xiii. 1) during this period, other interruptions of long duration

should not be postulated.

Footnote 87:

Acts xix. 26.

Footnote 88:

Acts xix. 10.

Footnote 89:

1 Cor. xvi. 19 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας. In accordance with these facts it should be noticed that St Paul himself alluding to this period speaks of ‘Asia’, as the scene of his ministry (2 Cor. i. 8, Rom. xvi. 5).

Footnote 90:

Acts xix. 10 ‘disputing daily in the School of Tyrannus; and this continued for two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, etc.’

[Sidenote: Close alliance of these cities with Ephesus.]

Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metropolis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus appear to have been unusually strong. The _Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephesians_, the _Concord of the Hierapolitans and Ephesians_, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck for the purpose[91]. [Sidenote: The work of Philemon and Nymphas,] Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Philemon, the latter with his household[92], and perhaps also the Laodicean Nymphas[93], would fall in with the Apostle of the Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly life.

Footnote 91:

λαοδικεων . εφεϲιων . ομονοια, Eckhel III. p. 165, Mionnet IV. p. 324, 325, 331, 332, _Suppl._ VII. p. 583, 586, 589; ιεραπολειτων . εφεσιων . ομονοια, Eckhel III. p. 155, 157, Mionnet IV. p. 299, 300, 307, _Suppl._ VII. p. 569, 571, 572, 574, 575. See Steiger _Kolosser_ p. 50, and comp. Krause _Civitat. Neocor._ § 20.

Footnote 92:

Philem. 1, 2, 19.

Footnote 93:

Col. iv. 15. On the question whether the name is _Nymphas_ or _Nympha_, see the notes there.

[Sidenote: but especially Epaphras.]

But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon at Colossæ, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras especially that all the three cities were indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are represented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis[94]. It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for the spiritual well-being of all alike.

Footnote 94:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: St Paul still a stranger to this district.]

We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, which lies near the mouth of the Mæander; but, though the elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there[95], no mention is made of any representatives from these more distant towns.

Footnote 95:

Acts xx. 16, 17.

[Sidenote: His imprisonment at Rome.]

I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s circumstances during his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to us[96]. It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as honourable exceptions in the general desertion[97].

Footnote 96:

See _Philippians_ p. 6 sq.

Footnote 97:

Col. iv. 10, 11. See _Philippians_ p. 17 sq.

[Sidenote: Colossæ brought before his notice by two incidents.]

We have seen that Colossæ was an unimportant place, and that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified, it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the care of all the churches.’ But two circumstances, the one affecting his public duties, the other private and personal, happening at this time, conspired to bring Colossæ prominently before his notice.

[Sidenote: 1. The mission of EPAPHRAS.]

1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous condition of the Colossian and neighbouring churches had filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a combination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic speculation—and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith in Christ and their works of love[98]. But this only quickened his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was ‘ever wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,’ that they might stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith[99]. He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his counsel and assistance.

Footnote 98:

i. 4, 8.

Footnote 99:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: 2. ONESIMUS a fugitive in Rome.]

2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul was also in communication with another Colossian, who had visited Rome under very different circumstances. ONESIMUS, the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common sink of all nations[100], probably as a convenient hiding place, where he might escape detection among its crowds and make a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally, perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in with his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a good-for-nothing slave[101] into a ‘faithful and beloved brother[102].’

Footnote 100:

Tac. _An._ xv. 44.

Footnote 101:

Philem. 11 τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 102:

Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16.

[Sidenote: The Apostle despatches three letters simultaneously.]

This combination of circumstances called the Apostle’s attention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to Colossæ. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written and despatched at the same time to this district.

[Sidenote: 1. The EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.]

1. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully acknowledges the report which he has received of their love and zeal[103]. He assures them of the conflict which agitates him on their behalf[104]. He warns them to be on their guard against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain deceit of a false philosophy[105]. [Sidenote: The theological and the practical error of the Colossians.]The purity of their Christianity is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical—but both alike springing from the same source, the conception of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding God and matter as directly antagonistic and therefore apart from and having no communication with each other, they sought to explain the creation and government of the world by interposing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time, since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all to touch the springs of action. [Sidenote: The proper corrective to both lies in the Christ of the Gospel.]As both errors flowed from the same source, they must be corrected by the application of the same remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ, the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual triumph over moral evil[106]. [Sidenote: References to Epaphras.]St Paul therefore prescribes to the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best antidote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theological creed and their moral principles; while at the same time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection, appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on their behalf[107].

Footnote 103:

i. 3–9, 21 sq.

Footnote 104:

ii. 1 sq.

Footnote 105:

ii. 4, 8, 18.

Footnote 106:

i. 1–20, ii. 9, iii. 4. The two threads are closely interwoven in St Paul’s refutation, as these references will show. The connexion of the two errors, as arising from the same false principle, will be considered more in detail in the next chapter.

Footnote 107:

i. 7, iv. 12.

Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but significant notices which connect him with Colossæ[108]. He did not return to Colossæ as the bearer of the letter, but remained behind with St Paul[109]. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle designates him his fellow-prisoner[110], it may be inferred that his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle’s captivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus[111],[Sidenote: Tychicus and Onesimus accompany the letter.] who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus[112]. At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle’s warm approval. St Paul says very little about himself, because Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to communicate all information to the Colossians[113]. [Sidenote: The salutations.]But he sends one or two salutations which deserve a few words of explanation. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus[114] and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom apparently the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul’s dissatisfaction in consequence[115], may have been widely known), and for whom therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching visit to Colossæ, according to instructions which they had already received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the Colossians we know nothing, and whose only claim to a mention may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke and from Demas; and here again their close companionship with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their names appearing[116].

Footnote 108:

For the reasons why Epaphras cannot be identified with Epaphroditus, who is mentioned in the Philippian letter, see _Philippians_ p. 60, note 4. The later tradition, which makes him bishop of Colossæ, is doubtless an inference from St Paul’s language and has no independent value. The further statement of the martyrologies, that he suffered martyrdom for his flock, can hardly be held to deserve any higher credit. His day is the 19th of July in the Western Calendar. His body is said to lie in the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome.

Footnote 109:

Col. iv. 12.

Footnote 110:

Philem. 23 ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου. The word may possibly have a metaphorical sense (see _Philippians_ p. 11); but the literal meaning is more probable. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (VII. p. 762) gives the story that St Paul’s parents were natives of Giscala and, when the Romans invaded and wasted Judæa, were banished thence with their son to Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras may have been St Paul’s fellow-prisoner at this time, and have been removed with his parents to Colossæ. It is not quite clear whether this statement respecting Epaphras is part of the tradition, or Jerome’s own conjecture appended to it.

Footnote 111:

Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12.

Footnote 112:

See below, p. 37.

Footnote 113:

Col. iv. 7–9.

Footnote 114:

Acts xix. 29.

Footnote 115:

Acts xiii. 13, xv. 37–39.

Footnote 116:

Col. iv. 10–14.

[Sidenote: Charge respecting Laodicea.]

Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Laodicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the same time he directs them to interchange letters with the Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident either at Colossæ or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a misgiving[117].

Footnote 117:

iv. 15–17.

[Sidenote: 2. The LETTER TO PHILEMON.]

2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal interests of its humblest member. Having attended to the solicitations of the evangelist Epaphras, he addressed himself to the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus. The mission of Tychicus to Colossæ was a favourable opportunity of restoring him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle’s friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his protection over him and avert the worst consequences of Philemon’s anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on the offender’s behalf, recommending him as a changed man[118], and claiming forgiveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to his spiritual father[119].

Footnote 118:

Philem. 11, 16.

Footnote 119:

ver. 19.

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus Justus, whose name is omitted[120]. Towards the close St Paul declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colossæ, and asks Philemon to ‘prepare a lodging’ for him[121].

Footnote 120:

vv. 23, 24.

Footnote 121:

ver. 22.

[Sidenote: 3. The CIRCULAR LETTER, of which a copy is sent to LAODICEA.]

3. But at the same time with the two letters destined especially for Colossæ, the Apostle despatched a third, which had a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EPHESIANS[122]. It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christianity in the district, and at the same time to communicate by word of mouth the Apostle’s special messages to each[123]. Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colossæ. But he was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossæ itself, for this Church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circulated and read at Colossæ.

Footnote 122:

See the introduction to the epistle.

Footnote 123:

Ephes. vi. 21, 22.

[Sidenote: Personal links connecting the three letters.]

Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the Colossians and to Philemon.

For reasons given elsewhere[124], it would appear that these three letters were written and despatched towards the close of [Sidenote: Earthquake in the Lycus Valley.]the Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time not very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon occurrence in this region[125]. But on this occasion the shock had been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and populous, was laid in ruins. Tacitus, who is our earliest authority for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the neighbouring towns[126]. Eusebius however makes it subsequent [Sidenote: Its probable date.]to the burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hierapolis and Colossæ also as involved in the disaster[127]; while later writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judgments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Christians which followed on the fire[128]. Having no direct knowledge of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in recording these earthquakes[129], it is far from improbable that he [Sidenote: Bearing on the chronology of these letters.] gives the correct date[130]. In this case the catastrophe was subsequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ventured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for, if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some reference to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from which Colossæ cannot have escaped altogether without injury. The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual assistance from Rome[131], is valuable as illustrating a later notice in the Apostolic writings[132].

Footnote 124:

See _Philippians_ p. 29 sq.; where reasons are given for placing the Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and the others at a later stage in the Apostle’s captivity.

Footnote 125:

See above, p. 3. Laodicea was visited by the following earthquakes in the ages preceding and subsequent to the Christian era.

(1) Before about B.C. 125, _Orac. Sibyll._ iii. 471, if the date now commonly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle be correct, and if the passage is to be regarded as a prophecy after the event. In iii. 347 Hierapolis is also mentioned as suffering in the same way; but it may be questioned whether the Phrygian city is meant.

(2) About B.C. 12, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579, Dion Cass. liv. 30. Strabo names only Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cassius says ἡ Ἀσία τὸ ἔθνος ἐπικουρίας τινὸς διὰ σεισμοὺς μάλιστα ἐδεῖτο.

(3) A.D. 60 according to Tacitus (_Ann._ xiv. 27); A.D. 64 or 65 according to Eusebius (_Chron._ s.a.), who includes also Hierapolis and Colossæ. To this earthquake allusion is made in a Sibylline Oracle written not many years after the event; _Orac. Sibyll._ iv. 107 (see also v. 289, vii. 23).

(4) Between A.D. 222 and A.D. 235, in the reign of Alexander Severus, as we learn from another Sibylline Oracle (xii. 280). On this occasion Hierapolis also suffered.

This list will probably be found not to have exhausted all these catastrophes on record.

The following earthquakes also are mentioned as happening in the neighbouring towns or in the district generally: the date uncertain, _Carura_ (Strabo xii. 8, p. 578); A.D. 17 the _twelve cities_, _Sardis_ being the worst sufferer (Tac. _Ann._ ii. 7, Plin. _N.H._ ii. 86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579); A.D. 23 _Cibyra_ (Tac. _Ann._ iv. 13); A.D. 53 _Apamea_ (Tac. _Ann._ xii. 58): about A.D. 155, under Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et _Asiæ_ oppida’ (Capitol. _Anton. Pius_ 9); A.D. 178, under M. Aurelius, _Smyrna_ and other cities (_Chron. Pasch._ I. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. _Or._ xx, xxi, xli; see Clinton _Fast. Rom._ I. p. 176 sq., Hertzberg _Griechenland_ etc. II. pp. 371, 410); A.D. 262, under Gallienus II (Trebell. _Gallien._ 5 ‘Malum tristius in _Asiæ_ urbibus fuit ... hiatus terræ plurimis in locis fuerunt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appareret,’ ib. 6 ‘vastatam _Asiam_ ... elementorum concussionibus’). Strabo says (p. 579) that _Philadelphia_ is more or less shaken daily (καθ’ ἡμέραν), and that _Apamea_ has suffered from numerous earthquakes.

Footnote 126:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27 ‘Eodem anno ex inlustribus Asiæ urbibus Laodicea, tremore terræ prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus revaluit.’ The year is given ‘Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso consulibus’ (xiv. 20). Two different writers, in _Smith’s Dictionary of Geography_ and _Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible_, s.v. Laodicea, place the destruction of Laodicea in the reign of Tiberius, confusing this earthquake with an earlier one (_Ann._ ii. 47). By this earlier earthquake ‘duodecim celebres Asiæ urbes conlapsæ,’ but their names are given, and not one is situated in the valley of the Lycus.

Footnote 127:

Euseb. _Chron._ Ol. 210 (II. p. 154 sq., ed. Schöne) ‘In Asia tres urbes terræ motu conciderunt Laodicea Hierapolis Colossæ.’ The Armenian version and Jerome agree in placing it the next event in order after the fire at Rome (A.D. 64), though there is a difference of a year in the two texts. If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to this earthquake, as seems probable, we have independent testimony that Hierapolis was involved in the catastrophe; comp. _ib._ v. 289.

Footnote 128:

This is evidently the idea of Orosius, vii. 7.

Footnote 129:

I draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus (_Ann._ ii. 47) states that _twelve_ cities were ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions this earthquake as ‘the greatest within the memory of man’ (_N.H._ ii. 86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, _Chron._ Ol. 198 (II. p. 146 sq., ed. Schöne), names _thirteen_ cities, coinciding with Tacitus as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was found at Puteoli (see Gronov. _Thes._ _Græc. Ant._ VII. p. 433 sq.), and is now in the Museum at Naples (_Museo Borbonico_ XV, Tav. iv, v), dedicated to Tiberius and representing _fourteen_ female figures with the names of fourteen Asiatic cities underneath; these names being the same as those mentioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (_Fragm._ 42, Müller’s _Fragm. Hist. Græc._ III. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the restoration of the ruined cities (see Eckhel _Doct. Num. Vet._ VI. 192 sq.). But no earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (_Ann._ iv. 13) six years later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former. But we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously injured by an earthquake in the same year—perhaps not on the same night—with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. _Ann._ ii. 47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the lost portion of the fifth book of the _Annals_ which comprised the years A.D. 29–31; but this bare hypothesis cannot outweigh the direct testimony of Eusebius.

Footnote 130:

Hertzberg (_Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer_, II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to two different events, and that Laodicea was visited by earthquakes twice within a few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.

Footnote 131:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 126. To this fact allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107 Τλῆμον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ τρώσει ποτὲ σεισμὸς πρηνίξας, στήσει δὲ πάλιν πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν, where στήσει must be the 2nd person, ‘Thou wilt rebuild thy city with its broad streets.’ This Sibylline poem was written about the year 80. The building of the amphitheatre mentioned above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of reconstruction.

Footnote 132:

See below, p. 43.

[Sidenote: St Mark’s intended visit.]

It has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colossæ, and that the Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal acquaintance with these Churches, which hitherto he knew only through the report of others. Whether St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of determining[133]. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume, [Sidenote: St Paul probably visits Colossæ.] that in the interval between his first and second Roman captivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of the Mæander[134]; and the journey between this place and Laodicea is neither long nor difficult.

Footnote 133:

Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Μάρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to Colossæ was paid.

Footnote 134:

2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (_Oriens Christ._ I. p. 833) substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.

[Sidenote: St John in Asia Minor.]

At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With his death they pass into the hands of St John[135], who takes up his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossæ and Hierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in[Sidenote: The message to Laodicea.] Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the Church of Laodicea[136]; a message doubtless intended to be communicated also to the two subordinate Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well.

Footnote 135:

It was apparently during the interval between St Paul’s first captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely, but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.

Footnote 136:

Rev. iii. 14–21.

[Sidenote: Correspondences between the Apocalypse and St Paul’s Epistles.]

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea prolongs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to Colossæ. An interval of a very few years has not materially altered the character of these Churches. Obviously the same temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction must be applied.

[Sidenote: 1. The doctrine of the Person of Christ,]

1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all things, that through Him all things were created and in Him all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (ἀρχή) and has the pre-eminence in all things[137]; so in almost identical language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary source (ἀρχή) of the creation of God[138]. Some lingering shreds of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and significance, the _completeness_, of the Person of Christ.

Footnote 137:

Col. i. 15–18.

Footnote 138:

Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), which so closely resembles the language of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.

[Sidenote: and practical duties which follow upon it.]

And the practical duty also, which follows from the recognition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God[139], and in the companion epistle, which also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus[140]; in like manner St John gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: ‘He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in His throne[141]’.

Footnote 139:

Col. iii. 1.

Footnote 140:

Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 141:

Rev. iii. 21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. Here again it must be noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John.

[Sidenote: 2. Warning against lukewarmness.]

2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, apparently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry[142]. Some signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church[143]. As with the people, so is it with the priest. The community takes its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual rulers. The ‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the ‘take heed’ of St Paul.

Footnote 142:

Col. iv. 17.

Footnote 143:

Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be still more striking; see Trench’s _Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia_, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197 sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.

[Sidenote: 3. The pride of wealth denounced.]

3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest have riches[144].’ This proud vaunt receives its best illustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has already been made. Only a very few years before this date an earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose again with more than her former splendour. [Sidenote: The vaunt of Laodicea.]This however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities, prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the concessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own resources. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio,’ says the Roman historian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit[145].’ Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commercial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim[146]. No one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and had need of nothing.’

Footnote 144:

Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the embodiment of wretchedness, etc.

Footnote 145:

Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

Footnote 146:

In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579.

[Sidenote: Pride of intellectual wealth.]

But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual exclusiveness[147] in these cities. He warned them against a vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind[148]. He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the riches of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ[149],’ the riches of the full assurance of understanding, the genuine treasures of wisdom and knowledge[150]. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language of St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel to relieve their wants[151].

Footnote 147:

See the next chapter of this introduction.

Footnote 148:

Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.

Footnote 149:

i. 27.

Footnote 150:

ii. 2, 3.

Footnote 151:

Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The _eyes of your understanding being enlightened_, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the _riches of the glory of his inheritance_ in the saints.’

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the succeeding ages the Christian communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the Church. [Sidenote: The early disciples settle in proconsular Asia]When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church accompanied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emigrants Andrew[152] and Philip among the Twelve, Aristion and John the presbyter[153] among other personal disciples of the Lord, are especially mentioned.

Footnote 152:

_Canon Murator._ fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s _Ancient Syriac Documents_ pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39.

Footnote 153:

Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39.

[Sidenote: and especially at Hierapolis.]

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was Hierapolis. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they failed to maintain in the history of the later Church.

Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida[154], the [Sidenote: Philip the Apostle with his daughters.] early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with the Gentiles[155]. Here he died and was buried; and here after his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where her body rested[156]. [Sidenote: Their traditions collected by Papias.]It was from the two daughters who resided at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in his work[157].

Footnote 154:

Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31, v. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] _τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων_, ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἠ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πολιτευσαμένη, ἣ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. To this third daughter the statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30), ἣ καὶ _τοὺς ἀποστόλους_ ἀποδοκιμάσουσι· Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκε. On the other hand in the _Dialogue between Caius and Proclus_, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at Hierapolis (Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31) μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες αἱ Φίλιππου γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, where the mention of the _four_ daughters _prophesying_ identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8). Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2–5). (2) After Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the presence of an Apostle (viii. 14–17). (3) When St Paul and his companions visit Philip at Cæsarea, he is carefully described as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be questioned. Yet Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. 31) assumes the identity of the Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_ as being ‘in harmony with (συνᾴδων)’ the language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (_H.E._