St. Paul’s Companions in Rome, VIII. Epaphroditus

ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN ROME. BY COL. R. M. BRYCE-THOMAS.

VIII.— EPAPHRODITUS. A companion for whom St. Paul seems to have had a special regard during his first Roman imprisonment, and one whom he designated as "My brother and companion in labor, and my fellow- soldier," was Epaphroditus; the name is a Greek one and means "beautiful." He was a Macedonian and a resident of Philippi, and is supposed to have been a much respected and leading pres- byter or elder of the Christian church there. His object in visit-

ing Rome was to bring a gift of money to the Apostle from the Philippians. St. Paul had on more than one previous occasion ex-

pressed both a desire to preach the gospel at all times free of charge, and also a determination not to be a burden upon his con- verts; but it was scarcely possible that while a prisoner at Rome, and always chained by the wrist to a soldier, he could have sup- ported himself, as otherwise appears to have been his usual habit, by following his trade of tent making, and it is therefore supposed that he found himself compelled to accept such aid as was requisite for his present necessities. The privilege of helping the aged apostle was readily seized upon by the Philippian church, which had, on at least two former occasions, sent him assistance to meet his wants, namely, once some ten years previously when he was at Thessalonica,( Philip. 15: 15, 16) and once again at Corinth (II Cor. 11: 9). Dr. Farrar tells us that it was customary throughout the empire to alleviate by friendly presents the hard lot of prisoners, and he has a footnote on the subject which states that Agrippa's friends had -helped him with better fare and accomodation when he was imprisoned by Tiberius; also that according to Lucian

•N > IMP HO VEMENT ERA .

the (Christians with warmth and openhandedness had diminished the hardships, and even shared, night after night, the confinement of Peregrinus. In like manner the 1'hilippians, as soon as they be- came aware of the Apostle's condition, despatched a contribution by the hand of Epaphroditus, the receipt of which St. I'aul readily acknowledged when he penned his epistle to them a little later on (Philip. 4: 10).

This messenger arrived, according to Dr. Farrar, about the fall of the year, and immediately flung himself heartily into the service of (he gospel. Whether it was owing to the Roman cli- mate which, in those days and even long afterward, was decided- ly feverish and unhealthy at certain seasons on account of the neighboring swamps, or whether some outbreak of sickness oc- curred just about that time in Rome, or whether it was that Epaphroditus had in his zeal overworked himself, it is certain that he fell dangerously ill and was, as the Apostle wrote, "sick nigh unto death" (Philip. 2: 27). In this connection, a note made by Dr. Plumptre in the Appendix to his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles is worth quoting in full, as it, perhaps, throws some light on the illness of this companion of the Apostle: "It is not without interest to note the fact that Rome was visited about this time by a violent epidemic of the tonsils. Nero was one of the sufferers; he lost his voice, and sacrifices were offered in the temples for his recovery (Philostr. Life of Apollonius, 4: 44). This illness of Epaphroditus must have been of considerable duration, for there seems to have been ample time for the news to be car- ried from Rome to Philippi by a messenger, and for the latter to return, bringing back with him tidings of the anxiety of the church there for their absent pastor (Philip. 2: 2G). This anxiety, however, the Apostle was able to relieve in his usually unselfish way by sending Epaphroditus himself back to them, restored to health and strength, as the bearer of his letter, with which we are so familiar under the designation of the "Epistle of Paul to the Philippians." In respect to this illness of Epaphroditus, the question which naturally arises, and which consequently has been so frequently asked, is, "If St. Paul possessed the miraculous gift of healing, why did he not make use of it for the benefit of his companion and

ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN ROME. 531

fellow-worker?" That the Apostle possessed this gift in a marked degree is undeniable, for we know that on many occasions he had already exercised it with striking results, and it therefore would appear to be the more unaccountable that in this particular case of his friend, on whose behalf he had suffered, as he himself in- forms us, so much sorrow and anxiety, he should have omitted to utilize it.

The general idea of modern teachers and of modern times seems to be that the gift of healing was abolished even in the early days of Christianity, because it had accomplished its mis- sion which is supposed to have been to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion by a special exhibition of God's power in connection with the then newly preached religion of Jesus Christ. The time when the exercise of this gift was to cease, because its thus been accomplished, is nowhere suggested by object had those who hold that it did cease, but many different ideas have been put forward to account for St. Paul's having failed to exer- cise this gift in the case of Epaphroditus. Dr. Farrar, for in-

stance, expresses the view that it was probably due to the fact that the apostles did not seem to consider themselves at liberty to exercise it, in their own immediate circle, or for any end of per- sonal happiness. Again, at a very interesting lecture delivered a short time ago in one of the Protestant churches in Italy on the subject of Paul's Roman fellowships, the minister who spoke came to the conclusion that the power of performing the miracles of healing had ceased, because it was clearly intended that henceforth the acceptance of the gospel was not to stand on the ground of miraculous roanifestations, but on the simple preaching of the word of God. Another view is put forth by Dr. Thomas Scott, in his commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. He there infers, from the fact of no miraculous healing having taken place in the case of Epaphroditus, that the gift of performing mira- cles could be exercised only oh particular occasions, of which those endowed with it had some previous intimation. And thus we find different men arriving at different conclusions as to why Paul did not heal his friend Epaphroditus.The general view, however, which seems to have permeated the churches of Christendom is

r>32 IMPROVEMENT ERA.

that the gift of healing was withdrawn, being of no further ad- vantage to the spread of Christianity, even as far back as the days of the Apostle Paul. That such a view as this should ever have been adopted, or

that it should still prevail in the minds of men in these days, ap- pears very strange when the matter is looked at in the light of scriptural doctrine, for, so far from finding therein any justifi-

cation whatever for such an opinion, we have the explicit teach- ings of our Lord and his apostles to the effect that miracles are not to cease. St. Peter, in the very first gospel sermon ever preached after our Lord's ascension, and at a time when the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit was publicly manifesting itself to the assembled multitudes, said, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for this promise is unto you and to your children, and to all many as the Lord that are afar off, even as our God shall call" (Acts 2: 38, 39). Here we have a distinct assertion made by an inspired apostle, that all who would obey the principles of the gospel should receive the same miracle- working Spirit, not only those within the immediate hearing of his voice at the time, but also their children; all persons who were afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. No limit of place or of time was assigned by the Apostle, so that it may in all reason be said that from that time on even to the end, this same wonderful Spirit would be given to all who believed and obeyed the gospel. St. Paul, too, testified that when the Christian Church was first established, "God set in it, first, apostles, secondarily, proph- ets, thirdly, teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings,"

etc , etc., (I Cor. 12: 28) but he nowhere even suggested, much less said, that at any subsequent time any of these were to be withdrawn. Again he told these same Corinthian Christians that the manifestation of the Spirit was given to every man to prone withal, and he went on to detail these manifestations among which are to be found wisdom, knowledge, faith, working of miracles, prophecies, discerning of spirits, speaking in tongues, and so forth (I Cor. 12: 7-11). Here, too, there is no hint of any portion of

ST. PAUL'S COMPANIONS IN ROME. 533

these gifts ever being abolished. James, too, told those Chris- tians to whom he addressed his epistle, that if any among them were to fall sick, they were to call in the elders of the Church, who would pray over them, anointing them in the name of the Lord, and that the prayer of faith should save the sick, and the Lord would raise him up, etc. (James 5: 14, 15). It is worth our while to note that nowhere does it say that a sick person who has thus been administered to, is to be always raised up to health and strength in a moment's time, the scripture wording being that the prayer of the elders anointing the sick person, providing it was a prayer of faith, should save him, and that the Lord would raise him up. St. Paul, of course, knew of this practice among the Christians of his time, and what can be more reasonable than to suppose that he administered to Epaph- roditus in this way, and that the latter was eventually raised up by the Lord, in answer to the prayer of faith. An anointing with oil was doubtless accompanied by the laying on of the hands of the

Apostle and the prayer of faith, for we know that Paul followed this practice of the imposition of hands, in the case of Publius when he healed him (Acts 28: 8). It may be urged that there is

no record of St. Paul's having ever administered to Epaphroditus, but this fact does not weaken the inference that the Apostle fol- lowed the then usual course, for it cannot be supposed that every act that he performed is found to be recorded in his epistle, or even in the New Testament. Turning to the teaching of our Lord himself on this subject, we find it in the gospel according to St. Mark. The parting in-

junction of Jesus to his disciples was to preach the gospel to every creature; and to this he added a promise that whosoever believed and was baptized should be saved, and that certain signs should follow believers, among which signs was the one that they should lay hands on the sick and they should recover (Mark 16: 15-18). Here again no limit was placed by our Lord on this promise, and to say, therefore, that this gift of healing was to be withdrawn shortly afterward is equivalent to stating that the whole of

Christ's promise was to be withdrawn, or that therefore that por- tion of it which refers to the salvation of those who believe and are baptized was to become inoperative, just as the portion relating

to the gift of healing is supposed to have become inoperative. The matter is as broad as it is long, so that if the promise of healing is to be limited to the days when Jesus spoke and taught, so also must the promise of salvation be limited to the like period of time; but if the salvation then promised was to be universal and for all time, so also must the gift or power of healing have been intended for all time. There is, therefore, absolutely no justification for the view that the gift of healing has been done away with, a view whicn would seem equivalent to disbelief in the gracious promise of our Lord. That the gift of healing is no longer possessed or enjoyed by nearly all, if not all, of the ministers and members of the var- ious denominations in Christendom is patent to every one, but that is no justification whatever for the conclusion that the gift has been withdrawn. The fact that men have ceased to believe in any such gift in these days, must of itself preclude at once the pos- session or successful exercise of it by them. Faith is the very essense of this and of any other miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit, and without faith no one can reasonably hope or expect to receive or exercise it. That the gift of healing is now upon the earth just as it was in'the early days of Christianity is a fact well known to the Latter-day Saints, and it is by no means an uncommon thing to hear testimonies borne to this fact by honest Christian men and women, who are able to speak of these things from their own per- sonal knowledge of them, and whose hearts and tongues are at the same time full of thanksgiving to their Heavenly Father, for the continuation of these same miraculous signs to his children upon the earth in this day in which we live. There are certain critics who think that Epaphroditus was the same individual as the Epaphras mentioned by St. Paul in his epistle to the Colossians, but according to Dr. Kitto this is unlike- ly, as he records that Epaphras was probably in prison at the time when Epaphroditus conveyed to the Philippians the Apostle's epistle to them. As tradition speaks of Epaphroditus as the first bishop of Philippi and of Epaphras as first bishop of Colosse, it is probable that they were two distinct individuals.

Pas de Calais, France. [to be continued.]