5368</a>) which means to love. It may be that Luke wrote to a lover of God whose real name he did not mention for safety's sake.<p/>(ii) If Theophilus was a real person, he must have been a high government official. Perhaps Luke wrote to show him that Christianity was a lovely thing and that Christians were good people. Maybe his writing was an attempt to persuade a government official not to persecute the Christians.<p/>(iii) There is a more romantic theory than either of these based on the facts that Luke was a doctor and that doctors in the ancient days were often slaves. It has been conjectured that Luke was the doctor of Theophilus, that Theophilus had been gravely ill, that by Luke's skill and devotion he was brought back to health, and that in gratitude he gave Luke his freedom. Then, it may be, Luke wished to show how grateful he was for this gift; and since the most precious thing he had was the story of Jesus, he wrote it down and sent it to his benefactor.<p/><b>Luke's Aim In Writing Acts</b><p/> When a man writes a book he does so for a reason, and maybe for more than one. Let us consider now why Luke wrote Acts.<p/>(i) One of his reasons was to commend Christianity to the Roman government.<p/>Again and again he goes out of his way to show how courteous Roman magistrates were to Paul. In <a href='B:510 13:12'>Act 13:12</a> Sergius Paulus, the governor of Cyprus, becomes a Christian. In <a href='B:510 18:12'>Act 18:12</a> Gallio is absolutely impartial in Corinth. In <a href='B:510 16:35'>Act 16:35</a> ff. the magistrates at Philippi discover their mistake and apologize publicly to Paul. In <a href='B:510 19:31'>Act 19:31</a> the Asiarchs in Ephesus are shown to be concerned that no harm should come to Paul. Luke was pointing out that in the years before he wrote Roman officials had often been well-disposed and always just to Christianity.<p/>Further, Luke takes pains to show that the Christians were good and loyal citizens. and had always been regarded as such. In <a href='B:510 18:14'>Act 18:14</a> Gallio declares that there is no question of wickedness or villainy. In <a href='B:510 19:37'>Act 19:37</a> the secretary of Ephesus gives the Christians a good testimonial. In <a href='B:510 23:29'>Act 23:29</a> Claudius Lysias is careful to say that he has nothing against Paul. In <a href='B:510 25:25'>Act 25:25</a> Festus declares that Paul has done nothing worthy of death, and in the same chapter Festus and Agrippa agree that Paul might well have been released had he not appealed to Caesar.<p/>Luke was writing in the days when Christians were disliked and persecuted; and he told his story in such a way as to show that the Roman magistrates had always been perfectly fair to Christianity and that they had never regarded the Christians as evil men. In fact, the very interesting suggestion has been made that Acts is nothing other than the brief prepared for Paul's defense when he stood his trial before the Roman Emperor.<p/>(ii) One of Luke's aims was to show that Christianity was for all men of every country.<p/>This was one of the things the Jews found it hard to grasp. They had the idea that they were God's chosen people and that God had no use for any other nation. Luke sets out to prove otherwise. He shows Philip preaching to the Samaritans; he shows Stephen making Christianity universal and being killed for it; he shows Peter accepting Cornelius into the Church; he shows the Christians preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch; he shows Paul travelling far and wide winning men of all kinds for Christ; and in <a href='B:510 15:1-41'>Act 15:1-41</a> he shows the Church making the great decision to accept the Gentiles on equal terms with the Jews.<p/>(iii) But these were merely secondary aims. Luke's chief purpose is set out in the words of the Risen Christ in <a href='B:490 1:8'>Luk 1:8</a>, "You shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." It was to show the expansion of Christianity, to show how that religion which began in a little corner of Palestine had in not much more than thirty years reached Rome.<p/>C. H. Turner has pointed out that Acts falls into six panels, each ending with what might be called a progress report. The six panels are:<p/>(a) <a href='B:510 1:1-26'>Act 1:1-26</a>; <a href='B:510 2:1-47'>Act 2:1-47</a>; <a href='B:510 3:1-26'>Act 3:1-26</a>; <a href='B:510 4:1-37'>Act 4:1-37</a>; <a href='B:510 5:1-42'>Act 5:1-42</a>; <a href='B:510 6:1-7'>Act 6:1-7</a>; this tells of the church at Jerusalem and the preaching of Peter; and it finishes with the summary, "The word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem; and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith."<p/>(b) <a href='B:510 6:8-15'>Act 6:8-15</a>; <a href='B:510 7:1-60'>Act 7:1-60</a>; <a href='B:510 8:1-40'>Act 8:1-40</a>; <a href='B:510 9:1-31'>Act 9:1-31</a>; this describes the spread of Christianity through Palestine and the martyrdom of Stephen, followed by the preaching in Samaria. It ends with the summary, "So the Church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it was multiplied."<p/>(c) <a href='B:510 9:32-43'>Act 9:32-43</a>; <a href='B:510 10:1-48'>Act 10:1-48</a>; <a href='B:510 11:1-30'>Act 11:1-30</a>; <a href='B:510 12:1-24'>Act 12:1-24</a>; this includes the conversion of Paul, the extension of the Church to Antioch, and the reception of Cornelius, the Gentile, into the Church by Peter. Its summary is, "The word of God grew and multiplied."<p/>(d) <a href='B:510 12:25'>Act 12:25</a>; <a href='B:510 13:1-52'>Act 13:1-52</a>; <a href='B:510 14:1-28'>Act 14:1-28</a>; <a href='B:510 15:1-41'>Act 15:1-41</a>; <a href='B:510 16:1-5'>Act 16:1-5</a>; this tells of the extension of the Church through Asia Minor and the preaching tour of Galatia. It ends, "So the churches were strengthened in the faith, and they increased in numbers daily."<p/>(e) <a href='B:510 16:6-40'>Act 16:6-40</a>; <a href='B:510 17:1-34'>Act 17:1-34</a>; <a href='B:510 18:1-28'>Act 18:1-28</a>; <a href='B:510 19:1-20'>Act 19:1-20</a>; this relates the extension of the Church to Europe and the work of Paul in great Gentile cities like Corinth and Ephesus. Its summary runs, "So the word of the Lord grew and prevailed mightily."<p/>(j) <a href='B:510 19:21-41'>Act 19:21-41</a>; <a href='B:510 20:1-38'>Act 20:1-38</a>; <a href='B:510 21:1-40'>Act 21:1-40</a>; <a href='B:510 22:1-30'>Act 22:1-30</a>; <a href='B:510 23:1-35'>Act 23:1-35</a>; <a href='B:510 24:1-27'>Act 24:1-27</a>; <a href='B:510 25:1-27'>Act 25:1-27</a>; <a href='B:510 26:1-32'>Act 26:1-32</a>; <a href='B:510 27:1-44'>Act 27:1-44</a>; <a href='B:510 28:1-31'>Act 28:1-31</a>; this tells of the arrival of Paul in Rome and his imprisonment there. It ends with the picture of Paul "preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered."<p/>This plan of Acts answers its most puzzling question, why does it finish where it does? It finishes with Paul in prison awaiting judgment. We would so much have liked to know what happened to him and the end is wrapped in mystery. But Luke stopped there because his purpose was accomplished; he had shown how Christianity began in Jerusalem and swept across the world until it reached Rome. A great New Testament scholar has said that the title of Acts might be, "How they brought the Good News from Jerusalem to Rome."<p/><b>Luke's Sources</b><p/> Luke was an historian, and the sources from which an historian draws his information is all important. Where then did Luke get his facts? In this connection Acts falls into two parts.<p/>(i) There are the first fifteen chapters, of whose events Luke had no personal knowledge. He very likely had access to two sources.<p/>(a) There were the records of the local churches. They may never have been set down in writing but the churches had their stories. In this section we can distinguish three records. There is the record of the Jerusalem church which we find in <a href='B:510 1:1-26'>Act 1:1-26</a>; <a href='B:510 2:1-47'>Act 2:1-47</a>; <a href='B:510 3:1-26'>Act 3:1-26</a>; <a href='B:510 4:1-37'>Act 4:1-37</a>; <a href='B:510 5:1-42'>Act 5:1-42</a> and in <a href='B:510 15:1-41'>Act 15:1-41</a>; <a href='B:510 16:1-40'>Act 16:1-40</a>. There is the record of the church at Caesarea which covers <a href='B:510 8:26-40'>Act 8:26-40</a>; <a href='B:510 9:31-43'>Act 9:31-43</a> and <a href='B:510 10:1-48'>Act 10:1-48</a>. There is the record of the church at Antioch which includes <a href='B:510 11:19-30'>Act 11:19-30</a>; <a href='B:510 12:25'>Act 12:25</a>; <a href='B:510 13:1-52'>Act 13:1-52</a> and <a href='B:510 14:1-28'>Act 14:1-28</a>.<p/>(b) Very likely there were cycles of stories which were the Acts of Peter, the Acts of John, the Acts of Philip and the Acts of Stephen. Beyond a doubt Luke's friendship with Paul would bring him into touch with all the great men of all the churches and all their stories would be at his disposal.<p/>(ii) There is <a href='B:510 16:1-40'>Act 16:1-40</a>; <a href='B:510 17:1-34'>Act 17:1-34</a>; <a href='B:510 18:1-28'>Act 18:1-28</a>; <a href='B:510 19:1-41'>Act 19:1-41</a>; <a href='B:510 20:1-38'>Act 20:1-38</a>; <a href='B:510 21:1-40'>Act 21:1-40</a>; <a href='B:510 22:1-30'>Act 22:1-30</a>; <a href='B:510 23:1-35'>Act 23:1-35</a>; <a href='B:510 24:1-27'>Act 24:1-27</a>; <a href='B:510 25:1-27'>Act 25:1-27</a>; <a href='B:510 26:1-32'>Act 26:1-32</a>; <a href='B:510 27:1-44'>Act 27:1-44</a>; <a href='B:510 28:1-31'>Act 28:1-31</a>. Of much of this section Luke had personal knowledge. When we read Acts carefully we notice a strange thing. Most of the time Luke's narrative is in the third person plural; but in certain passages it changes over to the first person plural and "they" becomes "we". The "we" passages are as follows-- <a href='B:510 16:10-17'>Act 16:10-17</a>; <a href='B:510 20:5-16'>Act 20:5-16</a>; <a href='B:510 21:1-18'>Act 21:1-18</a>; <a href='B:510 27:1-44'>Act 27:1-44</a>; <a href='B:510 28:1-16'>Act 28:1-16</a>. On all these occasions Luke must have been present. He must have kept a travel diary and in these passages we have eye-witness accounts. As for the times when he was not present, many were the hours he must have spent in prison with Paul and many were the stories Paul must have told him. There can have been no great figure Luke did not know and in every case he must have got his story from someone who was there.<p/>When we read Acts we may be quite sure that no historian ever had better sources or used his sources more accurately. 


text:
ROMANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227:) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and, in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last for ever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my<p/>brother. I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe<p/>when I was in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got<p/>my journey money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things<p/>are going fine with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a<p/>line, first to let me know how you are, and then about my<p/>brothers, and thirdly, that I may kiss your hand, because you<p/>brought me up well, and because of that I hope, God willing, soon<p/>to be promoted. Give Capito my heartiest greetings, and my<p/>brothers and Serenilla and my friends. I sent you a little picture<p/>of myself painted by Euctemon. My military name is Antonius<p/>Maximus. I pray for your good health. Serenus sends good<p/>wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo, Gallonius' son."<p/>(G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, 36:)<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>).<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS<p/><b>The Epistle That Is Different</b><p/> There is an obvious difference between Paul's Letter to the Romans and any other of his letters. Anyone coming from, say, a reading of the Letters to the Corinthians, will immediately feel that difference, both of atmosphere and of method. A very great part of it is due to one basic fact--when Paul wrote to the Church at Rome he was writing to a Church with whose founding he had had nothing whatever to do and with which he had had no personal contact at all. That explains why in Romans there are so few of the details of practical problems which fill the other letters. That is why Romans, at first sight, seems so much more impersonal. As Dibelius put it, "It is of all Paul's letters the least conditioned by the momentary situation."<p/>We may put that in another way. Romans, of all Paul's letters, comes nearest to being a theological treatise. In almost all his other letters he is dealing with some immediate trouble, some pressing situation, some current error, some threatening danger, which was menacing the Church to which he was writing. Romans is the nearest approach to a systematic exposition of Paul's own theological position, independent of any immediate set of circumstances.<p/><b>Testamentary And Prophylactic</b><p/> Because of that, two great scholars have applied two very illuminating adjectives to Romans. Sanday called Romans "testamentary." It is as if Paul was writing his theological last will and testament, as if into Romans he was distilling the very essence of his faith and belief. Rome was the greatest city in the world, the capital of the greatest Empire the world had ever seen. Paul had never been there, and he did not know if he ever would be there. But, in writing to such a Church in such a city, it was fitting that he should set down the very centre and core of his belief. Burton called Romans "prophylactic." A prophylactic is something which guards against infection. Paul had seen too often what harm and trouble could be caused by wrong ideas, twisted notions, misguided conceptions of Christian faith and belief. He therefore wished to send to the Church in the city which was the centre of the world a letter which would so build up the structure of their faith that, if infections should ever come to them, they might have in the true word of Christian doctrine a powerful and effective defence. He felt that the best protection against the infection of false teaching was the antiseptic of the truth.<p/><b>The Occasion Of Paul's Writing To Rome</b><p/> All his life Paul had been haunted by the thought of Rome. It had always been one of his dreams to preach there. When he is in Ephesus, he is planning to go through Achaea and Macedonia again, and then comes a sentence obviously dropped straight from the heart, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome" (<a href='B:510 19:21'>Act 19:21</a>). When he was up against things in Jerusalem, and the situation looked threatening and the end seemed near, he had one of those visions which always lifted up his heart. In that vision the Lord stood by him and said, "Take courage, Paul. For as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome" (<a href='B:510 23:11'>Act 23:11</a>). In the very first chapter of this letter Paul's desire to see Rome breathes out. "I long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you" (<a href='B:520 1:11'>Rom 1:11</a>). "So, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (<a href='B:520 1:15'>Rom 1:15</a>). It might well be said that the name Rome was written on Paul's heart.<p/>When he actually wrote the Letter to the Romans, the date was sometime in the year A.D. 58, and he was in Corinth. He was just about to bring to its completion a scheme that was very dear to his heart. The Church at Jerusalem was the mother Church of them all, but it was poor, and Paul had organized a collection throughout the younger churches for it (<a href='B:530 16:1'>1Co 16:1</a> ff; <a href='B:540 9:1'>2Co 9:1</a> ff). That collection was two things. It was an opportunity for his younger converts to put Christian charity into Christian action, and it was a most practical way of impressing on all Christians the unity of the Christian Church, of teaching them that they were not members of isolated and independent congregations, but of one great Church, each part of which had a responsibility to all the rest. When Paul wrote Romans he was just about to set out with that gift for the Jerusalem Church. "At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem with aid for the saints" (<a href='B:520 15:25'>Rom 15:25</a>).<p/><b>The Object Of Paul's Writing</b><p/> Why, then, at such a moment should he write?<p/>(a) Paul knew that the journey to Jerusalem was not without its peril. He knew that he had enemies there, and that to go to Jerusalem was to take his life and liberty in his hands. He desired the prayers of the Roman Church before he set out on this expedition. "Now I appeal to you brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judaea" (<a href='B:520 15:30-31'>Rom 15:30-31</a>). He was mobilizing the prayers of the Church before he embarked on this perilous undertaking.<p/>(b) Paul had great schemes simmering in his mind. It has been said of him that he was "always haunted by the regions beyond." He never saw a ship at anchor but he wished to board her and to carry the good news to men across the sea. He never saw a range of mountains, blue in the distance, but he wished to cross them, and to bring the story of the Cross to men who had never heard it. At this time Paul was haunted by the thought of Spain. "I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain" (<a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a>). "When I have completed this [that is, when he had delivered the collection to the Church in Jerusalem] I shall go on by way of you to Spain" (<a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a>).<p/>Why this great desire to go to Spain? Rome had opened up that land. Some of the great Roman roads and buildings still stand there to this day. And it so happened that, just at this time, there was a blaze of greatness in Spain. Many of the great figures who were writing their names on Roman history and literature were Spaniards. There was Martial, the master of the epigram. There was Lucan, the epic poet. There were Columella and Pomponius Mela, great figures in Roman literature. There was Quintilian, the master of Roman oratory. And, above all, there was Seneca, the greatest of the Roman Stoic philosophers, the tutor of the Emperor Nero, and the Prime Minister of the Roman Empire. It was most natural that Paul's thoughts should go out to this land which was producing such a scintillating galaxy of greatness. What might happen if men like that could be touched for Christ? As far as we know Paul never got to Spain. On that visit to Jerusalem he was arrested and he was never freed again. But, when he was writing Romans, that was his dream.<p/>Paul was a master strategist. He had an eye for the layout of territory like a great commander. He felt that by this time he could move on from Asia Minor and for the time being leave Greece behind. He saw the whole west lying in front of him, virgin territory to be won for Christ. But, if he was to launch a campaign in the west, he needed a base of operations. There was only one such base possible--and that was Rome.<p/>That was why Paul wrote this letter to Rome. He had this great dream in his heart and this great plan in his mind. He needed Rome for a base for this new campaign. He was aware that the Church in Rome must know his name. But he was also aware, for he was a realist, that the reports which reached Rome would be mixed. His opponents were not above spreading slanders and false accusation against him. So he wrote this letter to set out for the Church at Rome an account of the very essence of his belief, in order that, when the time came for action, he might find in Rome a sympathetic Church from which the lines of communication might go out to Spain and the west. It was with such a plan and such an intention, that in A.D. 58 Paul sat down in Corinth to write his letter to the Church at Rome.<p/><b>The Layout Of The Letter</b><p/> Romans is at once a very complicated and a very carefully constructed letter. It will therefore help us to find our way through it, if we have in our minds an idea of its framework. It falls into four definite divisions.<p/>(i) <a href='B:520 1:1-32'>Rom 1:1-32</a>; <a href='B:520 2:1-29'>Rom 2:1-29</a>; <a href='B:520 3:1-31'>Rom 3:1-31</a>; <a href='B:520 4:1-25'>Rom 4:1-25</a>; <a href='B:520 5:1-21'>Rom 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:520 6:1-23'>Rom 6:1-23</a>; <a href='B:520 7:1-25'>Rom 7:1-25</a>; <a href='B:520 8:1-39'>Rom 8:1-39</a>, which deal with the problem of righteousness.<p/>(ii) <a href='B:520 9:1-33'>Rom 9:1-33</a>; <a href='B:520 10:1-21'>Rom 10:1-21</a>; <a href='B:520 11:1-36'>Rom 11:1-36</a>, which deal with problem of the Jews, the chosen<p/>people.<p/>(iii) <a href='B:520 12:1-21'>Rom 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:520 13:1-14'>Rom 13:1-14</a>; <a href='B:520 14:1-23'>Rom 14:1-23</a>; <a href='B:520 15:1-33'>Rom 15:1-33</a>, which deal with practical questions of life and<p/>living.<p/>(iv) <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>, which is a letter of introduction for Phoebe,<p/>and a list of final personal greetings.<p/>(i) When Paul uses the word "righteousness," he means a right relationship with God The man who is righteous is the man who is in a right relationship with God, and whose life shows it.<p/>Paul begins with a survey of the Gentile world. We have only to look at its decadence and corruption to know that it had not solved the problem of righteousness. He looks at the Jewish world. The Jews had sought to solve the problem of righteousness by meticulous obedience to the law. Paul had tried that way himself, and it had issued in frustration and defeat, because no man on earth can ever fully obey the law, and, therefore, every man must have the continual consciousness of being in debt to God and under his condemnation.<p/>So Paul finds the way to righteousness in the way of utter trust and utter yieldedness. The only way to a right relationship with God is to take him at his word, and to cast oneself, just as one is, on his mercy and love. It is the way of faith. It is to know that the important thing is, not what we can do for God, but what he has done for us. For Paul the centre of the Christian faith was that we can never earn or deserve the favour of God, nor do we need to. The whole matter is one of grace, and all that we can do is to accept in wondering love and gratitude and trust what God has done for us.<p/>That does not free us, however, from obligations or entitle us to do as we like; it means that for ever and for ever we must try to be worthy of the love which does so much for us. But we are no longer trying to fulfil the demands of stern and austere and condemnatory law; we are no longer like criminals before a judge; we are lovers who have given all life in love to the one who first loved us.<p/>(ii) The problem of the Jews was a torturing one. In a real sense they were God's chosen people, and yet, when his Son had come into the world, they had rejected him. What possible explanation could there be for this heart-breaking fact?<p/>The only one Paul could find was that, in the end, it was all God's doing. Somehow the hearts of the Jews had been hardened; but it was not all failure, for there had always been a faithful remnant. Nor was it for nothing, for the very fact that the Jews had rejected Christ opened the door so the Gentiles would bring in the Jews and all men would be saved.<p/>Paul goes further. The Jew had always claimed that he was a member of the chosen people in virtue of the fact that he was a Jew. It was solely a matter of pure racial descent from Abraham. But Paul insists that the real Jew is not the man whose flesh and blood descent can be traced to Abraham. He is the man who has made the same decision of utter yieldedness to God in loving faith which Abraham made. Therefore, Paul argues, there are many pure-blooded Jews who are not Jews in the real sense of the term at all; and there are many people of other nations who are really Jews in the true meaning of that word. The new Israel was not a racial thing at all; it was composed of those who had the same faith as Abraham had had.<p/>(iii) <a href='B:520 12:1-21'>Rom 12:1-21</a> is so great an ethical statement that it must always be set alongside the Sermon on the Mount. In it Paul lays down the ethical character of the Christian faith. The fourteenth and fifteenth chapters deal with an ever-recurring problem. In the Church there was a narrower party who believed that they must abstain from certain foods and drinks, and who counted special days and ceremonies as of great importance. Paul thinks of them as the weaker brethren because their faith was dependent on these external things. There was a more liberal party, who had liberated themselves from these external rules and observances. He thinks of them as the brethren who are stronger in the faith. He makes it quite clear that his sympathies are with the more liberal party; but he lays down the great principle that no man must ever do anything to hurt the conscience of a weaker brother or to put a stumbling block in his way. His whole point of view is that we must never do anything which makes it harder for someone else to be a Christian; and that that may well mean the giving up of something, which is right and safe for us, for the sake of the weaker brother. Christian liberty must never be used in such a way that it injures another's life or conscience.<p/>(iv) The fourth section is a recommendation on behalf of Phoebe, a member of the Church at Cenchreae, who is coming to Rome. The letter ends with a list of greetings and a final benediction.<p/><b>Two Problems</b><p/> <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a> has always presented scholars with a problem. Many have felt that it does not really form part of the Letter to the Romans at all; and that it is really a letter to some other Church which became attached to Romans when Paul's letters were collected. What are their grounds? First and foremost, in this chapter Paul sends greetings to twenty-six different people, twenty-four of whom he mentions by name and all of whom he seems to know very intimately. He can, for instance, say that the mother of Rufus has also been a mother to him. Is it likely that Paul knew intimately twenty-six people in a Church which he had never visited? He, in fact, greets far more people in this chapter than he does in any other letter, and yet he had never set foot in Rome. Here is something that needs explanation.<p/>If <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a> was not written to Rome, what was its original destination? It is here that Prisca and Aquila come into the argument. We know that they left Rome in A.D. 52 when Claudius issued his edict banishing the Jews (<a href='B:510 18:2'>Act 18:2</a>). We know that they went with Paul to Ephesus (<a href='B:510 18:18'>Act 18:18</a>). We know that they were in Ephesus when Paul wrote his letter to Corinth, less than two years before he wrote Romans (<a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>). And we know that they were still in Ephesus when the Pastoral Epistles were written (<a href='B:620 4:19'>2Ti 4:19</a>). It is certain that if we had come across a letter sending greeting to Prisca and Aquila we should have assumed that it was sent to Ephesus, if no other address was given.<p/>Is there any other evidence to make us think that chapter sixteen may have been sent to Ephesus in the first place? There is the perfectly general reason that Paul spent longer in Ephesus than anywhere else, and it would be very natural for him to send greetings to many people there. Paul speaks of Epaenetus, the first-fruits of Asia. Ephesus is in Asia, and such a reference, too, would be very natural in a letter to Ephesus, but not so natural in a letter to Rome. <a href='B:520 16:17'>Rom 16:17</a> speaks about difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught, which sounds as if Paul was speaking about possible disobedience to his own teaching, and he had never taught in Rome.<p/>It can be argued that the sixteenth chapter was originally addressed to Ephesus, but the argument is not so strong as it looks. For one thing, there is no evidence that the chapter was ever attached anywhere except to the Letter to the Romans. For another thing, the odd fact is that Paul does not send personal greetings to churches which he knew well. There are no personal greetings in Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, all of them letters to churches he knew well; whereas there are personal greetings in Colossians, although Paul had never set foot in Colosse.<p/>The reason is really quite simple. If Paul had sent personal greetings to churches he knew well, jealousies might well have arisen; on the other hand, when he was writing to churches he had never visited, he liked to establish as many personal links as possible. The very fact that Paul had never been in Rome makes it likely that he would try to establish as many personal connections as possible. Again, it is to be remembered that Prisca and Aquila were banished by edict from Rome. What is more likely than that, after the trouble was over, six or seven years later, they would return to Rome and pick up the threads of their business after their stay in other towns? And is it not most likely that many of the other names are names of people who shared in this banishment, who took up temporary residence in other cities, who met Paul there, and who, when the coast was clear, returned to Rome and their old homes? Paul would be delighted to have so many personal contacts in Rome and to seize hold of them.<p/>Further, as we shall see, when we come to study chapter 16 in detail, many of the names--the households of Aristobulus and Narcissus, Amplias, Nereus and others--well suit Rome. In spite of the arguments for Ephesus, we may take it that there is no necessity to detach chapter sixteen from the Letter to the Romans.<p/>But there is a more interesting, and a much more important, problem. The early manuscripts show some very curious things with regard to <a href='B:520 14:1-23'>Rom 14:1-23</a>; <a href='B:520 15:1-33'>Rom 15:1-33</a>; <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>. The only natural place for a doxology is at the very end. <a href='B:520 16:25-27'>Rom 16:25-27</a> is a doxology, and in most good manuscripts it comes at the end. But in a number of manuscripts it comes at the end of <a href='B:520 14:1-23'>Rom 14:1-23</a>; two good manuscripts have it in both places; one ancient manuscript has it at the end of <a href='B:520 15:1-33'>Rom 15:1-33</a>; two manuscripts have it in neither place, but leave an empty space for it. One ancient Latin manuscript has a series of section summaries. The last two are as follows:<p/>50: On the peril of him who grieves his brother by meat.<p/>That is obviously <a href='B:520 14:15-23'>Rom 14:15-23</a>.<p/>51: On the mystery of the Lord, kept secret before his passion<p/>but after his passion revealed.<p/>That is equally clearly <a href='B:520 16:25-27'>Rom 16:25-27</a>, the doxology. Clearly, these summaries were made from a manuscript which did not contain chapters fifteen and sixteen. Now there is one thing which sheds a flood of light on this. In one manuscript the mention of Rome in <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a> and <a href='B:520 1:15'>Rom 1:15</a> is entirely omitted. There is no mention of any destination.<p/>All this goes to show that Romans circulated in two forms--one form as we have it with sixteen chapters, and one with fourteen chapters; and perhaps also one with fifteen chapters. The explanation must be this. As Paul wrote it to Rome, it had sixteen chapters; but <a href='B:520 15:1-33'>Rom 15:1-33</a>; <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a> are private and personal to Rome. Now no other letter gives such a compendium of Paul's doctrine. What must have happened was that Romans began to circulate among all the churches, with the last two local chapters omitted, except for the doxology. It must have been felt that Romans was too fundamental to stop at Rome and so the purely local references were removed and it was sent out to the Church at large. From very early times the Church felt that Romans was so great an expression of the mind of Paul that it must become the possession not of one congregation, but of the whole Church. We must remember, as we study it, that men have always looked on Romans as the quintessence of Paul's gospel. 


text:
1 CORINTHIANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to<p/>let me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly,<p/>that I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and<p/>because of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give<p/>Capito my heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and<p/>my friends. I sent you a little picture of myself painted by<p/>Euctemon. My military name is Antonius Maximus, I pray for your<p/>good health. Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and<p/>Turbo, Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek<p/>Papyri, 36).<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS<p/><b>The Greatness Of Corinth</b><p/> A glance at the map will show that Corinth was made for greatness. The southern part of Greece is very nearly an island. On the west the Corinthian Gulf deeply indents the land and on the east the Saronic Gulf. All that is left to join the two parts of Greece together is a little isthmus only four miles across. On that narrow neck of land Corinth stands. Such a position made it inevitable that it should be one of the greatest trading and commercial centres of the ancient world. All traffic from Athens and the north of Greece to Sparta and the Peloponnese had to be routed through Corinth, because it stood on the little neck of land that connected the two.<p/>Not only did the north to south traffic of Greece pass through Corinth of necessity, by far the greater part of the east to west traffic of the Mediterranean passed through her from choice. The extreme southern tip of Greece was known as Cape Malea (now called Cape Matapan). It was dangerous, and to round Cape Malea had much the same sound as to round Cape Horn had in later times. The Greeks had two sayings which showed what they thought of it--"Let him who sails round Malea forget his home," and, "Let him who sails round Malea first make his will."<p/>The consequence was that mariners followed one of two courses. They sailed up the Saronic Gulf, and, if their ships were small enough, dragged them out of the water, set them on rollers, hauled them across the isthmus, and re-launched them on the other side. The isthmus was actually called the Diolkos, the place of dragging across. The idea is the same as that which is contained in the Scottish place name Tarbert, which means a place where the land is so narrow that a boat can be dragged from loch to loch. If that course was not possible because the ship was too large, the cargo was disembarked, carried by porters across the isthmus, and re-embarked on another ship at the other side. This four mile journey across the isthmus, where the Corinth Canal now runs, saved a journey of two hundred and two miles round Cape Malea, the most dangerous cape in the Mediterranean.<p/>It is easy to see how great a commercial city Corinth must have been. The north to south traffic of Greece had no alternative but to pass through her; by far the greater part of the east to west trade of the Mediterranean world chose to pass through her. Round Corinth there clustered three other towns, Lechaeum at the west end of the isthmus, Cenchrea at the east end and Schoenus just a short distance away. Farrar writes, "Objects of luxury soon found their way to the markets which were visited by every nation in the civilized world--Arabian balsam, Phoenician dates, Libyan ivory, Babylonian carpets, Cilician goats' hair, Lycaonian wool, Phrygian slaves."<p/>Corinth, as Farrar calls her, was the Vanity Fair of the ancient world. Men called her The Bridge of Greece; one called her The Lounge of Greece. It has been said that if a man stands long enough in Piccadilly Circus he will in the end meet everyone in the country. Corinth was the Piccadilly Circus of the Mediterranean. To add to the concourse which came to it, Corinth was the place where the Isthmian Games were held, which were second only to the Olympics. Corinth was a rich and populous city with one of the greatest commercial trades in the ancient world.<p/><b>The Wickedness Of Corinth</b><p/> There was another side to Corinth. She had a reputation for commercial prosperity, but she was also a byword for evil living. The very word korinthiazesthai, to live like a Corinthian, had become a part of the Greek language, and meant to live with drunken and immoral debauchery. The word actually penetrated to the English language, and, in Regency times, a Corinthian was one of the wealthy young bucks who lived in reckless and riotous living. Aelian, the late Greek writer, tells us that if ever a Corinthian was shown upon the stage in a Greek play he was shown drunk. The very name Corinth was synonymous with debauchery and there was one source of evil in the city which was known all over the civilized world. Above the isthmus towered the hill of the Acropolis, and on it stood the great temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. To that temple there were attached one thousand priestesses who were sacred prostitutes, and in the evenings they descended from the Acropolis and plied their trade upon the streets of Corinth, until it became a Greek proverb, "It is not every man who can afford a journey to Corinth." In addition to these cruder sins, there flourished far more recondite vices, which had come in with the traders and the sailors from the ends of the earth, until Corinth became not only a synonym for wealth and luxury, drunkenness and debauchery, but also for filth.<p/><b>The History Of Corinth</b><p/> The history of Corinth falls into two parts. She was a very ancient city. Thucydides, the Greek historian, claims that it was in Corinth that the first triremes, the Greek battleships, were built. Legend has it that it was in Corinth that the Argo was built, the ship in which Jason sailed the seas, searching for the golden fleece. But in 146 B.C. disaster befell her. The Romans were engaged in conquering the world. When they sought to reduce Greece, Corinth was the leader of the opposition. But the Greeks could not stand against the disciplined Romans, and in 146 B.C. Lucius Mummius, the Roman general, captured Corinth and left her a desolate heap of ruins.<p/>But any place with the geographical situation of Corinth could not remain a devastation. Almost exactly one hundred years later, in 46 B.C. Julius Caesar rebuilt her and she arose from her ruins. Now she became a Roman colony. More, she became a capital city, the metropolis of the Roman province of Achaea, which included practically all Greece.<p/>In those days, which were the days of Paul, her population was very mixed. (i) There were the Roman veterans whom Julius Caesar had settled there. When a Roman soldier had served his time, he was granted the citizenship and was then sent out to some newly-founded city and given a grant of land so that he might become a settler there. These Roman colonies were planted all over the world, and always the backbone of them was the contingent of veteran regular soldiers whose faithful service had won them the citizenship. (ii) When Corinth was rebuilt the merchants came back, for her situation still gave her commercial supremacy. (iii) There were many Jews among the population. The rebuilt city offered them commercial opportunities which they were not slow to take. (iv) There was a sprinkling of Phoenicians and Phrygians and people from the east, with their exotic customs and their hysterical ways. Farrar speaks of "this mongrel and heterogeneous population of Greek adventurers and Roman bourgeois, with a tainting infusion of Phoenicians; this mass of Jews, ex-soldiers, philosophers, merchants, sailors, freedmen, slaves, trades-people, hucksters and agents of every form of vice." He characterizes her as a colony "without aristocracy, without traditions and without well-established citizens."<p/>Remember the background of Corinth, remember its name for wealth and luxury, for drunkenness and immorality and vice, and then read <a href='B:530 6:9-10'>1Co 6:9-10</a>.<p/>Are you not aware that the unrighteous will not inherit the<p/>Kingdom of God? Make no mistake--neither fornicators, nor<p/>idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sensualists, nor homosexuals, nor<p/>thieves, nor rapacious men, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor<p/>robbers shall inherit the Kingdom of God--and such were some of<p/>you.<p/>In this hotbed of vice, in the most unlikely place in all the Greek world, some of Paul's greatest work was done, and some of the mightiest triumphs of Christianity were won.<p/><b>Paul In Corinth</b><p/> Paul stayed longer in Corinth than in any other city, with the single exception of Ephesus. He had left Macedonia with his life in peril and had crossed over to Athens. There he had had little success and had gone on to Corinth, and he remained there for eighteen months. We realize how little we really know of his work when we see that the whole story of that eighteen months is compressed by Luke into 17 verses (<a href='B:510 18:1-17'>Act 18:1-17</a>).<p/>When Paul arrived in Corinth he took up residence with Aquila and Prisca. He preached in the synagogue with great success. With the arrival of Timothy and Silas from Macedonia, he redoubled his efforts, but the Jews were so stubbornly hostile that he had to leave the synagogue. He took up his residence with one Justus who lived next door to the synagogue. His most notable convert was Crispus, who was actually the ruler of the synagogue, and amongst the general public he had good success.<p/>In the year A.D. 52 there came to Corinth as its new governor a Roman called Gallio. He was famous for his charm and gentleness. The Jews tried to take advantage of his newness and good nature and brought Paul to trial before him on a charge of teaching contrary to their law. But Gallio, with impartial Roman justice, refused to have anything to do with the case or to take any action. So Paul completed his work in Corinth and moved on to Syria.<p/><b>The Correspondence With Corinth</b><p/> It was when he was in Ephesus in the year A.D. 55 that Paul, learning that things were not all well in Corinth, wrote to the church there. There is every possibility that the Corinthian correspondence as we have it is out of order. We must remember that it was not until A.D. 90 or thereby that Paul's correspondence was collected. In many churches it must have existed only on scraps of papyrus and the putting it together would be a problem: and it seems that, when the Corinthian letters were collected, they were not all discovered and were not arranged in the right order. Let us see if we can reconstruct what happened.<p/>(i) There was a letter which preceded 1 Corinthians. In <a href='B:530 5:9'>1Co 5:9</a> Paul writes, "I wrote you a letter not to associate with immoral men." This obviously refers to some previous letter. Some scholars believe that letter is lost without trace. Others think it is contained in <a href='B:540 6:14-18'>2Co 6:14-18</a> and <a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a>. Certainly that passage suits what Paul said he wrote about. It occurs rather awkwardly in its context, and, if we take it out and read straight on from <a href='B:540 6:13'>2Co 6:13</a> to <a href='B:540 7:2'>2Co 7:2</a>, we get excellent sense and connection. Scholars call this letter The Previous Letter. (In the original letters there were no chapter or verse divisions. The chapters were not divided up until the thirteenth century and the verses not till the sixteenth, and because of that the arranging of the collection of letters would be much more difficult).<p/>(ii) News came to Paul from various sources of trouble at Corinth. (a) News came from those who were of the household of Chloe (<a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a>). They brought news of the contentions with which the church was torn. (b) News came with the visit of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus to Ephesus. (<a href='B:530 16:17'>1Co 16:17</a>). By personal contact they were able to fill up the gaps in Paul's information. (c) News came in a letter in which the Corinthian Church had asked Paul's; guidance on various problems. In <a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a> Paul begins, "Concerning the matters about which you wrote..." In answer to all this information Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and despatched it to Corinth apparently by the hand of Timothy (<a href='B:530 4:17'>1Co 4:17</a>).<p/>(iii) The result of the letter was that things became worse than ever, and, although we have no direct record of it, we can deduce that Paul paid a personal visit to Corinth. In <a href='B:540 12:14'>2Co 12:14</a> he writes, "The third time I am ready to come to you." In <a href='B:540 13:1-2'>2Co 13:1-2</a>, he says again that he is coming to them for the third time. Now, if there was a third time, there must have been a second time. We have the record of only one visit, whose story is told in <a href='B:510 18:1-17'>Act 18:1-17</a>. We have no record at all of the second, but Corinth was only two or three days' sailing from Ephesus.<p/>(iv) The visit did no good at all. Matters were only exacerbated and the result was an exceedingly severe letter. We learn about that letter from certain passages in 2 Corinthians. In <a href='B:540 2:4'>2Co 2:4</a> Paul writes, "I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears." In <a href='B:540 7:8'>2Co 7:8</a> he writes, "For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it though I did regret it; for I see that that letter has grieved you, though only for a while." It was a letter which was the product of anguish of mind, a letter so severe that Paul was almost sorry that he ever sent it.<p/>Scholars call this The Severe Letter. Have we got it? It obviously cannot be I Corinthians, because it is not a tear-stained and anguished letter. When Paul wrote it, it is clear enough that things were under control. Now if we read through 2 Corinthians we find an odd circumstance. In <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a> everything is made up, there is complete reconciliation and all are friends again; but at <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a> comes the strangest break. <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a> are the most heartbroken cry Paul ever wrote. They show that he has been hurt and insulted as he never was before or afterwards by any church. His appearance, his speech, his apostleship, his honesty have all been under attack.<p/>Most scholars believe that <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a> are the severe letter, and that they have become misplaced when Paul's letters were put together. If we want the real chronological course of Paul's correspondence with Corinth, we really ought to read <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a> before <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a>. We do know that this letter was sent off with Titus. (<a href='B:540 2:13'>2Co 2:13</a>; <a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a>).<p/>(v) Paul was worried about this letter. He could not wait until Titus came back with an answer, so he set out to meet him (<a href='B:540 2:13'>2Co 2:13</a>; <a href='B:540 7:5'>2Co 7:5</a>; <a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a>). Somewhere in Macedonia he met him and learned that all was well, and, probably at Philippi, he sat down and wrote <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a>, the letter of reconciliation.<p/>Stalker has said that the letters of Paul take the roof off the early churches and let us see what went on inside. Of none of them is that truer than the letters to Corinth. Here we see what "the care of all the churches" must have meant to Paul. Here we see the heart-breaks and the joys. Here we see Paul, the shepherd of his flock, bearing the sorrows and the problems of his people on his heart.<p/><b>The Corinthian Correspondence</b><p/> Before we read the letters in detail let us set down the progress of the Corinthian correspondence in tabular form.<p/>(i) The Previous Letter, which may be contained in <a href='B:540 6:14-18'>2Co 6:14-18</a> and <a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The arrival of Chloe's people, of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, and of the letter to Paul from the Corinthian Church.<p/>(iii) 1 Corinthians is written in reply and is despatched with Timothy.<p/>(iv) The situation grows worse and Paul pays a personal visit to Corinth, which is so complete a failure that it almost breaks his heart.<p/>(v) The consequence is The Severe Letter, which is almost certainly contained in <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a>, and which was despatched with Titus.<p/>(vi) Unable to wait for an answer, Paul sets out to meet Titus. He meets him in Macedonia, learns that all is well and, probably from Philippi, writes <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a>, The Letter of Reconciliation.<p/>The first four chapters of 1 Corinthians deal with the divided state of the Church of God at Corinth. Instead of being a unity in Christ it was split into sects and parties, who had attached themselves to the names of various leaders and teachers. It is Paul's teaching that these divisions had emerged because the Corinthians thought too much about human wisdom and knowledge and too little about the sheer grace of God. In fact, for all their so-called wisdom, they are really in a state of immaturity. They think that they are wise men, but really they are no better than babies. 


text:
2 CORINTHIANS<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO THE CORINTHIANS<p/><b>The Greatness Of Corinth</b><p/> A glance at the map will show that Corinth was made for greatness. The southern part of Greece is very nearly an island. On the west the Corinthian Gulf deeply indents the land and on the east the Saronic Gulf. All that is left to join the two parts of Greece together is a little isthmus only four miles across. On that narrow neck of land Corinth stands. Such a position made it inevitable that it should be one of the greatest trading and commercial centres of the ancient world. All traffic from Athens and the north of Greece to Sparta and the Peloponnese had to be routed through Corinth, because it stood on the little neck of land that connected the two.<p/>Not only did the north to south traffic of Greece pass through Corinth of necessity, by far the greater part of the east to west traffic of the Mediterranean passed through her from choice. The extreme southern tip of Greece was known as Cape Malea (now called Cape Matapan). It was dangerous, and to round Cape Malea had much the same sound as to round Cape Horn had in later times. The Greeks had two sayings which showed what they thought of it--"Let him who sails round Malea forget his home," and, "Let him who sails round Malea first make his will."<p/>The consequence was that mariners followed one of two courses. They sailed up the Saronic Gulf, and, if their ships were small enough, dragged them out of the water, set them on rollers, hauled them across the isthmus, and re-launched them on the other side. The isthmus was actually called the Diolkos, the place of dragging across. The idea is the same as that which is contained in the Scottish place name Tarbert, which means a place where the land is so narrow that a boat can be dragged from loch to loch. If that course was not possible because the ship was too large, the cargo was disembarked, carried by porters across the isthmus, and re-embarked on another ship at the other side. This four mile journey across the isthmus, where the Corinth Canal now runs, saved a journey of two hundred and two miles round Cape Malea, the most dangerous cape in the Mediterranean.<p/>It is easy to see how great a commercial city Corinth must have been. The north to south traffic of Greece had no alternative but to pass through her; by far the greater part of the east to west trade of the Mediterranean world chose to pass through her. Round Corinth there clustered three other towns, Lechaeum at the west end of the isthmus, Cenchrea at the east end and Schoenus just a short distance away. Farrar writes, "Objects of luxury soon found their way to the markets which were visited by every nation in the civilized world--Arabian balsam, Phoenician dates, Libyan ivory, Babylonian carpets, Cilician goats' hair, Lycaonian wool, Phrygian slaves."<p/>Corinth, as Farrar calls her, was the Vanity Fair of the ancient world. Men called her The Bridge of Greece; one called her The Lounge of Greece. It has been said that if a man stands long enough in Piccadilly Circus he will in the end meet everyone in the country. Corinth was the Piccadilly Circus of the Mediterranean. To add to the concourse which came to it, Corinth was the place where the Isthmian Games were held, which were second only to the Olympics. Corinth was a rich and populous city with one of the greatest commercial trades in the ancient world.<p/><b>The Wickedness Of Corinth</b><p/> There was another side to Corinth. She had a reputation for commercial prosperity, but she was also a byword for evil living. The very word korinthiazesthai, to live like a Corinthian, had become a part of the Greek language, and meant to live with drunken and immoral debauchery. The word actually penetrated to the English language, and, in Regency times, a Corinthian was one of the wealthy young bucks who lived in reckless and riotous living. Aelian, the late Greek writer, tells us that if ever a Corinthian was shown upon the stage in a Greek play he was shown drunk. The very name Corinth was synonymous with debauchery and there was one source of evil in the city which was known all over the civilized world. Above the isthmus towered the hill of the Acropolis, and on it stood the great temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. To that temple there were attached one thousand priestesses who were sacred prostitutes, and in the evenings they descended from the Acropolis and plied their trade upon the streets of Corinth, until it became a Greek proverb, "It is not every man who can afford a journey to Corinth." In addition to these cruder sins, there flourished far more recondite vices, which had come in with the traders and the sailors from the ends of the earth, until Corinth became not only a synonym for wealth and luxury, drunkenness and debauchery, but also for filth.<p/><b>The History Of Corinth</b><p/> The history of Corinth falls into two parts. She was a very ancient city. Thucydides, the Greek historian, claims that it was in Corinth that the first triremes, the Greek battleships, were built. Legend has it that it was in Corinth that the Argo was built, the ship in which Jason sailed the seas, searching for the golden fleece. But in 146 B.C. disaster befell her. The Romans were engaged in conquering the world. When they sought to reduce Greece, Corinth was the leader of the opposition. But the Greeks could not stand against the disciplined Romans, and in 146 B.C. Lucius Mummius, the Roman general, captured Corinth and left her a desolate heap of ruins.<p/>But any place with the geographical situation of Corinth could not remain a devastation. Almost exactly one hundred years later, in 46 B.C. Julius Caesar rebuilt her and she arose from her ruins. Now she became a Roman colony. More, she became a capital city, the metropolis of the Roman province of Achaea, which included practically all Greece.<p/>In those days, which were the days of Paul, her population was very mixed. (i) There were the Roman veterans whom Julius Caesar had settled there. When a Roman soldier had served his time, he was granted the citizenship and was then sent out to some newly-founded city and given a grant of land so that he might become a settler there. These Roman colonies were planted all over the world, and always the backbone of them was the contingent of veteran regular soldiers whose faithful service had won them the citizenship. (ii) When Corinth was rebuilt the merchants came back, for her situation still gave her commercial supremacy. (iii) There were many Jews among the population. The rebuilt city offered them commercial opportunities which they were not slow to take. (iv) There was a sprinkling of Phoenicians and Phrygians and people from the east, with their exotic customs and their hysterical ways. Farrar speaks of "this mongrel and heterogeneous population of Greek adventurers and Roman bourgeois, with a tainting infusion of Phoenicians; this mass of Jews, ex-soldiers, philosophers, merchants, sailors, freedmen, slaves, trades-people, hucksters and agents of every form of vice." He characterizes her as a colony "without aristocracy, without traditions and without well-established citizens."<p/>Remember the background of Corinth, remember its name for wealth and luxury, for drunkenness and immorality and vice, and then read <a href='B:530 6:9-10'>1Co 6:9-10</a>.<p/>Are you not aware that the unrighteous will not inherit the<p/>Kingdom of God? Make no mistake--neither fornicators, nor<p/>idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sensualists, nor homosexuals, nor<p/>thieves, nor rapacious men, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor<p/>robbers shall inherit the Kingdom of God--and such were some of<p/>you.<p/>In this hotbed of vice, in the most unlikely place in all the Greek world, some of Paul's greatest work was done, and some of the mightiest triumphs of Christianity were won.<p/><b>Paul In Corinth</b><p/> Paul stayed longer in Corinth than in any other city, with the single exception of Ephesus. He had left Macedonia with his life in peril and had crossed over to Athens. There he had had little success and had gone on to Corinth, and he remained there for eighteen months. We realize how little we really know of his work when we see that the whole story of that eighteen months is compressed by Luke into 17 verses (<a href='B:510 18:1-17'>Act 18:1-17</a>).<p/>When Paul arrived in Corinth he took up residence with Aquila and Prisca. He preached in the synagogue with great success. With the arrival of Timothy and Silas from Macedonia, he redoubled his efforts, but the Jews were so stubbornly hostile that he had to leave the synagogue. He took up his residence with one Justus who lived next door to the synagogue. His most notable convert was Crispus, who was actually the ruler of the synagogue, and amongst the general public he had good success.<p/>In the year A.D. 52 there came to Corinth as its new governor a Roman called Gallio. He was famous for his charm and gentleness. The Jews tried to take advantage of his newness and good nature and brought Paul to trial before him on a charge of teaching contrary to their law. But Gallio, with impartial Roman justice, refused to have anything to do with the case or to take any action. So Paul completed his work in Corinth and moved on to Syria.<p/><b>The Correspondence With Corinth</b><p/> It was when he was in Ephesus in the year A.D. 55 that Paul, learning that things were not all well in Corinth, wrote to the church there. There is every possibility that the Corinthian correspondence as we have it is out of order. We must remember that it was not until A.D. 90 or thereby that Paul's correspondence was collected. In many churches it must have existed only on scraps of papyrus and the putting it together would be a problem: and it seems that, when the Corinthian letters were collected, they were not all discovered and were not arranged in the right order. Let us see if we can reconstruct what happened.<p/>(i) There was a letter which preceded 1 Corinthians. In <a href='B:530 5:9'>1Co 5:9</a> Paul writes, "I wrote you a letter not to associate with immoral men." This obviously refers to some previous letter. Some scholars believe that letter is lost without trace. Others think it is contained in <a href='B:540 6:14-18'>2Co 6:14-18</a> and <a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a>. Certainly that passage suits what Paul said he wrote about. It occurs rather awkwardly in its context, and, if we take it out and read straight on from <a href='B:540 6:13'>2Co 6:13</a> to <a href='B:540 7:2'>2Co 7:2</a>, we get excellent sense and connection. Scholars call this letter The Previous Letter. (In the original letters there were no chapter or verse divisions. The chapters were not divided up until the thirteenth century and the verses not till the sixteenth, and because of that the arranging of the collection of letters would be much more difficult).<p/>(ii) News came to Paul from various sources of trouble at Corinth. (a) News came from those who were of the household of Chloe (<a href='B:530 1:11'>1Co 1:11</a>). They brought news of the contentions with which the church was torn. (b) News came with the visit of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus to Ephesus. (<a href='B:530 16:17'>1Co 16:17</a>). By personal contact they were able to fill up the gaps in Paul's information. (c) News came in a letter in which the Corinthian Church had asked Paul's; guidance on various problems. In <a href='B:530 7:1'>1Co 7:1</a> Paul begins, "Concerning the matters about which you wrote..." In answer to all this information Paul wrote 1 Corinthians and despatched it to Corinth apparently by the hand of Timothy (<a href='B:530 4:17'>1Co 4:17</a>).<p/>(iii) The result of the letter was that things became worse than ever, and, although we have no direct record of it, we can deduce that Paul paid a personal visit to Corinth. In <a href='B:540 12:14'>2Co 12:14</a> he writes, "The third time I am ready to come to you." In <a href='B:540 13:1-2'>2Co 13:1-2</a>, he says again that he is coming to them for the third time. Now, if there was a third time, there must have been a second time. We have the record of only one visit, whose story is told in <a href='B:510 18:1-17'>Act 18:1-17</a>. We have no record at all of the second, but Corinth was only two or three days' sailing from Ephesus.<p/>(iv) The visit did no good at all. Matters were only exacerbated and the result was an exceedingly severe letter. We learn about that letter from certain passages in 2 Corinthians. In <a href='B:540 2:4'>2Co 2:4</a> Paul writes, "I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears." In <a href='B:540 7:8'>2Co 7:8</a> he writes, "For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it though I did regret it; for I see that that letter has grieved you, though only for a while." It was a letter which was the product of anguish of mind, a letter so severe that Paul was almost sorry that he ever sent it.<p/>Scholars call this The Severe Letter. Have we got it? It obviously cannot be I Corinthians, because it is not a tear-stained and anguished letter. When Paul wrote it, it is clear enough that things were under control. Now if we read through 2 Corinthians we find an odd circumstance. In <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a> everything is made up, there is complete reconciliation and all are friends again; but at <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a> comes the strangest break. <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a> are the most heartbroken cry Paul ever wrote. They show that he has been hurt and insulted as he never was before or afterwards by any church. His appearance, his speech, his apostleship, his honesty have all been under attack.<p/>Most scholars believe that <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a> are the severe letter, and that they have become misplaced when Paul's letters were put together. If we want the real chronological course of Paul's correspondence with Corinth, we really ought to read <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a> before <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a>. We do know that this letter was sent off with Titus. (<a href='B:540 2:13'>2Co 2:13</a>; <a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a>).<p/>(v) Paul was worried about this letter. He could not wait until Titus came back with an answer, so he set out to meet him (<a href='B:540 2:13'>2Co 2:13</a>; <a href='B:540 7:5'>2Co 7:5</a>; <a href='B:540 7:13'>2Co 7:13</a>). Somewhere in Macedonia he met him and learned that all was well, and, probably at Philippi, he sat down and wrote <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a>, the letter of reconciliation.<p/>Stalker has said that the letters of Paul take the roof off the early churches and let us see what went on inside. Of none of them is that truer than the letters to Corinth. Here we see what "the care of all the churches" must have meant to Paul. Here we see the heart-breaks and the joys. Here we see Paul, the shepherd of his flock, bearing the sorrows and the problems of his people on his heart.<p/><b>The Corinthian Correspondence</b><p/> Before we read the letters in detail let us set down the progress of the Corinthian correspondence in tabular form.<p/>(i) The Previous Letter, which may be contained in <a href='B:540 6:14-18'>2Co 6:14-18</a> and <a href='B:540 7:1'>2Co 7:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The arrival of Chloe's people, of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, and of the letter to Paul from the Corinthian Church.<p/>(iii) 1 Corinthians is written in reply and is despatched with Timothy.<p/>(iv) The situation grows worse and Paul pays a personal visit to Corinth, which is so complete a failure that it almost breaks his heart.<p/>(v) The consequence is The Severe Letter, which is almost certainly contained in <a href='B:540 10:1-18'>2Co 10:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 11:1-33'>2Co 11:1-33</a>; <a href='B:540 12:1-21'>2Co 12:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 13:1-14'>2Co 13:1-14</a>, and which was despatched with Titus.<p/>(vi) Unable to wait for an answer, Paul sets out to meet Titus. He meets him in Macedonia, learns that all is well and, probably from Philippi, writes <a href='B:540 1:1-24'>2Co 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 2:1-17'>2Co 2:1-17</a>; <a href='B:540 3:1-18'>2Co 3:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 4:1-18'>2Co 4:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 5:1-21'>2Co 5:1-21</a>; <a href='B:540 6:1-18'>2Co 6:1-18</a>; <a href='B:540 7:1-16'>2Co 7:1-16</a>; <a href='B:540 8:1-24'>2Co 8:1-24</a>; <a href='B:540 9:1-15'>2Co 9:1-15</a>, The Letter of Reconciliation.<p/>The first four chapters of 1 Corinthians deal with the divided state of the Church of God at Corinth. Instead of being a unity in Christ it was split into sects and parties, who had attached themselves to the names of various leaders and teachers. It is Paul's teaching that these divisions had emerged because the Corinthians thought too much about human wisdom and knowledge and too little about the sheer grace of God. In fact, for all their so-called wisdom, they are really in a state of immaturity. They think that they are wise men, but really they are no better than babies. 


text:
GALATIANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227:) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36:)<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 2:1-23'>Col 2:1-23</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>).<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS<p/><b>Paul Under Attack</b><p/> Someone has likened the letter to the Galatians to a sword flashing in a great swordsman's hand. Both Paul and his gospel were under attack. If that attack had succeeded, Christianity might have become just another Jewish sect, might have become a thing dependent upon circumcision and on keeping the law, instead of being a thing of grace. It is strange to think that, if Paul's opponents had had their way, the gospel might have been kept for Jews and we might never have had the chance to know the love of Christ.<p/><b>Paul's Apostleship Attacked</b><p/> It is impossible for a man to possess a vivid personality and a strong character like Paul and not encounter opposition; and equally impossible for a man to lead such a revolution in religious thought as he did and not be attacked. The first attack was on his apostleship. There were many to say that he was no apostle at all.<p/>From their own point of view they were right. In <a href='B:510 1:21-22'>Act 1:21-22</a> we have the basic definition of an apostle. Judas the traitor had committed suicide; it was necessary to fill the blank made in the apostolic band. They define the man to be chosen as one who must be "one of these men who were with us during all the time our Lord went in and out amongst us, beginning from the baptism of John, until the day he was taken from us" and "a witness of the Resurrection." To be an apostle a man must have companied with Jesus during his earthly life and have witnessed his Resurrection. That qualification Paul obviously did not fulfil. Further, not so very long ago he had been the arch-persecutor of the Christian Church.<p/>In <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a> Paul answers that. Proudly he insists that his apostleship is from no human source and that no human hand ordained him to that office, but that he received his call direct from God. Others might have the qualifications demanded when the first blank in the apostolic band was filled; but he had a unique qualification--he had met Christ face to face on the Damascus Road.<p/><b>Independence And Agreement</b><p/> Further, Paul insists that for his message he was dependent on no man. That is why in <a href='B:550 1:1-24'>Gal 1:1-24</a>; <a href='B:550 2:1-21'>Gal 2:1-21</a> he carefully details his visits to Jerusalem. He is insisting that he is not preaching some second-hand message which he received from a man; he is preaching a message which he received direct from Christ. But Paul was no anarchist. He insisted that, although his message was received in entire independence, it yet had received the full approval of those who were the acknowledged leaders of the Christian Church (<a href='B:550 2:6-10'>Gal 2:6-10</a>). The gospel he preached came direct from God to him; but it was a gospel in full agreement with the faith delivered to the Church.<p/><b>The Judaizers</b><p/> But that gospel was under attack as well. It was a struggle which had to come and a battle which had to be fought. There were Jews who had accepted Christianity; but they believed that all God's promises and gifts were for Jews alone and that no Gentile could be admitted to these precious privileges. They therefore believed that Christianity was for Jews and Jews alone. If Christianity was God's greatest gift to men, that was all the more reason that none but Jews should be allowed to enjoy it. In a way that was inevitable. There was a type of Jew who arrogantly believed in the idea of the chosen people. He could say the most terrible things--"God loves only Israel of all the nations he has made." "God will judge Israel with one measure and the Gentiles with another." "The best of the snakes crush; the best of the Gentiles kill." "God created the Gentiles to be fuel for the fires of Hell." This was the spirit which made the law lay it down that it was illegal to help a Gentile mother in her sorest hour, for that would only be to bring another Gentile into the world. When this type of Jew saw Paul bringing the gospel to the despised Gentile, he was appalled and infuriated.<p/><b>The Law</b><p/> There was a way out of this. If a Gentile wished to become a Christian, let him become a Jew first. What did that mean? It meant that he must be circumcised and take the whole burden of the law upon him. That, for Paul, was the opposite of all that Christianity meant. It meant that a man's salvation was dependent on his ability to keep the law and could be won by his own unaided efforts; whereas, to Paul salvation was entirely a thing of grace. He believed that no man could ever earn the favour of God. All he could do was accept the love God offered him by making an act of faith and flinging himself on his mercy. The Jew would go to God saying, "Look! Here is my circumcision. Here are my works. Give me the salvation I have earned." Paul would say:<p/>"Not the labours of my hands<p/>Can fulfil thy law's demands;<p/>Could my zeal no respite know,<p/>Could my tears for ever flow,<p/>All for sin could not atone:<p/>Thou must save, and thou alone.<p/>Nothing in my hand I bring,<p/>Simply to thy Cross I cling;<p/>Naked, come to thee for dress;<p/>Helpless, look to thee for grace;<p/>Foul, I to the fountain fly;<p/>Wash me, Saviour, or I die."<p/>For him the essential thing was, not what a man could do for God, but what God had done for him.<p/>"But," the Jews argued, "the greatest thing in our national life is the law. God gave that law to Moses and on it our very lives depend." Paul replied, "Wait one moment. Who is the founder of our nation? To whom were the greatest of God's promises given?" Of course, the answer is Abraham. "Now, went on Paul, "how was it that Abraham gained the favour of God? He could not have gained it by keeping the law because he lived four hundred and thirty years before the law was given to Moses. He gained it by an act of faith. When God told him to leave his people and go out, Abraham made a sublime act of faith and went, trusting everything to him. It was faith that saved Abraham, not law; and, Paul continues, "it is faith that must save every man, not deeds of the law. The real son of Abraham is not a man racially descended from him but one who, no matter his race, makes the same surrender of faith to God."<p/><b>The Law And Grace</b><p/> If all this be true, one very serious question arises--what then is the place of the law? It cannot be denied that it was given by God; does this emphasis on grace simply wipe it out?<p/>The law has its own place in the scheme of things. First, it tells men what sin is. If there is no law, a man cannot break it and there can be no such thing as sin. Second, and most important, the law really drives a man to the grace of God. The trouble about the law is that because we are sinful men we can never keep it perfectly. Its effect, therefore, is to show a man his weakness and to drive him to a despair in which he sees that there is nothing left but to throw himself on the mercy and the love of God. The law convinces us of our own insufficiency and in the end compels us to admit that the only thing which can save us is the grace of God. In other words the law is an essential stage on the way to that grace.<p/>In this epistle Paul's great theme is the glory of the grace of God and the necessity of realizing that we can never save ourselves. 


text:
EPHESIANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227:) It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36:)<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 2:1-23'>Col 2:1-23</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end.) In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me" (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>).<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE EPHESIANS<p/><b>The Supreme Letter</b><p/> By common consent the Letter to the Ephesians ranks very high in the devotional and theological literature of the Christian Church. It has been called "The Queen of the Epistles"--and rightly so. Many would hold that it is indeed the highest reach of New Testament thought. When John Knox was very near his end, the book that was most often read to him was John Calvin's Sermons on the Letter to the Ephesians. Coleridge said of Ephesians that it was "the divinest composition of man." He went on: "It embraces first, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and, then, those precepts common with it in natural religion." Ephesians clearly has a place all its own in the Pauline correspondence.<p/>And yet there are certain very real problems connected with it. These problems are not the product of the minds of over-critical scholars, but are plain for all to see. When, however, these problems are solved, Ephesians becomes a greater letter than ever and shines with an even more radiant light.<p/><b>The Circumstances Of The Writing Of Ephesians</b><p/> Before we turn to the doubtful things, let us set down the certainties. First, Ephesians was clearly written when Paul was in prison. He calls himself "a prisoner for Christ" (<a href='B:560 3:1'>Eph 3:1</a>); it is as "a prisoner for the Lord" that he beseeches them (<a href='B:560 4:1'>Eph 4:1</a>); he is "an ambassador in chains" (<a href='B:560 6:20'>Eph 6:20</a>). It was in prison, and very near to the end, that Paul wrote Ephesians.<p/>Second, Ephesians has clearly a close connection with Colossians. It would seem that Tychicus was the bearer of both these letters. In Colossians Paul says that Tychicus will tell them all about his affairs (<a href='B:580 4:7'>Col 4:7</a>); and in Ephesians he says that Tychicus will give them all information (<a href='B:560 6:21'>Eph 6:21</a>). Further, there is a close resemblance between the substance of the two letters, so close that more than 55 verses in the two letters are verbatim the same. Either, as Coleridge held, Colossians is what might be called "the overflow" of Ephesians, or Ephesians is a greater version of Colossians. We shall in the end come to see that it is this resemblance which gives us the clue to the unique place of Ephesians among the letters of Paul.<p/><b>The Problem</b><p/> So, then, it is certain that Ephesians was written when Paul was in prison for the faith and that it has in some way the closest possible connection with Colossians. The problem emerges when we begin to examine the question of to whom Ephesians was written.<p/>In the ancient days letters were written on rolls of papyrus. When finished, they were tied with thread, and, if they were specially private or important, the knots in the thread were then sealed. But it was seldom that any address was written on them, for the very simple reason that, for the ordinary individual, there was no postal system. There was a government post, but it was available only for official and imperial correspondence and not for the ordinary person. Letters in those days were delivered by hand and therefore no address was necessary. So the titles of the New Testament letters are not part of the original letters at all. They were inserted afterwards when the letters were collected and published for all the Church to read.<p/>When we study Ephesians closely, we find it in the last degree unlikely that it was written to the church at Ephesus. There are internal reasons for arriving at that conclusion.<p/>(a) The letter was written to Gentiles. The recipients were "Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise" (<a href='B:560 2:11'>Eph 2:11</a>). Paul urges them "no longer to live as the Gentiles do" (<a href='B:560 4:17'>Eph 4:17</a>). The fact that they were Gentiles did not of itself mean that the letter could not have been written to Ephesus; but it is a fact to note.<p/>(b) Ephesians is the most impersonal letter Paul ever wrote. It is entirely without personal greetings and without the intimate personal messages of which the other letters are so full. That is doubly surprising when we remember that Paul spent longer in Ephesus than in any other city, no less than three years (<a href='B:510 20:31'>Act 20:31</a>). Further, there is no more intimate and affectionate passage in the whole New Testament than <a href='B:510 20:17-35'>Act 20:17-35</a> where we have Paul's farewell talk to the elders of Ephesus, before he left Miletus on his last journey. It is very difficult to believe in face of all this that Paul would have sent a letter to Ephesus which was so impersonal.<p/>(c) The indication of the letter is that Paul and the recipients did not know each other personally and that their knowledge of each other came by hearsay. In <a href='B:560 1:15'>Eph 1:15</a> Paul writes: "Because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus." The loyalty of the people to whom he was writing was something which had come to him by information and not by experience. In <a href='B:560 3:2'>Eph 3:2</a> he writes to them: "Assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace that was given to me for you." That is to say: "If you have heard that God gave me the special task and office of being the apostle to Gentiles such as you." The Church's knowledge of Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles was something of which they have heard, but not something which they knew by personal contact with him. So, then, within itself the letter bears signs that it does not fit the close and personal relationship which Paul had with the Church at Ephesus.<p/>These facts might be explained; but there is one external fact which settles the matter. In <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a> none of the great early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament contain the words in Ephesus. They all read: "Paul...to the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus." And we know, from the way in which they comment on it, that that was the form in which the early Greek fathers knew the text.<p/><b>Was Paul The Author?</b><p/> Some scholars have gone on to find still another difficulty in Ephesians. They have doubted whether Paul was the author of the letter at all. On what grounds do they base their doubts?<p/>They say that the vocabulary, is different from the vocabulary of Paul; and it is true that there are some seventy words in Ephesians which are not found in any other letter written by Paul. That need not trouble us, for the fact is that in Ephesians Paul was saying things which he had never said before. He was travelling a road of thought along which he had not before travelled; and naturally he needed new words to express new thoughts. It would be ridiculous to demand that a man with a mind like Paul's should never add to his vocabulary and should always express himself in the same way.<p/>They say that the style is not the style of Paul. It is true-- we can see it even in the English, let alone in the Greek--that the style of Ephesians is different from that of the other letters. The other letters are all written to meet a definite situation. But, as A. H. McNeile has said, Ephesians is "a theological tract, or rather a religious mediation." Even the use of language is different. Moffatt puts it this way--generally speaking, Paul's language pours out like a torrent; but in Ephesians we have "a slow, bright stream, flowing steadily along, which brims its high banks." The length of the sentences in Ephesians is astonishing. In the Greek <a href='B:560 1:3-14'>Eph 1:3-14</a>; <a href='B:560 1:15-23'>Eph 1:15-23</a>; <a href='B:560 2:1-9'>Eph 2:1-9</a>; <a href='B:560 3:1-7'>Eph 3:1-7</a> are each one long, meandering sentence. McNeile very beautifully and rightly calls Ephesians "a poem in prose." All this is very unlike Paul's normal style.<p/>What is to be said to this? There is first the general fact that no great writer always writes in the same style. Shakespeare can produce the very different styles of Hamlet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Taming of the Shrew, and the Sonnets. Any great stylist--and Paul was a great stylist--writes in a style to fit his aim and his circumstances at the time of writing. It is bad criticism to say that Paul did not write Ephesians simply because he has evolved a new vocabulary and a new style.<p/>But there is more. Let us remember how Paul wrote most of his letters. He wrote them in the midst of a busy ministry, when, for the most part, he was on the road. He wrote them to meet a demanding problem which had to be dealt with at the moment. That is to say, in most of his letters Paul was writing against time. Now let us remember that Paul, if he wrote Ephesians, wrote it when he was in prison. That is to say, he had all the time in the world to write it. Is it any wonder that the style of Ephesians; is not the style of the earlier letters?<p/>Moreover, this difference in style, this meditative, poetical quality is most apparent in <a href='B:560 1:1-23'>Eph 1:1-23</a>; <a href='B:560 2:1-22'>Eph 2:1-22</a>; <a href='B:560 3:1-21'>Eph 3:1-21</a>, and they are one long prayer, culminating in a great doxology. There is in fact nothing like this in all Paul's letters. This is the language of lyrical prayer, not the language of argument or controversy or rebuke.<p/>The differences are far from proving that Ephesians is not by Paul.<p/><b>The Thought Of The Epistle</b><p/> Certain scholars wish to go on to say that the thought of Ephesians is beyond the thought of any of the other letters of Paul. Let us see what that thought is. We have seen that Ephesians is intimately connected with Colossians whose central thought is the all-sufficiency, of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ were hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (<a href='B:580 2:3'>Col 2:3</a>); all the fulness of God dwelt in him (<a href='B:580 1:19'>Col 1:19</a>); in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily (<a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a>); he alone is necessary and sufficient for man's salvation (<a href='B:580 1:14'>Col 1:14</a>). The whole thought of Colossians is based on the complete sufficiency of Jesus Christ.<p/>The thought of Ephesians is a development of that conception. It is summarized in two verses of the first chapter, in which Paul speaks of God as, "having made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth." (<a href='B:560 1:9-10'>Eph 1:9-10</a>).<p/>The key thought of Ephesians is the gathering together of all things in Jesus Christ. In nature as it is without Christ there is nothing but disunity and disharmony; it is "red in tooth and claw." Man's dominion has broken the social union which should exist between man and the beasts; man is divided from man; class from class; nation from nation; ideology from ideology; Gentile from Jew. What is true of the world of outer nature is true of human nature. In every man there is a tension; every man is a walking civil war, torn between the desire for good and the desire for evil; he hates his sins and loves them at one and the same time. According to both Greek and Jewish thought in the time of Paul, this disharmony extends even to the heavenly places. A cosmic battle is raging between the powers of evil and the powers of good; between God and the demons. Worst of all there is disharmony between God and man. Man, who was meant to be in fellowship with God, is estranged from him.<p/>So, then, in this world without Christ, there is nothing but disunity. That disunity is not God's purpose but it can become a unity only when all things are united in Christ. As E. F. Scott has it: "The innumerable broken strands were to be brought together in Christ, knotted again into one, as they had been in the beginning." The central thought of Ephesians is the realization of the disunity in the universe and the conviction that it can become unity only when everything is united in Christ.<p/><b>The Origin Of Paul's Thought</b><p/> How did Paul arrive at this great conception of the unity of all things in Jesus Christ? Most likely he came to it in two ways. It is surely the inevitable outcome of his conviction, stated so vividly in Colossians, that Christ is all-sufficient. But it may well be that there was something else which moved Paul's mind in this direction. He was a Roman citizen and proud of it. In his journeys Paul had seen a great deal of the Roman Empire, and now he was in Rome, the imperial city. In the Roman Empire a new unity had come to the world. The pax Romana, the Roman peace, was a very real thing. Kingdoms and states and countries, which had struggled and warred with each other, were gathered into a new unity in the Empire which was Rome. It may well be that in his imprisonment Paul saw with new eyes how all this unity centred in Rome; and it may well have seemed to him a symbol of how all things must centre in Christ, if a disunited nature and world and humanity were ever to be gathered into a unity. Surely, so far from being a conception that was beyond his thinking, all Paul's thinking and experience would lead him precisely to that.<p/><b>The Function Of The Church</b><p/> It is in <a href='B:560 1:1-23'>Eph 1:1-23</a>; <a href='B:560 2:1-22'>Eph 2:1-22</a>; <a href='B:560 3:1-21'>Eph 3:1-21</a> that Paul deals with this conception of the unity in Christ. In the second three chapters he has much to say of the place of the Church in God's plan to bring about that unity. It is here that Paul strikes out one of his greatest phrases. The Church is the Body of Christ. The Church is to be hands to do Christ's work, feet to run upon his errands, a mouth to speak for him. So, then, we have a double thesis in Ephesians. First, Christ is God's instrument of reconciliation. Second, the Church is Christ's instrument of reconciliation. The Church must bring Christ to the world; and it is within the Church that all the middle walls of separation must be broken down. It is through the Church that the unity of all the discordant elements must be achieved. As E. F. Scott has it: "The Church stands for that purpose of world-wide reconciliation for which Christ appeared, and in all their intercourse with one another Christians must seek to realize this formative idea of the Church."<p/><b>Who But Paul?</b><p/> This is the thought of Ephesians. As we have seen, there are some who, thinking of the vocabulary and the style and the thought of this letter, cannot believe that Paul wrote it. E. J. Goodspeed, the American scholar, has put forward an interesting--but unconvincing--theory. The probability is that it was in Ephesus about the year A.D. 90 that the letters of Paul were first collected and sent out to the Church at large. It is Goodspeed's theory that the man responsible for that collection, some disciple of Paul, wrote Ephesians as a kind of introduction to the whole collection. Surely that theory breaks down on one salient fact. Any imitation is inferior to the original. But so far from being inferior Ephesians might well be said to be the greatest of all the Pauline letters. If Paul did not write it himself, we have to postulate as its writer someone who was possibly greater than Paul. E. F. Scott very relevantly demands: "Can we believe that in the Church of Paul's day there was an unknown teacher of this supreme excellence? The natural assumption is surely that an epistle so like the work of Paul at his best was written by no other man than by Paul himself." No man ever had a greater vision of Christ than this which sees in Christ the one centre in whom all the disunities of life are gathered into one. No man ever had a greater vision of the Church than this which sees in the Church God's instrument in that world-wide reconciliation. And we may well believe that no man other than Paul could rise to a vision like that.<p/><b>The Destination Of Ephesians</b><p/> We must now return to the problem which earlier we left unsolved. If Ephesians was not written to Ephesus--to what church was it written?<p/>The oldest suggestion is that it was written to Laodicea. In <a href='B:580 4:16'>Col 4:16</a> Paul writes: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea." That sentence makes certain that a letter had gone from Paul to the church at Laodicea. We possess no such letter amongst Paul's letters as they stand. Marcion was one of the first people to make a collection of Paul's letters, just about the middle of the second century, and he actually calls Ephesians the Letter to the Laodiceans. So from very early times there must have been a feeling in the Church that Ephesians was actually sent in the first instance to Laodicea.<p/>If we accept that interesting and attractive suggestion, we still have to explain how the letter lost its individual address to Laodicea and came to be connected with Ephesus. There could be two explanations.<p/>It may be that, when Paul died, the church at Ephesus knew that the church at Laodicea possessed a wonderful letter from Paul; and wrote to Laodicea asking for a copy. A copy may have been made and sent off, omitting only the words in Laodicea in the first verse, and leaving a blank as the earliest manuscripts have a blank there. Almost thirty years later the letters of Paul were collected for general publication. Now Laodicea was in a district which was notorious for earthquakes, and it may well have been that all its archives were destroyed; and that, therefore, when the collection was made, the only copy of the Letter to the Laodiceans was that which survived in Ephesus. That letter may then have come to be known as the Letter to the Ephesians, because it was in Ephesus that the only extant copy survived.<p/>The second suggested explanation was propounded by Harnack, the great German scholar. In the later days the church in Laodicea sadly fell from grace. In the Revelation there is a letter to Laodicea which makes sad reading (<a href='B:730 3:14-22'>Rev 3:14-22</a>). In that letter the church of Laodicea is unsparingly condemned by the Risen Christ, so much so that he says to her in that vivid phrase: "I will spew you out of my mouth" (<a href='B:730 3:16'>Rev 3:16</a>). Now in the ancient world there was a custom called damnatio memoriae, the condemnation of a man's memory. A man might have rendered many a signal service to the state, for which his name might occur in books, in the state annals, in inscriptions and on memorials. But if such a man ended in some base act, some utter wreck of honour, his memory was condemned. His name was erased from all books, obliterated from all inscriptions, chiselled out of all memorials. Harnack thinks it possible that the church of Laodicea underwent a damnatio memoriae so that her very name was obliterated from the Christian records. If that were so, then the copies of the Letter to Laodicea would have no address at all; and when the collection was made at Ephesus, the name of Ephesus might well have become attached to it.<p/><b>The Circular Letter</b><p/> Both these suggestions are possible but still another suggestion is far more likely. We believe that Ephesians was not in fact written to any one church, but was a circular letter to all Paul's Asian churches. Let us look again at <a href='B:580 4:16'>Col 4:16</a>. He writes: "And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church at Laodicea; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea." Paul does not say that the Colossians must read the epistle to Laodicea; they must read the epistle from Laodicea. It is as if Paul said: "There is a letter circulating; at the present moment it has reached Laodicea; when it is sent on to you from Laodicea be sure to read it." That sounds very like as if there was a letter circulating among the Asian churches,. and we believe that letter was Ephesians.<p/><b>The Quintessence Of Paul</b><p/> If this be so, Ephesians is Paul's supreme letter. We have seen that Ephesians and Colossians are very close to each other. We believe that what happened was that Paul wrote Colossians to deal with a definite situation, an outbreak of heresy. In so doing he stumbled on his great expression of the all-sufficiency of Christ. He said to himself: "This is something that I must get across to all men." So he took the matter he had used in Colossians, removed all the local and temporary and controversial aspects, and wrote a new letter to tell all men of the all-sufficient Christ. Ephesians, as we see it, is the one letter Paul sent to all the eastern churches to tell them that the destined unity of all men and of all things could never be found except in Christ, and to tell them of the supreme task of the Church that of being Christ's instrument in the universal reconciliation of man to man and of man to God. That is why Ephesians is the Queen of the Epistles.<p/><b>Study Method</b><p/> In Ephesians Paul's argument is very closely woven together. It often proceeds in long complicated sentences which are difficult to unravel. If we are really to grasp his meaning, there are passages where it will be better to read the letter, first in fairly long sections and then break down these sections into shorter passages for detailed study. 


text:
PHILIPPIANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36:)<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who would Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added Ws own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>THE LETTER TO THE PHILIPPIANS<p/><b>Introduction To The Letter To The Philippians</b><p/> We are fortunate in one thing in our study of Philippians--there are practically no critical problems involved; for no reputable New Testament critic has ever doubted its genuineness. We can accept Philippians as undoubtedly an authentic letter of Paul.<p/><b>Philippi</b><p/> When Paul chose a place wherein to preach the gospel, he always did so with the eye of a strategist. He always chose one which was not only important in itself but was also the key point of a whole area. To this day many of Paul's preaching-centres are still great road centres and railway junctions. Such was Philippi which had at least three great claims to distinction.<p/>(i) In the neighbourhood there were gold and silver mines, which had been worked as far back as the time of the Phoenicians. It is true that by the time of the Christian era they had become exhausted, but they had made Philippi a great commercial centre of the ancient world.<p/>(ii) The city had been founded by Philip, father of Alexander the Great, and it is his name that it bears. It was founded on the site of an ancient city called Krenides, a name which means The Wells or Fountains. Philip had founded Philippi in 368 B.C. because there was no more strategic site in all Europe. There is a range of hills which divides Europe from Asia, east from west and just at Philippi that chain of hills dips into a pass so that the city commanded the road from Europe to Asia, since the road must go through the pass. This was the reason that one of the great battles of history was fought at Philippi; for it was here that Antony defeated Brutus and Cassius, and thereby decided the future of the Roman Empire.<p/>(iii) Not very long after, Philippi attained the dignity of a Roman Colony. The Roman Colonies were amazing institutions. They were not colonies in the sense of being outposts of civilization in unexplored parts of the world. They had begun by having a military significance. It was the custom of Rome to send out parties of veteran soldiers, who had served their time and been granted citizenship, to settle in strategic road centres. Usually these parties consisted of three hundred veterans with their wives and children. These colonies were the focal points of the great Roman road systems which were so engineered that reinforcements could speedily be sent from one colony to another. They were founded to keep the peace and to command the strategic centres in Rome's far-flung Empire. At first they had been founded in Italy; but soon they were scattered throughout the whole Empire, as the Empire grew. In later days the title of colony was given by the government to any city which it wished to honour for faithful service.<p/>Wherever they were, these colonies were little fragments of Rome and their pride in their Roman citizenship was their dominating characteristic. The Roman language was spoken; Roman dress was worn; Roman customs were observed; their magistrates had Roman titles, and carried out the am ceremonies as were carried out in Rome itself. They were stubbornly and unalterably Roman and would never have dreamt of becoming assimilated to the people amidst whom they wert set. We can hear the Roman pride breathing through the charge against Paul and Silas in <a href='B:510 16:20-21'>Act 16:20-21</a>: "These men are Jews, and they are trying to teach and to introduce laws and customs which it is not right for us to observe--for we are Romans."<p/>"You are a colony of heaven" (King James Version), Paul wrote to the Philippian Church (Php_3:20). Just as the Roman colonist never forgot in any environment that he was a Roman, so they must never forget in any society that they were Christians. Nowhere were men prouder of being Roman citizens than in these colonies; and such was Philippi.<p/><b>Paul And Philippi</b><p/> It was on the second missionary journey, about the year A.D. 52, that Paul first came to Philippi. Urged on by the vision of the man of Macedonia with his appeal to come over and help us, Paul had sailed from Alexandrian Troas in Asia Minor. He had landed at Neapolis in Europe, and thence made his way to Philippi.<p/>The story of Paul's stay in Philippi is told in <a href='B:510 16:1-40'>Act 16:1-40</a>; and an interesting story it is. It centres round three people--Lydia, the seller of purple; the demented slave-girl, used by her masters to tell fortunes; and the Roman jailor. It is an extraordinary cross-section of ancient life. These three people were of different nationalities. Lydia was an Asiatic, and her name may well be not a proper name at all but simply "the Lydian lady." The slave-girl was a native Greek. The jailor was a Roman citizen. The whole Empire was being gathered into the Christian Church. But not only were these three of different nationalities; they came from very different grades of society. Lydia was a dealer in purple, one of the most costly substances in the ancient world, and was the equivalent of a merchant prince. The girl was a slave, and, therefore, in the eyes of the law not a person at all, but a living tool. The jailor was a Roman citizen, member of the sturdy Roman middle-class from which the civil service was drawn. In these three the top, the bottom and middle of society are all represented. No chapter in the Bible shows so well the all-embracing faith which Jesus Christ brought to men.<p/><b>Persecution</b><p/> Paul had to leave Philippi after a storm of persecution and an illegal imprisonment. That persecution was inherited by the Philippian Church. He tells them that they have shared in his bonds and in his defence of the gospel (Php_1:7). He bids them not to fear their adversaries for they are going through what he himself has gone through and is now enduring (Php_1:28-30).<p/><b>True Friendship</b><p/> There had grown up between Paul and the Philippian Church a bond of friendship closer than that which existed between him and any other Church. It was his proud boast that he had never taken help from any man or from any Church, and that, with his own two hands, he had satisfied his needs. It was from the Philippians alone that he had agreed to accept a gift. Soon after he left them and moved on to Thessalonica, they sent him a present (Php_4:16). When he moved on and arrived in Corinth by way of Athens, they alone again remembered him with their gifts (<a href='B:540 11:9'>2Co 11:9</a>). "My brethren whom I love and long for," he calls them, "my joy and crown in the Lord" (Php_4:1).<p/><b>The Occasion Of The Writing Of The Letter</b><p/> When Paul wrote this letter he was in prison in Rome, and he wrote it with certain definite objects.<p/>(i) It is a letter of thanks. The years have passed; it is now A.D. 63 or 64 and once again the Philippians have sent him a gift (Php_4:10-11).<p/>(ii) It has to do with Epaphroditus. It seems that the Philippians had sent him not only as a bearer of their gift, but that he might stay with Paul and be his personal servant. But Epaphroditus had fallen ill. He was sick for home; and he was worried because he knew that the people at home were worried about him. Paul sent him home, but he had the unhappy feeling that the people in Philippi might think Epaphroditus a quilter, so he goes out of his way to give him a testimonial: "Receive him with all joy, and honour such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ" (Php_2:29-30). There is something very moving in the sight of Paul, himself in prison and awaiting death, seeking to make things easier for Epaphroditus, when he was unexpectedly and unwillingly compelled to go home. Here is the peak of Christian courtesy.<p/>(iii) It is a letter of encouragement to the Philippians in the trials which they are going through (Php_1:28-30).<p/>(iv) It is an appeal for unity. It is from that, that there rises the great passage which speaks of the selfless humility of Jesus Christ (Php_2:1-11). In the Church at Philippi there were two women who had quarrelled and were endangering the peace (Php_4:2); and there were false teachers who were seeking to lure the Philippians from the true path (Php_3:2). This letter is an appeal to maintain the unity of the Church.<p/><b>The Problem</b><p/> It is just here that the problem of Philippians arises. At Php_3:2 there is an extraordinary break in the letter. Up to Php_3:1 everything is serenity and the letter seems to be drawing gently to its close; then without warning comes the outburst: "Beware of dogs; beware of evil workers; beware of the concision." There is no connection with what goes before. Further, Php_3:1 looks like the end. "Finally, my brethren, says Paul, "rejoice in the Lord" and having said finally he begins all over again! (That, of course, is not an unknown phenomenon in preaching).<p/>Because of this break many scholars think that Philippians, as we possess it, is not one letter but two letters put together. They regard Php_3:2-21 and Php_4:1-3 as a letter of thanks and warning sent quite early after the arrival of Epaphroditus in Rome; and they regard Php_1:1-30 ; Php_2:1-30 ; Php_3:1 and Php_4:4-23 as a letter written a good deal later, and sent with Epaphroditus when he had to go home. That is perfectly possible. We know that Paul almost certainly did, in fact, write more than one letter to Philippi, for Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippian Church, says of him, "when he was absent he wrote letters to you."<p/><b>The Explanation</b><p/> And yet it seems to us that there is no good reason for splitting this letter into two. The sudden break between Php_3:1 and Php_3:2 can be otherwise explained in one of two ways.<p/>(i) As Paul was writing, fresh news may have come of trouble at Philippi; and there and then he may have interrupted his line of thought to deal with it.<p/>(ii) The simplest explanation is this. Philippians is a personal letter and a personal letter is never logically ordered like a treatise. In such a letter we put things down as they come into our heads; we chat on paper with our friends; and an association of ideas which may be clear enough to us may not be so obvious to anyone else. The sudden change of subject here is just the kind of thing which might occur in any such letter.<p/><b>The Lovely Letter</b><p/> For many of us Philippians is the loveliest letter Paul ever wrote. It has been called by two titles. It has been called The Epistle of excellent Things--and so indeed it is; and it has been called The Epistle of Joy. Again and again the words joy and rejoice recur. "Rejoice, writes Paul, "again I will say rejoice, even in prison directing the hearts of his friends--and ours--to the joy that no man can take from us. 


text:
COLOSSIANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36:)<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who would Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added Ws own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE COLOSSIANS<p/><b>The Towns Of The Lycus Valley</b><p/> About one hundred miles from Ephesus, in the valley of the River Lycus, near where it joins the Maeander, there once stood three important cities--Laodicaea, Hierapolis and Colosse. Originally they had been Phrygian cities but now they were part of the Roman province of Asia. They stood almost within sight of each other. Hierapolis and Laodicaea stood on either side of the valley with the River Lycus flowing between, only six miles apart and in full view of each other; Colosse straddled the river twelve miles farther up.<p/>The Lycus Valley had two remarkable characteristics.<p/>(i) It was notorious for earthquakes. Strabo describes it by the curious adjective euseistos, which in English means good for earthquakes. More than once Laodicaea had been destroyed by an earthquake, but she was a city so rich and so independent that she had risen from the ruins without the financial help which the Roman government had offered. As the John who wrote the Revelation was to say of her, in her own eyes she was rich and had need of nothing (<a href='B:730 3:17'>Rev 3:17</a>).<p/>(ii) The waters of the River Lycus and of its tributaries were impregnated with chalk. This chalk gathered and all over the countryside built up the most amazing natural formations. Lightfoot writes in description of that area: "Ancient monuments are buried; fertile land is overlaid; rivers beds choked up and streams diverted; fantastic grottoes and cascades and archways of stone are formed, by this strange, capricious power, at once destructive and creative, working silently throughout the ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the hillside, they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance of twenty miles, and form a singularly striking feature in scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness."<p/><b>A Wealthy Area</b><p/> In spite of these things this was a wealthy area and famous for two closely allied trades. Volcanic ground is always fertile; and what was not covered by the chalky incrustations was magnificent pasture land. On these pastures there were great flocks of sheep and the area was perhaps the greatest centre of the woollen industry in the world. Laodicaea was specially famous for the production of garments of the finest quality. The allied trade was dyeing. There was some quality in those chalky waters which made them specially suitable for dyeing cloth, and Colosse was so famous for this trade that a certain dye was called by its name.<p/>So, then, these three cities stood in a district of considerable geographical interest and of great commercial prosperity.<p/><b>The Unimportant City</b><p/> Originally the three cities had been of equal importance, but, as the years went on, their ways parted. Laodicaea became the political centre of the district and the financial headquarters of the whole area, a city of splendid prosperity. Hierapolis became a great trade-centre and a notable spa. In that volcanic area there were many chasms in the ground from which came hot vapours and springs, famous for their medicinal quality; and people came in their thousands to Hierapolis to bathe and to drink the waters.<p/>Colosse at one time was as great as the other two. Behind her rose the Cadmus range of mountains and she commanded the roads to the mountain passes. Both Xerxes and Cyrus had halted there with their invading armies, and Herodotus had called her "a great city of Phrygia." But for some reason the glory departed. How great that departure was can be seen from the fact that Hierapolis and Laodicaea are both to this day clearly discernible because the ruins of some great buildings still stand; but there is not a stone to show where Colosse stood and her site can only be guessed at. Even when Paul wrote Colosse was a small town; and Lightfoot says that she was the most unimportant town to which Paul ever wrote a letter.<p/>The fact remains that in this town of Colosse there had arisen a heresy which, if it had been allowed to develop unchecked, might well have been the ruination of the Christian faith.<p/><b>The Jews In Phrygia</b><p/> One other fact must be added to complete the picture. These three cities stood in an area in which there were many Jews. Many years before, Antiochus the Great had transported two thousand Jewish families from Babylon and Mesopotamia into the regions of Lydia and Phrygia. These Jews had prospered and, as always happens in such a case, more of their fellow-countrymen had come into the area to share their prosperity. So many came that the stricter Jews of Palestine lamented the number of Jews who left the rigours of their ancestral land for "the wines and baths of Phrygia."<p/>The number of Jews who resided there can be seen from the following historical incident. Laodicaea, as we have seen, was the administrative centre of the district. In the year 62 B.C., Flaccus was the Roman governor resident there. He sought to put a stop to the practice of the Jews of sending money out of the province to pay the Temple tax. He did so by placing an embargo on the export of currency; and in his own part of the province alone he seized as contraband no less than twenty pounds of gold which was meant for the Temple at Jerusalem. That amount of gold would represent the Temple tax of no fewer than 11,000 people. Since women and children were exempt from the tax and since many Jews would successfully evade the capture of their money, we may well put the Jewish population as high as almost 50,000:<p/><b>The Church At Colosse</b><p/> The Christian Church at Colosse was one which Paul had not himself founded and which he had never visited. He classes the Colossians and the Laodicaeans with those who had never seen his face in the flesh (<a href='B:580 2:1'>Col 2:1</a>). But no doubt the founding of the Church sprang from his directing. During his three years in Ephesus the whole province of Asia was evangelized, so that all its inhabitants, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord (<a href='B:510 19:10'>Act 19:10</a>). Colosse was about one hundred miles from Ephesus and it was no doubt in that campaign of expansion that the Colossian Church was founded. We do not know who its founder was; but it may well have been Epaphras, who is described as Paul's fellow-servant and the faithful minister of the Colossian Church and who is later connected also with Hierapolis and Laodicaea (<a href='B:580 1:7'>Col 1:7</a>; <a href='B:580 4:12-13'>Col 4:12-13</a>). If Epaphras was not the founder of the Christian Church there, he was certainly the minister in charge of the area.<p/><b>A Gentile Church</b><p/> It is clear that the Colossian Church was mainly Gentile. The phrase estranged and hostile in mind (<a href='B:580 1:21'>Col 1:21</a>) is the kind of phrase which Paul regularly uses of those who had once been strangers to the covenant of promise. In <a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a> he speaks of making known the mystery of Christ among the Gentiles, when the reference is clearly to the Colossians themselves. In <a href='B:580 3:5-7'>Col 3:5-7</a> he gives a list of their sins before they became Christians, and these are characteristically Gentile sins. We may confidently conclude that the membership of the Church at Colosse was largely composed of Gentiles.<p/><b>The Threat To The Church</b><p/> It must have been Epaphras who brought to Paul, in prison in Rome, news of the situation which was developing in Colosse. Much of the news that he brought was good. Paul is grateful for news of their faith in Christ and their love of the saints (<a href='B:580 1:4'>Col 1:4</a>). He rejoices at the Christian fruit which they are producing (<a href='B:580 1:6'>Col 1:6</a>). Epaphras has brought him news of their love in the Spirit (<a href='B:580 1:8'>Col 1:8</a>). He is glad when he hears of their order and steadfastness in the faith (<a href='B:580 2:5'>Col 2:5</a>). There was trouble at Colosse certainly; but it had not yet become an epidemic. Paul believed that prevention was better than cure; and in this letter he is grasping this evil before it has time to spread.<p/><b>The Heresy At Colosse</b><p/> What the heresy was which was threatening the life of the Church at Colosse no one can tell for sure. "The Colossian Heresy" is one of the great problems of New Testament scholarship. All we can do is to go to the letter itself, list the characteristics we find indicated there and then see if we can find any general heretical tendency to fit the list.<p/>(i) It was clearly a heresy which attacked the total adequacy and the unique supremacy of Christ. No Pauline letter has such a lofty view of Jesus Christ or such insistence on his completeness and finality. Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God; in him all fullness dwells (<a href='B:580 1:15'>Col 1:15</a>; <a href='B:580 1:19'>Col 1:19</a>). In him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge (<a href='B:580 2:2'>Col 2:2</a>). In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form (<a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a>).<p/>(ii) Paul goes out of his way to stress the part that Christ played in creation. By him all things were created (<a href='B:580 1:16'>Col 1:16</a>); in him all things cohere (<a href='B:580 1:17'>Col 1:17</a>). The Son was the Father's instrument in the creation of the universe.<p/>(iii) At the same time he goes out of his way to stress the real humanity of Christ. It was in the body of his flesh that he did his redeeming work (<a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a>). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in him somatikos (<a href='S:G4984'>G4984</a>), in bodily form (<a href='B:580 2:9'>Col 2:9</a>). For all his deity Jesus Christ was truly human flesh and blood.<p/>(iv) There seems to have been an astrological element in this heresy. In <a href='B:580 2:8'>Col 2:8</a>, as the King James Version has it, he says that they were walking after the rudiments of this world, and in <a href='B:580 2:20'>Col 2:20</a> that they ought to be dead to the rudiments of this world. The word translated rudiments is stoicheia (<a href='S:G4747'>G4747</a>), which has two meanings.<p/>(a) Its basic meaning is a row of things; it can, for instance, be used for a file of soldiers. But one of its commonest meanings is the A B C, the letters of the alphabet, set out, as it were, in a row. From that it develops the meaning of the elements of any subject, the rudiments. It is in that sense that the King James Version takes it; and, if that is the correct sense, Paul means that the Colossians are slipping back to an elementary kind of Christianity when they ought to be going on to maturity.<p/>(b) We think that the second meaning is more likely. Stoicheia (<a href='S:G4747'>G4747</a>) can mean the elemental spirits of the world, and especially the spirits of the stars and planets. The ancient world was dominated by thought of the influence of the stars; and even the greatest and the wisest men would not act without consulting them. It believed that all things were in the grip of an iron fatalism settled by the stars; and the science of astrology professed to provide men with the secret knowledge which would rid them of their slavery to the elemental spirits. It is most likely that the Colossian false teachers were teaching that it needed something more than Jesus Christ to rid men of their subjection to these elemental spirits.<p/>(v) This heresy made much of the powers of demonic spirits. There are frequent references to principalities or authorities, which are Paul's names for these spirits (<a href='B:580 1:16'>Col 1:16</a>; <a href='B:580 2:10'>Col 2:10</a>; <a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a>). The ancient world believed implicitly in demonic powers. The air was full of them. Every natural force--the wind, the thunder, the lightning, the rain--had its demonic superintendent. Every place, every tree, every river, every lake had its spirit. They were in one sense intermediaries to God and in another sense barriers to him, for the vast majority of them were hostile to men. The ancient world lived in a demon-haunted universe. The Colossian false teachers were clearly saying that something more than Jesus Christ was needed to defeat the power of the demons.<p/>(vi) There was clearly what we might call a philosophical element in this heresy. The heretics are out to spoil men with philosophy and empty deceit (<a href='B:580 2:8'>Col 2:8</a>). Clearly the Colossian heretics were saying that the simplicities of the gospel needed a far more elaborate and recondite knowledge added to them.<p/>(vii) There was a tendency in this heresy to insist on the observance of special days and rituals--festivals, new moons and sabbaths (<a href='B:580 2:16'>Col 2:16</a>).<p/>(viii) Clearly there was a would-be ascetic element in this heresy. It laid down laws about food and drink (<a href='B:580 2:16'>Col 2:16</a>). Its slogans were: "Touch not; taste not; handle not" (<a href='B:580 2:21'>Col 2:21</a>). It was a heresy which was out to limit Christian freedom by insistence on all kinds of legalistic ordinances.<p/>(ix) Equally this heresy had at least sometimes an antinomian streak in it. It tended to make men careless of the chastity which the Christian should have and to make him think lightly of the bodily sins (<a href='B:580 3:5-8'>Col 3:5-8</a>).<p/>(x) Apparently this heresy gave at least some place to the worship of angels (<a href='B:580 2:18'>Col 2:18</a>). Beside the demons it introduced angelic intermediaries between man and God.<p/>(xi) Lastly, there seems to have been in this heresy something which can only be called spiritual and intellectual snobbery. In <a href='B:580 1:28'>Col 1:28</a> Paul lays down his aim; it is to warn every man; to teach every man in all wisdom; and to present every man mature in Jesus Christ. We see how the phrase every man is reiterated and how the aim is to make him mature in all wisdom. The clear implication is that the heretics limited the gospel to some chosen few and introduced a spiritual and intellectual aristocracy into the wide welcome of the Christian faith.<p/><b>The Gnostic Heresy</b><p/> Was there then any general heretical tendency of thought which would include all this? There was what was called Gnosticism. Gnosticism began with two basic assumptions about matter. First, it believed that spirit alone was good and that matter was essentially evil. Second, it believed that matter was eternal; and that the universe was not created out of nothing--which is orthodox belief--but out of this flawed matter. Now this basic belief had certain inevitable consequences.<p/>(i) It had an effect on the doctrine of creation. If God was spirit, then he was altogether good and could not possibly work with this evil matter. Therefore God was not the creator of the world. He put out a series of emanations, each of which was a little more distant from God until at the end of the series there was an emanation so distant that it could handle matter; and it was this emanation which created the world. The Gnostics went further. Since each emanation was more distant from God. It was also more ignorant of him. As the series went on that ignorance turned to hostility. So the emanations most distant from God were at once ignorant of him and hostile to him. It followed that he who created the world was at once completely ignorant of, and utterly hostile to, the true God. It was to meet that Gnostic doctrine of creation that Paul insisted that the agent of God in creation was not some ignorant and hostile power, but the Son who perfectly knew and loved the Father.<p/>(ii) It had its effect on the doctrine of the person of Jesus Christ. If matter was altogether evil and if Jesus was the Son of God, then Jesus could not have had a flesh and blood body--so the Gnostic argued. He must have been a kind of spiritual phantom. So the Gnostic romances say that when Jesus walked, he left no footprints on the ground. This, of course, completely removed Jesus from humanity and made it impossible for him to be the Saviour of men. It was to meet this Gnostic doctrine that Paul insisted on the flesh and blood body of Jesus and insisted that Jesus saved men in the body of his flesh.<p/>(iii) It had its effect on the ethical approach to life. If matter was evil, then it followed that our bodies were evil. If our bodies were evil, one of two consequences followed. (a) We must starve and beat and deny the body; we must practise a rigid asceticism in which the body was kept under, and in which its every need and desire were refused. (b) It was possible to take precisely the opposite point of view. If the body was evil, it did not matter what a man did with it; spirit was all that mattered. Therefore a man could sate the body's desires and it would make no difference.<p/>Gnosticism could, therefore, issue in asceticism, with all kinds of laws and restrictions; or, it could issue in anti-nomianism, in which any immorality was justified. And we can see precisely both these tendencies at work in the false teachers at Colosse.<p/>(iv) One thing followed from all this--Gnosticism was a highly intellectual way of life and thought. There was this long series of emanations between a man and God; man must fight his way up a long ladder to get to God. In order to do that he would need all kinds of secret knowledge and esoteric learning and hidden passwords. If he was to practise a rigid asceticism, he would need to know the rules; and so rigid would his asceticism be that it would be impossible for him to embark on the ordinary activities of life. The Gnostics were, therefore, quite clear that the higher reaches of religion were open only to the chosen few. This conviction of the necessity of belonging to an intellectual religious aristocracy precisely suits the situation at Colosse.<p/>(v) There remains one thing to fit into this picture. It is quite obvious that there was a Jewish element in the false teaching threatening the Church at Colosse. The festivals and the new moons and the sabbaths were characteristically Jewish; the laws about food and drink were essentially Jewish levitical laws. Where then did the Jews come in? It is a strange thing that many Jews were sympathetic to Gnosticism. They knew all about angels and demons and spirits. But, above all, they said, "We know quite well that it takes special knowledge to reach God. We know quite well that Jesus and his gospel are far too simple--and that special knowledge is to be found nowhere else than in the Jewish law. It is our ritual and ceremonial law which is indeed the special knowledge which enables a man to reach God." The result was that there was not infrequently a strange alliance between Gnosticism and Judaism; and it is just such an alliance that we find in Colosse, where, as we have seen, there were many Jews.<p/>It is clear that the false teachers of Colosse were tinged with Gnostic heresy. They were trying to turn Christianity into a philosophy and a theosophy, and, if they had been successful,. the Christian faith would have been destroyed.<p/><b>The Authorship Of The Letter</b><p/> One question remains. Many scholars do not believe that Paul wrote this letter at all. They have three reasons.<p/>(i) They say that in Colossians there are many words and phrases which do not appear in any other of Paul's letters. That is perfectly true. But it does not prove anything. We cannot demand that a man should always write in the same way and with the same vocabulary. In Colossians we may well believe that Paul had new things to say and found new ways to say them.<p/>(ii) They say that the development of Gnostic thought was, in fact, much later than the time of Paul so that, if the Colossian heresy was connected with Gnosticism, the letter is necessarily later than Paul. It is true that the great written Gnostic systems are later. But the idea of two worlds and the idea of the evil of matter are deeply woven into both Jewish and Greek thought. There is nothing in Colossians which cannot be explained by long-standing Gnostic tendencies in ancient thought, although it is true that the systematization of Gnosticism came later.<p/>(iii) They say that the view of Christ in Colossians is far in advance of any of the letters certainly written by Paul. There are two answers to that.<p/>First, Paul speaks of the unsearchable riches of Christ. In Colosse a new situation met him and out of these unsearchable riches he drew new answers to meet it. It is true that the Christology of Colossians is an advance on anything in the earlier letters of Paul; but that is far from saying that Paul did not write it, unless we are willing to argue that his thought remained for ever static. It is true to say that a man thinks out the implications of his faith only as circumstances compel him to do so; and in face of a new set of circumstances Paul thought out new implications of Christ.<p/>Second, the germ of all Paul's thought about Christ in Colossians does, in fact, exist in one of his earlier letters. In <a href='B:530 8:6'>1Co 8:6</a> he writes of one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and through whom we exist. In that phrase is the essence of all he says in Colossians. The seed was there in his mind, ready to blossom when a new climate and new circumstances called it into growth.<p/>We need not hesitate to accept Colossians as a letter written by Paul.<p/><b>The Great Letter</b><p/> It remains a strange and wonderful fact that Paul wrote the letter which contains the highest reach of his thought to so unimportant a town as Colosse then was. But in doing so he checked a tendency, which, had it been allowed to develop, would have wrecked Asian Christianity and might well have done irreparable damage to the faith of the whole Church. 


text:
1 THESSALONIANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36:)<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who would Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added Ws own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO THE THESSALONIANS<p/><b>Paul Comes To Macedonia</b><p/> For anyone who can read between the lines the story of Paul's coming to Macedonia is one of the most dramatic in the book of Acts. Luke, with supreme economy of words, tells it in <a href='B:510 16:6-10'>Act 16:6-10</a>. Short as that narrative is, it gives the impression of a chain of circumstances inescapably culminating in one supreme event. Paul had passed through Phrygia and Galatia and ahead of him lay the Hellespont. To the left lay the teeming province of Asia, to the right stretched the great province of Bithynia; but the Spirit would allow him to enter neither. There was something driving him relentlessly on to the Aegean Sea. So he came to Alexandrian Troas, still uncertain where he ought to go; and then there came to him a vision in the night of a man who cried, "Come over into Macedonia and help us." Paul set sail, and for the first time the gospel came to Europe.<p/><b>One World</b><p/> At that moment Paul must have seen much more than a continent for Christ. It was in Macedonia that he landed; and Macedonia was the kingdom of Alexander the Great, who had conquered the world and wept because there were no more worlds left to conquer. But Alexander was much more than a military conqueror. He was almost the first universalist. He was more a missionary than a soldier; and he dreamed of one world dominated and enlightened by the culture of Greece. Even so great a thinker as Aristotle had said that it was a plain duty to treat Greeks as free men and orientals as slaves; but Alexander declared that he had been sent by God "to unite, to pacify and to reconcile the whole world." Deliberately he had said that it was his aim "to marry the East to the West." He had dreamed of an Empire in which there was neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian or Scythian, bond or free (<a href='B:580 3:11'>Col 3:11</a>). It is hard to see how Alexander could have failed to be in Paul's thoughts. Paul left from Alexandrian Troas which was called after Alexander; he came to Macedonia which was Alexander's original kingdom; he worked at Philippi which was called after Philip, Alexander's father; he went on to Thessalonica which was called after Alexander's half-sister. The whole territory was saturated with memories of Alexander; and Paul must surely have thought, not of a country nor of a continent, but of a world for Christ.<p/><b>Paul Comes To Thessalonica</b><p/> This sense of the wide-stretching arms of Christianity must have been accentuated when Paul came to Thessalonica. It was a great city. Its original name was Thermal, which means The Hot Springs, and it gave its name to the Thermaic Gulf on which it stood. Six hundred years ago Herodotus had described it as a great city. It has always been a famous harbour. It was there that Xerxes the Persian had his naval base when he invaded Europe; and even in Roman times it was one of the world's great dockyards. In 315 B.C. Cassander had rebuilt the city and renamed it Thessalonica, the name of his wife, who was a daughter of Philip of Macedon and a half-sister of Alexander the Great. It was a free city; that is to say it had never suffered the indignity of having Roman troops quartered within it. It had its own popular assembly and its own magistrates. Its population rose to 200,000 and for a time it was a question whether it or Constantinople would be recognized as the capital of the world. Even today, under the name Salonika, it has 70,000 inhabitants.<p/>But the supreme importance of Thessalonica lay in this--it straddled the Via Egnatia, the Egnatian Road, which stretched from Dyrrachium on the Adriatic to Constantinople on the Bosphorus and thence away to Asia Minor and the East. Its main street was part of the very road which linked Rome with the East. East and West converged on Thessalonica; it was said to be "in the lap of the Roman Empire." Trade poured into her from East and West, so that it was said, "So long as nature does not change, Thessalonica will remain wealthy and prosperous."<p/>It is impossible to overstress the importance of the arrival of Christianity in Thessalonica. If Christianity was settled there, it was bound to spread East along the Egnatian Road until all Asia was conquered and West until it stormed even the city of Rome. The coming of Christianity to Thessalonica was crucial in the making of it into a world religion.<p/><b>Paul's Stay At Thessalonica</b><p/> The story of Paul's stay at Thessalonica is in <a href='B:510 17:1-10'>Act 17:1-10</a>. Now, for Paul, what happened at Thessalonica was of supreme importance. He preached in the synagogue for three Sabbaths (<a href='B:510 17:2'>Act 17:2</a>) which means that his stay there could not have been much more than three weeks in length. He had such tremendous success that the Jews were enraged and raised so much trouble that Paul had to be smuggled out, in peril of his life, to Beroea. The same thing happened in Beroea (<a href='B:510 17:10-12'>Act 17:10-12</a>) and Paul had to leave Timothy and Silas behind and make his escape to Athens. What exercised his mind was this. He had been in Thessalonica only three weeks. Was it possible to make such an impression on a place in three weeks' time that Christianity was planted so deeply that it could never again be uprooted? If so, it was by no means an idle dream that the Roman Empire might yet be won for Christ. Or was it necessary to settle down and work for months, even years, before an impression could be made? In that event, no man could even dimly foresee when Christianity would penetrate all over the world. Thessalonica was a test case; and Paul was torn with anxiety to know how it would turn out.<p/><b>News From Thessalonica</b><p/> So anxious was Paul that, when Timothy joined him at Athens, he sent him back to Thessalonica to get the information without which he could not rest (<a href='B:590 3:1-2'>1Th 3:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 3:5'>1Th 3:5</a>; <a href='B:590 2:17'>1Th 2:17</a>). What news did Timothy bring back? There was good news. The affection of the Thessalonians for Paul was as strong as ever; and they were standing fast in the faith (<a href='B:590 2:14'>1Th 2:14</a>; <a href='B:590 3:4-6'>1Th 3:4-6</a>; <a href='B:590 4:9-10'>1Th 4:9-10</a>). They were indeed "his glory and Ws joy" (<a href='B:590 2:20'>1Th 2:20</a>). But there was worrying news.<p/>(i) The preaching of the Second Coming had produced an unhealthy situation in which people had stopped working and had abandoned all ordinary pursuits to await the Second Coming with a kind of hysterical expectancy. So Paul tells them to be quiet and to get on with their work (<a href='B:590 4:11'>1Th 4:11</a>).<p/>(ii) They were worried about what was to happen to those who died before the Second Coming arrived. Paul explains that those who fall asleep in Jesus will miss none of the glory (<a href='B:590 4:13-18'>1Th 4:13-18</a>).<p/>(iii) There was a tendency to despise all lawful authority; the argumentative Greek was always in danger of producing a democracy run mad (<a href='B:590 5:12-14'>1Th 5:12-14</a>).<p/>(iv) There was the ever-present danger that they would relapse into immorality. It was hard to unlearn the point of view of generations and to escape the contagion of the heathen world (<a href='B:590 4:3-8'>1Th 4:3-8</a>).<p/>(v) There was at least a section who slandered Paul. They hinted that he preached the gospel for what he could get out of it (<a href='B:590 2:5'>1Th 2:5</a>; <a href='B:590 2:9'>1Th 2:9</a>); and that he was something of a dictator (<a href='B:590 2:6-7'>1Th 2:6-7</a>; <a href='B:590 2:11'>1Th 2:11</a>).<p/>(vi) There was a certain amount of division in the Church (<a href='B:590 4:9'>1Th 4:9</a>; <a href='B:590 5:13'>1Th 5:13</a>).<p/>These were the problems with which Paul had to deal; and they show that human nature has not changed so very much.<p/><b>Why Two Letters?</b><p/> We must ask why there are two letters. They art, very much alike and they must have been written within weeks, perhaps days of each other. The second letter was written mainly to clear up a misconception about the Second Coming. The first letter insists that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, and urges watchfulness (<a href='B:590 5:2'>1Th 5:2</a>; <a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a>). But this produced the unhealthy situation where men did nothing but watch and wait; and in the second letter Paul explains what signs must come first before the Second Coming should come (<a href='B:600 2:3-12'>2Th 2:3-12</a>). The Thessalonians had got their ideas about the Second Coming out of proportion. As so often happens to a preacher, Paul's preaching had been misunderstood, and certain phrases had been taken out of context and over-emphasized; and the second letter seeks to put things back in their proper balance and to correct the thoughts of the excited Thessalonians regarding the Second Coming. Of course, Paul takes occasion in the second letter to repeat and to stress much of the good advice and rebuke he had given in the first, but its main aim is to tell them certain things which will calm their hysteria and make them wait, not in excited idleness, but in patient and diligent attendance to the day's work. In these two letters we see Paul solving the day to day problems which arose in the expanding Church. 


text:
2 THESSALONIANS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36:)<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who would Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation.... He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added Ws own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO THE THESSALONIANS<p/><b>Paul Comes To Macedonia</b><p/> For anyone who can read between the lines the story of Paul's coming to Macedonia is one of the most dramatic in the book of Acts. Luke, with supreme economy of words, tells it in <a href='B:510 16:6-10'>Act 16:6-10</a>. Short as that narrative is, it gives the impression of a chain of circumstances inescapably culminating in one supreme event. Paul had passed through Phrygia and Galatia and ahead of him lay the Hellespont. To the left lay the teeming province of Asia, to the right stretched the great province of Bithynia; but the Spirit would allow him to enter neither. There was something driving him relentlessly on to the Aegean Sea. So he came to Alexandrian Troas, still uncertain where he ought to go; and then there came to him a vision in the night of a man who cried, "Come over into Macedonia and help us." Paul set sail, and for the first time the gospel came to Europe.<p/><b>One World</b><p/> At that moment Paul must have seen much more than a continent for Christ. It was in Macedonia that he landed; and Macedonia was the kingdom of Alexander the Great, who had conquered the world and wept because there were no more worlds left to conquer. But Alexander was much more than a military conqueror. He was almost the first universalist. He was more a missionary than a soldier; and he dreamed of one world dominated and enlightened by the culture of Greece. Even so great a thinker as Aristotle had said that it was a plain duty to treat Greeks as free men and orientals as slaves; but Alexander declared that he had been sent by God "to unite, to pacify and to reconcile the whole world." Deliberately he had said that it was his aim "to marry the East to the West." He had dreamed of an Empire in which there was neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian or Scythian, bond or free (<a href='B:580 3:11'>Col 3:11</a>). It is hard to see how Alexander could have failed to be in Paul's thoughts. Paul left from Alexandrian Troas which was called after Alexander; he came to Macedonia which was Alexander's original kingdom; he worked at Philippi which was called after Philip, Alexander's father; he went on to Thessalonica which was called after Alexander's half-sister. The whole territory was saturated with memories of Alexander; and Paul must surely have thought, not of a country nor of a continent, but of a world for Christ.<p/><b>Paul Comes To Thessalonica</b><p/> This sense of the wide-stretching arms of Christianity must have been accentuated when Paul came to Thessalonica. It was a great city. Its original name was Thermal, which means The Hot Springs, and it gave its name to the Thermaic Gulf on which it stood. Six hundred years ago Herodotus had described it as a great city. It has always been a famous harbour. It was there that Xerxes the Persian had his naval base when he invaded Europe; and even in Roman times it was one of the world's great dockyards. In 315 B.C. Cassander had rebuilt the city and renamed it Thessalonica, the name of his wife, who was a daughter of Philip of Macedon and a half-sister of Alexander the Great. It was a free city; that is to say it had never suffered the indignity of having Roman troops quartered within it. It had its own popular assembly and its own magistrates. Its population rose to 200,000 and for a time it was a question whether it or Constantinople would be recognized as the capital of the world. Even today, under the name Salonika, it has 70,000 inhabitants.<p/>But the supreme importance of Thessalonica lay in this--it straddled the Via Egnatia, the Egnatian Road, which stretched from Dyrrachium on the Adriatic to Constantinople on the Bosphorus and thence away to Asia Minor and the East. Its main street was part of the very road which linked Rome with the East. East and West converged on Thessalonica; it was said to be "in the lap of the Roman Empire." Trade poured into her from East and West, so that it was said, "So long as nature does not change, Thessalonica will remain wealthy and prosperous."<p/>It is impossible to overstress the importance of the arrival of Christianity in Thessalonica. If Christianity was settled there, it was bound to spread East along the Egnatian Road until all Asia was conquered and West until it stormed even the city of Rome. The coming of Christianity to Thessalonica was crucial in the making of it into a world religion.<p/><b>Paul's Stay At Thessalonica</b><p/> The story of Paul's stay at Thessalonica is in <a href='B:510 17:1-10'>Act 17:1-10</a>. Now, for Paul, what happened at Thessalonica was of supreme importance. He preached in the synagogue for three Sabbaths (<a href='B:510 17:2'>Act 17:2</a>) which means that his stay there could not have been much more than three weeks in length. He had such tremendous success that the Jews were enraged and raised so much trouble that Paul had to be smuggled out, in peril of his life, to Beroea. The same thing happened in Beroea (<a href='B:510 17:10-12'>Act 17:10-12</a>) and Paul had to leave Timothy and Silas behind and make his escape to Athens. What exercised his mind was this. He had been in Thessalonica only three weeks. Was it possible to make such an impression on a place in three weeks' time that Christianity was planted so deeply that it could never again be uprooted? If so, it was by no means an idle dream that the Roman Empire might yet be won for Christ. Or was it necessary to settle down and work for months, even years, before an impression could be made? In that event, no man could even dimly foresee when Christianity would penetrate all over the world. Thessalonica was a test case; and Paul was torn with anxiety to know how it would turn out.<p/><b>News From Thessalonica</b><p/> So anxious was Paul that, when Timothy joined him at Athens, he sent him back to Thessalonica to get the information without which he could not rest (<a href='B:590 3:1-2'>1Th 3:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 3:5'>1Th 3:5</a>; <a href='B:590 2:17'>1Th 2:17</a>). What news did Timothy bring back? There was good news. The affection of the Thessalonians for Paul was as strong as ever; and they were standing fast in the faith (<a href='B:590 2:14'>1Th 2:14</a>; <a href='B:590 3:4-6'>1Th 3:4-6</a>; <a href='B:590 4:9-10'>1Th 4:9-10</a>). They were indeed "his glory and Ws joy" (<a href='B:590 2:20'>1Th 2:20</a>). But there was worrying news.<p/>(i) The preaching of the Second Coming had produced an unhealthy situation in which people had stopped working and had abandoned all ordinary pursuits to await the Second Coming with a kind of hysterical expectancy. So Paul tells them to be quiet and to get on with their work (<a href='B:590 4:11'>1Th 4:11</a>).<p/>(ii) They were worried about what was to happen to those who died before the Second Coming arrived. Paul explains that those who fall asleep in Jesus will miss none of the glory (<a href='B:590 4:13-18'>1Th 4:13-18</a>).<p/>(iii) There was a tendency to despise all lawful authority; the argumentative Greek was always in danger of producing a democracy run mad (<a href='B:590 5:12-14'>1Th 5:12-14</a>).<p/>(iv) There was the ever-present danger that they would relapse into immorality. It was hard to unlearn the point of view of generations and to escape the contagion of the heathen world (<a href='B:590 4:3-8'>1Th 4:3-8</a>).<p/>(v) There was at least a section who slandered Paul. They hinted that he preached the gospel for what he could get out of it (<a href='B:590 2:5'>1Th 2:5</a>; <a href='B:590 2:9'>1Th 2:9</a>); and that he was something of a dictator (<a href='B:590 2:6-7'>1Th 2:6-7</a>; <a href='B:590 2:11'>1Th 2:11</a>).<p/>(vi) There was a certain amount of division in the Church (<a href='B:590 4:9'>1Th 4:9</a>; <a href='B:590 5:13'>1Th 5:13</a>).<p/>These were the problems with which Paul had to deal; and they show that human nature has not changed so very much.<p/><b>Why Two Letters?</b><p/> We must ask why there are two letters. They art, very much alike and they must have been written within weeks, perhaps days of each other. The second letter was written mainly to clear up a misconception about the Second Coming. The first letter insists that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, and urges watchfulness (<a href='B:590 5:2'>1Th 5:2</a>; <a href='B:590 5:6'>1Th 5:6</a>). But this produced the unhealthy situation where men did nothing but watch and wait; and in the second letter Paul explains what signs must come first before the Second Coming should come (<a href='B:600 2:3-12'>2Th 2:3-12</a>). The Thessalonians had got their ideas about the Second Coming out of proportion. As so often happens to a preacher, Paul's preaching had been misunderstood, and certain phrases had been taken out of context and over-emphasized; and the second letter seeks to put things back in their proper balance and to correct the thoughts of the excited Thessalonians regarding the Second Coming. Of course, Paul takes occasion in the second letter to repeat and to stress much of the good advice and rebuke he had given in the first, but its main aim is to tell them certain things which will calm their hysteria and make them wait, not in excited idleness, but in patient and diligent attendance to the day's work. In these two letters we see Paul solving the day to day problems which arose in the expanding Church. 


text:
1 TIMOTHY<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36).<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS<p/><b>Personal Letters</b><p/> 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus have always been regarded as forming a separate group of letters, different from the other letters of Paul. The most obvious difference is that they, along with the little letter to Philemon, are written to persons, whereas all other Pauline letters are written to Churches. The Muratorian Canon, which was the earliest official list of New Testament books, says that they were written "from personal feeling and affection." They are private rather than public letters.<p/><b>Ecclesiastical Letters</b><p/> But it very soon began to be seen that, though these are personal and private letters, they have a significance and a relevance far beyond the immediate. In <a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a> their aim is set down. They are written to Timothy "that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God." So, then, it came to be seen that these letters have not only a personal significance, but also what one might call an ecclesiastical significance. The Muratorian Canon says of them that, though they are personal letters written out of personal affection, "they are still hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church, and in the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline." Tertullian said that Paul wrote "two letters to Timothy and one to Titus, which were composed concerning the state of the Church (de ecclesiastico statu)." It is not then surprising that the first name given to them was Pontifical Letters, that is, written by the pontifex, the priest, the controller of the Church.<p/><b>Pastoral Letters</b><p/> Bit by bit they came to acquire the name by which they are still known--The Pastoral Epistles. In writing of I Timothy Thomas Aquinas, as long ago as 1274, said, "This letter is as it were a pastoral rule which the Apostle delivered to Timothy." In his introduction to the second letter, he writes, "In the first letter he gives Timothy instructions concerning ecclesiastical order; in this second letter he deals with a pastoral care which should be so great that it will even accept martyrdom for the sake of the care of the flock." But this title, The Pastoral Epistles, really became affixed to these letters in 1726 when a great scholar, Paul Anton by name, gave a series of famous lectures on them under that title.<p/>These letters then deal with the care and organization of the flock of God; they tell men how to behave within the household of God; they give instructions as to how God's house should be administered, as to what kind of people the leaders and pastors of the Church should be, and as to how the threats which endanger the purity of Christian faith and life should be dealt with.<p/><b>The Growing Church</b><p/> The supreme interest of these letters is that we get in them a picture of the infant Church. In those early days it was an island in a sea of paganism. The people in it were only one remove from their heathen origin. It would have been so easy for them to relapse into the pagan standards from which they had come; the tarnishing atmosphere was all around. It is most significant that missionaries tell us that of all letters the Pastoral Epistles speak most directly to the situation of the younger Churches. The situation with which they deal is being re-enacted in India, in Africa, in China every day. They can never lose their interest because in them we see, as nowhere else, the problems which continually beset the growing Church.<p/><b>The Ecclesiastical Background Of The Pastorals</b><p/> From the beginning these letters have presented problems to New Testament scholars. There are many who have felt that, as they stand, they cannot have come directly from the hand and pen of Paul. That this is no new feeling may be seen from the fact that Marcion, who, although he was a heretic, was the first man to draw up a list of New Testament books, did not include them among Paul's letters. Let us then see what makes people doubt their direct Pauline authorship.<p/>In them we are confronted with the picture of a Church with a fairly highly developed ecclesiastical organization. There are elders (<a href='B:610 5:17-19'>1Ti 5:17-19</a>; <a href='B:630 1:5-6'>Tit 1:5-6</a>); there are bishops, superintendents or overseers (<a href='B:610 3:1-7'>1Ti 3:1-7</a>; <a href='B:630 1:7-16'>Tit 1:7-16</a>); there are deacons (<a href='B:610 3:8-13'>1Ti 3:8-13</a>). From <a href='B:610 5:17-18'>1Ti 5:17-18</a> we learn that by that time elders were even salaried officials. The elders that rule well are to be counted worthy of a double pay and the Church is urged to remember that the labourer is worthy of his hire. There is at least the beginning of the order of widows who became so prominent later on in the early Church (<a href='B:610 5:3-16'>1Ti 5:3-16</a>). There is clearly here a quite elaborate structure within the Church, too elaborate some would claim for the early days in which Paul lived and worked.<p/><b>The Days Of Creeds</b><p/> It is even claimed that in these letters we can see the days of creeds emerging. The word faith changed its meaning. In the earliest days it is always faith in a person; it is the most intimate possible personal connection of love and trust and obedience with Jesus Christ. In later days it became faith in a creed; it became the acceptance of certain doctrines. It is said that in the Pastoral Epistles we can see this change emerging.<p/>In the later days men will come who will depart from the faith and give heed to doctrines of devils (<a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a>). A good servant of Jesus Christ must be nourished in the words of faith and good doctrine (<a href='B:610 4:6'>1Ti 4:6</a>). The heretics are men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (<a href='B:620 3:8'>2Ti 3:8</a>). The duty of Titus is to rebuke men that they may be sound in the faith (<a href='B:630 1:13'>Tit 1:13</a>).<p/>This comes out very particularly in an expression peculiar to the Pastorals. Timothy is urged to keep hold of "the truth that has been entrusted to you" (<a href='B:620 1:14'>2Ti 1:14</a>). The word for that has been entrusted is paratheke (<a href='S:G3866'>G3866</a>). Paratheke means a deposit which has been entrusted to a banker or someone else for safe-keeping. It is essentially something which must be handed back or handed on absolutely unchanged. That is to say the stress is on orthodoxy. Instead of being a close, personal relationship to Jesus Christ, as it was in the thrilling and throbbing days of the early Church, faith has become the acceptance of a creed. It is even held that in the Pastorals we have echoes of the earliest creeds.<p/>"God was manifested in the flesh;<p/>Vindicated in the Spirit;<p/>Seen by angels;<p/>Preached among the nations;<p/>Believed on in the world;<p/>Taken up in glory" (<a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a>).<p/>That indeed sounds like the fragment of a creed to be recited.<p/>"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from<p/>David, as preached in my gospel" (<a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a>).<p/>That sounds like a reminder of a sentence from an accepted creed.<p/>Within the Pastorals there undoubtedly are indications that the day of insistence on acceptance of a creed has begun, and that the days of the first thrilling personal discovery of Christ are beginning to fade.<p/><b>A Dangerous Heresy</b><p/> It is clear that in the forefront of the situation against which the Pastoral Epistles were written there was a dangerous heresy which was threatening the welfare of the Christian Church. If we can distinguish the various characteristic features of that heresy, we may be able to go on to identify it.<p/>It was characterized by speculative intellectualism. It produced questions (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>); those involved in it doted about questions (<a href='B:610 6:4'>1Ti 6:4</a>); it dealt in foolish and unlearned questions (<a href='B:620 2:23'>2Ti 2:23</a>); its foolish questions are to be avoided (<a href='B:630 3:9'>Tit 3:9</a>). The word used in each case for questions is ekzetesis (compare <a href='S:G1567'>G1567</a> and <a href='S:G2214'>G2214</a>), which means speculative discussion. This heresy was obviously one which was a play-ground of the intellectuals, or rather the pseudo-intellectuals of the Church.<p/>It was characterized by pride. The heretic is proud, although in reality he knows nothing (<a href='B:610 6:4'>1Ti 6:4</a>). There are indications that these intellectuals set themselves on a plane above the ordinary Christian; in fact they may well have said that complete salvation was outside the grasp of the ordinary man and open only to them. At times the Pastoral Epistles stress the word all in a most significant way. The grace of God, which brings salvation, has appeared to all men (<a href='B:630 2:11'>Tit 2:11</a>). It is God's will that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (<a href='B:610 2:4'>1Ti 2:4</a>). The intellectuals tried to make the greatest blessings of Christianity the exclusive possession of a chosen few; and in contradistinction the true faith stresses the all-embracing love of God.<p/>There were within that heresy two opposite tendencies. There was a tendency to asceticism. The heretics tried to lay down special food laws, forgetting that everything God has made is good (<a href='B:610 4:4-5'>1Ti 4:4-5</a>). They listed many things as impure, forgetting that to the pure all things are pure (<a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a>). It is not impossible that they regarded sex as something unclean and belittled marriage, and even tried to persuade those who were married to renounce it, for in <a href='B:630 2:4'>Tit 2:4</a> the simple duties of the married life are stressed as being binding on the Christian.<p/>But this heresy also issued in immorality. The heretics even invaded private houses and led away weak and foolish women in evil desires (<a href='B:620 3:6'>2Ti 3:6</a>). They professed to know God, but denied him by their deeds (<a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a>). They were out to impose upon people and to make money out of their false teaching. To them gain was godliness (<a href='B:610 6:5'>1Ti 6:5</a>); they taught and deceived for base gain (<a href='B:630 1:11'>Tit 1:11</a>).<p/>On the one hand this heresy issued in an unchristian asceticism, and on the other it produced an equally unchristian immorality.<p/>It was characterized, too, by words and tales and genealogies. It was full of godless chatter and useless controversies (<a href='B:610 6:20'>1Ti 6:20</a>). It produced endless genealogies (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>; <a href='B:630 3:9'>Tit 3:9</a>). It produced myths and fables (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>; <a href='B:630 1:14'>Tit 1:14</a>).<p/>It was at least in some way and to some extent tied up with Jewish legalism. Amongst its devotees were those of the circumcision (<a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a>). The aim of the heretics was to be teachers of the law (<a href='B:610 1:7'>1Ti 1:7</a>). It pressed on men Jewish fables and the commandments of men (<a href='B:630 1:14'>Tit 1:14</a>).<p/>Finally, these heretics denied the resurrection of the body. They said that any resurrection that a man was going to experience had been experienced already (<a href='B:620 2:18'>2Ti 2:18</a>). This is probably a reference to those who held that the only resurrection the Christian experienced was a spiritual one when he died with Christ and rose again with him in the experience of baptism (<a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a>).<p/><b>The Beginnings Of Gnosticism</b><p/> Is there any heresy which fits all this material? There is, and its name is Gnosticism. The basic thought of Gnosticism was that all matter is essentially evil and spirit alone is good. That basic belief had certain consequences.<p/>The Gnostic believed that matter is as eternal as God; and that when God created the world he had to use this essentially evil matter. That meant that to them God could not be the direct creator of the world. In order to touch this flawed matter he had to send out a series of emanations--they called them aeons--each one more and more distant from himself until at last there came an emanation or aeon so distant that it could deal with matter and create the world. Between man and God there stretched a series of these emanations, each with his name and genealogy. So Gnosticism literally had endless fables and endless genealogies. If a man was ever to get to God, he must, as it were, ascend this ladder of emanations; and to do that he needed a very special kind of knowledge including all kinds of passwords to get him past each stage. Only a person of the highest intellectual calibre could hope to acquire this knowledge and know these passwords and so get to God.<p/>Further, if matter was altogether evil, the body was altogether evil. From that, two opposite possible consequences sprang. Either the body must be held down so that a rigorous asceticism resulted, in which the needs of the body were as far as possible eliminated and its instincts, especially the sex instinct, as far as possible destroyed; or it could be held that, since it was evil, it did not matter what was done with the body and its instincts and desires could be given full rein. The Gnostic therefore became either an ascetic or a man to whom morality had ceased to have any relevance at all.<p/>Still further, if the body was evil, clearly there could be no such thing as its resurrection. It was not the resurrection of the body but its destruction to which the Gnostic looked forward.<p/>All this fits accurately the situation of the Pastoral Epistles. In Gnosticism we see the intellectualism, the intellectual arrogance, the fables and the genealogies, the asceticism and the immorality, the refusal to contemplate the possibility of a bodily resurrection, which were part and parcel of the heresy against which the Pastoral Epistles were written.<p/>One element in the heresy has not yet been fitted into place--the Judaism and the legalism of which the Pastoral Epistles speak. That too finds its place. Sometimes Gnosticism and Judaism joined hands. We have already said that the Gnostics insisted that to climb the ladder to God a very special knowledge was necessary; and that some of them insisted that for the good life a strict asceticism was essential. It was the claim of certain of the Jews that it was precisely the Jewish law and the Jewish food regulations which provided that special knowledge and necessary asceticism; and so there were times when Judaism and Gnosticism went hand in hand.<p/>It is quite clear that the heresy at the back of the Pastoral Epistles was Gnosticism. Some have used that fact to try to prove that Paul could have had nothing to do with the writing of them, because, they say, Gnosticism did not emerge until much later than Paul. It is quite true that the great formal systems of Gnosticism, connected with such names as Valentinus and Basilides, did not arise until the second century; but these great figures only systematized what was already there. The basic ideas of Gnosticism were there in the atmosphere which surrounded the early Church, even in the days of Paul. It is easy to see their attraction, and also to see that, if they had been allowed to flourish unchecked, they could have turned Christianity into a speculative philosophy and wrecked it. In facing Gnosticism, the Church was facing one of the gravest dangers which ever threatened the Christian faith.<p/><b>The Language Of The Pastorals</b><p/> The most impressive argument against the direct Pauline origin of the Pastorals is a fact which is quite clear in the Greek but not so clear in any English translation. The total number of words in the Pastoral Epistles is 902, of which 54 are proper names; and of these 902 words, no fewer than 306 never occur in any other of Paul's letters. That is to say more than a third of the words in the Pastoral Epistles are totally absent from Paul's other letters. In fact 175 words in the Pastoral Epistles occur nowhere else in the New Testament at all; although it is only fair to say that there are 50 words in the Pastoral Epistles which occur in Paul's other letters and nowhere else in the New Testament.<p/>Further, when the other letters of Paul and the Pastorals say the same thing they say it in different ways, using different words and different turns of speech to express the same idea.<p/>Again, many of Paul's favourite words are absent entirely from the Pastoral Epistles. The words for the cross (stauros, <a href='S:G4716'>G4716</a>) and to crucify (stauroun, <a href='S:G4717'>G4717</a>) occur 27 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals. Eleutheria (<a href='S:G1657'>G1657</a>) and the kindred words which have to do with freedom occur 29 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals. Huios (<a href='S:G5207'>G5207</a>), "son," and huiothesia (<a href='S:G5206'>G5206</a>), "adoption, occur 46 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals.<p/>Moreover, Greek has many more of those little words called particles and enclitics than English has. Sometimes they indicate little more than a tone of voice; every Greek sentence is joined to its predecessor by one of them; and they are often virtually untranslatable. Of these particles and enclitics there are 112 which Paul uses altogether 932 times in his other letters that never occur in the Pastorals.<p/>There is clearly something which has to be explained here. The vocabulary and the style make it hard to believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles in the same sense as he wrote his other letters.<p/><b>Paul's Activities In The Pastorals</b><p/> But perhaps the most obvious difficulty of the Pastorals is that they show Paul engaged in activities for which there is no room in his life as we know it from the book of Acts. He has clearly conducted a mission in Crete (<a href='B:630 1:5'>Tit 1:5</a>). And he proposes to spend a winter in Nicopolis, which is in Epirus (<a href='B:630 3:12'>Tit 3:12</a>). In Paul's life as we know it that particular mission and that particular winter just cannot be fitted in. But it may well be that just here we have stumbled on the solution to the problem.<p/><b>Was Paul Released From His Roman Imprisonment?</b><p/> Let us sum up. We have seen that the Church organization of the Pastorals is more elaborate than in any other Pauline letter. We have seen that the stress on orthodoxy sounds like second or third generation Christianity, when the thrill of the new discovery is wearing off and the Church is on the way to becoming an institution. We have seen that Paul is depicted as carrying out a mission or missions which cannot be fitted into the scheme of his life as we have it in Acts. But Acts leaves it quite uncertain what happened to Paul in Rome. It ends by telling us that he lived for two whole years in a kind of semi-captivity, preaching the gospel without hindrance (<a href='B:510 28:30-31'>Act 28:30-31</a>). But it does not tell us how that captivity ended, whether in Paul's release or his execution. It is true that the general assumption is that it ended in his condemnation and death; but there is a by no means negligible stream of tradition which tells that it ended in his release, his liberty for two or three further years, his reimprisonment and his final execution about the year A.D. 67:<p/>Let us look at this question, for it is of the greatest interest.<p/>First, it is clear that when Paul was in prison in Rome, he did not regard release as impossible; in fact, it looks as if he expected it. When he wrote to the Philippians, he said that he was sending Timothy to them, and goes on, "And I trust in the Lord that shortly I myself shall come also" (Php_2:24). When he wrote to Philemon, sending back the runaway Onesimus, he says, "At the same time prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be granted to you" (<a href='B:640 1:22'>Phm 1:22</a>). Clearly he was prepared for release, whether or not it ever came.<p/>Second, let us remember a plan that was very dear to Paul's heart. Before he went to Jerusalem on that journey on which he was arrested, he wrote to the Church at Rome, and in that letter he is planning a visit to Spain. "I hope to see you in passing, he writes, "as I go to Spain." "I shall go on by way of you, he writes, "to Spain" (<a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a>; <a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a>). Was that visit ever paid?<p/>Clement of Rome, when he wrote to the Church at Corinth about A.D. 90, said of Paul that he preached the gospel in the East and in the West; that he instructed the whole world (that is, the Roman Empire) in righteousness; and that he went to the extremity (terma, the terminus) of the West, before his martyrdom. What did Clement mean by the extremity of the West? There are many who argue that he meant nothing more than Rome. Now it is true that someone writing away in the East in Asia Minor would probably think of Rome as the extremity, of the West. But Clement was writing from Rome; and it is difficult to see that for anyone in Rome the extremity of the West could be anything else but Spain. It certainly seems that Clement believed that Paul reached Spain.<p/>The greatest of all the early Church historians was Eusebius. In his account of Paul's life he writes: "Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul had spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without constraint. Thus, after he had made his defence, it is said that the Apostle was sent again on the ministry of preaching, and that on coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom" (Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, 2:22:2). Eusebius has nothing to say about Spain, but he did know the story that Paul had been released from his first Roman imprisonment.<p/>The Muratorian Canon, that first list of New Testament books, describes Luke's scheme in writing Acts: "Luke related to Theophilus events of which he was an eye-witness, as also, in a separate place, he evidently declares the martyrdom of Peter (he probably refers to <a href='B:490 22:31-32'>Luk 22:31-32</a>); but omits the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain."<p/>In the fifth century, two of the great Christian fathers are definite about this journey. Chrysostom in his sermon on <a href='B:620 4:20'>2Ti 4:20</a> says: "Saint Paul after his residence in Rome departed to Spain." Jerome in his Catalogue of Writers says that Paul "was dismissed by Nero that he might preach Christ's gospel in the West."<p/>Beyond doubt a stream of tradition held that Paul journeyed to Spain.<p/>This is a matter on which we will have to come to our own decision. The one thing which makes us doubt the historicity of that tradition is that in Spain itself there is not and never was any tradition that Paul had worked and preached there, no stories about him, no places connected with his name. It would be indeed strange if the memory of such a visit had become totally obliterated. It could well be that the whole story of Paul's release and journey to the west arose simply as a deduction from his expressed intention to visit Spain (<a href='B:520 15:1-33'>Rom 15:1-33</a>). Most New Testament scholars do not think that Paul was released from his imprisonment; the general consensus of opinion is that his only release was by death.<p/><b>Paul And The Pastoral Epistles</b><p/> What then shall we say of Paul's connection with these letters? If we can accept the tradition of his release, and of his return to preaching and teaching, and of his death as late as A.D. 67, we might well believe that as they stand they came from his hand. But, if we cannot believe that--and the evidence is on the whole against it--are we to say that they have no connection with Paul at all?<p/>We must remember that the ancient world did not think of these things as we do. It would see nothing wrong in issuing a letter under the name of a great teacher, if it was sure that the letter said the things which that teacher would say under the same circumstances. To the ancient world it was natural and seemly that a disciple should write in his master's name. No one would have seen anything wrong in one of Paul's disciples meeting a new and threatening situation with a letter under Paul's name. To regard that as forgery is to misunderstand the mind of the ancient world. Are we then to swing completely to the other extreme and say that some disciple of his issued these letters in Paul's name years after he was dead, and at a time when the Church was much more highly organized than ever it was during his lifetime?<p/>As we see it, the answer is no. It is incredible that any disciple would put into Paul's mouth a claim to be the chief of sinners (<a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a>); his tendency would be to stress Paul's holiness, not to talk about his sin. It is incredible that anyone writing in the name of Paul would give Timothy the homely advice to drink a little wine for the sake of his health (<a href='B:610 5:23'>1Ti 5:23</a>). The whole of <a href='B:620 4:1-22'>2Ti 4:1-22</a> is so personal and so full of intimate, loving details that no one but Paul could have written it.<p/>Wherein lies the solution? It may well be that something like this happened. It is quite obvious that many letters of Paul went lost. Apart from his great public letters, he must have had a continuous private correspondence; and of that we possess only the little letter to Philemon. It may well be that in the later days there were some fragments of Paul's correspondence in the possession of some Christian teacher. This teacher saw the Church of his day and his locality in Ephesus threatened on every side. It was threatened with heresy from without and from within. It was threatened with a fall away from its own high standards of purity and truth. The quality of its members and the standard of its office-bearers were degenerating. He had in his possession little letters of Paul which said exactly the things that should be said, but, as they stood, they were too short and too fragmentary to publish. So he amplified them and made them supremely relevant to the contemporary situation and sent them out to the Church.<p/>In the Pastoral Epistles we are still hearing the voice of Paul, and often hearing it speak with a unique personal intimacy; but we think that the form of the letters is due to a Christian teacher who summoned the help of Paul when the Church of the day needed the guidance which only he could give. 


text:
2 TIMOTHY<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36).<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS<p/><b>Personal Letters</b><p/> 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus have always been regarded as forming a separate group of letters, different from the other letters of Paul. The most obvious difference is that they, along with the little letter to Philemon, are written to persons, whereas all other Pauline letters are written to Churches. The Muratorian Canon, which was the earliest official list of New Testament books, says that they were written "from personal feeling and affection." They are private rather than public letters.<p/><b>Ecclesiastical Letters</b><p/> But it very soon began to be seen that, though these are personal and private letters, they have a significance and a relevance far beyond the immediate. In <a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a> their aim is set down. They are written to Timothy "that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God." So, then, it came to be seen that these letters have not only a personal significance, but also what one might call an ecclesiastical significance. The Muratorian Canon says of them that, though they are personal letters written out of personal affection, "they are still hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church, and in the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline." Tertullian said that Paul wrote "two letters to Timothy and one to Titus, which were composed concerning the state of the Church (de ecclesiastico statu)." It is not then surprising that the first name given to them was Pontifical Letters, that is, written by the pontifex, the priest, the controller of the Church.<p/><b>Pastoral Letters</b><p/> Bit by bit they came to acquire the name by which they are still known--The Pastoral Epistles. In writing of I Timothy Thomas Aquinas, as long ago as 1274, said, "This letter is as it were a pastoral rule which the Apostle delivered to Timothy." In his introduction to the second letter, he writes, "In the first letter he gives Timothy instructions concerning ecclesiastical order; in this second letter he deals with a pastoral care which should be so great that it will even accept martyrdom for the sake of the care of the flock." But this title, The Pastoral Epistles, really became affixed to these letters in 1726 when a great scholar, Paul Anton by name, gave a series of famous lectures on them under that title.<p/>These letters then deal with the care and organization of the flock of God; they tell men how to behave within the household of God; they give instructions as to how God's house should be administered, as to what kind of people the leaders and pastors of the Church should be, and as to how the threats which endanger the purity of Christian faith and life should be dealt with.<p/><b>The Growing Church</b><p/> The supreme interest of these letters is that we get in them a picture of the infant Church. In those early days it was an island in a sea of paganism. The people in it were only one remove from their heathen origin. It would have been so easy for them to relapse into the pagan standards from which they had come; the tarnishing atmosphere was all around. It is most significant that missionaries tell us that of all letters the Pastoral Epistles speak most directly to the situation of the younger Churches. The situation with which they deal is being re-enacted in India, in Africa, in China every day. They can never lose their interest because in them we see, as nowhere else, the problems which continually beset the growing Church.<p/><b>The Ecclesiastical Background Of The Pastorals</b><p/> From the beginning these letters have presented problems to New Testament scholars. There are many who have felt that, as they stand, they cannot have come directly from the hand and pen of Paul. That this is no new feeling may be seen from the fact that Marcion, who, although he was a heretic, was the first man to draw up a list of New Testament books, did not include them among Paul's letters. Let us then see what makes people doubt their direct Pauline authorship.<p/>In them we are confronted with the picture of a Church with a fairly highly developed ecclesiastical organization. There are elders (<a href='B:610 5:17-19'>1Ti 5:17-19</a>; <a href='B:630 1:5-6'>Tit 1:5-6</a>); there are bishops, superintendents or overseers (<a href='B:610 3:1-7'>1Ti 3:1-7</a>; <a href='B:630 1:7-16'>Tit 1:7-16</a>); there are deacons (<a href='B:610 3:8-13'>1Ti 3:8-13</a>). From <a href='B:610 5:17-18'>1Ti 5:17-18</a> we learn that by that time elders were even salaried officials. The elders that rule well are to be counted worthy of a double pay and the Church is urged to remember that the labourer is worthy of his hire. There is at least the beginning of the order of widows who became so prominent later on in the early Church (<a href='B:610 5:3-16'>1Ti 5:3-16</a>). There is clearly here a quite elaborate structure within the Church, too elaborate some would claim for the early days in which Paul lived and worked.<p/><b>The Days Of Creeds</b><p/> It is even claimed that in these letters we can see the days of creeds emerging. The word faith changed its meaning. In the earliest days it is always faith in a person; it is the most intimate possible personal connection of love and trust and obedience with Jesus Christ. In later days it became faith in a creed; it became the acceptance of certain doctrines. It is said that in the Pastoral Epistles we can see this change emerging.<p/>In the later days men will come who will depart from the faith and give heed to doctrines of devils (<a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a>). A good servant of Jesus Christ must be nourished in the words of faith and good doctrine (<a href='B:610 4:6'>1Ti 4:6</a>). The heretics are men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (<a href='B:620 3:8'>2Ti 3:8</a>). The duty of Titus is to rebuke men that they may be sound in the faith (<a href='B:630 1:13'>Tit 1:13</a>).<p/>This comes out very particularly in an expression peculiar to the Pastorals. Timothy is urged to keep hold of "the truth that has been entrusted to you" (<a href='B:620 1:14'>2Ti 1:14</a>). The word for that has been entrusted is paratheke (<a href='S:G3866'>G3866</a>). Paratheke means a deposit which has been entrusted to a banker or someone else for safe-keeping. It is essentially something which must be handed back or handed on absolutely unchanged. That is to say the stress is on orthodoxy. Instead of being a close, personal relationship to Jesus Christ, as it was in the thrilling and throbbing days of the early Church, faith has become the acceptance of a creed. It is even held that in the Pastorals we have echoes of the earliest creeds.<p/>"God was manifested in the flesh;<p/>Vindicated in the Spirit;<p/>Seen by angels;<p/>Preached among the nations;<p/>Believed on in the world;<p/>Taken up in glory" (<a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a>).<p/>That indeed sounds like the fragment of a creed to be recited.<p/>"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from<p/>David, as preached in my gospel" (<a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a>).<p/>That sounds like a reminder of a sentence from an accepted creed.<p/>Within the Pastorals there undoubtedly are indications that the day of insistence on acceptance of a creed has begun, and that the days of the first thrilling personal discovery of Christ are beginning to fade.<p/><b>A Dangerous Heresy</b><p/> It is clear that in the forefront of the situation against which the Pastoral Epistles were written there was a dangerous heresy which was threatening the welfare of the Christian Church. If we can distinguish the various characteristic features of that heresy, we may be able to go on to identify it.<p/>It was characterized by speculative intellectualism. It produced questions (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>); those involved in it doted about questions (<a href='B:610 6:4'>1Ti 6:4</a>); it dealt in foolish and unlearned questions (<a href='B:620 2:23'>2Ti 2:23</a>); its foolish questions are to be avoided (<a href='B:630 3:9'>Tit 3:9</a>). The word used in each case for questions is ekzetesis (compare <a href='S:G1567'>G1567</a> and <a href='S:G2214'>G2214</a>), which means speculative discussion. This heresy was obviously one which was a play-ground of the intellectuals, or rather the pseudo-intellectuals of the Church.<p/>It was characterized by pride. The heretic is proud, although in reality he knows nothing (<a href='B:610 6:4'>1Ti 6:4</a>). There are indications that these intellectuals set themselves on a plane above the ordinary Christian; in fact they may well have said that complete salvation was outside the grasp of the ordinary man and open only to them. At times the Pastoral Epistles stress the word all in a most significant way. The grace of God, which brings salvation, has appeared to all men (<a href='B:630 2:11'>Tit 2:11</a>). It is God's will that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (<a href='B:610 2:4'>1Ti 2:4</a>). The intellectuals tried to make the greatest blessings of Christianity the exclusive possession of a chosen few; and in contradistinction the true faith stresses the all-embracing love of God.<p/>There were within that heresy two opposite tendencies. There was a tendency to asceticism. The heretics tried to lay down special food laws, forgetting that everything God has made is good (<a href='B:610 4:4-5'>1Ti 4:4-5</a>). They listed many things as impure, forgetting that to the pure all things are pure (<a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a>). It is not impossible that they regarded sex as something unclean and belittled marriage, and even tried to persuade those who were married to renounce it, for in <a href='B:630 2:4'>Tit 2:4</a> the simple duties of the married life are stressed as being binding on the Christian.<p/>But this heresy also issued in immorality. The heretics even invaded private houses and led away weak and foolish women in evil desires (<a href='B:620 3:6'>2Ti 3:6</a>). They professed to know God, but denied him by their deeds (<a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a>). They were out to impose upon people and to make money out of their false teaching. To them gain was godliness (<a href='B:610 6:5'>1Ti 6:5</a>); they taught and deceived for base gain (<a href='B:630 1:11'>Tit 1:11</a>).<p/>On the one hand this heresy issued in an unchristian asceticism, and on the other it produced an equally unchristian immorality.<p/>It was characterized, too, by words and tales and genealogies. It was full of godless chatter and useless controversies (<a href='B:610 6:20'>1Ti 6:20</a>). It produced endless genealogies (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>; <a href='B:630 3:9'>Tit 3:9</a>). It produced myths and fables (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>; <a href='B:630 1:14'>Tit 1:14</a>).<p/>It was at least in some way and to some extent tied up with Jewish legalism. Amongst its devotees were those of the circumcision (<a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a>). The aim of the heretics was to be teachers of the law (<a href='B:610 1:7'>1Ti 1:7</a>). It pressed on men Jewish fables and the commandments of men (<a href='B:630 1:14'>Tit 1:14</a>).<p/>Finally, these heretics denied the resurrection of the body. They said that any resurrection that a man was going to experience had been experienced already (<a href='B:620 2:18'>2Ti 2:18</a>). This is probably a reference to those who held that the only resurrection the Christian experienced was a spiritual one when he died with Christ and rose again with him in the experience of baptism (<a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a>).<p/><b>The Beginnings Of Gnosticism</b><p/> Is there any heresy which fits all this material? There is, and its name is Gnosticism. The basic thought of Gnosticism was that all matter is essentially evil and spirit alone is good. That basic belief had certain consequences.<p/>The Gnostic believed that matter is as eternal as God; and that when God created the world he had to use this essentially evil matter. That meant that to them God could not be the direct creator of the world. In order to touch this flawed matter he had to send out a series of emanations--they called them aeons--each one more and more distant from himself until at last there came an emanation or aeon so distant that it could deal with matter and create the world. Between man and God there stretched a series of these emanations, each with his name and genealogy. So Gnosticism literally had endless fables and endless genealogies. If a man was ever to get to God, he must, as it were, ascend this ladder of emanations; and to do that he needed a very special kind of knowledge including all kinds of passwords to get him past each stage. Only a person of the highest intellectual calibre could hope to acquire this knowledge and know these passwords and so get to God.<p/>Further, if matter was altogether evil, the body was altogether evil. From that, two opposite possible consequences sprang. Either the body must be held down so that a rigorous asceticism resulted, in which the needs of the body were as far as possible eliminated and its instincts, especially the sex instinct, as far as possible destroyed; or it could be held that, since it was evil, it did not matter what was done with the body and its instincts and desires could be given full rein. The Gnostic therefore became either an ascetic or a man to whom morality had ceased to have any relevance at all.<p/>Still further, if the body was evil, clearly there could be no such thing as its resurrection. It was not the resurrection of the body but its destruction to which the Gnostic looked forward.<p/>All this fits accurately the situation of the Pastoral Epistles. In Gnosticism we see the intellectualism, the intellectual arrogance, the fables and the genealogies, the asceticism and the immorality, the refusal to contemplate the possibility of a bodily resurrection, which were part and parcel of the heresy against which the Pastoral Epistles were written.<p/>One element in the heresy has not yet been fitted into place--the Judaism and the legalism of which the Pastoral Epistles speak. That too finds its place. Sometimes Gnosticism and Judaism joined hands. We have already said that the Gnostics insisted that to climb the ladder to God a very special knowledge was necessary; and that some of them insisted that for the good life a strict asceticism was essential. It was the claim of certain of the Jews that it was precisely the Jewish law and the Jewish food regulations which provided that special knowledge and necessary asceticism; and so there were times when Judaism and Gnosticism went hand in hand.<p/>It is quite clear that the heresy at the back of the Pastoral Epistles was Gnosticism. Some have used that fact to try to prove that Paul could have had nothing to do with the writing of them, because, they say, Gnosticism did not emerge until much later than Paul. It is quite true that the great formal systems of Gnosticism, connected with such names as Valentinus and Basilides, did not arise until the second century; but these great figures only systematized what was already there. The basic ideas of Gnosticism were there in the atmosphere which surrounded the early Church, even in the days of Paul. It is easy to see their attraction, and also to see that, if they had been allowed to flourish unchecked, they could have turned Christianity into a speculative philosophy and wrecked it. In facing Gnosticism, the Church was facing one of the gravest dangers which ever threatened the Christian faith.<p/><b>The Language Of The Pastorals</b><p/> The most impressive argument against the direct Pauline origin of the Pastorals is a fact which is quite clear in the Greek but not so clear in any English translation. The total number of words in the Pastoral Epistles is 902, of which 54 are proper names; and of these 902 words, no fewer than 306 never occur in any other of Paul's letters. That is to say more than a third of the words in the Pastoral Epistles are totally absent from Paul's other letters. In fact 175 words in the Pastoral Epistles occur nowhere else in the New Testament at all; although it is only fair to say that there are 50 words in the Pastoral Epistles which occur in Paul's other letters and nowhere else in the New Testament.<p/>Further, when the other letters of Paul and the Pastorals say the same thing they say it in different ways, using different words and different turns of speech to express the same idea.<p/>Again, many of Paul's favorite words are absent entirely from the Pastoral Epistles. The words for the cross (stauros, <a href='S:G4716'>G4716</a>) and to crucify (stauroun, <a href='S:G4717'>G4717</a>) occur 27 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals. Eleutheria (<a href='S:G1657'>G1657</a>) and the kindred words which have to do with freedom occur 29 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals. Huios (<a href='S:G5207'>G5207</a>), "son," and huiothesia (<a href='S:G5206'>G5206</a>), "adoption, occur 46 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals.<p/>Moreover, Greek has many more of those little words called particles and enclitics than English has. Sometimes they indicate little more than a tone of voice; every Greek sentence is joined to its predecessor by one of them; and they are often virtually untranslatable. Of these particles and enclitics there are 112 which Paul uses altogether 932 times in his other letters that never occur in the Pastorals.<p/>There is clearly something which has to be explained here. The vocabulary and the style make it hard to believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles in the same sense as he wrote his other letters.<p/><b>Paul's Activities In The Pastorals</b><p/> But perhaps the most obvious difficulty of the Pastorals is that they show Paul engaged in activities for which there is no room in his life as we know it from the book of Acts. He has clearly conducted a mission in Crete (<a href='B:630 1:5'>Tit 1:5</a>). And he proposes to spend a winter in Nicopolis, which is in Epirus (<a href='B:630 3:12'>Tit 3:12</a>). In Paul's life as we know it that particular mission and that particular winter just cannot be fitted in. But it may well be that just here we have stumbled on the solution to the problem.<p/><b>Was Paul Released From His Roman Imprisonment?</b><p/> Let us sum up. We have seen that the Church organization of the Pastorals is more elaborate than in any other Pauline letter. We have seen that the stress on orthodoxy sounds like second or third generation Christianity, when the thrill of the new discovery is wearing off and the Church is on the way to becoming an institution. We have seen that Paul is depicted as carrying out a mission or missions which cannot be fitted into the scheme of his life as we have it in Acts. But Acts leaves it quite uncertain what happened to Paul in Rome. It ends by telling us that he lived for two whole years in a kind of semi-captivity, preaching the gospel without hindrance (<a href='B:510 28:30-31'>Act 28:30-31</a>). But it does not tell us how that captivity ended, whether in Paul's release or his execution. It is true that the general assumption is that it ended in his condemnation and death; but there is a by no means negligible stream of tradition which tells that it ended in his release, his liberty for two or three further years, his reimprisonment and his final execution about the year A.D. 67:<p/>Let us look at this question, for it is of the greatest interest.<p/>First, it is clear that when Paul was in prison in Rome, he did not regard release as impossible; in fact, it looks as if he expected it. When he wrote to the Philippians, he said that he was sending Timothy to them, and goes on, "And I trust in the Lord that shortly I myself shall come also" (Php_2:24). When he wrote to Philemon, sending back the runaway Onesimus, he says, "At the same time prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be granted to you" (<a href='B:640 1:22'>Phm 1:22</a>). Clearly he was prepared for release, whether or not it ever came.<p/>Second, let us remember a plan that was very dear to Paul's heart. Before he went to Jerusalem on that journey on which he was arrested, he wrote to the Church at Rome, and in that letter he is planning a visit to Spain. "I hope to see you in passing, he writes, "as I go to Spain." "I shall go on by way of you, he writes, "to Spain" (<a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a>; <a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a>). Was that visit ever paid?<p/>Clement of Rome, when he wrote to the Church at Corinth about A.D. 90, said of Paul that he preached the gospel in the East and in the West; that he instructed the whole world (that is, the Roman Empire) in righteousness; and that he went to the extremity (terma, the terminus) of the West, before his martyrdom. What did Clement mean by the extremity of the West? There are many who argue that he meant nothing more than Rome. Now it is true that someone writing away in the East in Asia Minor would probably think of Rome as the extremity, of the West. But Clement was writing from Rome; and it is difficult to see that for anyone in Rome the extremity of the West could be anything else but Spain. It certainly seems that Clement believed that Paul reached Spain.<p/>The greatest of all the early Church historians was Eusebius. In his account of Paul's life he writes: "Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul had spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without constraint. Thus, after he had made his defense, it is said that the Apostle was sent again on the ministry of preaching, and that on coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom" (Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, 2:22:2). Eusebius has nothing to say about Spain, but he did know the story that Paul had been released from his first Roman imprisonment.<p/>The Muratorian Canon, that first list of New Testament books, describes Luke's scheme in writing Acts: "Luke related to Theophilus events of which he was an eye-witness, as also, in a separate place, he evidently declares the martyrdom of Peter (he probably refers to <a href='B:490 22:31-32'>Luk 22:31-32</a>); but omits the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain."<p/>In the fifth century, two of the great Christian fathers are definite about this journey. Chrysostom in his sermon on <a href='B:620 4:20'>2Ti 4:20</a> says: "Saint Paul after his residence in Rome departed to Spain." Jerome in his Catalogue of Writers says that Paul "was dismissed by Nero that he might preach Christ's gospel in the West."<p/>Beyond doubt a stream of tradition held that Paul journeyed to Spain.<p/>This is a matter on which we will have to come to our own decision. The one thing which makes us doubt the historicity of that tradition is that in Spain itself there is not and never was any tradition that Paul had worked and preached there, no stories about him, no places connected with his name. It would be indeed strange if the memory of such a visit had become totally obliterated. It could well be that the whole story of Paul's release and journey to the west arose simply as a deduction from his expressed intention to visit Spain (<a href='B:520 15:1-33'>Rom 15:1-33</a>). Most New Testament scholars do not think that Paul was released from his imprisonment; the general consensus of opinion is that his only release was by death.<p/><b>Paul And The Pastoral Epistles</b><p/> What then shall we say of Paul's connection with these letters? If we can accept the tradition of his release, and of his return to preaching and teaching, and of his death as late as A.D. 67, we might well believe that as they stand they came from his hand. But, if we cannot believe that--and the evidence is on the whole against it--are we to say that they have no connection with Paul at all?<p/>We must remember that the ancient world did not think of these things as we do. It would see nothing wrong in issuing a letter under the name of a great teacher, if it was sure that the letter said the things which that teacher would say under the same circumstances. To the ancient world it was natural and seemly that a disciple should write in his master's name. No one would have seen anything wrong in one of Paul's disciples meeting a new and threatening situation with a letter under Paul's name. To regard that as forgery is to misunderstand the mind of the ancient world. Are we then to swing completely to the other extreme and say that some disciple of his issued these letters in Paul's name years after he was dead, and at a time when the Church was much more highly organized than ever it was during his lifetime?<p/>As we see it, the answer is no. It is incredible that any disciple would put into Paul's mouth a claim to be the chief of sinners (<a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a>); his tendency would be to stress Paul's holiness, not to talk about his sin. It is incredible that anyone writing in the name of Paul would give Timothy the homely advice to drink a little wine for the sake of his health (<a href='B:610 5:23'>1Ti 5:23</a>). The whole of <a href='B:620 4:1-22'>2Ti 4:1-22</a> is so personal and so full of intimate, loving details that no one but Paul could have written it.<p/>Wherein lies the solution? It may well be that something like this happened. It is quite obvious that many letters of Paul went lost. Apart from his great public letters, he must have had a continuous private correspondence; and of that we possess only the little letter to Philemon. It may well be that in the later days there were some fragments of Paul's correspondence in the possession of some Christian teacher. This teacher saw the Church of his day and his locality in Ephesus threatened on every side. It was threatened with heresy from without and from within. It was threatened with a fall away from its own high standards of purity and truth. The quality of its members and the standard of its office-bearers were degenerating. He had in his possession little letters of Paul which said exactly the things that should be said, but, as they stood, they were too short and too fragmentary to publish. So he amplified them and made them supremely relevant to the contemporary situation and sent them out to the Church.<p/>In the Pastoral Epistles we are still hearing the voice of Paul, and often hearing it speak with a unique personal intimacy; but we think that the form of the letters is due to a Christian teacher who summoned the help of Paul when the Church of the day needed the guidance which only he could give. 


text:
TITUS<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36).<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS<p/><b>Personal Letters</b><p/> 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus have always been regarded as forming a separate group of letters, different from the other letters of Paul. The most obvious difference is that they, along with the little letter to Philemon, are written to persons, whereas all other Pauline letters are written to Churches. The Muratorian Canon, which was the earliest official list of New Testament books, says that they were written "from personal feeling and affection." They are private rather than public letters.<p/><b>Ecclesiastical Letters</b><p/> But it very soon began to be seen that, though these are personal and private letters, they have a significance and a relevance far beyond the immediate. In <a href='B:610 3:15'>1Ti 3:15</a> their aim is set down. They are written to Timothy "that you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God." So, then, it came to be seen that these letters have not only a personal significance, but also what one might call an ecclesiastical significance. The Muratorian Canon says of them that, though they are personal letters written out of personal affection, "they are still hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church, and in the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline." Tertullian said that Paul wrote "two letters to Timothy and one to Titus, which were composed concerning the state of the Church (de ecclesiastico statu)." It is not then surprising that the first name given to them was Pontifical Letters, that is, written by the pontifex, the priest, the controller of the Church.<p/><b>Pastoral Letters</b><p/> Bit by bit they came to acquire the name by which they are still known--The Pastoral Epistles. In writing of I Timothy Thomas Aquinas, as long ago as 1274, said, "This letter is as it were a pastoral rule which the Apostle delivered to Timothy." In his introduction to the second letter, he writes, "In the first letter he gives Timothy instructions concerning ecclesiastical order; in this second letter he deals with a pastoral care which should be so great that it will even accept martyrdom for the sake of the care of the flock." But this title, The Pastoral Epistles, really became affixed to these letters in 1726 when a great scholar, Paul Anton by name, gave a series of famous lectures on them under that title.<p/>These letters then deal with the care and organization of the flock of God; they tell men how to behave within the household of God; they give instructions as to how God's house should be administered, as to what kind of people the leaders and pastors of the Church should be, and as to how the threats which endanger the purity of Christian faith and life should be dealt with.<p/><b>The Growing Church</b><p/> The supreme interest of these letters is that we get in them a picture of the infant Church. In those early days it was an island in a sea of paganism. The people in it were only one remove from their heathen origin. It would have been so easy for them to relapse into the pagan standards from which they had come; the tarnishing atmosphere was all around. It is most significant that missionaries tell us that of all letters the Pastoral Epistles speak most directly to the situation of the younger Churches. The situation with which they deal is being re-enacted in India, in Africa, in China every day. They can never lose their interest because in them we see, as nowhere else, the problems which continually beset the growing Church.<p/><b>The Ecclesiastical Background Of The Pastorals</b><p/> From the beginning these letters have presented problems to New Testament scholars. There are many who have felt that, as they stand, they cannot have come directly from the hand and pen of Paul. That this is no new feeling may be seen from the fact that Marcion, who, although he was a heretic, was the first man to draw up a list of New Testament books, did not include them among Paul's letters. Let us then see what makes people doubt their direct Pauline authorship.<p/>In them we are confronted with the picture of a Church with a fairly highly developed ecclesiastical organization. There are elders (<a href='B:610 5:17-19'>1Ti 5:17-19</a>; <a href='B:630 1:5-6'>Tit 1:5-6</a>); there are bishops, superintendents or overseers (<a href='B:610 3:1-7'>1Ti 3:1-7</a>; <a href='B:630 1:7-16'>Tit 1:7-16</a>); there are deacons (<a href='B:610 3:8-13'>1Ti 3:8-13</a>). From <a href='B:610 5:17-18'>1Ti 5:17-18</a> we learn that by that time elders were even salaried officials. The elders that rule well are to be counted worthy of a double pay and the Church is urged to remember that the labourer is worthy of his hire. There is at least the beginning of the order of widows who became so prominent later on in the early Church (<a href='B:610 5:3-16'>1Ti 5:3-16</a>). There is clearly here a quite elaborate structure within the Church, too elaborate some would claim for the early days in which Paul lived and worked.<p/><b>The Days Of Creeds</b><p/> It is even claimed that in these letters we can see the days of creeds emerging. The word faith changed its meaning. In the earliest days it is always faith in a person; it is the most intimate possible personal connection of love and trust and obedience with Jesus Christ. In later days it became faith in a creed; it became the acceptance of certain doctrines. It is said that in the Pastoral Epistles we can see this change emerging.<p/>In the later days men will come who will depart from the faith and give heed to doctrines of devils (<a href='B:610 4:1'>1Ti 4:1</a>). A good servant of Jesus Christ must be nourished in the words of faith and good doctrine (<a href='B:610 4:6'>1Ti 4:6</a>). The heretics are men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (<a href='B:620 3:8'>2Ti 3:8</a>). The duty of Titus is to rebuke men that they may be sound in the faith (<a href='B:630 1:13'>Tit 1:13</a>).<p/>This comes out very particularly in an expression peculiar to the Pastorals. Timothy is urged to keep hold of "the truth that has been entrusted to you" (<a href='B:620 1:14'>2Ti 1:14</a>). The word for that has been entrusted is paratheke (<a href='S:G3866'>G3866</a>). Paratheke means a deposit which has been entrusted to a banker or someone else for safe-keeping. It is essentially something which must be handed back or handed on absolutely unchanged. That is to say the stress is on orthodoxy. Instead of being a close, personal relationship to Jesus Christ, as it was in the thrilling and throbbing days of the early Church, faith has become the acceptance of a creed. It is even held that in the Pastorals we have echoes of the earliest creeds.<p/>"God was manifested in the flesh;<p/>Vindicated in the Spirit;<p/>Seen by angels;<p/>Preached among the nations;<p/>Believed on in the world;<p/>Taken up in glory" (<a href='B:610 3:16'>1Ti 3:16</a>).<p/>That indeed sounds like the fragment of a creed to be recited.<p/>"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from<p/>David, as preached in my gospel" (<a href='B:620 2:8'>2Ti 2:8</a>).<p/>That sounds like a reminder of a sentence from an accepted creed.<p/>Within the Pastorals there undoubtedly are indications that the day of insistence on acceptance of a creed has begun, and that the days of the first thrilling personal discovery of Christ are beginning to fade.<p/><b>A Dangerous Heresy</b><p/> It is clear that in the forefront of the situation against which the Pastoral Epistles were written there was a dangerous heresy which was threatening the welfare of the Christian Church. If we can distinguish the various characteristic features of that heresy, we may be able to go on to identify it.<p/>It was characterized by speculative intellectualism. It produced questions (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>); those involved in it doted about questions (<a href='B:610 6:4'>1Ti 6:4</a>); it dealt in foolish and unlearned questions (<a href='B:620 2:23'>2Ti 2:23</a>); its foolish questions are to be avoided (<a href='B:630 3:9'>Tit 3:9</a>). The word used in each case for questions is ekzetesis (compare <a href='S:G1567'>G1567</a> and <a href='S:G2214'>G2214</a>), which means speculative discussion. This heresy was obviously one which was a play-ground of the intellectuals, or rather the pseudo-intellectuals of the Church.<p/>It was characterized by pride. The heretic is proud, although in reality he knows nothing (<a href='B:610 6:4'>1Ti 6:4</a>). There are indications that these intellectuals set themselves on a plane above the ordinary Christian; in fact they may well have said that complete salvation was outside the grasp of the ordinary man and open only to them. At times the Pastoral Epistles stress the word all in a most significant way. The grace of God, which brings salvation, has appeared to all men (<a href='B:630 2:11'>Tit 2:11</a>). It is God's will that all men should be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth (<a href='B:610 2:4'>1Ti 2:4</a>). The intellectuals tried to make the greatest blessings of Christianity the exclusive possession of a chosen few; and in contradistinction the true faith stresses the all-embracing love of God.<p/>There were within that heresy two opposite tendencies. There was a tendency to asceticism. The heretics tried to lay down special food laws, forgetting that everything God has made is good (<a href='B:610 4:4-5'>1Ti 4:4-5</a>). They listed many things as impure, forgetting that to the pure all things are pure (<a href='B:630 1:15'>Tit 1:15</a>). It is not impossible that they regarded sex as something unclean and belittled marriage, and even tried to persuade those who were married to renounce it, for in <a href='B:630 2:4'>Tit 2:4</a> the simple duties of the married life are stressed as being binding on the Christian.<p/>But this heresy also issued in immorality. The heretics even invaded private houses and led away weak and foolish women in evil desires (<a href='B:620 3:6'>2Ti 3:6</a>). They professed to know God, but denied him by their deeds (<a href='B:630 1:16'>Tit 1:16</a>). They were out to impose upon people and to make money out of their false teaching. To them gain was godliness (<a href='B:610 6:5'>1Ti 6:5</a>); they taught and deceived for base gain (<a href='B:630 1:11'>Tit 1:11</a>).<p/>On the one hand this heresy issued in an unchristian asceticism, and on the other it produced an equally unchristian immorality.<p/>It was characterized, too, by words and tales and genealogies. It was full of godless chatter and useless controversies (<a href='B:610 6:20'>1Ti 6:20</a>). It produced endless genealogies (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>; <a href='B:630 3:9'>Tit 3:9</a>). It produced myths and fables (<a href='B:610 1:4'>1Ti 1:4</a>; <a href='B:630 1:14'>Tit 1:14</a>).<p/>It was at least in some way and to some extent tied up with Jewish legalism. Amongst its devotees were those of the circumcision (<a href='B:630 1:10'>Tit 1:10</a>). The aim of the heretics was to be teachers of the law (<a href='B:610 1:7'>1Ti 1:7</a>). It pressed on men Jewish fables and the commandments of men (<a href='B:630 1:14'>Tit 1:14</a>).<p/>Finally, these heretics denied the resurrection of the body. They said that any resurrection that a man was going to experience had been experienced already (<a href='B:620 2:18'>2Ti 2:18</a>). This is probably a reference to those who held that the only resurrection the Christian experienced was a spiritual one when he died with Christ and rose again with him in the experience of baptism (<a href='B:520 6:4'>Rom 6:4</a>).<p/><b>The Beginnings Of Gnosticism</b><p/> Is there any heresy which fits all this material? There is, and its name is Gnosticism. The basic thought of Gnosticism was that all matter is essentially evil and spirit alone is good. That basic belief had certain consequences.<p/>The Gnostic believed that matter is as eternal as God; and that when God created the world he had to use this essentially evil matter. That meant that to them God could not be the direct creator of the world. In order to touch this flawed matter he had to send out a series of emanations--they called them aeons--each one more and more distant from himself until at last there came an emanation or aeon so distant that it could deal with matter and create the world. Between man and God there stretched a series of these emanations, each with his name and genealogy. So Gnosticism literally had endless fables and endless genealogies. If a man was ever to get to God, he must, as it were, ascend this ladder of emanations; and to do that he needed a very special kind of knowledge including all kinds of passwords to get him past each stage. Only a person of the highest intellectual calibre could hope to acquire this knowledge and know these passwords and so get to God.<p/>Further, if matter was altogether evil, the body was altogether evil. From that, two opposite possible consequences sprang. Either the body must be held down so that a rigorous asceticism resulted, in which the needs of the body were as far as possible eliminated and its instincts, especially the sex instinct, as far as possible destroyed; or it could be held that, since it was evil, it did not matter what was done with the body and its instincts and desires could be given full rein. The Gnostic therefore became either an ascetic or a man to whom morality had ceased to have any relevance at all.<p/>Still further, if the body was evil, clearly there could be no such thing as its resurrection. It was not the resurrection of the body but its destruction to which the Gnostic looked forward.<p/>All this fits accurately the situation of the Pastoral Epistles. In Gnosticism we see the intellectualism, the intellectual arrogance, the fables and the genealogies, the asceticism and the immorality, the refusal to contemplate the possibility of a bodily resurrection, which were part and parcel of the heresy against which the Pastoral Epistles were written.<p/>One element in the heresy has not yet been fitted into place--the Judaism and the legalism of which the Pastoral Epistles speak. That too finds its place. Sometimes Gnosticism and Judaism joined hands. We have already said that the Gnostics insisted that to climb the ladder to God a very special knowledge was necessary; and that some of them insisted that for the good life a strict asceticism was essential. It was the claim of certain of the Jews that it was precisely the Jewish law and the Jewish food regulations which provided that special knowledge and necessary asceticism; and so there were times when Judaism and Gnosticism went hand in hand.<p/>It is quite clear that the heresy at the back of the Pastoral Epistles was Gnosticism. Some have used that fact to try to prove that Paul could have had nothing to do with the writing of them, because, they say, Gnosticism did not emerge until much later than Paul. It is quite true that the great formal systems of Gnosticism, connected with such names as Valentinus and Basilides, did not arise until the second century; but these great figures only systematized what was already there. The basic ideas of Gnosticism were there in the atmosphere which surrounded the early Church, even in the days of Paul. It is easy to see their attraction, and also to see that, if they had been allowed to flourish unchecked, they could have turned Christianity into a speculative philosophy and wrecked it. In facing Gnosticism, the Church was facing one of the gravest dangers which ever threatened the Christian faith.<p/><b>The Language Of The Pastorals</b><p/> The most impressive argument against the direct Pauline origin of the Pastorals is a fact which is quite clear in the Greek but not so clear in any English translation. The total number of words in the Pastoral Epistles is 902, of which 54 are proper names; and of these 902 words, no fewer than 306 never occur in any other of Paul's letters. That is to say more than a third of the words in the Pastoral Epistles are totally absent from Paul's other letters. In fact 175 words in the Pastoral Epistles occur nowhere else in the New Testament at all; although it is only fair to say that there are 50 words in the Pastoral Epistles which occur in Paul's other letters and nowhere else in the New Testament.<p/>Further, when the other letters of Paul and the Pastorals say the same thing they say it in different ways, using different words and different turns of speech to express the same idea.<p/>Again, many of Paul's favourite words are absent entirely from the Pastoral Epistles. The words for the cross (stauros, <a href='S:G4716'>G4716</a>) and to crucify (stauroun, <a href='S:G4717'>G4717</a>) occur 27 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals. Eleutheria (<a href='S:G1657'>G1657</a>) and the kindred words which have to do with freedom occur 29 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals. Huios (<a href='S:G5207'>G5207</a>), "son," and huiothesia (<a href='S:G5206'>G5206</a>), "adoption, occur 46 times in Paul's other letters, and never in the Pastorals.<p/>Moreover, Greek has many more of those little words called particles and enclitics than English has. Sometimes they indicate little more than a tone of voice; every Greek sentence is joined to its predecessor by one of them; and they are often virtually untranslatable. Of these particles and enclitics there are 112 which Paul uses altogether 932 times in his other letters that never occur in the Pastorals.<p/>There is clearly something which has to be explained here. The vocabulary and the style make it hard to believe that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles in the same sense as he wrote his other letters.<p/><b>Paul's Activities In The Pastorals</b><p/> But perhaps the most obvious difficulty of the Pastorals is that they show Paul engaged in activities for which there is no room in his life as we know it from the book of Acts. He has clearly conducted a mission in Crete (<a href='B:630 1:5'>Tit 1:5</a>). And he proposes to spend a winter in Nicopolis, which is in Epirus (<a href='B:630 3:12'>Tit 3:12</a>). In Paul's life as we know it that particular mission and that particular winter just cannot be fitted in. But it may well be that just here we have stumbled on the solution to the problem.<p/><b>Was Paul Released From His Roman Imprisonment?</b><p/> Let us sum up. We have seen that the Church organization of the Pastorals is more elaborate than in any other Pauline letter. We have seen that the stress on orthodoxy sounds like second or third generation Christianity, when the thrill of the new discovery is wearing off and the Church is on the way to becoming an institution. We have seen that Paul is depicted as carrying out a mission or missions which cannot be fitted into the scheme of his life as we have it in Acts. But Acts leaves it quite uncertain what happened to Paul in Rome. It ends by telling us that he lived for two whole years in a kind of semi-captivity, preaching the gospel without hindrance (<a href='B:510 28:30-31'>Act 28:30-31</a>). But it does not tell us how that captivity ended, whether in Paul's release or his execution. It is true that the general assumption is that it ended in his condemnation and death; but there is a by no means negligible stream of tradition which tells that it ended in his release, his liberty for two or three further years, his reimprisonment and his final execution about the year A.D. 67:<p/>Let us look at this question, for it is of the greatest interest.<p/>First, it is clear that when Paul was in prison in Rome, he did not regard release as impossible; in fact, it looks as if he expected it. When he wrote to the Philippians, he said that he was sending Timothy to them, and goes on, "And I trust in the Lord that shortly I myself shall come also" (Php_2:24). When he wrote to Philemon, sending back the runaway Onesimus, he says, "At the same time prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be granted to you" (<a href='B:640 1:22'>Phm 1:22</a>). Clearly he was prepared for release, whether or not it ever came.<p/>Second, let us remember a plan that was very dear to Paul's heart. Before he went to Jerusalem on that journey on which he was arrested, he wrote to the Church at Rome, and in that letter he is planning a visit to Spain. "I hope to see you in passing, he writes, "as I go to Spain." "I shall go on by way of you, he writes, "to Spain" (<a href='B:520 15:24'>Rom 15:24</a>; <a href='B:520 15:28'>Rom 15:28</a>). Was that visit ever paid?<p/>Clement of Rome, when he wrote to the Church at Corinth about A.D. 90, said of Paul that he preached the gospel in the East and in the West; that he instructed the whole world (that is, the Roman Empire) in righteousness; and that he went to the extremity (terma, the terminus) of the West, before his martyrdom. What did Clement mean by the extremity of the West? There are many who argue that he meant nothing more than Rome. Now it is true that someone writing away in the East in Asia Minor would probably think of Rome as the extremity, of the West. But Clement was writing from Rome; and it is difficult to see that for anyone in Rome the extremity of the West could be anything else but Spain. It certainly seems that Clement believed that Paul reached Spain.<p/>The greatest of all the early Church historians was Eusebius. In his account of Paul's life he writes: "Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul had spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without constraint. Thus, after he had made his defence, it is said that the Apostle was sent again on the ministry of preaching, and that on coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom" (Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, 2:22:2). Eusebius has nothing to say about Spain, but he did know the story that Paul had been released from his first Roman imprisonment.<p/>The Muratorian Canon, that first list of New Testament books, describes Luke's scheme in writing Acts: "Luke related to Theophilus events of which he was an eye-witness, as also, in a separate place, he evidently declares the martyrdom of Peter (he probably refers to <a href='B:490 22:31-32'>Luk 22:31-32</a>); but omits the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain."<p/>In the fifth century, two of the great Christian fathers are definite about this journey. Chrysostom in his sermon on <a href='B:620 4:20'>2Ti 4:20</a> says: "Saint Paul after his residence in Rome departed to Spain." Jerome in his Catalogue of Writers says that Paul "was dismissed by Nero that he might preach Christ's gospel in the West."<p/>Beyond doubt a stream of tradition held that Paul journeyed to Spain.<p/>This is a matter on which we will have to come to our own decision. The one thing which makes us doubt the historicity of that tradition is that in Spain itself there is not and never was any tradition that Paul had worked and preached there, no stories about him, no places connected with his name. It would be indeed strange if the memory of such a visit had become totally obliterated. It could well be that the whole story of Paul's release and journey to the west arose simply as a deduction from his expressed intention to visit Spain (<a href='B:520 15:1-33'>Rom 15:1-33</a>). Most New Testament scholars do not think that Paul was released from his imprisonment; the general consensus of opinion is that his only release was by death.<p/><b>Paul And The Pastoral Epistles</b><p/> What then shall we say of Paul's connection with these letters? If we can accept the tradition of his release, and of his return to preaching and teaching, and of his death as late as A.D. 67, we might well believe that as they stand they came from his hand. But, if we cannot believe that--and the evidence is on the whole against it--are we to say that they have no connection with Paul at all?<p/>We must remember that the ancient world did not think of these things as we do. It would see nothing wrong in issuing a letter under the name of a great teacher, if it was sure that the letter said the things which that teacher would say under the same circumstances. To the ancient world it was natural and seemly that a disciple should write in his master's name. No one would have seen anything wrong in one of Paul's disciples meeting a new and threatening situation with a letter under Paul's name. To regard that as forgery is to misunderstand the mind of the ancient world. Are we then to swing completely to the other extreme and say that some disciple of his issued these letters in Paul's name years after he was dead, and at a time when the Church was much more highly organized than ever it was during his lifetime?<p/>As we see it, the answer is no. It is incredible that any disciple would put into Paul's mouth a claim to be the chief of sinners (<a href='B:610 1:15'>1Ti 1:15</a>); his tendency would be to stress Paul's holiness, not to talk about his sin. It is incredible that anyone writing in the name of Paul would give Timothy the homely advice to drink a little wine for the sake of his health (<a href='B:610 5:23'>1Ti 5:23</a>). The whole of <a href='B:620 4:1-22'>2Ti 4:1-22</a> is so personal and so full of intimate, loving details that no one but Paul could have written it.<p/>Wherein lies the solution? It may well be that something like this happened. It is quite obvious that many letters of Paul went lost. Apart from his great public letters, he must have had a continuous private correspondence; and of that we possess only the little letter to Philemon. It may well be that in the later days there were some fragments of Paul's correspondence in the possession of some Christian teacher. This teacher saw the Church of his day and his locality in Ephesus threatened on every side. It was threatened with heresy from without and from within. It was threatened with a fall away from its own high standards of purity and truth. The quality of its members and the standard of its office-bearers were degenerating. He had in his possession little letters of Paul which said exactly the things that should be said, but, as they stood, they were too short and too fragmentary to publish. So he amplified them and made them supremely relevant to the contemporary situation and sent them out to the Church.<p/>In the Pastoral Epistles we are still hearing the voice of Paul, and often hearing it speak with a unique personal intimacy; but we think that the form of the letters is due to a Christian teacher who summoned the help of Paul when the Church of the day needed the guidance which only he could give. 


text:
PHILEMON<p/>A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTERS OF PAUL<p/><b>The Letters Of Paul</b><p/> There is no more interesting body of documents in the New Testament than the letters of Paul. That is because of all forms of literature a letter is most personal. Demetrius, one of the old Greek literary critics, once wrote, "Every one reveals his own soul in his letters. In every other form of composition it is possible to discern the writer's character, but in none so clearly as the epistolary." (Demetrius, On Style, 227). It is just because he left us so many letters that we feel we know Paul so well. In them he opened his mind and heart to the folk he loved so much; and in them, to this day, we can see that great mind grappling with the problems of the early church, and feel that great heart throbbing with love for men, even when they were misguided and mistaken.<p/><b>The Difficulty Of Letters</b><p/> At the same time, there is often nothing so difficult to understand as a letter. Demetrius (On Style, 223) quotes a saying of Artemon, who edited the letters of Aristotle. Artemon said that a letter ought to be written in the same manner as a dialogue, because it was one of the two sides of a dialogue. In other words, to read a letter is like listening to one side of a telephone conversation. So when we read the letters of Paul we are often in a difficulty. We do not possess the letter which he was answering; we do not fully know the circumstances with which he was dealing; it is only from the letter itself that we can deduce the situation which prompted it. Before we can hope to understand fully any letter Paul wrote, we must try to reconstruct the situation which produced it.<p/><b>The Ancient Letters</b><p/> It is a great pity that Paul's letters were ever called epistles. They are in the most literal sense letters. One of the great lights shed on the interpretation of the New Testament has been the discovery and the publication of the papyri. In the ancient world, papyrus was the substance on which most documents were written. It was composed of strips of the pith of a certain bulrush that grew on the banks of the Nile. These strips were laid one on top of the other to form a substance very like brown paper. The sands of the Egyptian desert were ideal for preservation, for papyrus, although very brittle, will last forever so long as moisture does not get at it. As a result, from the Egyptian rubbish heaps, archaeologists have rescued hundreds of documents, marriage contracts, legal agreements, government forms, and, most interesting of all, private letters. When we read these private letters we find that there was a pattern to which nearly all conformed; and we find that Paul's letters reproduce exactly that pattern. Here is one of these ancient letters. It is from a soldier, called Apion, to his father Epimachus. He is writing from Misenum to tell his father that he has arrived safely after a stormy passage.<p/>"Apion sends heartiest greetings to his father and lord Epimachus.<p/>I pray above all that you are well and fit; and that things are<p/>going well with you and my sister and her daughter and my brother.<p/>I thank my Lord Serapis [his god] that he kept me safe when I was<p/>in peril on the sea. As soon as I got to Misenum I got my journey<p/>money from Caesar--three gold pieces. And things are going fine<p/>with me. So I beg you, my dear father, send me a line, first to let<p/>me know how you are, and then about my brothers, and thirdly, that<p/>I may kiss your hand, because you brought me up well, and because<p/>of that I hope, God willing, soon to be promoted. Give Capito my<p/>heartiest greetings, and my brothers and Serenilla and my friends.<p/>I sent you a little picture of myself painted by Euctemon. My<p/>military name is Antonius Maximus. I pray for your good health.<p/>Serenus sends good wishes, Agathos Daimon's boy, and Turbo,<p/>Gallonius' son." (G. Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri,<p/>36).<p/>Little did Apion think that we would be reading his letter to his father 1800 years after he had written it. It shows how little human nature changes. The lad is hoping for promotion quickly. Who will Serenilla be but the girl he left behind him? He sends the ancient equivalent of a photograph to the folk at home. Now that letter falls into certain sections. (i) There is a greeting. (ii) There is a prayer for the health of the recipients. (iii) There is a thanksgiving to the gods. (iv) There are the special contents. (v) Finally, there are the special salutations and the personal greetings. Practically every one of Paul's letters shows exactly the same sections, as we now demonstrate.<p/>(i) The Greeting: <a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>; <a href='B:560 1:1'>Eph 1:1</a>; Php_1:1 ; <a href='B:580 1:1-2'>Col 1:1-2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:1'>2Th 1:1</a>.<p/>(ii) The Prayer: in every case Paul prays for the grace of God on the people to whom he writes: <a href='B:520 1:7'>Rom 1:7</a>; <a href='B:530 1:3'>1Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:540 1:2'>2Co 1:2</a>; <a href='B:550 1:3'>Gal 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:2'>Eph 1:2</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:580 1:2'>Col 1:2</a>; <a href='B:590 1:1'>1Th 1:1</a>; <a href='B:600 1:2'>2Th 1:2</a>.<p/>(iii) The Thanksgiving: <a href='B:520 1:8'>Rom 1:8</a>; <a href='B:530 1:4'>1Co 1:4</a>; <a href='B:540 1:3'>2Co 1:3</a>; <a href='B:560 1:3'>Eph 1:3</a>; Php_1:3 ; <a href='B:590 1:3'>1Th 1:3</a>; <a href='B:600 1:3'>2Th 1:3</a>.<p/>(iv) The Special Contents: the main body of the letters.<p/>(v) Special Salutations and Personal Greetings: <a href='B:520 16:1-27'>Rom 16:1-27</a>; <a href='B:530 16:19'>1Co 16:19</a>; <a href='B:540 13:13'>2Co 13:13</a>; Php_4:21-22 ; <a href='B:580 4:12-15'>Col 4:12-15</a>; <a href='B:590 5:26'>1Th 5:26</a>.<p/>When Paul wrote letters, he wrote them on the pattern which everyone used. Deissmann says of them, "They differ from the messages of the homely papyrus leaves of Egypt, not as letters but only as the letters of Paul." When we read Paul's letters we are not reading things which were meant to be academic exercises and theological treatises, but human documents written by a friend to his friends.<p/><b>The Immediate Situation</b><p/> With a very few exceptions, all Paul's letters were written to meet an immediate situation and not treatises which he sat down to write in the peace and silence of his study. There was some threatening situation in Corinth, or Galatia, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, and he wrote a letter to meet it. He was not in the least thinking of us when he wrote, but solely of the people to whom he was writing. Deissmann writes, "Paul had no thought of adding a few fresh compositions to the already extant Jewish epistles; still less of enriching the sacred literature of his nation. He had no presentiment of the place his words would occupy in universal history; not so much that they would be in existence in the next generation, far less that one day people would look at them as Holy Scripture." We must always remember that a thing need not be transient because it was written to meet an immediate situation. All the great love songs of the world were written for one person, but they live on for the whole of mankind. It is just because Paul's letters were written to meet a threatening danger or a clamant need that they still throb with life. And it is because human need and the human situation do not change that God speaks to us through them today.<p/><b>The Spoken Word</b><p/> One other thing we must note about these letters. Paul did what most people did in his day. He did not normally pen his own letters but dictated them to a secretary, and then added his own authenticating signature. (We actually know the name of one of the people who did the writing for him. In <a href='B:520 16:22'>Rom 16:22</a> Tertius, the secretary, slips in his own greeting before the letter draws to an end). In <a href='B:530 16:21'>1Co 16:21</a> Paul says, "This is my own signature, my autograph, so that you can be sure this letter comes from me." (compare <a href='B:580 4:18'>Col 4:18</a>; <a href='B:600 3:17'>2Th 3:17</a>.)<p/>This explains a great deal. Sometimes Paul is hard to understand, because his sentences begin and never finish; his grammar breaks down and the construction becomes involved. We must not think of him sitting quietly at a desk, carefully polishing each sentence as he writes. We must think of him striding up and down some little room, pouring out a torrent Paul composed his letters, he had in his mind's eye a vision of words, while his secretary races to get them down. When of the folk to whom he was writing, and he was pouring out his heart to them in words that fell over each other in his eagerness to help.<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO PHILEMON<p/><b>The Unique Letter</b><p/> In one thing this little letter to Philemon is unique. It is the only private letter of Paul which we possess. Doubtless Paul must have written many private letters but of them all only Philemon has survived. Apart altogether from the grace and the charm which pervade it, this fact gives it a special significance.<p/><b>Onesimus, The Runaway Slave</b><p/> There are two possible reconstructions of what happened. One is quite straightforward; the other, connected with the name of E. J. Goodspeed, is rather more complicated and certainly more dramatic. Let us take the simple view first.<p/>Onesimus was a runaway slave and very probably a thief into the bargain. "If he has done you any damage," Paul writes, "or, if he owes you anything, put it down to my account--I will repay it" (<a href='B:640 1:18-19'>Phm 1:18-19</a>). Somehow the runaway had found his way to Rome, to lose himself in the thronging streets of that great city, somehow he had come into contact with Paul, and somehow he had become a Christian, the child whom Paul had begotten in his bonds (<a href='B:640 1:10'>Phm 1:10</a>).<p/>Then something happened. It was obviously impossible for Paul to go on harbouring a runaway slave and something brought the problem to a head. Perhaps it was the coming of Epaphras. It may be that Epaphras recognized Onesimus as a slave he had seen at Colosse, and that thereupon the whole wretched story came out; or, it may be that, with the coming of Epaphras, the conscience of Onesimus moved him to make a clean breast of all his discreditable past.<p/><b>Paul Sends Onesimus Back</b><p/> In the time that he had been with him, Onesimus had made himself very nearly indispensable to Paul; and Paul would have liked to keep him beside him. "I would have been glad to keep him with me, he writes (<a href='B:640 1:13'>Phm 1:13</a>). But he will do nothing without the consent of Philemon, Onesimus' master (<a href='B:640 1:14'>Phm 1:14</a>). So he sends Onesimus back. No one knew better than Paul how great a risk he was taking. A slave was not a person; he was a living tool. A master had absolute power over his slaves. "He can box their ears or condemn them to hard labour--making them, for instance, work in chains upon his lands in the country, or in a sort of prison-factory. Or, he may punish them with blows of the rod, the lash or the knot; he can brand them upon the forehead, if they are thieves or runaways, or, in the end, if they prove irreclaimable, he can crucify them." Pliny tells how Vedius Pollio treated a slave. The slave was carrying a tray of crystal goblets into the courtyard; he dropped and broke one; on the instant Pollio ordered him to be thrown into the fishpond in the middle of the court, where the savage lampreys tore him to pieces. Juvenal draws the picture of the mistress who will beat her maidservant at her caprice and the master who "delights in the sound of a cruel flogging, deeming it sweeter than any siren's song, who is never happy "until he has summoned a torturer and he can brand someone with a hot iron for stealing a couple of towels, "who revels in clanking chains." The slave was continually at the mercy of the caprice of a master or a mistress.<p/>What made it worse was that the slaves were deliberately held down. There were in the Roman Empire 60,000,000 of them and the danger of revolt was constantly to be guarded against. A rebellious slave was promptly eliminated. And, if a slave ran away, at best he would be branded with a red-hot iron on the forehead, with the letter F--standing for fugitivus, runaway--and at the worst he would be crucified to death. Paul well knew all this and that slavery was so ingrained into the ancient world that even to send Onesimus back to the Christian Philemon was a considerable risk.<p/><b>Paul's Appeal</b><p/> So Paul gave Onesimus this letter. He puns on Onesimus' name. Onesimus in Greek literally means profitable. Once Onesimus was a useless fellow, but he is useful now (<a href='B:640 1:11'>Phm 1:11</a>). Now, as we might say, he is not only Onesimus by name, he is also Onesimus by nature. Maybe Philemon lost him for a time in order to have him for ever (<a href='B:640 1:15'>Phm 1:15</a>). He must take him back, not as a slave but as a Christian brother (<a href='B:640 1:16'>Phm 1:16</a>). He is now Paul's son in the faith, and Philemon must receive him as he would receive Paul himself.<p/><b>Emancipation</b><p/> Such, then, was Paul's appeal. Many people have wondered why Paul says nothing in this letter about the whole matter of slavery. He does not condemn it; he does not even tell Philemon to set Onesimus free; it is still as a slave that he would have him taken back. There are those who have criticized Paul for not seizing the opportunity to condemn the slavery on which the ancient world was built. Lightfoot says, "The word emancipation seems to tremble on his lips, but he never utters it." But there are reasons for his silence.<p/>Slavery was an integral part of the ancient world; the whole of society was built on it. Aristotle held that it was in the nature of things that certain men should be slaves, hewers of wood and drawers of water, to serve the higher classes of men. It may well be that Paul accepted the institution of slavery because it was almost impossible to imagine society without it. Further, if Christianity had, in fact, given the slaves any encouragement to revolt or to leave their masters, nothing but tragedy could have followed. Any such revolt would have been savagely crushed; any slave who took his freedom would have been mercilessly punished; and Christianity would itself have been branded as revolutionary and subversionary. Given the Christian faith, emancipation was bound to come--but the time was not ripe; and to have encouraged slaves to hope for it, and to seize it, would have done infinitely more harm than good. There are some things which cannot be suddenly achieved, and for which the world must wait, until the leaven works.<p/><b>The New Relationship</b><p/> What Christianity did vas to introduce a new relationship between man and man, in which all external differences were abolished. Christians are one body whether Jews or Gentiles, slaves or free men (<a href='B:530 12:13'>1Co 12:13</a>). In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free man, male nor female (<a href='B:550 3:28'>Gal 3:28</a>). In Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free man (<a href='B:580 3:11'>Col 3:11</a>). It was as a slave that Onesimus ran away and it was as a slave that he was coming back, but now he was not only a slave, he was a beloved brother in the Lord. When a relationship like that enters into life, social grades and castes cease to matter. The very names, master and slave, become irrelevant. If the master treats the slave as Christ would have treated him, and if the slave serves the master as he would serve Christ, then it does not matter if you call the one master and the other slave; their relationship does not depend on any human classification, for they are both in Christ.<p/>Christianity in the early days did not attack slavery; to have done so would have been disastrous. But it introduced a new relationship in which the human grades of society ceased to matter. It is to be noted that this new relationship never gave the slave the right to take advantage of it; it made him rather a better slave and a more efficient servant, for now he must do things in such a way that he could offer them to Christ. Nor did it mean that the master must be soft and easy-going, willing to accept bad workmanship and inferior service; but it did mean that he no longer treated any servant as a thing, but as a person and a brother in Christ.<p/>There are two passages in which Paul sets out the duties of slaves and masters-- <a href='B:560 6:5-9'>Eph 6:5-9</a> and <a href='B:580 3:22-25'>Col 3:22-25</a>; <a href='B:580 4:1'>Col 4:1</a>. Both were written when Paul was in prison in Rome, and most likely when Onesimus was with him; and it is difficult not to think that they owe much to long talks that Paul had with the runaway slave who had become a Christian.<p/>On this view Philemon is a private letter, sent by Paul to Philemon, when he sent back his runaway slave; and it was written to urge Philemon to receive back Onesimus, not as a pagan master would, but as a Christian receives a brother.<p/><b>Archippus</b><p/> Let us now turn to the other view of this letter.<p/>We may begin with a consideration of the place of Archippus. He appears in both Colossians and Philemon. In Philemon greetings are sent to Archippus, our fellow-soldier (<a href='B:640 1:2'>Phm 1:2</a>); and such a description might well mean that Archippus is the minister of the Christian community in question. He is also mentioned in <a href='B:580 4:17'>Col 4:17</a>: "Say to Archippus, 'See that you fulfil the ministry which you have received in the Lord'." Now that injunction comes after a whole series of very definite references, not to Colosse, but to Laodicaea (<a href='B:580 4:13'>Col 4:13</a>; <a href='B:580 4:15-16'>Col 4:15-16</a>). May the fact that he appears among the messages sent to Laodicaea not imply that Archippus must be at Laodicaea, too? Why in any event should he get this personal message? If he was at Colosse, he would hear the letter read, as everyone else would. Why has this verbal order to be sent to him? It is surely possible that the answer is that he is not in Colosse at all, but in Laodicaea.<p/>If that is so, it means that Philemon's house is in Laodicaea and that Onesimus was a runaway Laodicaean slave. This must mean that the letter to Philemon was, in fact, written to Laodicaea. And, if so, the missing letter to Laodicaea, mentioned in <a href='B:580 4:16'>Col 4:16</a>, is none other than the letter to Philemon. This indeed solves problems.<p/>Let us remember that in ancient society, with its view of slavery, Paul took a considerable risk in sending Onesimus back at all. So, it can be argued that Philemon is not really only a personal letter. It is indeed written to Philemon and to the Church in his house. And further it has also to be read at Colosse. What, then, is Paul doing? Knowing the risk that he takes in sending Onesimus back, he is mobilizing Church opinion both in Laodicaea and in Colosse in his favour. The decision about Onesimus is not to be left to Philemon; it is to be the decision of the whole Christian community. It so happens that there is one little, but important, linguistic point, which is very much in favour of this view. In <a href='B:640 1:12'>Phm 1:12</a> the Revised Standard Version makes Paul write that he has sent back Onesimus to Philemon. The verb is anapempein (375); this is the regular verb--it is commoner in this sense that in any other--for officially referring a case to someone for decision. And <a href='B:640 1:12'>Phm 1:12</a> should most probably be translated: "I am referring his case to you, that is, not only to Philemon, but also the Church in his house.<p/>There is much to be said for this view. There is only one difficulty. In <a href='B:580 4:9'>Col 4:9</a> Onesimus is referred to as one of you, which certainly looks as if he is a Colossian. But E. J. Goodspeed, who states this view with such scholarship and persuasiveness, argues that Hierapolis, Laodicaea and Colosse were so close together, and so much a single Church, that they could well be regarded as one community, and that, therefore, one of you need not mean that Onesimus came from Colosse, but simply that he came from that closely connected group. If we are prepared to accept this, the last obstacle to the theory is removed.<p/><b>The Continuation Of The Story</b><p/> Goodspeed does not stop there. He goes on to reconstruct the history of Onesimus in a most moving way.<p/>In <a href='B:640 1:13-14'>Phm 1:13-14</a> Paul makes it quite clear that he would much have liked to keep Onesimus with him. "I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel; but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will." He reminds Philemon that he owes him his very soul (<a href='B:640 1:19'>Phm 1:19</a>). He says, with charming wit, "Let me make some Christian profit out of you!" (<a href='B:640 1:20'>Phm 1:20</a>). He says, "Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say" (<a href='B:640 1:21'>Phm 1:21</a>). Is it possible that Philemon could have resisted this appeal? In face of language like that could he do anything other than send Onesimus back to Paul with his blessing? Goodspeed regards it as certain that Paul got Onesimus back and that he became Paul's helper in the work of the gospel.<p/><b>The Bishop Of Ephesus</b><p/> Let us move on about fifty years. Ignatius, one of the great Christian martyrs, is being taken to execution from Antioch to Rome. As he goes, he writes letters--which still survive--to the Churches of Asia Minor. He stops at Smyrna and writes to the Church at Ephesus, and in the first chapter of that letter, he has much to say about their wonderful bishop. And what is the bishop's name? It is Onesimus; and Ignatius makes exactly the same pun as Paul made--he is Onesimus by name and Onesimus by nature, the profitable one to Christ. It may well be that the runaway slave had become with the passing years the great bishop of Ephesus.<p/><b>What Christ Did For Me</b><p/> If all this is so, we have still another explanation. Why did this little slip of a letter, this single papyrus sheet, survive; and how did it ever get itself into the collection of Pauline letters? It deals with no great doctrine; it attacks no great heresy; it is the only one of Paul's undoubted letters written to an individual person. It is practically certain that the first collection of Paul's letters was made at Ephesus, about the turn of the century. It was just then that Onesimus was bishop of Ephesus; and it may well be that it was he who insisted that this letter be included in the collection, short and personal as it was, in order that all might know what the grace of God had done for him. Through it the great bishop tells the world that once he was a runaway slave and that he owed his life to Paul and to Jesus Christ.<p/>Did Onesimus come back to Paul with Philemon's blessing? Did he become the great bishop of Ephesus, he who had been the runaway slave? Did he insist that this little letter be included in the Pauline collection to tell what Christ, through Paul, had done for him? We can never tell for, certain, but it is a lovely story of God's grace in Christ--and we hope that it is true!


text:
HEBREWS<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS<p/><b>God Fulfils Himself In Many Ways</b><p/> Religion has never been the same thing to all men. "God," as Tennyson said, "fulfils himself in many ways." George Russell said: "There are as many ways of climbing to the stars as there are people to climb." There is a well-known saying which tells us very truly and very beautifully that "God has his own secret stairway into every heart." Broadly speaking, there have been four great conceptions of religion.<p/>(i) To some men it is inward fellowship with God. It is a union with Christ so close and so intimate that the Christian can be said to live in Christ and Christ to live in him. That was Paul's conception of religion. To him it was something which mystically united him with God.<p/>(ii) To some religion is what gives a man a standard for life and a power to reach that standard. On the whole that is what religion was to James and to Peter. It was something which showed them what life ought to be and which enabled them to attain it.<p/>(iii) To some men religion is the highest satisfaction of their minds. Their minds seek and seek until they find that they can rest in God. It was Plato who said that "the unexamined life is the life not worth living." There are some men who must understand or perish. On the whole that is what religion was to John. The first chapter of his gospel is one of the greatest attempts in the world to state religion in a way that really satisfies the mind.<p/>(iv) To some men religion is access to God. It is that which removes the barriers and opens the door to his living presence. That is what religion was to the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews. With that idea his mind was dominated. He found in Christ the one person who could take him into the very presence of God. His whole idea of religion is summed up in the great passage in <a href='B:650 10:19-23'>Heb 10:19-23</a>.<p/>"Therefore, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith."<p/>If the writer to the Hebrews had one text it was: "Let us draw near."<p/><b>The Double Background</b><p/> The writer to the Hebrews had a double background into both of which this idea came. He had a Greek background. Ever since the time of Plato, five hundred years before, the Greeks had been haunted by the contrast between the real and the unreal, the seen and the unseen, the temporal and the eternal. It was the Greek idea that somewhere there was a real world of which this was only a shadowy and imperfect copy. Plato had the idea that somewhere there was a world of perfect forms or ideas or patterns, of which everything in this world was an imperfect copy. To take a simple instance, somewhere there was laid up the pattern of a perfect chair of which all the chairs in this world were inadequate copies. Plato said: "The Creator of the world had designed and carried out his work according to an unchangeable and eternal pattern of which the world is but a copy." Philo, who took his ideas from Plato, said: "God knew from the beginning that a fair copy could never come into being apart from a fair pattern; and that none of the objects perceivable by sense could be flawless which was not modelled after an archetype and spiritual idea, and thus, when he prepared to create this visible world, he shaped beforehand the ideal world in order to constitute the corporeal after the incorporeal and godlike pattern." When Cicero was talking of the laws men know and use on earth, he said: "We have no real and life-like likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is a shadow and a sketch."<p/>The thinkers of the ancient world all had this idea that somewhere there is a real world of which this one is only a kind of imperfect copy. Here we can only guess and grope; here we can work only with copies and imperfect things. But in the unseen world there are the real and perfect things. When Newman died they erected a statue to him, and on the pedestal of it are the Latin words: Ab umbris et imaginibus ad veritatem, "Away from the shadows and the semblances to the truth." If that be so, clearly the great task of this life is to get away from the shadows and the imperfections and to reach reality. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus Christ can enable us to do. To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been trying to get from the shadows to the truth. That is just what Jesus Christ can enable you to do."<p/><b>The Hebrew Background</b><p/> But the writer to the Hebrews also had a Jewish background. To the Jew it was always dangerous to come too near to God. "Man, said God to Moses, "shall not see me and live" (<a href='B:20 33:20'>Exo 33:20</a>). It was Jacob's astonished exclamation at Peniel: "I have seen god face to face and yet my life is preserved" (<a href='B:10 32:30'>Gen 32:30</a>). When Manoah realised who his visitor had been, he said in terror to his wife: "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." The great day of Jewish worship was the Day of Atonement. That was the one day of all the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies where the very presence of God was held to dwell. No man ever entered in except the High Priest, and he only on that day. When he did, the law laid it down that he must not linger in the Holy Place for long "lest he put Israel in terror." It was dangerous to enter the presence of God and if a man waited too long he might be struck dead.<p/>In view of this there entered into Jewish thought the idea of a covenant. God, in his grace and in a way that was quite unmerited, approached the nation of Israel and offered them a special relationship with himself. But this unique access to God was conditional on the observance by the people of the law that he gave to them. We can see this relationship being entered into and this law being accepted in the dramatic scene in <a href='B:20 24:3-8'>Exo 24:3-8</a>.<p/>So then Israel had access to God, but only if she kept the law. To break the law was sin, and sin put up a barrier which stopped the way to God. It was to take away that barrier that the system of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices was constructed. The law was given; man sinned; the barrier was up; the sacrifice was made; and the sacrifice was designed to open the closed way to God. But the experience of life was that this was precisely what sacrifice could not do. It was proof of the ineffectiveness of the whole system that sacrifice had to go on and on and on. It was a losing and ineffective battle to remove the barrier that sin had erected between man and God.<p/><b>The Perfect Priest And The Perfect Sacrifice</b><p/> What men needed was a perfect priest and a perfect sacrifice, someone who was such that he could bring to God a sacrifice which once and for all opened the way of access to him. That, said the writer to the Hebrews, is exactly what Christ did. He is the perfect priest because he is at once perfectly man and perfectly God. In his manhood he can take man to God and in his Godhead he can take God to man. He has no sin. The perfect sacrifice he brings is the sacrifice of himself, a sacrifice so perfect that it never needs to be made again. To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been looking for the perfect priest who can bring the perfect sacrifice and give you access to God. You have him in Jesus Christ and in him alone."<p/>To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for the way from the shadows to reality; you will find it in Jesus Christ." To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for that perfect sacrifice which will open the way to God which your sins have closed; you will find it in Jesus Christ." Jesus was the one person who gave access to reality and access to God. That is the key-thought of this letter.<p/><b>The Riddle Of The New Testament</b><p/> So much is clear but when we turn to the other questions of introduction Hebrews is wrapped in mystery. E. F. Scott wrote: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is in many respects the riddle of the New Testament." When it was written, to whom it was written, and who wrote it are questions at which we can only guess. The very history of the letter shows how its mystery is to be treated with a certain reserve and suspicion. It was a long time before it became an unquestioned New Testament book. The first list of New Testament books, The Muratorian Canon, compiled about A.D. 170, does not mention it at all. The great Alexandrian scholars. Clement and Origen, knew it and loved it but agreed that its place as scripture was disputed. Of the great African fathers, Cyprian never mentions it and Tertullian knows that its place was disputed. Eusebius, the great Church historian, says that it ranked among the disputed books. It was not until the time of Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth century, that Hebrews was definitely accepted as a New Testament book, and even Luther was not too sure about it. It is strange to think how long this great book had to wait for full recognition.<p/><b>When Was It Written?</b><p/> The only information we have comes from the letter itself. Clearly it is written for what we might call second generation Christians (<a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a>). The story was transmitted to its recipients by those who had heard the Lord. The community to whom it was written were not new to the Christian faith; they ought to have been mature (<a href='B:650 5:12'>Heb 5:12</a>). They must have had a long history for they are summoned to look back on the former days (<a href='B:650 10:32'>Heb 10:32</a>). They had a great history behind them and heroic martyr figures on which they ought to look back for inspiration (<a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a>).<p/>The thing that will help us most in dating the letter is its references to persecution. It is clear that at one time their leaders had died for their faith (<a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a>). It is clear that they themselves had not yet suffered persecution, for they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding their blood (<a href='B:650 12:4'>Heb 12:4</a>). It is also clear that they have had ill-treatment to suffer for they have had to undergo the pillaging of their goods (<a href='B:650 10:32-34'>Heb 10:32-34</a>). And it is clear from the outlook of the letter that there is a risk of persecution about to come. From all that it is safe to say that this letter must have been written between two persecutions, in days when Christians were not actually persecuted, but were none the less unpopular with their fellow-men. Now the first persecution was in the time of Nero in the year A.D. 64; and the next was in the time of Domitian about A.D. 85: Somewhere between these dates this letter was written, more likely nearer to Domitian. If we take the date as A.D. 80 we shall not be far wrong.<p/><b>To Whom Was It Written?</b><p/> Once again we have to be dependent on such hints as we get from the letter itself. One thing is certain--it cannot have been written to any of the great Churches or the name of the place could not have so completely vanished. Let us set down what we know. The letter was written to a long-established Church (<a href='B:650 5:12'>Heb 5:12</a>). It was written to a Church which had at some time in the past suffered persecution (<a href='B:650 10:32-34'>Heb 10:32-34</a>). It was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders (<a href='B:650 13:7'>Heb 13:7</a>). It was written to a Church which had not been directly founded by the apostles (<a href='B:650 2:3'>Heb 2:3</a>). It was written to a Church which had been marked by generosity and liberality (<a href='B:650 6:10'>Heb 6:10</a>).<p/>We do have one direct hint. Amongst the closing greetings we find the sentence, as the Revised Standard Version translates it: "Those who come from Italy send you greetings" (<a href='B:650 13:24'>Heb 13:24</a>). Taken by itself that phrase could mean either that the letter was written from Italy or that it was written to Italy, the greater likelihood is that it was written to Italy. Suppose I am in Glasgow and am writing to some place abroad. I would not be likely to say, "All the people from Glasgow greet you." I would be much more likely to say, "All the people in Glasgow greet you." But suppose I am somewhere abroad where there is a little colony of Glaswegians, I might well say, "All the people from Glasgow send you their greetings." So then we may say that the letter was written to Italy; and if it was written to Italy it was almost certainly written to Rome.<p/>But quite certainly it was not written to the Church at Rome as a whole. If it had been it would never have lost its title. Furthermore, it gives the unmistakable impression that it was written to a small body of like-minded persons. Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group. From <a href='B:650 5:12'>Heb 5:12</a> we can see that they had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith. Still further, Hebrews demands such a knowledge of the Old Testament that it must always have been a book written by a scholar for scholars.<p/>When we sum it all up, we can say that Hebrews is a letter written by a great teacher to a little group or college of Christians in Rome. He was their teacher; at the moment he was separated from them and was afraid that they were drifting away from the faith; and so he wrote this letter to them. It is not so much a letter as a talk. It does not begin like Paul's letters do, although it ends with greetings as a letter does. The writer himself calls it "a word of exhortation."<p/><b>By Whom Was It Written?</b><p/> Perhaps the most insoluble problem of all is the problem of its authorship. It was precisely that uncertainty which kept it so long on the fringes of the New Testament. The title in the earliest days was simply, "To the Hebrews." No author's name was given, no one connected it directly with the name of Paul. Clement of Alexandria used to think that Paul might have written it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it, for the style is quite different from that of Paul. Origen made a famous remark, "who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews only God knows for certain." Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Jerome said the Latin Church did not receive it as Paul's and speaking of the author said, "the writer to the Hebrews whoever he was." Augustine felt the same way about it. Luther declared that Paul could never have written it because the thought was not his. Calvin said that he could not bring himself to think that this letter was a letter of Paul.<p/>At no time in the history of the Church did men ever really think that Paul wrote Hebrews. How then did it get attached to his name? It happened very simply. When the New Testament came into its final form there was of course argument about which books were to be included and which were not. To settle it one test was used. Was a book the work of an apostle or at least the work of one who had been in direct contact with the apostles? By this time Hebrews was known and loved throughout the Church. Most people felt like Origen that God alone knew who wrote it, but they wanted it. They felt it must go into the New Testament and the only way to ensure that was to include it with the thirteen letters of Paul. Hebrews won its way into the New Testament on the grounds of its own greatness, but to get in it had to be included with the letters of Paul and come under his name. People knew quite well that it was not Paul's but they included it among his letters because no man knew who wrote it and yet it must go in.<p/><b>The Author Of Hebrews</b><p/> Can we guess who the author was? Many candidates have been put forward. We can only glance at three of the many suggestions.<p/>(i) Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus; the people of Cyprus were famous for the excellence of the Greek they spoke; and Hebrews is written in the best Greek in the New Testament. He was a Levite (<a href='B:510 4:36'>Act 4:36</a>) and of all men in the New Testament he would have had the closest knowledge of the priestly and sacrificial system on which the whole thought of the letter is based. He is called a son of encouragement; the Greek word is paraklesis (<a href='S:G3874'>G3874</a>) ; and Hebrews calls itself a word of paraklesis (<a href='S:G3874'>G3874</a>) (<a href='B:650 13:22'>Heb 13:22</a>). He was one of the few men acceptable to both Jews and Greeks and at home in both worlds of thought. It might be that Barnabas wrote this letter, but if so it is strange that his name should vanish in connection with it.<p/>(ii) Luther was sure that Apollos was the author. Apollos, according to the New Testament mention of him, was a Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures (<a href='B:510 18:24'>Act 18:24</a> ff; <a href='B:530 1:12'>1Co 1:12</a>; <a href='B:530 3:4'>1Co 3:4</a>). The man who wrote this letter knew the scriptures; he was eloquent; and he thought and argued in the way that a cultured Alexandrian would. The man who wrote Hebrews was certainly a man like Apollos in thought and in background.<p/>(iii) The most romantic of all conjectures is that of Harnack, the great German scholar. He thought that maybe Aquila and Priscilla wrote it between them. Aquila was a teacher (<a href='B:510 18:26'>Act 18:26</a>). Their house in Rome was a Church in itself (<a href='B:520 16:5'>Rom 16:5</a>). Harnack thought that that is why the letter begins with no greetings and why the writer's name has vanished--because the main author of Hebrews was a woman and a woman was not allowed to teach.<p/>But when we come to the end of conjecture, we are compelled to say as Origen said seventeen hundred years ago, that only God knows who wrote Hebrews. To us the author must remain a voice and nothing more; but we can be thankful to God for the work of this great nameless one who wrote with incomparable skill and beauty about the Jesus who is the way to reality and the way to God. 


text:
JAMES<p/>INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER OF JAMES<p/>James is one of the books which bad a very hard fight to get into the New Testament. Even when it did come to be regarded as Scripture, it was spoken of with a certain reserve and suspicion, and even as late as the sixteenth century Luther would gladly have banished it from the New Testament altogether.<p/><b>The Doubts Of The Fathers</b><p/> In the Latin-speaking part of the Church it is not until the middle of the fourth century that James emerges in the writings of the fathers. The first list of New Testament books ever to be compiled is the Muratorian Canon, which dates to about A.D. 170, and James is absent from it. Tertullian, writing in the middle of the third century, is an immense quoter of Scripture; he has 7,258 quotations from the New Testament, but never one from James. The first appearance of James in Latin is in a Latin manuscript called the Codex Corbeiensis, which dates to about A.D. 350: This manuscript attributes the authorship of the book to James the son of Zebedee; and includes it, not with the universally acknowledged New Testament books, but with a collection of religious tracts written by the early fathers. James has now emerged, but it is accepted with a certain reservation. The first Latin writer to quote James verbatim is Hilary of Poitiers in a work On the Trinity, written about A.D. 357:<p/>If, then, James was so late in emerging in the Latin Church and if, when it did emerge, it was still regarded with some uncertainty, how did it become integrated into the New Testament? The moving influence was that of Jerome, for he unhesitatingly included James in his Vulgate version of the New Testament. But even then there is an accent of doubt. In his book On Famous Men, Jerome writes, "James, who is called the brother of the Lord...wrote only one epistle, which is one of the seven catholic epistles, and which, some people say, was issued by someone else under James' name." Jerome fully accepted the letter as Scripture, but he felt that there was some doubt as to who the writer was. The doubt was finally set at rest by the fact that Augustine fully accepted James, and was not in doubt that the James in question was the brother of our Lord.<p/>James was late in emerging in the Latin Church; for long there was a kind of question mark against it; but Jerome's inclusion of it in the Vulgate and Augustine's full acceptance of it, brought it in the end, albeit after a struggle, full recognition.<p/><b>The Syrian Church</b><p/> One would have thought that the Syrian Church would have been the first to accept James, if it was really written in Palestine and was really the work of the brother of our Lord; but in the Syrian Church there was the same oscillation. The official New Testament of the Syrian Church is called the Peshitto. This was to the Syrian Church what the Vulgate was to the Latin Church. It was made by Rabbula, the Bishop of Edessa, about A.D. 412 and in it for the first time James was translated into Syriac. Up to that time there was no Syriac version of the book, and up to A.D. 451 there is no trace of James in Syriac religious literature. After that James was widely enough accepted, but as late as A.D. 545 Paul of Nisibis was still questioning its right to be in the New Testament. It was not, in fact, until midway through the eighth century that the great authority of John of Damascus did for James in the Syrian Church what Augustine had done for it in the Latin.<p/><b>The Greek Church</b><p/> Although James emerged sooner in the Greek-speaking Church than it did in the Latin and Syrian, it was none the less late in making a definite appearance. The first writer to quote it by name is Origen, head of the school of Alexandria. Writing almost midway through the third century, he says, "If faith is called faith, but exists apart from works, such a faith is dead, as we read in the letter which is currently reported to be by James." It is true that in other works he quotes it as being without doubt by James and shows that he believes James to be the brother of our Lord; but once again there is the accent of doubt. Eusebius, the great scholar of Caesarea, investigated the position of the various books in the New Testament or on its fringe midway through the fourth century. He classes James amongst the books which are "disputed"; and he writes of it: "The first of the epistles called Catholic is said to be his (James'); but it must be noted that some regard it as spurious; and it is certainly true that very few of the ancient writers mention it." Here again is the accent of doubt. Eusebius himself accepted James but he was well aware that there were those who did not. The turning-point in the Greek-speaking Church came in A.D. 367: In that year Athanasius issued his famous Easter Letter in Egypt. Its purpose was to inform his people what books were Scripture and what were not, because apparently their reading had become too wide, or at least, too many books were being regarded as Holy Writ. In that Letter James was included without qualification; and its position was thenceforth safe.<p/>So, then, in the early church no one really questioned the value of James; but in every branch of it it was late in emerging and had to go through a period when its right to be considered a New Testament book was under dispute.<p/>In fact the history of James is still to be seen in its position in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1546 the Council of Trent once and for all laid down the Roman Catholic Bible. A list of books was given to which none could be added and from which none could be subtracted, and which had to be read in the Vulgate Version and in no other. The books were divided into two classes; those which were proto-canonical, that is to say, those which had been unquestioningly accepted from the beginning; and those which were deutero-canonical, that is to say, those which only gradually won their way into the New Testament. Although the Roman Catholic Church never had any doubts about James, it is none the less in the second class that it is included.<p/><b>Luther And James</b><p/> In our own day it is true to say that James, at least for most people, does not occupy a position in the forefront of the New Testament. Few would mention it in the same breath as John or Romans, or Luke or Galatians. There is still for many a kind of reservation about it. Why should that be? It cannot have to do with the doubt about James in the early church, for the history of the New Testament books in these distant days is not known to many people in the modern Church. The reason lies in this. In the Roman Catholic Church the position of James was finally settled by the Edict of the Council of Trent; but in the Protestant Church its history continued to be troubled, and indeed, became even more troubled, because Luther attacked it and would have ejected it from the New Testament altogether. In his printing of the German New Testament Luther had a contents page with the books set out and numbered. At the end of the list there was a little group, separate from the others and with no numbers assigned to them. That group comprised James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. These were books which he held to be secondary.<p/>Luther was specially severe on James, and the adverse judgment of a great man on any book can be a millstone round its neck for ever. It is in the concluding paragraph of his Preface to the New Testament that there stands Luther's famous verdict on James:<p/>In sum: the gospel and the first epistle of St. John, St. Paul's<p/>epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians and Ephesians;<p/>and St. Peter's first epistle, are the books which show Christ to<p/>you. They teach everything you need to know for your salvation,<p/>even if you were never to see or hear any other book or hear any<p/>other teaching. In comparison with these the epistle of James is<p/>an epistle full of straw, because it contains nothing evangelical.<p/>But more about this in other prefaces.<p/>As he promised, Luther developed this verdict in the Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude. He begins: "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God's law. Yet to give my own opinion, without prejudice to that of anyone else, I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship." He then goes on to give his reasons for this rejection.<p/>First, in direct opposition to Paul and the rest of the Bible, it ascribes justification to works, quoting Abraham wrongly as one who was justified by his works. This in itself proves that the epistle cannot be of apostolic origin.<p/>Second, not once does it give to Christians any instruction or reminder of the Passion, Resurrection, or Spirit of Christ. It mentions Christ only twice. Then Luther goes on to state his own principle for testing any book: "The true touchstone for testing any book is to discover whether it emphasises the prominence of Christ or not.... What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, not even if taught by Peter or Paul. On the other hand what does preach Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod does it." On that test James fails. So Luther goes on: "The epistle of James however only drives you to the law and its works. He mixes one thing to another to such an extent that I suspect some good and pious man assembled a few things said by disciples of the apostles, and put them down in black and white; or perhaps the epistle was written by someone else who made notes of a sermon of his. He calls the law a law of freedom (<a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a>; <a href='B:660 2:12'>Jas 2:12</a>), although St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, wrath, death, and sin" (<a href='B:550 3:23'>Gal 3:23</a> ff.; <a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a>; <a href='B:520 7:10'>Rom 7:10</a> ff.).<p/>So Luther comes to his conclusion: "In sum: he wishes to guard against those who depended on faith without going on to works, but he had neither the spirit, nor the thought, nor the eloquence equal to the task. He does violence to Scripture, and so contradicts Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by emphasising law what the apostles bring about by attracting man to love. I therefore refuse him a place among the writers of the true canon of my Bible; but I would not prevent anyone else placing him or raising him where he likes, for the epistle contains many excellent passages. One man does not count as a man even in the eyes of the world; how then shall this single and isolated writer count against Paul and all the rest of the Bible?"<p/>Luther does not spare James; and it may be that once we have studied the book we may think that for once he allowed personal prejudice to injure sound judgment.<p/>Such, then, is the troubled history of James. Now we must try to answer the questions it poses regarding authorship and date.<p/><b>The Identity Of James</b><p/> The author of this letter gives us practically no information about himself He calls himself simply: "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (<a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a>). Who then is he? In the New Testament there are apparently at least five people who bear that name.<p/>(i) There is the James who was the father of the member of the Twelve called Judas, not Iscariot (<a href='B:490 6:16'>Luk 6:16</a>). He is no more than a name and cannot have had any connection with this letter.<p/>(ii) There is James, the son of Alphaeus, who was a member of the Twelve (<a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a>; <a href='B:480 3:18'>Mar 3:18</a>; <a href='B:490 6:15'>Luk 6:15</a>; <a href='B:510 1:13'>Act 1:13</a>). A comparison of <a href='B:470 9:9'>Mat 9:9</a> with <a href='B:480 2:14'>Mar 2:14</a> makes it certain that Matthew and Levi were one and the same person. Levi was also a son of Alphaeus, and therefore Matthew and this James must have been brothers. But of James, the son of Alphaeus, nothing else is known; and he also can have had no connection with this letter.<p/>(iii) There is the James who is called James the Younger and is mentioned in <a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a> (compare <a href='B:470 27:56'>Mat 27:56</a>; <a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a>). Again nothing is known of him, and he cannot have had any connection with this letter.<p/>(iv) There is James, the brother of John, and the son of Zebedee, a member of the twelve (<a href='B:470 10:2'>Mat 10:2</a>; <a href='B:480 3:17'>Mar 3:17</a>; <a href='B:490 6:14'>Luk 6:14</a>; <a href='B:510 1:13'>Act 1:13</a>). In the gospel story James never appears independently of his brother John (<a href='B:470 4:21'>Mat 4:21</a>; <a href='B:470 17:1'>Mat 17:1</a>; <a href='B:480 1:19'>Mar 1:19</a>; <a href='B:480 1:29'>Mar 1:29</a>; <a href='B:480 5:37'>Mar 5:37</a>; <a href='B:480 9:2'>Mar 9:2</a>; <a href='B:480 10:35'>Mar 10:35</a>; <a href='B:480 10:41'>Mar 10:41</a>; <a href='B:480 13:3'>Mar 13:3</a>; <a href='B:480 14:33'>Mar 14:33</a>; <a href='B:490 5:10'>Luk 5:10</a>; <a href='B:490 8:51'>Luk 8:51</a>; <a href='B:490 9:28'>Luk 9:28</a>; <a href='B:490 9:54'>Luk 9:54</a>). He was the first of the apostolic band to be martyred, for he was beheaded on the orders of Herod Agrippa the First in the year A.D. 44: He has been connected with the letter. The fourth century Latin Codex Corbeiensis at the end of the epistle, has a note quite definitely ascribing it to James the son of Zebedee. The only place where this ascription of authorship was taken seriously was in the Spanish Church, in which, down to the end of the seventeenth century, he was often hold to be the author. This was due to the fact that St. James of Compostella, the patron saint of Spain, is identified with James the son of Zebedee; and it was natural that the Spanish Church should be predisposed to wish that their country's patron saint should be the author of a New Testament letter. But the martyrdom of James came too early for him to have written the letter, and in any event there is nothing beyond the Codex Corbeiensis to connect him with it.<p/>(v) Finally, there is James, who is called the brother of Jesus. Although the first definite connection of him with this letter does not emerge until Origen in the first half of the third century, it is to him that it has always been traditionally ascribed. The Roman Catholic Church agrees with this ascription, for in 1546 the Council of Trent laid it down that James is canonical and is written by an apostle.<p/>Let us then collect the evidence about this James. From the New Testament we learn that he was one of the brothers of Jesus (<a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a>; <a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a>). We shall later discuss in what sense the word brother is to be taken. During Jesus' ministry it is clear that his family did not understand or sympathize with him and would have wished to restrain him (<a href='B:470 12:46-50'>Mat 12:46-50</a>; <a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a>; <a href='B:480 3:31-35'>Mar 3:31-35</a>; <a href='B:500 7:3-9'>Joh 7:3-9</a>). John says bluntly, "For even his brothers did not believe in him" (<a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a>). So, then, during Jesus' earthly ministry James was numbered amongst his opponents.<p/>With Acts there comes a sudden and unexplained change. When Acts opens, Jesus' mother and his brothers are there with the little group of Christians (<a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a>). From there onwards it becomes clear that James has become the leader of the Jerusalem Church although how that came about is never explained. It is to James that Peter sends the news of his escape from prison (<a href='B:510 12:17'>Act 12:17</a>). James presides over the Council of Jerusalem which agreed to the entry of the Gentiles into the Christian Church (<a href='B:510 15:1-41'>Act 15:1-41</a>). It is James and Peter whom Paul meets when he first goes to Jerusalem; and it is with Peter, James and John, the pillars of the Church, that he discusses and settles his sphere of work (<a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a>; <a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a>). It is to James that Paul comes with his collection from the Gentile Churches on the visit to Jerusalem which is destined to be his last and which leads to his imprisonment (<a href='B:510 21:18-25'>Act 21:18-25</a>). This last episode is important, for it shows James very sympathetic to the Jews who still observe the Jewish law, and so eager that their scruples should not be offended, that he actually persuades Paul to demonstrate his loyalty to the law by assuming responsibility for the expenses of certain Jews who are fulfilling a Nazirite vow.<p/>Plainly, then, James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church. As might be expected, this was something which tradition greatly developed. Hegesippus, the early historian, says that James was the first bishop of the Church at Jerusalem. Clement of Alexandria goes further and says that he was chosen for that office by Peter and John. Jerome in his book, On Famous Men, says, "After the Passion of the Lord, James was immediately ordained bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles.... He ruled the Church of Jerusalem for thirty years, that is, until the seventh year of the reign of Nero." The Clementine Recognitions take the final step in the development of the legend, for they say that James was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem by none other than Jesus himself. Clement of Alexandria relates a strange tradition: "To James the Just, and John and Peter, after the Resurrection, the Lord committed knowledge; they committed it to the other apostles; and the other apostles to the seventy." The later developments arc not to be accepted but the basic fact remains that James was the undisputed head of the Church at Jerusalem.<p/><b>James And Jesus</b><p/> Such a change must have some explanation. It may well be that we have it in a brief sentence in the New Testament itself. In <a href='B:530 15:1-58'>1Co 15:1-58</a> Paul gives us a list of the Resurrection appearances of Jesus and includes the words: "Then he appeared to James" (<a href='B:530 15:7'>1Co 15:7</a>). It so happens that there is a strange reference to James in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which was one of the early gospels which did not gain admittance to the New Testament but which, to judge from its surviving fragments, had much of value in it. The following passage from it is handed down by Jerome:<p/>Now the Lord, when he had given the linen cloth unto the servant<p/>of the High Priest, went unto James and appeared to him (for James<p/>had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour, wherein he<p/>had drunk the Lord's cup, until he should see him risen again from<p/>among them that sleep). And again after a little, "Bring ye," saith<p/>the Lord, "a table and bread, and immediately it is added: "He<p/>took bread and blessed and brake it and gave it unto James the Just<p/>and said unto him, 'My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man<p/>is risen from among them that sleep.'"<p/>That passage is not without its difficulties. The beginning seems to mean that Jesus, when he rose from the dead and emerged from the tomb, handed the linen shroud, which he had been wearing in death, to the servant of the High Priest and went to meet his brother James. It also seems to imply that James was present at the Last Supper. But although the passage has its obscurities, one thing is clear. Something about Jesus in the last days and hours had fastened on James' heart and he had vowed that he would not eat until Jesus had risen again; and so Jesus came to him and gave him the assurance for which he waited. That there was a meeting of James and the Risen Christ is certain. What passed at that moment we shall never know. But we do know this, that after it the James who had been hostile and unsympathetic to Jesus became his servant for life and his martyr in death.<p/><b>James The Martyr Of Christ</b><p/> That James died a martyr's death is the consistent statement of early tradition. The accounts of the circumstances vary, but the fact that he was martyred remains constant. Josephus' account is very brief (Antiquities 20: 9:1):<p/>So Ananus, being that kind of man, and thinking that he had got<p/>a good opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinus not yet<p/>arrived, holds a judicial council; and he brought before it the<p/>brother of Jesus, who was called Christ--James was his name--and<p/>some others, and on the charge of violating the Law he gave them<p/>over to be stoned.<p/>Ananus was a Jewish High Priest; Festus and Albinus were procurators of Palestine, holding the same position as Pilate had held. The point of the story is that Ananus took advantage of the interregnum between the death of one procurator and the arrival of his successor to eliminate James and other leaders of the Christian Church. This, in fact, well fits the character of Ananus as it is known to us and would mean that James was martyred in A.D. 62:<p/>A much longer account is given in the history of Hegesippus. Hegesippus' history is itself lost, but his account of the death of James has been preserved in full by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 2: 23). It is lengthy, but it is of such interest that it must be quoted in its entirety.<p/>To the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles<p/>succeeded the Lord's brother, James, he whom all from the time<p/>of the Lord to our own day call the Just, as there were many<p/>named James. And he was holy from his mother's womb; wine and<p/>strong drink he drank not, nor did he eat flesh; no razor touched<p/>his head, he anointed himself not with oil, and used not the bath.<p/>To him alone was it permitted to enter the Holy Place, for neither<p/>did he wear wool, but linen clothes. And alone he would enter the<p/>Temple, and be found prostrate on his knees beseeching pardon<p/>for the people, so that his knees were callous like a camel's in<p/>consequence of his continual kneeling in prayer to God and<p/>beseeching pardon for the people. Because of his exceeding<p/>righteousness he was called the Just, and Oblias, which is in<p/>Greek Bulwark of the People, and Righteousness, as the prophets<p/>declare concerning him.<p/>Therefore, certain of the seven sects among the people, already mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him: "What is the door of Jesus?" and he said that He was the Saviour--of whom some accepted the faith that Jesus is the Christ. Now the aforesaid sects were not believers either in a Resurrection or in One who should come to render to every man according to his deeds; but as many as believed did so because of James. So, since many of the rulers, too, were believers, there was a tumult of the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, for they said there was danger that all the people would expect Jesus the Christ. Accordingly they said, when they had met together with James: "We entreat thee restrain the people since it has gone astray unto Jesus, holding him to be the Christ. We entreat thee to persuade concerning Jesus all those who come to the day of the Passover, for we all listen to thee. For we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou respectest not persons. So thou, therefore, persuade the people concerning Jesus, not to go astray, for all the people and all of us listen to thee. Take thy stand, therefore, on the pinnacle of the Temple, that up there thou mayest be well seen, and thy words audible to all the people. For because of the Passover all the tribes have come together and the gentiles also."<p/>So the aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees set James on the pinnacle of the Temple and called to him: "O thou, the Just, to whom we all ought to listen, since the people is going astray after Jesus the crucified, tell us what is the door of Jesus?" And with a loud voice he answered: "Why do you ask me concerning the Son of Man? He sitteth himself in heaven on the right hand of the great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven." And when many were convinced and gave glory for the witness of James, and said, "Hosanna to the Son of David, then again the same Scribes and Pharisees said to one another, "We were wrong to permit such a testimony to Jesus; but let us go up and cast him (James) down, that through fear they may not believe him." And they cried out saying, "Ho, Ho! even the Just has gone astray, and they fulfilled the Scriptures written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the Just, because he is troublesome to us; therefore they shall eat the fruits of their doings."<p/>Accordingly they went up and cast the Just down. And they said to one another, "Let us stone James the Just, and they began to stone him, since he was not killed by the fall, but he turned and knelt down saying, "I beseech thee, Lord God Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And so, as they were stoning him, one of the Priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim. mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out saying, "Stop! what are ye doing? The Just prays for you." And a certain one of them, one of the fullers, taking the club with which he pounds clothes, brought it down on the head of the Just; and so he suffered martyrdom.<p/>And they buried him there on the spot, near the Temple. A true witness has he become both to Jews and Greeks that Jesus is Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieges them.<p/>The last sentence shows that Hegesippus had a different date for the death of James. Josephus makes it A.D. 62; but, if this happened just before the siege of Vespasian, the date is perhaps about A.D. 66:<p/>Much in the story of Hegesippus may well be legendary but from it two things emerge. First, it is again evidence that James died a martyr's death. Second, it is evidence that, even after James became a Christian, he remained in complete loyalty to the orthodox Jewish Law. So loyal that the Jews regarded him as one of themselves. This would fit well with what we have already noted of James' attitude to Paul when he came to Jerusalem with the collection for the Jerusalem Church (<a href='B:510 21:18-25'>Act 21:18-25</a>).<p/><b>The Brother Of Our Lord</b><p/> There is one other question about the person of James which we must try to solve. In <a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a> Paul speaks of him as the Lord's brother. In <a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a> and in <a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a> he is named among the brothers of Jesus; and in <a href='B:510 1:14'>Act 1:14</a>, although no names are given, the brothers of Jesus are said to be amongst his followers in the earliest Church. The question of the meaning of brother is one which must be faced, for the Roman Catholic Church attaches a great deal of importance to the answer, as does the Anglo-Catholic section of the Anglican Church. Ever since the time of Jerome there has been continuous argument in the Church on this question. There are three theories of the relationship of these "brothers" to Jesus; and we shall consider them one by one.<p/><b>The Hieronymian Theory</b><p/> The Hieronymian Theory takes its name from Jerome, who in Greek is Hieronymos (G). It was he who worked out the theory which declares that the "brothers" of Jesus were in fact his cousins; and this is the settled belief of the Roman Catholic Church, for which it is an article of faith. It was put forward by Jerome in A.D. 383 and we shall best grasp his complicated argument by setting it out in a series of steps.<p/>(i) James the brother of our Lord is included among the apostles. Paul writes: "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother" (<a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a>).<p/>(ii) Jerome insists that the word apostle can be used only of the Twelve. If that be so, we must look for James among them. He cannot be identified with James, brother of John and son of Zebedee, who apart from anything else was martyred by the time of <a href='B:550 1:19'>Gal 1:19</a>, as <a href='B:510 12:2'>Act 12:2</a> plainly tells us. Therefore he must be identified with the only other James among the Twelve, James the son of Alphaeus.<p/>(iii) Jerome proceeds to make another identification. In <a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a> we read: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, brother of James and Joses?"; and in <a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a> we find beside the Cross Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses. Since James the Younger is the brother of Joses and the son of Mary, he must therefore be the same person as the James of <a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a>, who is the brother of our Lord. Therefore, according to Jerome, James the brother of the Lord, James the son of Alphaeus and James the Younger are the same person under different descriptions.<p/>(iv) Jerome bases the next and final step of his argument on a deduction made from the lists of the women who were there when Jesus was crucified. Let us set down that list as given by the three gospel writers.<p/>In <a href='B:480 15:40'>Mar 15:40</a> it is:<p/>Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Salome.<p/>In <a href='B:470 27:56'>Mat 27:56</a> it is:<p/>Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Younger and of Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.<p/>In <a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a> it is:<p/>Jesus' mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.<p/>Now let us analyse these lists. In each of them Mary Magdalene appears by name. It is safe to identify Salome and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. But the real problem is how many women are there in John's list? Is the list to be read like this:<p/>(i) Jesus' mother;<p/>(ii) Jesus' mother's sister;<p/>(iii) Mary the wife of Cleopas;<p/>(iv) Mary Magdalene.<p/>Or is the list to be read like this:<p/>(i) Jesus' mother;<p/>(ii) Jesus' mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleopas;<p/>(iii) Mary Magdalene.<p/>Jerome insists that the second way is correct and that Jesus'<p/>Jerome insists that the second way is correct and that Jesus'<p/>mother's sister and Mary, the wife of Cleopas, are one and the<p/>mother's sister and Mary, the wife of Cleopas, are one and the<p/>same person. If that be so, she must also be the Mary who in the<p/>same person. If that be so, she must also be the Mary who in the<p/>other lists is the mother of James and Joses. This James who is<p/>other lists is the mother of James and Joses. This James who is<p/>her son is the man who is variously known as James the Younger<p/>her son is the man who is variously known as James the Younger<p/>and as James the son of Alphaeus and as James the apostle who is<p/>and as James the son of Alphaeus and as James the apostle who is<p/>known as the brother of our Lord. This means that James is the<p/>known as the brother of our Lord. This means that James is the<p/>son of Mary's sister and therefore is Jesus' cousin.<p/>son of Mary's sister and therefore is Jesus' cousin.<p/>There, then, is Jerome's argument. Against it at least four criticisms can be levelled.<p/>(i) Again and again James is called the brother of Jesus or is numbered amongst the brothers of Jesus. The word used in each case is adelphos (G), the normal word for brother. True, it can describe people who belong to a common fellowship, just as the Christians called each other brother. True, it can be used as a term of endearment and we may call someone with whom we enjoy personal intimacy a brother. But when it is used of those who are kin, it is, to say the least of it, very doubtful that it can mean cousin. If James was the cousin of Jesus, it is extremely unlikely--perhaps impossible--that he would be called the adelphos (G) of Jesus.<p/>(ii) Jerome was quite wrong in assuming that the term apostle could be used only of the Twelve. Paul was an apostle (<a href='B:520 1:1'>Rom 1:1</a>; <a href='B:530 1:1'>1Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:540 1:1'>2Co 1:1</a>; <a href='B:550 1:1'>Gal 1:1</a>). Barnabas was an apostle (<a href='B:510 14:14'>Act 14:14</a>; <a href='B:530 9:6'>1Co 9:6</a>). Silas was an apostle (<a href='B:510 15:22'>Act 15:22</a>). Andronicus and Junia were apostles (<a href='B:520 16:7'>Rom 16:7</a>). It is impossible to limit the word apostle to the Twelve; since, therefore, it is not necessary to look for James the Lord's brother among the Twelve, the whole argument of Jerome collapses.<p/>(iii) It is on the face of it much more likely that <a href='B:500 19:25'>Joh 19:25</a> is a list of four women, not three, for, if Mary the wife of Cleopas were the sister of Mary, Jesus' mother, it would mean that there were two sisters in the same family both called Mary, which is extremely unlikely.<p/>(iv) It must be remembered that the Church knew nothing of this theory until A.D. 383 when Jerome produced it; and it is quite certain that it was produced for no other reason than to conserve the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.<p/>The theory that those called Jesus' brothers were, in fact, his cousins must be dismissed as rendered quite untenable by the facts of the case.<p/><b>The Epiphanian Theory</b><p/> The second of the great theories concerning the relationship of Jesus and his "brothers" holds that these "brothers" were, in fact, his half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. This is called the Epiphanian Theory after Epiphanius who strongly affirmed it about A.D. 370: He did not construct it. It existed long before this and may indeed be said to be the most usual opinion in the early church.<p/>The substance of it already appears in an apocryphal book called the Book of James or the Protevangelium which dates back to the middle of the second century. That book tells how there was a devout husband and wife called Joachim and Anna. Their great grief was that they had no child. To their great joy in their old age a child was born to them, and this too, apparently, was regarded as a virgin birth. The child, a girl, was called Mary and was to be the mother of Jesus. Joachim and Anna vowed their child to the Lord; and when she reached the age of three they took her to the Temple and left her there in the charge of the priests. She grew up in the Temple; and when she reached the age of twelve the priests took thought for her marriage. They called together the widowers of the people, telling each man to bring his rod with him. Among them came Joseph the carpenter. The High Priest took the rods, and Joseph's was last. To the other rods nothing happened; but from the rod of Joseph there flew a dove which came and settled on Joseph's head. In this way it was revealed that Joseph was to take Mary to wife. Joseph at first was very unwilling. "I have sons, he said, "and I am an old man, but she is a girl: lest I become a laughing-stock to the children of Israel" (Prolevangelium 9: 1). But in the end he took her in obedience to the will of God, and in due time Jesus was born. The material of the Protevangelium is, of course, legendary; but it shows that by the middle of the second century the theory which was one day to bear the name of Epiphanius was widely held.<p/>There is no direct evidence for this theory whatsoever and all the support adduced in its favour is of an indirect character.<p/>(i) It is asked: would Jesus have committed his mother to the care of John, if she had other sons besides himself? (<a href='B:500 19:26-27'>Joh 19:26-27</a>). The answer is that, so far as we know, Jesus' family were quite out of sympathy with him and it would hardly have been possible to commit his mother to their care.<p/>(ii) It is argued that the behaviour of Jesus' "brothers" to him is that of elder brothers to a younger brother. They questioned his sanity and wished to take him home (<a href='B:480 3:21'>Mar 3:21</a>; <a href='B:480 3:31-35'>Mar 3:31-35</a>); they were actively hostile to him (<a href='B:500 7:1-5'>Joh 7:1-5</a>). But it could just as well be argued that their conduct was due to the simple fact that they found him an embarrassment to the family in a way that had nothing to do with age.<p/>(iii) It is argued that Joseph must have been older than Mary because he vanishes completely from the gospel story and, therefore, probably had died before Jesus' public ministry began. The mother of Jesus was at the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee, but there is no mention of Joseph (<a href='B:500 2:1'>Joh 2:1</a>). Jesus is called, at least sometimes, the son of Mary, and the implication is that Joseph was dead and Mary was a widow (<a href='B:480 6:3'>Mar 6:3</a>; but compare <a href='B:470 13:55'>Mat 13:55</a>). Further, Jesus' long stay in Nazareth until he was thirty years of age (<a href='B:490 3:23'>Luk 3:23</a>), is most easily explained by the assumption that Joseph had died and that Jesus had become responsible for the support of the household. But the fact that Joseph was older than Mary does not by any means prove that he had no other children by her; and the fact that Jesus stayed in Nazareth as the village carpenter in order to support the family would much more naturally indicate that he was the eldest, and not the youngest, son.<p/>To these arguments Lightfoot would add two more of a general nature.<p/>First, he says that this is the theory of Christian tradition; and, second, he claims that anything else is "abhorrent to Christian sentiment."<p/>But basically this theory springs from the same origin as the Hieronymian theory. Its aim is to conserve the perpetual virginity of Mary. There is no direct evidence whatsoever for it; and no one would ever have thought of it had it not been for the desire to think that Mary never ceased to be a virgin.<p/><b>The Helvidian Theory</b><p/> The third theory is called the Helvidian Theory. It states quite simply that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were in the full sense of the term his brothers and sisters, that, to use the technical term, they were his uterine brothers and sisters. Nothing whatever is known of the Helvidius with whose name this theory is connected except that he wrote a treatise to support it which Jerome strongly opposed. What then may be said in favour of it?<p/>(i) No one reading the New Testament story without theological presuppositions would ever think of anything else. On the face of it that story does not think of Jesus' brothers and sisters as anything else but his brothers and sisters in the full sense of the term.<p/>(ii) The birth narratives both in Matthew and Luke presuppose that Mary had other children. Matthew writes: "When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not till she had borne a son" (<a href='B:470 1:24-25'>Mat 1:24-25</a>). The clear implication is that Joseph entered into normal married relationships with Mary after the birth of Jesus. Tertullian, in fact, uses this passage to prove that both virginity and the married state are consecrated in Christ by the fact that Mary was first a virgin and then a wife in the full sense of the term. Luke in writing of the birth of Jesus says: "She gave birth to her first-born son" (<a href='B:490 2:7'>Luk 2:7</a>). To call Jesus a first-born son is plainly to indicate that other children followed.<p/>(iii) As we have already said, the fact that Jesus remained in Nazareth as the village carpenter until the age of thirty is at least an indication that he was the eldest son and had to take upon himself the responsibility of the support of the family after the death of Joseph.<p/>We believe that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were in truth his brothers and sisters. Any other theory ultimately springs from the glorification of asceticism and from a wish to regard Mary as for ever a virgin. It is surely a far more lovely thing to believe in the sanctity of the home than to insist that celibacy is a higher thing than married love.<p/>So, then, we believe that James, called the Lord's brother, was in every sense the brother of Jesus.<p/><b>James As The Author</b><p/> Can we then say that this James was also the author of this letter? Let us collect the evidence in favour of that view.<p/>(i) If James wrote a letter at all, it would most naturally be a general epistle, as this is. James was not, like Paul, a traveller and a man of many congregations. He was the leader of the Jewish section of the Church; and the kind of letter we would expect him to write would be a general epistle directed to all Jewish Christians.<p/>(ii) There is scarcely anything in the letter that a good Jew could not accept. So much so that there are those who think that it is actually a Jewish ethical tract which has found its way into the New Testament. A. H. McNeile has pointed out that in instance after instance there are phrases in James which can be read equally well in a Christian or a Jewish sense. The Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion (<a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a>) could be taken either of the exiled Jews scattered all over the world or of the Christian Church, the new Israel of God. "The Lord" can again and again in this letter be understood equally well of Jesus or of God (<a href='B:660 1:7'>Jas 1:7</a>; <a href='B:660 4:10'>Jas 4:10</a>; <a href='B:660 4:15'>Jas 4:15</a>; <a href='B:660 5:7-8'>Jas 5:7-8</a>; <a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a>; <a href='B:660 5:14-15'>Jas 5:14-15</a>). Our bringing forth by God by the word of his truth to be the first fruits of his creation (<a href='B:660 1:18'>Jas 1:18</a>) can equally well be understood of God's first act of creation or of his re-creation of men in Jesus Christ. The perfect law and the royal law (<a href='B:660 1:25'>Jas 1:25</a>; <a href='B:660 2:8'>Jas 2:8</a>), can equally well be understood of the ethical law of the Ten Commandments or of the new law of Christ. The elders of the Church, the ekklesia (G) (<a href='B:660 5:14'>Jas 5:14</a>), can equally well be understood as meaning the elders of the Christian Church or the Jewish elders, for in the Septuagint ekklesia (G) is the title of the chosen nation of God. In <a href='B:660 2:2'>Jas 2:2</a> "your assembly" is spoken of. The word there used for assembly is sunagoge (G), which can mean the synagogue even more readily than it can mean the Christian congregation. The habit of addressing its readers as brothers is thoroughly Christian, but it is equally thoroughly Jewish. The coming of the Lord and the picture of the Judge standing at the door (<a href='B:660 5:7'>Jas 5:7</a>; <a href='B:660 5:9'>Jas 5:9</a>) are just as common in Jewish thought as in Christian thought. The accusation that they have murdered the righteous man (<a href='B:660 5:6'>Jas 5:6</a>) is a phrase which occurs again and again in the prophets, but a Christian could read it as a statement of the Crucifixion of Christ. There is nothing in this letter which an orthodox Jew could not heartily accept, if he read it in his own terms.<p/>It could be argued that all this perfectly suits James. He was the leader of what might be called Jewish Christianity; he was the head of that part of the Church which remained centred in Jerusalem. There must have been a time when the Church was very close to Judaism and it was more a reformed Judaism than anything else. There was a kind of Christianity which had not the width or the universality which the mind of Paul put into it. Paul himself said that the sphere of the Gentiles had been allocated to him and the sphere of the Jews to Peter, James and John (<a href='B:550 2:9'>Gal 2:9</a>). The letter of James may well represent a kind of Christianity which had remained in its earliest form. This would explain two things.<p/>First, it would explain the frequency with which James repeats the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount. We may, out of many instances, compare <a href='B:660 2:12-13'>Jas 2:12-13</a> and <a href='B:470 6:14-15'>Mat 6:14-15</a>; <a href='B:660 3:11-13'>Jas 3:11-13</a> and <a href='B:470 7:16-20'>Mat 7:16-20</a>; <a href='B:660 5:12'>Jas 5:12</a> and <a href='B:470 5:34-37'>Mat 5:34-37</a>. Any Jewish Christian would be supremely interested in the ethical teaching of the Christian faith.<p/>Second, it would help to explain the relationship of this letter to the teaching of Paul. At a first reading <a href='B:660 2:14-26'>Jas 2:14-26</a> reads like a direct attack on Paulinism. "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (<a href='B:660 2:24'>Jas 2:24</a>) seems a flat contradiction of the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. But what James is attacking is a so-called faith which has no ethical results and one thing is quite clear--anyone who charges Paul with preaching such a faith cannot possibly have read his letters. They are full of ethical demands, as, for instance, a chapter like <a href='B:520 12:1-21'>Rom 12:1-21</a> illustrates. Now James died in A.D. 62 and, therefore, could not have read Paul's letters which did not become the common property of the Church until at least A.D. 90: Therefore what James is attacking is either a misunderstanding of what Paul said or a perversion of it; and nowhere was such a misunderstanding or perversion more likely to arise than in Jerusalem, where Paul's stress on faith and grace and his attack on the law were likely to be regarded with more suspicion than anywhere else.<p/>(iii) It has been pointed out that James and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem to the Gentile Churches have at least two rather curious resemblances. Both begin with the word Greeting (<a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a>; <a href='B:510 15:23'>Act 15:23</a>). The Greek is chairein (G). This was the normal Greek beginning to a letter, but nowhere else in all the New Testament is it found other than in the letter of Claudius Lysias, the military officer, to the governor of the province quoted in <a href='B:510 23:26-30'>Act 23:26-30</a>. Second, <a href='B:510 15:17'>Act 15:17</a> has a phrase in the letter of the Council of Jerusalem in which it speaks of the Gentiles who are called by my name. This phrase occurs nowhere else in the New Testament other than in <a href='B:660 2:7'>Jas 2:7</a> where it is translated the name by which you are called. Although the Revised Standard Version translations differ slightly, the Greek is exactly the same. It is curious that the letter of the Council of Jerusalem presents us with two unusual phrases which recur only in James, when we remember that the letter of the Council of Jerusalem must have been drafted by James.<p/>There is then evidence which lends colour to the belief that James was the work of James, the Lord's brother and head of the Jerusalem Church.<p/>On the other hand there are facts which make us a little doubtful if he was, after all, the author.<p/>(i) If the writer was the brother of our Lord, we would have expected him to make some reference to that fact. All he calls himself is "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (<a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a>). Such a reference would not have been in any sense for his own personal glory, but simply to lend authority to his letter. And such authority would have been specially useful outside Palestine, in countries where James could hardly have been known. If the author was indeed the Lord's brother, it is surprising that he makes no reference, direct or indirect, to that fact.<p/>(ii) Failing a reference to his relationship to Jesus, we would have expected a reference to the fact that he was an apostle. It was Paul's regular custom to begin his letters with a reference to his apostleship. Again it is not a question of personal prestige but simply a guarantee of the authority by which he writes. If this James was indeed the Lord's brother and the head of the Jerusalem Church, we should have expected some reference at the beginning of the letter to his apostolic status.<p/>(iii) The most surprising fact of all is that which made Luther question the right of this letter to a place in the New Testament--the almost complete absence of any references to Jesus Christ. Only twice in the whole letter is his name mentioned and these mentions are almost incidental (<a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a>; <a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a>).<p/>There is no reference at all to his Resurrection. We know well that the early church was built on faith in the Risen Christ. If this letter is the work of James, it is contemporary, with the events of Acts in which the Resurrection is mentioned no fewer than twenty-five times. What makes it still more surprising is that James had a personal reason for writing about the appearance of Jesus which may well have been what changed the direction of his life. It is surprising that anyone writing at such a time in the Church's history should write without reference to the Resurrection of Jesus; and it is doubly surprising if the writer should be James the brother of our Lord.<p/>Further, there is no reference to Jesus as Messiah. If James, the leader of the Jewish Church, was writing to Jewish Christians in these very early days, one would have thought his main aim would have been to present Jesus as Messiah or that at least he would have made his belief in that fact plain; but the letter does not mention it.<p/>(iv) It is plain that the writer of this letter is steeped in the Old Testament; it is also plain that he is intimately acquainted with the Wisdom Literature; and that in James is only to be expected. There are in his letter twenty-three apparent quotations from the Sermon on the Mount; that too is easy to understand, because from the very beginning, long before the gospels were written, compendiums of Jesus' teaching must have circulated. It is argued by some that he must have known Paul's letters to the Romans and to the Galatians in order to write as he does about faith and works, and it is argued rightly that a Jew who had never been outside Palestine and who died in A.D. 62 could not have known these letters. As we have seen, this argument will not stand, because the criticism of Paul's doctrine in James is criticism which could have been offered only by someone who had not read the letters of Paul at first hand and who is dealing with a misunderstanding or a perversion of Pauline doctrine. But the phrase in <a href='B:660 1:17'>Jas 1:17</a>: "Every good endowment and every perfect gift, is an hexametre line and clearly a quotation from some Greek poet; and the phrase in <a href='B:660 3:6'>Jas 3:6</a>: "the cycle of nature" may be an Orphic phrase from the mystery religions. How could James of Palestine pick up quotations like these?<p/>There are things which are difficult to account for on the assumption that James, the brother of our Lord, was the author of this letter.<p/>The evidence for and against James' authorship of this letter is extraordinarily evenly balanced. For the moment we must leave the matter in suspense and turn to certain other questions.<p/><b>The Date Of The Letter</b><p/> When we turn to the evidence for the date of the letter we find this same even balance. It is possible to argue that it is very early, and equally possible to argue that it is rather late.<p/>(i) When James was writing, it is clear that the hope of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ was still very real (<a href='B:660 5:7-9'>Jas 5:7-9</a>). Now the expectation of the Second Coming never left the Christian Church, but it did to some extent fade from the foreground of its thought as it was unexpectedly long delayed. This would suggest an early date.<p/>(ii) In the early chapters of Acts and in the letters of Paul, there is a continuous background of Jewish controversy against the accepting of the Gentiles into the Church on the basis of faith alone. Wherever Paul went the Judaizers followed him, and the acceptance of the Gentiles was not a battle which was readily won. In James there is not even a hint of this Jewish-Gentile controversy, a fact which is doubly surprising when we remember that James, the Lord's brother, took a leading part in settling it at the Council of Jerusalem. That being so, this letter could be either very early and written before that controversy emerged; or, it could be late and written after the last echo of the controversy had died away. The fact that there is no mention of the Jewish-Gentile controversy can be used as an argument either way.<p/>(iii) The evidence from the Church order reflected in the letter is equally conflicting. The meeting place of the Church is still called the sunagoge (G) (<a href='B:660 2:2'>Jas 2:2</a>). That points to an early date; later an assembly of Christians would definitely be called the ekklesia (G), for the Jewish term was soon dropped. The elders of the Church are mentioned (<a href='B:660 5:14'>Jas 5:14</a>), but there is no mention of either deacons or bishops. This again indicates an early date, and possibly a Jewish connection, for the eldership was a Jewish institution before it was a Christian one. James is worried about the existence of many teachers (<a href='B:660 3:1'>Jas 3:1</a>). This could well indicate a very early situation, before the Church had systematized its ministry and introduced some kind of order; or, it could indicate a late date, when many false teachers had arisen to plague the Church.<p/>There are two general facts which seem on the whole to indicate that James is late. First, as we have seen there is hardly any mention of Jesus at all. The subject of the letter is, in fact, the inadequacies and the imperfections, the sins and the mistakes of the members of the Church. This seems to point to a fairly late date. The early preaching was ablaze with the grace and the glory of the Risen Christ; later preaching became, as it so often is today, a tirade against the imperfections of the members of the Church. The second general fact is the condemnation of the rich (<a href='B:660 2:1-3'>Jas 2:1-3</a>; <a href='B:660 5:1-6'>Jas 5:1-6</a>). The flattery of the rich and the arrogance of the rich seem to have been real problems when this letter was written. Now in the very early church there were few, if any, rich men (<a href='B:530 1:26-27'>1Co 1:26-27</a>). James seems to indicate a later time when the once poor Church was being threatened with a spirit of worldliness in its members.<p/><b>The Preachers Of The Ancient World</b><p/> It will help us to date this so-called letter of James and may also help us to identify its author, if we place it in its context in the ancient world.<p/>The sermon is identified with the Christian Church, but it was by no means its invention. It had roots in both the Hellenistic and the Jewish world; and when we set James beside the Hellenistic and the Jewish sermons we cannot fail to be struck by the resemblances.<p/>1: Let us look first at the Greek preachers and their sermons. The wandering philosopher was a common figure in the ancient world. Sometimes he was a Stoic; far more often he was a Cynic. Wherever men were gathered together you would find him there calling them to virtue. You would find him at the street comer and in the city squares; you would find him at the vast concourses which gathered for the games: you would even find him at the gladiatorial games, sometimes, even directly addressing the emperor, rebuking him for luxury and tyranny, and calling him to virtue and justice. The ancient preacher, the philosopher-missionary, was a regular figure in the ancient world. There was a time when philosophy had been the business of the schools, but now its voice and its ethical demands were to be heard daily in the public places.<p/>These ancient sermons had certain characteristics. The method was always the same; and that method had deeply influenced Paul's presentation of the gospel, and James was in the same line of descent. We list some of the tricks of the trade of these ancient preachers, noting bow they occur in James and bearing in mind the way in which Paul writes to his Churches. The main aim of these ancient preachers, it must be remembered, was not to investigate new truth; it was to awaken sinners to the error of their ways and compel them to look at truths, which they knew but were deliberately neglecting or had forgotten. Their aim was to confront men with the good life in the midst of the looseness of their living and their forgetfulness of the gods.<p/>(i) They frequently carried on imaginary conversations with imaginary opponents, speaking in what has been called a kind of "truncated dialogue." James also uses that method in <a href='B:660 2:18'>Jas 2:18</a> ff. and <a href='B:660 5:13'>Jas 5:13</a> ff.<p/>(ii) They habitually effected their transition from one part of the sermon to another, by way of a question which introduced the new subject. Again James does that in <a href='B:660 2:14'>Jas 2:14</a> and <a href='B:660 4:1'>Jas 4:1</a>.<p/>(iii) They were very fond of imperatives in which they commanded their hearers to right action and to the abandoning of their errors. In James' 108 verses there are almost 60 imperatives.<p/>(iv) They were very fond of the rhetorical question flung out at their audience. James frequently employs such questions (compare <a href='B:660 2:4-5'>Jas 2:4-5</a>; <a href='B:660 2:14-16'>Jas 2:14-16</a>; <a href='B:660 3:11-12'>Jas 3:11-12</a>; <a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a>).<p/>(v) They frequently dealt in apostrophes, vivid direct addresses to particular sections of the audience. So James apostrophizes the merchants out for gain and the arrogant rich (<a href='B:660 4:13'>Jas 4:13</a>; <a href='B:660 5:6'>Jas 5:6</a>).<p/>(vi) They were fond of personifying virtues and vices, sins and graces. So James personifies sin (<a href='B:660 1:15'>Jas 1:15</a>); mercy (<a href='B:660 2:13'>Jas 2:13</a>); rust (<a href='B:660 5:3'>Jas 5:3</a>).<p/>(vii) They sought to awaken the interest of their audience by pictures and figures from everyday life. The figure of the bridle, the rudder and the forest fire are standard figures in the ancient sermons (compare <a href='B:660 3:3-6'>Jas 3:3-6</a>). Amongst many others James vividly uses the picture of the farmer and his patience (<a href='B:660 5:7'>Jas 5:7</a>).<p/>(viii) They frequently used the example of famous men and women to point their moral. So James uses the examples of Abraham (<a href='B:660 2:21-23'>Jas 2:21-23</a>); Rahab (<a href='B:660 2:25'>Jas 2:25</a>); Job (<a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>); Elijah (<a href='B:660 5:17'>Jas 5:17</a>).<p/>(ix) It was the custom of the ancient preachers to begin their sermon with a paradox which would arrest the attention of their hearers. James does that by telling a man to think it all joy when he is involved in trials (<a href='B:660 1:2'>Jas 1:2</a>). In the same way the ancient preachers often pointed out how true goodness meant the reversal of all popular verdicts on life. So James insists that the happiness of the rich lies in their being brought low (<a href='B:660 1:10'>Jas 1:10</a>). They used the weapon of irony as James does (<a href='B:660 2:14-19'>Jas 2:14-19</a>; <a href='B:660 5:1-6'>Jas 5:1-6</a>).<p/>(x) The ancient preachers could speak with harshness and with sternness. So James addresses his reader as: "Foolish fellow!" and calls those who listen to him unfaithful creatures (<a href='B:660 2:20'>Jas 2:20</a>; <a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a>). The ancient preachers used the lash and so does James.<p/>(xi) The ancient preachers had certain standard ways of constructing their sermons.<p/>(a) They often concluded a section with a vivid antithesis, setting the right beside the wrong way. James follows the same custom (compare <a href='B:660 2:13'>Jas 2:13</a>; <a href='B:660 2:26'>Jas 2:26</a>).<p/>(b) They often made their point by means of a searching question fired at the hearer; and so does James (<a href='B:660 4:12'>Jas 4:12</a>).<p/>(c) They often used quotations in their preaching. This also James does (<a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a>; <a href='B:660 1:11'>Jas 1:11</a>; <a href='B:660 1:17'>Jas 1:17</a>; <a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a>; <a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>).<p/>It is true that we do not find in James the bitterness, the scolding, the frivolous and often broad humour that the Greek preachers used; but it is plain to see that he uses all the other methods which the wandering Hellenistic preachers used to win their way into the minds and hearts of men.<p/>2: The Jewish world also had its tradition of preaching. That preaching was done mainly by the Rabbis at the services of the synagogue. It had many of the characteristics of the preaching of the Greek wandering philosophers. It had its rhetorical questions and its imperatives and its pictures taken from life, and its quotations and its citations of the heroes of the faith. But Jewish preaching had one curious characteristic. It was deliberately disconnected. The Jewish masters instructed their pupils never to linger for any length of time on any one subject, but to move quickly from one subject to another in order to maintain the interest of the listener. Hence one of the names for preaching was charaz (G), which literally means stringing beads. The Jewish sermon was frequently a string of moral truths and exhortations coming one after another. This is exactly what James is. It is difficult, if not impossible, to extract from it a continuous and coherent plan. Its sections follow each other with a certain disconnectedness. Goodspeed writes: "The work has been compared to a chain, each link related to the one before and the one after it. Others have compared its contents to beads on a string.... And, perhaps, James is not so much a chain of thoughts or beads as it is a handful of pearls dropped one by one into the hearer's mind."<p/>James, whether looked at from the Hellenistic or from the Jewish point of view, is a good example of an ancient sermon. And here is, perhaps, the clue we need to its authorship. With all this in mind, let us now turn to ask who the author is.<p/><b>The Author Of James</b><p/> There are five possibilities.<p/>(i) We begin with a theory worked out in detail by Meyer more than half a century ago and revived by Easton in the new Interpreter's Bible. One of the commonest things in the ancient world was for books to be published in the name of some great figure of the past. Jewish literature between the Testaments is full of writings like that, ascribed to Moses, the Twelve Patriarchs, Baruch, Enoch, Isaiah, and people of like standing in order that the added authority might give greater encouragement to their readers. This was an accepted practice. One of the best-known books in the Apocrypha is the Wisdom of Solomon, in which the later Sage attributes new wisdom to the wisest of the kings.<p/>Let us remember three things about James. (a) There is nothing in it which an orthodox Jew could not accept, if the two references to Jesus in <a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a> and <a href='B:660 2:1'>Jas 2:1</a> are removed, as they easily may be. (b) The Greek for James is in fact Iakobos (G) which of course is the Old Testament Jacob. (c) The book is addressed to "the twelve tribes who are scattered abroad." This theory holds that James is nothing other than a Jewish writing, written under the name of Jacob and meant for the Jews who were scattered throughout the world to encourage them in faith and belief amidst the trials through which they might be passing in Gentile lands.<p/>This theory is further elaborated in this way. In <a href='B:10 49:1-33'>Gen 49:1-33</a> we have Jacob's last address to his sons. The address consists of a series of short descriptions in which each son is in turn characterized. Meyer professed to be able to find in James allusions to the descriptions of each of the patriarchs and, therefore, of each of the twelve tribes, in Jacob's address. Here are some of his identifications.<p/>Asher is the worldly rich man; <a href='B:660 1:9-11'>Jas 1:9-11</a>; <a href='B:10 49:20'>Gen 49:20</a>.<p/>Issachar is the doer of good deeds; <a href='B:660 1:12'>Jas 1:12</a>; <a href='B:10 49:14-15'>Gen 49:14-15</a>.<p/>Reuben is the first fruits; <a href='B:660 1:18'>Jas 1:18</a>; <a href='B:10 49:3'>Gen 49:3</a>.<p/>Simeon stands for anger; <a href='B:660 1:19-20'>Jas 1:19-20</a>; <a href='B:10 49:5-7'>Gen 49:5-7</a>.<p/>Levi is the tribe which is specially connected with religion and is alluded to in <a href='B:660 1:26-27'>Jas 1:26-27</a>.<p/>Naphtali is characterized by peace; <a href='B:660 3:18'>Jas 3:18</a>; <a href='B:10 49:21'>Gen 49:21</a>.<p/>Gad stands for wars and fightings; <a href='B:660 4:1-2'>Jas 4:1-2</a>; <a href='B:10 49:19'>Gen 49:19</a>.<p/>Dan represents waiting for salvation; <a href='B:660 5:7'>Jas 5:7</a>; <a href='B:10 49:18'>Gen 49:18</a>.<p/>Joseph represents prayer; <a href='B:660 5:13-18'>Jas 5:13-18</a>; <a href='B:10 49:22-26'>Gen 49:22-26</a>.<p/>Benjamin stands for birth and death; <a href='B:660 5:20'>Jas 5:20</a>; <a href='B:10 49:27'>Gen 49:27</a>.<p/>That is a most ingenious theory. No one can either finally prove it or disprove it; and it certainly would explain in the most natural way the reference in <a href='B:660 1:1'>Jas 1:1</a> to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. It would hold that some Christian came upon this Jewish tract, written under the name of Jacob to all the exiled Jews, and was so impressed with its moral worth, that he made certain adjustments and additions to it and issued it as a Christian book. There is no doubt that this is an attractive theory--but it is possible for a theory to be too ingenious.<p/>(ii) Just as the Jews did, the Christians also wrote many books under the names of the great figures of the Christian faith. There are gospels issued under the name of Peter and Thomas and James himself; there is a letter under the name of Barnabas; there are gospels of Nicodemus and Bartholomew; and there are Acts of John, Paul, Andrew, Peter, Thomas, Philip and others. The technical title for these books is pseudonymous, that is, written under a false name.<p/>It has been suggested that James was a letter written by someone else under the name of the Lord's brother. That is apparently what Jerome thought when he said that this letter "was issued by someone under James' name." But, whatever else this work is, it cannot be that because, when anyone wrote such a book, he was careful to make quite clear who was supposed to have written it. If this had been pseudonymous no possible doubt would have been left that the author was supposed to be James the brother of our Lord; but this fact is not mentioned at all.<p/>(iii) Moffatt inclined to the theory that the writer was not the brother of our Lord, or any other well-known James, but simply a teacher called James of whose life and story we have no information whatever. That is by no means impossible for the name James was just as common then as it is now; but it would be rather difficult to understand how such a book gained entry into the New Testament, and how it came to be connected with the name of the Lord's brother.<p/>(iv) The traditional view is that the book was written by James, the Lord's brother. We have already seen that it seems strange that such a book should have only two incidental references to Jesus, and none at all to the Resurrection or to Jesus as the Messiah. A further and most serious difficulty is this. The book is written in good Greek. Ropes says that Greek must have been the mother tongue of the man who wrote it; and Mayor, himself one of the greatest of Greek scholars, says, "I should be inclined to rate the Greek of this epistle as approaching more nearly to the standard of classical purity than that of any other book in the New Testament with the exception perhaps of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Quite certainly James' mother tongue was Aramaic and not Greek; and quite certainly he would not be a master of classical Greek. His orthodox Jewish upbringing would make him despise and avoid it, as a Gentile and accursed tongue. It is next door to impossible to think of James actually penning this letter.<p/>(v) So we come to the fifth possibility. Let us remember how closely James resembles a sermon. It is possible that this is, in substance, a sermon preached by James, taken down by someone else, translated into Greek, added to and decorated a little and then issued to the Church at large so that all men should benefit from it. That explains its form and how it came to be attached to the name of James. It even explains the scarcity of the references to Jesus, to the Resurrection, and to the Messiahship of Jesus; for in one single sermon James could not go through the whole gamut of orthodoxy and is, in fact, pressing moral duty upon men, and not talking about theology. It seems to us that this is the one theory which explains the facts.<p/>One thing is certain--we may approach this little letter feeling that it is one of the lesser books of the New Testament; but if we study it faithfully, we will lay it down thanking God that it was preserved for our edification and inspiration. 


