_THE HEARTLESSNESS OF PHYGELUS AND HERMOGENES.--THE DEVOTION OF
ONESIPHORUS.--PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD._
"This thou knowest, that all that are in Asia turned away from me;
of whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. The Lord grant mercy unto the
house of Onesiphorus: for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed
of my chain; but, when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently and
found me (the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that
day); and in how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest
very well."--2 TIM. i. 15-18.
We have here one of the arguments which St. Paul makes use of in urging
his beloved disciple to stir up the gift of God that is in him through
the laying on of hands, and not allow himself to be afraid of the
ignominy and the sufferings, which the service of Jesus Christ involves.
After reminding him of the holy traditions of his family, of the
glorious character of the Gospel which has been committed to him, and of
the character of the Apostle's own teaching, St. Paul now goes on to
point out, as a warning, the conduct of those in Asia who had deserted
him in his hour of need; and, as an example, in marked contrast to them,
the affectionate courage and persistent devotion of Onesiphorus. Timothy
is not likely to follow those in Asia in their cowardly desertion of the
Apostle. He will surely bestir himself to follow an example, the
details of which are so well known to him and so very much to the point.
Timothy's special knowledge of both cases, so far as the conduct
referred to lay not in Rome but in Asia, is emphatically insisted upon
by St. Paul. He begins by saying, "This thou _knowest_, that all that
are in Asia turned away from me:" and he concludes with the remark, "In
how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou _knowest_ very well;" or,
as the Greek comparative probably means, "thou knowest _better_ than I
do." And it is worth noticing that St. Paul uses a different word for
"know" in the two cases. Of his desertion by those in Asia he uses a
word of general meaning (=oidas=), which implies knowledge _about_ the
things or persons in question, but need not imply more than hearsay
knowledge of what is notorious. Of the devoted service of Onesiphorus at
Ephesus he uses a word (=ginôskeis=), which implies _progressive
personal experience_. Timothy had of course heard all about the refusal
of Phygelus and Hermogenes and others to recognize the claim which St.
Paul had upon their services; what he saw and experienced continually
gave him intimate acquaintance with the conduct of Onesiphorus in the
Church of which Timothy had the chief care.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the meaning of St.
Paul's statements respecting these two contrasted cases, Phygelus and
those like him on the one side, and Onesiphorus on the other: and with
regard to both of them a variety of suggestions have been made, which
are scarcely compatible with the language used, and which do not after
all make the situation more intelligible. It must be admitted that the
brevity of the statements does leave room for a certain amount of
conjecture; but, nevertheless, they are clear enough to enable us to
conjecture with a fair amount of certainty.
And first with regard to the case of those in Asia. They are in Asia at
the time when this letter is being written. It is quite inadmissible to
twist this plain language and force it to mean "those _from_ Asia who
are now in Rome." =Hoi en tê Asia= cannot be equivalent to =hoi ek tês
Asias=. If St. Paul meant the latter, why did he not write it? Secondly,
it is the proconsular province of Asia that is meant, that is the
western portion of Asia Minor, and not the continent of Asia. Thirdly,
the "turning away" of these Christians in Asia Minor does not mean their
apostasy from the faith, of which there is no hint either in the word or
in the context. St. Paul would hardly have spoken of their abandonment
of Christianity as turning away from _him_. It means that they turned
their faces away from him, and refused to have anything to say to him.
When he sought their sympathy and assistance, they renounced his
acquaintance, or at any rate refused to admit his claim upon them. It is
the very expression used by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount; "From him
that would borrow of thee, _turn not thou away_" (Matt. v. 42). This was
exactly what these Asiatic disciples had done: the Apostle had asked
them to lend him their help and support; and they had "turned away from"
him. But what is the meaning of the "all"? He says that "_all_ that are
in Asia turned away from" him. Obviously there is some qualification to
be understood. He cannot mean that Timothy is well aware that every
believer in Asia Minor had repudiated St. Paul. Some have supposed that
the necessary qualification is to be found in what follows; viz., "of
whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes." The meaning would then be that the
whole of the party to which Phygelus and Hermogenes belong rejected the
Apostle. But the arrangement of the sentence is quite against this
supposition; and there is nothing either said or implied about these two
men being the leaders or representatives of a party. The expression
respecting them is exactly parallel to that in the First Epistle
respecting those who "made shipwreck concerning the faith: of whom is
Hymenaeus and Alexander" (i. 19, 20). In each case, out of a class of
persons who are spoken of in general terms, two are mentioned by name.
What then is the qualification of the "all," which common sense
requires? It means simply, "all whom I asked, all to whom I made an
appeal for assistance."[89] At the time when this letter was written,
there were several Christians in Asia Minor,--some of them known to
Timothy,--to whom St. Paul had applied for help in his imprisonment;
and, as Timothy was very well aware, they every one of them refused to
give it. And this refusal took place in Asia Minor, not in Rome. Some
have supposed that, although these unfriendly Christians were in Asia
when St. Paul wrote about them, yet it was in Rome that they "turned
away from" him. They had been in Rome, and instead of remaining there to
comfort the prisoner, they had gone away to Asia Minor. On this
supposition a difficulty has been raised, and it has been pressed as if
it told against the genuineness of the Epistle. How, it is asked, could
Timothy, who was in Ephesus, be supposed to be well aware of what took
place in Rome? And to meet this objection it has been conjectured, that
shortly before this letter was written some one had gone with news from
Rome to Ephesus. But this is to meet an imaginary difficulty with an
imaginary fact. Let us imagine nothing, and then all runs smoothly.
Every one in Asia Minor, to whom application was made on behalf of St.
Paul, "turned away from" him and refused to do what was asked. Of such a
fact as this the overseer of the Church of Ephesus could not fail to
have knowledge; and, distressing as it was, it ought not to make him
sink down into indolent despondency, but stir him up to redoubled
exertion. What the precise request was that Phygelus and Hermogenes and
the rest had refused, we do not know; but very possibly it was to go to
Rome and exert themselves on the Apostle's behalf. Of the two persons
named nothing further is known. They are mentioned as being known to
Timothy, and very possibly as being residents in Ephesus.
Now let us turn to the case of Onesiphorus, whose conduct is such a
marked contrast to these others. In the most natural way St. Paul first
of all tells Timothy what he experienced from Onesiphorus in Rome; and
then appeals to Timothy's own experience of him in Ephesus. In between
these two passages there is a sentence, inserted parenthetically, which
has been the subject of a good deal of controversy. "The Lord grant unto
him to find mercy of the Lord in that day." On the one side it is argued
that the context shows that Onesiphorus is dead, and that therefore we
have Scriptural authority for prayers for the dead: on the other that it
is by no means certain that Onesiphorus was dead at the time when St.
Paul wrote; and that, even if he was, this parenthesis is more of the
nature of a pious wish, or expression of hope, than a prayer. It need
scarcely be said that on the whole the latter is the view taken by
Protestant commentators, although by no means universally; while the
former is the interpretation which finds favour with Roman Catholics.
Scripture elsewhere is almost entirely silent on the subject; and hence
this passage is regarded as of special importance. But it ought to be
possible to approach the discussion of it without heat or prejudice.
Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view
that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. There
is not only the fact that he here speaks of "the _house_ of Onesiphorus"
in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in
connexion with the past: there is also the still more marked fact that
in the final salutations, while greetings are sent to Prisca and Aquila,
and from Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia, yet it is once more "the
_house_ of Onesiphorus" and not Onesiphorus himself who is saluted. This
language is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus was no longer alive,
but had a wife and children who were still living at Ephesus; but it is
not easy to explain this reference in two places to the _household_ of
Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the
individual and not the household is mentioned. Nor is this twofold
reference to his family rather than to himself the only fact which
points in this direction. There is also the character of the Apostle's
prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of
Onesiphorus' kindness to the day of judgment? Why does he not also pray
that he may be requited in this life? that he "may prosper and be in
health, even as his soul prospereth," as St. John prays for Gaius (3
John 2)? This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is
already dead. It is much less intelligible if he is still alive. It
seems, therefore, to be scarcely too much to say that there is no
serious reason for questioning the now widely accepted view that at the
time when St. Paul wrote these words Onesiphorus was among the departed.
With regard to the second point there seems to be equal absence of
serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a
prayer. It is difficult to find a term which better describes them than
the word "prayer:" and in discussing them one would have to be specially
careful in order to avoid the words "pray" and "prayer" in connexion
with them. It does not much matter what meaning we give to "the Lord" in
each case; whether both refer to Christ, or both to the Father, or one
to Christ and the other to the Father. In any case we have a prayer that
the Judge at the last day will remember those good deeds of Onesiphorus,
which the Apostle has been unable to repay, and will place them to his
account. Paul cannot requite them, but he prays that God will do so by
showing mercy upon him at the last day.[90]
Having thus concluded that, according to the more probable and
reasonable view, the passage before us contains a prayer offered up by
the Apostle on behalf of one who is dead, we seem to have obtained his
sanction, and therefore the sanction of Scripture, for using similar
prayers ourselves. But what is a similar prayer? There are many kinds of
intercessions which may be made on behalf of those who have gone before
us into the other world: and it does not follow that, because one kind
of intercession has Scriptural authority, therefore any kind of
intercession is allowable. This passage may be quoted as reasonable
evidence that the death of a person does not extinguish our right or our
duty to pray for him: but it ought not to be quoted as authority for
such prayers on behalf of the dead as are very different in kind from
the one of which we have an example here. Many other kinds of
intercession for the dead may be reasonable and allowable; but this
passage proves no more than that some kinds of intercession for the dead
are allowable, viz., those in which we pray that God will have mercy at
the day of judgment on those who have done good to us and others during
their life upon earth.
But is the right, which is also the duty, of praying for the departed
limited by the amount of sanction which it is possible to obtain from
this solitary passage of Scripture? Assuredly not. Two other authorities
have to be consulted,--reason and tradition.
I. This pious practice, so full of comfort to affectionate souls, is
_reasonable in itself_. Scripture, which is mercifully reticent
respecting a subject so liable to provoke unhealthy curiosity and
excitement, nevertheless does tell us plainly some facts respecting the
unseen world. (2) Those whom we call the dead are still alive. God is
still the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob: and He is not the God
of the dead, but of the living (Matt. xxii. 32). Those who believe that
death is annihilation, and that there can be no resurrection, "do
greatly err" (Mark xii. 27). And (2) the living souls of the departed
are still conscious: their bodies are asleep in this world, but their
spirits are awake in the other. For this truth we are not dependent upon
the disputable meaning of the parable of Dives and Lazarus; although we
can hardly suppose that that parable would ever have been spoken,
unless the continued consciousness of the dead and their interest in the
living were a fact. Christ's parables are never mere fables, in which
nature is distorted in order to point a moral: His lessons are ever
drawn from God's universe as it is. But besides the parable (Luke xvi.
19-31), there is His declaration that Abraham not only "exulted" in
anticipation of the coming of the Messiah, but "he saw" that coming "and
was glad" thereat (John viii. 56). And there is His promise to the
penitent thief: "Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise" (Luke xxiii. 43). Can we believe that this promise, given at
so awful a moment with such solemn assurance ("Verily I say unto thee"),
would have been made, if the robber's soul, when in Paradise, would be
unconscious of Christ's companionship? Could Christ then have "preached
unto the spirits in prison" (1 Pet iii. 19), if the spirits of those who
had died in the Flood were deprived of consciousness? And what can be
the meaning of "the souls of them that had been slain for the word of
God" crying "How long, O Master the holy and true, dost Thou not judge
and avenge our blood?" (Rev. vi. 10), if the souls of the slain slumber
in the unseen world?
It is not necessary to quote Scripture to prove that the departed are
not yet perfect. Their final consummation will not be reached until the
coming of Christ at the last great day (Heb. xi. 40).
If, then, the dead are conscious, and are not yet perfected, they are
capable of progress. They may increase in happiness, and possibly in
holiness. May we not go farther and say, that they _must_ be growing,
_must_ be progressing towards a better state; for, so far as we have
experience, there is no such thing as conscious life in a state of
stagnation? Conscious life is always either growing or decaying: and
decay is incipient death. For conscious creatures, who are incapable of
decay and death, growth seems to be a necessary attribute. We conclude,
therefore, on grounds partly of Scripture and partly of reason, that the
faithful departed are consciously progressing towards a condition of
higher perfection.
But this conclusion must necessarily carry us still farther. These
consciously developing souls are God's children and our brethren; they
are, like ourselves, members of Christ and joint-heirs with us of His
kingdom; they are inseparably united with us in "the Communion of
Saints." May we not pray for them to aid them in their progress? And if,
with St. Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus before us, we are convinced that
we may pray for them, does it not become our bounden duty to do so? On
what grounds can we accept the obligation of praying for the spiritual
advancement of those who are with us in the flesh, and yet refuse to
help by our prayers the spiritual advancement of those who have joined
that "great cloud of witnesses" in the unseen world, by which we are
perpetually encompassed (Heb. xii. 1)? The very fact that they witness
our prayers for them may be to them an increase of strength and joy.
II. _Tradition_ amply confirms us in the belief that this pious practice
is lawful, and binding upon all who recognize its lawfulness. The
remarkable narrative in 2 Maccabees xii. shows that this belief in a
very extreme form was common among the Jews, and publicly acted upon,
before the coming of Christ. It is highly improbable that prayers for
the dead were omitted from the public worship of the synagogue, in
which Jesus Christ so frequently took part. It is quite certain that
such prayers are found in every early Christian liturgy, and to this day
form part of the liturgies in use throughout the greater portion of
Christendom. And, although the medieval abuses connected with such
prayers induced the reformers of our own liturgy almost, if not quite,
entirely to omit them, yet the Church of England has never set any
bounds to the liberty of its members in this respect. Each one of us is
free in this matter, and therefore has the responsibility of using or
neglecting what the whole of the primitive Church, and the large
majority of Christians throughout all these centuries, have believed to
be a means of advancing the peace and glory of Christ's kingdom. About
the practice of the primitive Church there can be no question. Doubt has
been thrown upon the liturgies, because it has been said that some
portions are certainly of much later origin than the rest, and therefore
these prayers may be later insertions and corruptions. But that cannot
be so; for liturgies do not stand alone. In this matter they have the
support of a chain of Christian writers beginning with Tertullian in the
second century, and also of early inscriptions in the catacombs. About
the meagre allusions to the departed in our own liturgy there is more
room for doubt: but perhaps the most that can safely be asserted is
this;--that here and there sentences have been worded in such a way that
it is possible for those, who wish to do so, to include the faithful
departed in the prayer as well as the living. Bishop Cosin has given his
authority to this interpretation of the prayer that "we and all Thy
whole Church may obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of
His passion." By this, he says, "is to be understood, as well those
that have been here before, and those that shall be hereafter, as those
that are now members of it:" and as one of the revisers his authority is
great. And the prayer in the Burial Service, "that we, with all those
that are departed in the true faith of Thy holy name, may have our
perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul," is equally
patient of this meaning, even if it does not fairly demand it. For we do
not pray that we may have our consummation and bliss with the departed;
which might imply that they are enjoying these things now, and that we
desire to join them; but we pray that we with the departed may have our
consummation and bliss; which includes them in the prayer. And the
petition in the Litany, "remember not, Lord, our offences, nor the
offences of our forefathers," may, or may not, be a prayer for our
forefathers, according to the way in which we understand it.
All this seems to show that neither Scripture nor the English Church
forbids prayer for the departed; that, on the contrary, both of them
appear to give a certain amount of sanction to it: and that what they
allow, reason commends, and tradition recommends most strongly. It is
for each one of us to decide for himself whether or no he will take part
in the charitable work thus placed before him.[91]
FOOTNOTES:
[89] See below on "All forsook me," in No. XXXVII, p. 420.
[90] With the double use of Lord here, compare Exod. xxxiv. 9, where
Moses prays, "O Lord, let the Lord, I pray Thee, go in the midst of us."
Comp. also Gen. xix. 24.
[91] Sec J. M. Neale, _Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement,
St. Chrysostom_, etc., 1859, pp. 216-224; C. E. Hammond, _Liturgies
Eastern and Western_, 1878, pp. 45, 75, 113, 156, 183, 217, etc.; E.
Burbridge, _Liturgies and Offices of the Church_, 1885, pp. 34, 222,
249; M. Plummer, _Observations on the Book of Common Prayer_, 1847, pp.
125-127; _Church Quarterly Review_, April 1880, pp. 1-25; H. M. Luckock,
_After Death_, 1879: also various articles in the _Dict. of Christ.
Antiquities_, 1875, 1880.