Chapter XI: Part III (2)

Passing by John 18:15,16, where "the other disciple" is probably the author, and ch. 19:26,27, where the repetition of the strange designation, "the disciple ... whom he [Jesus] loved," confirms the impressions derived from ch. 13:21-25, we discover another important indication in ch. 19:35. "And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his witness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe." "He that hath seen" can scarcely refer to anyone other than the beloved disciple who was mentioned just before as standing by the cross. In the present verse, this beloved disciple is represented as the one who is now speaking. The identification of the beloved disciple with the author of the Gospel, which was implied before, here becomes explicit.

In John 20:1-10, "the other disciple whom Jesus loved" is of course the same as the one who appears in ch. 13:21-25; 19:26,27,35.

=(5) Testimony of the Appendix.=--In John 21:7,20-23, the beloved disciple appears again, and in v. 24 he is identified, in so many words, with the writer of the Gospel. In this verse the first person plural is used; other persons seem to be associated with the author in commending the Gospel to the attention of the Church. This phenomenon is explained if the twenty-first chapter be regarded as a sort of appendix, perhaps added at the request of a circle of friends. It will be observed that ch. 20:30,31 forms a fit ending to the book; what follows therefore appears the more like an appendix, though it was certainly written by the author's own hand and published before his death along with the rest of the book.

=(6) Why Are John and James Not Mentioned by Name?=--The conclusion of our investigation is that the author of the Fourth Gospel indicates clearly that he was either one or the other of the two sons of Zebedee. This conclusion is confirmed by the curious circumstance that neither one of these men is mentioned in the Gospel by name. How did they come to be omitted? They were in the very innermost circle of Jesus' disciples; many apostles far less prominent than they are named frequently on the pages of the Gospel. There can be only one solution of the problem: one at least of these men is, as a matter of fact, introduced in the Gospel as the beloved disciple, and the reason why he is introduced in such a curiously anonymous way and why his brother also is not named, is that the author felt a natural delicacy about introducing his own and his brother's name into a narrative of the Lord's life.

One statement that has just been made requires qualification: it is not quite true that the sons of Zebedee are not designated by name in the Gospel. They are not indeed called by their individual names, but in ch. 21:2, they are designated by the name of their father. Possibly this slight difference of usage between chapter 21 and the rest of the Gospel has something to do with the fact that chapter 21 seems to be an appendix.

=(7) The Author Was Not James, but John.=--The author of the Fourth Gospel, then, identifies himself with one or the other of the sons of Zebedee. As to which one of the two is meant there cannot be the slightest doubt. James the son of Zebedee was martyred in A. D. 44. Acts 12:2. There is abundant evidence that the Fourth Gospel was not written so early as that; and John 21:20-23 apparently implies that the author lived to a considerable age. Evidently, therefore, it is John and not James with whom the author identifies himself.

=(8) Is the Gospel's Own Testimony True?=--Thus the singularly strong tradition which attributes the Fourth Gospel to John the son of Zebedee is supported by the independent testimony of the book itself. Conceivably, of course, that testimony might be false. But it is very hard to believe that it is. It is very hard to believe that the author of this wonderful book, who despite all the profundity of his ideas exalts in a very special manner the importance of simple testimony based upon the senses, John 19:35; I John 1:1-4, has in a manner far subtler and more heinous than if he had simply put a false name at the beginning palmed himself off as an eyewitness of the Saviour's life. Many learned men have found it possible to accept such a view; but the simple reader of the Gospel will always be inclined to dissent. The author of this book has narrated many things hard to be believed. But there are still found those who accept his solemn testimony; there are still found those in whom the purpose of the book is achieved, who through this Gospel believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing have life in his name. John 20:31.

4. TRADITIONAL TIME AND PLACE AND PLAN

The tradition about the Fourth Gospel is not confined to the bare fact of Johannine authorship; it has preserved certain other very interesting information.

(=1=) =The Ephesian Residence.=--For example, tradition represents the Fourth Gospel as written after the other three Gospels and at Ephesus. The evidence for the Ephesian residence of the apostle John is singularly abundant and weighty; and the contrary evidence which has been thought to attest an early death of John is exceedingly weak. At first, John, like the others of the original apostles, remained in Palestine. He appears in Jerusalem a little before A. D. 50 at the Apostolic Council. Gal. 2:9. At some subsequent time, perhaps at the outbreak of the Jewish war in A. D. 66, he journeyed to Asia Minor and there for many years was the revered head of the Church. He lived indeed until the reign of Trajan, which began in A. D. 98.

(=2=) =The Gospel of John Supplementary to the Synoptic Gospels.=--According to tradition, the Gospel of John was not only written after the Synoptic Gospels, but was intended to be supplementary to them. This information is amply confirmed by the Gospel itself. Evidently John presupposes on the part of his readers a knowledge of the Synoptic account. This explains his peculiar choice of material--for example, his omission of most of the Galilean ministry, and of such events as the baptism and the institution of the Lord's Supper. It explains also, for example, a verse like John 3:24: "For John was not yet cast into prison." The Synoptic Gospels begin their account of the ministry of Jesus with what happened after the imprisonment of John the Baptist. Mark 1:14. Readers of Mark might even receive the impression that Jesus had not begun his teaching till after that time. John corrects any such impression in ch. 3:24.

If, then, the Gospel of John is intended not to compete with the Synoptic Gospels, but to supplement them, in what direction does the supplementing move? What is it that John adds to what had already been told? Here, again, tradition affords us useful hints.

Eusebius, in the early part of the fourth century, writes as follows (Church History, iii, 24, 7-13, translated by McGiffert, in "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," second series, vol. i, p. 153):

"And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned [Matthew, Mark and Luke] having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and indicated this in the beginning of their account. For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: 'Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.' Mark likewise says: 'Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.' And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, 'adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.' They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: 'This beginning of miracles did Jesus'; and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; where he states the matter clearly in the words: 'For John was not yet cast into prison.' John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit."

According to Eusebius, then, John intended to treat the time before the imprisonment of the Baptist as the Synoptists treated the time after that event. We have already noted the element of truth in this observation. Of course it is not the only observation that needs to be made. Much of what John narrates occurred after the imprisonment of the Baptist.

According to Clement of Alexandria, of the close of the second century, who here reports what had been said by his predecessors in Alexandria, John, seeing that "bodily" matters had been treated by the Synoptists, supplemented their work by writing a "spiritual" Gospel. In this testimony also there is no doubt an element of truth. It is true that the Fourth Gospel reproduces certain profound elements in the teaching of Jesus which in the earlier Gospels appear only incidentally.

The oral tradition which forms the chief basis of the Synoptic Gospels was rooted deep in the earliest missionary activity of the Church. Especially, perhaps, in the Gospel of Mark, but also in Matthew and Luke, we have for the most part those facts about Jesus and those elements of his teaching which could appeal at once to simple-minded believers or to outsiders. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, drawing, like the others, from the rich store of Jesus' teaching and Jesus' person, has revealed yet deeper mysteries. In this profound book, we have the recollections of a beloved disciple, at first understood only imperfectly by the apostle himself, but rendered ever clearer by advancing experience, and firmly fixed by being often repeated in the author's oral instruction of the Church.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible," article on "John" (7): Purves, article on "John, Gospel according to St." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers," pp. 33-40. Stevens and Burton, "A Harmony of the Gospels." Westcott, "The Gospel according to St. John: The Authorized Version with Introduction and Notes." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools": Plummer, "The Gospel According to St. John." Browning, "A Death in the Desert" (vol. iv, pp. 191-206 of the Riverside Edition). Zahn, "Introduction to the New Testament," vol. iii, pp. 174-355. The last-named work is intended primarily for those who have some knowledge of Greek, but can also be used by others.

LESSON XXXI

THE JESUS OF THE GOSPELS

It is possible to speak of "the Jesus of the Gospels" only if the Gospels are in essential agreement. If the features of the four portraits are so different that they never could have been united really in the same person, then there is no such thing as a Jesus of the Gospels, but only a Jesus of Matthew and a Jesus of Mark and a Jesus of Luke and a Jesus of John.

1. AGREEMENT AMONG THE SYNOPTISTS

Among the Synoptic Gospels, at any rate, no such difference exists. Though every one of these Gospels possesses its own characteristics, the peculiarities are almost negligible in comparison with the underlying unity. There is certainly such a thing as "the Synoptic Jesus." His words and deeds are narrated in each of the Gospels in a different selection and in a different style, but the characteristic features are everywhere the same.

2. THE SYNOPTISTS AND JOHN

With regard to the Fourth Gospel, the matter is not quite so plain. The contrast between the Synoptists and John has already been noticed. It forces itself upon even the most casual reader. Difference, however, is not necessarily contradiction. It may be due to a difference in the point of view. Both the Synoptists and John give a true picture of Jesus; the same features appear very different when viewed from different angles.

3. DIVINITY AND HUMANITY

At any rate, if there is a contradiction between the first three Gospels and the Gospel of John, the contradiction is by no means easy to formulate. It cannot be said, for example, simply that the Synoptists present a human Jesus and John a divine Jesus. Whatever the differences among the four Gospels, all four agree at least in two essential features. All four present Jesus, in the first place as a man, and in the second place as something more than a man.

(=1=) =Humanity in the Synoptists.=--The former feature is perhaps especially clear in the Synoptists. According to the first three Gospels, Jesus led a genuine human life from birth to death. As a child he grew not only in stature, but also in wisdom. He was subject to human parents and to the requirements of the Jewish law. Even after the inauguration of his ministry the human conditions of his life were not superseded. He was even tempted like other men. He grew weary and slept. He suffered hunger and thirst. He could rejoice and he could suffer sorrow. He prayed, like other men, and worshiped God. He needed strengthening both for body and for mind. No mere semblance of a human life is here presented, but a genuine man of flesh and blood.

(=2=) =Humanity in John.=--But if the Jesus of the Synoptists is a true man, how is it with the Jesus of John? Does the Fourth Gospel present merely a heavenly being who walked through the world untouched and unruffled by the sin and misery and weakness that surrounded him? Only a very superficial reading can produce such an impression. The Fourth Gospel indeed lays a supreme emphasis upon the majesty of Jesus, upon his "glory" as it was manifested in works of power and attested by God himself. But side by side with these features of the narrative, as though to prevent a possible misunderstanding, the author presents the humanity of Jesus with drastic touches that can scarcely be paralleled in the Synoptists themselves. It is John who speaks of the weariness of Jesus at the well of Samaria, ch. 4:6; of the human affection which he felt for Lazarus and Martha and Mary, ch. 11:3,5,36, and for an individual among the disciples, ch. 13:23; of his weeping, ch. 11:35; and indignant groaning, v. 38; and of his deadly thirst. Ch. 19:28. As clearly as the other evangelists John presents Jesus as a man.

(=3=) =Divinity in John.=--In the second place, all four Gospels, if they present Jesus as a man, also present him as something far more than a man. With regard to the Gospel of John, of course the matter is unmistakable. The very first verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus according to John was plainly no product of the world, but God come in the flesh. John 1:14. The teaching of Jesus himself, as it is reported in the Fourth Gospel, is concerned with the relation of perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son.

(=4=) =Divinity in the Synoptists.=--In the Synoptists the supernatural character of Jesus is somewhat less on the surface. His teaching, as the Synoptists report it, is largely concerned not directly with his own person, but with the kingdom that he came to found. Even his Messiahship is often kept in the background; the demons are often commanded not to reveal it.

A closer examination, however, reveals the essential unity between the Synoptists and John. If the supernatural character of Jesus appears in the Synoptists less plainly on the surface, it is really no less pervasive at the center. It does not so often form the subject of direct exposition, but it is everywhere presupposed. The doing by Jesus of what only God can do, Mark 2:5,7; the sovereign way in which he legislates for the kingdom of God, Matt. 5:17-48; his unearthly holiness and complete lack of any consciousness of sin; the boundlessness of his demand for obedience, Luke 9:57-62; his expected freedom from limitations of time and place, Matt. 28:20; the absolutely central place which he claims for himself as ruler and judge; the substantiation of all his lofty claims by wonderful power over the forces of nature--these are only indications chosen almost at random of what is really plain upon every page of the Synoptic Gospels, that the Jesus who is there described is no mere human figure but a divine Saviour of the world. The invitation of Matt. 11:28-30, which is typical of the Synoptic teaching, would have been absurd on the lips of anyone but the Son of God.

Moreover, the divine nature of Jesus is not merely implied in the Synoptic Gospels; there are times when it even becomes explicit. The relation of perfect mutual knowledge that exists between Jesus and the Father, Matt. 11:27, reveals a perfect unity of nature. The Jesus of the Synoptists, as well as the Jesus of John, might say, "I and the Father are one."

4. THE MANNER OF JESUS' TEACHING

The Synoptic Gospels, therefore, imply everywhere exactly the same Jesus who is more expressly presented in the Gospel of John. If, then, there is a contradiction between the Synoptists and John, it can be concerned only with the manner of Jesus' teaching. The Synoptists as well as John present Jesus as a supernatural person, it is said, but unlike John they represent him as keeping his own person in the background.

Even here, however, maturer consideration shows that the difference does not amount to anything like contradiction. May not the same person have spoken the discourses of the Fourth Gospel and also those of the Synoptists? It must be remembered that the ministry of Jesus was varied, and that the first three evangelists confine themselves almost exclusively to one phase of it. In the public Galilean ministry, which the Synoptists describe, it was necessary for Jesus to keep even his Messiahship for a time in the background. Publication of it, owing to the false political conception which the Jews had of the Messiah's work, would have been fatal to Jesus' plan. Here, as so often, the Fourth Gospel explains the other three. After the feeding of the five thousand, John tells us, the crowd wanted to take Jesus by force and make him a king. John 6:15. Popularity was dangerous. Jesus could not proclaim himself publicly as the Messiah, until by explaining the spiritual nature of the kingdom he had prepared the people for the kind of Messiah which it was his mission to be.

Of course, it is difficult for us to understand at every point just why Jesus acted as he did. All that we are now maintaining is that the considerations just adduced, and others like them, show that it is perfectly conceivable that Jesus, before his intimate disciples and in Jerusalem and at a special crisis, John, ch. 6, adopted a method of teaching which in the greater part of the Galilean ministry he considered out of place. There is room in a true narrative of Jesus' life both for the Synoptists and for John.

5. THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF JESUS

Jesus was many-sided. He was Lawgiver, he was Teacher, he was Healer, he was Ruler, he was Saviour. He was man and he was God. The Gospels have presented him in the richness of his mysterious person. Modern historians are less comprehensive. They have been offended at the manifoldness of the Gospel picture. They have endeavored to reduce Jesus to the level of what they can comprehend. But their effort has been a failure. After the supposed contradictions have been removed, greater contradictions remain; and the resulting figure is at any rate too small to account for the origin of Christianity. The partial Jesus of modern criticism, despite his comparative littleness, is a monstrosity; the comprehensive Jesus of the Gospels, though mysterious, is a self-evidencing and life-giving fact.

* * * * *

IN THE LIBRARY.--Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": Purves, article on "Jesus Christ." Warfield, "The Lord of Glory," pp. 125-173. Robertson, "Epochs in the Life of Jesus." Stalker, "The Life of Jesus Christ." Denney, "Jesus and the Gospel." Andrews, "The Life of Our Lord."

LESSON XXXII

A DOCUMENT OF THE JERUSALEM CHURCH

The Epistle of James

1. THE CHRISTIANITY OF JAMES

The Epistle of James has been called the least Christian book in the New Testament. Superficially this judgment is true. The name of Jesus occurs only twice in the epistle, James 1:1; 2:1, and there is no specific reference to his life and death and resurrection. A close examination, however, reverses the first impression.

(=1=) =James and the Synoptic Discourses.=--In the first place, the ethical teaching of James is permeated by the spirit of Jesus. Even the form of the epistle displays a marked affinity for the discourses of the Synoptic Gospels, and the affinity in content is even more apparent. Many striking parallels could be cited; but what is more convincing than such details is the indefinable spirit of the whole. The way in which James treats the covetousness, the pride, the heartlessness, the formalism, the pettiness and the meanness of his readers, is strikingly similar to the way in which his Master dealt with the Pharisees. James does not indeed actually cite the words of Jesus; but the absence of citations makes the underlying similarity all the more significant. The writer of this epistle did not live at a time when the knowledge of the words of Jesus was derived from books; rather he had himself listened to the Master--even though he was not at first a disciple--and was living in a community where the impression of Jesus' teaching and Jesus' person was still fresh in the memory of those who had known him on earth.

(=2=) =James and Christian Doctrine.=--In the second place, moreover, the Christianity of James is religious as well as ethical. Of course it could not be like the teaching of Jesus if it were merely ethical; for everything that Jesus taught even about the simplest matters of human conduct was determined by the thought of the heavenly Father and by the significance of his own person. But by the religious character of the Epistle of James even more than this is meant. Like all the writers of the New Testament James was well aware of the saving significance of Jesus' death and resurrection. For him as well as for the others, Jesus was Lord, ch. 1:1, and a Lord who was possessed of a heavenly glory. Ch. 2:1. James, as well as the others, was waiting for the second coming of Christ. Ch. 5:8. He does not directly refer to the saving events that form the substance of Christian faith; but he takes them everywhere for granted. The word of truth through which the disciples have been formed by God, ch. 1:18, the implanted word, v. 21, that needs ever to be received anew, can hardly be anything else than the apostolic gospel as it was proclaimed in the earliest speeches of Peter which are recorded in The Acts, and as it found its rich unfolding in the teaching of Paul. Just because that gospel in our epistle is presupposed, it does not need to be expounded in detail. The men to whom James was writing were not lacking in orthodoxy. If they had been, he would have set them right, and we should have had another exposition of the gospel. As a matter of fact their fault was in practice, not in theory; and it is in the sphere of practice that they are met by James. The epistle would be insufficient if it stood alone. It does not lay the foundation of Christian faith. But it shows how, upon that foundation, may be built not the wood, hay and stubble of a wordy orthodoxy, but the gold and silver and precious stones of an honest Christian life.

This epistle, then, might be misleading if taken by itself; but it becomes salutary if it is understood in its historical connections. Far from disparaging Christian doctrine--as the modern Church is tempted to suppose--it builds upon doctrine. In that it agrees with the whole of the Bible. Christianity, as has been finely said, is a life only because it is a doctrine. Only the great saving events of the gospel have rendered possible a life like that which is described in the Epistle of James. And where the gospel is really accepted with heart as well as mind, that life of love will always follow.

2. DATE AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLE

The view which will be held about the date of the Epistle of James will depend very largely upon the interpretation of the passage about faith and works. James 2:14-26. In that passage, some of the same terms appear as are prominent in connection with the great Judaistic controversy in which Paul was engaged from the time of the Apostolic Council to the time of the third missionary journey. Three views have been held with regard to the date of the Epistle of James. The epistle may be regarded as written (1) before the Judaistic controversy arose, (2) during that controversy or while it was still fresh in men's minds, or (3) long after the controversy had been settled.

(=1=) =The Intermediate Date.=--The second of these three views may be eliminated first. This intermediate view has the advantage of placing the epistle within the lifetime of James. It can treat the epistle as authentic. It has furthermore the advantage of explaining the coincidences between James 2:14-26 and Rom., ch. 4. For if the epistle was written at the very close of the lifetime of James--say about A. D. 62, or, following Hegesippus, A. D. 66--the author may have become acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans.

But the difficulties of this view far overbalance the advantages. If James was writing with Galatians and Romans before him, then apparently in ch. 2:24 he intends to contradict those epistles. As a matter of fact, however, as is shown in the Student's Text Book, he does not really contradict them, but is in perfect harmony with them. He has therefore gone out of his way in order to introduce a formal contradiction of the great apostle to the Gentiles although there is no real contradiction of meaning at all! What could he possibly gain by such useless trouble-making? If James really wanted to combat Paul's doctrine of justification by faith, he would have done so very differently; and if he did not want to combat it, he would certainly not have uselessly created the appearance of doing so.

Perhaps, however, James 2:14-26 is a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of Paul. This also is very improbable. If the passage was a refutation not of Paul but of a misunderstanding of Paul, why did James not say so? Why did he not distinguish Paul clearly from his misinterpreters? Instead he has indulged uselessly in a formal contradiction of Paul, and has in refutation of a misunderstanding of Paul not even used the abundant materials which Paul himself could offer! And where was such a misunderstanding of Paul possible in Jewish Christian circles of A. D. 62?

What makes every form of this intermediate dating impossible is the total absence from the epistle of any reference to the question of the conditions upon which Gentiles were to be received into the Church. In A. D. 62 this question had recently been the subject of bitter controversy. At that time no one could have touched upon the closely related topic of faith and works as James does and yet have ignored so completely the controversial question.

Evidently, therefore, the epistle was written either before the Judaistic controversy arose or else long after it was over.

(=2=) =The Late Date.=--The latter view makes the epistle a pseudonymous work--it assumes that an unknown author has here tried to enhance the influence of his work by putting it under the name of the first head of the Jerusalem church. This is of itself sufficient to refute the late dating. For the procedure of the supposed falsifier is quite incomprehensible. He has chosen James as the alleged author only because of the lofty position which James held, and yet he has designated him in the first verse merely as a simple Christian! The procedure of real forgers is very different.

There are also, however, other objections to the late dating. Would any writer in the second century, when the authority of Paul was well established, have ventured to introduce such an apparent contradiction of Paul as appears in James 2:24? In a writer of A. D. 150 we should have had formal agreement with Paul and material disagreement; in the Epistle of James we have formal disagreement and material harmony. Apparent contradiction of expression combined with perfect unity of thought is a sure sign of independence. The Epistle of James has made no use of the epistles of Paul.

Against this conclusion may be urged only the coincidence that James and Paul both use the example of Abraham, and cite the same verse, Gen. 15:6, with regard to him. But it must be remembered that to every Jew Abraham offered the most obvious example in all the Scriptures. It is possible, too, that the faith and works of Abraham had in pre-Christian Jewish circles already been the subject of controversy. Furthermore, James does not confine himself to Abraham, but introduces Rahab also, who is not mentioned by Paul. The coincidence between Paul and James is quite insufficient to overbalance the clear evidence of independence.

(=3=) =The Early Date.=--Only one hypothesis, then, suits the facts. The Epistle of James was clearly written before the Judaistic controversy became acute at the time of the Apostolic Council. In the second chapter of the epistle, James has used the same terms that became prominent in that controversy, but he has used them in refuting a practical, not a theoretical, error--an error that is related only indirectly to the great subject of Galatians and Romans.

3. UNDERLYING UNITY OF THE EPISTLE

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.