4. The credibility of the inission of the Seventy has been doubted by Strauss, Baur, de Wette,* and others, owing to (1) the silence of the other GosjDels regarding it ; (2) the lack of later authen- tic trace of the Seventy ; the close resemblance between the mission of the Seventy and that of the Twelve, being suggestive, it is argued, of confusion.
( 1 ) The argument from silence is not strong ; because, owing to the temporary character, so far as appears, of the commission, there was notliing in the organization of the Church, as it existed when the three Gospels were written, such as would constrain an Evangelist to relate the history of the Seventy ; whereas the position and work of the Twelve made it natural, if not necessary, to give some account of the origin of the Apostolate. (2) The fact that Luke relates also the mission of the Twelve, and the notable differences (chronological and circumstantial) between the accounts of the two missions, render it highly improbable that the two narratives refer to a single event. (3) It is inaccurate to say that there is no authentic trace of the Seventy in later times. Philip ' the evangelist ' was probably, from this designation (Ac 2P), one of them. Clement of Alexandria, writing in the latter part of the 2nd cent. , names Barnabas, Matthias, and Cephas, who ' had the same name with the Apostle,' as others of the Seventy. t The historian Eusebivis, without giving his authority, states that the Barsabbas of Acts and tlie Sosthenes mentioned in 1 Co 1' are said to have been of the same company. J The early disapi^earance of the Seventy as an organization is readily accounted for. They had no authority as rulers such as would make the appointment of successors requisite. One, as we have seen, be- came an Apostle ; Philip became one of tlie ' Seven ' of Ac 6 ; a considerable number were pro- bably included in one or other of the orders of evangelists, prophets, pastors, and teachers (Eph 4"). The individuals thus, for the most part, doubtless survived, and occupied more or less in- fluential positions ; although the office itself, like that of the ' Seven,' disappeared. §
* Strauss, Life of Jesus, ii. 94-96 ; Baur, Evangelien, pp. 435, 498 ; de Wette, Erkliirung Luc. p. 79 : Kostlin, Com. p. 267.
t Strom, ii. 20, Hypotyposeis, v., as quoted by Eus. i. 12.
J Eus. i. 12.
§ A professedly complete catalogue of the Seventy is given by pseudo-Dorotheos (6th cent.) as follows : — James (brother of the Lord), Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Ananias, Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Simon, Nicolas, Parmenas, Cleopas, Silas, Sihanus, Crescens, Epenetus, Andronicus, Amplias, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Narcissus, Herodion, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Hermas, Patrobas, Rhodion, Jason, Agabus, Linus, Gains, Philologus, Olympas, Sosipater, Lucius, Tertius, Erastus, Phygellus, Hermogenes, Dermas, Quartus, Apollos, Cephas, Sosthenes, Epaphroditus, Csesar, Marcus, Joseph Barsabbas, Artemas, Clemens, Onesiphorus,
SHAME
SHAME
619
5. The apjiointment of the Seventy for a definite ministry, yet without ecclesiastical authority such as was conferred on the Twelve, is signiticant and instructive. Our Lord does not appear to have instituted any definite and detailed form of Church government, but to have left such outward arrange- ments to the Apostles as His chosen disciples, and through them eventually to the Church itself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Yet the appointment of the Seventy clearly indicates the principle that Christian ministry, including preach- ing, is neither to be conhned to those who bear rule, nor regarded as entitling those who exercise such ministry to receive office as rulers. On the one hand, some who are able to give valuable service to the Church as evangelists or teachers may not be suitable, or even if suitable may not be required at the time, for rulership. On the other hand, those who bear rule in the Church are not, in the spirit of hierarchical exclusiveness, to discourage brethren who (without having the faculty or oppor- tunity of government) possess some useful gift, from exercising it under due supervision, for the good of the Church and of the community at large.
Literature. — Trench, Studies in the Gospels, 231-242; Plummer, ' St. Luke ' in ICC ; A. B. Bruce, ' Synoptic Gospels' in EGT\. pp. 538-542 ; Mever, Com. in loe. ; Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. pp. 37-43 ; ExpT xv. [1903] 14.
Henry Cowan.
SHAME. — 1. Objectively/ = dishonouring treat- ment, that which causes shame ; usually anixia, drifj.a.^eiv (Mk 12'*, Lk 20"). Shame is mentioned in several passages of the OT which are usually applied to Christ's sufferings (Ps 44i5 69''- '» 89^^ Is 50®) ; but the word is, curiously enough, never so used in the Gospels. He 12^ speaks of the shame (alcrxvi'v) of the cross, 13" of Christ's reproach (6vei8i(Tfji.6v), and in 6^ those who fall from grace are said to crucify Him afresh and put Him to an open shame (TrapaSetY/oiaWfev). In Jn S'*® the un- believing Jews di.shonour {a.Ti/j.di'eiv) Him, and in Ac 5*^ the Apostles rejoice at suffering shame {dTifj.a(T6fjpai) for His name.
The shame which Christ in fact bore is seen specially in such incidents of the Passion as the night arrest as of a thief or robber, the spitting, the scourging and the mockings, the public pro- cession through the streets of Jerusalem, the taunts, the stripping naked of His body, and the hanging side by side with criminals. But above all, it is seen in the manner of His death, the cross being peculiarly the death of shame.* In the passages in the Gospels Avhich speak of crucifixion and taking up the cross (Mt 20'», Mk S^* etc.), though tlie prominent thought is that of suffering, the idea of shame and ignominy is undoubtedly present as well. This shame must be willingly borne both by Christ and by His followers.