At first sight the Epistle of James seems to possess very little

unity. Topic follows topic often with little apparent connection.

But the connection between the individual sections is closer than

appears at first; and the epistle as a whole possesses at least a

perfect unity of spirit.

(=1=) =Reality in Religion.=--The ruling tone of the epistle,

which may be detected beneath all the varying exhortations, is a

certain manly honesty, a certain fierce hatred of all sham and cant

and humbug and meanness. James is a stern advocate of a practical

religion.

(=2=) =Supremacy of Religion.=--It must be noticed, however, that

the religion of this writer is none the less religious because it is

practical. James is no advocate of a "gospel of street-cleaning." On

the contrary he insists with characteristic vehemence upon personal

piety. The same writer who has been regarded as emphasizing works at

the expense of faith, who might be hailed as a leader of those who

would make religion terminate upon man rather than God, who might

be thought to disparage everything but "social service"--this same

writer is one of the most earnest advocates of prayer. James 1:5-8;

4:2,3; 5:14-18. This apostle of works, this supposed disparager

of faith, is almost bitter in his denunciation of unbelief! Ch.

1:6-8. God, not man, according to James, is the author of every

perfect gift. V. 17. Prayer is the remedy both for bodily and for

spiritual ills. Ch. 5:14-18. James lends no countenance to the

modern disparagement of religious devotion. The same uncompromising

severity with which he lashes an inactive religion is also applied

just as mercilessly to an irreligious activity. Ch. 4:13-15. James

does not attack religion in the interests of reality; he attacks

unreality in the interests of religion.

4. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE

The opening of the epistle, like that of the letters contained in

Acts 15:23-29; 23:26-30, is constructed according to the regular

Greek form.

After the opening, James speaks first of trials or temptations.

Rightly used they will lead to perfection. If, however, there

is still imperfection, it can be removed by prayer to God. The

imperfection which is here especially in view is an imperfection

in wisdom. Apparently the readers, like the Pharisees, had laid

an excessive stress upon knowledge. The true wisdom, says James,

can be obtained not by human pride, as the readers seem to think,

but only by prayer. Prayer, however, must be in faith--there must

be no wavering in it. Pride, indeed, is altogether blameworthy.

If there is to be boasting, it should certainly be not in earthly

wealth but in those spiritual blessings which often reverse earthly

distinctions. Returning to the subject of temptations, James insists

that in their evil they do not come from God, but from the depths

of man's own desires. From God comes no evil thing, but every

perfect gift; and in the gospel God has bestowed upon us his richest

blessing.

That gospel must be received with all diligence. It will exclude

wrath and insincerity. True religion consists not merely in hearing

but in doing; good examples of the exercise of it are the visitation

of the fatherless and widows and the preservation of one's own

personal purity of life.

Faith in Christ, James continues in similar vein, excludes all undue

respect of persons. Indeed God in his choice of those who should

be saved has especially favored the poor. The rich as a class are

rather the oppressors of the Christians. Surely then the Christians

should not favor rich men for selfish reasons. The law of love will

exclude all such unworthy conduct.

That law of love requires an active life. Faith, if it be true

faith, leads to works. Away with a miserable faith that is expressed

only in words!

Words, indeed, are dangerous. The tongue is a prolific source of

harm. Evil speech reveals the deep-seated corruption of the heart.

The readers must be careful, therefore, about seeking the work of a

teacher. The true wisdom, which fits a man to teach, is not of man's

acquiring, but comes from God.

Quarreling--which was produced especially by the inordinate ambition

among the readers to pose as teachers--must be counteracted by

submission to God.

The constant thought of God excludes all pride in human planning.

Especially the rich must reflect upon the transitoriness of earthly

possessions and above all must be sure that their wealth is honestly

gained.

Finally, patient waiting for the Lord, the example of the Old

Testament saints, and the earnest practice of prayer will make

effective all the exhortations of the epistle.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp.

123-138. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Warfield, articles on

"James" and "James, Epistle of." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and

Its Writers," pp. 123-129. Knowling, "The Epistle of St. James."

"The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Plumptre, "The General Epistle of

St. James." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. i, pp.

73-151. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have

some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.

LESSON XXXIII

JESUS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Epistle to the Hebrews

1. PAUL NOT THE AUTHOR

(=1=) =The Tradition.=--At Alexandria in the latter part of the

second century Paul was thought to be the author of the Epistle

to the Hebrews; but in North Africa a little later Tertullian

attributed the epistle to Barnabas, and in other portions of the

Church the Pauline authorship was certainly not accepted. In the

west, the Pauline authorship was long denied and the inclusion of

the epistle in the New Testament resisted. At last the Alexandrian

view won universal acceptance. The Epistle to the Hebrews became an

accepted part of the New Testament, and was attributed to Paul.

Clement of Alexandria, who had apparently received the tradition of

Pauline authorship from Pantænus, his predecessor, himself declares

that Hebrews was written by Paul in the "Hebrew" (Aramaic) language,

and was translated by Luke into Greek. The notion of a translation

by Luke was based upon no genuine historical tradition--Hebrews

is certainly an original Greek work--but was simply an hypothesis

constructed to explain the peculiarities of the epistle on the

supposition that it was a work of Paul.

(=2=) =The Value of the Tradition.=--The tradition of Pauline

authorship is clearly very weak. If Paul had been the author,

it is hard to see why the memory of the fact should have been

lost so generally in the Church. No one in the early period had

any objection to the epistle; on the contrary it was very highly

regarded. If, then, it had really been written by Paul, the Pauline

authorship would have been accepted everywhere with avidity. The

negative testimony of the Roman church is particularly significant.

The epistle was quoted by Clement of Rome at about A. D. 95; yet

at Rome as elsewhere in the West the epistle seems never in the

early period to have been regarded as Pauline. In other words, just

where acquaintance with the epistle can be traced farthest back,

the denial of Pauline authorship seems to have been most insistent.

If Clement of Rome had regarded Paul as the author, the history of

Roman opinion about the epistle would have been very different.

On the other hand, on the supposition that there was originally no

tradition of Pauline authorship, the subsequent prevalence of such

a tradition is easily explained. It was due simply to the evident

apostolic authority of the epistle itself. From the start, Hebrews

was felt to be an authoritative work. Being authoritative, it would

be collected along with other authoritative works. Since it was

an epistle, and exhibited a certain Pauline quality of spirit and

subject, it would naturally be associated with the other works of

the greatest letter writer of the apostolic age. Being thus included

in a collection of the Pauline Epistles, and being regarded as of

apostolic authority, what was more natural than to attribute it

to the apostle Paul? Such, very possibly, was the origin of the

Alexandrian tradition.

This tradition did not win immediate acceptance, because the rest

of the Church was still aware that the epistle was not written by

Paul. What led to the final conquest of the Pauline tradition was

simply the character of the book itself. The question of Pauline

authorship, in the case of this book, became connected with the

question of apostolic authority. The Church had to choose between

rejecting the book altogether, and accepting it as Pauline. When

she finally adopted the latter alternative, undoubtedly she chose

the lesser error. It was an error to regard the epistle as the work

of Paul; but it would have been a far greater error to exclude

it from the New Testament. As a matter of fact, though the book

was not written by Paul, it was written, if not by one of the

other apostles, at least by an "apostolic man" like Mark or Luke.

Scarcely any book of the New Testament bears clearer marks of true

apostolicity.

(=3=) =Internal Evidence.=--The argument against Pauline

authorship which is derived from tradition is strongly supported

by the contents of the epistle itself. In the first place, it is

exceedingly doubtful whether Paul could have spoken of himself as

having had the Christian salvation confirmed to him by those who had

heard the Lord. Heb. 2:3. Knowledge of the earthly life of Jesus

was indeed conveyed to Paul by ordinary word of mouth from the

eyewitnesses; but the gospel itself, as he insists with vehemence

in Galatians, was revealed to him directly by Christ. In the second

place, the style of the epistle is very different from that of Paul,

being, as we shall see, far more carefully wrought. In the third

place, the thoughts developed in Hebrews, though undoubtedly they

are in perfect harmony with the Pauline Epistles, are by no means

characteristically Pauline. It is a little hard to understand,

for example, how Paul could have written at such length about the

law without speaking of justification by faith or the reception

of Gentiles into the Church. This last argument, however, must

not be exaggerated. Undoubtedly Paul would have agreed heartily

to everything that Hebrews contains. Paul and the author of this

epistle have developed merely somewhat different sides of the same

great truth.

2. WHO WAS THE AUTHOR?

If Paul did not write the Epistle to the Hebrews, who did write it?

Prodigious labor has been expended upon this question, but with

very little result. In ancient times, Barnabas, Luke and Clement of

Rome, were each regarded as the author. Of these three views the

first is most probable; the second is exceedingly unlikely; and

the last is clearly impossible. Whoever wrote the epistle, Clement

certainly did not. The letter which we possess from his pen is

immeasurably inferior to the apostolic writings to which Hebrews

certainly belongs. Clement was a humble reader of Hebrews, not the

author of it. Luther was inclined to regard Apollos as the possible

author of Hebrews; and of all the many suggestions that have been

made, this is perhaps the best. Undoubtedly the circumstances

and training of Apollos were in a number of respects like those

which might naturally be attributed to the author of the epistle.

Apollos was closely associated with Paul, and perhaps at a later

time with others of the apostles, just as might be expected of the

author of an apostolic work such as Hebrews. On the other hand,

like the author of the epistle, he was not an eyewitness of the

life of Jesus. Compare Heb. 2:4. Like the author of the epistle he

was no doubt acquainted with Timothy. Compare ch. 13:23. He was

an "eloquent" or "learned" man, Acts 18:24, who might well have

produced the splendid rhetoric of the epistle. He was a Jew and

mighty in the Scriptures, as was also the author of Hebrews. He

was a native of Alexandria, the university city of the period, and

the seat of a large Jewish community, where just that combination

of Greek rhetorical training with Scriptural knowledge which is

exhibited in the epistle is most naturally to be sought.

These indications, however, can merely show that Apollos might

conceivably have written the epistle; they do not show that he did

write it. The authorship of this powerful work will always remain

uncertain. How little we know, after all, of the abounding life of

the apostolic Church!

3. WHERE WERE THE READERS?

In the Student's Text Book, it has been shown that the readers

of the epistle were probably members of some rather narrowly

circumscribed community. Where this community was is by no means

clear. The one indication of place which the epistle contains

is ambiguous. In ch. 13:24 it is said, "They of Italy salute

you." These words may mean that the author is in Italy and sends

greetings from the Christians of that country, or they may mean that

the author is outside of Italy and sends greetings from Italian

Christians who happened to be with him. In the latter case, probably

the readers were in Italy; for otherwise they would have no special

interest in the Italian Christians. All that we can say is then that

the epistle was probably written either from Italy or to Italy. If

it was written from Italy, then since the readers were Jews, it is

natural to seek them in Palestine. The Palestinian Christians were

"Hebrews" in the narrower, linguistic sense of the word, as well as

in the broader, national sense. The ancient heading of the epistle

thus comes to its full rights. On the other hand the Palestinian

hypothesis faces some rather grave difficulties. If the readers are

to be sought in Italy, then perhaps they formed a Jewish Christian

community in Rome or in some other Italian city. The question cannot

be settled with any certainty. The destination of the epistle is an

even greater riddle than the authorship.

4. WHEN WAS THE EPISTLE WRITTEN?

The Epistle to the Hebrews was certainly written before A. D. 95,

for at about that time it was quoted by Clement of Rome. The mention

of Timothy in ch. 13:23 perhaps does not carry us much farther, for

Timothy, who was a grown man at about A. D. 50, Acts 16:1-3, may

have lived till the end of the first century. The epistle, however,

does not bear any of the marks of late origin. The question of date

is closely connected with the question whether in the epistle the

temple at Jerusalem is regarded as still standing. This question

cannot be settled with certainty. But on the whole the continuance

of the Levitical ceremonies seems to be assumed in the epistle,

and at any rate there is no clear reference to their cessation.

Probably therefore the Epistle to the Hebrews was written before the

destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70.

5. HEBREWS A LITERARY WORK

The Epistle to the Hebrews is a product of conscious literary art.

The rhetoric of Paul is unconscious; even such passages as the

first few chapters of First Corinthians or the eighth chapter of

Romans may have been composed with the utmost rapidity. The author

of Hebrews probably went differently to work. Such sentences as

Heb. 1:1-4, even in an inspired writer, can only be the result of

diligent labor. By long practice the writer of Hebrews had acquired

that feeling for rhythm and balance of phrase, that facility in

the construction of smooth-flowing periods, which give to his

epistle its distinctive quality among the New Testament books.

Greek rhetoric of the Hellenistic age, freed from its hollow

artificiality, is here laid under contribution for the Saviour's

praise.

The presence of such a book in the New Testament is highly salutary.

Devout Christians in their enthusiasm for the simplicity of the

gospel are sometimes in danger of becoming one-sided. They are

sometimes inclined to confuse simplicity with ugliness, and then to

prize ugliness for its own sake. It is perfectly true that the value

of the gospel is quite independent of æsthetic niceties, and that

the language of the New Testament is for the most part very simple.

But it is not true that the simplicity of the New Testament has

anything in common with the bad taste of some modern phraseology, or

that eloquence is of itself evil. The Epistle to the Hebrews shows

by a noble example that there is such a thing as Christian art. The

majestic sentences of this ancient masterpiece, with their exquisite

clearness and liturgic rhythm and uplifting power, have contributed

inestimably to the Christian conception of the Saviour. The art of

Hebrews is not art for art's sake, but art for the sake of Christ.

Literary perfection is here combined with profound genuineness and

apostolic fervor; art is here ennobled by consecration.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age," pp.

164, 165, 265-267, 286-289. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible":

Purves, article on "Hebrews, Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The New

Testament and Its Writers," pp. 116-122. Ellicott, "A New Testament

Commentary for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 275-348: Moulton,

"The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews." Westcott, "The

Epistle to the Hebrews." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament,"

vol. ii, pp. 293-366. The two last-named works are intended

primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also

be used by others.

LESSON XXXIV

CHRISTIAN FORTITUDE

The First Epistle of Peter

1. SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD

The First Epistle of Peter is the epistle of separateness. The

modern Church is in grave danger of forgetting the distinctiveness

of her gospel and the glorious isolation of her position. She is

too often content to be merely one factor in civilization, a means

of improving the world instead of the instrument in creating a new

world.

The first readers of the epistle were subject to a similar danger,

though it arose from a somewhat different cause. To-day we are no

longer subject to persecution; but the danger is fundamentally

the same. The world's friendship may be even more disastrous than

the world's hatred. The readers of First Peter were tempted to

relinquish what was distinctive in their faith in order to avoid

the hostility of their heathen neighbors; we are tempted to do the

same thing because the superficial respectability of modern life

has put a gloss of polite convention over the profound differences

that divide the inner lives of men. We, as well as the first readers

of the epistle, need to be told that this world is lost in sin,

that the blood of Christ has ransomed an elect race from the city

of destruction, that the high privileges of the Christian calling

demand spotless purity and unswerving courage.

(=1=) =The Character of the Persecution.=--The character of the

persecution to which the readers of the epistle were subjected

cannot be determined with perfect clearness. It is not even certain

that the Christian profession in itself was regarded officially as

a crime. Apparently charges of positive misconduct were needed to

give countenance to the persecutors. I Peter 2:12. The Christians

needed to be warned that there is no heroism in suffering if the

suffering is the just punishment of misdeeds. Chs. 2:20; 4:15. What

particular charges were brought against the Christians it is of

course difficult to determine. Perhaps they were sometimes charged

with gross crimes such as murder or theft. But a more frequent

accusation was probably "hatred of the human race," or the like. The

Christians were thought to be busybodies. In setting the world to

rights they seemed to meddle in other people's affairs. In claiming

to be citizens of a heavenly kingdom, they seemed indifferent or

hostile to earthly relationships. As subjects of the emperor and of

his representatives, the Christians were thought to be disloyal; as

slaves, they seemed disobedient.

(=2=) =Duties of Earthly Life.=--In view of these accusations,

Peter urges his readers to avoid all improper employment of their

Christian freedom. Christian freedom does not mean license;

Christian independence does not mean indifference. There is no

reason why a good Christian should be a bad citizen, even of a

heathen state, ch. 2:13-17, or an unprofitable servant, even of

a harsh master, vs. 18-25, or a quarrelsome wife, even of an

unconverted husband. Ch. 3:1-6. On the contrary, Christians must

approve themselves not only in the spiritual realm, but also in the

ordinary relationships of this life.

(=3=) =Application to Modern Conditions.=--Here again the lesson is

important for the present day. Now as always fervent realization of

the transcendent glory of Christianity tends sometimes to result

in depreciation of ordinary duties. Men of exceptional piety

sometimes seem to feel that civilization is unworthy of their

attention, even if it is not actually a work of Satan. Of all such

vagaries the First Epistle of Peter is the best corrective. Truth

is here admirably guarded against the error that lurks at its root.

The very epistle that emphasizes the separateness of the Church

from the world, that teaches Christian people to look down upon

earthly affairs from the vantage ground of heaven, is just the

epistle that inculcates sober and diligent conduct in the various

relationships of earthly life. In the effort at a higher morality,

the simple, humble virtues that even the world appreciates should

not be neglected; piety should involve no loss of common sense. Now

as always the Christian should be ready to give a reason for the

faith that is in him; now as always he should be able to refute

the slanders of the world; now as always he should commend his

Christianity by his good citizenship. Only so will the example of

Christ be fully followed. Jesus was in possession of a transcendent

message; but he lived the life of a normal man. The Christian, too,

is a man with a divine mission; but like his Master he must exercise

his mission in the turmoil of life. He must not be a spoilsport at

feasts; his is no desert rôle like John the Baptist's. Christianity

has a mission from without; but its mission is fulfilled in loving

contact with the world of men.

(=4=) =The Christian's Defense.=--The Christians who suffered

persecution should first of all, according to Peter, defend

themselves to the very best of their ability. They should do their

best to remove dishonor from the name of Christ. They should show

the baselessness of the accusations which are brought against

them. Then, if they still suffer, it will be clearly suffering for

Christ's sake. Such suffering is glorious. It is a test from which

faith emerges strong and sure, ch. 1:7; it is true conformity to the

example of Christ. Chs. 2:21-24; 3:18; 4:1,13.

2. THE DATE OF THE PERSECUTIONS

From the persecutions presupposed in First Peter no very certain

conclusion can be drawn with regard to the date of the epistle.

A late date has sometimes been inferred from such passages as I

Peter 4:16. Christians were not punished as Christians, it is said,

until the beginning of the second century, and especially no such

persecution was carried out in the early period throughout the whole

empire. Ch. 5:9.

This argument breaks down at a number of points. In the first

place, as has already been observed, it is by no means clear that

First Peter presupposes a persecution of the Christians simply as

Christians. Apparently special charges of immorality were still in

the foreground, though these charges were often mere pretexts in

order to secure the punishment of members of the hated sect.

In the second place, it is not clear exactly when Christians first

began to be punished as "Christians" by the Roman authorities.

Undoubtedly the legal basis for such persecution was present as

soon as Christianity began to be regarded as separate from Judaism.

Judaism had a legal status; Christianity, strictly speaking, had

none.

3. DEPENDENCE AND ORIGINALITY

First Peter is clearly dependent upon a number of the Pauline

Epistles, and apparently also upon the Epistle of James. The

dependence, however, is by no means slavish; the epistle possesses

marked characteristics of its own. As compared with Paul, for

example, First Peter is somewhat simpler both in thought and in

expression. No mere imitator, but a genuine personality, speaks to

us from the noble simplicity of these pages.

4. COMPARISON WITH THE SPEECHES OF PETER

It is interesting to compare this epistle with the early

speeches of Peter that are recorded in The Acts. Part of the

difference--similarities also have been pointed out--no doubt,

was due to the difference in the persons addressed. In those early

speeches, Peter was preaching to unconverted Jews, and had to

content himself with a few outstanding facts. In the epistle, he

was addressing Christians, before whom he could lay bare the deep

things of the faith. Nevertheless, the passing years had brought a

change in Peter himself. Upon him as upon everyone else the mighty

influence of Paul made itself felt; and even the revelation which

came directly to him was progressive. The essence of the gospel

was present from the beginning; but the rich unfolding of it which

appears in First Peter was the product of long years spent in an

ever-widening service.

5. THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLE

The style of First Peter, though not at all rhetorical, like that

of Hebrews, is smooth and graceful. It has often been considered

strange that a fisherman of Galilee should have been so proficient

in Greek. But probably we have an exaggerated notion of the poverty

and roughness of the first disciples of Jesus. Undoubtedly they had

not enjoyed a rabbinical education; in the technical Jewish sense

they were "unlearned and ignorant men." Acts 4:13. Nevertheless,

they clearly did not belong at all to the lowest of the population;

Peter in particular seems to have been possessed of considerable

property. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Greek culture

in the first century was making itself felt very extensively in

Galilee. No doubt Peter could use Greek even before he left Galilee,

and in the course of his later life his linguistic attainments must

have been very greatly improved. It is by no means impossible that

he wrote First Peter entirely without assistance.

6. SILVANUS

In order, however, to account for the linguistic excellence of this

epistle, and in particular for the striking difference between it

and Second Peter, a rather attractive hypothesis has been proposed.

In I Peter 5:12, Peter says: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as

I account him, I have written unto you briefly." Undoubtedly these

words may designate Silvanus merely as the messenger who carried

the letter to its destination. Compare Acts 15:23. It is also

possible, however, that Peter meant to say that Silvanus had written

the letter under his direction. In that case the thought would be

due altogether to Peter; but the form, to some extent at least,

would be the work of Silvanus. The hypothesis, of course, is only

plausible, not necessary. There are other ways of accounting for the

peculiarities of the epistle.

In all probability, the Silvanus of First Peter is the same as

the Silvanus of the Pauline Epistles and the Silas of The Acts.

If so, his association with Peter is altogether natural; he was

originally a member of the Jerusalem church. If, in accordance with

the hypothesis which has just been mentioned, Silvanus was really

concerned in the composition of the epistle, the choice of such a

man for the task was, as has been pointed out by the chief advocate

of the hypothesis, exceedingly wise. Silvanus, who had been a

companion of Paul and his associate in founding many of the churches

of Asia Minor, would be just the man who could find the right tone

in writing to the churches to which the epistle is addressed.

7. MARK

The appearance of Mark in I Peter 5:13 confirms the strong tradition

which makes Mark a disciple of Peter and associates him with Peter

in the production of the Second Gospel. The only two individuals

whom Peter mentions in his First Epistle were both natives of

Jerusalem, and both, during part of their lives, companions of

Paul. The unity of the apostolic Church was preserved not only by a

unity of spirit, but also by the changing associations of Christian

workers.

8. FORTITUDE IN THE MODERN CHURCH

The First Epistle of Peter has a varied message to the Church of

to-day. Even in its exhortations to bravery and steadfastness it is

very much needed. We are not subject to persecution by the state,

but still there are a thousand circumstances of life in which we

need to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, casting all

our anxiety upon him, because he careth for us. Ch. 5:6,7.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 267, 275-282. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Warfield

(supplemented), article on "Peter." M'Clymont, "The New Testament

and Its Writers," pp. 130-136. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary

for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 385-436: Mason, "The First

Epistle of St. Peter." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament,"

vol. ii, pp. 134-194. The last-named work is intended primarily for

those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by

others.

LESSON XXXV

THE CHRISTIAN'S ATTITUDE TOWARD ERROR AND IMMORALITY

The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude

1. AUTHENTICITY

The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude are among

the least known and most seriously questioned parts of the New

Testament. Even in ancient times their authenticity was disputed; in

the third and fourth centuries there were some at least who desired

to exclude them from the New Testament. These ancient doubts have

been continued in the modern Church. By very many scholars of the

present day, Second Peter and Jude are assigned to second-century

writers who falsely assumed the names of an apostle and of a brother

of the Lord.

Against such views as these, a number of arguments might be

employed. But the strongest argument of all is provided by

the self-witness of the epistles themselves. Second Peter, in

particular, not only lays claim to apostolic authorship in the

address, but is written throughout in the name of an apostle. Either

it was really written by an apostle or else it was a deliberate

fraud. The latter alternative is excluded by the epistle itself.

Second Peter does not look at all like a pseudonymous work, but is

a weighty bit of writing, full of the sincerest moral earnestness.

Both Second Peter and Jude ring true, with the genuine apostolic

note.

2. SECOND PETER AND FIRST PETER

Resemblances have often been pointed out among all three divisions

of the New Testament material attributed to Peter. Second Peter has

been shown to resemble not only First Peter, but also the speeches

of Peter as they are reported in The Acts. Such similarities of

course point to a common authorship. It cannot be denied, however,

that differences stand side by side with the similarities. In the

comparison of the epistles with the speeches, such differences are

of course not surprising. The total difference of subject and the

wide interval of time provide an amply sufficient explanation. But

how is it with the difference between Second Peter and First Peter?

(=1=) =Difference of Purpose and Subject.=--In the first place, the

difference may be partly explained by the difference of purpose and

subject. First Peter is a presentation of the glories of the faith

in order to encourage Christians under trial and make them feel

their separateness from the world; Second Peter is a solemn warning

against dangerous perverters of the life of the Church.

(=2=) =Difference of Time.=--In the second place, a considerable

interval of time may separate the two epistles. Here we find

ourselves on uncertain ground. On the whole it is perhaps better to

put the epistles near together at the close of Peter's life.

(=3=) =Work of Silvanus.=--In the third place, recourse may be had

to the hypothesis, mentioned in the last lesson, which attributes a

considerable share in the composition of First Peter to Silvanus.

(=4=) =Conclusion.=--Finally, there may be still further

possibilities of explanation which cannot now be detected. The

differences of style and of thought between the two epistles of

Peter are far from sufficient to show diversity of authorship, and

it must be remembered that similarities are to be balanced against

the differences.

3. VALUE OF SECOND PETER AND JUDE

Although Second Peter and Jude are not so familiar as most of the

New Testament, yet even these two brief epistles have entered deep

into the mind and heart of the Church.

(=1=) =Expressive Phrases.=--Even the inimitably expressive phrases

and sentences that have been derived from the epistles have produced

no small enrichment of Christian life. The "exceeding great and

precious promises," and the "partakers of the divine nature" of II

Peter 1:4, the chain of virtues in vs. 5-7, the "make your calling

and election sure" of v. 10, the "sure word of prophecy" of v. 19,

the description of inspired prophecy in vs. 20, 21--"no prophecy of

the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy

came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake

as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"--the "vexed his righteous

soul" of ch. 2:8, the "railing accusation" of v. 11; Jude 9, the

"stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance" of II Peter 3:1,

the "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come

to repentance" of v. 9, the "faith which was once delivered unto

the saints" of Jude 3, the magnificent doxology of vs. 24, 25--a

review of these passages as they appear in the King James Version

will bring some realization of the profound influence which even the

most obscure books of the New Testament have exerted both upon the

English language and upon the character of Christian men.

The influence of Second Peter and Jude, however, is not merely

the influence of isolated phrases. The epistles as a whole have a

distinctive message for the Church. That message is twofold. It

embraces in the first place an emphasis upon authority, and in the

second place an insistence upon holiness.

(=2= =)The Emphasis Upon Authority.=--The adversaries who are

combated in Second Peter and Jude were impatient of restraint.

Apparently they distinguished themselves, as possessing the Spirit,

from the ordinary Christians, as being merely "natural." Jude 5, 19;

II Peter 2:12. They appealed to their own deeper insight, instead of

listening to what apostles and prophets had to say. In reply, Peter

and Jude insisted upon the authority of the Old Testament prophets,

and upon the authority of the apostles, which was ultimately the

authority of Christ. See especially II Peter 3:2.

A similar insistence upon authority is greatly needed to-day.

Again men are inclined to appeal to an inward light as justifying

freedom from ancient restraints; the Christian consciousness is

being exalted above the Bible. At such a time, renewed attention

to Second Peter and Jude would be salutary. False notions are rife

to-day with regard to apostolic authority. They can be corrected

by our epistles. Peter as well as Paul exerts his authority not in

an official or coldly ecclesiastical way, but with an inimitable

brotherliness. The authority of the apostles is the authority of

good news. Subjection to such authority is perfect freedom.

The authority which Peter and Jude urge upon their readers is a

double authority--in the first place the authority of the Old

Testament, and in the second place the authority of Christ exerted

through the apostles. For us, however, the two become one. The

apostles, like the Old Testament prophets, speak to us only through

the Bible. We need to learn the lesson. A return to the Bible is the

deepest need of the modern Church. It would mean a return to God.

(=3=) =Insistence Upon Holiness.=--The second characteristic of

Second Peter and Jude is the insistence upon holiness. Religion

is by no means always connected with goodness. In the Greco-Roman

world, the two were often entirely separate. Many pagan cults

contained no ethical element whatever. The danger was therefore very

great that Christianity might be treated in the same way. The early

Christians needed to be admonished ever and again that their God was

a God of righteousness, that no unclean thing could stand in his

presence.

Insistence upon holiness is in itself no peculiarity of Second

Peter and Jude. It runs all through the New Testament. But in these

epistles it is directed more definitely perhaps than anywhere else

against the opposite error. The opponents of Peter and Jude did

not merely drift into immorality; they defended it on theoretical

grounds. They were making a deliberate effort to reduce Christianity

to the level of a non-ethical religion. Such theoretical defense of

immorality appears, indeed, in a number of places in the apostolic

Church. A certain party in Corinth, for example, made a wrong

use of Christian freedom. But what is more or less incidental in

First Corinthians forms the main subject of Second Peter and Jude.

Christianity is here insisting upon its thoroughly ethical character.

At first sight the message might seem obsolete to-day. We always

associate religion with morality; we can hardly understand how the

two ever could have been separated. It is to be feared, however,

that the danger is not altogether past. In our thoughts we preserve

the ethical character of Christianity. But how is it with our lives?

How is it with our religious observances? Are we not constantly in

danger of making religion a mere cult, a mere emotional excitement,

a mere means of gaining earthly or heavenly advantages, a mere

effort to bribe God by our worship? The danger is always with us.

We need always to remind ourselves that Christian faith must work

itself out in holy living.

Peter in his second epistle has provided us with one important means

to that end. It is the thought of Christ's coming. There can be no

laxness in moral effort if we remember the judgment seat of Christ.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 267-270, 282-285. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Warfield

(supplemented), article on "Jude." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and

Its Writers," pp. 137-143. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary

for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 437-463, 505-519: Plummer,

"The Second Epistle of St. Peter" and "The Epistle of St. Jude."

Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. ii, pp. 194-293.

The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some

knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.

LESSON XXXVI

THE LIFE OF THE CHILDREN OF GOD

The Epistles of John

1. AUTHORSHIP OF THE FIRST EPISTLE

The First Epistle of John does not contain the name of its author.

According to tradition, however, it was written by the apostle

John, and tradition is here supported by the characteristics of the

epistle itself. The author of the epistle was evidently the same as

the author of the Fourth Gospel. The marked similarity in style can

be explained in no other way. Even the careless reader observes that

the style of the Fourth Gospel is very peculiar. Short sentences are

joined to one another with the utmost simplicity; the vocabulary is

limited, but contains expressions of extraordinary richness; the

total effect is singularly powerful. These same characteristics,

though they are so peculiar, appear also in the epistle. There is

the same simplicity of sentence structure, the same use of such

terms as "life" and "light" and "love," the same indescribable

spirit and tone. Yet the epistle is no slavish imitation of the

Gospel--differences stand side by side with the similarities. These

two works are evidently related, not as model and copy, but as

living productions of the same remarkable personality.

2. TESTIMONY OF AN EYEWITNESS

As in the Gospel, so also in the epistle the author presents himself

clearly as an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, I John 1:1-3; 4:14;

as in the Gospel he lays stress upon simple testimony. Even those

things which have just been noticed as characteristic of his style

are connected ultimately with the teaching of Jesus. In both Gospel

and epistle, the beloved disciple has reproduced what he heard

in Galilee and in Judea, though in both he has made the memory a

living, spiritual fact.

3. DESTINATION AND DATE

The First Epistle of John is perhaps scarcely to be called an

epistle at all. Practically all the characteristics of a letter are

missing. There is no address; there is no greeting at the close;

there are no personal details. The readers are indeed referred to

in the second person; but preachers as well as letter-writers say,

"you." First John is a sort of general address written probably to

some extended group of churches.

These churches are probably to be sought in Asia Minor. Throughout

the epistle the readers are addressed in a fatherly tone. See, for

example, ch. 2:1. Evidently the writer was well known as a sort of

patriarch throughout an extended region. Such conditions prevailed

in Asia Minor after the apostle John had begun to reside at Ephesus.

Trustworthy tradition as well as the New Testament informs us of a

period in the apostle's life when he had outlived all or most of

the other apostles and was revered as the head of the Asian church.

At some time within this period--probably nearer the end than the

beginning--the First Epistle of John was written.

4. THE FALSE TEACHERS

The form of error against which the epistle is directed becomes

clearest, perhaps in ch. 4:2,3. The false teachers had denied that

Jesus Christ was come in the flesh. This may be interpreted in

several different ways.

(=1=) =Docetism.=--In the first place, John may mean that the

opponents simply denied the reality of the earthly life of Jesus.

Such a form of error is by no means unknown in the history of the

Church. It is called "Docetism." According to Docetism the Son of

God did not really live a human life--with human sufferings and a

human death--but only appeared to do so.

(=2=) =Cerinthus.=--In the second place, the meaning of the passage

may be that the opponents denied the unity of the person of Jesus

Christ. Compare ch. 2:22. Some persons in the early Church supposed

that there were two separate persons in the figure that is described

in the Gospels. A heavenly being, the Christ, it was thought, united

himself with the man Jesus at the time when the dove descended after

the baptism. Matt. 3:16,17. Such was the view of Cerinthus, who is

declared by tradition to have been an opponent of the apostle John

at Ephesus. It has been suggested, therefore, that it was actually

Cerinthus, with his disciples, who is combated in the First Epistle

of John.

(=3=) =Denial of the Incarnation.=--Both Cerinthus and the Docetists

denied the reality of the incarnation--both denied that the Son of

God actually assumed a human nature and lived a complete human life.

According to Cerinthus and others like him, the Christ stood only

in somewhat loose relation to the man Jesus. He was united with him

only late in life, he left him before the crucifixion. On this view,

it was not the Christ who lay in the manger at Bethlehem, it was not

the Christ who suffered on the cross. Cerinthus, like the Docetists,

kept the Son of God out of any close relation to the world and to us.

(=4=) =John's Reply.=--Against some such view as one of these, John

was concerned to establish the reality of the incarnation--the truth

that "the Word became flesh." In the Gospel, that truth underlies

the whole of the narrative; in the First Epistle it is directly

defended against the opposing error. It is defended first of all

by an appeal to what the writer had seen and heard. "We knew Jesus

in Palestine," says John in effect, "and we can testify that Jesus

himself was none other than the Christ, the Son of God." I John,

1:1-4.

(=5=) =John, the Opponents, and Cerinthus.=--The false teachers who

are combated in the epistle had apparently withdrawn from the Church

and formed a separate sect. I John 2:19. Their separateness of mind

and heart and life had found expression in open schism. Whether

they are to be identified with disciples of Cerinthus is at least

doubtful. False speculation about the person of Christ no doubt

assumed many forms in the closing years of the first century.

5. CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THE THIRD EPISTLE

In III John 9, the apostle tells Gaius that he had written "somewhat

unto the church." This letter to the church may have been written

at some previous time. It is also possible, however, that it was

written together with the letter to Gaius. The Greek word for

"I wrote" admits of that interpretation. If that interpretation

be correct, then John perhaps means to say that although he has

written a letter to the church he could not in that letter urge

the hospitable reception of the missionaries. For the present, the

influence of Diotrephes was too strong. The letter to the church had

to be concerned with other matters.

If this view of the letter mentioned in III John 9 be adopted, then

the Second Epistle of John corresponds to the description. The

Second Epistle is addressed to a church, and it is written with

some reserve. If "certain" of the children of "the elect lady"

were walking in truth, II John 4, the inference is that others

were conducting themselves very differently. Evidently there was

danger of false teaching among the readers. Hospitality to men like

Demetrius and his companions could hardly be expected of such a

church. If hospitality should be practiced, it was only too likely

to be hospitality to men of a very different stamp. Vs. 10, 11.

Possibly, therefore, the Second Epistle of John is actually the

letter that is referred to in III John 9, a letter to the church

of which Gaius was a member. This hypothesis is supported by

the striking formal similarity of the two letters. They are of

almost exactly the same length; the openings and especially the

conclusions, II John 12, 13; III John 13, 14, are couched in almost

exactly the same terms. They look very much like twin epistles,

written on two sheets of papyrus of the same size.

Of course the hypothesis is by no means certain. Perhaps the

letter referred to in III John 9 was a previous letter bespeaking

hospitality, which had failed of its effect. When the apostle saw,

from the answer or lack of answer to the previous letter, that the

church was ill disposed, he had recourse to an individual member of

it. Even in this case, however, it remains probable that our two

epistles were written at about the same time.

6. VALUE OF THE SHORTER EPISTLES

These last two epistles of John do not deserve the neglect which

they have sometimes suffered. Despite their brevity--they are the

shortest books of the New Testament--they are instructive in a

number of ways.

(=1=) =Historical.=--It is exceedingly interesting, for example,

to compare them with the private letters of the same period which

have recently been discovered in Egypt--see Lesson III, Teacher's

Manual, in this course. In form, the opening of the Third Epistle

is very much in the manner of the papyrus letters. Compare, for

example, with III John 1-4 the following opening of a letter of the

second century after Christ: "Apion to Epimachus his father and lord

heartiest greetings. First of all I pray that you are in health and

continually prosper and fare well with my sister and daughter and

my brother. I thank the lord Serapis...." (The translation is that

of Professor Milligan. See p. 20 of Teacher's Manual, Part I, of

this course.) The differences, however, are even more instructive

than the resemblances. What was said in Lesson I about the epistles

of Paul applies in full measure to the epistles of John. Even the

epistolary forms are here modified so as to be the vehicle of a new

message and a new spirit.

Furthermore, the two epistles, especially Third John, cast a flood

of light upon the internal development of the Church. In one

respect indeed the historical significance of the Third Epistle has

sometimes been exaggerated. It is not true that we have here the

emergence of the monarchical episcopate--that is, the preëminence

of one presbyter, called a "bishop," over his brother presbyters.

Diotrephes does not appear clearly as a bishop. At about A. D. 110

in the epistles of Ignatius the episcopate is very prominent; but

Third John belongs to an earlier period.

Nevertheless, this concrete picture of the internal affairs of

a late first-century church is absolutely unique. The period is

very obscure; these few brief lines illumine it more than pages of

narrative. The traveling preachers of Third John are particularly

interesting. Similar missionaries appear also in the "Didache," a

sort of church manual which may probably be dated in the early part

of the second century. In that later period, however, care had to be

taken lest the hospitality of the churches should be abused. "But

let every apostle," says the writer--the word "apostle" is used in

a very broad sense to designate wandering preachers--"who comes to

you be received as the Lord. He shall remain, however, no more than

one day, or if necessary two. If he remains three days he is a false

prophet." Such precautions, we may be sure, were not needed in the

case of Demetrius and his companions.

(=2=) =Practical.=--Despite its individual address and private

character, the Third Epistle of John is not an ordinary private

letter. Like all the books of the New Testament, it has a message

for the entire Church. The devout reader rises from the perusal of

it with a more steadfast devotion to the truth and a warmer glow of

Christian love.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 272-274, 294-308. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves

(supplemented), article on "John, Epistles of." M'Clymont, "The New

Testament and Its Writers," pp. 144-149. Ellicott, "A New Testament

Commentary for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 467-502: Sinclair,

"The Epistles of St. John." Westcott, "The Epistles of St. John."

Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp. 355-384.

The two last-named works are intended primarily for those who have

some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.

LESSON XXXVII

THE MESSAGES OF THE LIVING CHRIST

The Book of Revelation (First Lesson)

1. THE APOCALYPSE AND THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

In the Student's Text Book it was maintained that the Apocalypse was

written by John the son of Zebedee. The strongest objection to this

view is to be found in the striking difference of language and style

which exists between the Apocalypse on the one side and the Gospel

and Epistles of John on the other. The style of the Apocalypse is

extraordinarily rough; in it the most elementary laws of Greek

grammar are sometimes disregarded. Such peculiarities appear

scarcely at all in the Gospel; the language of the Gospel, though

simple, is perfectly grammatical.

This observation has led many scholars to decide that the Gospel and

the Apocalypse never could have been written by the same person;

the argument, indeed, was advanced as early as the third century by

Dionysius of Alexandria. Those who thus deny the unity of authorship

do not all reject either one book or the other as authoritative;

some suppose that the John whose name appears in the Apocalypse,

though not the same as John the son of Zebedee, was a genuine

prophet.

The evidence, however, for attributing all the Johannine books to

the son of Zebedee is exceedingly strong. If the Apocalypse is to

be attributed to some one else, tradition is very seriously at

fault, and it is also very difficult to see how another John could

have introduced himself to the churches of Asia Minor in the way

that the author does at the beginning and end of the book without

distinguishing himself from the greater man of the same name who

was residing at Ephesus at the very same time. The Apocalypse

must therefore be assigned to the son of Zebedee unless there is

absolutely unimpeachable evidence to the contrary.

Such evidence is not really forthcoming. The difference of style

between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel is capable of

explanation.

(=1=) =Possible Difference of Date.=--In the first place, it might

be explained by a wide difference of date. If the Apocalypse was

written at about A. D. 68, then an interval of some twenty-five

years or more separates it from the Gospel. Such an interval would

allow plenty of time for the style of the author to change. When the

Galilean fisherman first left his home in Palestine, his command

of the Greek language might conceivably be slight; whereas after a

long residence in Asia Minor, as leader of a group of Greek-speaking

churches, the roughness of his style would be removed. Hence the

un-Greek, strongly Hebraistic usages of the Apocalypse would in the

Gospel naturally give place to a correct, though simple style.

This hypothesis, however, is beset with serious difficulties. It

is difficult to suppose that the Apocalypse was written before the

closing decade of the first century. Some passages, it is true, have

been strongly urged in favor of the early date. Particularly the

reference to the seven kings in Rev. 17:10 has been thought by many

excellent scholars to be decisive. The reference to the seven hills

in the preceding verse seems to show that the "beast" represents

Rome; the seven kings therefore naturally represent Roman emperors.

The fifth emperor, beginning with Augustus, was Nero. If at the time

when the book was written five were fallen, one was and the other

was not yet come, v. 10, the book must apparently have been written

under Nero's successor. His successor, Galba, reigned only a few

months: the book was therefore written in A. D. 68 or 69. Or if the

very brief reigns of Galba, Otho and Vitellius be not counted, then

the book was written between A. D. 69 and 79, during the reign of

Vespasian.

The passage remains, however, so obscure that it is very doubtful

whether any one interpretation of it should be allowed to

overbalance the evidence for the later date. Such evidence is

abundant. Most weighty of all, perhaps, is the strong tradition

which places the Apocalypse in the closing years of Domitian. It

is hard to believe that that tradition is seriously at fault. The

condition of the Church, moreover, as it is presupposed in the book,

is more naturally to be sought at A. D. 95 than twenty-five years

earlier. The persecution, for example, which the writer describes,

seems far more like the persecution under Domitian than it is like

the outbreak which was occasioned by the cruelty of Nero.

=(2) The Difference of Subject.=--If the later date be accepted,

then the Gospel and the Apocalypse were written in the same period

of the apostle's life, and the difference of style cannot be

explained by a difference of date. Another explanation, however, is

sufficient. The difference between the two books may be explained

by the total difference of subject. The Gospel is a narrative of

Jesus' life, written with abundant opportunity for reflection; the

Apocalypse is a record of wonderful visions, where stylistic nicety

would have marred the immediateness of the revelation. The very

roughness of the Apocalypse is valuable as expressing the character

of the book. In the Gospel, John brought to bear all his power of

reflection and of expression; in the Apocalypse, he wrote in haste

under the overpowering influence of a transcendent experience.

The grammatical irregularities of the Apocalypse, moreover, often

create the impression that they are intentional. They belonged,

apparently, to an apocalyptic style which to a certain extent had

already been formed; they were felt to be suited to the peculiar

character of the work.

Finally, it must not be forgotten that side by side with the

differences of style there are some remarkable similarities. The

underlying unity of thought and expression points to unity of

authorship.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE APOCALYPSE

(=1=) =A Record of Visions.=--In what has just been said, the

dominant peculiarity of the Apocalypse has already been indicated.

The Apocalypse is no careful literary composition, pieced together

from previous works of a similar character. On the contrary, it is a

record of genuine revelations. Before writing, the seer was "in the

Spirit."

(=2=) =Influence of the Old Testament.=--Nevertheless, although

the Apocalypse is a record of visions, and was written consciously

under the impulsion of the Spirit, it is by no means uninfluenced

by previous works. To a degree that is perhaps not paralleled by

any other New Testament book, the Apocalypse is suffused with the

language and with the imagery of the Old Testament. Though there is

not a single formal quotation, the Old Testament Scriptures have

influenced almost every sentence of the book. Particularly the books

of Ezekiel and Daniel, which, like the Apocalypse, are composed

largely of the records of visions, have supplied much of the imagery

of the New Testament work.

This wide-spread influence of the Old Testament upon the Apocalypse

is by no means surprising. The Apocalypse is based upon direct

revelation, but direct revelation is not necessarily out of relation

to everything else. On the contrary, it uses the language which its

recipients can understand; and part of the language of the apostle

John was the phraseology and imagery of the Old Testament.

It has already been hinted that works very similar in form to the

Apocalypse are to be found in the Old Testament. This apocalyptic

form was continued in a number of Jewish works written after the

conclusion of the Old Testament canon. Superficially these works

bear considerable resemblance to the New Testament Apocalypse;

but closer examination reveals profound differences. The Jewish

apocalypses appeared under assumed names--the most important of

them under the name of Enoch--while John is so firmly convinced of

having received genuine revelation that he requires no such spurious

authority for his work. The similarity between our Apocalypse and

its extra-canonical Jewish predecessors and contemporaries is a

similarity at most of form; in spirit and content the difference is

incalculable. Unlike these other works, the Apocalypse is a genuine

prophecy.

3. THE MESSAGES TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES

The so-called letters to the seven churches were never intended to

be circulated separately. From the beginning the letters formed part

of the Apocalypse, which was addressed to all seven of the churches.

From the beginning, therefore, each of the letters was intended to

be read not only by the church whose name it bears, but also by all

the others. The seven churches, moreover, are representative of the

Church at large.

Nevertheless, despite the universal purpose of the letters, they

are very concrete in the information that they provide about the

churches in Asia Minor. Like the Second and Third Epistles of John

they illumine an exceedingly obscure period in the history of

Christianity.

(=1=) =The "Angels" of the Churches.=--Some details in the letters,

it is true, are to us obscure. What, for example, is meant by the

"angels" of the churches to which the several letters are addressed?

The Greek word translated "angel" may also mean simply "messenger."

Conceivably, it might designate merely a congregational officer.

Many have supposed that it designates a bishop. In the epistles

of Ignatius, which were written not very many years after the

Apocalypse, the term "bishop" is applied to an officer who had

supreme authority over a congregation including the presbyters. The

appearance of these "angels" or "messengers" in the Apocalypse has

been urged as proof that John as well as Ignatius recognized the

institution of the episcopacy.

Surely, however, the matter is more than doubtful. The Greek word

used, whether it be translated "angel" or "messenger," is a very

strange designation of a bishop. Moreover, in the rest of the

Johannine literature there is no recognition of the episcopacy. In

the Third Epistle of John, for example, even if Diotrephes had set

himself up as a bishop--which is itself exceedingly doubtful--his

claim is certainly not accepted by the apostle.

On the whole, it seems better to regard the "angels" to which the

seven letters of the Apocalypse are addressed merely as ideal

representatives of the churches--representatives conceived of

perhaps as guardian angels. Compare Matt. 18:10.

(=2=) =The Nicolaitans.=--Another puzzling question concerns the

"Nicolaitans" who appear in several of the letters. The name itself

is obscure. By tradition it is connected with that Nicolaüs of

Antioch who was one of the seven men appointed in the early days of

the Jerusalem church to attend to the administration of charity.

Acts 6:5. The tradition may possibly be correct. If it is correct,

then Nicolaüs, in his later life, had not justified the confidence

originally reposed in him.

At the first mention of the Nicolaitans, in the letter to Ephesus,

Rev. 2:6, nothing whatever is said about their tenets. Their error,

however, was not merely theoretical, but practical, for it was their

"works" that the Lord is represented as hating. In the letter to

Pergamum, the Nicolaitans are probably meant in v. 14. Like Balaam,

they enticed the people of God to idolatry and impurity. The form

which their idolatry took was the eating of meats offered to idols.

The question of meats offered to idols was no simple matter. In the

First Epistle to the Corinthians Paul had permitted the eating of

such meats under certain circumstances, but had sternly forbidden it

wherever it involved real or supposed participation in idolatrous

worship. The form in which it was favored by the Nicolaitans

evidently fell under the latter category. In a time of persecution,

the temptation to guilty compromise with heathenism must have been

insidious; and also the low morality of the Asian cities threatened

ever and again to drag Christian people back into the impure life of

the world.

In the letter to Thyatira, also, "the woman Jezebel" is apparently

to be connected with the same sect, for the practical faults in

Thyatira and in Pergamum were identical. Jezebel, the Phoenician

wife of Ahab, was, like Balaam, a striking Old Testament example

of one who led Israel into sin. It is significant that the woman

Jezebel in Thyatira called herself a prophetess. Rev. 2:20. This

circumstance seems to indicate that the Nicolaitans had excused

their moral laxness by an appeal to special revelations. The

impression is confirmed by v. 24. Apparently the Nicolaitans had

boasted of their knowledge of the "deep things," and had despised

the simple Christians who contented themselves with a holy life. At

any rate, whatever particular justification the Nicolaitans advanced

for their immoral life, they could not deceive the all-searching eye

of Christ. Their "deep things" were deep things, not of God, but of

Satan!

Who is meant by "the woman Jezebel"? Some interpreters, who suppose

that the "angel" of the church was the bishop, regard Jezebel as

a designation of the bishop's wife. This whole interpretation is,

however, beset with serious difficulty. Perhaps "the woman Jezebel"

does not refer to an individual at all, but is simply a figurative

designation of the Nicolaitan sect. The description of the coming

retribution in vs. 21-23 seems to be highly figurative.

It will be observed that the sin of the churches at Pergamum

and Thyatira was not limited to those who actually accepted the

Nicolaitan teaching. Even to endure the presence of the guilty

sect was the object of the Lord's rebuke. Toward the works of the

Nicolaitans only hatred was in place. Rev. 2:6. That is a solemn

lesson for modern indifferentism. Tolerance is good; but there are

times when it is a deadly sin.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"

pp. 274, 308-312. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves

(supplemented), article on "Revelation." M'Clymont, "The New

Testament and Its Writers," pp. 150-155. Milligan, "Lectures on the

Apocalypse" and "Discussions on the Apocalypse." Ellicott, "A New

Testament Commentary for English Readers," vol. iii, pp. 523-641:

Carpenter, "The Revelation of St. John." Ramsay, "The Letters to

the Seven Churches of Asia." Plumptre, "A Popular Exposition of the

Epistles to the Seven Churches of Asia." Swete, "The Apocalypse of

St. John." Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp.

384-449. The two last-named works are intended primarily for those

who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.

LESSON XXXVIII

A VISION OF THE FINAL TRIUMPH

The Book of Revelation (Second Lesson)

1. THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE APOCALYPSE

The interpretations of the Apocalypse may be divided into four

classes.

(=1=) =Unfulfilled Prophecies.=--According to one method of

interpretation, the prophecies of the book are all unfulfilled. In

the last days there will be a mighty revival of evil like that which

is symbolized by the dragon and the beast and the false prophet,

there will be plagues and woes like those which are described in

connection with the seals and the trumpets and the bowls, and there

will be a triumph of God's people and an eternal blessedness of the

new Jerusalem. This interpretation would place the Apocalypse out of

analogy with the other prophecies of the Bible. Prophecy is seldom

out of all connection with the immediate present. Even where the

prophetic vision reaches to the very end of time, the fulfillment

or the preparation for the fulfillment is usually represented as

beginning at once. In the Apocalypse, as in other prophecy, there is

evident reference to the circumstances of the original readers.

(=2=) =Contemporary Events.=--A second method of interpretation goes

to an opposite extreme. By this method the prophecies of the book

are thought to be concerned merely with events of the writer's own

age. "The beast" is the Roman Empire; "Babylon" is the city of Rome;

the author expected the destruction of both to take place within

a few years' time. In its thoroughgoing form this interpretation

also is to be rejected. It degrades the Apocalypse to the level of

a mistaken prediction, and reduces the self-evidencing glories of

the book to trivialities. Evidently the outlook of the seer was

far broader and far more spiritual than it is represented by the

advocates of this interpretation.

(=3=) =The Whole History of the Church.=--By a third method of

interpretation, the first two methods are combined. The book is

written distinctly in view of conditions of the first century, its

predictions concern partly the immediate future; but there is also

an outlook upon remoter ages. By this interpretation the prophecies

are held to provide an epitome of the whole of history from the

first coming of Christ to his second coming.

(=4=) =Mixture of Discordant Traditions.=--A fourth method of

interpretation, which has become influential in very recent years,

abandons all hope of discovering a unitary message in the book, and

proceeds to divide it into its component parts. The analysis was

carried on first by literary criticism. An older work of the time

of Nero was supposed to have been revised at a later period; or

non-Christian Jewish works were supposed to have been incorporated

in the present work by a Christian compiler. This sort of literary

criticism has in the last few years given place sometimes to a

subtler method. Investigation is now directed to the materials of

which the book is composed, whether those materials were embodied

in previous literary works or only in previous traditions. The

ultimate source of much of the material is found in Babylonia or

other eastern countries; this material is thought to be not always

in accord with the context into which in our Apocalypse it has been

introduced.

This method must emphatically be rejected. It contains, indeed,

an element of truth. Undoubtedly the Apocalypse makes use of

already-existing materials. But these materials are, for the most

part at least, of genuinely Hebrew origin; and they have been

thoroughly assimilated for the purposes of the present prophecy.

The Apocalypse is not a compilation full of contradictions, but a

unitary work, with one great message for the Church.

(=5=) =Wrong Use of the Third Method.=--Of these four methods of

interpretation the third has been adopted in the Student's Text

Book. The prophecies of the Apocalypse concern the entire history of

the Church. Undoubtedly this interpretation is subject to abuse. It

has been employed in the interests of special controversy, as when

the Protestants saw in the scarlet woman a representation of papal

Rome.

(=6=) =Principles, Not Individual Facts.=--All such abuses may be

avoided, however, if the interpreter will remember that the book

deals with great principles, rather than with individual facts. The

beast is neither the Roman Catholic Church, nor the religion of

Mohammed, nor the Turkish Empire. Undoubtedly it expressed itself in

some phases of each of those institutions. But no one of them can be

identified with it outright. The beast of the Apocalypse is nothing

less than the blatant, godless power of worldly empire, however that

power may be manifested. At the time of John it was manifested

especially in the empire of Rome. Even Rome, however, cannot be

identified with the beast entirely without qualification. Even Rome

had its beneficent side. John as well as Paul, even in the fire

of persecution, might have expressed the thought of Rom. 13:1-7.

Peter also wrote in the midst of persecution; yet Peter could say,

"Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether

to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for

vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well." I

Peter 2:13,14.

The other side of Rome's power, it is true, was prominent at the

close of the first century. More systematically than before,

Rome had begun to persecute the Church of God. By the demand of

emperor-worship she had tried to put her stamp upon the followers of

Jesus. Through her priesthood she had endeavored to lead men astray.

In these things she was a manifestation of the beast. As such she

was execrated and resisted to the death by every loyal Christian.

There could be no hope of compromise. Hope lay rather in the power

of God. God would give the just reward; God would give the final

victory. Such was the message of the Apocalypse.

The message is of perennial value. The beast is not yet dead. His

methods are different, but still he oppresses the Church. Wherever

his power is felt--whether in ruthless oppression or impious warfare

or degrading superstition--there the prophecy of John is a comfort

and an inspiration to the people of God.

Undoubtedly this method of interpretation, which detects in the book

principles rather than individual facts, involves a reduction in the

amount of direct information which the Apocalypse may be thought to

give. A detailed account, whether of the progress of the Church, or

of the final catastrophe, is by this interpretation no longer found

in the book.

2. THE THOUSAND YEARS

At one point at least, this conclusion has been regarded by many

devout Christians as involving a serious loss. That point is

concerned with the thousand years of Rev. 20:1-8. According to the

interpretation that has just been advocated, the thousand years are

merely a symbol for the time of the present Christian dispensation,

and the rule which the saints are represented as bearing with

Christ probably refers to the condition of the blessed dead up to

the final resurrection. To many devout readers of the Bible this

interpretation seems to be an impoverishment of the prophet's

words. In reality, they maintain, the passage predicts a return of

Jesus to earth before the final judgment, and a long period of his

blessed sway.

Undoubtedly this more literal interpretation of the millennium seems

at first sight to be required by certain phrases of the passage.

But the highly figurative character of apocalyptic language must

always be borne in mind. Numbers, in the Apocalypse, are usually

symbolic; so it may be with the thousand years. During the present

dispensation Satan is in one sense bound, and in another sense he

is free. In principle he has been conquered; but in the sphere of

worldly power he continues to work his wrathful will.

3. THE CHRISTIAN HOPE

One thing at least is clear. No interpretation of the Apocalypse is

correct if it fails to do justice to the hope of Christ's return.

If the figurative interpretation weakens our expectation of that

dread meeting with the Lord, then it is untrue to the mind of the

Spirit. There are difficulties connected with the idea of a literal

millennium; but such difficulties are inconsiderable in comparison

with those that result from any rationalizing, any explaining away,

of the universal Christian hope. The Apocalypse, according to any

right interpretation, is a vision of final triumph.

That triumph is a triumph of Christ. Back of all the lurid imagery

of the book, back of the battles and the woes, and back of the

glories of God's people, stands the figure of the Saviour. With him

the book began, and with him, too, it ends. He is the same who lived

the life of mercy and of glory on earth, the same who died for our

sins on the cross. To the Lamb all power is given--all power in

heaven and on earth. By him all enemies are conquered; by him the

whole earth will be judged. To those who bear the mark of the beast

he is an Avenger; to his Church he is an ever-living Saviour.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--The reading suggested under Lesson XXXVII is

intended for both of the lessons on the Apocalypse.

LESSON XXXIX

REVIEW

This review lesson is fully as important as any other lesson of

the first three quarters. Without reviewing, the study of history

is unproductive; only a review can make of the facts a permanent

possession. The story of the apostolic age, as it is narrated in the

work of Luke, is really very simple; it becomes confusing only when

it is imperfectly mastered. A little time spent in turning over the

pages of the Lucan narrative, or even of the Student's Text Book,

will accomplish wonders.

1. UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

The New Testament account of the apostolic age is indeed only

fragmentary. Many questions must be left unanswered. Of the original

twelve apostles only Peter and the sons of Zebedee and Judas

Iscariot receive in The Acts anything more than a bare mention; and

even the most prominent of these disappears after the fifteenth

chapter. What did Paul do in Arabia and in Tarsus? What was the

origin of the great church at Alexandria? Who founded the church

at Rome? These questions, and many like them, must forever remain

unanswered.

If, moreover, even the period covered by The Acts is obscure, far

deeper is the darkness after the guiding hand of Luke has been

withdrawn. For the death of the apostle Paul, there is only a meager

tradition; the latter years of Peter are even more obscure. For the

important period between the release of Paul after his first Roman

imprisonment and the death of the apostle John at about the end of

the first century, anything like a connected narrative is quite

impossible.

2. THE NERONIAN PERSECUTION

A few facts, however, may still be established. The Roman historian

Tacitus tells of a persecution of the Christians at Rome at the

time of the burning of the city in A. D. 64. The emperor Nero,

suspected of starting the fire, sought to remove suspicion from

himself by accusing the Christians. The latter had already become

unpopular because of their peculiar ways, and were thought to be

guilty of abominable crimes; but the cruelty of Nero almost exceeded

the wishes of the populace. The Christians were put to death under

horrible tortures. Many were burned, and their burning bodies served

as torches to illumine the emperor's gardens.

The beheading of Paul has often been brought into connection with

this persecution, but more probably it occurred a few years later.

Paul had been released from his first imprisonment, and his second

imprisonment, at the time of the Neronian outbreak, had not yet

begun.

The extent of the Neronian persecution cannot be determined with

certainty. Probably, however, although there was no systematic

persecution throughout the empire, the provinces would not be

altogether unaffected by what was happening at Rome. The causes of

popular and official disfavor were always present; it required only

a slight occasion to bring them actively into play.

3. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

Even more important than the Roman persecution of A. D. 64 was the

destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. At the outbreak of the war

which culminated in that catastrophe, the Jerusalem Christians took

refuge in Pella, east of the Jordan; Jerusalem ceased to be the

center of the Christian Church. After the war, the Jerusalem church

never regained its old position of leadership; and specifically

Jewish Christianity, suffering by the destruction of the national

Jewish life, ceased to be influential in Christian history.

4. THE PROGRESS OF THE GOSPEL

From the years between the destruction of Jerusalem and the closing

years of the century, scarcely any definite incidents can be

enumerated. Undoubtedly the missionary activity of the Church was

continuing; the gospel was making rapid progress in its conquest of

the empire. In this missionary activity probably many of the twelve

apostles were engaged; but details of their work are narrated for

the most part only in late tradition.

5. JOHN AT EPHESUS

At some time--whether before or after A. D. 70 is uncertain--the

apostle John went to Ephesus, and there became the leader of

the Asian church. Detailed information about his position and

the churches under his care is provided not only in trustworthy

tradition--especially that which comes through Irenæus from

Polycarp, the hearer of John--but also in the writings of John

himself. The two shorter epistles of John, though each embraces

only a small page, are extraordinarily rich in information about

congregational matters, and even more instructive are the seven

messages of the Apocalypse. By means of the latter the moral

condition of the church in Asia Minor is characterized with a

vividness that is scarcely to be paralleled for any other period of

the apostolic age.

6. THE PERSECUTION UNDER DOMITIAN

During the latter part of the residence of John in Asia Minor there

was an important event in the history of the Church. This was the

outbreak of the persecution under Domitian--a persecution which

apparently exceeded in extent, if not in severity, every persecution

that had preceded it. Under Domitian the Roman authorities became

definitely hostile; apostasy from Christ was apparently demanded

systematically of the Christians--apostasy from Christ and adhesion

to the imperial cult. The latter, in the Apocalypse, is represented

as an example of the mark of "the beast"; the Roman Empire, as would

have been unnatural in the days of Paul, appears in that book as an

incorporation of Satanic power. The long conflict between the Church

and the empire had at last begun. Which side would be victorious? In

the Apocalypse the answer is plain. The Lord himself was fighting

for his Church!

7. THE NEW TESTAMENT GOSPEL

Our knowledge of the apostolic age, though fragmentary, is

sufficient--sufficient not indeed for a complete history, but for

the requirements of Christian faith. The information provided in the

New Testament makes up in quality for what it lacks in quantity. Its

extraordinary vividness and concreteness possesses a self-evidencing

value. The life of the apostle Paul--revealed with unmistakable

fidelity--is itself a sufficient bulwark against historical

skepticism; it involves inevitably the supernatural Christ. The

gospel is no aspiration in the hearts of dreamers; it is a real

entrance of divine power into the troubled battle field of human

history. God was working in the apostolic Church, God is speaking in

the New Testament--there is the summation of our study.