1 Timothy 3:16

Ver. 16. The more immediate reason, obviously, which led the apostle to bring so prominently out the spiritual and elevated idea he had just presented of the church of Christ, was to impress upon the mind of Timothy the gravity and importance of the charge devolved on him, and the imperative duty of all who are called to fill in it offices of trust, acting in harmony with its sacred character; especially handling with a profound seriousness the testimony lodged with it concerning truth. For “how dreadful must be their condemnation, if by any fault of theirs that truth, which is the image of the divine glory, the light of the world, and the salvation of men, should go down! This condemnation may well, indeed, strike terror into ministers, not so as to dispirit them, but to quicken them to greater vigilance” (Calvin). And with the view of still further deepening this impression, the apostle goes on now to exhibit the glorious reality, about which both the church herself and the truth committed to her keeping, is chiefly conversant: And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, appeared to angels, was preached among the Gentiles, was believed on in the world, was received up in glory. The controversy so long waged about the correct text in this passage, whether after the mystery of godliness we should read Θεός, or ὅς, or ὅ, may now be regarded as virtually settled in favour of ὅς. (The greatest critical authorities are agreed in this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles; also the more careful and exact commentators, Huther, Al ford, Ellicott. It has decidedly the strongest support from ancient authorities A (such, at least, seems the most probable view of its primary reading, the strokes converting OC into ΘC, being apparently from a later hand; see Ellicott's testimony in his n ote, also Alford's to the same effect), C, F, G, א; while for Θεο ́ ς there are only two uncials, I, K, at first hand, though most of the later MSS. have this reading, and it is that also of Chrysostom, Theod., Euthalius, Damasc., Theophyl., and Œcum. One u ncial MS., D, has ὁ ́ first hand; and both the Latin versions, and nearly all the Latin Fathers, have the corresponding quod. But this, as Ellicott notes, was only a Latinizing variation of ὁ ́ ς; and as the Coptic, Sahidic, Gothic, as well as Syriac versions all represent ὁ ́ ς, and the ancient Latin versions and Fathers at least a relative, ὁ ́ ς must undoubtedly be regarded as the more probable reading. Literal considerations also favour it, as will be seen in the exposition.) It is, indeed, when closely considered, the fittest, indicating Him who in His person and work is the disclosing of that mystery, respecting the divine life in man, which had hitherto been hid in God. “This mystery of the life of God in man (as Alford well remarks) is, in fact, the unfolding of Christ to and in him; the key-text to our passage being Colossians 1:27, where God is said to have made known ‘what is the wealth of the glory τοῦ μυστηρίου τούτου ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ὅ ἐστιν Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης.' This was the thought in St. Paul's mind, that the great revelation of the religious life is Christ. And in accordance with his practice in these epistles, written, as I believe, far on his course, and after the figures and results of deep spiritual thoughts had been long familiar to him, he at once, without explanation or apology, as beforetime in Colossians 1:27, or expression of the Χριστο/ς justifying the change of gender in the relative, joins the deep and latent thought with the superficial and obvious one, and without saying that the mystery is in fact Christ, passes from the mystery to the person of Christ, as being one and the same. Then, thus passing, he is naturally led to a summary of those particulars wherein Christ has been revealed as a ground for the godliness of His church. And the idea of μυστηρίον being prominent before him, he selects especially those events in and by which Christ was manifested forth came forth from that secrecy in which He had beforetime been hidden in the counsels of God, and shone out to men and angels as the Lord of life and glory.”

I have no doubt this is the correct explanation; it quite naturally accounts for the substitution of ὅς for the Χριστός. There are not wanting even more abrupt and striking substitutions of a like kind in Scripture. Thus, Psalms 87 begins with, “His foundation is in the holy mountains.” Whose foundation? The Psalmist's mind being full of his subject, he does not expressly name this, but proceeds at once to declare what he knew and thought concerning it. So also 3 John 1:7, speaking of the believing strangers, represents them as (according to the proper text) “having for the name gone forth.” What name? This it was needless further to particularize. The ὅς here should therefore be taken simply as the relative, the proper antecedent being omitted, but easily supplied. Ellicott does well in rejecting other modes of explanation; such as considering it at once as demonstrative and relative, “He who,” or making it equivalent to ecce est qui. But I see no reason for supposing, with him, Huther, and others, that the passage introduced by the relative is part of an ancient hymn or confession adopted by the apostle. The natural supposition, I agree with Alford in thinking, would appear rather to lie the other way. It was more likely that such a passage a passage so singularly profound and pregnant in meaning should have been first penned by the apostle, and then possibly passed into some kind of hymnal or liturgical use (though of this we have no certain information), than that, from haying been so used, it should have been caught up by the apostle, and woven into his discourse. Its parallelistic structure is no argument against this; for in other parts of the apostle's writings we find him, in his fervent utterances, falling into the same kind of parallelism Romans 8:38-39, Rom 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57.

The substitution of ὅς for Θεός as the proper reading, by no means destroys the bearing of the passage on the divinity of Christ; for this is clearly implied in what follows is, indeed, the ground-element of the whole series of declarations. There had been no proper mystery in the matter, unless the divine here mingled with the human. The first announcement alone may be held to be conclusive on the subject: was manifested in the flesh; for who would have dreamt of speaking thus of a simple man? It plainly implies that the person spoken of was something before, something so much greater and higher than man, that it was like the disclosure of a great secret when He manifested Himself in mortal flesh. It is the fact of the incarnation merely which is here mentioned; but this contemplated as embracing not simply the birth, but the whole of our Lord's earthly existence and sojourn. The nearest parallel passages are John 1:14; 1 John 1:1. The next expression is not quite so patent in meaning: was justified in spirit (ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι). For the question naturally presents itself What spirit? Is it the Holy Spirit? Or, the spirit in Christ's person, viewed as a kind of antithesis to His flesh? According as the one or the other view of this is adopted, a corresponding difference will arise in the sense we necessarily put on the justifying. But as the whole discourse here is of Christ Himself, in His personal properties and marvellous history, the most natural light in which to view spirit must be to understand it of Christ's spiritual nature, the seat of His divine life; and, as such, the counterpart of the flesh mentioned in the immediately preceding clause, which together made up His appearance and life among men. It is of that, also, we can best understand the justifying, which must be taken here, as elsewhere in St. Paul's writings, in the sense of judged or approved as righteous. Christ was thus justified in spirit, because in His career on earth, from first to last. He fulfilled all righteousness, and once and again was proclaimed to be the Father's beloved Son, in whom He was well pleased. There is, when so explained, both a contrast and a correspondence in the two predicates: manifested in flesh, justified in spirit; flesh and spirit natural opposites, but the manifesting in the one corresponding to the justifying in the other; that indicating His real humanity, this His true holiness; on the one side actual manhood, on the other spiritual perfection.

There is the same sort of contrast and correspondence in the two succeeding pairs. And it is this, too much overlooked by commentators, which most readily helps us to the right exhibition of the meaning. Appeared (ὤφθη, rather appeared than was seen; it is made Himself seen, for the verb is commonly used in the sense of self-exhibition, Acts 7:26; Acts 26:16, etc.) appeared to angels, was preached among the Gentiles: angels and Gentiles, again natural opposites the one the blessed occupants of a higher sphere, the other the more corrupt and debased inhabitants of this lower world. To the former, therefore. He appears as He is; they observe His progress, bring occasional supply to His wants, herald His resurrection, attend Him as guardian hosts to heaven, thereafter minister and serve before Him: to the latter, the Gentiles, He cannot thus render Himself manifest and familiar; but, what in a sense was better, He is preached among them for their salvation, so that through Him they may be raised out of their prostrate condition, and become allied to nobler spirits, even to “the innumerable company of angels and the church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven.” Finally, Believed on in the world, received tip in glory: the world and glory, how far asunder, and in a sense antagonistic! the one above, the other beneath; the one suggesting thoughts only of celestial brightness and purity, the other replete with numberless forms and appearances of evil the region of sin, disease, and death. In this, therefore, Christ, as the perfected Redeemer, was incapable of residing, yet is spiritually present and believed on to the temporal and eternal good of His people; while Himself, as the fit inhabitant of a better region, received up in glory the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Thus not merely at the commencement, but throughout the series, there is the evolution of a mystery; an exhibition of contrasts, yet at the same time a preservation of what is fit and becoming in the several relations; a carrying out of what, in its diversified bearings, the scheme of God indispensably required. But I can see no advantage to the meaning, or even suitableness, in endeavouring, with Alford, to make the clauses consecutive each as it follows taking up the history where the immediately preceding one had left it. It is impossible to work out a natural exposition on this plan; some of the expressions must have a measure of constraint or violence put upon them.