The Expositor's Bible: The Pastoral Epistles Part 6

But these grounds do not stand alone. There is the convincing evidence of the converse phrase, "wife of one husband." If men with more than one wife were very rare in the Roman Empire, what are we to think of women with more than one husband? Even among the barbarians outside the Empire, such a thing as a plurality of husbands was regarded as monstrous. It is incredible that St. Paul could have had any such case in his mind, when he mentioned the qualification "wife of one husband."

Moreover, as the question before him was one relating to widows, this "wife of one husband" must be a person who at the time had _no_ husband.

The phrase, therefore, can only mean a woman who after the death of her husband has not married again. Consequently the converse expression, "husband of one wife," cannot have any reference to polygamy.

2. Far more worthy of consideration is the view that what is aimed at in both cases is not polygamy, but _divorce_. Divorce, as we know from abundant evidence, was very frequent both among the Jews and the Romans in the first century of the Christian era. Among the former it provoked the special condemnation of Christ: and one of the many influences which Christianity had upon Roman law was to diminish the facilities for divorce. According to Jewish practice the husband could obtain a divorce for very trivial reasons; and in the time of St. Paul Jewish women sometimes took the initiative. According to Roman practice either husband or wife could obtain a divorce very easily. Abundant instances are on record, and that in the case of people of high character, such as Cicero. After the divorce either of the parties could marry again; and often enough both of them did so; therefore in the Roman Empire in St.

Paul's day there must have been plenty of persons of both s.e.xes who had been divorced once or twice and had married again. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that quite a sufficient number of such persons had been converted to Christianity to make it worth while to legislate respecting them. They might be admitted to baptism; but they must not be admitted to an official position in the Church. A regulation of this kind might be all the more necessary, because in a wealthy capital like Ephesus it would probably be among the upper and more influential cla.s.ses that divorces would be most frequent; and from precisely these cla.s.ses, when any of them had become Christians, officials would be likely to be chosen. This explanation, therefore, of the phrases "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband" cannot be condemned, like the first, as utterly incredible. It has a fair amount of probability: but it remains to be seen whether another explanation (which really includes this one) has not a far greater amount.

3. We may pa.s.s over without much discussion the view that the phrases are a vague way of indicating _misconduct of any kind in reference to marriage_. No doubt such misconduct was rife among the heathen, and the Christian Church by no means escaped the taint, as the scandals in the Church of Corinth and the frequent warnings of the Apostles against sins of this kind show. But when St. Paul has to speak of such things he is not afraid to do so in language that cannot be misunderstood. We have seen this already in the first chapter of this Epistle; and the fifth chapters of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians supply other examples. We may safely say that if St. Paul had meant to indicate persons who had entered into illicit unions before or after marriage, he would have used much less ambiguous language than the phrases under discussion.

4. There remains the view, which from the first has been the dominant one, that these pa.s.sages all refer to _second marriage after the first marriage has been dissolved by death_. A widower who has married a second wife ought not to be admitted to the ministry; a widow who has married a second husband ought not to be placed on the roll of Church widows. This interpretation is reasonable in itself, is in harmony with the context and with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage, and is confirmed by the views taken of second marriages in the case of clergy by the early Church.

(_a_) The belief that St. Paul was opposed to the ordination of persons who had contracted a second marriage is reasonable in itself. A second marriage, although perfectly lawful and in some cases advisable, was so far a sign of weakness; and a double family would in many cases be a serious hindrance to work. The Church could not afford to enlist any but its strongest men among its officers; and its officers must not be hampered more than other men with domestic cares. Moreover, the heathen certainly felt a special respect for the _univira_, the woman who did not enter into a second marriage; and there is some reason for believing that second marriages were sometimes thought unfitting in the case of men, _e.g._, in the case of certain priests. Be that as it may, we may safely conclude that, both by Christians and heathen, persons who had abstained from marrying again would so far be more respected than those who had not abstained.

(_b_) This interpretation is in harmony with the context. In the pa.s.sage before us the qualification which immediately precedes the expression, "husband of one wife," is "without reproach"; in the Epistle to t.i.tus it is "blameless." In each case the meaning seems to be that there must be nothing in the past or present life of the candidate, which could afterwards with any show of reason be urged against him as inconsistent with his office. He must be above and not below the average of men; and _therefore_ he must not have been twice married.

(_c_) This agrees with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage. His statements are clear and consistent, and it is a mistake to suppose that there is any want of harmony between what is said in this Epistle and what is said to the Corinthian Church on this subject. The Apostle strongly upholds the lawfulness of marriage for all (1 Cor. vii. 28, 36; 1 Tim. iv. 3). For _those who are equal to it_, whether single or widowed, he considers that their remaining as they are is the more blessed condition (1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 8, 32, 34, 40; 1 Tim. v. 7). But so few persons are equal to this, that it is prudent for those who desire to marry to do so, and for those who desire to marry again to do so (1 Cor. vii. 2, 9, 39; 1 Tim. v. 14). These being his convictions, is it not reasonable to suppose, that in selecting ministers for the Church he would look for them in the cla.s.s which had given proof of moral strength by remaining unmarried or by not marrying a second time. In an age of such boundless licentiousness continency won admiration and respect; and a person who had given clear evidence of such self-control would have his moral influence thereby increased. Few things impress barbarous and semi-barbarous people more than to see a man having full control over pa.s.sions to which they themselves are slaves. In the terrific odds which the infant Church had to encounter, this was a point well worth turning to advantage.

And here we may note St. Paul's wisdom in giving no preference to those who had not married at all over those who had married only once. Had he done so, he would have played into the hands of those heretics who disparaged wedlock. And perhaps he had seen something of the evils which abounded among the celibate priests of heathenism. It is quite obvious, that, although he in no way discourages celibacy among the clergy, yet he a.s.sumes that among them, as among the laity, marriage will be the rule and abstaining the exception; so much so, that he does not think of giving any special directions for the guidance of a celibate bishop or a celibate deacon.[49]

5. Lastly, this interpretation of the phrases in question is strongly confirmed by the views of leading Christians on the subject in the first few centuries, and by the decrees of councils; these being largely influenced by St. Paul's language, and therefore being a guide as to what his words were then supposed to mean.

Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, of course Tertullian, and among later Fathers, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and Cyril, all write in disparagement of second marriages, not as sin, but as weakness. To marry again is to fall short of the high perfection set before us in the Gospel const.i.tution. Athenagoras goes so far as to call a second marriage "respectable adultery," and to say that one who thus severs himself from his dead wife is an "adulterer in disguise." Respecting the clergy, Origen says plainly, "Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow, can be twice married." The canons of councils are not less plain, either as to the discouragement of second marriages among the laity, or their incompatibility with what was then required of the clergy. The synods of Ancyra (_Can._ 19), of Neocaesarea (_Can._ 3 and 7), and of Laodicea (_Can._ 1) subjected lay persons who married more than once to a penalty. This penalty seems to have varied in different Churches; but in some cases it involved excommunication for a time. The Council of Nicaea, on the other hand, makes it a condition that members of the Puritan sect of _Cathari_ are not to be received into the Church unless they promise in writing to communicate with those who have married a second time (Can. 8). The _Apostolic Const.i.tutions_ (vi. 17) and the so-called _Apostolic Canons_ (17) absolutely forbid the promotion of one who has married twice, to be a bishop, presbyter, or deacon; and the _Apostolic Const.i.tutions_ forbid the marriage of one who is already in Holy Orders. He may marry once before he is ordained: but if he is single at his ordination he must remain so all his life. Of course, if his wife dies, he is not to marry again. Even singers, readers, and door-keepers, although they may marry after they have been admitted to office, yet are in no case to marry a second time or to marry a widow. And the widow of a cleric was not allowed to marry a second time.

All these rigorous views and enactments leave little doubt as to how the early Church understood St. Paul's language: viz., that one who had exhibited the weakness of marrying a second time was not to be admitted to the ministry. From this they drew the inference that one who was already in orders must not be allowed to marry a second time. And from this they drew the further inference that entering into a marriage contract at all was inadmissible for one who was already a bishop, presbyter, or deacon. Marriage was not a bar to ordination, but ordination was a bar to marriage. Married men might become clergy, but the higher orders of clergy might not become married.

A little thought will show that neither of these inferences follows from St. Paul's rule; and we have good reason for doubting whether he would have sanctioned either of them. The Apostle rules that those who have shown want of moral strength in taking a second wife are not to be ordained deacons or presbyters. But he nowhere says or hints that, if they find in themselves a want of moral strength of this kind _after_ their ordination, they are to be made to bear a burden to which they are unequal. On the contrary, the general principle, which he so clearly lays down, decides the case: "If they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." And if this holds good of clergy who have lost their first wives, it holds good at least as strongly of those who were unmarried at the time of their ordination.

Those Churches, therefore, which, like our own, allow the clergy to marry, and even to marry a second time, after ordination, may rightly claim to have the Apostle on their side.

But there are Churches, and among them the Church of England, which disregard the Apostle's directions, in admitting those who have been more than once married to the diaconate, and even to the episcopate.

What defence is to be made of an apparent laxity, which seems to amount to lawlessness? The answer is that there is nothing to show that St.

Paul is giving rules which are to bind the Church for all time. It is quite possible that his directions are given "by reason of the present distress." We do not consider ourselves bound by the regulation, which has far higher authority than that of a single Apostle, respecting the eating of blood and of things strangled. The first council, at which most of the Apostles were present, forbad the eating of these things. It also forbad the eating of things offered to idols. St. Paul himself led the way in showing that this restriction is not always binding: and the whole Church has come to disregard the other. Why? Because in none of these cases is the act sinful in itself. While the Jewish converts were likely to be scandalized by seeing their fellow-Christians eating blood, it was expedient to forbid it; and while heathen converts were likely to think lightly of idolatry, if they saw their fellow-Christians eating what had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, it was expedient to forbid it. When these dangers ceased the reason for the enactment ceased; and the enactment was rightly disregarded. The same principle applies to the ordination of persons who have been twice married.

Nowadays a man is not considered less strong than his fellows, because he has married a second time. To refuse to ordain such a person would be to lose a minister at a time when the need of additional ministers is great; and this loss would be without compensation.

And we have evidence that in the primitive Church the Apostle's rule about digamists was not considered absolute. In one of his Montanist treatises Tertullian taunts the Catholics in having even among their bishops men who had married twice, and who did not blush when the Pastoral Epistles were read;[50] and Hippolytus, in his fierce attack on Callistus, Bishop of Rome, states that under him men who had been twice and thrice married were ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. And we know that a distinction was made in the Greek Church between those who had married twice _as Christians_, and those who had concluded the second marriage before baptism. The latter were not excluded from ordination. And some went so far as to say that if the first marriage took place before baptism, and the second afterwards, the man was to be considered as having been married only once.[51] This freedom in interpreting the Apostle's rule not unnaturally led to its being, in some branches of the Church, disregarded. St. Paul says, "Do not ordain a man who has married more than once." If you may say, "This man, who has married more than once, shall be _accounted_ as having married only once;" you may equally well say "The Apostle's rule was a temporary one, and we have the right to judge of its suitableness to our times and to particular circ.u.mstances." We may feel confidence that in such a matter it was not St. Paul's wish to deprive Churches throughout all time of their liberty of judgment, and the Church of England is thus justified.

FOOTNOTES:

[49] As the _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_ (vol. i. p. 324) has given its sanction to the view that "St. Paul _required_ the presbyter-bishop to have had the experience of marriage and with at least a preference for those who had brought up children (1 Tim. iii. 2, 4), and extended the requirement even to the deacons of the Church (1 Tim. iii. 11, 12)," it seems to be worth while to repeat the declaration of Ellicott and Huther, that "the strange opinion of Bretschneider, that ??? is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant that a bishop should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is accorded to it by Winer, _Grammar of New Testament_, III. 18 (Eng. Tr., p. 146)." Would any Englishman ever say "a bishop must have one wife,"

when his meaning was "a bishop must have a wife"?

[50] _De Monog._, xii.

[51] See Dollinger's _Hippolytus and Callistus_ (pp. 129-147 Eng.

Trans.) for a full discussion of the question.

CHAPTER XII.

_THE RELATION OF HUMAN CONDUCT TO THE MYSTERY OF G.o.dLINESS._

"These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of G.o.d, which is the Church of the living G.o.d, the pillar and ground of the truth. And without controversy great is the mystery of G.o.dliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory"--1 TIM.

iii. 14-16.

St. Paul here makes a pause in the Epistle. He has brought to a close some of the princ.i.p.al directions which he has to give respecting the preservation of pure doctrine, the conduct of public wors.h.i.+p, and the qualifications for the ministry: and before proceeding to other topics he halts in order to insist upon the importance of these things, by pointing out what is really involved in them. Their importance is one main reason for his writing at all. Although he hopes to be with Timothy again even sooner than might be expected, he nevertheless will not allow matters of this gravity to wait for his return to Ephesus. For, after all, this hope may be frustrated, and it may be a long time before the two friends meet again face to face. The way in which Christians ought to behave themselves in the house of G.o.d is not a matter which can wait indefinitely, seeing that this house of G.o.d is no lifeless shrine of a lifeless image, which knows nothing and cares nothing about what goes on in its temple; but a congregation of immortal souls and of bodies that are temples of the living G.o.d, Who will destroy him who destroys His temple (1 Cor. iii. 17). G.o.d's house must have regulations to preserve it from unseeming disorder. The congregation which belongs to the living G.o.d must have a const.i.tution to preserve it from faction and anarchy.

All the more so, seeing that to it has been a.s.signed a post of great responsibility. Truth in itself is self-evident and self-sustained: it needs no external support or foundation. But truth as it is manifested to the world needs the best support and the firmest basis that can be found for it. And it is the duty and privilege of the Church to supply these. G.o.d's household is not only a community which in a solemn and special way belongs to the living G.o.d: it is also the "pillar and ground of the truth." These considerations show how vital is the question, In what way ought one to behave oneself in this community?[52]

For the truth, to the support and establishment of which every Christian by his behaviour in the Church is bound to contribute, is indisputably something great and profound. By the admission of all, the mystery of the Christian faith is a deep and weighty one; and the responsibility of helping or hindering its establishment is proportionately deep and weighty. Other things may be matter of dispute, but this not. "Without controversy great is the mystery of G.o.dliness."

Why does St. Paul speak of the Truth as "the mystery of G.o.dliness"? In order to express both the Divine and the human aspects of the Christian faith. On the Divine side the Gospel is a mystery, a disclosed secret.

It is a body of truth originally hidden from man's knowledge, to which man by his own unaided reason and abilities would never be able to find the way. In one word it is a revelation: a communication by G.o.d to men of Truth which they could not have discovered for themselves. "Mystery"

is one of those words which Christianity has borrowed from paganism, but has consecrated to new uses by gloriously transfiguring its meaning. The heathen mystery was something always kept hidden from the bulk of mankind; a secret to which only a privileged few were admitted. It encouraged, in the very centre of religion itself, selfishness and exclusiveness. The Christian mystery, on the other hand, is something once hidden, but now made known, not to a select few, but to all. The term, therefore, involves a splendid paradox: it is a secret revealed to every one. In St. Paul's own words to the Romans (xvi. 25), "the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal G.o.d, is made known unto all the nations." He rarely uses the word mystery without combining with it some other word signifying to reveal, manifest, or make known.[53]

But the Christian faith is not only a mystery but a "mystery of G.o.dliness." It not only tells of the bounty of Almighty G.o.d in revealing His eternal counsels to man, but it also tells of man's obligations in consequence of being initiated. It is a mystery, not "of lawlessness" (2 Thess. ii. 7), but "of G.o.dliness." Those who accept it "profess G.o.dliness"; profess reverence to the G.o.d who has made it known to them.

It teaches plainly on what principle we are to regulate "how men ought to behave themselves in the household of G.o.d." The Gospel is a mystery of piety, a mystery of reverence and of religious life. Holy itself, and proceeding from the Holy One, it bids its recipients be holy, even as He is Holy Who gives it.

"Who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory."

After the text about the three Heavenly Witnesses in the First Epistle of St. John, no disputed reading in the New Testament has given rise to more controversy than the pa.s.sage before us. Let us hope that the day is not far distant when there will be no more disputing about either text.

The truth, though still doubted, especially in reference to the pa.s.sage before us, is not really doubtful. In both cases the reading of the A.V.

is indefensible. It is certain that St. John never wrote the words about the "three that bear witness in heaven": and it is certain that St. Paul did not write, "_G.o.d_ was manifest in the flesh," but "_Who_ was manifested in the flesh." The reading "_G.o.d_ was manifested in the flesh" appears in no Christian writer until late in the fourth century, and in no translation of the Scriptures, earlier than the seventh or eighth century. And it is not found in any of the five great primary MSS., except as a correction made by a later scribe, who knew of the reading "G.o.d was manifested," and either preferred it to the other, or at least wished to preserve it as an alternative reading, or as an interpretation. Even so cautious and conservative a commentator as the late Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln declares that "the preponderance of testimony is overwhelming" against the reading "_G.o.d_ was manifested in the flesh." In an old Greek MS., it would require only two small strokes to turn "Who" into "G.o.d"; and this alteration would be a tempting one, seeing that the masculine "Who" after the neuter "mystery," looks harsh and unnatural.[54]

But here we come upon a highly interesting consideration. The words that follow look like a quotation from some primitive Christian hymn or confession. The rhythmical movement and the parallelism of the six balanced clauses, of which each triplet forms a climax, points to some such fact as this. It is possible that we have here a fragment of one of the very hymns which, as Pliny the Younger tells the Emperor Trajan, the Christians were accustomed to sing antiphonally at daybreak to Christ as a G.o.d.[55] Such a pa.s.sage as this might well be sung from side to side, line by line or triplet by triplet, as choirs still chant the Psalms in our churches.

"Who was manifested in the flesh, "Justified in the spirit, "Seen of angels, "Preached among the nations, "Believed on in the world, "Received up in glory."

Let us a.s.sume that this very reasonable and attractive conjecture is correct, and that St. Paul is here quoting from some well-known form of words. Then the "Who" with which the quotation begins will refer to something in the preceding lines which are not quoted. How natural, then, that St. Paul should leave the "Who" unchanged, although it does not fit on grammatically to his own sentence. But in any case there is no doubt as to the antecedent of the "Who." "The mystery of G.o.dliness"

has for its centre and basis the life of a Divine Person; and the great crisis in the long process by which the mystery was revealed was reached when this Divine Person "was manifested in the flesh." That in making this statement or quotation the Apostle has in his mind the Gnostics who "teach a different doctrine" (i. 3), is quite possible, but is by no means certain. The "manifestation" of Christ in the flesh is a favourite topic with him, as with St. John, and is one of the points in which the two Apostles not only teach the same doctrine, but teach it in the same language. The fact that he had used the word "mystery" would be quite enough to make him speak of "manifestation," even if there had been no false teachers who denied or explained away the fact of the Incarnation of the Divine Son. The two words fit into one another exactly.

"Mystery," in Christian theology, implies something which once was concealed but has now been made known; "manifest" implies making known what had once been concealed. _An historical appearance of One Who had previously existed, but had been kept from_ _the knowledge of the world_, is what is meant by, "Who was manifested in the flesh."

"Justified in the spirit." Spirit here cannot mean the Holy Spirit, as the A.V. would lead us to suppose. "In spirit" in this clause is in obvious contrast to "in flesh" in the previous clause. And if "flesh"

means the material part of Christ's nature, "spirit" means the immaterial part of His nature, and the higher portion of it. His flesh was the sphere of His manifestation: His spirit was the sphere of His justification. Thus much seems to be clear. But what are we to understand by His justification? And how did it take place in His spirit? These are questions to which a great variety of answers have been given; and it would be rash to a.s.sert of any one of them that it is so satisfactory as to be conclusive.

Christ's human nature consisted, as ours does, of three elements, body, soul, and spirit. The body is the flesh spoken of in the first clause.

The soul (????), as distinct from the spirit (p?e?a), is the seat of the natural affections and desires. It was Christ's soul that was troubled at the thought of impending suffering. "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt. xxvi. 38; Mark xiv. 34). "Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save Me from this hour"

(John xii. 27). The spirit is the seat of the religious emotions: it is the highest, innermost part of man's nature; the sanctuary of the temple. It was in His spirit that Christ was affected when the presence of moral evil distressed Him. He was moved with indignation in His spirit when He saw the hypocritical Jews mingling their sentimental lamentations with the heartfelt lamentations of Martha and Mary at the grave of Lazarus (John xi. 33). It was in His spirit also that He was troubled when, as Judas sat at table with Him and possibly next to Him,[56] He said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray Me" (John xiii. 21). This spiritual part of His nature, which was the sphere of His most intense suffering, was also the sphere of His most intense joy and satisfaction. As moral evil distressed His spirit, so moral innocence delighted it. In a way that none of us can measure, Jesus Christ knew the joy of a good conscience. The challenge which He made to the Jews, "Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" was one which He could make to His own conscience. It had nothing against Him and could never accuse Him. He was _justified_ when it spake, and clear when it judged (Rom. iii. 4; Ps. li. 4). Perfect Man though He was, and manifested in weak and suffering flesh, He was nevertheless "justified in the spirit."[57]

"Seen of angels." It is impossible to determine the precise occasion to which this refers. Ever since the Incarnation Christ has been visible to the angels; but something more special than the fact of the Incarnation seems to be alluded to here. The wording in the Greek is exactly the same as in "_He appeared to_ Cephas; then _to_ the twelve; then _He appeared to_ above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then _He appeared to_ James; then _to_ all the Apostles; last of all, as _to_ one born out of due time, _He appeared to_ me also" (1 Cor. xv. 5-8). Here, therefore, we might translate "_appeared to_ angels." What appearance, or appearances, of the incarnate Word to the angelic host can be intended?

The question cannot be answered with any certainty; but with some confidence we can venture to say what can _not_ be intended. "Appeared to angels" can scarcely refer to the angelic appearances which are recorded in connexion with the Nativity, Temptation, Agony, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. On those occasions angels appeared to Christ and to others, not He to angels. With still greater confidence we may reject the suggestion that "angels" here means either the Apostles, as the angels or _messengers_ of Christ, or evil spirits, as the angels of Satan. It may be doubted whether anything at all parallel to either explanation can be found in Scripture. Moreover, "appeared to evil spirits" is an interpretation which makes the pa.s.sage more difficult than it was before. The manifestation of Christ to the angelic host either at the Incarnation or at the return to glory is a far more reasonable meaning to a.s.sign to the words.

The first three clauses of this primitive hymn may thus be summed up.

The mystery of G.o.dliness has been revealed to mankind, and revealed in a historical Person, Who, while manifested in human flesh, was in His inmost spirit declared free from all sin. And this manifestation of a perfectly righteous Man was not confined to the human race. The angels also witnessed it and can bear testimony to its reality.

The remaining triplet is more simple: the meaning of each one of its clauses is clear. The same Christ, who was seen of angels, was also preached among the nations of the earth and believed on in the world: yet He Himself was taken up from the earth and received once more in glory. The propagation of the faith in an ascended Christ is here plainly and even enthusiastically stated. To all the nations, to the whole world, this glorified Saviour belongs. All this adds emphasis to the question "how men ought to behave themselves in the house of G.o.d" in which such truths are taught and upheld.

It is remarkable how many arrangements of these six clauses are possible, all making excellent sense. We may make them into two triplets of independent lines: or we may couple the two first lines of each triplet together and then make the third lines correspond to one another. In either case each group begins with earth and ends with heaven. Or again, we may make the six lines into three couplets. In the first couplet flesh and spirit are contrasted and combined; in the second, angels and men; in the third, earth and heaven.