[Faith-talk] Is the original New testament lost? And what happenswhen politicians misuse the religion to rule?
Poppa Bear
heavens4real at gmail.com
Sun Nov 17 19:25:34 UTC 2013
Here you go brother Mustafa if you want to take some time to soart out the
New Testament from a Scholarly and analitical stand point, Introduction to
the New Testament by Lewis Berchoff
PROLEGOMENA.
1. NAME AND IDEA.
The name Introduction or Isagogics (from the Greek e.sa....) did not always
denote what it
does today. As it is used by the monk Adrianus (circa 440) and by
Cassiodorus (circa 570), it
designates a conglomeration of rhetorical archaeo1ogica1, geographical and
historical matter such
as might be helpful in the interpretation of Scripture. In course of time
the connotation of the word
changed. Michaelis (1750) was the first one to employ it in something like
its present sense, when
he entitled his work, devoted to the literary historical questions of the
New Testament, Einleitung
in die gottlichen Schriften des neuen Bundes. The study of Introduction was
gradually limited to
an investigation of the origin, the composition, the history, and the
significance of the Bible as a
whole (General Introduction), or of its separate books (Special
Introduction). But as a designation
of this discipline the name Introduction did not meet with general approval.
It was pointed out—and
correctly so—that the name is too comprehensive, since there are other
disciplinae that introduce
to the study of the Bible; and that it does not express the essential
character of the discipline, but
only one of its practical uses.
Several attempts have been made to supply a name that is more in harmony
with the central
contents and the unifying principle of this study. But opinions differed as
to the essential character
of the discipline. Some scholars, as Reuss, Credner and Hupfeld, emphasizing
its historical nature,
would designate it by a name something like that already employed by Richard
Simon in 1678,
when he styled his work, “Critical History of the Old Testament. Thus
Hupfeld says: “Der
eigentliche und allein richtige Name der Wissenschaft in ihrem heutigen Sinn
ist demnach Geschichte
der heiligen Schrif ten Alten und Neuen Testaments.” Begriff und Methode des
sogenannten
biblischen Finleitung p. 12. Reuss arranged his work entirely on this
principle. It was objected
however, by several scholars that a history of the Biblical literature is
now, and perhaps for all time
an impossibility and that such a treatment necessarily leads to a
co-ordination of the canonical and
the apocryphal books. And this is just what we find in the History of Reuss.
Hence the great majority
of New Testament scholars, as Bleek, Weiss, Davidson, Holtzmann, Julicher,
Zahn e.a. prefer to
retain the old name, either with or without the qualification,
“historical-critical.”
Another and important stricture on the name suggested by Hupfeld, is that it
loses sight of the
theological character of this discipline. 2. FUNCTION.
What is the proper function of this discipline? According to De Wette it
must answer the
questions. Hupfeld objects to the first
question that it has no place in a historical inquiry; hence he would change
it a little and state the
problem as follows: “the study must investigate the questions of the
authorship, the composition, the
history, the purpose and the canonicity of the different books of the Bible.
A difference of opinion becomes apparent, however, as soon as we ask,
whether the investigation
should be limited to the canonical books or should include the Apocrypha as
well. The answer to
that question will necessarily depend on ones standpoint. They who regard
Introduction as a purely
historical study of Hebrew and Old Christian literature, will hold with
Raibiger and Reuss that the
apocryphal books must also receive due consideration. On the other hand,
they who desire to
maintain the theological character of this discipline and believe that it
finds its unity in the idea of
the canon, will exclude the Apocrypha from the investigation.
A similar difference obtains with reference to the question, whether it is
only the human or also
the divine side of the canonical books that should be the object of study.
It is perfectly obvious
that, if the discipline be regarded as a purely historical one, the divine
factor that operated in the
composition of the books of the Bible and that gives them their permanent
canonical significance,
cannot come in consideration. The Word of God must then be treated like all
purely human
compositions. This is the stand taken by nearly all writers on Introduction,
and Hupfeld believes
that even so it is possible to maintain the theological character of the
discipline. Begriff u. Meth.
p. 17. It appears to us, however, that this is impossible, and with Kuyper
we hold that we should
not only study the human, but should also have regard to the divine side of
the Biblical books,
notably to their inspiration and canonical significance.
Lastly the conception of the final aim of this study also varies. Many
scholars are of the opinion
that it is the final purpose of Introduction to determine in a
historico-critical way what part of the
Biblical writings are credible and therefore really constitute the Word of
God. Human reason is
placed as an arbiter over the divine Revelation. This, of course, cannot be
the position of those who
believe that the Bible is the Word of God. This belief is our starting point
and not our goal in the
study of Introduction. NLK Thus we begin with a theological postulate, and
our aim is to set forth the
true character of Scripture, in order to explain, why the Church universal
honors it as the Word of
God; to strengthen the faith of believers; and to vindicate the claims of
the canonical books over
against the assaults of Rationalism.
To define: Introduction is that Bibliological discipline that investigates
the origin, composition,
history and purpose of the Scriptural writings, on their human side; and
their inspiration and
canonical significance, on the divine side.
3. LEADING PRINCIPLES.
There are certain fundamental principles that guide us in our investigation,
which it is desirable
to state at the outset, in order that our position may be perfectly clear.
For the sake of brevity we
do not seek to establish them argumentatively.
1. For us the Bible as a whole and in all its parts is the very Word of God,
written by men
indeed, but organically inspired by the Holy Spirit; and not the natural
product of the religious
development of men, not merely the expression of the subjective religious
consciousness of believers.
4
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Resting, as it ultimately does, on the testimony of the Holy Spirit, no
amount of historical
investigation can shake this conviction.
2. This being our position, we unflinchingly accept all that the various
books of the Bible tell
us concerning their authorship, destination, composition, inspiration, etc.
Only in cases where the
text is evidently corrupt, will we hesitate to accept their dicta as final.
This applies equally to all
parts of the Word of God.
3. Since we do not believe that the Bible is the result of a purely natural
development, but regard
it as the product of supernatural revelation, a revelation that often looks
beyond the immediate
present, we cannot allow the so-called zeitgeschichtliche arguments the
force which they are often
supposed to have.
4. While it is the prevailing habit of many New Testament scholars to
discredit what the early
Church fathers say respecting the books of the Bible, because of the
uncritical character of their
work, we accept those early traditions as trustworthy until they are clearly
proven unreliable. The
character of those first witnesses warrants this position.
5. We regard the use of working-hypotheses as perfectly legitimate within
certain limits. They
may render good service, when historical evidence fails, but even then may
not go contrary to the
data at hand, and the problematic character of the results to which they
lead must always be borne
in mind.
NLK 6. It is not assumed that the problems of New Testament Introduction are
insignificant, and that
all the difficulties that present themselves can easily be cleared up.
Whatever our standpoint,
whatever our method of procedure in studying these problems, we shall
sometimes have to admit
our ignorance, and often find reason to confess that we know but in part.
4. ENCYCLOPAEDIC PLACE
There is little uniformity in Theological Encyclopaedias with respect to the
proper place of this
discipline. They all correctly place it among the Exegetical (Bibliological)
group of Theological
disciplinae, but its relation to the other studies of that group is a matter
of dispute. The usual
arrangement is that of Hagenbach, followed in our country by Schaff, Crooks
and Hurst and Weidner,
viz.: Biblical Philology, dealing with the words, and Biblical Archaeology,
in its broadest sense,
with the things of the Bible; Biblical Introduction, treating of the
fortunes, and Biblical Criticism,
supplying the test of Scripture; Biblical Hermeneutics, relating to the
theory, and Biblical Exegesis,
pertaining to the practice of interpretation. The order of Rabiger is
unusual: Hermeneutics,
Linguistics, Criticism, Antiquities, Biblical History, Isagogics, Exegesis,
and Biblical theology.
The disposition of Kuyper and Cave is preferable to either one of these.
They place Introduction
(Canonics) first, as pertaining to the formal side of Scripture as a book
and then let the studies
follow that have reference to the formal and material side of the contents
of the Bible.
5. HISTORICAL REVIEW.
Although the beginnings of New Testament Isagogics are already found in
Origen, Dionysus
and Eusebius; and in the time of the Reformation some attention was devoted
to it by Paginus,
Sixtus of Siene and Serarius among the Roman Catholics; by Walther of the
Lutherans; and by the
Reformed scholars, Rivetus and Heidegger;—Richard Simon is generally
regarded as the father of
this study. His works were epoch-making in this respect, though they had
reference primarily to
5
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the language of the New Testament. He minimized the divine element in
Scripture. Michaelis, who
in his, Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des neuen Bundes, 1750,
produced the first Introduction
in the modern sense, though somewhat dependent on Simon, did not altogether
share his rationalistic
views. Yet in the succeeding editions of his work he gradually relaxed on
the doctrine of inspiration,
and attached no value to theTestimonium Spiritus Sancti.
The next significant contribution to the science was made by Semler in his,
Abhandlung von
freier Untersuchung des Kanons, 1771-75. He broke with the doctrine of
inspiration and held that
the Bible was not, but contained the Word of God, which could be discovered
only by the inner
light. All questions of authenticity and credibility had to be investigated
voraussetzungslos. Eichhorn
also departed decidedly from traditional views and was the first to fix
attention on the Synoptic
problem, for which he sought the solution in his Urevangelium, 1804-27. At
the same time the
Johannine problem was placed in the foreground by several scholars,
especially by Bretschneider,
1820. An acute defender of the traditional views arose in the Roman Catholic
scholar Hug. who
fought the rationalistic critics with their own weapons.
Meanwhile the Mediating school made its appearance under the leadership of
Schleiermacher.
The critics belonging to that school sought a mean between the positions of
Rationalism and the
traditional views. They were naturally divided into two sections, the
naturalistic wing, inclining
towards the position of Semler and Eichhorn; and the evangelical wing,
leaning decidedly toward
traditionalism. Of the first class De Wette was the ablest exponent, though
his work was disappointing
as to positive results; while Credner, following in general the same line,
emphasized the historical
idea in the study of Introduction. The other wing was represented by
Guericke, Olshausen and
Neander.
The Tubingen school of New Testament criticism took its rise with F. C.
Baur, 1792-1860 who
applied the Hegelian principle o eve opment to the literature of the New
Testament. According to
him the origin of the New Testament, too, finds its explanation in the
three-fold process of thesis,
antithesis and synthesis. There was action, reaction and compromise. Paul
defended his position
in the four great epistles (Romans, I and II Corinthians and Galatians), the
only genuine productions
of the apostle. This position is assailed by the Apocalypse, the sole work
of John. And all the other
writings of the New Testament were written by others than their reputed
authors in the interest of
reconciliation, the fourth Gospel and the first Epistle of John issuing in
the blending of the different
parties. Among the immediate followers of Baur we have especially Zeller,
Schwegler and Kostlin.
The further adherents of the school, such as Hilgenfeld, Hoisten and
Davidson, modified the views
of Baur considerably; while later German scholars, as Pfleiderer, Hausrath,
Holtsmann, Weizsacker
and Julicher, broke with the distinctive Tubingen theory and indulged
independently in rationalistic
criticism. The wildest offshoot of the Tubingen school was Bruno Bauer, who
rejected even the
four epistles regarded as genuine by F. C. Baur. He had no followers in
Germany, but of late his
views found support in the writings of the Dutch school of Pierson, Naber,
Loman and Van Manen,
and in the criticism of the Swiss scholar Steck.
Opposition to the radicalism of the Tubingen school became apparent in two
directions. Some
scholars, as Bleek, Ewald Reuss without intending a return to the
traditional standpoint discarded
the subjective element of the Tubingen theory, the Hegelian principle of
thesis, antithesis and
synthesis, in connection with the supposed second century struggle between
Petrine and Pauline
factions. Ritschl also broke away from the Tubingen tendency, but
substituted an equally subjective
principle of criticism by applying his favorite Werthurtheile to the
authentication of the books of
6
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the Bible. He had, as he claimed, no interest in saving mere objective
statements. What had for him
the value of a divine revelation was regarded as authentic. Some of his most
prominent followers
are Harnack, Schurer and Wendt.
An evangelical reaction against the subjective Tubingen vagaries also made
its appearance in
Ebrard, Dietlein, Thiersch, Lechier and the school of Hofmann, who himself
defended the
genuineness of all the New Testament books. His disciples are Luthardt,
Grau, Nosgen and Th.
Zahn. The works of Beischlag and B. Weiss are also quite conservative.
Moreover the writings of
such men as Lightfoot, Westcott, Ellicott, Godet, Dods, Pullan e. a.
maintain with great ability the
traditional position respecting the books of the New Testament.
6. SELECT LITERATURE
Including the Works referred to in the Text. In order that the list may
serve as a guide for
students, both the edition and the value of the books are indicated.
I. BOOKS ON INTRODUCTION, BIBLE DICTIONARIES AND RELATED WORKS.
ALEXANDER, The Canon of the Old and New Testaments, Philadelphia 1851.
Conservative.
ANDREWS, The Life of our Lord upon the Earth, New York 1894. Excellent for
chronological
and historical discussions.
BAIJON, Geschiedenis van de Boeken des Nieuwen Verbonds, Groningen 1901.
Scholarly with
a liberal point of view.
BARTH, Finleitung in das Neue Testament, Gutersloh 1908; 2d edit. since
published.
Conservative and good.
BAUR, Church History of the first three Centuries, London 1878-79. Brilliant
but written with
a rationalistic tendency.
BERNARD, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, New York 1864; 4th
edit. 1878.
A conservative and valuable work.
BLASS, Crammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Gottingen 1911.
Supercedes Winer
and Buttmann, but does not render them worthless. An excellent work.
BLEEK, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 4th edit. by Mangold, Berlin 1886.
Eng. transl. by
W. Urwick, London 1870. One of the best works on N. T. Introd. Standpoint,
moderately liberal.
BUCKLEY, Introduction to the Synoptic Problem, London 1912. Proceeds on the
Combinations-hypothese.
CLARK, GEO. W., Harmony of the Acts of the Apostles, Philadelphia 1897. A
very useful
work.
DAVIDSON, S., Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, London 1894.
Scholarly, but
extremely rationalistic and verbose.
DAVIS, A Dictionary of the Bible, Philadelphia 1903. The best one volume
Dictionary of the
Bible.
DEISSMANN, Light from the Ancient East, London 1911. Very valuable for the
new light it
sheds on the language of the N. T.
DEISSMANN, St. Paul, a Study in Social and Religious History, London 1912. A
vivid and
delightful portrayal of Paul and his world.
DODS, An Introduction to the New Testament, London. A useful manual.
7
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
FARRAR, The Life and Work of St. Paul, London 1879. Instructive and written
in a beautiful
style, but not always characterized by sobriety.
GODET, Introduction to the New Testament, I Pauline Epistles, Edinburgh
1894; II The
Collection of the Four Gospels and the Gospel of St. Matthew, Edinburgh
1899. Scholarly and
conservative; devotes much space to the contents of the books.
GODET, Bijbelstudien over het Nieuwe Testament, Amsterdam. Contains
introductions to the
Gospels and the Apocalypse.
GREGORY, D. S., Why Four Gospels, New York 1907. The work of a conservative
scholar,
valuable in differentiating the Gospels.
GREGORY, C. R., Canon and Text of the New Testament, New York 1907. A
scholarly and
moderately conservative work.
HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible, dealing with its Language, Literature and
Contents, New
York 1900-04. Contains valuable introductions to the books of the Bible.
Those pertaining to the
New Testament are characterized by greater moderation than those relating to
the Old; the latter
are often extremely rationalistic, the former usually moderately
conservative.
HAUSRATH, History of New Testament Times: The Life of Jesus 2 vols.,
Edinburgh 1878-80;
The Life of the Apostles 4 vols., Edinburgh 1895. A learned work, full of
information, but extremely
rationalistic.
HILL, Introduction to the Life of Christ, New York 1911. A concise statement
of the problems
that enter into a study of the Life of Christ.
HOLDSWORTH, Gospel Origins. New York 1913. Though differing somewhat from
the work
of Buckley, it also advocates the Combinations-hypothese.
HOLTZMANN, Historisch-critische Finleitung in das Neue Testament, Freiburg
1892. Perhaps
the most important representative of the rationalistic position in New
Testament study. Very learned,
and rich in historical matter.
JULICHER, Einleitung in des Neue Testament, Leipzig 1906. A scholarly work,
written from
the rationalistic point of view.
KING, The Theology of Christ’s Teaching, New York 1903. Conservative and
very instructive;
weak in genetic treatment.
KERR, Introduction to New Testament Study, New York 1892. A conservative
manual.
KUYPER, Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, Amsterdam 1894.
LUTHARDT, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, Edinburgh 1875. An able
conservative
defense, containing a large Bibliography by C. R. Gregory.
MCGIFFERT, The Apostolic Age, New York 1910. A scholarly but rationalizing
work.
MOFFAT, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. New York
1911. Very able,
but vitiated by rationalistic principles.
NORTON, Genuineness of the Gospels (abridged), Boston 1890. An able defense
of the Gospels.
The author adheres to the Traditions-hypothese.
PEAKE, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, New York 1910. Well
written, able,
but following the line of negative criticism.
PULLAN, The Books of the New Testament, London 1901. A very useful manual;
conservative.
PURVES, Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York 1900. The work of a
scholar. In point
of view the antipode of McGiffert s book.
RAMSAY, Historical Commentary on the Galatians, London 1899.
8
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
RAMSAY, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen, London 1903.
RAMSAY, The Church in the Roman Empire, London 1893.
RAMSAY, Luke the Physician (and other Studies), New York 1908. The works of
Ramsay
have a charm of their own: they are original and informing, based on large
historical and
arch~eological knowledge, and, on the whole, written in a conservative
spirit.
REAL-ENCYOLOPAEDIE, Hauck, Leipzig 1896-1909. Contains very valuable
material for
New Testament study, but many of its articles are marred by their
destructive tendency.
REUSS, History of the New Testament, Boston 1884. The work of a great
scholar; its method
is peculiar; its standpoint moderately rationalistic.
SALMON, Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, New York
1889. The
antipode of Davidson’s Introduction; very able, but suffering from want of
method.
SCHURER, Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Leipzig
1901-1911.
The greatest work on the subject, but, on account of its liberal tendency,
to be used with care.
SIMCOX, Writers of the New Testament, London 1890. Contains a lucid
discussion of the style
of the N. T. writers.
STEVENS, Johannine Theology, New York 1894.
STEVENS, Pauline Theology, New York 1903. Both works are stimulating and
helpful, but
must be used with discrimination.
URQUHART, The Bible, its Structure and Purpose, New York 1904.
URQUHART, The New Biblical Guide, London. Written by a staunch defender of
the Bible,
in popular style. Often helpful, especially the last work, in clearing up
difficulties; but sometimes
too confident and fanciful.
VAN MELLE, Inleiding tot het Nieuwe Testament, Utrecht 1908. A very good
manual;
conservative in spirit.
VON SODEN, Urchristliche Literaturgeschichte, Berlin 1905. Rationalistic.
WEISS, Manual of Introduction to the New Testament, London 1888. One of the
best
Introductions to the New Testament. Moderately conservative.
WEISS, Theology of the New Testament, Edinburgh 1892-3. On the whole the
best work on
the subject.
WESTCOTT, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, Boston 1902. Very
helpful in
differentiating the Gospels; defends the Traditions-hypothese.
WESTCOTT, The Canon of the New Testament, London 1881. One of the best works
on the
Canon of the N.T.
WESTCOTT and HORT, The New Testament in the original Greek; Introduction and
Appendix,
New York 1882. The indispensible companion to the Greek Testament, if one
desires the reasons
for the readings adopted.
WREDE, The Origin of the New Testament, London 1909. Very brief and radical.
WRIGHT, A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, London 1903. The most able
presentation of
the Traditions- hypothese.
ZAHN, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig 1900; 3. Aufi. 1906; Eng.
transl. Edinburgh
1909. A work of immense learning; the best on N. T. Introduction from the
conservative side.
II. COMMENTARIES.
9
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
ALEXANDER, Commentaries on Matthew, New York 1867; Mark, New York 1870; Acts
4th
edit. New York 1884. Valuable works, containing sound learning and
thoroughly conservative.
ALFORD, The Greek Testament, Cambridge 1894; Vol I, 7th edit.; Vol. II, 7th
edit.; Vol. III,
5th edit.; Vol. IV, 5th edit. A truly great work; brief, lucid, scholarly,
conservative, embodying the
results of German scholarship, yet with a measure of independence, though in
some parts leaning
rather much on Meyer. Still very useful, though not up to date. Contains
valuable Prolegomena.
BARDE, Kommentaar op de Handelingen der Apostelen, Kampen 1910. A good
commentary,
written in a conservative spirit.
BEET, Commentaries on Romans, 10th edit.;I and II Corinthians, 7th edit.;
Galatians, 6th edit.;
and Ephesians, Philip pians, Colossians, 3d edit., all London 1891-1903.
Good commentaries by
a Methodist scholar; conservative, but must be used with care, especially in
passages pertaining to
election, the doctrine of the last things, e. a.
BIESTERVELD, De Brief van Paulus aan de Colossensen, Kampen 1908. An
excellent work.
BROWN, J., Expositions of Galatians, Edinburgh 1853; Hebrews, Edinburgh
1862; and I Peter,
Edinburgh 1866. Sound works of a Puritan divine, learned but somewhat
diffuse.
CALVIN, Commentaries in Opera, Vols. 24-55. There is a fairly good English
translation of
the Calvin Translation Society. Calvin was undoubtedly the greatest exegete
among the Reformers.
The value of his exegetical work is generally recoguized by present day
scholars.
EADIE, Commentaries on Galatians, 1869; Ephesians, 1883; Colossians, 1884;
Philippians,
1884; Thessalonians, 1877, all at Edinburgh. Able and reliable works of a
Presbyterian scholar.
EDWARDS T. C., Commentary on I Corinthians, 3d edit. London 1897. A good and
learned
commentary, though sometimes a little over-strained.
ELLICOTT, Commentaries on I Corinthians, Andover 1889; Galatians, 1867;
Ephesians, 1884;
Philippians and Colossians, 1861; Thessalonians, 1866; Pastoral Epistles,
1869, all at London.
Very able grammatical commentaries; conservative.
Expositor s Greek Testament, London 1912. A very scholarly work on the order
of Alford s
Greek Testament; being more recent, it supersedes the latter. Standpoint is
on the whole moderately
conservative; it contains valuable introductions.
GODET, Commentaries on Luke, 1875; John, 1877; Romans, -1886; I Corinthians,
1886-7, all
at Edinburgh. Very able and reliable.
GREYDANUS, De Openbaring des Heeren aan Johannes, Doesburg. A good popular
commentary.
HODGE, Commentaries on Romans, 2d edit. 1886; I Corinthians, 1860; II
Corinthians, 1860;
Ephesians, 1886. Admirable commentaries, especialy the one on Romans.
International Critical Commentary, New York, in course of publication. Some
volumes of
exceptional value; others of inferior merit. Characterized by a
rationalistic tendency, especially the
volumes on the 0. T.
LANGE, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal and
Homiletical. On the
whole a useful work; New Testament far better than the Old. Often suffers
for want of clearness,
and sometimes loses itself in mystical speculations. Its Homiletical
material has little value.
LIGHTFOOT, Commentaries on Galatians, 1895; Philippians, 1895; Colossians
and Philemon,
1895, all at London. Very able commentaries, containing valuable
dissertations. Conservative.
MEYER (Lunemann, Huther and Dusterdieck), Commentary on the New Testament,
New York
1890. Meyer is recoguized as the prince of grammatical commentators. Parts
of Vol. 8 and Vols.
10
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
9, 10, 11, contain the work of Lunemann, Huther and Dusterdieck, which
though good, is not up
to the standard of Meyer s work. Standpoint: moderately conservative. Last
German edition by
Weiss, Haupt e. a. is no more the work of Meyer.
OLSHAUSEN, Commentary on the New Testament, New York 1860-72. Quite good.
Excells
in organic interpretation of Scripture; but its mysticism often runs wild.
Pulpit Commentary, London 1880 sqq. This, as its name indicates, is far more
homiletical than
exegetical; yet it contains some real exposition.
STIER, The Words of the Lord Jesus, New York 1864. Very useful, but often
fanciful and
diffuse; devout, but frequently characterized by too great a desire to find
a deeper meaning in
Scripture.
STRACK UND ZOCKLER, Kurzgefasster Commentar zu den Schriften des Alten und
Neuen
Testaments, sowie zu den Apokryphen, Munchen 1886-93. One of the best recent
German
commentaries. Moderately conservative.
VINCENT, Word Studies in the New Testament, New York 1887-91. Contains some
useful
material.
WESTCOTT, Commentaries on the Gospel of John, 1890; the Epistle to the
Hebrews, 1892;
and the Epistles of John, 1905, all at London. All very scholarly and
reliable.
ZAHN, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (several co-laborators), Erlangen 1903
sqq., still in
course of publication. Will constitute one of the best conservative
commentaries of the New
Testament.
11
The Gospels in General
THE TITLE OF THE GOSPELS
The shortest form of the title is .at. .at....., .at. ......, etc. The
Textus Receptus and
some of the Mnn. have t. .at. .at..... e.a........; but the greater part of
the Mjj. read
e.a........ .at. .at....., etc.
The word e.a........ passed through three stages in the history of its use.
In the older Greek
authors it signified a reward for bringing good tidings; also, a
thankoffering for good tidings
brought. Next in later Greek it indicated the good news itself. And finally
it was employed to denote
the books in which the gospel of Jesus Christ is presented historic form. It
is used very extensively
in the New Testament, and always in the second sense, signifying the good
news of God, the
message of salvation. This meaning is also retained in the title of the
gospels. The first trace of the
word as indicating a written gospel is found in the didache, the Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles,
discovered in 1873 and in all probability composed between the years 90 and
100 A. D. This
contains the following exhortation in 15: 3: “And reprove one another not in
wrath but in peace,
as ye have it in the Gospel. Here the word e.a...e.... evidently refers to a
written record. It is
very explicitly and repeatedly applied to a written account of the life of
Christ about the middle of
the second century. The plural euanggelia, signifying the four Gospels, is
first found in Justin
Martyr, about 152 A. D.
The expression .at. .at....., .at. ......, etc., has often been
misinterpreted. Some
maintained that .at. simply indicated a genitive relation so that we should
read: the Gospel of
Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, etc. But if this is the idea intended, why was
not the simple genitive
used, just as it is employed by Paul, when he expresses a similar idea, t.
e.a........ µ.., Rom.
2:16; 16:25? Moreover, it cannot be maintained that the preposition kata is
equivalent to the Hebrew
Lamedh of possession, for the Septuagint never renders this by .at.. Others
inferred from the use
of this expression that the Gospels were not written by the person named but
were shaped after the
Gospel as they preached it. But on this interpretation it seems very
peculiar that the second and
third Gospels were not called .at. ..t... and .at. .a...., seeing that they
were fashioned after
their type of preaching. The expression must be explained from the Church’s
consciousness that
there is but one Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicates that in these
writings we have that Gospel,
as ti was shaped (i. e. in writing) by the persons whose names they bear.
That the early Church caught the idea of the unity of the Gospel is quite
evident. It is true, the
plural of e.a...e.... is sometimes employed, but the singular prevails.
Justin Martyr speaks of
the Memoirs that are called Gospels, but he also expresses himself thus:
“the precepts in what is
called the Gospel,” “it is written in the Gospel.” Irenaeus in one of his
writings states his theme as:
“The Gospel is essentially fourfold.” Clement of Alexandria speaks of “the
Law, the Prophets and
the Gospel,” and Augustine, of “the four Gospels, or rather, the four books
of the one Gospel.”
The English word Gospel is derived from the AngloSaxon godspell, composed of
god=God
and spel=story, thus indicating the story of the life of God in human flesh.
It is not improbable,
however, that the original form of the Anglo-Saxon word was godspell, from
god=good and
12
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
spel=story, this being a literal translation of the Greek e.a......... It
denotes the good tidings of
salvation in Christ for a perishing world.
THE NUMBER OF THE GOSPELS RECOGNIZED BY THE EARLY CHURCH
In view of the fact that the first Christian century produced many Gospels
besides those which
are included in our canon, and that many at the present day deny the
authority of some or all of our
Gospels, it is important to know, how many the early Church received as
canonic. The apostolic
fathers, though often quoting the Gospels do not mention their authors, nor
do they enumerate them.
They testify to the substance and canonicity of the Gospels therefore, but
not, except indirectly, to
their authenticity and number. In all probability the earliest evidence that
the Church of the first
ages accepted the four Gospels that we now possess as canonic, is furnished
by the Peshito, which
most likey dates from the first half of the second century. And being a
translation, it points to the
fact that even before its origin our four Gospels were received into the
canon, while all others were
left out. Another early witness is found in the Muratorian Fragment, a
mutilated work of which the
real character cannot now be determined, and that was probably written about
170 A. D. It
commences with the last words of a sentence that seemingly belongs to a
description of Marks
Gospel, and then tells us that “Lukes Gospel stands third in order, having
been written by Luke,
the physician, the companion of Paul.” After making this statement it
proceeds to assign the fourth
place to “the Gospel of John, a disciple of the Lord.” The conclusion seems
perfectly warranted
that the first two Gospels, of which the description is lost, are those of
Matthew and Mark. An
important witness, really the first one to a fourfold Gospel, i. e. to a
Gospel that is four and yet is
one, is Tatian, the Assyrian. His Diatessaron was the first harmony of the
Gospels. The exact date
of its composition is not known; the meaning of its name is obviously [the
Gospel ]by the Four.
This, no doubt, points to the fact that it was based on four Gospels, and
also implies that these four
were our canonical Gospels, since they constituted the only collection in
existence that needed no
other description than “the Four.” The testimonny of Eusebius is in harmony
with this when he
says “Tatian, the former leader of the Encratites, having put together in
some strange fashion a
combination and collection of the Gospels, gave it the name of the
Diatessaron, and the work is
still partially current.” Church History, IV, 29. Very important testimony
to our four Gospels is
found in the writings of Irenaeus (c. 120-200) and of Tertullian (c.
150-130). The former was a
disciple of Polycarp, who in turn had enjoyed the personal instruction of
the apostle John. He
preached the Gospel to the Gauls and in 178 succeeded Pothinus as bishop of
Lyons. In one of his
books he has a long chapter entitled: “Proofs that there can be neither more
nor fewer than four
Evangelists.” Looking at the Gospels as a unit, he called them “the Gospel
with four Faces.” And
he searched to find mystic reasons for this quadruple form, thus showing how
strongly he and his
age were persuaded that there were but four canonical Gospels. He compares
the quadriform Gospel
(tet..µ..f..) to the four regions of the earth, to the four universal
spirits, to the cherubim with
four faces, etc. The testimony of Tertullian is equally explicit. This
famous church father received
a liberal education at Rome, lived on in heathen darkness until about his
thirtieth or fortieth year,
when he was converted and entered the ministry. Embittered by the treatment
he received at the
hands of the Church, he went into the fold of the Montanists about the
beginning of the third century.
He wrote numerous works in defense of the Christian religion. In his work
against Marcion he says,
after stating that the Gospel of Luke had been maintained from its first
publication: “The same
authority of the apostolic churches will uphold the other Gospels which we
have in due succession
13
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
through them and according to their usage, I mean those of [the apostles]
Matthew and John;
although that which was published by Mark may also be maintained to be
Peters, whose interpreter
Mark was: for the narrative of Luke also is generally ascribed to Paul:
since it is allowable that that
which scholars publish should be regarded as their masters work.” Just as
those that went before
him Tertullian appealed to the testimony of antiquity as proving the
canonicity of our four Gospels
and the other Scriptural books; and his appeal was never gainsaid. Another
significant testimony
is that of Origin, the great teacher of Alexandria of whom Eusebius records
that in the first book
of his commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew he asserts that he knows of
only four Gospels, as
follows: “I have learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which
alone are uncontroverted
in the Church of God spread under heaven, that according to Matthew, who was
once a publican
but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; . . . that
according to Mark second; . .
. that according to Luke third; . . . that according to John last of all.”
Church History VI, 25. Eusebius
himself, who was the first historian of the Christian Church, in giving a
catalogue of the New
Testament writings, says: “First then we must place the holy quaternion of
the Gospels.”
>From the testimony which we have now reviewed the conclusion seems perfectly
warranted
that the Church from the earliest times knew four and only four canonical
Gospels; and that these
four are the same that she has recognized ever since. It is true that the
heretic Marcion acknowledged
only the Gospel of Luke, and this in mutilated form, but his attitude toward
the Gospels finds a
ready explanation in his dogmatic bias.
THE LITERARY CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS.
The Gospels have a literary character all their own; they are sui generis.
There is not another
book or group of books in the Bible to which they can be compared. They are
four and yet one in
a very essential sense; they express four sides of the one e.a....... of
Jesus Christ. In studying
them the question naturally arises, how we must conceive of them. Now we
need not argue that
they are not mere collections of myths and fables, with or without a
historical basis, as many
Rationalists would have us believe. Nor is it necessary to show at length
that they are not four
biographies of Jesus. If their authors intended them to be such, they would
be very disappointing
indeed. There is, however, another misconception against which we must warn,
because it is quite
prevalent in the circles of those who accept these writings unquestionably
as a part of the Word of
God, and since it is a positive hindrance to a true understanding of these
priceless records. We refer
to the conviction that the writers of the Gospels were minded to prepare for
following generations
more or less complete histories of the life of Christ. In reading these
writings we soon find that,
looked at as histories, they leave a great deal to be desired. In the first
place they tell us comparitively
little of that rich and varied life of Christ, of which they knew so much,
Cf. John 20: 30; 21: 25.
The historical facts narrated by John f. i. only represent the work of a few
days. His Gospel would
thus be a life of Jesus with yawning gaps. The same is true of the other
Gospels. In the second place
the materials, except those at the beginning and at the end of Christs life
are not arranged in
chronological order. Any possible doubt that we may have on this point is
soon dispelled, when
we compare the Gospels. The same facts are often narrated in altogether
different connections.
Closely allied with this is a third feature that deserves attention. The
casual relation of the important
events that are narrated is not traced, except in a few instances, and yet
this just what one expects
in histories. And finally if they were really meant to be histories, why was
it necessary that we
should have four of them?
14
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The harmonists generally proceeded on the erroneous conception to which we
refer. They were
aware indeed that there were great lacunae in all the Gospels, but thought
they might remedy matters
by supplying from one Gospel what was wanting in the other. Thus the
relation of the Gospels to
one another was conceived of as supplemental. But their work was doomed to
failure; it did violence
to the exquisite compositions on which they operated, and marred the
characteristic beauty of those
literary productions. They were always uncertain asa; to the true order of
events, and did not know
which one of the evangelists was the best chronological guide. Some
preferred Matthew, others
chose Mark, and still others followed Luke. And after all their efforts to
combine the four Gospels
into one continuous narrative with the facts arranged in the exact order in
which they occurred,
their work must be pronounced a failure. The Gospels are not histories of
the life of Christ, nor do
they, taken together, form one history.
But what are they, if they are neither biographies nor histories? They are
four pen-pictures, or
better, a four fold portraiture of the Saviour a fourfold representation of
the apostolic .....µa;
fourfold witness regarding our Lord. It is said that the great artist Van
Dyke prepared a threefold
portrait of Charles I for the sculptor, that the latter might fashion an
absolutely faithful likeness of
the king. These three portraits were necessary; their differences and
agreements were all required
to give a true representation of the monarch. So it is in the case of the
Gospels. Each one of them
gives us a certain view of the Lord, and only the four taken together
present to us his perfect likeness,
revealing him as the Saviour of the world. The apostolic .....µa had taken a
wide flight. Its central
content was the cross and the resurrection. But in connection with this the
words and deeds of the
Saviour and his history also formed the subject of the apostles preaching.
And when this apostolic
.....µa was reduced to writing, it was found necessary to give it a fourfold
form, that it might
answer to the needs of four classes of people viz. to those of the Jews, to
those of the Romans, to
those of the Greeks and to those of the people who confessed Christ as Lord;
needs that were typical
of the spiritual requirements of all future ages. Matthew wrote for the Jews
and characterized Christ
as the great King of the house of David. Mark composed his Gospel for the
Romans and pictured
the Saviour as the mighty Worker, triumphing over sin and evil. Luke in
writing his Gospel had in
mind the needs of the Greeks and portrayed Christ as the perfect man, the
universal Saviour. And
John, composing his Gospel for those who already had a saving knowledge of
the Lord and stood
in need of a more profound understanding of the essential character of
Jesus, emphasized the divinity
of Christ, the glory that was manifested in his works. Each Gospel is
complete in itself and acquaints
us with a certain aspect of the Lords life. Yet it is only the fourfold
Gospel that furnishes us with
a complete, a perfect image of him whom to know is life eternal. And it is
only, when we grasp the
different features that are mirrored in the Gospels and see how they blend
harmoniously in that
noblest of all lives, the life of Christ, that we have found the true
harmony of the Gospels.
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.
The first three Gospels are known as the Synoptics, and their authors are
called the Synoptists.
The name is derived from the Greek s.. and ...., and is applied to these
Gospels, since they, as
distinguished from the fourth, give us a common view of the life of our
Lord. But notwithstanding
the great similarity by which these Gospels are characterized, they also
reveal very striking
differences. This remarkable agreement on the one hand, and these manifest
dissimilarities on the
other, constitute one of the most difficult literary problems of the New
Testament. The question is,
15
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
whether we can account for the origin of these Gospels in such a manner that
we can explain both
the close resemblances and the often surprising differences.
In the first place the general plan of these Gospels exhibits a remarkable
agreement. Only
Matthew and Luke contain a narrative of the infancy of our Lord and their
accounts of it are quite
distinct; but the history of Christs public ministry follows very much the
same order in all the
Synoptics. They treat successively of the Lords preparation for the
ministry, John the Baptist, the
baptism, the temptation, the return to Galilee, the preaching in its
villages and cities, the journey
to Jerusalem, the entrance into the Holy City, the preaching there, the
passion and the resurrection.
The details that fit into this general plan are also arranged in quite a
uniform manner, except in
some places, especially of the first Gospel. The most striking differences
in the arrangement of the
material results from the narrative of a long series of events connected
with the Galilean ministry,
which is peculiar to Matthew and Mark, Matt. 14:22— 16:12; Mark 6: 45—8: 26;
and from the
history of another series of events related to the journey to Jerusalem that
is found only in Luke 9:
51—18:14.
But there is not only similarity in the broad outlines of those Gospels; the
particular incidents
that are narrated are also in many cases the same in substance and similar
if not identical in form.
The amount of agreement that we find in this respect is represented by
Norton, Genuineness of the
Gospels p. 373, and by Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels p.
201, in the following
manner: If the total contents of the Gospel is represented by 100, the
following result is obtained:
Mark has 7 peculiarities and—93 coincidences
Matthew has 42 peculiarities and—58 coincidences
Luke has 59 peculiarities and—41 coincidences
If the extent of all the coincidences be represented by 100 their
proportionate distribution will
be:
Matthew, Mark and Luke 53
Matthew and Luke 21
Matthew and Mark 20
Mark and Luke 6
Still another estimate, viz, that by verses, is suggested by Reuss, History
of the New Testament,
I p. 177:
Matthew out of a total of 971 verses has 330 peculiar to him.
Mark out of a total of 478 verses has 68 peculiar to him.
Luke out of a total of 1151 verses has 541 peculiar to him.
The first two have 170 to 180 verses that are lacking in Luke; Matthew and
Luke, 230 to 240
wanting in Mark; Mark and Luke about 50 wanting in Matthew. The number
common to all three
is 330 to 370.
The preceding statements refer to the subject-matter of the Synoptics. Taken
by itself this might
give us an exaggerated idea of the similarity of these Gospels. As a
corrective it is necessary to
bear in mind that the verbal coincidences, though they are remarkable
indeed, are nevertheless
considerably less than one would expect. Dr. Schaff and his son, after some
calculations based on
Rushbrookes Synopticon, get the following results:
16
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
“The proportion of words peculiar to the Synoptics is 28,000 out of 48,000,
more than one-half.
In Matthew 56 words out of every 100 are peculiar.
In Mark 40 words out of every 100 are peculiar.
In Luke 67 words out of every 100 are peculiar.
The number of coincidences common to all three is less than the number of
divergences.
Matthew agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 7.
Mark agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 4½.
Luke agrees with the other two gospels in 1 word out of 8.
But comparing the Gospels two by two, it is evident that Matthew and Mark
have most in
common, and Matthew and Luke are most divergent.
One-half of Mark is found in Matthew.
One-fourth of Luke is found in Matthew.
One-third of Mark is found in Luke.
The general conclusion from these figures is that all three Gospels widely
diverge from the
common matter, or triple tradition, Mark the least so and Luke the most
(almost twice as much as
Mark). On the other hand, both Matthew and Luke are nearer Mark than Luke
and Matthew to each
other.” Church History, I p. 597.
In connection with the preceding we should bear in mind that these verbal
agreements are
greatest, not in the narrative, but in the recitative parts of the Gospels.
About one fifth of them is
found in the narrative portion of the Gospel, and four fifths in the recital
of the words of our Lord
and others. This statement will create a false impression, however, unless
we bear in mind the
proportion in which the narrative parts stand to the recitative element,
which is as follows:
Narrative Recitative
Matthew 25 75
Mark 50 50
Luke 34 66
>From what has now been said it is perfectly clear that the Synoptics present
an intricate literary
problem. Is it possible to explain the origin in such a manner that both the
resemblances and
differences are accounted for? During the last century many scholars have
applied themselves with
painstaking diligence to the arduous task of solving this problem. The
solution has been sought
along different lines; several hypotheses have been broached, of which we
shall name only the four
most important ones.
In the first place there is what has been called (though not altogether
correctly) ~the mutual
dependance theory (Benutzungshypothese, Augustine, Bengel, Bleek, Storr).
According to this
theory the one Gospel is dependent on the other, so that the second borrowed
from the first and the
third from both the first and the second. On this theory, of course, six
permutations are possible
viz.:
Matthew, Mark, Luke.
Matthew, Luke, Mark.
17
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Mark, Matthew, Luke.
Mark, Luke, Matthew.
Luke, Matthew, Mark.
Luke, Mark, Matthew.
In every possible form this theory has found defenders, but it does not meet
with great favor at
present. True, it seems to account for the general agreement in a very
simple manner but serious
difficu1ties arise when one seeks to determine which one of the Gospels was
first, which second
and which third. This is perfectly evident from the difference of opinion
among the adherents of
this hypothesis. Again it fails to account for the divergencies; it does not
explain why one writer
adopts the language of his predecessor(s) up to a certain point, and then
suddenly abandons it. Of
late it is tacitly admitted, however, that it does contain an element of
truth.
In the second place the hypothesis of oral tradition (Traditions-hypothese,
Gieseler, Westcott,
Wright), should be mentioned. is theory starts from the supposition that the
Gospel existed first of
all in an unwritten form. It is assumed that the apostles repeatedly told
the story of Christs life,
dwelling especially on the most important incidents of his career, and often
reiterating the very
words of their blessed Lord. These narratives and words were eagerly caught
up by willing ears
and treasured in faithful and retentive memories, the Jews making it a
practice to retain whatever
they learnt in the exact form in which they received it. Thus a stereotyped
tradition arose which
served as the basis for our present Gospels. Several objections have been
urged against this theory.
It is said that, as a result of the apostles preaching in the vernacular,
the oral tradition was embodied
in the Aramaic language, and hence cannot account for the verbal
coincidences in the Greek Gospels.
Again it is urged that the more stereotyped the tradition was, the harder it
becomes to account for
the differences between the Synoptics. Would anyone be apt to alter such a
tradition on his own
authority? Moreover this hypothesis offers no explanation of the existence
of the two-fold, the
triple and the double tradition, i. e. the tradition that is embodied in all
three of the Gospels and
that which is found only in two of them. The majority of scholars have now
abandoned this theory,
although it has ardent defenders even at present. And no doubt, it must be
taken into account in the
solution of this problem.
In the third place we have the hypothesis of one primitive Gospel
(Urevangeliums-Hypothese)
from which all three of the Synoptists drew their material. According to G.
E.Lessing this Gospel,
containing a short account of the life of Jesus for the use of traveling
missionaries, was written in
the popular language of Palestine. Eichhorn, however, following him, held
that it was translated
into Greek, worked over and enriched in various ways, and soon took shape in
several redactions,
which became the source of our present Gospels. There is very little
agreement among, the defenders
of this theory regarding the exact character of this original source. At
present it finds little favor in
scientific circles, but has been discarded for various reasons. There is
absolutely no trace of such
an original Gospel, nor any historical reference to it, which seems peculiar
in view of its unique
significance. And if the existence of such a source be postulated, how must
the arbitrary alteration
of it be explained, how did these different recensions come into existence.
It is evident that by this
theory the problem is not solved, but simply shifted to another place.
Moreover while in its original
form this hypothesis accounted very well for the agreement, but not for the
differences found in
the Synoptics, in its final form it was too artificial and too complicated
to inspire confidence and
to seem anything like a natural solution of the Synoptic problem.
18
In the fourth place the so-called double source, or two document theory
(Combinations-hypothese,
Weisse, Wilke, Holtzmann, Wendt) deserves mention since it is the favorite
theory of New Testament
scholars today. This hypothesis holds that, in order to explain the
phenomena of the Gospels, it is
necessary to postulate the existence of at least two primitive documents,
and recognizes the use of
one Gospel in the composition of the others. The form in which this theory
is most widely accepted
at present isthe following: The Gospel of Mark was the first one to be
written and, either in the
form in which we now have it, or in a slightly different form was the source
of the triple tradition.
For the double tradition, which is common to Matthew and Luke, these writers
used a second source
that, for want of definite knowledge regarding it, is simply called Q (from
the German Quelle).
This Q may have been the ....a of Matthew mentioned by Papias, and was
probably a collection
of the sayings of our Lord. The differences between Matthew and Luke in the
matter of the double
tradition finds its explanation in the assumption that, while Matthew drew
directly from Q, Luke
derived the corresponding matter from Q and other sources, or from a
primitive Gospel based on
Q. On the last supposition the relation of Matthew and Luke to Q would be as
follows:
But even so the use of some inferior sources by both Matthew and Luke must
be assumed. The
double source theory presupposes the existence of a rather large
precanonical literature.
There are some evident objections to this theory also. The assumption that
the ....a of Matthew
was anything else than the Hebrew or Aramaic original of our Greek Matthew
is a baseless
supposition; it has no historical foundation whatever. Furthermore the
theory offers no explanation
of the fact that the writers in some cases faithfully copied their original
and in others altered the
text rather freely or even departed from it entirely. And by postulating the
development of a
somewhat extensive Gospel literature previous to the composition of Matthew
and Luke, it has
naturally led to the position that our Gospels were written late, and
therefore in all probability not
by their reputed authors. Moreover it also requires us to believe that Luke
included the Gospel of
Mark in the number of the attempted Gospel stories which his Gospel was
meant to supercede.
None of the theories broached up to the present time has proved
satisfactory. There is still a
great deal of uncertainty and confusion in the study of the Synoptic
problem; we do not seem to
be nearer to its solution now than we were fifty years ago. The great aim
has always been to explain
the origin of the Synoptics without taking into account the supernatural
factor that entered into their
composition. Now we do not doubt the value of these studies; they have
already taught us a good
many things regarding the origin of these Gospels; but they have proven
themselves insufficient
to lead to a final solution of the problem. It is, of course, folly to rule
this problem out of existence
by simply appealing to the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. It is
true, if one believes in the
mechanical inspiration of the Bible, there is no Synoptic problem. This is
quite different, however,
for those who believe that the Scriptures have been inspired in an organic
way. The more naturally
we conceive of the origin of these writings, the better it is, if we only do
not lose sight of the
operation of the divine factor, of the directing, the guiding influence of
the Holy Spirit. Cf. Kuyper,
Encyclopedie III p. 51 f. It is hardly sufficient to say with Urquhart, New
Biblical Guide VII p. 357,
that the key to the problem is found in the fact that the Synoptic Gospels
are all the work of one
author, and that each book is serving a distinct purpose. Yet this statement
contains two important
truths that we should continually bear in mind.
19
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
In any attempt to account for the similarities of the synoptics great
allowance should be made
for the influence of oral tradition It is very natural to suppose that,
since the apostles for some time
labored together at Jerusalem with Peter at the head, a particular, perhaps
Petrine type of tradition
became the common property of these early preachers and of their first
hearers. And because the
life of Christ entered as a very important element into the life of his
apostles, and they felt the
supreme significance of his words, it is also reasonable to assume that they
aimed at inculcating
the teachings of our Lord on their hearers in the exact form in which He
gave it. It is equally rational
to suppose that, at a comparatively early time, the desire to escape the
uncertainty that always
attends oral transmission, led to the composition of brief gospel
narratives, containing especially
the sayings and discourses of our Lord. These suppositions are entirely in
harmony too with the
opening verses of the Gospel of Luke: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand
to draw up a
narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even
as they delivered
them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word, it seemed good
to me also, etc.” Some of these early documents may have been written in
Aramaic and others in
Greek. The groundwork thus furnished and drawn upon by the writers of our
Gospels, explains in
a very natural way most of the agreements that are found in the Synoptics.
And those that cannot
be accounted for in that manner may have resulted directly from the guiding
influence of the Holy
Spirit, who led the writers also in the choice of their words. These three
Gospels are in a very real
sense the work of one Author.
In seeking to explain the differences that are found in the Synoptic
Gospels, we should bear in
mind first of all that they are no histories, but memoirs, historical
arguments. In composing them
each one of the writers had his own purpose. Matthew, writing for the Jews,
made it his aim to
present Christ as the King, the great Son of David; Mark, intending his
Gospel for the Romans,
endeavored to draw a vivid picture of the powerful Worker, conquering the
forces of evil; and
Luke, addressing the Greeks and adjusting his Gospel to their needs, sought
to describe Christ as
the universal Saviour, as a person with wide sympathies. This diversity of
aimaccounts to a great
extent for the variations exhibited in the Gospels, i. e. for omissions on
the one hand and additions
on the other, for differences in the distribution and arrangement of the
material, etc. The writers of
the Gospels selected from the great mass of early traditions the material
that was suited to their
purpose and used it to advantage. The difference between the Synoptics is
not accidental, is not the
result of the chance use of certain sources. And where the identical
teachings of Christ are sometimes
found in different forms, we should remember, first, that the Lord may have
uttered the same truth
at different times in varying forms; and secondly, that the Synoptists do
not always give the identical
words of the Saviour, but were so guided by the Holy Spirit that they do
give an exact representation
of the Lords teachings, perhaps in a form better adapted to their purpose
than the original would
have been. Cf. Kuyper, Diet. Dogm., Locus de Sacra Scriptura II p. 131 f.;
Gregory, Why Four
Gospels; Van Leeuwen, Literatuur en Schriftuur p. 14 ff.; Urquhart, New
Biblical Guide VII p.
328-428.
For further study of the Synoptic Problem we refer to; Norton, Genuineness
of the Gospels;
Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; Arthur Wright, A
Synopsis of the Gospels in
Greek; Holdsworth, Gospel Origins; Buckley, Introduction to the Synoptic
Problem; Hill,
Introduction to the Life of Christ; Reuss, History of the New Testament I p.
163-218 (where the
most important German literature is referred to) ; and the various
Introductions of Davidson, Weiss,
Zahn, Julicher, Salmon, e. a.
20
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
THE RELATION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN TO THE SYNOPTICS.
After pointing out the remarkable agreement between the synoptic Gospels and
referring to
some of the attempted explanations of this feature, we must consider the
equally striking difference
that exists between the Synoptics on the one hand and the Gospel of John on
the other. This
difference is so great that even untrained minds immediately feel it. Hence
the question naturally
arises: How can we account for it? This is in substance the Johannine
problem. The differences
that are found may conveniently be arranged under two heads: 1. Differences
touching the external
course of events in the Lords ministry; and 2. Differences in regard to the
form and contents of
Christs teaching.
I. Differences touching the external course of events in the Lord’s
ministry.
a. According to the Synoptics the principal scene of the Lords activity is
Galilee. He repairs to
this Northern province soon after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and
apparently does not
return to Judea until the last Passover. The representation that is found in
the Gospel of John is
quite different. Very little is said about the Galilean ministry, while the
activity of Christ in Judea
looms large on his pages. Most of the work of which John speaks was done at
Jerusalem.
b. The first three Gospels mention but one Passover in their narrative of
Christs public ministry,
viz. that at the end of his life. This led many to the conviction that the
Lord’s public ministry was
limited to a period of one year. In the Gospel of John, on the other hand,
we find three Passovers
definitely mentioned, while a fourth is probably refferred to in 5:1.
Judging by this the length of
the Lords ministry was at least two and possibly three years.
c. The people with whom Jesus deals primarily are not the same in the
Synoptics and in the
Gospel of John. In the first three Gospels we see Jesus moving along the
Galilean peasantry and
preaching to them the gospel of the Kingdom, while in the fourth the Jews
(by which John means
the leaders of the people, i. e. Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees) are
generally in the foreground,
and certain individuals, that are not named, or are merely names, in the
Synoptics, are very
prominent, such as Philip, Nathanael, the Samaritan woman, Mary Magdalena
and Thomas.
d. The attitude of the Jews towards Jesus appears to be quite different in
the synoptic Gospels
and in the Gospel of John. According to the Synoptics Jesus meets with great
success at first. The
multitudes flock unto him, are delighted to hear him and marvel at his
teachings and work. And it
is only after He has clearly shown that He had not come to establish an
earthly kingdom that their
enthusiasm dies away, and that He begins to prepare his disciples for his
coming suffering and
death. The Gospel of John makes it appear that from the beginning of Christs
ministry at Jerusalem
the hearts of the Jews were filled with a hatred that gradually grew,
reaching its highest pitch after
the raising of Lazarus, and that finally issued in the crucifixion of the
Lord of glory.
e. There are also several details in which the Gospel of John does not agree
with the Synoptics.
We shall only mention a couple of the most important examples. In the
synoptic Gospels we find
the cleansing of the temple at the end of Christ’s public ministry, while
John places this at the very
beginning. Then there is also a the representation of the of the Lord’s
death. The Synoptics convey
the impression that Christ ate the Passover in the evening of the 14th of
Nisan, and was therefore
crucified on the 15th; while the Gospel of John seems to say with equal
explicitness that He ate it
a day in advance of the regular time and died at the very hour, when the
symbolic Paschal lamb
was slain.
II. Differences in respect to the form and contents of our Lord’s teaching.
21
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
a. There is a striking diversity in the form in which the teaching of Jesus
is cast. In the Synoptics
we have short incisive sayings of the Lord, which in some cases are and in
others are not connected
with what immediately precedes or follows. In the Gospel of John, on the
other hand, we find long
and labored discourses, closely connected with the signs, the miracles of
our Lord. The first three
Gospels contain a goodly number of parables, which are strangely absent from
the fourth Gospel,
where we have have instead a few allegories, such as the Door of the
Sheepfold, the good Shepherd,
and the true Vine. The style of the Gospel of John too is quite different
from that of the Synoptics.
It is a more Hebraic style, in which the statements are brief, the
construction is simple and the
sentences are usually connected with the conjunction and. This style is
carried through also in the
discourses of Christ, so that in some cases it is very hard, if not
impossible, to tell just where the
words of the Lord come to an end and those of the evangelist begin, or vice
versa. Notice this
especially in the third chapter.
b. There is an equally great difference in the contents of the Lords
teaching. In the Synoptics
the central theme on which Christ dwells is the Kingdom of God. He speaks of
its origin, its nature,
its subjects, its King, its requirements, its righteousness, its enemies and
its future glory. In vain
do we turn to the fourth Gospel for a corresponding line of thought. The
Kingdom of God is
mentioned but once there, viz, in the conversation of our Lord with
Nicodemus. Christ himself is
the main theme of the discourses found in the Gospel of John. The Lord
speaks of his heavenly
origin, of his essential character and of his return to glory. He presents
himself to the Jews as the
Messiah, the Son of God, the heavenly manna, the water of life, the true
liberator, the light of the
world, the good Shepherd, the resurrection and the life, etc. In the
Synoptics we find that Jesus
only occasionally, and then towards the end of his ministry, speaks of
himself. In connection with
this we may remark that the self-revelation of Christ both by his words and
works differs greatly
in the Synoptics and in the fourth Gospel. In the former Jesus begins by
speaking of the Kingdom
and makes little mention of the King. Only gradually does He reveal his true
character and it is not
until He is well along in the course of his public ministry that Peter is
led up to the confession:
“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Only in the last week of
his life does Jesus throw
off all reserve and speaks clearly of himself as the Messiah sent from God.
In the Gospel of John
however, everything is quite clear from the beginning. John the Baptist
points to Christ as “the
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world ;” to the Samaritan woman
Jesus says: “I am
He ;” and to the Jews attending the unnamed feast he speaks clearly of the
unique relation in which
He stands to the Father. This is closely connected with another fact. In the
synoptic Gospels the
humanity of Christ is made very prominent. We behold him there primarily as
the Saviour who is
taken on our nature, shares in our infirmities, and is tempted even as we
are, though without sin.
The fourth Gospel, on the other hand, brings the divinity of Christ into
strong re1ief. We notice
this at the very beginning of the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.” It strikes us in the signs which Christ gave to
reveal his glory, and
in the discourses that speak at length of his essential nature, of his
descending out of glory, his
being in glory, and his returning to the glory that He possessed from the
foundation of the world;
and it rings in our ears as we listen to the confession of Thomas: “My Lord
and my God.”
There are many critics at the present time who magnify these differences
into discrepancies,
and find in them a ground on which to reject the authorship of John. They
maintain that the fourth
Gospel is a treatise written with marked theological bias, inspired by the
controversy about the
person of Christ in the second century. The great stumbling block for them
is the very clear teaching
22
contained in this Gospel respecting the divinity of Christ. This, they hold,
could only be the fruit
of theological preconceptions. And the great desire on the part of the
author to establish this beyond
the shadow of a doubt is said to explain a good many of the other special
features that characterize
this gospel. This explanation contains both a falsehood and a truth.
A careful study of the Gospel of John, a study that takes its true character
in consideration, does
not bear out the contention that several of the differences between the
Gospel of John and the
Synoptics amount to discrepancies. Neither does it reveal differences that
cannot be accounted for
in a perfectly natural way. We desire to point out first of all that there
are not only dissimilarities
but also correspondences between these Gospels. The incidents that we find
mentioned in all the
Gospels are the following: The baptism of John , the feeding of the five
thousand, the walking on
the sea, the anointing at Bethany, the triumphal entry, the last supper, the
betrayal, the trial, the
crucifixion, the burial and the resurrection. Of course in some cases the
details of the narrative
vary. Besides these parallel narratives there are many passages in which we
find imagery, sayings
or words that find their counterpart in the synoptic Gospels. Davidson says
that about one-third of
the matter in John agrees with that in the Synoptics.
It is evident from the foregoing that the diversity is greater than the
similarity, and the great
question is: How must we account for the differences? In pointing out the
way in which we must
look for a solution of this problem we call attention to several
particulars.
1. We should not lose sight of the true character of John’s writing. Neither
it nor the other
Gospels are meant to be complete histories of what the Lord did and said
during his life in the flesh.
If this were its claim, it would be disappoint in the extreme, since all
that John narrates happened
in a few days. Like the Synoptics the Gospel of John is a pen-picture of the
Lord, is a witness to
him from a particular point of view, and represents a phase of the apostolic
.....µa.. We must
allow for the principle of selection and of selective arrangement in the
composition of this work.
It was John’s aim to describe the Lord from a particular point of view.
Hence he chose from the
great mass of apostolic tradition, whether oral or written, the materials
that suited his purpose best,
and arranged them in the most effective way, taking in consideration as much
as possible the
chronological order in which the events occurred. This general truth must be
borne in mind
continually, if we would understand the differences between the Gospel of
John and the Synoptics.
2. The great controlling factor, however, in the construction of this
Gospel, was the aim of the
writer. Therefore it is necessary that we have some understanding of this.
Happily we need not
guess at it, because John himself tells us what purpose he had in writing
his Gospel. He says in 20:
31: “But these things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye might have life through His name.” According to this
statement the apostle had
a twofold aim, the one theoretical and the other practical, the one his
proximate, the other his ulterior
aim. The theoretical aim of the evangelist was twofold: he wanted to show in
a convincing manner
that the historical Jesus was the Christ sent from God for the salvation of
the world; and that this
Christ was not a mere man, but the very Son of God, who in his pre-existent
state shared in the
divine glory, a glory which He radiated even while He dwelt among men in the
form of a servant,
and that would again shine forth in heavenly splendor after He had finished
his task. It was the
desire of the writer further, to present this Christ, this Son of God, to
his readers in such a manner
that they might be led to believe in him, and that they, being united to him
the fountain of life by
faith, might have life everlasting. With this end in view John, of course,
selected those signs and
discourses of the Lord that were best adapted to bring out his glory and to
lead others to faith in
23
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
him. He almost seems to tell us this himself, when he concludes his
narrative of the first miracle
performed by our Lord at Cana with the words: “This beginning of miracles
did Jesus in Cana of
Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on Him.” John
views the miracles of
which he speaks as shmeiathat exhibit the divine greatness of Christ. And he
limits himself almost
exclusively to those of which he can say definitely that they led men to
believe on Christ, or of
which Christ himself points out the symbolic significance in His discourses,
as:
•The changing of water into wine at Cana (“and his disciples believed on
Him.”) The healing of
the rulers son at Cana (Capernaum) (“and himself believed and his whole
house.”)
•The healing of the impotent man at the pool Bethesda (Christ the restorer
of life).
•The feeding of the five thousand near Bethsaida (Christ the spiritual food,
the heavenly manna).
•The restoring of the blind mans sight at Jerusalem (Christ the light of the
world).
•The raising of Lazarus at Bethany (Christ the resurrection and the life).
In harmony with his aim too the evangelist records such discourses of the
Lord as serve to
explain the shmeia to bring. out the unique relation in which Christ stands
to the Father, to accentuate
Christs authority, to emphasize the divine character of his mission. etc.
Moreover he introduces
several individuals to show us how Jesus labored tol bring them to the
conviction that He was the
Christ, the Sons of God, as f. i. Nathanael, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman
and Thomas.
Now if we bear these things in mind, many of the differences between this
Gospel and the
Synoptics are immediately explained. The aim of John being what it is, he
naturally speaks of Christ
rather than of the Kingdom of God, introduces whatever accentuates the
divinity of our Lord, and
brings out as much as possible that Christ revealed himself as the Messiah
from the very beginning
of his public career. But doing this in a historical way, he cannot
represent the Galilean peasants
but only the eaders of the Jews at Jerusalem as the recipients of this
revelation, for it was only to
them, who were versed in the Scriptures, that Christ spoke so explicitly
from the outset, and it was
primarily for them that He expressed his thought in profound discourses
rather than in parables.
This in turn determines the time of which John speaks in his gospel and also
explains how it is that
he mentions so many feasts, because it was almost exclusively on these
occasions that Jesus visited
Jerusalem and came in contact with the Scribes and the Chief Priests. It
also sheds light on the
difference in the attitude of the Jews toward Jesus. For a long time the
Galileans were attached to
Christ and marveled at his words and works; the spirit of opposition was
aroused in them especially
towards the end of Christs labors among them and mostly by the machinations
of the Pharisees that
came from Jerusalem. The leaders of the Jews in Judea, on the other hand,
hated Jesus almost from
the beginning of his public ministry. Their hatred kept pace with the
knowledge they received of
Christ.
3. Every attempt at solving the Johannine problem must also make allowance
for the fact that
John was acquainted with the other Gospels and avoided as much as was
conistent with his aim
the repitition of facts that were already generally known. We have no doubt
that John had read the
other Gospels before he wrote his own. There are certain features in his
Gospel that we can
understand only on that supposition. According to 21:19 John wrote his
Gospel after the death of
Peter and therefore comparatively late. Now he certainly would not be such a
stranger in his own
world of thought as not to know the Gospels that had already been composed.
Then we find that
in several places the evangelist trusts to the previous knowledge of his
readers. He does not describe
the institution of the Lords supper in his Gospel; yet he clearly assumes in
6: 5 1-58 that his readers
were acquainted with it. Though he does not give a description of the
ascension, he proceeds on
24
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the assumption that this fact is well known, 6:62; 20:17. Cf. further 1:40;
3:24; 6:70, etc. In several
cases in which the persons introduced in the Gospel misunderstand the Lord,
the writer does not
deem it necessary to explain for his readers what Jesus really meant,
because he knew that they
themselves were able to correct the mistake, Cf. 7: 35, 36; 3:4; 4:15; 6:52.
It is a very weighty
consideration in this connection too that John does not deign to answer
objections that are brought
against the Messiahship of Christ. Notice f. i. 1:45, 46; 7:41, 42; 7: 52.
The evangelist does not
give a single hint of the solution of the difficulty thus raised repeatedly.
We can understand this
only on the supposition that he was aware of the fact that his readers knew
from the other Gospels
how to solve the problem. John evidently read the other Gospels and this
explains how he could
avoid to such a great extent what they had already brought to the knowledge
of the people.
4. Finally we must also bear in mind that the individuality of the author is
stamped his literary
production. John was a profound meditative spirit, who drank deeply at the
fountain of life. He
searched for the mainspring of action in the career of our Saviour; he
pondered on the hidden
background of the mysterious, the wonderful life of his Master. He was the
best qualified of all the
apostles to describe the divine greatness of the Lord. And it was no small
achievement of his, that
he presented the profoundest truths in the most simple manner. The
simplicity of its language is a
very striking feature of the fourth Gospel. It is due in part, no doubt, to
Johns idiosyncracy, and in
part to his habit of contemplating Christianity in its most fundamental
relations. It need not surprise
us that we find the same style in the discourses of Christ, for in these
also the style is to a great
extent Johns. Neither John nor the other evangelists always give us the
exact words of Jesus. It is
true that he generally employs direct discourse in introducing the words of
the Saviour, but this is
merely an oriental custom and does not imply that the words were used
exactly in that way. But
the Spirit of God so guided the writer that he reproduces, though possibly
in a slightly different
form, the exact truths which Jesus sought to inculcate on his hearers. And
this Spirit, which is also
the Spirit of Christ, vouching for these words, makes them just as really
the words of Christ, as if
they had been an exact reproduction of the words Jesus had used in
addressing the Jews.
THE INSPIRATION OF THE GOSPELS.
During the past century the human origin of the Gospels has been carefully
investigated. With
a great deal of patience and ingenuity every chapter and verse of these
writings has been scrutinized
and referred to its supposed ultimate source. The discussion of the divine
factor that operated in
the composition of these books, however, has been conspicuously absent from
these studies. And
this neglect is not the result of chance, but of a very deliberate plan. A
large number of scholars
today do not believe in any special inspiration of these writings; others,
who do not wish to deny
their divine inspiration, nevertheless maintain that their claim to this
prerogative should be waived
in the historical investigation of their origin.
In the preceding century many were wont to label the Gospels sneeringly as
fictitious narratives,
written by a few religious fanatics, who deliberately lied about Jesus. This
crude and baseless
opinion does not meet with great favor today. People intuitively recoil from
that position and feel
that they must take a more respectful attitude towards the Gospels. They now
regard these as the
product of the reverent and in part unconscious invention of the Church; or
as the expression of
the corporate consciousness and the corporate mood of the first Christian
community. Even so, of
course, they are simply human productions that contain besides a large quota
of truth a great deal
of mythical and lengendary matter.
25
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Over against this position we hold that the Gospels were written by men who
were inspired by
the Holy Spirit, and that they are therefore absolutely trustworthy and
authoritative accounts of the
life of our Lord. They are inspired records. They constitute one of the most
precious fruits of the
apostolic inspiration, since they are one and all the literary embodiment of
the apostolic chrugma.
The substance of what the apostles preached is contained in these writings.
Now as well as the
prophets in the old dispensation, the apostles in the new were inspired by
the Holy Spirit. This is
quite evident from the New Testament. Consider the promises which our Lord
gave to His disciples:
Matt 10:19,20 ”.... for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye
shall speak; for it is not ye
that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.” John 14:26,
“But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall
teach you all things and
bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” John
16:13,14, “Howbeit
when the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He
shall not speak of himself;
but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you
things to come. He shall
glorify me; for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.”
Notice too that these promises
found their initial fulfilment on the day of Pentecost. We read in Acts 2:4:
“And they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost, and ‘began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance.”
And after this day the apostles were conscious of being guided by the Spirit
of God. Paul says in I
Cor. 2:11-13, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of
man which is in him?
even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have
received, not the
spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the
things which are freely
given us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which mans
wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”
And in II Cor. 13: 2b,
3, ”—and being absent now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and
to all other, that, if
I come again, I will not spare; since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in
me, which to you-ward
is not weak, but is mighty in you.” These few passages, which might easily
be multiplied, must
suffice for the present.
Some who admit the inspiration of the prophets, do not believe the apostles
were also inspired,
because in their case they do not hear the familiar formula “thus saith the
Lord,” nor behold the
characteristic phenomena that accompanied the inspiration of the prophets.
They do not distinguish
between different kinds of inspiration. There are especially three points of
interest between the
inspiration of the prophets and that of the apostles.
1. Under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit did not yet dwell in the Church,
but operated on
believers from without. So it was also in the case of the prophets. The Holy
Spirit took possession
of them, sometimes suppressed their personality to a. certain degree, and
then employed their
consciousness for his purpose. In the new dispensation, however, He took up
his abode in The
Church, and first of all in the apostles, who were to be the Churchs
foundation; and then, identifying
himself to a great extent with their conscious life, used them as
instruments to produce his revelation.
2. In the case of the prophets it was the entrance of a foreign element, a
foreign power into their
lives, and something extraordinary in their career that impelled them to
prophesy. It was a power
that they could not resist, because it became as a fire burning within them.
With the apostles, on
the other hand, it was the indwelling Spirit in connection with their
official task that led them to
speak the Word of God. The inspiration of the prophets was intermittent;
that of the apostles,
continuous in the performance of their regular apostolic duties.
26
3. The prophets often spoke of unknown and unseen things, while the apostles
discoursed on
things which they knew and saw. In connection with this the Holy Spirit did
not operate through
the same faculty in both the prophets and the apostles. In the former it was
the imagination, in the
latter the understanding, especially memory and reflection, that constituted
the medium of divine
revelation. Hence the prophets generally spoke in poetic and in symbolic
language, while the
apostles as a rule clothed their thought in ordinary prose. In the case of
the Gospels the inspiration
of the apostles has above all the character of a .p.µ..s... Cf. John 14:26.
This apostolic inspiration gave birth to the .....µa of the apostles, but
does not yet account
for the infallible records we have of this in the Gospels. Besides the
apostolic we must take into
consideration a seperate graphical or transcriptive inspiration, if we would
fully understand the
divine origin of the Gospels. The authors were led by the spirit of God in
composing these writings,
in giving to the preaching of the apostles a definite written form. They
were guided in the selection
of their material and its proper arrangement, and in the choice of their
words and expressions, so
that their records are truly a part of the Word of God for the Church of all
ages.
The question naturally arises, whether we have any reasons to think that the
Gospels were so
inspired. In answer would say that we have, though we do not flatter ourself
with the idea that these
reasons would convince anyone who is disinclined to accept the Scriptures as
the very Word of
God.
1. The contents of the Gospels testify to their divine origin. We find in
them a fourfold portraiture
of the Saviour. There are many differences in the individual pictures, yet
together they form a grand
unity. Four writers, each one portraying the life of Christ in his own way,
to a great extent without
knowing each others writings or drawing on them, so that their individual
portraits blend perfectly
into a harmonious whole,—it is marvelous, it can only be understood, if we
assume that these four
writers were all guided unerringly by the same superintending Spirit. The
Gospels are really the
work of one author. And the life that is pictured in them is a divine life,
unfathomable, mysterious,
far surpassing human understanding. And yet that incomparable, that divine
life has been so faithfully
portrayed, with such a profound insight into its real character and hidden
depths, in such a simple,
natural, artless manner, that it has been the marvel of ages. Could man,
unaided by higher power,
describe such a life? No, only they who were inspired by the Holy Spirit,
were equal to the task.
2. Taking for granted the inspiration of the Old Testament, which is
conclusively proved by
the words of Jesus and the apostles we feel that it calls for an inspired
complement. It covers the
period of preparation that is prophetic of a future completion, the time in
which the Church was in
its infancy, that points forward to the maturity of a coming age. It is
filled with prophecies that
await fulfilment; it contains the shadow that is cast before the coming
body, growing more distinct
as the ages roll on, until at last it seems as if the body will presently
appear, yet it does not—the
Old Testament requires a compliment. And in harmony with it this too must be
inspired. Of what
avail would the inspiration of the Old Testament be, if that in which it
culminates is not inspired.
The divine surety would be wanting.
3. At least two of our Gospels were written by apostles who in speaking to
their contemporaries,
were inpired by the Spirit of God. Now it would be an anomaly that they
should be guided by the
Holy Spirit in their oral witnessing to Christ, and be without that divine
guidance in perpetuating
their testimony for all future ages. It was the will of God that people
until the end of the world
should believe on him through the word of the apostles, John 17: 20; I John
1: 3. Hence it was of
the greatest importance that there should be an infallible record of their
testimony.
27
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
4. There are some Scripture passages that point to the inspiration of the
gospel records. The
older Lightfoot, (Works IV p. 1193, 114; XII p. 7, and following him
Urquhart, The Bible its
Structure and Purpose I Ch. 5), find a proof for the inspiration of Lukes
Gospel in 1: 3, where they
would translate the words pa...........t. ....e. by “having had perfect
understanding of all
things from above.” This interpretation is favored by the fact that ....e.
has this meaning in eight
of the thirteen times that it occurs in the New Testament, and in three of
the remaining instances
means again, while it is translated “from the beginning” only here and in
Acts 26:4. The expressed
purpose of Luke in writing his Gospel also falls in exceedingly well with
the rendering from above.
It is, he writes to Theophilus, that you may have the certainty of those
things in which you have
been instructed.” Yet the verb pa.a........, meaning, to follow up
carefully, and thus, to obtain
knowledge, argues decisively against it. What is of greater significance for
us, is the fact that the
Gospel of Luke is quoted as . ..af. in I Tim. 5:18, where we read: “For the
Scripture saith, Thou
shalt not muzzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, and, The laborer is
worthy of his hire.” The only
place in the entire Bible where the last words are found, is Luke 10: 7.
Finally we call attention to
II Peter 3:15, 16, where the apostle says: ”. . . even as our beloved
brother Paul also according to
the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his
epistles, speaking of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Here we
find that the writings of
Paul are placed on a level with other inspired writings, which Peter calls,
“the other Scriptures.”
There is good reason to believe that this expression refers to the books of
the Old Testament, and
to those of the New Testament that were already composed, when Peter wrote
his second epistle,
among which we may also reckon the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
5. The fact that the early Church from the very beginning accepted these
Gospels as canonical,
is also a proof of their inspired character, for in it the communal
consciousness of the Church
expressed itself in regard to these writings; and it is said of believers in
their corporate existence
that they, taught by the Holy Ghost, know all things. Dean Alford says: “The
apostles being raised
up for the special purpose of witnessing to the gospel history,—and these
memoirs having been
universally received in the early Church as embodying that their testimony,
I see no escape left
from the inference that they come to us with inspired authority. The Greek
Testament, Vol. I,
Prolegomena Section VI.
6. Finally the Holy Spirit testifies in the heart of every believer to the
divine character of the
Gospels, so that they feel assured that these writings contain the veryWord
of God. Under the
influence of the Holy Spirit they realize that these Gospels too minister to
the deepest needs of their
spiritual life, they realize their infinite value, marvel at their exquisite
beauty and find in them ever
increasingly the words of everlasting life. Thus they cannot but speak their
“Amen” to the contents
of these books.
THE CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE GOSPELS AS A WHOLE.
The Gospels are of course, closely related to the Old Testament Scriptures.
They describe in a
vivid manner the initial stage of the fulness of time, showing how all the
prophecies that pointed
to Christ and to a new and more spiritual dispensation began to be
fulfilled. Rather than enlarge on
this relation, however, we shall here briefly describe the peculiar function
of the Gospels in the
New Testament revelation. These writings are related to the rest of the New
Testament, as the
Pentateuch is to the following books of the Old Testament. Both are of a
fundamental character,
28
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
laying foundations on which an imposing superstructure is raised. In the
case of the Gospels this
is clearly indicated by the opening words of Luke in the Acts of the
Apostles: “The former treatise
have I written, Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to
teach.” In this passage the
word ...at. is not pleonastic, as was held by some, but emphatic. According
to this word the
Gospel contained the narrative only of what Jesus began to do and to teach,
which would prove to
be the solid foundation and the germinating principle of all that He would
continue to do on earth
(through His apostles) and in heaven. The Gospels mark but an initial stage
in New Testament
revelation; they lack finality.
The form, the method and the substance of Christs teaching in the
Gospels,—it all bears the
stamp of an incipient stage. Everyone that reads the Gospels and compares
them with the epistles
is struck by the simple manner in which Christ presents his teachings to the
multitude. He gave his
instruction primarily in the form of parables and proverbial sayings. Now it
is the essence of
proverbial speech that it detaches itself from particular occasions, and is
therefore best adapted to
the expression of general fundamental truths. Because parables and proverbs
set forth the truth in
a lively and concrete way, they were very appropriate in teaching those that
were just initiated in
the spiritual truths of the new dispensation. Since they generally disclose
the truth but partially,
they stimulate the spirit of inquiry. A very suitable way of instructing
beginners indeed! We notice
that the disciples gradually longed for a different form of instruction, and
towards the end of his
life Christ says to them: “These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs,
but the time cometh,
when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you
plainly of the Father.” John
16:25.—The method of Jesus’ work points to the same general conclusion. His
teaching has a
fragmentary character. He speaks a word here and a word there, discourses
now with this person
and then with that one, just as a missionary among the gentiles is apt to
do, expressing the deepest
truths in a sporadic way. Important doctrines were thus uttered without any
attempt to relate them
to other truths. All this is in perfect harmony with the initial character
of Christ’s work.—The
contents of Christs teaching also are primitive and fundamental. Many of the
most important truths
are indeed taught in the Gospels, but they are not elaborated, nor set forth
in all their significance,
as f. i. the doctrine of the atonement, of justification by faith, of the
forgiveness of sins, of the
Kingship of Christ, etc. Other truths were suppressed, because, as the Lord
himself says, even the
best of his hearers were not yet able to bear them, John 16:12. The works of
Christ were also
initiatory. His miracles contained within them. the promise of still greater
works in the future. He
says to his disciples: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall
he do also, and greater
works than these shall he-do, because I go unto my Father,” John 14:12.
Now the writers of the Gospels simply narrated this initial work of Christ,
as they remembered
it. They do not make mention of the greater works that followed after Christ
had gone to heaven,
nor do they (except in very rare instances) reflect on or seek to interpret
the life and teachings of
the Saviour. This remains to be done in later writings.
29
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Gospel of Matthew
CONTENTS1
The Gospel of Matthew may be divided into five parts:
I. The Advent of the Messiah, 1: 1-4: 11. Matthew proves by the legal
genealogy that Christ
was the Son of David, the child of the promise; that, in harmony with the
prophecies, He was born
of a virgin at Bethlehem and his way was prepared by John the Baptist; and
records his baptism
and temptation.
II. The Public proclamation of Messiah’s Kingdom, 4: 12 16: 12. Here we find
Jesus, after John
is taken captive, choosing his first disciples and beginning his work in
Galilee, 4: 12-4: 25. Then
follows a splendid example of Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount,
in which the law of
the New Kingdom is promulgated, and its righteousness and life are
contrasted with those of
Pharisees and Scribes, 5-7. This is followed by the description of a series
of miracles, interspersed
with brief teachings of the Lord and the calling of Matthew, giving clear
evidence of the power
and mercy of Jesus and establishing his authority to set up the New Kingdom
and to proclaim its
laws, 8: 1-9: 38. Next we have a catalogue of the twelve apostles and their
commission to announce
the coming Kingdom to the house of Israel, 10. It is brought out that the
teachings and miracles of
Jesus lead to serious questionings on the part of John the Baptist, to open
opposition from the side
of Pharisees and Scribes, and to the interference of his relatives, 11: 1-12
:50; that as a result Christ
substitutes parabolic for plain teaching, 13: 1-53; and that the opposition
finally culminmates in
his rejection by the synagogue of Nazareth, by Herod and by the spiritual
leaders of the people,
both of Jerusalem and of Galilee, leading in every instance to the
withdrawal of his gracious works
and also to an exposition and condemnation of the hypocracy and wickedness
of the leaders of the
nation. 13: 54-16: 12.
III. The Distinct and Public Claim of Messiahship, 16: 13-23: 39. In this
section the evangelist
shows, how Christ instructs his disciples regarding the Messiahship. The
Lord calls forth their
explicit confession of him as Messiah, 16: 13-20; and teaches them in a
threefold form that He
must suffer and die, but will rise again. In connection with these
announcements we have the
narrative of the transfiguration and the healing of the epileptic demoniac,
and instruction regarding
the civil and religious relations and duties of the disciples, such as the
payment of the temple tribute,
the self-denying, humble, loving and forgiving spirit of true discipleship,
divorce, the proper attitude
toward children, the danger of earthly possessions, the gracious character
of the reward in God’s
Kingdom, and the ministering spirit demanded in his followers, 16: 21-20:
28. At Jerusalem also
He now makes his claim, entering the city as the Son of David and assuming
Messianic authority
in the temple. He brings out clearly the future rejection of Israel, answers
the test questions of his
enemies and pronounces a sevenfold woe on Pharisees and Scribes, 20: 29-23:
39.
IV. The Sacrifice of Messiah the Priest, 24: 1-27: 66. Matthew demonstrates
that Christ, now
that He is rejected by the Jews, prepares his disciples for his sacrificial
death by unfolding the
1
In giving the outline of the Gospels I have followed in general Gregory in
his Why Four Gospels?
30
doctrine of his future coming in glory and by teaching them the true posture
of his followers in
waiting for the day of his coming, 24: 1-25: 46. He then describes how
Christ brought his sacrifice,
after eating the Paschal lamb, being betrayed by Judas, condemned by the
Sanhedrin and Pilate,
and dying on the cross, 26:1 27: 66.
V. The Truimph of Messiah the Saviour and King. The author brings out that
Jesus by rising
again from the dead fully established his claim to the Messiahship. Abundant
evidence of the
resurrection is furnished and it is clearly shown that in the end Christ is
clothed with Messianic
authority.
CHARACTERISTICS
1 As to form we find, in the first place, a characteristically Jewish
numerical arrangement of
things in this Gospel. The genealogy in ch. 1 consists of three groups of
generations of fourteen
each. There are seven beatitudes ch. 5; seven petitions in the Lord’s prayer
ch. 6; a group of seven
parables ch. 13; and seven woes on Pharisees and Scribes ch. 23. As to the
style of Matthew, in the
second place, may be said that it is smoother than that of Mark, though not
so vivid. But it is tinged
with Hebraisms, less indeed than the language of Luke, but more than that of
Mark. It is rather
impersonal, lacking in individuality. Its individualism of language consists
mostly in the frequent
use of certain words and phrases. The Hebraistic formulae of transition .a.
....et. and .a. .d..
occur repeatedly, and the simple t.te is constantly used, especially with a
historical tense. Further
the following characteristic expressions are found: . ?as..e.a t.. ...a...
instead of the more
common . ?. t.. .e..; ..a p...... t. ..... .p. ...... d.. t.. p..f.t.., or
an abbreviated
form of this expression; and .p.. instead of ..a.
2. The arrangement of the material in this Gospel also differs considerably
from that in the other
Synoptics. The narrative is not continuous, but is interrupted by five great
discourses, such as are
not found in the Gospels of Mark and Luke, viz, the Sermon on the Mount,
chs. 5-7; the charge to
the apostles, ch. 10; the parables of the Kingdom, ch. 13; the discourse on
the church, ch. 18; and
the final eschatological discourses of Christ on the last judgment, chs.
23-25. After every one of
these discourses we find the words: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had
ended (made an end of,
finished) these sayings, etc.
3. As to contents the following peculiarities deserve our attention: In the
first place the Gospel
of Matthew has a more Jewish aspect, than the other Synoptics. Its
predominant subject is, the
Messiah and his Kingdom. The discourses of which we spoke all have reference
to this Kingdom,
and it is clearly brought out that the mission of Christ is to the Jews only
and that the establishment
of His rule will be a restoration of the fallen throne of David. Cf. the
genealogy ch. 1 and also 2:2;
10:5, 6; 15:24; 19:28, etc. Yet we must not think that it positively
excludes the idea of salvation
for the gentiles; it clearly holds out a hope to them and even announces
that the Kingdom will be
taken from Israel on account of its unfaithfulness. Cf. 2:1-13; 8: 10-12;
15:28; 21:43; 22:1-14. In
the second place the first Gospel alludes to the Old Testament more
frequently than any other: It
emphasizes the fact that the New Testament reveals the fulfilment of Old
Testament promises; that
Christ was born, revealed himself and labored as the prophets of old had
foretold. Matthew contains
more than 40 quotations, while Mark has 21 and Luke, 22. The characteristic
use of ..a (.p..)
p...... in quotations proves that Matthew had an eye for the divine
teleology in history. And in
the third place Matthew looks at things in their grand general aspect and
pays less attention to the
minor details on which Mark so much loves to dwell.
31
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
AUTHORSHIP
The superscription ascribes the first Gospel to Matthew. That this embodies
the opinion of the
early Church is evident from the testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen,
Eusebius and several
others, who all point to Matthew as the author. The Gospel itself shows
unmistakably, by its Jewish
physiognomy, that its author was a Jew, yea even that he was a Palestinian
Jew, for he quotes from
the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint. It contains no direct evidence,
however to the authorship
of Matthew, though there are a couple points of difference between it and
the other Synoptics that
are best explained on the assumption that Matthew wrote it. When we compare
the lists of the
twelve apostles in Mt. 10:2-4; Mk. 3: 16-19; and Luke 6:14- 16, we notice
that only in the first
Gospel the name Matthew is followed by the less honorable qualification “the
publican ;” and that
it has the order, “Thomas and Matthew” instead of, “Matthew and Thomas.’
The apostolic authorship of this gospel is denied by several rationalistic
critics, such as Davidson;
Julicher and Baljon. Their reasons for rejecting it are the following:
(1). Legend, misunderstanding and irrelevancy are very prominent in this
Gospel, which would
not be the case if the writer had been an eye and ear witness of Jesus. The
reference is to such
narratives as the story of the wise men, the flight into Egypt, and the
slaughter of the innocents,
ch. 2; the doublet of the miraculous feeding, 14:16-21; 15: 32-38; the story
of Jesus riding into
Jerusalem on two animals, 21: 2, 7; the opening of the graves at the
resurrection of Christ, 27: 52;
the setting of a watch at the sepulchre and the bribing of them, etc. (2).
The Gospel of Matthew is
too closely dependent on Mark, not merely in choice of matter and
arrangement but in verbal detail,
to be the work of an apostle. (3). The author never indicates by the use of
the pronouns I or we that
he was an eye witness of the things which he narrates.
In answer to these objections it may be said that one’s disbelief in
miracles does not prove them
false, and that the seeming difficulties to which reference is made easily
yield to good exegesis.
The dependence of Matthew on Mark (instead of the reverse as the Tubingen
school believed) is
indeed accepted by a great number of scholars today, but is not absolutely
proven. And even if it
were, it would be no disparagement for Matthew. The impersonal objective
style is the prevailing
one in the historical books of the Bible and is irrelevant as an objection
to the authorship of the
apostle.
Our information regarding Matthew is very scanty. We read of him first in
connection with the
call to follow Jesus, Mt. 9: 9, 10; Mk. 2:14, 15; Lk. 5 : 27-29. There is no
reason to doubt that the
Matthew of the first Gospel is the Levi of the second and third. Possibly
his name was changed by
the Lord after his call to the discipleship, just as those of Peter and
Paul. In Mark he is said to be
the son of Alphaeus, whom some identify with Alphaeus the father of the
apostle James. But this
identification does not commend itself to us, since we may assume that, if
James and Matthew had
indeed been brothers, this would have been stated in their case as well as
it is in those of Andrew
and Peter and John and James. He belonged to the despised class of publicans
and hence cannot
have been a very strict Jew. When Jesus called him, he made a great feast
for the Lord, to which
he also invited many publicans and sinners. Clement of Alexandria describes
him as a rigorous
ascetic, living “on seeds and herbs and without flesh.” It is not impossible
that by a very natural
reaction his sinful life changed into one of great austerity. A veil of
obscurity is cast over the
apostolic career of Matthew. Tradition has it that he remained at Jerusalem
with the other apostles
for about twelve years after the death of the Lord, laboring among his
fellow-countrymen. When
32
the work was done, it is said, he preached the Gospel to others, according
to the popular opinion
in Ethiopia. He probably died a natural death.
COMPOSITION
I. Original Language. A hotly debated question is that regarding the
language in which Matthew
originally wrote his Gospel. The difficulty of the problem arises from the
fact that external testimony
and internal evidence seem to disagree. As a result the camp is very much
divided, some scholars
ardently defending a Hebrew, others with equal zeal a Greek original. The
earliest testimony in
regard to this matter is that of Papias and runs as follows: “Matthew
composed the oracles (....a)
in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone interpreted them as he was able.” It is
clear from the original
that in these words the emphasis falls on the phrase “in the Hebrew
language.” But Papias does not
stand alone in this assertion; a similar statement is found in Irenaeus:
“Matthew among the Hebrews
did also publish a Gospel in writing in their own language.” Pantaenus is
said to have gone to India,
where he found “the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters.” Origen quoted by
Eusebius also says
that “the first Gospel was written by Matthew . . . who delivered it to the
Jewish believers, composed
in the Hebrew language.” Eusebius himself makes the following statement:
“For Matthew, having
first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other people,
delivered to them in their
own language the Gospel written by himself.” Jerome also states that
“Matthew wrote a Gospel of
Jesus Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters for the benefit of
those of the circumcision
who believed. Who afterwards translated it into Greek, is uncertain.” To
these testimonies might
be added those of Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Ebedjesu and
Chrysostom.
On the other hand it is pointed out that the present Greek Gospel does not
impress one as a
translation, but has all the appearance of an original work, since: (1.) The
hypothesis of a translation
fails to account for the identity seen in certain parts of the Synoptic
Gospels. (2.) While the author
himself indeed quotes from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the
quotations of our Lord are
almost uniformly taken from the Septuagint. Is it conceivable that this
would be the case in a Hebrew
Gospel? (3.) The Gospel contains translations of Hebrew words, as: “They
shall call His name
Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us,” 1: 23 ; “A place called
Golgotha, that is to
say, a place of a skull,” 27: 33. (4.) There are certain explanations of
Palestinian customs and
habitual occurrences that would have been altogether superfluous in a Hebrew
Gospel, naturally
intended only for the natives of Palestine, f. i. in 22:23; 27:8, 15; 28:15.
The conclusion to which this evidence leads is corroborated by the following
facts: (1.) In all
probability no one has ever seen the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and no trace
of it can now be
found. (2.) All the quotations from Matthew in the early Church fathers are
taken from the present
Greek Gospel. (3.) The Gospel of Matthew always stood on an equal footing
with the other Gospels
and is cited just as much as they are. This evidence both external and
internal has given rise to
several theories, which we can briefly state in the following manner: (1.)
Matthew wrote his Gospel
in Hebrew and someone else translated it into Greek. This position was held
by the Church in
general until the time of the Reformation. Since then several Protestant
scholars took another view,
because Rome defended the ultimate authority of the Vulgate by pointing out
that the Greek Matthew
was also merely a translation. The attacks of Rationalism on the so-called
second-hand Matthew,
and the dubious character of a part of the ancient testimony, also served to
bring this theory into
discredit. Notwithstanding this, however, some of the ablest scholars have
defended it up to the
present. The prevailing idea among them is that the Greek Matthew is not so
much in all parts a
33
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
literal translation as a new redaction. According to Westcott it gives in
writing the Greek counterpart
of the Hebrew Gospel, that had taken shape in oral tradition from the
beginning. Zahn regards it
as the ripe fruit of the interpretation of the Hebrew original in the
congregations to which Papias
refers.
(2.) There never was a Hebrew original, but Matthew wrote his Gospel in the
Greek language.
The present gospel is not a translation, but an original work. They who hold
this view are of the
opinion that the testimony of Papias and of those following him was a sheer
mistake, due partly to
ignorance and partly to a confounding of the Gospel of Matthew with the
Ebionite Gospel according
to the Hebrews.
(3.) Matthew wrote neither a Hebrew nor a Greek Gospel, but, if anything, a
work called the
....a by Papias, which must have been a collection of the sayings or
discourses of the Lord.
According to some these ....a are lost, but must probably be identified with
one of the supposed
sources (Q) of our present Gospels. Others as Godet and Holdsworth believe
that the work contained
the discourses that we find in the Gospel of Matthew and was therefore
incorporated bodily in our
present Gospel.
(4.) The evangelist after writing his Gospel in Hebrew with a view to his
countrymen, possibly
when he had left Palestine to labor elsewhere, translated or rather
furnished a new recension of his
Gospel in the Greek language with a view to the Jews of the Diaspora. The
former was soon lost
and altogether replaced by the latter.
In formulating our opinion in regard to this question. we desire to state
first of all that we have
no sufficient reason to discredit the testimony of the early Church. It is
true that Eusebius says of
Papias that he was “a credulous, weak minded, though pious man,” but in
connection with this we
must bear in mind: (1) that Eusebius says this in connection with the
chiliastic opinions of Papias
that were odious to the historian; (2) that he himself elsewhere testifies
that Papias was a man “in
the highest degree eloquent and learned and above all skilled in the
Scriptures,” and (3) that the
peculiar views of Papias did not necessarily impair his veracity, nor
invalidate his testimony to a
historical fact. Let us remember also that it is inconsistent to believe
Papias, when he says that
Matthew wrote the Gospel, and to discredit his further testimony that the
apostle wrote in Hebrew,
as some scholars do. It is indeed almost certain that Pantaenus was
mistaken, when he thought that
he had found the Hebrew Gospel in India; and that Jerome labored under a
delusion, when he
imagined that he had translated it at Cesarea. What they saw was probably a
corruption of the
Hebrew original, known as, “the Gospel according to the Hebrews.” But this
possible mistake does
not invalidate the other independent testimony of Jerome and that of all the
early fathers to the
effect that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew.
In the second place we desire to point out that Papias in speaking of the
....a of Matthew
undoubtedly referred to his Gospel. The word ....a does not mean speeches or
sayings, as is now
often asserted. It is found four times in the New Testament, viz, in Acts 7:
38; Rom. 3 : 2; Heb.
5:12; I Peter 4:11, and in every one of these places it has its classical
meaning of oracles. It is
applied to the divine utterances of God in his Word. In later writers the
word is generally employed
to indicate inspired writings. There is no reason to think that Papias used
the word in the sense of
...... If in addition to this we take in consideration that in all
probability the testimony of Irenaeus
is based on, that of Papias and that he takes the word as referring to the
Gospel of Matthew, the
34
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
presumption is that Papias had the Gospel in mind. The meaning of his
testimony is therefore, that
the first Gospel was written in Hebrew. The so-called Logia-source is a
creature of the imagination.
In the third place the internal evidence of our present Gospel proves
conclusively that this is
not a mere translation of a Hebrew original. The evidence adduced seems
quite sufficient. The
Greek Matthew may be and most likely is in substance a translation of the
original Hebrew; yet it
mustibe regarded as in many respects a new recension of the Gospel. The loss
of the Hebrew original
and the general substitution for it of the Greek version is readily
explained by the scattering of the
Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and by the early corruption of the
Hebrew Gospel in the
circles of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes.
In the fourth place it seems most plausible that Matthew himself, shortly
after he had written
the Hebrew Gospel, translated it, adjusting it in several respects to the
needs of the Jews that were
dispersed in different lands. True, early tradition does not speak of this,
and Jerome even says that
it was not known in his time who translated it into Greek. This favors the
idea that it was done very
early. Moreover our Greek Gospel was known from the beginning as the Gospel
.at. .at.....,
just as the second and third as the Gospel .at. ...... and .at. ....... As
such it is also
universally quoted by those fathers that are accustomed to mention their
authors. The case of
Matthew would thus be analogous to that of Josephus.
II. Readers and Purpose. The Gospel of Matthew was undoubtedly destined for
the Jews. This
is expressly stated by Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Gregory Nazianzen, e. a.
This testimony is
corroborated by internal evidence. The genealogy of Jesus goes back only to
Abraham, the father
of the Hebrew race; and in harmony with the tenets of the Jews the
Messiahship of Christ is proved
from the prophets. The whole Gospel impresses one as being occasioned by the
exigencies of the
Jews both in Palestine and without. In none of the other Gospels is the
false position of Pharisees
and Scribes so clearly exposed.
It was Matthew’s purpose to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Christ, the
great Davidic
King promised by the prophets. He knew that, if this could be shown clearly,
they would be won
for the Saviour. This purpose is very evident from the Gospel. The legal
genealogy of Christ is
traced back to Abraham; and it is clearly brought out that prophecy was
fulfilled in the manner of
Christ’s birth 1: 23; the place of his nativity 2: 6; his flight into Egypt
2:15 ; the murder of the
innocents 2:18; his residence at Nazareth 2: 23; the ministry of his
forerunner 3: 3; 11:10, his
removal to Capernaum 4:15, 16; his healing the sick 8:17; his meek and
retiring disposition 12:18-21;
his teaching by parables 13: 34, 35; his entry into Jerusalem 21: 4, 5; his
rejection by the builders
21:42; his being David’s Son and Lord 22: 44; his desertion by his disciples
26: 31; the price of
his betrayal 27: 9; the division of his raiment 27: 35; and his cry of agony
27: 46. It is Matthew
only that records the sayings of the Lord: “I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfill,” 5:17; and: “I
was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” 15 : 24. To
him Jerusalem is “the Holy
City,” “the Holy Place,” and “the City of the great King.” On seven
different occasions he calls the
Lord “the Son of David.” In harmony with the prophets Christ the King is
most prominent in his
Gospel, though of course the prophetic and priestly character of the Lord
are also clearly revealed.
III. Time and Place. Little can be said as to the time, when Matthew wrote
his Gospel; and what
few indications we have of the time are rather uncertain, because we do not
know, whether they
bear on the origin of the Hebrew original or of the present Greek Gospel.
Tradition generally points
to Matthew’s Gospel as being the first. Irenaeus makes a very definite
statement, viz.: “Matthew
among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their own language, while Peter and
Paul were preaching
35
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the Gospel at Rome and founding a church there.” This must have been
somewhere between 63-67
A. D.
Something may be gathered in this respect from the contents of the Gospel.
We cannot, as some
do, infer from 22: 7 that it was composed after the destruction of
Jerusalem, for then we would
have to assume that our Lord could not have predicted this event. Moreover
this argument impugns
the veracity of the evangelist. A proof for the contrary, viz, that this
Gospel was written before the
destruction of Jerusalem, is found in 24:15, where we find in a discourse of
the Saviour this
parenthetic clause of the writer: “let him that readeth understand,” in
connection with the Lord’s
admonition to the inhabitants of Judea to flee to the mountains, when they
shall see the abomination
of desolation standing in the Holy Place. The same inference is drawn by
some from the
eschatological discourse of Christ in chs. 24-25, where the beginning of
sorrows, the destruction
of Jerusalem, and the Lord’s return in glory are placed alongside of each
other, without any
distinction of time; and the writer does not by a single word betray any
knowledge of the fact that
the destruction of Jerusalem would be separated in time from the Lord’s
return. But this, being an
argument from silence, is rather precarious. The dates assigned to this
Gospel by rationalistic critics
range from about 70 to 125 A. D.
As to the place, where the Gospel was written, Athanasius says that it was
published at Jerusalem;
Ebedjesu, in Palestine; and Jerome, in Judea for the sake of those in Judea
who believed. There is
nothing in the Gospel itself that contradicts this. It is very likely,
however, that the Greek Gospel
was written elsewhere.
IV. Method. The question arises, whether Matthew used sources in the
composition of his
Gospel. The prevalent opinion at present is that the writer of this Gospel,
whoever he may have
been, drew in the main on two sources, viz, on the ....a of Matthew for the
discourses of the Lord,
and on the Gospel of Mark for the narrative portion of his work. It is found
necessary, however, to
assume several other minor sources. Thus Weiss, Julicher, Baljon, Peake,
Buckley, Bartlet (in
Hastings D. B.) e. a. Against these see Davidson and Salmon. Zahn’s opinion
is that Mark employed
the Hebrew Matthew in the composition of his Gospel, and that the writer of
our Greek Matthew
in turn used the Gospel of Mark. The great diversity of opinion among New
Testament scholars in
this respect shows clearly that it is quite impossible to determine with any
degree of certainty what
sources Matthew employed. All we can say is (1) that in all probability the
Hebrew Matthew
depended on oral tradition only; (2) that our Greek Matthew is based on the
Hebrew; and (3) that
it is not impossible that Matthew had read the Gospel of Mark before he
composed the present
Greek Gospel.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Gospel of Matthew has been accepted as canonical from the earliest
times. There are many
traces of its use, especially of the Sermon on the Mount in the Didache.
Next we find it clearly
quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, who cites ten passages with the
significant formula “it is written.”
This proves that the Gospel was used and recognized as canonical in the
early part of the second
century. Further it is abundantly testified to until the beginning of the
third century, when all
controversy ceases, there being up to that time altogether 21 witnesses, so
that this Gospel is one
of the best attested books in the New Testament. Among these witnesses are
the old Latin and
Syriac Versions that contain this Gospel; early church fathers that refer to
it as authoritative or
36
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
quote it; and heretics who, even while attacking the truth, tacitly admit
the canonical character of
the Gospel.
This book is properly placed at the very beginning of the New Testament. It
forms part of the
foundation on which the New Testament structure was to be reared. And among
the Gospels, which
together constitute this foundation, it is rightly put in the first place.
It is, as it were, a connecting
link between the Old Testament and the New. As the Old Testament had
reference to the Jews only,
so the Gospel of Matthew is written for the old covenant people. And it is
clearly linked to the Old
Testament by its continual reference to the prophets. The permanent
spiritual value of this Gospel
is that it sets forth in clear outline Christ as the One promised of old;
and, in harmony with the
prophetic literature, especially as the great divine King, before whom the
Church of all ages must
bow down in adoration.
37
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Gospel of Mark
CONTENTS
We may divide the contents of Mark’s Gospel, that treats of Christ as the
mighty Worker, into
five parts:
I. The Advent of the mighty Worker, 1:1—2:12. Jesus is heralded as the
mighty One by John
the Baptist, and proclaimed as the Son of God by the Father, 1:1-13. After
calling some of his
disciples, He taught the Galilean multitudes as one having authority, worked
mighty miracles among
them, as the casting out of demons, the healing of Peters mother-in-law, the
cleansing of a leper,
etc., and showed His authority to forgive sins, 1: 14—2:12.
II. The Conflict of the mighty Worker, 2: 12—8: 26. In connection with the
feast of Levi, the
fact that the apostles did not fast, and that they plucked ears of corn on
the sabbath, Jesus gives the
Pharisees instruction regarding the purpose of his coming, and the moral
character of the
requirements of his Kingdom, 2:13—3: 8. The healing of the man with the
withered hand leads to
the enmity of Pharisees and Herodians, which caused the withdrawal of Jesus.
The Lord now chose
twelve apostles and continued his mighty works, so that even his friends and
relatives sought to
restrain him, and his enemies claimed that He did them through the power of
the devil, 3: 9-35.
Next we find him teaching the people regarding the origin, the quiet growth,
independent of mans
efforts, and the future strength of the Kingdom of God, 4:1-34. His divine
power shines forth in
his calming the sea, his curing the demoniacs in the land of the Gadarenes
and the woman that had
the issue of blood, and his raising the daughter of Jairus, 4: 36—5 : 43. He
finds no faith at Nazareth,
and now sends out the twelve into the cities of Galilee, 6:1-13. Herod,
hearing of Christ, stands in
awe of him, believing him to be John the Baptist, whom he beheaded, 6:14-29.
Withdrawing with
the twelve to a desert place, He feeds the five thousand, and after that
shows his power over nature
by walking on the sea, 6: 30-56. The Pharisees accost him, because his
disciples eat bread with
unclean hands, 7:1-23. He now cures the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician
woman and the deaf and
dumb man at Decapolis, where He also feeds the four thousand, 7: 24-8: 9.
Once more the Pharisees
ask him for a sign. Leaving them, He restores the sight of the blind man at
Bethsaida, 8:10-26.
III. The Claim of the mighty Worker, 8: 27—13: 37. The Lord shows the
necessity of his
suffering, leads his disciples to confess him as Messiah, and points out
what is required of them,
8:27-38. His power and glory are seen in the transfiguration and in the
miracle following this,
9:1-29. Then follows a second revelation of his future suffering, followed
by teachings regarding
humility and offenses, 9: 30-50. In Perea Christ, tempted by the Pharisees,
gives his opinion on the
question of divorce; then He blesses little children and points out the way
of life to the young ruler,
10:1-31. For the third time He reveals his future suffering, and prepares
his disciples for a life of
service, 10: 32-45. At Jericho He restores the sight of Bar-timeus. Next he
enters Jerusalem amid
loud hosannas, curses the fig-tree and cleanses the temple, 10: 46—11: 26.
In the temple He reveals
his superiority by answering the questions of Pharisees, Sadducees and
Herodians, and points to
himself as Davids Lord, 11: 27—12: 44. Then he speaks of his coming in
glory, 13.
IV. The Sacrifice of the mighty Worker, 14:1—15 : 47. Preparation is made
for Jesus death by
the Sanhedrin and Judas on the one hand, and by Mary of Bethany on the
other, 14:1-11. The
passover is eaten and the Lords supper instituted, 14:12-25: In Gethsemane
follows bitter agony
38
and captivity, 14: 26-52. Then the Lord is tried and condemned by the
Sanhedrin and by Pilate,
and finally He is crucified, 14: 53—15 : 47.
V. The mighty Worker as Conqueror of Death, 16:1-20. Women go to the grave
on the first day
of the week and are directed by the angels to go to Galilee, 16:1-8. The
Lord appears several times,
gives blessed promises, and at last ascends to heaven, 14:9-20.
CHARACTERISTICS
There are certain characteristics by which the Gospel of Mark is
distinguished from the other
Gospels:
1. The most striking peculiarity of the second Gospel is its descriptive
character. It is Marks
constant aim to picture the scenes of which he speaks in lively colours.
There are many minute
observations in his work that are not found in the other Synoptics, some of
which point to its autoptic
character. He mentions the look of anger that Christ cast on the hypocrites
about him, 3: 5; relates
the miracles, performed immediately after the transfiguration, with greater
circumstantiality than
the other Gospels, 9: 9-29; tells of Jesus taking little children in his
arms and blessing them, 9: 36;
10:16; remarks that Jesus, looking at the young ruler, loved him, 10: 21,
etc.
2. This Gospel contains comparatively little of the teaching of Jesus; it
rather brings out the
greatness of our Lord by pointing to his mighty works, and in doing this
does not follow the exact
chronological order. Teaching is subordinate to action, though we cannot
maintain that it is ignored
altogether. Mark, though considerably smaller than Matthew, contains all the
miracles narrated by
the latter except five, and besides has three that are not found in Matthew.
Of the eighteen miracles
in Luke, Mark has twelve and four others above this number.
3. In the Gospel of Mark several words of Christ that were directed against
the Jews are left
out, such as we find in Mt. 3: 7-10; 8: 5-13; 15: 24, etc. On the other hand
more Jewish customs
and Aramaic words are explained than in the first Gospel, f. i. 2:18; 7:3;
14:12; 15:6, 42; 3:17;
5:41; 7:11, 34; 14: 36. The argument from prophecy has not the large place
here that it has in
Matthew.
4. The style of Mark is more lively than that of Matthew, though not as
smooth. He delights in
using words like e.... or e..... and p.... prefers the use of the present
and the imperfect to that
of the aorist, and often uses the periphrastic e..a. with a participle
instead of the finite verb. There
are several Latinisms found in his Gospel, as .e.t.....,...d..t..,
...??at..,p.a.t.....,
spe.....t.. and f.a.e......
AUTHORSHIP
Just as in the case of Matthew we are entirely dependent on external
testimony for the name of
the author of the second Gospel. And the voice of antiquity is unanimous in
ascribing it to Mark.
The most ancient testimony to this effect is that of Papias, who says:
“Mark, the interpreter of Peter,
wrote down carefully all that he recollected, though he did not [record] in
order that which was
either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed
him; but subsequently, as
I have said, [attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his teaching to
meet the [immediate]
wants [of his hearers] ; and not as making a connected narrative of the
Lords discourses. So Mark
committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he called them
to mind. For he took
heed to one thing—to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state
nothing falsely in [his
39
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
narrative] of them.” Several other church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, e. a., follow in his wake; there is not a
dissentient voice.
We cannot glean a single hint from the Gospel itself as to the identity of
the author. It may be
that the obscure young man who followed Jesus in the night of his betrayal.
14: 51, 52, and who,
stripped of his garment fled naked in the darkness of night, was the author
himself. The house of
Marks mother was at least in later time a rendezvous for the disciples of
the Lord, Acts 12:12; so
that it is not improbable that Jesus and his disciples ate the Paschal
supper there, and that Mark,
hearing them depart, left his bed and stole after them. This would
immediately explain the
acquaintance of the author with this interesting fact.
Some scholars have expressed doubt as to the identity of Mark, the
evangelist, and John Mark,
the companion of Barnabas and Paul. The general consensus of opinion,
however, favors this.
Proceeding on the assumption that this view is correct, we find Mark
mentioned first in connection
with Peter’s deliverance from prison in 44 A. D. After leaving the prison
walls the apostle went to
“the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark,” Acts 12:12.
>From the way in
which Luke introduces his mother we gather that Mark was a well known
person, when the Acts
were written. The fact that Peter calls him his son, I Peter 5:13 naturally
leads to the supposition
that in his early years he had frequent intercourse with the apostle and was
through the instrumentality
of Peter led to a saving knowledge of the truth. He was a cousin of Barnabas
and hence a Jew,
probably even of a priestly family, Acts 4: 36. When Barnabas and Paul set
out on their first
missionary journey, Mark accompanied them until they came to Pamphylia, when
for some unknown,
but as it seems reprehensible reason, he turned back. At the beginning of
the second missionary
journey he was minded to accompany the apostles again, but Paul positively
refused to accept his
services. He now accompanied his uncle to Cyprus. When we next hear of Mark,
about ten years
later, he is spoken of by Paul as one of those few “fellow-laborers that
have been a consolation to
him,” Col. 4:10; Philem. 24. In his last letter the apostle speaks of Mark
once more, and in such a
laudatory manner as to prove that Mark has fully regained his confidence, II
Tim. 4:11. The last
we hear of Mark in Scripture is, when Peter sends the greetings of Mark, his
son, to the Christians
in Asia Minor, I Peter 5:13. These four passages lead us to the following
construction of his later
history: He was with Paul during the apostles first imprisonment at Rome and
then intended to visit
the congregation of Colossae. We have no reason to doubt that he carried out
this purpose. After
Pauls release Mark was at Rome with Peter, who in writing to the Christians
of Asia Minor assumes
that they know Mark. Apparently he made another visit to Asia Minor, since
Paul requests Timothy,
II Tim. 4:11 to take Mark with him, when he comes to Rome. After the death
of Peter he is said to
have visited Alexandria, where he was the first to found Christian churches,
and finally died a
martyrs death. This tradition, though old, is not without suspicion.
It seems that Mark was “like Peter more a man of action than of deep and
abiding principle, a
man of fervor and enthusiasm rather than of persevering effort; but he was
transfused by the power
of the same Christ who transfused Peter into the man of rapid, continued and
effective effort in the
missionary work of the Church.” Gregory, Why Four Gospels, p. 163.
The relation of Mark to Peter deserves special attention. Scripture speaks
of this in the two
places already mentioned, and tradition abundantly testifies to it. Papias
says that “Mark was Peters
interpreter and wrote down carefully all that he recollected.” Clement of
Alexandria also says that
he wrote down the discourses of Peter, as he remembered them. Irenaeus,
Tertullian and Jerome
all style Mark “the interpreter of Peter.” Tertullian even says that “the
Gospel published by Mark
40
may be reckoned Peter’s, whose interpreter he was.” And Origen still
stronger: “Mark wrote his
Gospel according to the dictates of Peter.” Similarly Athanasius. All these
testimonies agree in
asserting that Mark was dependent on Peter in writing his Gospel; they
disagree, however, as to
the degree of dependence, some claiming merely that Mark recorded what he
remembered of Peters
preaching, and others, that he wrote what Peter dictated. Which
representation is the true one?
The title of the Gospel is against the dictation theory, for if Peter had
dictated the Gospel, it
would in all probability have been called by his name, just as the Epistles
dictated by Paul are
universally ascribed to him. On the other hand the autoptic touches in the
Gospel make it probable
that in some parts of his work Mark employed the very words of Peter; they
also suggest a possible
basis for the later tradition that Peter dictated to Mark. However, it is
not impossible that some of
the Church fathers accentuated the dependence of Mark on Peter unduly,
merely to enhance the
authority of his work. The true relation of the evangelist to the apostle is
expressed in the words:
“Mark was the interpreter (..µ..e.t..) of Peter.” This does not mean that he
accompanied Peter
on his missionary journeys as dragoman, translating Aramaeic discourses into
Greek (Davidson),
or Greek into Latin (Bleek); but that he was Peters scholar and in his
Gospel interprets i. e. sets
forth the doctrine of Peter for those who have not heard the apostle.
The Gospel itself incidentally testifies to the relation in which it stands
to Peter. There are many
touches that indicate first-hand knowledge, as in 1:16-20; 1:29; 9:5; 15:54,
72; 16: 7. Some things
found in the other Synoptics are unexpectedly omitted by Mark, as Peters
walking on the water,
Mt. 14: 29; his appearance in the incident of the tribute money, Mt. 17:
24-27; the statement of
Christ that He prayed for Peter individually, Lk. 22: 32; the significant
word spoken to him as the
Rock, Mt. 16:18. In other cases his name is suppressed, where it is used by
Matthew or Luke, as
7:17 cf. Mt. 15: 15; 14:13 cf. Lk. 22:8.
The authorship of Mark is quite generally admitted; yet there are some, such
as Beischlag and
Davidson e. a. who deny it. They maintain that our present Gospel does not
tally with the description
of Papias, where he says that Mark wrote down the things he heard of Peter
“not in order.” Wendt
supposes that Papias had in mind a series of narratives that are embodied in
our present Gospel, a
sort of Urmarkus. But when Papias said that the evangelist wrote “not in
order,” he did not say
anything that is not true of our Mark, for in it we do not find things in
the order of their occurrence.
And in ancient literature there is not a single trace of an Urmarkus.
COMPOSITION
1. Readers and Purpose. External testimony enlightens us respecting the
circle for which the
Gospel of Mark was intended; it points to Rome and the Romans. Clement of
Alexandria says that
many of the converts of Rome desired of Mark that he should write down the
discourses of Peter.
Jerome also speaks of this “request of the brethren at Rome”; and Gregory
Nazianzen says: “Mark
wrote his Gospel for the Italians.” If we now turn to the Gospel itself, we
find that it was peculiarly
adapted to the Romans. They were a strenuous, a very active people; Marks
Gospel is pre-eminently
the Gospel of action, and is written in a brisk lively style. The fact that
the argument from prophecy
holds an inferior place in it, and that so many Jewish customs and Aramaeic
words are explained,
points away from the Jews; while the Latin words contained in the gospel,
the reference to the
Roman manner of divorce, 10:12, the reduction of a coin to the Roman
quadrans, 12:42, the
knowledge of Pilate presupposed in 15: 1 (cf. Mt. 27: 1 and Lk. 3:1), and
the introduction of Simon
of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus, 15:21 (cf. Rom. 16:13),—all
point to Rome.
41
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
It stands to reason that the purpose of Mark in writing stood in the closest
relation to the circle
of readers for whom he intended his Gospel. It is certainly true, as Zahn
asserts, that his intention
was to record the beginning (....) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, i. e. the
beginning of its preaching
and of its course; but he has this in common with the other Synoptics; it is
nothing distinctive (cf.
p. 58 above). The theory of Hilgenfeld and Davidson, following Baur, that
the Gospel of Mark was
written to conciliate the two opposing parties of the apostolic age, the
Petrine and the Pauline, and
therefore carefully avoids the exclusivism of Matthew as well as the
universalism of Luke can only
be sustained by the most forced and artificial interpretations. Neither does
the gospel support the
view of Weiss, that it was written at a time, when the hope of Christs
second coming was on the
decline, and intended to show that the Messianic character of Jesus mission
was sufficiently attested
by His earthly life. Mark’s aim was simply to record the gospel narrative
without any special
dogmatic aim, but to do this in such a manner as would be most suitable for
the Romans, the busy
Romans, the people of action. Hence he places special emphasis on the acts
of Christ. For those
who loved conquest and admired heroism he desired to picture Christ as the
mighty Conqueror that
overcame sin and all its consequences, yea even death itself.
2. Time and Place. As to the time when Mark wrote his Gospel the witness of
the early Church
is not unanimous. Irenaeus says that after the death of Peter and Paul Mark
wrote down what he
had heard Peter preach. Clement of Alexandria places the composition of the
Gospel before the
death of Peter, stating that, when Peter heard of it, “he neither obstructed
nor encouraged the work.”
Jerome informs us that Peter “approved and published it in our churches,
commanding the reading
of it by his own authority~” Others say that Peter dictated to Mark. The
question to be decided is
therefore, whether Mark wrote before or after the death of Peter. It is
generally assumed that the
testimony of Irenaeus is the most trustworthy. It is possible that some of
the later Church fathers
insisted on Marks having written the Gospel during the life of Peter, in
order to clothe it with
apostolic authority. Zahn would harmonize the testimony of the fathers by
assuming that Mark
began his work before and finished it after the death of the apostle; and
that Peter on hearing of
Mark’s venture at first said nothing regarding it; then, seeing a part of
the work, rejoiced in it; and
still later, when it had almost reached its perfect form, sanctioned it,
Einl. II p. 203.
Turning to the Gospel itself, we find that it contains no positive evidence
as to the time of its
composition. Some inferred from 13: 24 as compared with Mt. 24: 29 that it
was written after the
destruction of Jerusalem, the evangelist being conscious of the lapse of a
certain period between
that catastrophe and the day of Christs return. But the foundation is too
slender for the conclusion.
With greater probability others infer from 13:14, “let him that readeth
understand,” that the
destruction of the city was still a matter of expectation. This seems to
follow also from Marks utter
silence regarding that calamity. The probable conclusion is therefore that
the year 70 A. D. is the
terminus ad quem for the composition of this Gospel. From Col. 4:10 we may
infer that it was
written after 62 A. D., for if Paul had known Mark as an evangelist, he
would most likely have
introduced him as such. A place of still greater importance is II Peter 1:
15. “Yea I will give diligence
that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to
remembrance.” Here Peter
seems to promise that there will be a record of his preaching after his
demise. We would therefore
date the Gospel between 67 and 70 A. D. Davidson without good reasons places
it in the beginning
of the second century, about 125 A. D. Regarding the grounds for his
position, (1) that in this Gospel
belief in the divinity of Christ is more pronounced than in the first
century; and (2) that the word
42
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
e.a....... is used in a sense foreign to the apostolic age, we merely remark
that they are both
unproved assumptions.
The testimony of the fathers points, almost without a dissenting voice, to
Rome as the place,
where Mark composed his gospel. Chrysostom, however, testifies that “Mark
wrote in Egypt at the
request of the believers there. But in another statement he admits that he
really knows nothing about
it.
3. Method. Augustine called Mark “the abridger of Matthew,” assuming that
the second Gospel
was an abbreviated compilation from the first. This theory has since been
defended by several
scholars of the Tubingen school, but is now abandoned. The general features
of the Gospel do not
bear out that view. Zahn finds that Mark based his Gospel both on the oral
communications of Peter
and on the Hebrew Matthew, Einl. II p. 322. Davidson denies the originality
and priority of the
Gospel by making it depend to a great extent on Matthew and Luke, Introd. I
p. 478. Salmon finds
throughout the Gospel many evidences of the priority and independence of
Mark, but believes that
in other places he is, with Matthew and Luke, dependent on a common source,
Introd. p. 155. The
prevalent opinion at present is that Marks Gospel was prior to the other
two, though, at least
according to some, he may have employed the e.a....... of Matthew. But in
order to maintain
this priority its defenders have resorted to such artificial and unlikely
theories that they in part
defeated their own purpose. The theory of an Urmarkus has been broached, but
found little
acceptance. The opinion of Dr. Arthur Wright that we must distinguish
between a proto-, a deuteroand
a tritoMark, a distinction applied to oral tradition by him, is now by
others applied to written
documents. Cf. Holdsworth, Gospel Origins p. 108.
Here again the great difference of opinion proves that it is quite
impossible to trace in all details
the origin of the material found in this Gospel. The great objection to
several of the theories
propounded is that they seek to account for the origin of Mark in a too
mechanical way. We may
be certain of two things: (1) that Mark derived the greatest part of his
material from the preaching
of Peter that had gradually assumed a definite shape in his mind; and (2)
that he has recorded partly
the ipsissima verba of Peter (except for the occasional change of we into
they), and partly merely
the substance of the apostles .....µa in a form and with interpretations of
his own. For the rest
of his material he probably depended on the Hebrew original of Matthew.
INTEGRITY
The integrity of the Gospel of Mark is generally maintained, with the
exception, however, of
the last twelve verses, regarding which there is a great difference of
opinion. The critical camp of
the past century is just about equally divided, although at present the tide
is somewhat against these
verses. The reasons for rejecting them are both external and internal. These
verses are wanting in
the two oldest and most valuable manuscripts, viz, the Sinaitic and the
Vatican. Eusebius and Jerome
and a few others state that they were wanting in almost all the Greek copies
of the gospels of their
time. It is possible, however, that the testimony of Jerome and the rest
resolves itself into that of
Eusebius. This is all but certain with respect to that of Jerome, as even
Davidson admits. They are
wanting also in the important MS. k, representing the African text of the
old Latin Version, which
has another and shorter conclusion, like that in MS. L. They are also absent
from some of the best
MSS. of the Armenian Version. Then the style of this section is abrupt and
sententious, not graphic
like that of the rest of the Gospel. It makes the impression of a collection
of brief notices, extracted
43
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
from larger accounts and loosely combined. Its phraseology is also peculiar.
Thus p..t. sa??.t..,
verse 9 is used instead of . µ.a t.. sa??.t.. as in 16 :2. The verb
p..e.es.a., which occurs three
times in this section, is not found in the body of the Gospel. Neither is
the word .e.s.a., 16:11,
14. Another unique feature is the use of . ...... as a designation of
Christ, verses 19, 20.
These verses have also found ardent defenders, however, among whom
especially Dean Burgon
must be named, though he is perhaps a little too positive. In his work on,
“The last Twelve Verses
of the Gospel according to Mark,” he put up an able defense. The
authenticity of this section is
favored by the following considerations: It is found in most of the uncial
MSS. and in all the
cursives, though some of these mark it with an asterisk, or indicate that it
was absent in older copies.
Moreover its absence from Aleph and B looks somewhat suspicious. It is also
incorporated in most
of the ancient Versions, of which the Itala, the Curatorian and Peshito
Syriac, and the Coptic are
older than any of our Greek codices. All the existing Greek and Syriac
lectionaries, as far as they
have now been examined, contain these verses. Irenaeus quotes the 19th verse
as a part of the
Gospel of Mark. Justin Martyr too in all probability testifies to the
authenticity of these verses. And
several of the later fathers, such as Epiphanius, Ambrose and Augustine
certainly quote from them.
And as far as internal evidence is concerned, it seems very unlikely that
Mark would end his Gospel
with the words .f.?...t. ... without recording a single appearance of the
Lord. Moreover these
verses contain too many peculiarities to be a forgery.
We cannot delay to discuss the causes for the variation of the MSS, nor to
review the different
conclusions to which scholars have come as to the extent of Marks Gospel.
They who wish to study
the subject can do so in the work of Burgon, in the Introductions of
Guericke and Salmon and in
Urquharts New Biblical Guide VII, where this section is defended; and in the
work of Westcott
and Hort, “The New Testament in Greek,” and in the Introductions of Reuss,
Weiss, Davidson and
Zahn, who reject it.
It seems to us that the ground offered for the rejection of these verses by
external testimony is
rather slender and uncertain, while the internal evidence is weighty indeed.
In view of it we are
inclined to accept one of two possible conclusions: either that Mark himself
added these verses
some time after he had written his Gospel, possibly culling his material
from Matthew and Luke;
or that someone else wrote them to complete the work. The latter is favored
by the Armenian Gospel
that was written in 986 and was discovered by F. C. Conybeare in 1891, and
which has the
superscription above this section: “Of the Presbyter Ariston.” In either
case we see no reason,
however, to doubt the canonicity of this part of Marks Gospel, though some
have attempted to
make this suspicious especially by pointing to the unlikely (?) miracles of
verses 17, 18. Cf. Luke
10:19.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Though the external testimony to the canonicity of Mark’s Gospel is not so
abundant as that
for the Gospel of Matthew, yet it is sufficient to establish this beyond a
shadow of doubt. It is quoted
by at least two of the apostolic fathers, by Justin Martyr and by the three
great witnesses of the end
of the second century, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and
is referred to as a part
of the Word of God by several others. We find no expressions of doubt in the
early Church.
The special purpose of this Gospel in the canon is to show us Christ in his
divine power,
destroying the works of satan, and conquering sin and death. More than other
Gospels it places
prominently before us the work of Christ in behalf of those that are bound
by the shackles of satan
44
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
and are suffering the consequences of sin. We here see the Lion out of the
tribe of Juda, conquering
and ever to conquer. Mark is the only one of the evangelists that speaks of
the future Kingdom of
God as coming with power, 9:1. In that way this Gospel has special
significance for the Church of
all ages. It gives her the blessed assurance that her future is entrusted to
One who has shown himself
a mighty Conqueror, and who is abundantly able to save to the uttermost all
who believe in Him.
45
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Gospel of Luke
CONTENTS
Like the contents of the previous Gospels we may also divide those of Luke’s
into five parts:
I. The Advent of the Divine Man, 1 :-4:13. After stating his aim the
evangelist describes the
announcement from heaven of the forerunner, John the Baptist, and of Christ
himself, and their
birth with the attendant circumstances, 1: 1-2: 20. Then he shows that
Christ was made subject to
the law in circumcision, in the presentation in the temple, and in his
journey to Jerusalem, 2: 21-52.
He traces the descent of the Son of Man to Adam, and points out that He was
prepared for his work
by baptism and temptation, 3: 1 4: 13.
II. The Work of the Divine Man for the Jewish World, 4: 14- 9: 50. In this
part we first see Christ
preaching in the synagogues of Nazareth, Capernaum and all Galilee;
performing many miracles
in Capernaum and by the sea of Galilee, such as the curing of Peter’s
mother-in-law, the wonderful
draught of fishes, the cleansing of the leper, and the healing of the
palsied man; calling Levi to
follow him; and instructing his enemies regarding his authority, his
purpose, and the moral character
of his demands, as a result of which many were amazed and Pharisees and
Scribes were filled with
hatred, 4: 14 6: 11. After a night of prayer the Lord now chooses his twelve
disciples and proclaims
the constitution of his Kingdom, 6:12-49. He cures the centurion s servant,
raises the widow’s son,
and gives instruction by word and example regarding the nature of his work
and the character of
the subjects of his Kingdom, 7:149. The origin of the Kingdom is now
illustrated in the parable of
the sower, and the divine power of Christ over both the natural and the
spiritual world is shown in
the stilling of the storm, in the deliverance of the Gadarene demoniac, in
his curing the woman
with the issue of blood and raising the daughter of Jairus, 8:1-56. The
twelve are sent out and on
their return Christ retires with them to a desert place, where He
miraculously feeds the five thousand,
after which He once and again announced his future suffering and was
transfigured on the Mount,
9:1-50.
III. The Work of the Divine Man for the Gentiles, 9: 51-18: 30. Jesus in
traveling towards
Jerusalem sends messengers before him, but these are rejected by the
Samaritans; then He sends
out the seventy, who return with a good report, teaches that neighborly love
is not to be restricted
to the Jews (good Samaritan), and gives his disciples instruction regarding
prayer, 9: 51-11:13. The
Pharisees now claim that Christ casts out the devils through Beelzebub, in
answer to which He
pictures their condition, and when they tempt him in various ways,
pronounces his woe upon them
and warns his disciples against them, 11: 14-12 :12. In connection with the
parable of the rich fool
the Lord warns against covetousness and anxious care, and bids his disciples
to be prepared for the
day of his coming, 12:13-53. Sitting at meat in the house of a Pharisee, He
teaches those present
true mercy, true humility, true hospitality, and the fact that they, having
refused the supper of the
Lord, will be rejected, 14:1-24. Next the necessity of self-denial is
impressed on those that would
follow Jesus, and in three parables the Pharisees are made acquainted with
the real purpose of his
coming, 14: 25-15: 32. The disciples are instructed in the careful use of
their earthly possessions,
and to the Pharisees the law of retribution is explained, 16:1-31. In
various ways the Lord impresses
on his followers the necessity of a forgiving spirit, of humility, of faith
and gratitude, of constant
46
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
prayer with a view to the unexpected character of his coming, of trusting in
God and of selfdenial,
all ending in everlasting salvation, 17:1 18: 30.
IV. The Sacrifice of the Divine Man for all Mankind, 18:31-23 :49. Jesus
announces once more
his future suffering and death, at Jericho restores the sight of a blind man
and calls Zaccheus, and
points out to his followers that his Kingdom would not immediately come, 18:
32-19: 27.
Triumphantly He enters Jerusalem, where He cleanses the temple, answers the
questions of the
Chief Priests, the Scribes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and instructs
his followers regarding
his future coming, 19: 28-21 :38. After eating the passover with his
disciples He was betrayed,
condemned and crucified, 22:1 23:56.
V. The Divine Man Saviour of all Nations, 24. On the morning of the first
day Christ arose;
women seek him in the grave; He appears to two of his disciples on the way
to Emmaus, to the
eleven, and finally departs from them with the promise of the Spirit.
CHARACTERISTICS
The following are the most important characteristics of the third Gospel:
1. In point of completeness it surpasses the other Synoptics, beginning, as
it does, with a detailed
narrative of the birth of John the Baptist and of Christ himself, and ending
with a record of the
ascension from the Mount of Olives. In distinction from Matthew and Mark
this Gospel even
contains an allusion to the promise of the Father, 24: 29, and thus points
beyond the old dispensation
to the new that would be ushered in by the coming of the Holy Spirit. The
detailed narrative of
Christ’s going to Jerusalem in 9: 51-18:14 is also peculiar to this gospel.
2. Christ is set before us in this Gospel as the perfect Man with wide
sympathies. The genealogy
of Jesus is trace back through David and Abraham to Adam, our common
progenitor, thus presenting
him as one of our race. We are told of the truly human development both in
body and spirit of Jesus
in 2: 40-52, and of his dependence on prayer in the most important crises of
His life, 3: 21; 9: 29.
Those features of the Lord s miracles of healing are clearly brought out
that show his great sympathy.
“Peter’s mother-in-law suffers from a great fever; and the leper is full of
leprosy. The hand restored
on the sabbath is the right hand, the centurion s servant is one dear to
him, the son of the widow
of Nain, is an only son, the daughter of Jairus an only daughter, the
epileptic boy at the hill of
transfiguration is an only child.” Bruce, The Expositor’s Greek Testament I
p. 47.
3. Another feature of this gospel is its universality. It comes nearer than
other Gospels to the
Pauline doctrine of salvation for all the world, and of salvation by faith,
without the works of the
law. In the synagogue at Nazareth Christ points out that God might again
deal with the Jews as He
had done in the days of Elijah and Elishah, 4:25-27; He declares that the
faith of the centurion was
greater than any He had found in Israel, 7: 2-10; sends messengers before
his face into Samaria, 9:
52-56; demands love of Israel even for the Samaritans, 10: 30-37; heals the
Samaritan leper as well
as the others, 17: 11-19; and speaks the significant word: “Blessed are they
that hear the word of
God and keep it, 11:28.
4. More than the other evangelists Luke relates his narrative to
contemporaneous history and
indicates the time of the occurrences. It was in the days of king Herod that
the birth of John the
Baptist and Christ was announced, 1:1, 26; during the reign of Caesar
Augustus, that Christ was
born, 2: 1; while Cyrenius was governor of Syria, that the taxation took
place, 2: 2; in the fifteenth
year of Tiberias, etc., that Christ was baptized and began his public
ministry, 3:1, 2. Notice also
the following chronological indications: 1:36, 56, 59; 2:42; 3:23; 9:28, 37,
51; 22:1, 7. We should
47
not infer from the foregoing, however, that Luke furnishes us with a
chronological record of the
Lord s public ministry. Very indefinite expressions of time are found
throughout the Gospel, as:
“and it came to pass, when he was in a certain city,” 5:12; “and it came to
pass on a certain day,”
5:17; “and it came to pass also on another sabbath,” 6: 6, etc.
5. Luke writes a purer Greek than any of the other evangelists, but this is
evident only, where
he does not closely follow his sources. The Greek of the preface is of
remarkable purity, but aside
from this the first and second chapters are full of Hebraisms. Of the rest
of the Gospel some parts
approach very closely to classical Greek, while others are tinged with
Hebrew expressions. Plummer
says: “The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most versatile
of all the New Testament
writers. He can be as Hebraistic as the LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as
Plutarch.” Comm. on
Luke in International Crit. Comm. p. XLIX. His style is also very
picturesque; he tries to make us
see things, just as the eyewitnesses saw them. Moreover his Gospel contains
312 words that are
peculiar to him. Several of these are .pa. .e..µe.a. There are also five
Latin words, viz.
d.......,.e.e.., s..d.....,.ss..... and µ.d.... Cf. lists in Plummer’s Comm.
and Davidson’s
Introd.
AUTHORSHIP
Though the author speaks of himself explicitly in the preface of his Gospel,
we are dependent
on tradition for his name. And here again the testimony of the fathers is
unanimous. Irenaeus asserts
that “Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by
him.” With this
agrees the testimony of Origen; Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory, Nazianze,
Jerome, e. a.
The Gospel itself offers us no direct collateral testimony. Yet there are
certain features that
strengthen our belief in the authorship of Luke. In the first place the
writer evidently looks at things
with the eye of a physician. In 1882 Dr. Hobart published a work on, The
Medical Language of St.
Luke, showing that in many instances the evangelist uses the technical
language that was also used
by Greek medical writers, as pa.a.e..µ...., 5:18, 24 (the other Gospels have
pa.a..t....);s..e..µ... p..et. µe.a... 4 :38; .st. . ..´s.. t.. ..µat.. 8
:44 (cf. Mt. 5 :29)
; ..e....se., 7 :14, Luke carefully distinguishes demoniacal possession from
disease, 4:18; 13:
32; states exactly the age of the dying person, 8:42; and the duration of
the affliction in 13:11. He
only relates the miracle of the healing of Malchus ear. All these things
point to Luke, “the beloved
physician.
In the second place there is what has been called the Paulinism of Luke.
This has sometimes
been emphasized unduly, no doubt, but it certainly is a characteristic
feature of the third Gospel,
and is just what we would expect in a writing of Paul’s companion. In the
third place we find great
similarity between this Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. If Luke wrote
the latter, he also
composed the former. The general opinion is expressed by Knowling in his
introduction to the book
of Acts, in the Expositor’s Greek Testament II p. 3: “Whoever wrote the Acts
wrote also the Gospel
which bears the name of Luke.” It is true that there are more Hebraisms in
the Gospel than in Acts,
but this is due to the fact that the writer in composing the former was more
dependent on written
sources than he was in writing the latter.
The only certain knowledge we have of Luke is derived from the Acts of the
Apostles and from
a few passages in the Epistles of Paul. From Col. 4:11,14 it appears that he
was not a Jew and that
his wordly calling was that of a physician. Eusebius and Jerome state that
he was originally from
48
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Antioch in Syria, which may be true; but it is also possible that their
statement is due to a mistaken
derivation of the name Luke from Lucius (cf. Acts 13: 1) instead of from
Lucanus. The testimony
of Origen makes us suspect this. Theophylact and Euthymius had the mistaken
opinion that he was
one of the Seventy sent out by our Lord. This is refuted by the preface of
the Gospel, where Luke
clearly distinguishes himself from those that saw and heard the Lord.
Apparently the evangelist
joined the company of Paul and his co-laborers on the second missionary
journey at Troas. This
may be inferred from the beginning of the we-sections in Acts 16:10. The
first one of these sections
ends at 16:17, so that Luke probably remained at Philippi. He stayed there,
so it seems, until Paul
returned from Greece on his third missionary journey, for in Acts 20: 5 we
suddenly come upon
the plural pronoun of the first person again. Then he evidently accompanied
the apostle to Jerusalem,
20: 6, 13, 14, 15; 21:1-17. In all probability he was with Paul at Qesarea,
27: 1, from where he
accompanied the apostle to Rome, 27:1 28:16. He remained at Rome during the
first imprisonment,
Col. 4:14; Philem. 24, and was according to these passages a beloved friend
and fellow-laborer of
the apostle. And when the great missionary of the gentiles was imprisoned
for the second time,
Luke was the only one with him, II Tim. 4:11, and thus gave evidence of his
great attachment to
Paul. The last part of Luke’s life is involved in obscurity. Nothing certain
can be gathered from the
conflicting testimony of the fathers. Some claim that he gained a martyr’s
crown; others, that he
died a natural death.
The question must be asked, whether Paul was in any way connected with the
composition of
the third Gospel. The testimony of the early Church is very uncertain on
this point. Tertullian says:
“Luke’s digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that
for the master’s which
is published by the disciples.” According to Eusebius, “Luke hath delivered
in his Gospel a certain
amount of such things as he had been assured of by his intimate acquaintance
and familiarity with
Paul, and his connection with the other apostles.” With this the testimony
of Jerome agrees.
Athanasius states that the Gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul.
In view of the preface
of the gospel we may be sure that the Church fathers exaggerate the
influence of Paul in the
composition of this Gospel, possibly to give it apostolic authority. Paul s
relation to the third Gospel
differs from that of Peter to the second; it is not so close. Luke did not
simply write what he
remembered of the preaching of Paul, much less did he write according to the
dictation of the
apostle, for he himself says that he traced everything from the beginning
and speaks of both oral
and written sources that were at his command. Among these oral sources we
must, of course, also
reckon the preaching of Paul. That the great apostle did influence Luke s
representation of “the
beginning of the Gospel,” is very evident. There are 175 words and
expressions in the gospel that
are peculiar to Luke and Paul. Cf. Plummer p. LIV. Besides, as we have
already seen, some of the
leading ideas of Paul are found in the third gospel, such as the
universality of the Gospel, the
necessity of faith, and the use of the word d.a.a... in a forensic sense,
7:29; 10:29; 16:15; 18:14.
A striking resemblance exists also between Luke s account of the institution
of the Lord s supper,
22:19-20. and Paul s memoir of this in I Cor. 11: 23-25, but this may be due
to the use of a common
source.
The Lukan authorship of the Gospel was generally accepted up to the time,
when Rationalism
began its attacks on the books of the Bible. The Tubingen school, notably F.
C. Baur, maintained
that the Gospel of Marcion, who began to teach at Rome in 140 A. D., was the
original of our
Gospel. Others followed where Baur led. In later years, however, critical
opinion wheeled about
completely and the opinion is generally held that Marcion’s Gospel is a
mutilation of Luke’s, though
49
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
in some parts it may represent another and even an older text. This, of
course, made it possible
again to maintain the authorship of Luke. But even now there are several
German scholars who
doubt that Luke wrote the Gospel, and Harnack’s protest against their
contention seems ineffective.
Their objections to the Lukan authorship are based on the Acts of the
Apostles rather than on the
Gospel, but, as has been intimated, the two stand or fall together. We shall
consider these objections,
when we treat of Acts.
COMPOSITION
1. Readers and Purpose. The Gospel of Luke was first of all intended for
Theophilus, who is
addressed as “most excellent Theophilus” in 1: 3, and is also mentioned in
Acts 1:1. We have no
means of determining who this Theophilus was. It has been supposed by some
that the name was
a general one, applied to every Christian, as a beloved one or a friend of
God. But the general
opinion now is, and rightly so, that it is the name of an individual,
probably a Greek. The fact that
he is addressed by Luke in the same manner as Felix, 23: 26, 24: 3, and
Festus, 26: 25 are addressed,
led to the conclusion that he was a person of high station. Baljon thinks he
was undoubtedly a
Gentile Christian, while Zahn regards him as a Gentile who had not yet
accepted Christ, since Luke
would have addressed a brother differently. It is generally agreed, however,
that the Gospel was
not intended for Theophilus only, but was simply addressed to him as the
representative of a large
circle of readers. Who were these first readers of the gospel? Origen says
that the third gospel was
composed “for the sake of the Gentile converts ;” Gregory Nazianze, more
definitely: “Luke wrote
for the Greeks.” Now it is quite evident from the gospel itself that the
evangelist is not writing for
the Jews. He never gives the words of Jesus in the Aramaeic language;
instead of .µ.. .... he
has ...... ...., 9:27; 12 :44; 21:3; for ..aµµate.. he uses ..µ....,
d.d.s.a..., 2:46; 7:30;
10:25; 11:45; and of many places in Palestine he gives a nearer definition.
It is very probable that
that Gospel of Luke was intended for the Greeks, because Paul labored
primarily among them,
Theophilus was in all probability a Greek, the preface of the gospel is in
many respects like those
found in Greek historians, and the whole Gospel is remarkably adjusted to
the needs of the Greeks.
Cf. for this last point especially Gregory, Why Four Gospels p. 207 if.
The purpose of Luke is clearly stated in the preface, viz. 98 that
Theophilus and the Gentile
readers in general might know the certainty of those things, wherein they
had been instructed, 1:
4. It is his desire to present clearly the truth of all Gospel facts. In
order to do this, he aims at fulness
of treatment; traces all things from the beginning; writes an orderly
account of all that has happened,
recording the sayings of the Lord in their original setting more than the
other evangelists do, thus
promoting definiteness and strengthening his representation of the reality
of things; mentions the
names not only of the principal actors in the Gospel history, but also those
of others that were in
any way connected with it, 2:1, 2; 3:1, 2; 7:40; 8:3; brings the Gospel
facts in relation with secular
history, 2:1, 2; 3:1, 2; and describes carefully the impression which the
teachings of Christ made,
4:15, 22, 36; 5:8, 25; 6:11; 7:29; 8:37; 18:43; 19:37. From the contents of
the Gospel we may further
gather that it was the author s nearer purpose to present Christ in a very
acceptable way to the
Greeks, viz, as the perfect man (cf. p. 91 above), as the sympathetic friend
of the afflicted and the
poor, 1: 52; 2:7; 4:18; 6:20; 12:15 ff. 16:19, etc., and as the Saviour of
the world, seeking those
that are lost, 7: 36-50; 15:1-32; 18:9-14; 19: 1-10;23:43.
50
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
2. Time and Place. Tradition tells us very little regarding the time, when
Luke wrote his Gospel.
According to Eusebius Clement of Alexandria received a tradition from
presbyters of more ancient
times “that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.”
Theophylact says: “Luke
wrote fifteen years after Christ’s ascension. The testimony of Euthymius is
to the same effect, while
Eutichius states that Luke wrote his Gospel in the time of Nero. According
to these testimonies the
evangelist composed his Gospel possibly as early as 54, and certainly not
later than 68 A. D.
Internal evidence is even more uncertain. Some infer from 21: 24 that Luke
realized that a
certain time was to elapse between the destruction of Jerusalem and the
final judgment, and therefore
wrote after the destruction of the Holy City, a very inconclusive argument
indeed, since this is a
prophetic word of Christ. We might argue in favor of a date after the
destruction of Jerusalem from
the absence of the warning note that is found in both Matthew and Mark, but
being an argument
from silence even that does not prove the point. Several scholars,
especially of the Tubingen school,
date the Gospel near the end of the first or in the beginning of the second
century. The main argument
for this date is the supposed fact that Luke is in some parts of his Gospel
dependent on the Antiquities
of Josephus, a rather chimerical idea. Both Zahn and Weiss are of the
opinion that Luke wrote after
the destruction of Jerusalem, but not later than the year 80 A. D. Zahn
settled on this terminus ad
quem, because he considers it likely that Luke was a member of the
Antiochian congregation as
early as the year 40 A. D., and would therefore be very old in the year 80
A. D.; Weiss, since the
evangelist evidently expected the second coming of Christ in his time, which
was characteristic of
the first generation after Christ. The great majority of conservative
scholars place the composition
of this Gospel somewhere between 58 and 63 A. D. The main arguments for this
date are: (1) it is
in harmony with ancient tradition; (2) it best explains the total silence of
Luke regarding the
destruction of Jerusalem; and (3) it is most in harmony with the dating of
Acts in 63 A. D., which
offers a good explanation of Luke s silence with respect to the death of
Paul.
As to the place, where the Gospel of Luke was written tradition points to
Achaia and Boeotia.
We have no means of controlling this testimony, however, so that it really
leaves us in ignorance.
Some of the modern guesses are, Rome, Caesarea, Asia Minor, Ephesus, and
Corinth.
3. Method. In view of the preface of Luke’s Gospel we have reason to believe
that in the
composition of it the evangelist depended on both oral tradition and written
sources. In present day
theories the emphasis is mainly placed on written sources, and the most
prevalent hypothesis is
that he employed the Gospel of Mark, either in the present form or in an
earlier recension; the
apostolic source Q or some d....s.. containing this (from which two sources
he derived mainly
the matter that he has in common with Matthew and Mark); and a third main
source of unknown
character and authorship, from which he drew the narrative of the nativity,
chs. 1, 2, and the account
of the last journey to Jerusalem, contained in 9: 51 18:14. Zahn also
believes that Luke employed
Mark as one of his sources, but does not attempt to give a nearer definition
of the other sources
used. The opinion that he drew part of his material from Josephus deserves
but a passing notice. It
seems to us that it is impossible to determine exactly what sources Luke
used; all we can say is:
(1) Having been an associate of Paul for several years, part of which he
spent in Palestine, where
he had abundant opportunity to meet other apostles and eyewitnesses of the
Lord’s works, he must
have gathered a large store of knowledge from oral tradition, which he
utilized in the composition
of his gospel. This accounts for a great deal of the matter which he has in
common with Matthew
and Mark. (2) During the time of his research in Palestine he also became
acquainted with a goodly
number of d....se.. narratives of the Gospel facts, of which we can no more
determine the exact
51
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
nature, and drew on them for a part of his material. One of these probably
contained the matter
found in chs. 1 and 2, and in 9: 51 18:14. (3) It does not seem likely that
Luke read either the Gospel
of Matthew or that of Mark, and classed them or either one of them with the
previous attempts, on
which he desired to improve. Oral tradition in connection with the guidance
of the Holy Spirit is
quite sufficient to explain the resemblance between these Gospels and that
of Luke.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonicity of this Gospel is well attested. Says Alexander in his work
on the Canon p. 177:
“The same arguments by which the canonical authority of the Gospels of
Matthew and Mark was
established, apply with their full force to the Gospel of Luke. It was
universally received as canonical
by the whole primitive Church has a place in every catalogue of the books of
the New Testament,
which was ever published is constantly referred to and cited by the Fathers
as a part of sacred
Scripture and was one of the books constantly read in the churches, as a
part of the rule of faith
and practice for all believers.” There are in all 16 witnesses before the
end of the second century
that testify to its use and general acceptance in the Church.
The gospel of Luke presents to us Christ especially as one of the human
race, the Seed of the
woman, in his saving work not only for Israel, but also for the Gentiles.
Hence it pictures him as
the friend of the poor and as seeking sinners, emphasizes the universality
of the Gospel blessings,
and distinctly bespeaks a friendly relation to the Samaritans. Its permanent
spiritual value is that it
reminds the Church of all ages that in every nation he that feareth God, and
worketh righteousness,
is accepted with him; and that we have a great High Priest that was touched
with the feeling of our
infirmities, and was in all parts tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
52
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Gospel of John
CONTENTS
The contents of the Gospel of John is also divided into five parts:
I. The Advent and Incarnation of the Word, 1: 1-13. John takes his point of
departure in the
pre-existence and divine origin of Christ, and points out that He was
heralded by John the Baptist,
was the light of the world and gave believers the power to become the
children of God.
II. The Incarnate Word the only Life of the World, 1: 14—6: 71. The
evangelist records the
testimony to the grace and truth of the incarnate Word given by John the
Baptist and by Christ
himself in word and deed, 1: 14—2 :11; and the self-revelation of Christ in
the cleansing of the
temple, 2:12-32; in the conversation with Nicodemus, 3:1-21; followed by the
public testimony of
John 3: 22-36; in the conversation with the Samaritan woman, 4:1-42; and in
the healing of the
nobleman’s son, 4: 43-54. More particularly he shows, how Christ reveals
himself as the author
and sustainer of life in the healing of the impotent man and its
vindication, 5:1-47; and in the miracle
of the loaves with the following discourse, leading to desertion on the one
and to confession on the
other hand, 6:1-71.
III. The Incarnate Word, the Life and Light, in Conflict with Spiritual
Darkness, 7:1—11: 54.
On the feast of tabernacles Christ reminds the Jews of the fact that He is
the life of the world, and
presents himself to them as the water of life, wherefore officers were sent
to take him, 7:1-52. The
following day He brings out the spiritual darkness of the Jews in connection
with the adulterous
woman, and declares that He is the light of the world, the only light that
can truly enlighten them;
and that He only could liberate them from their spiritual bondage; which
leads to an attempt to
stone him, 8:1-59. On a subsequent occasion He proves himself to be the
light of the world by
healing the blind man and speaks of himself as the good Shepherd that lays
down his life for his
sheep; thereby provoking unbelief and rage, 9:1—10: 21. At the feast of the
dedication He declares
that He and the Father are one, which again leads to an attempt to stone
him, 10: 22-42. In raising
Lazarus Jesus presents himself as the resurrection and the life, thus
leading some of the people to
believe in him, but his enemies to the settled purpose to kill him, 11:1-54.
IV. The Incarnate Word saving the Life of the World through his Sacrificial
Death, 11: 55—19:
42. The enemies plan to kill Jesus, but Mary of Bethany anoints him and the
people meet him with
glad hosannas; the Greeks seek him at Jerusalem, but the multitude turns
from him in unbelief, 11:
55—12: 50. He sits at the Paschal supper with his disciples, gives them a
lesson in humble service,
exposes the traitor and announces that the time has now come to leave his
disciples, 13:1-38. He
discourses on the significance of his departure and on the new life in
communion with the Father,
14:1—16: 33; and offers the intercessory prayer committing his followers to
the Father, 17:1-26.
In Gethsemane He is taken captive, and after a preliminary hearing before
the high priest is brought
before Pilate who, though finding no guilt in Jesus, yet delivers him into
the hands of the Jews to
be crucified, 18:1-16. After his crucifixion He is buried by Joseph and
Nicodemus, 19:17-42.
V. The Incarnate Word, risen from the Dead, the Saviour and Lord of all
Believers, 20:1—21:
25. Having risen from the dead, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalena and on two
successive Lords
days to his disciples, 20:1-31. Later He is seen by some of his disciples at
the sea of Tiberias, where
He restores Peter and points significantly to the career of John, the writer
of the Gospel, 31:1-25.
53
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
CHARACTERISTICS
Of the characteristics that mark the fourth Gospel the following especially
are to be noted:
1. The gospel of John emphasizes more than any of the others the Divinity of
Christ. It has no
historical starting-point, like the Synoptics, but recedes back into the
depths of eternity, and starts
out with the statement sublime in its simplicity: “In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.” Positively, the Logos-doctrine is
peculiar to this Gospel;
negatively, every indication of Christs human development and of his
gradually awakening
self-consciousness is strikingly absent from it. We find no genealogy here,
no description of Christ’s
birth with it’s attendant circumstances, and no narrative of his baptism and
temptation. John the
Baptist testifies to his Divinity, as soon as He enters on the scene, and He
himself publicly claims
this prerogative almost from the beginning of his public ministry, cf. 3:13;
5:17 if; 6: 32, 40 if.,
etc. The miracles of the Lord, narrated in this Gospel, are of such a
character that they give great
prominence to his divine power. The noblemans son was cured from a distance,
4:46 ff.; the man
at Bethesda had been infirm thirty-eight years, 5: 5; the blind man at
Jerusalem had been born
blind, 9:1; and Lazarus had already lain in the grave four days, 11:17.
2. The teaching of Christ greatly predominates in Johns Gospel, but this is
quite different from
that contained in the Synoptics. We find no parables here but elaborate
discourses, which also
contain a couple of allegories. The all absorbing topic is not the Kingdom
of God but the Person
of the Messiah. The simple rudimentary teaching regarding the Kingdom is
here replaced by a more
penetrating (though not developed) instruction in the deeper realities of
faith. In connection with
his miracles or other historical facts Christ presents himself as the source
of life, 4: 46—S : 47; the
spiritual nourishment of the soul, 6: 22-65; the water of life, 4: 7-16; 7:
37, 38; the true liberator,
8: 31-58; the light of the world, 9: 5, 35-41; and the living principle of
the resurrection, 11: 25, 26.
The farewell discourses of the Saviour, besides containing many profound
truths respecting his
personal relation to believers, are also significant on account of their
clear references to the coming
Paraclete.
3. The scene of action in this Gospel is quite different from that in the
Synoptics. In the latter
the work of Christ in Galilee is narrated at length, while He is seen at
Jerusalem only during the
last week of His life. In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, the long
ministry of Christ in Galilee
is presupposed rather than narrated, while his work and teaching in Judea
and particularly at
Jerusalem is made very prominent. The great feasts afforded the occasion for
this work and are
therefore distinctly mentioned. John speaks of three, possibly four,
Passovers, 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 13:
1; of the feast of Tabernacles, 7: 2; and of the feast of the Dedication,
10: 22.
4. The Gospel of John is far more definite than the Synoptics in pointing
out the time and place
of the occurrences that are narrated; it is in a certain sense more
chronological than the other Gospels.
We are generally informed as to the place of Christ’s operation. Definite
mention is made of Bethany,
1:28; Cana, 2: 1; Capernaum, 2:12; Jerusalem, 2:13; Sychar, 4: 5; Bethesda,
5 : 2, etc. The
designations of time are equally distinct, sometimes the hour of the day
being given. The
chronological framework of the gospel is found in its reference to the great
feasts. John the Baptist
sees Christ coming to him the day after he had met the delegation from
Jerusalem, 1: 29; and again
on the following day, 1: 35. A day later Christ called Philip and Nathanael,
1: 43-51; on the third
day there was a marriage in Cana, 2: 1; it was at the sixth hour that Christ
sat down at the well, 4:
6; at the seventh, that the nobleman’s son was cured, 4: 52; in the midst of
the feast that Jesus went
54
into the temple, 7:14; and again on the last great day, 7: 37; and about the
sixth hour that Christ
was delivered unto the Jews by Pilate, 19:14.
5. The style of the fourth Gospel is not like that of the other three. It is
peculiar in that “it
contains, on the one hand, except in the prologue and .a.. .a..e.in 3:29,
hardly any downright
Hebraisms,” Simcox, The Writers of the New Testament p. 73, while, on the
other hand, it approaches
the style of Old Testament writers more than the style of any other New
Testament writing does.
John evidently commanded a fairly good Greek vocabulary, but does not
attempt any elaborate
sentences. Rather than do this, he will repeat part of a previous statement
and then add a new
element to it. His sentences are generally connected in the most simple way
by .a., de or ..., and
his descriptions are often elaborate and repetitious. He exhibits a special
fondness for contrasts and
for the use of the parallelismus membrorum. A very characteristic expression
of his is ... a..´...,
which occurs 17 times in the Gospel. For other phrases and expressions see
Simcox. He also employs
several Aramaean words, as .a??., ..f.., µess.a., Ga??a.., G......, .µ..
.....
AUTHORSHIP
The voice of antiquity is all but unanimous in ascribing the fourth Gospel
to John. The
Monarchian sect, called by Epiphanius, “the Alogi,” forms the only
exception. Little is known of
this sect, except that it rejected the doctrine of the Logos. Salmon says:
“In fact I now believe that
“the Alogi” consisted of Caius and, as far as I can learn, of nobody else.”
Introd. p. 229. The internal
evidence for the authorship of the Gospel is now generally arranged under
the following heads:
1. The author was a Jew. He evidently had an intimate acquaintance with the
Old Testament,
had, as it were, imbibed the spirit of the prophetical writings. He knew
them not only in the
translation of the LXX, but in their original language, as is evident from
several Old Testament
quotations. Moreover the style of the author clearly reveals his Jewish
nationality. He wrote Greeks
it is true, but his construction, his circumstantiality and his use of
parallelism, are all Hebraic.
“There is a Hebrew soul living in the language of the evangelist.” Luthardt,
St. John the Author of
the Fourth Gospel, p. 166. Ewald comes to the conclusion, “that the Greek
language of the author
bears in itself still the clearest and strongest mark of a genuine Hebrew,
who born among the Jews
in the Holy Land, and grown up in this society without speaking Greek,
carries in himself the whole
spirit and breath of his mother-tongue even in the midst of the Greek
raiment that he afterwards
learnt to cast about him, and has no hesitation to let himself be led by
that spirit.” Quoted by
Luthardt, p. 167.
2. The author was a Palestinian Jew. He clearly shows that he is well at
home in the Jewish
world. He is intimately acquainted with Jewish customs and religious
observances and with the
requirements of the law, and moves about with ease in the Jewish world of
thought. He knows that,
according to the strict Jewish conception, it was unlawful to heal on the
sabbath, 5: 1 ff.; 9:14 ff.;
and also that circumcision was allowed, 7: 22 ff. He is aware of the Jewish
expectation of Elijah,
1: 21; and of the ill-feeling between the Jews and the Samaritans, 4: 9. He
understood that the Jews
regarded a misfortune as the result of some particular sin, 9: 2; and that
they considered one unclean
who had entered the house of a Gentile, 18: 28. He is thoroughly acquainted
with Jerusalem, 5 : 2;
with the valley of Sichem and mount Gerezim, 4: 5 ff.; with the temple, 8:
20; and with Capernaum
and other places around the sea of Galilee, 7.
55
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
3. The writer was an eyewitness of the events he relates. He claims this
explicitly, if not already
in 1: 14, “we beheld his glory” (Cf. I John 1:1-3), certainly in 19:35. “And
he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might
believe.” This claim is
corroborated by the lively and yet simple manner in which he pictures the
events; by the many
definite chronological data and naming of localities, to which we have
already referred; and by the
great prominence given to certain individuals with whom Jesus came in
contact.
4. The author was the apostle John. He often makes mention in his Gospel of
a disciple whom
he never names, but to whom he constantly refers as “the (an) other
disciple,” or as “the disciple
whom Jesus loved.” Cf. 13: 23; 18:15; 19:26; 20:2, 3, 4, 8; 21:7. At the
close of his Gospel he says
of him: “This is the disciple which testifieth these things; and we know
that his testimony is true,”
21: 24. Who was this disciple? The evangelist names only seven of the
disciples of the Lord, the
five that are not named being John and his brother James, Matthew, Simon the
Canaanite and James
the son of Alpheus. Now it is evident from 1: 35-41 that said disciple was
one of the first ones
called by the Lord, and these according to Mark 1: 16-19 were Peter, Andrew,
John and James.
The first two are explicitly named in John 1: 41-43, so that the one whose
name is suppressed must
have been either John or James. But we cannot think of James as the author
of this Gospel, since
he died a martyrs death as early as A. D. 44. Therefore John must have been
the writer.
According to Mt. 27: 56 and Mk. 1:20; 15: 40, John was the son of Zebedee
and Salome who
probably belonged to the middle class of society. His mother was among the
faithful followers of
the Saviour, Mt. 27: 56; Mk. 16:1. He was one of the very first followers of
Jesus and soon appears
as one of the innermost circle of the disciples, one of the three that
always accompany the Saviour.
With the Lord he enters the dwelling of Jairus, ascends the mount of
transfiguration and penetrates
into the dark recesses of Gethsemane. As he stands by the cross, the mother
of Jesus is entrusted
to his care. On the morning of the resurrection he is one of the first to
visit the grave of the Saviour.
In the first part of the Acts of the Apostles he appears as one of the
faithful witnesses of the
resurrection of the Lord. After that we lose sight of John in Scripture, but
tradition tells us that he
spent the last part of his life in Asia Minor, especially at Ephesus, where
he died in venerable age.
There is an apparent contradiction between the synoptical data regarding the
character of John
and the conception of it derived from his own writings, but this is easily
explained. The very first
indication of his character we glean from the statement in Mk. 3:17, that
the Lord named him and
his brother James “Boanerges, which is, the sons of thunder.” This conveys
the idea of an ardent
temper, of great strength and vehemence of character. And on two occasions
we find that they
reveal just such traits, viz. when they peremptorily forbade one who was
casting out devils in the
name of Jesus to continue this, Mk. 9: 38; Lk. 9:49; and when they desired
permission to command
fire to come down from heaven to devour the Samaritans, Lk. 9: 54. In both
cases the Lord reproves
their show of temper. Another trait of their character is revealed in their
request to sit in the places
of honor in the future Kingdom of Jesus, Mt. 20: 20-24; Mk. 10: 35-41. Their
ambition was such
as to offend the other disciples and to call forth a severe rebuke from the
Lord. John was, no doubt,
zealous for the Lord, but his zeal was mistaken; he had a passionate desire
to be near his Master,
but he showed this in a manner that was not free from selfishness and pride.
The Lord directed his
zeal and ambition into other channels by pointing out their unspiritual
character and by teaching
him that one can be great in the Kingdom of God only by being the servant of
ones brethren. This
undoubtedly made a profound impression on the sensitive John and begot
within him the habit of
introspection, of self-examination. He became more quiet, more reserved with
an inclination to
56
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
ponder on the mysteries that he encountered in his daily association with
the Lord, and penetrated
farther than the other disciples into the hidden depths of the mysterious
life of Christ. As a result
John, as he reveals himself in his writings, is quite different from the
John of the Synoptics. From
his Gospel and Epistles we learn to know him as a man of deep religious
feeling, beloved of Christ;
a man that lived in close communion with his Lord, a communion more
spiritual, however, than
he desired in his youthful years. His exclusivism has made place for a love
that would embrace all;
his zeal is still operative, but it has been sanctified and led into proper
channels; his strength has
become a tower of defense for spiritual truth.
Not until the last part of the eighteenth century was the authorship of John
attacked on critical
grounds, and even then the attacks were of small significance. Bretschneider
in 1820 was the first
to assail it in a systematic way. But he was soon followed by others, such
as Baur, Strauss,
Schwegler, Zeller, Scholten, Davidson, Wrede e. a. It has been their
persistent endeavor to show
that the Gospel of John is a product of the second century. Some would
ascribe it to that shadowy
person, the presbyter John, whose existence Eusebius infers from a rather
ambiguous passage of
Papias, but who, in all probability, is to be identified with John the
apostle. Others positively reject
this theory. Wrede, after arguing that the authorship of John cannot be
established, says: “Far less
can the recent hypothesis be regarded as proven which purports to find the
author of the Gospel in
John the presbyter.” The Origin of the New Testament p. 89.
The most important considerations that led many rationalistic critics to the
conclusion that the
fourth Gospel was written in the second century, are the following: (1) The
theology of the Gospel,
especially its representation of Christ, is developed to such a degree that
it points beyond the first
and reflects the consciousness of the Church of the second century. (2) The
Gospel was evidently
written under the influence of the philosophic and religious tendencies that
were prevalent in the
second century, such as Montanism, Docetism and Gnosticism. (3) The great
difference between
the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics appears to be the result of second
century cavilling respecting
the nature of Christ, and of the Paschal controversy.
But the idea that the Gospel of John is a second century product goes
counter to both the internal
evidence to which we already referred, and to the external testimony, which
is exceptionally strong
and which can be traced back to the very beginning of the second century.
Some of the Epistles of
Ignatius show the influence of John’s Christology, and the writings of both
Papias and Polycarp
contain allusions to the first Epistle of John, which was evidently written
at the same time as the
Gospel. The latter was in existence, therefore, in the beginning of the
second century. The theology
of the Gospel of John is no more developed than that of Paul’s Epistles to
the Ephesians and the
Colossians, that were written between A. D. 61 and 63. Critics generally
ceased to place any reliance
on the so-called Montanistic features of the Gospel, and although they still
maintain that some
passages contain traces of a Docetic Gnosticism, these are purely imaginary
and readily vanish,
when the light of exegesis is turned on. The connection of the Gospel with
the Paschal controversy
is now admitted to be very dubious. And the difference between it and the
Synoptics can be
satisfactorily explained without regarding it as a work of the second
century. Cf. above p. 19 ff.
Critics of the Tubingen school, who accepted the Johannine authorship of the
Apocalypse, were
wont to deny that John had written the Gospel, because it differed in so
many respects from the
former work. At present this argument is not insisted on, because scholars
are not so sure as they
once were, that John wrote the book of Revelation. Reuss, who still argues
in that fashion, says:
“It must be admitted that even in the most recent times the decision of the
question as to the apostolic
57
genuineness of the Apocalypse has by both sides been made to depend upon a
previously formed
judgment as to the fourth Gospel.” History of the N. T., I p. 161.
COMPOSITION
1. Readers and Purpose. The Gospel of John was in all probability written
primarily for the
Christians of Asia Minor, among whom especially the heresy of Cerinthus had
arisen. Early tradition
has it that John wrote it at the request of the bishops of Asia to combat
that heresy. Internal evidence
certainly favors the hypothesis that it was composed for Greek readers. The
author carefully interprets
Hebrew and Aramaeic words, as in 1: 38, 41, 42; 9:7; 11:16; 19:13, 17;
20:16. He makes it a point
to explain Jewish customs and geographical designations, 1:28; 2:1; 4:4,5;
11:54, . . . 7:37;
19:31,40,42. Moreover,notwithstanding his characteristically Hebrew style,
he usually quotes from
the Septuagint.
It was not John’s purpose to furnish a supplement to the Synoptics, though
his Gospel certainly
contains a good deal of supplemental matter; neither did he mean to produce
a direct polemic against
the Cerinthian heresy, even if this did to a certain degree determine his
special way of stating the
truth. He did not aim at conciliating the discordant parties of the second
century by leading them
up to a higher unity, as the Tubingen school asserted; nor at refuting
“Jewish objections and
invectives,” and at providing “his fellow-Christians with weapons ready to
hand ;” a hypothesis of
which Wrede asserts: “This view is on the whole a recent one, but it is
making victorious progress
among scholars.” The Origin of the New Testament, p. 84.
The apostle himself gives expression to his purpose, when he says: “These
things are written
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
believing, ye might have life
in his name,” 20: 31. His aim is twofold, therefore, theoretical and
practical. He desires to prove
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and to lead believers to a life of
blessed communion with
him. The means he employs to that end are: (1) The miracles of the Lord, on
which special emphasis
is placed, cf. 20:30; 31:25; and which are contemplated as s.µe.a, as signs
of the divine glory of
Christ. (2) The long discourses of the Saviour, which serve to interpret his
signs and to describe
the unique relation in which He stands to the Father. And (3) the narratives
touching Jesus dealing
with individuals, such as Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, Philip, Mary
Magdalena
and Thomas, showing, how He led them to faith, a faith culminating in the
confession of Thomas:
“My Lord and my God.”
2. Time and Place. Since John was undoubtedly the writer of the fourth
Gospel, we have a
terminus ad quem in A. D. 98, for Irenaeus says that John lived to the time
of Trajan, who began
his reign in that year. The testimony of Jerome is to the same effect: “The
apostle John lived in
Asia to the time of Trajan, and dying at a great age in the sixty-eighth
year of our Lords passion,
was buried near the city of Ephesus.” The same writer places the death of
John in A. D. 100. In all
probability, however, John wrote his Gospel several years before his death,
since its style is, as
Alford remarks, “that of a matured, but not of an aged writer.” Prolegomena
to the Gospels Ch.
V., Sec. VI, 10. It is not an easy matter to find a terminus a quo. We may
be sure that the apostle
did not compose the Gospel until after the death of Paul in A. D. 68. The
congregations of Asia
Minor were the special charge of the great apostle of the Gentiles, and he
never makes any mention
in his Epistles of Johns being in their midst, nor does he send him a single
salutation; and when he
parted from the Ephesian elders, he evidently did not anticipate the coming
of an apostle among
58
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
them. Moreover we infer from 21:19 that John knew of the manner in which
Peter died, and
presupposes this knowledge in his readers. Therefore it is unlikely that the
Gospel was written
before A. D. 70. Bengel in his Gnomon infers from the use of the present
tense in 5: 2 that Jerusalem
was still intact. But this argument is not conclusive, since the city was
not completely demolished
by the Romans, and because we can with equal propriety conclude from 11:18
that both Jerusalem
and Bethany had been swept off the face of the earth. John’s utter silence
regarding the destruction
of the city favors the idea that he wrote the Gospel several years after
that calamity. Zahn would
date the Gospel after A. D. 80, his terminus ad quem for the composition of
Luke’s Gospel, since
tradition teaches that John wrote later than the Synoptics. Among
rationalistic critics the most
divergent dates are suggested. Baur held that the Gospel was composed
between A. D. 160 and
170. At present the tendency is to revert to some date nearer the limits
indicated above. Thus
Pfleiderer dates it A. D. 140; Hilgenfeld believes that it originated
between A. D. 130 and 140.
Harnack and Julicher are not inclined to place it later than A. D. 110, and
the former even admits
that it may have been written as early as A. D. 80.
Tradition points to Ephesus as the place of composition. Origen testifies
“that John, having
lived long in Asia, was buried at Ephesus.” This is confirmed by Polycrates,
a bishop of Ephesus.
Jerome says: “John wrote a Gospel at the desire of the bishops of Asia.” And
Cosmas of Alexandria
informs us definitely that John composed his Gospel, while dwelling at
Ephesus. There is no reason
to doubt this testimony.
3. Method. John’s Gospel is evidently of an autoptic character. He may have
read the Synoptics
before he composed his work, but he did not use them as sources from which
he drew a part of his
material. In several places the author indicates that he related what he had
seen and heard, cf. 1:14;
13:23; 18:15; 19:26, 35;20:2. Compare what he says in his first Epistle
1:1-3. While the Synoptic
Gospels were in all probability based to a great extent on oral tradition
and written sources, neither
of these played an appreciable part in the composition of the fourth Gospel.
John, who had carefully
stored in memory the profound discourses of the Lord regarding his own
Person, discourses that
made a deep and lasting impression on the beloved disciple, drew on that
fountain of knowledge
and, guided by the Holy Spirit in all the truth, supplied us with an exact
record of the signs and
words of the Saviour.
It has often been remarked that there is a great difference between the
style of Christ’s discourses
in the Synoptics and that of those contained in the fourth Gospel; and that
in this gospel there is so
much similarity between the narrative of the evangelist and the discourses
of the Saviour that it
seems as if John clothed these in his own language. But the Synoptics and
John have so little such
matter in common that we cannot safely build a conclusion on it, and in the
discourses of Christ
which they do have in common no great difference of style in observable. And
as far as the second
point is concerned, it may be, as Alford thinks probable, that the Lord
influenced John so profoundly
that the latter’s style became very similar to that of the Master. But even
if John did reproduce the
discourses of the Saviour in his own style and language, we may rest assured
that he gives us the
exact teaching of the Lord.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Gospel of John was accepted as canonical in all parts of the Church from
the earliest time,
the only exceptions being the Alogi and Marcion. It is true, the apostolic
fathers do not quote it,
but the writings of three of them show traces either of it or of the first
Epistle. Among the Church
59
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
fathers Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr,
Jerome e. a. either freely
quote it, or refer to it as an integral part of the Word of God. Moreover it
is included in Tatian’s
Diatessaron, the Muratori canon, and the Syriac and old Latin Versions. In
all at least nineteen
witnesses testify to the use and recognition of the Gospel before the end of
the second century. The
great significance of this Gospel in Holy Writ is that it places prominently
before us the Son of
Man as the Son of God, as the eternal Word that became flesh. According to
this Gospel Christ is
the Son of God, who descended from the Father, stood in a unique relation to
the Father, had come
to do the Father’s will on earth, and would return to the glory that He had
eternally possessed with
the Father, that He might send the Holy Spirit from the Father to abide with
his Church throughout
all ages. In that Spirit He himself returns to his followers to dwell in
them forever. He is the highest
revelation of God, and our relation to him, either of faith or of unbelief,
determines our eternal
destiny. Before this Christ the Church bows down in adoration with Thomas
and calls out: “My
Lord and my God.”
60
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Acts of the Apostles
The contents of this book is naturally divided into two parts; in each of
which the main topic
is the establishment of the Church from a certain center:
I. The establishment of the Church from Jerusalem, 1:1—12: 25. In this part
we first have the
last discourse of Christ to his disciples, the ascension, the choice of an
apostle in the place of Judas,
the fulfilment of the promise in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the
conversion of three
thousand, 1: 1—2: 47. Then follows the healing of the lame man by Peter and
John; their faithful
witnessing for Christ in the temple, for which they were taken captive by
the priests, the captain
of the temple and the Sadducees; their release, since the enemies feared the
people; and their
thanksgiving for deliverance, 3: 1—4: 31. Next the condition of the Church
is described: they had
all things in common, and severe punishment was meted out to Ananias and
Sapphira for their
deception, 4: 32—5:11. On account of their words and works the apostles were
again imprisoned,
but delivered by the angel of the Lord; they were brought before the council
of the Jews and
dismissed after a warning, 5:12—42. The murmuring of the Grecians leads to
the appointment of
seven deacons, one of which, viz. Stephen, wrought miracles among the
people, and after witnessing
for Christ before the council, became the first Christian martyr, 6: 1—7:
60. This is followed by a
description of the persecution of the Church and the resulting scattering of
believers, of the work
of Philip in Samaria, of Sauls conversion, and of Peters healing of Eneas
and raising of Tabitha,
8:1—9:43. Then we have Peters vision of the descending vessel, his
consequent preaching to the
household of Cornelius, and the defense of his course before the brethren in
Judea, 10:1—11:18.
The narrative of the establishment of the Church at Antioch, of James
martyrdom, and of the
imprisonment and miraculous deliverance of Peter concludes this section, 11:
19—12: 25.
II. The Establishment of the Church from Antioch. 13:1—28: 31. From Antioch
Barnabas and
Saul set out on the first missionary journey, including visits to Cyprus,
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium,
Lystra and Derbe, from where they returned to Antioch, 13:1—14: 28. Then an
account is given
of the council of Jerusalem and its decisions affecting the Gentiles,
15:1-34. After his contention
with Barnabas, Paul starts out on the second missionary journey with Silas,
passing through the
Cilician gates to Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Troas, whence he was directed
by a vision to pass into
Europe, where he visited Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth,
preaching the gospel
and establishing churches. From Corinth he again returned to Jerusalem and
Antioch, 15: 35—18:
22. Shortly after Paul began his third missionary journey, going through
Asia Minor, staying at
Ephesus for over two years, and passing into Corinth, from where he again
returned to Jerusalem
by way of Troas, Ephesus and Cesarea, 18: 23—21:16. At Jerusalem the Jews
sought to kill him,
his defense both on the steps of the castle and before the Sanhedrin merely
inciting greater rage
and leading to a positive determination to kill him, 21:17—23:14. A
conspiracy leads to Paul’s
deportation to Cesarea, where he defends his course before Felix, Festus and
Agrippa, and on
account of the unfair treatment received at the hands of these governors,
appeals to Caesar,
23:15—26: 32. From Cesarea he is sent to Rome, suffers shipwreck on the way,
performs miracles
of healing on the island Melita, and on reaching his destination preaches
the gospel to the Jews and
remains a prisoner at Rome for two years, 27:1—28: 31.
61
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The great outstanding feature of this book is that it acquaints us with
the establishment of
Christian churches, and indicates their primary organization. According to
it churches are founded
at Jerusalem, 2: 41-47; Judea, Galilee and Samaria, 9: 31; Antioch, 11: 26;
Asia Minor, 14: 23; 16:
5; Philippi, 16: 40; Thessaalonica, 17:10; Berea, 17:14; Corinth, 18:18, and
Ephesus, 20:17-38.
>From the sixth chapter we learn of the institution of the deacons office,
and from 14: 23 and 20:17-38
it is clear that elders, also called bishops, were already appointed.
2. The narrative which it contains centers about two persons, viz. Peter and
Paul, the first
establishing the Jewish, the second the Gentile churches. Consequently it
contains several discourses
of these apostles, as Peters sermon on the day of Pentecost, 2:14-36; and in
the temple, 3:12-26;
his defenses before the Jewish council, 4: 8-12; 5 : 29-32; his sermon in
the house of Cornelius,
10: 34-43; and his defense before the brethren in Judea, 11: 4-18. And of
Paul the book contains
the sermons preached at Antioch, 13: 16-41; at Lystra, 14:15-18; and at
Athens, 17: 22-3 1; his
address to the Ephesian elders, 20: 18-35; and his defenses before the Jews
on the stairs of the
castle, 22:1-21; before the Sanhedrin 23:1-6; and before Felix and Agrippa,
24:10-21; 26:2-29.
3. The many miracles recorded in this writing constitute one of its
characteristic features. Besides
the miracles that are not described and of which there were many “signs and
wonders” by the
apostles, 2: 43; 5:12, 15, 16; by Stephen, 6:8; by Philip, 8: 7; by Paul and
Barnabas, 14: 3; and also
by Paul alone, 19:11,12; 28:1-9 ;—the following miracles are specifically
described: the gift of
tongues, 2:1-11; the lame man cured, 3:1-11; the shaking of the prayer hall,
4:31; the death of
Ananias and Sapphira, 5:1-11; the apostles delivered from prison, 5:19; the
translation of Philip,
8: 39, 40; Eneas made whole, 9: 34; Dorcas restored to life, 9: 36-42; Pauls
sight restored, 9:17;
the deliverance of Peter from prison, 12: 6-10; the death of Herod, 12:
20-23; Elymas, the sorcerer,
struck blind, 13: 6-11; the lame man at Lystra cured, 14: 8-11; the damsel
at Philippi delivered ,16:
16-18; the jail at Philippi shaken, 16: 25, 26; Eutychus restored to life,
20:9-12; Paul unhurt by the
bite of a poisonous viper, 28:1-6; the father of Publius and many others
healed, 28:8, 9.
4. The style of this book is very similar to that of the third Gospel,
though it contains less
Hebraisms. Simcox says that “the Acts is of all the books included in the
New Testament the nearest
to contemporary, if not to classical literary usage,—the only one, except
perhaps the Epistle to the
Hebrews, where conformity to a standard of classical correctness is
consciously aimed at.” The
Writers of the New Testament, p. 16. The tone is most Hebraic in the first
part of the book, especially
in the sermons in chs. 2 and 13 and in the defense of Stephen ch. 7, in all
of which the Old Testament
element is very large ;—and it is most Hellenic in the last part of the
book, as in the epistle of the
church at Jerusalem, the letter of Lysias, the speech of Tertullus, and the
defense of Paul before
Agrippa. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the first part of the book
deals primarily with
Jewish, and last part especially with Gentile Christianity.
TITLE
The Greek title of the book is p...e.. .p.st...., Acts of Apostles. There is
no entire uniformity
in the MSS. in this respect. The Sinaiticus has simplyp...e..although it has
the regular title at the
close of the book. Codex D is peculiar in havingp..... .p.st...., Way of
acting of the Apostles.
We do not regard the title as proceeding from the author, but from one of
the transcribers; nor do
62
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
we consider it a very happy choice. On the one hand the title, if
translated, as is done in both the
Authorized and the Revised Version, by “The Acts of the Apostles,” is too
comprehensive, since
there are but two apostles whose acts are recorded in this book, viz. Peter
and Paul. On the other
hand it is too restricted, because the book contains not only several acts,
but also many words of
these apostles; and also, since it records besides these acts and words of
other persons, such as
Stephen, Philip and Barnabas.
AUTHORSHIP
The voice of the ancient Church is unanimous in ascribing this book to Luke,
the author of the
third Gospel. Irenaeus in quoting passages from it repeatedly uses the
following formula: “Luke
the disciple and follower of Paul says thus.” Clement of Alexandria, quoting
Paul’s speech at
Athens, introduces it by, “So Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates.”
Eusebius says: “Luke has
left us two inspired volumes, the Gospel and the Acts.” The external
testimony for the Lukan
authorship is as strong as we could wish for.
Now the question arises, whether the internal evidence agrees with this. The
book does not
directly claim to have been written by Luke. Our Scriptural evidence for the
authorship is of an
inferential character. It seems to us that the Lukan authorship is supported
by the following
considerations:
1. The we-sections. These are the following sections, 16-10-17; 20: 5-15;
and 27:1—28:16, in
which the pronoun of the first person plural is found, implying that the
author was a companion of
Paul in part of the apostles travels. Since Paul had several associates,
different names have been
suggested for the author of this book, as Timothy, Silas, Titus and Luke,
who according to Col.
4:14; Philemon 24; and II Tim. 4:11, was also one of the apostles companions
and best friends.
The first two persons named are excluded, however, by the way in which they
are spoken of in
16:19 and 20:4, 5. And so little can be said in favor of Titus that it is
now quite generally agreed
that Luke was the author of the we-sections. But if this is true, he is also
the author of the book,
for the style of the book is similar throughout; there are cross-references
from the we-sections to
the other parts of the book, as f. i. in 21: 8, where Philip is introduced
as one of the seven, while
we know only from ch. 6 who the seven were, and from 8: 40, how Philip came
to be in Cesarea;
and it is inconceivable that a later writer should have incorporated the
we-sections in his work in
such a skillful manner that the lines of demarcation cannot be discovered,
and should at the same
time leave the tell-tale pronoun of the first person undisturbed.
2. The medical language. Dr. Hobart has clearly pointed out this feature in
both the Gospel of
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. Some make light of this argument, but
Zahn says: “W. K. Hobart
hat fur Jeden, dem flberhaupt etwas zu beweisen ist, bewiesen, dass der
Verfasser des lucanischen
Werks em mit der Kunstsprache der griechischen Medicin vertrauter Mann, em
griechischer Arzt
gewesen ist.” Einl. II p. 429. We find instances of this medical language in
.....13:11;pa.a.e..µ....;, 8:7; 9:33;p..et... .a. d.se.te..a s..e...µe...,
25 :8.
3. Assuming that Luke wrote the third Gospel, a comparison of Acts with that
work also decidedly
favors the Lukan authorship, for: (1) The style of these two books is
similar, the only difference
being that the second book is less Hebraistic than the first,—a difference
that finds a ready
explanation in the sources used and in the authors method of composition.
(2) Both books are
addressed to the same person, viz. Theophilus, who was, so it seems, a
special friend of the author.
63
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
(3) In the opening verse of Acts the author refers to a first book that he
had written. Taking the
points just mentioned in consideration, this can be no other than our third
Gospel, though Baljon,
following Scholten, denies this. Geschiedenis v/d Boeken des N. V. p. 421.
4. The book contains clear evidence of having been written by a companion of
Paul. This follows
not only from the we-sections, but also from the fact that, as even
unfriendly critics admit, the
author shows himself well acquainted with the Pauline diction. We have
reasons to think that he
did not derive this acquaintance from a study of Pauls Epistles; and if this
is true, the most rational
explanation is that he was an associate of Paul and heard the great apostle
speak on several occasions.
Moreover the authors characterization of Paul is so detailed and
individualized as to vouch for
personal acquaintance.
The authorship of Luke has not found general acceptance among New Testament
scholars. The
main objections to it appear to be the following: (1) The book is said to
show traces of dependence
on the Antiquities of Josephus, a work that was written about A. D. 93 or
94. The reference to
Theudas and Judas in 5: 36, 37 is supposed to rest on a mistaken reading of
Josephus, Ant. XX, V,
1, 2. (2) The standpoint of the author is claimed to be that of a second
century writer, whose
Christianity is marked by universality, and who aims at reconciling the
opposing tendencies of his
time. (3) The work is held by some to be historically so inaccurate, and to
reveal such a wholesale
acceptance of the miraculous, that it cannot have been written by a
contemporary. There is
supposedly a great conflict especially between Acts 15 and Galatians 2.
We cannot enter on a detailed examination of these objections; a few remarks
anent them must
suffice. It is by no means proven that the author read Josephus, nor that he
wrote his work after the
Jewish historian composed his Antiquities. Gamaliel, who makes ‘the
statement regarding Theudas
and Judas, may very well have derived his knowledge from a different source;
and his supposed
mistake (which may not be a mistake after all) does not affect the
authorship, nor the trustworthiness
of the book. That the standpoint of the author is more advanced than that of
the Pauline Epistles
(Baljon) is purely imaginary; it is in perfect harmony with the other New
Testament writings. And
the idea of a struggle between the Petrine and Pauline factions is now
generally discarded. Historical
inaccuracy does not necessarily imply that a book was written a considerable
time after the events.
Moreover in the book of Acts there is no such inaccuracy. On the contrary,
Ramsay in his, St. Paul
the Traveler and the Roman Citizen has conclusively proved that this book is
absolutely reliable
and is a historical work of the highest order. It may be that some
difficulties have not yet found an
altogether satisfactory solution, but this does not militate against the
authorship of Luke.
COMPOSITION
1. Readers and Purpose. It is not necessary to speak at length about the
readers for whom this
book was first of all intended, because like the Gospel of Luke it is
addressed to Theophilus, and
like it too it was undoubtedly destined for the same wider circle of
readers, i. e. the Greeks.
But what was the purpose of the author in writing this book? This is a very
much debated
question. The book of Acts is really a continuation of the third gospel and
was therefore, in all
probability, also written to give Theophilus the certainty of the things
narrated. We notice that in
this second book, just as in the first, the author names many even of the
less important actors in
the events, and brings out on several occasions the relation of these events
to secular history. Cf.
12:1; 18:2; 23:26; 25:1. Of what did Luke want to give Theophilus certainty?
>From the fact that
he himself says that he wrote the first book to give his friend the
certainty of the things that Jesus
64
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
began to do and to teach, we infer that in the second book he intended to
give him positive instruction
regarding the things that Jesus continued to do and to teach through his
apostles. It seems that he
found his program in the words of the Saviour, 1: 8: “But ye shall receive
power, after that the Holy
Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and
in all Judea, and in
Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.” In harmony with this
program he describes the
march of Christianity from Jerusalem, the center of the Jewish Theocracy, to
Rome, the center of
the world. With Paul in Rome, therefore, the authors task is finished.
Opposed to this view are those that regard the book as a tendency writing,
in which history has
been falsified with a definite purpose. As such we have:
(1) The theory of the Tubingen school, that the book was written to
conciliate the Petrine and
Pauline factions in the early Church, and therefore represents Peter as more
liberal, and Paul as
more Judaistic than is in harmony with their own writings. The supposed
parallelism between Peter
and Paul, according to some, ministers to the same purpose. This theory in
the bald form in which
it was broached by Baur, is now generally abandoned, and has been modified
in various ways.
(2) The view defended by some later scholars, such as Overbeck and
Straatman, that the book
of Acts is really an apology for Christianity over against the Gentiles,
especially the Romans. Hence
the author gives the Romans due honor, and clearly brings out the advantages
which Paul derived
from his Roman citizenship. He desires to convey the impression that the
doctrine taught by Paul,
who was protected by the mighty arm of Rome, who was acquitted of false
charges by Roman
governors, and who with a good conscience appealed to Caesar himself, could
not be regarded as
dangerous to the state. Wrede considers this a subordinate purpose of the
author.
The abiding merit of these theories is that they contemplate the book of
Acts as an artistic whole.
For the rest, however, they do not commend themselves to our serious
consideration. The basis on
which they rest is too uncertain; they are not borne out by the facts; they
are inimical to the well
established historicity of the book; and they come to us with the
unreasonable demand, born of
unbelief and aversion to the miraculous, to consider the author as a
falsifier of history.
2. Time and Place. As to the time, when the book was composed little can be
said with certainty.
It must have been written after A. D. 63, since the author knows that Paul
staid in Rome two years.
But how long after that date was it written? Among conservative scholars,
such as Alford, Salmon,
Barde e. a. the opinion is generally held that Luke wrote his second book
before the death of Paul
and the destruction of Jerusalem, because no mention whatever is made of
either one of these
important facts. Zahn and Weiss naturally date it about A. D. 80, since they
regard this date as the
terminus ad quem for the composition of the third gospel. Many of the later
rationalistic critics too
are of the opinion that the book was written after the destruction of
Jerusalem, some even placing
it as late as A. D. 110 (Baljon) and 120 (Davidson). Their reasons for doing
this are: (1) the supposed
dependence of Luke on Josephus; (2) the assumption, based on Lk. 21:20; Acts
8:26 ff. that Jerusalem
was already destroyed; and (3) the supposed fact that the state of affairs
in the book points to a
time, when the state had begun to persecute Christians on political grounds.
None of these reasons
are conclusive, and we see no reasons to place the book later than A. D. 63.
The place of composition was in all probability Rome.
3. Method. The problem of the sources used by Luke in the composition of
this book has given
rise to several theories, that we cannot discuss here. And it is not
necessary that we should do this,
because, as Zahn maintains, none of these repeated attempts has attained any
measure of probability;
and Headlam says: “The statement of them is really a sufficient
condemnation.” Hastings D. B.
65
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Art. Acts of the Apostles. For a good discussion of the various theories of
Van Manen, Sorof, Spitta
and Clemen cf. Knowlings Introduction to Acts in the Expositors Greek
Testament. With Blass we
believe that, if Luke is the author, the question of sources for the greater
part of the book need not
be raised. The writer may have learnt the early history of the Jerusalem
church from Barnabas at
Antioch and from several others who found refuge in that city after the
persecution; from Philip,
whose guest he was for several days, 21: 8-15, and with whom he must have
had frequent intercourse
during Pauls later stay at Cesarea; and from Mnason, an old disciple, 21:16.
And regarding the
missionary journeys of Paul he, in all probability, received full
information from the apostle himself,
and could partly draw on his own memory or memorandum. It is quite possible
that the author had
written records of the speeches of Peter and Paul, but he certainly did not
reproduce them literally
but colored them in part with his own style.
INSPIRATION
The book of Acts is a part of the inspired Word of God. We have in it the
fruit of apostolic
inspiration, in so far as we find here speeches of some of the apostles and
of Stephen, who was
filled with the Holy Ghost, when he defended his course before the Jewish
council, 6:5, 10. And
in the composition of his book Luke was guided by the Holy Spirit, so that
the whole work must
be regarded as a product of graphical inspiration. This follows from the
fact that this book is a
necessary complement of the Gospels, which are, as we have seen, inspired
records. It is a
continuation of the Gospel of Luke, that is quoted as Scripture in I Tim.
5:18 (cf. Luke 10: 7). If
the Gospel is inspired, then,. assuredly, the work that continues its
narrative is also written by
inspiration. Moreover we find that the Church fathers from the earliest time
appeal to this book as
of divine authority,—as an inspired work.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The place of Acts in the canon of Holy Scripture has never been disputed by
the early Church,
except by such heretical sects as the Marcionites, the Ebionites and the
Manichaeans, and then only
on dogmatical grounds. Traces of acquaintance with it are found in the
apostolic fathers, as also in
Justin and Tatian. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian frequently
quote from this book.
It is named in the Muratorian canon, and is also contained in the Syriac and
old Latin Versions.
These testimonies are quite sufficient to show that it was generally
accepted.
As an integral part of Scripture it is inseparably connected with the
Gospels, and reveals to us,
how the Gospel was embodied in the life and institution of the Church. We
here see that the sowing
of the precious seed that was entrusted to the apostles resulted in the
planting and extension of the
Church from three great racial centers of the world, from Jerusalem, the
center of the Jewish
Theocracy, from Antioch, the center of Greek culture, and from Rome, the
capital of the world.
The Gospels contain a revelation of what Jesus began to do and to teach; the
book of Acts shows
us what he continued to do and to teach through the ministry of men. There
is an evident advance
in the teaching of the apostles; they have learnt to understand much that
was once a mystery to
them. In the Gospels we find that they are forbidden to tell anyone that
Jesus is the Messiah; here
we read repeatedly that they preach Christ and the resurrection. They now
exhibit Christ in his true
character as the Prince of Life and as the King of Glory. And the effect of
their teaching was such
66
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
as to bear striking evidence to the regenerating power of Him, who by the
resurrection from the
dead was powerfully declared to be the Son of God.
67
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistles in General
THE EPISTOLARY FORM IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE.
The revelation of God comes to us in many forms, in diverse manners. It is
not only embodied
in facts, but also in words; it is borne not only by the prophets, but also
by the sweet singers and
by the wise men of Israel; it finds expression not only in the Gospels, but
also in the Epistles. About
one-third of the New Testament is cast in the epistolary form.
This form of teaching was not something absolutely new in the time of the
apostles, although
we find but few traces of it in the Old Testament. Mention is made there of
some letters written by
kings and prophets, f. i. in I Kings 21: 8, 9; II Kings 5:5-7; 19:14; 20:12;
Jer. 29:1; but these are
quite different from our New Testament Epistles. The letter as a particular
type of self-expression
took its rise, so it seems, among the Greeks and the Egyptians. In later
time it was also found among
the Romans and in Hellenistic Judaism, as we notice from the epistle of
Aristion, that treats of the
origin of the Septuagint. According to Deissmann the Egyptian papyri
especially offer a great
amount of material for comparison.
In all probability, however, it was Paul who first introduced the epistle
as a distinct type of
literary form for the conveyance of divine truth. Aside from the Gospels his
Epistles form the most
prominent part of the New Testament. In this connection it is well to bear
in mind the important
distinction made by Deissmann between a letter and an epistle, of which the
former is non-literary,
or, as J. V. Bartlet says, “pre-literary,” and the latter is a literary
artistic form of communication.
It is Deissmann’s conviction that the writings of Paul have been very much
misunderstood. “They
have been regarded as treatises, as pamphlets in letter form, or at any rate
as literary productions,
as the theological works of the primitive Christian dogmatist.” He insists
that they are letters, serving
the purpose of communication between Paul and the congregations, letters
that were not intended
by Paul for publication, but only for the private use of the addressees,
arising from some historical
exigency, unsystematic and pulsating with the life of the writer. Deissmann,
St. Paul p. 7 ff. This
writer certainly rendered us good service by calling attention to the fact,
often lost sight of, that the
Epistles of Paul are the living spontaneous expression of a great mind,
continually meditating and
reflecting on the truth of God; that they are letters, often clearly
revealing the changing moods of
the apostle. They are marked as letters by their occasional character, by
their being calculated for
a single community and situation, and by their addresses, praescripts and
salutations.
With respect to the fitness of this form for the communication of the divine
thoughts the remarks
of Bernard are very valuable. He finds that it is in perfect harmony “with
that open and equal
participation of revealed truth, which is the prerogative of the later above
the former dispensation;
indicating too that the teacher and the taught are placed on one common
level in the fellowship of
the truth. The prophets delivered oracles to the People, but the apostles
wrote letters to the brethren,
letters characterized by all that fulness of unreserved explanation, and
that play of various feeling,
which are proper to that form of intercourse. It is in its nature a more
familiar communication, as
between those who are or should be equals.” “The form adopted in the New
Testament combines
the advantages of the treatise and the conversation. The letter may treat
important subjects with
accuracy and fulness, but it will do so in immediate connection with actual
life. It is written to meet
any occasion. It is addressed to peculiar states of mind. It breathes of the
heart of the writer. It takes
68
its aim from the exigencies, and its tone from the feelings of the moment.”
Bernard, The Progress
of Doctrine in the N. T. pp. 156, 157.
THE INSPIRATION OF THE EPISTLES
The Scriptural Epistles are as well as the Gospels and Acts divinely
inspired. Even as in their
preaching, so also in writing their letters the apostles were guided by the
Holy Spirit. Here again
we must distinguish between the apostolic and the graphical inspiration,
although in this case the
two are very closely connected. For a general description of the apostolic
inspiration we refer to
p. 30 if. above. It is necessary to remark, however, that in the case of the
Epistles, as distinguished
from that of the Gospels, it did not almost exclusively assume the character
of a .p.µ..s.., but
was also to a great extent a d.das.a..a. Both of those elements are
indicated in the promise of the
Holy Spirit given by Christ before his departure: “But the Comforter, even
the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to
your remembrance all
that I said unto you.” John 14: 26. Cf. also 16:12,13. In the Gospels we
have the totality of the
apostolic .....µa hence their production naturally depended in great measure
on a faithful memory.
The Epistles, on the other hand, contain the fruit of the apostles
reflection on this .....µa, their
injerpretation of it. Therefore it was not sufficient that the writers in
composing them should
faithfully remember former things; they needed more light on them, a better
understanding of their
real meaning and profound significance. For that reason the Holy Spirit
became their d.das.a....
The apostles were evidently conscious of being inspired by the Holy Ghost in
the composition
of their Epistles. This follows from the authority with which they address
the congregations. They
feel sure that their word is binding on the conscience; they condemn in
unqualified terms those
who teach any other doctrine as coming from God; they commend and praise all
that diligently
follow their directions; but they also reprimand and censure those that dare
to follow another course.
If this is not due to the fact that they were conscious of divine
inspiration, it bespeaks an overweening
arrogance; which, however cannot be harmonized with their life of service
and their many
expressions of deep humility.
Moreover there are several explicit statements in the Epistles testifying to
the fact that the
apostles were aware of being the instruments of Gods Spirit. Thus Paul
claims that the Spirit revealed
to him the hidden things of God, which he also spoke, not in words which man’s
wisdom taught,
but in words which the Spirit taught, I Cor. 2:10,13. He is willing to
subject his words to the
judgment of the prophets, I Cor. 14: 37; and to give a proof of Christ
speaking in him, II Cor. 13:
3. He thanks God that the Thessalonians received the word of his message,
not as the word of man,
“but as it is in truth, the word of God,” I Thess. 2:13; and admonishes them
to hold the traditions
which they were taught by his word or by his Epistle. Peter places the word
of the prophets and
that of the apostles on a level as the Word of God, in I Pet. 1: 10-12; and
elsewhere he arranges his
Epistle alongside of those of Paul, which he calls Scripture by implication,
and thus clearly shows
that he also regards his own writing as a product of the Spirit of God, II
Pet. 3:15, 16. John writes:
“We are of God; he that knoweth God knoweth us; he that is not of God
knoweth us not. By this
we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” I John 4: 6. This
language is intelligible only on
the supposition that John spoke the words of God.
Now we must bear in mind that the apostles speak thus regarding their
written words, so that
they were evidently conscious of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in writing
their Epistles. To that
extent they too shared in a separate transcriptive inspiration. Their
Epistles are a part of the Word
69
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
of God, and have been accepted as such by the Church. It is true that for a
time five of them, viz.,
the Epistles of James and Jude, II Peter and II and III John, were classed
as antilegomena, but this
only means that their canonicity was subject to doubt and dispute for a
while, not that they were
ever numbered among the spurious books. They have been recognized by the
majority of
ecclesiastical writers from the very beginning, and were generally accepted
by the Church after the
council of Laodicea in A. D. 363.
THE CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EPISTLES IN GENERAL
The Old and the New Testament revelations run on parallel lines. In the Old
Testament we have
the fundamental revelation of the Law in the Pentateuch; in the New
Testament, the fundamental
revelation of the Gospel in the fourfold witness of the evangelists. This is
followed in the Old
Testament by the historical books, revealing the institutions to which the
Law gave rise; and in the
New Testament, by a historical book, showing how the Gospel of Jesus Christ
found embodiment
in the Church. After this we find in the New Testament the Epistles that
reveal the operation of the
truth in the churches, and contain, in connection with the life of the
churches, the interpretation of
the Gospel; thus corresponding in part to the Old Testament books of
experience, such as Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, etc., and in part to the prophets as interpreters of the
Law. The Gospels show us,
how Christ was preached to the world; the Epistles, how he was taught to the
Church. The former
contain the facts of the manifestation of Christ; the latter the effects of
it in the spiritual experience
of the churches.
In the Epistles we get a glimpse of the inner life of the congregations; we
see, how they receive
the truth and to what degree they are guided by it in their actions. We
behold Christian life in
operation, working on the great principles that have been received. We find
that some heartily
embrace the truth and endeavor to apply it consistently to life in its
manifold forms; that others
grasp it but imperfectly and, as a result, misapply it in practical life;
and that still others resist the
truth and pervert it to their own condemnation. And in connection with these
conditions the truth
is now set forth and interpreted and applied to the multifarious relations
of life.
This teaching is given in the epistolary form, of which we have already
spoken. Cf. p.129 above.
And the method employed by the writers in presenting the truth is, as
Bernard says, “one of
companionship rather than of dictation.” They do not announce a series of
revelations that come
to them from without, but they speak out of the fulness of their own
Christian knowledge and
experience. Neither do they approach their readers with the authoritative
prophetic formula, “Thus
saith the Lord,” which in the Old Testament was the end of all
contradiction; but they appeal to the
judgment and conscience of those whom they address. They state their
propositions and then
substantiate them by giving the grounds on which they rest. They argue with
their readers from the
Old Testament, from generally admitted truths and from experience, often
employing the argumentum
ad hominem to give point to their teachings; and they intercept the
objections of their readers and
refute them. This method of teaching, as compared with that of the prophets,
is more truly human,
the divine factor being less prominent; and as compared with that of Christ
in the Gospels, is far
more argumentative, calculated to train the minds of men to that
thoughtfulness that leads to a
thorough assimilation of the truth.
In their contents as well as in their form the Epistles are a distinct
advance on the Gospels. After
the latter have presented to us the manifestation of Christ in the world,
the former treat of the life
in Christ, in which the acceptance of his manifestation issues. After the
Spirit of God has been
70
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
poured out, Christ, who had formerly dwelt among men, makes his abode in the
very hearts of
believers. Hence it is especially of that new life of believers in union
with Christ, that the Epistles
speak. They constantly emphasize the fact that the individual believers and
that the churches are
“in Christ,” and that therefore their conversation too must be “in Christ.”
They clearly interpret the
significance of Christs work for believers out of every nation and tribe.
and point out that his
experiences are paralleled in the life of every believer. All those that are
united with Christ by faith
suffer with Christ, are crucified with Christ, die with Christ, and live
with Christ in newness of life.
And their future life is hid with Christ in God. The origin of that new
life, its conditions, its nature,
its progressive and communal character, and its final perfection and
glory,—are all clearly described
in the Epistles. As the foundation on which all these blessings rest we are
pointed to the redemptive,
the justifying, the sanctifying, and the intercessory work of Jesus Christ.
He is the beginning and
the end. The Epistles contain clear evidence that believers are gathered
from every nation and tribe
to Christ who is the Head of the Church, and in whom they are builded
together for a habitation of
God in the Spirit, that God may be all in all.
CLASSIFICATION
The New Testament contains in all twenty-one Epistles, which may be divided
into two classes,
viz., 1. The Pauline Epistles; and, 2. The General Epistles.
1. The Pauline Epistles. Thirteen of the New Testament Epistles bear the
name of the great
apostle to the gentiles. Hence they are generally known as the Pauline
Epistles. By some the Epistle
to the Hebrews is added to this number, though it nowhere claims to have
been written by Paul.
The Church has always been divided on the question of it’s authorship, the
Eastern church affirming
and the Western denying that Paul wrote it. Clement of Alexandria states
that the apostle composed
it in the Hebrew language, and that Luke translated it into Greek. From a
statement of his we may
probably infer that his teacher, Pantaenus, also affirmed the Pauline
authorship of this Epistle,
which would carry the testimony back another generation. Origen admits that
a very old tradition
points to Paul as the author, but he comes to the conclusion that only God
knows who wrote the
book. Irenaeus does not attribute the Epistle to Paul; nor does Tertullian,
who regards Barnabas as
the author. Eusebius says: “Of Paul the fourteen Epistles commonly received
are at once manifest
and clear. It is not, however, right to ignore the fact that some have
rejected the Epistle to the
Hebrews, asserting that it is gainsaid by the church of Rome as not being
Paul’s.” He was inclined
to believe that the apostle wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke, or more
likely, Clement of Rome
translated it. The catalogue of the council of Laodicea also speaks of
fourteen Epistles of Paul. We
shall leave the question of the authorship of this Epistle in suspense for
the present, and classify
the fourteen Epistles of which we have now spoken, as follows:
I. Pauline Epistles:
1. Those written during the period of Pauls missionary activity:
a. The two Epistles to the Thessalonians;
b. The Epistle to the Galatians;
c. The two Epistles to the Corinthians;
d. The Epistle to the Romans.
2. Those written during Pauls imprisonment:
a. The Epistle to the Ephesians;
b. The Epistle to the Colossians;
71
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
c. The Epistle to Philemon;
d. The Epistle to the Philippians.
3. Those written after Pauls release from the Roman prison:
a. The two Epistles to Timothy;
b. The Epistle to Titus.
II. Of uncertain Authorship:
The Epistle to the Hebrews.
It may well be supposed that Paul who always remained in touch with the
churches he founded
wrote many more letters than we now possess of him. This is evident also
from the Epistles
themselves. I Cor. 5:9 refers to a letter now lost, and it is possible that
II Cor. 7: 8 does also, although
this may refer to first Corinthians. Col. 4:16 speaks of a letter out of
(ix) Laodicea, of which we
have no further knowledge. Although these letters were undoubtedly inspired
as well as the ones
we still possess, we may rest assured that no Epistle intended by God for
the canon of Holy Scriptures
was ever lost.
We may further remark that Paul evidently wrote very little with his own
hand; he generally
employed an amanuensis in the composition of his Epistles and merely added
with his own hand
the salutation to his friends and the authenticating signature, cf. II
Thess. 3:17; Philem. 19; and
Gal. 6: 11, which is, however, of uncertain interpretation. Only in one
letter do we find a definite
designation of the amanuensis, viz., in Rom. 16:22.
2. The General Epistles. This is a group of seven Epistles which in the old
manuscripts usually
follows immediately after the Acts of the Apostles and therefore precedes
the Pauline Epistles,
perhaps because they are the works of the older apostles and in general
represent the Jewish type
of Christianity. Their representation of the truth naturally differs from
that of the Pauline Epistles,
but is in perfect harmony with it. Among these general Epistles there are:
1. Those written to a community of Christians:
a. The Epistle of James;
b. The two Epistles of Peter;
c. The first Epistle of John;
d. The Epistle of Jude.
2. Those written to a certain individual:
a. The second Epistle of John; (?)
b. The third Epistle of John.
Of these seven Epistles the first one of Peter and the first one of John
were generally accepted
as canonical from the beginning, while the other five were at first subject
to doubt and only gradually
found acceptance throughout the Church. Yet they were never regarded as
spurious.
Why these Epistles should be called general or catholic, is more or less of
an enigma. Various
interpretations of the name have been given, but none of them is entirely
satisfactory. Some hold
that they were so called, because they contain the one catholic doctrine
which was delivered to the
churches by the apostles; but this is not a characteristic mark of these
Epistles, since those of Paul
contain the same doctrine. Others maintain that the adjective catholic was
used by some of the
church fathers in the sense of canonical, and was by them applied first to
the first Epistle of Peter
and the first of John to indicate their general acceptance, and afterwards
to the entire group. But
this explanation is unlikely, because (1) there is scant proof that the term
catholic was ever equivalent
to canonical; and (2) it is hard to see, if this really was the case, why
the term should not have been
72
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
applied to the Pauline Epistles as well, that were all accepted from the
beginning. Still others think
that they received this appellation, because they were not addressed to one
person or church like
the Epistles of Paul, but to large sections of the Church. We consider this
to be the best explanation
of the name, since it is most in harmony with the usual meaning of the term,
and accounts best for
the way in which it is used in patristic literature. Even so, however the
name cannot be regarded
as entirely correct, because on the one hand the second (?) and third
Epistles of John are written to
individuals, and on the other, the Epistle to the Ephesians is also an
encyclical letter. These two
Epistles of John were probably included in this group, because of their
smallness and close relation
to the first Epistle of John.
73
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistles of Paul
PAUL
There is no apostle of whose life we have such full information as we have
regarding that of
Paul. He was born of Hebrew parents in the intellectual atmosphere of Tarsus
in Cilicia, where
besides receiving the regular Jewish education, he may have visited one of
the many Greek schools
found there. Being exceptionally bright, he was sent to Jerusalem to
complete the study of the law
and to be introduced into rabbinic lore. In that center of Jewish learning
he received instruction at
the feet of the greatest Jewish teacher of his age, Gamaliel I, and a bright
future was opening up
before him, since he was zealous for the law.
We first meet him in Scripture as a youth in connection with the violent
death of Stephen, and
soon find in him the most active persecuter of the Church of Christ. After
he has finished his
destructive work at Jerusalem, he repairs to Damascus with authority from
the high priest to persecute
the Church in that city. On the way thither his course is checked by the
Lord of the Church, he
becomes a penitent, and turns into a zealous advocate of the principles that
were formerly obnoxious
to him. Leaving Damascus, he spent three years in Arabia, where he received
further instruction
from God himself, and he learnt to adjust himself to the new conditions of
life; after which he again
returned to Damascus. Being threatened with death at the hands of the Jews,
he fled from Damascus
to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to his native city in Cilicia. After
laboring there for some years,
he accompanied Barnabas to Antioch in Syria, where he aided in establishing
the youthful church
in that city. He ministered to the needs of that congregation for a whole
year, during which time
he and Barnabas also went to Jerusalem to bring the contributions for the
poor. Soon after they
were directed by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel among the Gentiles. On
this first journey
they labored on the island of Cyprus and in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium,
Lystra and Derbe, preaching
the Gospel and working miracles. Notwithstanding fierce opposition from the
Jews, they succeeded
in founding several churches. Having finished their work, they returned to
Antioch in Syria, and
during their stay there were delegated to the council of Jerusalem to
consult the mother church
regarding the debated question, whether circumcision was binding on the
Gentiles. Next Paul sets
out on his second missionary journey with Silas, revisiting the churches
founded on the first tour
and by the direction of the Holy Spirit crossing over to Europe, where he
labored with varying
success at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth, founding
churches in most of these
places. From Corinth he returned to Antioch, after first visiting Jerusalem.
His third missionary
journey followed shortly. Passing through Asia Minor, he finds a fruitful
field of labor in Ephesus,
where he remains three years, bringing all Asia to the knowledge of the
truth and contending with
idolatry and superstition. From there he again passes through Macedonia to
Corinth, spending the
winter in that city, and then returning by way of Troas, Ephesus and Cesarea
to Jerusalem. Here
he takes the necessary precautions to avoid all possible provocation of the
Jews, but notwithstanding
this they seek to kill him. Having been rescued by the chief captain, he
defends his course before
the Jews. This only increases their rage, however; wherefore he is taken
into the castle and is brought
before the Sanhedrin on the following day, where his defense leads to
dissension between the
Pharisees and the Sadducees. In the following night he receives
encouragement from the Lord and
is told that he must also bear witness in Rome. On account of a plot laid by
the Jews he is transferred
74
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
to Cesarea, where he again defends his course before Felix, Festus and
Agrippa. The wavering
attitude of the governors, who are convinced of his innocence and yet desire
to favor the Jews,
induces him to appeal to Ceasar. As a result he is taken to Rome, arriving
there after suffering
shipwreck, and remaining a prisoner in his own dwelling for two years. From
the pastoral epistles
and tradition we may infer that his first trial ended in acquittal. His
movements after this are
uncertain, though there are hints of visits to Philippi, Colossae, Ephesus,
Crete, Nicopolis and even
Spain. After being imprisoned again he was condemned and died as a martyr in
A.D.68.
Little can be said regarding the personal appearance of the great apostle.
In the Acts of Paul
and Thecla he is represented as “short, bald, bow-legged, with meeting
eyebrows, hooked nose,
full of grace.” John of Antioch preserves a similar tradition, which adds,
however, that he was
“round-shouldered and had a mixture of pale and red in his complexion and an
ample beard.” His
opponents at Corinth said of him: “His letters are weighty and powerful, but
his bodily presence
is weak and his speech contemptible,” II Cor. 10:10 ff. He himself refers
once and again to his
physical weaknesses. In all probability he was not a man of magnificent
physique.
His personal life was full of contrasts, as Deissmann correctly observes. He
was encumbered
with an ailing body, and yet was a man of great endurance and of almost
unlimited capacity for
work in the Kingdom of God. The secret of his strength lay in his God, who
spoke to him: “My
grace is sufficient for thee, and my strength is made perfect in weakness.”
He was a man of great
humility, but was at the same time capable of uttering words of the greatest
self-confidence, “before
God a worm, before men an eagle” (Deissmann). It is Paul that says: “I am
the least of the aposfles,”
I Cor. 15 : 9; “I am less than the least of all the saints,” Eph. 3: 8; and:
“of whom (sinners) I am
chief,” I Tim. 1: 16. But it is the same Paul that speaks: “I labored more
abundantly than they all,”
I Cor. 15:10; and: “For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest
apostles,” II Cor. 11: 5.
But he realizes that all that is commendable in him and that is praiseworthy
in his work, is fruit of
the grace of God. Hence he follows up the statement in I Cor. 15:10 by
saying: “yet not I, but the
grace of God which was with me.” Paul was a tenderhearted man, and was yet
on certain occasions
very severe. He was capable of the most affectionate feeling, always
solicitous for the welfare of
the churches; but just on that account inexorable over against all those
that were enemies to the
truth. Compare in this respect the epistle to the Philippians with that to
the Galatians. He placed
himself entirely at God’s disposal, following where He led, and was willing
to be the unworthy
instrument in the hand of his Lord in spreading the glad tidings of
salvation. Hence he was great
in the Kingdom of God.
The chronology of the life of Paul is a subject of great difficulty. Aside
from the date of the
first Pentecost there is but a single date in the Acts of the Apostles of
which we are sure, viz., that
of the death of Herod in A. D. 44, and this has little value in determining
the chronological order
of the events in Paul’s life. A question of great importance is, in what
year Felix was succeeded by
Festus. We cannot enter into the dispute about this date, but assume that
Schurer is correct, when
he fixes it at A. D. 60. Geschichte des fiidischen Volkes I p. 577. In the
same year Paul was sent to
Rome, arriving there in the spring of the following year, A. D. 61. He
remained a prisoner at Rome
for two years, i. e., until A. D. 63, when he was probably released; and
lived until the fall of A. D.
67 (Eusebius), or until the spring of A. D. 68 (Jerome), when he was
martyred at Rome.
Figuring back from the same date, we find that Paul was imprisoned at
Caesarea in A. D. 58,
Acts 24: 27. Since he had spent the previous winter in Corinth and the fall
in Macedonia, Acts 20:
2, 3, and had labored in Ephesus for a period of three years, Acts 20: 31,
he must have begun his
75
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
third missionary journey in the spring of A. D. 54. His second missionary
tour was concluded
shortly before, probably in the fall of A. D. 53, Acts 16: 23. This journey
undoubtedly lasted about
two years and a half, since the apostle would naturally set out in the
spring of the year and his stay
of a year and a half at Corinth together with all the work done in other
places makes it impossible
that he started on his journey in A. D. 52, cf. Acts 15: 36—17: 34. Hence
the second journey began
in A. D. 51. This second journey was preceded by the council of Jerusalem
that most likely convened
in A. D. 50, Acts 15. The first missionary journey must be placed somewhere
between the date just
named and the year of Herods death, A. D. 44.
Now it is probable that we must identify the visit of Paul to Jerusalem
mentioned in Gal. 2: 1
with that of Acts 15. What is the apostles point of departure there, when he
says: “Then fourteen
years after, etc.”? Exegetically it may be the visit spoken of in Gal. 1:
18; more likely, however, it
is the time of his conversion, cf. Ellicott on Gal., so that the year 37 was
probably the year in which
that momentous change was wrought in his life. Then he spent the years 37-40
in Arabia, at the
end of which period he again visited Jerusalem, Acts 9: 26; Gal. 1: 18. In
the same year he went
to Tarsus, where he labored until about the year of Herods death, Acts 11:
25—12:1.
Thus we obtain the following result:
Pauls Conversion A. D. 37
First Visit to Jerusalem A. D. 40
Beginning of his Work at Antioch A. D. 44
First Missionary Journey A. D. 45—48
Delegated to the Council of Jerusalem A. D. 50
Second Missionary Journey A. D. 5 1—53
Third Missionary Journey A. D. 54—58
Captivity at Jerusalem and Caesarea A. D. 58—60
Arrives at Rome A. D. 61
First Captivity at Rome A. D. 61—63
Period between first and second Captivity A. D. 63—67
Second Captivity and Death A. D. 67 or 68
76
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle to the Romans
CONTENTS
This Epistle consists of two clearly marked but very unequal parts, viz, the
doctrinal (1:1—11:
36) and the practical part (12:1—16: 27).
I. The Doctrinal Part, 1: 1—11: 36. In this part we have first the
introduction, containing the
address, the customary thanksgiving and prayer, and an expression of the
apostles desire to preach
the gospel also at Rome, 1: 1-15. In the following two verses the apostle
states his theme: “The
gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. For
therein is the righteousness
of God revealed from faith to faith,” 1:16, 17. After announcing this he
describes the sinful state
of the Gentiles, points out that the Jews are likewise guilty, and declares
that their prerogatives do
not exempt them from punishment but rather increase their guilt, 1: 18—3:
20. He then defines the
righteousness which God has provided without the works of the law, and
proves that this is revealed
in the Old Testament, is the basis of a Christian experience that is rich in
spiritual fruits, and proceeds
on the same principle of moral government on which God dealt with Adam,
3:21—5 : 21. Next he
replies to the objections that on his doctrine men may continue in sin and
yet be saved; that his
teaching releases men from moral obligation; and that it makes the law of
God an evil thing,
6:1—7:25. In the following chapter he shows that on the basis of man’s
justification by faith his
complete sanctification and final glorification is assured, 8:1-39. Having
stated the way of salvation
through faith, he now points out that this does not conflict with the
promises given to Israel by
showing that these pertained only to the elect among them; that the
rejection of Israel is due to their
refusal of the way of salvation; that it is not a complete rejection; and
that in the end the Jews will
be converted and will turn to God, 9:1—11: 36.
II. The Practical Part, 12:1—16: 27. The apostle admonishes the Christians
at Rome that they
be devoted to God and love one another, 12:1-21. He desires that they
willingly subject themselves
to the civil authorities and meet all their obligations, 13:1-14. He enjoins
upon them due regard for
the weakness of others in matters of indifference, and the proper use of
their Christian liberty,
14:1-23. Then he holds up to them Christ as their great example, and speaks
of his purpose to visit
Rome, 15: 1-33. Finally he sends a long list of greetings to Rome and closes
his epistle with a
doxology, 16:1-27.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The characteristic feature of this Epistle is found in the fact that it
is the most systematic
writing of the apostle, an elaborate treatment of a single theme with
appropriate practical
exhortations. It contains a careful and rather full statement of what Paul
himself calls, “my Gospel,”
2:16; 16: 25. His Gospel is that man is justified by faith and not by the
works of the law. In harmony
with this theme the contents of the Epistle are Soteriological rather than
Christological. The apostle
points out that both Gentiles and Jews need this justification; that it is
the way of salvation provided
by God himself; that it yields the most blessed spiritual fruits; that it
does not issue in the moral
degradation of man, but in a life sanctified by the Spirit and culminating
in everlasting glory; and
that, though the Gentiles will have precedence over the Jews, who rejected
the Gospel, these too
will at last accept it and be saved. Godet calls this Epistle, “The
Cathedral of Christian Faith.”
77
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Because of its methodical character some have mistakenly regarded it as a
treatise rather than as a
letter. If it were a treatise, it might have been sent to one church as well
as another, and it may be
regarded as accidental that it was sent to Rome. But this is not the case.
We cannot understand this,
the greatest of Paul’s literary productions, unless we study it historically
in its relation to the church
of Rome.
2. The style of the Epistle is described by Sanday and Headlam in the
following words: “This
Epistle, like all the others of the group (I and II Cor. and Gal.), is
characterized by a remarkable
energy and vivacity. It is calm in the sense that it is not aggressive and
that the rush of words is
always well under control. Still there is a rush of words rising repeatedly
to passages of splendid
eloquence; but the eloquence is spontaneous, the outcome of strongly moved
feeling; there is nothing
about it of labored oratory. The language is rapid, terse, incisive; the
argument is conducted by a
quick cut and thrust of dialectic; it reminds us of a fencer with his eye
always on his antagonist.”
Intern. Grit. Comm., Romans p. LV.
AUTHORSHIP
Both external and internal evidence clearly point to Paul as the author. We
find the first direct
evidence for his authorship in the Apostolicon of Marcion. The letter is
further ascribed to Paul by
the Muratori canon, and is quoted as his by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian and a host
of others. The Epistle itself claims to have been written by Paul, and this
claim is borne out by the
contents, so that even Davidson says: “The internal character of the epistle
and its historical allusions
coincide with the external evidence in proving it an authentic production of
the apostle.” Introd. I
p. 119.
The authenticity of this great letter, along with that of the Epistles to
the Corinthians and to the
Galatians has been well-nigh universally admitted. The first one to attack
it was Evanson in 1792,
followed by Bruno Bauer in 1852. Their rather reckless criticism has made
little impression on
German critical opinion. In more recent times the Pauline authorship has
been denied by the Dutch
scholars Loman (1882), Pierson and Naber (1886) and Van Manen (1892), and by
the Swiss scholar
Steck (1888); but their arguments, of which an epitomy may be found in
Sanday-Headlam, Romans
p. LXXXVI; Baljon, Gesch. v/d Boeken des N. V. p. 97 ff.; and Godet, Introd.
to the N. T. I St.
Paul’s Epistles p. 393,—failed to carry conviction among New Testament
critics.
THE CHURCH AT ROME
Regarding the church to which this letter is addressed there are especially
two questions that
call for discussion, viz. 1. It’s Origin; and 2. It’s Composition.
1. Its Origin. There are three theories respecting the origin of the church
at Rome.
a. According to a tradition dating from the fourth, and probably from the
third century, that
found general acceptance in the Roman Catholic church, the congregation at
Rome was founded
by Peter in A. D. 42 (Jerome and Eusebius) or in A. D. 44 (Acts 12:17). This
view is now generally
given up and is even rejected by some Catholic scholars. It finds no support
in Scripture, but is
rather contradicted by its plain statements. From Acts 16: 9, 10 we get the
impression that Paul
was the first missionary to pass into Europe (A. D. 52), and this is just
what we would expect, since
he, in distinction from the other apostles, was sent to the Gentiles.
Moreover we still find Peter in
the East, when in A. D. 50 the council of Jerusalem is held, which does not
agree with the tradition
that he was at Rome 25 years. And neither in this Epistle, nor in those
written from Rome do we
78
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
find the slightest trace of Peter’s presence there; yet Paul would certainly
have mentioned him, had
he been the bishop of the Roman church. It is also impossible to reconcile
Paul’s plan to visit Rome
with the principle he himself lays down in 15 : 20, if the local church had
been founded by Peter.
And finally tradition tells us that Linus was the first bishop of Rome, and
Clement, the second.
b. Protestants often ascribed the origin of this church to the Roman Jews
that were in Jerusalem
at the feast of Pentecost, Acts 2:10, and witnessed the extraordinary
phenomena that accompanied
the descent of the Holy Spirit. On that theory the church really originated
among the Jews. In proof
of this the report which Suetonius gives of the decree of expulsion issued
by the emperor Claudius
against the Jews of Rome, is adduced: “Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue
tumultuantes Roma
expulit.” It is said that this Chresto must be Christ, whose religion spread
in the Jewish synagogue
and caused violent dissensions that were dangerous to the public peace; but
this may well be, and
indeed is, questioned by many scholars. Moreover it is rather doubtful,
whether the Jews converted
at the time of Pentecost were in a position to evangelize others and to
establish a Christian church.
And finally this explanation does not square with the fact that the church
at Rome, as we know it
from the Epistle, does not bear a Judaeo- but a Gentile-Christian
complexion.
c. It seems more likely, therefore, that the church at Rome originated
somewhat later, and in a
different fashion. We know that before A. D. 44 the gospel had been brought
to Antioch in Syria
and spread rapidly among the Gentiles of that region, Acts 11: 20. Soon a
flourishing church was
established in that beautiful city on the Orontes, a church endowed with
great spiritual gifts, having
in its midst an abundance of men that were well qualified for the work of
evangelization, Acts 13:1.
Now there was at that time a lively intercommunication between Syria and
Rome, and it is certainly
not improbable that some Gentile Christians, filled with the spirit of
evangelization, set out from
here for the capital of the world. Or if not from here, some such persons
may have gone forth from
the other centers of Christianity, established, by Paul on his missionary
journeys. This would
explain, how the great apostle acquired so many acquaintances at Rome as he
names in chapter 16,
mostly Gentiles, some of whom he calls his fellow-laborers (cf. 3, 9, 12),
while he characterizes
others with some word of endearment (cf. 5-8, 10, 11, 13). Some such friends
they must have been
who went out to meet Paul on the Appian way, Acts 28:25, while the Jews at
Rome were evidently
quite ignorant as to the teachings of Christianity, Acts 28: 17-29. On this
theory the Gentile character
of the church at Rome causes no surprise.
2. Its Composition. Quite a controversy has been waged about the question,
whether the church
at Rome was predominantly Jewish- or Gentile-Christian. The traditional idea
was that it consisted
primarily of Christians from the Gentiles; but the view that it was composed
mainly of Jewish
Christians gained currency through Baur and was widely accepted for some
time. In support of this
theory scholars appealed: (1) To the passages in the epistle, in which Paul
seems to include himself
and his readers in the first person plural, as 3: 9 and 5:1. But notice the
same feature in I. Cor. 10:1,
though the Corinthians were certainly Gentiles. (2) To those passages that
speak of the relation of
the readers, or of Paul and his readers alike to the law, as 7:1-6. This
argument is stronger than the
preceding one; yet we find that the apostle employs similar language with
reference to the Galatians,
Gal. 3: 13—4: 9, while most of these were certainly outside the pale of
Jewry. (3) To the character
of Pauls argumentation and the dialectical form in which he presents his
Gospel to the Romans.
But even this does not necessarily imply that he was writing primarily to
Jewish Christians, since
he argues in similar fashion in the Epistle to the Galatians, and because
this finds a ready explanation
partly in the Jewish training of the apostle and partly in the fact that
Paul was fully conscious of
79
the objections which legalistic adversaries were wont to bring against his
doctrine. Besides, he
knew that there were Jewish converts in the church at Rome too, who might
make similar strictures.
(4) To the chapters 9-11, regarded by Baur as the kernel of the epistle,
which relate particularly to
the Jews. Yet in these very chapters Paul addresses, in the most unambiguous
manner, the Gentiles,
and refers to Israel as distinct from his readers, cf. 9: 3, 24; 10:1-3;
11:13, 17-20, 24, 25, 30, 31.
When in 1876 Weizsacker again took up the defense of the older view, he
produced a decisive
reaction in its favor. And, no doubt, it deserves the preference, for: (1)
In 1: 5, 6 Paul writes: “By
whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith
among the Gentiles (t...
...es..) for his Name; among whom ye are also the called of Jesus Christ.”
(2) In verse 13 he says
that he had often purposed to come to Rome “that I might have some fruit
among you also, even
as among other Gentiles.” (3) When the apostle says in 11:13: “For I speak
to you Gentiles, inasmuch
as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office,” it is best to
assume with Meyer and
Godet that he is addressing the whole congregation in its chief constituent
element. (4) According
to 15:15 ff. the writer has spoken the more boldly to the Romans, because of
the grace that was
given him “that he should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,
ministering the Gospel
of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being
sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”
On the strength of these passages we conclude that, though there was a
Jewish constituency in the
church at Rome, it consisted primarily of Gentile Christians, so that in
ministering to it also Paul
was the apostle of the Gentiles. It seems almost certain, however, that a
legalistic tendency had
sprung up in the congregation, but this tendency may have been
characteristically Roman rather
than specifically Judaistic. For further details of this controversy cf.
Holtzmann, Einleitung p. 232
ff.; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. p. XXXI ff.; The Expositors Greek Test. II p. 561
ff.; and Zahn,
Einleitung I p. 299 ff. etc.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. It is impossible to speak with absolute certainly
respecting the occasion
of Paul’s writing this Epistle, although scholars are quite well agreed that
the apostle found it in
the fact that he had finished his work in the East and now intended to visit
the imperial city, on
which he had long since cast his eye. Probably an imminent journey of Phebe
to the capital offered
him, on the eve of his departure for Jerusalem, the desired opportunity to
send his communication
to Rome.
But if the question is asked, why the apostle wrote this letter to the
Romans, why he gave it the
particular character that it has, we find that there is a great variety of
opinions. Some regard the
Epistle as historical and occasional; others, as dogmatic and absolute.
There are those who hold
that the particular form of the letter was determined by the condition of
the readers; and those that
would make it dependent on the state of Paul’s mind. Some believe that the
apostle in writing it
had in mind his Gentile readers, while others hold that he had special
reference to the Jewish
constituents of the church at Rome. The different theories respecting the
purpose of the letter may
be reduced to three.
a. According to some the purpose of the letter is dogmatic, the Epistle
containing a systematic
exposition of the doctrine of salvation. But if Paul meant to give in it
nothing but an objective
statement of the truth, the question may be asked, why he should send it to
Rome, and not to some
other church.
80
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
b. Others affirm that the aim of the Epistle is controversial, Paul giving
an exposition of the
truth with special reference to the opposition of Judaeism to his gospel.
Now we need not doubt
that there is a polemic element in this Epistle, but the question may well
be raised, whether the
apostle did not combat legalism in general rather than Judaeism.
c. Still others believe that the purpose of the letter is conciliatory,
aiming at the unity of Jew
and Gentile in the church at Rome. This theory also contains an element of
truth, for Paul certainly
was very solicitous about that unity, when he wrote this Epistle; but it is
a mistake to regard the
promotion of it as his sole purpose in writing.
It seems to us that, with Holtzmann, Sanday-Headlam and Denney (in Exp. Gk.
Test.), we should
combine these various elements in stating the purpose of the Epistle. Paul
had long cherished a
desire to visit the city on the Tiber. Through his friends and associates he
had received some
intelligence regarding the church that had been founded there. And now that
he is about to depart
for Jerusalem, he has evil forebodings; he may never see Rome; and yet he
deems it desirable that
the Roman church, which had not been founded by an apostle, should not only
be notified of his
intended visit, but receive a full and clear statement of his Gospel. Hence
he prepares for the Romans
a careful exposition of the Gospel truth. And knowing, as he did, the
legalistic tendency of the
human heart, accented, as it often was in his time, by Judaeism,—a tendency
that probably found
a fruitful soil among the moralistic Romans, he clearly exhibits its
antagonism to the doctrine of
salvation, at the same time carefully guarding and assiduously cultivating
the unity of the believers
at Rome, of the weak and the strong, of Jews and Gentiles.
2. Time and Place. As to the time, when Paul wrote this Epistle, we can
infer from 1: 13 that
he had not yet been in Rome, and from 15: 25 that he was still a free man.
Therefore he must have
written it before Pentecost of A. D. 58, for then he was taken captive at
Jerusalem. On the other
hand it is clear from 15:19-21 that the apostle has finished his task in the
East and is now about to
transfer his ministry to the West. Hence it follows that he composed this
letter at the end of his
third missionary journey, i. e. in the fall of A. D. 57, or in the spring of
A. D. 58. This also agrees
with the fact that the apostle in the Epistles to the Corinthians (116: 1-4;
II 8, 9) is still occupied
with the collection for the saints at Jerusalem, while this work is
finished, when he writes to the
Romans, 15:25.
If this date is correct, then the Epistle must have been written at Corinth.
And there are some
data that corroborate this conclusion. The bearer of the letter is a member
of the church at Cenchrea,
one of the ports of Corinth, 16: 1; and Gajus, the host of Paul, is most
likely the person mentioned
in I Cor. 1: 14. Moreover the salutations of Timothy and Sopater or
Sosipater in 16: 21 is in perfect
agreement with what is said in Acts 20:4 regarding the presence of these men
at Corinth, when
Paul started for Jerusalem.
INTEGRITY
Touching the integrity of the Epistle to the Romans two questions have
arisen: 1. Is the doxology,
16: 25-27, in the right place, or does it belong between 14: 23 and 15:1, or
is it spurious? And 2.
Are the chapters 15 and 16 genuine or spurious?
1. The place of the doxology at the end of chapter 16 was doubted as early
as the days of Origen.
External testimony favors it, since it is found there in most of the MSS,
while some have it at the
end of chapter 14, and a few, in both places. Zahn is of the opinion,
however, that internal evidence
decidedly favors placing it at the end of chapter 14, because: (1) Paul’s
letters are often interspersed
81
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
with doxologies, but never end with them. (2) It seems unlikely that Paul
should add a doxology,
closely connected with the body of the letter, after a list of personal
greetings not so connected with
it. (3) The doxology is closely related to the subject-matter of 14: 23 and
15:1. (4) It is far harder
to explain its transfer from the 16th chapter to the 14th than the reverse.
Einl. I p. 268 ff.
Some, as f. i. Davidson and Balj on, doubt the genuineness of the doxology,
but: (1) It is found
in all the MSS. (2) The thought expressed in it is too rich and varied to be
an interpolation. (3) No
possible motive can be found for forging such a doxology.
2. The 15th chapter is regarded by some as spurious, (1) because it is not
found in the canon of
Marcion; and (2) since the appellative applied to Christ in verse 8 is
considered very strange as
coming from Paul; the expression in verse 19 is not characterized by the
usual Pauline modesty;
and the verses 24, 28, 29 are held to be in conflict with 1:10-15, because
they imply that Paul merely
desired to pay a short visit to Rome, when he was on his way to Spain. But
the first argument has
little weight, since Marcion omits many other parts of the New Testament,
and several that are
generally admitted to be genuine; and the difficulties mentioned under (2)
easily yield to exegesis.
A far greater number of scholars reject chapter 16, (1) because Marcions
canon does not contain
it; (2) since it is contrary to the apostles custom to end his letters with
so many greetings; and (3)
because Paul was not in a position to know so many persons at Rome. To the
first argument we
need not reply again (cf. above) ; and as far as the greetings are
concerned, it may be that Paul
intentionally greeted so many persons at Rome to bring out clearly that,
though he had not founded
the church there, he was not a stranger to it, and to cultivate a certain
familiarity. It deserves our
attention that the only other Epistle in which we find a list of greetings
is that to the Colossian
church, which was like the church of Rome, in that it was not founded by the
apostle. And taking
in consideration the extensive travels of Paul in the East, and the constant
movement of people in
all parts of the empire to and from Rome, it causes no surprise that so many
of the apostles
acquaintances were in the capital.
Some who doubt the destination rather than the genuineness of this chapter
surmise that it or a
part of it originally constituted an epistle, or a fragment of one, that was
addressed to the Ephesians.
They point out that Phebe would be more likely to journey to Ephesus than to
Rome; that, in view
of what is said in Acts 18:19; I Cor. 16:19; II Tim. 4:19, there is a
greater probability that Aquila
and Priscilla were at Ephesus than in the imperial city; and that Epenetus
is called “the first-fruits
of Achaia unto Christ, 16: 5. But none of these proofs are conclusive.
Moreover Dr. Gifford points
out in the Speakers Commentary that of the twenty-two persons named in
verses 6-15, not one can
be shown to have been at Ephesus; while (1) Urbanus, Rufus, Ampliatus, Julia
and Junia are
specifically Roman names; and (2) besides the first four of these names,
“ten others, Stachys,
Apelles, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Hermes, Hernias, Patrobas (or (Patrobius),
Philologus, Julia, Nereus
are found in the sepulchral inscriptions on the Appian way as the names of
persons connected with
‘Qesars household (Phil. 4:22), and contemporary with St. Paul.”
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Epistle to the Romans is one of the best attested writings of the New
Testament. Its
canonicity was never doubted by the Church, and it has been remarkably free
from the attacks of
Rationalism up to the present time. Before the beginning of the third
century there are nineteen
witnesses to the canonicity of the letter, including some of the apostolic
fathers, the Testament of
82
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the Twelve Patriarchs, Justin Martyr, the Muratori Canon, Marcion, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria
and Tertullian. Both friends and foes of Christianity accepted it as
authoritative.
It is the most systematic of all the writings of Paul, containing a profound
and comprehensive
statement of the way of salvation, a statement made with special reference
to the legalistically
inclined Romans. That salvation can be had through faith only, and not by
the works of the law,
not by one’s works of morality, on which the man of the Roman type was
inclined to place his
reliance, is at once the great central doctrine of this epistle and its
permanent lesson for all ages.
83
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The First Epistle to the Corinthians
CONTENTS
The contents of this Epistle may be divided into five parts:
I. Condemnation of the Factions in the Church, 1:1—4: 21. After a brief
introduction in 1: 1-9
Paul states that he had heard of the divisions among the Corinthians, 1:
11-12. In arguing against
these he points out that his conduct was free from party spirit, since this
is opposed by the gospel
and forbidden by the character of Christ, 1:13-31. Moreover he reminds the
Corinthians that his
preaching had been free from all partisanship which glories in the wisdom of
man, because the
gospel is the message of divine wisdom, is revealed by the Spirit and is
understood only through
the Spirit; white party spirit misapprehends the nature of the ministry, 2:
1—3 : 23. He concludes
this argument by pointing to his own example, 4:1-21.
II. The Necessity of Church Discipline urged, 5:1—6: 20. The Corinthians are
exhorted to cast
out the incestuous person, 5:1-13; to desist from lawsuits before the
unrighteous, 6:1-11; and to
flee from fornication, 6:12-20.
III. Answer to Inquiries sent from the Church, 7:1—14: 39. Here we find a
discussion of the
lawfulness of marriage and its duties; directions about mixed marriages and
an apostolic advice to
the unmarried, 7:1-40. Then follows a discussion of Christian liberty in the
participation of food
offered to the idols, in which love must rule, and one must beware of any
participation in idolatrous
practices. The apostle illustrates this principle at length by pointing to
his own example, 8:1—11:
1. Next the place of woman in the assemblies of the church, and the proper
observance of the Lord’s
supper is considered, 11:2-34. And finally the spiritual gifts manifest in
the congregation come in
for consideration. Their source and diversity, their functions, the
superiority of love over the
extraordinary gifts, and of prophecy over the speaking of tongues, and the
right service of God,—all
receive due treatment, 12:1—14: 40.
IV. A Discussion of the Resurrection, 15:1-58. The apostle shows that the
resurrection of Christ
is an essential article of the apostolic testimony, and is the pledge of our
resurrection; and answers
various objections, describing the nature of the resurrection body and the
final victory over death.
V. Conclusion, 16:1-24. In this chapter the apostle commends to the
Corinthians the collection
for the saints at Jerusalem, bespeaks a good reception for Timothy, and ends
his epistle with friendly
admonitions and salutations.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. This Epistle is the most comprehensive of all the writings of Paul. It is
just about as long as
the letter to the Romans, and contains the same number of chapters; but,
while the Epistle to the
Romans systematically treats a single theme, this letter discusses a great
variety of subjects, such
as party spirit, church discipline, marriage and celibacy, Christian
liberty, the place of woman in
the church, the significance and use of the charismata, and the resurrection
of the dead. And the
apostle treats of these matters in a very orderly way, first taking up the
accusations contained in
the report of those from the household of Chloe, and then answering the
questions that were put to
him in the letter sent by the Corinthians.
84
2. Closely connected with the first is a second characteristic, viz, that
this Epistle is the most
practical of all the Pauline letters. It reveals to us, as no other New
Testament writing does, the
snares and pitfalls, the difficulties and temptations to which a church just
emerging from heathendom
and situated in a wicked city, is exposed. Many of the problems that arose
in the Corinthian church
constantly recur in city congregations. As important as the Epistle to the
Romans is for instruction
in Christian doctrine, the first Epistle to the Corinthians is for the study
of social relations.
3. Little need be said regarding the language of Paul in this Epistle; it is
the Greek of a Hellenistic
Jew. We cannot call it Hebraistic; neither is it literary Greek. It is
rather the Greek of Paul’s own
period, containing, aside from a few Hebrew loanwords, such as p.s.a, very
few words that are
found exclusively in the Septuagint. Findlay says: “Paul has become in this
epistle more than
elsewhere t... .´....s.. .. .´......“ Exp. Gk. Test. II p. 748. The
argumentative form too in which
the apostles thought is cast here, as elsewhere, is far more Greek than
Hebrew, more Western than
Oriental.
AUTHORSHIP
This epistle also claims to have been written by Paul, 1:1, 2, and bears
upon the face of it the
earmarks of the great apostle. The language, the style, the doctrine, and
the spirit which it
breathes,—are all his; and the historical allusions in chapters 9 and 16 fit
in exactly with what we
know of his life and acquaintances from other sources. Besides this there is
an imposing body of
external evidence from Clement of Rome down to the authenticity of the
letter. Hence it, like that
written to the Romans, has been remarkably free from hostile attacks.
Robertson and Plummer truly
say in the Introduction to their Commentary on this Epistle p. XVI: “Both
the external and the
internal evidence for the Pauline authorship are so strong that those who
attempt to show that the
apostle was not the writer succeed chiefly in proving their own incompetence
as critics.”
The free-lance Bruno Bauer was the first, and for a long time the only one,
to attack the
genuineness of I Corinthians. But in the last two decennia of the preceding
century the Dutch critics
Loman, Pierson, Naber and Van Manen, and the Swiss professor Steck chimed in
with a most
irresponsible kind of criticism, founded on supposed inconsistencies and
evidences of composite
authorship found in the Epistle, and on imaginary conflicts between it and
the Acts of the Apostles.
No critic of name takes their argument serious; according to the general
estimate they are scarcely
worth the paper on which they are written.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH
1. Its Origin. After Paul left Athens on his second missionary journey, he
came to the capital
of Achaia,—to Corinth, a city situated on the isthmus of the Peloponnese
between the Ionian and
the Aegean sea. It was not the old Corinth, since this had been destroyed by
Mummius in 146 B.
C., but Corinth redivivus, Corinth rebuilt by Ceasar just a hundred years
later, that had rapidly risen
in fame, and now had a population of between six and seven hundred thousand,
consisting of
Romans, Greeks, Jews and people of such other nationalities as were
attracted by the commercial
advantages of Corinth. The East and the West met there, and it soon became
the mart of the world,
where unparalleled riches were found alongside of the deepest poverty. And
with the increase of
riches and luxury came a life of ease and licentiousness. Worldly wisdom and
great moral degradation
went hand in hand. On the Acropolis shotie the temple of Venus, where a
thousand maidens devoted
themselves to the sensual service of the goddess. Corinthian immorality
became a byword; and the
85
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
expression to live like a Corinthian (.........e..) was indicative of the
greatest licentiousness.
Farrar says: “Corinth was the Vanity Fair of the Roman Empire, at once the
London and the Paris
of the first century after Christ.” St. Paul I p. 556.
To that worldly-wise profligate Corinth Paul wended his way with a sad heart
in A. D. 52.
Depressed in spirit because of past experiences, he began his labors in the
synagogue, preaching
to the Jews; but when they opposed him, he turned to the Gentiles and taught
them in the house of
a certain Justus. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, became one of his
first converts, and many
others believed and were baptized, Acts 18:1-8. Encouraged by a vision, he
now began a ministry
of a year and a half in that city. The Jews, filled with hatred, brought him
before Gallio, the proconsul
of Achaia, but did not succeed in making out a case against him. Even after
this incident he labored
a long time in Corinth and the adjacent country and undoubtedly established
the Corinthian church
on this occasion, Acts 18:18; ICor. 1:1.
2. Its Composition and Character. We may be sure that the church consisted
primarily of
Christians from the Gentiles. This impression is conveyed by the account of
Pauls work in Corinth,
preserved for us in Acts 18, and is strengthened by a careful study of the
epistle. The apostle says
of the congregation, describing it according to its main constituent
element: “Ye know that ye were
Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led,” 12:1.
Yet the church also
comprised many Jews, as we may infer from Acts 18:8; I Cor. 1:12; 7:18;
12:13. The majority of
the converts were of the poorer classes, 1: 26; but there were also Crispus,
the ruler of the synagogue,
Acts 18: 8; I Cor. 1: 14, Erastus, the chamberlain of the city and Gajus,
Paul’s host, Rom. 16: 23,
and several others that were in more favorable circumstances, as we may
infer from I Cor. 11:21,
22.
As far as the complexion of the church is concerned we find that it bore the
impress of its
surroundings. There was a shallow intellectualism, coupled with a
factiousness that was “the
inveterate curse of Greece.” Lax morals and unseemly conduct disgraced its
life. Christian liberty
was abused and idolatrous practices were tolerated. Even the gifts of the
Holy Spirit gave rise to
vainglory; and a false spiritualism led, on the one hand, to a disregard of
bodily sin, and, on the
other, to a denial of the bodily resurrection. But these faults should not
blind us to the fact that there
was a great deal in the church of Corinth that was praiseworthy. The social
relations among the
Corinthians had already undergone to a certain degree the elevating and
sanctifying influence of
the Holy Spirit; the church was rich in spiritual gifts, and was willing to
impart of its substance to
the poor saints at Jerusalem.
The divisions at Corinth deserve more than a passing notice, since they are
made so prominent
in the Epistle. The question is, whether we can determine the character of
the existing parties. In
attempting this we desire to point out first of all that they were no
parties in the strict sense of the
word, each with an organization of its own, but merely dissensions in the
church, representing a
difference of opinion. They had not led to an absolute split in the ranks of
believers, for Paul
distinctly recognizes a certain feeling of unity in the church of Corinth,
since he mentions meetings
of the whole church repeatedly, 11:18; 14: 23. Yet there were four divisions
of which each one had
his own slogan.
a. Some said: “I am of Paul !” This party is mentioned first, not
necessarily because it comes
first in chronological order. Since the church had been founded by Paul, it
would seem that a separate
party, using the apostles name as their shibboleth, could only arise in
opposition to another. It
consisted most likely of those serious-minded believers who had regard to
the contents of the gospel
86
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
preaching rather than to its form; and who heartily accepted the simple
doctrine of the cross, as
Paul preached it, who had come to them without wisdom of words that the
cross of Christ might
not be made of non-effect.
b. Others said: “I am of Apollos !” We do not believe that the preaching of
Apollos differed
essentially from that of Paul, nor that he was to blame for the dissension
that arose as a result of
his work. Paul himself bears witness to his perfect unity of spirit with
Apollos, where he says that
Apollos watered what he had planted, and that he that planteth and he that
watereth are one, 3: 6-8;
and that he had greatly desired to send Apollos with Timothy and the other
brethren to Corinth,
15:12. And is it not likely that Apollos refused to go, just because he
feared that it might foster the
party spirit? The Apollos Christians were in all probability those cultured
Greeks who, while they
were in accord with the doctrine of free grace, greatly preferred a
speculative and oratorical
presentation of it to the simple preaching of Paul.
c. Still others said: “I am of Cephas !” While the two former parties
undoubtedly constituted
the bulk of the congregation, there were also some who had scruples
regarding the doctrine of free
grace. They were conservative Jewish believers that adhered to the decisions
of the council of
Jerusalem and persisted in certain legal observances. Naturally they in
spirit rallied around Peter,
the apostle of circumcision. It may be that the tradition preserved by
Dionysius of Corinth is true
that Peter has at one time visited Corinth. If it is, this helps to explain
their watchword.
d. Finally there were also those who said: “I am of Christ !” This party has
always been the
most difficult to characterize, and, as a result, a great number of theories
have been broached. After
F. C. Baur many interpreted this “of Christ” in the light of II Cor. 10: 7,
where the opponents of
whom Paul speaks are ultra-Judaeists. On that theory the Christ-party would
be even more strictly
Jewish than the party of Peter. Others, such as Hilgenfeld and Hausrath
maintain that it consisted
of those that had been in personal relation with the Lord, and probably
belonged to the five hundred
of I Cor. 15: 5. Godet suggests that they were such as were embued with the
spirit of Cerinthus,
and believed in Christ in distinction from the human Jesus. He identifies
them with those who
would call Jesus accursed, I Cor. 12 :3. We prefer to think with Meyer,
Ellicott, Alford, Findley
(Exp. Gk. Test.) and Biesterveld that it consisted of the ultra-pious ones
who, despising all human
leadership, arrogated the common watchword as their own private property,
and by so doing made
it a party slogan. They regarded themselves as the ideal party, were filled
with spiritual pride, and
thus became a great stumblingblock for the apostle. The key to this
interpretation is found in 3: 22,
23, where the apostle offers a corrective for the party spirit, when he
says: “Whether Paul, or
Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or
things to come; all are yours;
and ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s.” Findlay correctly remarks that
“the catholic .µe.. ...st..
swallows up the self-assertive and sectarian ... d. ...st...
3. Pauls Communications with it. There are two questions that call for
consideration under this
heading: a. How often did Paul visit Corinth? and b. Did he write more
letters to the Corinthian
church than we now possess?
a. We know that Paul visited Corinth in A. D. 52, Acts 18:1, and again in
57, Acts 20: 2. Are
there traces of any other visits? The allusions in II Cor. 2: 1; 12:14; 13:
1 seem to imply that he had
been in Corinth twice before he wrote II Corinthians, and hence prior to the
visit of A. D. 57. In
all probability we must assume a visit not recorded in the Acts of the
Apostles. The question is,
however, whether we must place it before the writing of I Corinthians, or
between this and the
composition of II Corinthians. This cannot be decided absolutely with the
data at hand, but we
87
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
consider it preferable to place it before the first Epistle: (1) because the
time intervening between
the two letters is so short that a trip to Corinth in that time is
exceedingly improbable; (2) Since,
Timothy and Titus having been in Corinth a part of that time, we cannot
understand, what could
make it imperative for Paul to make such a hasty visit; and (3) II
Corinthians constantly refers to
things written in the first Epistle in a way that would not have been
necessary if Paul had already
been in Corinth himself. In favor of placing it after the writing of the
first Epistle, it is urged that
I Corinthians does not refer to a visit that shortly preceded it.
b. It seems to us that Paul unquestionably wrote more epistles to the
Corinthians than those
which we now possess. In I Cor. 5 : 9 the author clearly refers to an
earlier letter, forbidding
intercourse with immoral persons. That letter had been misunderstood, and
therefore the impression
it made is now corrected by the apostle. Very likely it also spoke of the
collection for the saints at
Jerusalem, 16:1, and conveyed the apostles intention to visit Corinth both
before and after his visit
to Macedonia, to which II Cor. 1: 15, 16 refers, and which he changed before
writing I Corinthians
(cf. 16: 5), thereby unwittingly exposing himself to the calumny of his
enemies, II Cor. 1:15-18.
>From II Cor. 7: 6-8 some infer that another letter, far more censorious than
I Corinthians intervened
between the two canonical letters, and caused the apostles uneasiness; but
the evidence is not strong
enough to warrant the conclusion.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. This letter was occasioned by reports which Paul
received from
Corinth and by a series of questions that were put to him by the
Corinthians. Those who were of
the house of Chloe told him of the divisions in their home church, 1: 11,
and common report had
it that fornication and even incest was permitted in the congregation, 5:1.
Moreover the church sent
a letter, probably by the hand of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus, 16:17,
asking the apostles
opinion in several matters, as marriage, 7:1; the eating of meat offered to
the idols, 8: 1; the proper
conduct in the church, 11: 2; the right use of the spiritual gifts, 12: 1;
and in all probability also
respecting the doctrine of the resurrection, 15.
In harmony with this occasion the purpose of the Epistle is especially
twofold: In the first place
the apostle desires to quench the party spirit that was rife among the
Corinthians that he might lead
them all to the unity of faith that is in Jesus Christ; and to correct the
other evils that were found
in the church, such as the case of incest and the irregularities that
disgraced their Agapae, which
culminated in the Lords Supper. And in the second place it was his aim to
give the young church,
struggling with temptations and baffled by many difficult questions, further
instruction along the
lines indicated by them in their letter. With great diligence and care and
solicitude for the welfare
of the congregation the apostle applies himself to this task. In answer to
the question, whether he
also intended to defend his apostleship over against his enemies we would
say that, though this
was not altogether absent from his mind (cf. chs. 4 and 9), he does not aim
at this directly like he
does in writing II Corinthians, when the hostility of the false teachers has
become far more
pronounced.
2. Time and Place. The place, where this Epistle was written, is clearly
indicated in 16: 8, and
therefore does not call for further discussion. This also aids us in
determining the time of writing.
The only stay of Paul at Ephesus of any duration is described in Acts 19. If
our chronological
calculations are correct, he came there in A. D. 54 and, after a stay of
three years, left there again
in 57. According to I Cor. 16: 8 he wrote the epistle toward the end of his
Ephesian ministry, before
88
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Pentecost of A. D. 57, and therefore probably in the early part of that
year. We cannot conclude
from I Cor. 5: 7 that it was when the feast of unleavened bread was
celebrated, although it is very
well possible that the nearness of that feast gave rise to the line of
thought developed in that chapter.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonicity of the Epistle is abundantly attested by early Christian
literature. It is the first
one of the New Testament writings that is cited by name by one of the
apostolic fathers. Clement
of Rome says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: “Take the Epistle of
the blessed Paul the apostle
into your hands etc.” The writings of the other apostolic fathers, viz.
Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius
and Polycarp show clear traces of the use of this Epistle. From Irenaeus on
it is quoted as Holy
Scripture. The Gnostics regarded it with special favor. It was found in
Marcion’s canon, in the
Muratorian Fragment etc. The testimony to it is very full and clear.
In the Epistle to the Romans we have a statement of the way of salvation
with special reference
to the legalistic Romans; in this Epistle we find an exposition of it
particularly with a view to the
philosophically inclined Greeks. It clearly reveals that the way of wordly
wisdom is not the way
of life, a valuable lesson for the Church of all ages. But there is still
another phase that gives the
Epistle permanent value; it contains the doctrine of the cross in its social
application. In it we see
the church of God in the world with all its glitter and show, its
temptations and dangers, its errors
and crimes, and are taught to apply the principles of the Christian religion
to the diversified relations
of life, as we meet them in the bustle of a great and wicked city.
89
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians
CONTENTS
The contents of this Epistle are naturally divided into three parts:
I. Review of Pauls Relation’s with the Corinthians, 1: 1—7:16. After the
usual epistolary
introduction, 1: 1-11, the apostle vindicates himself with respect to the
change in his intended visit,
and with reference to what he had written respecting the offender, 1:
12—2:13. Having done this,
he takes up the discussion of the apostleship. In the first place he
considers the office of an apostle,
comparing the ministry of the Law with that of the Gospel, 3: 6-18, and
vindicating his own position
as an apostle of the New Covenant, 2: 14—3: 5; 4:1-6. Then he treats of the
sufferings of an apostle
which are inseparably connected with his work, but are alleviated by the
hope of future glory, 4:
7—5:10. Next the life of an apostle passes the review, which finds its
constraining motive in the
love of Christ, has its spiritual basis in the life of the Redeemer, and is
marked by sufferings,
dishonor and poverty, on the one hand; but also by longsuffering and
kindness, by knowledge and
righteousness, on the other, 5:11—6:10. This is followed up by an appeal of
the apostle to the
Corinthians that they should give him place in their hearts, and should not
be unequally yoked
together with unbelievers, 6: 11—7: 4. Finally the apostle tells the
Corinthians that he had been
comforted greatly by the coming of Titus, by whom his fears that the former
letter might have
estranged them, were allayed and made place for rejoicing, 7: 5-16.
II. The Collection for the Judaean Christians, 8:1—9:15. The apostle points
the Corinthians to
the example of the Macedonians who gave abundantly for the poor at
Jerusalem, 8:1-7; and to the
example of Christ who became poor that the Corinthians might be enriched, 8:
8-15. He commends
to them Titus and the two brethren that are sent with him to gather the
collection, 8:16-24; and
exhorts them to give abundantly for this worthy cause, 9:1-15.
III. Pauls Vindication of his Apostleship, 10:1—13:14. In this part Paul
deals directly with his
opponents. First of all he points out that the ministry entrusted to him
also extended to the
Corinthians, 9:1-18. Then he replies to his opponents that he had been
perfectly loyal to the cause
of Christ, 11:1-6; that he had not dealt deceitfully with the Corinthians,
when he refused support
from them, 11: 7-15; that he had far greater things in which to glory than
they could boast of, 11:
16—12:10; and that it had never been and was not now his aim to make a gain
of the Corinthians,
12: 11-18. Finally he gives them warnings in view of his coming visit, and
closes his epistle with
final salutations and benediction, 12:19—13:13.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. II Corinthians is one of the most personal and the least doctrinal of all
the letters of Paul,
except the one written to Philemon. The doctrinal element is not altogether
wanting; the great truths
of salvation find expression in it, as well as in the other letters of the
apostle; but, though they enter
into its composition, they have a subordinate place and are, as it were,
eclipsed by its large personal
element, in which we see the very heart of the apostle, with all its varying
moods of courage and
anxiety, of love and aversion, of hope and disappointment. Alford says:
“Consolation and rebuke,
gentleness and severity, earnestness and irony succeed one another at very
short intervals and
without notice.”
90
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
2. The second characteristic of this Epistle is closely connected with the
preceding one; it is
the most unsystematic of all the letters of Paul. How greatly it differs in
this respect from the Epistle
to the Romans and from First Corinthians, becomes perfectly evident, when
one attempts to give
an outline of the contents. This irregularity is due to the fact that in
this letter we do not find a calm
discussion of doctrinal subjects or of certain phases of Christian life, but
above all an impassioned
self-defense against unjust charges and calumnies and insinuations. However
humble the apostle
may be, and though he may regard himself as the least of all the saints, yet
in this letter he finds
himself constrained to boast of his sufferings and of his work.
3. The language of this Epistle has been judged variously, some criticizing
it severely and others
praising its excellencies. We cannot deny that it is more rugged and harsh,
more obscure and difficult
of interpretation than we are accustomed to in Paul’s other writings.
“Parentheses and digressions
often intersect the narrative and disturb its sequence.” (Davidson) Meyer
says beautifully: “The
excitement and varied play of emotion with which Paul wrote this letter,
probably also in haste,
certainly make the expression not seldom obscure and the sentences less
flexible, but only heighten
our admiration of the great delicacy, skill and power with which this
outpouring of Paul’s spirit
and heart, possessing as a defense of himself a high and peculiar interest,
flows and gushes on, till
finally, in the last part, wave on wave overwhelms the hostile resistance.”
Comm. p. 412.
AUTHORSHIP
The external testimony to the authorship of Paul is inferior to that of I
Corinthians; yet it is so
strong that it leaves no room for honest doubt. Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian and
many others, from all parts of the early Church, quote it by name.
But even if this were not so strong, internal evidence would be quite
sufficient to settle the
question of authenticity. In the first place the Epistle claims to be a
product of the great apostle. In
the second place it is written in a style that is in many respects
characteristically Pauline,
notwithstanding its unique features; it contains the doctrine of salvation,
as we are wont to hear it
proclaimed by the apostle of the Gentiles; and it reveals his character, as
no other Epistle does. And
in the third place the thought of this Epistle is closely interwoven with
that of I Corinthians. In I
Cor. 16: 5 Paul speaks of his plan of travel, and in II Cor. 1:15-24 he
comments on it; in I Cor. 5
he urges that discipline be applied to the incestuous person, and in II Cor.
2: 5-11 he says, with
reference to this case, that they have inflicted sufficient punishment, and
restrains their evident
severity; respecting the collection for the Judaean Christians which he
enjoins on the Corinthians
in I Cor. 16:14, he gives further directions in II Cor. 8 and 9; to the
Judaeizers who cast doubt on
his apostleship he refers in I Cor. 4 and 9, and speaks of them more at
length in II Cor. 10-13.
The authenticity of the Epistle too was attacked by Bruno Bauer and by the
Dutch critics that
we mentioned in connection with the first Epistle. But their work failed to
convince anyone but
themselves. Godet truly says: ”—the scholars who cannot discern, across
these pages, the living
personality of St. Paul, must have lost in the work of the study, the sense
for realities.” Introd. to
the N. T. I p. 337.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. In order to understand the occasion that induced
Paul to write this
Epistle to the Corinthians, we must bring it in connection with the first
letter, which was in all
probability borne to Corinth by Titus, Paul’s spiritual son. After it had
gone forth, the apostle
91
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
pondered on what he had written in that letter, and it caused him some
uneasiness of mind, II Cor.
7: 8. He reflected that he had written in a rather severe strain regarding
the divisions at Corinth and
the incestuous person, and feared for a time that his words might be
misconstrued, that his letter
might create a false impression, and that his severity might provoke
resentment and thus injure the
cause of the gospel that lay so near to his heart.
We are aware that some scholars, as f. i. Hausrath, Schmiedel, Kennedy,
Baljon, Findlay,
Robertson (in Hastings D. B.) and Davidson hold that II Cor. 2:4, 9; 7:8
refer to a second lost epistle
of Paul, the so-called Painful Letter; but with Zahn, Holtzmann and Bernard
(in Expositors Gk.
Test.) we believe it to be a rather gratuitous assumption that such an
epistle ever existed.
Shortly after Paul had sent I Corinthians, he left Ephesus for Troas, where
a splendid opportunity
for work offered. Yet he was keenly disappointed, for he had expected to
find Titus there with
tidings from Corinth; and when he did not find him, his very anxiety caused
him to sail for
Macedonia that he might meet his beloved brother and co-laborer the sooner
and be reassured by
him, II Cor. 2:12, 13. The mere change of the field of labor brought him no
relief, for he says:
“When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were
troubled on every side;
without were fightings, within were fears.” 7: 5. Soon, however, he was
comforted by the coming
of Titus, 7: 6; the painful uncertainty now made place for calm assurance,
yea even for joy and
thanksgiving. But his happiness was not unalloyed, since the report of Titus
was not altogether
favorable. The Corinthian congregation as a whole had taken kindly to the
warnings and directions
of the previous letter. The words of reproof had made a deep impression on
them, had saddened
their hearts, had filled them with sorrow,—but it was a godly sorrow that
worked repentance. Hence
the apostle had occasion to rejoice and did rejoice, 7: 7-16. The enemies of
Paul, however, had
been embittered by the former Epistle and had increased their sinister work,
attempting to undermine
the apostolic authority of Paul by charging that he was fickle and
vacillating, 1:15-24; that he was
controlled by fleshly motives, 10: 2; that he was bold at a distance, but
cowardly, when present,
10:10; that he was dealing deceitfully with the Corinthians even in taking
no support from them,
11: 7-12; and that he had not shown himself an apostle by his works,
12:11-13.
The question may be asked to which one of the four parties mentioned in I
Corinthians the
enemies belong with which the apostle deals in II Cor. 10-13. It is quite
clear, and scholars are
generally agreed, that they were in the main, if not exclusively,
ultra-Judaeists. But there is no such
unanimity in classifying them with one of the divisions of which the first
Epistle speaks. Following
F. C. Baur many, such as Baljon, Davidson, Weiss, identify them with those
whose watchword
was: “I am of Christ !” Others, however, as Meyer and Zahn regard them as
belonging to the party
that professed special allegiance to Peter. To this view we give preference;
however, with the
provisos that in this letter Paul does not deal with the whole party, but
rather with its leaders, who
had probably come from Judaea with letters of commendation, 3:1, and whom
Paul qualifies as
“false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves in apostles of
Christ,” 11:13 ;—and
that it is quite possible that some of his words refer to those who,
ignoring and dispising all human
authority, claimed to be of Christ, and did not uphold the honor and
faithfulness of the apostle
against the false teachers. Cf. 10: 7.
This being the situation at Corinth, when the apostle wrote his second
letter, he was naturally
led to write with a twofold purpose. In the first place it was his desire to
express his gratitude for
the way in which the Corinthians had received his former letter, and to
inform them of the joy he
experienced, when they had manifested their willingness to mend their ways
and had been filled
92
with godly sorrow. And in the second place he considered it incumbent on him
to defend his
apostleship against the calumnies and the malignant attacks of the
Judaeistic adversaries.
2. Time and Place. In view of the account we have given of the course of
events that followed
the writing ofI Corinthians, it is not very difficult to establbish
approximately both the time and
the place of writing. We may assume that, in accordance with the plan
expressed in I Cor.15 : 8,
the apostle remained at Ephesus until Pentecost of A. D. 57. On leaving
Ephesus he went to Troas,
from where he crossed over to Macedonia. There he soon met Titus, presumably
in the summer of
that same year, and therefore some time before he was ready to visit
Corinth, and received
information from him regarding the condition of the Corinthian church.
Overjoyed by what he
heard, but at the same time apprehending the danger that lurked in the
agitation of the Judaeizers,
he immediately wrote II Corinthians, and sent it to Corinth by the hand of
Titus, who was
accompanied on his journey by two of the brethren, whose names are not
recorded, 8:18, 22. The
letter was written, therefore, in the summer of A. D. 57, somewhere in
Macedonia.
INTEGRITY
The integrity of the letter has been attacked especially on two points. It
is claimed by some that
the verses 6: 14—7: 1 do not belong, where they stand, but form an awkward
interruption in the
course of thought. A few scholars regard them as a part of the lost letter
to which I Cor. 5: 9 refers.
Now it is true that at first sight these verses seem out of place, where
they stand, but at the same
time it is very well possible to give a plausible explanation for their
insertion at this point. Cf.
Meyer, Alford, Expositors Greek Testament.
Several critics opine that the chapters 10-13 did not originally form a part
of this letter. Hausrath
and Schmiedel advocated the theory that they constituted a part of the
so-called Painful letter that
intervened between I and II Corinthians. The reasons why they would separate
this section from
the other nine chapters, are the following: (1) The 10th chapter begins with
the words ..t.. d.
... .a...., which d. marks these words as an antithesis to something that is
not found in the
preceding. (2) The tone of the apostle in these last chapters is strikingly
different from that in the
other nine; from a calm and joyful tone it has changed to one of stern
rebuke and of sharp invective.
(3) Certain passages found in the first part point back to statements that
are found in the last chapters,
and thus prove that these are part of a previous letter. Thus 2: 3 refers to
13:10; 1:23 to 13:2; and
2:9 to 10:6.
But to these arguments we may reply, in the first place, that d. often does
no more than mark
the transition to a new subject (cf. I Cor. 15: 1; II Cor. 8:1); in the
second place, that the change of
tone need not surprise us, if we take in consideration the possibility that
Paul did not write the
whole Epistle at a single sitting and therefore in the same mood; and the
fact that in the last chapters
he deals more particularly with the false teachers among the Corinthians;
and in the third place,
that the passages referred to do not necessitate the construction put on
them by the above named
critics. Moreover, if we adopt the theory that another letter intervened
between our two canonical
Epistles. we are led to a very complicated scheme of Pauls transactions with
Corinth, a scheme so
complicated that it is its own condemnation.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The ancient Church was unanimous in accepting the Epistle as a part of the
Word of God. Of
the apostolic fathers Polycarp plainly quotes it. Marcion included it in his
canon, and it is also
93
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
named in the Muratorian Fragment. The Syriac and old Latin Versions contain
it, and the three
great witnesses of the end of the second century quote it by name.
This Epistle too has permanent value for the Church of God. It is
inseparably connected with
I Corinthians, and as such also brings out that it is not the wisdom of the
world but the foolishness
of the cross that saves; and sheds further light on the application of
Christian principles to social
relations. More than any other Epistle it reveals to us the apostles
personality, and is therefore a
great psychological aid in the interpretation of his writings. It also has
considerable doctrinal interest
in that it exhibits a part of the apostles eschatology, 4: 16—5 : 8; brings
out the contrast between
the letter and the spirit, 3: 6-18; describes the beneficent influence of
the glory of Christ, 3:18—A:
6; and contains an explicit statement of the reconciliation and renovation
wrought by Christ, 5:17-21.
94
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle to the Galatians
nathaniel
CONTENTS
The Epistle to the Galatians may be divided into three parts:
I. Pauls Defense of his Apostleship, 1:1—2: 21. After the usual introduction
the apostle states
the occasion of his writing, 1:1-10. In defense of his apostleship he points
out that he has been
called by God himself and received his Gospel by direct revelation, and had
no occasion to learn
it from the other apostles, 1: 11-24; that the apostles showed their
agreement with him by not
demanding the circumcision of Titus and by admitting his mission to the
gentiles. 2:1-10; and that
he had even rebuked Peter, when this “pillar of the church” was not true to
the doctrine of free
grace, 2:11-21.
II. His Defense of the Doctrine of Justification, 3:1—4: 31. Here the
apostle clearly brings out
that the Galatians received the gift of the Spirit by faith, 3:1-5; that
Abraham was justified by faith,
3: 6-9; that delivery from the curse of the law is possible only through
faith, 3:10-14; and that the
law has merely a parenthetic character, coming, as it does, between the
promise and its fulfillment,
3:15-29. He compares Judaeism to a son who is minor, and Christianity to a
son that has attained
his majority, 4:1-7; admonishes the Galatians that, realizing their
privilege, they should not return
to the beggarly elements of knowledge, 4: 8-20; and says that the Jew is
like the child of Hagar,
while the Christian resembles the child of Sara, 4: 21-3 1.
III. Practical Exhortations, 5:1—6:18. The Galatians are exhorted to stand
in their Christian
liberty, 5:1-12, a liberty that is not license but obedience, 5:13-18. The
works of the flesh and the
fruits of the Spirit are described that the Galatians may avoid the former
and yield the latter, 5:19-26.
The right way of treating the erring and weak is pointed out, and also the
relation of what one sows
to what one reaps, 5:1-10. With a brief summary and benediction Paul ends
his letter, 6: 11-18.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The Epistle to the Galatians has a great deal in common with that written
to the Romans.
They both treat the same general theme, viz, that by the works of the law no
man will be justified
before God. The same Old Testament passage is quoted in Rom. 4: 3 and Gal.
3:6; and the same
general argument is built on it, that the promise belongs to those who have
faith like that which
Abraham had even before he was circumcized. In both Epistles Paul aims at
reconciling his admission
that the Mosaic law came from God with his contention that it was not
binding on Christians.
Besides these similarities there are also several verbal agreements and
parallel passages in these
letters. Of the latter we may mention Rom. 8:14-17 and Gal. 4:5-7; Rom.
6:6-8 and Gal. 2:20; Rom.
13: 13, 14 and Gal. 5:16, 17.
2. But however similar these Epistles may be, there are also striking
differences. In the Epistle
to the Romans Paul does not directly encounter such as are hostile to the
truth or personal adversaries;
hence it is written in a calm spirit and is at most indirectly polemical.
This is quite different in the
Epistle to the Galatians. There were those in the churches of Galatia who
perverted the doctrine of
the cross and called the apostolic authority of Paul in question. As a
result this is one of the most
controversial writings of the apostle; it is an outburst of indignant
feeling, written in a fiery tone.
95
3. This Epistle abounds in striking contrasts. Grace is contrasted with the
Law in its Jewish
application, and especially on its ritual side; faith is placed in
antithetic relation to the works of
man; the fruits of the Spirit are set over against the works of the flesh;
circumcision is opposed to
the new creation; and the enmity of the world to the cross of Christ is
brought out in strong relief.
4. The style of this letter is rather unique in that it unites the two
extreme affections of Paul’s
admirable character: severity and tenderness. At times he speaks in a cold
severe tone, as if he
would scarcely recognize the Galatians as brethren; then again his whole
heart seems to yearn for
them. It is hard to imagine anything more solemnly severe than the opening
verses of the epistle
and 3:1-5; but it is equally difficult to conceive of something more
tenderly affectionate than appeals
such as we find in 4:12-16,18-20. We find in this letter a beautiful
blending of sharp invective and
tender pleading.
AUTHORSHIP
The authorship of the Epistle need not be subject to doubt, since both the
external and the
internal evidence are very strong. The letter is found in Marcions canon, is
named in the Muratorian
Fragment, and from the time of Irenaeus is regularly quoted by name. But
even if the external
testimony were not so strong, internal evidence would be quite sufficient to
establish the Pauline
authorship. The letter is self-attested, 1: 1, and clearly reveals the
character of the great apostle; it
does this all the better, since it is so intensely personal. And though
there are some harmonistic
difficulties, when we compare 1: 18 and Acts 9: 23 ;—l:18, 19 and Acts
9:26;—1:18; 2:1 and A&ts
9:26; 11:30;
12: 25; 15: 2,—yet these are not insuperable, and, on the whole, the
historical allusions found
in the epistle fit in well with the narrative in Acts.
For a long time Bruno Bauer was the only one to question the authenticity of
this letter, but
since 1882 the Dutch school of Loman and Van Manen joined him, followed by
Friedrich in
Germany. The principal reason for doubting it is the supposed impossibility
of so rapid a development
of the contrast between Jewish and Pauline Christianity as this letter
presupposes. But the facts do
not permit us to doubt that the conflict did occur then, while in the second
century it had died out.
THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA
Among the Epistles of Paul this is the only one that is expressly addressed,
not to an individual
nor to a single church, but a group of churches, ta.. .....s.a.. t..
Ga.at.a., 1 :2. When did the
apostle found these Galatian churches? The answer to that question will
necessarily depend on our
interpretation of the term Galatia, as it is used by the apostle. There is a
twofold use of this
appellative, viz, the geographical and the political. Geographically the
term Galatia denotes one of
the Northern districts of Asia Minor, a district that was bounded on the
North by Bithynia and
Paplagonia, on the East by the last named province and Pontus, on the West
by Phrygia, and on
the South by Lycaonia and Capadocia. The same name is employed in an
official, political sense,
however, to designate the Roman province which included Galatia proper, a
part of Phrygia, Pisidia
and Lycaonia. This twofold significance of the name Galatia has led to two
theories respecting the
location of the Galatian churches, viz, the North and the South Galatian
theory. The former still
represents the prevailing view; but the latter is accepted by an ever
increasing number of scholars.
According to the North Galatian theory the churches of Galatia were situated
in the geographical
district indicated by that name. Since about 280 B. C. this territory was
inhabited by a Celtic people,
96
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
consisting of three separate tribes, that had migrated thither from Western
Europe, and who
constituted shortly before Christ the kingdom of Galatia. They were given to
the worship of Cybele
“with its wild ceremonial and hideous mutilations;” and were characterized
by fickleness and great
instability of character. “Inconstant and quarrelsome,” says Lightfoot,
Corn. p. 14, “treacherous in
their dealings, incapable of sustained effort, easily disheartened by
failures, such they appear, when
viewed on their darker side.” The adherents of this theory are generally
agreed that Paul, in all
probability, founded the Galatian churches in the most important cities of
this district, i. e. in the
capital Ancyra, in Pessinus, the principal seat of the hideous service of
Cybele, and at Tavium. at
once a strong fortress and a great commercial center. The South Galatian
theory, on the other hand,
identifies the Galatian churches with those founded by Paul on his first
missionary journey at
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, not excluding any other
churches that may have been
founded in the province.
The North Galatian theory is supported by the following considerations: (1)
It is unlikely that
Paul would address the inhabitants of Phrygia, Pisidia and Lycaonia as
Galatians. That name could
properly be given only to the Celts, the Gauls that lived in Galatia proper.
(2) It is improbable that
Paul would have referred to the churches founded by him and Barnabas
jointly, as if they had been
established by him alone. (3) The character of the Galatians, as it is
reflected in this letter, is in
remarkable agreement with that of the Celts whose changeableness was a
subject of common
comment. (4) Since in the Acts of the Apostles Mysia, Phrygia and Pisidia
are all geographical
terms, without any political significance, the inference seems perfectly
warranted that the name
Galatia, when it is found alongside of these, is employed in a similar
sense. (5) “The expression
used in the Acts of Pauls visit to these parts, ‘the Phrygian and Galatian
country, shows that the
district intended was not Lycaonia and Pisidia, but some region which might
be said to belong
either to Phrygia or Galatia, or the parts of each contiguous to the other.”
(Lightfoot).
Now we are not inclined to underrate the value of these arguments, but yet
it seems to us that
they are not altogether conclusive. The first one impresses us as a rather
gratuitous assumption.
Taking in consideration that the Roman province of Galatia was organized as
early as 25 B. C. (Cf.
Ramsay, Historical Comm. on the Galatians, p. 103 ff. and J. Weiss,
Real-Enc. Art. Kleinasien),
and had therefore existed at least 75 years, when Paul wrote this letter, it
is hard to see, why he
could not address its inhabitants as Galatians. This is true especially in
view of the fact that the
apostle shows a decided preference for the imperial nomenclature, probably
since it was the most
honorable. Moreover in writing to the congregations in South Galatia he
could not very well use
any other name, if he did not wish to address them in a very cumbrous
way.—In connection with
the second argument we must bear in mind that this Epistle was written after
the rupture between
Barnabas and Paul, when, so it seems; the labor was divided so that Paul
received charge of the
South Galatian churches. It was but natural therefore that he should feel
the sole responsibility for
them.—On the third argument Salmon, who also advocates the North Galatian
theory, would wisely
place little reliance, because “it may be doubted whether Celts formed the
predominating element
in the churches of Galatia,” and since “men of different nationalities show
a common nature.”
Introd. p. 412.—We do not feel the cogency of the fourth argument for,
granted that Luke does use
the term Galatia in its geographical sense, this does not prove anything as
to Paul’s usage. In fact
the presumption is that the apostle did not so use it.—And the last argument
is of rather dubious
value, since it rests on an uncertain interpretation of the expressions t..
F....a. .a. Ga.at....,
Acts 16:, and t.. Ga.at.... ...a. .a. F....a., Acts 18: 23. The expression
in 16: 6 can probably
97
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
also be translated “the Phrygo-Galatic region,” referring to that part of
the province Galatia that
included Antioch and Iconium, and that originally belonged to Phrygia. In
18: 23, however, where
the names are reversed, we must translate, “the Galatic territory and
Phrygia,” the last name then,
according to Ramsay, referring to either Phrygia Galatica or Phrygia Magna.
In any event it seems
peculiar that Paul, if in these places he has reference to Galatia proper,
should speak of the Galatian
territory rather than of Galatia.
The North Galatian theory is defended by Weiss, Davidson, Julicher, Godet
and especially by
Lightfoot. But the South Galatian theory also has able defenders, such as
Renan, Hausrath, Zahn,
Baljon and above all Ramsay, whose extended travels and research in Asia
Minor, combined with
great learning, enable him to speak with authority on questions pertaining
to that district. This
theory assumes that Paul used the name Galatia in its official political
sense, and that the Galatian
churches were those of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, e. a. Although we
do not feel inclined
to speak dogmatically on the subject, it seems to us that this theory
deserves preference for the
following reasons: (1) It was evidently Paul’s uniform custom to denote the
location of the churches
which he founded, not by the popular but by the official nomenclature. Thus
he speaks of the
churches of Asia, I Cor. 16:19; the churches of Macedonia, II Cor. 8:1; and
the churches of Achaia,
II Cor. 1:1. And that this was not something peculiar to Paul, is proved by
the fact that Peter does
the same in I Peter 1:1, where the term Galatia is obviously used in its
political sense, since all the
other names refer to Roman provinces. Even Light-foot admits that this is
probably the case. (2)
That Paul founded churches in the Roman province of Galatia is a well
attested fact, of which we
have a detailed narrative in Acts 13 and 14; on the other hand, we have no
record whatever of his
establishing churches in the district of that name. It is certainly not very
obvious that Luke in Acts
16: 6 wants to convey the idea that the apostle established churches in
North Galatia. The most that
can be said, is that Acts 18: 23 implies such previous activity on the part
of Paul; but even this
depends on the correct interpretation of the phrase, “the country of Galatia
and Phrygia.” Lightfoot
himself regards it as “strange that, while we have more or less acquaintance
with all the other
important churches of St. Paul’s founding, not a single name of a person or
place, scarcely a single
incident of any kind, connected with the apostles preaching in Galatia,
should be preserved either
in the history or in the epistle.” Comm. p. 20. (3) The Epistle refers to
the collection for the Judaean
saints, 2:10 and in I Cor. 16: 1 Paul says that he commanded the churches in
Galatia to take part
in this. What is the meaning of the term Galatia here? From the Epistles of
Paul we gather that the
churches of Galatia, I Cor. 16: 1, Macedonia, II Cor. 8:1; 9: 2; and Achaia,
Rom. 15: 26, contributed
for this cause; while from Acts 20: 4 we learn that representatives from
Asia also accompanied
Paul to Jerusalem, according to the principle laid down in I Cor. 16: 3, 4.
Now if we take the name
Galatia in its official sense here, then all the churches founded by Paul
are seen to participate in
this work of charity; while if we interpret it as referring to North
Galatia, the churches of Antioch,
Iconium, Lystra and Derbe are not mentioned, and the impression is created
that they did not take
part. But this is exceedingly improbable, and the improbability is
heightened by the fact that among
the representatives accompanying Paul we also find Secundus and Gajus of
Derbe and Timotheus
of Lystra, while there are none to represent North Galatia. (4) From Gal.
4:13 we learn that Paul
first preached the gospel to the Galatians through infirmity of the flesh.
This may mean that Paul,
traveling through Galatia, was detained there by sickness, or that he
repaired to this district, in order
to recuperate from some disease. But the road through North Galatia did not
lead to any place,
where Paul was likely to go, and its climate was very undesirable for an
invalid. On the other hand
98
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the supposition is altogether natural that the apostle contracted some
disease in the marshy lowlands
of Pamphylia, and therefore sought restoration in the bracing atmosphere of
Pisidian Antioch. (5)
In this Epistle Paul repeatedly mentions Barnabas as a person well known to
the Galatians, 2:1, 9,
13. Now he was Pauls co-laborer in establishing the South Galatian churches,
but did not accompany
the apostle on his second missionary journey, when the churches of North
Galatia are supposed to
have been founded. It is true that this argument is somewhat neutralized by
the fact that Barnabas
is mentioned also in I Cor. 9: 6; yet this is not altogether the case, since
the references in Galatians
are more specific. In 2: 9, where Paul seeks to establish his apostleship,
he also seems to consider
it desirable to vindicate the legitimacy of Barnabas mission; while in 2:13
he presupposes that his
readers have knowledge of the stand taken by Barnabas with reference to the
doctrine of free grace.
We conclude, therefore, that the Galatian churches were in all probability
those founded by Paul
on his first missionary journey in South Galatia. Cf. especially Ramsay, The
Church in the Roman
Empire pp. 3-112; St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen pp. 89-151;
and Zahns Einleitung
II pp. 124-139.
The Galatian churches were mainly composed of Gentile-Christians, but also
contained an
important Jewish element. This can be inferred from the narrative in Acts 13
and 14. The Gentiles
were eager to receive the truth, 13 : 42, 46-48; 14:1, while the Jews were
very much divided, some
believingly accepting the word of the apostles, 13 : 43; 14:1, and others
rejecting it with scorn and
maltreating the messengers of the cross, 13: 45, 50; 40: 2, 5, 19. The
impression received from the
narrative is corroborated by the Epistle, which in the main addresses itself
to the Greeks who had
not yet accepted circumcision, but had of late been urged to submit to this
rite, if not to all the
Jewish ceremonies, that they might share in the covenant blessings of
Abraham. The apostle
describes the whole congregation according to the majojrity of its members,
when he says in 4: 8,
“Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by
nature are no gods.”
Yet it is evident from 3 : 23-25, 28 that he also bears the Jewish element
in mind. We need not
doubt, however, that the majority of the Greeks that constituted the
Galatian churches had already
for some time attended the synagogue of the Jews before they were converted
to Christianity, and
therefore belonged to the proselytes, the so-called devout persons of whom
Acts repeatedly speaks.
This may be inferred from Acts 13 : 43; 14:1, and from the fact that the
apostle presupposes a
certain familiarity in his readers with the patriarchal history, the Law,
the Psalms and the Prophets.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. After Paul had preached the gospel to the Galatians
and had seen
them well started on the royal road to salvation, Judaeizing teachers
entered the field, jealous of
their Jewish prerogatives. Probably they were emissaries from Jerusalem that
abused a commission
entrusted to them, or assumed an authority which they in no way possessed.
They did not combat
Christianity as such, but desired that it should be led in Judaeistic
channels. Every convert to
Christianity should submit to circumcision, if not to the whole ceremonial
law. Their teaching was
quite the opposite of Pauls doctrine, and could only be maintained by
discrediting the apostle.
Hence they sought to undermine his personal influence and to depreciate his
apostolic authority by
claiming that he had not been called of God and had received the truth at
second-hand from the
Twelve. It seems that Paul, when he last visited the Galatian churches, had
already encountered
some such enemies, 1: 9, but he now heard that their influence was
increasing, and that they were
successful in persuading the Galatians to forsake their Christian
privileges, and thus virtually though
99
perhaps unwittingly, to deny Christ who had bought them, 3:1; 4:9-11, 17;
5:7,8, 10. Hence he
deems it imperative to write them a letter.
The purpose of the author in writing this Epistle was, of course, twofold.
In order that his words
might be effective, it was necessary, first of all, that he should defend
his apostolic authority by
proving that God had called him and had imparted the truth of the gospel to
him by means of a
direct revelation. And in the second place it was incumbent on him that he
should expose the
Judaeistic error by which they were led astray, and should defend the
doctrine of justification by
faith.
2. Time and Place. There is great diversity of opinion as to the time, when
the Epistle was
written. Zahn, Hausrath, Baljon and Rendall (in The Exp. Gk. Test.) regard
it as the earliest of Paul’s
Epistles, and assume that it was written during the early part of his stay
in Corinth in the year 53.
Ramsay thinks it was written from Antioch at the end of the second
missionary journey, i. e.
according to his dating, also in A. D. 53. Weiss, Holtzmann and Godet refer
it to the early part of
Paul’s Ephesian residence, about the year 54 or 55, while Warfield prefers
to place it towards the
end of this period in A. D. 57. And finally Lightfoot and Salmon agree in
dating it after Paul’s
departure from Ephesus. This great variety of opinion proves that the data
for determining the time
are few and uncertain. Those accepting the North Galatian theory are
virtually confined to a date
after the beginning of Paul’s Ephesian residence in the year 54, because the
p..te.... of Gal. 4:13
seems to imply that the apostle had visited the churches of Galatia twice
before he wrote his letter;
while it is for the same reason most natural that they who advocate the
South Galatiari theory, find
their terminus a quo in A. D. 52 (McGiffert notwithstanding), when Paul had
paid a second visit
to the South Galatian churches. Assuming, as we do, that this letter was
addressed to the churches
of South Galatia, we may dismiss the idea that the apostle wrote it during
the third missionary
journey, because this would imply that he had already visited them three
times, in which case he
would have used p..t.. instead of p..te... in 4 :13. Moreover if Paul wrote
it from Ephesus,
the question is naturally raised, why he did not visit the Galatians rather
than write to them, seeing
that he had a great desire to be with them, 4: 20. We are inclined to think
that Paul wrote this letter
on his second missionary journey, after he had passed into Europe, and
probably during the first
part of his residence at Corinth, for: (1) Gal. 4: 20 implies that Paul was
at some distance from the
Galatian churches; (2) The letter presupposes that some time had elapsed
between its composition
and the second visit of the apostle; and (3) The letter contains no
greetings from Silas and Timotheus,
who were both well known to the Galatians. Evidently they had not yet
reached Corinth.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
There has never been any serious doubt respecting the canonicity of this
Epistle. It was received
as authoritative in all sections of the Church from the very earliest times.
There are allusions to its
language in the apostolic fathers, Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius.
Justin Martyr, Melito
and Athanagoras seem to have known it; and some of the heretics, especially
the Ophites, used it
extensively. It is found in Marcions canon, is named in the Muratorian
Fragment, and the Syriac
and old Latin versions contain it. From the end of the second century the
quotations multiply and
increase in directness and definiteness.
This Epistle too has abiding significance for the Church of God. It is
essentially a defense of
the doctrine of free grace, of the Christian liberty of New Testament
believers over against those
that would bring them under the law in its Old Testament application, and
would place them under
100
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the obligation to submit to circumcision and to participate in the shadowy
ceremonies of a by-gone
day. The great central exhortation of this letter is: “Stand fast in the
liberty wherewith Christ has
made us free, and be not tangled again with the yoke of bondage.” The way of
the ritualist is not
the way of life, is the lesson that should be remembered by all those who
are inclined to
over-emphasize the outward form of religion to the neglect of its spirit and
essence.
101
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle to the Ephesians
CONTENTS
The Epistle to the Ephesians is naturally divided into two parts:
I. The Doctrinal Part, treating of the Unity of the Church, 1:1—3: 21. After
the address and
salutation,l:l, 2, the apostle praises God for the great spiritual blessings
received in Christ, in whom
the Ephesians have been chosen, adopted and sealed with the Holy Spirit of
promise, 1: 3-14. He
renders thanks for these blessings and prays that God may make known to the
Church, the glorious
body of Christ, who filleth all in all, the glory of its heavenly calling,
1: 15- 23. Then he compares
the past and present condition of the readers, 2:1-13, and describes Christs
work of reconciliation,
resulting in the unity and glory of the Church, 2:14-22. Next he enlarges on
the mystery of the
Gospel and reminds his readers that he has been commissioned by God to make
it known to mankind,
3:1-13. He prays that they may be strengthened and enabled to comprehend the
greatness of the
love of Christ to the glory of God, 3:14-21.
II. The Practical Part, containing Exhortations to a Conversation worthy of
the Calling and
Unity of the Readers, 4: 1—6: 20. The readers are exhorted to maintain the
unity which God seeks
to establish among them by distributing spiritual gifts and instituting
different offices, 4:1-16. They
should not walk as the Gentiles do, but according to the principle of their
new life, shunning the
vices of the old man and practicing the virtues of the new, 4:17-32. In
society if must be their
constant endeavor to be separate from the evils of the world and to walk
circumspectly; husbands
and wives should conform in their mutual relation to the image of Christ and
the Church; children
should obey their parents and servants their masters, 5:1—6: 9. Finally Paul
exhorts the readers to
be strong in the Lord, having put on the whole armour of God and seeking
strength in prayer and
supplication; and he closes his Epistle with some personal intelligence and
a twofold salutation,
6:10-24.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. This letter is marked first of all by its general character. It has this
in common with the Epistle
to the Romans, that it partakes somewhat of the nature of a treatise; yet it
is as truly a letter, as any
one of the other writings of Paul. Deissmann correctly remarks, however,
that “the personal element
is less prominent in it than the impersonal.” St. Paul, p. 23. The letter
does not presuppose, like
those to the Corinthians and to the Galatians, some special clearly marked
historical situation, does
not refer to any historical incidents known to us from other sources, except
the imprisonment of
Paul, and contains no personal greetings. The only person mentioned is
Tychicus, the bearer of the
letter. It treats in a profound and sublime manner of the unity of all
believers in Jesus Christ, and
of the holy conversation in Christ that must issue from it.
2. It is also characterized by its great similarity to the letter sent to
the Colossians. This is so
great that some critics have regarded it as merely a revised and enlarged
edition of the latter; but
this idea must be dismissed altogether, because the difference between them
is too great and
fundamental. The Epistle to the Colossians is more personal and
controversial than that to the
Ephesians; the former treats of Christ, the Head of the Church, while the
latter is mainly concerned
102
with the Church, the body of Christ. Notwithstanding this, however, the
resemblance of the two is
readily observed. There is good reason for calling them twin letters. In
many cases the same words
and forms of expression are found in both; the thought is often identical,
while the language differs;
and the general structure of the Epistles is very similar.
3. The style of the letter is in general very exalted, and forms a great
contrast with that of the
epistle to the Galatians. Dr. Sanday says: “With few exceptions scholars of
all different schools
who have studied and interpreted this epistle have been at one in regarding
it as one of the sublimest
and most profound of all the New Testament writings. In the judgment of many
who are well entitled
to deliver an opinion, it is the grandest of all the Pauline letters.” The
Exp. Gk. Test. III p. 208. The
style is characterized by a succession of participial clauses and dependent
sentences that flow on
like a torrent, and by lengthy-digressions. One is impressed by its
grandeur, but often finds it
difficult to follow the apostle as he soars to giddy heights. The language
is further remarkable in
that it contains a series of terms with far-reaching significance, such as
the council (?....), of
God, His will (.e..µa), His purpose (p...es..), His good pleasure (..d...a),
etc., and also a great
number of .pa. .e..µe.a. According to Holtzmann there are 76 words that are
peculiar to this
epistle, of which 18 are found nowhere else in the Bible, 17 do not occur in
the rest of the New
Testament, and 51 are absent from all the other Pauline letters (the
Pastoral epistles being excepted).
Einleitung p. 259.
AUTHORSHIP
The historical evidence for the Pauline authorship of the Epistle is
exceptionally strong. Some
scholars claim that Ignatius even speaks of Paul as the author, when he says
in his Epistle to the
Ephesians: ”—who (referring back to Paul) throughout all his Epistle (..
p.s. .p.st...) makes
mention of you in Christ Jesus.” But it is very doubtful, whether the
rendering, “in all the Epistle,”
should not rather be, “in every Epistle.” Marcion ascribed the letter to
Paul, and in the Muratorian
Fragment the church of Ephesus is mentioned as one of the churches to which
Paul wrote Epistles.
Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria refer to Paul by name as the author of
this letter and quote it
as his, while Tertullian mentions Ephesus among the churches that had
apostolic Epistles.
Internal evidence also points to Paul as the author. In the opening verse of
the Epistle the writer
is named, and the structure of the letter is characteristically Pauline. In
the first place it contains
the usual blessing and thanksgiving; this is followed in the regular way by
the body of the epistle,
consisting of a doctrinal and a practical part; and finally it ends with the
customary salutations. The
ideas developed are in perfect agreement with those found in the letters
which we already discussed,
although in certain particulars they advance beyond them, as f. i. in the
theological conception of
the doctrine of redemption; and in the doctrine of the Church as the body of
Christ with its various
organs. The style of the Epistle too is Pauline. It is true that it differs
considerably from that of
Romans, Corinthians and Galatians, but it shows great affinity with the
style of Colossians and of
the Pastorals.
Notwithstanding all the evidence in favor of the Pauline authorship of this
Epistle, its authenticity
has been questioned by several New Testament scholars. De Wette, Baur and
his school, Davidson,
Holtzmann and Weizsacker are among the most prominent. The idea is that some
later, probably
a second century writer impersonated the great apostle. The principal
grounds on which the Epistle
was attacked, are the following: (1) It is so like the Epistle to the
Colossians that it cannot be an
103
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
original document. De Wette came to the conclusion that it was a “verbose
amplification” of the
Epistle to the Colossians. Holtzmann, finding that in some parts the
priority must be ascribed to
Ephesians rather than to Colossians, advocated the theory that Paul wrote an
Epistle to the Colossians
shorter than our canonical letter; that a forger, guided by this, fabricated
the Epistle to the Ephesians;
and that this plagiarist was so enamoured with his work that he, in turn,
revised the Colossian
Epistle in accordance with it. (2) The vocabulary and in general the style
of the Epistle is so different
from that of the other letters of Paul as to give it an un-Pauline stamp.
This objection is based partly,
though not primarily, on the numerous .pa. .e..µe.a; but especially on the
use of Pauline words
in a new souse, such as µ.st....., ......µ.a and pe..p...s..; on the
expression of certain ideas
by terms that differ from those employed elsewhere by the apostle for the
same purpose, as f. i. .
.e.. t.. ...... .µ.. ...s.., 1:17, and above all t... ...... .p.st..... ...
p..f.ta.., 3 :5,
which, it is said, smacks of a later time, when the apostles were held in
great veneration, and does
not agree with the apostles estimate of himself in 3 : 8; and on the fact
that, as Davidson puts it,
“there is a fulness of expression which approaches the verbose.” (3) The
line of thought in this
letter is very different from that of the recognized Pauline Epistles. The
law is contemplated, not
in its moral and religious value, but only as the cause of enmity and
separation between Jew and
Gentile; the death of Christ is not dwelt on as much as in the other
Epistles, while his exaltation is
made far more prominent; the parousia is placed in the distant future; and
instead of the diversity
the unity of the Church in Jesus Christ if emphasized: (4) The Epistle
contains traces of Gnostic
and even of Montanist influences in such words as ....e., p....µaand .e.e..
(5) The letter,
along with the writings of John, evidently aims at reconciling the Petrine
and Pauline factions, and
therefore emphasizes the unity of the Church. This unmistakably points to
the second century as
the time of its composition.
But these objections are not sufficient to discredit the Pauline authorship.
Such men as Lightfoot,
Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, Hodge, Reuss, Godet, Weiss, Baljon, Zahn, Sanday and
Abbot defend it.
The similarity of the Epistle and that to the Colossians is most naturally
explained by the fact that
the two were written by the same author, at about the same time, under
similar circumstances, and
to neighboring congregations. The idea that it is but a copy of the Epistle
to the Colossians is now
generally given up, since it appears that many passages favor the priority
of Ephesians. The theory
of Holtzmann is too complicated to command serious consideration. This whole
argument is very
peculiar in view of the following ones. While it derives its point from the
Epistles similarity to
Colossians, their cogency depends on the unlikeness of this letter to the
other Epistles of Paul. The
linguistic features to which the critics call attention are not such as to
disprove the Pauline authorship.
If the .pa. .e..µ..a found in this letter prove that it is unPauline, we
must come to a similar
conclusion with respect to the Epistle to the Romans, for this contains a
hundred words that are
peculiar. The terms that are said to be used in a new sense dwindle into
insignificance on closer
inspection. And of the expressions that are held to be unusual only the one
in 3: 5 has any
argumentative force. And even this need not cause surprise, especially not,
if we take in consideration
that Paul designates believers in general as ....., and that in this place
he applies this epithet at
once to the apostles and to the prophets. And further we may ask, whether it
is reasonable to demand
that such a fertile mind as that of Paul should always express itself in the
same way. The argument
derived from the line of thought in this Epistle simply succeeds in proving,
what is perfectly obvious,
that the apostle looks at the work of redemption from a point of view
different from that of the
104
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
other letters, that he views it sub specie aeternitatis. It is now generally
admitted that the supposed
traces of Gnosticism and Montanism have no argumentative value, since the
terms referred to do
not have the second century connotation in this Epistle. Similarly that
other argument of the Tubingen
school, that the letter was evidently written to heal the breach between the
Judaeistic and the liberal
factions of the Church, is now discarded, because it was found to rest on an
unhistorical basis.
DESTINATION
There is considerable uncertainty respecting the destination of this
Epistle. The question is
whether the words .. ..f.s. in 1:1 are genuine. They are indeed found in all
the extant MSS. with
the exception of three, viz, the important MSS. Aleph and B and codex 67.
The testimony of Basil
is that the most ancient MSS. in his day did not contain these words.
Tertullian informs us that
Marcion gave the Epistle the title ad Laodicenos; and Origen apparently did
not regard the words
as genuine. All the old Versions contain them; but, on the other hand,
Westcott and Hort say:
“Transcriptional evidence strongly supports the testimony of documents
against .. ..f.s..” New
Testament in Greek, Appendix p. 123. Yet there was in the Church an early
and, except as regards
Marcion, universal tradition that the Epistle was addressed to the
Ephesians. Present day scholars
quite generally reject the words, although they are still defended by Meyer,
Davidson, Eadie and
Hodge. The conclusion to which the majority of scholars come is, either that
the Epistle was not
written to the Ephesians at all, or that it was not meant for them only, but
also for the other churches
in Asia.
Now if we examine the internal evidence, we find that it certainly favors
the idea that this Epistle
was not intended for the Ephesian church exclusively, for (1) It contains no
references to the peculiar
circumstances of the Ephesian church, but might be addressed to any of the
churches founded by
Paul. (2) There are no salutations in it from Paul or his companions to any
one in the Ephesian
church. (3) The Epistle contemplates only heathen Christians. while the
church at Ephesus was
composed of both Jews and Gentiles, 2:11, 12; 4:17; 5: 8. (4) To these
proofs is sometimes added
that 1: 15 and 3: 2 make it appear as if Paul and his readers were not
acquainted with each other;
but this is not necessarily implied in these passages.
In all probability the words .. ..f.s. were not originally in the text. But
now the question
naturally arises, how we must interpret the following words t... ...... t...
..s.. .a. p.st...; etc.
Several suggestions have been made. Some would read: “The saints who are
really such ;” others:
“the saints existing and faithful in Jesus Christ ;” still others: “the
saints who are also faithful.” But
none of these interpretations is satistactory: the first two are hardly
grammatical; and the last one
implies that there are also saints who are not faithful, and that the
Epistle was written for a certain
select view. Probably the hypothesis first suggested by Ussher is correct,
that a blank was originally
left after t... ..s.., and that Tychicus or someone else was to make several
copies of this Epistle
and to fill in the blank with the name of the church to which each copy was
to be sent. The fact that
the church of Ephesus was the most prominent of the churches for which it
was intended, will
account for the insertion of the words .. ..f.s. in transcribing the letter,
and for the universal
tradition regarding its destination. Most likely, therefore, this was a
circular letter, sent to several
churches in Asia, such as those of Ephesus, Laodicea, Hierapolis, e. a.
Probably it is identical with
the Epistle .. .a.d...a., Col. 4 :16.
105
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. There is nothing in the Epistle to indicate that it
was called forth by
any special circumstances in the churches of Asia. To all appearances it was
merely the prospective
departure of Tychicus and Onesimus for Colossae, 6: 21, 22; Col. 4: 7-9,
combined with the
intelligence that Paul received as to the faith of the readers in the Lord
Jesus, and regarding their
love to all the saints, 1: 15, that led to its composition.
Since the Epistle was not called forth by any special historical situation,
the purpose of Paul in
writing it was naturally of a general character. It seems as if what he had
heard of “the faith of the
readers in the Lord Jesus, and of their love to all the saints,”
involuntarily fixed his thought on the
unity of believers in Christ, and therefore on that grand edifice,—the
Church of God. He sets forth
the origin, the development, the unity and holiness, and the glorious end of
that mystical body of
Christ. He pictures the transcendent beauty of that spiritual temple, of
which Christ is the chief
cornerstone and the saints form the superstructure.
2. Time and Place. From 3: 1 and 4: 1 we notice that Paul was a prisoner,
when he wrote this
Epistle. From the mention of Tychicus as the bearer of it in 6: 21, compared
with Col. 4: 7 and
Philemon 13, we may infer that these three letters were written at the same
time. And it has generally
been thought that they were composed during the Roman imprisonment of Paul.
There are a few
scholars, however, such as Reuss and Meyer, who believe that they date from
the imprisonment at
Caesarea, A. D. 58-60. Meyer urges this view on the following grounds: (1)
It is more natural and
probable that the slave Onesimus had run away as far as Caesarea than that
he had made the long
journey to Rome. (2) If these Epistles had been sent from Rome, Tychicus and
Onesimus would
have arrived at Ephesus first and then at Colossae. But in that case the
apostle would most likely
have mentioned Onesimus along with Tychicus in Ephesians, like he does in
Collossians 4: 9, to
insure the runaway slave a good reception; which was not necessary however,
if they reached
Colossae first, as they would in coming from Casarea, since Onesimus would
remain there.
(3) In Eph. 6: 21 the expression, “But that ye also may know my affairs,”
implies that there
were others who had already been informed of them, viz, the Collossians,
Col. 4: 8, 9. (4) Pauls
request to Philemon in Philem. 22, to prepare a lodging for him, and that
too, for speedy use, favors
the idea that the apostle was much nearer Coloss~e than the far distant
Rome. Moreover Paul says
in Phil. 2: 24 that he expected to proceed to Macedonia after his release
from the Roman
imprisonment.
But these arguments are not conclusive. To the first one we may reply that
Onesimus would be
far safer from the pursuit of the fugitivarii in a large city like Rome than
in a smaller one such as
Caesarea. The second argument loses its force, if this Epistle was a
circular letter, written to the
Christians of Asia in general. The ... in Eph. 6 :21 is liable to different
interpretations, but finds
a sufficient explanation in the fact that the Epistle to the Colossians was
written first. And in reply
to the last argument we would say that Philem. 22 does not speak of a speedy
coming, and that the
apostle may have intended to pass through Macedonia to Colossae.
It seems to us that the following considerations favor the idea that the
three Epistles under
consideration were written from Rome: (1) From Eph. 6:19, 20 we infer that
Paul had sufficient
liberty during his imprisonment to preach the gospel. Now this ill accords
with what we learn of
the imprisonment at Qesarea from Acts 24:23, while it perfectly agrees with
the situation in which
106
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Paul found himself at Rome according to Acts 28:16. (2) The many companions
of Paul, viz.
Tychicus, Aristarchus, Marcus, Justus, Epaphras, Luke and Demas, quite
different from those that
accompanied him on his last journey to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 20: 4), also
point to Rome, where the
apostle might utilize them for evangelistic work. Cf. Phil. 1:14. (3) In all
probability Philippians
belongs to the same period as the other Epistles of the imprisonment; and if
this is the case, the
mention of Caesars household in Phil. 4: 22 also points to Rome. (4)
Tradition also names Rome
as the place of composition. Ephesians must probably be dated about A.D. 62.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The early Church leaves no doubt as to the canonicity of this Epistle. It is
possible that we have
the first mention of it in the New Testament itself, Col. 4:16. The writings
of Igpatius, Polycarp,
Herman and Hippolytus contain passages that seem to be derived from our
Epistle. Marcion, the
Muratorian Canon, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian clearly
testify to its early
recognition and use. There is not a dissentient voice in all antiquity.
The particular significance of the Epistle lies in its teaching regarding
the unity of the Church:
Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ. It constantly emphasizes the fact that
believers have their unity
in the Lord and therefore contains the expression “in Christ” about twenty
times. The unity of the
faithful originates in their election, since God the Father chose them in
Christ before the foundation
of the world, 1: 4; it finds expression in a holy conversation, sanctified
by true love, that naturally
results from their living relation with Christ, in whom they are builded
together for a habitation of
God in the Spirit; and it issues in their coming in the “unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ.” The
great practical exhortation of the Epistle is that believers live worthily
of their union with Christ,
since they were sometime darkness, but are now light in the Lord, and should
therefore walk as
children of light, 5:8.
107
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle to the Philippians
CONTENTS
In the Epistle to the Philippians we may distinguish five parts:
I. Pauls Account of his Condition, 1: 1-26. The apostle addresses the
Philippians in the usual
way, 1, 2; and then informs them of his gratitude for their participation in
the work of the Gospel,
of his prayer for their increase in spiritual strength and labor, of the
fact that even his imprisonment
was instrumental in spreading the Gospel, and of his personal feelings and
desires, 3-26.
II. His Exhortation to Imitate Christ, 1: 27—2:18. He exhorts the
Philippians to strive after
unity by exercising the necessary self-denial, 1: 27—2: 4; points them to
the pattern of Christ, who
humiliated himself and was glorified by God, 2: 5-11; and expresses his
desire that they follow the
example of their Lord, 12-18.
III. In formation respecting Paul’s Efforts in behalf of the Philippians,
2:19-30. He intends to
send Timotheus to them that he may know of their condition, and therefore
commends this worthy
servant of Christ to them, 19-23; and though he trusted that he himself
would come shortly he now
sends Epaphroditus back to them, and bespeaks a good reception for him,
24-30.
IV. Warnings against Judaeism and Antinomian Error, 3:1-21. The apostle
warns his readers
against Judaeistic zealots that boasted in the flesh, pointed to his own
example in renouncing his
fleshly prerogatives that he might gain Christ and experience the power of
His resurrection, and in
striving after perfection, 1:15. By way of contrast this induces him to warn
them also for the example
of those whose lives are worldly and licentious, 16-21.
V. Final Exhortations and Acknowledgment, 4:1-23. He urges the Philippians
to avoid all
dissension, 1-3; exhorts them to joyfulness, freedom from care, and the
pursuit of all good things,
4-9; gratefully acknowledges their gifts, invoking a blessing on their love,
10-20; and closes his
Epistle with salutation and benediction, 21-23.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The Epistle to the Philippians is one of the most personal of Paul’s
letters, resembling in that
respect II Corinthians. It has been called the most letter-like of all the
writings of Paul, and may
be compared in this respect with I Thessalonians and Philemon. The personal
note is very marked
throughout the Epistle. There is not much dogma, and what little is found is
introduced for practical
purposes. This holds true even with reference to the classical passage in
2:6-11. The apostle, with
the prospect of an early martyrdom before him, yet not without hope of a
speedy release, opens his
heart to his most beloved congregation. He speaks of the blessings that
attend his labors at Rome,
of the strait in which he finds himself, and expresses his desire to remain
with them. He manifests
his love for the Philippians, shows himself concerned for their spiritual
welfare, and expresses his
profound gratitude for their support. Though in bonds, he rejoices, and bids
the readers be joyful.
The tone of joyous gratitude rings through the entire Epistle.
2. The letter is in no sense a controversial one. There are in it no direct
polemics; there is very
little that has to any degree a polemical character. The apostle warns
against errorists that are without
the church, but might disturb its peace, and forestalls their attacks; he
hints at dissensions, most
108
likely of a practical nature, in the congregation, and admonishes the
readers to be peaceful and
self-denying; but he never once assumes a polemical attitude, like he does
in Corinthians or Galatians.
Stronger still, the Epistle is singularly free from all denunciation and
reproof; it is written throughout
in a lauditory spirit. The apostle finds little to chide and much to praise
in the Philippian church.
3. The address of the Epistle is peculiar in that it names not only, “the
saints in Christ Jesus
which are at Philippi,” but adds, “with the bishops and deacons.” In that
respect it stands in a class
by itself. The greetings at the end of the Epistle are also unique. On the
one hand they are very
general, while, on the other, “the household of Caesar” is singled out for
special mention.
4. As to style, Alford reminds us, that this letter, like all those in which
Paul writes with fervor,
“is discontinuous and abrupt, passing rapidly from one theme to another;
full of earnest exhortation,
affectionate warnings, deep and wonderful settings-forth of his individual
spiritual condition and
feelings, of the state of the Christian and of the sinful world, of the
loving councils of our Father
respecting us, and the self-sacrifice and triumph of our Redeemer.”
Prolegomena Sec. IV. There
are constant expressions of affection, such as ..ap.t.. and.de.f... Notice
especially 4:1,
“Therefore my brethren, my dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and crown,
so stand fast in the
Lord, my dearly beloved.”
AUTHORSHIP
The Pauline authorship of this Epistle is established as well as anything
can be. We probably
find the first reference to it in the epistle of Polycarp to the
Philippians, where we read: “The glorious
Paul who, being personally among you, taught you exactly and surely the word
of truth; who also,
being absent, wrote you letters (or, a letter) which you have only to study
to be edified in the faith
that has been given you.” The passage does not necessarily refer to more
than one letter. Our Epistle
formed a part of Marcions collection, is mentioned in the Muratorian canon,
is found in the Syriac
and old Latin Versions, and is quoted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian and many
others.
And this testimony of antiquity is clearly borne out by the evidence
furnished by the Epistle
itself. It is self-attested and has, at the beginning, the usual Pauline
blessing and thanksgiving.
Above all, however, it is like II Corinthians in that the personality of the
apostle is so strongly
stamped on it as to leave little room for doubt. The historical
circumstances which the Epistle
presupposes, the type of thought which it contains, the language in which it
is couched, and the
character which it reveals,—it is all Pauline.
The evidence in its favor is so strong that its authenticity has been
generally admitted, even by
radical critics. Of course, Baur and the majority of his school rejected it,
but even Hilgenfeld,
Julicher and Pfleiderer accept it as Pauline. The great majority of New
Testament scholars regard
the objections of Baur as frivolous, as f. i. that the mention of bishops
and deacons points to a
post-Pauline stage of ecclesiastical organization; that there is no
originality in the Epistle; that it
contains evident traces of Gnosticism; that the doctrine of justification
which it sets forth is not
that of Paul; and that the Epistle aims at reconciling the opposing parties
of the second century,
typified by Euodia and Syntyche.
Of late Holsten has taken up the cudgels against the genuineness of this
letter. Dismissing
several of the arguments of Baur as irrelevant, he bases his attack
especially on the Christological
and Soteriological differences that he discerns between this Epistle and the
other writings of Paul.
109
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The most important points to which he refers are these: (1) The idea of the
pre-existent Christ in
2: 6-11 does not agree with that found in I Cor. 15 : 45-49. According to
the first passage the
manhood of Christ begins with his incarnation; according to the second, He
was even in his
pre-existence “a heavenly man.” (2) There is a glaring contradiction between
3 : 6, where the writer
says that he was blameless as touching the righteousness which is in the
law, and Rom. 7: 21, where
the apostle declares:—when I would do good, evil is present.” (3) The
doctrine of forensic, imputed
righteousness is replaced by that of an infused righteousness in 3: 9-11.
(4) The writer shows a
singular indifference to the objective truth of his Gospel in 1: 15-18, an
attitude which compares
strangely with that of Paul in II Cor. 11:1-4, and especially in Gal. 1: 8,
9.
But these objections are not of sufficient weight to disprove the Pauline
authorship. In I Cor.
15 the apostle does not speak of the pre-existent Christ, but of Christ as
he will appear at the parousia
in a glorified body. With what Paul says in 3: 6 we may compare Gal. 1: 14.
In both places he
speaks of himself from the standpoint of the Jew who regards the law merely
as an external carnal
commandment. From that point of view he might consider himself blameless,
but it was quite
different, if he contemplated the law in its deep spiritual sense. It is not
true that Paul substitutes
an infused for an imputed righteousness in this Epistle. He clearly speaks
of the latter in 2: 9, and
then by means of an infinitive of purpose passes on to speak of the
subjective righteousness of life.
The persons spoken of in 1:15-18 are not said to preach a Gospel different
from that of the apostle;
they preached Christ, but from impure motives. Hence they can not be
compared with the adversaries
of whom Paul speaks in Corinthians and Galatians. To these he probably
refers in 3: 2. Schurer
says: “The arguments of Holsten are such that one might sometimes believe
them due to a slip of
the pen.”
THE CHURCH AT PHILIPPI
The city of Philippi was formerly called Crenides, and derived its later
name from Philip, the
king of Macedonia, who rebuilt it and made it a frontier city between his
kingdom and Thrace. It
was situated on the river Gangites and on the important Egnatian highway
that connected the
Adriatic with the Hellespont. After the defeat of his enemies Octavius about
42 B. C. determined
on Philippi as one of the places, where Roman soldiers who had served their
time were to dwell.
He constituted it a Roman colony, with the special privilege of the jus
Italicum, which included
”(1) exemption from the oversight of the provincial governors; (2) immunity
from the poll and
property taxes; and (3) right to property in the soil regulated by Roman
law.” These privileges, no
doubt, attracted many colonists, so that Philippi soon became a city of
considerable size. It is
described in Acts 16:12 as, “the chief city of that part of Macedonia and a
colony.”
To that city Paul first came, when about the year 52, in obedience to the
vision of the Macedonian
man, he passed from Asia into Europe. This was in harmony with his general
policy of preaching
in the main centers of the Roman empire. Apparently the Jews were not
numerous in Philippi: there
was no synagogue, so that the small band of Jews and proselytes simply
repaired to the river side
for prayer; and one of the charges brought against Paul and Silas was that
they were Jews. At the
place of prayer the missionaries addressed the assembled women, and were
instrumental in converting
Lydia who, with characteristic generosity, immediately received them in her
house. We read no
more of the blessings that crowned their labors there, but find that on
their departure there was a
company of brethren to whom they spoke words of comfort.
110
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Little can be said regarding the composition of the Philippian church. In
the narrative of its
founding we find no specific mention of Jews, although the assembly by the
river points to their
presence. However the fact that there was no synagogue, and that the enemies
contemptuously
emphasized the Jewish nationality of the missionaries leads us to think that
they were few and
greatly despised. It may be that those who did live there had, under the
pressure of their environment,
already lost many of their distinctive features. The presumption is that
some of them accepted the
teaching of Paul and Silas, but we cannot tell how large a proportion of the
church they formed. In
all probability they were a small minority and caused no friction in the
congregation. Paul does not
even refer to them in his letter, much less condemn their Jewish tenets,
like he does the errors of
the false brethren at Corinth and in the Galatian churches. The adversaries
of whom he speaks in
3: 2 were evidently outside of the church. On the whole the Philippian
church was an ideal one,
consisting of warmhearted people, diligent in the work of the Lord, and
faithfully devoted to their
apostle.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The immediate occasion of this Epistle was a
contribution brought
by Epaphroditus from the Philippian church. They had often sent the apostle
similar tokens of their
love (cf. 4:15, 16; II Cor. 11:9), and now, after they had for some time
lacked the opportunity to
communicate with him, 4:10, they again ministered to his wants. From
over-exertion in the work
of Gods Kingdom their messenger was taken sick at Rome. On his recovery Paul
immediately sends
him back to Philippi, in order to allay all possible fears as to his
condition; and utilizes this
opportunity to send the Philippians a letter.
His purpose in writing this Epistle was evidently fourfold. In the first
place he desired to express
his gratitude for the munificence of the Philippians, especially because it
testified to the abundance
of their faith. In the second place he wished to give utterance to his
sincere love for the Philippian
church that constituted his crown in the Lord. In the third place he felt it
incumbent on him to warn
them against the dangers that were present within the fold, and the enemies
that were threatening
them from without. Apparently there was some dissension in the church, 1:
27—2:17; 4: 2, 3, but,
in all probability this was not of a doctrinal character, but rather
consisted of personal rivalries and
divisions among some of the church members. In 3 : 2 the apostle most likely
referred to the
Judaeizing Christians that traveled about to make proselytes, and also
threatened the church of
Philippi. Finally he desires to exhort his most beloved church to be joyful,
notwithstanding his
imprisonment, and to lead a truly Christian life.
2. Time and Place. Like the Epistle to the Ephesians that to the Philippians
was written at Rome.
While several scholars assign the former to the Caesarean captivity, very
few refer the latter to that
period. The apostles evident residing in some great center of activity, the
many friends that
surrounded him, his joyful expectation of being set free soon, his mention
of the pr~torium, 1:13,
which may be the praetorian guard (so most commentators), or the supreme
imperial court (so
Mommsen and Ramsay), and the greetings of Caesars household,—all point to
Rome.
The Epistle was written, therefore, between the years 61-63. The only
remaining question is,
whether it was composed before or after the other three Epistles of the
captivity. The prevailing
view is that Philippians is the last of the group. This view is supported by
the following arguments:
(1) The apostles words in 1: 12 seem to imply that a long period of
imprisonment has already
elapsed. (2) A rather long time was required in the communications between
Rome and Philippi
111
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
indicated in the letter. The Philippians had heard of Pauls imprisonment,
had sent Epaphroditus to
Rome, had heard of the latters illness there, and of this their messenger,
in turn, had received
intelligence. Four journeys are, therefore, implied. (3) Paul anticipates
that his case will soon come
up for decision, and although uncertain as to the outcome, he somewhat
expects a speedy release.
These arguments are not absolutely conclusive, but certainly create a strong
presumption in favor
of dating the Epistle after the other three.
Bleek was inclined to regard Philippians as the earliest of the Epistles of
the captivity. This
view found a strong defender in Lightfoot, who is followed by Farrar in his
St. Paul. Lightfoot
defends his position by pointing to the similarity of this Epistle to
Romans, which implies, according
to him, that it immediately follows this in order of time; and to the fact
that in this Epistle we have
the last trace of Paul’s Judaeistic controversy, while in Ephesians and
Cobssians he begins to deal
with an incipient Gnosticism, and his teachings respecting the Church bear a
close resemblance
and are intimately related to the views presented in the pastorals. These
Epistles, therefore, represent
a further developmnt in the doctrine of the Church. But these proofs do not
carry conviction, since
the character of Paul’s Epistles was not necessarily determined by the order
in which they were
written, and the apostle did not write as one who is presenting his system
of thought to the world
in successive letters. His Epistles were called forth and determined by
special situations. And the
question may be asked, whether it seems plausible that any considerable
development of doctrine
should take place within the course of at most a year and a half.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Epistle to the Philippians is not quoted as much as some of the
preceding ones, which is
probably due to the fact that it contains little doctrinal matter.
Notwithstanding this its canonicity
is well established. There are traces of its language in Clement of Rome and
Ignatius. Polycarp,
addressing the Philippians, speaks more than once of Pauls writing to them.
The Epistle to Diognetus,
Justin Martyr and Theophilus contain references to our letter. In the
Epistle of the churches of
Vienne and Lyons Phil. 2: 6 is quoted. Marcion has it and the Muratorian
canon speaks of it. And
it is often directly quoted and ascribed to Paul by Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria and Tertullian.
Though the Epistle is primarily of a practical nature, it has also great and
abiding dogmatic
significance. It contains the classical passage on the important doctrine of
the kenosis of Christ,
2:6-11. Aside from this, however, its great permanent value is of a
practical character. It reveals to
us the ideal relation between Paul and his Philippian church, a relation
such as the church of God
should constantly seek to realize: he, sedulously seeking to promote the
spiritual welfare of those
entrusted to his care, even in a time of dire distress; and they, though
possessing no great wealth,
willingly and lovingly ministering to the natural wants of their beloved
apostle. It points us to Christ
as the pattern of that self-denial and humiliation that should always
characterize his followers. It
comes to us with the grand exhortation, enforced by the example of the great
apostle, to press
forward for “the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” And
finally it pictures us the
Christian satisfied and joyful, even when the shades of night are falling.
112
The Epistle to the Colossians
CONTENTS
The Epistle to the Colossians may best be divided into two parts:
I. The Doctrinal Part, emphasizing the unique Significance of Christ, 1:1—2:
23. Paul begins
the letter with the apostolic blessing, the usual thanksgiving and a prayer
for his readers, 1:1-13.
Then he describes the pre-eminence of Christ as the Head of both the natural
and the spiritual
creation, who has reconciled all things to God, 14-23, of which mystery the
apostle himself was
made a minister, 24-29. He warns his readers against the inroads of a false
philosophy that dishonored
Christ. Since the Colossians have all the fulness of the Godhead in their
Lord and Saviour, are
rooted in him, and have arisen with him to a new life, they should walk in
him and avoid semi-Jewish
practices and the worship of angels, 2:1-19. This was all the more
necessary, because they had died
with Christ to their old life and to the beggarly elements of the world,
20-23.
II. The Practical Part, containing divers Directions and Exhortations, 3:
1—4:18. Where
believers have risen with Christ to newness of life, they must part with the
vices of the old man
and clothe themselves with Christian virtues, 3:1-17. Wives should submit
themselves to their
husbands and husbands should love their wives; children must obey their
parents and parents must
beware of discouraging their children; servants should obey their masters
and these should give
the servants their due, 18—4:1. The duty of prayer and thanksgiving is
urged, and directions are
given for the right behavior of believers toward the unconverted, 2-6. With
a few personal notices,
several greetings and a salutation the apostle closes his Epistle, 7-18.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. On its formal side this Epistle differs from that to the Ephesians in its
polemical character.
It is not a general exposition of the truth that is in Christ Jesus, without
reference to antagonistic
principles, but a statement of it with a special view to the errors that
were gradually creeping into
the Colossian church, insidious errors of which the Cobssians, so it seems,
little realized the danger.
It is true that we find none of the fiery polemics of the Epistle to the
Galatians here, nor any of the
sharp invective of II Corinthians;—yet the controversial character of this
letter is very evident.
2. On its material side it exhibits great affinity with the Epistle to the
Ephesians. Hence the
contention of the critics that the one is but a copy of the other. We should
not infer from this,
however, that the teaching of these Epistles is identical. While that
contained in Ephesians is in the
main Theological, that found in Colossians is primarily Christological, the
summing up of all things
in Christ, the Head. Essentially the Christology of this letter is in
perfect harmony with that of
previous Epistles, but there is a difference of emphasis. The writer here
places prominently before
his readers, not only the Soteriological, but also the Cosmical significance
of Christ. He is the Head
both of the Church and of the new creation. All things were created by him,
and find the purpose
of their existence in him.
3. In point of style and language too this Epistle shows great similarity to
its twin-letter. Of the
155 verses in Ephesians 78 contain expressions that find parallels in
Colossians. There are the same
involved sentences of difficult interpretation, and also a great number of
.pa. .e..µe.a. The letter
113
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
contains 34 words that are absent from all the other writings of Paul, 12 of
which are found in other
New Testament books, however, (cf. lists of these words in Alford and in
Abbotts Comm.) Of these
34 words at least 18, and therefore more than half, are found in the second
chapter. Owing to the
polemical character of this letter the author is generally speaking in a
more matter-of-fact manner
than he is in Ephesians, and it is only, when he sets forth the majesty of
Christ, that he soars to
sublime heights. Comparing this Epistle with those to the Corinthians and
the Philippians, Lightfoot
says: “It is distinguished from them by a certain ruggedness of expression,
a want of finish often
bordering on obscurity.” Comm. p.123.
AUTHORSHIP
There are no good reasons to doubt the Pauline authorship of this Epistle.
Marcion and the
school of Valentinus recognized it as genuine. And the great witnesses of
the end of the second
century, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertuilian repeatedly quote it
by name.
Moreover the internal evidence decidedly favors the authenticity of the
letter. It claims to be
written by the apostle in 1: 1; the line of thought developed in it is
distinctly Pauline and is in
striking harmony with that of the Epistle to the Ephesians; and if we do not
first rule out several of
the Pauline Epistles and then compare the style of this letter with those
that remain, we may
confidently assert that the style is Pauline. Moreover the persons named in
4:7-17 are all, with but
a couple exceptions (viz. Jesus called Justus and Nymphas) known to have
been companions or
fellow-laborers of Paul.
Yet the Epistle did not go unchallenged. Mayerhoff began the attack on it is
1838, rejecting it,
because its vocabulary, style and thought were not Pauline; it was so
similar to Ephesians; and it
contained references to the heresy of Cerinthus. The school of Baur and many
other critics, such
as Hoekstra, Straatman, Hausrath, Davidson, Schmiedel e. a., followed his
lead and considered this
Epistle as a second century production. Holtzmann, as we have already seen,
found a genuine
nucleus in it.
There are especially three objections that are urged against the Pauline
authorship of this letter.
(1) The style is not that of the apostle. The fact that the letter contains
34 .pa. .e..µe.a that
characteristically Pauline terms, such as d..a..s..., s.te..a, ap........
and .ata..e.. are
absent, while some of the particles often employed by the apostle, as ...,
..., d..t. and ..a are
rarely found; and that the construction is often very involved and
characterized by a certain heaviness,
is urged against its genuineness. (2) The error combated in this Epistle, it
is said, shows clear traces
of second century Gnosticism. These are found in the use of the terms s.f.a,
...s.., 2 :3,
µ.st....., 1 :26, 27; 2 :2, p....µa,1 :19, ....e., 1 :26, etc.; in the
series of angels named in 1:
16; and in the conception of Christ in 1: 15. It is held that they point to
the Valentinian system. (3)
Closely related to the preceding is the objection that the Christology of
this Epistle is un-Pauline.
Davidson regards this as the chief feature that points to the Gnostics,
Introd. I p. 246, but it is also
thought to conflict with the representation of Paul in his other writings,
and to approach very closely
the Johannine doctrine of the Logos. Christ is represented as the image of
the invisible God, 1:15,
the central Being of the universe, absolutely pre-eminent above all visible
and invisible beings, 1:
16-18, the originator and the goal of creation, and the perfect Mediator,
who reconciles not only
sinners but all things in heaven and on earth to God, 1: 16-20.
114
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
In answer to the first objection we may say that the argument derived from
the .pa. .e..µe.a
is irrelevant and would apply with equal force in the case of the Epistle to
the Romans. From the
fact that more than half of them are found in the second chapter it is quite
evident that they are due
to the special subject-matter of this letter. The difference between
Colossians and some of the other
Pauline writings also explains why the characteristically Pauline terms
referred to above are absent
from our Epistle. Had Paul used exactly the same words that he employs
elsewhere, that would
also, in all probability, have been proof positive for many critics that the
letter was a forgery.
Moreover it should not be regarded as very strange that a persons vocabulary
changes somewhat
in the course of time, especially not, when he is placed in an altogether
different environment, as
was the case with Paul. We fully agree with Dr. Salmon, when he says: “I
cannot subscribe to the
doctrine that a man, writing a new composition, must not, on pain of losing
his identity, employ
any word that he has not used in a former one.” Introd. p. 148.
As to the second objection we would reply that there is absolutely no proof
that the Epistle
presupposes second century Gnosticism. The Gnostics evidently did not regard
it as a polemic
directed against their tenets, for Marcion and the Valentinians made
extensive use of it. Moreover
some of the most important elements of Gnosticism, such as the creation of
the world by a demiurge,
ignorant of the supreme God or opposed to Him, are not referred to in the
Epistle. An incipient
Gnosticism there may have been in Paul’s time; but it is also possible that
the error of the Colossian
church is in no way to be identified with the Gnostic heresy. Present day
scholarship strongly
inclines to the view that it is not Gnosticism at all to which Paul refers
in this letter.
And with respect to the third argument, we do not see why the further
development of the
Pauline Christology cannot have been the work of Paul himself. There is
nothing in the Christology
of this Epistle that conflicts with the recognized representation of Paul.
We clearly find the essence
of it in Rom. 8:19-22; I Cor. 8:6; II Cor. 4:4; Phil, 2:5-11. These passages
prepare us for the statement
of Paul regarding the Cosmical significance of Christ,. 1: 16,17. And the
representation that all the
forces of creation culminate in the glory of Christ does not necessarily run
counter to Rom. 11: 36
and I Cor. 15 : 28, according to which all things exist to the praise of
God, their Creator.
THE CHURCH AT COLOSSAE
Colossae was one of the cities of the beautiful Lycus Valley in Phrygia,
situated but a short
distance from Laodicea and Hierapolis. Herodotus speaks of it as a great
city, but it did not retain
its magnitude until New Testament times, for Strabo only reckons it as a
p...sµa. We have no
information respecting the founding of the Colossian church. From the Acts
of the Apostles we
learn that Paul passed through Phrygia twice, once at the start of his
second, and again at the
beginning of his third missionary journey, Acts 16: 6; 18: 23. But on the
first of these journeys he
remained well to the East of Western Phrygia, where Colossae was situated;
and though on the
second he may have gone into the Lycus Valley, he certainly did not find nor
found the Colossian
church there, since he himself says in Col. 2: 1 that the Colossians had not
seen his face in the flesh.
In all probability Paul’s prolonged residence at Ephesus and his preaching
there for three years, so
that “all those in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus,” Acts 19:10, was
indirectly responsible
for the founding of the churches in the Lycus Valley. The most plausible
theory is that Epaphras
was one of Paul’s Ephesian converts and became the founder of the Colossian
church. This is
favored by 1 :7, where the correct reading is .a... .µ..ate,and not .a...
... eµ..ete.
115
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The church consisted, so it seems, of Gentile Christians, 1: 21, 27; 2:
11-13; the Epistle certainly
does not contain a single hint that there were Jews among them. Yet they
were clearly exposed to
Jewish influences, and this need not cause surprise in view of the fact that
Antiochus the Great
transplanted two thousand families of Jews from Babylonia into Lydia and
Phrygia, Jos. Ant. XII
6. 4. This number had, of course, greatly increased by the time the Epistle
was written. Lightfoot
estimates that the number of Jewish freemen was more than eleven thousand in
the single district
of which Laodicea was the capital. Cf. his essay on The Churches of the
Lycus Valley in his Comm.
p. 20.
According to the Epistle the Colossians were in danger of being misled by
certain false teachings.
As to the exact nature of the Colossian heresy there is a great variety of
opinion. Some regard it as
a mixture of Judaeistic and theosophic elements; others dub it Gnosticism or
Gnostic Ebionism;
and still others consider it to be a form of Essenism. We can infer from the
Epistle that the errorists
were members of the congregation, for they are described as those “not
holding the head,” 2:19,
an expression that is applicable only to those that had accepted Christ. And
it seems perfectly clear
that their error was primarily of a Jewish character, since they urged
circumcision, not, indeed, as
an absolute necessity, but as a means to perfection, 2:10-13; they appealed
to the law and emphasized
its ceremonial requirements and probably also the ordinances of the rabbis,
2:14-17, 20-23. Yet
they clearly went beyond the Judaism that Paul encountered in his earlier
Epistles, falsely
emphasizing certain requirements of the law and adjusting their views to
those of their Gentile
neighbors. Their dualistic conception of the world led them, on the one
hand, to an asceticism that
was not demanded by the law. They regarded it as essential to abstain from
the use of meat and
wine, not because these were Levitically unclean, but since this abstinence
was necessary for the
mortification of the body, which they regarded as the seat of sin. They
neglected the body and
apparently aspired after a pure spiritual existence; to be like the angels
was their ideal. On the other
hand the consciousness of their great sinfulness as material beings made
them hesitate to approach
God directly. And the Jewish doctrine that the law was mediated by the
angels, in connection with
the influence that was ascribed to the spirits in their heathen environment,
naturally led them to a
worship of the angels as intermediaries between God and man. Among the
higher spirits they also
ranked Christ and thus failed to recognize his unique significance. The
Colossian error was, therefore,
a strange mixture of Jewish doctrines, Christian ideas and heathen
speculation; and this composite
character makes it impossible to identify it with any one heretical system
of the apostolic time. Cf.
especially Zahn, Einl. I p. 329 if.; Holtzmann, Einl. p. 248 if.; Lightfoot,
Comm. pp. 71-111;
Biesterveld, Comm. pp. 18-28.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. From the Epistle itself we can readily infer what
gave Paul occasion
to write it. Epaphras, the founder and probably also the minister of the
congregation, had evidently
seen the danger, gradually increasing, that was threatening the spiritual
welfare of the church. The
errorists did not directly antagonize him or Paul; yet their teaching was a
subversion of the Pauline
gospel. Hence he informed the apostle of the state of affairs, and this
information led to the
composition of the Epistle.
The object Paul has in view is the correction of the Colossian heresy. Hence
he clearly sets
forth the unique significance of Christ, and the all-sufficient character of
his redemption. Christ is
the image of the invisible God, the Creator of the world, and also of the
angels, and the only Mediator
116
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
between God and man. He in whom all the fulness of the Godhead dwells, has
reconciled all things
to God and has delivered men from the power of sin and death. In his death
He abrogated the
shadows of the Old Testament and terminated the special ministry of the
angels that was connected
with the law, so that even this vestige of a supposed Biblical foundation
for the worship of angels
has been removed. In him believers are perfect and in him only. Hence the
Colossians should not
fall back on the beggarly elements of the world, nor in sham humility
worship the angels. Having
their life in Christ, they should conform to his image in all their domestic
and social relations.
2. Time and Place. For the discussion of these we refer to what we have said
in connection with
the Epistle to the Ephesians. The letter was written at Rome about A. D. 61
or 62. Of course the
majority of those who reject this Epistle date it somewhere in the second
century.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonical character of this Epistle has never been doubted by the
Church. There are slight
but uncertain indications of its use in Clement of Rome, Barnabas and
Ignatius. More important
references to it are found in Justin Martyr and Theophilus. Marcion gave it
a place in his canon,
and in the Muratorian Fragment it is named as one of the Pauline Epistles.
With Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria and Tertullian the quotations increase both in number and
definiteness. That the
Epistle is not quoted as often as Ephesians is probably due to its polemical
character.
The permanent value of this letter is found primarily in its central
teaching, that the Church of
God is made perfect in Christ, its glorious Head. Since He is a perfect
Mediator and the complete
redemption of his people, they grow into him, as the Head of the body, they
find the fulfillment of
all their desires in him, as their Saviour, and they reach their perfection
in him, as the Goal of the
new creation. His perfect life is the life of the entire Church. Hence
believers should seek to realize
ever more in every atom of their existence the complete union with their
divine Head. They should
avoid all arbitrary practices, all human inventions and all will-worship
that is derogatory to the
only Mediator and Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.
117
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians
CONTENTS
In the first Epistle to the Thessalonians we distinguish two parts:
I. Pauls Apologia, 1:1—3:13. The letter opens with the usual apostolic
blessing and thanksgiving,
1: 1-4. This thanksgiving was called forth by the fact that the apostles
work in Thessalonica had
not been in vain, but had resulted in a faith that was spoken of throughout
Macedonia and Achaia,
5-10. The writer reminds the readers of his labors among them, emphasizing
his suffering, good
moral behavior, honesty, faithfulness, diligence and love, 2:1-12. He thanks
God that they had
received him and his message and had suffered willingly for the cause of
Christ at the hands of the
Jews, and informs them that he had often intended to visit them, 13-20. His
great love to them had
induced him to send Timothy to establish them and to strengthen them in
their affliction, 3:1-5;
who had now returned and gladdened his heart by a report of their
steadfastness, 6-10. He prays
that the Lord may strengthen them, 11-13.
II. Practical Exhortations and Instruction regarding the Parousia, 4:1—5 :
28. The apostle
exhorts the Thessalonians that they follow after sanctification, abstaining
from fornication and
fraud, and exercising love, diligence and honesty, 4:1-12. He allays their
fears respecting the future
of those that have died in Christ, 13-8, and admonishes the Thessalonians in
view of the sudden
coming of Christ to walk as children of the light that they may be prepared
for the day of Christs
return, 5:1-11. After exhorting the brethren to honor their spiritual
leaders, and urging them to warn
the unruly, to comfort the feeble-minded, to support the weak, and to
practice all Christian virtues,
the apostle closes his Epistle by invoking on the Thessalonians the blessing
of God, by expressing
his desire that the Epistle be read to all the brethren, and with the usual
salutations, 12-28.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. This Epistle is like that to the Philippians one of the most letterlike
of all the writings of Paul.
It is, as Deissmann says, “full of moving personal reminiscences.” The
practical interest greatly
predominates over the doctrinal; and though the polemical element is not
altogether absent, it is
not at all prominent. The letter is primarily one of practical guidance,
instruction and encouragement,
for a faithful, persecuted church, whose knowledge is still deficient, and
whose weak and
faint-hearted and idlers greatly need the counsel of the apostle.
2. Doctrinally I Thessalonians is one of the eschatological Epistles of
Paul. It refers very little
to Christ’s coming in the flesh to give himself a ransom for sin, but
discusses all the more his future
coming as the Lord of Glory. There are at least six references to the
parousia in this short letter,
two of which are rather extensive passages, 1:10;2:19; 3:13; 4:13-18;
5:1-11, 23. This doctrine is
at once the impelling motive for the exhortations of the apostle, and the
sufficient ground for the
encouragement of his readers, who expected the return of Christ in the near
future.
3. The Epistle never appeals to the Old Testament as an authority, and
contains no quotations
from it. We find a reference to its history, however, in 2:15, and probable
reminiscences of its
language in 2:16; 4: 5, 6, 8, 9; 5: 8. The language of 4:15-17 shows some
similarity to II Esdras
5:42, but the thought is quite different.
118
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
4. The style of this letter is thoroughly Pauline, containing an abundance
of phrases and
expressions that have parallels in the other Epistles of Paul, especially in
those to the Corinthians.
Comparing it with the other polemical writings of the apostle, we find that
it is written in a quiet
unimpassioned style, a style, too, far more simple and direct than that of
Ephesians and Colossians.
There are 42 words peculiar to it, of which 22 are not found elsewhere in
the New Testament, and
20 are, but not in the writings of Paul.
AUTHORSHIP
The external testimony in favor of the Pauline authorship is in no way
deficient. Marcion
included the letter in his canon, and the Muratorian Fragment mentions it as
one of the Pauline
writings. It is contained in the old Latin and Syriac Versions; and from the
time of Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria and Tertullian it is regularly quoted by name.
The internal evidence also clearly points to Paul as the writer. The Epistle
comes to us under
the name of Paul; and those that were associated with him in writing it,
viz. Silvanus (Silas) and
Timotheus, are known to have been Pauls companions on the second missionary
journey. It is
marked by the usual Pauline blessing, thanksgiving and salutation, and
clearly reflects the character
of the great apostle to the Gentiles. Although it has been subject to
attack, it is now defended by
critics of nearly every school as an authentic production of Paul.
Schrader and Baur were the first ones to attack it in 1835. The great
majority of critics, even
those of Baur’s own school, turned against them; such men as Hilgenfeld,
Pfleiderer, Holtzmann,
Davidson, Von Soden and Julicher defending the genuineness of the letter.
They found followers,
however, especially in Holsten and Van der Vies.
Of the objections brought against the Epistle the following deserve
consideration: (1) As
compared with the other writings of Paul, the contents of this Epistle are
very insignificant, not a
single doctrine, except that in 4:13-18, being made prominent. In the main
it is but a reiteration of
Pauls work among the Thessalonians, and of the circumstances attending their
conversion, all of
which they knew very well. (2) The letter reveals a progress in the
Christian life that is altogether
improbable, if a period of only a few months had elapsed between its
composition and the founding
of the church, cf. 1:7, 8; 4:10. (3) The passage 2:14-16 does not fit in the
mouth of him who wrote
Rom. 9—11 and who was himself at one time a fierce persecutor of the Church.
Moreover it implies
that the destruction of Jerusalem was already a thing of the past. (4) The
Epistle is clearly dependent
on some of the other Pauline writings, especially I and II Corinthians.
Compare 1: 5 with I Cor. 2:
4 ;— 1:6 with I Cor. 11:1;—2:4 ff. with I Cor. 2:4; 4:3ff.; 9:15 ff.; II
Cor. 2:17; 5:11.
The cogency of these arguments is not apparent. Paul’s letters have an
occasional character,
and the situation at Thessalonica did not call for an exposition of
Christian doctrine, save a
deliverance on the parousia; but did require words of encouragement,
guidance and exhortation,
and also, in view of the insinuations against the apostle, a careful review
of all that he had done
among them. Looked at from that point of view the Epistle is in no sense
insignificant. The words
of 1: 7, 8 and 4:10 do not imply a long existence of the Thessalonian
church, but simply prove the
intensity of its faith and love. Three or four months were quite sufficient
for the report of their great
faith to spread in Macedonia and Achaia. Moreover the very shortcomings of
the Thessalonians
imply that their religious experience was as yet of but short duration. In
view of what Paul writes
in II Corinthians and Galatians respecting the Judaeizers, we certainly need
not be surprised at what
he says in 2:14-16. If the words are severe, let us remember that they were
called forth by a bitter
119
and dogged opposition that followed the apostle from place to place, and on
which he had brooded
for some time. The last words of this passage do not necessarily imply that
Jerusalem had already
been destroyed. They are perfectly intelligible on the supposition that
Paul, in view of the wickedness
of the Jews and of the calamities that were already overtaking them, Jos.
Ant. XX 2, 5, 6, had a
lively presentiment of their impending doom. The last argument is a very
peculiar one. It is
tantamount to saying that the Epistle cannot be Pauline, because there are
so many Pauline phrases
and expressions in it. Such an argument is its own refutation, and is
neutralized by the fact that in
the case of other letters dissimilarity leads the critics to the same
conclusion.
THE CHURCH AT THESSALONICA
Thessalonica, originally called Thermae (Herodotus), and now bearing the
slightly altered name
Saloniki, a city of Macedonia, has always been very prominent in history and
still ranks, after
Constantinople, as the second town in European Turkey. It is situated on
what was formerly known
as the Thermaic gulf, and is built “in the form of an amphitheater on the
slopes at the head of the
bay.” The great Egnatian highway passed through it from East to West. Hence
it was of old an
important trade center and as such had special attraction for the Jews, who
were found there in
great numbers. Cassander, who rebuilt the city in 315 B. C. in all
probability gave it the name
Thessalonica in honor of his wife. In the time of the Romans it was the
capital of the second part
of Macedonia and the seat of the Roman governor of the entire province.
Paul, accompanied by Silas and Timothy, came to that city, after they had
left Philippi about
the year 52. As was his custom, he repaired to the synagogue to preach the
gospel of Jesus Christ.
The result of this work was a spiritual harvest consisting of some Jews, a
great number of proselytes
(taking the word in its widest significance) and several of the citys chief
women. From the Acts of
the Apostles we get the impression (though it is not definitely stated) that
Pauls labors at Thessalonica
terminated at the end of three weeks; but the Epistles rather favor the idea
that his stay there was
of longer duration. They pre-suppose a flourishing, well organized
congregation, 5:12, whose faith
had become a matter of common comment, 1: 7-9; and show us that Paul, while
he was in
Thessalonica, worked for his daily bread, 2: 9; II Thess. 3 : 8, and
received aid at least twice from
the Philippians, Phil. 4:16.
His fruitful labor was cut short, however, by the malign influence of
envious Jews, who attacked
the house of Jason, where they expected to find the missionaries, and
failing in this, they drew
Jason and some of the brethren before the rulers, p...t..a. (a name found
only in Acts 17:6, 8,
but proved absolutely correct by inscriptions, cf. Ramsey, St. Paul the
Traveler and the Roman
Citizen p. 227) and charged them with treason. “The step taken by the
politarchs was the mildest
that was prudent in the circumstances; they bound the accused over in
security that peace should
be kept.” (Ramsay) As a result the brethren deemed it advisable to send Paul
and his companions
to Berea, where many accepted the truth, but their labors were again
interrupted by the Jews from
Thessalonica. Leaving Silas and Timothy here, the apostle went to Athens,
where he expected them
to join him shortly. From the narrative in the Acts it seems that they did
not come to the apostle
until after his arrival at Corinth, but I Thess. 3: 1 implies that Timothy
was with him at Athens.
The most natural theory is that both soon followed the apostle to Athens,
and that he sent Timothy
from there to Thessalonica to establish and comfort the church, and Silas on
some other mission,
possibly to Philippi, both returning to him at Corinth.
120
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
>From the data in Acts 17:4 and I Thess. 1:9; 2:14 we may infer that the
church of Thessalonica
was of a mixed character, consisting of Jewish and Gentile Christians. Since
no reference is made
in the Epistles to the tenets of the Jews and not a single Old Testament
passage is quoted, it is all
but certain that its members were mostly Christians of the Gentiles. Only
three of them are known
to us from Scripture, viz. Jason, Acts 17:5-9, and Aristarchus and Secundus,
Acts 20: 4. The
congregation was not wealthy, II Cor. 8: 2, 3; with the exception of a few
women of the better class,
it seems to have consisted chiefly of laboring people that had to work for
their daily bread, 4:11;
II Thess. 3: 6-12. They had not yet parted company with all their old vices,
for there was still found
among them fornication 4: 3-5, fraud 4: 6 and idleness 4:11. Yet they were
zealous in the work of
the Lord and formed one of the most beloved churches of the apostle.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. What led Paul to write this letter, was undoubtedly
the report Timothy
brought him respecting the condition of the Thessalonian church. The apostle
felt that he had been
torn away from them all too soon and had not had sufficient time to
establish them in the truth.
Hence he was greatly concerned about their spiritual welfare after his
forced departure. The coming
of Timothy brought him some relief, for he learnt from that fellow-laborer
that the church, though
persecuted, did not waver, and that their faith had become an example to
many. Yet he was not
entirely at ease, since he also heard that the Jews were insinuating that
his moral conduct left a
great deal to be desired, while he had misled the Thessalonians for temporal
gain and vainglory,
2: 3-10; that some heathen vices were still prevalent in the church; and
that the doctrine of the
parousia had been misconstrued, giving some occasion to cease their daily
labors, and others, to
feel concerned about the future condition of those who had recently died in
their midst. That
information led to the composition of our Epistle.
In view of all these things it was but natural that the apostle should have
a threefold purpose in
writing this letter. In the first place he desired to express his gratitude
for the faithful perseverance
of the Thessalonians. In the second place he sought to establish them in
faith, which was all the
more necessary, since the enemy had sown tares among the wheat. Hence he
reminds them of his
work among them, pointing out that his conversation among them was above
reproach, and that as
a true apostle he had labored among them without covetousness and vainglory.
And in the third
place he aimed at correcting their conception of the Lords return,
emphasizing its importance as a
motive for sanctification,
2. Time and Place. There is little uncertainty as to the time and place of
composition, except
in the ranks of those who regard the Epistle as a forgery. When Paul wrote
this letter, the memory
of his visit to Thessalonica was still vivid, chs. 1 and 2; and he was
evidently in some central place,
where he could keep posted on the state of affairs in Macedonia and Achaia,
1: 7, 8, and from where
he could easily communicate with the Thessalonian church. Moreover Silas and
Timothy were with
him, of which the former attended the apostle only on his second missionary
journey. and the latter
could not bring him a report of conditions at Thessalonica, until he
returned to the apostle at Corinth,
Acts 18: 5. Therefore the Epistle was written during Paul’s stay in that
city. However it should not
be dated at the beginning of Paul’s Corinthian residence, since the faith of
the Thessalonians had
already become manifest throughout Macedonia and Achaia, and some deaths had
occurred in the
church of Thessalonica. Neither can we place it toward the end of that
period, for II Thessalonians
121
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
was also written before the apostle left Corinth. Most likely it was
composed towards the end of
A. D. 52.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonicity of this Epistle was never questioned in ancient times. There
are some supposed
references to it in the apostolic fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas,
Ignatins and Polycarp, but
they are very uncertain. Marcion and the Muratorian Fragment and the old
Latin and Syriac Versions
testify to its canonicity, however, and from the end of the second century
its canonical use is a well
established fact.
In this letter we behold Paul, the missionary, in the absence of any direct
controversy, carefully
guarding the interest of one of his most beloved churches, comforting and
encouraging her like a
father. He strengthens the heart of his persecuted spiritual children with
the hope of Christ’s return,
when the persecutors shall be punished for their evil work, and the
persecuted saints, both the dead
and the living, shall receive their eternal reward in the Kingdom of their
heavenly Lord. And thus
the apostle is an example worthy of imitation; his lesson is a lesson of
permanent value. The glorious
parousia of Christ is the cheering hope of the militant church in all her
struggles to the end of time.
122
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
CONTENTS
The contents of the letter naturally falls into three parts:
I. Introduction, ch. 1. The apostle begins his letter with the regular
blessing, 1, 2. He thanks
God for the increasing faith and patience of the Thessalonians, reminding
them of the fact that in
the day of Christ’s coming God will provide rest for his persecuted church
and will punish her
persecutors; and prays that God may fulfil his good pleasure in them to the
glory of his Name,
3—12.
II. Instruction respecting the Parousia, ch. 2. The church is warned against
deception regarding
the imminence of the great day of Christ and is informed that it will not
come until the mystery of
iniquity has resulted in the great apostacy, and the man of sin has been
revealed whose coming is
after the work of satan, and who will utterly deceive men to their own
destruction, 1—12. The
Thessalonians need not fear the manifestation of Christ, since they were
chosen and called to
everlasting glory; and it is the apostles wish that the Lord may comfort
their hearts and establish
them in all good work, 13—17.
III. Practical Exhortations, ch. 3. The writer requests the prayer of the
church for himself that
he may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men, and exhorts her to do
what he commanded,
1—5. They should withdraw from those who are disorderly and do not work,
because each one
should labor for his daily bread and thus follow the example of the apostle,
6—12. Those who do
not heed the apostolic word should be censured, 13—15. With a blessing and a
salutation the apostle
closes his letter, 16—18.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The main characteristic of this letter is found in the apocalyptic
passage, 2:1-12. In these
verses, that contain the most essential part of the Epistle, Paul speaks as
a prophet, revealing to his
beloved church that the return of Christ will be preceded by a great final
apostacy and by the
revelation of the man of sin, the son of perdition who, as the instrument of
satan, will deceive men,
so that they accept the lie and are condemned in the great day of Christ. II
Thessalonians, no doubt,
was written primarily for the sake of this instruction.
2. Aside from this important doctrinal passage the Epistle has a personal
and practical character.
It contains expressions of gratitude for the faith and endurance of the
persecuted church, words of
encouragement for the afflicted, fatherly advice for the spiritual children
of the apostle, and directions
as to their proper behavior.
3. The style of this letter, like that of I Thessalonians, is simple and
direct, except in 2:1-12,
where the tone is more elevated. This change is accounted for by the
prophetic contents of that
passage. The language clearly reveals the working of the vigorous mind of
Paul, who in the
expression of his thoughts was not limited to a few stock phrases. Besides
the many expressions
that are characteristically Pauline the Epistle contains several that are
peculiar to it, and also a
goodly number which it has in common only with I Thessalonians. Of the 26
.pa. .e..µe.a in
123
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the letter 10 are not found in the rest of the New Testament, and 16 are
used elsewhere in the New
Testament but not in the writings of Paul.
AUTHORSHIP
The external testimony for the authenticity of this Epistle is just as
strong as that for the
genuineness of the first letter. Marcion has it in his canon, the Muratorian
Fragment names it, and
it is also found in the old Latin and Syriac Versions. From the time of
Irenaeus it is regularly quoted
as a letter of Paul, and Origen and Eusebius claim that it was universally
received in their time.
The Epistle itself claims to be the work of Paul, 1: 1; and again in 3:17,
where the apostle calls
attention to the salutation as a mark of genuineness. The persons associated
with the writer in the
composition of this letter are the same as those mentioned in I
Thessalonians. As in the majority
of Paul’s letters the apostolic blessing is followed by a thanksgiving. The
Epistle is very similar to
I Thessalonians and contains some cross-references to it, as f. i. in the
case of the parousia and of
the idlers. It clearly reveals the character of the great apostle, and its
style may confidently be
termed Pauline.
Nevertheless the genuineness of the Epistle has been doubted far more than
that of I
Thessalonians. Schmidt was the first one to assail it in 1804; in this he
was followed by Schrader,
Mayerhof and De Wette, who afterwards changed his mind, however. The attack
was renewed by
Kern and Baur in whose school the rejection of the Epistle became general.
Its authenticity is
defended by Reuss, Sabatier, Hofmann, Weiss, Zahn, Julicher, Farrar, Godet,
Baljon, Moffat e. a.
The principal objections urged against the genuineness of this letter are
the following: (1) The
teaching of Paul regarding the parousia in 2:1-12 is not consistent with
what he wrote in I
Thessalonians 4:13-18; 5:1-11. According to the first letter the day of
Christ is imminent and will
come suddenly and unexpectedly; the second emphasizes the fact that it is
not close at hand and
that several signs will precede it. (2) The eschatology of this passage
2:1-12 is not Paul’s but clearly
dates from a later time and was probably borrowed from the Revelation of
John. Some identify the
man of sin with Nero who, though reported dead, was supposed to be hiding in
the East and was
expected to return; and find the one still restraining the evil in
Vespasian. Others hold that this
passage clearly refers to the time of Trajan, when the mystery of iniquity
was seen in the advancing
tide of Gnosticism. (3) This letter is to a great extent but a repitition of
I Thessalonians, and therefore
looks more like the work of a forger than like a genuine production of Paul.
Holtzmann says that,
with the exception of 1:5,6,9,12; 2:2-9, 11, 12, 15; 3:2, 13, 14, 17, the
entire Epistle consists of a
reproduction of parallel passages from the first letter. Einl. p. 214. (4)
The Epistle contains a
conspicuously large number of peculiar expressions that are not found in the
rest of Paul’s writings,
nor in the entire New Testament. Cf. lists in Frames Comm. pp. 28-34, in the
Intern. Crit. Comm.
(5) The salutation in 3:17 has a suspicious look. It seems like the attempt
of a later writer to ward
off objections and to attest the Pauline authorship.
But the objections raised are not sufficient to discredit the authenticity
of our Epistle. The
contradictions in Paul’s teaching regarding the parousia of Christ, are more
apparent than real. The
signs that precede the great day will not detract from its suddenness any
more than the signs of
Noah’s time prevented the flood from taking his contemporaries by surprise.
Moreover these two
features, the suddenness of Christ’s appearance and the portentous facts
that are the harbingers of
his coming, always go hand in hand in the eschatological teachings of
Scripture. Dan. 11:1—12:
3; Mt. 24: 1-44; Lk. 17:20-37. As to the immediacy of Christ’s coming we can
at most say that the
124
first Epistle intimates that the Lord might appear during that generation
(though possibly it does
not even imply that), but it certainly does not teach that Christ will
presently come.
The eschatology of the second chapter has given rise to much discussion and
speculation
regarding the date and authorship of the Epistle, but recent investigations
into the conditions of the
early church have clearly brought out that the contents of this chapter in
no way militate against
the genuineness of the letter. Hence they who deny the Pauline authorship
have ceased to place
great reliance on it. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that
Paul wrote the passage
regarding the man of sin. We find similar representations as early as the
time of Daniel (cf. Dan.
11), in the pseudepigraphic literature of the Jews (cf. Schfirer, Geschichte
des fiidischen Volkes II
p. 621 f.), and in the eschatological discourses of the Lord. The words and
expressions found in
this chapter are very well susceptible of an interpretation that does not
necessitate our dating the
Epistle after the time of Paul. We cannot delay to review all the preterist
and futurist expositions
that have been given (for which cf. Alford, Prolegomena Section V), but can
only indicate in a
general way in what direction we must look for the interpretation of this
difficult passage. In
interpreting it we should continually bear in mind its prophetic import and
its reference to something
that is still future. No doubt, there were in history prefigurations of the
great day of Christ in which
this prophecy found a partial fulfilment, but the parousia of which Paul
speaks in these verses is
even now only a matter of faithful expectation. The history of the world is
gradually leading up to
it. Paul was witnessing some apostacy in his day, the µ.st..... t.. ...µ.a.
was already working,
but the great apostacy (. .p.stas.a) could not come in his day, because
there had been as yet but
a very partial dissemination of the truth; and will not come until the days
immediately preceding
the second coming of Christ, when the mystery of godlessness will complete
itself, and will finally
be embodied in a single person, in the man of sin, the son of perdition, who
will then develop into
a power antagonistic to Christ (anti-christ, . ..t..e.µe...), yea to every
form of religion, the very
incarnation of satan. Cf. vs. 9. This can only come to pass, however, after
the restraining power is
taken out of the way, a power that is at once impersonal (.at....) and
personal (.at....), and
which may refer first of all to the strict administration of justice in the
Roman empire and to the
emperor as the chief executive, but certainly has a wider signification and
probably refers in general
to “the fabric of human polity and those who rule that polity.” (Alford).
For a more detailed
exposition cf. especially, Alford, Prolegomena Section V; Zahn, Einleitung I
p. 162 if.; Godet,
Introduction p .171 if.; and Eadie, Essay on the Man of Sin in Comm. p. 329
if.
We fail to see the force of the third argument, unless it is an established
fact that Paul could
not repeat himself to a certain degree, even in two Epistles written within
the space of a few months,
on a subject that engaged the mind of the apostle for some time, to the same
church and therefore
with a view to almost identical conditions. This argument looks strange
especially in view of the
following one, which urges the rejection of this letter, because it is so
unlike the other Pauline
writings. The points of difference between our letter and I Thessalonians
are generally exaggerated,
and the examples cited by Davidson to prove the dissimilarity are justly
ridiculed by Salmon, who
styles such criticism “childish criticism, that is to say, criticism such as
might proceed from a child
who insists that a story shall always be told to him in precisely the same
way.” Introd. p. 398. The
salutation in 3:17 does not point to a time later than that of Paul, since
he too had reason to fear the
evil influence of forged Epistles, 2: 2. He merely states that, with a view
to such deception, he
would in the future authenticate all his letters by attaching an autographic
salutation.
125
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. Evidently some additional information regarding the
state of affairs
at Thessalonica had reached Paul, it may be through the bearers of the first
Epistle, or by means of
a communication from the elders of the church. It seems that some letter had
been circulated among
them, purporting to come from Paul, and that some false spirit was at work
in the congregation.
The persecution of the Thessalonians still continued and had probably
increased in force, and in
some way the impression had been created that the day of the Lord was at
hand. This led on the
one hand to feverish anxiety, and on the other, to idleness. Hence the
apostle deemed it necessary
to write a second letter to the Thessalonians.
The purpose of the writer was to encourage the sorely pressed church; to
calm the excitement
by pointing out that the second advent of the Lord could not be expected
immediately, since the
mystery of lawlessness had to develop first and to issue in the man of sin;
and to exhort the irregular
ones to a quiet, industrious and orderly conduct.
2. Time and Place. Some writers, such as Grotius, Ewald, Vander Vies and
Laurent advocated
the theory that II Thessalonians was written before I Thessalonians, but the
arguments adduced to
support that position cannot bear the burden. Moreover II Thess. 2:15
clearly refers to a former
letter of the apostle. In all probability our Epistle was composed a few
months after the first one,
for on the one hand Silas and Timothy were still with the apostle, 1: 1,
which was not the case after
he left Corinth, and they were still antagonized by the Jews so that most
likely their case had not
yet been brought before Gallio, Acts 18:12-17; and on the other hand a
change had come about
both in the sentiment of the apostle, who speaks no more of his desire to
visit the Thessalonians,
and in the condition of the church to which he was writing, a change that
would necessarily require
some time. We should most likely date the letter about the middle of A. D.
53.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The early Church found no reason to doubt the canonicity of this letter.
Little stress can be laid,
it is true, on the supposed reference to its language in Ignatius, Barnabas,
the Didache and Justin
Martyr. It is quite evident, however, that Polycarp used the Epistle.
Moreover it has a place in the
canon of Marcion, is mentioned among the Pauline letters in the Muratorian
Fragment, and is
contained in the old Latin and Syriac Versions. Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian and
others since their time, quote it by name. The great permanent value of this
Epistle lies in the fact
that it corrects false notions regarding the second advent of Christ,
notions that led to indolence
and disorderliness. We are taught in this Epistle that the great day of
Christ will not come until the
mystery of iniquity that is working in the world receives its full
development, and brings forth the
son of perdition who as the very incarnation of satan will set himself
against Christ and his Church.
If the Church of God had always remembered this lesson, she would have been
spared many an
irregularity and disappointment. The letter also reminds us once more of the
fact that the day of
the Lord will be a day of terror to the wicked, but a day of deliverance and
glory for the Church of
Christ.
126
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Pastoral Epistles
AUTHORSHIP
In the case of these Epistles it seems best to consider the question of
authorship first, and to
treat them as a unity in the discussion of their authenticity. When we
examine the external testimony
to these letters we find that this is in no way deficient. If many have
doubted their genuineness, it
was not because they discovered that the early Church did not recognize
them. It is true that some
early heretics, who acknowledged the genuineness of the other letters
attributed to Paul, rejected
these, such as Basilides and Marcion, but Jerome says that their adverse
judgment was purely
arbitrary. From the time of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian,
who were the first to
quote the New Testament books by name, until the beginning of the nineteenth
century, no one
doubted the Pauline authorship of these letters. The Muratorian Fragment
ascribes them to Paul,
and they are included in all MSS., Versions and Lists of the Pauline
letters, in all of which (with
the single exception of the Muratorian Fragment) they are arranged in the
same order, viz. I Timothy,
II Timothy, Titus.
As far as the internal evidence is concerned we may call attention in a
preliminary way to a
few facts that favor the authenticity of these letters and take up the
consideration of other features
in connection with the objections that are urged against them. They are all
self-attested; they contain
the characteristic Pauline blessing at the beginning, end with the customary
salutation, and reveal
the usual solicitude of Paul for his churches and for those associated with
him in the work; they
point to the same relation between Paul and his spiritual sons Timothy and
Titus that we know from
other sources; and they refer to persons (cf. II Tim. 4. Titus 3) that are
also mentioned elsewhere
as companions and co-laborers of Paul.
Yet it is especially on the strength of internal evidence that these
Epistles have been attacked.
J. E. C. Schmidt in 1804, soon followed by Schleiermacher, was the first one
to cast doubt on their
genuineness. Since that time they have been rejected, not only by the
Tubingen school and by
practically all negative critics, but also by some scholars that usually
incline to the conservative
side, such as Neander (rejecting only I Timothy), Meyer; (Introd.to Romans)
and Sabatier. While
the majority of radical critics reject these letters unconditionally,
Credner, Harnack, Hausrath and
McGiffert believe that they contain some genuine Pauline sections; the last
named scholar regarding
especially the passages that contain personal references, such as II Tim.
1:15-18; 4: 9-21; Titus
3:12,13, as authentic, and surmising that some others may be saved from the
ruins, The Apostolic
Age p. 405 if. The genuineness of the Pastorals is defended by Weiss, Zahn,
Salmon, Godet, Barth,
and nearly all the Commentators, such as Huther, Van Oosterzee, Ellicott,
Alford, White (in The
Exp. Gk. Test.) e. a.
Several arguments are employed to discredit the authenticity of these
letters. We shall briefly
consider the most important ones. (1) It is impossible to find a place for
their composition and the
historical situation which they reflect in the life of Paul, as we know it
from the Acts of the Apostles.
Reuss, who provisionally accepted their Pauline authorship in his, History
of the New Testament I
pp. 80-85; 121-129, did so with the distinct proviso that they had to fit
into the narrative of Acts
somewhere. Finding that his scheme did not work out well, he afterwards
rejected I Timothy and
Titus. Cf. his Commentary on the Pastorals. (2) The conception of
Christianity found in these letters
127
is un-Pauline and clearly represents a later development. They contain
indeed some Pauline ideas,
but these are exceptional. “There is no trace whatever,” says McGiifert, “of
the great fundamental
truth of Paul’s gospel,—death unto the flesh and life in the Spirit.”
Instead of the faith by which
we are justified and united to Christ, we find piety and good works
prominently in the foreground.
Cf. I Tim. 1: 5; 2: 2,15; 4:7 f.; 5:4; 6:6;—II Tim. 1:3; 3:5, 12;—Titus 1:1;
2:12. Moreover the word
faith does not, as in the letters of Paul, denote the faith that believes,
but rather the sum and substance
of that which is believed, I Tim. 1: 19; 3: 9; 4:1, 6; 5 :8. And sound
doctrine is spoken of in a way
that reminds one of the characteristic esteem in which orthodoxy was later
held, cf. I Tim. 1:10; 4:
6; 6: 3 ;— II Tim. 4: 3 ;—Titus 1: 9; 2:1, 7. (3) The church organization
that is reflected in these
letters points to a later age. It is unlikely that Paul, believing as he did
in the speedy second coming
of Christ, would pay so much attention to details of organization; nor does
it seem probable that
he would lay such stress on the offices received by ecclesiastical
appointment, and have so little
regard to the spiritual gifts that are independent of official position and
that occupy a very prominent
place in the undoubted writings of the apostle. Moreover the organization
assumed in these letters
reveals second century conditions. Alongside of the p.es?.te...the
.p.s..p..is named as a primus
inter pares (notice the singular in I Tim. 3:1; Titus 1: 7); and the
office-bearers in general are given
undue prominence. There is a separate class of widows, of which some held an
official position in
the Church, just as there was in the second century, I Tim. 5.
Ecclesiastical office is conferred by
the laying on of hands, I Tim. 5: 22; and the second marriage of bishops,
deacons, and ministering
widows was not to be tolerated, I Tim. 3: 2, 12; 5 : 9-11; Tit. 1: 6. (4)
The false teachers and
teachings to which the Epistles refer are evidently second century Gnostics
and Gnosticism. The
term ..t...se.., I Tim. 6 :20, according to Baur, contains a reference to
the work of Marcion which
bore that title. And the endless genealogies of I Tim. 1: 4 are supposed to
refer to the Aeons of
Valentinus. (5) The most weighty objection is, however, that the style of
these letters differs from
that of the Pauline Epistles to such a degree as to imply diversity of
authorship. Says Davidson:
“The change of style is too great to comport with identity of authorship.
Imitations of phrases and
terms occurring in Pauls authentic Epistles are obvious; inferiority and
feebleness show dependence;
while the new constructions and words betray a writer treating of new
circumstances and giving
expression to new ideas, yet personating the apostle all the while. The
change is palpable; though
the author throws himself back into the situation of Paul the prisoner.”
Introd. II p. 66. Holtzmann
claims that of the 897 words that constitute these letters (proper names
excepted) 171 (read 148)
are .pa. .e..µe.a of which 74 are found in I Timothy, 46 in II Timothy, and
28 in Titus. Besides
these there is a great number of phrases and expressions that are peculiar
and point away from Paul,
such as d..e.. d..a..s...., I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 2:22; f...sse.. t..
pa.a....., I Tim. 6:20;
II Tim. 1:12, 14; pa.a......e.. t. d.das.a..a., I Tim. 4:6; II Tim. 3:10;
?.?.... .e..f...a., I
Tim. 6:20; II Tim. 2:16; ......p.. .e.. I Tim. 6:11; II Tim. 3 :17; etc. On
the other hand many
expressions that play a prominent part in Pauline literature are absent from
these letters, as .d....,
....?.st.a, ...p..e.., d..a..s... .e.., d..a..µa, ..´..a ..µ.., .µ...µa,
pa..d.s.., etc.
As far as the first argument is concerned, it must be admitted that these
Epistles do not fit in
the life of Paul, as we know it from the Acts of the Apostles. Their
genuineness depends on the
question, whether or not Paul was set free again after the imprisonment
described in Acts 28. Now
we have reasons, aside from the contents of these Epistles, to believe that
he was liberated and
resumed his missionary labors. In view of the fact that Felix, Festus and
Agrippa found no guilt in
128
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Paul, and that the apostle was sent to Rome, only because he appealed to
Caesar, the presumption
is that he was not condemned at Rome. This presumption is greatly
strengthened by the fact that,
when the apostle wrote his letters to the Philippians and to Philemon, the
prospect of his release
seemed favorable, Phil. 1: 25; 2: 24; Philem. 22; compare II Tim. 4: 6-8. It
is objected to this that
Paul, in taking his farewell of the Ephesan elders, says to them: “I know
(..da) that ye all—shall
see my face no more,” Acts 20: 25. But it may be doubted, whether we have
the right to press this
..da so that it becomes prophetic; if we have, it is counterbalanced by the
..da in Phil. 1 :25. The
most natural inference from the data of Scripture (outside of these
Epistles) is that Paul was set
free; and this is confirmed by the tradition of the early Church, as it is
expressed by Eusebius,
Church Hist. II 22: Paul is said (..... ..e.)after having defended himself
to have set forth again
upon the ministry of preaching, and to have entered the same city a second
time, and to have ended
his life by martyrdom. Whilst then a prisoner, he wrote the second Epistle
to Timothy, in which he
both mentions his first defense, and his impending death.” Moreover the
Muratorian Fragment
speaks of a visit that Paul paid to Spain, which cannot be placed before the
first Roman
imprisonment. And Clement of Rome states in his letter to the Corinthians,
after relating that the
apostle labored in the East and in the West, that he came to “the bounderies
of the West.” Now it
does not seem likely that he, who himself lived in Rome, would refer to the
city on the Tiber in
those terms. And if this is not the import of those words, the presumption
is that he too has reference
to Spain.
Paul’s movements after his release are uncertain, and all that can be said
regarding, them is
conjectural. Leaving Rome he probably first repaired to Macedonia and Asia
Minor for the intended
visits, Phil. 1: 23-26; Philem. 22, and then undertook his long looked for
journey to Spain, Rom.
15 : 24. Returning from there, he possibly went to Ephesus, where he had a
dispute with Hymenaeus
and Alexander, I Tim. 1: 20, and engaged the services of Onesiphorus, II
Tim. 1: 16-18. Leaving
Timothy in charge of the Ephesian church, he departed for Macedonia, I Tim.
1: 3, from where he
most likely wrote I Timothy. After this he may have visited Crete with
Titus, leaving the latter
there to organize the churches, Tit. 1: 5, and returning to Ephesus
according to his wishes, I Tim.
3:14; 4:13, where Alexander the coppersmith did him great evil, II Tim.
4:14. From here he probably
wrote the Epistle to Titus, for he was evidently in some center of
missionary enterprise, when he
composed it, Tit. 3:12-15. Departing from Ephesus, he went through Miletus,
II Tim. 4: 20 to Troas,
II Tim. 4:13, where he was probably re-arrested, and whence he was taken to
Rome by way of
Corinth, the abode of Erastus, II Tim. 4: 20; Rom. 16: 23. In that case he
did not reach Nicopolis,
where he intended to spend the winter. In this statement we proceed on the
assumption that the
winter mentioned in II Tim. 4: 21 is the same as that of Titus 3:12. The
second imprisonment of
Paul was more severe than the first, II Tim. 1: 16, 17; 2: 9. His first
defense appears to have been
successful, II Tim. 4:16, 17, but as his final hearing drew nigh, he had a
presentiment of approaching
martyrdom. According to the Chronicles of Eusebius Paul died as a martyr in
the thirteenth year
of Nero, or A. D. 67.
The objection that the theological teaching of these Epistles is different
from that of Paul, must
be taken cum grano salis, because this teaching merely complements and in no
way contradicts the
representation of the undoubted Epistles. We find no further objective
development of the truth
here, but only a practical application of the doctrines already unfolded in
previous letters. And it
was entirely fitting that, as every individual letter, so too the entire
cycle of Pauline Epistles should
end with practical admonitions. Historically this is easily explained, on
the one hand, by the fact
129
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
that the productive period of the apostles life had come to an end, and it
is now Paul the aged—for
all the vicissitudes of a busy and stormy life must greatly have sapped his
strength—that speaks to
us, cf. Philem. 9; and, on the other hand, by the fact that the heresy which
the apostle here encounters
had developed into ethical corruption. If it is said that the writer of
these Epistles ascribes a
meritorious character to good works, we take exception and qualify that as a
false statement. The
passages referred to, such as I Tim. 1:15; 3:13; 4:8; 6:18 if.; II Tim. 4:8,
do not prove the assertion.
Since a rather full statement of the Christian truth had preceded these
letters, it need not cause
surprise that Paul should refer to it as “the sound doctrine,” Cf. Rom.
6:17. Nor does it seem strange,
in view of this, that alongside of the subjective the objective sense of the
word faith should begin
to assert itself. We find an approach to this already in Rom. 12: 6; Gal. 1:
23; Phil. 1: 27.
It is a mistake to think that the emphasis which these letters place on the
external organization
of the churches, and the particular type of ecclesiastical polity which they
reflect, precludes their
Pauline authorship. There is nothing strange in the fact that Paul, knowing
that the day of Christ
was not at hand (II Thess. 2:1-12), should lay special stress on church
government now that his
ministry was drawing to a close. It might rather have caused surprise, if he
had not thus made
provision for the future of his churches. And it is perfectly natural also
that he should emphasize
the offices in the church rather than the extraordinary spiritual gifts,
since these gradually vanished
and made place for the ordinary ministry of the Word. The position that the
office-bearers mentioned
in these letters prove a development beyond that of the apostolic age. is
not substantiated by the
facts. Deacons were appointed shortly after the establishment of the Church,
Acts 6; elders were
chosen from place to place, as the apostle founded churches among the
Gentiles, Acts 14: 23; and
in Phil, 1: 1 Paul addresses not only the Philippians in general, but also
“the bishops and deacons.”
Moreover in Eph. 4:11 the apostle says: “And He gave you some apostles; and
some prophets; and
some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers.” Surely it does not seem
that the Pastoral Epistles
are strikingly different in this respect from the others. If it be said that
the bishop becomes so
prominent here as to indicate that the leaven of hierarchy was already
working, we answer that in
the New Testament the terms .p.s..p.. and p.es?.te...; are clearly
synonymous. The fact that
the bishop is spoken of in the singular proves nothing to the contrary. Not
once are bishops and
presbyters arranged alongside of each other as denoting two separate
classes, and in Titus 1: 5-7
the terms are clearly interchangeable. The case of Phebe, Rom. 16: 1
certainly does not countenance
the theory that the office of deaconess was not called into existence until
the second century. And
the passages that are supposed to prohibit the second marriage of
office-bearers are of too uncertain
interpretation to justify the conclusions drawn from them.
Granted that the errors to which these letters refer were of a Gnostic
character—as Alford is
willing to grant—, it by no means follows that the Epistles are second
century productions, since
the first signs of the Gnostic heresy are known to have made their
appearance in the apostolic age.
But it is an unproved assumption that the writer refers to Gnosticism of any
kind. It is perfectly
evident from the letters that the heresy was of a Judaeistic, though not of
a Pharisaic type, resembling
very much the error that threatened the Colossian church. Hort, after
examining it carefully comes
to the conclusion that “there is a total want of evidence for anything
pointing to even rudimentary
Gnosticism or Essenism.” In view of the fact that the errorists prided
themselves as being teachers
of the law, I Tim. 1: 7, and that the term .e.ea....a is brought in close
connection with “strivings
about the law” in Titus 3: 9, the presumption is that it contains no
reference whatever to the
emanations of Gnostic aeons, but rather, as Zahn surmises, to rabbinic
disputations regarding Jewish
130
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
genealogies. And the word “antitheses,” of which Hort says that it cannot
refer to Marcions work,
is simply descriptive of the opposition in which the heretics that boasted
of a higher knowledge
placed themselves to the Gospel.
The argument from style has often proved to be a very precarious one. If a
persons vocabulary
were a fixed quantity, he were limited to the use of certain set phrases and
expressions, and his
style, once acquired, were unchangeable and necessarily wanting in
flexibility, a plausible case
might be made out. But as a matter of fact such is not the usual condition
of things, and certainly
was not the case with Paul, who to a great extent moulded the language of
the New Testament. We
need not and cannot deny that the language of the Pastorals has many
peculiarities, but in seeking
to explain these we should not immediately take refuge in a supposed
difference of authorship, but
rather make allowance for the influence of Paul’s advancing years, of the
altered conditions of his
life, of the situation in which his readers were placed. And of the subjects
with which he was obliged
to deal in these Epistles. And let us not forget what N. J. D. White says,
Exp. Gk. Test. IV p. 63,
that “the acknowledged peculiarities must not be allowed to obscure the
equally undoubted fact
that the Epistles present not only as many characteristic Pauline words as
the writer had use for,
but that, in the more significant matter of turns of expression, the style
of the letters is fundamentally
Pauline. Cf. also the judicious remarks of Reuss on the style of these
letters.History of the New
Testament, I p. 123.
In concluding our discussion of the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles we
desire to remark:
(1) The critics admit that the objections urged by them against the
genuineness of these letters do
not apply to all three of them in the same degree. According to Baur II
Timothy and Titus are the
least suspicious. He maintains, however, that I Timothy will always be “the
betrayer of its spurious
brothers.” But it would be reasonable to turn the statement about with
Reuss, and to say that “so
long as no decisive and palpable proofs of the contrary are presented the
two which are in and of
themselves less suspicious ought always to afford protection to the third
which is more so.” Ibid.
p. 84. (2) Baur and his followers rightly held that, in order to prove the
spuriousness of these letters,
they had to point out the positive purpose of the forgery; in which,
according to Reuss, they utterly
failed, when they said that it was to combat the Gnostic heresies that were
prevalent after A. D.
150, Ibid. p. 124 f. (3) It looks a great deal like a confession of defeat,
when several of the negative
critics admit that the passages in which personal reminiscences are found,
must be regarded as
genuine, for it means that they yield their case wherever they can be
controlled. For a broader
discussion of the authenticity of these letters, cf. Alford, Prolegomena
Section I; Holtzmann, Einl.
pp. 274-292; Zahn, Einl. I pp. 459-491; Godet, Introd. pp. 567-611; Farrar,
St. Paul, II pp. 607-622;
Salmon, Introd. pp. 433-452; McGiffert, Apostolic Age pp. 399-423; Davidson,
Introd. II pp. 21-76.
Lock (in Hastings D. B. Artt. I Timothy, II Timothy and Titus.)
131
The First Epistle to Timothy
CONTENTS
The first Epistle to Timothy may be divided into four parts:
I. Introduction, 1:1-20. The apostle begins by reminding Timothy that he had
been left at Ephesus
to counteract prevalent heresies, 1-10. He directs the attention of his
spiritual son to the Gospel
contradicted by these errors, thanks the Lord that he was made a minister of
it, and charges Timothy
to act in accordance with that Gospel, 11-20.
II. General Regulations for Church Life, 2: 1—4: 5. Here we find first of
all directions for
public intercession and for the behavior of men and women in the meetings of
the church, 2:1-15.
These are followed by an explicit statement of the qualities that are
necessary in bishops and
deacons, 3:1-13. The expressed purpose of these directions is, to promote
the good order of the
church, the pillar and ground of the truth, essentially revealed in Christ,
from which the false
brethren were departing, 3:14—A: 5.
III. Personal Advice to Timothy, 4: 6—6: 2. Here the apostle speaks of
Timothys behavior
towards the false teachers, 4: 6-11; of the way in which he should regard
and discharge his ministerial
duties, 12-16; and of the attitude he ought to assume towards the individual
members of the church,
especially towards the widows, the elders and the slaves, 5: 1—6: 2.
IV. Conclusion, 6: 3-21. The apostle now makes another attack on the
heretical teachers, 3—10;
and exhorts Timothy to be true to his calling and to avoid all erroneous
teachings, giving him special
directions with respect to the rich, 11-21.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. This letter is one of the Pastoral Epistles of Paul, which are so called,
because they were
written to persons engaged in pastoral work and contain many directions for
pastoral duties. They
were sent, not to churches, but to office-bearers, instructing them how to
behave in the house of
God. It is evident, however, that, with the possible exception of II
Timothy, they were not intended
exclusively for the persons to whom they were addressed, but also for the
churches in which these
labored. Cf. as far as this Epistle is concerned, 4:6, 11; 5:7; 6:17.
2. From the preceding it follows that this letter is not doctrinal but
practical. We find no further
objective development of the truth here, but clear directions as to its
practical application, especially
in view of divergent tendencies. The truth developed in previous Epistles is
here represented as the
“sound doctrine” that must be the standard of life and action, as “the
faith” that should be kept, and
as “a faithful word worthy of all acceptation.” ‘rhe emphasis clearly falls
on the ethical requirements
of the truth.
3. The letter emphasizes, as no other Epistle does, the external
organization of the church. The
apostle feels that the end of his life is fast approaching, and therefore
deems it necessary to give
more detailed instruction regarding the office-bearers in the church, in
order that, when he is gone,
his youthful co-laborers and the church itself may know how its affairs
should be regulated. Of the
office-bearers the apostle mentions the .p.s... and the p.es?.te..., which
are evidently identical,
the first name indicating their work, and the second emphasizing their age;
the d......., the
132
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
......e., if 3 :11 refers to deaconesses, which is very probable (so
Ellicott, Alford, White in Exp.
Gk. Test.) and the ...a., ch. 5, though it is doubtful, whether these were
indeed office-bearers.
4. Regarding the style of the Pastoral Epistles in general Huther remarks:
“In the other Pauline
Epistles the fulness of the apostles thoughts struggle with the expression,
and cause peculiar
difficulties in exposition. The thoughts slide into one another, and are so
intertwined in many forms
that not seldom the new thought begins before a correct expression has been
given of the thought
that preceded. Of this confusion there is no example in the Pastoral
Epistles. Even in such passages
as come nearest to this confused style, such as the beginning of the first
and second Epistles of
Timothy (Tit. 2: 11 if.; 3: 4 if.) the connection of ideas is still on the
whole simple.” Comm. p. 9.
This estimate is in general correct, though we would hardly speak of Pauls
style in his other letters
as “a confused style.”
THE PERSON TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN
Paul addresses this letter to “Timothy my own son in the faith,” 1: 2. We
find the first mention
of Timothy in Acts 16:1, where he is introduced as an inhabitant of Lystra.
He was the son of a
Jewish mother and a Greek father, of whom we have no further knowledge. Both
his mother Eunice
and his grandmother Lois are spoken of as Christians in II Tim. 1: 5. In all
probability he was
converted by Paul on his first missionary journey, since he was already a
disciple, when the apostle
entered Lystra on his second tour. He had a good report in his home town,
Acts 16: 2, and, being
circumcised for the sake of the Jews, he joined Paul and Silas in their
missionary labors. Passing
with the missionaries into Europe and helping them at Philippi, Thessalonica
and Berea, he remained
with Silas in the last named place, while Paul pressed on to Athens and
Corinth, where they finally
joined the apostle again, Acts 17:14; 18: 5. Cf. however also I Thess. 3: 1
and p. 222 above. He
abode there with the missionaries and his name appears with those of Paul
and Silvanus in the
addresses of the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. We next find him
ministering to the apostle
during his long stay at Ephesus, Acts 19: 22, from where he was sent to
Macedonia and Corinth,
Acts 19: 21, 22; I Cor. 4:17; 16:10, though it is doubtful, whether he
reached that city. He was
again in Paul’s company, when II Corinthians was written, II Cor. 1:1, and
accompanied the apostle
to Corinth, Rom. 16: 21, and again on his return through Macedonia to Asia,
Acts 20: 3, 4, probably
also to Jerusalem, I Cor. 16: 3. He is then mentioned in the Epistles of the
imprisonment, which
show that he was with the apostle at Rome, Phil. 1: 1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1.
>From this time on we
hear no more of him until the Pastoral Epistles show him to be in charge of
the Ephesian church,
I Tim. 1: 3.
>From I Tim. 4:14, and II Tim. 1:6 we learn that he was set apart for the
ministry by Paul with
the laying on of hands, in accordance with prophetic utterances of the
Spirit, I Tim. 1: 18, when he
probably received the title of evangelist, II Tim. 4: 5, though in I Thess.
2: 6 he is loosely classed
with Paul and Silas as an apostle. We do not know when this formal
ordination took place, whether
at the very beginning of his work, or when he was placed in charge of the
church at Ephesus.
The character of Timothy is clearly marked in Scripture. His readiness to
leave his home and
to submit to the rite of circumcision reveal his self-denial and earnestness
of purpose. This is all
the more striking, since he was very affectionate, II Tim. 1: 4, delicate
and often ill, 1 Tim. 5 : 23.
At the same time he was timid, I Cor. 16:10, hesitating to assert his
authority, I Tim. 4:12, and
needed to be warned against youthful lusts, II Tim. 2: 22, and to be
encouraged in the work of
133
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Christ, II Tim. 1: 8. Yet withal he was a worthy servant of Jesus Christ,
Rom. 16: 21, I Thess. 3 :
2; Phil. 1: 1; 2:19-21; and the beloved spiritual son of the apostle, I Tim.
1: 2; II Tim. 1: 2; I Cor.
4:17.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. This letter was occasioned by Paul’s necessary
departure from Ephesus
for Macedonia, 1: 3, the apprehension that he might be absent longer than he
at first expected, 3:14,
15, and the painful consciousness that insidkus errors were threatening the
Ephesian church. Since
Timothy was acquainted with these heresies, the apostle refers to them only
in general terms which
convey no very definite idea as to their real character. The persons who
propagated them were
prominent members of the church, possibly even office-bearers, 1: 6, 7, 20;
3:1-12; 5:19-25. Their
heresy was primarily of a Jewish character, 1: 7, and probably resulted from
an exaggeration of the
demands of the law, a mistaken application of Christian ideas and a
smattering of Oriental
speculation. They claimed to be teachers of the law, 1: 7, laid great stress
on myths and genealogies,
1:4; 4: 7, prided themselves like the rabbis on the possession of special
knowledge, 6: 20, and,
perhaps assuming that matter was evil or at least the seat of evil, they
propagated a false asceticism,
prohibiting marriage and requiring abstenence from certain foods, 4: 3, and
taught that the
resurrection was already past, most likely recognizing only a spiritual
resurrection, II Tim. 2:18.
The charge entrusted to Timothy was therefore a difficult one, hence the
apostle deemed it necessary
to write this Epistle.
In connection with the situation described the purpose of Paul was twofold.
In the first place
he desired to encourage Timothy. This brother, being young and of a timid
disposition, needed very
much the cheering word of the apostle. And in the second place it was his
aim to direct Timothy’s
warfare against the false doctrines that were disseminated in the church.
Possibly it was also to
prevent the havoc which these might work, if they who taught them were
allowed in office, that he
places such emphasis on the careful choice of office-bearers, and on the
necessity of censuring
them, should they go wrong.
2. Time and Place. The Epistle shows that Paul had left Ephesus for
Macedonia with the intention
of returning soon. And it was because he anticipated some delay that he
wrote this letter to Timothy.
Hence we may be sure that it was written from some place in Macedonia.
But the time when the apostle wrote this letter is not so easily determined.
On what occasion
did Paul quit Ephesus for Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind? Not after his
first visit to Ephesus,
Acts 18: 20, 21, for on that occasion the apostle did not depart for
Macedonia but for Jerusalem.
Neither was it when he left Ephesus on his third missionary journey after a
three years residence,
since Timothy was not left behind then, but had been sent before him to
Corinth, Acts 19: 22; I
Cor. 4:17. Some are inclined to think that we must assume a visit of Paul to
Macedonia during his
Ephesian residence, a visit not recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. But
then we must also find
room there for the apostles journey to Crete, since it is improbable that
the Epistle of Paul to Titus
was separated by any great interval of time from I Timothy. And to this must
be added a trip to
Corinth, cf. above p. 168. This theory is very unlikely in view of the time
Paul spent at Ephesus,
as compared with the work he did there, and of the utter silence of Luke
regarding these visits. We
must date the letter somewhere between the first and the second imprisonment
of Paul. It was most
likely after the apostles journey to Spain, since on the only previous
occasion that he visited Ephesus
134
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
after his release he came to that city by way of Macedonia, and therefore
would not be likely to
return thither immediately. Probably the letter should be dated about A. D.
65 or 66.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
There was not the slightest doubt in the ancient church as to the canonicity
of this Epistle. XVe
find allusions more or less clear to its language in Clement of Rome,
Polycarp, Ilegesippus,
Athenagoras and Theophilus. It was contained in the old Latin and Syriac
Versions and referred to
Paul by the Muratorian Fragment. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and
Tertullian quote it by name,
and Eusebius reckons it among the generally accepted canonical writings.
The great abiding value of the Epistle is found in the fact that it teaches
the Church of all
generations, how one, especially an office-bearer, should behave in the
house of God, holding the
faith, guarding his precious trust against the inroads of false doctrines,
combating the evil that is
found in the Lords heritage, and maintaining good order in church life. “It
witnesses,” says Lock
(Hastings D. B. Art. I Timothy) “that a highly ethical and spiritual
conception of religion is consistent
with and is safeguarded by careful regulations about worship, ritual and
organized ministry. There
is no opposition between the outward and the inward, between the spirit and
the organized body.”.
135
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Second Epistle to Timothy
CONTENTS
The contents of this Epistle falls into three parts:
I. Considerations to strengthen Timothy’s Courage, 1: 1—2:13. After the
greeting, 1, 2, the
apostle urges Timothy to stir up his ministerial gift, to be bold in
suffering, and to hold fast the
truth entrusted to him, 3—14, enforcing these appeals by pointing to the
deterrent example of the
unfaithful and the stimulating example of Onesiphorus, 15—18. Further he
exhorts him to be strong
in the power of grace, to commit the true teaching to others, and to be
ready to face suffering,
2:1-13.
II. Exhortations primarily dealing with Timothy’s Teaching, 2: l4—4: 8.
Timothy should urge
Christians to avoid idle and useless discussions, and should rightly teach
the truth, shunning vain
babblings, 14-21. He must also avoid youthful passions, foolish
investigations, and false teachers
who, for selfish purposes, turn the truth of God into unrighteousness, 2:
22—3: 9. He is further
exhorted to abide loyally by his past teaching, knowing that sufferings will
come to every true
soldier and that deceivers will grow worse, 10-17; and to fulfil his whole
duty as an evangelist with
sobriety and courage, especially since Paul is now ready to be offered up,
4:1-8.
III. Personal Reminiscences, 4: 9-22. Paul appeals to Timothy to come to
Rome quickly, bringing
Mark and also taking his cloak and books, and to avoid Alexander, 9-15. He
speaks of his desertion
by men, the protection afforded him by the Lord, and his trust for the
future, 16-18. With special
greetings, a further account of his fellow-laborers, and a final salutation
the apostle ends his letter,
19-22.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. II Timothy is the most personal of the Pastoral Epistles. Doctrinally it
has no great importance,
though it does contain the strongest proof-passage for the inspiration of
Scripture. In the main the
thought centers about Timothy, the faithful co-laborer of Paul, whom the
apostle gives
encouragement in the presence of great difficulties, whom he inspires to
noble, self-denying efforts
in the Kingdom of God, and whom he exhorts to fight worthily in the
spiritual warfare against the
powers of darkness, that he may once receive an eternal reward.
2. It is the last Epistle of Paul, the swan-song of the great apostle, after
a life of devotion to a
noble cause, a life of Christian service. We see him here with work done,
facing a martyrs death.
Looking back his heart is filled with gratitude for the grace of God that
saved him from the abyss
that yawned at his feet, that called and qualified him to be a messenger of
the cross, that protected
him when dangers were threatening, and that crowned his work with rich
spiritual fruits. And as
he turns his eyes to the future, calm assurance and joyous hope are the
strength of his soul, for he
knows that the firm foundation of God will stand, since the Lord will punish
the evil-doers and be
the eternal reward of his children. He already has visions of the heavenly
Kingdom, of eternal glory,
of the coming righteous Judge, and of the crown of righteousness, the
blessed inheritance of all
those that love Christs appearance.
136
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The immediate occasion for writing this Epistle was
the apostles
presentiment of his fast approaching end. He was anxious that Timothy should
come to him soon,
bringing Mark with him. In all probability he desired to give his spiritual
son some fatherly advice
and some practical instruction before his departure. But we feel that ths
alone did not call for a
letter such as II Timothy really is. Another factor must be taken in
consideration. Paul was not sure
that Timothy would succeed in reaching Rome before his death, and yet
realized that the condition
of the Ephesian church, the danger to which Timothy was there exposed, and
the importance of the
work entrusted to this youthful minister, called for a word of apostolic
advice, encouragement and
exhortation. It seems that the Ephesian church was threatened by
persecution, 1:8; 2:3, 12; 3:12;
4:5; and the heresy to which the apostle referred in his first epistle was
evidently still rife in the
circle of believers. There were those who strove about words, 2:14, were
unspiritual, 2:16, corrupted
in mind, 3: 8, indulging in foolish and ignorant questionings, 2: 23, and
fables, 4:4, tending to a
low standard of morality, 2:19, and teaching that the resurrection was
already past, 2:18.
Hence the object of the Epistle is twofold. The writer wants to warn Timothy
of his impending
departure, to inform him of his past experiences at Rome and of his present
loneliness, and to exhort
him to come speedily. Besides this, however, he desired to strengthen his
spiritual son in view of
the deepening gloom of trials and persecution that were threatening the
church from without; and
to fore-arm him against the still sadder danger of heresy and apostasy that
were lurking within the
fold. Timothy is exhorted to hold fast the faith, 1: 5, 13; to endure
hardness as a good soldier of
Jesus Christ, 2: 3-10; to shun every form of heresy, 2:16-18; to instruct in
meekness those that
withstand the Gospel, 2:24-26; and to continue in the things he had learnt,
3:14-17.
2. Time and Place. From 1: 17 it is perfectly evident that this letter was
written at Rome. The
apostle was again a prisoner in the imperial city. Though we have no
absolute certainty, we deem
it probable that he was re-arrested at Troas in the year 67. The situation
in which he finds himself
at Rome is quite different from that reflected in the other epistles of the
captivity. He is now treated
like a common criminal, 2: 9; his Asiatic friends with the exception of
Onesiphorus turned from
him, 1: 15; the friends who were with him during his first imprisonment are
absent now, Col.
4:10-14; II Tim. 4:10-12; and the outlook of the apostle is quite different
from that found in
Philippians and Philemon. It is impossible to tell just how long the apostle
had already been in
prison, when he wrote the Epistle, but from the fact that he had had one
hearing, 4:16 (which cannot
refer to that of the first imprisonment, cf. Phil, 1: 7, 12-14), and
expected to be offered up soon,
we infer that he composed the letter towards the end of his imprisonment, i.
e. in the fall of A. D.
67.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonicity of this Epistle has never been questioned by the Church; and
the testimony to
its early and general use is in no way deficient. There are quite clear
traces of its language in Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, and
Theophilus of Antioch.
The letter is included in all the MSS., the old Versions and the Lists of
the Pauline Epistles. The
Muratorian Fragment names it as a production of Paul, and from the end of
the second century it
is quoted by name.
137
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle has some permanent doctrinal value as containing the most
important proof-passage
for the inspiration of Scripture, 3:16, and also abiding historical
significance in that it contains the
clearest Scriptural testimony to the life of Paul after his first Roman
imprisonment. But Lock truly
says that “its main interest is one of character, and two portraits emerge
from it.” We have here (1)
the portrait of the ideal Christian minister, busily engaged in the work of
his Master, confessing
His Name, proclaiming His truth, shepherding His fold, defending his
heritage, and battling with
the powers of evil; and (2) the “portrait of the Christian minister, with
his work done, facing death.
He acquiesces gladly in the present, but his eyes are turned mainly to the
past or to the future.”
(Lock in Hastings D. B. Art. II Timothy) He is thankful for the work he was
permitted to do, and
serenely awaits the day of his crowning.
138
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle to Titus
CONTENTS
The contents of this Epistle may be divided into three parts:
I. Instruction regarding the Appointment of Ministers, 1: 1-16. After the
opening salutation,
1-4, the apostle reminds Titus of his past instruction to appoint
presbyters, 5. He emphasizes the
importance of high moral character in an overseer, in order that such an
office-bearer may maintain
the sound doctrine and may refute the opponents that mislead others and,
claiming to know God,
deny Him with their words, 6-16.
II. Directions as to the Teaching of Titus, 2:1—3: 11. Paul would have Titus
urge all the different
classes that were found in the Cretan church, viz, the elder men and women,
the younger women
and men, and the slaves, to regulate their life in harmony with the
teachings of the Gospel, since
they were all trained by the saving grace of God to rise above sin and to
lead godly lives, 2:1-14.
As regards their relation to the outer world, Titus should teach believers
to subject themselves to
the authorities, and to be gentle towards all men, remembering that God had
delivered them from
the old heathen vices, in order that they should set others an example of
noble and useful lives,
3:1-8. He himself must avoid foolish questionings and reject the heretics,
who refused to listen to
his admonition, 9-11.
III. Personal Details, 3:12-15. Instructing Titus to join him at Nicopolis
after Artemus or
Tychicus has come to Crete, bringing with him Zenos and Apollos, the writer
ends his letter with
a final salutation.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. Like the other Pastoral Epistles this letter is also of a personal
nature. It was not directed to
any individual church or to a group of churches, but to a single person, one
of Pauls spiritual sons
and co-laborers in the work of the Lord. At the same time it is not as
personal as II Timothy, but
has distinctly a semi-private character. It is perfectly evident from the
Epistle itself (cf. 2:15) that
its teaching was also intended for the church in Crete to which Titus was
ministering.
2. This letter is in every way very much like I Timothy, which is due to the
fact that the two
were written about the same time and were called forth by very similar
situations. It is shorter than
the earlier Epistle, but covers almost the same ground. We do not find in it
any advance on the
doctrinal teachings of the other letters of Paul; in fact it contains very
little doctrinal teaching, aside
from the comprehensive statements of the doctrine of grace in 2: 11-14 and
3:4-8. The former of
these passages is a locus classicus. The main interest of the Epistle is
ecclesiastical and ethical, the
government of the church and the moral life of its members receiving due
consideration.
THE PERSON TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN
Paul addressed the letter to “Titus mine own son after the common faith,”
1:4. We do not meet
with Titus in the Acts of the Apostles, which is all the more remarkable,
since he was one of the
most trusted companions of Paul. For this reason some surmised that he is to
be identified with
139
some one of the other co-laborers of Paul, as ~. i. Timothy, Silas or
Justus, Acts 18: 7. But neither
of these satisfy the conditions.
He is first mentioned in Gal. 2:1, 3, where we learn that he was a Greek,
who was not compelled
to submit to circumcision, lest Paul should give his enemies a handle
against himself. From Titus
1: 4 we infer that he was one of the apostles converts, and Gal. 2: 3
informs us that he accompanied
Paul to the council of Jerusalem. According to some the phrase . s.. .µ.. in
this passage implies
that he was also with Paul, when he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, but
the inference is rather
unwarranted. He probably bore I Corinthians to its destination, II Cor.
2:13, and after his return to
Paul, was sent to Corinth again to complete the collection for the saints in
Judaea, II Cor. 8:16 if.
Most likely he was also the bearer of II Corinthians. When next we hear of
him, he is on the island
of Crete in charge of the church(es) that had been founded there. Titus 1:
4. 5. and is requested to
join Paul at Nicopolis, 3:12. Evidently he was with the apostle in the early
part of his second
imprisonment, but soon left him for Dalmatia, either at the behest, or
against the desire of Paul.
The traditions regarding his later life are of doubtful value.
If we compare I Tim. 4:12 with Titus 2:15, we get the impression that Titus
was older than his
co-laborer at Ephesus. The timidity of the latter did not characterize the
former. While Timothy
went to Corinth, so it seems, with some hesitation, I Cor. 16:10, Titus did
not flinch from the delicate
task of completing the collection for the saints in Judaea, but undertook it
of his own accord, II
Cor. 8:16,
17. He was full of enthusiasm for the Corinthians, was free from wrong
motives in his work
among them, and followed in the footsteps of the apostle, II Cor. 12:18.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The occasion for writing this Epistle is found in
the desire of Paul
that Titus should come to him in the near future, and in the condition of
the Cretan church(es),
whose origin is lost in obscurity. Probably the island was evangelized soon
after the first Pentecost
by those Cretans that were converted at Jerusalem, Acts 2: 11. During the
last part of his life Paul
visited the island and made provision for the external organization of the
church(es) there. When
he left, he entrusted this important task to his spiritual son, Titus, 1:5.
The church (es) consisted of
both Jews and Gentiles, 1: 10, ofdifferent ages and of various classes,
2:1-10. The Cretans did not
have a very good reputation, 1: 12, and some of them did not believe their
reputed character, even
after they had turned to Christ. Apparently the errors that had crept into
the church(es) there were
very similar to those with which Timothy had to contend at Ephesus, though
probably the Judaeistic
element was still more prominent in them, 1: 10, 11, 14; 3: 9.
The object of Paul in writing this letter is to summon Titus to come to him,
as soon as another
has taken his place; to give him directions regarding the ordination of
presbyters in the different
cities; to warn him against the heretics on the island; and guide him in his
teaching and in his dealing
with those that would not accept his word.
2. Time and Place. Respecting the time when this Epistle was written there
is no unanimity.
Those who believe in the genuineness of the letter, and at the same time
postulate but one Roman
imprisonment, seek a place for it in the life of Paul, as we know it from
the Acts. According to
some it was written during the apostles first stay at Corinth, from where,
in that case, he must have
made a trip to Crete; others think it was composed at Ephesus, after Paul
left Corinth and had on
140
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
the way visited Crete. But the word “continued” in Acts 18: 11 seems to
preclude a trip from Corinth
to Crete. Moreover both of these theories leave Pauls acquaintance with
Apollos, presupposed in
this letter, unexplained, 3:13. Still others would date the visit to Crete
and the composition of this
letThr somewhere between the years 54-57, when the apostle resided at
Ephesus, but this hypothesis
is also burdened with insuperable objections. Cf. above p. 249. The Epistle
must have been composed
in the interval between the first and the second imprisonment of the
apostle, and supposing the
winter of 3:13 to be the same as that of 11 Tim. 4: 21, probably in the
early part of the year 67. We
have no means to determine, where the letter was written, though something
can be said in favor
of Ephesus, cf. p. 639 above.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Church from the beginning accepted this Epistle as canonical. There are
passages in Clement
of Rome, Ignatius, Barnabas, Justin Martyr and Theophilus that suggest
literary dependence.
Moreover the letter is found in all the MSS. and in the old Latin and Syriac
Versions; and is referred
to in the Muratorian Fragment. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and
Tertullian quote it by name.
The permanent value of the letter is in some respects quite similar to that
of I Timothy. It has
historical significance in that it informs us of the spread of Christianity
on the island of Crete, a
piece of information that we could not gather from any other Biblical
source. Like I Timothy it
emphasizes for all ages to come the necessity of church organization and the
special qualifications
of the officebearers. It is unique in placing prominently before us the
educative value of the grace
of God for the life of every man, of male and female, young and old, bond
and free.
141
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle to Philemon
CONTENTS
We can distinguish three parts in this brief letter:
I. The Introduction, 1-7. This contains the address, the customary blessing,
and a thanksgiving
of the apostle for the charity of Philemon, for the increase of which Paul
hopes, because it greatly
refreshes the saints.
II. The Request, 8-21. Rather than command Philemon the apostle comes to him
with a request,
viz, that he receive back the converted slave Onesimus and forgive him his
wrong-doing. Paul
enforces his request by pointing to the conversion of Onesimus, and to his
own willingness to repay
Philemon what he lost, though he might ask retribution of him; and trusts
that Philemon will do
more than he asks.
III. Conclusion, 22-25. Trusting that he will be set free, the apostle
requests Philemon to prepare
for him lodging. With greetings of his fellow-laborers and a final
salutation he ends his letter.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. This letter is closely related to the Epistle that was sent to the
Colossian church. They were
composed at the same time, were sent to the same city and, with a single
exception (that of Justus),
contain identical greetings. At the same time it is distinguished from
Colossians in that it is a private
letter. Yet it is not addressed to a single individual, but to a family and
to the believers at their
house.
2. The letter is further characterized by its great delicacy and
tactfulness. It bears strong evidence
to Christian courtesy, and has therefore been called “the polite epistle.”
In it we see Paul, the
gentleman, handling a delicate question with consummate skill. Though he
might command, he
prefers to request that Philemon forgive and receive again his former slave.
Tactfully he refers to
the spiritual benefit that accrued from what might be called material loss.
In a delicate manner he
reminds Philemon of the debt the latter owed him, and expresses his
confidence that this brother
in Christ would even do more than he requested.
AUTHORSHIP
Marcion included this letter in his Pauline collection, and the Muratorian
Fragment also ascribes
it to Paul. Tertullian and Origen quote it by name, and Eusebius reckons it
among the Pauline letters.
Moreover the Epistle has all the marks of a genuine Pauline production. It
is self-attested,
contains the usual Pauline blessing, thanksgiving and salutation, reveals
the character of the great
apostle and clearly exhibits his style.
Yet even this short and admirable Epistle has not enjoyed universal
recognition. Baur rejected
it because of its close relation to Colossians and Ephesians, which he
regarded as spurious. He
called it “the embryo of a Christian romance,” like that of the Clementine
Recognitions, its tendency
being to show that what is lost on earth is gained in heaven. He also
objects to it that it contains
seven words which Paul uses nowhere else. Weizsacker and Pfleiderer are
somewhat inclined to
follow Baur. They find proof for the allegorical character of the letter in
the name Onesimus
142
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
=profitable, helpful. The latter thinks that this note may have accompanied
the Epistle to the
Colossians, to illustrate by a fictitious example the social precepts
contained in that letter. Such
criticism need not be taken seriously. Hilgenfelds dictum is that Baur has
not succeeded in raising
his explanation to the level of probability. And Renan says: “Paul alone can
have written this little
masterpiece.”
THE PERSON TO WHOM THE LETTER IS WRITTEN
The letter is addressed to “Philemon our dearly beloved and fellow-laborer,
and to our beloved
Apphia, and Archippus, our fellow-soldier, and to the church in thy house,”
1, 2. Little is known
of this Philemon. He was evidently an inhabitant of Colossae, Col. 4: 9, and
apparently belonged
to the wealthy class. He had slaves, received a circle of friends in his
house, and was able to prepare
a lodging for Paul, 22. His munificence was generally known, 5-7, and he
made himself useful in
Christian service. He was converted by Paul, 19, most likely during the
apostles three years residence
at Ephesus. Apphia is generally regarded as the wife of Philemon, while many
consider Archippus
as their son. We notice from Col. 4:17 that the latter had an office in the
church. Probably he was
temporarily taking the place of Epaphras. The expression “the church in thy
house” undoubtedly
refers to the Christians of Colossae that gathered in the dwelling of
Philemon for worship.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The occasion for writing this Epistle is clearly
indicated in the letter
itself. Onesimus, the slave of Philemon absconded and, so it seems,
defrauded his master, 18, 19.
He fled to Rome, where in some way—it is useless to guess just how—he fell
in with Paul, whom
he may have known from the time of his Ephesian residence. The apostle was
instrumental in
converting him and in showing him the evil of his way, 10, and although he
would gladly have
retained him for the work, sent him back to Colossae in deference to the
claims of Philemon. He
did not send him empty-handed, however, but gave him a letter of
recommendation, in which he
informs Philemon of the change wrought in Onesimus by which the former slave
became a brother,
bespeaks for him a favorable reception in the family of his master and in
the circle that gathered
at their house for worship, and even hints at the desirability of
emancipating him.
2. Time and place. For the discussion of the time and place of composition
cf. what was said
respecting the Epistle to the Ephesians.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This Epistle is rarely quoted by the early church fathers, which is
undoubtedly due to its brevity
and to its lack of doctrinal contents. The letter is recognized by Marcion
and the Muratorian
Fragment, and is contained in the old Latin and Syriac Versions. Tertullian
quotes it more than
once, but no trace of it is found in Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.
Eusebius classes it with
the Homologoumena and Jerome argues at length against those who refused to
accept it as Pauline.
The Church never doubted its canonicity.
The permanent value of this little letter is both psychological and ethical.
It shows us Paul as
he corresponds in a friendly way with a brother in Christ, and thus gives us
a new glimpse of his
character, the character of a perfect gentleman, unobtrusive, refined,
skillful and withal firm,—a
character worthy of imitation. Moreover it reveals to us how Paul, in view
of the unity of bond and
143
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
free in Jesus Christ, deals with the perplexing question of slavery. He does
not demand the
abolishment of the institution, since the time for such a drastic measure
had not yet come; but he
does clearly hint at emancipation as the natural result of the redemptive
work of Christ.
144
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle to the Hebrews
CONTENTS
In this Epistle we may distinguish five parts.
I. The Superiority of Christ as Mediator, 1: 1—4:16. The writer begins by
saying that the New
Testament revelation was mediated by the very Son of God, who is far
superior to the angels, 1:
1-14; whose revelation one can only neglect to the peril of one’s soul, 2:
1-4, and in whom and
through whom the ideal of man is realized through suffering, 5-18. Then he
points out that Christ
is greater than Moses, as the builder is greater than the house and the son
is superior to the servant,
3:1-6, wherefore it is necessary that we should listen to his voice, since
unbelief deprives us of the
blessings of salvation, as is clearly seen in the history of Israel, 7-19.
They were not brought into
the rest by Joshua, so that the promise remains to be fulfilled, and we
should labor to enter into that
rest, seeking strength in our great High Priest, 4:1-16.
II. Christ the true High Priest, 5:1—7: 28. Like every high priest Christ
was taken from among
men to represent them in worship, and was called by God, 5:1-5; but in
distinction from these He
was made a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and thus became the author
of eternal salvation
for those that obey him, 6-10. Since the readers were not yet able to
understand all that might be
said regarding the Priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek, the
author exhorts them to
press on to more perfect knowledge, to beware of apostasy, and to be
diligent to inherit, through
faith and patience, the promises of the ever faithful God, 5: 1 1—6: 20.
Returning now to the subject
in hand, the writer describes the unique character of Melchizedek, 7:1-10,
and contrasts the
priesthood of Christ with that of the order of Aaron with respect to fleshly
descent (Levi—Judah),
11-14; endurance (temporal—eternal) 15-19; solemnity and weight (without
oath—with oath)
20-22; number (many—one) 23-24; and then argues the necessity of such a High
Priest for us,
25-28.
III. Pre-eminence of the New Covenant mediated by Jesus Christ, 8:1—10:18.
As High Priest
Christ is now ministering in heaven, of which the tabernacle on earth was
but a shadow, since He
is the Mediator, not of the Old, but of the New Covenant, 8:1-13. The
ordained services and the
sanctuary of the old dispensation were merely figures for the time then
present, and pointed to the
better services which Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant would render
at the heavenly
sanctuary, since He would not enter with the blood of bulls and goats, but
with his own blood, thus
bringing eternal redemption, 9:1-28. The sacrifices of the old dispensation
could not take away sin,
and therefore Christ offered himself for our purification and to give us
access to the throne of God,
10:1-18.
IV. Application of the Truths presented and Personal Epilogue, 10:19—13: 25.
The writer
exhorts the readers to draw near to God with confidence, and warns them
against apostasy, reminding
them of its dire consequences and of their former endurance, and assuring
them that the just shall
live by faith, 10:19-39. He illustrates this point by presenting to their
view a long line of heroes
that triumphed in faith, 11:1-40. In view of these examples he urges them to
endure chastening
which is a sign of their sonship and ministers to their sanctification, and
warns them against despising
the grace of God, 12:1-17. Since they have received far greater privileges
than Old Testament
saints, they should strive to serve God acceptably with reverence and godly
feat, 18-29. Then follow
145
some general exhortations respecting hospitality, marriage, contentment, the
following in the
footsteps of their teachers, and the necessity of guarding against strange
doctrines, 13:1-17; after
which the writer closes the letter with a few personal notices and
salutations, 18-25.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The Epistle to the Hebrews has not the letter-like appearance of the
confessedly Pauline
writings. It does not contain the name of the author, nor that of the
addressees. And if it were not
for a few stray personal notes, 10: 34; 13:18, 25, and for the greetings and
salutations found at the
end, we might regard this writing as a treatise rather than an Epistle.
Deissmann, who emphasizes
the nonliterary character of the admittedly Pauline compositions, and
insists that they be looked
upon as real letters, considers this writing to be an Epistle as
distinguished from a letter, and thinks
it is very important to recognize its literary character. According to him
“it is historically the earliest
example of Christian artistic literature.” Light from the Ancient East p.64
f.;236 f.; 243.
2. The relation in which the teaching of this book stands to that of the Old
Testament is unique.
It does not view the Law as a body of commandments imposed on the obedience
of man, but as a
system of ritual provided by the mercy of God; and clearly reveals its
insufficiency as an institution
for the removal of sin, since it could only remove ceremonial defilement and
could not purify the
heart. In harmony with this divergence from the prevailing Pauline
conception of the Law, it does
not, like the undoubted letters of Paul, regard the Law as an episode
temporarily intervening, on
account of sin, between the promise and its fulfilment; but as a typical
representation, as a primitive
revelation of the blessings to which the promise pointed. In it the image of
the New Testament
realities is dimly seen; it is the bud that gradually develops into a
beautiful flower. The realities
that answer to the shadows of the Old Testament are pointed out in detail,
and thereby this Epistle
is for all ages the inspired commentary on the ritual of the Old Covenant,
making the pages of
Leviticus luminous with heavenly light. We should bear in mind that the
terms type and antitype
are employed in a rather unusual sense in this letter; their meaning is in a
way reversed. The holy
places of the earthly tabernacle are called the ..t.t.paof the true and
heavenly, 9: 24, according
to which usage the latter are, of course, the types of the former, cf. 8: 5.
3. This letter is peculiar also in the way in which it quotes the Old
Testament. While in the
writings that bear Paul’s name the quotations are partly from the Hebrew and
partly from the
Septuagint, in this Epistle they are uniformly derived from the Greek.
Moreover the formulae of
quotation are different from those in the other letters. While these
generally refer the passages
quoted to their human authors, except in cases where God speaks in the first
person in the Old
Testament, our Epistle with but few exceptions refers them to the primary
author, i. e. to God or
to the Holy Spirit, thus offering indubitable proof of the authors belief in
the inspiration of the
Scriptures.
4. The language of this Epistle is the best literary Greek of the New
Testament. We do not find
the author struggling, as it were, with a scanty language to express the
abundance of the thoughts
that are crowding in upon him. There are no broken constructions, no halting
sentences, and,
although a few parentheses are introduced, they do not disturb the thought,
cf. 11: 38; 12: 20, 21.
The sentences are all evenly balanced and the style flows on with great
regularity. The writer seems
to have given special attention to the rhetorical rhythm and equilibrium of
words and sentences.
146
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Westcott says: “The style of the book is characteristically Hellenistic,
perhaps we may say, as far
as our scanty knowledge goes, Alexandrian.” Comm. p. LXI.
AUTHORSHIP
The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews constitutes a very difficult
question. The external
testimony is of a conflicting character. The oldest and most explicit
tradition is that of Alexandria,
where Clement testified that the Epistle was written by Paul in the Hebrew
language and was
translated by Luke into Greek. Origen regards the thoughts of the Epistle as
Paul’s, but the language
as that of a disciple of the great apostle, and finally comes to the
conclusion that God only knows
who wrote this letter. He does not make mention of a Hebrew original. Both
Clement and Origen
agree, however, in regarding the Greek Epistle as Pauline only in a
secondary sense. In Italy and
Western Europe generally the letter was not held to be Paul’s. This is the
more remarkable, since
we find the first trace of its existence in the West, in the writings of
Clement of Rome. Hippolytus
and Irenaeus were acquainted with it, but did not accept it as Paul’s; Cajus
reckoned only thirteen
Pauline Epistles and Eusebius says that even in his time the negative
opinion was still held by some
Romans. In North Africa, where the Roman tradition is usually followed, the
letter was not regarded
as the work of Paul. Tertullian ascribes it to Barnabas. In the fourth
century the Eastern tradition
gradually prevailed over the Western, especially through the influence of
Augustine and Jerome,
though they felt by no means certain that Paul was the author. During the
Middle Ages this mooted
question hardly ever came up for discussion, but when the light of the
Reformation dawned, doubts
were again expressed as to the authorship of Paul. Erasmus questioned
whether Paul had written
the letter; Luther conjectured that Apollos was the writer; Calvin thought
that it might be the work
of Luke or of Clement; and Beza held that it was written by a disciple of
Paul. At present there are
comparatively few that maintain the authorship of Paul.
And if we examine the internal evidence of the Epistle, we find that it
points away from Paul.
It must be admitted that its teaching is in a general sense Pauline, but
this does not prove that Paul
was the author. There are also some expressions in the letter to which
parallels are found in the
Epistles of Paul. Compare f. i. 2:14 with II Tim. 1: 10; I Cor. 15 : 26 ;—2:
8 with I Cor. 15 : 27.
But this similarity may find its explanation in the authors acquaintance
with the Pauline writings.
The statement in 10: 34 cannot be urged in favor of Paul, especially not, if
we adopt the reading
t... desµ...s s..epat.sate, in which almost all the critical editors concur,
and which is certainly
favored by the context. The expression in 13:19 does not prove that the
writer was a prisoner, when
he wrote these words, much less that he was Paul. Neither does the notice
respecting Timothy in
13: 23 necessarily point to the apostle, for some of the older companions of
Paul might have made
that same statement. Moreover we know of no time in the life of Paul when
Timothy was a prisoner.
If there were other positive evidence for the Pauline authorship, some of
these supposed criteria
might serve as corroborative proofs, but such evidence is not forthcoming.
The main features of
the Epistle are such as to discredit the authorship of Paul: (1) The letter,
in distinction from the
Pauline Epistles, is entirely anonymous. It contains neither the name of the
author nor that of the
addressees. Moreover the customary blessing and thanksgiving are altogether
wanting. (2) In 2: 3
the writer clearly distinguishes himself and his hearers from those who
heard the Lord, i. e. from
his immediate disciples and apostles. Would Paul say that he had heard the
word of the Gospel
only from the immediate followers of the Lord, and not of the Lord himself ?
The assumption does
147
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
not seem reasonable in view of Gal. 1:12. (3) Though the teaching of the
Epistle is in full harmony
with that of Paul, yet it does not reveal the usual trend of Paul’s
reasoning. As Bruce points out
(Hastings D. B. Art. Hebrews, Epistle to), there is an entire absence of the
Pauline antitheses law
and grace, faith and works, flesh and spirit; while there are found instead
the antitheses of shadow
and reality, type and antitype. (4) While Paul is wont to take some of his
quotations from the Hebrew
and often quotes from memory, the writer of this Epistle always derives his
quotations from the
Septaugint, and with such exactness that he seems to have had the manuscript
before him. He does
not like Paul refer his quotations to the human author, but to the auctor
primarius. And instead of
the Pauline formuke of quotation, ....apta. or . ..af. ...e. he often
employs µa.t..e.or f.s.
(5) There is also a great difference in the names ascribed to the Mediator.
In the writings of Paul
we find the names, Christ, the Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ our
Lord, our Lord Jesus
Christ, and very seldom the simple Jesus. In our Epistle, on the other hand,
Jesus is the regular
name for the Saviour; Jesus Christ is used three times, the Lord, twice, but
the full Pauline name,
our Lord Jesus Christ is wanting altogether. (6) The strongest proof against
the Pauline authorship
is generally considered to be the argument from style. Says Dr. Salmon:
“There is here none of the
ruggedness of St. Paul, who never seems to be solicitous about forms of
expression, and whose
thoughts come pouring out so fast as to jostle one another in the struggle
for utterance. This is a
calm composition, exhibiting sonorous words and well balanced sentences. I
have already shown
that I do not ascribe to Paul any rigid uniformity of utterance, and that I
am not tempted to deny a
letter to be his merely because it contains a number of words and phrases
which are not found in
his other compositions; but in this case I find myself unable to assert the
Pauline authorship in the
face of so much unlikeness, in the structure of sentences, in the general
tone of the Epistle, in the
general way of presenting doctrines, and in other points that I will not
delay to enumerate.” Introd.
p. 464 f.
In view of all the foregoing it is all but certain that Paul did not write
the Epistle to the Hebrews.
But now the question naturally arises: Who did? Several answers have given,
as Barnabas
(Tertullian), Luke or Clement (Calvin), Apollos (Luther), Silas (Bohme,
Godet), (Aquila and)
Priscilla (Harnack), of which only two are at present seriously considered,
viz. Barnabas and
Apollos, though the suggestion of Harnack has found favor with some. Renan,
Hausrath, Weiss,
Salmon and Barth accept the authorship of Barnabas, relying especially on
the facts: (1) that
Tertullian points to him as the author, thereby transmitting not only his
own private opinion, but
the North African tradition; (2) that Barnabas was an apostolic man and as a
Levite would be well
acquainted with the Jewish ritual; and (3) that, as an inhabitant of the
island Cyprus, he would in
all probability have been subject to the influence of Alexandrian culture.
On the other hand,
Lunemann, Farrar, Alford and Zahn hold that Apollos best answers the
requirements, since (1) he
was a man of fine Greek culture; (2) was well acquainted with the writings
of Paul; and (3) as a
native of Alexandria was deeply embued with the thoughts of the Alexandrian
school. But it has
been objected to Barnabas that he could not reckon himself to the second
generation of Christians,
2: 3; and that he certainly knew Hebrew, with which, so it seems, the author
of this Epistle was not
acquainted ;—and to Apollos, that there is no tradition whatever connecting
his name with the
Epistle; and that the historical allusions in 13:18-24 have no point of
contact in the life of Apollos
as we know it from the Acts of the Apostles. If we had to choose between the
two, Barnabas would
be our choice, but we prefer with Moll, Westcott, Dods, Baljon and Bruce
(Hastings D. B.) to
148
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
confess our ignorance on this point and to abide by the dictum of Origen.
The general thought of
the Epistle is Pauline, but God only knows who wrote it.
DESTINATION
Under this head we must consider two questions: 1. Was the letter written
for Jewish or for
Gentile Christians? 2. Where were the first readers located?
1. Until a comparatively recent date the general opinion was that this
Epistle was composed
for Jewish Christians. Of late, however, some scholars, as Schuirer,
Weizsacker, Von Soden, Julicher
and McGiffert reached the opposite conclusion. They argue that the
fundamentals enumerated in
6: 1, 2 are such as were suitable only to Gentile catechumens; that the
expression “the living God”
in 9:14 implies a contrast between the true God and pagan idols; and that
the exhortations at the
end of the Epistle were more appropriate to Gentile than to Jewish
Christians. From these passages
it has been argued with great ingenuity that the original readers were
Christians of the Gentiles;
but they are also susceptible of a plausible interpretation on the opposite
view. Cf. the Commentaries
and also Dods, Exp. Gk. Test. IV p. 231. It seems preferable to hold that
the first readers were of
Jewish extraction. In support of this theory we cannot rely on the title
p... ..?.a..., because the
presumption is that this, though it can be traced to the second century, is
not original. Yet it does
express the early conviction of the Church that the letter was destined
first of all for Jewish
Christians. The general features of the letter point in the same direction.
The Epistle presupposes
that its readers are in danger of a relapse into Judaeism; and its
symbolism, based entirely on the
tabernacle and its services, is peculiarly adapted to converted Jews. The
whole Epistle has a Jewish
physiognomy. With Bruce we say: “If the readers were indeed Gentiles, they
were Gentiles so
completely disguised in Jewish dress and wearing a mask with so pronounced
Jewish features, that
the true nationality has been hidden for nineteen centuries. Hastings D. B.
2. But where must we look for the first readers? Some scholars, regarding
this writing as a
treatise, are of the opinion that it was not intended for any definite
locality, but for Christians in
general, (Lipsius, Reuss); this opinion cannot pass muster, however, in view
of the many passages
that have no meaning unless they are addressed to a definite circle of
Christians, f. i. 5:11, 12; 6:9,
10; 10:32; 12:4. At the same time it is impossible to determine with
certainty the exact locality in
which the readers were found. The four places that received the most
prominent consideration in
this connection are Alexandria, Antioch (in Syria), Rome and Jerusalem, of
which, it would appear,
the choice really lies between the last two. The position that the letter
was sent to the Jewish
Christians of Jerusalem or of entire Judaea, is defended by Moll, Lunemann,
Salmon, Weiss and
Westcott, and is supported by the following considerations: (1) The name
..?.a..., embodying an
early tradition, certainly fits them better than it does Christians of any
other community. (2) They
were the most likely to develop great love for the Jewish ritual and to be
exposed to danger from
these quarters. (3) Their church(es) was (were) well nigh purely Jewish,
which best accords with
the total absence of any reference to Gentile Christians in the Epistle. (4)
They would certainly
understand the symbolism of the letter far better than the Christians of the
diaspora. (5) A passage
like 13:12, 13 has a peculiar appropriateness, if it was written to them.
The objections are urged
against this hypothesis, however, that the passages 3:2 and 5:12 are hardly
applicable to the Christians
of Jerusalem or Judaea; that these, rather than exercise liberality, 6:10,
were continually the objects
of charity; that the letter was written in Greek and not in Hebrew; and
that, as far as we know,
149
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Timothy stood in no particular relation to the Jerusalem church. Many
present day scholars, such
as Alford, Zahn, Baljon, Dods, Holtzmann, Julicher and Von Soden fixed on
Rome as the destination
of this letter. In favor of this they urge: (1) The greeting of 13: 24 is
evidently one of such as had
gone forth from Italy, to their old friends at home. (2) The first traces of
the use of this Epistle are
found in the writings of Clement and in the Shepherd of Hermas, both issuing
from Rome. (3) The
term .......µe..., 13 :7, 17, 24 was not in vogue in the Pauline churches,
but was used at Rome,
since Clement speaks of p......µe.... (4) The persecutions mentioned in
10:32-34 probably refer
to those of Nero and his predecessors. But this theory is burdened with the
objections; that it was
exactly at Rome that the canonicity of the letter was questioned for
centuries; that the congregation
at Rome was primarily Gentile-Christian (which Zahn denies, however); and
that the words of 12:
4 were hardly applicable to the Christians at Rome after the Neronian
persecution. To our mind
the first theory deserves the preference, unless we are prepared to admit
that the Epistle was written
to Gentile Christians.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. This letter was occasioned by the danger of
apostasy that threatened
the readers. For a time they had professed Christianity, 5:12, and for the
sake of it had endured
persecution, and had even joyfully borne the spoiling of their goods, 10:
32-34. But they were
disappointed, so it seems, in two respects. In the first place in their
expectation of the speedy return
of Christ to trimph over his enemies and to transform the affliction of his
followers into everlasting
bliss. Christ remained hidden from their view and their sufferings
continued, yea even increased
in severity. In the encircling gloom they had no visible support for their
faith. And in the second
place they were disappointed in the attitude their own people took to the
new religion. For a time
they had combined their Christian services with the worship of their
fathers, but it became ever
increasingly evident that the Jews as a people would not accept Christ.
Their brethren according
to the flesh persisted in their opposition and waxed ever more intolerant of
the followers of Jesus.
The time was fast approaching, when these would have to break with the
ministrations of the temple
and look elsewhere for the support of their faith. Hence they had become
feeble, 12:12, had ceased
to make progress, 5:12, were inclined to unbelief, 3:12, and in danger of
falling away, 6:4-6.
Returning to Jewry, they might escape the persecution to which they were
subjected, and enjoy
their former privileges.
The writer desires to warn them against the danger to which they were
exposed, and to exhort
them to remain loyal to their Christian standard. In order to do this he
points out by way of contrast
the true nature and intrinsic worth of the Christian religion. The Old
Testament service of God
contained but the shadows of the New Testament realities. Christ is higher
than the angels, ch. 1,
is greater than Moses, ch. 3, is our only true High Priest, who through
suffering opened up the way
to heaven and gives us free unrestricted access to God, chs. 5—10. He was
perfected through
sufferings, that He might sympathize with his followers in their trials and
afflictions, 2:10, 17, 18;
4:15, and might lead them through suffering to glory. If He is now invisible
to the eye, it is only
because He has entered the sanctuary, where He continually ministers to the
spiritual needs of his
followers, and insures them free access to the throne of God, 4:16; 6:18-20;
9:24; 10:18-22. He
may seem distant, yet He is near, and they who believe can enjoy his
presence and strength through
faith. That is their true support in time of need, ch. 11, 12:1, 2. And
though He tarry for a while,
150
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
He will surely come in due time to lead his children to glory. They should
willingly go forth without
the camp, bearing his reproach, since they enjoy far greater privileges than
the Old Testament saints
and will at last enter their eternal inheritance.
2. Time and Place. It is not easy to determine the date of this letter,
since it contains no definite
notes of time. The majority of scholars agree in placing it before the
destruction of Jerusalem. Thus
Moll, Kurtz, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Davidson, Weiss, Godet, Westcott, Salmon,
Bruce, Barth, Dods.
Others, however, as Baur, Kluge, Zahn, Meijboom, Volkmar and Hausrath bring
it down to a later
date. To our mind the evidence favors a date before the destruction of the
temple, for (1) Though
it is true that the author does not speak of the temple but of the
tabernacle, the danger to which the
Hebrew Christians were exposed seems to imply that the temple services were
still carried on. (2)
If the Jewish ritual had already ceased, it is strange that the writer does
not refer to this, when he
describes the transitory character of the old dispensation. And (3) the
present tense used by the
writer in the description of the Jewish services, 8:4 f.; 9:6, 9 (cf. Gk.);
10:1 ff.; 13:10 creates the
presumption that the ministry of the temple was still continued. It is true
that parallels to such
presents use of past events can be pointed out in Clement of Rome. But as a
rule the use of the
present implies the existence of the subject spoken of, at the time of the
speaker; and the question
of 10:2, “Else would they not have ceased to be offered ?” is certainly
difficult to interpret on any
other view. It is not possible to say, how long before the destruction of
Jerusalem the Epistle was
written, but from the solemn tone of the writer, and from the fact that,
according to him, the readers
saw the day of the Lord approaching, 10:25, we infer that it was but shortly
before that great
catastrophe. Cf. also 12:26, 27. We shall not go far wrong, if we date the
Epistle about the year 69.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The letter was not regarded as canonical in the Western church until the
fourth century; in the
Eastern church, however, the recognition of its apostolicity and canonicity
went hand in hand.
Clement of Alexandria often quotes the letter as canonical, and Origen does
sometimes, though he
felt uncertain as to its Pauline authorship. The Epistle is found in the
Peshito, but it is uncertain,
whether it also had a place in the earliest Syriac translation. From the
fourth century the Western
church also admitted its canonical authority. The intrinsic value of the
letter naturally commended
it as authoritative and as a part of the Word of God. Augustine and Jerome
regarded it as canonical,
though they still had scruples about the authorship of Paul; and it was.
included in the Lists authorized
by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and of Carthage in 397 and 419. From that
time the Church did
not again question the canonical authority of the Epistle until the time of
the Reformation, when
some Lutheran theologians had serious doubts.
The permanent value of this Epistle lies especially in two facts, which may
be said to imply a
third. In the first place it brings out, as no other New Testament book
does, the essential unity of
both the Old and the New Testament religions. They are both from God; they
both center in Christ;
they both pertain to the same spiritual verities; and they both aim at
bringing man to God. In the
second place the Epistle emphasizes the difference between the two
dispensations, the one containing
the shadows, the other the corresponding realities; the services of the one
being earthly and therefore
carnal and temporal, those of the other being heavenly and therefore
spiritual and abiding; the
ministry of the one effecting only ceremonial purity and union with God,
that of the other issuing
in the purification of the soul and in spiritual communion with God in
heaven. And because the
151
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
letter so presents the relation of the Old Covenant to the New, it is an
inspired commentary on the
entire Mosaic ritual.
152
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The General Epistle of James
CONTENTS
There are no clearly defined parts in this Epistle; hence no classification
of its contents is
attempted. After the opening salutation the writer points out the
significance of temptation in the
life of his readers, exhorts them to ask in faith for the wisdom needed in
bearing them and warns
them not to refer their inward temptations to God, 1:1-18. Then he
admonishes them to receive the
Word in all humility and to carry it out in action, 19-27. He warns them
against that respect of
persons that reveals itself in favoring the rich at the expense of the poor,
reminding them of the
fact that he who violates the law in one point breaks the whole law; 2:1-13;
and asserts that it is
foolish to trust to a faith without works, since this is dead, 14-26. A
warning against rash teaching
and reproving follows, based on the difficulty of controlling the tongue,
which is yet of the very
greatest importance, 3:1-12. Wisdom from above is commended to the readers,
since the wisdom
of this world is full of bitter envy and works confusion and evil, while
heavenly wisdom is plenteous
in mercy and yields good fruits, 13-18. The author then reprimands the
readers for their
quarrelsomeness, which results from a selfishness and lust that infects even
one’s prayers and
renders them futile; and exhorts them to humble themselves before God,
4:1-12. He condemns
those who, in the pride of possession, forget their dependence on God, and
denounces the rich that
oppress and rob the poor, 4:13—5: 6; after which he urges the brethren to be
patient, knowing the
Lord is at hand, 7-11. Finally he warns his readers against false swearing,
gives special advice to
the sick, exhorts them all to pray for one another, reminding them of the
efficacy of prayer, and of
the blessedness of turning a sinner from his sinful way, 12-20.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. From a literary point of view the Epistle of James is quite different
from those of Paul. The
latter are real letters, which cannot be said of this Epistle. There is no
benediction at the beginning,
nor any salutation or greeting at the end. Moreover it contains very little
that points to definite
historical circumstances such as are known to us from other sources. Zahn
calls this Epistle, “eine
. . . in schriftliche Form gefasste Ansprache.” Einl. I p. 73. Barth speaks
of it as, “eine Sammlung
von Ansprachen des Jakobus an die Gemeinde zu Jerusalem,” which, he thinks
were taken down
by a hearer and sent to the Jewish Christians of the diaspora. Einl. p. 140.
And Deissmann says:
“The Epistle of James is from the beginning a little work of literature, a
pamphlet addressed to the
whole of Christendom, a veritable Epistle (as distinguished from a letter).
The whole of the contents
agrees therewith. There is none of the unique detail peculiar to the
situation, such as we have in
the letters of Paul, but simply general questions, most of them still
conceivable under the present
conditions of church life.” Light from the Ancient East p. 235.
2. The contents of the Epistle are not doctrinal but ethical. The writer
does not discuss any of
the great truths of redemption, but gives moral precepts for the life of his
readers. There is no
Christological teaching whatever, the name of Christ being mentioned but
twice, viz. 1: 1; 2: 1.
Beischlag correctly remarks that it is “so wesentlich noch Lehre Christi und
so wenig noch Lehre
von Christo.” The letter may be called, the Epistle of the Royal Law, 2:8.
The emphasis does not
153
rest on faith, but on the works of the law, which the writer views, not in
its ceremonial aspect, but
in its deep moral significance and as an organic whole, so that
transgressing a single precept is
equivalent to a violation of the whole law. The essential element of life
according to the law is a
love that reveals itself in grateful obedience to God and in self-denying
devotion to one’s neighbor.
3. Some scholars, as f. i. Spitta, claim that this Epistle is really not a
Christian but a Jewish
writing; but the contents clearly prove the contrary. Yet it must be
admitted that the Epistle has a
somewhat Jewish complexion. While the writer never once points to the
examplary life of Christ,
he does refer to the examples of Abraham, Rahab, Job and Elijah. In several
passages he reveals
his dependence on the Jewish Chokmah literature, on the Sermon on the Mount,
and on the words
of Jesus generally; compare 1: 2 with Matt. 5:12 ;—1 : 4 with Matt. 5 : 48
;—1 : 5 with Matt.
7:7;—1:6 with Mark 11:23;—1:22 with Matt. 7:24;—2:8 with Mark 12:31;—2:13
with Matt. 5:7;
18:33;—4:10 with Matt. 23:12; etc. Moreover the author does not borrow his
figurative language
from the social and civil institutions of the Greek and Roman world, as Paul
often does, but derives
it, like the Lord himself had done, from the native soil of Palestine, when
he speaks of the sea, 1:
6; 3:4; of the former and the latter rain, 5: 7; of the vine and the
fig-tree, 3:12; of the scorching
wind, 1:11; and of salt and bitter springs, 3:11, 12.
4. The Epistle is written in exceptionally good, though Hellenistic Greek.
The vocabulary of
the author is rich and varied, and perfectly adequate to the expression of
his lofty sentiments. His
sentences are not characterized by great variation; yet they have none of
the utter simplicity,
bordering on monotony, that marks the writings of John. The separate
thoughts are very clearly
expressed, but in certain instances there is some difficulty in tracing
their logical sequence. We
find some examples of Hebrew parallelism especially in the fourth chapter;
downright Hebraisms,
however are very few, cf. the adjectival genitive in 1: 25, and the
instrumental e. in 3:9.
AUTHORSHIP
According to external testimony James, the brother of the Lord, is the
author of this Epistle.
Origen is the first one to quote it by name, and it is only in Rufinus Latin
translation of his works
that the author is described as, “James, the brother of the Lord.” Eusebius
mentions James, the
brother of Christ, as the reputed author, remarking, however, that the
letter was considered spurious.
Jerome, acknowledging its authenticity, says: “James, called the Lord’s
brother, surnamed the Just,
wrote but one Epistle, which is among the seven catholic ones.
The author simply names himself, “James a servant of God and of the Lord
Jesus Christ,” 1:
1, thus leaving the question of his identity still a matter of conjecture,
since there were other persons
of that name in the apostolic Church. It is generally admitted, however,
that there is but one James
that meets the requirements, viz, the brother of the Lord, for: (1) The
writer was evidently a man
of great authority and recognized as such not only by the Jews in Palestine
but also by those of the
diaspora. There is only one James of whom this can be said. While James, the
brother of John, and
James the son of Alphaeus soon disappear from view in the Acts of the
Apostles, this James stands
out prominently as the head of the Jerusalem church. During the Lords public
ministry he did not
yet believe in Christ, John 7: 5. Probably his conversion was connected with
the special appearance
of the Lord to him after the resurrection, I Cor. 15: 7. In the Acts we soon
meet him as a man of
authority. When Peter had escaped out of prison, after James the brother of
John had been killed,
he says to the brethren: “Go, show these things to James,” Acts 12:17. Paul
says that he, on his
154
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
return from Arabia, went to Jerusalem and saw only Peter and James, the
Lords brother, Gal. 1:
18, 19. On the following visit James, Cephas and John, who seemed to be
pillars, gave Paul and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, Gal. 2: 9. Still later certain
emissaries came from James to
Antioch and apparently had considerable influence, Gal. 2:12. The leading
part in the council of
Jerusalem is taken by this James, Acts 15:13 if. And when, at the end of his
third missionary journey,
Paul comes to Jerusalem, he first greeted the brethren informally, and on
the following day “went
unto James, and all the elders were present,” Acts 21:18. (2) The authorship
of this James is also
favored by a comparison of the letter, Acts 15 : 23-29, yery likely written
under the inspiring
influence of James, together with his speech at the council of Jerusalem,
and certain parts of our
Epistle, which reveals striking similarities. The salutation .a..e.. Acts
15: 23, Jas. 1:1 occurs
elsewhere in the New Testament only in Acts 23:26. The words t. .a... ...µa
t. .p....... .f
. .µ.., 2:7, can only be paralleled in the New Testament in Acts 15:17. Both
the speech of James
and the Epistle are characterized by pointed allusions to the Old Testament.
The affectionate term
.de.f.., of frequent occurrence in the Epistle (cf. 1:2,9, 16, 19; 2:5, 15;
3:1; 4:11; 5:7,9, 10, 12,
19), is also found in Acts 15: 13, 23; compare especially Jas. 2: 5 and Acts
15:13. Besides these
there are other verbal coincidences, as .p.s..ptes.a., Jas. 1:27; Acts
15:14; t..e.. and d.at..e..,
Jas. 1:27, Acts 15:29; .p.s..ptes.a., Jas. 5 :19, 20; Acts 15 :19; ..ap.t..,
Jas. 1:16, 19; 2:5; Acts
15:25. (3) The words of the address are perfectly applicable to this
particular James. He does not
claim that he is an apostle, as do Paul and Peter in their Epistles. It
might be objected, however,
that if he was the brother of the Lord, he would have laid stress on that
relation to enhance his
authority. But does it not seem far more likely, in view of the fact that
Christ definitely pointed out
the comparative insignificance of this earthly relationship, Matt. 12:
46-50, that James would be
careful not to make it the basis of any special claim, and therefore simply
speaks of himself as a
servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ?
Now the question comes up, whether this James cannot be identified with
James, the son of
Alphaeus, one of the Lord’s apostles, Mt. 10:3; Mk. 3:18; Lk. 6:15; Acts
1:13. This identification
would imply that the so-called brethren of the Lord were in reality his
cousin’s, a theory that was
broached by Jerome about A. D. 383, and which, together with the view of
Epiphanius (that these
brethren were sons of Joseph by a former marriage) was urged especially in
the interest of the
perpetual virginity. But this theory is not borne out by the data of
Scripture, for: (1) The brethren
of the Lord are distinguished from his disciples in John 2:12, and from the
twelve after their calling
in Mt. 12:46ff. ;Mk 3:31 ff. ; Lk. 8:19 ff. ; and John 7:3. It is stated
that they did not belong to the
circle of his disciples, indirectly in Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3, and directly in
John 7:5. (2) Although it is
true that cousins are sometimes called brethren in Scripture, cf. Gen. 14
16; 29:12, 15, we need not
assume that this is the case also in the instance before us. Moreover it is
doubtful whether James
the son of Alphaeus was a cousin of Jesus. According to some this
relationship is clearly implied
in John 19: 25; but it is by no means certain that in that passage, “Mary
the wife of Clopas” stands
in apposition with, “his mother’s sister.” If we do accept that
interpretation, we must be ready to
believe that there were two sisters bearing the same name. It is more
plausible to think that John
speaks of four rather than of three women, especially in view of the fact
that the gospels speak of
at least five in connection with Jesus death and resurrection, cf. Mt. 27:
56; Mk. 16: 1; Lk. 24:10.
But even if we suppose that he speaks of but three, how are we going to
prove the identity of
Alphaeus and Clopas? And in case we could demonstrate this, how must we
account for the fact
155
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
that only two sons are named of Mary, the wife of Clopas, viz. James and
Joses, Mt. 27: 56; Mk.
15: 40; Lk. 24:10, comp. John 19: 25, while there are four brethren of the
Lord, Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:
3, viz. James, Joses, Judas and Simon? It has been argued that Judas is
indicated as a brother of
James the less in Lk. 6:16; Acts 1: 13, where we read of a ....da. ..a..?...
But it is contrary to
analogy to supply the word brother in such cases. (3) We repeatedly find the
brethren of the Lord
in the company of Mary, the mother of Jesus, just as we would expect to find
children with their
mother. Moreover in passages like Mt. 12:46; Mk. 3: 31, 32; and Lk. 8:19 it
is an exegetical mistake
to take the word mother in its literal sense, and then to put a different
interpretation on the word
brother. We conclude, therefore, that James, the brother of the Lord and the
author of this Epistle,
was not an apostle. There are two passages that seem to point in a different
direction, viz. Gal. 1:
19 and I Cor. 15:7; but in the former passage .. µ. may be adversative
rather than exceptive, as in
Lk. 4: 26, 27, cf. Thayer in loco; and the name apostle was not limited to
the twelve. The
considerations of Lange in favor of identifying the author with James, the
son of Alphaeus, are
rather subjective.
James seems to have been a man of good common sense, with a well balanced
judgment, who
piloted the little vessel of the Jerusalem church through the Judaeistic
breakers with a skillful hand,
gradually weaning her from ceremonial observances without giving offense and
recognizing the
greater freedom of the Gentile churches. He was highly respected by the
whole Church for his great
piety and whole-hearted devotion to the saints. The account of Hegesippus
with respect to his
paramount holiness and ascetic habits is in all probability greatly
overdrawn. Cf. Eusebius II 23.
The authorship of James has been called in question by many scholars during
the last century,
such as DeWette, Schleiermacher, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Harnack,
Spitta, Baljon e. a. The
main reasons for regarding the Epistle as spurious, are the following: (1)
The condition of the church
reflected in it reminds one of the church at Rome in the time of Hermas,
when the glowing love of
the first time had lost its fervency. (2) The Greek in which the Epistle is
written is far better than
one could reasonably expect of James, who always resided in Palestine.
(3) The writer does not mention the law of Moses, nor refer to any of its
precepts, but simply
urges the readers to keep the perfect law that requires love, charity,
peacefulness, etc., just as a
second century writer would do; while James believed in the permanent
validity of the Mosaic law,
at least for the Jews. (4) The Epistle bears traces of dependence on some of
the Epistles of Paul,
especially Romans and Galatians, on the Epistle to the Hebrews and on I
Peter; and clearly
contradicts the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith.
But these arguments need not shake our conviction as to the authorship of
James. The condition
implied in this letter may very well and, at least in part, is known to have
existed about the middle
of the first century. Jos. Ant. XX 8.8; 9.2 Cf. especially Salmon, Introd,
p. 501 f. With respect to
the second argument Mayor remarks that, accepting the view that Jesus and
his brethren usually
spoke Aramaeic, “we are not bound to suppose that, with towns like Sepphoris
and Tiberius in their
immediate vicinity, with Ptolomais, Scythopolis and Gadara at no great
distance, they remained
ignorant of Greek.” Hastings D. B. Art. James, the General Epistle of. The
idea that James was a
fanatic Judaeist and therefore could not but insist on keeping the Mosaic
law, is not borne out by
Scripture. He was a Jewish Christian and reveals himself as such f. i. in
Acts 15:14-29; 21:20-25
and in his Epistle, cf.2:5 if.; 3:2;4:7, 14. His insistence on the spirit of
the law, not at all Judaeistic,
is in perfect harmony with the teaching of the Lord. The literary dependence
to which reference
156
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
has been made may, in so far as any really exists, just as well be reversed,
and the contradiction
between James and Paul is only apparent. Cf. the larger Introductions and
the Commentaries.
DESTINATION
The Epistle is addressed to “the twelve tribes which are in the dispersion,”
1: 1. Who are
indicated by these words? The adverbial phrase, “in the dispersion” excludes
the idea that the writer
refers to all the Jewish Christians, including even those in Palestine
(Hofmann, Thiersch) ; and the
contents of the letter forbid us to think that he addresses Jews and Jewish
Christians jointly (Thiele,
Guericke, Weiss). There are, however, two interpretations that are
admissible. The expression may
designate the Jewish Christians that lived outside of Palestine (the great
majority of scholars); but
it may also be a description of all the believers in Jesus Christ that were
scattered among the
Gentiles, after the analogy of I Pet. 1: 1 and Gal. 6:16 (Koster,
Hilgenfeld, Hengstenberg, Von
Soden). Zahn is rather uncertain in his interpretation. He finds that the
twelve tribes mentioned
here form an antithesis to the twelve tribes that were in Palestine, and
refer either to Christianity
as a whole, or to the totality of Jewish Christians; and reminds us of the
fact that there was a time,
when the two were identical. Einl. I p. 55. We prefer to think of the Jewish
Christians of the diaspora
in Syria and neighboring lands, which were probably called “the twelve
tribes” as representing the
true Israel, because (1) the Epistle does not contain a single reference to
Gentile Christians; (2)
James was pre-eminently the leader of the Jewish Church; (3) the entire
complexion of the Epistle
points to Jewish readers.
The Epistle being of an encyclical character, naturally does not have
reference to the situation
of any particular local church, but to generally prevailing conditions at
that time. The Jewish
Christians to whom the Epistle is addressed were subject to persecutions and
temptations, and the
poor were oppressed by the rich that, possibly, did not belong to their
circle. They did not bear
these temptations with the necessary patience, but were swayed by doubt.
They even looked with
envy at the glitter of the world and favored the rich at the expense of the
poor. In daily life they
did not follow the guidance of their Christian principles, so that their
faith was barren. There may
have been dead works, but the fruits of righteousness were not apparent.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The occasion for writing this Epistle is found in
the condition of the
readers which we just described. James, the head of the Jerusalem church,
would naturally be
informed of this, probably in part by his own emissaries to the various
churches of the diaspora,
Acts 15:22; II Cor. 3:1; Gal. 2:12, and in part by those Jewish Christians
that came from different
lands to join in the great festivals at Jerusalem.
The object of the Epistle was ethical rather than didactic; it was to
comfort, to reprove and to
exhort. Since the readers were persecuted to the trial of their faith, and
were tempted in various
ways, the writer comes to them with words of consolation. Feeling that they
did not bear their trials
with patience, but were inclined to ascribe to God the temptations that
endangered them as a result
of their own lust and worldliness, he reproves them for the error of their
way. And with a view to
the blots on their Christian life, to their worldliness, their respect of
persons, their vainglory and
their envy and strife, he exhorts them to obey the royal law, that they may
be perfect men.
157
2. Time and Place. The place of composition was undoubtedly Jerusalem, where
James evidently
had his continual abode. It is not so easy to determine when the letter was
written. We have a
terminus ad quem in the death of James about the year 62, and a terminus a
quo in the persecution
that followed the death of Stephen about A. D. 35, and that was instrumental
in scattering the Jewish
church. Internal evidence favors the idea that it was written during this
period, for (1) There is no
reference in the Epistle to the destruction of Jerusalem either as past or
imminent; but the expectation
of the speedy second coming of Christ, that was characteristic of the first
generation of Christians,
was still prevalent, 5: 7-9. (2) The picture of the unbelieving rich
oppressing the poor Christians
and drawing them before tribunals, is in perfect harmony with the
description Josephus gives of
the time immediately after Christ, when the rich Sadducees tyrannized over
the poor to such a
degree that some starved. Ant. XX 8.8; 9.2. This condition terminated with
the destruction of
Jerusalem. (3) The indistinctness of the line of separation between the
converted and the unconverted
Jews also favors the supposition that the letter was composed during this
period, for until nearly
the end of that time these two classes freely intermingled both at the
temple worship and in the
synagogues. In course of time, however, and even before the destruction of
Jerusalem, this condition
was gradually changed.
But the question remains, whether we can give a nearer definition of the
time of composition.
In view of the fact that the Christian Jews addressed in this letter must
have had time to spread and
to settle in the dispersion so that they already had their own places of
worship, we cannot date the
Epistle in the very beginning of the period named. Neither does it seem
likely that it was written
after the year 50, when the council of Jerusalem was held, for (1) the
Epistle does not contain a
single allusion to the existence in the church of Gentile Christians; and
(2) it makes no reference
whatever to the great controversy respecting the observance of the Mosaic
law, on which the council
passed a decision. Hence we are inclined to date the Epistle between A. D.
45 and 50.
Some have objected to this early date that the Epistle is evidently
dependent on Romans,
Galatians, Hebrews and I Peter; but this objection is an unproved
assumption. It is also said that
the p.es?.te... mentioned in 5:14 imply a later date. We should remember,
however, that the
Church, especially among the Jews, first developed out of the synagogue, in
which presbyters were
a matter of course. Moreover some urge that the Christian knowledge assumed
in the readers, as
in 1: 3; 3:1, does not comport with such an early date. It appears to us
that this objection is puerile.
Of those who deny the authorship of James some would date the Epistle after
the destruction
of Jerusalem, Reuss, Von Soden, and Hilgenfeld in the time of Domitian
(81-96); Blom in A. D.
80; Bruckner and Baljon in the time of Hadrian (117-138).
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
There was considerable doubt as to the canonicity of this Epistle in the
early church. Some
allusions to it have been pointed out in Clement of Rome, Hermas and
Irenaeus, but they are very
uncertain indeed. We cannot point to a single quotation in Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria and
Tertullian, though some are inclined to believe on the strength of a
statement made by Eusebius,
Ch. Hist. VI 14 that Clement commented on this Epistle, just as he did on
the other general Epistles.
There are reasons, however, to doubt the correctness of this statement, cf.
Westcott, on the Canon
p. 357. The letter is omitted from the Muratorian Fragment, but is contained
in the Peshito. Eusebius
classes it with the Antilegomena, though he seems uncertain as to its
canonicity. Origen was
158
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
apparently the first to quote it as Scripture. Cyril of Jerusalem,
Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianze
recognized it, and it was finally ratified by the third council of Carthage
in A. D. 397. During the
Middle Ages the canonicity of the Epistle was not doubted, but Luther for
dogmatical reasons called
it “a right strawy Epistle.” Notwithstanding the doubts expressed in the
course of time, the Church
continued to honor it as a canonical writing ever since the end of the
fourth century.
The great permanent value of this Epistle is found in the stress it lays on
the necessity of having
a vital faith, that issues in fruits of righteousness. The profession of
Christ without a corresponding
Christian life is worthless and does not save man. Christians should look
into the perfect law, and
should regulate their lives in harmony with its deep spiritual meaning. They
should withstand
temptations, be patient under trials, dwell together in peace without
envying or strife, do justice,
exercise charity, remember each other in prayer, and in all their
difficulties be mindful of the fact
that the coming of the Lord is at hand.
159
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The First General Epistle of Peter
CONTENTS
The contents of the Epistle can be divided into four parts:
I. Introduction, 1:1-12. After the greeting, 1, 2, the apostle praises God
for the blessings of
salvation, which should raise the readers above all temporal sufferings,
since they are so great that
the prophets searched them, and the angels were desirous to understand their
mystery, 3-12.
II. General Exhortations to a worthy Christian Conversation, 1: 13—2:10. The
writer exhorts
the readers to become ever more firmly grounded in their Christian hope. To
that end the holiness
of God should be the standard of their life, 1:13-16; they must fear God,
and as regenerated persons,
love the brethren and seek to increase in spiritual life, 1:17—2:3. This
growth should not only be
individual, however, but also communal, a developing into a spiritual unity,
4-10.
III. Particular Directions for the special Relations of Life, 2:11—4: 6. The
author urges the
readers to be dutiful to the authorities, 2: 11-17; more particularly he
exhorts the servants among
them to follow the example of Christ in self-denying service, 18-25; the
wives to submit themselves
to their husbands, and the husbands to love their wives and to treat then
with consideration, 3:1-7.
Then he admonishes them all to do good and to refrain from evil, that in
their sufferings they may
be like their Master, whom they should also follow in their Christian
conversation, 3: 8—4: 6.
IV. Closing Instructions for the present Needs of the Readers, 4: 7—5:14.
The apostle exhorts
the readers to prayer, brotherly love, hospitality, and conscientiousness in
the exercise of their
official duties, 4: 7-11. He warns them not to be discouraged by
persecutions, but to regard these
as necessary to the imitation of Christ, 12-19. Further he exhorts the
elders to rule the flock of
Christ wisely, the younger ones to submit to the elder; and all to humble
themselves and to place
their trust in God, 5:1-9; and ends the letter with good wishes and a
salutation, 10-14.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. Though there are some doctrinal statements in the Epistle, its chief
interest is not theoretical
but practical, not doctrinal but ethical. It has been said that, while Paul
represents faith and John
love, Peter is the apostle of hope. This distinction, which may easily be
misconstrued, nevertheless
contains an element of truth. The basic idea of the Epistle is that the
readers are begotten again
unto a lively hope, the hope of an incorruptable, undefiled and unfading
inheritance. This glorious
expectation must be an incentive for them to strive after holiness in all
the relations of life, and to
bear patiently the reproach of Christ, mindful of the fact that He is their
great prototype, and that
suffering is the pre-requisite of everlasting glory.
2. The Epistle has a characteristic impress of Old Testament modes of
thought and expression.
Not only does it, comparatively speaking, contain more quotations from and
references to the Old
Testament than any other New Testament writing, cf. 1: 16, 24, 25; 2: 3, 4,
6, 7, 9, 10, 22-24;
3:10-12, 13, 14; 4:8, 17, 18; 5:5, 7; but the entire complexion of the
letter shows that the author
lived and moved in Old Testament conceptions to such an extent, that he
preferably expresses his
thoughts in Old Testament language.
160
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
3. On the other hand, there is great similarity between this Epistle and
some of the New
Testament writings, notably the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and to the
Ephesians, and the Epistle
of James. And this likeness is of such a character as to suggest dependence
of the one on the other.
Nearly all the thoughts of Rom. 12 and 13 are also found in this letter;
compare 2: 5 with Rom. 12:
1 ;—1:14 with Rom. 12:2 ;—4:10 with Rom. 12: 3-8 ;—1 :22 with Rom. 12: 9
;—2:17 with Rom.
12:10, etc. The relationship between it and the Epistle to the Ephesians is
evident not only from
single passages, but also from the structure of the letter. There is a
certain similarity in the general
and special exhortations, which is probably due to the fact that both
Epistles are of a general
character. Compare also the passages 1:3 and Eph. 1:3;—1:5 and Eph.
1:19;—1:14 and Eph.
2:3;—1:18 and Eph. 4:17;—2: 4, 5 and Eph. 2: 20-22. There are also points of
resemblance between
this Epistle and that of James, and though not so numerous, yet they
indicate a relation of
dependence; compare 1: 6, 7 with Jas. 1:2, 3;—2:1 with Jas. 1:21;—5:5-9 with
Jas. 4:6, 7, 10.
4. The Greek in which this letter is written is some of the best that is
found in the New Testament.
Though the language is simple and direct, it is not devoid of artistic
quality. Simcox, comparing it
with the language of James, says: “St. Peters language is stronger where St.
James is weak, and
weaker where he is strong—it is more varied, more classical, but less
eloquent and of less literary
power.” The Writers of the New Testament p. 66. The authors vocabulary is
very full and rich, and
his sentences flow on with great regularity, sometimes rising to grandeur.
It is noticeable, however,
that the writer, though having a good knowledge of Greek in general, was
particularly saturated
with the language of the Septuagint.
AUTHORSHIP
The external authentication of this Epistle is very strong. Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian all quote it by name and without expressing
the slightest doubt as
to its canonicity. And Eusebius says: “One Epistle of Peter called his first
is universally received.”
Salmon suggests that, in view of what Westcott says, its omission from the
Muratorian Canon may
be due to the error of a scribe, who left out a sentence. Cf. Westcott, The
canon of the N. T., Appendix
C.
Aside from the fact that the letter is self-attested there is very little
internal evidence that can
help us to determine who the author was. There is nothing that points
definitely to Peter, which is
in part due to the fact that we have no generally recognized standard of
comparison. The speeches
in Acts may not have been recorded literally by Luke; and II Peter is one of
the most doubted
Epistles of the New Testament, partly because it is so dissimilar to our
letter. If we leave the first
verse out of consideration, we can only say on the strength of internal
evidence that the writer was
evidently an eyewitness of the sufferings of Christ, 3:1; that the central
contents of his teaching is,
like that of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles, the death and the
resurrection of Christ; and that his
attitude toward the Christians of the Gentiles is in perfect harmony with
that of the apostle of the
circumcision. Moreover the persons mentioned in 5:12, 13 are known to have
been acquaintances
of Peter, cf. Acts 12:12; 15:22.
The apostle Peter, originally called Simon, was a native of Bethsaida, John
1: 42, 44. When the
Lord entered on his public ministry, Peter was married and dwelt at
Capernaum, Lk. 4:31, 38. He
was the son of Jonas, Mt. 16:17 and was, with his father and his brother, by
occupation a fisherman,
Mk. 1: 16. We find him among the first that were called to follow the Lord,
Mt. 4:18, 19, and he
soon received a certain prominence among the disciples of Jesus. This was in
harmony with the
161
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
new name, Pe,troj, which the Lord gave him, John 1: 42. With John and James
he formed the inner
circle of the disciples; together they were the most intimate followers of
the Saviour and as such
enjoyed special privileges. They only entered with the Lord into the house
of Jairus, Lk. 8: 51;
none but they witnessed his glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, Mt. 17:
1; and they alone beheld
him in his hour of great grief in the garden of Gethsemane, Mt. 26: 37. The
trial of Jesus was also
the hour of Peters deepest fall, for on that occasion he thrice denied his
Master, Mt. 26:69-75. He
truly repented of his deed, however, and was restored to his former position
by the Lord, John
21:15-17. After the ascension he is found at the head of the disciples at
Jerusalem, guiding them
in the choice of an apostle in the place of Judas, Acts 1: 15-26, and
preaching the Pentecostal
sermon, Acts 2:14-36. Laboring at first in connection with John, he healed
the lame man, repeatedly
addressed the people in the temple, executed judgment on Ananias and
Sapphira, and once and
again defended the cause of Christ before the Sanhedrin, Acts 3-5. During
the time of persecution
that followed the death of Stephen, they together went to Samaria to
establish the work of Philip,
Acts 8:14 ff. In Lydda he healed Aeneas, Acts 9:22 f. and raised up Tabitha
in Joppa, Acts 9: 36
f. By means of a vision he was taught that the Gentiles too were to be
admitted to the Church, and
was prepared to go and preach Christ to the household of Cornelius, Acts
10:1-48. After James,
the brother of John was killed, Peter was cast in prison, but, being
delivered by an angel, he left
Jerusalem, Acts 12:1-17. Later he returned thither and was present at the
council of Jerusalem, Acts
15. Nothing certain is known of his movements after this time. From I Cor.
9: 5 we infer that he
labored at various places. On one occasion Paul rebuked him for his
dissimulation, Gal. 2: 11 ff.
>From all the traditions regarding his later life we can gather only one
piece of reliable information,
to the effect that towards the end of his life he came to Rome, where he
labored for the propagation
of the Gospel and suffered martyrdom under Nero.
Peter was a man of action rather than of deep thought. He was always eager
and impulsive, but,
as is often the case with such persons, was wanting in the necessary
stability of character. Burning
with love towards the Saviour, he was always ready to defend his cause, Mt.
17:24, 25; 16:22; Lk.
22: 33; John 18:10, and to confess his name, John 6: 68 f.; Mt. 16:16. But
his action was often
characterized by undue haste, as f. i. when he rebuked Christ, Mt. 16:22,
smote the servant of the
high priest, John 18:10, and refused to let the Saviour wash his feet, John
13:6; and by too much
reliance on his own strength, as when he went out upon the sea, Mt.
14:28-31, and declared himself
ready to die with the Lord, Mt. 26: 35. It was this rashness and great
self-confidence that led to his
fall. By that painful experience Peter had to be taught his own weakness
before he could really
develop into the Rock among the apostles. After his restoration we see him
as a firm confessor,
ready, if need be, to lay down his life for the Saviour.
Until the previous century the Epistle was generally regarded as the work of
Peter, and even
now the great majority of New Testament scholars have reached no other
conclusion. Still there
are several, especially since the time of Baur, that deny its authenticity,
as Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer,
Weizsacker, Hausrath, Keim, Schurer, Von Soden e. a. The most important
objections urged against
the traditional view, are the following: (1) The Epistle is clearly
dependent on Pauline letters, while
it contains very few traces of the Lords teaching. This is not what one
would expect of Peter, who
had been so intimate with the Lord and had taken a different stand than
Paul, Gal. 2: 11ff. Harnack
regards this argument as decisive, for he says: “Were it not for the
dependence (of I Peter) on the
Pauline Epistles, I might perhaps allow myself to maintain its genuineness;
that dependence,
however, is not accidental, but is of the essence of the Epistle.” Quoted by
Chase, Hastings D. B.
162
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Art. I Peter. (2) It is written in far better Greek than one can reasonably
expect of a Galilean
fisherman like Peter, of whom we know that on his missionary journeys he
needed Mark as an
interpreter. Davidson regards it as probable that he never was able to write
Greek. (3) The Epistle
reflects conditions that did not exist in the lifetime of Peter. The
Christians of Asia Minor were
evidently persecuted, simply because they were Christians, persecuted for
the Name, and this, it is
said, did not take place until the time of Trajan, A. D. 98-117. (4) It is
very unlikely that Peter
would write a letter to churches founded by Paul, while the latter was still
living.
As to the first argument, we need not deny with Weiss and his pupil Kuhl
that Peter is dependent
on some of the writings of Paul, especially on Romans and Ephesians. In all
probability he read
both of these Epistles, or if he did not see Ephesians, Paul may have spoken
to him a good deal
about its contents. And being the receptive character that he was, it was
but natural that he should
incorporate some of Paul’s thoughts in his Epistle. There was no such
antagonism between him
and Paul as to make him averse to the teachings of his fellow-apostle. The
idea of an evident hostility
between the two is exploded, and the theory of Baur that this letter is a
Unionsschrift, is destitute
of all historical basis and is burdened with a great many, improbabilities.
Moreover it need not
cause surprise that the teaching of this Epistle resembles the teaching of
Paul more than it does that
of Christ, because the emphasis had shifted with the resurrection of the
Lord, which now, in
connection with his death, became the central element in the teaching of the
apostles. Compare the
sermons of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles.
With respect to the objection that Peter could not write. such Greek as we
find in this Epistle,
we refer to what Mayor says regarding James, cf. p. 286 above. The fact that
Mark is said to have
been the interpreter of Peter does not imply that the latter did not know
Greek, cf. p. 80 above. It
is also possible, however, that the Greek of this Epistle is not that of the
apostle. Zahn argues with
great plausibility from 5 :12, Dia. Silouanou/, that Silvanus took an active
part in the composition
of the letter, and in all probability wrote it under the immediate direction
rather than at the verbal
dictation of Peter, Einl. II p. 10 f. Cf. also Brown on I Peter in loco,,
and J. H. A. Hart, Exp. Gk.
Test. IV p. 13 f. Against this, however, cf. Chase, Hastings D. B. Art. I
Peter. It is possible that
Silvanus was both the amanuensis of Peter and the bearer of the Epistle.
The third argument is open to two objections. On the one hand it rests on a
faulty interpretation
of the passages that speak of the sufferings endured by the Christians of
Asia Minor, as 1:6; 3:
9-17; 4:4 f., and especially 4:12-19; 5: 8-12. And on the other hand it is
based on a misunderstanding
of the correspondence between Pliny and Trajan A. D. 112. The passages
referred to do not imply
and do not even favor the idea that the Christians were persecuted by the
state, though they do point
to an ever increasing severity of their sufferings. There is no hint of
judicial trials, of the confiscation
of property, of imprisonments or of bloody deaths. The import of the Epistle
is that the readers
were placed under the necessity of bearing the reproach of Christ in a
different form. As Christians
they were subject to ridicule, to slander, to ill treatment, and to social
ostracism; they were the
outcasts of the world, 4:14. And this, of course, brought with it manifold
temptations, 1: 6. At the
same time the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan does not imply that Rome
did not persecute
Christians as such until about A. D. 112. Ramsay says that this state of
affairs may have arisen as
early as the year 80; and Mommsen, the greatest authority on Roman history,
is of the opinion that
it may have existed as early as the time of Nero.
The last objection is of a rather subjective character. Peter was
undoubtedly greatly interested
in the work among the Christians of Asia Minor; and it is possible that he
himself had labored there
163
for some time among the Jews and thus became acquainted with the churches of
that region. And
does it not seem likely that he, being informed of their present sufferings,
and knowing of the
antagonism of the Jews, who had occasionally used his name to undermine the
authority and to
subvert the doctrine of Paul, would consider it expedient to send them a
letter of exhortation, urging
them to abide in the truth in which they stood, and thus indirectly
strengthening their confidence
in his fellow-apostle?
DESTINATION
The letter is addressed to “the elect who are sojourners of the dispersion
in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,” 1:1. The use of the strictly Jewish term
diaspora, is apt to create
the impression that the letter was sent to Jewish Christians. Origen said,
presumably on the strength
of this suPerscription, that Peter seems to have preached to the Jews in the
dispersion. And Eusebius
felt sure that this letter was sent to Hebrews or to Jewish Christians. The
great majority of the
church fathers agreed with them. Among recent scholars Weiss and Kuhl defend
the position that
the letter was addressed to Jewish congregations founded in Asia Minor by
Peter. But the idea that
the original readers of this Epistle were Christians of Jewish extraction is
not favored by internal
evidence. Notice especially (1) the passages that point to the past moral
condition of the readers,
as 1:14 (comp. Gal. 4: 8; Eph. 4:18); 1:18 (comp. Eph. 1:17); 4:2-4 (comp. I
Thess. 4: 5; Eph. 2:
11); and (2) the emphatic use of “you” as distinguished from the “us” found
in the context, to mark
the readers as persons that were destined to receive the blessings of the
gospel and to whom these
at last came. Moreover this is in perfect agreement with what we know of the
churches of Asia
Minor; they certainly consisted primarily of Gentile Christians. But the
question is naturally asked,
whether this view is not contradicted by the address. And to that question
we answer that it certainly
is, if the word d.asp.... must be taken literally; but this will also bear,
and, in harmony with the
contents of the Epistle, is now generally given a figurative interpretation.
The word d.asp.... is
a Genitivus appostitivus (for which cf. Blass, Grammatik p. 101) with
pa.ep.d.µ...) Taken by
itself the address is a figurative description of all believers, whether
they be Jewish or Gentile
Christians, as sojourners on earth, who have here no abiding dwellingplace,
but look for a heavenly
city; and who constitute a dispersion, because they are separated from that
eternal home of which
the earthly Jerusalem was but a symbol. In agreement with this the apostle
elsewhere addresses the
readers as “pilgrims and strangers,” 2:11, and exhorts them “to pass the
time of their sojourning
here in fear,” 1: 17. Cf. the Comm. of Huther, Brown, and Hart (Exp. Gk.
Test.), and the Introductions
of Zahn, Holtzmann, Davidson and Barth. Salmon admits the possibility of
this interpretation, but
is yet inclined to take the word diaspora/j literally, and to believe that
Peter wrote his letter to
members of the Roman church that were scattered through Asia Minor as a
result of Neros
persecution. Introd. p. 485.
As to the condition of the readers, the one outstanding fact is that they
were subject to hardships
and persecutions because of their allegiance to Christ, 1: 17; 2:12-19.
There is no sufficient evidence
that they were persecuted by the state; they suffered at the hands of their
associates in daily life.
The Gentiles round about them spoke evil of them, because they did not take
part in their revelry
and idolatry, 4: 2-4. This constituted the trial of their faith, and it
seems that some were in danger
of becoming identified with the heathen way of living, 2: 11, 12, 16. They
were in need of
encouragement and of a firm hand to guide their feeble steps.
164
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
COMPOSITION
1.Occasion and Purpose. In a general way we can say that the condition just
described led Peter
to write this Epistle. He may have received information regarding the state
of affairs from Mark or
Silvanus, who is undoubtedly to be indentified with Paul’s companion of that
name, and was
therefore well acquainted with the churches of Asia Minor. Probably the
direct occasion for Peter’s
writing must be found in a prospective journey of Silvanus to those
churches.
The writers purpose was not doctrinal but practical. He did not intend to
give an exposition of
the truth, but to emphasize its bearings on life, especially in the
condition in which the Christians
of Asia Minor were placed. The Tubingen critics are mistaken, however, when
they hold that the
unknown writer, impersonating Peter, desired to make it appear as if there
was really no conflict
between the apostle of the circumcision and the apostle of the Gentiles, and
to unite the discordant
factions in the Church; for (1) such antagonistic parties did not exist in
the second century, and (2)
the Epistle does not reveal a single trace of such a tendency. The writer
incidentally and in a general
way states his aim, when he says in 5:12, “By Silvanus I have written
briefly, exhorting and testifying
that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.” The main purpose of
the author was evidently
to exhort the readers to suffer, not as evil-doers, but as well-doers, to
see to it that they should suffer
for the sake of Christ only; to suffer patiently, remaining steadfast in
spite of all temptations; and
to bear their sufferings with a joyful hope, since they would issue in a
glory that never fades away.
And because these sufferings might lead them to doubt and discouragement,
the writer makes it a
point to testify that the grace in which they stand, and with which the
sufferings of this present time
are inseparably connected, is yet the true grace of God, thus confirming the
work of Paul.
2.Time and Place. There are especially three theories regarding the place of
composition, viz.
(1) that the Epistle was sent from Babylon on the Euphrates; (2) that it was
composed at Rome;
and (3) that it was written from Babylon near Cairo in Egypt. The last
hypothesis found no support
and need not be considered. The answer to the question respecting the place
of composition depends
on the interpretation of 5:13, where we read: “She (the church) that is in
Babylon, elect together
with you, saluteth you.” The prima facie impression made by these words is
that the writer was at
ancient Babylon, the well known city on the Euphrates. Many of the early
church fathers, however,
(Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Jerome) and several
later commentators
and writers on Introduction (Bigg, Hart, Salmon, Holtzmann, Zahn, Chase)
regard the name Babylon
as a figurative designation of Rome, just as it is in the Apocalypse, 17: 5;
18: 2, 10. In favor of the
literal interpretation it is argued, (1) that it’s figurative use is very
unlikely in a matter-of-fact
statement; and (2) that in 1: 1 the order in which the provinces of Asia
Minor are named is from
the East to the West, thus indicating the location of the writer. Aside from
the fact, however, that
the last argument needs some qualification, these considerations seem to be
more than off-set by
the following facts: (1) An old and reliable tradition, that can be traced
to the second century,
informs us that Peter was at Rome towards the end of his life, and finally
died there as a martyr.
This must be distinguished from that fourth century tradition to the effect
that he resided at Rome
for a period of twenty-five years as its first bishop. On the other hand
there is not the slightest record
of his having been at Babylon. Not until the Middle Ages was it inferred
from 5:13 that he had
visited the city on the Euphrates. (2) In the Revelation of John Rome is
called Babylon, a terminology
that was likely to come into general use, as soon as Rome showed herself the
true counterpart of
ancient Babylon, the representative of the world as over against the Church
of God. The Neronian
165
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
persecution certainly began to reveal her character as such. (3) The
symbolical sense is in perfect
harmony with the figurative interpretation of the address, and with the
designation of the readers
as “pilgrims and strangers in the earth.” (4) In view of what Josephus says
in Ant. XVIII 9. it is
doubtful, whether Babylon would offer the apostle a field for missionary
labors at the time, when
this Epistle was composed. We regard it as very likely that the writer
refers to Rome in 5:13.
With respect to the time when this Epistle was written, the greatest
uncertainty prevails. Dates
have been suggested all the way from 54 to 147 A. D. Of those who deny the
authorship of Peter
the great majority refer the letter to the time of Trajan after A. D. 112,
the date of Trajan’s rescript,
for reasons which we already discussed. Thus Baur, Keim, Lipsius,
Pfleiderer, Hausrath, Weizsacker,
Hilgenfeld, Davidson e. a. In determining the time of writing we must be
guided by the following
data: (1) The Epistle cannot have been written later than A. D. 67 or 68,
the traditional date of
Peter’s death, which some, however place in the year 64. Cf. Zahn Einl. II
p. 19. (2) Peter had
evidently read the Epistles of Paul to the Romans (58) and that to the
Ephesians (62), and therefore
cannot have written his letter before A. D. 62. (3) The letter makes no
mention whatever of Paul,
so that presumably it was written at a time when this apostle was not at
Rome. (4) The fact that
Peter writes to Pauline churches favors the idea that Paul had temporarily
withdrawn from his field
of labor. We are inclined to think that he composed the Epistle, when Paul
was on his jojurney to
Spain, about A. D. 64 or 65.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonicity of the letter has never been subject to doubt in the opening
centuries of our era.
It is referred to in II Peter 3:1. Papias evidently used it and there are
clear traces of its language in
Clement of Rome, Hermas and Polycarp. The old Latin and Syriac Versions
contain it, while it is
quoted in the Epistle of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, Irenaeus, Clement
of Alexandria and
Tertullian all quote it by name, and Eusebius classes it with the
Homologoumena.
Some scholars objected to this Epistle that it was characterized by a want
of distinctive character.
But the objection is not well founded, since the letter certainly has a
unique significance among
the writings of the New Testament. It emphasizes the great importance which
the hope of a blessed
and eternal inheritance has in the life of God’s children. Viewed in the
light of their future glory,
the present life of believers, with all its trials and sufferings, recedes
into the background, and they
realize that they are strangers and pilgrims in the earth. From that point
of view they understand
the significance of the sufferings of Christ as opening up the way to God,
and they also learn to
value their own hardships as these minister to the development of faith and
to their everlasting
glory. And then, living in expectation of the speedy return of their Lord,
they realize that their
sufferings are of short duration, and therefore bear them joyfully. In the
midst of all her struggles
the Church of God should never forget to look forward to her future
glory,—the object of her living
hope.
166
The Second General Epistle of Peter
CONTENTS
The contents of the Epistle can be divided into two parts:
I. The Importance of Christian Knowledge, 1:1-21. After the greeting, 1, 2,
the author reminds
the readers of the great blessings they received through the knowledge of
Jesus Christ, and urges
them to live worthy of that knowledge and thus to make sure their calling
and election, 3-11. He
says that he deemed it expedient to put them in mind of what they knew, and
that he would see to
it that they had a remembrance of these things after his decease, 12-15.
This knowledge is of the
greatest value, because it rests on a sure foundation, 16-21.
II. Warning against False Teachers, 2:1—3:18. The apostle announces the
coming of false
prophets, who shall deny the truth and mislead many, 2:1-3. Then he proves
the certainty of their
punishment by means of historical examples, 4-9, and gives a minute
description of their sensual
character, 10-22. Stating that he wrote the letter to remind them of the
knowledge they had received,
he informs them that the scoffers that will come in the last days, will deny
the advent of Christ,
3:1-4. He refutes their arguments, assuring the readers that the Lord will
come, and exhorting them
to a holy conversation, 5-13. Referring to his agreement with Paul in this
teaching, he ends his
letter with an exhortation to grow in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus
Christ, 14-18.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. Like the first Epistle this second one is also a letter of practical
warning, exhortation and
encouragement. But while in the former the dominant note is that of
Christian hope, the controlling
idea in the latter is that of Christian knowledge. It is the .p....s..
.p.st..´ which consists essentially
in the acknowledgment of the d..aµ.. ... pa...s.a of Christ. Advancement in
this .p....s..´ as
the ground and aim of the exercise of all Christian virtues, is the
prominent feature of every
exhortation.” Huther, Comm. p. 344. This knowledge, resting on a sure
foundation, must be the
mainstay of the readers, when false doctrines are propagated in their midst,
and must be their
incentive to holiness in spite of the seducing influences round about them.
2. This Epistle has great affinity with that of Jude, cf. 2:1-18;3:1-3. The
similarity is of such a
character that it cannot be regarded as accidental, but clearly points to
dependence of the one on
the other. Though it cannot be said that the question is absolutely settled,
the great majority of
scholars, among whom there are some who deny the authorship of Peter
(Holtzmann, Julicher,
Chase, Strachan, Barth e. a.), and others who defend the authenticity of the
Epistle (Wiesinger,
Bruckner, Weiss, Alford, Salmon), maintain the priority of Jude. The main
reasons that lead them
to this conclusion, are the following: (1) The phraseology of Jude is
simpler than that of Peter in
the related passages. The language of the latter is more laborious and looks
like an elaboration of
what the former wrote. (2) Several passages in Peter can be fully understood
on1y in the light of
what Jude says, compare 2: 4 with Jude 6; 2:11with Jude 9; 3:2 with fade 17.
(3) Though the similar
passages are adapted to the subject-matter of both Epistles, they seem more
natural in the context
of Jude than in Peter; The course of thought is more regular in the Epistle
of Jude.—The priority
167
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
of Jude is quite well established, though especially Zahn, Spitta (who
defends the second Epistle
of Peter at the cost of the first) and Bigg put up an able defense for the
priority of Peter.
3. The language of II Peter has some resemblance to that of the first
Epistle cf Weiss, Introd.~~p.
166, but the difference between the two is greater than the similarity. We
need not call special
attention to the a[pax lego,mena found in this letter, since it contains but
48, while I Peter has 58.
But there are other points that deserve our attention. Bigg says: “The
vocabulary of I Peter is
dignified; that of II Peter inclines to the grandiose.” Comm. p. 225. And
according to Simcox, “we
see in this Epistle, as compared with the first, at once less instinctive
familiarity with Greek idiom
and more conscious effort at elegant Greek composition.” Writers of the N.
T. p. 69.
There are 361 words in I Peter that are not found in this Epistle, and 231
in II Peter that are
absent from the first letter. There is a certain fondness for the repetition
of words, cf. Holtzmann,
Einl. p. 322, which Bigg, however, finds equally noticeable in I Peter. The
connecting particles,
..a, .t., ..., µ.., found frequently in I Peter, are rare in this Epistle,
where instead we find sentences
introduced with t..t. or ta.ta.f` 1:8, 10; 3:11, 14. And while in the first
Epistle there is a free
interchange of prepositions, we often find a repetition of the same
preposition in the second, f` .
d.a, is found three times in 1 :3-5 and .. seven times in 1: 5-7. Different
words are often used to
express the same ideas; compare .p..a....., I Pt. 1 :7, 13; 4:13 with
pa...s.a, II Pt. 1 :16; 3
:4;—.a.t.sµ.., I Pt. 1 :2 with .a.a..sµ.., II Pt. 1 :9 ;—.......µ.a, I Pt. 1
:4 with a......
?as..e.a, II Pt. 1:11.
AUTHORSHIP
This Epistle is the most weakly attested of all the New Testament writings.
Besides that of
Jerome we do not find a single statement in the fathers of the first four
centuries explicitly and
positively ascribing this work to Peter. Yet there are some evidences of its
canonical use, which
indirectly testify to a belief in its genuineness. There are some phrases in
Clement of Rome, Hermas,
the Clementine Recognitions and Theophilus that recall II Peter, but the
coincidences may be
accidental. Supposed traces of this Epistle are found in Irenaeus, though
they may all be accounted
for in another way, cf. Salmon, Introd. p. 324 f. Eusebius and Photius say
that Clement of Alexandria
commented on our Epistle, and their contention may be correct,
notwithstanding the doubt cast on
it by Cassiodorus, cf. Davidson, Introd. II p. 533 f. Origen attests that
the book was known in his
time, but that its genuineness was disputed. He himself quotes it several
times without any expression
of doubt. It is pointed out, however, that these quotations are found in
those parts of his work that
we know only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, which is not always
reliable; though, according
to Salmon, the presumption is that Rufifius did not invent them, Introd. p.
533 f. Eusebius classes
this letter with the Antilegomena and Jerome says: “Simon Peter wrote two
Epistles, which are
called catholic; the second of which most persons deny to be his, on account
of its disagreement
in style with the first.” This difference he elsewhere explains by assuming
that Peter employed a
different interpreter. From that time the Epistle was received by Rufinus,
Augustine, Basil, Gregory,
Palladius, Hilary, Ambrose e. a. During the Middle Ages it was generally
accepted, but at the time
of the Reformation Erasmus and Calvin, though accepting the letter as
canonical doubted the direct
authorship of Peter. Yet Calvin believed that in some sense the Petrine
authorship had to be
maintained, and surmised that a disciple wrote it at the command of Peter.
168
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Epistle itself definitely points to Peter as its author. In the opening
verse the writer calls
himself, “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” which
clearly excludes the idea
of Grotius, that Symeon, the successor of James at Jerusalem, wrote the
letter. From 1: 16-18 we
learn that the author was a witness of the transfiguration of Christ; and in
3: 1 we find a reference
to his first Epistle. As far as style and expression are concerned there is
even greater similarity
between this letter and the speeches of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles
than between the first
Epistle and those addresses. Moreover Weiss concludes that from a biblical
and theological point
of view, no New Testament writing is more like I Peter than this Epistle,
Introd. II p. 165. Besides
the whole spirit of the Epistle is against the idea that it is a forgery.
Calvin maintained its canonicity,
“because the majesty of the Spirit of Christ exhibited itself in every part
of the Epistle.”
Notwithstanding this, however, the authenticity of the letter is subject to
serious doubt in modern
times, such scholars as Mayerhoff, Credner, Hilgenfeld, Von Soden, Hausrath,
Mangold, Davidson,
Volkmar, Holtzmann, Julicher, Harnack, Chase, Strachan e. a. denying that
Peter wrote it. But the
Epistle is not without defenders; its authenticity is maintained among
others by Luthardt, Wiesinger,
Guericke, Windischmann, Bruckner, Hofmann, Salmon, Alford, Zahn, Spitta, and
Warfield, while
Huther, Weiss, and Kuhl conclude their investigations with a non liquet.
The principle objections to the genuineness of II Peter are the following:
(1)The Language of
the Epistle is so different from that of I Peter as to preclude the
possibility of their proceeding from
the same author. (2) The dependence of the writer on Jude is inconsistent
with the idea that he was
Peter, not only because Jude was written long after the lifetime of Peter,
but also since it is unworthy
of an apostle to rely to such a degree on one who did not have that
distinction. (3) It appears that
the author is over-anxious to identify himself with the appost1e Peter:
there is a threefold allusion
to his death, 1:13-15; he wants the readers to understand that he was
present at the transfiguration,
1: 16-18; and he identifies himself with the author of the first Epistle, 3
:1. (4) In 3 :2 where the
reading .µ.. is better attested than .µ.., the writer by using the
expression, t.. t.. .p.st....
.µ.. ..t...., seems to place himself outside of the apostolic circle.
Deriving the expression from
Jude, the writer forgot that he wanted to pass for an apostle and therefore
could not use it with equal
propriety. Cf. Holtzmann, Einl. p. 321. (5) The writer speaks of some of
Paul’s Epistles as Scripture
in 3:16, implying the existence of a New Testament canon, and thus betrays
his second cen dpoint.
(6) The Epistle also refers to doubts regarding the second coming of Christ,
3:4 ff., which points
beyond the lifetime of Peter, because such doubts could not be entertained
before the destruction
of Jerusalem. (7) According to Dr. Abbott (in the Expositor) the author of
II Peter is greatly indebted
to the Antiquities of Josephus, a work that was published about A. D. 93.
We cannot deny that there is force in some of these arguments, but do not
believe that they
compel us to give up the authorship of Peter. The argument from style is
undoubtedly the most
important one; but if we accept the theory that Silvanus wrote the first
Epistle under the direction
of Peter, while the apostle composed the second, either with his own hand or
by means of another
amanuensis, the difficulty vanishes.—As far as the literary dependence of
Peter on Jude is concerned,
it is well to bear in mind that this is not absolutely proved. However,
assuming it to be established,
there is nothing derogatory in it for Peter, since Jude was also an inspired
man, and because in those
early days unacknowledged borrowing was looked at in a far different light
than it is today.—That
the author is extremely solicitous to show that he is the appostle Peter is,
even if it can be proved,
no argument against the genuineness of this letter. In view of the errorists
against which he warns
the readers, it was certainly important that they should bear in mind his
official position. But it
169
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
cannot be maintained that he insists on this over-much. The references to
his death, his experience
on the Mount of Transfiguration, and his first Epistle are introduced in a
perfectly natural way.
Moreover this argument is neutralized by some of the others brought forward
by the negative critics.
If the writer really was so over-anxious, why does he speak of himself as
Simon Peter, cf. I Pt. 1:
1; why does he seemingly exclude himself from the apostolic circle, 3 : 2;
and why did he not more
closely imitate the language of I Peter ?—The difficulty created by 3:2 is
not as great as it seems
to some. If that passage really disproves the authorship of Peter, it
certainly was a clumsy piece of
work of a very clever forger, to let it stand. But the writer, speaking of
the prophets as a class,
places alongside of them another class, viz, that of the apostles, who had
more especially ministered
to the New Testament churches, and could therefore as a class be called,
“your apostles,” i. e. the
apostles who preached to you. The writer evidently did not desire to single
himself out, probably,
if for no other reasons, because other apostles had labored more among the
readers than he had.—The
reference to the Epistles of Paul does not necessarily imply the existence
of a New Testament canon
and it is a gratuitous assumption that they were not regarded as Scripture
in the first century, so
that the burden of proof rests on those who make it.—The same may be said of
the assertion that
no doubt could be entertain asthe second coming of Christ before the
destruction of Jerusalem.
Moreover the author does not say that these were already expressed, but that
they would be uttered
by scoffers that would come in the last days.—The attempt to prove the
dependence of II Peter on
Josephus, has been proved fallacious, especially by Salmon and by Dr.
Warfield. The former says
in conclusion: “Dr. Abbot has completely failed to establish his theory; but
I must add that it was
a theory never rational to try to establish.” Introd. p. 536.
DESTINATION
The readers are simply addressed as those “that have obtained like precious
faith with us through
the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,” 1:1. From 3: 1 we
gather, however, that
they are identical with the readers of the first Epistle and from 3:15, that
they were also the recipients
of some Pauline Epistle(s). It is vain to guess what Epistle(s) the writer
may have had in view here.
Zahn argues at length that our Epistle was written to Jewish Christians in
and round about Palestine,
who had been led to Christ by Peter and by others of the twelve apostles. He
bases his conclusion
on the general difference of circumstances presupposed in the two letters of
Peter, and on such
passages as 1: 1-4, 16-18; 3: 2. But it seems to us that the Epistle does
not contain a single hint
regarding the Jewish character of its readers, while passages like 1: 4 and
3:15 rather imply their
Gentile origin. Moreover, in order to maintain his theory, Zahn must assume
that both 3: 1 and 3:15
refer to lost letters, cf. Einl. II p. 43 ff.
The condition of the readers presupposed in this letter is indeed different
from that reflected in
the first Epistle. No mention is made of persecution; instead of the
affliction from without, internal
dangers are now coming in view. The readers were in need of being firmly
grounded in the truth,
since they would soon have to contend with heretical teachers, who
theoretically would deny the
Lordship of Jesus Christ, 2:1, and his second coming, 3: 4; and practically
would disgrace their
lives by licentiousness, ch. 2. These heretics have been described as
Sadducees, as Gnostics, and
as Nicolaitans, but it is rather doubtful, whether we can identify them with
any particular sect. They
certainly were practical Antinomians, leading careless, wanton and sinful
lives, just because they
did not believe in the resurrection and in a future judgment. Their doctrine
was, in all probability,
an incipient Gnosticism.
170
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Since the author employs both the future and the present tense in describing
them, the question
arises, whether they were already present or were yet to come. The most
natural explanation is that
the author already knew such false teachers to be at work in some places
(cf. especially I Corinthians
and the Epistles to the Thessalonians), so that he could consequently give a
vivid description of
them; and that he expected them to extend their pernicious influence also to
the churches of Asia
Minor.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The occasion that led to the composition of this
Epistle must be found
in the dangerous heresies that were at work in some of the churches, and
that also threatened the
readers.
In determining the object of the writer the Tubingen school emphasized 3:15,
and found it in
the promotion of harmony and peace between the Petrine and Pauline parties
(Baur, Schwegler,
Hausrath). With this end in view, they say, the writer personating Peter,
the representative of Jewish
Christendom, acknowledges Paul, who represents the more liberal tendency of
the Church. But it
is unwarranted to lay such stress on that particular passage. Others
regarded the Epistle as primarily
a polemic against Gnosticism, against the false teachers depicted in the
letter. Now it cannot be
denied that the Epistle is in part controversial, but it is only its
secondary character. The main object
of the letter, as indicated in 1: 16 and 3: 1,2 was to put the readers in
mind of the truth which they
had learned in order that they might not be led astray by the theoretical
and practical libertines that
would soon make their influence felt, and especially to strengthen their
faith in the promised parousia
of Jesus Christ.
2. Time and Place. The Epistle contains no certain data as to the time of
its composition. We
can only infer from 3: 1 that it was written after I Peter, though Zahn, who
is not bound by that
passage, places it before the first Epistle, about A. D. 60-63. The fact
that the condition of the
churches, which is indicated in this letter, is quite different from that
reflected in the earlier writing,
presupposes the lapse of some time, though it does not require many years to
account for the change.
A short time would suffice for the springing up of the enemies to which the
Epistle refers. Can we
not say, in view of the tendencies apparent at Corinth that their doctrines
had already been
germinating for some time? Moreover, according to 1: 14 the writer felt that
his end was near.
Hence we prefer to date the letter about the year 66 or 67.
They who deny the authenticity of the Epistle generally place it somewhere
between the years
90 and 175, for such reasons as its dependence on Jude and on the Apocalypse
of Peter, its reference
to Gnosticism, and its implication respecting the existence of a New
Testament canon.
Since a trustworthy tradition informs us that Peter spent the last part of
his life at Rome, the
Epistle was in all probability composed in the imperial city. Zahn points to
Antioch, and Julicher
suggests Egypt as the place of composition.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
For the reception of this Epistle in the early church, we refer to what has
been said above.
Like all the canonical writings this one too has abiding significance. Its
importance is found in
the fact that it emp1i~sizes the great value of true Christian knowledge,
especially in view of the
dangers that arise for believers from all kinds of false teachings, and from
the resultant example of
171
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
a loose, a licentious, an immoral life. It teaches us that a Christianity
that is not well founded in the
truth as it is in Christ, is like a ship without a rudder on the turbulent
sea of life. A Christianity
without dogma cannot maintain itself against the errors of the day, but will
go down before the
triumphant forces of darkness; it will not succeed in cultivating a pure,
noble spiritual life, but will
be conformed to the life of the world. In particular does the Epistle remind
us of the fact that faith
in the return of Christ should inspire us to a holy conversation.
172
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The First General Epistle of John
CONTENTS
It is impossible to give a satisfactory schematic representation of the
contents of this letter.
After the introduction, 1: 1-4, in which the apostle declares that the
purpose of his ministry is to
manifest the life-giving divine Word, in order that the readers may have
fellowship with him and
the other apostles, and through them with God and Christ, he defines the
character of this fellowship
and points out that, since God is light, believers also should be and walk
in the light, 5-10, i. e. they
should guard against sin and keep Gods commandments, 2: 1-6. He reminds the
readers of the great
commandment, which is at once old and new, that they should love the
brethren, 7-14; and in
connection with this warns them not to love the world, and to beware of the
false teachers that deny
the truth, 15-27.
The representation of God as light now passes over into that of God as
righteous, and the writer
insists that only he that is righteous can be a child of God, 2: 28—3: 6. He
reminds the readers of
the fact that to be righteous is to do righteousness, which in turn is
identical with love to the brethren,
7-17. Once more he warns the readers against the love of the world, and
points out that the
commandment of God includes two things, viz, belief in Christ and love to
the brethren, 18-24.
In view of the false teachers he next reminds the readers that the test of
having the Spirit of
God, is to be found in the true confession of Christ, in adherence to the
teaching of the apostles,
and in that faith in Jesus that is the condition of love and of true
spiritual life, 4:1—5:12. Finally
he states the object of the Epistle once more, and gives a brief summary of
what he has written,
13-21.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The literary form of this Epistle is different from that of all the other
New Testament letters,
the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of James resembling it most in this
respect. Like the Epistle to
the Hebrews it does not name its author nor its original readers, and
contains no apostolic blessing
at the beginning; and in agreement with that of James it has no formal
conclusion, no greetings and
salutations at the end. This feature led some to deny its epistolary
character; yet, taking everything
into consideration, the conclusion is inevitable that it is an Epistle in
the proper sense of the word,
and not a didactic treatise. “The freedom of the style, the use of such
direct terms as, ‘I write unto
you, ‘I wrote unto you, and the footing on which writer and readers stand to
each other all through
its contents, show it to be no formal composition.” (Salmond) Moreover it
reveals no such plan as
would be expected in a treatise. The order found in it is determined by
association rather than by
logic, the thoughts being grouped about certain clearly related, ruling
ideas.
2. The great affinity of this Epistle with the Gospel of John naturally
attracts attention. The two
are very similar in the general conception of the truth, in the specific way
of representing things,
and in style and expression. Besides there are several passages in both that
are mutually explanatory,
as f. i.:
1:1,2 John 1:1,2,4,14 3:11,16 John 15:12,13
2:1 John 14:16 4:6 John 8:47
173
2:2 John 11:51,52 5:6 John 19:34,35
John 5:32,34,36,
8:17,18
2:8 John 13:34;15:10,12 5:9
2:10 John 11:9,10;12:35 5:12 John 3:36
2:23 John 15:23,24 5:13 John 20:31
2:27 John 14:26;16:13 5:14 John 14:13,14;16:23
3:8,15 John 8:44 5:20 John 17:3
Hence many scholars assume a very intimate connection of the Epistle with
the Gospel, regarding
it as a kind of introduction (Lightfoot), a sort of dedicatory writing
(Hausrath, Hofmann), or a
practical companion (Michaelis, Storr, Eichhorn), destined to accompany the
Gospel. At the same
time there are differences of such a kind between the two writings, as make
it seem more likely
that the Epistle is an independent composition. Cf. Holtzmann, Einl. p. 478;
Salmond, Hastings D.
B. Art. I John, 5.
3. The truth is represented in this Epistle ideally rather than
historically. This important fact is
stated by Salmond concisely as follows: “The characteristic ideas of the
Epistle are few and simple,
they are of large significance, and they are presented in new aspects and
relations as often as they
occur. They belong to the region of primary principles, realities of the
intuition, certainties of the
experience, absolute truths. And they are given in their absoluteness.
(Italics are ours). The regenerate
man is one who cannot sin; Christian faith is presented in its ideal
character and completeness; the
revelation of life is exhibited in its finality, not in the stages of its
historical realization.” Cf.
especially Weiss, Biblical Theology of the N. T. .11 p. 311 if. Stevens,
Johannine Theology, p. 1
if.
4. The style of the Epistle is very similar to that of the Gospel.
Fundamental words and phrases
are often repeated such as “truth,” “love,” “light,” “In the light,” “being
born of God,” “abiding in
God,” etc.; and the construction is characterized by utter simplicity, the
sentences being coordinated
rather than subordinated, and involved sentences being avoided by the
repetition of part of a previous
sentence. There is a remarkable paucity pf connecting particles, f. i. ...
occurs only three times;
d. but nine times; µ.. te and ... are not found at all (while the last is of
frequent occurrence in
the Gospel). On the other hand .t. is often used, and ... is the regular
connective. In many cases
sentences and clauses follow one another without connecting particles, e. g.
2: 22-24; 4:4-6, 7-10,
11-13.
AUTHORSHIP
The authorship of John is clearly attested by external testimony Eusebius
says that Papias
employed this Epistle, and also that Irenaeus often quoted from it. The last
assertion is borne out
by the work against heresies, in which Irenaeus repeatedly quotes the letter
and ascribes it to John.
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian and Origen all quote it by name;
it is contained in the
Muratorian Fragment and in the old Latin and Syriac Versions; and Eusebius
classes it with the
writings universally received by the churches. This testimony may be
regarded as very strong,
especially in view of the fact that the author is not named in the Epistle.
That conviction of the early church is corroborated by what internal
evidence we have. All the
proofs adduced for the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel also apply
in the case of this
174
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Epistle, cf. LINK TO JOHN AUTHORSHIP above. The two writings are so similar
that they
evidently were composed by the same hand. It is true, there are some points
of difference, but these
divergencies are of such a kind that they altogether preclude the idea that
the Epistle is the product
of a forger trying to imitate John. The almost general verdict is that he
who wrote the one, also
wrote the other. From 1: 1-3 it is evident that the author has known Christ
in the flesh; and the
whole Epistle reveals the character of John as we know it from the Gospel
and from tradition.
But the authenticity of the letter did not go unchallenged. In the second
century the Alogi and
Marcion rejected it but only for dogmatical reasons. The truth presented in
it did not fit their circle
of ideas. The next attack on it followed in the sixteenth century, when
Joseph Scaliger declared
that none of the three Epistles that bear the name of John, were written by
him; and S. G. Lange
pronounced our letter unworthy of an apostle. It was not until 1820,
however, that an important
critical assault was made on the Epistle by Bretschneider. He was followed
by the critics of the
Tubingen school who, however they may differ in the details of their
arguments, concur in denying
the Johannine authorship and in regarding the Epistle as a second century
production. Some of
them, such as Kostlin, Georgii, and Hilgenfeld maintain that this Epistle
and the fourth Gospel
were composed by the same hand, while others, as Volkmar, Zeller, Davidson,
Scholten e. a. regard
them as the fruit of two congenial spirits.
The main arguments against the Johannine authorship are the following: (1)
The Epistle is
evidently directed against second century Gnosticism, which separated in a
dualistic manner
knowledge and conduct, the divine Christ and the human Jesus, cf. 2: 4, 9,
11; 5 : 6, etc. (2) The
letter also seems to be a polemic against Docetism another second century
heresy, cf. 4: 2, 3. (3)
There are references to Montanism in the Epistle, as f. i. where the writer
speaks of the moral
perfection of believers, 3 : 6, 9, and distinguishes between sins unto death
and sins not unto death,
3:16, 17, a distinction which, Tertullian says, was made by the Montanists.
(4) The difference
between this Epistle and the Apocalypse is so great that it is impossible
that one man should have
written both.
We need not deny that the Epistle is partly an indirect polemic against
Gnosticism, but we
maintain that this was an incipient Gnosticism that made it’s appearance
before the end of the first
century in the heresy of Cerinthus, so that this does not argue against the
authorship of John.—The
supposed references to Docetism are very uncertain indeed; but even if they
could be proved they
would not point beyond the first century, for most of the Gnostics were also
Docetae, and the
Cerinthian heresy may be called a species of Docetism.—The representations
of John have nothing
in common with those of the Montanists. When he speaks of the perfection of
believers, he speaks
ideally and not of a perfection actually realized in this life. Moreover the
“sin unto death” to which
he refers, is evidently a complete falling away from Christ, and is not to
be identified with the sins
to which Tertullian refers, viz. “murder, idolatry, fraud, denial of Christ,
blasphemy, and assuredly
also adultery and fornication.”—With reference to the last argument we refer
to what we have said
above p. 111, and to the explanation given of the difference between the
Apocalypse and the other
Johannine writings below p. 321.
DESTINATION
There is very little in the letter that can help us to determine the
location of the original readers.
Because there is no local coloring whatever, it is not likely that the
Epistle was sent to some
individual church, as Ephesus (Hug) or Corinth (Lightfoot); and since the
letter favors the idea that
175
it was written to Gentile, rather than to Jewish Christians, it is very
improbable that it was destined
for the Christians of Palestine (Benson). There is not a single Old
Testament quotation in the Epistle,
nor any reference to the Jewish nationality or the Jewish tenets of the
readers. The statement of
Augustine that this is John’s letter “ad Parthos” is very obscure. Some, as
f. i. Grotius, inferred
from it that the Epistle was written for Christians beyond the Euphrates;
but most generally it is
regarded as a mistaken reading for some other expression, the reading p...
pa......., finding
most favor, which, Gieseler suggests, may in turn be a corruption of the
title t.. pa......, which
was commonly given to John in early times.
In all probability the correct opinion respecting the destination of this
Epistle is that held by
the majority of scholars, as Bleek, Huther, Davidson, Plummer, Westcott,
Weiss, Zahn, Alford e.
a., that it was sent to the Christians of Asia Minor generally, for (1) that
was John’s special field
of labor during the latter part of his life ; (2) the heresies referred to
and combated were rife in that
country; and (3) the Gospel was evidently written for the Christians of that
region, and the Epistle
presupposes similar circumstances.
We have no definite information retarding the condition of the original
readers. They had
evidently left behind the Church’s early struggles for existence and now
constituted a recognized
.......a of believers, a community that placed its light over against the
darkness of the world,
and that distinguished itself from the unrighteous by keeping the
commandments of God. They
only needed to be reminded of their true character, which would naturally
induce them to a life
worthy of their fellowship with Christ. There are dangerous heresies abroad,
however, against
which they must be warned. The pernicious doctrine of Cerinthus, that Jesus
was not the Christ,
the Son of God, threatened the peace of their souls; and the subtle error,
that one could be righteous
without doing righteousness, endangered the fruitfulness of their Christian
life.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. Although the Epistle is not primarily and directly
polemical, yet it
was most likely occasioned by the dangers to which we already referred.
As to the object of the letter the author himself says: “that which we have
seen and heard declare
we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us; yea, and our
fellowship is with the
Father and with his Son Jesus Christ,” 1: 3; and again in 5:13: “These
things have I written unto
you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe
in the Name of the Son
of God.” The direct purpose of the author is to give his readers authentic
instruction regarding the
truth and reality of the things which they, especially as believers in Jesus
Christ, accepted by faith;
and to help them to see the natural issues of the fellowship to which they
had been introduced, in
order that they might have a full measure of peace and joy and life. The
purpose of the writer is
therefore at once theoretical and practical.
2. Time and Place. What we said above, pp. 113, 114, respecting the date of
the fourth Gospel
and the place of its composition, also favors the idea that this Epistle was
written between the years
80-98, and at Ephesus. It is impossible to narrow down these time-limits any
more. The only
remaining question is, whether the Epistle was written prior to the Gospel,
(Bleek, Huther, Reuss,
Weiss), or the Gospel prior to the Epistle (DeWette, Ewald, Guericke,
Alford, Plummer). It appears
to us that the grounds adduced for the priority of the Epistle, as f. i.
that a writing of momentary
design naturally precedes one of permanent design; a letter of warning to
particular churches, a
176
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
writing like the Gospel addressed to all Christendom,—are very weak. And the
arguments for the
other side are almost equally inconclusive, although there is some force in
the reasoning that the
Epistle in several places presupposes a knowledge of the Gospel, cf. the
points of resemblance
referred to on p. 311 above. But even this does not carry conviction, for
Reuss correctly says: “For
us, the Epistle needs the Gospel as a commentary; but inasmuch as at the
first it had one in the oral
instruction of the author, it is not thereby proved that it is the later.”
History of the N. T. I p. 237.
Salmond and Zahn wisely conclude their discussion of this point with a non
liquet.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonicity of this letter was never doutbed by the Church. Polycarp and
Papias, both
disciples of John, used it, and Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, directly
ascribes it to John. Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria all
quote it by name, as a
writing of the apostle John. It is referred to as John’s in the Muratorian
Fragment, and is contained
in the old Latin and Syriac Versions.
The abiding significance of this important Epistle is, that it pictures us
ideally the community
of believers, as a community of life in fellowship with Christ, mediated by
the word of the apostles,
which is the Word of life. It describes that community as the sphere of life
and light, of holiness
and righteousness, of love to God and to the brethren; and as the absolute
antithesis to the world
with its darkness and death, its pollution and unrighteousness, its hatred
and deception. All those
who are introduced into that sphere should of necessity be holy and
righteous and filled with love,
and should avoid the world and its lusts. They should test the spirits,
whether they be of God, and
shun all anti-Christian error. Thus the Epistle describes for the Church of
all ages the nature and
criteria of heavenly fellowship, and warns believers to keep themselves
unspotted from the world.
177
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Second and Third General Epistles of John
CONTENTS
The Second Epistle. After the address and the apostolic blessing, 1-3, the
writer expresses his
joy at finding that some of the children of the addressee walk in the truth,
and reiterates the great
commandment of brotherly love, 4-6. He urges the readers to exercise this
love and informs them
that there are many errorists, who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh, admonishing them
not to receive these, lest they should become partakers of their evil deeds,
7-11. Expressing his
intention to come to them, he ends his Epistle with a greeting, 12, 13.
The Third Epistle. The writer, addressing Gajus, sincerely wishes that he
may prosper, as his
soul prospereth, 1-3. He commends him for receiving the itinerant preachers,
though they were
strangers to him, 5-8. He also informs the brother that he has written to
the church, but that
Diotrephes resists his authority, not receiving the brethren himself and
seeking to prevent others
from doing it, 9, 10. Warning Gajus against that evil example, he commends
Demetrius, mentions
an intended visit, and closes the Epistle with greetings, 11-14.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. These two Epistles have rightly been called twin epistles, since they
reveal several points of
similarity. The author in both styles himself the elder; they are of about
equal length; each one of
them, as distinguished from the first Epistle, begins with an address and
ends with greetings; both
contain an expression of joy; and both refer to itinerant preachers and to
an intended visit of the
writer.
2. The letters show close affinity to I John. What little they contain of
doctrinal matter is closely
related to the contents of the first Epistle, where we can easily find
statements corresponding to
those in II John 4-9 and III John 11. Several concepts and expressions
clearly remind us of I John,
as f. i. “love,” “truth,” “commandments,” “a new commandment,” one “which
you had from the
beginning,” “loving truth,” “walking in the truth,” “abiding in” one, “a joy
that may be fulfilled,”
etc. Moreover the aim of these letters is in general the same as that of the
first Epistle, viz. to
strengthen the readers in the truth and in love; and to warn them against an
incipient Gnosticism.
AUTHORSHIP
Considering the brevity of these Epistles, their authorship is very well
attested. Clement of
Alexandria speaks of the second Epistle and, according to Eusebius, also
commented on the third.
Irenaeus quotes the second Epistle by name, ascribing it to “John the Lord’s
disciple.” Tertullian
and Cyprian contain no quotations from them, but Dionysius of Alexandria,
Athanasius and Didymus
received them as the work of the apostle. The Muratorian Canon in a rather
obscure passage mentions
two Epistles of John besides the first one. The Peshito does not contain
them; and Eusebius, without
clearly giving his own opinion, reckons them with the Antilegomena. After
his time they were
generally received and as such recognized by the, councils of Laodicea
(363), Hippo (393) and
Carthage (397).
178
Internal evidence may be said to favor the authorship of John. One can
scarcely read these
letters without feeling that they proceeded from the same hand that composed
I John. The second
Epistle especially is very similar to the first, a similarity that can
hardly be explained, as Baljon
suggests, from an acquaintance of the author with I John, ml. p. 237, 239.
And the third Epistle is
inseparably linked to the second. The use of a few Pauline terms,
p..p.µte.., e.d..s.a. and
...a..e.., and of a few peculiar words, as f..a.e.., f...p..te.e..
.p..aµ?..e.., prove nothing
to the contrary.
The great stumbling block, that prevents several scholars from accepting the
apostolic authorship
of these Epistles, is found in in the fact that the author simply styles
himself . p.es?.te.... This
appelation led some, as Erasmus, Grotius, Beck, Bretschneider, Hase, Renan,
Reuss, Wieseler e.
a., to ascribe them to a certain well-known presbyter John, distinct from
the apostle. This opinion
is based on a passage of Papias, as it is interpreted by Eusebius, The
passage runs thus: “If I met
anywhere with anyone who had been a follower of the elders, I used to
inquire what were the
declarations of the elders; what was said by Andrew, by Peter, by Philip,
what by Thomas or James,
what by John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord; and the
things which Aristion
and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord say; for I did not expect
to derive so much benefit
from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding
voice.” From this statement
Eusebius infers that among the informants of Papias there was besides the
apostle John also a John
the presbyter, Church Hist. III 39. But the correctness of this inference is
subject to doubt. Notice
(1) that Papias first names those whose words he received through others and
then mentions two
of whom he had also received personal instruction, cf. the difference in
tense, e.pe. and .....s..;
(2) that it seems very strange that for Papias, who was himself a disciple
of the apostle John, anyone
but the apostle would be . p.es?.te...; (3) that Eusebius was the first to
discover this second John
in the passage of Papias: (4) that history knows nothing of such a John the
presbyter; he is a shadowy
person indeed; and (5) that the Church historian was not unbiased in his
opinion; being averse to
the supposed Chiliasm of the Apocalypse, he was only too glad to find
another John to whom he
could ascribe it.
But even if the inference of Eusebius were correct, it would not prove that
this presbyter was
the author of our Epistles. The same passage of Papias clearly establishes
the fact that the apostles
were also called elders in the early Church. And does not the appellation, .
p.es?.te..., admirably
fit the last of the apostles, who for many years was the overseer of the
churches in Asia Minor? He
stood preeminent above all others; and by using this name designated at once
his official position
and his venerable age.
DESTINATION
The second Epistle is addressed to ...e.t. ....a. and her children, whom I
love in truth, and
not only I, but all those that know the truth,” 1:1. There is a great deal
of uncertain{y about the
interpretation of this address. On the assumption that the letter was
addressed to an individual, the
following renderings have been proposed: (1) to an elect lady; (2) to the
elect lady; (3) to the elect
Kuria; (4) to the Lady Electa; (5) to Electa Kuria.
The first of these is certainly the simplest and the most natural one, but
considered as the address
of an Epistle, it is too indefinite. To our mind the second, which seems to
be grammatically
permissible, is the best of all the suggested interpretations. As to the
third, it is true that the word
179
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
....a does occur as a proper name, cf. Zahn, Einl. II p. 584; but on the
supposition that this is the
case here also, it would be predicated of a single individual, which in
Scripture is elsewhere done
only in Rom. 16:13, a case that is not altogether parallel; and the more
natural construction would
be ....a. t. ...e.t.. Cf. III John 1 :1; the case in I Pet. 1 :1 does not
offer a parallel, because
pa.ep.d.µ... is not a proper noun. The fourth must be ruled out, since
...e.t. is not known to
occur as a nomen proprium; and if this were the name of the addressee, her
sister, vs. 13, would
strangely bear the same name. The last rendering is the least likely,
burdening the lady, as it does,
with two strange names. If the letter was addressed to an individual, which
is favored by the analogy
of the third Epistle, and also by the fact that the sisters children are
spoken of in vs. 13, while she
herself is not mentioned, then in all probability the addressee was a lady
well known and highly
esteemed in the early church, but not named in the letter. Thus Salmond
(Hastings D. B.), while
Alford and D. Smith regard Kuria as the name of the lady.
In view of the contents of the Epistle, however, many from the time of
Jerome on have regarded
the title as a designation of the Church in general (Jerome, Hilgenfeld,
Lunemann, Schmiedel), or
of some particular church (Huther, Holtzmann, Weiss, Westcott, Salmon, Zahn,
Baljon). The former
of these two seems to be excluded by vs. 13, since the Church in general can
hardly be represented
as having a sister. But as over against the view that the Epistle was
addressed to an individual, the
latter is favored by (1) the fact that everything of a personal nature is
absent from the Epistle; (2)
the plurals which the apostle constantly uses, cf. 6, 8, 10, 12; (3) the way
in which he speaks to the
addressee in vss. 5, 8; (4) the expression, “and not I only, but also all
they that have known the
truth,” 1, which is more applicable to a church than to a single individual;
and (5) the greeting, 13,
which is most naturally understood as the greeting of one church to another.
If this view of the
Epistle is correct, and we are inclined to think it is, ....a is probably
used as the feminine of ......,
in harmony with the Biblical representation that the Church is the bride of
the Lamb. It is useless
to guess, however, what particular church is meant. Since the church of
Ephesus is in all probability
the sister, it is likely that one of the other churches of Asia Minor is
addressed.
The third Epistle is addressed to a certain Gajus, of whom we have no
knowledge beyond that
gained from the Epistle, where he is spoken of as a beloved friend of the
apostle, and as a
large-hearted hospitable man, who with a willing heart served the cause of
Christ. There have been
some attempts to identify him with a Gajus who is mentioned in the Apostolic
Constitutions as
having been appointed bishop of Pergamum by John, or with some of the other
persons of the same
name in Scripture, Acts 19: 29; 20:4, especially with Pauls host at Corinth,
Rom. 16:23; I Cor. 1:
14; but these efforts have not been crowned with success.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose: In all probability the false agitators to whom the
apostle refers in the
Second Epistle, 7-12, gave him occasion to write this letter. His aim is to
express his joy on account
of the obedience of some of the members of the church, to exhort all that
they love one another, to
warn them against deceivers who would pervert the truth, and to announce his
coming.
The third Epistle seems to have been occasioned by the reports of certain
brethren who traveled
about from place to place and were probably engaged in preaching the Gospel.
They reported to
the apostle that they had enjoyed the hospitality of Gajus, but had met with
a rebuff at the hands
of Diotrephes, an ambitious fellow (probably, as some have thought, an elder
or a deacon in the
180
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
church), who resisted the authority of the apostle and refused to receive
the brethren. The authors
purpose is to express his satisfaction with the course pursued by Gajus, to
condemn the attitude of
Diotrephes, to command Demetrius as a worthy brother, and to announce an
intended visit.
2. Time and Place. The assumption seems perfectly warranted that John wrote
these Epistles
from Ephesus, where he spent perhaps the last twenty-five years of his life.
We have no means for
determining the time when they were composed. It may safely be said,
however, that it was after
the composition of I John. And if the surmise of Zahn and Salmon is correct,
that the letter referred
to in III John 9 is our second Epistle, they were probably written at the
same time. This idea is
favored somewhat by the fact that the expression, “I wrote somewhat (...a..
t.) to the church,”
seems to refer to a short letter; and by the mention of an intended visit at
the end of each letter. But
from the context it would appear that this letter must have treated of the
reception or the support
of the missionary brethren, which is not the case with our second Epistle.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
There was some doubt at first as to the canonicity of these Epistles. The
Alexandrian church
generally accepted them, Clement, Dionysius and Alexander of Alexandria all
recognizing them
as canonical, though Origen had doubts. Irenaeus cites a passage from the
second Epistle as John’s.
Since neither Tertullian nor Cyprian quote them, it is uncertain, whether
they were accepted by the
North African church. The Muratorian Fragment mentions two letters of John
in a rather obscure
way. In the Syrian church they were not received, since they were not in the
Peshito, but in the
fourth century Ephrem quotes both by name. Eusebius classed them with the
Antilegomena, but
soon after his time they were universally accepted as canonical.
The ermanent significance of the second Epistle is that it emphasizes the
necessity of abiding
in the truth and thus exhibiting one’s love to Christ. To abide in the
doctrine of Christ and to obey
his commandments, is the test of sonship. Hence believers should not receive
those who deny the
true doctrine, and especially the incarnation of Christ, lest they become
partakers of their evil deeds.
The third Epistle also has it’s permanent lesson in that it commends the
generous love that
reveals itself in the hospitality of Gajus, shown to those who labor in the
cause of Christ, and
denounce the self-centered activity of Diotrephes; for these two classes of
men are always found
in the Church.
181
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The General Epistle of Jude
CONTENTS
The writer begins his Epistle with the regular address and apostolic
blessing, 1, 2. He informs
his readers that he felt it incumbent on him to warn them against certain
intruders, who deny Christ,
lead lascivious lives and will certainly be punished like the people
delivered from Egypt, the fallen
angels and the cities of the plain, 3-7. These intruders are further
described as defilers of the flesh
and as despisers and blasphemers of heavenly dignities, and the woe is
pronounced on them, 8-11.
After giving a further description of their debauchery, the author exhorts
the readers to be mindful
of the words of the apostles, who had spoken of the appearance of such
mockers, 12-19. Admonishing
them to increase in faith and to keep themselves in the love of God, and
giving them directions as
to the correct behaviour towards others, he concludes his Epistle with a
doxology, 20-25.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. This Epistle is characterized by its very close resemblence to parts of
II Peter. Since we have
already discussed the relation in which the two stand to each other (II
Peter), we now simply refer
to that discussion.
2. The letter is peculiar also in that it contains quotations from the
apocryphal books. The story
in verse 9 is taken from the Assumption of Moses, according to which Michael
was commissioned
to bury Moses, but Satan claimed the body, in the first place because he was
the lord of matter, and
in the second place since Moses had committed murder in Egypt. The falsity
of the first ground is
brought out by Michael, when he says: “The Lord rebuke thee, for it was God’s
Spirit which created
the word and all mankind.” He does not reflect on the second. The prophecy
in verses 14, 15 is
taken from the Book of Enoch a book that was highly esteemed by the early
church. According to
some the statement regarding the fallen angels, verse 6, is also derived
from it. The latest editor of
these writings, R. H. Charles, regards the first as a composite work, made
up of two distinct books,
viz, the Testament and the Assumption of Moses, of which the former, and
possibly also the latter
was written in Hebrew between 7 and 29 A. D. With respect to the Book of
Enoch he holds, “that
the larger part of the book was written not later than 160 B. C., and that
no part of it is more recent
than the Christian era.” Quoted by Mayor, Exp. Gk. Test. V p. 234.
3. The language of Jude may best be likened to that of his brother James. He
speaks in a tone
of unquestioned authority and writes a vigorous style. His Greek, though it
has a Jewish complexion,
is fairly correct; and his descriptions are often just as picturesque as
those of James, f. i. when he
compares the intruders to “spots (R. V. ‘hidden rocks) in the feasts of
charity;”“clouds without
water, carried along by winds,” “autumn trees without fruit, twice dead,
plucked up by the roots,”
“wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame ;” etc., 12, 13. Like
James also he employs
some words that are otherwise exclusively Pauline, as ..´¨d..., .....t..,
....t...., p.....fe...
Moreover the letter contains a few .pa. .e..µe.a.
AUTHORSHIP
182
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Tbe Muratorian Canon accepts Jude, but indicates that it was doubted by
some. Clement of
Alexandria commented on it, and Tertullian quotes it by name. Origen
acknowledges that there
were doubts as to the canonicity of Jude, but does not seem to have shared
them. Didymus of
Alexandria defends the Epistle against those who questioned its authority on
account of the use
made in it of apocryphal books. Eusebius reckoned it with the Antilegomena;
but it was accepted
as canonical by the third council of Carthage in 397 A. D.
The author designates himself as “Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and
brother of James.” There
are several persons of that name mentioned in the New Testament, of which
only two can come in
consideration here, however, viz. Jude, the brother of the Lord, Mt. 13:55;
Mk. 6:3, and Jude the
apostle, Lk. 6:16; Acts 1: 13, also called Lebbeus, Mt. 10: 3, and Thaddeus,
Mk. 3:18. It appears
to us that the author was Jude, the brother of the Lord, because: (1) He
seeks to give a clear indication
of his identity by calling himself, “the brother of James.” This James must
have been so well known,
therefore, as to need no further description; and there was but one James at
that time of whom this
could be said, viz. James the brother of the Lord. (2) It is inconceivable
that an apostle, rather than
name his official position, should make himself known by indicating his
relationship to another
person, whoever that person might be. (3) Though it is possible that the
writer, even if he were an
apostle, should speak as he does in the 17th verse, that passage seems to
imply that he stood outside
of the apostolic circle. - In favor of the view that the author was the
apostle Jude, some have appealed
to Lk. 6:16; Acts 1 :13, where the apostle is called ....da. ..a..?.. but it
is contrary to established
usage to supply the word brother in such a case.
Very little is known of this Jude. If the order in which the brethren of the
Lord are named in
Scripture is any indication of their age, he was the youngest or the
youngest but one of the group;
compare Mt. 13:55 with Mk. 6: 3. With his brothers he was not a believer in
Jesus during the Lord’s
public ministry, John 7:5, but evidently embraced him by faith after the
resurrection, Acts 1:14.
For the rest we can only gather from I Cor. 9:5 respecting the brethren of
the Lord in general,
undoubtedly with the exception of James, who resided at Jerusalem, that they
traveled about with
their wives, willing workers for the Kingdom of God, and were even known at
Corinth.
The authenticity of the Epistle has been doubted, because: (1)The author
speaks of faith in the
objective sense, Ths a fides quae creditur, 3, 20, a usage that points to
the post-apostolic period;
(2) He mentions the apostles as persons who lived in the distant past, 17;
and (3) he evidently
combats the second century heresy of the Carpocratians. But these grounds
are very questionable
indeed. The word faith is employed in the objective sense elsewhere in the
New Testament, most
certainly in the Pastorals, and probably also in Rom. 10:8; Gal. 1:23; Phil.
1:27. And there is nothing
impossible in the assumption that that meaning should have become current in
the time of the
apostles. The manner in which Jude mentions the apostles does not
necessarily imply that they had
all passed away before this letter was composed. At most the death of a few
is implied. But we
agree with Dr. Chase, when he judges that the supposition that the apostles
were dispersed in such
a way that their voice could not at the time reach the persons to whom this
letter is addressed, meets
all the requirements of the case. Hastings D. B. Art. Jude. The assumption
that the heretics referred
to were second century Carpocratians, is entirely gratuitous; it rests on a
mistaken interpretation
of three passages, viz, the verses 4b, 8, 19.
DESTINATION
183
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Jude addresses his Epistle to “those that are sanctified by God the Father,
and preserved in Jesus
Christ, and called.” On account of the very general character of this
designation some, as Ewald,
regard the Epistle as a circular letter; but the contents of the Epistle are
against this assumption.
Yet we are left entirely to conjecture as to the particular locality in
which the readers dwelt. Some
scholare, e. g. Alford and Zahn, believe that the Epistle was written to
Jewish readers, but we are
inclined to think with Weiss, Chase, Bigg, Baljon e. a. that the recipients
of the letter were Gentile
Christians, (1) because the letter is so closely related to II Peter, which
was sent to the Christians
of Asia Minor; and (2) since the heresies to which it refers are known to
have arisen in Gentile
churches. Cf. especially I Corinthians and the letters to the seven churches
in the Apocalypse.
Many expositors are inclined to look for the first readers in Asia Minor on
account of the
resemblance of the heresies mentioned in the Epistle to those referred to in
II Peter. But possibly
it is better to hold with Chase that the letter was sent to Syrian Antioch
and the surrounding district,
since they had evidently received oral instruction from the apostles
generally, and were therefore
most likely in the vicinity of Palestine. Moreover Jude may have felt some
special responsibility
for the church in that vicinity since the death of his brother James.
In the condition of the readers there was cause for alarm. The danger that
Peter saw as a cloud
on the distant horizon, Jude espied as a leaven that was already working in
the ranks of his readers.
False brethren had crept into the church who were, it would seem, practical
libertines, enemies of
the cross of Christ, who abused their Christian liberty (Alford, Salmon,
Weiss, Chase), and not at
the same time heretical teachers (Zahn, Baljon). Perhaps they were no
teachers at all. Their life
was characterized by lasciviousness, 4, especially fornication, 7, 8, 11,
mockery, 10, ungodliness,
15, murmuring, complaining, pride and greed, 16. Their fundamental error
seems to have been that
they despised and spoke evil of the authorities that were placed over them.
They were Antinomians
and certainly had a great deal in common with the Nicolaitans of the
Apocalypse.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The danger to which these Christians were thus
exposed, led to the
composition of this Epistle. Apparently Jude intended to write to them of
the common salvation,
when he suddenly heard of the grave situation and found it necessary to pen
a word of warning, 3.
In the verse from which we draw this conclusion, the author also clearly
states his aim, when he
says that he deemed it imperative to write to them that they should
earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered to the saints. In order to do this, he pictures to
them the disobedient and
immoral character of the ungodly persons that had unawares crept into the
fold and endangered
their Christian faith and life; reminds them of the fact that God would
certainly punish those wanton
libertines, just as He had punished sinners in the past; and exhorts them to
stand in faith and to
strive after holiness.
2. Time and Place. We have absolutely no indication of the place where this
Epistle was written;
it is not unlikely, however, that it was at Jerusalem.
With respect to the time of its composition we have a terminus ad quem in
the date of II Peter,
about A. D. 67, since that Epistle is evidently dependent on Jude. On the
other hand it does not
seem likely that Jude would write such a letter, while his brother James was
still living, so that we
have a terminus a quo in A. D. 62. A date later than 62 is also favored by
the Pauline words employed
in this letter, in some of which we seem to have an echo of Ephesians and
Colossians. Moreover
the great similarity between the conditions pictured in this letter and
those described in II Peter is
184
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
best explained, if we date them in close proximity to each other. We shall
not go far wrong in dating
the Epistle about the year 65.
The older critics of the Tubingen school dated the Epistle late in the
second century, while more
recent critics, as Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Julicher, Harnack, Baljon, think
it originated about the
middle or in the first half of the second century. They draw this conclusion
from, (1) the way in
which the writer speaks of faith, 3, 20; (2) the manner in which he refers
to the apostles, 17; (3)
the use of the apocryphal books; and (4) the supposed references to the
doctrines of the Carpocratians.
But these arguments can all be met by counter-arguments, cf. above.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
In the early Church there was considerable doubt as to the canonicity of
this epistle especially
because it was not written by an apostle and contained passage from
apocryphal books. There are
allusions more or less clear to the Epistle in II Peter, Polycarp,
Athenagoras and Theophilus of
Antioch. The Muratorian Canon mentions it, but in a manner which implies
that it was doubted by
some. It is found in the old Latin Version, but not in the Peshito. Clement
of Alexandria, Tertullian
and Origen recognized it, though Origen intimates that there were doubts
regarding its canonicity.
Eusebius doubted its canonical authority, but the council of Carthage (397)
accepted it.
In the Epistle of Jude we have the Christian war-cry, resounding through the
ages: Contend
earnestly for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints! This
letter, the last of the New
Testament, teaches with great emphasis that apostacy from the true creed
with its central truths of
the atonement of Christ and the permanent validity of the law as the rule of
life, is assured perdition;
and clearly reveals for all generations the inseparable connection between a
correct belief and a
right mode of living.
185
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
The Revelation of John
CONTENTS
After the introduction and the apostolic blessing, 1:1-8, the book contains
seven visions or
series of visions, extending from 1:9-22:7, followed by a conclusion,
22:8-21.
I. The first Vision, 1: 9-3:22, is that of the glorified Christ in the midst
of the Church, directing
John to write letters of reproof, of warning, of exhortation and of
consolation to seven representative
churches of proconsular Asia, viz. to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatire,
Sardis, Philadelphia
and Laodicea.
II. The second Vision, 4:1-8:1, reveals God as ruling the world’s destiny,
and the Lamb as taking
the book of the divine decrees and breaking the seven seals of which each
one represents a part of
God’s purpose, the first four referring to the terrestrial, and the last
three to the celestial sphere.
Between the sixth and seventh seals an episode is introduced to show the
safety of the people of
God amid the judgments that are inflicted on the world.
III. The third Vision, 8:2-11:19, shows us seven angels, each one having a
trumpet. After an
angel has offered up the prayers of the saints to God, the seven angels blow
their trumpets, and
each trumpet is followed by a vision of destruction on the sinful world, the
destruction of the last
three being more severe than that of the first four. Between the sixth and
seventh trumpets there is
again an episode describing the preservation of the Church.
IV. The fourth Vision, 12:1-14: 20, describes the conflict of the world with
the Church of God.
The Church is represented as a woman bringing forth the Christ, against whom
the dragon
representing satan wages war. In successive visions we behold the beasts
which satan will employ
as his agents, the militant Church, and the advancing stages of Christ’s
conquest.
V. The fifth Vision, 15:1-16:21, once more reveals seven angels, now having
seven vials or
bowls containing the last plagues or judgments of God. First we have a
description of the Church
that triumphed over the beast, glorifying God; and this is followed by a
picture of the sevenfold
judgment of God on the world, represented by the seven vials.
VI. The sixth Vision, 17:1-20:15, reveals the harlot city Babylon, the
representative of the world,
and the victory of Christ over her and over the enemies that are in league
with her, the great conflict
ending in the last judgment.
VII. The seventh Vision, 21:1-22: 7, discloses to the eye the ideal Church,
the new Jerusalem,
and pictures in glowing colors her surpassing beauty and the everlasting,
transcendent bliss of her
inhabitants.
The book closes with an epilogue in which the seer describes its
significance and urges the
readers to keep the things that are written on its pages, 22:7-21.
CHARACTERISTICS
1. The Revelation of John is the only prophetic book in the New Testament.
It is called a
prophecy in 1:3, 22: 7, 10,18, 19. A nearer description of the book is
given, however, in the name
Apocalypse, for there is a difference between the prophetic books of the
Bible in general and that
part of them that may be said to belong to the Apocalyptic literature.
Naturally the two have some
186
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
eicments in common: they both contain communications, mediated by the Holy
Spirit, of the
character, will and purposes of God; and the one as well as the other looks
to the future of the
Kingdom of God. But there are also points of difference. Prophecy, while it
certainly has reference
also to the future of God’s Kingdom, is mainly concerned with a divine
interpretation of the past
and the present, while the chief interest of Apocalyptic lies in the future.
Prophecy again, where it
does reveal the future, shows this in its organic relation with principles
and forces that are already
working in the present, while Apocalyptic pictures the images of the future,
not as they develop
out of existing conditions, but as they are shown directly from heaven and
to a great extent in
supernatural forms.
2. A characteristic feature of the book is that its thought is largely
clothed in symbolic language
derived from some of the prophetic books of the Old Testament. Hence its
correct understaiding
is greatly facilitated by studying the writer’s Old Testament sources. Yet
we must constantly bear
in mind that he does not always employ the language so derived in its
original significance. Compare
ch. 18 with Is. 13, 14; Jer. 50, 51; 21:1-22:5 with various parts of Is.
40-66; Ezek. 40-48 ; 1:12-20
with Dan. 7, 10 ; ch. 4 with Is. 6; Ezek. 1, 10. But however dependent the
author may be on the
prophets, he does not slavishly follow them, but uses their language with
great freedom. The
symbolic numbers 3, 4, 7, 10, 12 and their multiples also play an important
part in the book.
3. The language of the Apocalypse differs from that of all the rest of the
New Testament. It, is
very decidedly Hebraistic Greek. According to Simcox its vocabulary is far
less eccentric than its
style and grammar. This author in his, Writers of the New Testament pp.
80-89 classifies the most
important peculiarities of the language of Revelation under several heads:
(1) As in Hebrew the
1,3 2 8 7,10,16, 17 1 8 1,12 8,13,19
copula is generally ommited cf. 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 21 . (2)
Apparently
the writer, at least in several instances, does not use the Greek tenses in
their purely temporal sense,
5,22,24 10 7 4
but more like the Hebrew perfect and imperfect, cf. 2 , 4 , 10 , 12 . (3)
The use of a redundant
8 2,9 6,14 12 9 8
pronoun or pronominal adverb is very frequent, cf. 3 , 7 , 12 , 13 , 17 , 20
. (4) When two
nouns are in opposition, the second is usually put in the nominative,
whatever be the case of the
513,20124914 12 3 2
first, cf. 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 14 , 17 , 20 . (5) There are some
irregularities which, considered
abstractly are perfectly legitimate, but are contrary to established Greek
usage, as f. i. the use of
the dative instead of the double accusative in 2:14; and the use of the
plural of verbs with a subject
45 13
in the neuter nominative as in 3 , 4 , 11 . (6) False concords in get der,
constructions ad sensum
7,8 4,85,6are also frequently found, 4 , 7 9 etc.
AUTHORSHIP
The external testimony for the authorship of the apostle John is quite
strong. Justin Martyr
clearly testifies that the book was written by “John one of the apostles of
the Lord.” Irenaeus whose
teacher was Polycarp, the disciple of John, gives very decisive and repeated
testimony for the
authorship of the apostle. The Muratorian Canon mentions John as the author
of the book, and the
context shows that the son of Zebedee is meant. Hippolytus quotes the
Apocalypse several times
as a work of John; and that the John which he has in mind is the apostle, is
clear from a passage in
which he speaks of him as “an apostle and disciple of the Lord.” Clement of
Alexandria names the
187
apostle as the author of the book, as do also Victorinus, Ephrem the Syrian,
Epiphanius e. a. In the
West Ambrose and Augustine repeatedly quote the Apocalypse as written by
John the apostle, and
Jerome speaks of the apostle John as also being a prophet.
This strong external testimony is corroborated by internal evidence: (1) The
author repeatedly
calls himself John, 1
1,4,9
, 22
8
, and there is but one person who could use the name thus absolutely
to designate himself without fear of being misunderstood, viz. John the
apostle. (2) The writer
evidently stood in some special relation to the churches. of proconsular
Asia (i. e. Mysia, Lydia,
Caria and a part of Phrygia), which is in perfect harmony with the fact that
John spent the later
years of his life at Ephesus. (3) The author was evidently banished to the
island called Patmos in
the Aegean sea, one of the Sporades to the South of Samos. Now a quite
consistent tradition, which
is, however, discredited by some scholars, says that this happened to the
apostle John; and there
are some features that seem to mark this as an independent tradition. (4)
There are also notes of
identity between the writer and the author of the fourth Gospel and of I
John. Like in John 1:1 ff.
and I John 1:1, so also in Rev. 19:13 the name . ..... is given to our Lord.
He is called ......
twenty-nine times in this book, a word that is used elsewhere only in John
21:15, as a designation
of the disciples of the Lord. It is remarkable also that the only place,
where Christ is called a Lamb
outsid of this book, is in John 1:29, the word .µ... being used. The term
........, found but once
in Luke, once in Paul and three times in Hebrews, is employed nine times in
the gospel of John,
four times in the first Epistle, and ten times in the Apocalypse, though not
always in exactly the
same sense. Compare also with the repeated expression . ....., 2
7,11,17
, etc.; John 16
33
; I John
2
13,14
; 4
4
, 5
4,5
.
Still there have been dissentient voices from the beginning. The Alogi for
dogmatical reasons
impugned the authorship of John and ascribed the book to Cerinthus.
Dionysius of Alexandria for
more critical reasons, but also laboring with a strong anti-chiliastic bias,
referred it to another John
of Ephesus. Eusebius wavered in his opinion, but, led by considerations like
those of Dionysius,
was inclined to regard that shadowy person, John the presbyter, as the
author. And Luther had a
strong dislike for the book, because, as he said, Christ was neither taught
nor recognized in it; and
because the apostles did not deal in visions, but spoke in clear words, he
declared that it was neither
apostolic nor prophetic.
The Tubingen school accepted the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse,
while it denied that
the apostle had written any of the other books that are generally ascribed
to him. A great and
increasing number of critical scholars, however, do not believe that the
apostle John composed the
Apocalypse. Some of them, as Hitzig, Weiss and Spitta, suggest John Mark as
the author, while
many others, such as Bleek, Credner, Dusterdieck, Keim, Ewald, Weizsacker e.
a., regard it as the
work of John the presbyter. The principal objectipns urged against the
authorship of the apostle are
the following: (1) While the apostle in the gospel and in the first Epistle
does not mention his name,
the writer of this book names himself both in the first and in the third
person. (2) The genius of the
two writers is quite different: the one is speculative and introspective,
the other, imaginative, looking
especially to the external course of events; the one is characterized by
mildness and love, the other
is stern and revengeful; the views of the one are spiritual and mystic,
those of the other are sensuous
and plastic. (3) The type of doctrine found in the Apocalypse has a Jewish
stamp and is very unlike
that of the gospel of John, which is idealizing and breaks away from the
Mosaic basis. In this book
188
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
we find the Old Testament conception of God as a fearful Judge, of angels
and demons, and of the
Church as the new Jerusalem. There are twenty-four elders round about the
throne, twelve thousand
of each tribe that are sealed, and the names of the apostles are engraved on
the foundation stones
of the heavenly city. Moreover the necessity of good works is strongly
emphasized, cf. chs. 2, 3
and also 14:13. (4) The style of the book is of a very distinct Hebraic
type, different from anything
that is found in the other writings of John. Instead of the regular and
comparatively faultless
construction of the Gospel, we here find a language full of irregularities.
But we do not believe that these considerations necessitate the assumption
that the author of
the book cannot be identified with the writer of the fourth gospel. It is in
perfect harmony with the
usage of the historical and the prophetical writers of the Bible throughout
that the writer conceals
his name in the Gospel and mentions it in the Apocalypse. The different
light in which we see him
in his various books is the natural result of the vastly different character
of these writings. We
should also remember that a prophetic book naturally reflects far less of
the personal character of
its author than epistolary writings do. The alleged Judaeistic type of the
teachings found in the
Apocalypse does not militate against the authorship of John. In a symbolic
description of the future
condition of the Church it is perfectly natural and indeed very fitting that
the author should derive
his symbolism from Old Testament sources, since the Old Testament is
symbolically and typically
related to the New. It cannot be maintained that the Christological and
Soteriological teaching of
the Apocalypse is essentially Jewish. The Jews that oppose Jesus are
denounced, 3:9; the Church
is composed of people out of every nation, 7:9; salvation is the free gift
of grace, 21:6; 22:17; and
though the necessity of good works is emphasized, those are not regarded as
meritorious, but as
the fruits of righteousness, and are even called the works of Jesus, 2:26.
The strongest argument
against the authorship of John is undoubtedly that derived from the style
and language of the book.
There has been an attempt on the part of some scholars, as Olshausen and
Guericke, to explain the
linguistic differences between the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John by
assuming that the former
preceded the latter by about 20 or 25 years, in which time the authors
knowledge of Greek gradually
matured. But the differences are of such a kind that it may be doubted,
whether the lapse of a few
years can account for them. The language of the fourth Gospel is not that of
the Apocalypse in a
more developed form. While it is questionable, whether an altogether
satisfactory explanation can
be given with the data at hand, it seems certain that the solution must be
found, at least in part, in
the transcendent nature of the subject-matter and in the symbolic character
of the book. The fact
that the author so often violates the rules of Greek grammar, does not
necessarily mean that he did
not know them, but may also indicate that under the stress of the lofty
ideas that he wished to
express, he naturally resorted to Aramaic usage, which was easier for him.
The facts in the case do
not prove that the Greek of the Gospel is superior to that of the
Apocalypse. In the former writing
the author does not attempt so much as in the latter; the language of the
one is far simpler than that
of the other.
DESTINATION
The apostle addresses the Apocalypse to “the seven churches which are in
Asia,” 1:4.
Undoubtedly this number is not exhaustive but representative of the Church
in general, the number
seven, which is the number of completeness, forming a very important element
in the texture of
this prophetic writing. These churches are types that are constantly
repeated in history. There are
always some churches that are predominantly good and pure like those of
Smyrna and Philadelphia,
189
and therefore need no reproof but only words of encouragement; but there are
also constantly others
like Sardis and Laodicea in which evil preponderates, and that deserve
severe censure and an earnest
call to repentance. Probably the greater number of churches, however, will
always resemble those
of Ephesus, Pergamus and Thyatire in that good and evil are about equally
balanced in their circle,
so that they call for both commendation and censure, promise and
threatening. But while there is
a great difference both in the outward circumstances and in the internal
condition of these churches,
they all form a part of the militant Church that has a severe struggle on
earth in which it must strive
to overcome by faith (notice the constantly repeated . .....) and that may
expect the coming of
the Lord to reward her according to her works.
COMPOSITION
1. Occasion and Purpose. The historical condition that led to the
composition of the Apocalypse
was one of increasing hardships for the Church and of an imminent life and
death struggle with the
hostile world, represented by the Roman empire. The demand for the
deification of the emperor
became ever more insistent and was extended to the provinces. Domitian was
one of the emperors
who delighted to be styled dominus et deus. To refuse this homage was
disloyalty and treason; and
since the Christians as a body were bound to ignore this demand from the
nature of their religion,
they stood condemned as constituting a danger to the empire. Persecution was
the inevitable result
and had already been suffered by the churches, when this book was written,
while still greater
persecution was in store for them. Hence they needed consolation and the
Lord directed John to
address the Apocalypse to them. Cf. especially Ramsay, The Church in the
Roman Empire pp.
252-319.
It is but natural therefore that the contents of the book are mainly
consolatory. It aims at revealing
to the servants of Christ, i. e. to Christians in general the things that
must shortIy (not quickly, but
before long) come to pass. This note of time is to be considered as a
prophetic formula, in connection
with the fact that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and thousand
years as one day. The
central theme of the book is, “I come quickly,” and in the elaboration of
this theme Christ is pictured
as coming in terrible judgments on the world, and in the great final
struggle in which He is conqueror,
and after which the ecclesia militans is transformed into the ecclesia
triumphans.
2. Time and Place. There are especially two opinions as to the composition
of the Apocalypse,
viz. (1) that it was written toward the end of Domitians reign, about A. D.
95 or 96; and (2) that it
was composed between the death of Nero in the year 68 and the destruction of
Jerusalem.
(1). The late date was formerly the generally accepted time of composition
(Hengstenberg,
Lange, Alford, Godet e. a.) and, although for a time the earlier date was
looked upon with great
favor, there is now a noticeable return to the old position (Holtzmann,
Warfield, Ramsay, Porter
(Hastings D. B.), Moffat (Exp. Gk. Test.) e. a.). This view is favored by
the following considerations:
(a) The testimony of antiquity. While there are few witnesses that refer the
book to an earlier date,
the majority, and among them Irenaeus whose testimony should not lightly be
set aside, point to
the time of Domitian. (b) The antithesis of the Roman empire to the Church
presupposed in the
Apocalypse. The persecution of Nero was a purely local and somewhat private
affair. The Church
did not stand opposed to the empire as representing the world until the
first century was approaching
its close; and the Apocalypse already looks back on a period of persecution.
Moreover we know
that banishment was a common punishment in the time of Domitian. (c) The
existence and condition
190
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
of the seven churches in Asia. The utter silence of Acts and of the Epistles
regarding the churches
of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamus and Thyatira favors the
supposition that they were
founded after the death of Paul. And the condition of these churches
presupposes a longer period
of existence than the earlier date will allow. Ephesus has already left her
first love; in Sardis and
Laodicea spiritual life has almost become extinct; the Nicolaitans, who are
not mentioned elsewhere
in the New Testament, have already made their pernicious influence felt in
the churches of Ephesus
and Pergamus, while similar mischief was done in Thyatira by the woman
Jesebel. Moreover
Laodicea, which was destroyed by an earthquake in the 6th (Tactitus) or in
the 10th (Eusebius)
year of Nero, is here described as boasting of her wealth and
self-sufficiency.
(2). Against this and in favor of the earlier date defended by Dusterdieck,
Weiss, Guericke,
Schaff, are urged: (a) The late testimony of the Syrian Apocalypse that John
was banished in the
time of Nero, and the obscure and self-contradictory passage in Epiphanius
that places the banishment
in the time of Claudius. Cf. Alford, Prolegamena Section II. 14, where the
weakness of this testimony
is pointed out. (b) The supposed references in the Apocalypse to the
destruction of the Holy City
1,2,13
as still future in 11 . But it is quite evident that these passages must be
understood symbolically.
Regarded as historical predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem they did
not come true, for
according to 11: 2 only the outer court would be abolished, and according to
vs. 13 merely the tenth
part of the city would be destroyed, and that not by Rome but by an
earthquake. (c) The supposed
indications of the reigning emperor in 13:1 ff., especially in connection
with the symbolical
interpretation of the number 666 as being equal to the Hebrew form of Nero
Ceasar. But the great
diversity of opinion as to the correct interpretation of these passages,
even among the advocates of
the early date, proves that their support is very questionable. (d) The
difference between the language
of this book and that of the Gospel of John is thought to favor an early
date, but, as we have already
pointed out, this is not necessarily the case.
It is impossible to tell, whether John wrote the Apocalypse while he was
still on the island of
Patmos, or after his return from there. The statement in 10: 4 does not
prove the former theory, nor
the past tenses in 1:2, 9, the latter.
3. Method. Of late several theories have been broached to explain the origin
the Apocalypse
in such a manner as to account satisfactorily for the literary and
psychological features of the book.
(1) The Incorporation theory holds to the unity of the Apocalypse, but
believes that several older
fragments of Jewish or Christian origin are incorporated in it (Weizsacker,
Sabatier, Bousset,
McGiffert, Moffat, Baljon). (2) The Revision-hypothesis assumes that the
book has been subject
to one or more revisions, (Erbes, Briggs, Barth). The last named author is
of the opinion that John
himself in the time of Domitian revised an Apocalypse which he had written
under Nero. (3) The
Compilation-hypothesis teaches that two or more sources fairly complete in
themselves have been
pieced together by a redactor or redactors, (Weyland, Spitta, Volter at
least in part). (4) The Jewish
and Christian hypothesis maintains that the groundwork of the Apocalypse was
a Jewish writing
in the Aramaic language, written about 65-70, that was later translated and
edited by a Christian
(Vischer, Harnack, Martineau). In connection with these we can only say that
to us these theories
seem unnecessary and in the majority of cases very arbitrary. There is every
reason to maintain the
unity of the Apocalypse. The use of written sources in its composition is an
unproved assumption;
but the author was evidently impregnated with Old Testament ideas and modes
of expression, and
191
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
drew largely on the storehouse of his memory in the symbolic description of
the supernatural scenes
that were presented to his vision.
INTERPRETATION
Various principles of interpretation have been adopted with reference to
this book in the course
of time:
1. The older expositors and the majority of orthodox Protestant commentators
adopted the
Continuist (kirchengeschichtliche) interpretation, which proceeds on the
assumption that the book
contains a prophetic compendium of Church history from the first Christian
century until the return
of Christ, so that some of its prophecies have now been realized and others
still await fulfilment.
This theory disregards the contemporaneous character of the seven series of
visions and has often
led to all sorts of vain speculations and calculations as to the historical
facts in which particular
prophecies are fulfilled.
2. In course of time the Futurist (endgeschichtliche) interpretation found
favor with some,
according to which all or nearly all the events described in the Apocalypse
must be referred to the
period immediately preceding the return of Christ (Zahn, Kliefoth). Some of
the Futurists are so
extreme that they deny even the past existence of the seven Asiatic churches
and declare that we
may yet expect them to arise in the last days. As a matter of course this
interpretation fails to do
justice to the historical element in the book.
3. Present day critical scholars are generally inclined to adopt the
Praeterist (zeitgeschichtliche)
interpretation, which holds that the view of the Seer was limited to matters
within his own historical
horizon, and that the book refers principally to the triumph of Christianity
over Judaeism and
Paganism, signalized in the downfall of Jerusalem and Rome. On this view all
or almost all the
prophecies contained in the book have already been fulfilled (Bleek,
Duisterdieck, Davidson, F.
C. Porter e. a.). But this theory does not do justice to the prophetic
element in the Apocalypse.
Though all these views must be regarded as one-sided, each one contains an
element of truth
that must be taken in consideration in the interpretation of the book. The
descriptions in it certainly
had a point of contact in the historical present of the Seer, but they go
far beyond that present; they
certainly pertain to historical conditions of the Church of God, and
conditions that will exist in all
ages, but instead of arising successively in the order in which they are
described in the Apocalypse,
they make their appearance in every age contemporaneously; and finally they
will certainly issue
in a terrific struggle immediately preceding the parousia of Christ and in
the transcendent glory of
the bride of the Lamb.
INSPIRATION
The particular form of inspiration in which the writer shared was the
prophetic, as is perfectly
evident from the book itself. The author, while in the Spirit, was the
recipient of divine revelations,
1,10
1 , and received his intelligence by means of visions, in part at least
mediated and interpreted
10,19 1,2 1 1 7-18 9
by angels, 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 17 , 21 . He received the command to write and to
prophecy from
19 4,11 13
God himself, 1 , 10 , 14 . And the “I” speaking in the book is sometimes
that of the Lord
192
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
himself and sometimes that of the prophet, which is also a characteristic
mark of the prophetic
inspiration. In chapters 2 and 3 f. i. the Lord speaks in the first person,
and again in 16:15 and 22:7.
CANONICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The canonical authority of the apocalypse has never been seriously doubted
by the Church.
Hermas, Papias and Melito recognized its canonicity, and according to
Eusebius Theophilus cited
passages from it. The three great witnesses of the end of the second century
all quote it by name
and thus recognize its authority. Hippolytus and Origen also regarded it as
canonical. Similarly
Victorinus, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine. Gradually, however, the fact that
Millenarians found
their chief support in the book, made it obnoxious to some of the Church
fathers, who deemed it
inexpedient to read it in the churches. This explains, why it is absent from
some MSS. and from
some of the catalogues of the ancient councils.
The book is primarily a book of consolation for the militant Church in its
struggles with the
hostile world and with the powers of darkness. It directs the glance of the
struggling, suffering,
sorrowing and often persecuted Church toward its glorious future. Its
central teaching is, “I come
quickly!” And while it reveals the future history of the Church as one of
continual struggle, it
unfolds in majestic visions the coming of the Lord, which issues in the
destruction of the wicked
and of the evil One, and in the everlasting bliss of the faithful witnesses
of Jesus Christ. Hence the
book comes to the enemies of God’s Kingdom with words of solemn warning and
with threatenings
of future punishment, while it encourages the followers of the Lord to ever
greater faithfulness,
and opens up to them bright visions of the future, thus inspiring the Church’s
constant prayer: “Even
so, come, Lord Jesus!”
193
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Genesis
14
1 Kings
21
2 Kings
5:5-7
1 Chronicles
5
Isaiah
6 13 14 40
Jeremiah
29:1 50 51
Ezekiel
1 10 40
Daniel
7 10 11 11:1
Matthew
3 4:18 4:19 5 5 5:7 5:12 7:7 7:24 9 10 10:2-4 10:3 10:19 10:20 12 12:46
12:46 13:55 13:55 13:55 13:55 14 14:22 14:28-31 16:16 16:17 16:18 16:22 17
17
17:24 17:25 20 23:12 24 24 26 26 26:69-75 27 27 27 27 27 56
Mark
1 1 1:20 2:14 2:15 3 3 3:17 3:18 3:18 3:31 6 6 6 6:3 6:3 9 10 11:23 12:31
15 16 16:1 40
Luke
3:1 4 4:31 4:38 5 6:14 6:15 6:16 6:16 6:16 8 8:19 8:19 9 9 9:49 10 10 10:19
17:20-37 21:20 22 22:8 24:10 24:10 67
John
1 1 1 1:1 1:1 1:2 1:4 1:14 1:29 2:12 3 3:36 5:8 5:32 5:34 5:36 6 7 7:3 7:5
7:5 8:44 8:47 11:9 11:10 11:51 11:52 13:6 13:34 14 14:12 14:13 14:14 14:16
14:26 14:26 14:26 15:12 15:13 15:23 15:24 16 16:12 16:13 16:14 16:25 17 17:3
18:10 18:10 19 19 19:34 19:35 20 20:31 21:15 21:15-17
Acts
1 11 11:1 1:131:14 22:4 2:10 2:14-36 34 46 7 8:14 8:269 9 99:22
9:26 10:1-48 11 11 12:1-17 12:12 12:12 12:12 12:17 12:17 13 13 13 13 13:1
14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15:13 15:13 15:14 15:14-29 15:17 15:22 15:25
15:29 16 16 16 16 16 16 16:1 16:10 16:12 17:4 17:5-9 17:6 17:8 17:14 18 18
18 18 18 18 18 18 18:1 18:1-8 18:8 18:12-17 18:18 18:19 19 19 19 19 19
194
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
19:10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20:4 21:18 23:26 24 24:23 26:4 28 28
28:16 28:25
Romans
2:16 3 4 6:6-8 6:17 7 8:14-17 8:19-22 9 10:8 11 12 12 12 12 12 12:2 12:10
13 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16:13 16:13 16:22 16:23
1 Corinthians
1 1 1 1:12 2 2:4 2:10 2:11-13 2:13 4 4:17 4:17 4:17 5 5 5 5 5:9 8:6 9 9
9:5 11 11:1 11:21 11:22 12 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15:7 15:10 15:10
16 16 16 16 16 16 16:10 16:10 16:14 16:19 16:19
2 Corinthians
1 1:1 1:1 1:15-18 1:15-24 2 2 2:4 2:9 2:12 2:13 2:13 2:17 3:1 4:4 7 7 7 8
8 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:16 8:16 10 10 10 10:10 11 11:1-4 11:9 12:18 13 13
Galatians
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1:12 1:23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2:1 2:3 2:12 2:12 3 3:6 4 4 4:5-7
4:13 4:13 5:16 5:17 6 6:16
Ephesians
1:3 1:17 1:19 2 2 2:3 3 4:11 4:17 4:18 6 6 6:19 6:20 78
Philippians
1 1 1 1 1 1 1:14 1:27 2 2 4 4:16 4:22
Colossians
1:1 2 4 4 4 4 4 4:10 4:10 4:10-14 4:11 4:14 4:14 4:14 4:16 4:16 4:17
1 Thessalonians
1:9 2 2:13 3 3 3 4 4:13-18
2 Thessalonians
2:1-12 2:15 3 3 3:17
1 Timothy
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1:10 1:15 3 3:1 3:14 4:6 4:12 4:12 4:14 5 5 5:18
5:18 6 6:11 6:11 6:20 6:20
2 Timothy
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1:6 1:12 1:14 1:15-18 2 2:16 2:18 2:22 3 3:10 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4:8 4:10-12 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:11 4:13 4:14 4:16 4:17 4:19
Titus
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2:15 3 3 3:12 3:12 3:12-15 3:13
Philemon
1:1 1:9 1:13 1:19 1:22 1:22 1:22 1:22 1:24 1:24 1:24
Hebrews
5:12
James
1:1 1:2 1:3 1:16 1:19 1:21 1:27 1:27 2 4:6 4:7 4:10 5
1 Peter
1 1 1 1:1 4:11 5:13 5:13
2 Peter
1 3:1 3:15 3:16
1 John
195
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
1 1:1 1:1-3 2 4
2 John
1:4-9
3 John
1:1 1:9 1:11
Jude
1:6 1:9
Revelation
19:13
2 Esdras
5:42
Index of Scripture Commentary
Matthew
0-0
Mark
0-0
Luke
0-0
John
0-0
Acts
0-0
Romans
0-0
1 Corinthians
0-0
2 Corinthians
0-0
Galatians
0-0
Ephesians
0-0
Philippians
0-0
Colossians
0-0
1 Thessalonians
0-0
2 Thessalonians
196
Introduction to the New Testament Louis Berkhof
0-0
1 Timothy
0-0
2 Timothy
0-0
Titus
0-0
Philemon
1
Hebrews
0-0
James
0-0
1 Peter
1
2 Peter
1
1 John
0-0
2 John
1
3 John
1
Jude
1
Revelation
0-0
197
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mostafa" <mostafa.almahdy at gmail.com>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 5:51 AM
Subject: [Faith-talk] Is the original New testament lost? And what
happenswhen politicians misuse the religion to rule?
> Dear all, upon you be peace and blessings.
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope you all are keeping really well.
>
>
>
> On today’s post, we’re attempting to tackle the concern, is the original
> New testament lost?
>
>
>
> Well in order to answer this question properly, we first need to
> understand; What do we mean by original New testament.
>
>
>
> Well, without complicating a vague definition, we basicly mean, the first
> ever produced transcription of the New testament.
>
>
>
> To average Christian laymen, this subject seems not to be highly regarded.
>
>
>
> Because he was taught on Sunday Church, that the Bible is utterly
> inerrant, and it is unquestionably the inspiringly divined revelation.
>
>
>
> Well, that only works for believing evangelical Christians.
>
>
>
> But, what I am aiming to address is totally different.
>
>
>
> It regards the New Testament scholarship.
>
>
>
> As all we know, the New Testament is not orally memorable.
>
>
>
> It was transmitted throughout ancient Bibliography.
>
>
>
> Noone knows for certain, who was the first one to write the New Testament
> gospels.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, there is a radically skeptic view that believes, that the
> present form of the New Testament was precisely copied from the original
> text.
>
>
>
> Well, I can tell you without any doubt in my mind, that the worldwide
> leading scholars of the field would affirmitively disagree with that
> proposition.
>
>
>
> There is a widely theological controversy among adequate New Testament
> scholars and early Church fathers, of what was the first copy to be
> recognized.
>
>
>
> New Testament textual critics distinctly emphasize, that there isn’t a
> scientific reliability which confidently guarantees, that the New
> Testament has consecutively been transmitted.
>
>
>
> We knew nothing about the scribes who copied the New testament, nor about
> those who translated it, from a language, to another.
>
>
>
> They are perfectly anonymous.
>
>
>
> So, how we can trust what they wrote?
>
>
>
> Evangelical Apologists may rebuttal by proclaiming, that the Koran was
> subjected to the same problem.
>
>
>
> Well, it is a very old, and a gravely worn out argument.
>
>
>
> As we have previously illustrated, The Koran isn’t the same as the Bible,
> regarding its nature.
>
>
>
> It is an orally verbatim memorable text, and it doesn’t suffer from the
> significantly detected textual discrepancies of the biblical literature.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the first people who wrote the Koran have accurately
> memorized it, they were critically identified, accredited, they eloquently
> spoke its language, and they were trusted.
>
>
>
> Evangelical Apologists would pose the argument, that the New Testament
> has been translated to various languages, to broadly accommodate a
> numerous amount of people.
>
>
>
> Well, if you know someone who works in the translation profession, you may
> ask him:
>
>
>
> Is there always something missed in translation?
>
>
>
> The Koran, however, has broadly been memorized in clasical Arabic, by
> Muslims in allover the world, in spite of their native tongues.
>
>
>
> It is quite convenient, to verify what I claim.
>
>
>
> I enjoy studying the Bible, not because I just like to denounce the
> Christian religion.
>
>
>
> To the contrary, I want to prove to either Muslims, Jews, or Christians,
> that the religion of God is indeed a one religion.
>
>
>
> Just as Jews and Christians, I am committed to believe in the Bible as the
> word of God.
>
>
>
> In Islam, we are devoted to believe in the six tennets of faith.
>
>
>
> The third article of these, is to believe in all what God has currently or
> formerly revealed to his prophets.
>
>
>
> And that includes, the Torah of Moses, the Psalms of David and Solomon,
> the gospel of Jesus, and the Koran of Muhammad.
>
>
>
> The Koran asserts, that these scriptures were subjected to dozens of
> textual omissions and alterations by their scribes.
>
>
>
> And as all we know, this proposition has been informatively approved.
>
>
>
> The Koran meets the facts on the ground, regarding the former revelations
> from God.
>
>
>
> But, I still believe in the Bible origin, whatever it was at the times of
> Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus as the divine revelation from God.
>
>
>
> I hold the sientific standpoint of questioning the Bible’s textual
> authenticity, at its present form.
>
>
>
> I knew, however, that my Christian friends will probably disagree with me.
>
>
>
> I just would like you my dears, to reconsider the Biblical inerrant
> disposition, within unbiased perception and open-mindedness.
>
>
>
> I don’t expect you to abandon your faith, nor do I want you to do so.
>
>
>
> I never felt happy, when a Christian becomes Ignostic or Atheist due to
> this theological shortage, to the contrary, I’m all brokenheart for that.
>
>
>
> I would rather unify myself with Christians to incisively confront this
> threatening phenomenon of Atheism, which persists to vastly escalate in
> the western world at presently.
>
>
>
> Another reason that I adhere in coordinating my theological discourse,
> with Christians in particular, is that people of no faith are proclaiming,
> that people of faith, are the source of radicalism and hateful exchanges
> in the the world today.
>
>
>
> Well, I wanted to prove to them, in a practical manner, that people of
> faith may possibly disagree on the core of their beliefs, whilst
> maintaining a substantial level of warmth, courtesy, tolerance and
> deference.
>
>
>
> Well, the second segment of this post, is dedicated to discuss the
> consequence of the politics dominating religion.
>
>
>
> Many people, even here in Egypt, have questioned the religious arena being
> lead by the political authority.
>
>
>
> That has sparked a tremendously heating exchanges, and particularly,
> amongst fundamentalist and secular politicians here in Egypt.
>
>
>
> For a whole year, the brotherhood religiously symbled political movement
> have ruled Egypt.
>
>
>
> During that time, I observed many strange interpretations of religious
> teachings.
>
>
>
> They were quite irregular, and perfectly insurgent to the common public
> Muslim practice here in Egypt.
>
>
>
> Many unremarkable individuals felt quite disadvantaged because of the
> disingenuous and incompetent theological sentiments, spoken by unqualified
> self-proclaimed clerics.
>
>
>
> These people were wearing religious garments, whilst have grown their
> beards in a sense of showing off devotion, in attempt to attract the
> public attention.
>
>
>
> Coptics were gravely eliminated in the brief brotherhood era.
>
>
>
> And as a Sunni devout practicing Muslim, I intensely condemn that.
>
>
>
> The vast majority of moderately practicing Sunni devout Muslims here in
> Egypt are heavily condemning the religious misinterpretation of Islamic
> teachings, committed by unqualified self-proclaimed brotherhood clerics,
> which were incorrectly implemented to disadvantage mass Muslims and
> religious minorities, including Coptics.
>
>
>
> Well, I am going to concisely outline some statements in the relation to
> the subject matter, and absolutely, you may agree or disagree with me.
>
>
>
> 1; Religion is the source of devotion, ethical excellence, certitude and
> placid temperament if it was correctly interpreted by adequate clerics.
>
>
>
> And it is the source of radicalism, extremism, atrocious cruelty,
> backwardness and venomous thoughts, if it was obliviously implemented by
> religiously symbled politicians, utterly unqualified to speak at the
> subject of Theology.
>
>
>
> 2'; political upheaval is to be regulated by religious injunctions, not
> the contrary.
>
>
>
> 3; the total absence of religious enlightenment and education is the
> major foundation of constant growing Atheism in the world today, which in
> my opinion, is the contemporary backwardness.
>
>
>
> 4; Delegating the youth of all religions is mandatory, because that
> would constitute a different outlook of the role that religion plays in
> today’s modern world.
>
>
>
> 5; Interfaith dialogs are to be regularly scheduled among youth of
> different religions, and that’s to provide an enlightening environment,
> which helps us to cope and collaborate with each other on intercultural
> basis.
>
>
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
>
>
> Upon you be peace and blessings.
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%40gmail.com
>
More information about the Faith-Talk
mailing list