: 0 ; '>! givtrtteff Books foi- the founding ef a. College th.^^jSelbn.y^ • iLHiais^mr • DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY a TYPES OF PREACHERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT A. T. ROBERTSON, m.a., d.d., ll.d., litta BY PROFESSOR A. T. ROBERTSON Types of Preachers in the New Testament. Paul the Interpreter of Christ. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ. Practical and Social Aspects of Christianity (Exposi tion of James). A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Fifth Edition. Translation into Dutch, French, Ger man, Italian. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Third Edition Re vised. John the Loyal: A Sketch of John the Baptist. Epochs in the Life of Jesus. Epochs in the Life of Paul. The Pharisees and Jesus. The Stone Princeton Lectures for 1916. Luke the Historian in the Light of Research. The Student's Chronological New Testament. The Glory of the Ministry. The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John. Paul's Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians. Making Good in the Ministry: A Sketch of John Mark. The New Citizenship. Commentary on Matthew: The Bible for Home and School. Studies in Mark's Gospel. Studies in the New Testament. Keywords in the Teaching of Jesus. Life and Letters of John A. Broadus. The Teaching of Jesus Concerning God the Father. Syllabus for New Testament Study. TYPES OF PREACHERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT BY A. T. ROBERTSON, m.a., d.d., ll.d., litt.d., professor of new testament interpretation, southern baptist theological seminary, Louisville, Kentucky 'A Good Minister of Christ Jesus." NEW ^SW YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY COPYRIGHT, 1923, BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY TYPES OF PREACHERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. I. PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO MY SISTER JOSEPHINE ROBERTSON PREFACE These studies of some of the minor characters in the New Testament story illustrate the wealth of material in early Christianity. Human nature has; infinite variety and perpetual interest. The author has already written books about the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, Luke, the Apostle John, Mark, and has one on the stocks about Simon Peter. So these are not in cluded in this volume. The problem of the ministry is always a vital one and there are periods of pessimism about the ministerial supply. But God can use men of wide divergence in gifts and is not bound by any rules save those of life and love. The Word of God is not bound by any human shackles. The battle of the human spirit for fellowship with God in Christ goes on through the ages. A noble line of interpreters of Christ appear in every age. A, T. Robertson. Louisville, Kentucky. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgments are made to the following jour nals for permission to reproduce chapters that had previously appeared in them: The Biblical Review, The Expositor (London), The Methodist Review (New York), The Methodist Review (Nashville), The Christian Worker's Magazine, The Moody Monthly, The Expositor (Cleveland), The Record of Christian Work. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I Apollos the Minister with Insufficient Preparation 13 II Barnabas the Young Preacher's Friend 30 III Aquila and Priscilla Partners in Serv ice 52 IV James the Man of Poise 71 V Philemon the Man with a Social Prob lem 85 VI Stephen the Pathbreaker and the Mar tyr 108 VII Lydia the Preacher's Friend and Helper 122 VIII Silas the Comrade 134 IX Titus the Courageous 148 X Timothy the Faithful 158 XI Thomas the Preacher with Honest Doubts 169 XII Philip the Evangelist 182 XIII Matthew the Business Man in the Ministry 192 XIV Judas the Traitor to His Lord . . . 206 XV Diotrephes the Church Regulator . . 218 XVI Epaphroditus the Minister Who Risked All for Christ 230 ix TYPES OF PREACHERS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER I APOLLOS THE MINISTER WITH INSUFFI CIENT PREPARATION The touch of genius does not belong to many. When a man of marked individuality confronts us, he at once attracts attention. We have various phrases that more or less conceal our ignorance of the subtle quality that charms us. We call it personal magnetism when we cannot otherwise distinguish the element df power. Apollos had the note of distinction. He was a marked man in any gathering and left his impress whenever he spoke. A man who could divide honours with Paul in Corinth is worthy of study. We are in debted to Luke (Acts 18 :24-i9 :i ) and to Paul ( i Cor. 1:12-4:21; 16:12; Tit. 3:13) for all that we really know about him. It is argued by some that he wrote the Wisdom of Solomon before becoming a Chris tian and the Epistle to the Hebrews after he learned to serve Jesus. But there is no real evidence for either theory. Paul calls him an apostle like himself, in 1 Corinthians 4:9, though it was true of him only in a general sense, since he had not seen the risen Christ and was not a personal follower while Jesus lived on earth. A JEW WITH ALEXANDRIAN CULTURE Luke speaks of him as "a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race." Schmiedel ("En- 13 14 TYPES OF PREACHERS cyclopaedia Biblica") and McGiffert ("The Apostolic Age," p. 291) seek to discredit the statements of Luke in various particulars, but they admit this statement. The Bezan text (D) gives the longer form of the name, Apollonius. This is one of the few times that Alexandria is mentioned in the New Testament, though the influence of the Alexandrian teaching is discernible in various passages, as in John 1 :i-i8; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-3. In Alexandria the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible was made, and this Greek Old Testament exerted a tre mendous influence on the Jews of the Dispersion and upon early Christians. Alexandria had the greatest library of antiquity and a great university. The Jews were very numerous and were treated with much favour there. Alexandria was thus a centre of Hellenism and of Judaism. Plato and Moses met in Alexandria in the Greek tongue. The Jews there read the Sep tuagint and spoke the vernacular koine. Thousands of papyri fragments now reveal to us the Greek of Egypt in the first century a.d. One of the greatest Jews of all times lived in Alex andria in that century. Apollos could have studied, or at least read, the philosophy of Philo, the chief exponent of the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy. Grammar, rhetoric, philosophy, astronomy, mathe matics, medicine, geography, were all subjects of lectures by learned professors in Alexandria. Apollos lived in this atmosphere of culture and is thus like Paul, who came from the environment of the University of Tarsus. Christianity and culture have not always understood one another. In some university circles to- APOLLOS THE MINISTER IS day Christ is taboo. The Renaissance led to the Ref ormation, but Erasmus and his Greek Testament did not hold all lovers of the new learning. Paganism still has its grip upon some modern scholarship. In Alex andria Philo sought to reconcile Plato and Moses. He did it by the allegorical method that won great favour in the later Christian school of theology in Alexandria under Origen and Clement of Alexandria. It was a favourite method of certain rabbis, and Paul is familiar with it. Apollos undoubtedly knew the new eclectic philosophy that combined Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Mosaism, and the new exegetical method., He was at home with the new rhetoric and knew how to express his opinions with force. Luke calls him "an eloquent man" (\6yios), but the word means also "learned." In fact it includes both learning and elo quence (Knowling, Acts, in loco). The early Chris tians had none too many men of literary culture. Paul, Luke, and the author of the Hebrews are the outstand ing ones. Apollos is a welcome addition to this small circle. A MIGHTY INTERPRETER OF THE SCRIPTURES Apollos was "able" (dwarSs) in the use of the Scrip tures. A man may have a considerable knowledge of the Bible and yet not be able to use his knowledge effec tively. But Apollos was no "Doctor Dry-as-dust." He did not have his learning laid away in an attic or in cold storage. He had learned much of the Old Testament .by heart and knew how to find what he wanted. D. L. Moody was not as great a technical scholar as some men, but he knew how to use the sword 16 TYPES OF PREACHERS of the Spirit with tremendous power ; it was no Saul's armour to this David. Spurgeon was as remarkable for his knowledge of the Scriptures as for his skill as a preacher; his Treasury of David is a treasury indeed. Alexander Maclaren's "Expositions of Holy Scrip tures" reveal the richness of Scripture knowledge possessed by this prince of preachers. John A. Broadus was another preacher of great pulpit power who gloried in the Scriptures. The last lecture that Broadus delivered to his New Testament class in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was on Apollos. He made a thrilling appeal to young minis ters to be "mighty in the Scriptures." It is not possible to be powerful in the use of the Scriptures without an adequate knowledge of the books of Scripture. One, if possible, should have technical acquaintance with the problems of scholar ship, the language, the history, the religious ideas, the social conditions, the relations to other religions and peoples, the development in response to new ideas, the transforming power of Christ's life and teachings upon mankind. The word for "mighty" is used in Acts 7:22 of Moses, who was slow of speech: "And he was mighty in his words and works." He "was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." So was Apollos, only his Egyptian equipment included the addition of Hellenism and Judaism. Herodotus applies the word for "eloquent" ( \6yios ) to knowledge of history, and Plutarch uses it of eloquence (Cf. Knowling, Acts in loco). Ramsay ("St. Paul the Traveller," p. 267) calls Apollos "a good speaker, and well read in the Scripture." He is apparently the first APOLLOS THE MINISTER 17 Christian preacher who expounds Christianity from the standpoint of the philosophy of Alexandria. Some Philonian speculations may well have been inter mingled with his profound knowledge of the Scrip tures. The allegorical method of exegesis would seem novel and wonderful, and the orator's" touch gave a magic spell to his oratory. Such a man was bound to win a hearing and a following. As a loyal Jew he had devoted his learning and eloquence to the expo sition of Scripture (Rackham, "Acts," p. 341). A CHRISTIAN WITH ONLY THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BAPTIST Here we confront a difficult problem. Precisely how much did Apollos know of Jesus? The Bezan Text (D) says that "he had been instructed in the way of the Lord in his native land" (ovtos r/v KaTTjxyn&os ttjv 65dv rod Kvpiov). This means that Apollos learned what he knew of Jesus in Alexandria. There is nothing im possible in that idea. The knowledge of Apollos may well represent the condition of Christianity in Alex andria when he left. Luke says that he knew "only the baptism of John" and yet he was "instructed in the way of the Lord" and "spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus." McGiffert ("The Apos tolic Age," p. 291) says that this statement of Luke can hardly be accurate "because it seems contradic tory." Schmiedel ("Encyclopaedia Biblica") would make these verses later additions, and Wendt (Meyer, Komm. "Acts") would erase verse 25. Harnack ("Ex pansion of Christianity," i, 33m) says that "the whole narrative of Acts at this point is singularly coloured- 18 TYPES OF PREACHERS and obscure." There is obscurity, beyond a doubt, but it is not impossible to form an intelligent idea of what the theological standpoint of Apollos was when he came to Ephesus. It is not necessary to know whether he had learned what he knew of Jesus from a written document, one of the early attempts to set forth the work of Jesus (Luke 1:2). He may have had an early copy of Mark's Gospel if it ended at 16:8, as Blass suggests ("Philology of the Gospels," p. 31). Even if the word for "instructed" (narnxniievos) implies oral instruction, as Wright argues ( The Expository Times, Oct., 1897, p. gi.), books were often read aloud. The point is not decisive. Catechists may have come to Alexandria, even though no Christian church may have existed there. What we need to do is to approach Apollos from the standpoint of John the Baptist, not from that of Paul. John came "in the way of righteousness," Jesus said (Matt. 21 :32). John was put to death be fore Calvary, before the Resurrection of Jesus, and before the great Pentecost. John went on with his work after Jesus began His ministry, but he clearly identified Jesus as "the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1 =29) and as "the Son of God" (John 1 :34). He said that the Messiah would baptise with the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8). He saw some of his disciples leave him to follow Jesus as the Messiah (John 1:37). John's work exerted a tre mendous influence on Judaism, and it went on after his death. It is not strange that some of his disciples were caught in the transition stage and did not know all the rapid developments of Christianity. The APOLLOS THE MINISTER 19 disciples of John who became Christians were not bap tised again. John's baptism is all the baptism that Jesus had, or His first six disciples. It was sufficient. Baptism is probably used by Luke in Acts 18:25 for the whole work of John as Jesus employed it in Mat thew 21 :25. Apollos, then, occupied the pre-Pente- costal standpoint, though a sincere follower of Jesus (Robertson, "John the Loyal," p. 293). He inter preted the things of Christ accurately as far as he knew them. He had imperfect knowledge rather than erroneous information. He was in no sense a heretic, though he was sadly deficient in important points. It is argued by some (Roberts, for instance, in Hastings's "Dictionary of the Apostolic Church") that Apollos not only "had an imperfect 'hearsay' acquaint ance with the story of -Jesus," but he really know no more about Him than the twelve misguided disciples of John whom Paul encounters in Ephesus after Apol los has gone (Acts 19:1-7). In fact these twelve men are regarded by this theory as disciples of Apollos and as an index of the knowledge possessed by him. It is, I believe, wholly unlikely that these men were disciples of Apollos, and, if so, they, as often happens, failed to understand their teacher. Luke could not have used the adverb "accurately" about the teaching of Apollos if he knew no more than these twelve men. They were ignorant of the Holy Spirit, of repentance, and of Jesus. John the Baptist had taught all these things, which, of course, Apollos knew. These men were sadly misguided disciples of John whom Paul instructs and baptises. There is no hint that Apollos was baptised again. Luke contrasts their condition 20 TYPES OF PREACHERS with that of Apollos. These men were raw and un couth in their knowledge of the elements of Chris tianity. They represent the stage of some of the disciples of John who hung on the very fringe of Christianity. Apollos is much further along. He lacked knowledge of the great events from the death of Christ to Pentecost and the great missionary propa ganda. It was a pity for so gifted a man to remain with so limited a knowledge of Christianity. It is al ways a tragedy for a minister to be deficient in his knowledge of the cross of Christ. Only the Spirit of God can teach him fully. A PASSIONATE ENTHUSIAST, QUICK TO LEARN It is possible that Apollos first began to speak and to teach privately, and then "he began to speak boldly in the synagogue" (Acts 18:26) as Paul did after wards for three months (19:8). Luke uses the same word for this "bold" speaking by Apollos and Paul (7ropp9j(rtafo/iai). It is employed in the New Testa ment only by Luke and Paul and always of the bold declaration of the truths of the Gospel. Apollos did not lack the courage of his convictions and was care ful in his statements about Jesus to keep within the bounds of his definite knowledge. This admirable trait of minute accuracy is all the more noticeable since Apollos was "fervent in spirit" ($kuv r<$ Trvevfian) . An enthusiastic temperament is sometimes exuberant in expressions that are more florid and rhetorical than accurate. Paul commends fervency (Rom. 12:11) as one of the marks of sincerity. The word means liter ally boiling over (our "zeal"). APOLLOS THE MINISTER 93. It was in the synagogue that Apollos attracted the attention of Priscilla and Aquila, whom Paul had left in Ephesus when he went on to Cassarea and Antioch (Acts i8:2if). The mention of Priscilla before Aquila here, though the Western and Syrian types of text have Aquila and Priscilla, may mean that Priscilla took the leading part in the further instruction of Apollos. They were evidently surprised and delighted with this remarkable preacher and saw at once the obvious defects in his knowledge of the Gospel. But they did not stop with this discovery, nor did they indulge in public criticism of the limitations of Apollos as an expounder of the faith. They could easily have closed the door of service for this brilliant man. But they apparently invited him home after worship, probably for dinner. "They took him unto them" (vpoffeMPovTo ahrSv, indirect middle, took him to them selves). Criticism is a delicate task, a sort of spiritual sur gery, and, though greatly needed, is very difficult to perform without doing more harm than good. Preachers, like musicians, are highly sensitive, particu larly about their sermons and their knowledge of the Gospel which is their specialty. Apollos had a great acquaintance with the Scriptures and philosophy and rhetoric. He was lacking in some important items about Jesus. It would have been easy to give him offence and to add to his eccentricity. But Priscilla was beyond a doubt a woman of tact. They "ex pounded unto him the way of God more accurately." This is simply superb. It was done thoroughly, neatly, and smoothly ((ucpifiko-repov airy k&dtvTo) . Fortunately 22 TYPES OF PREACHERS they did not have* to contravene any of his positions. He was correct as far as he went. Only he did not go far enough. One can easily imagine how the heart of Apollos burned within him and how his eyes glistened as he learned of the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Pentecostal Power of the Holy Spirit, the Gentile campaign for world conquest. He was an eager pupil and doubtless cheered the hearts of his hosts and teachers. Evidently Apollos exhibited profound grati tude for the new light that had been turned upon the great problems of Christianity. He readily saw the bearing of it all upon what he already knew so well. There is hope for the man who is ready to learn. One is never too old to learn. The minister who is always learning will always have a hearing. There is no dead line for him. ' That comes the minute one stops learn ing. Apollos is a rebuke to the preacher who is con tent to preach his old sermons through the years without reading the new books or mastering the old ones. Here is a profound student of the Scriptures, a master in Old Testament interpretation, who is glad to sit at the feet of Priscilla and Aquila and learn more of Jesus. That is the place for all of us, at the feet of anyone who can teach us more about Jesus. We cannot know too much about Him. We cannot be too accurate in our knowledge of Him. The passion of Paul in his later years was to know Jesus, for Christ always eludes us just a bit. There is always more to learn about the unsearchable riches of Christ. APOLLOS THE MINISTER 23 A POWERFUL APOLOGIST FOR CHRISTIANITY The Bezan text (D) has this: "And there were certain Corinthians sojourning in Ephesus, and when they heard him they besought him to cross over with them to their country. And when he had consented, the Ephesians wrote to the disciples in Corinth that they should receive the man." This is quite likely the real origin of the way that Apollos came to go tot Corinth, though it is clearly not the original text of Acts. So Apollos "was minded to pass over into Achaia," and "the brethren encouraged him" (irporpep- 6,/jxvoi, 'putting him forward). He seemed to be just the type of man that would suit the situation in Corinth. Priscilla and Aquila knew Corinth well; and the Corinthian brethren in Ephesus no doubt felt that they had made a great "find" for their church in the metropolis, just like a modern pulpit committee. There was apparently no organised church as yet in Ephesus, though some Christians were there, besides Aquila and Priscilla. Apollos was fully equipped with a cordial letter of commendation. Paul will later comment on the fact that he himself needed no "epistles of commendation to you or from you" "as do some" (2 Cor. 3:1). Apollos soon justified the wisdom of those who had Brought him. "He helped them much that had believed through grace" (Acts 18:27). He seems to have ad dressed himself chiefly to those already Christians who had been converted under Paul's ministry. Evidently Apollos was less evangelistic than Paul. These hearers had already "believed through grace," and Apollos 24 TYPES OF PREACHERS "helped them much" (owej3dXeTo iro\v) . He gave them a constructive interpretation of Christianity with the fresh glow of the new knowledge acquired in Ephesus and, in particular, "he powerfully confuted the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:28). It will be recalled that in Corinth the Jews had blasphemed Paul for preaching this very doctrine (Acts 18 :6) and had brought Paul before Gallio, much to their sorrow (18:12-17). The issue was still sharply drawn between Jews and Chris tians in Corinth. Apollos was doubly welcome because of his great knowledge of and skill in the use of the Scriptures. He "argued them down" ( SiaKar-nXkyxero; note imperfect tense and double compound). He did not necessarily convince the Jews though he disputed "vehemently" (evrdvws; cf. Luke 23:10). But the powerful apologetic of Apollos made a pro found impression upon the Christians in Corinth. He was hailed, and rightly so, as a champion of the faith. Apollos was a new type to them. The scholastic and philosophical turn of his mind was pleasing in Corinth. Paul did not have the excellency of speech from the rhetorical standpoint or the persuasive words of wis dom (1 Cor. 2:1-4) that Apollos had and that many of them liked. It is one of the blessings of life that men have different gifts. God can use them all. It would be a great misfortune if preachers were just alike in intellectual equipment and in style of speech. A SKILFUL BUILDER ON PAUL'S FOUNDATION "I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the in crease" ( 1 Cor. 3 :6). Paul "as a wise master-builder" APOLLOS THE MINISTER 25 (3:10; cf. Lock, "St. Paul the Masterbuilder" ) had laid the foundation that should underlie every church, Jesus Christ (3:11). "Another buildeth thereon," he said, with probable reference to Apollos. Both Paul and Apollos had been "God's fellow workers" ( Qtov o-vvepyol ), while the Corinthian church was "God's building" ( e&>v obcodofi-h ) , "God's husbandry" (GeoO ye&pyiov ), to change the figure (3:9). Paul was the architect (dpxiT&wwj/), but he simply carried out God's plan for the building. It required many men and long years to build a cathedral which the German shells demolished in an hour. But each man through the years carried on the work according to the great plan laid down. So Paul rejoiced in the work of Apollos who succeeded him in Corinth, as Jesus rejoiced in the work of John the Baptist who preceded Him (John 4:36f). The one who sows and the one who reaps rejoice together. Each preacher enters into the labour of others. There is no cause for jealousy, but only ground for gratitude. It is part of the preacher's business to learn how to fit his work into that of the man who preceded him. He must be a constructive builder, not a destructive critic. It is beautiful to see how Paul rejoices in the work of his co-workers. He had apparently not seen Apollos until he had finished his work in Corinth and had returned to Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:12). We do not know why Apollos left Corinth. He may have had premonitions of trouble. Divisions exist in the church when Paul writes to them, that arose pri marily out of partisan preferences for Apollos or Paul. Weizsacker ("The Apostolic Age in the Christian 26 TYPES OF PREACHERS Church," vol. i, p. 320) thinks that "an Apollos party was only formed some time after his departure. And this supposition is in turn confirmed by the fact that no shadow of blame fell on Apollos for the creation of the party." This judgment is in accord with the facts as we know them. We know nothing of the unfortunate schisms in Corinth, except what Paul tells us himself, save that the trouble was still there when Clement wrote his "Epistle to the Church." Paul recognises frankly the differences between his manner of preach ing and that of Apollos. Men are not made after the same pattern. There are diversities of gifts from the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:1-7). Apollos had rhetorical eloquence and used the language of the Alexandrian philosophy (wisdom), but Paul was not jealous of these gifts, since God had given him the demonstra tion and power of the Holy Spirit. Paul was their spiritual father, and Apollos could only be their peda gogue (1 Cor. 4:15). They had each his own place and work, and each would receive his own reward from God as steward of the mysteries of God (4:1-5). It is evident that Paul regarded the work of Apollos as a continuation of his own, and he and Apollos were on excellent terms in Ephesus. The free way in which he uses his name shows this (1 Cor. 1 :i2; 3 4). Paul is not writing out of any jealousy of Apollos or of bitterness towards him. It is quite likely that Paul conferred with Apollos regarding the critical situa tion that had arisen in Corinth. They understood one another on this point (Kerr, "Int. Stand. Bibl. Encycl."). Apollos was no more responsible for the spirit of faction in Corinth than was Paul or Peter. APOLLOS THE MINISTER 27 "Nor has he reproached Apollos with seeking to over shadow him by his own mode and style" (Weizsacker, ibid. p. 321). Paul tells us why he speaks so plainly about Apollos: "Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred [utTeaxv^no-a] to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things that are written ; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other" (1 Cor. 4:6). This is the secret of the whole matter.. "This sensitiveness on this point was directed not against Apollos but against the party" (Weizsacker, ibid.). Paul speaks plainly that the schismatics may see the point. It was folly to split the church over three preachers (Paul, Apollos, Cephas) as they were doing (1 Cor. 1 :i2; 3:4), when these preachers were only co-workers and they could love them all (3 :22f ). Sometimes preachers are put in the light of opposition when they are wholly innocent. A LEADER UNWILLING TO FOSTER A FACTION Paul has some severe words about teachers who destroy the temple of God (1 Cor. 3 : 16-21). He un doubtedly has in mind the factional leaders in Corinth. It is bad enough when a man builds with wood, hay, stubble on the good foundation (3:12-15). Fire will test the quality of every preacher's and teacher's work. He may himself be saved, but all his preaching goes up in smoke, dry enough as some of it is. That is pathetic enough from the preacher's standpoint, but it is far worse for a preacher to be the cause of the ruin of a church. Some men are church-builders; others are church-destroyers and wreck church after church. 28 TYPES OF PREACHERS These men should be banished to a desert island. But the best of men may be the occasion of strife in spite of all that they can do. After Apollos had left Corinth the members of the church began to discuss the relative merits of Paul and Apollos as preachers and teachers. The very eccen tricities of the two men were exaggerated and pitted over against each other. Apollos' "brilliancy and Alexandrian modes of thought and expression readily lent themselves to any tendency to form a party, who would exalt these gifts at the expense of Paul's studied plainness" (Robertson and Plummer, "Int. Crit. Comm.," p. n). "The difference between Apollos and St. Paul seems to be not so much a difference of views as in the mode of stating those views; the eloquence of St. Paul was rough and burning; that of Apollos was more refined and polished" (F. W. Robertson). But, after this issue was made partisans of each sprang up and heat was engendered. It is possible that Peter made a brief visit to Corinth, but at any rate the Judaisers came and were only too glad to find opposi tion to Paul's leadership in Corinth. These men sought to win the whole church away from Paul by playing Peter against Paul and Apollos as the chief apostle and the exponent of the real orthodoxy, free from the Gentile laxness of Paul and the Alexandrian philosophy of Apollos. This petty partisanship so disgusted some that they actually made a partisan use of Christ's name and started a Christ party (i Cor. 1:12). So the wheels went round, to the disgust of Paul and of Apollos. The household of Chloe brought news of the dreadful situation (1 :n). Paul wrote in great APOLLOS THE MINISTER 29 eagerness to quell the narrow spirit of selfishness be fore the church was ruined. He even begged Apollos to go over and see what he could do (16:12), as some of them may have requested : "But as touching Apol los the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren ; and it was not at all his will to come now ; but he will come when he shall have oppor tunity." Apollos was right to stay away, and not to fan the flame by going back himself. He had not caused the trouble; he would not add to it. Paul himself is reluctant to go as yet (4:i8f.). They both set a good example for preachers when a church is divided over the ministers. The world is wide and Apollos went elsewhere. We last hear of him in Crete as the bearer with Zenas the lawyer of Paul's Epistle to Titus (Tit. 3:13). Some of the early writers say that he went back to Corinth after some years ; but it is plain that Apollos and Paul continued to be friends. A gifted man like Apollos is the very kind of man to cause misunderstanding by his brilliant epigrams and the charm of his style. One can only do the best that he can and go on. But God has use for a bril liant scholar like Apollos, yes, and like Paul. Each must do his work in his own way. If people praise him, well and good. If not, "then shall each man have his praise from God" (1 Cor. 4:5). "With me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you" (4:3). Paul is not resentful or defiant in these words, but he does hold himself above the petty scorn or praise of the gossips in Corinth. The froth and the foam pass away, but the name and the work of Apollos re main as part of the glory of Christianity. CHAPTER II BARNABAS THE YOUNG PREACHER'S FRIEND One cannot resist the feeling that Barnabas is not properly rated by modern Christians. This defect is' partly due to the fact that Luke does not trace his career after Chapter 15 of Acts. He drops from view under the shadow of the disagreement with Paul whose steps Luke traces all the way to Rome. And then we! have no authentic writing of Barnabas. Tertullian and other writers in the West attribute to Barnabas the Epistle to the Hebrews, but the bare possibility of that theory is all that can be admitted. Clement of Alexandria quotes the so-called Epistle of Barnabas' as the work of Paul's companion. Origen speaks of the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas and Eusebius men-' tions the Epistle of Barnabas. The Codex Sinaiticus1 gives it after the Apocalypse of John, showing that it was esteemed highly in Alexandria, and was read in some churches. But the writer is so hostile to the Mosaic law that it seems impossible to credit it to Joseph Barnabas. Some other Barnabas may have written it. McGiffert ("Apostolic Age," p. 598L) pleads for the idea that Barnabas wrote 1 Peter, but not with convincing arguments.1 We may pass by the1 'Moffatt ("Introduction to Literature of the New Testament," pp. 343 n., 437) shows that Barnabas had no reason to conceal his authorship if he wrote the epistle. 30 BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 31 Apocryphal Gospel and the Acts under the name of Barnabas. The result is that we are left with no clearly1 known writing of Barnabas by which we may measure his life arid teachings. We are wholly dependent upon Acts and Paul's Epistles for our knowledge of this great figure in early Christian history. There are traditions that he was one of the seventy sent forth by Jesus (Luke 10:1), that he preached the gospel in Rome, that he was the founder of the Church in Milan, that he worked in Cyprus till his death at Salamis in a.d. 6i. But Luke and Paul enable us to gain a clear picture of Barnabas if we piece together all the inci dents wherein he figures. At the Conference in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29; Gal. 2:1-10), assuming the identity of the visits, the five foremost figures are Paul and Barnabas on one side, Peter, James and John on the other, in the private conference when the pro gramme was drawn up and the concordat reached. Lightfoot * hardly does Barnabas justice in his able discussion of "St. Paul and the Three." Barnabas, from this standpoint, is a mere figurehead. And yet twice in Acts 15 the order is "Barnabas and Paul." Barnabas spoke before Paul (15:12) as the better known in Jerusalem and less offensive to the Church there. In the Letter to the Antioch Church we read: ''our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (15:25^). Elsewhere, save in Acts 14:14, after Acts 13 :43, Luke has it Paul and Barnabas. Renan 2 pointedly says of Barnabas : "After St. Paul, 1 "Commentary on Galatians," pp. 129-212. ' "The Apostles," tr., p. 124. 32 TYPES OF PREACHERS he was the most active missionary of the first century." Renan x pleads that "Barnabas won at the hands of the Christian world the highest degree of merit." Renan would apparently rank Barnabas next to Paul. That is too high a place for him when one considers John and Peter. But he is entitled to stand with James, the Lord's brother, in the group of foremost men of his generation. I. A LIBERAL CONTRIBUTOR TO THE POOR SAINTS IN JERUSALEM It is in this capacity that we first hear of him (Acts 4, 36L). His name is Joseph, but not the Joseph Barsabbas Justus of Acts 1 123. His home was in the island of Cyprus and, though a Levite, he owned prop erty (probably there). Originally the Levites owned no land (Num. 18:20), but the case of Jeremiah (Jer- 33:7_IS) shows that the rule was not always strictly observed, for a Levite could buy or inherit a piece of land. But in the new Christian community, where most had little wealth, this Levitical irregularity (Furneaux, "Acts," p. 68) may have stood in the way of the influence of Barnabas. There was no compul sion, but the voluntary surrender of all for the good of the whole at once gave Barnabas a place of promi nence and power in the Jerusalem Church, to the envy of Ananias and Sapphira. Now Barnabas had shown himself the true Levite with the Lord as his portion. He had spiritual wealth (Rackham, "Acts," p. 63) that far outweighed the value of his land. The use of the singular (rd xpw") * "The Apostles," p. 191. BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 33 implies that Barnabas gave the total value of the sale to the support of the poor saints, quite in contrast to the duplicity of Ananias and Sapphira. Our first picture of Barnabas is that of a man of generous sym pathies with the common people in spite of his more aristocratic affiliations. He was a cousin of John Mark (Col. 4:10) whose mother, Mary, was likewise a woman of some wealth since her home in Jerusalem was the gathering place of the Jerusalem Christians (Acts 12:12). It is probable that Joseph, the Cyprian Levite, iden tified himself thoroughly with the Jerusalem Church, and perhaps made his home with Mary. Luke men tions at this point the surname of Barnabas that was given him by the apostles, possibly at a later time, though his unselfish generosity already predisposed all to cherish the most kindly sentiments toward him. Luke translates Barnabas by "son of exhortation" (vids vapakXtiaem) , though the Greek covers also the ideas of consolation and of encouragement. There is no English word that can carry all these ideas, and we face the same difficulty with the term "Paraclete" for the Holy Spirit. Scholars are not agreed as to the etymology of the word Barnabas. The Aramaic Bar means son, and Nabas may be connected with the Hebrew Nebi (prophet), son of prophecy, or with the Aramaic Nevahah, refreshment. But Deissmann 1 argues that Barnabas is really Barnebous, Son of Nebo, a name found in a Syrian inscription. At any rate, there is no doubt that Joseph was worthy of the surname. He was a prophet and a teacher (Acts •"Bible Studies," pp. 187L, 307-310. 34 TYPES OF PREACHERS 13:1), and an apostle (Acts 14:14). He was worthy of all these titles, as we shall see. He was not one of the twelve, as Paul was not, but, like James the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19), he was an apostle in the wider sense of the term. In the early years in Jerusa lem Joseph Barnabas was a tower of strength for the young Church. II. SPONSOR FOR SAUL WHEN UNDER SUSPICION It may seem strange that the conversion of Saul was at most only a rumour in Jerusalem after the space of some three years. But Saul spent most of that time in Arabia, and his own conduct as the leader of the Pharisaic persecution in Jerusalem was enough to throw suspicion upon any reports of his change of heart and life in Damascus. Besides, the Sanhedrin may have spread sinister rumours about Saul's prob able motives in his avowal of Christianity. His pro longed absence from Jerusalem was in itself peculiar, and he brought .no letters of recommendation from the Christians in Damascus. It is not easy to live down one's past. The very completeness of Saul's work of destruction in Jerusalem made it all the more impera tive that no mistake be made this time. The wolf might throw off the sheep's clothing and again ravin the fold. Saul had come "to visit Cephas" (loropTJcrai Kri5.i>, Gal. 1 :i8). He had not come to be inducted into his apostolic office. That authority he had re ceived from the Lord Jesus, not from man (Gal. 1:1). But Saul wished to carry on his Gentile mission in harmony with the apostles, and there was much that he could learn about the earthly life of Jesus from Simon BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 35 Peter during these two weeks. It is probable that Peter and Barnabas were both staying at the home of Mary (Acts 12:12). No other apostles were present in Jerusalem at the time save James the Lord's brother (Gal. 1:19). Evidently Peter and James, as well as the other disciples, were full of fear. "They were all afraid of him" (iravres kfapovvro avrov, Acts 9:26). The imperfect tense pictures the shrinking away from Saul as he presented himself. "He essayed to join him self to the disciples" (kwdpa^ev KoWaadaC rois naO-nrcus) . The imperfect tense again shows that Saul did not give up without a struggle. He was deeply mortified beyond a doubt. "Saul's nature could ill brook mis trust ; and there might have been unhappy consequences but for the work of a mediator" (Rackham, "Acts," in loco). To put it bluntly, they did not believe that Saul was a genuine disciple, not even his own repeated statements to that effect. Saul stood discredited before the very man whom he had come to visit as a brother and co-worker. The memory of Saul's fierce hatred of these men flared up like a flame. Criticism and fear demanded that Saul furnish proof of his sincerity before he be received as a brother in Christ. It was a crucial moment for Saul and for Christianity. A fatal misunderstanding at this moment might have had the most disastrous consequences. "But Barnabas took him (em\aP6fievos„ taking hold of by the hand, literally) and brought him (^a-yev, perhaps with some reluctance now on Saul's part) to the apostles (irpbs roiis airoaroKovs, face to face with Peter and James)." Not simply did Barnabas do that, but he "declared unto them how he had seen the Lord 36 TYPES OF PREACHERS in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus" (Acts 9:27). Saul himself had told his story to Barnabas, who now vouched for the correctness of it and for the genuineness of his conversion. It was a bold and a noble thing to do. It may well be that Saul and Barnabas had been friends at the university of Tarsus before they were Christians, the one a Levite from Cyprus, the other the Pharisee from Tarsus, both Hellenists and loyal young Jews. "It was he who appreciated Paul; it was to him that the Church owes the most extraordinary of her founders. . . . Among the causes of the faith of the world we must count the generous movement of Barnabas, stretching out his hand to the suspected and forsaken Paul; the profound intuition which led him to dis cover the soul of an apostle under that humiliated air; the frankness with which he broke the ice and levelled the obstacles raised. between the convert and his new brethren by the unfortunate antecedents of the former, and perhaps, also, by certain traits of his character." 1 This tribute to Barnabas is not overdone. The life of Barnabas seems to be devoted to the ministry of those in distress. It is a noble ministry for any life. Saul and Peter and James could each tell how they had seen the Risen Christ.2 As a result of the friendship of Barnabas Saul "was with them going in and going out at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:28), received on terms of perfect equality as the guest of Simon Peter. It is 1 Renan, "The Apostles," p. 191. ' Swete, "The Appearances of Our Lord after the Resurrec tion," p. 88. BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 37 a high sort of courage to champion the cause of a dis credited man. The Sanhedrin looked upon Saul as a renegade Jew. The disciples feared him as a hypocrite. Barnabas took him as a brother beloved and risked all his own great reputation to save Saul to Christianity. When the Hellenists in Jerusalem threatened to kill Saul as he had led them to stone Stephen, "the breth ren knew it," possibly Barnabas being the first to see Saul's peril, and "they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus" (Acts 9:30). III. CHAMPION OF THE GREEK CHRISTIANS IN ANTIOCH Events moved rapidly. The ministry of Philip in Samaria led to the visit of Peter and John to investi gate the work of grace among these half -Jews (Acts 8:i4ff). The visit to Peter and the six brethren to Cornelius (Acts 10), a God-fearing Roman and proselyte of the gate in Caesarea, made quite a stir among the Pharisaic party in the Jerusalem Church who called Peter to account for his mingling with the Gentiles (Acts 11 :i-i8). But the word of God is not bound, as Peter had found out though with difficulty. Men of Cyprus and Cyrene went as far as Antioch and "spake unto the Greeks also (correct text, in spite of Aleph and B), preaching the Lord Jesus" (Acts 11 :2o). There was already a Samaritan Church from Philip's work and a Roman Church in Caesarea from Peter's work. Now a Greek Church had sprung up in Antioch, the third city of the Roman Empire. The situation was a delicate one, and called for careful handling. It is proof of the high position of Barnabas 38 TYPES OF PREACHERS in the Jerusalem Church that he was chosen (Acts ii : 22) as a committee of one (cf. Acts 8:14) to inves tigate conditions in Antioch, for "a great number that believed turned unto the Lord" (Acts 11:21). The Pharisaic party in Jerusalem had acquiesced reluctantly in what had happened in Caesarea (Acts 11:18). They were evidently alarmed at the sudden turn of events in Antioch. Barnabas was himself from Cyprus, and may have known some of the brethren from the island. Besides, he was a Hellenist and so better able to appreciate their feelings towards these Greek Christians, perhaps proselytes of the gate like Cornelius, while, as a Levite, he could be trusted to understand Hebrew prejudices (Furneaux, "Acts," p. 1 73 ) . All classes in the Jerusalem Church had con fidence in Barnabas and in his ability to do justice to the new movement and to decide whether it was of God. Barnabas fully justified their choice of him as the commissioner in this crisis. Luke pauses to bestow a eulogy on Barnabas, quite out of his usual style. It is possible that Barnabas was dead when Luke wrote, "for he was a good man" (11 =24), perhaps recently deceased. At any rate Luke is fully aware of the sig nificance of the occasion when Barnabas reaches Antioch with the future of Greek Christians in his hands. He knows what the Judaisers had tried to do to Peter in Jerusalem. Barnabas exhibits consummate wisdom at Antioch, and not the least element of his wisdom is his staying there with the Greek Christians and not returning to Jerusalem to make a report for over a year. Barnabas at once saw that the work was due to the grace of God, and he was glad (11:23), BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 39 "A smaller man would have raised difficulties" (Fur neaux, "Acts," p. 173). But Barnabas was able to rise above his Jewish prejudices and to recognise the change wrought in the lives of these Greeks. He saw that a new era had come and that God had broken down the middle wall of partition and had saved these Greeks without their becoming Jews. Barnabas was not the man to lay the burden of Jewish ceremonialism on these Christian freemen. So "he exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord" (Acts 11 123). He kept on exhorting (fl-apecdXei) them, for reaction would come after the first enthusi asm of the new faith. Barnabas saw this peril, and laid himself out to make the work of grace permanent (vpoo-fikvuv) . He accepted the new order as a fact. He readjusted his theology, if necessary, to suit the evident work of God, as Peter had done at Caesarea. But Barnabas re quired no vision on the housetop to see the new truth that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10 :34) . The average Jew had the same pride of race that the Ger mans had before their defeat at the hands of the Allies. Luke tells us how it came to pass that Barnabas was able to see so clearly the hand of God in the spiritual revolution going on in Antioch. "He was a good man"" (6.ya66s, 11:24), a kindly and a generous man, who was able to let the facts sweep away his prejudices. He had convictions, but he was able to see facts that contravened them and to accept them openly and frankly. This is a severe test of character, and Bar nabas stood it. He was "full of the Holy Spirit." He was an inspired man in the true sense of that 40 TYPES OF PREACHERS phrase. He had the gift of paraclesis from the Para clete. As a spirit-filled man, he was able to try the spirits and to discern the true work of grace when he saw it. He was a man "of faith," and so was able to trust God for the future of this work without undue restrictions on the liberty of the brethren. He accepted the Greek Christians as fully on a par with the Jewish Christians. The whole Church lived free from the Jewish ceremonial restrictions (Acts 15:1; Gal. 2:11- 14). Barnabas was a son of exhortation, consolation, and encouragement to these Greek Christians. IV. FINDING A PLACE FOR SAUL IN ANTIOCH The work grew mightily under the care of Barnabas. "And much people was added unto the Lord" (Acts 11 : 25 ) . He saw that he needed help, and he knew where to go. He did not go to Jerusalem. He wished to bring no disturbing element into the life of the Greek Church in Antioch. Barnabas knew the man for this emergency. Tarsus was not very far from Antioch. Saul had not been idle during the years since he left Jerusalem in flight for his life. He had been preach ing in Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21). In his own way Saul had probably preached to the Gentiles in these regions and not without success, for we read of churches here at a later period (Acts 15:41). Bar nabas believed in Saul in spite of his stormy career so far. He was sure that this man was a chosen vessel of God for this very work among the Gentiles. He determined to get Saul to Antioch so that the man and the hour could meet. I find it hard to believe that BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 41 the Church in Jerusalem had instructed Barnabas to send for Saul if he needed his services. It is rather the insight into character that enabled Barnabas to see that Saul was the master mind to meet this great crisis. The door was open in Antioch for Saul, and Barnabas "had none of the littleness which cannot bear the pres ence of a possible rival" (Furneaux, "Acts," p. 174). The language of Luke implies that Barnabas was not sure that he would find Saul in Tarsus, but he went forth on this quest and found him and brought him to Antioch (Acts n:25f.). The result justified the wisdom of Barnabas. He had blessed the church in Antioch, and he had given Saul his great opportunity. Renan overdoes the matter in saying that Saul "was at Tarsus in a forced repose, which to an active man like him was a perfect torture" ("The Apostles," p. 207), but Barnabas did forget himself and prepared the field for the genius of Saul. "All this is certainly the very climax of virtue; and this is what Barnabas did for Paul. Most of the glory which is due to the latter is really due to the modest .man who led him forward" (ibid.). Barnabas and Saul had a happy year in Antioch. Here the disciples first won the name of Christians, for they were not Jews and not heathen. Finally Barnabas and Saul went to Jerusalem with a generous gift from the Greek Church in Antioch to the poor Jewish saints in Jerusalem (Acts 11 :29f.) at the time of the famine about a.d. 42-4. The Judaisers apparently made no protest, and the apostles were seemingly absent when they arrived. Barnabas had saved the day for Greek Christians and had saved Saul for his great work in the world. "Thus twice 42 TYPES OF PREACHERS over did Barnabas save Saul for the work of Chris tianity" (Farrar). V. ABLE TO TAKE SECOND PLACE FOR THE GOOD OF THE CAUSE Barnabas maintained his position of leadership in Antioch on their return from Jerusalem (Acts 12: 25). In the great church at Antioch a democratic spirit prevailed. Five prophets and teachers are men tioned (Acts 13:1) apparently in two groups (re — re) of three prophets (Barnabas, Symeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene) and two teachers (Manaen, foster- brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul). The primacy of Barnabas is above dispute, and Saul comes last in the list as a newcomer, possibly the latest to join the band of leaders in Antioch. The other three may have been "the pioneers of Gentile evangelisation at Antioch" (Furneaux, "Acts," p. 191). They all three had Gentile affiliations. The five names repre sent five different countries, and too much difference between prophet and teacher is not to be insisted on here (1 Cor. 14:3). The same man could have both gifts. Luke is a true historian in preserving the proper perspective here. He does not allow Saul's future greatness to dim the glory of Barnabas, the real leader at this stage of the history of Christian missions. Dr. George Milligan (art. "Barnabas," Hastings's D.B.) illustrates how hard it is to preserve the historical per spective when he writes : "Barnabas accompanied Saul (or, as he was now to be known, Paul) on his first missionary journey." The Holy Spirit names the two men selected for the first great missionary cam- BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 43 paign among the Gentiles with Barnabas as chief (Acts 13:2). This order is a matter of course with the Antioch Church, for no one at this date can challenge the positon of Barnabas in their esteem. They honour Saul and are glad to see him named as the lieutenant of Barnabas in the enterprise. The hearty prayers of the community of disciples go with the two great leaders as they are formally set apart to their special mission. We are not to think of this occasion as ordination to the ministry or to the apostolic office. Barnabas and Saul had long been fulfilling both func tions. It is rather a prayerful dedication to the special task of the dangerous and unknown enterprise which they are undertaking like a farewell service to mis sionaries now. The Church at Antioch seemed to feel that it was a great step forward. There is no evidence that they undertook to finance the new departure, but they did agree for their two best leaders to go and their prayers went with them. There was no oppo sition and no saying that there were heathen enough in Antioch. It was a time of great spiritual enthusi asm when Barnabas and Saul, with John Mark as attendant, set forth upon their epoch-making journey. It is clearly Barnabas who took along his cousin John Mark. And yet before they leave Cyprus Saul (Paul) has leaped to the fore as the leader of the party. We shall never be able to explain precisely how it all hap pened. Beyond a doubt Paul was the abler man with more of the spark of genius. Barnabas was glad to have him use his great powers of speech in various emergencies. In a new environment Paul was no longer under the shadow of Barnabas's great reputa- 44 TYPES OF PREACHERS tion in Antioch. The case of Elymas was very pro voking as he tried to break the influence of Barnabas and Saul over Sergius Paulus. Evidently Paul's nature could stand it no longer. The explosive power of Paul on this occasion (Acts 13:6-12) probably amazed Barnabas and revealed the tremendous energy of his fellow-labourer. There is no sign of resent ment on the part of Barnabas as he sees his assistant take the lead. After all Paul is the pride of Barnabas, and he can rejoice that God has allowed him to bring to the front this great exponent of the faith. Luke quietly notes that "Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, and came to Perga in Pamphylia" (Acts 13 : 13). John Mark apparently disliked the new state of affairs, and went back to Jerusalem, but Barnabas went on with Paul. He was too great a man to break up the partnership because Paul was manifestly the greater > and more useful preacher. "In nothing is the great ness of Barnabas more manifest than in his recognition of the superiority of Paul and acceptance of a sec ondary place for himself" (Furneaux, "Acts," p. 203). It was Paul who "stood up" in response to the invita tion from the rulers of the synagogue to the "breth ren" to speak in Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:15^). "Many of the Jews and of the devout proselytes fol lowed Paul and Barnabas" (13:43) when the syna gogue broke up. On the next Sabbath Paul was again the speaker till the uproar came when "Paul and Barnabas spake out boldly" (13:46). So they stirred persecution against Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:50). At Lystra Paul was the speaker again (14:9), with the result that the natives took Paul to be Mercury BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 45 and Barnabas Jupiter, a tribute to the finer personal appearance of Barnabas, as well as to Paul's eloquence as "the chief speaker." Here again Luke reflects the local atmosphere when he mentions "Barnabas and Paul" (14:14). But Barnabas apparently maintained his serenity, and the two apostles came back to Antioch with a glorious report of God's blessing. The door of faith had been opened to the Gentiles (14:27). VI. EXPONENT OF GENTILE FREEDOM It was a time of rejoicing in Antioch, and no doubt Paul's stature loomed larger in the minds of the Church there than before. When the Judaisers from Jerusalem appeared in Antioch with their abrupt de mand that the Gentile Christians be circumcised after the custom of Moses (Acts 15:1) Paul and Barnabas took a firm stand against them. No doubt Paul re vealed himself to the Church at Antioch as the real leader by his powerful exposition of liberty in Christ. This new appreciation of Paul appears in the appoint ment of "Paul and Barnabas" with certain others to go to Jerusalem for a conference on this grave prob lem (15:2). It is clear that the Greek Church at Antioch stood with Paul and Barnabas. In Jerusalem Barnabas nobly seconded the leadership of Paul with no sign of jealousy. It is here assumed that Acts 15 and Galatians 2:1-10 refer to the same event. The point is still in dispute, but the best reconciliation of minor discrepancies lies in the broad parallel of the two reports. Luke gives only the public aspects of the meeting, while Paul makes use of the private con ference of the leaders to prove his equality with the 46 TYPES OF PREACHERS twelve. In Acts 1 1 =30 "Barnabas and Saul" went to Jerusalem. In Acts 15:2, "Paul and Barnabas" attended the conference as in Galatians, and Paul is evidently leader. In both reports (Acts 15 and Gal. 2) Peter and James co-operate with Paul and Barna bas. It shows Paul's wisdom that Barnabas spoke before he did at the second public meeting (Acts 15: 12). In Jerusalem T3arnabas had a great hold, and he had here befriended Paul. This appreciation of Barnabas is reflected in the decision of the conference, probably written by James, which speaks of "our be loved Barnabas and Paul" (Acts 15:25), but Luke's narrative in verse 22 has Paul and Barnabas. Paul made no point of precedence. Barnabas stood by him loyally in Jerusalem, and they won a common victory over the Judaisers. But in his own account Paul said : "to me and Barnabas" (Gal. 2:9). But in Antioch on their return things did not go entirely well. At first "Paul and Barnabas" taught on as before (Acts 15 :35) after the season of rejoic ing over the Gentile victory. Paul and Barnabas had been acknowledged by the Jerusalem leaders (Peter, James and John) as in charge of the work among the Gentiles, as they were at the head of the work among the Jews (Gal. 2:7-10). Paul did not admit that these "pillars" were above him and Barnabas. He had made the issue acute in Jerusalem by the presence of Titus, a Greek Christian, whose liberty was main tained against pressure for a compromise. Peter and James spoke for Paul in Jerusalem. Later, so the chronology seems to run, Peter came to Antioch and followed the custom of Paul and Barnabas in his BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 47 social life with the Gentile Christians there (Gal. 2: 1 1 -15). He ate with them. This was a long step for ward for Peter, a Palestinian Jew, and the very issue on which he had been arraigned before in Jerusalem by the Judaisers (Acts 11:1-18). The reappearance of the Judaisers in Antioch with the threat to tell James about Peter and to have him up before the Church again quickly made a coward out of Peter. Social equality had not been passed upon by the Jerusalem conference. It was simply assumed here in Antioch. So Peter weakened and drew back. He was followed in this dissimulation (hypocrisy, Paul calls it) by "the rest of the Jews" till only Paul and Barnabas were left. And then one of the saddest things in Paul's life happened. "Even Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation." There is a tribute to Barnabas in this way of speaking of his defection. Paul was now alone, Paulus contra mundum. But he did not waver. He spoke to Peter face to face, and seems to have won him back. Barnabas, of course, changed again to his old view. The breach was apparently quickly healed. But it is one of those things that can never be undone, once it has happened. Barnabas, like Peter, had flickered in this supreme crisis. The reins of leader ship were, for the moment, left in Paul's hands alone. Paul could never quite forget that fact, nor could Bar nabas nor could the church in Antioch. Paul was now undisputed leader of the Gentile Christians. But Bar nabas had wrought nobly if he did falter for a moment when Paul and Peter called him to go different paths. Perhaps Barnabas "had never really thought out the principles involved, so as to be able to vindicate them 48 TYPES OF PREACHERS when challenged" (Furneaux, "Acts," p. 248). It is possible also that John Mark, who was apparently now in Antioch (Acts 15:37), took the side of Peter against Paul with resentful memories of Perga (Acts 13:13), and so helped pull his cousin Barnabas away from Paul. It is plain that a sensitive situation exists in Antioch after Paul's triumph. There was plenty of explosive material at hand. VII. DEFENDER OF MARK'S RIGHT TO A SECOND CHANCE Barnabas is true to his character as friend of the friendless to the end. Even in his inconsistent con duct at Antioch one may be able to trace the course of his conduct. He was a conciliating spirit always. He befriended the Gentile Christians, but he wished not to offend the Jewish brethren. So he faced a policy of vacillation. Perhaps in Antioch Barnabas was a bit restive under Paul's leadership after the recent honours shown him in Jerusalem. But Paul was all the more anxious to smooth things over and to get back to normal relations with Barnabas. The old missionary hunger burned in Paul again, and he pro posed to Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41) that they go back again and visit their old haunts in Cyprus and Galatia. Barnabas readily agreed, even though he was to start out this time as Paul's assistant, not as chief. But he made one suggestion, that they take along with them (owirapa\aPelv , aorist infinitive) John Mark, who be gan the former tour with them. Instantly Paul took and held (n^lov, imperfect) a position against that pro posal. He could not bear the idea of having along BARNABAS THE PREACHER'S FRIEND 49 (o-wirapaXanfiaveiv, present infinitive, note) this man who had played the apostate (rov airoaravra) at Perga. Mark did not stick to the work then (^ o-wehBovra avrois els rd epyov) and he might desert in a pinch again. Hippolytus calls Mark "the man with the fin ger wanting" (/«>Xo/3o5dKTvXos) because the Romans marked a deserter by cutting off the little finger. Paul's words stung Mark to the quick beyond a doubt, and all the more because of the truth in them. Probably Paul was indignant afresh at Mark for taking sides with Peter against him, and he disliked the suggestion of Barnabas all the more. The old sore has been rubbed again. There is more in the disagreement be tween Paul and Barnabas than can be put into words. The "sharp contention" (irapo£u \6yw) with new freedom and great power, testi fying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:5). In other words now Paul made fewer tents and did more constant preaching, with the result that matters came quickly to a crisis in Corinth and Paul had to move his preaching from the syna gogue to the house of Titus Justus next door. Here he labored with great blessing for a year and a half (Acts 18:11). The part that Silas and Timothy played in this ministry is evident. They had brought supplies from Macedonian churches so that Paul was not a burden to the critical Corinthians during these days (2 Cor. 11:7-10). The church at Philippi was the first to help Paul in his missionary campaign (Phil. 4:15-16), doing it while Paul was in Thessa lonica. Probably Philippi, Thessalonica, and Bercea were now enlisted in the good work, the first mission ary union in the history of Christianity. Silas and Timothy were the bearers of this bounty and probably also the agents in uniting these churches in this co operative effort. Silas and Timothy helped Paul in the preaching in Corinth as he gladly acknowledged later (2 Cor. 1:19). Both Silas and Timothy send salu tations to the church in Thessalonica when Paul writes to them (1 Thess. 1 :i ; 2 Thess. 1:1). When Paul left Corinth, he seems to have left Silas and Timothy there. Timothy rejoined Paul later in Ephesus (Acts 19:22), but we have no further record of Silas in connection with Paul. Some think that a SILAS THE COMRADE 147 break came between these two men, but that is a gratuitous suggestion. Paul's work had multiplied greatly. Men were needed at many points. It is quite possible that Silas remained in Ephesus till Apollos came or nearly till then. He does not appear in the troubles in Corinth after the arrival of Apollos. IX. WITH PETER IN BABYLON (ROME) Our last glimpse of Silas (Silvanus) is as the amanuensis of Peter and the bearer of the First Epistle from Rome to the provinces in Asia Minor ( i Pet. 5 :i2). It is likely that Silas, like Tertius in Romans 16:22, wrote out the Epistle for Peter. He may have been at liberty to touch up the phraseology and the result may represent something of his own style. Thus many explain the difference between the style of 1 Peter and 2 Peter (without the aid of an amanuensis). One need not think that Silas had de serted Paul because he is with Peter. The work of Paul and Peter ran parallel more and more. As John Mark was a comfort to both men, so Silas seems to have been. He was a comrade of the great and toiled with them worthily. CHAPTER IX TITUS THE COURAGEOUS Not a great deal of attention is paid to Titus in mod ern books, and yet he played a not unimportant part in early Christian history. He is not mentioned in Acts by name, though probably included in the "cer tain others" of Acts 15:2. It is in 2 Corinthians, Galatians and the Pastoral Epistles that he is promi nent. A BROTHER OF LUKE This is, at least, probable. It is curious, that in the Acts neither Luke nor Titus is mentioned by name. We can see why Luke should leave out his own name. If Titus was his brother, then we can understand the omission of his name also. In 2 Cor. 12:18 "the brother" naturally in the Greek means "his brother," as Professor A. Souter has shown. The same thing is probable in 2 Cor. 8:18. The book of Acts fails to reveal the part played by Luke and Titus in the life and work of Paul. The Epistles make us wonder why this omission exists when the other co-laborers of Paul receive frequent mention. A REAL GREEK Paul expressly states, Gal. 2 :3, that Titus was a Greek. His name is Roman, like that of Paul, but that proves nothing as to his race. It has been held 148 TITUS THE COURAGEOUS 149 by some that Titus is merely another name for Tim othy, Silas, or Titus Justus, but that idea has not gained credence. He was a pure Greek. If he was, as is probable, the brother of Luke, then it follows that Luke was also a Greek, not a Hellenistic Jew. He was one of the first fruits of the Greek world that made such a large contribution to early Christianity. Jesus foresaw (see John 12) that the Greeks would come to him, but only as he drew them by the Cross. Paul sees that the Cross had broken down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile. At any rate here is Titus, the Greek, who is a trusted inter preter of Christ to the Gentiles. And Luke, his brother, has given us the Greek scholar's view of Christ, Peter and Paul and others, of the origin of Christianity. Paul's son in the gospel "My true child after a common faith," Paul terms him, Titus 1 -.4. It is not known where his home was, but he went with Paul from Antioch to Jerusalem to the Conference, Gal. 2: 1-3: Acts 15:2, and was al ready an active participant in the life of the Greek Church at Antioch. He may have come into this church before the first mission tour, or he may have been a product of this campaign. At any rate, Paul picked him out as a recruit for Christ and he appears with Paul from time to time in his work, as we shall see. Paul kept a weather eye open for young ministers, and gathered a notable and noble company of them whom he trained to carry on the work with him and after him, 2 Tim. 2 :iff. A minister who has no sons 150 TYPES OF PREACHERS in the gospel has failed in a large part of his work. It should be the policy of every preacher to pray and work for labourers for the harvest. A church that does not produce preachers is in reality a dying church without spiritual energy. a firebrand for the judaisers This is the first time (Acts 15) that Titus appears in the Apostolic history. Paul mentions it a long time afterwards, unless, indeed, Galatians is the first of Paul's Epistles as Ramsay now holds. It can be readily perceived why Luke, who gives in Acts 15 the public aspects of the Conference in Jerusalem, should pass by the details of the private meeting of the leaders where Paul first carried his point and where the case of Titus was brought forward as involving the whole controversy. Paul and Barnabas had resented the insolent demand of the Judaisers, who had come from Jerusalem to Antioch, that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised after the custom of Moses, Acts I5:iff. These meddlers had come without the ap proval of the Jerusalem Church, Acts 15 :24, and Paul defied them. He determined to get the Jerusalem Church to disown them and to stand by the freedom of the Gentile Christians from the Mosaic rites and ceremonies. Paul took along Titus, who was probably appointed by the church. The very presence of Titus in the Conference at Jerusalem was intolerable to the Judaisers and to the compromising brethren who were in favor of smoothing things over. Paul's language in Gal. 2 13-5 is quite involved, probably a reflection of his vehement passion on the occasion and the desire TITUS THE COURAGEOUS 151 to be fair all around. It has been understood variously, but the following is the most likely meaning. Some of "the false brethren" (Judaisers) boldly demanded that Titus be circumcised before he be allowed to participate in the Conference, these "who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage," Gal. 2 :4, The weaker brethren begged Paul "because of the false brethren privily brought in" to yield this point on condition that a resolution be passed guaran teeing liberty to the Gentile Christians. But Paul would have no paper resolutions that were mere scraps of paper to be violated when put to the test. Titus was really a test case. The whole issue was involved in him. Paul could not look his Gentile con verts in the face with a set of solemn decrees in his hand and the fact of surrender in the case of Titus nullifying the words of freedom, so he took his stand against the compromisers, "to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you," Gal. 2 :5. It was as serious a matter as that in Paul's opinion. If Christ could not save Gentiles without their becoming Jews, there was no Gospel of Grace at all, but merely the imposition of the old legalism under the form of Christianity. "But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised," Gal. 2 :3. Courage won liberty for Titus and so for all Gentiles. Evangelical Christianity, spir itual religion, was really at stake in this great con troversy. Titus was the innocent crux of the matter in Jerusalem. A cause is often summed up in a man. 152 TYPES OF PREACHERS Titus was a red rag to the Judaisers, but he was the flag of freedom for the Gentiles. Paul won Peter, John and James to his position. He already had Bar nabas with him, so he carried the decision of the Con ference and took Titus back with him as the badge of Gentile liberty. paul's agent in the great collections We catch glimpses of Titus later in Paul's life, par ticularly in 2 Corinthians. In chapter 8 Paul says that Titus "had made a beginning," 8:6, in the mat ter of the great collections for the poor saints in Jerusa lem, and that it was a year ago, the very first effort in the campaign, and by you "who were the first to make a beginning a year ago, not only to do, but also to will," 8:io. Paul had boasted "that Achaia hath been prepared a year past and your zeal hath stirred up very many of them," g \2. Titus then was the first of Paul's agents to take hold of this great money-raising campaign that did so much to teach the early churches co-operation and practical fellowship. He was eminetly successful and won such a hearty response in Corinth that Paul used it to stir the churches of Macedonia to like ac tivity. The churches in Achaia were a bit slow in paying their pledges and Titus had to be sent later to urge prompt payment. But Paul was proud of his agents in the collection and demanded for Jihem full support from the churches, 2 Cor. 8:24. Some min isters have a dislike for the financial side of church work, but Paul shows no sympathy with such an atti tude. In chapters 8 and 9 of 2 Corinthians he handles TITUS THE COURAGEOUS 153 the subject without gloves. Paul is full of gratitude for the courage and skill of Titus in this campaign, 8:16. It is possible that on this first trip Titus did not have to stay long. paul's champion in corinth Matters soon began to go wrong in Corinth because of the Judaising agitators and the factions created in the church, cf. i Cor. i :ioff. These disturbances probably go far towards explaining the non-payment of the pledges made to Titus. Paul sent Timothy over, but he seems to have failed to do much in the matter, i Cor. 4:17; 16:10. He may have made a short visit himself, but he certainly wrote a letter to them before our 1 Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5 :g. He then wrote the extended reply to all their inquiries and sent our 1 Co rinthians. But Titus had to be sent also, for Timothy brought back bad news. Titus may have carried the sharp epistle mentioned in 2 Cor. 2 4 and 7 :8-i2, which caused the Corinthians so much sorrow and gave Paul real anguish of soul, being written in tears. But tressed by this powerful letter Titus stood the factions down and won a clean victory for Paul. There was a stubborn minority led by the Judaisers left. But the four factions dwindled to two. It was now a clear- cut issue with the Pauline party in full control. This news Titus brought to Macedonia to Paul, who had hurried over from Troas, tortured by anxiety and un able to wait there as by arrangement, 2 Cor. 2:i2ff. Titus comforted Paul greatly, 7:5-7. "Therefore we have been comforted; and in our comfort we joyed the more exceedingly for the joy of Titus because his 154 TYPES OF PREACHERS spirit hath been refreshed by you all," 7:13. Paul's heart ran over with joy at the victory of Titus in Corinth. It was good for them, too, to meet in the hour of triumph. It was natural for Titus to feel proud of the outcome in Corinth. Paul was glad that he had not lost his faith in the brethren there in spite of their factions. "For if in anything I have gloried to him on your behalf, I was not put to shame; but as we spake all things to you in truth, so our glorying also which I made before Titus was found to be truth," 7:14. Paul wishes to assure the Corinthians of Titus' affection for them. "And his affection is more abundantly toward you, while he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him," 7:15. Evidently there had been moments of uncertainty and of uneasiness, but it had now turned out all right through the tact of Titus and their own rightmindedness. "I rejoice that in everything I am of good courage concerning you," 7:16. So then Titus had met every expectation of Paul in this crisis of affairs at Corinth. He had routed -the Judaisers as Paul had done in Jerusalem, all but the stubborn minority. And Titus was the man to tackle them. THE THIRD VISIT TO CORINTH One good turn deserves another. Nothing succeeds like success. So Paul writes our 2 Corinthians, for the integrity of this epistle is still on the whole prob able. The first part explains Paul's elation at the vic tory of Titus and expresses Paul's gratitude over the attitude of the majority. Chapters 8 and 9 take up the TITUS THE COURAGEOUS 155 matter of paying the pledges of a year ago, the way for which is now clear. Titus is to go back to Cor inth for this purpose with two other brethren, prob ably Luke and Erastus, Acts 19 :22. Timothy did not go, but sent his greetings along with those of Paul, 2 Cor. 1 :i. Paul pleads for a kind reception for Titus, his personal representative, and for the other two messengers ("apostles") of the churches, 8:18-24. He plans to come later himself, and does not wish any Macedonians to find them still behind with the money, 9:3ff. Titus probably took with him our 2 Corin thians, which also has a plain warning to the Judaising minority, 10-13, and a threat of sterner measures when Paul does come if they are needed. Paul then goes round about to Illyricum, Rom. 15:19, and waits for Titus to do this finishing job in Corinth. It was superbly done so far as we can judge, for Paul later spent three months there, Acts 20 :3, without serious opposition from Judaisers, though the Jews made a plot against him as he was leaving. THE EVANGELIST IN CRETE We hear no more of Titus for some ten years, not till after Paul's visit to Jerusalem, the imprisonment in Caesarea and in Rome, and the release. Paul writes a short letter to Titus whom he had left in Crete, Titus 1 :5. So then Titus had another ministry with Paul here. Paul apparently had to leave the island before the work of organisation was complete. He left the finishing of this work in the hands of Titus. He was to set in order things there and to appoint elders in every city, just like a modern missionary in a heathen 156 TYPES OF PREACHERS land. Paul seems familiar with conditions in Crete and gives Titus careful directions how to meet the peculiar problems of his field there. A form of Phar isaic gnosticism had gotten a foothold, and it fell in with the follies and weaknesses of the Cretan tempera ment as their own poet had said, i :io-i6. "Let no man despise thee," 2 :i5. Titus was to show the same courage that he had manifested in Corinth. We may be sure that Titus did not disappoint Paul in dealing with the sins of the various social groups in the churches of Crete, 2:1-14, and in the selection of men who had the proper qualifications for the ministry, 1 :7-9. Factious men must be dealt with sharply, 3 :ioff, as Titus had learned how to do in Corinth. Titus came to be regarded as the patron saint in Crete, and his tomb was long believed to be at Gortyna, though that is by no means certain. He did not re main in Crete as we know. FURTHER PLANS FOR TITUS Paul apparently sent the letter to Titus by Zenas the lawyer, and Apollos, Titus 3:13, who were to carry on the work in Crete, while Titus was to join Paul in Nicopolis before winter, 3 :i2. We do not know, of course, whether Titus was able to join Paul then, but there is no particular reason to think other wise. We do know that he was with Paul shortly be fore he wrote his last letter to Timothy, 2 Tim. 4:10, for Paul expressly states that Titus had left for Dal matia. There is no indication that Titus had deserted Paul in his hour of peril in Rome as Demas had done. Rather it appears that he was Paul's messenger from TITUS THE COURAGEOUS 157 Rome to the churches in Dalmatia, the lower part of Illyricum, probably to the field that Paul had himself once visited, Rom. 15:19. To the last Paul was full of plans for pushing on the work of the kingdom. At the very time he is pleading with Timothy to pick up Mark and come to him in his loneliness, he is dis patching Crescens to Galatia and Titus to Dalmatia. The work must go on and merely personal considera tions must give way to the interests of the kingdom. This is the spirit of the general. Titus responded to the brave spirit of Paul and did his part to the end. We know nothing more of Titus. We may be sure that he did not lose heart when the final blow fell upon Paul. He was a man of force, who knew how to drive things through, a lieutenant to be trusted at a critical moment, a man to be counted on in an emer gency. It is good to know that there are always men who will leap to the fore when the captain falls and rally the men to the colours. Titus first comes on the scene as a sort of stormy petrel in Paul's life. He was with him to the finish and felt only that he did a day's work as he met it. Paul thanked God for Titus, "My true child after a common faith." CHAPTER X TIMOTHY THE FAITHFUL Paul loved Timothy with the utmost devotion. He was more tender and sympathetic than Titus, though not so forceful. He was probably not so gifted or so cultured as Luke, but he was equally loyal and loving. HIS GREEK FATHER This is all that is told about his father, Acts 16:1. He was hardly a proselyte, for Timothy had not been circumcised before he became a Christian. He may have been one of the devout Greeks like Cornelius who attended the synagogue. It is hardly likely that he was an aggressive heathen who made things un comfortable at home. The rather, it seems clear, that the Greek father left the training of Timothy to the mother and grandmother. But Timothy could not fail to receive some impress from Greek culture of the time through his father. The home was in Lystra in Lycaonia, and was on one of the great Roman thor oughfares between the east and the west. A HOME OF PIETY His mother was "a Jewess that believed," Acts 16:1, when Paul and Barnabas first came to Lystra. Tim othy and she may have been in that circle of disciples who stood round Paul's body in fear that he was dead, 158 TIMOTHY THE FAITHFUL 159 Acts 14:19^ when the mob had dragged him out of the city and left him. His mother's name was Eunice and his grandmother was Lois, who saw to it that Timothy was reared in the faith of his Jewish fathers, 2 Tim. 1 :5. No doubt these good women took extra pains beyond the legal commands because of the Greek influence on his life. They taught him the Holy Scriptures from a babe, 2 Tim. 3:15. Paul could remind Timothy of his great privilege in this regard and urge fidelity to such teaching, 2 Tim. 1:5; 3 :i4- It is impossible to overestimate the value of teaching children the Bible.* One reason why people know so little about the Scriptures is just that they do not learn the Bible in childhood. A DISCOVERY OF PAUL'S Paul was on the constant lookout for young preachers. He saw the tremendous demand for them if Christianity was to grow and extend over the world. Jesus had sorrowed as he saw the harvest ripe and the labourers so few, Matt. 9 :37f. Timothy was converted during the first mission and was one of Paul's con verts because he called him "my true child in faith," 1 Tim. 1 :2; "my child Timothy," 1 :i8; "my beloved child," 2 Tim. 1 :2 ; "my beloved and faithful child in the Lord," 1 Cor. 4:17. When Paul came to Lystra on the second mission tour, "him would Paul have to go forth with him," Acts 16:3. This was after the break between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark when Paul and Silas started out together, 15:36-40. At * Mrs Ella B. Robertson has made a volume of selections for children called "The Heart of the Bible" (Nelson's Sons). 160 TYPES OF PREACHERS Lystra, Timothy was picked up and was with Paul for most of his ministry while Mark had varying fortunes and final success with Barnabas and Peter and again with Paul. Few things in Paul's life gave him more comfort than the finding of Timothy. He had been educated as a Jew, and yet was not a Jew. Paul knew how to fight for principle, as in the case of the Greek Titus, but he knew also how to smooth out difficulties when no principle was involved. Timothy was neither Jew nor Greek, and so would be constantly objection able to the Jewish Christians. So Paul "took and cir cumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts ; for they all knew that his father was a Greek," 16:3. Paul felt no inconsistency at all in this con duct and that about Titus, for "as they went on their way through the cities, they delivered them the decrees to keep that had been ordained of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem," 16:4. Probably before going on with the tour, the ordination servive took place for inducting Timothy into the ministry. There is not a great deal said about ordination in the New Testament, but Timothy's case seems clear. Paul prided himself to a degree on his insight into Timothy's character at the first. He saw the promise that was in this gifted youth. He reminds Timothy that he "stir up (literally keep ablaze) the gift of God that is in thee through the laying on of my hands," 1 Tim. 1 :6. Alas, how often is it true that the young minister lets the fire burn low, the flame of the Lord fresh from the altar. Paul was greatly exercised that Timothy keep up his habits of study and devotion. It is seldom that more wisdom for a young minister is found in fewer TIMOTHY THE FAITHFUL 161 words than these of Paul to Timothy, "Till I come, give heed to reading, to exhortation, to teaching. Neg lect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Be diligent in these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy progress may be manifest unfo all. Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee," i Tim. 4:13-16. From the ordination service on through the years Paul had Timothy on his heart and tried to steer his course aright. But there was no patronising of Timothy by Paul. He spoke of him to others in the noblest way as, "our brother and God's minister in the Gospel of Christ," 1 Thess. 3 :2; "for he worketh the work of the Lord as I also do," 1 Cor. 16:10; "Timothy our brother," 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Phile mon 1, "Paul and Timothy, slaves of Jesus Christ," Phil. 1 :i; "Timothy my fellow-worker," Rom. 16:21. Paul's protege became his co-worker on the level of high service for Christ. NOT WITHOUT HONOUR AT HOME Jesus found that a prophet had no honour at home according to the proverb. Nazareth twice cast him out. Many a young preacher has had to make a start in spite of the indifference, scepticism, or even ridi cule of neighbours, or, alas, of the family circle. Jesus himself tasted that bitter cup. But Timothy "was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium" when Paul came. He had apparently already made a beginning in active service for Christ. 162 TYPES OF PREACHERS These timorous first efforts were kindly received. In writing to Timothy later on the qualifications of the minister Paul will say, "Moreover he must have good testimony from them that are without," I Tim. 3 '.7. It is hard to judge human nature at best and one's reputation is some guide to his worth, though it alone is not decisive. Character and reputation, alas, do not always correspond. But it speaks volumes for Timothy that his neighbours and friends were so cor dial in their commendation to Paul. Paul will one day write to Timothy, "This charge I commit unto thee, my child Timothy, according to the prophecies which led the way to thee, that by them thou mayest war the good warfare," 1 Tim I :i8. Hymenaeus and Alex ander made shipwreck, as so many since have done, of all the blessed hopes and promises of youth. HIS FIRST CAMPAIGN WITH PAUL Timothy held a subordinate place in the company of four (Paul, Silas, Timothy, Luke). After Paul and Silas were released from prison in Philippi, Tim othy remained awhile with Luke. He soon rejoined Paul in Thessalonica as the bearer of gifts from Philippi to the Apostle, Phil. 4:16, the first help of the kind that came to Paul in his great enterprise, Phil. 4:15. Timothy and Silas remained in Bercea when Paul fled to Athens, Acts 17:14 f., but Paul sent word for them to come on to Athens. Timothy apparently did come, but was sent back to Thessalonica by Paul, 1 Thess. 3 :if., because of disturbances there concern ing Paul's teaching about the second coming of Christ. Timothy and Silas later came to Corinth with more TIMOTHY THE FAITHFUL 163 gifts from Philippi and also Thessalonica and Bercea, 2 Cor. n:8f.; i Thess. 3:6; Acts 18.5. The gifts were gracious and in sharp contrast to the stinginess and slanders of the Corinthians, and Paul was com forted by the glad tidings from Thessalonica and "de voted himself to the word," Acts 18 :5, with great power. There it will be seen that Timothy was useful to Paul during the great days in Macedonia and Achaia. TIMOTHY IN CORINTH Timothy was with Paul during most of the third mission tour. While at Ephesus the troubles at Cor inth reached a crisis. Paul had various communica tions with the Church at Corinth in an effort to settle the troubles then. Finally he sent Timothy, "For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church," 1 Cor. 4:17. Meanwhile he wrote 1 Corinthians and endorsed Tim othy as his personal representative with full power to speak authoritatively for Paul as the passage just quoted shows. Paul put his whole case into the hands of Timothy. But he was evidently afraid that Tim- only would not be able to harmonise the turbulent fac tions. As things stand in Corinth Paul has influence only with the Pauline party. "Now if Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do; let no man there fore despise him. But set him forward on his journey in peace, that he may come unto me ; for I expect him with the brethren," 1 Cor. i6:iof. It seems plain that 164 TYPES OF PREACHERS Paul's fears were well grounded. Timothy came back all right to Ephesus, but the storm raged on in Corinth, and Paul sent Titus to see what he could do. Titus took hold with energy and had great news for Paul when he met him in Macedonia, 2 Cor. I2ff. ; 7:6ff. Apparently the Judaisers brushed Timothy rudely aside as a stripling. Later Paul will say to Timothy, "Let no man despise thy youth," 1 Tim. 4:12, per haps with a recollection of the experience in Corinth. LOYALTY IN ROME But Timothy was true blue and gave Paul the best that was in him. He was faithful when others flickered. Paul, while a prisoner in Rome, was anxious to send Timothy to Philippi, for "ye know the proof of him, that, as a child serveth a father, so he served with me in furtherance of the gospel," Phil. 2 :22. Timothy probably lacked genius, but he had goodness. He was "a good minister of Jesus Christ," 1 Tim. 4:6. Timothy had his "deposit" from God, 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1 :i4. Paul was anxious that the invesiment that God had made in Timothy should not be in vain, so he urged him to keep God's deposit. But, when the test comes, Paul says, "I have no man likeminded who will care truly for your state. For they all seek their own, not the things of Jesus Christ," Phil. 2 :20f. He could count on Timothy to the limit. He could trust him anywhere and all the time. That is loyalty, and loyalty is "probably the fundamental trait in char acter" (Royce). Timothy would stand true when others had deserted. Luke, likewise loyal, was prob ably not in Rome at this time. TIMOTHY THE FAITHFUL 165 IN CHARGE AT EPHESUS After Paul's release from the first Roman imprison ment, he went east, then west, and then east again. He left Timothy in charge at Ephesus on his second visit east, I Tim. 1:3. It was a heavy responsibility for Timothy to have charge of the great church in Ephesus. But he no doubt measured up to it. Paul went on to Macedonia and wrote to Timothy a letter full of in structions for his guidance in the work there. Appar ently Paul had not had time to go over all the details with Timothy. For this reason we have 1 Timothy, which is a rich storehouse for every minister to-day. There is a wonderful combination of personal direc tions about health, study, and piety along with ecclesi astical problems and doctrinal issues. "Paul the aged" writes with repose and grace, and yet with tenderness and force, sympathy and courage. He is still grateful to Christ for putting Paul, himself, into the ministry, 1 Tim. 1 :i2f. He is anxious that Timothy shall come up to the highest standard as a good minister of Christ, as a man of God, brave and strong to the end, 1 Tim. 1:18-20; 3:i4ff.; 4:6-16; 5:21; 6:11, 20L Paul is anxious concerning Timothy's health. He apparently was a nervous dyspeptic and Paul recommends "a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirm ities," 5 :23. There is nothing here against the strictest temperance or even prohibition, for modern medical skill has found other things better for the digestion than the "little wine." But preachers in poor health may find comfort in the case of Timothy. He held on and did a noble work in spite of his physical infirmities. 166 TYPES OF PREACHERS One must not pride himself on his poor health as a proof of piety. The poor, sickly preacher may be no whit more pious than his robust, athletic brother. Titus was no less pious than Timothy and more effec tive, sooth to say. But the preacher with a weak stom ach need not despair of usefulness. LONGED FOR BY PAUL Paul is in prison for the last time. He knows what the outcome will be. He is no longer in his own hired house, but in the Mamertine Prison. Friends no longer came to see Paul, for it was now not safe to do so. Onesiphorus oft refreshed Paul by his courage till he was apparently slain for his daring, 2 Tim. i :i6-i8. Timothy is still in Ephesus, but Paul longs for him to come to him before winter, 2 Tim. 4:21. He wishes him to pick up John Mark and bring him along also, 4:11, for the once useless minister has now made good and is useful to Paul (Robertson, "Making Good in the Ministry"). Paul needs his cloak which he left at Troas with Carpus, 4:13. But most of all he misses his books, especially the parchments, his own books which he had used through the years, his old books, in particular, copies of portions of the Old Testament, and perhaps even Mark's Gospel and Luke's writings. But, while Paul's heart aches for the presence and sympathy of Timothy, he is not unmindful of Timothy's own needs in Ephe sus. This last message of Paul is full of courage: "For God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness (cow ardice), but of power and love and discipline," 2 Tim. 1 :y. He urges Timothy not to be ashamed of TIMOTHY THE FAITHFUL 167 Christ or of Paul, but to suffer hardships along with Paul as a good soldier of Christ, 2 Tim. 1 :8; 2:3-13. Remember Christ and remember Paul. He urges that Timothy keep himself in trim for his great task by full knowledge of the Scriptures, 2:14!, and by clean living, 2 :20-26, and so escape the snare of the devil. Paul is afraid of the devil's traps for preachers. Im postors must needs come, but the man of God must know the Scriptures and be furnished completely unto every good work, 3:15-17. The preacher does not always feel fit for his task, but in season and out of season Timothy must preach the word and not tickle the itching ears of the fickle crowd with new fancies and foibles. Paul sees the end of his course and he is ready to go and receive his crown, 4:6-8. But he wants to see Timothy before the Lord Jesus takes him to his heavenly kingdom. IN PRISON FOR PAUL It is probable that Timothy came quickly to Paul and paid the penalty for his courage by getting thrown into prison himself. At any rate the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says : "Know ye that our Brother Timothy hath been set at liberty, with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you," Heb. 13 123. We may suppose therefore that Paul had the comfort of Timothy's presence with him when the end came. Probably Luke, Timothy, and Mark were those who had the wonderful privilege of accompanying Paul to the place of execution outside of Rome. We do not know the further work of Timothy. We may be sure that he held true to the last. He was a man of emotion 168 TYPES OF PREACHERS and sympathy, for Paul spoke of his tears, 2 Tim. 1 14. In all things he was "an ensample to them that believe, in word, in manner of life, in love, in faith, in purity," Tim. 4:12. He deserved Paul's love and confidence. Paul looked to him with hope for the future. "And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also," 2 Tim. 2 :2. Thus the good work goes on. Teach the teachers. Pass on the teaching. "Hold the pattern of sound words which thou hast heard from me in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus," 2 Tim. 1 :i3. CHAPTER XI THOMAS THE PREACHER WITH HONEST DOUBTS We seem to be entering an age of credulity, if one thinks of the great scientist, Sir Oliver Lodge, as a champion of actual communication with the dead. Certainly we have passed through an age of criticism of all that was outside of the laws of the physical universe as known by modern scientists. The transi tion has not come suddenly. Evolution itself has played some part in the change. It is a long step from the cold materialism of Darwin to the militant spiritu alism of Lodge. And yet Lodge is an evolutionist. The veil between matter and mind has worn thin in places, to say the least, by reason of new discoveries like radium, wireless telegraphy, transmutation of metals, the breaking up of the atom into electrons, Einstein's theory of the gravitation of the light rays. In biblical criticism we have seen the same re lentless search for facts. Tradition has stepped aside while the scholar, like the scientist in the laboratory, put in the crucible of criticism the cherished convic tions of Christendom. The books of the Old Testa ment and of the New Testament have been subjected to the most minute dissection and the most careful literary analysis. The dry bones of redactors have rattled in the place of the mighty spirits of the Scrip- 169 170 TYPES OF PREACHERS tures. We are coming again to the age of reconstruc tions and the dry bones are beginning to take on the form of life. But, meanwhile, many a minister has suffered the lapse of faith between the novelties of criticism of the Bible and the stern realities of inex orable scientific law. The modern minister has wished to face all the facts of life with open mind and heart. He has wished to be loyal to his Lord and to be a leader of his fellow men. He has not been desirous of being an obscurantist or a reactionary. It has often been the most sensitive spirits that have suffered most. The passion for truth and honesty of purpose has clashed with the traditions of environment. Some few who have been unable to place the Christ of the Gospels and of Paul's Epistles in the world of science and of criticism have either given up the ministry or have become Unitarian ministers. Others have lived down their doubts by deeper study and by patient waiting for further light that has come from Christ as it came to Thomas. Thomas is the typical preacher who has struggles with honest doubts. This is partly due to tempera ment, but one cannot easily change his temperament whether phlegmatic or bilious or nervous. Thomas had his pessimistic moods. He saw at once and sharply the difficulties in the way. He was unwilling to shut his eyes to the actual facts that confronted him. His first reaction was despondency. He came through in the end, but he had to fight his way through the fog and smoke to the light. Thomas was an outspoken man, besides, who in a rather blunt manner spoke out his mind. Such a man often reflects the feelings of THOMAS THE PREACHER 171 others who receive credit for more faith than they really possess and he also betrays more doubt than he really feels. The Fourth Gospel alone gives us an insight into the mind of Thomas as he faced the problem of Christ during Passion Week and afterward. Thomas reveals the courage of despair in John 1 1 :6, when he proposes to his fellow-disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him." Jesus had just said that Lazarus was dead. He had! suggested going to Bethany over the protest of the disciples that Jesus might be killed; for the enemies of Jesus had tried to stone him when he was last in Jerusalem, at the feast of dedication (John 10:31). To Thomas it seemed sheer madness for Jesus to go back into the lions' den. Lazarus was dead. The rulers will kill Jesus if he goes. And yet Thomas is the man who takes his courage in his hands and proposes, not de sertion of Jesus, but loyalty to him even unto death. But he expects death for all of them. Thomas is willing to go over the top, but he anticipates death for all of the band in the going. It may be said that this is not the highest form of courage, but it is cour age. It is not reckless daring, but the looking of all probabilities in the face. Thomas does not expect success. He expects that the proposed visit to Bethany will culminate in the death of Jesus and all the twelve. He pleads that they may all be willing to make this supreme sacrifice for the sake of the Master. It will be an end, to be sure, to all their cherished hopes about the Messianic Kingdom. They will all have to give up their dreams of place and power in that kingdom. They will not see Rome driven out of Palestine and 172 TYPES OF PREACHERS Jesus King in Jerusalem. It is a rude awakening for Thomas. Doubtless there is an implied rebuke to Jesus in the resignation of Thomas to the rashness of Christ. But, at any rate, he regards the situation as hopeless in view of the determination of the Mas ter. Ministers to-day have sometimes found themselves in a predicament where they had lost heart and hope in their work. They whipped themselves to their task with the courage of despair. The onward march of events has been against their predilections and preju dices, and even their principles. Some of the noblest of men have had to decide whether to "carry on" to the end with those who would not heed their advice or to quit and be termed slackers or even deserters. Thomas was not a quitter at any rate. He proposed to see the thing through even if his gloomiest fore bodings came true. It is true that some ministers have found themselves out of sympathy with their age and unable to make much of an impression upon those who had swept on to other modes of thought. Who, then, is the prophet? Prophets have often had to de nounce their age. Jesus did precisely this thing. And yet Jesus was the iconoclast and did not shrink from going on, not till he came to his own Gethsemane. I wish to make a plea for the preacher who in a troubled time has yet held on to his task in spite of discourage ment and even despair. He has held on from the sense of duty that drives the soldier to the field of battle. It is easier to throw stones at such a man than to stand in his tracks. This is not to advocate the idea that a man who no longer believes in the deity of Christ THOMAS THE PREACHER 173 should continue to preach it, or to occupy an evangelical pulpit or theological chair. The courage of despair is consistent with honest doubt, but not with loss of faith in Christ. Courage calls for honesty. When one has made his choice firmly and clearly he should take his stand. He should not stay within the lines and fire at his Captain. The next time that Thomas comes before us is in John 14:1-7. Here Thomas exhibits the agnostic atti tude toward death and the future life: "Lord, we know not whither thou goest ; how know we the way ?" (John 14:5). This bold avowal of ignorance of the future life after death follows the most intimate, ten der, and precious promise of Jesus that he would come again and take them to the Father's house and to him self in the Father's home. He had urged faith in him self as in the Father and had pointedly stated that the disciples had grounds for confident fidelity since they knew the place and the way to the new abode : "And whither I go, ye know the way" (John 14:4). It is precisely at this point that Thomas interposes with his almost brutal statement of crass ignorance about both the location of the Father's house and the way thereto. Once more Thomas is modern in his outlook and seems to voice the doubts of the present-day scientist who scans the heavens in vain for a planet that can be a fit abode for the spirits of the blest. The myriad blazing suns of the skies would seem more like the infernal regions than the home of Christ with the Father. Thomas was frankly puzzled as he tried to form an intellectual concept of the hope of heaven held 174 TYPES OF PREACHERS out by Jesus in the words that have comforted the dy ing through all the ages since that night when Jesus spoke them. Thomas was face to face with the death of Jesus and the blasting of all his hopes. He longed for something more than figures of speech. He found the age-long question, Does death end all? Jesus had answered with the definite promise that he would come and take the disciples to the heavenly home. But the appeal to their knowledge gave Thomas his chance to confess his real ignorance. Many a preacher has brought comfort to the dying with the words of Jesus who has longed for more assurance in his own heart. The answer of Jesus to Thomas is still the best answer to the modern agnostic. It is easy to find fault with those who are driven by the terror of death to find light in the darkened chambers of so-called mediums. I am slow to believe that the Christian has need to resort to the devious ways of paid professional medi ums with all the proven fraud to their credit and in anities in their so-called messages. Jesus spoke to Thomas the word that preacher and layman need to day : "I am the way, and the truth, and the life : no one cometh unto the Father but by me" (John 14:6). Turn from mediums to Jesus. He is the expression of the Father in human form. He is the incarnation of the truth about the future life. He is, in fact, the life itself, the source of all energy and power. He is the Lord of life and death. He is the way to the Father. Jesus is the way; He, and not a system of science or of theology; He, and not an ecclesiastical organization; He, and not priest or medium. Materialism has had a powerful grip upon some THOMAS THE PREACHER 175 minds during the nineteenth century. There are those to-day who can find no proof in the universe of mind apart from matter, who regard mind or spirit as a mere brain-function, who consider mind the product of mat ter, who hold that matter is eternal and mind merely the phosphorescent fire that flashes in the darkness and at death goes out forever. It is not easy to an swer all the difficulties raised by materialism. There are things to be said that lead one out and on to the spiritual interpretation of the universe. Jesus himself has to be accounted for. The spirit of man refuses to believe that man is a mere lump of clay. It is not easy to believe in the eternity of matter that was never created and that was always endowed with the energy of life. The upward trend of life argues for the existence of God. Evolution itself calls for a higher order in the universe than man's life on earth. The agnostic can never be wholly answered. Thomas did not reply to Jesus, but he had the only real answer. It is Jesus. The minister who loses his way in life has lost his touch with Christ. Jesus alone is the door to the temple of knowledge. One must try Jesus. Christ lamented that Thomas had failed to see the Father in himself. There are those who do see God in Christ. He is the only path by which men can come to God. The next time that we see Thomas in John's Gos pel (20:25) the other disciples are saying to him, "We have seen the Lord." It is a marvellous state ment. With the rest Thomas had passed through the gloom of that terrible Sabbath day when they had all suffered the eclipse of faith that followed the death 176 TYPES OF PREACHERS of Christ. The Cross had destroyed faith and hope. All that they had finally dreamed and trusted was now buried in the tomb of Jesus. Thomas with the other disciples had heard the stories of Mary Magdalene and the other women, but they treated them as idle tales of excitable women about seeing angels, and in the case of Mary Magdalene as a probable recur rence of her demoniacal possession. So Thomas was somewhat taken aback by the sudden avowal of faith in the resurrection of Jesus by the very men who had so recently emphasised their disbelief in the reports of the women. Evidently the disciples proceeded to give various details about the appearance of Jesus on that first Sunday night when Thomas was absent (John 20:24). The new converts were full of faith, but they lacked the power to convince a sceptic like Thomas, who still had all the sceptic's distrust of super natural phenomena. Thomas was not to be taken in by ghost stories. Finally he ended the matter by say ing, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." Here the minute particularity of details shows that Thomas takes up what the disciples had said. Thomas affirms that he will not believe unless he has the same experience that the disciples claimed to have had, with the addition that he wished to test the sense of touch as well as that of sight. He wished to handle this ghost to learn if his eyes deceived him. This decision seemed a hard one to the disciples, who were full of their new faith and joy. And yet Thomas could reply that there was too much at stake to have false hopes THOMAS THE PREACHER 177 revived. He had gone through the collapse of his hopes. He did not desire to have another downfall. Besides, optical illusions were possible. The mind might even project images before the eyes like the mirage of the desert. He wished to have a real sci entific examination before he could believe. It cannot be said that Thomas differed essentially from the position of the disciples before their experi ence on Sunday night. True, he had their testimony to add to that of the women. But they signally failed in the power of convincing Thomas of the reality of their experience as we to-day, alas! so often fail to convince sceptics of the power of Christ. He held out longer than the rest, and demanded the same proof that they asserted had convinced them with a certain tone of superior intelligence that often goes with a sceptical attitude toward Christ. It is the vice of the professional sceptic that he assumes an air of in tellectual arrogance toward those whom he considers the dupes of their own credulity. Thomas probably prided himself on his refusal to be carried away by what looked like a case of nerves on the part of both men and women who actually believed it possible for Jesus to appear to them. And yet Thomas had seen Lazarus come out of the tomb. Perhaps he argued that it was Jesus who raised Lazarus and now Jesus was dead. Besides, Lazarus went on living his old life with his human body. He was not a mere ghost who came into a room with closed doors. Hence Thomas wished to be able to handle Jesus before he could believe in his resurrection. Had Thomas demanded too much? Have we a 178 TYPES OF PREACHERS right to make a material test for spiritual phenomena and experiences? Many a man has stumbled right here and has not known how far to go and where to draw the line between material science and the things of the spirit. But Thomas was not holding himself aloof from the disciples because of his scepticism. We do not know why he failed to be present the first Sun day night, when he missed so much. If he had known that Jesus would come he surely would have been on hand. There are those to-day who .miss the blessing because they are not with God's people when the Lord makes bare the arm of his power. It is easy to expect nothing from the gathering of the people of God. There was no promise that Jesus would meet with the disciples on the second Sunday night. But Thomas was present this time. It was not hard to get him to come. His own curiosity would bring him, and he was probably urged to come. If anything out of the way happened he would at least be there so as to form his own opinions concerning what took place. Thomas has the scepticism of inexperience that afflicts so many to-day. Those who have not felt the power of Christ in their own lives may find it hard to believe that Christ touches the lives of others. So Thomas comes to their second gathering in a critical mood and on the watch against any hallucinations or clap-trap. He had not long to wait before Jesus appears, the doors being closed as before, and challenges the doubt of Thomas with the words: "Reach hither thy finger, and see my hands : and reach hither thy hand, and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27). It was all so sudden that the shock THOMAS THE PREACHER 179 upset Thomas's programme of examination. He knew the voice of Jesus. He knew that familiar and dear face. There were the outstretched hands and the side. But Thomas did not put his hand into that wounded side. In a crisis faith has to act and to decide. Faith is higher than knowledge. Faith has various sources of knowledge. It uses the intellect, the affections, and the will. The intellect is arrogant at times and seeks to rule out the affections and the will, but they have to be heard. We must use our intellects, for God gave them to us. But he also gave us our affections and our will. Thomas really understood no more than he did before how Christ came into that room, and how he rose from the dead, but here Jesus was and Thomas must decide what to do and at once. Thomas sur renders to the Risen Christ : "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). This is no mere exclamation of amazement, as the reply of Jesus shows. Thomas gave Jesus the wor ship of his heart and Jesus accepted his new faith and loyalty at its face value. We do not have to say that Thomas fully grasped the significance of his language and comprehended how the Risen Christ is both God and man. Faith has risen above mere intellect ever more. Faith has seized upon the heart of the situa tion. The man who has struggled with his honest doubts has risen by faith of experience to the noblest confession in the Gospels. It is Thomas the doubter, the pessimist, the sceptic, who has become the man of sublime faith. We may thank God that it is pos sible for such a thing to happen. Jesus was patient 180 TYPES OF PREACHERS with Thomas, for he knew that he was not posing as a sceptic for social prestige, but at heart really longed to believe. He was not occupying a false position, but was working toward the light. So Jesus met Thomas with proof that won him. But Jesus puts no crown on the doubt of Thomas. He rejoices in his new con viction and frank confession, but Thomas has missed the highest form of faith. He had refused to believe in the Risen Christ unless he conformed to his own test. He had refused to believe the witness of those who had seen the Risen Christ. So Jesus says : "Be cause thou hast seen me, thou hast believed : blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29). This beatitude Thomas has missed. It belongs to those who will never see with their eyes Christ on earth, but who will be satisfied with the testi mony of the eyes of the heart. They will reach up the hands of faith and will grasp the hidden hands of Christ. These are the heroes of faith who do not make unreasonable demands of Jesus in the realm of the Spirit. Surely this rebuke to Thomas may be a rebuke to day to those who press their scepticism too far. Criti cism and science have their rights and their duties, but the intellect is not the whole of man any more than the body is the whole of life. The kingdom of God consists in love and joy and peace and righteous ness, and not in meat and drink. Peter heard Jesus speak this rebuke to Thomas. And Peter will one day speak of Jesus, "whom having not seen ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye THOMAS THE PREACHER 181 rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory" (i Peter 1:8). That blessed privilege is open to every believer to-day whatever doubts may beset him. He can find his way back to Christ — in whose face one finds the glory of God. CHAPTER XII PHILIP THE EVANGELIST Luke calls him "Philip the evangelist one of the Seven" (Acts 21:8). The two epithets cover very well what We know of his career. It is here seen that the Seven had come to occupy a place to themselves after the fashion of the Twelve. They were chosen, as is shown in Acts 6:1-6, to relieve the Twelve of "serv ing tables" whatever that may mean. Our word "banker" means originally a "bencher" because the money-changers sat at tables. So Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers in the temple (John 2:15). Thus to serve tables probably means to at tend to financial affairs. In the present instance the business concerned the distribution of the funds for the poor widows among the saints in Jerusalem. The Hellenistic Christian Jews of the Dispersion who were in the city complained that the Aramaean (Palestinian) widows received more than their share of the money. The Twelve Apostles had supervised the equitable dis tribution of the funds. At once they saw that to con tinue this duty would jeopardise their spiritual func tions and prejudice the Hellenists against them. So they wisely asked the Hellenists to choose seven of their own number for this special task. This provision would allow the Twelve freedom to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. It is not 182 PHILIP THE EVANGELIST 183 certain that the deacons described later in Phil, i :i and I Tim. 3 are identical in office with the Seven; but all the indications point that way. The word "serve" (diakoneo) employed in Acts 6:2 and deacon (diakonos) are identical in root. One possible ety mology derives the word from dia and konis (dust), meaning to raise a dust. Certainly some deacons can fill that requirement. The word has a wider applica tion in the New Testament to ministers in general, and all service for Christ. But the office of deacon to which Philip was appointed was designed to relieve the Apostles (and elders a bit later) of the more secu lar phases of the work of the churches. So Philip began his career as a church official as one of the Seven, a deacon. He was a loyal sup porter of Stephen, the leader of the Seven, when Stephen took the lead in the aggressive interpretation of the spiritual nature of Christianity as designed for men of all races. The sudden martyrdom of Stephen for this wider vision of the mission of Christianity did not frighten Philip. The Twelve Apostles had aroused the bitter hostility of the Sadducees by their bold proclamation of the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead and the guilt of the Sanhedrin from his cruci fixion. Stephen stirred the Pharisees to fury by his apparent denial of the necessity of the Jewish cere monial law for Gentiles. Philip took the death of Stephen as a challenge to his own faith and courage and did not hesitate to take up the work of Stephen. It remains one of the puzzles of the early apostolic history why the apostles did not rally to the support of Stephen and Philip in their vigorous campaign. 184 TYPES Or x-jtvjLA^xir.jtto Did they feel that they were going beyond the func tions of the Seven? Or did they think it unwise for them to antagonise the Pharisees too much as well as the Sadducees? Or did they feel that the Seven were going too fast toward the Gentiles? We have no means of answering these questions. We only know that Saul's persecution finally drove all the disciples out of Jerusalem except the apostles. Stephen and Philip are not the only deacons who have taken to preaching. They were set apart as members of the Seven (Acts 6:6). There is no evidence that they received any further "ordination." To the end Philip is one of the Seven. In modern ecclesiastical language they were lay preachers like D. L. Moody. But for the moment Stephen and Philip took the lead in ag gressive evangelisation. It is interesting to note that Philip went to Samaria as Luke tells us in Acts 8, the chapter devoted to the work of Philip. It may have been that he was safer from persecution in Samaria than in Judaea or Galilee as the Jews had no synagogues in Samaria and no dealings with them. The Samaritans had been finally circumcised, but the Jews refused to consider them as a part of their own people. They were half- Jews and were all the more cordially hated for that very reason as people to-day have an extra touch of spite for their own kindred in a family fuss. The striking thing is that Philip boldly applied the teaching of Stephen and followed the example of Jesus who had himself preached with marked success in Sychar (John 4). True, Jesus had once forbidden the Twelve to go into any way of the Gentiles or into a city of the PHILIP THE EVANGELIST 185 Samaritans (Matt. 10:5) while on the special tour of Galilee. But, before he ascended on high, he ex pressly charged them to be his witnesses in Judaea and Samaria and the uttermost part of the earth (Acts I :8). It is possible, as one tradition has it, that Philip was one of the Seventy sent forth also by Jesus (Luke 10:1-24). But Philip, like Stephen and all the Seven, was a Hellenist while the Twelve were all Palestinians. So he had less difficulty in overcoming race prejudice. He is the first missionary of the Cross on record who carried the gospel message to an alien race. Philip had power with the people as he kept on preaching Christ to the people of the city of Samaria. The multitudes (note the plural, the crowds) gave heed to (held their minds on) the things that were spoken from time to time by Philip. He had caught their ear and had a hearing and they hung on his words. This they did with one accord. He carried the crowd with him as they heard him speak and watched the signs that he wrought. Like Stephen (Acts 6:8) Philip wrought miracles. Unclean spirits were cast out. Paralytics were healed. The lame walked. It was like the days of Jesus on earth again and in Samaria. "There was much joy in that city." Per haps the very fact that Philip was persecuted by Jews and was an exile from Jerusalem made the Samaritans all the more inclined to listen to his message. And then, too, the Samaritans in Sychar had once welcomed Jesus while the Jews later crucified him. The great work of Philip in Samaria is all the more remarkable in the light of the fact that they had been led astray by Simon Magus, one of the numerous 186 TYPES OF PREACHERS Jewish soothsayers and exorcists (cf. the seven sons of Sceva in Acts 19 at Ephesus). The Magi (cf. the visit of the Wise Men to Jerusalem and Bethlehem to do honour to the New-born King) were originally great and wise men of much lore and insight. But as some doctors are quacks and some preachers are hypocrites,. some of the Magi became magicians or tricksters who played oil the ignorance and superstition of the masses. So here this man Simon had his repertoire of stunts by which he fooled the people and convinced them of his claims to be "some great one" (Magus means great one originally). He continually astonished the people by his new "powers" and held the population in awe from the smallest to the greatest. He was almost wor shipped as "the Power of God that is called Great." It is pathetic, really tragic, to see how otherwise intelli gent men can become the victims of charlatans in re ligion and in politics. Even Sergius Paulus was under the spell of Elymas Barjesus in Cyprus and many a modern man has sought communication with spooks by the help of mediums in darkened chambers like Saul with the Witch of Endor. In our own time Mrs. Eddy has claimed to be some "great one" superior to Jesus Christ and some have followed her hallucina tions as Alexander Dowie has founded a -city on his own absurdities. But Philip broke the spell of the power of Simon Magus over the people. Simon saw that his "power" was gone. He was a fallen idol. At once he himself became a follower of Philip in order to get the benefit of the new "cult" which had put him out of business. Luke records that "Simon himself believed and was baptised and kept close to PHILIP THE EVANGELIST 187 Philip and beholding the signs and great powers tak ing place continued amazed." This language tells the secret as the sequel makes plain enough. Simon "believed" that he wanted what Philip had. He sub mitted to baptism as a magical rite akin to those in the various cults of the times. He thought that, if he were baptised, he himself would be able to work the wonders that Philip continued to perform. But, somehow the "power" did not come to Simon. So he kept close on the heels of Philip to see if he could catch on to the particular spell or incantation by which he supposed the miracles to be wrought. He is the typical case of the man who joins the church for what he can get out of it and without any spiritual experi ence of grace or change of heart. Baptism to Simon was not a symbol of the grace already received, but a magical means of obtaining the power to work miracles. It is small wonder that, when the apostles in Jerusa lem heard that Samaria had received the gospel, they sent at once Peter and John to investigate the situation. The Samaritans, as already stated, had been circum cised and so could not be treated as heathen in the spread of the gospel. And yet race prejudice and race hatred.made.it wise for the apostolic leaders to look the situation over to avoid trouble in Jerusalem. Peter is the very one who later had the vision on the housetop at Joppa and who preached to Cornelius and his family in Caesarea and had these Romans bap tised and who was called to account by the Pharisaic element in the church in Jerusalem. John was one (James the other, Luke 9:54) who wanted to call 188 TYPES OF PREACHERS down fire from heaven to consume a Samaritan village that would not receive Jesus because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And in Jerusalem one of the mean est things that his enemies could say of him was that he was a Samaritan and had a demon (John 8:48). But here both Peter and John approve the work of Philip, a tribute to the skill with which Philip had carried on his work, and they prayed that the converts might receive the Holy Spirit. Philip was not hyper sensitive or jealous and was apparently glad to see Peter and John. One recalls how later Barnabas was sent from Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch in Syria and how he remained with joy till the work was well established. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Samaria was virtually a Samaritan Pentecost distinct from con version and apparently accompanied by speaking with tongues as in Jerusalem and at Caesarea. Suddenly Simon Magus "saw" a great light and felt that at last he had caught on to the incantations of laying on of hands, provided it would work for him as it did for Peter. So he boldly offered Peter money for his gift, treating him as a fellow conjurer who was out for the money. It was an intolerable affront and Peter scorned him and his money and warned him that he was in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity, without part or lot in this thing, with a crooked heart before God. His belief and baptism were a mere cloak to make merchandise of the gift of God. There is no doubt that Simon was a consummate hypocrite and deserved the anathema of Peter. There is no evidence of a real change of heart in him. His very PHILIP THE EVANGELIST 189 name is forever coupled with the crime of trying to purchase religious preferment and it is called simony., He was ranked as the first great heresiarch of early Christianity and legend is busy with his name in the Clementine Epistles. The germs of the later Gnos ticism appear in his claims and pretensions. Philip stands forth as a man led of God in the special mission to the eunuch of Ethiopia. He is here a prophet like Elijah or Elisha who is seized by the Spirit of God and led forth to do God's will. The Christian preacher does not claim to have the same overwhelming and clear guidance, but he is never sure and powerful when he is out of touch with God. The God-called and God-filled man is the one who has the message for men to-day. If we kept our hearts open for God's voice, we might hear the still, small voice of the Master. The task assigned to Philip is not easy. He is to go and evangelise one man of great prominence. He is not a Jew, but probably a proselyte of the gate who has been to worship at the temple in Jerusalem. But it is always difficult to know how to handle the indi vidual case with its own peculiar problems. Great preachers sometimes fail just here. But most men are won to Christ in precisely this way, one by one. Moody and Broadus have said that they knew of more conversions in their own experience from conversation than from preaching, great preachers as they were. Philip did not hesitate, but went on and trusted for the opening to come. He soon had it for the eunuch was reading aloud in Isaiah 53. Soon Philip was preaching Jesus from that scripture. He had no 190 TYPES OF PREACHERS hesitation in finding the Messiah in Isaiah as Jesus had none. The eunuch was converted and asked for baptism as soon as water was reached and Philip bap tised him. He had evidently spoken of baptism in his exposition of the gospel message. There was no church at hand, but Philip did not hesitate to baptise the new convert as Peter had the household of Cor nelius baptised in Caesarea. Ecclesiastical problems amount to little in a time like that. Here was, besides, a Gentile converted and baptised who went on his way rejoicing and who probably took the message of eternal life with him to Ethiopia as the first mission ary to the heathen. No stir was raised in Jerusalem over the case of the eunuch because Philip did not go to Jerusalem, but went to Azotus and then to Caesarea where he made his home. But he preached as he went and evangelised the cities of the plain on the way. He deserves the title of the Evangelist. It is over twenty years before we hear of Philip again. Paul is on his way to Jerusalem for the last time. Paul and Luke with the rest of the party reach Caesarea on their way to Jerusalem to take the money from the Gentile churches to the poor saints in Jerusa lem. They stop at Caesarea as guests of Philip and his four daughters who are prophetesses, a wonderful home of Christian activity, a dynamo of spiritual energy. It is plain that Luke made full use of his op portunity in this home at this time and later when Paul is a prisoner in Caesarea to obtain data for the early part of Acts. But it was a strange meeting of rich and varied reminiscences for Paul and Philip. Paul was the leader in the persecution that killed Ste- PHILIP THE EVANGELIST 19U phen and that drove out Philip the successor of Sjephen. And now Paul and Philip meet again after long years of service in carrying on the work of Stephen and taking the gospel to the Gentiles. Philip was the first messenger to cross the Jewish border with the story of Christ for those not Jews. Paul is the chosen vessel of Christ to the Gentile world. They have much in common and one is bound to think that these days in Caesarea were full of fellowship and joy. There are various legends as to what Philip and his daughters did when the war with Rome broke out in A. D. 65. It began in Caesarea. We may be sure that they left in time and that they were useful else where. The space given Philip in Acts by Luke is not great, but it is enough to make a clear picture of one of the finest figures in Christianity. He was worthy of the friendship of Stephen and of Paul and of Luke, as well as of Peter and John. He was not responsible for the imposture of Simon Magus. Many another preacher has been taken in by designing men and women who have sought to insinuate themselves into place and power by church connection and even by the use of the pulpit. One is not omniscient and cannot always read the human heart, but time sets things straight and the hypocrite is revealed. Philip was rich in his gifted daughters who did not stand alone among women in the first century who bore noble witness to the power of Christ to save women and to enrich all that is high and holy in womanhood. CHAPTER XIII MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN IN THE MINISTRY It is now a live question in many of the churches how to obtain suitable preachers. In some sections the supply of ministers seems to be keeping up with the increasing demand while in others there is a distressing shortage of young preachers in the schools. The rea sons for the decrease on the whole are varied. The Y. M. C. A. now makes a strong pull for many of the finest young men. The foreign field has an increasing appeal for the noblest spirits in the colleges. Some young men find difficulty in reconciling the old faith with the new learning and drift into other callings. Some of the men with the new knowledge lack the con viction and the loyalty to Jesus as Lord and Saviour and so find themselves without a message and soon without an audience. There are always a certain num ber of failures in the ministry as in everything else. Quite a number break down under the stress and strain of the modern minister's life. Meanwhile the churches are growing and clamour for more ministers of the highest type of character and efficiency. It is always profitable to go back to the beginning of things. In our organized Christianity we have naturally come to look to the schools for the training of the ministry. But it is actually true in some in- 192 MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN 193 stances that the educated preacher comes out unfitted for the active ministry. At any rate it is well to under stand that the churches are not wholly dependent on the schools for ministers, necessary as the schools are. God raises up men to meet special emergencies. Jesus taught the disciples to pray for more labourers to enter the harvest. Certainly there has not been enough prayer in the churches for God-sent men. God is the real source of supply for preaching of the gospel of grace. All else is secondary. It is always possible for business men to enter the ministry. England has a large and useful number of lay-preachers who carry on their business during the week and preach on Sundays. Some of these give their whole time to preaching and at their own charges if necessary. D. L. Moody always considered himself a layman, because he was not ordained, though one of the greatest evangelists of the ages. He was a successful business man. He gave up the shoe-busi ness to go into the soul-saving business. He carried his business attitude and habits into the service of win ning souls to Christ. Successful business men need not be overlooked as a source of ministerial supply. Jesus did not overlook them. He called a whole firm of fishermen to leave their business and follow him. James and John were partners with Simon and Andrew (Luke 5:7-10). At the call of Christ these men all left their business and devoted the rest of their lives to work for Christ (Mark 1 : 17-20; Luke 5:11). But the most striking instance of the business man who entered the ministry is Matthew (Matt. 9:9), the publican who sat at the place of toll on the road that 194 TYPES OF PREACHERS led from Damascus to Acre by the north end of the Sea of Galilee at the border between the territory of Herod Philip and of Herod Antipas. Mark (2:14) terms this man "Levi the son of Alphaeus" while Luke (5:27) calls him "a publican by name Levi." Evi dently the man had two Jewish names, Levi and Mat thew like Simon Cephas (Peter). Probably Levi was his original name and Matthew (Aramaic "Gift of Jehovah" like the Greek "Theodore") while Matthew may have been a later name (nickname as a term of endearment or appreciation) after he entered the ministry. At any rate in the lists of the Twelve Apos tles he is always called Matthew and "Matthew the publican" in Matt. 10 :3. He stands seventh in Mark and Luke and eighth in Matthew and Acts. His business was perfectly legitimate in itself, in fact necessary. Customs officers and tax collectors are proverbially unpopular and arouse a certain amount of prejudice because of the business. The Jews re sented the payment of tribute to Rome and disliked any Jew who undertook to collect the duty for Rome. Matthew was technically an officer under Herod An tipas, but he incurred the dislike for his class. "Publi cans and sinners" had come to be grouped together as of a piece. In many cases the publicans were guilty of graft and oppression as John the Baptist charged (Luke 3 :i3). Matthew was not a chief publican like Zacchaeus (Luke 19:2) who farmed out a district with other publicans employed under him. Matthew simply had his customs office near Capernaum and examined the goods of those who passed along the highway and collected the dues. MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN 195 To do this work he had to know both Greek and Aramaic and he needed a certain amount of business ability, a quick and ready turn for financial exchange and accurate accounts. Matthew would receive the scorn of Pharisees because of his constant associa tion with the Gentiles and the common run of the Jews. Besides, he would be compelled to violate the rules of the Pharisees concerning Sabbath observance. Jesus himself spoke of the publicans and harlots as social outcasts (Matt. 21:31). Matthew would not seem to be very promising material for a preacher, least of all for one of the Twelve Apostles. It would be like looking for a saloon keeper to become a minister. And yet one day in the midst of a great crowd com ing and going, while Jesus was teaching them (Mark 2:13-14) and while Matthew was very busy collecting the toll from the passing throng, the Master suddenly said to the publican: "Follow me" (Mark 2:14). The tense used (present imperative and so linear ac tion) means to keep on following forever. Matthew understood at once that it was a call to quit the cus toms office to go on the road with Jesus. Why did the demand of Jesus make an appeal to Matthew? It is quite probable that Matthew had already heard of the fame of Jesus who now made Capernaum his head quarters (Mark 1:21; 2:1). The Sabbath in Caper naum when the mother-in-law of Peter was healed closed with a great crowd. "All the city was gathered together at the door" (Mark 1 133). It is possible that Matthew was in that throng. The quick decision of Matthew argues for the conclusion that he had previ ously faced the problem of Jesus. Now he took the 196 TYPES OF PREACHERS great stand in the open and made that tremendous de cision. As a rule in conversion the final step is taken after a great deal of consideration in one way or an other. Sermons, conversations, reading the Bible, sor row, joy, sickness, death may all have contributed to the moment of decision. But even so the step is usu ally taken under the pressure of urgent invitation. When Jesus said to Philip: "Follow me" (John I :43), Philip instantly obeyed because he "was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter" (1:4.4). We follow the example of others whom we know and love. It was not easy for Matthew to yield to the com mand of Jesus in spite of the charm of the Master for men. Matthew had no other means of livelihood so far as we know. Jesus was an itinerant rabbi with no fixed income. For the moment he was the popular idol, but one could not know how long it would con tinue to be so. Matthew himself came from a class that was taboo with the religious leaders of the time. His coming would apparently embarrass Jesus and not help him. But he took his stand for Jesus openly and boldly. He rose up and followed Jesus then and there (aorist tense in Mark 2:14 and Matt. 9:9) and he kept on following him (imperfect tense in Luke 5:28). Matthew was not a quitter. He had counted the cost. He "left all," Luke adds. Jesus does not demand that every business man give up his business and enter the ministry. But he does ask that of some. A successful business man cannot assume that he is not to receive a call to become a preacher. His very success in business may be one of his qualifications MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN 197 for the ministry. It used to be said that preachers were not good business men, but, if the average business man had to support his family on the income of the average preacher, he would be slow to make that state ment. And certainly modern business men feel as never before the need of preachers to help them apply the teaching of Jesus to the economic problems of the world. The Wall Street Journal openly affirms that the greatest need of the business world to-day is more religion and righteousness. Business men in the min istry would help greatly in making a bond of contact between Christianity and business. Matthew not only took a public stand for Jesus before the business men of his day. He made a strong appeal to his business associates to become disciples of Jesus. "And Levi made a great reception for him in his house : and there was a great multitude of publicans and of others who were reclining at meat with them" (Luke 5:29). Luke makes it plain that it was the house of Levi and not of Jesus as the language of Mark 2 :i5 and Matthew 9:10 allows. But Mark and Matthew note that the crowd of "others" were "sin ners." Mark explains that many sinners "were fol lowing" Jesus. Matthew asserts that "many publicans and sinners came and reclined with Jesus and his dis ciples." But Luke makes it clear that Matthew in vited the crowd of "publicans and sinners," social out casts like himself, his own friends and associates. Some of these "sinners" may have come uninvited. It is possible that Matthew may have accumulated a little money. At any rate he was anxious to show his colours. The only people who would accept an in- 198 TYPES OF PREACHERS vitation to a reception were his own acquaintances and associates. The courage of Matthew is beyond all praise. So often Christian business men are shy in their testimony for Christ when they make a loud noise in business circles. Matthew wanted his old friends to meet Jesus. He was sure that they also would like him. It is plain also that Jesus was already known as willing to mingle with these social outcasts for they eagerly gathered round Jesus and gladly accepted Levi's invitation. Matthew was willing to incur ridicule for Jesus. The scribes and the Pharisees noticed the big crowd at the house of Levi the publican. They were already showing an interest in the teachings of Jesus as a rival for popular favour (Mark 1:22). They were not themselves invited by Levi and they would have spurned his invitation if it had been extended. But they had no hesitation in standing outside the house and making remarks about the conduct of Jesus in eating with publicans and sinners. "Why does your teacher eat with publicans and sinners?" (Matt. 9:11). They clearly mean to imply that their teachers would be ashamed to eat with such people. Take notice that "they were murmuring" (Luke 5:30). It was like the buzz of bees. This pointed criticism in public was embarrassing to Matthew who had given the feast. There was nothing that he could say, for the crowd of publicans and sinners were his invited guests. The disciples did not feel like speaking though the question was addressed to them. Jesus took up the criticism and made a pointed rejoinder that is given verbatim by all the Synoptic Gospels : "The well have no need of MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN 199 a physician, but the unwell." It is not hard to imagine the electric effect of this piercing saying of Jesus. Jesus was already the great Physician of body and soul. Surely the publicans and sinners needed the physician of souls. The Pharisees and scribes posed as physicians of souls, but they dodged the very peo ple most in need of their services. Jesus had a further word for them : "But go and learn what this means : I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Matt. 9:13). This was a thrust at the whole fabric of Pharisaism. The sarcasm of Christ appears in his closing word : "For I have not come to call righteous folks, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). He took them at their own estimate as "righteous" and brushed them aside. They were intermeddlers at Levi's reception and in the work of Christ. Certainly Matthew would ap preciate the powerful word of defence from his new Friend and Lord. Matthew was getting his first ex perience of that public criticism that every preacher must endure who does anything worth while. The preacher has to learn how to take criticism, to profit by it, to throw off much of it, to go on with his work in spite of Madame Grundy. "They say?" "Let them say." We have no reason to think that Matthew was a man of unusual gifts. Certainly he had not spectacular gifts that made him an outstanding figure in the new circle of Christ's disciples. He was not called on this occasion to be one of the Twelve Apostles, but to join the group of four fishermen who were already follow ing Jesus (Andrew and Simon, James and John). Two others (Philip and Nathanael-Bartholomew) had 200 TYPES OF PREACHERS already cast in their lot with Christ and the four. Five of these seven had been business men and that may have been true also of Philip and Nathanael. But the absence of any particular mention of Matthew apart from the rest in the later story in the Gospels indicates that he was on a level with the group as a whole and not a genius and not a distinctive leader. He was not clamorous for the first place in the Twelve as were James and John, Peter, and Judas Iscariot. But Matthew can at any rate be credited with the quality of steadiness and steadfastness. He apparently had not been a follower of the Baptist as the six first had been. He was then a newcomer in the circle and would not be likely to claim any particular honours or expect any special favours. The great feast that he gave in honour of Jesus was a hearty expression of his grati tude to the great Teacher and perhaps also in some sense a jubilation or celebration of the new departure in his own career. Matthew had certainly made a daring leap from the post of publican to that of preacher of righteousness. But Jesus knew that Matthew was a publican when he called him. He knew the cleavage between the Pharisees, the ceremonial separatists of the day, and the publicans and sinners who outraged all the social and religious conventions of the Pharisees. Jesus deliberately took his stand by the side of "sin ners" who repented as against the pride of the self- righteous whose hearts were full of hate for the down trodden among men. It is not certain that Matthew comprehended fully the significance of the spiritual, moral, and social revolution of which he was a part. He was called upon MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN 201 to play a not ignoble part in the great drama of all time. For one thing he had to prove the wisdom of Christ in calling a publican instead of a Pharisee. He had to overcome by a clean and straight life in the sharpest and bluntest criticism. His own life in all probability had not been above reproach. He had most likely lived up to the reputation of his class as an oppressor of the poor and as a grafter. This he had to overcome by a clean and straight life in the open. Jesus tested Matthew by some months of con stant fellowship and service with the other six. Mat thew came to understand better what lay ahead of him. So it came to pass that after a night of prayer in the mountain Jesus came down to a lower plateau and chose the twelve men whom he named apostles who were to be his cabinet of co-workers for the king dom of God. He chose "Matthew the publican" in that fateful number of men on whom so much de pended. As a general rule it is wise for any man to have some testing or trial before he fully launches into the ministry of Christ. It is not always an easy thing to manage for the churches are usually shy of a novice in the ministry. A man cannot learn to preach without preaching. He must practise on somebody. In the case of young men who have to spend years of prepara tion for the work the decision usually has to be made on the basis of promise and faith. It is a chance in futures from the human standpoint. My own experi ence as a theological teacher for some thirty-five years may be worth something. Probably over five thousand young ministers have been in my various classes dur ing these years. I am often asked what percentage of 202 TYPES OF PREACHERS these students fail to enter the ministry. I have kept no accurate data, but my general impression is that the actual loss is less than two per cent of the whole. To be sure, those that come to the theological seminary have usually had high school and college training. Most of them have already had student pastorates or regular pastoral work. The love of preaching has already gripped them. The work in the Southern Bap tist Theological Seminary has deepened their love for souls and for soul-winning. I am glad to be able to bear this witness to the loyalty of the great host of the noblest of men whom my life has touched by the grace and goodness of God. These men have become good ministers of Christ, in varying measure, to be sure, but still with honourable fidelity and with a meas ure of the favour of God upon their work. They have girdled the earth with lives of consecrated toil for Christ. I thank God to-day for the holy and happy memories connected with them. So Matthew, the former publican, took his place with the elect group of choice spirits chosen by Jesus for fellowship in service, his earthly bodyguard in the midst of mis understanding and relentless and increasing hostility. One other thing can be affirmed with confidence concerning Matthew. Papias in the well-known pas sage in Eusebius is quoted as saying that Matthew wrote Logia of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic) which each one interpreted as he was able. Tradition credits him with the authorship of our First Gospel, the can onical Gospel according to Matthew. The present Gospel according to Matthew bears little mark of being a translation from Aramaic. It seems to be a free MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN 203 composition in Greek, free at least in the same sense that the Gospel according to Luke is free, with the evi dent use of materials such as Luke mentions (Luke I :i-4). It is not my purpose here to enter into a dis cussion of the Synoptic Problem, the broad outlines of which are now pretty generally accepted. My own views are fully stated in my books ("Commentary on Matthew in the Bible for Home and School," "Studies in Mark's Gospel," "Luke the Historian in the Light of Research"). Both Matthew and Luke make use of Mark's Gospel and a non-Markan source commonly called Logia or Q (German Quelle, Source). This non-Markan source may very well have been the Logia of Matthew mentioned by Papias. Since Mat thew was bilingual as a publican at his post near Caper naum on the great West Road, it is quite possible that he may have written the Logia in Aramaic and the Gospel in Greek. But, leaving that point to one side, there is every reason to think of him as one of the very earliest narrators of the things of Jesus Christ. Some scholars even hold that Matthew began to take notes of the sayings of Jesus Christ during the Mas ter's ministry. If so, the Logia of Jesus by Matthew took shape some twenty years before the Gospel of Mark which reflects so faithfully the vivid pictures seen by Peter. The point is made that Matthew's habits as a customs officer led him to jot down, per haps at first in shorthand, notes of the wonderful words that fell from the lips of the great Teacher. If there is anything at all in this hypothesis, we find in Matthew an illustration of one's business habits bear ing fruit in the ministry. The Gospel according to 204 TYPES OF PREACHERS Matthew has been termed the most useful book in the world, for it is the book about Jesus that has been most read. It has given most people their conception of Christ. Even if Matthew did not write the Greek Gospel bearing his name, his Aramaic Logia made a great contribution to the picture of Jesus. It is likely that the Logia was much larger in content than the non-Markan element in both Matthew and Luke as we can judge by the use made of Mark's Gospel. And in the absence of definite proof against the Mat- thaean authorship of the First Gospel, his connection with it must be considered possible, some would say probable, and that is my opinion. There are many legends concerning the preaching of Matthew, some of them certainly confused with Matthias. These may all be passed by in our estimate of the work of Matthew for Christ. If he had done nothing else but write the Logia of which Papias spoke and which modern criticism finds in large meas ure preserved in our canonical Matthew and Luke, he would be entitled to the rank of one of the benefactors of humanity. The group of twelve men whom Jesus gathered round him challenge our interest from every standpoint. Each had his own gifts. The veil of si lence rests upon the work of most of them. We are able to form a fairly clear picture of Peter, John, Judas, and Matthew, with a fainter outline of Philip, Andrew, and James. Perhaps few in the circle would have thought of the solid and more or less stolid Mat thew as one who would win immortal fame. But work counts in the end of the day fully as much as genius. The greatest men have both genius and the capacity MATTHEW THE BUSINESS MAN 205 for work. In fact, genius is largely a capacity for work. But the less brilliant minister can do an hon est day's work with the gifts that he has in the place where God has placed him. These are the men who must meet the demands of the new world. Every man must plough his own furrow to the end and must make it as straight as he can and make it fit in with the work of others. Christ calls upon business men to-day either to enter the ministry or to back up the ministry with personal service and with money to make Christianity effective in the life of the world. CHAPTER XIV JUDAS THE TRAITOR TO HIS LORD The case of Judas is the saddest of all those who came in contact with Jesus during his earthly minis try. Others sinned grievously, but Judas sinned against more light than they all. Simon Peter denied his Lord under sudden impulse when caught in the toils of circumstance, but Judas sinned with delibera tion and calculated treachery. Pilate sinned against Roman law according to his own confession, but he palliated his conscience like some other politicians • by laying the blame upon the Sanhedrin. The sin of Caiaphas was greater than that of Pilate as Jesus said (John 1 8 :n). The Sanhedrin gleefully accepted their share of the guilt for the death of Jesus (John 19:7) while the populace enthusiastically exclaimed: "His blood be on us and on our children" (Matt. 27:25). There was guilt enough for all. Sadducees, Phar isees, and Herodians buried the hatchet against each other for the moment in order to vent their spleen against Jesus, the common object of their hatred. But Judas stands out above all the rest as the su preme example of treachery for all time. His very name, though one of the commonest and most honour able in ancient Jewish history (merely the Greek form of Judah) became the synonym for all that is base and mean. Benedict Arnold can only be called a sec- 206 JUDAS THE TRAITOR TO HIS LORD 207 ond Judas. "The enormity of the sin of Judas con sisted in its being against all bonds of discipleship and friendship; against light, against mercies, affection, trust, warning; against his own promises and preach ing" (Plummer in Hastings's "D. B."). Keim argues that it is impossible to think that the treason of Judas would have been invented if he had not been guilty. With all the minute research into the details of the life of Jesus in the Gospels no serious effort has been made to show that Judas did not betray his Lord. And Judas does not stand alone in the history of Christianity though he does head the list of traitors. A few men who once preached the glory of Jesus have lived to curse his name to the end. There have been those who sought to relieve Judas of real blame for his conduct by various specious arguments. The commonest plea is that he was the chosen vessel to betray Jesus so that he could die for sinners, that it was God's plan that Christ should die on the Cross and that this could only happen by be trayal to the Sanhedrin because of Christ's power with the people. But this explanation handles in too light and easy a manner the whole .problem of the origin of evil and of human responsibility. There is no real ground for saying that Judas was put among the Twelve Apostles in order that he might betray Jesus. Certainly Jesus did not say that he selected Judas be cause he knew that he would betray him. It is not clear from John 6:64 that Jesus meant to say that he knew who would betray him from the beginning of his own ministry. He may mean only that in the early stages of the work of Judas he saw signs that TYPES OF PREACHERS Judas was given over to the work of the devil and would betray him. That is clear to Jesus one year before the end (John 6:70), though the exposure seems not to have shocked the Twelve at that time. Already the heart of Judas was with those who walked no more with Jesus (John 6:66). Some would even make Judas a sort of hero in that he tried out of excess of patriotism and loyalty to force the hand of Jesus and compel him to be king in open rebellion to Caesar. The idea is that Judas disliked the refusal of Jesus to respond to the pupular clamour in Galilee a year before his death (John 6:15). The triumphant entry gave Jesus a great following, but even so he showed no purpose to follow it up in a political way. If Jesus were in the hands of the Sanhedrin, the people would rally to his standard and throw off the Roman yoke. So the argument runs, but it is very feeble and inconclusive and overlooks too many items that demand explanation, especially the fact that Jesus calls him a devil (John 6:70). Others argue that Judas was wholly evil without any element of good, that he even sought out a place among the Twelve in order that he might have an opportunity to betray Jesus. Beyond doubt Judas early fell into the power of the devil. Both Luke (22:3) and John (13:27) say that Satan entered into Judas just before the betrayal and, as we have seen, Jesus called Judas a devil a year before that. Evi dently, therefore, the connection of Judas with the devil was no new and sudden thing. In fact John (13:2) observes that Satan had "already" put the notion of betrayal into his heart. It is clear, therefore, JUDAS THE TRAITOR TO HIS LORD 209 that Judas had for some time brooded over his dark project in secret communing with the devil. Prob ably at first the suggestion was more or less uncon scious, but finally he was fully aware of his own pur pose and welcomed the periodic visits and impulses of Satan in his heart. Undoubtedly Judas played with temptation until finally he became the tool of the devil who wrought his own will through him. But in the last analysis that is the story of many a sordid life. The worst dope fiend became a degenerate by degrees. There was a time when resistance was possible. Judas had elements of good in him that appealed to Jesus. "Ye did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide" (John 15:16). And Jesus thanked the Father for giving him these twelve men (John 17:6) : "And I guarded them and not one of them perished, but the son of perdition" (John 17:12). But "the son of perdition" brought that fate upon himself, Jesus clearly means. The Master early perceived the elements of peril in Judas and began to warn him in subtle ways and then more openly. But these warnings against hypocrisy probably at first passed by undiscerned. When they became more personal, they were probably bitterly resented as "flings" and proof of Christ's dislike for Judas. It is hardly likely that Judas would take to himself the general denunciation of covetousness and hypoc risy or even the implication that the light in any of them might be darkness (Luke 11 :35). When Jesus spoke of one of them being a devil (John 7:70), Judas may have passed the epithet on to others, as 210 TYPES OF PREACHERS people will a hit in sermons. And when at the end the language of Jesus was unmistakable, Judas was simply confirmed in his purpose to go on with his hellish bargain. "Ye are clean, but not all" (John 12 :io). "He that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). When Jesus pointedly said at the last supper : "One of you shall betray me, even he that eateth with me" (Mark 14:18), the other disciples were sorrowful and amazed and looked on one another to see if they could see signs of such treachery in each other (John 13:22). When each asked "Is it I," Judas did the same thing brazenly (Matt. 26:25). He would bluff it out as long as he could, though he now knew that Jesus understood him thoroughly. The disciples actually questioned each other on the subject (Luke 22 :23), but failed to grasp the significance of the sign when Jesus gave the sop to Judas as he indicated in response to John's ques tion to Jesus and the suggestion of Peter (John 13 :23- 26). It is even possible that Judas got the post of honour at this last feast, a circumstance that would blacken his character still more. But Judas under stood perfectly the language of Jesus: "What thou doest, do quickly." He was now wholly in the grasp of the devil and the warnings of Jesus apparently only exasperated him to go on to the end. It is not possible to explain the career of Judas by one motive. It is not possible to explain the conduct of any ordinary man in that way. Jesus was in complete fellowship with the Father. He was both God and man, but the Father's will ruled his life. Of no one else can that be said in that sense. Mixed motives JUDAS THE TRAITOR TO HIS LORD 211 control most men and women in what they do. That was certainly true of Judas. We may put it down as certain that he did not consciously set out to be a traitor. He was undoubtedly drawn to Jesus at first by the charm of his words and by the nobility of his character. Like the other apostles he brought the Pharisaic conception of a political Messiah with him and he held on to that in spite of the teaching of Jesus to the contrary. It was not till the great Pentecost that the rest saw the truth about that fundamental point. Judas was dead by that time. It is possible to trace some of the motives that led Judas astray. Ambition was undoubtedly one of them. It is quite likely that he thought of himself as the leader of the twelve. In Mark 14:10 the best manuscripts call Judas "the one of the twelve." We know that they had several disputes on that very point as to which was first. Simon Peter felt himself the natural leader of the group because of his ready speech and impulsive character. At Pentecost after the Ascension of Jesus he did take the lead. Jesus was the real leader while on earth. James and John openly demanded the two best places for themselves, a selfish request that stirred the indignation of the rest. During the last year of his ministry Jesus took pains to explain to the disciples the spiritual nature of his kingdom and by degrees the fact of his death in Jerusalem. Peter openly re buked Jesus for speaking in such a despondent way of his death and brought upon himself the epithet "Satan." All this slowly sank into the heart of Judas and disappointed ambition rankled in his breast. He grasped firmly the conviction that he cared far more 212 TYPES OF PREACHERS for a certain place in a new political revolution than for shadowy hopes about a spiritual and heavenly kingdom. After the glory of the triumphal entry on Sunday morning it must not be overlooked that on Tuesday morning in the temple Jesus made open breach with the Sanhedrin and made it impossible for the re ligious leaders to accept him as Messiah. On the Mount of Olives Jesus had delivered an extended dis course full of woe and disaster for the city and the world. Pessimism evidently gripped Judas power fully at the turn of events. He may have desired to save what he could out of the wreck. Jealousy also played its part beyond a doubt. Judas was the only apostle from Judaea. The rest were from Galilee. This fact would tend to make him sus picious about little things. At the last supper there was an unseemly scramble for the place of honour next to Jesus. It is not certain who got it, whether Judas, Peter, or John. But we do know that the wrangling continued during the feast, after all had reclined, to such an extent that Jesus arose and took a basin of water and a towel and began to wash the disciples' feet to give them an object lesson in humility. Wounded pride heals slowly. Judas may have felt that Jesus suspected him and would honour the others, men of inferior powers, in preference to himself. So he would come to justify himself in his own feelings toward Jesus. Undoubtedly Judas felt resentment at the public rebuke given him by Jesus at the feast at the house of Simon the leper. Judas made the protest against the apparent waste of money by Mary for the ointment' JUDAS THE TRAITOR TO HIS LORD 213 (John 12:5). To be sure, his mention of the poor was a flimsy protest, but all the other disciples instantly joined in and supported Judas in his criticism of Mary (Mark 14:4; Matt. 26:8). The rebuke of Jesus was direct and manifestly cut Judas to the quick. The breach between Judas and Jesus was now wide open. Jesus appreciated sentiment and love and even spoke of his death in this connection (John 12:7). Judas was practical and selfish and thought chiefly of what he could get out of his allegiance to Christ. He had followed Christ in the ups and downs of his ministry. He had seen him the hero of all Galilee and had done his share to arouse Galilee when the twelve toured the land by twos. He had preached Christ's gospel of the kingdom and had cast out demons. He had gone with Jesus when a practical refugee from Galilee and had seen the gathering storm in Jerusalem. He had done his part to turn Jesus away from the folly of a complete breach with the Jewish leaders in Jerusa lem. This public rebuke before all the twelve and the other guests he considered an unforgivable insult. It was the last straw on the camel's back. He left the feast at Bethany in disgust and went straight to the Sanhedrin and offered to betray Jesus to them (Mark 14:10). He acted as if in hot resentment, but it was not a new thought. Satan entered into him afresh at this juncture (Luke 22:3), but he was now merely ripe fruit for the devil's hand. Covetousness played its part also in the ruin of the soul of Judas. John notes that Judas was a thief and had been in the habit of pilfering from the company bag that he carried for all (John 12:6). But John's 214 TYPES OF PREACHERS comment is made in the light of the after development. At this stage no one of them suspected him of finan cial crookedness. He was the treasurer of the com pany and had won this place of responsible leadership because of business ability and a practical turn for affairs. He no doubt felt that, as treasurer of the group, he had a right to file a protest against the reckless and foolish extravagance of Mary in the waste of so much money on mere sentiment. They had not had too much money and often were in want with nowhere to lay their heads. But for the handful of women who ministered to them of their substance (Luke 8:1-3) their condition would have been much worse. The covetousness of Judas appeared to him as economy and good business sense. Many another has excused his own stinginess by polite terms of like nature. The love of money cheapens a man's whole nature and does much to destroy the finer qualities. At any rate Judas seems blunt and brutal as a spy before the Sanhedrin : "What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you?" (Matt. 26:15). It is hard to believe that even a miser would have come over to the enemy for so small a price as thirty pieces of silver which the chief priests weighed out unto him in advance (Matt. 26:15). It was the price of a slave (Exodus 21 ^2) and that fact would give added pleasure to Judas in his mood of angry resentment and disappointed ambition. He acted probably on impulse in going all of a sudden to the Sanhedrin to make the proposal to show them how to seize Jesus during the feast in spite of the multitude of adherents that he had (Luke 22 :6). But he stuck to his nefarious bar- JUDAS THE TRAITOR TO HIS LORD 215 gain with deliberation and pertinacity. He had plenty of opportunity to change his mind and to return the money. On the other hand "he sought opportunity" to deliver Jesus to the Sanhedrin. So the shameful compact was carried through to the letter. Judas came back and took his accustomed place with the eleven who suspected nothing to the end. They even misunderstood Christ's last word to Judas before he left on his hellish mission as a message about his duties as treasurer (John 13 129) even after Jesus had exposed the betrayer to them all. They did not have eyes to see such treachery. Judas was a coward like most criminals. He knew the real power of Jesus and came to the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ's favourite place of prayer, and took advantage of his knowledge of Christ's habits of piety (John 18:2). But even so he came with a band of soldiers and with lanterns and torches and weapons (John 18 :3). Judas felt the power of Jesus in the bold chal lenge and the manifestation of the supernatural power (John 18:4-9). But there was no turning back now. Judas had crossed the Rubicon. There was no need for him to go on with his sign to the soldiers to iden tify Jesus. He was already marked out by his own conduct. But Judas kissed Jesus excessively (Mark 14:45), adding insult to injury. The last word of Jesus to Judas made it plain that he was understood j(Matt. 26:50). The remorse of Judas was in keeping with all the rest. It was not real repentance, but only sorrow at the outcome. After the actual condemnation of Jesus Judas began to see himself in his true light. The blur 216 TYPES OF PREACHERS of anger and resentment subsided enough for him to see his own portrait. That has often happened with a murderer or a rapist after the deed is done. Gloating satisfaction gives place to a reviving conscience that whips like a scorpion sting. So in a rage he rushed to the chief priests and confessed his crime: "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood" (Matt. 27 :4) . But they were not interested in that phase of the subject: "What is that to us? See thou to it" (Matt. 27:5). He flung the pieces of money into the sanctuary, where he was not himself allowed to go and departed. There are two accounts of the death of Judas, that in Matthew 27:4-10 and that in Acts 1 :i8-I9. They differ in several details and are probably independent traditions. It is possible to harmonise them if one wishes to do so. He may have hanged himself and have fallen down, the rope breaking, and burst asunder. The field could have been called the field of blood be cause his own blood was shed on it and also because the Sanhedrin bought it with blood money, the price of the death of Jesus, and so have used it as a pot ter's field for burying strangers. At any rate the chief priests apparently took the money that they had spurned but used it for this special purpose. There are legends about his death that may be passed by. The greatest Tragedy of the ages carried with it the treachery of Judas and the faltering of Simon Peter, two of the leading apostles. In fact, they all deserted for a time and fled like sheep without a shep herd as Jesus had said they would. But Peter sin cerely repented and came back and made good. But JUDAS THE TRAITOR TO HIS LORD 217 Judas went over the cliff. He went down with the Niagara flood. Peter says that "he went to his own place" (Acts 1:25). He went to his doom that he had earned for himself. We are all caught in the womb of circumstance and at times we seem the vic tims of destiny that we cannot control. But our spiritual destiny we make for ourselves. Terrible as was the fate of Judas, one must conclude that he had in him the making of a great preacher of Christ's gos pel. Jesus saw the good that was possible in Judas as he did in Simon. But Simon, in spite of his ups and downs, became at last a rock, while Judas became a devil. Both were under the tutelage of Jesus. Both had the same privileges. Both were men of weakness and frailty. One fought the devil after momentary defeat. The other courted the devil and listened to his blandishments. Judas carries a perpetual warning to every preacher of Christ. Paul saw the peril clearly: "I therefore so run as not uncertainly, I so fight as not beating the air, but I beat my body and keep it in subjection, lest, after having preached to others, I myself should be come rejected" (1 Cor. 9:26-7). Paul warned us not to give place to the devil (Eph. 4:27). Others can tread under foot the Son of God (Heb. 10:29) and crucify him afresh and put him to an open shame (Heb. 6:6). It is a high and holy privilege to be allowed to come into the inner circle of Christ's fol lowers. It is a dread catastrophe to see such a one sink back into the pit from which he was digged. It were indeed good for that man if he had not been born (Matt. 26:24). CHAPTER XV DIOTREPHES THE CHURCH REGULATOR The Elder who writes the Third Epistle of John was probably the Apostle John, the Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel, and the author of First and Second John. He does not call himself John or an apostle, but that proves nothing. Peter terms himself "a fellow-elder" in writing to "the elders" (i Peter 5:1). The style of the three Johannine Epistles is the same as that of the Fourth Gospel. Not all scholars agree, to be sure, but we may think of the aged Apostle John writing these letters in his zeal to help on the mission work in Asia Minor. In the later years of the first century the story is that John lived at Ephesus where Paul had laboured for three years and where later Timothy was Paul's loyal disciple in charge of the evangelistic work. Already Gnosticism had come into this region to play havoc with the churches as we see in Colossians and in the Pastoral Epistles. This subtle heresy concerned itself pri marily with a philosophical theory that all matter is essentially evil. This theory, like that of Mrs. Eddy that matter is non-existent, involves serious conse quences in morale and in doctrines. In particular, it involved a degrading view of the person of Christ, like "Christian Science" again. Two forms of Gnosticism appeared. One, the Docetic, denied that Jesus had a 218 DIOTREPHES THE CHURCH REGULATOR 219 real human body at all. "For many deceivers are come forth into the world, they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh" (2 John 7). These here tics held that Jesus was an ceon or intermediate being between God and man and only seemed to have a human body. The other view, that of Cerinthus, was that Jesus the man and Christ the ceon that came on Jesus at his baptism were different, curiously like the "Jesus or Christ" controversy in the Hibbert Journal Sup plement (1909). "Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" (1 John 2 :22). The churches were rent by this heresy. Some went out (1 John 2:19), while others remained in the membership. There were loyal missionaries going among the churches. These had to be entertained and supported. John urges Gaius to "set forward on this journey worthily of God" (3 John 6) these brethren and strangers withal, "because for that for the sake of the Name they went forth, taking nothing of the Gen tiles" (verse 7). One is reminded of the directions of Jesus to the Twelve Apostles when they were sent over Galilee by twos. So Paul and his co-labourers journeyed over much of the Roman Empire. So mis sionaries to-day go through Central China. The treat ment of these heralds of the Cross became a test of one's loyalty to Jesus as missions is to-day a touch stone of vital Christianity. "We therefore ought to welcome such, that we may be fellow-workers for the truth" (verse 8) . The least that a true Christian could do was to give hospitality for these pioneer preachers who pushed on to the harder fields. There were few hotels in our modern sense of comfort and the public 220 TYPES OF PREACHERS inns were usually impossible places because of vermin (human and non-human). So hospitality was a Chris tian virtue of the first quality as it still adorns many a home to-day. It is not certain whether Diotrephes was a Gnostic or not. It seems pretty clear that he sympathised with that doctrine. Some of the Gnostic propagandists were fierce in their denunciations of Christ and of Christianity. Cerinthus and John were held to be strongly antagonistic. It would come to pass that one could not show hospitality to a Gnostic without being suspected of sympathy with that heresy. "If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teach ing (the teaching of Christ), receive him not into your house and give him no greeting" (2 John 10). Such an extreme course could only be justified where the heresy was very radical. To-day one might hesitate to give hospitality to a Mormon missionary or to a pro fessional or blatant infidel. John says : "I wrote somewhat unto the church" (3 John 9). Both Gaius and Diotrephes were apparently members of the same church, though what church we do not know. That letter to the church is apparently lost, though some scholars see it in 2 John (the elect lady), an unlikely supposition. This lost letter dealt with the proper reception of the missionaries as they went from church to church. This letter probably covered much of the same ground as the Third Epis tle to Gaius, urging the right reception of Demetrius and of the other brethren who were doing good for God. It may be questioned whether this letter to the church contained formal denunciation of Diotrephes, DIOTREPHES THE CHURCH REGULATOR 221 though that is possible. Certainly John was not afraid of Diotrephes, for he was not afraid of Cerinthus. But our Third John is a private letter to Gaius sent at the same time as the public epistle to the church. Probably the main point in this letter is to warn Gaius about Diotrephes. In this private letter prob ably John employs language a bit sharper than in the other. John is evidently anxious that Diotrephes shall not be allowed to prejudice the church further against him and the missionary brethren. He wishes Gaius to forestall such action on the part of Diotrephes. But the letter is a frank testimonial to the power of Dio trephes in the church of which Gaius is a member. It is to be a struggle between Gaius and Diotrephes for mastery in the church, between the evil and the good. "Beloved, imitate not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God : he that doeth evil hath not seen God" (3 John 11). We need not draw the conclusion that Diotrephes is wholly evil, but certainly his influence is dangerous for the cause of Christianity. He is still a member of the church and exerts great power over the church as will be seen. The precise ecclesiastical position of Diotrephes is not clear. Some have seen in his exercise of power the monarchical bishop of later times. That is an unnecessary hypothesis in the absence of any evidence of bishop as distinct from elder (presbyter) in the New Testament as Lightfoot has shown. It is not absolutely certain that Diotrephes was an elder or bishop at all, though that is likely. Probably both Gaius and Diotrephes were elders in the same church 222 TYPES OF PREACHERS as we see several elders at Ephesus and Philippi. It is possible that Diotrephes was a deacon. Many years ago I wrote an article for a denominational paper con cerning Diotrephes. The editor told me afterwards that twenty-five deacons had ordered the paper stopped as a protest against the personal attack in the paper. What I did in the article was to show that Diotrephes was a typical church "boss" who ruled the church to suit his own whims. In Kentucky we have a phrase termed "the short-horn deacon" for this type of church regulator. I once heard of such a deacon who boasted that he had made every pastor leave that he had ever had. To be sure, a preacher can be a church "boss" as well as the deacon. But it is easier to drive the pastor away than the deacon. I know of one case where the pastor quietly informed such a deacon that he (the deacon) would have to go if anyone left. The deacon left and joined another church. The sin that John charges against Diotrephes is that he "loves to have the pre-eminence." The word here employed by John is a very rare one and means "fond of being first." A late scholion explains it as "seizing the first things in an underhand way." The word occurs among the ecclesiastical writers to picture the rivalries among the bishops of the time. It is a sad commentary on human nature that even preachers of humility often practise the pushing of self to the front in an unbecoming spirit and manner. One recalls that once Jesus found the disciples disputing among them selves who was the greatest among them, a spirit that Jesus sternly rebuked by placing a little child, possibly Peter's own child, in the midst of them, and DIOTREPHES THE CHURCH REGULATOR by saying that the greatest was the one who served the most. And once James and John with their mother actually came to Jesus with the formal request that they be given the two chief places in the kingdom of Christ (the political Messianic kingdom of their ex pectation). And at the last passover meal Jesus had to rebuke the apostles for their unseemly conduct in scrambling for the post of honour at the meal. It was with this peril in mind that Jesus urged the apostles to love one another and prayed for unity among them and among all his future followers. Ambition is not sin ful in itself though our very word (of Latin origin) had a bad history, for it suggests politicians who would take both sides of an issue in order to get votes. This double-dealing is due to the desire for place and power. Jesus noted that the Pharisees loved the chief seats in the synagogue in order to be seen of men. Their piety was particularly punctilious if enough prominence could be obtained to justify the display and outlay of energy. A certain amount of ambition to excel is good for one. Ambition is a good servant, but a bad master. It is dangerous for ambition to have the whip handle in one's life. Diotrephes loved the first place among the brethren. He was determined to be first at any cost. If any honours were to be bestowed, he as sumed that they belonged to him as a matter of course. He must be consulted on a matter of church policy else he was against it. The least detail of church life must receive his sanction else he would condemn it. If he was not chairman of all the committees, he must be regarded as an ex officio member. If Diotrephes had been the sole pastor of the church, something could 224 TYPES OF PREACHERS be said for such pre-eminence. But evidently Gaius was also one of the elders. And Diotrephes may have been only a deacon. But the spirit of a man like Diotre phes does not depend on office. Such a man rates him self as the natural leader of the church by reason of his native gifts, family, money, reputation. The only way for the church to have peace is for all freely to acknowl edge this brother's primacy. Plutarch notes that Alcibiades wanted the first place. He got it and he ruined Athens by the expedition to Syracuse. It is impossible to calculate the harm that has been wrought in the churches by church dictators like Diotrephes. Diotrephes drew the line on John. He "receiveth me not." He refused to recognise the standing and authority of John the Elder and Apostle. The word here rendered "receive" occurs in the papyri in the sense of "accepting" a lease and in Maccabees 10:1 for "accepting" a king. Evidently Diotrephes treated John as a heretic or as John is said to have treated Cerinthus when he rushed out of the bath when Cer inthus came in lest the house fall in because of God's wrath. One recalls the temperament of this "son of thunder" who came to be known as "the apostle of love." It was John who in great zeal reported to Jesus one day : "Master, we saw one casting out de mons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not with us" (Luke 9:49). But Jesus re buked John's narrowness of spirit about method of work. "Forbid him not: for he that is not against you is for you" (Luke 9:50). John and James were those who asked Jesus to call down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans who "did not receive" DIOTREPHES THE CHURCH REGULATOR 225 Jesus (Luke 9:52-55). But Jesus "turned and re buked them." John was now the aged apostle who went from church to church with the message : "Little children, love one another." But he still had the old fire and vigour with more justification against Dio trephes than against the examples in the Gospel of Luke. Diotrephes was turning the tables on John (cf. 3 John 10) and was refusing to recognise or to entertain John as a genuine minister of Christ. Be sides, he said slighting things about John, "prating against us with wicked words." The word translated "prating" occurs as an adjective in 1 Timothy 5 :i3 "tattlers" (verbosce, Vulgate). These idle, tattling busy-bodies excited Paul's disgust. That is John's word for Diotrephes. He seemed to have John on the brain and gadded around with idle tales and "wicked words" derogatory to John's character and work, seeking to undermine his influence for good. This sort of propaganda against preachers is only too com mon. It degenerates into idle gossip. One of the saddest spectacles in modern Christianity is to see the very forces that are designed to co-operate with the pastor in pushing on the work of the kingdom of God, engaged in pulling down all that the pastor and other church members try to do. The result is the paralysis of the work and the mockery of the outsiders who sneer at Christian love and unity. As a rule the pastor can only suffer in silence and go on with those who have a mind to work in spite of the slackers and the hinderers. Silence is the best answer to idle slander. But sometimes the man of God has to speak. And then it should be to the point and very brief and in a way 226 TYPES OF PREACHERS to help the cause of Christ, not to do harm. As a rule, well-doing is the best way to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men (i Peter 2:15). John does not mind ostracism by Diotrephes save as that leads others astray. But Diotrephes draws the line on all of John's fol lowers. Diotrephes was "not content therewith." He was not satisfied with his vindictive opposition to John the Elder. "Neither doth he himself receive the brethren." Probably these missionary brethren had letters of commendation from John. That item would only anger Diotrephes all the more. It was now his habit to close his door against anybody aligned with the Apostle John. He will not recognise the Elder. He will not recognise the followers or co-labourers of the Elder. Hence John pleads with Gaius to take special interest in those who "for the sake of the Name went forth" (3 John 7). One recalls the language of Luke in Acts 5 41, "Rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the Name." This way of referring to Jesus became common, it is clear. The problem of welcoming those who travelled from place to place and who claimed to be at work in the name of the Lord was a vital one for a long time as is seen in "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," XII, 1 : "And let everyone that comes in the name of the Lord be received and then after testing him ye will know." The brother who claimed to be for the Lord had the presumption in his favour, but some wolves travelled in sheep's clothing and a certain amount of discretion was called for then and now. Even to-day, with all our publicity and modern facili- DIOTREPHES THE CHURCH REGULATOR 227 ties for information, people are only too often taken in by slick-tongued adventurers who make money out of gullible brethren and sisters and then move on to fresh pastures. There is some advantage in having some sort of a line drawn. John is not here demand ing that Diotrephes reform, but that Gaius see to it that John's missionaries are taken care of when they come. One of my clearest childhood memories is that of Elias Dodson, a quaint and godly missionary of the old Home Mission Board of Southern Baptists. This gifted and consecrated man went from house to house on his mule and usually had only one suit of clothes. He used to ask for a dollar for the Indians and he generally got it. He would write postcards ahead about his entertainment or send little notes to the denominational paper concerning his appointments and entertainment. He was a modern example of John's travelling missionaries from church to church. Elias Dodson did much to create a real missionary spirit in Virginia and North Carolina. Even those who were opposed to missions found it hard to put a ban on Elias Dodson and his mule. But Diotrephes sought to dictate to the whole church a line of conduct toward John and his missionaries. "And them that would (receive the brethren) he for- biddeth and casteth them out of the church." Here we see the rule or ruin policy of the church "boss." This self-willed leader is not content that he shall be al lowed to treat John and his missionaries as outsiders. He demands that everyone in the church do the same thing. He had the whip handle in the church and was determined to force his will upon the entire member- 228 TYPES OF PREACHERS ship. It is not clear whether he actually succeeded or not. The tense in the Greek allows merely the threat and the attempt for "casts out." In John 9:34 the Pharisees actually "cast out" (aorist tense) the blind man who stood out against them that Jesus was not a sinner, but a prophet of God. They turned him out of the synagogue and then Jesus met him and saved him, a grotesque picture of a synagogue that fought against God in Christ. If Diotrephes actually com pelled this church to expel those who dared to welcome the missionaries of John, it was an honour to be out side of that church. But the fact that Gaius was still a member of the church, an elder apparently, argues for the conclusion that Diotrephes was simply terroris ing the brotherhood by his threats. But it was bad enough for a church to have a "bulldozer" like Dio trephes who blocked the path of progress for the church. He had become the chief liability to the church instead of its chief asset. So John exposes Diotrephes plainly to Gaius. John is not afraid to face Diotrephes. He is anxious to do so, but he cannot come yet. Meanwhile, he puts Gaius on his guard and urges him to break the power of Diotrephes over the church by daring to show him up as he really is. Gaius owes this duty to the church. But John hopes to come some day. "Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his deeds which he does." One needs only to read 1 John 2 to see how plainly John can speak when the occasion calls for it. It becomes a sad duty sometimes to expose the wicked ambition of a man with the rule or ruin policy. It is better that such a man drop out of the church than DIOTREPHES THE CHURCH REGULATOR 229 that the church wither and die. Our churches need leadership, but not domination. The difference is vital. Leaders lead, bosses drive their slaves under orders. CHAPTER XVI EPAPHRODITUS THE MINISTER WHO RISKED ALL FOR CHRIST All that we really know about Epaphroditus we learn from Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, but that little is exceedingly suggestive and helpful. The name is the same as the shortened form Epaphras that ap pears in Colossians 1:7; 4:12; Philemon 23. But there is no likelihood that it is the same person, for Philippi and Colossae are quite too far apart for the same man to be a messenger from both cities to Paul in Rome at about the same time. Besides the name is a not uncommon one on the inscriptions. So we must rely on Philippians 2:25-30 and 4:10-18 for all our knowledge of his life and work. But these pas sages furnish us a reasonably clear picture of a bold and courageous personality who hesitated not to do his simple duty in the face of great difficulty and even of peril. In this respect he is a fine example of thou sands of loyal ministers of Christ who have done the work of the hero with none of the halo that comes to many men in other callings of life. The call for the heroic still appeals to the best type of young men who enter the ministry of Jesus Christ. Many of these suffer in silence and in poverty at home and die like martyrs on the foreign field. It is all in the day's work with these men, true soldiers of Christ. 230 EPAPHRODITUS WHO RISKED ALL 231 Epaphroditus was the messenger of the church in Philippi to bear the gifts of this noble church to Paul while in Rome. This church was the very first that gave Paul actual financial help in his missionary propa ganda as Paul expressly states (Phil. 4:15-16). At first Philippi stood alone among the early churches in this "fellowship" or "partnership" (koinonia) with Paul. Paul greatly appreciated this active participa tion with him in his campaign to win the Gentiles to Christ and he mentions it a number of times (Phil. 1:5, 7; 2:30, 4:15). They had come to Paul's help several times before while in Thessalonica (Phil. 4:16) and in Corinth also at a time when Paul was in actual want (2 Cor. 11 :7-io) because the church at Corinth was critical and suspicious and not generous. So once again after some years the church at Philippi has blos somed out ("sprouted up," Phil. 4:10) again with a rich reminder of their love for Paul, a sweet aroma that was pleasing to God as well as to Paul (4:18) and that God alone could reward with His riches in grace. Paul terms Epaphroditus, the bearer of this gracious bounty, the church's "apostle" (apostolos), or missionary. It is the same word that he applies to the "apostles of the churches" (2 Cor. 8:23) who were associated with Paul in the gathering of the great collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. It is the original and general meaning of the word that appears in a technical sense when applied to Paul the Apostle and to the Twelve Apostles. But Paul does not hesi tate to call Epaphroditus "your apostle." He is also "your minister." Here the word (leitourgos) is the same as our "liturgy." It means one who does work 232 TYPES OF PREACHERS for the people and had more than the modern cere monial sense, though it recalls the service of the priests in the temple service and ritual. In fulfilling this special mission to Paul Epaphrodi tus was filling up what had been lacking in the min istry of the Philippian church for some years (Phil. 4:30). They had loved Paul all the while. He knew that. But they had lacked opportunity to show their unchanging love for Paul the founder of their church. But now that long imprisonment has befallen Paul they manage to have some share in the alleviation of Paul's tribulation (Phil. 4:14). So Paul puts it down in his column of credits to this church (4:15), once the only church with such a column. Epaphroditus did his part in the transaction nobly and Paul received the gifts. But Epaphroditus fell sick on his arrival in Rome. The voyage was a long one for those days, unless he came partly by land to Brundisium and on to Rome. But travel had its risks on land even with the fine Roman roads. The inns were poor and robbers were numerous. But the enemy that attacked Epaphroditus was apparently the terrible Roman fever (violent malaria) that is still a peril to strangers when they come. The attack was apparently sudden. "For in deed he fell sick nigh unto death" (Phil. 2 \2j). It is one of the speculations of the moderns about Greece and Rome that the mosquito did as much as the bar barian to bring down these great peoples of the past. Only the hardiest could survive malignant malaria. The illness of Epaphroditus was evidently prolonged for the report of it reached Philippi and the news came EPAPHRODITUS WHO RISKED ALL 233 back to Epaphroditus that his friends in Philippi had heard that he had fallen sick (Phil. 4:26). The effect of this information upon Epaphroditus, who was now a convalescent, was very depressing. He was like a college boy who is ill and who hears how distressed his mother is because of his illness. Epa phroditus was now longing to go back as soon as his strength permitted. Paul implies that he was home sick by his weakness and absence frorri home. Paul had come to be very fond of Epaphroditus. He prob ably had him in his own hired house as much as he could. He certainly visited him often. He calls him "my brother and co-worker and fellow-soldier." Paul does not use the term "fellow-prisoner" so that Epa phroditus suffered no hardship of that nature because of his service to Paul who was allowed to receive his friends freely (Acts 28:30-31). But Paul had come to love this "fellow-soldier" who had incurred such peril "for the work of Christ" (Phil. 4:30). He feared that he would have "sorrow upon sorrow" like the waves that pile up on one another when the bil lows roll over us. That fate seemed to be Paul's, but God had mercy upon Epaphroditus and upon Paul and spared this brave soldier of Christ. So. Paul is grate ful and glad. But the close call, as we say, of Epaphroditus raises the question of how much risk a preacher should take in doing his work for Christ. Certainly no min ister is justified in neglecting the ordinary precautions of health. He has no right to assume that God will make him immune against disease because he is a preacher of the gospel if he violates the customary 234 TYPES OF PREACHERS rules of hygiene. Some ministers eat too much and exercise too little. They have nervous headaches as a result and lose sleep and keep irregular hours. They expose themselves unduly and unwisely when over heated after preaching. They rush out into the cold air with heated respiratory organs. On the other hand some preachers are overcautious and "molly coddle" themselves and become hypersensitive by wearing too heavy clothing and living in overheated rooms. Some preachers are the victims of quacks and patent medicines, not to say dope, and are the dupes of scheming adventurers. But, when all is said, it is the duty of the preacher, to have a healthy body to do the Lord's work, if he can have it. But many a deli cate man has wrought a long and laborious work for Christ by taking proper care of himself. John A. Broadus was such a man. But the problem raised by the case of Epaphroditus is whether the preacher should take known and foreseen risks to do the work of Christ. Paul says that Epaphroditus literally "gambled with his life" (Phil. 4:30). The word used is our parabola which was employed of the gambler's dice. Certainly Epaphroditus knew of the peril of the Roman fever. But then other men went to Rome on business and on pleasure. So to-day drummers for American tobacco companies go to China and for gain go to Africa. Physicians risk their lives every day to save human life. Should not preachers risk theirs to save human souls? When the yellow fever epidemic was last in New Orleans, Dr. D. I. Purser, one of the Baptist pastors, was away on his vacation. He boldly came back to minister to the EPAPHRODITUS WHO RISKED ALL 235 sick and to bury the dead. He stood at his post and, before the scourge was over, fell a victim to the plague and died. He lost his life and saved it. To-day no name is more honoured in New Orleans than that of David Ingram Purser, Sr. It is the spirit of the true soldier and Epaphroditus was Paul's "fellow-soldier." The soldier cannot falter where the path of duty lies. Once that is plain, there is no alternative. Each man must bear his own cross whether it be a personal afflic tion or a call to go into the valley of death. It is good to think that the ministry to-day is not without men of the heroic spirit who quietly and simply meet the hard demands of their calling. There are some quit ters, some slackers, some deserters, some few traitors, alas. But the great body of modern ministers measure up to the high standard of Epaphroditus as men who are willing to risk all for the work of Christ. They do not do it for the sake of notoriety, but for the love of Christ. In the early centuries these "riskers" were called parabolani, men who missed the martyr's death, but who deserved the martyr's crown, for they stood in their places and did a full man's duty in the hour of peril. It was this spirit in the pioneer preachers of the United States that laid broad the foundations of American liberty and life. The missionaries to-day exhibit it in numerous instances. It is seen in some of the "sky pilots" at home who do hard work with little recognition among men. Many a country preacher has measured up to the ideal of Epaphroditus. He has done a great work in a small place and that is better than a little work in a big place. Paul is now sending Epaphroditus back to Philippi. 236 TYPES OF PREACHERS He had hoped to come himself ere long and still cher ishes that purpose when once he is free again. He cannot spare Timothy just yet. So Epaphroditus is going back and that gives Paul the occasion to write this most beautiful of all his wonderful Epistles, a letter of the utmost delicacy and insight, sympathy and elevation of sentiment. There will be triple joy in his going. Epaphroditus will be happy, the Philippians will rejoice to see him again, and Paul will be less sor rowful by reason of their joy. The keynote of the letter is joy in Christ and Paul is exuberant in spite of many untoward circumstances. The secret of hap piness Paul has learned by now and he finds it in the constant fellowship with Christ, not in the changing outward conditions of his environment. Paul makes a plea that the Philippians receive Epa phroditus with all joy. It would seem to be hardly necessary to make that request, but Paul leaves nothing undone that will add to the happiness of Epaphroditus who had done so much to fulfil the wishes of the Philip pians and to add to Paul's comfort. His daring and his sufferings had endeared him all the more to both Paul and the Philippians. He deserves special honour for his work's sake. He had been a hero of the Cross as truly as Alvin York and Sergeant Woodfill de serve recognition for their prowess in France. "Hold such in honour," Paul urges, "because for the work of the Lord he came nigh unto death, risking his life that he might fill up what was lacking in your service to me." We can easily conjecture the joy of the greet ing given Epaphroditus when he arrived and delivered Paul's gracious letter of gratitude which was read to EPAPHRODITUS WHO RISKED ALL 237 the whole church. They would recognise the same dauntless spirit that sang praises at midnight in the Philippian jail. It is fitting that a plea be made that due honour be given by the churches to their ministers who live and labour for the work of the Lord. In most instances the plea is not needed for these pastors receive the full love and loyalty of an appreciative and a devoted people. In a few cases the minister is not worthy of special honour because he has not given himself wholly and heartily to the work of the Lord. People are keenly sensitive to slackers in the ministry. As a rule, these men sooner or later drop out. But sometimes zealous and consecrated ministers do not receive proper appre ciation of their work while they are living. Their memory will be revered when they are dead, but so many people are careless and indifferent and just take for granted what needs to be expressed by word and deed. Love grows by expression. So cheer up the heart of your pastor by kind words of genuine love and by filling his larder a little fuller. Add something to his salary and so lighten the burden of family cares and set his mind and heart free to do the work of the Lord that he loves and that is so much needed. A special word should be uttered for the old preacher who has toiled long and faithfully on a pitifully small salary. He has been able to lay by little or nothing and people no longer care for his preaching. Perhaps he is also feeble and in any case few avenues are open to him by which he can earn his. living. Most de nominations are now pensioning these soldiers of the Cross as a matter of simple justice. It is done by the 238 TYPES OF PREACHERS government and by the railroads and all decent con cerns for their employees. These men should not be regarded as paupers or treated as dependents. They deserve more than they will ever receive. The least that we can do for them is to give them some of the comforts of life for their old age and to give them the respect and honour that is their due. "Hold such men in honour." There was never a time when the work of Christ made a stronger appeal to the heroic element in men than now. The tempting attractions of other callings draw away the lighthearted and the unstable. But the men who can read the signs of the times can hear the cry of China's millions for light and leading out of the grasping selfishness of the nations that are ex ploiting her. The old gods of China are dead. They can no longer beat tom-toms to drive away the demons of greed that grind the nation's life beneath the mod ern juggernauts. The students of China feel the throb of the freedom that is in Christ. They are blindly striking out for help. The men of to-day who hear the call of Russia take their lives in their hands. And yet somebody must heed the despairing cry of a dying world. Thank God for men like Epaphroditus who have the courage to go at any cost. Plague and flood and famine only serve to challenge such men to high endeavour for the sake of Christ who gave his life that we might live and have more abundant life for others. THE END 5504 ?! .I'll IMilf! ,ii:,|||i:.: :;!;;; fllh Iii ill life "¦'¦|!';!ll':»!i!]:.!.!|t-i IIMliUilia !€l, III! ¦iilll: ,:;l Ill: I I II l,ll . , . „' i, .. i. .! J illlHi Ulllili!!!lillll " MIS ,': !!E:.ij!l!i!l;!.i II ft >i»' ni': -In ; ;ii;i:.:iiji|iji Mt!s;:.;l:lh|:p!l;'.t-:i!lJK::.4 i''ji:i: ilicFlS ' i pill I'll ilSioliii I/* "'M**1;!!!1'' ;llill','.1i.:i:ir,!;i:i i':sil ' '! "I 'i . i ' 'j iJfcliiillNifp! ||. i' I'M. i ' I !«!!'!:! ,!|;i|'::.|l|l.|illl| i! I .' "'il' illiJ:il:"J|l',:liil,M|:!!lii;. ;lw'H"IM ¦ I 'l^'^l'tiilil'iiii^lhihMfniJIl !ji:i:!!C!:f!!!'J'"!!!