Bible Commentaries
Titus

[See below for: The Authorship of the Epistles, Time and Places of Writing, Notices of Timothy, Notices of Titus, and Greek Text of the Epistles and English Translation]

[The Appendices are also included at the end of this section. For convenience, the Appendix material is also embedded in the verse comments where referenced]

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES,

The Greek Text with Translation        

WITH

INTRODUCTION, EXPOSITORY NOTES, AND DISSERTATIONS.

           

BY

PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D.,

PRINCIPAL OF FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW;

AUTHOR OF ‘TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE,’ ‘REVELATION OF LAW,’ ETC.

           

EDINBURGH:

T. & T. CLARK, GEORGE STREET.

1874.

Prepared for Libronix Digital Library System by , 2008

Prepared for e-Sword / theWord by: /

Preface

THIS expository volume on the Pastoral Epistles had its origin in a department of labour connected with my official duties. Till lately, it was for many years my lot to conduct a class of Pastoral Theology for advanced students preparing for the work of the Christian ministry; and a portion of the time during each session was usually devoted to the exposition and illustration of more or less of those Epistles. Practically, it was found impossible to overtake more, in any particular session, than a comparatively limited portion of them. But as comments on the whole had been prepared, I have thought that the publication of them might be of some advantage to students of Sacred Scripture, especially to those who are either in the position of candidates for the ministry, or without lengthened experience in the discharge of its duties. The requirements and interests of such have been kept specially in view throughout the volume. On that account also, particular respect has been had, both in the course of exposition, and in the introduction and supplementary dissertations, to the objections which have been urged latterly, indeed, with great boldness and persistency against the apostolic authorship and divine inspiration of these portions of New Testament Scripture.

The aim of this volume, therefore, will readily be understood to differ considerably from that of Bishop Ellicott’s, whose commentary on the Pastoral Epistles bears the designation of “critical and grammatical.” The portion of the late Dean Alford’s Commentary on the New Testament which embraces these Epistles is to a large extent of the same description. Both commentators have very ably accomplished the objects they had more especially in view; and the frequent references I have made to their productions will sufficiently evince how profoundly sensible I am of the services they have rendered to the correct knowledge of the language and import of the Epistles though on points of some moment I have occasionally felt myself obliged to differ from each of them. While the critical and grammatical have been with me a somewhat less prominent object, neither of them has been overlooked; and wherever the text or the construction is such as to call for special examination or adjustment, this has uniformly received attention, before anything as to doctrine or instruction has been founded on the words. The text of Tischendorf, in his 8th edition, so nearly coincides with what I take to be the correct one, that I have simply adopted it twice with a measure of hesitation (see pp. 273, 373), and once only with a formal dissent (p. 233). Minor deviations from the Received Text, as in respect to the spelling and order of words, I have consequently deemed it unnecessary to notice; but wherever the sense has been at all affected by any change, the principal grounds have uniformly been adduced on which the text of Tischendorf seems entitled to the preference.

In regard to the translation, my object has been simply to present the meaning of the original, as I understand it, in the words most nearly equivalent whether they might accord with those of the Authorized Version or not. This, however, has never been needlessly departed from. With the view of rendering the exposition more extensively useful, I have also, for the most part, translated the quotations taken from the Greek and Latin commentators; but the original has always been given when anything of moment depended upon the precise form of expression. The edition of Winer’s Grammar referred to is that published by the Messrs. Clark, edited by the Rev. W. F. Moulton.

May the effort here made to explain a portion of the Divine Word, and to vindicate and apply the important lessons of truth and duty therein contained, carry with it the Divine blessing, and prove, in however small a degree, conducive both to the due appreciation of the Word, and to the furtherance of the great ends of the Christian ministry.

P. F.

Glasgow, January, 1874.     

Introduction

Section 1 The Authorship of the Epistles

THE designation of Pastoral Epistles has been commonly applied to the two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, because alike addressed to persons engaged in pastoral work, and chiefly discoursing of matters relating to such work. They all bear on their front the signature of the Apostle Paul; and never till a comparatively recent period has their connection with his name been called in question by any one having a recognised position in the Christian Church. There were parties in ancient times who excluded them from the list of St. Paul’s genuine writings; but these were the leaders of Gnosticism, rationalists of a very extreme type, and always regarded by the Fathers as opponents, rather than adherents, of the Christian faith. Speaking of such generally, Clement of Alexandria states that they rejected the Epistles to Timothy ( Strom. ii. 11); and Marcion, we are told by Tertullian, did the same both with these and with the Epistle to Titus ( Adv. Marc. v. 21). Jerome, at a later period, repeats the assertion in his Preface to the Epistle to Titus; and referring to Tatian, the disciple of Marcion, mentions that he so far differed from his master as to accept the Epistle to Titus. The conduct of these parties admits of a ready explanation: they found the sentiments contained in the epistles irreconcilable with their speculative tenets and ascetic virtues, and so they discarded the epistles in the interest of their system; as they also, for the same reason, distorted the meaning of many parts of the writings they actually received. The exception made by Tatian in favour of Titus doubtless arose from its less marked contrariety to Gnostic tendencies. But both he and Marcion, and several also who preceded them in the Gnostic schools, are witnesses to the early existence and general acknowledgment of the epistles in question; since otherwise their rejection of these could not have been reported as a noticeable circumstance.

But besides this incidental proof, the direct evidence of the apostolic authority of the epistles, and of the church’s belief in it, is of the most satisfactory kind. The epistles have a place in the most ancient versions, the Peschito and the Italic. They are included in the so-called Canon of Muratori, which, with reference to St. Paul’s epistles, mentions ad Titum una, et ad Timotheum duas. Irenasus commences his work against heresies with an express quotation from First Timothy, as the words of an apostle suited to the occasion and object of his writings; and in other places he makes direct reference to other passages in the three epistles, always identifying them with the penmanship of the apostle (for example, at iii. 14. 1, iv. 16. 3, i. 16. 3). The same thing is done by Clement of Alexandria ( Strom. ii. 11, iii. 6, i. 14) and by Tertullian ( De Praeser. Hoer. c. 25, etc.); while by Eusebius the whole three are included among the writings universally acknowledged ( Eccl. Hist. 3:25). As a proof, also, of their being in very early and common use, we find expressions and forms of thought peculiar to them appropriated in some of the most ancient Christian writings; for example, in the Epistle of the Roman Clement (as at c. 29, comp. with 1 Timothy 2:8), the Epistle of Polycarp (c. 4, comp. with 1 Timothy 6:7, 1 Timothy 6:10), and still more in the writings of Athenagoras, Justin, and Theophilus of Antioch. In short, the historical evidence of the authenticity of the epistles is as full and explicit as could justly be expected, and it were impossible to disparage it in their case without denying its validity in respect to the best accredited books of New Testament Scripture.

Schleiermacher was the first man of note in the church who formally rejected the testimony of antiquity on the subject, and took up a hostile position. His objections, however, were laid only against the First Epistle to Timothy, which he held to be chiefly a compilation out of the second, and the Epistle to Titus. His views were set forth in a letter, published in 1807; but they met with strenuous opposition, even from some who were not remarkable for the strictness of their orthodoxy in particular, Planck, Bertholdt, Hug, Guericke, Heydenreich. But Schleiermacher had his followers, and followers who, for the most part, did not confine their attacks to the First Epistle to Timothy, but took exception to all the three. So, for example, Eichhorn, Schott, Credner, who regarded them as forgeries done with a good design, probably by Luke, or some other of Paul’s disciples. But Baur went further: he thought the work of criticism was imperfectly done till another period altogether than that to which Paul himself belonged was shown to be the one which gave birth to the epistles. And this he thought he found in the times immediately subsequent to the rise of the Marcionite heresy, that is, somewhere about the middle of the second century; when, alarmed at the appearance of this heresy, and anxious to check it, some one bethought himself of a series of letters as the most effectual antidote, written in the name of Paul to two of his well-known companions and fellow-workers. But a date so late, as a basis for such an artificial hypothesis, so palpably conflicts with the historical evidence regarding the epistles, that few beyond the small circle of the Tübingen school have been found ready to accept the solution. De Wette, while he renounced the Pauline authorship of the epistles, was equally opposed to Baur’s position, and to the last maintained that the epistles must be ascribed to the closing period of the first century. There are still probably a considerable number of critics in Germany, and a few in our own country, who are inclined to rest in this unsatisfactory conclusion, a negative one as regards the relation of the epistles to Paul, and, must we not add also, as regards their claim to a place in the canon of New Testament Scripture?

Such is not the inference of the parties themselves. With them the term canon, as applied to Scripture, is of somewhat doubtful interpretation, and may include the spurious as well as the genuine, if only written with a good purpose, and in conformity with sound doctrine. So Bleek, for example, in respect to the First Epistle to Timothy (to which he confines his objections, Introd. § 186, 187); but Dr. Davidson gives it more roundly in the last form of his Introduction to the New Testament; and with reference to all the Pastoral epistles, he very complacently tells us: “The author chose the name of an apostle to give currency to his sentiments. Being impressed with the idea that a united church with sound doctrine was the best safeguard against heresy [could anybody, we might ask, doubt it?], he chose Timothy and Titus as the superintendents of churches, to whom Paul might address directions about ecclesiastical organization and heretical views. In all this there was no dishonesty, because the intention was good. The device was a harmless one. Though it misled many, the object of the author was gained.” Does not this, however, savour of the wily maxim, that the end sanctifies the means? that one may innocently lie, if through the lie the truth of God can anyhow be made to abound more to His glory? St. Paul himself said of all who espoused such a course, that “their damnation was just” (Romans 3:7-8). And beyond doubt it is his verdict, not the loose, easy-going utilitarianism of modern rationalism, that the conscience of Christendom will respond to and ratify. The authority of these epistles for pious uses is gone, if their apostolic authorship cannot be sustained; they must share the fate of all hollow pretensions. But then, how unlike to such is their real character so simple, so earnest, so elevated in tone, so resolutely contending against every form of corruption, expressly against speaking lies in hypocrisy! How all this, if the writer was conscious to himself of starting with a lie, and lying throughout? For it is not merely that he has at the outset assumed a name not really his own, but has invented a whole series of circumstances and relations which had no foundation in truth; and this, strange to say, in the interest of the truth, and as the best mode of securing its perpetuity in the church! The supposition involves a moral impossibility; for, as has been justly said, “the belief preached by the apostles was not the offspring of the morality, but the morality was the natural fruit of the belief.”

It is no small matter, therefore, which is at stake in this controversy; nothing less than the authoritative character and practical value of these Pastoral epistles. Even this consideration should not induce us to play false with any portion of the evidence; but it should certainly dispose us to examine carefully, and with much deliberation weigh, the objections urged against the epistles, before we assent to their validity. Men of the most varied gifts, but of the most approved scholarship and matured judgment, have done so, both in this country and on the Continent, and arrived at the result that there is nothing in the objections to shake their confidence in the genuineness of the writings as the veritable productions of St. Paul. But we shall, for ourselves, consider the more important of them in order.

1. One class of objections is derived from an alleged reference to parties and customs which belong to a later age than the apostle’s.

(1.) Of this description is the supposed allusion in several places to Gnosticism of the Marcionite or Valentinian type. There certainly are expressions in the epistles, especially in the First Epistle to Timothy, which can scarcely be understood otherwise than as pointing to the operation of the Gnostic spirit; but still only to this spirit in its incipient state, not in any developed semi-Christian form. Thus, in 1 Timothy 6:20, Timothy is warned to avoid “profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called,” or rather “the falsely named gnosis ( τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως ).” Nothing is here indicated as to any particular Gnostic theory, which might be rising to the surface in the sphere of Timothy’s labours. The expression is quite general, and might have been employed of the Gnostic spirit, as it is known to have manifested itself in the Gospel age, and even prior to it. No one acquainted with the history of the times can doubt that the elements of Gnosticism were then actively at work in many places, and entered deeply into the Alexandrian and Eastern theosophy. But tending, as this always did, to draw the mind into vain and foolish speculations upon subjects which lay beyond the range of human apprehension, it was necessarily characterized by much empty talk, and assumptions of knowledge which had no foundation in realities soaring idealisms, which might please the imagination or gratify the pride of intellect, but which were of no avail to the higher interests of the soul. Even in Philo there is not a little of this sort of gnosis, although in his writings the tendency exhibited itself in a subdued form as compared with what it did in others.

(2.) Much the same may be said of what is intimated at the beginning of 1 Timothy 4:0, of the apprehended forthputtings of the ascetic spirit forbidding people to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God made to be received with thanksgiving. Such an intimation is perfectly consistent with the apostolic authorship. For the writer does not say that the teaching in question had already come into operation, and was meeting with acceptance in the church, but that the Spirit gave warnings of its approach; and all that there is any need for supposing is, that tendencies had begun to manifest themselves, which to men of spiritual discernment seemed to point in that direction. But for this there was ample ground in the apostolic age in the widespread feeling among the better class of theosophists, that the higher degrees of purity were to be attained only through corporeal fastings, and a disentanglement from flesh and blood relations. Such a feeling, with corresponding practices, had been known to exist for generations among the Therapeutae of Egypt and the Essenes of Judea. And it could scarcely be matter of doubt to thoughtful minds, even without any special revelation from the Spirit of God, that the great facts of Christianity, and the mighty moral impulse that went along with them, would exert a potent influence upon many of the class referred to, and incline them to court an alliance with the church. Indeed, we have evidence from the apostle’s own hand, in another and not disputed epistle, that characters of a distinctly marked ascetic type had already been pressing into the Christian fellowship, and in a much less likely quarter than the towns of Asia Minor. It is in Romans 14:0 of the Epistle to the Romans where notice is taken, several years before the Pastoral epistles were written, of some who, on religious grounds, would eat nothing but herbs, and abstained from wane; whom the apostle, indeed, characterizes as weak, yet exhorts others to receive and treat as Christian brethren. Even Baur has said of this part of the apostle’s writings ( Palus, p. 300): “Among the Jewish Christians at Rome there already existed a dualistic view of the world, very closely allied in its root to the Ebionitism of a later age; which is the less to be wondered at, as this dualism in reference to civil life stands in a very natural connection with that view, which sees in the life of nature an impure and demoniacal principle, awakening dislike and abhorrence.”

Now this mode of contemplation, and the asceticism naturally springing from it, were not, it must be remembered, indigenous at Rome: their native home was in the East, and they were sure to be met with in greater frequency and fuller efflorescence in the regions where Timothy was fulfilling his commission, than in the western capital of the Empire. The period, also, was more advanced; and it is but natural to suppose, that as elements of that description came to grow and intensify in the church, what might at first be considered merely as a tolerable weakness, should, a little further on, be warned against as a dangerous departing from the simplicity of the gospel.

(3.) There is still another passage in the First Epistle to Timothy, near the commencement, which has been alleged to contain a reference to opinions that were first broached by the Gnostics of the second century. It is at 1 Timothy 1:4, where Timothy is exhorted to beware of giving heed to fables ( μύθοι ) and endless genealogies, which served chiefly to minister strife and debate. Apparently, it is things of the same sort which are referred to in Titus 1:14 under the name of “Jewish fables and commandments of men,” and again in Titus 3:9 as “foolish questions and genealogies, and strifes, and disputations about the law.” These genealogies and myths or fables are held by the party of Baur to refer to the fabulous stories of the Gnostics respecting the generation of aeons, and in particular to the scheme of Valentinus with its regulated system of 30 aeons. It is true that Irenaeus, at the beginning of his work on the Gnostic heresies, prefaces what he is going to say on the Valentinian gnosis, by saying certain men had arisen “who set the truth aside, and brought in lying words and vain genealogies, which, as the apostle says, minister questions rather than godly edifying, which is in faith;” but it is merely a passing allusion, and cannot be regarded as more than an accommodation of scriptural words to the subject in hand, whether they might have been originally intended to bear such a reference or not. Tertullian makes a similar use of them, but is more express in connecting that use with their original and proper meaning; for, after noticing the Valentinian fables about the aeons, he affirms, “These are the fables and endless genealogies which, while the seeds of them were beginning to bud forth, the spirit of the apostle by anticipation condemned” ( Adv. Valent. c. iii.). Tertullian so often strains Scripture to make it bear a sense favourable to his own particular views, that no great stress can be laid on his interpretation in the present case. But a considerable number of modern commentators have substantially concurred in that interpretation, such as Grotius, Hammond, Mosheim, Alford, etc. It is open, however, to serious, and indeed fatal objections. First of all, the expressions of the apostle, in their natural and proper sense, refer not to things in heaven, but to things on earth to the records preserved of personal or family relationships, and tales associated with them. If the writer had actually in view emanations proceeding in the spirit-world, he could with no propriety have presented them under the name of genealogies, which are not emanations, or even births simply, but birth-registers a term inapplicable except by way of figure or accommodation to the heavenly sphere. Besides, in the parallel passages in Titus, the genealogies are connected with contests about the law, and the fables are expressly designated Jewish; so that the parties in question must obviously have been viewed as standing on distinctively Jewish ground, and dealing with matters which partook more of a Jewish than a Gnostic complexion. So also, in 1 Timothy 1:7, the persons spoken of as desiring to be teachers of the law are evidently the same with those who a little before are noticed as the broachers of the fables and genealogies warned against. But with matters of law Gnosticism of the fully-fledged kind the Gnosticism which indulged its fancy in concocting emanation-systems took little concern; it soared above them. It is a further confirmation of the same view, that Polybius, the only ancient writer out of Scripture who couples together μῦθοι and γενεαλογίαι , does so in precisely the same manner as the apostle: that is, he applies them to the origins of families and nations on earth. He speaks of many having narrated the genealogies and myths of nations, their colonies, and kindreds, and foundations (L. ix. c. 2). Schöttgen also has brought forward, on 1 Timothy 1:4, some specimens of Jewish fables respecting genealogies, one of which at least has an important doctrinal bearing; and the whole, whether or not as ancient as the apostle’s time, are yet sufficient to show how materials of this description might be made to minister to much fruitless disputation, and even to erroneous teaching. So that we hold in opposition to a statement made by Alford they might, and in reality did, touch religious interests quite enough to account for the apostle’s strong denunciations of them. We conclude, therefore, that the parties meant by the apostle in this class of references were a sort of pragmatical formalists, if in some sense Christian, or with acknowledged leanings in that direction, yet more Rabbinical than Christian persons who delighted to talk and wrangle about legal points, who could raise questions and relate stories on the nature and bearings of genealogies, but which were of little moment, however they might be settled; which, for the most part, might be settled anyhow, so far as the great interests of truth and righteousness are concerned. It was every way becoming the aged apostle to warn the youthful evangelist to keep aloof from such a frivolous and fruitless line of things. Indeed, it was just then that such warnings were likely to be needed; as, shortly after the close of the apostolic age, troublers of that description might be said to lose their standing-ground for the Christian church. After that, her chief dangers came from other quarters. This is virtually admitted by Alford, though it seems scarcely to consist with the view he takes of the genealogies and fables. He is satisfied that the false teachers alluded to in the epistles have more of a Judaistic cast about them than could have been the case if full-blown Gnostics had been referred to; that, looked at generally, “they seem to hold a position intermediate to the apostle’s former Judaizing adversaries and the subsequent Gnostic heretics distinct from both, and just at that point in the progress from the one form of error to the other which would suit the period subsequent to the Epistle to the Philippians, and prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. There is therefore nothing in them and their characteristics which can cast a doubt on the genuineness of the epistles” ( Prolog. p. 77). No, but at the period in question the church had as yet heard nothing of genealogies, in the sense of generations and cycles of aeons.

(4.) A class of objections belonging to the same general head of references to things subsequent to the apostolic period, but derived from a different quarter, has respect to the notices contained in the epistles of church order and organization: these seem to betoken too advanced a state of matters for St. Paul’s time. So De Wette, as well as Baur and many others, have contended. According to them, the writer gives indication of hierarchical tendencies. If so, they must be allowed to have had little in common with the hierarchical tendencies of a later age. Here we find no bishop, in the modern sense of the term; no priest with strictly sacerdotal functions; no presiding head even of the common council of presbyters, who in a more special manner was charged with the spiritual oversight of the church in each particular place; but an eldership, more or less numerous, sharing in common the spiritual guardianship and edification of the flock. In short, we find only the earliest and simplest form known to us of church order and government, that which had already existed for generations in the Jewish synagogues, and which with little variation was transferred to the newly planted churches of Christian believers. Not only so, but the instructions given through Timothy and Titus to those spiritual overseers are entirely void of hierarchical and ritualistic elements: they press only moral considerations and duties, which had nothing to do with formal distinctions and minutely prescribed observances. In addition to that primitive type of spiritual officers, mention is made only of deacons the class appointed first, within a few years after the Ascension, in the mother church at Jerusalem, then in the larger churches generally, for administering the pecuniary affairs and charitable offerings of the people. Even these are noticed but once, in connection with Ephesus, not with Crete, where matters were only beginning to take a regulated form when the apostle wrote. All, in a word, as to official organization, is as one might have expected it to be, if anything of this sort was to have been noticed at all; and it is assuredly very different from the kind of references that would have been found, if the epistles had been written after hierarchical principles had developed themselves.

As to what is said about widows, also of marriage-relationships in the case of church officers, there is nothing, when the passages are rightly interpreted, which can be deemed indicative of a state of things alien to the first age of the church. But this can only be exhibited by an analysis of the passages bearing on the subject.

II. We now therefore pass on to another feature in the epistles, to which exception has been taken; namely, certain peculiarities in the cast of thought and the mode of expression found in these epistles, but not in the genuine writings of Paul. Undoubtedly there are differences of the kind referred to, which cannot well be overlooked. The only question is, Whence did they originate? Are they not explicable by the different circumstances in which the epistles were written, the different topics handled, and the comparatively novel opinions and practices brought into consideration? Beyond doubt, there were very obvious and material differences in these respects. It is nothing to the purpose, therefore, to be told that a great many words occur in these epistles not elsewhere found in the apostle’s writings: for, to a certain extent, such are to be found in all his epistles; and here, for the reasons stated, they might be justly expected in greater frequency. The difference is not, after all, very large. Planck has shown that there are 81 words of the kind in question in First Timothy, 63 in Second Timothy, and 44 in Titus. But then in the Epistle to the Philippians there are 54, in Galatians, 57, in Ephesians and Colossians together, 143. But in these epistles it is the common truths and obligations of the gospel which form the chief subjects of discourse, while the three Pastoral epistles occupy ground in a great degree peculiar to themselves. And when one looks to the varieties produced, and finds among them such examples as the following, ἔλεος , used in the salutation to Timothy, along with χάρις and εἰρήνη , πιστὸς ὁ λόγος , λόγος ὑγιής , ζητήσεις , μῦθος , σώφρων , εὐσέβεια , βέβηλος , words which any writer might have used as the particular occasion or the impulse of the moment might have prompted, one can only wonder at the frivolous ingenuity, which out of things so common could have thought of discovering formidable instances.

The questions which in this respect would really be of a testing kind are such as these: Does any term occur in the Pastoral epistles which was not in use when the apostle lived? Or are words used in senses which were not acquired till a later time? Or, finally, are these turns of thought and expression not appropriate or natural for the apostle to have employed in the position actually occupied by him, and with reference to the ends for which he lived? Such questions would be strictly relevant, and, if capable of being answered in the affirmative, would be fatal to the genuineness of the epistles. But nothing of such a description has been established. There are, indeed, certain forms of expression occurring with some frequency in these epistles, which might, for aught that we can see, have been employed in the other epistles, though in reality they are not: such, for example, as the application of the term Saviour specially to God (1 Timothy 1:1, 1Ti 2:3 ; 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 1:3); the designation of teaching, according to its quality, as sound, healthful, or unsound, diseased (1 Timothy 1:10; 1Ti 6:3-4 ; 2 Timothy 1:13, 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9, Titus 1:13, Titus 2:1, Titus 2:8); and the favourite expression of “faithful is the word,” or saying (1 Timothy 1:15, 1Ti 3:1 , 1 Timothy 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 1:9). But surely it is quite conceivable that the state of things in the church about the time the epistles were written, especially the kind and tendencies of the errors which had begun to prevail, may have naturally enough led to the employment of such a phraseology. That certain probable reasons can be assigned for them, will be shown in the exposition. But is it not also competent to ask, whether it was upon the whole less likely that the apostle would himself resort to such modes of speech in his latter days; or that a mere imitator, counterfeiting his name, would do so? The latter could scarcely afford to venture on a liberty of this description; he would be afraid of his speech betraying him; while Paul himself, writing in the conscious freedom of his own powers and purposes, might readily vary his language, as seemed natural or proper in the circumstances. There is the more force in this consideration, as the general character of the diction is quite Pauline, and in a much greater number of expressions is there a marked resemblance to the other epistles than in those referred to a dissimilarity. On the supposition of our epistles being the production of an artful but well-intentioned imitator, can any reason be conceived why so many delicate and pervading correspondences should have been associated with such marked divergences? Surely he who could catch the one would have taken care to avoid the other. (Alford has given a pretty long list of the resemblances found in the language of the three epistles with a si ngle one of the undisputed Pauline that to the Galatians: τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν πε ́ ρι, Galatians 1:4, 2 Timothy 2:16, Titus 2:14; εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, Galatians 1:5, 1 Timothy 1:17; προέκοπτον, Galatians 1:14, 2 Timothy 2:16; 2 Timothy 3:9; στυ ́ λος, Galatians 2:9, 1 Timothy 3:15; ἀνόητοι, Galatians 3:1, 1 Timothy 6:9, Titus 3:3; μεσίτης, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5; ἐλπίς objective, Galatians 5:5, Titus 2:13; πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, Galatians 5:18, 2 Timothy 3:6; καιρῷ ἰδι ́ ῳ, Gal. 6:19, 1 Timothy 2:6, Titus 1:3. In Romans 16:25, also, there are as many as five verbal correspondences with expressions in the Pastoral epistles.)

So far, then, as a change is perceptible in the style, though it is not without a measure of difficulty, it seems most readily accounted for by change of circumstances and lapse of time. “New words very soon are employed, when new ideas arise to require them. The growth of new heresies, the development of church organization, the rapid alteration of circumstances in a great moral revolution, may fitly account for the use of new terms in a new sense. Moreover, the language of letters to individual friends might be expected to differ somewhat from that of public letters to churches” (Conybeare and Howson, ii. 553).

III. A still further source of objections has been found in the contents and structure of the epistles. Of these some are so insignificant and captious, that it is unnecessary to specify them here. Others, also, are so intimately connected with the nature and design of the epistles, that they might equally be urged against any author whatever, as against St. Paul, if not more so. Thus, exception is taken to the constant moral reference of what is said in various passages respecting faith, the identifying of sound views of Christian doctrine with a good conscience, and of erroneous doctrine with a bad one. In substance, the same thing is done in other epistles of Paul, only in a more general way (for example, Romans 1:17-18, Galatians 2:17-20, Galatians 5:6, etc.). But if what served in good measure to call forth the Pastoral epistles was the growth of a species of heretical doctrine, which tended to sophisticate the conscience, and substitute speculative for saving knowledge, then, whoever the writer might be, he could not have effectually met the evil he sought to correct and guard against, without tracing the evil thus up to its source. The Apostle John does precisely the same thing, when writing with a similar aim, though after his own peculiar style; for example, 1 John 1:6-10, 1 John 3:5-7, 2 John 1:9-11. “The precepts and directions (says Davidson in his more advanced criticism on these epistles, Introd. ii. 169) are ethical and outward, relating to conduct. They touch upon matters of conscience or propriety. The very health of Timothy is attended to. Regulations about churches, their organization, and their office-bearers, are such as might have been left to the judgment of Timothy and Titus themselves.” That is to say, everything of such a nature is a matter of perfect indifference as regards the true interests of the church, and may be regulated as seems good to persons of ordinary capacity; although it is notorious from the history of the past, that infinite evil has come into the church from individual caprice in such things, and that if we had wanted this portion of the apostle’s writings, we should have been without the best materials we now possess for understanding the original polity and government of the church. Indeed, as Alford has remarked, the opponents of the apostolic authorship of the epistles have most effectually defeated themselves on the aspect of the matter now under consideration. “Schleiermacher, holding First Timothy to be compiled out of the other two, finds it in many respects objectionable and below the mark; Baur will not concede this latter estimate; and De Wette charges Schleiermacher with having failed to penetrate the sense of the writer, and found faults where a more thorough exposition must pronounce a favourable judgment. These differences may well serve to strike out the argument, and indeed all such purely subjective estimates, from the realms of Biblical criticism.”

Nor is there any more force in what has been alleged from the structure of the epistles, those especially to Timothy, that they want the compactness of Paul’s other writings, are somewhat loosely put together, and are occasionally abrupt in their transitions from one topic to another. As if Paul, in writing to a bosom friend and fellow-labourer, should have observed the same regard to method, and pursued a like formal treatment of subjects, as in those epistles which were of the nature of regular discussions! This would have been unnatural; the more so, as the things which fell to be noticed here were of a somewhat varied description, partly relating to Timothy’s personal behaviour, and partly to the state of affairs in the church. Accordingly, one of the most striking examples of the unmethodical and abrupt character of the mode of writing characteristic of the epistles the advice, interjected amid things of higher moment, that Timothy should use a little wine for his stomach’s sake and frequent infirmities (1 Timothy 5:23) is, with his usual discrimination, seized upon by Paley as a convincing proof of verisimilitude and genuineness. “In actual letters (he says), in the negligence of a real correspondence, examples of this kind frequently take place seldom, I think, in any other production. For the moment a man regards what he writes as a composition, which the author of a forgery would of all others be the first to do, notions of order in the management and succession of his thoughts suggest themselves to his judgment, and guide his pen.” Thus, what the mere critic, on the outlook for objections, brands with his mark of suspicion, the man of shrewd discernment and practical sagacity, guided mainly by a regard to the habits of actual life, perceived to be one of the surest indications of a genuine frankness and simplicity. Wieseler, I may add, in a recent article in Herzog’s Encyclopaedia ( Suppl. iii. p. 296), delivers himself even more strongly, while considering the passage from a slightly different point of view: he conceives the passage, so peculiarly introduced, “to be a striking proof of the genuineness of the epistle, because the deep solicitude manifested in it by Paul for Timothy, not only corresponds with what is known of his loving heart, but appears so individually coloured, and breaks forth so instantaneously, that it could not possibly be counterfeited.”

A similar judgment might be pronounced upon a request in 2 Timothy 4:13, equally homely in its character, and equally abrupt in its manner of introduction. There Timothy is desired to bring with him the cloak the apostle had left at Troas, and the books, especially the parchments; quite natural if the apostle himself so wrote, but a most improbable and senseless thing for any one to invent in his name! For “what possible motive there could be for inserting such minute particulars, unexampled in the apostle’s other letters, founded on no incident in history, tending to no result, might well baffle the acutest observers of the phenomena of falsification to declare” (Alford).

Without going further into detail here, the conclusion which forces itself upon us from the leading characteristics of the contents and structure of the epistles, is that it was infinitely more likely they should have proceeded from the hand of St. Paul, than from any one falsely assuming his name. There are ample reasons for the one supposition, but none adequate to sustain the other. Had a desire to meet the rising indications of Gnosticism tempted some one to enter the field under false colours, the object would have appeared far more prominent than it actually does, and the epistles would not have presented either the varied or the earnest character which belongs to them. No sinister aim, no predominant idea in the mind of a forger, but only truth and reality, can account for them as they actually exist.

Section 2 Time and Places of Writing

A point remains for consideration, and one certainly not unattended with difficulty, namely, where to find in the history of the apostle a probable or appropriate time and place for the writing of the epistles. It is a difficulty which respects more especially the First Epistle to Timothy. The second epistle bears to have been written in the closing stage of the apostle’s career, when the prospect of martyrdom was staring him in the face. Nor is there anything in the known circumstances of the time that can justly be regarded as incompatible with this supposition. The only room for question is, whether it may have been written toward the close of a first or of a second imprisonment. And on this question opposite opinions have been, and probably may still be held; but we shall have occasion to advert to it before we close. As for the Epistle to Titus, since it merely implies a brief connection sometime had by the apostle with Crete, a connection never touched on in the history of the Acts, it scarcely admits either of confirmation from circumstantial evidence, or the reverse. It is quite possible, that during the apostle’s long sojourn at Corinth, he might have paid a visit to that important island. Or, supposing there was a second imprisonment taking place after a considerable interval from the first, it is perfectly conceivable that opportunity was taken during the interval to visit Crete, leaving Titus behind him to complete the organization of the infant churches. Our chief disadvantage here lies in the scantiness of our materials, the chief historical record having closed some time before the termination of his labours. But, from the striking similarity both in sentiment and modes of expression which the Epistle to Titus presents to the two other Pastoral epistles, it can scarcely be doubted that they belong to much the same period in the apostle’s history; and no solution of the question can be deemed quite satisfactory which would place a considerable interval between them.

The historical problem has its chief difficulty, as we have said, in connection with the First Epistle to Timothy. In that epistle no allusion is made to any personal arrest or imprisonment; and for aught that appears, the apostle was quite free when he wrote to regulate his own movements, and discharge his apostolical functions. The most specific historical allusion is at 1 Timothy 1:3, where he states that, on setting out for Macedonia, he had besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus, for the purpose of repressing certain errors in doctrine and corrupt tendencies which had begun to manifest themselves. It is clear from this, and from the whole tenor of the epistle, that the charge devolved on Timothy at Ephesus was one that would require some time for its execution, and that it could not have been St. Paul’s intention to assign a very brief limit to it, when, at 1 Timothy 3:14, he expressed a hope of being able to rejoin Timothy shortly ( τάχιον ). Now there is no period in the history of the apostle, as recorded in the Acts, which exactly meets these conditions, although three several methods have been devised to bring what is recorded into a measure of conformity with them.

1. One, and indeed the readiest to have occurred adopted by Theodoret, Benson, Michaelis, etc. was the occasion of the tumult raised in Ephesus by Demetrius and his craftsmen, which greatly imperilled the life of the apostle, and obliged him to leave the city (Acts 19:24 to Acts 20:1; 2 Corinthians 1:8). Paul did then actually go from Ephesus to Macedonia. But a notice in the history shortly before, informs us that he had previously sent Timothy and Erastus away into Macedonia, intending himself presently to follow (Acts 19:22); the outbreak of Demetrius only served to hasten a little the period of his departure. But since Timothy had on that occasion been despatched before the apostle, it must plainly have been of some other time that Paul spoke, when he represents himself as having gone to Macedonia, and Timothy as left behind for special work in Ephesus. It is evident also from another consideration, viz. that when he reached Macedonia, he appears either to have rejoined Timothy there, or to have been immediately rejoined by him; for the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written soon after his going into Macedonia, has the name of Timothy along with his own in the opening salutation. In another epistle also, that to the Romans, which was written only a little later, and after he had proceeded to Corinth, Timothy is mentioned as being at the time with the apostle (Romans 16:21). A short period further on, again, his name occurs among several others who left Greece with the apostle, with the view of accompanying him on his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4). In such a chain of circumstances, with Timothy always present as a constituent portion, there seems no possibility of getting a situation that corresponds with the opening statement of the epistle.

2. Nor do they suit any better with another mode of explanation, one adopted by Grotius, Hammond, Bertholdt, etc., according to which, while the deputies who accompanied Paul from Greece to Jerusalem went before to Troas, where they waited for the apostle (Acts 20:5), Timothy, it is supposed, may have proceeded to Ephesus, where he was followed by this epistle, requesting him to attend to certain matters of importance, and to abide till Paul himself should come. This is altogether improbable, and at variance with the language employed. For, in such a case, it could not with truth have been said that Timothy was besought to abide still at Ephesus ( προσμεῖναι ) after the apostle had left it. Or, if an earlier period were thought of, as has been done, when Timothy was left behind at Ephesus, though he had rejoined the apostle before his work was completed, and again went back from Troas to resume and finish it, the supposition becomes so peculiarly complicated, that it cannot be accepted as a natural explanation of the historical allusion in the epistle. Besides, Paul could not have said at Miletus, a few days after leaving Troas, to the Ephesian elders, that he expected to see their face no more (Acts 20:25), and yet have written Timothy that he hoped ere long to be with him at Ephesus.

3. A third hypothesis has been formed, and, with several modifications, has met with support from men of thought and learning. Mosheim was the first to propose the solution, according to which there was a temporary visit of Paul to Macedonia, and perhaps to other parts of Greece, some time during his three years’ sojourn at Ephesus, a visit left unnoticed in the history of the Acts. Mosheim thought this view afforded an explanation of an apparent discrepance in the notes of time given in the Acts respecting the duration of the apostle’s labours in Ephesus; in one of which, Acts 19:9-10, he is said to have first continued for three months, meeting and disputing with the Jews in the synagogue; and in another, that for two whole years he taught in the school of one Tyrannus; while he himself, in addressing the Ephesian elders, reminded them that his labours among them had been protracted to three years (Acts 20:31). It is supposed that by this expression the apostle may have meant merely that the burden of his time and active agency for that period had been given to Ephesus, while a portion of it eight or nine months may have been spent in Macedonia and elsewhere. And if so, then Timothy may have been left behind at Ephesus to supply the apostle’s place, and attend to the matters mentioned in the first epistle. Considered by itself, this supposition is not one that can be designated impossible; and if other things suited, it might (notwithstanding the silence of the Amter of the Acts) be accepted as a probable, if not quite natural, solution of the difficulty. But it is attended with serious embarrassments, which cannot well be got over; and those who agree in the general about it, fall out among themselves when they go to work out the details. Mosheim placed the supposed visit to Jerusalem early in the three years, without allowing sufficient time for the formation of a church at Ephesus so regularly organized, and the development of tendencies so evidently heretical, as is implied in the epistle. Therefore Schrader and Wieseler have preferred throwing the time back to the latter part of the period in question; but they connect with this tour, besides the visit to Macedonia, a visit also to Achaia and Crete, and even to Cilicia and Antioch.

It seems, however, by no means likely that Paul would have pursued such a lengthened course of ministerial agency in these other places, while matters were plainly emerging at Ephesus which called for delicate and authoritative dealing. Some very urgent reason would have been required to make him do so; of which, however, we know nothing. Then, it is difficult to conceive that at any period during the three years, and while Paul himself was taking the chief charge at Ephesus, the teachers of false doctrine should have begun to assume so dangerous an aspect: their having done so would rather seem to argue his absence for some considerable time, and more favourable circumstances for their mischievous purposes. We may the rather conclude thus, as at a later period still, when addressing at Miletus the elders from Ephesus, it was not yet the actual presence, but only the probable rise, at no distant period, of heretical teachers, respecting which the apostle warned them. Still further, the epistle, in its general character and bearing, seems plainly to point to a much more prolonged and responsible agency on the part of Timothy at Ephesus, than he was at all likely to have had devolved on him if the apostle had only left it for a brief missionary tour. And lastly, we should be obliged, on the hypothesis in question, to separate the First Epistle to Timothy, and also the Epistle to Titus, from the Second Epistle to Timothy, by an interval of several years; while yet the cast of thought and expression in it presents so many resemblances to the two other epistles, and so characteristically differs in that respect from those certainly belonging to an earlier time, that it is difficult to believe there did actually exist such an interval. The whole of the Pastoral epistles must be assigned to much the same period, and that later by some years than the other epistles.

This combination of difficulties has been felt by many of the more impartial and considerate investigators to be so serious, that they have renounced as hopeless the attempt to find a place for the Pastoral epistles anywhere within the historical period embraced in the Acts of the Apostles, and have consequently transferred them to a time subsequent to his release from the first imprisonment. So, for example, Paley, Wiesinger, Huther, Conybeare and Howson, Alford, Ellicott. It is no new notion, however; for it was a part of the traditional belief in ancient times concerning the apostle, that the appeal he took at Caesarea to the Emperor terminated in his favour, and that some years of freedom were granted to him afterwards for the preaching of the gospel. The closing notice in the Acts may itself be taken as proof; for a man who “dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,” could no longer have been looked upon as a culprit: he must either have been acquitted of the charge brought against him, or, as is equally probable, it must have been allowed to drop by the non-appearance of his accusers to support it. They must have seen long before, that in the eye of Roman law they had no proper ground to stand upon. The cause had been heard twice by Roman procurators at Caesarea, and each time without any legal offence being established against him. Festus even expressed his inability to give formal expression to the charge in a form that could render it properly cognisable in a court of law; and Agrippa, after hearing him, declared his conviction, that but for his own appeal, the prisoner might have been set at liberty (Acts 25:27, Acts 26:32). It can scarcely be doubted that lawyers at Rome would come to the same conclusion about it.

This result namely, that Paul was acquitted and again resumed his labours is confirmed by various allusions and testimonies. When writing from Rome to the Philippians, some time during his first confinement, he spoke of it as not improbable that he might again be permitted to see them (Philippians 1:27). In his Epistle to Philemon also, written probably a little later, he even went further; and as well-nigh certain of being able to revisit his old field of labour in Asia Minor, he requested Philemon to prepare for him a lodging (Philemon 1:22). Then, passing to the Patristic testimonies, the Roman Clement, in his letter to the church at Corinth, represents Paul as having, after being frequently imprisoned and stoned, gone to the extreme west ( τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ), testifying of the gospel (c. v.), which seems to point to ministrations somewhere farther west than Rome, as the capital of the Empire could scarcely be designated the extremity of the west by any intelligent writer in the Gospel age. Eusebius, giving the common tradition of his time, says that, “after pleading his cause, Paul is reported to have been again sent forth upon the ministry of preaching, and that, on coming a second time to the city, he finished his course with martyrdom” ( Eccl. Hist. 2:22). Eusebius connects with this second imprisonment the writing of the Second Epistle to Timothy; and after quoting various passages from it to support the view he takes, he states it as probable that, “since Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning of his reign, the apostle’s defence of his doctrine would be more willingly received;” but that, as he afterwards advanced to the greatest criminal excesses, the apostles, as well as others, were made to experience the effects. Jerome confirms this testimony in its more essential parts. He says ( Vir. illus.) that Paul was dismissed by Nero to preach the gospel in the west; and he connects the martyrdom of Paul with the fourteenth year of Nero’s reign, probably A.D. 68, seven years after Paul first reached Rome, and five after the period at which the narrative of the Acts closes.

Holding, then, to the fact of two imprisonments, we may suppose that the apostle, after having regained his liberty from the first, and continued his labours for some time in Rome, went elsewhere to prosecute his apostolic calling. It is possible that he then made good his former purpose of visiting Spain (Romans 15:24), though we have no certain evidence of the fact; and the more advanced period of life at which he had now arrived would probably induce him, if not altogether to abandon the design, at least to devote little time to its accomplishment. Hence no particular church in Spain appears to have been able to claim him as its founder. It would naturally seem better for him, a work more in accordance with his declining years, to revisit the scenes of his former labours in Greece and Asia, and give to the churches he had been honoured to plant the benefit of what still remained to him of active service. He might the more readily be induced to take this course, from the knowledge he had obtained, that during his long confinement, first in Caesarea and then in Rome, the seeds of error had begun to spring up in several of those churches, and needed to be repressed with a firm yet tender hand. Indications of this are not wanting in some of the epistles he wrote from Rome. But it is impossible for us to trace with any certainty the course he followed. He had expressed a hope of soon being able to see in person his beloved Philippians; and it is quite probable that Philippi and other parts of Greece, being the more easily reached, might be among the first places he revisited. From thence he may have passed over into Asia, spending more or less time at such places as Troas, Laodicea, Colossae, Ephesus; at which last place, finding matters in a peculiarly critical condition, and requiring prolonged and careful superintendence, he left Timothy behind, himself returning to Macedonia, whence he might find his way back to Ephesus or to the Nicopolis which is mentioned in Titus 3:12 as the place where he had resolved to spend a winter. It was most probably the town of that name in Epirus which was meant, but others have thought of Nicopolis in Cilicia. In some one or other of those goings and returnings he most likely took Crete on his way, and, after a short period of labour, left Titus to complete the work.

When the final arrest was laid on the apostle’s movements, whether at the instance of some adversaries of the gospel in the regions he was visiting, or by persons in the Roman capital after he had again returned thither, we cannot tell. The ferocious treatment which the Christians in Rome received from Nero in A.D. 64, would naturally embolden the formerly baffled opponents of the apostle to renew their attempts against his life; and, taught by past experience, to do it now on more general grounds. The former accusation turned on what might be called distinctively Jewish points; and being laid against one who had the rights of a Roman citizen, the result would necessarily come to be determined by the principles of Roman jurisprudence. But the persecution of Nero had drawn a distinction between Jew and Christian, and had virtually given the adversaries of the gospel a warrant to regard and treat its adherents as in a kind of exceptional position, not entitled to the protection afforded to others by the laws of the Empire. It would therefore be quite easy to get up an accusation against so noted a Christian as Paul, charging him with a violation of the law (for instance) which forbade the introduction of a new and illicit religion ( religio nova et illicita), or of being a ringleader of the party who had set fire to the city. To be so arraigned was to be placed in a far more perilous position than when charged merely with disrespect as to the punctilios of Jewish religiousness; it was to be brought into conflict with the constitution and safety of the commonwealth, and eyed as a person of dangerous revolutionary principles. On this account, doubtless, it is that we are to explain, not only the different termination of the second impeachment from the first, but also the painfully different behaviour of his friends under it. On the former occasion the apostle seems to have had no reason to complain; he received from them the most gratifying proofs of sympathy and kindness, so that his prison-house became a centre of attraction rather than a ground of repulsion. But during the second trial all seems sadly changed for the worse: at the first hearing of his case, “no man stood by him;” “all forsook him and fled;” and things looked so disastrously, that friend after friend departed, one in this direction, another in that. Onesiphorus is mentioned as singular in having “sought him out, not being ashamed of his chain.” Luke alone at last remained with him. All, doubtless, because, from the nature of the accusation, it was to imperil one’s life even to appear in a friendly relation to the apostle; his sympathizers might be involved in the same condemnation with himself. It is evident, from the notices in the closing verses of Second Timothy, that Paul very keenly felt the loneliness in which this state of matters left him; but he clung only the more closely to the one all-sufficient Friend, and found the support he needed. As to the kind of death he suffered, Jerome says it was by being beheaded, and the body was buried in the Ostian Way. But these are only later traditions, and no great value can be attached to them.

There is so much of verisimilitude in the general outline just sketched, that it may be acquiesced in as by much the most probable view that can now be entertained of the last days of the apostle. And in addition to the various collateral circumstances already noticed, which speak in favour of it, there are a few allusions of an incidental kind in the Second Epistle to Timothy, which can scarcely be made to consist with anything but a later visit to Greece and Asia, between a first and a second impeachment. Thus, at 2 Timothy 4:13, he requests Timothy to bring with him the cloak and the books he had left at Troas, a request which can hardly be understood of things left there when the apostle was on his way from Greece to Jerusalem, before his arrest in the temple; since, on any computation, a good many years must have elapsed between that and the writing of the epistle, and many opportunities must meanwhile have occurred to regain possession of the things he had left. Again, it is said in 2 Timothy 4:20, that the apostle had left Trophimus at Miletus sick, which was certainly not the case on the occasion of his going up from Greece to Jerusalem; for not only was Trophimus then with him, but it was his appearance with Paul in the city which afforded the Jews a pretext for charging Paul with defiling the temple, by bringing Greeks into it. Still further, it is said in the same verse that “Erastus abode at Corinth,” that is, remained there when Paul left it. But as Timothy himself was with Paul when he left Corinth to proceed to Jerusalem, Timothy could not require to be informed of it; and besides, as years had anyhow elapsed since then, it would have been out of place to notice it as a piece of news now. Everything seems to point to a succession of circumstances belonging to a period subsequent to the first imprisonment.

Of the subscriptions to the three Pastoral epistles, the first is manifestly wrong; for it names Laodicea as the place of writing, while in the epistle itself the writer- speaks of himself as having left Ephesus for Macedonia: so that Philippi, or some other town in that region, is most naturally thought of as the place from which it proceeded. There is also an error in the subscription to the Epistle to Titus; for it gives the date as from Nicopolis in Macedonia, while no Nicopolis is known to have belonged to that province. Probably Nicopolis in Macedonia was a mistake for Nicopolis in Epirus. But even that had been wrong (see at Titus 3:12). So that, out of three subscriptions, two are almost certainly erroneous. And this is but a sample of the subscriptions generally, which are oftener wrong than right; because, as Paley notes, they were founded on loose traditions, or a hasty view of some particular text. Yet, as he justly adds, “if the epistles had been forged, the whole must have been made up of the same elements as those of which the subscriptions are composed; and it would have remained to be accounted for, how, whilst so many errors were crowded into the concluding clauses of the letters, so much consistency should be preserved in other parts.”

Section 3 Notices of Timothy

The Timothy to whom two of the Pastoral epistles were addressed, was from an early period a close companion and attendant of St. Paul. He is first mentioned in the narrative of Paul’s second missionary tour through the cities of Asia Minor (Acts 16:1 sq.). He was a native of Derbe or Lystra of which of them cannot be quite certainly determined; but the probability seems to he on the side of Lystra, as, in a passage where Gains and Timothy are mentioned together (Acts 20:4), the epithet Δερβαῖος is applied only to Gains, as if in that respect to distinguish him from Timothy. His mother and grandmother were exemplary and pious Jewish females (2 Timothy 1:5), but his father was a Greek. That he was converted to the Christian faith through the ministrations of the apostle, and on the occasion of his first visit to Lystra, there can be little doubt, as the apostle designates him his own or his true child in the faith (1 Timothy 1:2); and by the time of the apostle’s second visit, he was in good repute among the brethren (Acts 16:2). Young as he was, there was something in his spirit and deportment which deeply impressed the apostle with his aptitude for the work of the ministry; and finding that Timothy himself, and those more immediately interested in him, were disposed to comply with St. Paul’s wish in the matter, “he took and circumcised him,” because the Jews in the neighbourhood knew that his father was a Greek, and would, as a matter of course, have refused to allow Timothy to utter a word in their synagogues, until he had submitted to the initiatory ordinance of the covenant (Acts 16:3). He was afterwards solemnly destined to the work, by the imposition both of the apostle’s hands and of the hands of the presbytery (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6), though the specific time and place are not mentioned.

We have no other instance of such a near, unbroken, and prolonged fellowship in the history of apostolic times, as that which appears to have subsisted between Paul and this youthful disciple; the more remarkable, considering the disparity of their ages. From the period that Timothy entered upon his ministerial discipleship, he seems rarely to have been absent for any length of time from the apostle; and even when not expressly mentioned among his companions, some turn in the affairs, or incidental expression, reveals the presence of the beloved disciple. Thus, in the narrative of the Acts, Paul and Silas are alone mentioned as having come to Philippi, preaching the gospel: yet Timothy, it appears, must also have been with them; for, when Paul was sent away from Beraea to Athens, Silas and Timothy are said to have remained behind (Acts 17:14 sq.). His youthful appearance, in all probability, saved him from the violent treatment which Paul and Silas had to. endure at Philippi, and the other places they visited in that region. After staying for some time at Beraea, and, at Paul’s request, returning again to Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 2:5, 1 Thessalonians 3:2), he rejoined the apostle at Corinth, along with Silas (1 Thessalonians 3:6). He seems to have continued with the apostle during his long stay in that city; and the name of Timothy, as well as that of Silas, is coupled with his own by the apostle in both of the epistles to the Thessalonians, which were sent from Corinth. We next find him with St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts 19:22), whence he was sent with Erastus to Macedonia and Corinth (1 Corinthians 4:7, 1 Corinthians 16:10). He was again with Paul in Macedonia when the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written, in which his name has a place in the address, along with Paul’s. He was also with Paul at Corinth during the brief sojourn there, when the Epistle to the Romans was written, although his name is not in the address (Romans 16:21); and he was one of those who accompanied the apostle from Greece, when he went towards Jerusalem with the contributions of the churches (Acts 20:4). But the last notice of him in that connection reaches no further than Troas (Acts 20:5); and for a period of upwards of two years nothing more is heard of him. We can scarcely doubt, however, that he was chiefly at Caesarea during Paul’s long imprisonment there, ministering as far as possible to his comfort, and in every available way acting for him, and for the interests of the gospel. But the next express mention that is made of him is in some of the epistles written by Paul from Rome; though we are without any information as to the mode of his transference thither whether by accompanying the apostle (as is most likely) in his perilous voyage, or going by some other route. His name, at any rate, occurs in three of the epistles sent from Rome those to Philippi, Colossse, Philemon following that of Paul in the opening address; and in the Epistle to the Philippians there is a very strong and favourable testimony given respecting Timothy, placing him above all the other fellow-labourers of the apostle for thorough devotedness of spirit and self-sacrificing zeal: “But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort when I know your state. For I have no man like-minded, who will naturally care for your state; for all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with his father, he hath served me in the gospel” (Philippians 2:19-22).

Whether Timothy was able to fulfil the mission here contemplated cannot be certainly determined; nor do we know much of his future course, except that he appears to have also, like his master, suffered unto bonds (Hebrews 13:23) showing that he did not want the martyr spirit; and after having for a time accompanied Paul in his apostolic labours during the period between his first and second imprisonment in Rome, Timothy (as we learn from the two epistles addressed to him) was left at Ephesus for a season, while Paul went to labour elsewhere. The last request from the apostle to him, of which we have any record, is one entreating him to hasten with all. speed to Rome, that Paul might see him again before he suffered. But whether this solace was granted to him or not, remains doubtful. The connection between the two probably lasted from about A.D. 51 to A.D. 67 or 68.

The character of Timothy is chiefly to be inferred from the incidental notices of him which have been alluded to. It speaks much for his stedfast faith, his warm piety, and unflagging zeal, that he should have remained so firm in his attachment to the apostle, sharing with him in all his trials, dangers, and labours; and not less that the apostle should so fondly have clung to him, and so highly appreciated him. Attempts have been made to show that some abatement has to be made in this respect in the later period of their connection; but, I am convinced, entirely without success, as I have endeavoured to prove in the exposition of those passages in the Second Epistle on which the charge has been chiefly grounded. To the last, St. Paul appears to have reposed in Timothy the fullest confidence, and to have made him the object of the fondest solicitude and affection. Important and responsible duties were devolved on him, in the discharge of which his name is associated with no failure or disappointment. And yet he seems to have been fitted for a subordinate rather than a primary place in ministerial agency; and he may have been constitutionally deficient, to some extent, in decision and practical energy. This impression is not unnaturally produced by the very urgent entreaties to watchfulness and fidelity addressed to him in the epistles; and is confirmed by the total absence of any memorials of his agency, except in connection with his spiritual father. No church appears to have claimed him as its founder.

Section 4 Notices of Titus

Extremely little is known of Titus, either as a man or as an evangelist. The accounts that have reached us about him are quite incidental and fragmentary. His name never occurs in the history of the Acts; which is somewhat strange, as we know from the Epistle to the Galatians that he was with Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, and accompanied them to Jerusalem when they went to have the dispute settled about circumcision (Galatians 2:1-3). We learn, from the brief notice given us of what took place on that occasion, that Paul sternly refused to have him circumcised, as some of the Jewish Christians wished; because he saw that in his case the principle of gospel liberty was at stake, and must at whatever hazard be vindicated. It therefore appears not only that Titus was a Gentile, but that he must have also been employed chiefly in ministering to Gentiles, or to churches in which these formed the predominating element. He appears, at a later period, to have been with Paul and Timothy at Ephesus, doubtless sharing with these in the manifold labours attendant on the planting of the church in that centre of idolatry and corruption. From Ephesus he was sent forth by Paul to Corinth, for the purpose of stimulating the brethren to get forward their contributions for the poor saints at Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:6, 2 Corinthians 12:18). He rejoined the apostle in Macedonia, and cheered him with the report he brought, not only of the progress of the contributions, but also of the salutary effect produced by the first epistle of Paul to the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 7:6-15). In the whole of these delicate transactions he appears to have conducted himself with great prudence and fidelity.

The precise period when he went with the apostle to Crete cannot (as already stated) be ascertained. But that the work entrusted to him there bespoke the high confidence placed in him by the apostle, admits of no doubt. And subsequently to this, only one notice more occurs of him; it is in 2 Timothy 4:10, where he is said to have gone to Dalmatia. The fact alone is mentioned, and we cannot be sure whether it took place before the apostle was again laid under arrest, or previously to it. It served, among other things, to make the apostle feel more lonely and desolate; but we are not thence warranted to infer that any blame on account of it was attributable to Titus.

The Greek Text of the Epistles and English Translation

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Α

1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ κατ ʼ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν 2 Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει , χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν .

3 Καθὼς παρεκάλεσά σε προσμεῖναι ἐν Ἐφέσῳ πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν , ἵνα παραγγείλῃς τισὶν μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν 4 μηδὲ προσέχειν μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις , αἵτινες ἐκζητήσεις παρέχουσιν μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει . 5 τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου , 6 ὧν τινες ἀστοχήσαντες ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιολογίαν 7 θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι , μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσιν μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται . 8 οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι καλὸς ὁ νόμος , ἐάν τις αὐτῷ νομίμως χρῆται , 9 εἰδὼς τοῦτο , ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται , ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις , ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς , ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις , πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις , ἀνδροφόνοις 10 πόρνοις ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς ψεύσταις ἐπιόρκοις , καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται 11 κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ , ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ . 12 χάριν ἔχω τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί με Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν , ὅτι πιστόν με ἡγήσατο θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν 13 τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον καὶ διώκτην καὶ ὑβριστήν , ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην , ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ · 14 ὑπερεπλεόνασεν δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου

The First Epistle to Timothy

1 I Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus, according to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our hope; 2 to Timothy, [my] true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, peace from God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 According as I besought thee when setting out for Macedonia, [so I do now], to abide still at Ephesus, in order that thou mightest charge some not to teach any other doctrine; 4 nor to give heed to fables, and endless genealogies, inasmuch as they minister strifes rather than God’s dispensation that is in faith. 5 Now the end of the charge is love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned: 6 from which some having swerved, they turned aside into vain talk; 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what things they speak, or concerning what things they affirm. 8 We know, indeed, that the law is good, if one use it lawfully; 9 knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and profane, for smiters of fathers and smiters of mothers, for murderers, 10 for fornicators, abusers of themselves with mankind, men-stealers, liars, perjured persons, and if there be anything else that is contrary to the sound instruction; 11 according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust. 12 I give thanks to Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath strengthened me, for that he reckoned me faithful, appointing me to the service [of the ministry]; 13 though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and outrageous: but I obtained

ἡμῶν μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 15 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος, ὅτι Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἁμαρτωλοὺς σῶσαι, ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ. 16 ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην, ἵνα ἐν ἐμοὶ πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυμίαν πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 17 τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ Θεῷ, τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.

18 Ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν παρατίθεμαί σοι, τέκνον Τιμόθεε, κατὰ τὰς προαγούσας ἐπὶ σὲ προφητείας, ἵνα στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν 19 ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν, ἥν τινες ἀπωσάμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν, 20 ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος, οὓς παρέδωκα τῷ σατανᾷ , ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν μὴ βλασφημεῖν.

ΙΙ. 1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν πρῶτον πάντων ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις προσευχὰς ἐντεύξεις εὐχαριστίας ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, 2 ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων, ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον διάγωμεν ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι. 3 τοῦτο καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ , 4 ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν. 5 εἷς γὰρ Θεός, εἷς καὶ μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, 6 ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων, τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις. 7 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος, ἀλήθειαν λέγω οὐ ψεύδομαι, διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ .

8 Βούλομαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ · 9 ὡσαύτως καὶ γυναῖκας ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς, μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν καὶ χρυσίῳ ἢ μαργαρίταις

mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 But the grace of our Lord superabounded with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

15 Faithful is the word, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, in order that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to those who are going to believe on him to life everlasting. 1 7 Now to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only God, be honour and glory, for ages of ages (or, for ever and ever). Amen.

18 This charge I commit to thee, child Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, in order that in them thou mayest war the good warfare; 19 holding faith and a good conscience, which some having thrust away, concerning faith made shipwreck: 20 of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered over to Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme.

II. 1 I exhort then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, supplications, thanksgivings, be made for all men; 2 for kings, and all that are in authority; in order that we may pass a quiet and tranquil life in all godliness and gravity. 3 For this is good and acceptable before our Saviour God; 4 Who willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the full knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, one Mediator also of God and men, [a] man Christ Jesus; 6 who gave himself a ransom for all the testimony for its own seasons. 7 Whereunto I was appointed a herald, and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. 8 I wish, then, that prayer be made in every place by men, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 9 Likewise also, that women adorn themselves in orderly apparel, with shamefastness and discretion; not in plaitings, and gold, or pearls, or costly

ἢ ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ , 10 ἀλλʼ ὃ πρέπει γυναιξὶν ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν, διʼ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν. 11 Γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ · 12 διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός , ἀλλ ʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ . 13 Ἀδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη , εἶτα Εὕα . 14 καὶ Ἀδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη , ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν, 1 5 σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας , ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης ·

ΙΙΙ . 1. Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος · εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται , καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ . 2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι , μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα , νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν , 3 μὴ πάροινον μὴ πλήκτην, ἀλλὰ ἐπιεικῆ ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον, 4 τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον, τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ, μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος 5 εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδεν, πῶς ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεται; 6 μὴ νεόφυτον, ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου. 7 δεῖ δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν, ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου. 8 Διακόνους ὡσαύτως σεμνούς , μὴ διλόγους , μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας , μὴ αἰσχροκερ??Deuteronomy , 9 ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει . 10 καὶ οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον, εἶτα διακονείτωσαν ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες. 11 γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν. 12 διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων. 13 οἱ γὰρ καλῶς διακονήσαντες βαθμὸν ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περιποιοῦνται καὶ πολλὴν παρρησίαν ἐν πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ .

14 Ταῦτά σοι γράφω ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σὲ ἐν τάχιον· 15 ἐὰν

raiment; lo but, which becometh women professing godliness, through good works. 11. Let a woman learn in silence, in all subjection. 12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to lord it over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being wholly deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they abide in faith, love, and holiness, with discretion.

III. 1 Faithful is the saying. If any one seeketh the office of pastor, he desireth a good work. 2 A pastor, then, ought to be blameless, husband of one wife, sober, discreet, orderly, hospitable, apt to teach; 3 not a brawler, not a striker, but mild, peaceable; not a lover of money; 4 ruling well his own house, having children in subjection with all gravity. 5 But if one knows not how to rule his own house, how shall he take charge of the church of God? 6 Not a novice, lest, being carried with conceit, he should fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 But he must also have a good testimony from those that are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

8. In like manner, [ought] the deacons to be grave, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not lovers of base gain; 9 holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And these, too, let them first be proved; then let them serve as deacons, if they be without blame. 11 Women, in like manner, [it behoves] to be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling well their children and their own houses. 13 For those who have done the office of a deacon well obtain for themselves a good degree, and much boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

14. These things I write to thee, hoping to come to thee shortly. 15 But if I should tarry, in order that thou mayest

δὲ βραδύνω , ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι , ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος , στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας . 16 καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί , ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι , ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις , ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν , ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ , ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ .

IV . 1. Τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως, προσέχοντες πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων, 2 ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων, κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, 3 κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 4 ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα Θεοῦ καλὸν, καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον· 5 ἁγιάζεται γὰρ διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως.

6 Ταῦτα ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καλὸς ἔσῃ διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ , ἐντρεφόμενος τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας ᾗ παρηκολούθηκας · 7 τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ . γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. 8 ἡ γὰρ σωματικὴ γυμνασία πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος· ἡ δὲ εὐσέβεια πρὸς πάντα ὠφέλιμός ἐστιν, ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ζωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης . 9 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος . 10 εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα , ὅτι ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ Θεῷ ζῶντι , ὅς ἐστιν σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν .

11 Παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε . 12 μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω , ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν ἐν λόγῳ , ἐν ἀναστροφῇ , ἐν ἀγάπῃ , ἐν πίστει , ἐν ἁγνείᾳ . 13 ἕως ἔρχομαι πρόσεχε τῇ ἀναγνώσει , τῇ παρακλήσει , τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ . 14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος , ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ

know how thou oughtest to conduct thyself in God’s house, which indeed is the church of the living God, the pillar and basement of the truth. i6 And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness, who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the Gentiles, was believed on in the world, was received up into glory.

IV. 1 But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in after times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and teachings of demons; 2 in hypocrisy of speakers of lies, who have had their conscience scarred; 3 forbidding to marry, [bidding] to abstain from meats, which God made to be partaken of with thanksgiving by the faithful, and those who have the full knowledge of the truth. 4 For everything made by God is good, and nothing to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer. 6 By submitting these things to the brethren, thou shalt be a good servant of Christ Jesus, nourishing thyself up in the words of the faith, and of the good instruction which thou hast diligently followed. 7 But the profane and old-wives’ fables avoid; and rather exercise thyself unto godliness. 8 For bodily exercise is profitable unto little; but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. 9 Faithful is the word, and worthy of all acceptation. 10 For to this [end] we toil and strive, because we have hoped upon the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe. 11 Charge these things, and teach. 12 Let no one despise thy youth; but become thou a pattern of the believers, in word, in behaviour, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Till I come, give attention to the reading, the exhortation, the teaching. 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee through prophecy, with the laying on

ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου. 15 ταῦτα μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι, ἵνα σου ἡ προκοπὴ φανερὰ ᾖ πᾶσιν. 16 ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ , ἐπίμενε αὐτοῖς· τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν καὶ σεαυτὸν σώσεις καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντάς σου.

V. 1. Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα , νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς , 2 πρεσβυτέρας ὡς μητέρας , νεωτέρας ὡς ἀδελφὰς ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ . 3 Χήρας τίμα τὰς ὄντως χήρας. 4 εἰ δέ τις χήρα τέκνα ἢ ἔκγονα ἔχει, μανθανέτωσαν πρῶτον τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον εὐσεβεῖν καὶ ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς προγόνοις· τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ἀπόδεκτον ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ . 5 ἡ δὲ ὄντως χήρα καὶ μεμονωμένη ἤλπικεν ἐπὶ Θεὸν καὶ προσμένει ταῖς δεήσεσιν καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας· 6 ἡ δὲ σπαταλῶσα ζῶσα τέθνηκεν. 7 καὶ ταῦτα παράγγελλε ἵνα ἀνεπίλημπτοι ὦσιν. 8 εἰ δέ τις τῶν ἰδίων καὶ μάλιστα οἰκείων οὐ προνοεῖται, τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται καὶ ἔστιν ἀπίστου χείρων.

9 Χήρα καταλεγέσθω μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα , ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή , 10 ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη , εἰ ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν , εἰ ἐξενοδόχησεν , εἰ ἁγίων πόδας ἔνιψεν , εἰ θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν , εἰ παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ ἐπηκολούθησεν . 11 νεωτέρας δὲ χήρας παραιτοῦ · ὅταν γὰρ καταστρηνιάσωσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, γαμεῖν θέλουσιν 12 ἔχουσαι κρίμα ὅτι τὴν πρώτην πίστιν ἠθέτησαν· 13 ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἀργαὶ μανθάνουσιν περιερχόμεναι τὰς οἰκίας, οὐ μόνον δὲ ἀργαὶ ἀλλὰ καὶ φλύαροι καὶ περίεργοι, λαλοῦσαι τὰ μὴ δέοντα. 14 βούλομαι οὖν νεωτέρας γαμεῖν, τεκνογονεῖν, οἰκοδεσποτεῖν, μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν· 15 ἤδη γάρ τινες ἐξετράπησαν ὀπίσω τοῦ σατανᾶ. 16 εἴ τις πιστὴ ἔχει χήρας, ἐπαρκείτω αὐταῖς καὶ μὴ βαρείσθω ἡ ἐκκλησία, ἵνα ταῖς ὄντως χήραις ἐπαρκέσῃ .           

of the hands of the presbytery. 15 Be mindful of these things; be in them, in order that thy progress may be manifest to all. 16 Give heed to thyself and to the teaching; continue in them; for, by so doing, thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee.

V. 1 Reprimand not an elderly person, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers; 2 elderly women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity. 3 Honour widows that are widows indeed. 4 If, however, any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety in their own home, and requite their parents, for this is acceptable before God. 5 But she who is a widow indeed, and desolate, has set her hope on God, and abides in supplications and prayers night and day. 6 But she that lives deliciously is dead while she lives. 7 And these things enjoin, in order that they may be without reproach. 8 But if any one provides not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. 9 Let a widow be enrolled who has become not less than sixty years old, wife of one Man 1:10 well reported of in respect to good works; if she brought up children; if she entertained strangers; if she washed the feet of saints; if she relieved the distressed; if she followed after every good work. 11 But younger widows decline: for when they shall become wanton against Christ, they desire to marry; 12 having condemnation, because they made void their first faith. 13 Moreover, they learn also to be idle, going about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also, and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not. 14 I wish, therefore, that the younger [widows] marry, bear children, manage the house, give no occasion for reproach to the adversary. 15 For already some have turned away after Satan. 16 If any woman that believes hath widows, let support be given to them, and let not the

17 Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν , μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ . 18 λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή, βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις , καί ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ . 19 κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου , ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων. 20 Τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐνώπιον πάντων ἔλεγχε , ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσιν .

21 Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων ἵνα ταῦτα φυλάξῃς χωρὶς προκρίματος , μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ πρόσκλισιν . 22 Χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίθει μηδὲ κοινώνει ἁμαρτίαις ἀλλοτρίαις. σεαυτὸν ἁγνὸν τήρει. 23 μηκέτι ὑδροπότει , ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας . 24 Τινῶν ἀνθρώπων αἱ ἁμαρτίαι πρόδηλοί εἰσιν προάγουσαι εἰς κρίσιν , τισὶν δὲ καὶ ἐπακολουθοῦσιν · 25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλὰ πρόδηλα , καὶ τὰ ἄλλως ἔχοντα κρυβῆναι οὐ δύνανται .

VI. 1. Ὅσοι εἰσὶν ὑπὸ ζυγὸν δοῦλοι , τοὺς ἰδίους δεσπότας πάσης τιμῆς ἀξίους ἡγείσθωσαν , ἵνα μὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ ἡ διδασκαλία βλασφημῆται . 2 οἱ δὲ πιστοὺς ἔχοντες δεσπότας μὴ καταφρονείτωσαν , ὅτι ἀδελφοί εἰσιν , ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν , ὅτι πιστοί εἰσιν καὶ ἀγαπητοὶ οἱ τῆς εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι .

Ταῦτα δίδασκε καὶ παρακάλει . 3 εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσιν λόγοις τοῖς τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ τῇ κατ ʼ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ , 4 τετύφωται , μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος , ἀλλὰ νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας , ἐξ ὧν γίνεται φθόνος, ἔρις, βλασφημίαι , ὑπόνοιαι πονηραί , 5 διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας , νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν . 6 ἔστιν δὲ πορισμὸς μέγας ἡ εὐσέβεια μετὰ αὐταρκείας. 7 οὐδὲν γὰρ εἰσηνέγκαμεν

church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are widows indeed. 17 Let the elders who govern well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in word and teaching. 18 For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox while treading out [the corn]; and, The labourer is worthy of his hire, 19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, except it be upon two or three witnesses. 20 Those that sin rebuke before all, in order that the rest also may have fear. 21 I solemnly charge thee before God and Christ Jesus, and the elect angels, that thou keep these things, without prejudging, doing nothing by partiality. 22 Lay hands on no one hastily, neither be partaker in other men’s sins. 23 No longer drink water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thy frequent ailments. 24 The sins of some men are manifest, going before to judgment; with some, again, they follow after. 25 In like manner also the works that are good are manifest, and those that are otherwise cannot be hid.

VI. 1 Whoever are under the yoke as bond-servants, let them reckon their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine may not be blasphemed. 2 But such as have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but the rather serve them, because they who receive the benefit are faithful and beloved. These things teach and exhort. 3 If any one teacheth other doctrine, and does not assent to sound words, those [namely] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the instruction that is according to godliness; 4 he is carried with conceit, knowing nothing, doting about questions and word-fightings, whence come envy, strife, blasphemies, evil surmisings, 5 settled feuds of men corrupted in their mind and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is Galatians 6:0 But godliness with contentment is great gain.

εἰς τὸν κόσμον , ὅτι οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι δυνάμεθα · 8 ἔχοντες δὲ διατροφὰς καὶ σκεπάσματα , τούτοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα . 9 οἱ δὲ βουλόμενοι πλουτεῖν ἐμπίπτουσιν εἰς πειρασμὸν καὶ παγίδα καὶ ἐπιθυμίας πολλὰς ἀνοήτους καὶ βλαβεράς , αἵτινες βυθίζουσιν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους εἰς ὄλεθρον καὶ ἀπώλειαν . 10 ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία , ἧς τινες ὀρεγόμενοι ἀπεπλανήθησαν ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἑαυτοὺς περιέπειραν ὀδύναις πολλαῖς .

11 Σὺ δέ , ὦ ἄνθρωπε Θεοῦ , ταῦτα φεῦγε · δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην εὐσέβειαν πίστιν , ἀγάπην, ὑπομονὴν πραϋπαθίαν . 12 ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως , ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς , εἰς ἣν ἐκλήθης καὶ ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων . 13 παραγγέλλω ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳογονοῦντος τὰ πάντα καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν , 14 τηρῆσαί σε τὴν ἐντολὴν ἄσπιλον ἀνεπίλημπτον μέχρι τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , 15 ἣν καιροῖς ἰδίοις δείξει ὁ μακάριος καὶ μόνος δυνάστης , ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων καὶ κύριος τῶν κυριευόντων , 16 ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν , φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον , ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται · ᾧ τιμὴ καὶ κράτος αἰώνιον , ἀμήν .

17 Τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι παράγγελλε μὴ ὑψηλὰ φρονεῖν, μηδὲ ἠλπικέναι ἐπὶ πλούτου ἀδηλότητι ἀλλ ʼ ἐπὶ Θεῷ τῷ παρέχοντι ἡμῖν πάντα πλουσίως εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν , 18 ἀγαθοεργεῖν , πλουτεῖν ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς , εὐμεταδότους εἶναι , κοινωνικούς , 19 ἀποθησαυρίζοντας ἑαυτοῖς θεμέλιον καλὸν εἰς τὸ μέλλον , ἵνα ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς .

20 Ὦ Τιμόθεε , τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον, ἐκτρεπόμενος τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας καὶ ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως , 21 ἥν τινες ἐπαγγελλόμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν .

Ἡ χάρις μεθʼ ὑμῶν.

7 For we brought nothing into the world, because neither are we able to carry anything out of it. 8 But if we have food and raiment, with these we shall be satisfied. 9 But they who aim at being rich fall into temptation, and a snare, and many foolish and hurtful lusts, such as sink men into destruction and perdition. 10 For a root of all evils is the love of money, which some reaching after, have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many pangs. 11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness of spirit. 12 Maintain the good contest of the faith, lay hold of eternal life, unto which thou wert called, and didst confess the good confession before many witnesses. 13 I charge thee before God, who preserveth alive all things, and Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed the good confession, 14 that thou keep the commandment spotless and unrebukeable, until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 which in his own seasons he shall show, [who is] the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who only has immortality, dwelling in light that is unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

17 Charge them that are rich in this world not to be high-minded, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who ministers to us all things richly for enjoyment; 18 that they do good, that they be rich in excellent deeds, free in distributing, ready to communicate; 19 treasuring up for themselves a good foundation for the future, in order that they may lay hold of what is life indeed. 20 O Timothy, keep the deposit, turning away from the profane babblings, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called; 21 which some professing, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you.

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΤΟΝ

1 Παῦλος δοῦλος Θεοῦ , ἀπόστολος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ ʼ εὐσέβειαν 2 ἐπ ʼ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου , ἣν ἐπηγγείλατο ὁ ἀψευδὴς Θεὸς πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων , 3 ἐφανέρωσεν δὲ καιροῖς ἰδίοις τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐν κηρύγματι , ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγὼ κατ ʼ ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ , 4 Τίτῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν. χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν .

5 Τούτου χάριν ἀπέλιπόν σε ἐν Κρήτῃ , ἵνα τὰ λείποντα ἐπιδιορθώσῃ καὶ καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους , ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην , 6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος , μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ , τέκνα ἔχων πιστά , μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα . 7 δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον , μὴ αὐθάδη , μὴ ὀργίλον , μὴ πάροινον , μὴ πλήκτην , μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ , 8 ἀλλὰ φιλόξενον, φιλάγαθον, σώφρονα, δίκαιον, ὅσιον, ἐγκρατῆ , 9 ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου , ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν . 10 Εἰσὶν γὰρ πολλοὶ ἀνυπότακτοι , ματαιολόγοι καὶ φρεναπάται , μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς , 11 οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομίζειν , οἵτινες ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσιν διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν . 12 εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης , Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται , κακὰ θηρία , γαστέρες ἀργαί . 13 ἡ μαρτυρία αὕτη ἐστὶν ἀληθής . δι ʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως , ἵνα ὑγιαίνωσιν ἐν τῇ πίστει , 14 μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις καὶ ἐντολαῖς ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν . 15 πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς · τοῖς δὲ μεμιαμμένοις καὶ ἀπίστοις

1 I Paul, a servant of God, also an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect, and the full knowledge of the truth that is according to godliness; 2 in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before eternal times; 3 but in its own seasons manifested his word in preaching, which was entrusted to me, according to the commandment of our Saviour God; 4 to Titus, [my] true son in respect to the common faith: Grace and peace from God our Father, and Christ Jesus our Saviour. 5 For this cause I left thee behind in Crete, that thou shouldest further set in order the things which are wanting, and mightest appoint elders in every city, as I directed thee: 6 If any one is blameless, husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of profligacy, or unruly. 7 For a pastor must be blameless, as God’s steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, not a brawler, not a striker, not greedy of gain; 8 but hospitable, a lover of good, discreet, righteous, holy, temperate; 9 holding fast the faithful word according to the teaching, in order that he may be able both to exhort with the sound doctrine and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly vain-talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision: 11 whose mouths must be stopped; who for the sake of base gain subverted whole houses, teaching things which they ought not. 12 One of them, their own prophet, has said, The Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, idle bellies. 13 This testimony is true: wherefore reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure all things

οὐδὲν καθαρόν , ἀλλὰ μεμίανται αὐτῶν καὶ ὁ νοῦς καὶ ἡ συνείδησις. 16 Θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν εἰδέναι , τοῖς δὲ ἔργοις ἀρνοῦνται , βδελυκτοὶ ὄντες καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἀδόκιμοι .

II. 1 Σὺ δὲ λάλει ἃ πρέπει τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ . 2 πρεσβύτας νηφαλίους εἶναι , σεμνούς , σώφρονας , ὑγιαίνοντας τῇ πίστει , τῇ ἀγάπῃ , τῇ ὑπομονῇ · 3 πρεσβύτιδας ὡσαύτως ἐν καταστήματι ἱεροπρεπεῖς , μὴ διαβόλους μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένοις , καλοδιδασκάλους , 4 ἵνα σωφρονίζουσιv τὰς νέας φιλάνδρους εἶναι , φιλοτέκνους 5 σώφρονας, ἁγνὰς, οἰκουργοὺς, ἀγαθάς , ὑποτασσομένας τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν , ἵνα μὴ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ βλασφημῆται. 6 Τοὺς νεωτέρους ὡσαύτως παρακάλει σωφρονεῖν 7 περὶ πάντα , σεαυτὸν παρεχόμενος τύπον καλῶν ἔργων , ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀφθορίαν , σεμνότητα , 8 λόγον ὑγιῆ ἀκατάγνωστον , ἵνα ὁ ἐξ ἐναντίας ἐντραπῇ μηδὲν ἔχων λέγειν περὶ ἡμῶν φαῦλον. 9 Δούλους ἰδίοις δεσπόταις ὑποτάσσεσθαι, ἐν πᾶσιν εὐαρέστους εἶναι , μὴ ἀντιλέγοντας , 10 μὴ νοσφιζομένους , ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν πίστιν ἐνδεικνυμένους ἀγαθήν , ἵνα τὴν διδασκαλίαν τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ κοσμῶσιν ἐν πᾶσιν .

11 Ἐπεφάνη γὰρ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ σωτήριος πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, 12 παιδεύουσα ἡμᾶς , ἵνα ἀρνησάμενοι τὴν ἀσέβειαν καὶ τὰς κοσμικὰς ἐπιθυμίας σωφρόνως καὶ δικαίως καὶ εὐσεβῶς ζήσωμεν ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι , 13 προσδεχόμενοι τὴν μακαρίαν ἐλπίδα καὶ ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ , 14 ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν , ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον , ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων .

15 Ταῦτα λάλει καὶ παρακάλει καὶ ἔλεγχε μετὰ πάσης ἐπιταγῆς· μηδείς σου περιφρονείτω.

are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but both their mind and conscience are defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

II. 1 But speak thou the things which become the sound instruction [of the gospel]: 2 that the aged men be sober, grave, discreet, sound in faith, in love, in patience. 3 In like manner the aged women, that they demean themselves as becomes holiness, not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, teachers of what is good; 4 that they school the young women to be lovers of their husbands, lovers of their children, 5 discreet, chaste, workers at home, good, submitting themselves to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 6 The younger men, in like manner, exhort to be sober-minded. 7 In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in thy teaching [showing] incorruption, gravity, 8 sound discourse that cannot be condemned; in order that he who is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of us. 9 Bondmen [exhort to be] in subjection to their own masters, in all things to be well-pleasing; not gainsaying; 10 not purloining, but showing all good fidelity; in order that in all things they may adorn the doctrine of our Saviour God. 11 For the grace of God, having salvation for all men, was manifested; 12 disciplining us to the end that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we might live soberly, justly, and godlily in this present world; 13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 who gave himself for us, in order that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15 These things speak, and exhort, and reprove with all authority. Let no one despise thee.

III. 1 Ὑπομίμνῃσκε αὐτοὺς ἀρχαῖς ἐξουσίαις ὑποτάσσεσθαι , πειθαρχεῖν , πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἑτοίμους εἶναι , 2 μηδένα βλασφημεῖν , ἀμάχους εἶναι , ἐπιεικεῖς , πᾶσαν ἐνδεικνυμένους πραΰτητα πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους. 3 ἦμεν γάρ ποτε καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀνόητοι , ἀπειθεῖς , πλανώμενοι , δουλεύοντες ἐπιθυμίαις καὶ ἡδοναῖς ποικίλαις , ἐν κακίᾳ καὶ φθόνῳ διάγοντες , στυγητοί , μισοῦντες ἀλλήλους· 4 ὅτε δὲ ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπεφάνη τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ , 5 οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων τῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἃ ἐποιήσαμεν ἡμεῖς ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου , 6 οὗ ἐξέχεεν ἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶς πλουσίως διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν , 7 ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι κληρονόμοι γενηθῶμεν κατ ʼ ἐλπίδα ζωῆς αἰωνίου. 8 πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, καὶ περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι , ἵνα φροντίζωσιν καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι οἱ πεπιστευκότες Θεῷ . ταῦτά ἐστιν καλὰ καὶ ὠφέλιμα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· 9 μωρὰς δὲ ζητήσεις καὶ γενεαλογίας καὶ ἔριν καὶ μάχας νομικὰς περιΐστασο · εἰσὶν γὰρ ἀνωφελεῖς καὶ μάταιοι . 10 αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ , 11 εἰδὼς ὅτι ἐξέστραπται ὁ τοιοῦτος καὶ ἁμαρτάνει ὢν αὐτοκατάκριτος .

12 Ὅταν πέμψω Ἀρτεμᾶν πρὸς σὲ ἢ Τυχικόν , σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με εἰς Νικόπολιν , ἐκεῖ γὰρ κέκρικα παραχειμάσαι . 13 Ζηνᾶν τὸν νομικὸν καὶ Ἀπολλῶν σπουδαίως πρόπεμψον , ἵνα μηδὲν αὐτοῖς λείπῃ . 14 μανθανέτωσαν δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι καλῶν ἔργων προΐστασθαι εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας χρείας , ἵνα μὴ ὦσιν ἄκαρποι .

15 Ἀσπάζονταί σε οἱ μετʼ ἐμοῦ πάντες. ἄσπασαι τοὺς φιλοῦντας ἡμᾶς ἐν πίστει.

Ἡ χάρις μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν.

III. 1 Put them in mind to submit themselves to magistrates, to authorities, to obey rulers, to be ready to every good work, 2 to revile no man, to be no brawlers, forbearing, showing all meekness unto all men. 3 For we also were once foolish, disobedient, going astray, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But when the kindness and the love toward man of our Saviour God was manifested, 5 not of works works in righteousness which we did, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the laver of regeneration, and [through] renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 which he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 in order that, being justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I would have thee strenuously affirm, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful to practise good works. These things are good and profitable to men. 9 But foolish questionings, and genealogies, and strifes, and contentions about the law, avoid; for they are unprofitable and vain. 10 A heretical man, after one and a second admonition, shun; 11 knowing that such an one is perverted and sinneth, being self-condemned. 12 When I shall send Artemas to thee, or Tychicus, make haste to come to me to Nicopolis; for I have determined to spend the winter there. 13 Zealously forward on their journey Zenas the lawyer and Apollos, that nothing may be wanting to them. 14 But let ours also learn to practise good deeds for necessary uses, in order that they may not be unfruitful. 15 All that are with me salute thee. Salute those that love us in the faith. The grace [of God] be with you all.

ΠΡΟΣ ΤΙΜΟΘΕΟΝ Β

I. 1 Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ κατ ʼ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ 2 Τιμοθέῳ ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ . χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν .

3 Χάριν ἔχω τῷ Θεῷ , ᾧ λατρεύω ἀπὸ προγόνων ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει , ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σοῦ μνείαν ἐν ταῖς δεήσεσίν μου νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας , 4 ἐπιποθῶν σε ἰδεῖν , μεμνημένος σου τῶν δακρύων , ἵνα χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ , 5 ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως , ἥτις ἐνῴκησεν πρῶτον ἐν τῇ μάμμῃ σου Λωΐδι καὶ τῇ μητρί σου Εὐνίκῃ , πέπεισμαι δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοί. 6 Δι ʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνῄσκω σε ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ , ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου . 7 οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς πνεῦμα δειλίας ἀλλὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ἀγάπης καὶ σωφρονισμοῦ . 8 μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μηδὲ ἐμὲ τὸν δέσμιον αὐτοῦ , ἀλλὰ συγκακοπάθησον τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ κατὰ δύναμιν Θεοῦ , 9 τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ , οὐ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν , τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων , 10 φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ , καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον, φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, 11 εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος· 12 δι ʼ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω · ἀλλ ʼ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι· οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα, καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παραθήκην μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν . 13 ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ ʼ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ·

1 I Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus, 2 to Timothy, [my] beloved child: Grace, mercy, peace, from God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Lord. 3 I give thanks to God, whom I serve from my forefathers in a pure conscience, how unceasing remembrance I have of thee in my prayers night and day; 4 longing to see thee, mindful of thy tears, that I may be filled with joy; 5 recollecting the unfeigned faith [that is] in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; but I am persuaded that in thee also. 6 For which cause I remind thee to stir up the gift of God, which is in thee through the laying on of my hands. 7 For God gave us not the spirit of cowardice, but of power, and love, and correction. 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but suffer hardship with me, according to the power of God; 9 Who saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose, and the grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before eternal times; 10 but manifested now by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who abolished death, indeed, but brought life and immortality to light: 11 for which I was appointed a herald, and apostle, and teacher of the Gentiles. 12 For which cause also I suffer these things: but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have trusted, and am persuaded that he is able to keep my deposit against that day. 13 Have (possess) the pattern of sound words, which thou heardest

14 τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν .

15 Οἶδας τοῦτο , ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ , ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης . 16 δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ , ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξεν καὶ τὴν ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη , 17 ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ σπουδαίως ἐζήτησέν με καὶ εὗρεν. 18 δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος παρὰ κυρίου ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ . καὶ ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν , βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις .

II. 1. Σὺ οὖν , τέκνον μου , ἐνδυναμοῦ ἐν τῇ χάριτι τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ , 2 καὶ ἃ ἤκουσας παρ ʼ ἐμοῦ διὰ πολλῶν μαρτύρων , ταῦτα παράθου πιστοῖς ἀνθρώποις , οἵτινες ἱκανοὶ ἔσονται καὶ ἑτέρους διδάξαι . 3 συγκακοπάθησον ὡς καλὸς στρατιώτης Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ . 4 οὐδεὶς στρατευόμενος ἐμπλέκεται ταῖς τοῦ βίου πραγματείαις , ἵνα τῷ στρατολογήσαντι ἀρέσῃ . 5 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ ἀθλῇ τις , οὐ στεφανοῦται ἐὰν μὴ νομίμως ἀθλήσῃ . 6 τὸν κοπιῶντα γεωργὸν δεῖ πρῶτον τῶν καρπῶν μεταλαμβάνειν . 7 νόει ὃ λέγω· δώσει γάρ σοι ὁ κύριος σύνεσιν ἐν πᾶσιν.  8 Μνημόνευε Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ, κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου, 9 ἐν ᾧ κακοπαθῶ μέχρι δεσμῶν ὡς κακοῦργος, ἀλλὰ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐ δέδεται. 10 διὰ τοῦτο πάντα ὑπομένω διὰ τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ σωτηρίας τύχωσιν τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ μετὰ δόξης αἰωνίου. 11 Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος· εἰ γὰρ συναπεθάνομεν, καὶ συζήσομεν· 12 εἰ ὑπομένομεν, καὶ συμβασιλεύσομεν·   εἰ ἀρνησόμεθα, κἀκεῖνος ἀρνήσεται ἡμᾶς· 13   εἰ ἀπιστοῦμεν, ἐκεῖνος πιστὸς μένει, ἀρνήσασθαι γὰρ ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται.

14 Ταῦτα ὑπομίμνῃσκε, διαμαρτυρόμενος ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ μὴ λογομαχεῖν , ἐπ ʼ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον , ἐπὶ καταστροφῇ τῶν ἀκουόντων . 15 σπούδασον σεαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστῆσαι τῷ Θεῷ , ἐργάτην

of me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 The goodly deposit keep through the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in us. 15 Thou knowest, that all who are in Asia turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 16 The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, because he ofttimes refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; 17 but (on the contrary), when he arrived in Rome, he sought me out with greater diligence, and found me. 18 May the Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that day. And how many things he ministered at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

II. 1 Thou therefore, my child, be strengthened in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the things which thou hast heard from me with many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, such as shall be able to teach others also. 3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No one serving as a soldier entangles himself in the businesses of life, in order that he may please him who has called him to be a soldier. 5 But if any one also strive in the games, he is not crowned, unless he have striven lawfully. 6 The toiling husbandman must first partake of the fruits. 7 Understand what I say; for the Lord will give thee discernment in all things. 8 Remember Jesus Christ as having been raised from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my gospel: 9 in which I suffer hardship up to bonds, as a malefactor; but the word of God is not bound. 10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect, in order that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11 Faithful is the saying: For if we died with him, we shall also live with him; 12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we shall deny him, he also will deny us; 13 if we are unbelieving, he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself 14 Put them in mind of these things, solemnly charging them before God

ἀνεπαίσχυντον, ὀρθοτομοῦντα τὸν λόγον τῆς ἀληθείας. 16 τὰς δὲ βεβήλους κενοφωνίας περιΐστασο· ἐπὶ πλεῖον γὰρ προκόψουσιν ἀσεβείας, 17 καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτῶν ὡς γάγγραινα νομὴν ἕξει. ὧν ἐστιν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Φίλητος, 18 οἵτινες περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν, λέγοντες [τὴν] ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι, καὶ ἀνατρέπουσιν τήν τινων πίστιν. 19 ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ θεοῦ ἕστηκεν, ἔχων τὴν σφραγῖδα ταύτην· Ἔγνω κύριος τοὺς ὄντας αὐτοῦ, καί· ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικίας πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου. 20 ἐν μεγάλῃ δὲ οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔστιν μόνον σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ , ἀλλὰ καὶ ξύλινα καὶ ὀστράκινα, καὶ ἃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν ἃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν· 21 ἐὰν οὖν τις ἐκκαθάρῃ ἑαυτὸν ἀπὸ τούτων, ἔσται σκεῦος εἰς τιμήν, ἡγιασμένον, εὔχρηστον τῷ δεσπότῃ, εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἡτοιμασμένον. 22 τὰς δὲ νεωτερικὰς ἐπιθυμίας φεῦγε, δίωκε δὲ δικαιοσύνην, πίστιν ἀγάπην, εἰρήνην μετὰ τῶν ἐπικαλουμένων τὸν κύριον ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας. 23 τὰς δὲ μωρὰς καὶ ἀπαιδεύτους ζητήσεις παραιτοῦ, εἰδὼς ὅτι γεννῶσιν μάχας· 24 δοῦλον δὲ κυρίου οὐ δεῖ μάχεσθαι ἀλλὰ ἤπιον εἶναι πρὸς πάντας, διδακτικόν, ἀνεξίκακον, 25 ἐν πραΰτητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, μήποτε δώῃ αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας, 26 καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος, ἐζωγρημένοι ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα.

III. 1. Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε , ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί. 2 ἔσονται γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι, φιλάργυροι, ἀλαζόνες, ὑπερήφανοι, βλάσφημοι , γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς , ἀχάριστοι, ἀνόσιοι, 3 ἄστοργοι, ἄσπονδοι, διάβολοι, ἀκρατεῖς, ἀνήμεροι, ἀφιλάγαθοι, 4 προδόται, προπετεῖς, τετυφωμένοι , φιλήδονοι

not to wrangle about words profitable for nothing, to the subversion of them that hear.

15 Give diligence to present thyself to God approved, a workman not ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16 But profane babblings shun, for they will advance to more of ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 men who concerning the truth swerved, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, “The Lord knoweth them that are his.” And, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, others to dishonour. 21 If any one, then, shall have purged himself from these, he shall be a vessel for honour, sanctified, serviceable to the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 But flee youthful lusts; but follow after righteousness, faith, love, peace with them that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But foolish and ignorant questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24 But the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle toward all, apt to teach, patient of wrong; 25 in meekness correcting those who oppose themselves, if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the full knowledge of the truth; 26 and that they may return to soberness out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him, according to the will of him (God).

III. 1 This know, however, that in the last days grievous times shall set in: 2 for men shall be selfish, covetous, boastful, haughty, censorious, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, haters of good, 4 betrayers, headlong, carried with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than

μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι , 5 ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι · καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου . 6 ἐκ τούτων γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἐνδύνοντες εἰς τὰς οἰκίας καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντες γυναικάρια σεσωρευμένα ἁμαρτίαις , ἀγόμενα ἐπιθυμίαις ποικίλαις , 7 πάντοτε μανθάνοντα καὶ μηδέποτε εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν δυνάμενα . 8 ὃν τρόπον δὲ Ἰάννης καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς ἀντέστησαν Μωϋσεῖ , οὕτως καὶ οὗτοι ἀνθίστανται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ , ἄνθρωποι κατεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν , ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν . 9 ἀλλ ʼ οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον · ἡ γὰρ ἄνοια αὐτῶν ἔκδηλος ἔσται πᾶσιν , ὡς καὶ ἡ ἐκείνων ἐγένετο . 10 Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθησάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ , τῇ ἀγωγῇ , τῇ προθέσει , τῇ πίστει , τῇ μακροθυμίᾳ , τῇ ἀγάπῃ , τῇ ὑπομονῇ , 11 τοῖς διωγμοῖς , τοῖς παθήμασιν , οἷά μοι ἐγένετο ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ , ἐν Ἰκονίῳ , ἐν Λύστροις· οἵους διωγμοὺς ὑπήνεγκα, καὶ ἐκ πάντων με ἐρρύσατο ὁ κύριος . 12 καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ θέλοντες εὐσεβῶς ζῆν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διωχθήσονται. 13 Πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι καὶ γόητες προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι . 14 σὺ δὲ μένε ἐν οἷς ἔμαθες καὶ ἐπιστώθης , εἰδὼς παρὰ τίνων ἔμαθες , 15 καὶ ὅτι ἀπὸ βρέφους ἱερὰ γράμματα οἶδας τὰ δυνάμενά σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ . 16 πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος πρὸς διδασκαλίαν , πρὸς ἐλεγμόν , πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν , πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ , 17 ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος , πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος .

IV. 1. Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίνειν ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς , καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ , 2 κήρυξον τὸν λόγον , ἐπίστηθι εὐκαίρως ἀκαίρως , ἔλεγξον , ἐπιτίμησον , παρακάλεσον , ἐν πάσῃ μακροθυμίᾳ καὶ διδαχῇ . 3 ἔσται γὰρ καιρὸς ὅτε τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ ἀνέξονται, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἑαυτοῖς

lovers of God; 5 having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof. From such turn away. 6 For of these are they who creep into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, led away by divers lusts; 7 ever learning, and never able to come to the full knowledge of the truth. 8 Now in the same manner that Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth: men corrupted in their mind, reprobate concerning the faith.  9 But they shall not make progress; for their folly shall become manifest to all, as theirs also came to be.

10 Thou, however, hast closely followed my instruction, my manner of life, my purpose, my faith, my long-suffering, my love, my patience, 11 my persecutions, my sufferings, such as befell me in Antioch, in Iconium, in Lystra; such persecutions as I endured: and out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all who are minded to live piously in Christ Jesus shall be persecuted. 13 But evil men and deceivers shall grow worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But do thou continue in the things which thou didst learn, and wert assured of, knowing of whom thou didst learn them; 15 and that from a very child thou knowest the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 Every scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, for discipline in righteousness; 17 in order that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished for every good work.

IV. 1 I solemnly charge thee before God, and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge living and dead, and by his appearance and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, exhort, rebuke, in all long-suffering and teaching. 3 For there shall be a time when they will not endure the healthy instruction; but after their own lusts will heap up to themselves teachers, having

ἐπισωρεύσουσιν διδασκάλους κνηθόμενοι τὴν ἀκοὴν, 4 καὶ ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέψουσιν , ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς μύθους ἐκτραπήσονται . 5 σὺ δὲ νῆφε ἐν πᾶσιν, κακοπάθησον, ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ, τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον.  6 Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἀναλύσεώς μου ἐφέστηκεν. 7 τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἠγώνισμαι, τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα, τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα· 8 λοιπὸν ἀπόκειταί μοι ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος, ὃν ἀποδώσει μοι ὁ κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ , ὁ δίκαιος κριτής, οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐμοὶ ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ .

9 Σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν πρός με ταχέως. 10 Δημᾶς γάρ με ἐγκατέλιπεν ἀγαπήσας τὸν νῦν αἰῶνα, καὶ ἐπορεύθη εἰς Θεσσαλονίκην, Κρήσκης εἰς Γαλλίαν, Τίτος εἰς Δαλματίαν· 11 Λουκᾶς ἐστιν μόνος μετʼ ἐμοῦ. Μᾶρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ · ἔστιν γάρ μοι εὔχρηστος εἰς διακονίαν. 12 Τυχικὸν δὲ ἀπέστειλα εἰς Ἔφεσον. 13 τὸν φελόνην, ὃν ἀπέλιπον ἐν Τρῳάδι παρὰ Κάρπῳ , ἐρχόμενος φέρε, καὶ τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας. 14 Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ χαλκεὺς πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο· ἀποδώσει αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ . 15 ὃν καὶ σὺ φυλάσσου· λίαν γὰρ ἀντέστη τοῖς ἡμετέροις λόγοις. 16 Ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ μου ἀπολογίᾳ οὐδείς μοι παρεγένετο, ἀλλὰ πάντες με ἐγκατέλιπον· μὴ αὐτοῖς λογισθείη· 17 ὁ δὲ κύριός μοι παρέστη καὶ ἐνεδυνάμωσέν με, ἵνα διʼ ἐμοῦ τὸ κήρυγμα πληροφορηθῇ καὶ ἀκούσωσιν πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ ἐρρύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος. 18 ῥύσεταί με ὁ κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ καὶ σώσει εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον· ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν.

19 Ἄσπασαι Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν καὶ τὸν Ὀνησιφόρου οἶκον. 20 Ἔραστος ἔμεινεν ἐν Κορίνθῳ, Τρόφιμον δὲ ἀπέλιπον ἐν Μιλήτῳ ἀσθενοῦντα. 21 σπούδασον πρὸ χειμῶνος ἐλθεῖν. ἀσπάζεταί σε Εὔβουλος καὶ Πούδης καὶ Λίνος καὶ Κλαυδία καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ πάντες.

22 Ὁ κύριος μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου. ἡ χάρις μεθʼ ὑμῶν.

itching ears; 4 and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But watch thou in all things; endure hardship; do the work of an evangelist; fully accomplish thy ministry. 6 For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith. 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall award to me in that day; and not to me only, but to all them that love his appearing.

9 Do thy endeavour to come to me quickly, 10 For Demas forsook me, having loved this present world, and is gone to Thessalonica; Crescens to Gaul, Titus to Dalmatia. 11 Luke alone is with me. Mark take up, and bring with thee, for he is serviceable to me for the ministry. 12 But Tychicus I sent to Ephesus. 13 The cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, bring when thou comest, and the books, especially the parchments. 14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. The Lord will requite him according to his works. 15 Of whom be thou also on thy guard, for he exceedingly withstood our words. 16 In my first defence no man stood forward with me, but all forsook me. May it not be laid to their charge. 17 But the Lord stood by me, and strengthened me, in order that through me the preaching [of the gospel] might be fully accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear; and he delivered me out of the mouth of the lion. 18 The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and preserve me to his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

19 Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus abode at Corinth; but Trophimus I left at Miletus sick. 21 Do thy endeavour to come before winter. Eubulus saluteth thee, and Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia, and all the brethren.

22 The Lord be with thy spirit; grace be with you.

Appendix

Appendix A Page 119. The Peculiar Testimony for Gospel Times 1 Timothy 2:6

TO designate the truth that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony for its own ( i.e. gospel) seasons or times, is so peculiar, and at the same time so important a statement, that some further illustration of it than could fitly be introduced into the text may not be out of place. Indeed, as matters now stand, it calls for vindication as well as for more lengthened exposition. The peculiarity and importance of the statement consist in the singular prominence given, not to the simple fact of the death of Christ, but to that death in the character of a ransom or redemption-price for sinful men elevating this to the central place in God’s scheme as disclosed for gospel times. The death of Christ on the cross as a historical fact is recorded with great fulness by all the evangelists, and is unquestionably the most prominent subject in their respective narratives. But has it there the same doctrinal significance as is assigned to it by the apostle? This is now frequently called in question, and by some the teaching of St. Paul on the subject is expressly affirmed to be out of accord with that of Christ Himself as reported by His more immediate witnesses. Of the class referred to. Professor Jowett may be taken as one of the most eminent representatives. He says: (Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, ii. p. 555.) “It is hard to imagine that there can be any truer expression of the gospel than the words of Christ Himself, or that any truth omitted by Him is essential to the gospel. ‘The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant greater than his lord.’ The philosophy of Plato was not better understood by his followers than by himself; nor can we allow that the gospel is to be interpreted by the Epistles, or that the Sermon on the Mount is only half Christian, and needs the fuller inspiration or revelation of St. Paul, or the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. . . . How strange would it have seemed to the apostle St. Paul, who thought himself unworthy to be called an apostle, because he persecuted the church of God, to find that his own words were preferred in after ages to those of Christ Himself! “To regard the teaching of the Epistles as an essential part of Christian doctrine, it is again said, “is to rank the authority of the words of Christ below that of apostles and evangelists.”

Now, representations of this sort proceed on the idea that Christ and His apostles stood related to each other just as Plato did to his followers; that they were alike simply teachers of certain moral or religious truths; and that, of course, the master-mind must have taught in a clearer and nobler strain than any who might sit at His feet. But this is not the view of the relation given by the Master Himself not, at least, in its bearing upon the question at issue. Jesus Christ had not simply a doctrine to teach, but a work to do; and a work of which His doctrine in the fuller sense was to be but the proper exposition and the varied application. Hence the promise of the Holy Spirit so largely dwelt upon by Christ before His departure, as requisite to bring His disciples to a full knowledge and appreciation of the truth concerning Him. The revelation He had given of Himself, therefore, in the Gospels could not by possibility be the whole. The germ of all, indeed, was there, but not its development into a comprehensive scheme of truth and duty. There are sayings and discourses of Christ which are profound and large enough to embrace everything: as when He said, “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); or, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28); or, “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain man that made a great supper, and bade many” (Luke 14:16); and so on. But how much was still required to explicate the meaning of such statements, and show precisely what they involved respecting the work of Christ, and its adaptation to the wants and circumstances of mankind? Then, there were utterances of Christ which were thrown out as occasion offered like seed-corn scattered here and there but in which so little regard was had to systematic form or rounded completeness of representation, that, if taken apart, and without regard to acts and operations yet in prospect, which would shed a reconciling light upon them, might have seemed scarcely compatible with each other. For example, we find forgiveness of sin at one time coupled simply with the exercise of a penitent disposition, as in the case of the woman who was a sinner, or in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 7:15); on other occasions with the manifestation of a forgiving spirit toward one’s fellow-sinners (Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:14; Luke 6:37); while, again, in a different class of statements everything in that respect is made to depend upon the atoning death of Christ as when He said that He came to give His life a ransom for many (Matthew 9:28), or that He must die, that repentance and remission of sins might be preached in His name (Matthew 16:21; Luke 24:44-47), plainly pointing to His suffering obedience as the ground on which all hope of blessing was to rest.

Indeed, this one great fact of the death of Christ its necessity, its priceless worth, and the essential relation it was to hold to the entire mission of Christ obviously rendered His own teaching, during the period of His personal ministry, in a great degree fragmentary and incomplete. It was with His death (coupled, of course, with the resurrection that was to follow) that He connected the finishing of His work; it was in that He was to perfect Himself as the Messiah; and till the destined consummation actually took place, the doctrinal significance of it could not possibly be more than very partially revealed. It was then only that the mystery which had hung around God’s scheme of grace began to clear away, and that it became possible to present anything like a full and harmonious exhibition of the truths and principles embodied in it. All instructions delivered beforehand, though uttered by One who spake as man had never spoken, were in a doctrinal respect necessarily imperfect; they could not possess the perfect clearness of gospel light, because the consummating act still lay in the future, which was to constitute for all time the main ground of God’s gracious procedure toward men, and of their confidence and love toward Him. It hence is the mediatorial death of Christ, not the moment of His incarnation, or of His entrance on His public ministry, which forms the proper boundary line between the Old and the New. It is with the shedding of His blood for the remission of sins as He distinctly announced at the institution of the supper that the new covenant was ratified, and its provisions of grace and blessing were made for ever sure to a believing people. And so the doctrine taught up to that time could not be final; in other words, the utterances and facts of gospel history could not be seen in their proper force and meaning till the events had taken place to which they all more or less pointed. The Gospels, indeed, reveal much; but they themselves close with the expressed need and promise of further revelations, in order to set in its true light, and carry out to its moral results, the perfected work of the Redeemer. (Archbishop Whately long ago urged very cogently the considerations just stated: “How could our Lord, during His abode on earth, preach fully that scheme of salvation, of which the keystone had not been laid even His meritorious sacrifice as an atonement for sin His resurrection from the dead, and ascension into glory, when these events had not taken place? He did, indeed, darkly hint at these events in His discourses to His disciples by way of prophecy; but we are told that ‘the saying was hid from them, and they comprehended it not, till after that Christ was risen from the dead.’ Of course, therefore, there was no reason and no room for Him to enter into a full discussion of the doctrines dependent on those events. He left them to be enlightened in due time as to the true nature of His kingdom by the gift which He kept in store for them [the Holy Spirit]. . . . Our Lord’s discourses, therefore, while on earth, though they teach the truth, did not teach, nor could they have been meant to teach, the whole truth, as afterwards revealed to His disciples. What chance, then, can they have of attaining true Christian knowledge who shut their eyes to such obvious conclusions as these? who, under that idle plea, the misapplication of the maxim that ‘the disciple is not above his master,’ confine their attention entirely to the discourses of Christ recorded in the four Gospels, as containing all necessary truth; and if anything in the other parts of the sacred writings is forced upon their attention, studiously explain it away, so that it do not go a step beyond what is clearly revealed in the evangelists? As if a man should, in the culture of a fruit-tree, carefully destroy as a spurious excrescence every part of the fruit which was not fully developed in the blossom that preceded it.” Essays on St. Paul, sec. 2 of Essay ii.)

What, then, do we find as to those further revelations, or that more explicit and developed knowledge, when we turn to the other books of the New Testament? Do we find our Lord still acting with a view to impart it? We do. His agency in this respect did not cease with His death, nor even with His ascension to the heavenly places. A period of instruction, we are expressly informed, intervened between His resurrection from the dead and His ascension to glory, during which He often met with the disciples, and expounded to them the things concerning the kingdom. Of these explanations we are merely told that they turned much upon the necessity of His sufferings and death, in order to the fulfilment of what had been written of Him in the law and the prophets; and the results of the teaching we naturally look for in the discourses and epistles which, under the power and guidance of the Spirit, were addressed by the apostles to those who received their testimony. It had now become, in a sense, the dispensation of the Spirit, but it was not the less the dispensation of Christ, the glorified Redeemer. And it is instructive to mark how beautifully the one is linked with the other in the narrative of the Acts, where the Spirit is represented as working all, yet working as the representative of Christ carrying forward His agency, giving effect to His will. Hence, in the march of events we never lose sight of Christ, any more than of the Spirit: everything is done as under the direction of His hand, and the witness of His risen power and glory. It is the same when St. Paul comes upon the scene; it is Christ who, by the Spirit, arrests him in his career of persecuting violence, and calls him to the work of an apostle, furnishing him with the authority and gifts requisite for its discharge. Hence the apostle disclaimed his doing anything as of himself: the commission he bore was not of man, or by the will of men, but by Jesus Christ, or by the commandment of God our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ: the gospel he preached was received, not of man, but by revelation from Jesus Christ, so that the things he spake and wrote were to be acknowledged as the commandments of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37); and he and his fellow-labourers were but instruments to bear the treasure of the gospel, that others might believe as the Lord gave to every man. In short, the later history of the New Testament was but the varied manifestation of the continued life and agency of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through the instrumentality of His delegated servants. He was, though personally unseen, giving articulate form to His gospel, and applying it to the salvation of souls and the planting of His church in the world. The voice of Paul or the voice of Peter speaking to the churches, was in effect the voice of Jesus. Hence He had Himself said from the outset, “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke 10:16).

Was the voice the same now, then, as when it came directly from Christ? The same, we reply, in substance, but with a difference of a circumstantial kind suited to the more advanced stage of things which had now been reached. It was no longer the objective Saviour merely, but this through the Spirit made manifest in the hearts of men: in other words, the facts concerning Christ’s person and work known and apprehended as doctrine; divine truth entering into human thought and human experience. On this account, also, it might be expected the word would be more effective, since everything would appear now at once in its proper harmony and proportions, and in its thorough adaptation to human wants and circumstances, enlightening the understanding, satisfying the heart and conscience, taking possession of the thoughts and feelings of the inner man.

Now this is precisely what we find in the representations given in the Acts and Epistles. Christ is throughout the great subject, or matter of the testimony delivered, and the instruction imparted. The apostles, we read in the Acts, “ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus Christ;” of one it is said “that he preached Christ unto them;” of another, “that he preached Christ in the synagogues,” or, “he preached Jesus unto them, and the resurrection.” The Apostle Paul sums up his preaching, in one place, as “Christ and Him crucified, the power of God unto salvation;” in another, as “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ; “or, in the one immediately before us, as “the Mediator between God and man, who gave Himself a ransom for all, the testimony for its own seasons” Heaven’s special testimony for the times of the gospel. In other passages we find the kingdom of God put along with the person of Christ as the subject of apostolic testimony. So St. Peter, for instance, on the day of Pentecost, when he gave the people to know assuredly that the “Jesus whom they had crucified was made both Lord and Christ” that is, both King and Messiah, or King Messiah; and St. Paul, in the last notice we have of him in the history of the Acts, is said to have received those who came to him, “preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ.”

This mode of representation, it will be observed, carries us back to the kind of preaching or proclamation of which we read in the Gospels: it connects the one with the other, but with an obvious advance as to the mode of doing it. “The kingdom of God is at hand.” That was the common style of preaching as reported in the Gospels, first of John Baptist, then of Jesus, finally of the twelve; and many a parable was taught by our Lord, having for their common object the kingdom of God, in its nature, its principles of administration, and final issues. But now, since Christ had finished the work which was required for laying the foundation of the kingdom in its New Testament form, the doctrine of the kingdom came to be all associated with Himself; the truth had come to its proper realization in Him; and to preach the things which concerned His person. His work, and the glory that followed, was at the same time to testify of the kingdom. All who really received Christ as the ground of their peace and hope, entered into the kingdom; they were “translated out of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son;” and what they thenceforth looked for was His appearance in the kingdom, when they also expected to appear with Him in glory. It was thus that the Spirit, through the preaching of the apostles, glorified Christ, in a way they could not possibly do during His sojourn upon earth. And, as a matter of course, the things testified respecting Him now were no longer simply facts, but facts as the basis of doctrine facts with an interpretation put upon them which gave them a spiritual significance and power in relation to men’s spiritual life and well-being. “The Christ preached by the apostles was one who [had not only lived and wrought righteousness on earth, but also] had died and risen again, and whom the heavens had received till the time of the restitution of all things. In these three facts the manifestation of the Son of God had culminated, and in them the true character of His mission had appeared. The old carnal thoughts of it had been left in the grave, and could never rise from it again. It was ‘the Prince of Life’ who had risen from the dead; it was ‘the King of Glory’ who had passed into the heavens. And no less did these facts declare the spiritual consequences of His manifestation, since they carried with them the implication of those three corresponding gifts the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” (Bernard, Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, p. 130.)

It thus appears how naturally, and by reason of the inevitable progress of events, the things concerning Christ assumed a more doctrinal form; or rather, how the facts which made up the earthly career of Christ necessarily became, on being completed, doctrines, and as such were preached in the name of Christ by apostles, and by the Holy Spirit were sealed upon the understandings and hearts of men. The question now was, not whether men simply believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but with what meaning or to what results did they accept of His Messiahship? Could they say, with St. Peter, “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved”? Or, with St. Paul, “By Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses”? To say this was to affirm the doctrine that Christ by His death had done, in respect to the desert of sin, what the old sacrificial system of the law could do only in a symbolical manner that His death is the one great sacrifice that atones, because in it He bore our sins in His own body on the tree; and, consequently, that legal rites of propitiation must be done away, and no dependence rested on anything for salvation but the perfect work of Christ the crucified. This was the gospel of Peter and Paul; and when Paul accused the Galatians of accepting, through false teachers, another gospel, he did not mean to say that they denied the facts of Christ’s holy life and humiliating death, but that they understood these differently, failed to give them their proper moral significance in other words, did not accredit and appreciate them in their true doctrinal import. So, also, when parties in the church of Corinth and elsewhere sought to couple with the faith of Christ a disbelief of the doctrine of the resurrection, or a licence to sin, they were denounced as really subverters of the faith, enemies of the cross of Christ, because practically robbing it of that moral worth and significance which in the scheme of God are inseparably connected with it.

Such is the gospel of Christ in its completed form completed under the direction of Christ Himself, by the Spirit He gave and the instrumentality He appointed. It is simply the facts of His mediatory work in their spiritual bearing and personal application. Contemplated merely as facts or historical events, they stand outside of us, and may leave us morally much as we were. But when apprehended as doctrine, or appropriated by faith as the elements of saving knowledge, they enter into our consciousness; they touch the springs of thought and feeling in our bosom; they form the ground of new aspirations, the motives of a new and higher life. Without the facts, indeed, the doctrine might swim in the air; but without being seen in their doctrinal import, the facts would not be spirit and life to the soul.

We thus perceive the absurdity of attempting to separate Christianity from doctrine. Only as containing elements of doctrine does it become to us matter of truth and duty. Have I faith in Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of the world? Then I hold the doctrine of the incarnation, and realize its importance. Have I faith in the death of Christ, as the ground of my reconciliation with God? Then I hold the doctrine of the cross, or of a crucified Redeemer, as the one thing needful to my peace and hope. Have I faith in Christ as the conqueror of death, the resurrection and the life? Then I embrace Him as the source of a new and undying life, beginning here and perfected in eternity. Have I faith in Christ as ready to come again and appear on the throne of judgment? Then I hold the doctrine of the second advent, and recognise its bearing on my personal condition and destiny. Thus Christianity as a doctrine, is the root of Christianity as a life; reject it in the one respect, and you cut the sinews of its vitality and strength in the other.

But there is no difficulty in understanding how many should be disposed to make such a separation disposed, that is, to accredit more or less of the recorded facts in Christ’s life, but make little or no account of them in their doctrinal aspects. So long as they are considered apart from these aspects, everything about them presents a kind of loose, sporadic appearance; and men may fix, some upon this, others upon that point in the life-history of Jesus as what, in their view, chiefly serves to make it valuable and important. There is, too, so much in that history, brief and chequered as it was, which appears attractive and winning even to the natural man so much of grace and condescension, of disinterestedness in doing good, of compassion toward the miserable and unworthy, of readiness to brave the fiercest opposition, and to sacrifice life itself in the cause of truth and righteousness, that all the better feelings and sympathies of the heart can without difficulty be awakened, and turned toward the Son of man as exhibited in the Gospels with profound affection and regard; nay, can find there, as they can find nowhere else, what is fitted to interest and instruct them, in the varied circumstances and relations of life. But it is another thing when all that there was in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is brought out in the subsequent parts of the New Testament, and, under the form of doctrinal belief, presented to every Christian bosom as the ground and nourishment of a life devoted to God, and fraught with the fruits of righteousness. Under this aspect of matters the natural heart rebels, and seeks in a thousand ways to escape the unwelcome conclusion. It does so, often, by putting another than the natural interpretation on the facts of gospel history; or, if not, by allowing other things to intercept their due influence on the affections of the soul and the actions of the life. To enter aright into this part of gospel teaching to accept and relish Christianity as exhibited by the apostles, and by them formed into a system of truth and duty has for its essential prerequisite a mind that has become profoundly conscious of the guilt and danger of sin, and longs for an interest in the restored favour and blessing of God as the one great good. Whenever men reach this state of spiritual conviction and desire, they will be ready to hail the entire manifestation of the truth in Scripture, and will find but the fitting sequel of Christ’s own teaching, and the true explanation of His work in the world, in the discourses and writings of His apostles.

It is incumbent on all who would do the part of faithful representatives of Christ, and true exponents of His mind and will to men, to draw their materials from what He has thus made known to us as the whole of His counsel in regard to salvation. It is of special moment that they should do so in an age like the present, when many persons of note, biassed by the aims and spirit of literary or scientific culture, are disposed to take the gospel only in part, and refuse to go the full length of a cordial appreciation and belief of the truth. They will speak, perhaps, in the most approving terms of the simply human aspects of our Lord’s character, and of the moral qualities exhibited by Him in His career on earth; they will also frankly concede the impulse derived from the power of Christianity in raising the tone of thought and feeling among the nations that have received it, and ameliorating in many respects the condition of society. But in all this they restrict themselves to humanitarian ground, and appear to make account of nothing as actually true, or at least appreciable by them, except the incomparable excellence of Christ’s character, and the pure morality of the gospel. But had that been all, great and valuable as it is, should the results which even such writers acknowledge to have followed in the train of Christianity have been produced by it? What wonders have been achieved, what moral reformations accomplished, by such a Christianity in the hands of its formal abettors, the modern Unitarians? Has not the history of the past taught us to associate with them the stagnant marshes of Christianity, rather than its vivifying streams and fruitful fields? “The force which Christianity has applied to the world, and by which it has produced that change in the world which it has, is the doctrine of grace. There has been a new power actually working in the system, and that power has worked by other means besides doctrine; but still it is the law of God’s dealings with us to apply His power to us by means of our faith and belief in that power that is, by doctrine. Faith in his own position, the belief at the bottom of every Christian’s heart that he stands in a different relation to God from a heathen, and has a supernatural source of strength, this it is which has made him act, has been the rousing and elevating motive to the Christian body, and raised its moral practice.” (Mozley on Miracles, p. 182.)

Yes, for a Christianity of regenerating power and divine blessing, we must have the saving doctrines, as well as the historical facts and moral teaching, of the gospel wrought into men’s convictions and experience. The light shall otherwise want power to reach the conscience, and call forth the nobler acts of self-denying love and patient continuance in well-doing, which are the marks of a living Christianity. Only when there is a faith which embraces all the essential elements of truth and hope in Christ, and is itself sustained in the heart by the Spirit of God, is there a principle of life powerful enough to resist the desires of the flesh, and overcome the evil that is in the world. With such faith, however, the followers of Christ have no need to be afraid. They will prevail in the future as they have done in the past. “Their antagonists themselves will be their helpers;” for these will but serve to drive them the more closely to Christ, and cause them to drink more deeply from the well-spring of His salvation.

Appendix B Page 139. On the Meaning of the Expression “Husband of One Wife,” in 1 Timothy 3:2 ; 1 Timothy 3:12 , Titus 1:6

The explanation given of this expression, under the first of the passages referred to, restricts the qualification indicated by it to an existing relationship, irrespective of the question whether a previous relationship mayor may not have existed, which had been dissolved by death. It simply required that when one was called to office in the Christian church, there should be but one living woman to whom he stood related as husband. And as the expression of itself does not import more there are various considerations which appear to shut us up to this meaning as the only one that is properly tenable.

1. First of all, let the place be noted which the qualification holds in the apostle’s delineation of fitness for office in the Christian church. In both the epistles (1 Timothy and Titus) it stands second in the list of qualifications for the pastorate, in each also occurring immediately after the epithet blameless or irreproachable, as if, among the characteristics of a life free from any palpable stain, the first thing that might be expected to start into notice was, whether the individual stood related in marriage to one person only, or to more than one. Now, supposing this latter alternative had respect merely to the contracting of a second marriage after the death of a first wife, is the qualification one that, in the circumstances, we could imagine to have been so prominently exhibited, and so stringently imposed? Or is it what we have reason to think would have been borne up by the moral sense of the community? Quite the reverse in both respects. The legislation and the practice of Old Testament times were notoriously of a different kind. They went to an extreme, indeed, in the opposite direction; and even our Lord, when correcting that extreme, gave no indication of His purpose to introduce a restriction of the nature in question, or to make monogamy, in this sense, a condition either of office or of sanctity. St. Paul himself had explicitly declared, in his earlier writings, that death dissolved the marriage tie, so as to leave the survivor free to enter into another union, if such might be deemed advisable or expedient (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:8-9). And in the laws and usages of the Greeks and Romans no hindrance was ever known to be put upon men in respect to their use of this freedom; no stigma attached to their doing so, unless it might be in connection with the time and mode of their going about it. Such being the case, is it in the least degree probable, or does it seem to accord with the wisdom we are wont to associate with the apostle (apart altogether from his inspiration), that he should now, for the first time, and in so brief and peremptory a manner, without even a note of explanation, have pronounced more than a single marriage-union absolutely incompatible with the ministerial function? nay, should have set it in the very front of admitted disqualifications? and should even have extended the rule to deacons, whose employment was rather about, than in, spiritual things, serving tables, not ministering in word and doctrine? Unquestionably, if such were the import of the apostle’s instruction, a new thing was now introduced into the discipline of God’s house, and introduced in a very extraordinary way. A principle of sanctity was enunciated which was without warrant in any prior legislation or recognised usage; a principle, moreover, which, in contrariety to the whole spirit of the apostle’s writings, must have given to caste distinctions and ascetic notions of excellence a legitimate footing in the church of Christ. In point of fact, when the sense we contend against began to be put upon his words, it did work powerfully both in the ritualistic and the ascetic direction. And if that sense could be established as the natural and proper one, a difficulty of a very formidable kind would be raised against the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles.

2. A second ground of confirmation to the view we advocate is the general concurrence in its favour on the part of the earlier interpreters; and this in spite of a prevalent feeling and usage tending to produce a bias in the contrary direction. Thus Chrysostom: “He (St. Paul) speaks thus, not imposing a law, as if it were not allowed one to become [an episcopos ] without this condition [viz. unless he had one wife], but to restrain undue licence ( τὴν ἀμετρίαν κωλύων ); since among the Jews it was lawful to enter into double marriages, and have two wives at the same time.” (His comment on Titus 1:6, though less explicit, is to the sa me effect when rightly interpreted. It speaks merely of a double marriage relationship as incompatible with the pastoral office: “chastising the wanton, and not permitting them with a second (or twofold) marriage to assume the governing power,” οὐκ ἀφει ̀ ς ματα ̀ δευτε ́ ρου γα ́ μου τη ̀ ν ἀρχη ̀ ν ἐγχειρι ́ ζεσθαι, not after the marriage in question, but with it standing in the twofold relationship at the same time guilty of a moral wrong, though practised under the forms of law. See Suicer, under Διγαμι ́ α, vol. i. p. 897.) So, too, Theodoret: “Concerning that saying, the husband of one wife, I think certain men have said well. For of old both Greeks and Jews were wont to be married to two, three, and more wives at once. And even now, although the Imperial laws forbid men to marry two wives at one time, they have commerce with concubines and harlots. They have said, therefore, that the holy apostle declared that he who dwells in a becoming manner with a single wife is worthy of being ordained to the episcopate. For, they say, he (that is, Paul) does not reject a second marriage, who has often commanded it to be used.” Then, on the other side: “If he have put away his former wife, and married another, he is worthy of blame and deserving of reprehension; but if force of death has deprived him of his former wife, and nature has prompted him to become united to another, the second marriage is to be attributed, not to choice, but to casualty. Having respect to these and such like things, I accept the interpretation of those who so view the passage.” Theophylact is briefer, but to the same effect: “ If he be a husband of one wife; this he said because of the Jews, for to them polygamy was permitted.” Even Jerome, with all his ascetic rigour, speaks favourably of this interpretation (in his notes on the passage in Titus); states that, according to the view of many and worthy divines, it was intended merely to condemn polygamy, and not to exclude from the ministry men who have been twice married. Now, considering the general prevalence of ascetic feeling at the time, and the virtue commonly attached to celibacy as a qualification for the proper discharge of priestly functions, the interpretation thus either expressly put upon the expression under consideration by those fathers, or held at least to be allowable, cannot but seem entitled to the greatest weight. It presents a series of testimonies to what may be fairly called the natural sense of the expression, and to what appeared the just and reasonable nature of the qualification demanded by the apostle, in spite of a strong current of feeling, and a very prevalent usage, tending to incline them in the opposite direction.

3. The commencement and growth of the other view the view which understands the expression to exclude from the offices of pastor and deacon in the church any one who might have re-married after having lost a wife by death furnishes an additional argument in favour of our interpretation. For the history of church opinion and practice on the subject puts it beyond a doubt, that the more natural view was abandoned only when a false asceticism began to flow in upon the church, and an ideal of piety unwarranted in Scripture, and at variance with the flesh and blood relations which God has established for men in this life. It is hot till near the end of the second century that the ascetic spirit makes its appearance as a disturbing element in this particular line; and when it does so, the perverting influence discovers itself in respect to the members generally of the Christian church, not specifically to those who were called to discharge any spiritual function. It may be questioned whether the Plea of Athenagoras or The Shepherd of Hermas had, in point of time, precedence of the other. Probably they were nearly contemporaneous; and they are the earliest extant of the Patristic writings which can be referred to on the present subject. Athenagoras is often erroneously adduced as a witness for the other view; for when the passage in his Plea is correctly explained, it has respect to bigamy in the proper sense. “A person (he says) should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for the second marriage ( ὁ δεύτερος γάμος ) is only a specious adultery. ‘For whosoever puts away his wife (says He), and marries another, commits adultery,’ neither permitting a man to put her away whose virginity he has made to cease, nor to marry another ( ου ̓ δε ἐπιγαμεῖν ). For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a veiled adulterer, resisting the hand of God” (c. 33). The thought is somewhat loosely expressed, but the reason assigned for the judgment given clearly shows that the second marriage contemplated by the writer is one contracted under the forms of law, after an improper divorce had been effected against a first wife. In such a case a second marriage was justly held to be from the first vitiated essentially adulterous; and this for all Christians alike, without respect to official distinctions. The passage in The Shepherd is more to the point: “If a wife or husband die, and the widower or widow marry, does he or she commit sin? There is no sin in marrying again, said he; but if they remain unmarried, they gain greater honour and glory from the Lord; yet if they marry, they do not commit sin” (Com. iv. c. 3). This also has respect to the Christian life generally, and makes but a slight advance upon the teaching of Scripture; for there both our Lord and St. Paul speak of the resolution to abstain from marriage as, in certain circumstances, and with a view to more entire devotedness to the service of God, an indication of spiritual excellence beyond what would be exhibited by a different course. Only here the married state is apparently contemplated more apart, as in itself, especially when entered into a second time, incompatible with the higher degrees of honour in the divine kingdom. It was still but an incipient indication of the leaven which had begun to work. A stage further on, and we meet with greatly more marked symptoms of its operation.

This stage had its commencement with the rise of that pretentious Gnosticism which, especially from about the middle of the second century, in the hands of the Encratites (Tatian and Marcion), sought to elevate the tone of Christianity, and raise the ideal of Christian perfection higher than was done by the acknowledged teachers of Christianity. According to this school, true perfection consisted in working one’s self free from the ordinary relations and enjoyments of life: marriage, which formed the common basis of these, was esteemed a kind of service of the devil, utterly at variance with the higher aims of the spiritual life; the “elect “spirits must have nothing to do with it, and must also abstain from the use of flesh and wine, and give themselves to fastings and other kinds of bodily mortification. The real tendency of this Gnostic spiritualism did not quite immediately discover itself; it pressed at various points as a reforming influence into the church; and in some of its more characteristic features it ere long burst forth with great power among the excitable and enthusiastic Christians of Phrygia in the guise of Montanism. Montanus and his followers did not profess, indeed, to stand in any proper affinity to Christians of the Gnostic type; but they so far coincided with them as to aim at introducing a new and higher style of Christianity, and one that partook largely of Gnostic elements. Having received (as they imagined) the fuller afflatus of the Spirit promised by Christ, they had attained to the position of right truly spiritual Christians; were the pneumatics ( πνευματικοί ), while others, if Christians at all, were but psychical or carnal ( ψυχικοί ); and, in proof of their nobler elevation, they renounced not only the pleasures and luxuries, but also most of the comforts of life fasted oft, and rigidly; courted indignities, self-denials, persecutions; disparaged marriage, and stigmatized second marriages as fornication. Though the movement was opposed by all the leading authorities in the church, and the claim to supernatural guidance was on every hand rejected, yet many were impressed by the apparent elevation and moral strength of the party; and the opinion grew, that the more select class of Christians should cultivate the ascetic virtues, and should either remain in cœlibacy, or at most be but once married. The tendency of Christian thought and practice in this direction received a great impulse from Tertullian, who not only imbibed the distinctive principles of Montanism, but threw himself into the advocacy of them with zeal and energy. On the subject of marriage he occupied what he called middle ground between those (the Encratites) who repudiated marriage altogether, as a thing inherently evil, and the Psychical party, who maintained the lawfulness of the married state, even when entered into anew after the death of a previous wife. He contended for the absolute singleness of the marriage union, pressing all sorts of considerations into his argument; such as that the first Adam had but one spouse (Eve), the second also but one (the church); that death does not entirely destroy the union of married parties, since the soul still lives, in which the more vital seat of the union resides; that at the resurrection, though there shall be no more marrying, but an angelic state of being, yet those who have been married on earth shall recognise each other as such, etc. ( De Monog., and Ad Uxorem, L. i.). By considerations like these, Tertullian reaches the conclusion that in no case is more than a single marriage allowable for a Christian, while the state of cœlibacy is to be preferred as one of higher sanctity. He admits that in 1 Corinthians 7:39 the apostle grants liberty of re-marrying to those who had been deprived of a spouse by death, if only they married in the Lord; but he thinks this had respect to such merely as had been first married in heathenism, so that their union was no marriage in the Christian sense. He also admits that the principle laid down at the beginning of Romans 7:0 as to death severing the marriage tie, and leaving the survivor free to marry again without being guilty of adultery, is at variance with the view maintained and advocated by him; but finds his escape in the new revelation of Montanism, that as Christ had taken away the liberty which Moses allowed to the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts, so the Paraclete now takes away what Christ and Paul allowed on account of the infirmity of the flesh, in order that the original ideal of marriage might be restored. So that he concludes second marriages are contrary to the will of Christ not lawful next thing to adultery ( juxia adulterium; De Monog. c. xi.-xv.).

In the course of this strange piece of argumentation, the passages 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6, are naturally brought into consideration, and the expression husband of one wife is held, without question, to denote a person only once married: those who married a second time are termed digami, bigamists the first time that such an explanation, followed by such an application of the term, occurs in any Christian writing. (The word is found in Justin’s Apology, c. i. 15, but in the usual sense of separating from one wife and marrying another.) Tertullian’s argument from the passages is this: The apostle requires of those who hold clerical functions in the church, that they be no more than once married; but this cannot be confined to them, no more than any of the other moral qualifications mentioned in the same connection: if the rest are common to them with believers generally, why should not this also? Or if the clergy alone have to do with this, then they, too, alone must be subject to the discipline of the rest. And is it not the doctrine of Scripture, that all genuine believers are of priestly rank, having one and the same spiritual standing, the same high and holy calling, with official distinctions only for orderly administrations? Here, undoubtedly, Tertullian got hold of a right principle, though he utterly misapplied it; for it is against the fundamental principles of the gospel (as already indicated) to have class distinctions as to moral attainments to set up one type of purity or holiness for the pastor, and another for the flock. And it betrayed a departure from the simple faith and true spirit of Christianity when the authorities in the church began, as they did about or shortly after Tertullian’s time, to hold that it was allowable for common believers, but not for Christian ministers, to enter a second time into a marriage relationship. This was really to change the constitution of Christ’s spiritual kingdom.

The influence of Tertullian’s writings on this subject, as on many others, operated far and wide throughout the church, though he failed to carry the formal sanction of his views. In various quarters, second marriages, even among the laity, came to be viewed with disfavour, and were occasionally subjected to a measure of disciplinary treatment. Thus, in one of the canons of the provincial synod of Neo-Caesarea (A.D. 314), priests are forbidden to countenance the festivities of second marriages by their presence, “since the bigamus needed penitence.” (Thus early did the ecclesiastical use of the word bigamus become distinguished from the civil, in which it always denotes one married to two spouses still living.) The Council of Nicæa sought to interpose a check on this foolish restriction, and required (in its 8th canon) that the cathari, or purists, on being received into the church, should formally consent to communicate with such as had been married a second time. Yet a provincial council at Laodicea, held about a quarter of a century later (A.D. 352), ordained, in its very first canon, that persons legally marrying a second time should be received into communion only after fasting and prayer, and juxta indidgentiam. The general sense of the church, however, successfully withstood the ascetic tendency in this form of its manifestation; but only that it might be made to concentrate itself upon the select class of the priesthood, in respect to whom the feeling continued to grow that the normal condition was one of entire separation from married life, and that disqualification for clerical ministrations was consequent on a second marriage, especially if the second had been entered into after baptism. A rule to this effect is laid down in the so-called Apostolical Canons, which, though bearing a false title, undoubtedly expressed the general mind of the church about the close of the fourth century. They ordained, among other grounds of exception, that no one who had become involved in second marriages after baptism, or who had married a widow (this being also on one side a second marriage), could be admitted to any grade of priestly standing (Can. 17, 18). In like manner Ambrose, while distinctly asserting that the -apostolic precepts do not condemn second marriages ( De Vid. c. 2, § 10), yet maintains that they were rightly held to be inconsistent with priestly functions (according to the prescription in 1 Timothy 3:2), and for this among other reasons, that there should not be one rule for the clergy and the people; that the former, as they stood on a higher spiritual eminence, should be held bound to a more perfect mode of life ( Ep. ad Vercell. Ecclesiam, § 62-64. To the same effect also Innocent of Rome, De Cr. 13; and Epiphanius, Haer. 48).

Yet, with all this countenance from some of the more prominent authorities of the church, and the steady growth of public sentiment in the same direction, the practice in many places but slowly conformed to what the ascetic spirit, in this alliance with caste distinctions and ritualistic services, demanded as right and proper. Theodoret (whose comment on St. Paul’s expression was formerly given) mentions, in a letter to Domnus of Antioch (Ep. 110), that he had ordained one Irenaeus, though he had entered into marriage a second time; and that in doing so he had but “followed the footsteps of those who had gone before him.” He refers also to various examples of the same kind. And the frequency of the practice, coupled with the impropriety, or rather the palpable indecency, of the church’s commonly recognised procedure in excluding from sacred ministrations those who had lawfully entered into wedlock a second time, while persons guilty of concubinage and the grossest immoralities were freely admitted, is denounced by Jerome, in his own peculiar style, when commenting on a case of the former description in his letter to Oceanus. “I wonder,” says Jerome to his correspondent, “that you should think of dragging forth one bishop as having transgressed the apostolic rule, since the whole world is full of these ordinations: I don’t mean of presbyters, or those of inferior grade, but I come to bishops, of whom I could unroll such a list as would exceed in number the members of the synod of Ariminum.” He then refers to a disputation he had with an eloquent man at Rome on the subject, whose syllogistic reasoning he met by a counter reasoning of the same kind; and then he adds: “It is a new thing I hear, that what was not sin shall be reckoned for sin. All sorts of prostitutions, and the filth of public abominations, impiety towards God, acts of parricide, of incest, etc., are purged away in the font of Christ. Shall the stains of a wife still inhere, and brothels be preferred to the marriage-bed? I do not cast up to you troops of harlots, lots of catamites, shedding of blood, and swinish indulgences at every feast; and you bring up to me from the sepulchre a wife long since dead, whom I received lest I should do what you have done! Let the Gentiles hear it; let the catechumens, who are candidates for the faith, lest they marry wives before baptism, lest they enter into honourable matrimony, but may have wives and children in common nay, may shun the term wife in every form, lest, after they have believed in Christ, it shall prove to their detriment that they had wives, and not concubines or harlots.”

Such were the factitious distinctions and the mischievous results which grew out of this unscriptural mode of teaching which the church received mainly at the hands of Tertullian, after he had assumed the heretical position of a Montanist. The view ultimately became associated nearly as much with false notions of the ministry and of the sacraments, as with unwarranted restrictions regarding marriage. And as the development in that direction could not be deemed otherwise than natural, if the principle had been sound on which it proceeded, that a species of sanctity incompatible with second marriages was required of pastors and deacons which is not required of believers generally, the development itself may fairly be regarded as a proof of the unsoundness of the principle. Doctrinally, it was wrong; but in a practical respect also, the view could not fail to be accompanied with serious embarrassment or trouble of a domestic kind. Pastors bereaved by death of their wives, and without any female relative to supply the blank, would often find it impossible to have their children properly cared for, and their households ruled well (according to apostolic precept), except by entering anew into married life. And to interdict this would necessarily have forced on them the painful alternative of either perilling the moral well-being of their family, or, to avoid that, renouncing their position as ministers of God’s word.

4. There remains still another line of reflection to strengthen the interpretation given this, namely, that in addition to the objections which have been urged against understanding the expression of absolute monogamy, the other view affords a perfectly good and appropriate meaning. Recent interpreters have sometimes denied this, and laid considerable stress on the opposite allegation. Thus Alford: “The apostle would hardly have specified that as a requisite for the episcopate or presbyterate which we know to have been fulfilled by all Christians whatever; no instance being adduced of polygamy being practised in the Christian church, and no exhortation to abstain from it.” If this were anything like a fair and full representation of the matter, it would be hard to account for so many of the early interpreters (conversant, as they were, with the circumstances of the time) taking the other view of the passage, and thinking that, as matters then stood alike among the Jews and Gentiles, ample grounds existed for insisting on monogamy in the ordinary sense monogamy in contradistinction simply to polygamy and divorce as a qualification for office in the church. A certain proportion of its membership consisted of converts from Judaism; and though divorce, perhaps, on insufficient grounds, and subsequent marriage, or the undisguised practice of polygamy, might not be very common in the gospel age among the Jews, yet there is not wanting evidence to show that usages of that description did exist, and continued for ages after the Christian era, Justin Martyr charges it as matter of just reproach against the teachers of the Jewish people, that even till now they permitted each man to have four or five wives ( Tryphio, c. 134). And in the year A.D. 393 a law was passed by Theodosius, enjoining that “none of the Jews should retain their own custom in marriage, nor enter into diverse marriage relationships at one time” ( nec in diversa sub uno tempore conjugia conveniat), a law which is not likely to have been enacted without adequate reasons for it, and still less to have been re-enacted, as it was by Justinian a century and a half later. It will readily be understood, that if persons, who in their unchristian state had become entangled in such double or treble marriage relationships, might be admitted, on their conversion, to the communion of the church, they should still not be entrusted with the spiritual administration of its affairs: there was a flaw in their condition which unfitted them for being unexceptionable guides and overseers of the flock. It is notorious, also, that among the Greeks and Romans, although polygamy was not formally sanctioned, yet it virtually prevailed prevailed under the connivance or sanction of law; and that the most deplorable and wide-spread laxity in this respect existed, both previous to the apostolic age and for long after it. In the later stages of the Republic, with the influx of wealth and luxury, a fearful degeneracy of manners made way among the higher classes of society; many shunned the restraints of marriage, and with those who entered into the bond it was often little more than a temporary contract. Divorce was so common, that “public opinion ceased to frown on it; it could be initiated by husband or wife with almost equal freedom: there was a ready consent of both parties to the separation, in the prospect of marrying again; and this facility was open to all classes who could contract marriage.” (Dr. Thos. D. Woolsey On Divorce and Divorce Legislation, p. 41.) It was even open to them to do it without any legal process; for, as another authority on the subject tells us, “among the Romans divorce did not require the sentence of a judge; no judicial proceedings were necessary. It was considered a private act, though some distinct notice or declaration of intention was usual.” (Lord Mackenzie On Roman Law, part i. c. 6.)

This great social evil, instead of abating, grew with the introduction of the Empire, and received a powerful stimulus from the scandalous excesses of persons in high places. The two first Cæsars set here an example which was only too closely followed by many of their successors and underlings. Female manners became so loose, that no woman (Seneca could say) “was now ashamed of divorce; and illustrious and noble ladies counted their years, not by the number of consuls, but by the number of their husbands.”  Hence also the bitter sarcasm of Juvenal:

Sic fiunt octo mariti

Quinque per autumnos. vi. 229.

The influence of such a state of things at headquarters must have told disastrously throughout the empire. The States of Greece are known to have been lax enough even before such an influence began to work upon them; there was little of a high moral tone in the relations of domestic life. Along with marriage, the practice of concubinage was everywhere tolerated, and actions of divorce were effected by common consent, and on the weakest grounds. Even in Sparta, which was probably the least licentious State of Greece, what a light is thrown on the prevailing sentiments and habits of the people by such a fact as this: “To bring together the finest couples was regarded by the citizens as desirable, and by the lawgiver as a duty. There were even some married women who were recognised mistresses of two houses, and mothers of two distinct families, a sort of bigamy strictly forbidden to the men, and never permitted except in the remarkable case of King Anaxandrides, when the royal Herakleidan line of Eurystheus was in danger of becoming extinct.” (Grote’s History, vol. ii. p. 520.) But without going further into detail, there can be no doubt that corruption in this particular line held its course generally throughout the Roman Empire for centuries after the Christian era, only partially checked by the introduction of the Christian element; so partially, indeed, that “divorce ex communi consensu kept its ground all the way down to Justinian” (Woolsey, p. 101). The legislative attempt of Constantine to grant liberty of divorce only on the proof of such heinous crimes as poisoning and adultery, failed from the impossibility of carrying it into effect. It had to be first relaxed, and by Honorius was almost abrogated. “A Christian writer, at the beginning of the fifth century, complains that men changed their wives as quickly as their clothes, and that marriage chambers were set up as easily as booths in a market. At a later period still, when Justinian attempted to prohibit all divorces except those on account of chastity, he was obliged to relax the law on account of the fearful crimes, the plots and poisonings, and other evils, which it introduced into domestic life.” (Milman’s History of Christianity, vol. iii. p. 290.)

Taking, then, all the known circumstances of the time into account, we see only too ample reason for such a qualification as that specified by the apostle for pastors and deacons if by that qualification is understood simply fidelity to the marriage vow, or relationship to no more than one living woman as a spouse. The question was not (as put by Alford) whether, after being received into the Christian church, a looser practice might be held compatible with Christian obligations, a wife and a concubine, or two wives at a time, but whether those who had in these respects followed the too common practice of the world, should, on becoming Christians, be admitted to office in the church. Had they been so, the church might have seemed to take too light a view of the prevailing immorality; embarrassing complications also might have arisen for the parties themselves in the discharge of duty; so that the part of Christian wisdom with the church evidently was to stand entirely clear, in her administrative capacity, from having any participation in the abounding corruption. It is the very course which missionaries of the gospel are obliged in heathen lands to pursue still. They can often receive parties into church fellowship, because apparently sincere in the profession of the faith, whom yet, on account of essentially adulterous connections contracted in their heathenish state, they have felt it necessary to exclude from positions of honour, especially from functions of government in the church. (The comment of Conybeare and Howson on the passage under consideration, though brief, is in perfect accordance with the view we have given. “The true interpretation seems to be as follows: In the corrupt facility of divorce allowed both by Greek and Roman law, it was very common for man and wife to separate, and marry other parties during the life of one another. Thus, a man might have three or four living wives. An example of the operation of a similar code is unhappily to be found in our own colony of Mauritius. There the French revolutionary law of divorce has been suffered by the English Government to remain unrepealed; and it is not uncommon to meet in society three or four women who have all been the wives of the same man, and three or four men who have all been the husbands of the same woman. We believe it is this kind of successive polygamy, rather than simultaneous polygamy, which is here spoken of as disqualifying for the presbyterate.”)

It has been thought by some Protestant writers (by Vitringa, for example, Synag. Vet. P. i. c. 4; also by Ellicott, Alford, and some others), that the corrupt state of matters prevailing at the time may have induced the apostle to lay down the rule of absolute monogamy for rulers in the church to provide a more efficient check against the evil but that, as the same motive no longer operates now, the rule is fitly regarded as having had only a temporary significance, and as no longer in force. This, however, is a quite arbitrary supposition. The qualification, as given by the apostle, is coupled with no temporal limitation. It stands, in that respect, on the same footing as the other prescriptions alike valid, apparently, for all times. Besides, the extremely lax state of morals then prevalent, while it undoubtedly called the church, especially in its official representatives, to be examples of a truly chaste and becoming behaviour, could never have justified the application of tests which went beyond the requirements of God’s law and the dictates of sound reason; for this would have been to make one evil the occasion of opening the door to another. It would have been an attempt, as the ascetic discipline in every form is, to improve upon God’s institutions by setting up a higher ideal of purity than is proper to them, and which always ends in bringing on worse evils than those it seeks to correct. In the form now under consideration, it would have given apostolic sanction to false views of marriage, and, against the whole spirit of the gospel, would have formally authorized gradations of sanctity in the membership of the church a lower that might have sufficed for common believers; and another and higher, as not only proper, but indispensable, for those who should be called to bear rule in the congregation. A distinction certainly not of apostolic origin, and the fruitful parent, when originated, of grievous errors and perversions!

Special stress is laid, in this connection, by the writers in question on the corresponding qualification prescribed for widows, who were to be admitted to the kindly oversight and benefactions of the church: these were, among other moral characteristics, to be known as having each been the wife of one man, 1 Timothy 5:9, How, it is asked, could this be understood otherwise than as descriptive of a woman who had been only once married? And if such is the kind of oneness indicated in this case, how can it justly be regarded as different in the other? The facts already stated, however, show that the necessity supposed for so understanding the expression in the woman’s case by no means existed; and the very circumstance of a qualification of this sort being necessary to entitle a poor widow to become merely the recipient of the church’s charity, may surely be regarded as no mean evidence that the qualification in both cases could have involved nothing of an ascetic nature could .have required only what is due to the claims of decency, and is in accordance with the essential nature and design of marriage. But this is shown more fully in the annotations on 1 Timothy 5:9.

Appendix C Page 232. The Treatment of Slavery in New Testament Scripture (1 Timothy 6:2 ; Titus 2:10 )

This subject, in its relation to the spirit and teaching of Christianity, naturally falls into three closely-related parts: first, the direct instructions it gave to those standing to each other in the relation of slave and slave-owner; second, the principles it unfolded tending indirectly, yet most materially, to bear on the relation; and third, the practical measures which, under the influence of one or the other of these, came to be adopted with a view to the improvement of the existing order of things.

1. As regards the first of these points, it is to be borne in mind that the original heralds of Christianity had to do with slavery as not only an existing, but a time-honoured and widely-ramified institution, with a recognised place in the laws and usages of the empire, and of such gigantic proportions that in the gospel age a slave for every freeman has been thought a moderate computation for the provinces of the empire at large. (This is Gibbon’s estimate.) In particular districts the proportion was much greater, though in others probably somewhat less. It was such, indeed, that in the more populous parts of the empire nearly all menial employments must have been discharged by servile hands, as well as much besides that belonged to the category of skilled labour. Now, with this vast system of legalized property in human flesh, the evangelists and apostles of our Lord came into contact chiefly as it bore on the class, not of owners, but of owned of bondmen, not of those who held them in bondage; for the gospel drew at first the great body of its adherents from the lower grades of society, and those who ranked immediately above them. Of the first generation of believers in Christ, an extremely small proportion, it may be confidently assumed, would be owners of slaves; but not a few, in all probability, of the slaves themselves, whose depressed and suffering condition would naturally dispose them to hail a religion which looked so benignly on the afflicted, and held out such elevating prospects to all who sincerely embraced it. We thus quite readily account for the circumstance that the prescriptions in New Testament Scripture bearing on the relation in question are most numerous and pointed with respect to the slaves; and that sometimes, when charges are given as to the behaviour becoming them, none are delivered on the correlative duties of masters. It was not that the one class required the word of counsel or admonition more than the other; but because there were as yet scarcely any of the higher class who professed subjection to Christ, while there were many of the lower.

Having, therefore, mainly to do with those who occupied the lower place in this relationship, the authorized ambassadors of Christ naturally regarded them as peculiar objects both of pity and concern. They found them in an abject and humiliating condition, which they had no power, however they might have wished it, to alter or amend, a condition which, in all its essential features, was fixed and regulated by the legislation of the empire. While the gospel of Christ could not break the chains which outwardly lay upon them, it could, and did also, in a moral and spiritual respect, mightily relieve and benefit their state; and, in return, it justly called them to prize the better things which it brought within their reach, and to show their profiting therein by discharging in another manner than before the duty of service exacted of them to eye, in all they did, the divine rather than the human authority under which they stood: that so they might honour and commend to others the Master whom now it was their delight and glory to serve. They were thus, by their very calling as Christians, elevated within their own sphere to the high rank of witnesses of Christ, and instruments in His hand for diffusing abroad that saving light and truth by which alone the greater disorders of society could be rectified, and the troubles of the more afflicted portions of mankind effectually removed. By taking the line of conduct prescribed, also, they would pursue the course which was almost sure to react beneficially on their social position. They necessarily became patterns of active virtue; and such were the encouragements given under the system of Roman slavery for obtaining freedom as the reward of good conduct, that Christian slaves, who in their daily procedure exhibited the spirit of the gospel, might be said to be on the high road toward manumission.

So much did the apostles set by conformity in this respect to the mind of Christ, and so confidently did they reckon upon other desirable ends being thus in due time attained, that they scarcely ever touched on the civil aspect of the question on the acquirement of liberty. Incidentally the subject comes up in the Epistle to Philemon, with respect to Onesimus, his runaway slave; and yet it is so considerately and delicately handled by the apostle, that, while he shows distinctly enough his appreciation of a brotherly as contrasted with a servile relation, he would not have the former in any case acquired by fraud would not even have it wrung from the legal owner by a reluctant concession; yet, if frankly conferred, would esteem it a most worthy expression of enlightened and sanctified feeling. In another place a passage in the First Epistle to the Corinthians the subject is also briefly treated in connection with a more general question, namely, how the reception of the gospel should be regarded as affecting people’s family and social relationships? Were they still to continue in these after they had become Christians? Or were they to find in their Christianity a reason for abandoning them? The apostle’s direction is: Abide as you are, and where you are, if you can do so consistently with Christian principle; and in so far as anything in your existing relations may be trying and irksome, instead of hastily ridding yourselves of it by a self-chosen method of escape, seek rather by your meek, patient, noble Christian bearing, to rise above the disadvantages of your outward position, and in the interests of godliness triumph over them. This is the general principle of action enunciated; and when applied to those who, on becoming Christians, found themselves oppressed by the yoke of slavery, it meant that they were not to use any power or opportunity they might have to break the yoke violently asunder; that they were rather to regard this as a part of the burden which, meanwhile, they had to bear for the sake of Christ; and that, while it was not good to be in slavery to man, it was possible even in this to be Christ’s freeman: and to be such was so noble and blessed a thing, that their civil disabilities might be borne, while they lasted, with comparative indifference. This seems plainly the gist and bearing of the apostle’s treatment of the subject, however we interpret the particular expressions. (It is only in respect to chap. 7:21 that any diversity of interpretation prevails. See at the close of this Dissertation, p. 448.) It did not, when fairly considered, betoken any insensibility in the apostle’s mind to the evils of slavery, taken by themselves. It is impossible, indeed, that he and the other heralds of the cross should have thought lightly of them, seeing they were in themselves so numerous and flagrant, and so contrary to the spirit of philanthropy which breathed in the gospel of Christ, and which was also exemplified so finely in the conduct of its divinely-commissioned teachers. But these men of God knew that the promptings of nature were likely to furnish a sufficient stimulus in that direction, and were not forgetful also of the effect which the new wine of the kingdom might have in the same direction fermenting, as it would naturally do, in the minds of Christian slaves, with thoughts and aspirations in ill accord with their depressed and abject condition. It was therefore the part of Christian wisdom to throw the fence mainly on the more exposed side, and urge them, as their main concern, to the cultivation of those graces and habits which tended to elevate them as rational and immortal beings.

On this side of the question, then, wisdom was manifestly justified of her children; but was it equally so in the reserve practised, on the other side, toward the masters? If the apostles were right in plying the oppressed class with exhortations to virtue and obedience, why should they not have pressed those who had the power to let the oppressed go free? They certainly did not do this. The considerations chiefly urged upon the masters are, that they should remember they had to do with One who is no respecter of persons; who stood to them in the relation of a Master, as they to their fellow-creatures; and that they should consequently forbear, not the use of the lash merely, but even threatening, and should give to all under their control what is just and equal. Such injunctions, if properly carried out, would at least secure practical freedom to the slave such freedom as would enable him to serve God faithfully in the humble duties of his station. But we can scarcely say apostolical precept, in its direct and explicit requirements of the slave-owner, goes further; especially as, when the supposition is made of believing servants under the yoke having also believing masters (1 Timothy 6:2), the latter are spoken of as still retaining their proprietary rights, and the former are enjoined to do their work of service all the more cheerfully that they were under believing masters. If, however, we take into account not the letter merely, but the spirit also of the exhortations given, we shall doubtless see that something further is required of the parties in question, and that they could not have intelligently and cordially done so much without feeling impelled in ordinary circumstances to do more. For if the master consented, as he was expressly required, to treat his bondmen as rational beings, capable of the same exalted privileges and hopes as himself, how could he desire to have them kept in a position which exposed them to treatment of another kind, treatment from which his own spiritual nature must have recoiled? Plainly he could not with hearty good-will take the one part of a Christian behaviour, without feeling drawn to do something also in respect to the other. And that the Apostle Paul thought persons in that situation should have so felt and acted, is evident from the style of address in his letter to Philemon respecting Onesimus, in which, as already indicated, he did not indeed claim strictly as a right, or demand as by divine authority, yet besought with powerful suasion, the reception of Onesimus, not merely as a forgiven bondman who had wronged his master, but in a higher character “above a slave (as he expressed himself), a brother beloved.” To yield to this affectionate entreaty, and yet re-assert over Onesimus his proprietary rights as a slaveholder, had been impossible; the very attempt to do so would have been justly branded as a pitiful evasion.

But if such were the mind of the apostles, and the certain tendency of their instructions, might it not have been better to go straight to the point, and lay upon every Christian slave-owner the authoritative injunction to enfranchise his slaves? So some have, even in our time, been bold enough to assert. But had the course in question been taken, how many enfranchisements might have been expected through its operation? Or what progress was Christianity likely to have made in ameliorating the social evils of the Empire? With this startling demand among its requirements, in the very front, we may say, of these requirements (for it was sure to be the first that should ever meet the eye of the slave-owner), persons of this class would with one consent have denounced Christianity as the opponent of their legal interests and hereditary rights; they would have everywhere met it with their determined opposition would have put it, in fact, under the ban of the Empire, as a system that, under the guise of religion, aimed at unsettling the foundations of society, and kindling the flames of a servile war. It was at once the wiser and the more humane course to make the direct prescriptions of the gospel bear only on the just and equitable treatment of the slave, so that the moment he was placed under the dominion of a believing master he should become practically free to move within the ordinary sphere of Christian duty; and in addition to this, to place the master as well as the slave under motives and considerations of a higher kind, which, in proportion as they were realized and acted on, necessarily led to the readjustment or removal of whatever in their mutual relationship was at variance with the essential principles of rectitude and goodness.

2. This touches, however, upon the second point the higher influences brought by the gospel to bear on the hearts of slave-owners, and tending indirectly to loose the bonds of slavery. The whole spirit and tendency of the religion of the gospel must have wrought in this direction.

The view given in Scripture of the common origin and natural relationships of mankind even this, which is implied in the revelations of the gospel, rather than directly announced could not, if thoughtfully pondered, be without effect in this particular line. That all should be the offspring of one parent, inheritors of one blood, and partakers of the same rational and immortal nature, and yet that they should make merchandise of one another, as if some belonged to a different world, or a different order of creation from the rest; who that justly considers the one can find it in his heart to do the other? How especially could he do so, if he coupled with men’s brotherly relation to himself their filial relation to God, though he should only think of that relation as it exists in nature, implying the formation of all alike in God’s image, and their calling as such to occupy the earth, and use its means and opportunities of good for Him? To treat a human being so formed, so constituted and destined by the hand of his Maker, as from the mere accidents of position bereft of freedom of will and independent action, were virtually to disown and shamefully dishonour the claims and interests of such a natural relationship.

Yet this is but the preliminary ground or implied basis of Christianity, not its proper substance; and its influence in this direction becomes much greater when its grand central doctrine of the incarnation and death of the Son of God for the salvation of mankind is brought distinctly into view. This, when rightly known and considered by men, could not but be felt to be like the letting in of a new light upon the world, tending by a moral necessity to raise the common platform of humanity to a higher than its former level. It is from hence, most of all, that has sprung the idea of the brotherhood of mankind of their original equality in God’s sight, and of the honour and blessedness of ministering to their wellbeing, apart from all the outward and artificial distinctions which in the heathen world entered so largely into men’s estimation of their fellow-men, and threw something like an impassable gulf between race and race, and one condition of life and another. The infinite condescension and glorious example of Christ virtually established for all a claim to the highest offices of kindness, and, wherever practically known, gave such an impulse to the more generous feelings of the heart, and the more active charities of life, that everything like cruel neglect or lordly oppression toward even the humblest grades of society could not fail to be regarded otherwise than as an outrage on humanity.

Then, regard to the interests of salvation must have wrought in the same direction. From the moment that any one became a genuine believer, it was part of his obligations to see that everything of a proper and fitting kind was done to bring all under his influence or control to partake with him in the blessings of salvation. But how could the slave-owner commend to others about him the offers of a love, of which it was but too clear he had not yet received the full impression in his own bosom? How could he desire in earnest to see them rising to the possession and enjoyment of the liberties of God’s dear children? The attainment of such a standing in spiritual things, with its high privileges and endowments, he could not but see, would only render them the more deeply conscious of the ignoble chains which rested on their bodily condition; for how could they possess the rank of sons in God’s house, and realize their title to the glorious inheritance of the saints in light, without feeling the incongruity and the dishonour of being denied the place of citizens of earth, or of being allowed to take an independent part in the ordinary concerns of a present life? It was obviously impossible that the intelligent Christian slave should have felt otherwise than is now represented; and if not absolutely impossible, at least not very natural or easy, for his master to become a sincere convert to the gospel, and still keep the yoke of bondage riveted on the neck of a Christian brother.

Of the force of these considerations the history of the subject has yielded two very instructive and convincing illustrations. The first is the reluctance commonly exhibited by slave-owners to let those under their sway enjoy the full benefit of Christian instruction and privilege. How far this was the case in ancient times we can only infer from what has happened among the modern representatives of the class; but inthe particular point under consideration, it is likely to have been worse rather than better in the earlier as compared with the later ages. Yet, as regards these later ages, no one in the least acquainted with the history of slavery can be ignorant how commonly slave-owners have been jealous of the diffusion of Christian knowledge and instruction among their slaves what restraints they have generally laid upon it how often even they have expressly and by severe penalties interdicted it. Viewed as a whole, it is not too much to say of their conduct, that it has betrayed an unmistakeable conviction that the light and liberties of the gospel carry along with them a certain danger to their proprietary interests, and involve views of truth and duty materially different from their own. The other confirmatory fact consists in the grounds and reasons which have most commonly induced believing slave-owners to grant liberation to their bondmen. It appears that in the actual progress of events the spirit of the gospel, imperfectly as it was too often understood and imbibed, played an important part. While the work of emancipation made slow advances compared with the progressive advancement of an external Christianity, it still was always proceeding, and generally did so within the professing church as a response to the undeserved mercy of Heaven an act of becoming tenderness and compassion in the recipients of divine grace and blessing. This may be seen by referring to the ancient charters of that description given by Du Cange, or even from the specimens selected out of them by Dr. Robertson ( Charles V., note 20). We find there grants of freedom made by sundry persons in favour of their slaves made “for the love of God,” “for the benefit of the soul” of the grantor, or something to that effect. When Pope Gregory the Great bestowed liberty on some slaves that had become his property, he prefaced the deed thus: “The Redeemer made Himself a propitiation to free men from the yoke of bondage, and restore them to their pristine condition; whence it well became men to restore those whom the law of nations, not nature, had brought into servitude, to the freedom which originally and properly belonged to them.” Hence also a large number of manumissions appear to have been granted by persons on their death-beds, when their near approach to the judgment-seat rendered their consciences more alive to the great realities of the gospel, and the corresponding obligations: they granted the boon, it is commonly stated, “for the redemption of their soul.” And hence also occasions of special favour and blessing were not unfrequently seized for conferring the grant; the benefit received on the one side being naturally felt to call for the bestowal of a like benefit on the other.

Indeed, it is difficult to understand how any one, if he could only divest himself of the perverting bias of habit, or the still more perverting bias of worldly interest, and would calmly look at the matter in the light of gospel truth, could come to another conclusion than that of either abandoning his right of property in his fellow-men, or of disclaiming allegiance to the authority of Christ. I do not see how, even with the kindest and most considerate treatment of his slaves, he could feel that he had discharged his obligations according to the requirements of the gospel without releasing them from their bondage. By one of these requirements he is called to be an imitator of Christ in that very walk of love wherein Christ has at once set so illustrious an example and given so costly a sacrifice. By another, he is enjoined to do to others whatsoever he would that they should do to him. By a third, he is urged to do good to all around him, as he has opportunity to do it beyond the measure of the heathen, and for the promotion especially of the higher interests of mankind. But, on the supposition of his continuing to be a slave-owner, what honour do such precepts receive at his hands? He deliberately prefers holding men subject to bondage, while it was the special glory of his Master to deliver them from it; he practises upon them a wrong; and if he does not personally inflict, he leaves them in a position in which they may have inflicted upon them, insults and injuries, pains and cruelties, which no man of sane mind would wish another to have the power of inflicting upon himself. And instead of using his opportunities to do the part of a wise benefactor and moral regenerator of the world, he lazily and selfishly contributes to the maintenance of one of the foulest stains on the brotherhood of mankind; he lends his countenance and support to a system of which, as a whole, and as regards its inherent tendency, it has been not more eloquently than justly said: “It darkens and depraves the intellect; it paralyzes the hand of industry; it is the nourisher of agonizing fears and of sullen revenge; it crushes the spirit of the bold; it is the tempter, the murderer, and the tomb of virtue; and either blasts the felicity of those over whom it domineers, or forces them to seek for relief from their sorrows in the gratifications, and the mirth, and the madness of the passing hour.” (Speech of Dr. Andrew Thomson, Edinburgh.)

It is proper to add, however, that there may have been persons in ancient times, as there are known to have been some in later, who were not insensible to the considerations now noticed, and yet refrained from granting liberation to their slaves, out of regard chiefly to the present temporal comfort of the slaves themselves. In those States where slavery has become a widely-extended and compact system, the manners and usages of society so adapt themselves to it, that emancipation in individual cases, or on isolated properties, might have the effect of throwing the emancipated out of one class without being able to secure their introduction into another, better, or even so well, situated for employment and comfort as the one they had. They might, in consequence, if enfranchised, become exposed to neglect and want. There can be no doubt that such was the case, about the gospel era and before it, with many freedmen in certain districts of Italy, where, from the general employment of slaves in the cultivation of the soil, the free part of the population often fell into a very depressed and pitiable condition. The same may have happened, and doubtless did happen, in other provinces of the empire, of which we have less specific information; and it is also known to have happened in particular portions of what but lately were the slave states of the West Indies and of America. So that it would not always be simply from the power of the gospel not being felt, or from a deliberate disregard of its claims in this particular direction, that the bondmen of Christian masters did not regain their freedom. A benevolent regard to their present wellbeing, even though possibly a somewhat mistaken or undue regard, may have often contributed to the result.

3. We turn now, lastly, to the practical measures in which, so far as we know, the early teachers and representatives of the gospel gave effect to the direct instructions, and the indirect, the higher considerations under which, in this respect, they were placed by their belief of the truth.

On this point our means of information are very limited and fragmentary, and there is much we should like to know of the earlier periods of church action of which we must be content to be ignorant. Undoubtedly the process of relief within the church would have been quick and satisfactory, compared with what we have reason to believe it was, if all in the position of slave-owners, who professed obedience to the gospel, had risen at once to the proper height of knowledge and attainment in this branch of their calling. But we are not at liberty to suppose that; the pleading alone in the Epistle to Philemon, shows plainly enough how slowly the very best of the early converts grasped here the full results and consequences of their faith. There would doubtless be many who at once felt it their duty to give hearty obedience to the precepts of the gospel, in so far as these required a kind and considerate treatment of their dependants, who yet, from the force of habit or other influences, would never think of bringing the system itself of slavery to the test of the great principles of the gospel. The case of John Newton, in modern times, may be cited in proof, since, after undergoing one of the most remarkable conversions on record, he continued for a time not only insensible to the common evils of slavery, but even actively engaged in the inhuman transactions of the slave-trade, conceiving all his obligations in the matter to be discharged if only he looked after the bodily comfort of the unhappy victims who fell into his hands. The utterly antichristian character of the traffic disclosed itself but gradually to his mind. A bequest may also be noticed in the same connection, which was left by an American gentleman of last century to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel “a plantation stocked with slaves.” “An odd legacy,” says Warburton, in the sermon preached by him for the Society of the same year; “an odd legacy to the promulgators of the law of liberty, but intended, perhaps, as a kind of compensation for these violations of it.” Custom had in all probability rendered the individual entirely unconscious of the inconsistence.

It should not therefore surprise us to learn that, in the church of the apostolic and immediately subsequent age, there were Christian slave-owners as well as Christian slaves in her communion, with a relaxation no doubt of the bond, and a tendency begun toward its dissolution, yet still no general movement made for its formal extinction. Slaves and masters alike, on their professing Christianity, came under the discipline of the church, and were amenable to it for their actual behaviour. This was of itself a great security against all harsh treatment, considering what discipline was in those early times how impartial and how stringent; and it is probably the main reason why so little is said on the subject of slavery in the more ancient Patristic writings, although doubtless the ascetic tendency which so early began to tell on leading men in the church exercised, to some extent, an unfavourable influence also here. The so-called Apostolic Fathers Justin Martyr, also Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian very rarely refer to the subject of slavery in any way, and give no special instructions concerning it. Even in the voluminous writings of Augustine, we shall scarcely find a more explicit or pointed testimony than the following: “A Christian should not possess a slave after the same manner that he does a horse or a piece of silver” ( De Serm. Dom. In Monte, L. i. § 590). And when giving a summary of what the church, as the true mother of all Christians, enjoins upon her children, the whole he says in her behalf as to the relation of master and servant is: “Thou teachest servants to cleave to their masters, not so much from the necessity of their condition, as from delight in the duties of their calling. Thou makest masters placable toward their servants, from regard to the great God, their common Lord, and more ready to give counsel than to practise coercion” ( De Mor. Eccl. Cath. § 63). Chrysostom failed even more than Augustine to bring out on this point the true spirit of the gospel; and his continuous commentaries on the epistles of the New Testament furnished him also with better opportunities. In his exposition of Philemon, while he speaks strongly enough of the scandal brought on Christianity by slaves running away from their masters, and of Christians abetting and aiding them in their attempts to do so, he does not say a single word on the duty of Christian masters to grant liberty to their slaves; he speaks also quite familiarly of our custom of purchasing slaves with money, and of its being esteemed the glory of a master to have many of them. He is somewhat better at Ephesians 6:9, where masters are enjoined to do the same things toward their slaves that the slaves themselves were exhorted to do, and to forbear threatening, as knowing that they had a Master in heaven, with whom there is no respect of persons. Here Chrysostom presses the consideration that masters shall assuredly have their measure meted back to them; that they must do as they hope to be done to; and that they should teach their slaves to be pious and godly, and then all would go well. But emancipation is not once hinted at.

Notwithstanding such comparative failures, however, on the part of the standard-bearers of the church, the mild, beneficent, love-embracing spirit of the gospel made way, first lightening the yoke, and then subverting the existence of slavery. This appears especially in the efforts put forth from time to time to obtain the freedom of Christians who by misfortune had been reduced to slavery, and the fresh facilities that were given to slave emancipation by legal enactment. The barbarous treatment of the servile class was openly condemned by the ministers and councils of the church. Clement of Alexandria absolutely prohibited the acceptance of any oblations from cruel and sanguinary masters; and several councils appointed temporary excommunications to be pronounced against those who, without any judicial sentence, put their slaves to death. Acacius, bishop of Amida, had the gold and silver vessels of his church melted to redeem 7000 captives, whom the Romans had brought from Persia, and sent them back free. Ambrose did something of the same sort at Milan. Cases are even mentioned of persons who sold their whole property to purchase the freedom of their fellow-Christians. One Melania is said to have liberated so many as 8000 slaves; Obidius, a Gaulish Christian, 5000, etc. And so congenial did the work of manumission seem to the spirit of the gospel, that Constantine, while suspending ordinary work on the Lord’s day, expressly allowed the manumission of slaves, as having in itself the essential characteristics of a pious and charitable action. (Guizot, Hist. of Civil. in France, ii. p. 128; Bingham, Ant. B. xx. c. 2, 5.)

In another respect, also, the ancient church did good service: she guarded the chastity of female slaves, and servile birth formed no disqualification for the sacred offices of the priesthood. The legal statutes, for a considerable time, embarrassed her operations, and made the progress of the work more difficult. The Code of Justinian recognised, indeed, the original equality of mankind, but it admitted the forfeiture of this equality by the casualties which use and wont had allowed to entail the loss of freedom. Still, what was not removed was in several respects alleviated. Masters were forbidden to abandon their slaves when sick or enfeebled with age they were obliged to have them privately cared for, or sent to the hospitals. In heathen times, slaves could not properly marry; their union was merely concubinage; and for a free person to marry a slave was even held a capital offence. The Christian church struggled long and stedfastly against such things, and at last succeeded in getting legal sanction to the marriage of slaves, and gave to marriages of this kind, as well as others, her benediction. The tendency of the imperial legislation became increasingly favourable to the interests of the slave; and Gibbon says of Justinian’s Code, that “the spirit of his laws promoted the extinction of domestic servitude.” But the extinction was much retarded, especially by two causes.

The first of these was the growing worldliness and corruption of the church. The salt, to a very large extent, had lost its savour. In process of time, churches themselves came to hold property in slaves, and even had their property in this respect guarded by special enactments. While churches were constituted asylums for runaway slaves, slaves that belonged to ecclesiastics or sacred foundations, if they became runaways, were denied all right of protection; any one who harboured them became liable to pay a triple fine (Milman’s Lat. Christianity, i. 365). The other circumstance was the enormous multiplication of slaves consequent upon the irruption of the northern nations. This increased the evil to such an extent that, by its very excess, it helped to work out the remedy. Slaves ceased in a manner to be saleable; they became serfs labourers attached to the soil; and by this appropriation they had conceded to them a measure of security against the caprice and despotism of the masters. In this state one could not be sold, save as part and parcel of the ground on which he resided; and while thus bound to a kind of hereditary serfdom, his position was regulated by law guarded, though still but imperfectly, from the freaks of arbitrary violence and oppression. Other changes, mainly effected by trade and commerce, came in to ameliorate their condition; and after centuries of delay, and a step-to-step progress, serfdom itself passed, throughout the different countries of Europe, into personal and social freedom.

Broken, therefore, and chequered as the history is, interrupted by many haltings and even temporary reverses, it has still been an advancement Christianity has vindicated her title to the character of a friend of the captive and the bond. She would have done so, it is true, far more speedily and extensively if she had herself remained free from the corruptions of the world, and if her grand aims for the good of mankind had been properly carried out. But, as matters actually stood, a gradual rectification took place; a milder and better tone was diffused throughout society; a standard of generosity and loving-kindness was everywhere raised, which might be said to frown on the intolerance and cruelty of slavery, and prepared the world for giving practical effect to the feeling of a common brotherhood. Nothing, indeed, can be more certain, from the struggles and triumphs of the past, than that this horrid institution, which is alike dishonouring to God and injurious to the best interests of society, cannot stand with a healthful and robust Christianity: as the one lives and thrives, the other of necessity gives way; and were there a gospel everywhere triumphant, there would infallibly be a free as well as a righteous and a blessed world.

NOTE to p. 435, On 1 Corinthians 7:21

In illustration of the general principle that people, on becoming Christians, should abide in the calling wherein they were called, the apostle refers, along with some other cases, to that of bondmen: “Wast thou called, being a slave? Care not for it. But if also (or indeed) thou art able to become free, use it rather.” “That is,” says Chrysostom, “rather be a slave. And why, then, does he bid him, who had it in his power to become free, to continue a slave? He did it to show that slavery no way injures, but rather profits ( ὅτι ὀυδεν βλάπτει ἡ δουλεία , ἀλλὰ καὶ ὠφελεί ).” Rather Strange doctrine, surely, to ascribe to one who in his own case valued so highly, not merely his common liberty, but his special freedom as a Roman citizen, that he would not allow its rights to be trampled on; and who, in respect to his convert Onesimus, showed how well he could distinguish between the disadvantages of a slave’s place and the honourable position of a brother! Chrysostom adds that he was aware there were some who understood the use recommended of liberty: if you are able to become free, embrace freedom rather. But he rejects this view as against the connection, which (he thinks) requires that even if a believing slave had the option of becoming free, he should prefer his slavery. And the same view is taken by Theodoret, Theophylact, also by various modern commentators of note, in particular by Estius, Wolf, Bengel, Meyer, Alford. Several of them hold it to be the only view grammatically tenable; for when καὶ succeeds εἰ , it does not belong to εἰ , but to the following clause, which it is spread over and qualifies; so that the meaning (it is alleged) can only be: But if even thou canst be free, use it namely, slavery rather. Dean Stanley hesitates between the two modes of explanation. Whether freedom or slavery is to be supplied to the verb use, he conceives to be “one of the most evenly balanced questions in the interpretation of the New Testament.” And he goes on to state, with his wonted dexterity, the considerations that appear to make for the two views respectively, but commences with the strange assertion that the verb χρῆσαι “may either be choose, or make use of, although it leans rather to the former, and thus favours the first interpretation” that, namely, which would couple it with slavery. He does not, however, produce any passage in the New Testament in support of the sense of choosing; nor can a single one be produced. In the two Epistles to the Corinthians it occurs, besides the present passage, six times ( 1Co 7:31 , 1 Corinthians 9:12, 1 Corinthians 9:15; 2Co 1:17 , 1 Corinthians 3:12, 1 Corinthians 13:10), but never in the sense of choosing always in that of using, making use of. And retaining this as the only allowable meaning, how could the apostle exhort any Christian slave, who had the opportunity of becoming free, to use slavery rather? Slavery is not a gift or talent to be used, but a restraint, a hardship to be borne or submitted to if necessary but no more. And with all its tendency to asceticism, and to a foolish self-imposition of outward restraints, the ancient church still had common sense enough, and native instincts remaining, to dispose her members generally so to regard it. The well-known practice of Christians in freely spending of their means to liberate their brethren from servitude, when by some calamity reduced to it, was a virtual protest against the inflated oratory of Chrysostom, and his false exegesis.

     

As to the grammatical canon, very formally propounded by Alford, that καὶ after εἰ qualifies the succeeding clause, so as to mark a gradation upward if even, one has only to look at the passages in which the particles occur to see how far it will carry us. Sometimes, no doubt, the ascensive force is plain enough, as at Philippians 2:17, “But if I even be offered ( ἀλλὰ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ); “to which may be added 1 Peter 3:14. But take other examples such as 2 Corinthians 11:15, where, speaking of Satan and his instruments of working, the apostle says, “No great wonder, therefore, if also ( εἰ καὶ ) his ministers are transformed as ministers of righteousness.” Here the particles indicate merely an additional and subordinate fact if progress at all, a progress downward, not upward. So also at 1 Corinthians 4:7, “What hast thou, that thou didst not receive? But if also (or indeed) thou didst receive it εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔλαβες ” (also 2 Corinthians 5:16, 2 Corinthians 7:8); on which Alford is himself obliged to let go the ascensive force. It does not appear that for the New Testament usage one can go further with a grammatical principle in the matter than as stated by Winer: “In general, εἰ καὶ signifies although, si etiam, quanquam, indicating something as an actual fact; “or, as Mr. Moulton puts it in a note, indicating either that what the sentence expresses is, in the writer’s belief, an actual fact, or a concession on his part that the supposition is correct ( Gr. § 53, 7, Clark’s ed.). Mr. Moulton, however, himself adopts the ascensive force in the passage before us.

The difficulty, as appears to me, in giving a natural and proper explanation of the passage has been aggravated by supposing that either ἐλευθερία , freedom, or δουλεία , bondage, must be supplied for the verb χρῆσαι . The more natural construction is to supply the noun involved in the preceding verb; the stress lies on it on δύνασαι . “Wast thou called, being a slave? Care not for it. But if also thou art able ( δύνασαι ) to become free, use it (the δύναμις , ability) rather;” having the power, turn it rather to account. It is not properly the use of the freedom which the apostle advises (in which case we should certainly, as Alford remarks, have judged ἐλευθερία to be the proper word to be supplied to χρῆσαι ), but the use of the power to obtain freedom; and either this, or the whole clause, power to become free, is the thing to be supplied. Thus viewed, two suppositions are made in the verse: first, slavery without the power of escaping from it in which case the principle of abiding in one’s station holds without any qualification, and under the elevating influence of the gospel a noble indifference is recommended; second, the power of acquiring freedom, with an advice to take advantage of the opportunity. Then, in the following verse, a twofold consideration is introduced by γὰρ , suited to the two suppositions going before: the bondman, even though remaining such, is the Lord’s freeman, and the freeman is the Lord’s bondman. Either way a qualifying circumstance in the one case tending to abate the natural evil, in the other to circumscribe and regulate the natural good. But to leave no doubt that the apostle was not insensible to the superiority of a free over an enslaved condition, and regarded the former as alone properly suited to the place of a believer, he adds, 1 Corinthians 7:24, “Ye were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” Seeing how great a price has been given to raise you into the glorious liberty of the gospel, do not act an unseemly part by becoming bondmen to your fellow-creatures. And of course, if they should not voluntarily become such, neither should they voluntarily continue such, when it was in their power to escape from the anomalous position.

Interpreted in this manner, the exhortation of the apostle is throughout reasonable and consistent. His general direction is that people, on becoming Christians, should continue in the relations which they at the time occupied the married (though to a heathen spouse) in wedlock, the uncircumcised in uncircumcision, the slave in bondage. But where a change to the better might be found practicable, let it be adopted the Christian wife drawing over to the faith her unbelieving husband, or, failing in that, and finding domestic peace impracticable, retiring into privacy; the slave having the power to become free, using that power; but the free on no account bartering their freedom for a state of bondage, since that would be unsuitable to their high calling as the redeemed children of God in Christ.