The Pastoral Epistles.
In Paul's pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus, besides the ordinary recognition of the divinity of Christ found in almost every page of the New Testament, there are four passages in vv^hich, at least according to the common text and the most natural interpre- tation, he is directly called God. Even 1 Tim, i. 1, Kar eViray^v ®€ov a-wTqpo'i rjfjiwv Kau KvpLov 'Irjaov Xptarov, may be naturally rendered, " according to the command of God our Saviour, even our Lord Jesus Christ." This is in accordance with the parallel passages in Titus i. 3, "according to the commandmient of God our Saviour ; " and Titus ii. 13, " of the great God our Saviour Jesus Christ." In this latter passage there is no reason, as Winer and De Wette ac- knowledge, for questioning that Christ is called the great God, except what they regard as the Christology of the New Testa- ment. They do not admit that Christ is the great God according to the doctrine of Paul, and therefore they are unwilling to admit that this passage contains that declaration. But if, as we have seen, and as the whole Church believes, not only Paul but all the Apostles and prophets, abundantly teach that the Messiah is truly God as well as truly man, there is no force in this objection. Vio- lence must be done to the ordinary rules of language if rov fxeydXov 6eov Kola-wTrjpo'; ave not referred to the same subject ; inasmuch as 6eov has the article and o-wr^pos is without it. The fair meaning of the words is, " The Great God who is our Saviour Jesus Christ." This interpretation is also demanded, (1.) By the context. Jesus Christ is the subject of discourse. Of Him it is said that He is the great God our Saviour, who gave Himself for us.- (2.) Because the cTTK^ava'a, appearance (here in reference to the second advent), is repeatedly used in the New Testament of Christ, but never of God as such, or of God the Father. See 2 Tim. i. 10 ; 2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8. (3.) The position of the words trojTTjpos rjixwv before 'Itjctov XpuTTov. If "God" and "Saviour" re- ferred to different persons the natural order of the words would be, " The appearance of the great God and Jesus Christ our Saviour ; " and not as it is, " The appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Great God and Saviour obviously belong to the same person in 1 Tim. i. 1. " The command of God our Saviour," and in Titus i. 3, " God our Saviour ; " and in this place (Tit. ii. 13) that God and Saviour is declared to be Jesus Christ.
The most important passage, however, in these pastoral epistles, is 1 Tim. iii. 16. With regard to that passage it may be remarked,
618 PAET I. — THEOLOGY. [Cn. VH. — Divinity of Chbist.
(1.) That it admits of two interpretations. According to the one, the Church is declared to be the pillar and ground of truth ; ac- cording to the other, the pillar and ground of truth is the great mystery of godliness. The latter is greatly to be preferred as equally consistent with the grammatical structure of the passage, and as far more in harmony with the analogy of Scripture. The pillar and ground of truth, the great fundamental doctrine of the Gospel, is often elsewhere declared to be the doctrine of the man- ifestation of God in the flesh. On this doctrine all our hopes of salvation rest. (2.) Whatever reading be adopted, whether 6eos, OS, or 6, all of which appear in different manuscripts, the passage must refer to Christ. He it was who was manifest in the flesh, justified by the Spirit, and received up into glory. (3.) Whatever reading be adopted, the passage assumes or asserts the divinity of our Lord. With the apostolic writers., the doctrine of the incarna- tion is expressed by saying, that the Adyos " became flesh " (John i. 14) ; or, " Christ is come in the flesh " (1 John iv. 2) ; or, " He who is the brightness of God's glory " took part of flesh and blood " (Heb. ii. 14) ; or, He that was " equal with God " was " found in fashion as a man." (Phil. ii. 8.) The same truth, therefore, is expressed, whether we say, " God was manifest in the flesh ; " or, " He who was manifest in the flesh ; " or, that " the mystery of godliness was manifest in the flesh." (4.) The external authori- ties are so divided that the most competent editors and critics difter as to what is the original text. For 6ieo's Ave find the great body of the cursive Greek manuscripts and almost all the Greek Fathers. The authority of the Codex Alexandrinus is claimed on both sides. The question there is, whether the letter is 0 or O ; some say they see distinct traces of the line in the Theta, others say they do not. For OS C, F, G, of the uncial manuscripts, only two of the cursive manuscripts, and the Coptic and Sahidic versions, are quoted. To this must be added the testimony of the very ancient manuscript recently discovered by Tischendorf, the text of which has been published under his auspices at St. Petersburg. For 6 the uncial manuscript D, the Latin Vulgate and the Latin Fathers are the witnesses. Li view of this state of the question, Wetstein, Gries- bach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, among the editors, decide for os. Mill, Matthies, as well as the older editors Eras- mus, Beza, the Complutensian, and the later ones, as Knapp and Hahn, retain Oeos.'^ (5.) The internal evidence, so far as the per-
1 Dr. Henderson has ably vindicated the reading 6e6i in his Critical Examination of tht Fttrious Headings in 1 Tim. Hi. 16.