1 Timothy 3:16

1 Timothy 3:16. Without controversy. ‘ Confessedly' answers better to the purely affirmative element of the Greek word.

Is the mystery of godliness. As interpreted by the language of this Epistle, the phrase stands parallel to ‘the mystery of the faith' in 1 Timothy 3:9; i.e., the word ‘godliness' is taken in a half objective sense as the religion which men profess, and the ‘mystery' here, as there, is the truth once hidden, but now revealed, in a creed, but yet also even more in a Person.

God was manifested in the flesh. For the various readings of the Greek, see note below. Here I assume that which gives in the English ‘ who was manifested.' The apparent anomaly of an antecedent in the neuter and a relative in the masculine finds its parallel and explanation in Colossians 1:27, where we have ‘the mystery which (or who) is Christ in you, the hope of glory.' The Truth is the Person. If the reading thus adopted seems at first less strong as a proof of the Godhead of the Son than that previously received, it must be remembered that it is in closer accordance with the language of St. John, ‘The Word became flesh' (John 1:14). The structure of the whole sentence, the rhythmical parallelism of its clauses, the absence of conjunctions, makes it all but certain that we have here the fragment of a primitive creed or hymn, the confession made by converts at their baptism, or chanted afterwards in worship.

Justified in the Spirit. Better, ‘justified in spirit' The Greek simply expresses an antithesis to ‘in the flesh' of the previous clause. ‘Justified' in the sense of ‘declared to be righteous,' with perhaps a special reference to the voice from Heaven at His baptism.

Seen of angels. The formulated utterance of the thought which St. Paul expands in Ephesians 3:9-10. The mystery of the Incarnation was manifested not to men only but to angels as at the Temptation, the Agony, the Resurrection.

Was preached unto the Gentiles. Better ‘ among.' The words expressed the relation of the mystery of godliness to mankind, as the previous clause its relation to the higher order of spiritual beings.

Was believed on in the world, received up into glory. The visible and invisible are again brought into antithesis. The historical position of the Ascension as preceding the conversion of the Gentiles is inverted so as to end with the thought that He who was received up in glory abides there for ever. The progress of His kingdom in the world is but the partial manifestation of the glory of the kingdom in Heaven.

Note on 1 Timothy 3:16.

The evidence in favour of the reading which has been adopted above may be briefly stated for the English reader. The three readings in the Uncial or capital letters of the more ancient and therefore authoritative Mss. are as follows:

(1) ΘΣ the abbreviated form of ΘΕΟΣ, ‘God.'

(2) ΟΣ the relative pronoun in the masculine, ‘who.'

(3) Ο the relative pronoun in the neuter, ‘which.'

Of these (1) is found in some of the older MSS., but not without indications, in some cases, of the lines which distinguish Θ from Ο, and mark the contraction, having been retouched or inserted by a later hand, in most of the later Mss. in cursive or running hand, and in some quotations by the later Greek fathers and a few versions.

(2) is found in the Sinaitic M.S., and according to the latest investigations was the original reading of the Alexandrian; in the Gothic, Synac, and Coptic Versions, and in quotations in Cyril of Alexandria and some other Fathers.

(3) is found as one of the readings in the Cambridge Codex, in all the Latin Versions, and in quotations in all the Latin fathers except Jerome.

Looking to the facts that (1) and (2) were so closely alike that the latter might easily be altered into the former, and that men might be tempted on dogmatic grounds to make the alteration, while there would be little or no temptation the other way; that the change to the neuter form of the pronoun might naturally have been made by a transcriber for the sake of grammatical agreement with the substantive ‘mystery;' and that the evidence for (2) is even by itself stronger than for either of the other two, there ought, it is believed, to be little hesitation in adopting it. Among recent critics (Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Ellicott, and Wordsworth) there is a consensus in its favour.