Bible Commentaries
1 Timothy 3

Verses 8-13

IV

THE SPHERES OF MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH; CHURCH OFFICERS AND THEIR QUALIFICATIONS

1 Timothy 2:8-3:13

There must be no question that this letter is about church affairs – affairs of the particular church at Ephesus. This appears both from explicit statements (1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy 3:14-15) and from the subject matter. It relates to present heterodox teachings (1 Timothy 1:3), public worship (2), church officers, pastors, deacons, and deaconesses, the truth to be upheld by the church (3), its danger through future heresies (4), its discipline and pension list (5), its social duties (6).

Indeed, its express object is to show how its members should conduct themselves in the church assemblies, worship, and services. If we do not keep this ruling thought in our minds, we will widely miss the mark in our interpretation. Particularly must we bear this in mind when we attempt to expound the last paragraph in 1 Timothy 2:8-15. And, as Dr. Broadus says, "We must let the Scripture mean what it wants to mean."

This paragraph, by any fair rule of interpretation, does distinguish sharply between the spheres of the man and the woman in these public, mixed assemblies. Nothing can be more explicit than the way the apostle commences: "I desire that the men pray everywhere . . . in like manner [I desire] that women"; note the article before "men." Carefully note three other things:

1. These injunctions on the woman in these church assemblies.

2. The reasons therefore.

3. The encouraging and compensating promise to women in their different and restricted sphere.

1. Injunctions:

(1) Not to appear in the church assemblies in gorgeous, costly, worldly, immodest, flaunting, fashionable attire. That mind is blind indeed that cannot both understand and appreciate the spiritual value of this injunction.

The church assembly is not for dress parade. It is not a meeting at the opera, or theater, or ballroom, or bridge party, or some worldly, social function, where decollete dress, marvelous head attire, and blazing jewels are fashionable. These worldly assemblies have their own standards and reasons for their fashions, and it is not for us to judge them that are without. It is the standard for the church assemblies, gathered to worship God and to save the lost, under consideration. Jesus Christ, and not Lord Chesterfield, established the church. Our dress at church, if nowhere else, should be simple, modest, in no way ministering to vanity, display, or tending to keep away the poor, or sad, or sin-burdened. I appeal to any cultivated, real lady, who has a sense of proprieties, to answer the question: Is the church assembly the place for gorgeous and costly dress? Positively, women are enjoined to seek the adornment of good works.

(2) They are enjoined to learn in quietness with all subjection, not to teach or have dominion over the man, or as expressed in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Evidently from all the context, this passage in Timothy refers to official teaching, as a pastor ruling a church, and to prophesying in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The custom in some congregations of having a woman as pastor is in flat contradiction to this apostolic teaching and is open rebellion against Christ our King, and high treason against his sovereignty, and against nature as well as grace. It unsexes both the woman who usurps this authority and the men who submit to it. Under no circumstances conceivable is it justifiable.
2. Reasons:

(1) Adam was first formed, then Eve. Here the allusion is obvious to the beginning of the human race. The whole race was created in Adam potentially. His companion, later named Eve for a grace reason, was called "woman," which simply means derived from the man. The man, by nature, is the head of the family.

(2) In addition to this natural reason is the explicit divine part in the fall of the race. Compare Genesis 3:16 with this authority subjecting her to the man because of her tempting passage (1 Timothy 2:14).

3. The encouraging and compensatory promise:

"But she shall be saved through her childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety." Whatever this ’difficult passage means, it is intended as compensation to the woman for her restriction in sphere and subjection of position. Two words constitute the difficulty of interpretation: (1) The import of "saved", "she shall be saved through her childbearing"; (2) what the antecedent of the pronoun "they", "if they shall continue, etc." One obvious meaning of saved lies in the evident allusion to the gospel promise in Genesis 3:15. "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head," and to Adam’s evident understanding of the grace in the promise, since he at once changes her name from "woman" (Issha), i. e., derived from the man, to "Eve" (Chavvah), because she was thus made the mother of all living (Chay). As for grace reasons Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, Sari to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Simon to Cephas, so she is no longer named "derived from the man," but "the mother of all life," and this came through the bearing of a child – her seed, not the man’s – who shall be the Saviour of the world. What a marvelous change of names! Though herself derived from the man, yet from her is derived salvation through her Son. See the explanation of the angel at the annunciation to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:31-35. She shall be saved in bearing a child who is God manifest in the flesh.

But the true antecedent of the pronoun "they" – "if they continue, etc." – suggests a more appropriate thought, at least one in better harmony with the context. Let us get at this thought by a paraphrase: The man shall have his life directly in authority and public leadership. The woman shall live, indirectly, in the children she bears if they (the children) prove to be worthy. The man lives or dies according to his rule and leadership in public affairs; the woman lives or dies in her children. His sphere is the public arena. Her sphere, the home. Washington’s mother lived in him; Lois and Eunice lived in Timothy. The Roman matron, Cornelia, pointed to her boys, the Gracchi, and said, "These are my jewels."

The world is better and brighter when women sanctify and beautify home, proudly saying, "My husband is my glory, my children are my jewels and I am content to live in them. Why should I desire to be a man and fill his place: who then will fill mine?" See the ideal woman in Proverbs 31:10-31. It would be unnatural and ungrammatical to start a sentence with "she," singular, and arbitrarily change it to "they," both referring to the same antecedent. That nation perishes which has no homes, no family sanctity, no good mothers.

Under my construction of this paragraph, I never call on a woman to lead the prayers of a church assembly, nor yield any kind of encouragement to a woman pastor. This is very far from denying any place to woman in kingdom activities. I have just suggested to a woman the great theme for an essay: "Woman’s Sphere in Kingdom Activities." The Scriptures blaze with light on the subject and teem with illustrations and inspiring examples. Understand that the injunction against woman’s teaching does not at all apply to teaching in the schoolroom nor at home, but only to teaching involving church rule that would put man in subjection. Nor is prayer inhibited, but the leading in prayers in the church assemblies.

The third chapter, except the last paragraph, relates to church officers, their qualifications and duties, and the last paragraph relates to the church mission. Let us now take up the first part. The first officer of the church is the bishop (1 Timothy 3:1-7), and we find here that this title episcopos ("bishop") ig derived from a function of his work, to wit: overseeing, or superintending, the work of the church. An episcopos is an overseer. Considering the church as a flock that must be guided, fed, and guarded, he is called "pastor," that is, a shepherd. He is also called "presbytery," i. e., elder, a church ruler. In view of his duty to proclaim the messages of God, he is called a kerux, that is, "preacher." In view of his duty to expound the word and instruct, he is didaskalos, a "teacher." But bishop, pastor, elder, preacher, and teacher do not signify so many offices, but departments of work in the one office. Here is a working force – there is an overseer for that working force; here is a flock – there is a shepherd for that flock; here is an assembly – there is a ruler of that assembly, a president; here is an audience – there is a preacher to that audience; here is a school – and there is a teacher for that school, an expounder of the word of God. This office, from its importance, may be learned from the fact that "no man taketh the office unto himself"; God calls him to it, as Paul said to the elders at Ephesus, "The Holy Spirit hath made you bishops," and the church sets him apart by prayer and the laying on of hands. In the Northern section of this country some say, "What is ordination? It is nothing."

We had better let God’s ordinances stand as he instituted them.

The duties of the pastor may be inferred from the terms above.

We now come to consider the question of his qualifications, and the qualifications in this passage are put before us, first negatively and then positively, or rather, the two intermingle, now a positive, now a negative.

Let us look at the negative qualifications: "Without reproach." Do not make a man the pastor of a congregation whose record is all spotted, reproaches coming up against him here, there, and everywhere. Second, he must be no brawlers I once heard a pastor boast on a train that he had just knocked a man down. I said, "I am going to pray for you either to repent of that sin, or resign as a pastor." I will admit there was some provocation, but a pastor must not be a brawler, he is not a swash buckler, he is no striker. In the case of the two wicked men who headed off the Methodist circuit rider and told him he must turn back I believe I would myself have fought under the circumstances, and as the Methodist preacher did fight, and I am glad he whipped the other fellows. But the idea here is that the preacher must not have the reputation of "throwing his hat into the ring": "Now, there’s my hat, and I’ll follow it", "don’t you kick my dawg around." Not contentious. I saw within the last ten days the account of a man’s death, and I thought as soon as I saw it: “O Lord, I hope thy grace has saved him and put him in a place where he will see that it is not right to be an eternal disputer." We should not be like Shakespeare’s Hotspur, ready "to cavil on the ninth part of a hair."

"No lover of money." Any man that loves money is guilty of the sin of idolatry; covetousness is idolatry, and the fellow that holds the dollar till the eagle squeals, or holds it so close to his eye that he cannot see a lost world, or that dreams about it and just loves to pour it through his fingers or to hear the bank notes rustic – he should not preach.

"Not a novice." What is a novice? A novice is one just starting out. Now that does not mean that a novice must not be a preacher. He must learn to preach some time, but do not make him the bishop of a church. "Not a novice" – why? "Lest being lifted up with pride, be falls into the condemnation that came on the devil." That is where the devil got his fall. Being lifted up with pride, too proud to be under another creature at first made lower than himself, afterward to be exalted above him.

These are the negatives. Now, let’s look at the positives. First, "the husband of one wife." Does that mean that he must be the husband of a wife – is that what it means? In other words, that an unmarried, man ought not to be a pastor? I will say this for the unmarried pastor: If he is not wiser than Solomon, more prudent than Augustus and more patient than Job, he certainly has rocks ahead of him I We had an old deacon once that put his foot right on it that that was what it meant: "I am willing to give that young preacher a place, I am willing to recognize him and even ordain him to special mission stations to preach, but no unmarried man can be pastor of this church."

Second, does it mean that as a large part of these people were heathen, just converted, and tangled up with their polygamous associations even when they were converted, having more than one wife, the question being: "What are you going to do with them and the children?" Now does the apostle mean that even if we patiently bear for a time with the bigamist or polygamist cases, yet we must not make bishops of them? Some commentaries suggest that meaning. I will put it in a third form: Does it mean that he must have but one wife according to scriptural law? Some have been legally divorced under human law, but not under the Scriptures, and have married again. Now, shall we have a man as a pastor who may not under human law, but who under Christ’s law, may have more than one wife – is that what it means?

We find the same requirement in the case of the deacon. But to proceed with qualifications: "temperate" – and I think that not merely means temperance in drink, but includes temperance in eating. A man may be a glutton as well as a tippler; and without raising the question as to whether the pastor should be a total abstainer, one thing is certain; no man should be made the pastor of a church who drinks intoxicating liquors as a beverage.

"Sober minded" – in the sense of grave, the opposite of which is levity. Do not put a man in the office of bishop who is a clown. I knew a man who occupied the pastoral position in a prominent place in this state; a very brilliant man. But it was impossible to have a reverent feeling toward him, for he was the funniest man I ever saw; he could imitate birds, dogs, and cattle, and hearing him imitate a stutterer would make a dog laugh. It was exceedingly funny, but after you laughed at him and listened to him, somehow or other you did not have reverence for him, for he was not sober-minded.

The next word is "orderly." I said once to a young preacher, "You have mind enough to be a preacher, and I really believe you are a converted man, but you have a disorderly and lawless spirit. You will more likely succeed as an anarchist than as pastor of a church."

The next phrase is "given to hospitality." Here most preachers stand the test. As a rule they and their wives are very open hearted and open handed. God bless them! They have not only given themselves to hospitality, but they have given to it everything they have, as a rule. I have known my father to entertain a whole association of seventy messengers. The highest I ever entertained was forty, and they crowded me, too, but they were a lot of mighty good fellows.

"Gentle": he ought not to be a rough fellow. "Ruling well his own house": that’s the rock that some of us fall on. I am sure that when I was a pastor I did not measure up on that. "Having a good testimony from them that are on the outside." If we go out over a town or community and inquire about the preachers, we find that for some preachers everybody has a good word, and for some other preachers no one speaks well and some even sneer when his name is mentioned. The obvious reason of this requirement is that the preacher, in order to fulfil his mission to the lost, must be in position to reach them. If they have no confidence in him as a man – if they can even plausibly question his personal integrity as to honesty, veracity, and purity, he can do them no good.

But though we have all the characteristics so far named, the lack of two of them knocks us out: "aptness to teach" and "ability to rule." The first does not mean that we must be learned; that our range of information must be extensive; that we must have gathered a great storehouse of varied knowledge. We may have all of these and yet be a dead failure in the teacher’s office. Indeed, we may lack these – our ignorance be as vast as another man’s learning – and yet possess that essential qualification: "aptness to teach." Ignorance can be cured, but the natural incapacity to teach is irremediable so far as this office is concerned. The power to arrest and hold attention, the power to awaken the dormant and alarm the careless, the great faculty of being able to impart what we do know or may acquire, the being able, not only to say things but, to so say them that they will stick, yea, the power not of pouring into empty vessels from our fulness nor of cramming a receptacle with many things, but of suggesting so that the other mind will do the thinking and working out – that is the teacher.

Once only, though inclined thereto more than once, I put my arms in tenderness around a ministerial student and said, "My boy, may you and God forgive me if I make a mistake, but after patient trial and much observation, I am impressed that you never can be a preacher. You are a Christian all right, your moral character is blameless) but so far as I am capable of judging with the lights before me, you are wholly devoid of any aptness to teach."

The deacon. So far as moral qualifications go, there is little difference between the qualifications of preacher and deacon. And they area like in the requirement of "soundness in the faith." It is not fitting that any officer of a church should hold loose views on the cardinal doctrines of Christianity. Yea, there are strong and obvious reasons why the collector and disburser of church funds should be as free as the preacher from "the love of money," or "covetousness," lest in making estimates on recommending expenditures he should make his own miserly spirit the standard of church liberality.

But, also, because of his official relation to church finances, even more than in the preacher’s case, he should have business sense and judgment. Without going into details of the exposition of words and phrases, we need to impress our minds with some general reflections on this office:

1. In what idea did the office originate? In the necessity of the division of labor. One man cannot do everything. Old Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, was a wise man in his generation. He observed Moses trying to do everything in the administration of the affairs of a nation, and fortunately for succeeding administrations freed his mind, saying in substance: "This is not a wise thing you do. You weary yourself and the people who have to wait for attention. You attend to things Godward, and appoint others to attend to secular matters." The good advice for a division of labor resulted in the appointment of graded judges, to the great dispatch of business and the relief of the overburdened Moses and the weary people. (See full account, Exodus 18:13-26.)

Certainly the judicious division of labor is one of the greatest elements of success in the administration of the world’s affairs. From the account in Acts 6:1-6, it is evident that this was the ruling idea in the institution of the deacon’s office. The ministerial office was overtaxed in giving attention to the distribution of the charity fund, to the detriment of its spiritual work. This was bad policy in economics and unreasonable. It left unemployed competent talent. People to be interested in any enterprise must have something to do.

2. The next idea underlying this office was, that in applying the economic principle of the division of labor, this office should be supplemental to the preaching office. It was designed to free the preacher’s mind and heart from unnecessary cares with a view to the concentration of his powers in spiritual matters. "It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God and serve tables. Look ye out among yourselves suitable men to attend to this business. But we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word." Evidently, therefore, the deacon’s office is supplemental to the pastor’s office. A deacon therefore whose services are not helpful in this direction fails in the fundamental purposes of his appointment. He is not to be a long-horned ox to gore the pastor, but a help to him. Some deacons so act as to become the enemy and dread of every incoming pastor.

3. The third idea of his office delimits his duties – the charge of the temporalities of the church, over against the pastor’s charge of the spiritualities. Of course, this includes the finances of the church, the care of its property and the provision for comfortable service and worship, and for the proper observances of its ordinances. I heard an old-time Baptist preacher, at the ordination of some deacons, expound this text, "to serve tables."

His outline was:

1. To serve the table of the Lord – arrange for the Lord’s Supper.

2. To serve the table of the poor – administer the charities of the church.

3. To serve the table of the pastor – make the estimates and recommendations of appropriations for pastoral support and other current expenses, collect and disburse the fund. But we go outside the record and introduce vicious innovations on New Testament simplicity if we regard, or allow the deacons themselves to regard a board of deacons as

1. The grand jury of a church. To bring in all bills of indictments in cases of discipline. They are not even, exofficio, a committee on discipline, though not barred, as individuals, from serving on such committees. Discipline is an intensely spiritual matter, whether in regard to morals or doctrines, and is the most delicate of all the affairs of a church. It does not at all follow that one competent as a businessman to attend to temporal and financial matters is the best man to handle such a delicate, spiritual matter as discipline. The preacher, charged with the spiritualities of the church is, exofficio, the leader and manager here, as every case of discipline in the New Testament shows. In not one of them does a deacon, as such, appear. Indeed, any member of a church may bring a case of discipline to its attention, and every member of the church is required under proper conditions to do this very thing. (See Matthew 18:15-17.)

In reading this paragraph omit the "against thee" in the second line as unsupported by the best manuscripts. Read it this way: "If thy brother sin, go right along, and convict him of his fault, between thee and him alone." No matter against whom the sin, nor whether it be a personal or general offense, as soon as you know it, go right along and take the steps required first of you alone, then of you and others. If you and the others fail, even then it does not say: "Tell it to the deacons." Officially they have nothing in the world to do with it. "Tell it to the church." When the deacons are made a grand jury, God’s law of responsibility resting on each brother is superseded by a most vicious human innovation.

2. A board of deacons is not a board of ruling elders having official charge of all church affairs. Baptists are not Presbyterians in church polity. It is not the name, but the thing, that is objectionable. We do not dodge the offense of having a ruling board by calling them deacons. The New Testament elders who ruled were preachers. There is not even a remote hint in the New Testament that the deacon’s office was a ruling office.

The reader must observe that proving precedes appointment to pastoral or deacon’s office. Unknown, untried men should not be put in either office. One of the greatest needs in the Baptist denomination today is a corps of good deacons in every church, attending to the New Testament functions of their office and no other. One of the greatest evils in our denomination is making, or allowing the corps of deacons to become a grand jury or a board of rulers. All along the shores of history are the debris of churches wrecked on these sunken, keel-splitting rocks.

One other great need of our people is that a great sentence of this section should be lifted up and glorified as a good deacon’s objective and incentive: "For they that have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and great boldness in the faith which is in Jesus Christ" (1 Timothy 3:13). It ought to become so exalted that it would become every deacon’s inspiration and guiding star. As a meritorious distinction, it should outrank the badge of the Legion of Honor, the Collar of the Golden Fleece, or the degree of Ph.D. conferred by earth’s greatest university.

We need now to consider only one other sentence: "Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all -things." As this verse is sandwiched between two paragraphs on the deacon’s office, and is a part of the section on church officers, it would be out of all connection to interpret it of women in general. And as there is no similar requirement concerning the pastor’s higher office, we should not render it "wives" meaning the wives of deacons. The context requires the rendering: "women deacons." This rendering not only has the support of Romans 16:1, commending Phoebe as a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea and as doing work supplemental to the preacher and the administrator of charity help, but meets a need as obvious as the need of a male deacon. In every large church there is deacon’s work that cannot be well done except by a female deacon. In the administration of charity in some cases of women – in the preparation of female candidates for baptism) and in other matters of delicacy there is need for a woman church official. The Waco church of which I was pastor for so many years, had, by my suggestion and approval, a corps of spiritually minded, judicious female deacons who were very helpful, and in some delicate cases indispensable. In churches on heathen mission fields the need is even greater than in our country Many an embarrassment did the worthy deaconess save me from, even on the subject of visitation. In some cases appealing for charity, only these women could make the necessary investigation.

QUESTIONS

1. To what matters is 1 Timothy confined, what the evidence thereof and how does the fact bear on the interpretation of the book?

2. What distinction does the paragraph 1 Timothy 2:8-15 sharply make?

3. What the first injunction on women in the church assemblies and why?

4. What the second and the reasons?

5. What the result of having a woman pastor?

6. What the compensating promise for these restrictions?

7. What words constitute the difficulties of interpreting this promise?

8. What the antecedent of the pronoun, "they"?

9. What the possible explanation of "She shall be saved through her childbearing"?

10. In this context what the more probable explanation? Convey it by a paraphrase.

11. Illustrate this by a scriptural, a classical, and a modern case.

12. What Old Testament passage is in line with the thought and pictures the ideal woman?

13. What the limitations on woman’s praying and teaching?

14. What the twofold lesson of 1 Timothy 3?

15. In the paragraph 1 Timothy 3:1-7 what the name of highest church officer and its meaning?

16. Give other names for this officer and their meanings.

17. Give the qualifications for this officer negatively and positively.

18. What the meaning of "husband of one wife"?

19. Meaning of "novice"?

20. Why should a pastor have good testimony of them that are without?

21. Most of these qualifications relate to his character, but what two bear on his work?

22. Show what "aptness to teach" does not mean and then show in what it consists.

23. Cite other passages to show that the bishop is a ruler.

24. What the second office?

25. Wherein do his qualifications coincide with the pastor’s?

26. Wherein superior?

27. Why should not a deacon be "a lover of money"?

28. In what idea did the office originate?

29. Cite an Old Testament example.

30. What the second idea underlying the office and what the passage showing it?

31. What the third?

32. Give the text and outline of a notable sermon at the ordination of deacons.

33. Show why a corps of deacons should not be considered a grand jury.

34. Why not a ruling board?

35. What officer of a church has charge of discipline and why? Of ruling?

36. What is a long-horned deacon? Ans.: One who gores the pastor instead of helping him and in love of ruling runs roughshod over the church.

37. Why from the context must 2 Timothy 3:11 be construed to teach that there should be "female deacons" and what other scripture in support and what the need of having them?

Verses 14-16

V

THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH

1 Timothy 3:14-16

Our last discussion closed with 1 Timothy 3:13, on the officers of the church, their qualifications and duties. The closing paragraph of the chapter is devoted to setting forth the mission of the church in relation to the truth and what the elements of the truth. Since the contention that there is now existing a universal church is based upon the broad statement applied to the church in the letter to the Ephesians, I am glad that in the passage now to be considered, and in the address of Paul at Miletus to the elders of the church at Ephesus (see Acts 20), we see the broadest of these terms applied to the particular church at Ephesus.

Now, let us read: "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Here "the house of God," "the church of the living God," "the pillar and ground of the truth," "the flock," "the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood," are statements just as broad as we can find in the letter to the Ephesians, and yet all these broad terms are expressly applied to the one particular church at Ephesus, for he is discussing the heresies in that church, the prayer services in that church, and the officers of that church.

The reader will notice that when Paul wrote the first letter to Timothy, it shows that on this last tour of his, after his escape from the first Roman imprisonment, he had been in Asia and at Ephesus, and now expresses the hope to speedily return. In 2 Timothy, we find evidence that he did return to Ephesus, and had a very stormy time.

The word "behave" in 2 Timothy 3:15 refers to more than mere proprieties. It includes worship and service – how church members should conduct themselves in the church assemblies. Right behavior on the part of both men and women in the worship and service of the public assembly is based on three great reasons:

1. The assembly is the church of the living God. The institution is not of human origin. It is not a Greek ecclesia humanly devised for the transaction of municipal or state business. It is not a political gathering.

2. It is a house for divine habitation. The letter to the Ephesians expresses the thought. (See Ephesians 2:21-22.)

3. Because of its mission, being "The pillar and ground of the truth." The ground of a thing is the foundation upon which the superstructure rests. A pillar is a column upholding a superstructure. The attitude of the church toward the truth is that’ it supports and upholds the truth which teaches these doctrines. The Bible alone would not save the world. There must be an organization back of the Book, an organization that has in it the elements of perpetuity, otherwise the truth would go to pieces. If there was no competent body to exercise discipline, to insist upon the gospel elements of the truth in preaching, and to exercise jurisdiction over the preachers of that doctrine, then there would be all sorts of preaching, all sorts of doctrines, and there would be no conservation of the truth.

I now answer the question: How does the church, as a pillar and foundation, uphold the truth?

1. By proclaiming it through its ministry. They carry that truth to the end of the world.

2. By exhibiting it pictorially) through the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Wherever water flows) wherever it stagnates in pools, wherever it masses in lakes, bays, or oceans, there in the yielding waves of baptism the church pictorially represents the central truths of the gospel.

3. They uphold the truth by vindicating it in their discipline. If a man comes teaching for the gospel that which is not the gospel, if a man lie and contradict the gospel, the church upholds the truth by refusing to hear, receive or in any way give him countenance. Yea, the church must expose his heresy.

4. It upholds the truth by illustrating it in all its practical life. Every Christian father and mother, brother and sister, boy and girl, every Christian citizen, is upholding the truth by illustrating it in the life.

I would not have you forget these four points by which the church upholds the truth:

1 – Proclaiming it through its ministry.

2 – Pictorially representing it in its two ordinances.

3 – Vindicating it in discipline.

4 – Illustrating it in life.

The next matter we have under consideration: What is the truth which the church is to uphold? Here we have a summary of the truth so far at is relates to the mystery of godliness. It, of course, is not a summary of all the truth, but it is a summary of the truth as it relates to the mystery of godliness and these are its six elements:

1. "God was manifested in the flesh." It is immaterial to the sense whether we read "God was" or "who was." Both teach the incarnation of Deity. The incarnation of the Word that was with God and that was God. Incarnation includes all that he did in that incarnation, his personal obedience to the Law, his teaching of the fulness of the New Testament law, his expiation for sin on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead. A church that does not uphold that, ought to be discountenanced and disfellowshipped as a church. That is the purport of John’s testimony. (See 1 John 4:1-3.)

2. "Justified in the Spirit." Does the Spirit here mean Christ’s own human spirit, or the Holy Spirit? The revisers evidently understood it to mean Christ’s human spirit as contrasted with his flesh – manifested in the flesh and justified in his spirit. Their contention is based upon the absence of the article before "Spirit" and the apparent parallels between "flesh and spirit." The "Cambridge Bible" thus paraphrases to bring out the rhythmical effects of the several pairs in the verse: Who in flesh was manifested, Pure in spirit was attested; By angels’ vision witnessed, Among the nations heralded; By faith accepted here, Received in glory there.

This presentation is grammatical, plausible, and strong. If it be the right interpretation, the sense of "justified in spirit" would be that because sinless in his inner man, and because none were able to convict him of sin, he was justified or acquitted on his own personal life.

But the author prefers, as more in consonance with the line of thought and far more feasible, to understand it to refer to the Holy Spirit. The line of thought would then be:

1. God assumed human nature in his incarnation for the salvation of men.

2. In this incarnation the Holy Spirit justified or vindicated his Deity and its claims.

3. The angels recognized the Deity in the flesh.

4. As God in the flesh he was proclaimed to all nations.

5. Wherever thus proclaimed and attested he was accepted by faith, i.e., the truth so proclaimed and attested was credible.

6. The Father’s reception of him into glory after his resurrection was a demonstration of his Deity in the flesh and a vindication of all his claims while in the flesh.

Here we have one great proposition embodying a mystery, God was incarnated, supported by five successive evidences: The attestation of the Holy Spirit; the recognition by angels who had known him before his incarnation; the fact of its publication to all nations; the credibility of the publication, evidenced by the fact that men all over the world believed it, and the Father endorsed it all by receiving him into original glory and crowning him Lord of all.

There mere rhythm of the parallel, proverb style can never be equal in force to this line of thought. The insistence on making "spirit" mean "his human spirit" – not only is redundant and tautological, since a human spirit is already stated in his being made flesh – flesh meaning full human nature – but in a similar construction, 1 Peter 3:18-19, such interpretation teaches most awful heresy and indefensible foolishness. Therefore, I totally dissent from the thought of the revisers. It means that when God was manifested in the flesh, he, so manifested, was vindicated – justified by the Holy Spirit. If the reader asks when did the Holy Spirit justify the Deity in his incarnation, my answer is:

(1) At his baptism. Nobody could otherwise know that he was the Christ. John the Baptist could not, except by certain action of the Holy Spirit. "I knew him not," said John, "but he that sent me to baptize gave me this sign: Upon whom thou shall see the Spirit of God descend, he is the Messiah." And so at the baptism of Jesus Christ, as he came up out of the water, he prayed that this demonstration might take place – and in the form of a dove the Holy Spirit descended and rested upon him. Unenlightened men who looked at him in his humanity would say, "This is no God. This is Joseph’s son; we know his brothers and sisters." But the Holy Spirit vindicated him in that manifestation; justified him, as did also the Father’s voice: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

(2) If the reader again asks me how next the Holy Spirit justified him, I will say that all his teachings and miracles were by the Spirit resting on him without measure.

(3) The sacrifice he made in his body for the sing of the world was through the Holy Spirit. When he made that sacrifice, according to the letter to the Hebrews, that offering was through the eternal Spirit. If man counts not that a sacrifice, the Holy Spirit did.

(4) In raising his body from the dead. They had denied his messiahship and his divinity, and demanded a sign to prove it. The sign was that God would raise him from the dead on the third day, and according to this apostle in another connection: "He was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:4).

(5) Now, the fifth way that he was justified by the Holy Spirit was in the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost to accredit and give power to the church whose mission was to proclaim this truth. This was the promise and the sign without whose fulfilment the church dare not preach that mystery. The coming of another Paraclete to abide with them till the return of the absent Lord, was the supreme justification of their preaching that God was manifested in the flesh. See John 14:16-18; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7-10; John 16:13-15; Acts 1:4-5; Acts 1:8.

And so on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came down and the church was baptized in that Spirit, that was his vindication.

Let’s restate the five points in which the Spirit justified him:

First, in his baptism.

Second, through whom all his teachings and miracles were wrought.

Third, in offering himself for sin.

Fourth, in raising him from the dead.

Fifth, in his coming on the day of Pentecost to abide with the church until his final advent.

That is the second element of the truth the church must ever uphold. Let us see the third element.

He was seen by angels. Men heard with indifference that a babe was born at Bethlehem. Nobody would pay any attention to such an incident as that. That babe surely was not God. But the angels who knew him up yonder in heaven recognized him in his incarnation. The flesh could not veil him from their sight. But when did the angels so recognize him? When did he have their attestation of the Godhead in his humanity?

Go back to that announcement to the shepherds, where they told the shepherds that unto the world was born a Prince and Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, and that this would be the sign: they would find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. They recognized him there.

When else did they recognize him? Just after his baptism, when he was tempted of the devil. As the first Adam was tempted, so the Second Adam was now tempted, and after triumphing in that temptation the angels recognized him, and came and ministered unto him.

The third time was when he was in the garden of Gethsemane, going there in anticipation of the awful horrors of death, as a malefactor at the hands of man; death, as a sinner at the hands of God; death, in passing into the power of Satan. When he triumphed in that temptation the angels came and ministered unto him.

And the angels will further bear witness to him when he comes to judge the world. They will come in execution of the divine will in gathering his elect, and in gathering up the tares to be burned. Man may see no divinity in that Babe of Bethlehem, but the angels recognized him, and I may add that the devil recognized him, and all the evil angels. Whatever infidelity may have existed in the minds of Pharisee or Sadducee, the evil angels made no mistake. On one occasion they said to him: "We know thee, who thou art, thou Holy One of God." The next element of this truth is a universal gospel, to be preached among all nations. This appears from the Great Commission – Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-20; Luke 24:46-47; John 20:22-23; Colossians 1:23.

This commission was not limited to Jews: "Go ye unto all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." "Make disciples of all nations." That preaching was done in Paul’s time. He said the gospel was preached unto every creature under heaven, and it has been done since, generation by generation. We are doing it now. We do not limit our missionary work to America. We go to Mexicans. Brazilians, Italians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Russians, the Germans, and the Swedes, telling them how God was manifested in the flesh, was justified by the Holy Spirit, and so manifested he was recognized by angels. That is the theme of universal preaching. That this truth was believed appears from the history of its preaching.

Three thousand Jews were converted at Pentecost, and before the close of that big meeting near unto 144,000 Jews were converted. Some of the Jerusalem sinners believed on him. His great persecutor, Saul of Tarsus, believed on him. Then his gospel was carried to heathen Antioch, Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, the ends of the earth, and wherever this gospel has been faithfully preached it has been accepted and believed. It is not a gospel of empty sound. That is an element of the truth that the church is to uphold. That Jesus was received up into glory appears from this vision of him there by Stephen, Paul, and John.

But we need not go back to Pentecost and apostolic times for proof. Nor need we rely on persistent monumental evidences – baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Day. Fresh evidences abound now, and we are his witnesses. If Jesus be now alive in glory he can now manifest that life. The continued work of the Holy Spirit in the call of preachers, in regenerating and sanctifying sinners, attests it. Every new convert has the witness in himself. Every prayer heard, every sad heart comforted, attests it. It is just as credible now as when first preached, and its saving power as evident.

My old-time teacher in Latin and Greek became an infidel. Our personal friendship continued till his death. He said to me once: "I like to hear you. You always interest me, but what you preach about the incarnation, its miracles, its vicarious expiation, cannot be believed. It is unscientific and therefore incredible." I replied, "Doctor, I oppose your dogmatic affirmation, not by argument, but by the fact that it is believed, and has been believed wheresoever in the world it has been preached. Earth’s noblest, best, and wisest have believed it. Washington, Gladstone, Lee, Jackson, Chief Justice Marshall believed it. Your own mother believed it. Greenleaf, the greatest international authority on the Law of Evidence, declares it legally provable and proved. Whenever it is hid, it is hidden to those who are spiritually blind. The difficulty in its acceptance is not intellectual, but an alienation of heart from God."

That is one of the things the church ought to uphold, one of the truths concerning godliness; that when he is preached to the world he will be believed, he will be accepted.

It has been said, if this mystery of godliness be so credible, why do not Jews, his own people, accept it? The answer is (1) Many of them did accept it. (2) Some of them now accept it. (3) In later days all of them will accept it.

Paul explains why some of them rejected it then, and most of them now reject it (2 Corinthians 3:15-16; Romans 11:7; Romans 11:10; Romans 11:25).

He foretells when and how the whole nation will one day accept it (Romans 11:11-12; Romans 11:26). In this he agrees with their ancient prophets (Isaiah 66:7-8; Ezek. 36-37; Zech. 12:8-13:1).

Let us look at the sixth-element: "Received up in glory." If God had not received him, all of his claims would have been set aside; but the record tells us that the last time the disciples saw him he was going up into the clouds. A prophetic psalm tells us what happened as he approached heaven, shouting: "Lift up your heads, oh ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory will come in. Who is this King of glory? I, the Lord, mighty to save." And when he was received up into glory, the test he gave them that he would be received was the descending of the Holy Spirit. The point is just this: If Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended up into heaven, he is alive now. That is what he says: "I am he that was dead but am alive." If Jesus is alive he can right now manifest that life just as well as when he was alive and walking the streets of Jerusalem. Arguments on a monument are very poor things when compared with arguments based upon present evidences that Christ, the living God, is King of kings and Lord of lords.

Paul, elsewhere, gives summaries of the truths that the church is to uphold, some of them very much like this. For instance, in Romans, "It is Christ that died, he is risen again, he is exalted to the right hand of the Majesty on high, he ever liveth to make intercession for us," or as he puts it in another passage: "I delivered unto you that which I also received; how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures and that he was buried and that he is risen, and that he was recognized when raised." But these six elements here are limited to the mystery of godliness.

QUESTIONS

1. Upon what is based the contention that there now exists a universal church?

2. How does this passage written concerning the church at Ephesus and Paul’s previous address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus (Acts 20) disprove it?

3. What the meaning of "behave themselves" in 2 Timothy 3:15?

4. On what three reasons is the exhortation to "behave" in the church assembly based and what the force of the first?

5. Prove the second from the letter to the Ephesians.

6. Explain "pillar and ground" in the third.

7. What would be the result if there were no church to uphold the truth?

8. In what four ways does the church uphold it?

9. What the one great truth the church must uphold?

10. What the six elements of the mystery of godliness?

11. How much is included in the first element, "God was manifested in the flesh"?

12. What the testimony of John on this point?

13. What should be our attitude toward a man or a so-called church denying this truth?

14. In the second element "justified in Spirit" what the controversy?

15. Give the argument and paraphrase supporting the view that it means Christ’s human spirit and ’then the meaning of the phrase.

16. Give the author’s line of thought in support of the contention that it means the Holy Spirit.

17. Where do we find a similar construction and what heresy and foolishness result from making "spirit" in that connection mean "Christ’s human spirit"?

18. If the author’s contention be right when did the Holy Spirit justify God incarnate?

19. Explain "seen of angels" and its bearing on the line of thought.

20. When this recognition by angels?

21. Cite proof that the devil and his demons recognized God in the flesh.

22. On what three occasions did Satan himself assail God in the flesh and what the result in each case?

23. What proof in the next chapter that the demons fight this truth?

24. Where do we find embodied the next element – a universal gospel?

25. What the historic evidence of the next element, "believed on in the world"?

26. What the monumental proof?

27. What the proof of today?

28. Relate the incident in this connection concerning the author’s infidel friend.

29. Where the only difficulty in its universal acceptance?

30. If it be incredible to any what the cause? Quote Paul.

31. Why do not Jews believe it? Quote Paul.

32. When will they believe it? Quote Paul and cite the prophets.