The Expositor's Bible: The Pastoral Epistles Part 10

"Paul, a servant of G.o.d, and an apostle of Jesus Christ ... to t.i.tus, my true child after a common faith: Grace and peace from G.o.d the Father, and Christ Jesus our Saviour"--t.i.tUS i. 1, 4.

The t.i.tle "Pastoral Epistle" is as appropriate to the Epistle to t.i.tus as to the First Epistle to Timothy. Although there is a good deal in the letter that is personal rather than pastoral, yet the pastoral element is the main one. The bulk of the letter is taken up with questions of Church doctrine and government, the treatment of the faithful members of the congregation and of the unruly and erring. The letter is addressed to t.i.tus, not as a private individual, but as the delegate of the Apostle holding office in Crete. Hence, as in the First Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul styles himself an Apostle: and the official character of this letter is still further marked by the long and solemn superscription. It is evidently intended to be read by other persons besides the minister to whom it is addressed.

The question of the authenticity of the Epistle to t.i.tus, has already been in a great measure discussed in the first of these expositions. It was pointed out there that the external evidence for the genuineness in all three cases is very strong, beginning almost certainly with Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, becoming clear and certain in Irenaeus, and being abundant in Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. Of the very few people who rejected them, Tatian seems to have been almost alone in making a distinction between them. He accepted the Epistle to t.i.tus, while rejecting the two to Timothy. We may rejoice that Tatian, Marcion, and others raised the question. It cannot be said that the Churches accepted this Epistle without consideration. Those who possessed evidence now no longer extant were convinced, in spite of the objections urged, that in this letter and its two companions we have genuine writings of St. Paul.

With regard to modern objections, it may be freely admitted that there is no room in St. Paul's life, as given in the Acts, for the journey to Crete, and the winter at Nicopolis required by the Epistle to t.i.tus. But there is plenty of room for both of these _outside_ the Acts, viz., between the first and second imprisonment of the Apostle. And, as we have already seen good reason for believing in the case of 1 Timothy, the condition of the Church indicated in this letter is such as was already in existence in St. Paul's time; and the language used in treating of it resembles that of the Apostle in a way which helps us to believe that we are reading his own words and not those of a skilful imitator. For this imitator must have been a strange person; very skilful in some things, very eccentric in others. Why does he give St.

Paul and t.i.tus a work in Crete of which there is no mention in the Acts?

Why does he make the Apostle ask t.i.tus to meet him in Nicopolis, a place never named in connexion with St. Paul? Why bracket a well-known person, like Apollos, with an utterly unknown person, such as Zenas? It is not easy to believe in this imitator.

Yet another point of resemblance should be noted. Here, as in 1 Timothy, there is no careful arrangement of the material. The subjects are not put together in a studied order, as in a treatise with a distinct theological or controversial purpose. They follow one another in a natural manner, just as they occur to the writer. Persons with their hearts and heads full of things which they wish to say to a friend, do not sit down with an a.n.a.lysis before them to secure an orderly arrangement of what they wish to write. They start with one of the main topics, and then the treatment of this suggests something else: and they are not distressed if they repeat themselves, or if they have to return to a subject which has been touched upon before and then dropped. This is just the kind of writing which meets us once more in the letter to t.i.tus. It is thoroughly natural. It is not easy to believe that a forger in the second century could have thrown himself with such simplicity into the att.i.tude which the letter pre-supposes.

It is not possible to determine whether this letter was written before or after the First to Timothy. But it was certainly written before the Second to Timothy. Therefore, while one has no sufficient reason for taking it before the one, one has excellent reason for taking it before the other. The precise year and the precise place in which it was written, we must be content to leave unsettled. It may be doubted whether either the one or the other would throw much light on the contents of the letter. These are determined by what the Apostle remembers and expects concerning affairs in Crete, and not by his own surroundings. It is the official position of t.i.tus in Crete which is chiefly before his mind.

t.i.tus, as we learn from the opening words of the letter, was, like Timothy, converted to Christianity by St. Paul. The Apostle calls him "his true child after a common faith." As regards his antecedents he was a marked contrast to Timothy. Whereas Timothy had been brought up as a Jew under the care of his Jewish mother Eunice, and had been circ.u.mcised by St. Paul's desire, t.i.tus was wholly a Gentile, and "was not compelled to be circ.u.mcised," as St. Paul states in the pa.s.sage in which he tells the Galatians (ii. 1--3) that he took t.i.tus with him to Jerusalem on the occasion when he and Barnabas went thither seventeen years after St.

Paul's conversion. Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem on that occasion to protect Gentile converts from the Judaizers, who wanted to make all such converts submit to circ.u.mcision. t.i.tus and others went with them as representatives of the Gentile converts, and in their persons a formal protest was made against this imposition. It is quite possible that t.i.tus was with St. Paul when he wrote to the Galatians; and if so this mention of him becomes all the more natural. We may fancy the Apostle saying to t.i.tus, as he wrote the letter, "I shall remind them of your case, which is very much to the point." Whether t.i.tus was personally known to the Galatian Church is not certain; but he is spoken of as one of whom they have at any rate heard.

t.i.tus was almost certainly one of those who carried the First Epistle to the Corinthian Church, _i.e._, the first of the two that have come down to us; and St. Paul awaited his report of the reception which the letter had met with at Corinth with the utmost anxiety. And he was quite certainly one of those who were entrusted with the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. St. Paul wrote the first letter at Ephesus about Easter, probably in the year 57. He left Ephesus about Pentecost, and went to Troas, where he hoped to meet t.i.tus with news from Corinth. After waiting in vain he went on to Macedonia in grievous anxiety; and there t.i.tus met him. He at once began the second letter, which apparently was written piece-meal during the journey; and when it was completed he sent t.i.tus back to Corinth with it.

That t.i.tus should twice have been sent as the messenger and representative of St. Paul to a Church in which difficulties of the gravest kind had arisen, gives us a clear indication of the Apostle's estimate of his character. He must have been a person of firmness, discretion, and tact. There was the monstrous case of incest, the disputes between the rival factions, contentions in public worship and even at the Eucharist, litigation before the heathen, and wild ideas about the resurrection, not to mention other matters which were difficult enough, although of a less burning character. And in all these questions it was the vain, fitful, vivacious, and sensitive Corinthians who had to be managed and induced to take the Apostle's words (which sometimes were very sharp and severe) patiently. Nor was this all.

Besides the difficulties in the Church of Corinth there was the collection for the poor Christians in Judaea, about which St. Paul was deeply interested, and which had not been progressing in Corinth as he wished. St. Paul was doubly anxious that it should be a success; first, because it proved to the Jewish converts that his interest in them was substantial, in spite of his opposition to some of their views; secondly, because it served to counteract the tendency to part asunder, which was manifesting itself between the Jewish and Gentile Christians.

And in carrying out St. Paul's instructions about these matters t.i.tus evidently had to suffer a good deal of opposition; and hence the Apostle writes a strong commendation of him, coupling him with himself in his mission and zeal. "Whether any inquire about t.i.tus, he is my partner and my fellow-worker to you-ward." "Thanks be to G.o.d, which putteth the same earnest care for you into the heart of t.i.tus. For indeed he accepted our exhortation; but being himself very earnest, he went forth unto you of his own accord." With great delicacy the Apostle takes care that, in making it clear to the Corinthians that t.i.tus has his full authority for what he does, no slight is cast upon t.i.tus's own zeal and interest in the Corinthians. "He is my representative; but he comes of his own free will out of love to you. His visit to you is his own doing; but he has my entire sanction. He is neither a mechanical delegate, nor an unauthorized volunteer."

A curtain falls on the career of this valued help-mate of the great Apostle, from the time when he carried the second letter to Corinth to the time when the letter to himself was written. The interval was probably some eight or ten years, about which we know only one thing, that during it, and probably in the second half of it, the Apostle and t.i.tus had been together in Crete, and t.i.tus had been left behind to consolidate the Church there. The Acts tell us nothing. Probably t.i.tus is not mentioned in the book at all. The reading "t.i.tus Justus" in xviii. 7, is possibly correct, but it is far from certain: and even if it were certain, we should still remain in doubt whether t.i.tus and t.i.tus Justus are the same person. And the attempts which have been made to identify t.i.tus with other persons in the Acts, such as Silva.n.u.s or Timothy, are scarcely worth considering. Nor has the conjecture that t.i.tus is the author of the Acts (as Krenkel, Jacobsen, and recently Hooykaas in the _Bible for Young People_ have suggested) very much to recommend it. The hypothesis has two facts to support it: (1) the silence of the Acts respecting t.i.tus, and (2) the fact that the writer must have been a companion of St. Paul. But these two facts are equally favourable to the tradition that St. Luke was the author, a tradition for which the evidence is both very early and very abundant. Why should such a tradition yield to a mere conjecture?

One thing, however, we may accept as certain:--that the time when St.

Paul was being carried a prisoner to Rome in an Alexandrian corn-ship which touched at Crete, was _not_ the time when the Church in Crete was founded. What opportunity would a prisoner have of doing any such work during so short a stay? Cretans were among those who heard the Apostles at Pentecost preaching in their own tongue the wonderful works of G.o.d.

Some of these may have returned home and formed the first beginnings of a Christian congregation: and among imperfect converts of this kind we might expect to find the errors of which St. Paul treats in this Epistle. But we can hardly suppose that there was much of Christian organization until St. Paul and t.i.tus came to the island after the Apostle's first Roman imprisonment. And the necessity of having some one with a calm head and a firm hand on the spot, forced the Apostle to leave his companion behind him. The man who had been so successful in aiding him respecting the difficulties at Corinth was just the man to be entrusted with a somewhat similar but rather more permanent post in Crete. The Cretans were less civilized, but in their own way scarcely less immoral, than the Corinthians; and in both cases the national failings caused serious trouble in the Church. In both cases ecclesiastical authority has to be firmly upheld against those who question and oppose it. In both cases social turbulence has to be kept in check. In both cases there is a tendency to wild theological and philosophical speculations, and (on the part of some) to a bigoted maintenance of Jewish ordinances and superst.i.tions. Against all these t.i.tus will have to contend with decision, and if need be with severity.

The letter, in which directions are given for the carrying out of all this, is evidence of the great confidence which the Apostle reposed in him. One of those who had worked also in Corinth, is either already with him in Crete, or may soon be expected,--Apollos, and with him Zenas. So that the Corinthian experience is doubly represented. Other helpers are coming, viz., Artemas and Tychicus; and, when they arrive, t.i.tus will be free to rejoin the Apostle, and is to lose no time in doing so at Nicopolis.

One commission t.i.tus has in Crete which very naturally was not given to him at Corinth. He is to perfect the organization of the Christian Church in the island by appointing elders in every city. And it is this charge among others which connects this letter so closely with the first to Timothy, which very likely was written about the same time.

Whether t.i.tus was set free from his heavy charge in Crete in time to join St. Paul at Nicopolis, we have no means of knowing. At the time when the second letter to Timothy was written, t.i.tus had gone to Dalmatia; but we are left in doubt as to whether he had gone thither by St. Paul's desire, or (like Demas in going to Thessalonica) against it.

Nor does it appear whether t.i.tus had gone to Dalmatia from Nicopolis, which is not far distant, or had followed the Apostle from Nicopolis to Rome, and thence gone to Illyria. With the journey to Dalmatia our knowledge of him ends. Tradition takes him back to Crete as permanent bishop; and in the Middle Ages the Cretans seem to have regarded him as their patron saint.

The impression left upon our mind by the Acts is that St. Luke knew Timothy and did not know t.i.tus: and hence frequently mentions the one and says nothing about the other. The impression left upon our mind by the mention of both in Paul's Epistles, and by the letters addressed to each, is that t.i.tus, though less tenderly beloved by the Apostle, was the stronger man of the two. St. Paul seems to be less anxious about the conduct of t.i.tus and about the way in which others will treat him. The directions as to his personal behaviour are much slighter than in the case of Timothy. He seems to credit him with less sensitiveness and more decision and tact; perhaps also with less liability to be carried away by fanatical views and practices than the other.

t.i.tus shares with Timothy the glory of having given up everything in order to throw in his lot with St. Paul, and of being one of his most trusted and efficient helpers. What that meant the Epistles of St. Paul tell us:--ceaseless toil and anxiety, much shame and reproach, and not a little peril to life itself. He also shares with Timothy the glory of being willing, when the cause required such sacrifice, to separate from the master to whom he had surrendered himself, and to work on by himself in isolation and difficulty. The latter was possibly the more trying sacrifice of the two. To give up all his earthly prospects and all the sweetness of home life, in order to work for the spread of the Gospel side by side with St. Paul, was no doubt a sacrifice that must have cost those who made it a great deal. But it had its attractive side. Quite independently of the beauty and majesty of the cause itself, there was the delight of being a.s.sociated with a leader so able, so sagacious, so invigorating, and so affectionate as the Apostle who "became all things to all men that he might by all means save some."

Hard work became light, and difficulties became smooth, under the inspiriting sympathy of such a colleague. But it was quite another thing to have given up everything for the sake of such companionship and support, or at least in the full expectation of enjoying it, and then to have to undergo the hard work and confront the difficulties without it.

The new dispensation in this respect repeats the old. Elisha leaves his home and his inheritance to follow Elijah, and then Elijah is taken from him. Timothy and t.i.tus leave their homes and possessions to follow St.

Paul, and then St. Paul sends them away from him. And to this arrangement they consented, Timothy (as we know) with tears, t.i.tus (we may be sure) with much regret. And what it cost the loving Apostle thus to part with them and to pain them we see from the tone of affectionate longing which pervades these letters.

The example set by both master and disciples is one which Christians, and especially Christian ministers, must from time to time need. Christ sent forth both the Twelve and the Seventy "two and two"; and what is true of mankind generally is true also of the ministry--"It is not good for man to be alone." But cases often arise in which not more than one man can be spared for each post; and then those who have been all in all to one another, in sympathy and counsel and co-operation, have to part.

And it is one of the greatest sacrifices that can be required of them.

Paul and Timothy and t.i.tus were willing to make this sacrifice; and it is one which Christ's servants throughout all ages are called upon at times to make. Many men are willing to face, especially in a good cause, what is repulsive to them, if they have the company of others in the trial, especially if they have the presence and support of those whose presence is in itself a refreshment, and their support a redoubling of strength. But to enter upon a long and trying task with the full expectation of such advantages, and then to be called upon to surrender them,--this is, indeed, a trial which might well make the weak-hearted turn back. But their devotion to their Lord's work, and their confidence in His sustaining power, enabled the Apostle and his two chief disciples to make the venture; and the marvellous success of the Church in the age which immediately succeeded them, shows how their sacrifice was blessed.

And we may be sure that even in this world they had their reward.

"Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for My sake, and for the Gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, _with persecutions_; and in the world to come _eternal life_."

CHAPTER XIX.

_THE CHURCH IN CRETE AND ITS ORGANIZATION.--THE APOSTLE'S DIRECTIONS FOR APPOINTING ELDERS._

"For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge; if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly. For the bishop must be blameless, as G.o.d's steward."--t.i.tUS i. 5-7.

This pa.s.sage tells us a great deal about the circ.u.mstances which led to the writing of the letter. They have been touched upon in the previous chapter, but may be treated more comprehensively here.

It is quite evident: (1) that the Gospel had been established in Crete for a considerable time when St. Paul wrote this to his delegate, t.i.tus; (2) that during the Apostle's stay in the island he had been unable to complete the work which he had in view with regard to the full establishment of the Church there; and (3) that one of the chief things which remained undone, and which St. Paul had been compelled to leave to t.i.tus to accomplish, was a properly organized ministry. There was a large and scattered flock; but for the most part it was without shepherds.

It is quite possible that the Gospel of Christ was at least known, if not by any one believed, in Crete before St. Paul visited the islands.

Cretans were among those who heard the miraculous preaching of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost; and some of these may have returned to their country, if not converts to Christianity, at any rate full of what they had seen and heard of "the mighty works of G.o.d," as shown forth in the words spoken on that day, and in their consequences. Certainly there were many Jews in the island; and these, though often the bitterest opponents of the Gospel, were nevertheless the readiest and best converts, when they did not oppose; for they already knew and worshipped the true G.o.d, and they were acquainted with the prophecies respecting the Messiah. We may therefore conclude that the way was already prepared for the preaching of Christ, even if He as yet had no worshippers in Crete, before St. Paul began to teach there.

There are three things which tend to show that Christianity had been spreading in Crete for at least some years when the Apostle wrote this letter to t.i.tus. First, the latter is charged to "appoint elders _in every city_," or "city by city," as we might render the original expression (?at? p????). This implies that among the mult.i.tude of cities, for which Crete even in Homer's day had been famous, not a few had a Christian congregation in need of supervision; and it is not improbable that the congregation in some cases was a large one. For the interpretation is certainly an untenable one which forces into the Apostle's words a restriction which they do not contain, that each city is to have just one presbyter and no more. St. Paul tells t.i.tus to take care that no city is left without a presbyter. Each Christian community is to have its proper ministry; it is not to be left to its own guidance. But how many elders each congregation is to have, is a point to be decided by t.i.tus according to the principles laid down for him by St. Paul. For we must not limit the "as I gave thee charge" to the mere fact of appointing elders. The Apostle had told him, not merely that elders must be appointed, but that they must be appointed in a particular way, and according to a prescribed system. The pa.s.sage, therefore, tells us that there were a good many cities in which there were Christian congregations, and leaves us quite free to believe that some of these congregations were large enough to require several elders to minister to them and govern them. Secondly, the kind of person to be selected as overseer seems to imply that Christianity has been established for a considerable time among the Cretans. The "elder" or "bishop" (for in this pa.s.sage, at any rate, the two names indicate one and the same officer) is to be the father of a family, with children who are believers and orderly persons.

The injunction implies that there are cases in which the father is a good Christian, but he has not succeeded in making his children good Christians. Either they have not become believers at all; or, although nominal Christians, they do not conduct themselves as such. They are profligate, riotous, and disobedient. This implies that the children are old enough to think for themselves and reject the Gospel in spite of their parent's conversion; or that they are old enough to rebel against its authority. And one does not use such strong words as "profligacy" or "riotous living" of quite young children. The prodigal son, of whom the same expression is used, was no mere child. Cases of this kind, therefore, in which the father had been converted to Christianity, but had been unable to make the influences of Christianity tell upon his own children, were common enough to make it worth St. Paul's while to give injunctions about them. And this implies a condition of things in which Christianity was no newly planted religion. The injunctions are intelligible enough. Such fathers are not to be selected by t.i.tus as elders. A man who has so conspicuously failed in bringing his own household into harmony with the Gospel, is not the man to be promoted to rule the household of the Church. Even if his failure is his misfortune rather than his fault, the condition of his own family cannot fail to be a grave impediment to his usefulness as an overseer of the congregation.[72] Thirdly, there is the fact that heresies already exist among the Cretan Christians. t.i.tus, like Timothy, has to contend with teaching of a seriously erroneous kind. From this also we infer that the faith has long since been introduced into the island. The misbeliefs of the newly converted would be spoken of in far gentler terms. They are errors of ignorance, which will disappear as fuller instruction in the truth is received. They are not erroneous doctrines held and propagated in opposition to the truth. These latter require time for their development. From all these considerations, therefore, we conclude that St. Paul is writing to t.i.tus as his delegate in a country in which the Gospel is no new thing. We are not to suppose that the Apostle left t.i.tus in charge of Christians who had been converted a very short time before to the faith.

The incompleteness of the Apostle's own work in the island is spoken of in plain terms. Even in Churches in which he was able to remain for two or three years, he was obliged to leave very much unfinished; and we need not be surprised that such was the case in Crete, where he can hardly have stayed so long. It was this incompleteness in all his work, a defect quite unavoidable in work of such magnitude, that weighed so heavily upon the Apostle's mind. It was "that which pressed upon him daily,--anxiety for all the Churches." There was so much that had never been done at all; so much that required to be secured and established; so much that already needed correction. And while he was attending to the wants of one Church, another not less important, not less dear to him, was equally in need of his help and guidance. And here was the comfort of having such disciples as, Timothy and t.i.tus, who, like true friends, could be indeed a "second self" to him. They could be carrying on his work in places where he himself could not be. And thus there was no small consolation for the sorrow of parting from them and the loss of their helpful presence. They could be still more helpful elsewhere. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting."

There were many things that were wanting in Crete; but one of the chief things which pressed upon the Apostle's mind was the lack of a properly organized ministry, without which everything must soon fall into confusion and decay. Hence, as soon as he has concluded his salutation, the fulness and solemnity of which is one of the many evidences of the genuineness of the letter, he at once repeats to t.i.tus the charge which he had previously given to him by word of mouth respecting this pressing need. A due supply of elders or overseers is of the first importance for "setting in order" those things which at present are in so unsatisfactory a state.

There are several points of interest in connexion with St. Paul's directions to t.i.tus respecting this need and the best way of meeting it.

First. It is t.i.tus himself who is to appoint these elders throughout the cities in which congregations exist. It is not the congregations that are to elect the overseers, subject to the approval of the Apostle's delegate; still less that he is to ordain any one whom they may elect.

The full responsibility of each appointment rests with him. Anything like popular election of the ministers is not only not suggested, it is by implication entirely excluded. But, secondly, in making each appointment t.i.tus is to consider the congregation. He is to look carefully to the reputation which the man of his choice bears among his fellow-Christians:--"if any man is _blameless_ ... having children who are not _accused_ of riot.... For the bishop must be _blameless_." A man in whom the congregation have no confidence, because of the bad repute which attaches to himself or his family, is not to be appointed. In this way the congregation have an indirect veto; for the man to whom they cannot give a good character may not be taken to be set over them.

Thirdly, the appointment of Church officers is regarded as imperative: it is on no account to be omitted. And it is not merely an arrangement that is as a rule desirable: it is to be universal. t.i.tus is to "appoint elders in every city." He is to go through the congregations "city by city," and take care that each has its elder or body of elders.

Fourthly, as the name itself indicates, these elders are to be taken from the older men among the believers. As a rule they are to be heads of families, who have had experience of life in its manifold relations, and especially who have had experience of ruling a Christian household.

That will be some guarantee for their capacity for ruling a Christian congregation. Lastly, it must be remembered that they are not merely delegates, either of t.i.tus, or of the congregation. The essence of their authority is not that they are the representatives of the body of Christian men and women over whom they are placed. It has a far higher origin. They are "G.o.d's stewards." It is His household that they direct and administer, and it is from Him that their powers are derived. They are His ministers, solemnly appointed to act in His Name. It is on His behalf that they have to speak, as His agents and amba.s.sadors, labouring to advance the interests of His kingdom. They are "stewards of His mysteries," bringing out of what is committed to them "things new and old." As G.o.d's agents they have a work to do among their fellow-men, through themselves, for Him. As G.o.d's amba.s.sadors they have a message to deliver, good tidings to proclaim, ever the same, and yet ever new. As "G.o.d's stewards" they have treasures to guard with reverent care, treasures to augment by diligent cultivation, treasures to distribute with prudent liberality. There is the flock, sorely needing, but it may be not greatly craving, G.o.d's spiritual gifts. The longing has to be awakened: the longing, when awakened, has to be cherished and directed: the gifts which will satisfy it have to be dispensed. There is a demand; and there is a supply; a human demand and a Divine supply. It is the business of G.o.d's stewards to see that the one meets the other.

"G.o.d's steward" is the key to all that follows respecting the qualities to be looked for in an elder or overseer of the Church: and, as the order of the words in the Greek shows, the emphasis is on "G.o.d's" rather than on "steward." The point accentuated is, not that in the Church as in his own home he has a household to administer, but that the household to which he has to minister is G.o.d's. That being so, he "as G.o.d's steward" must prove himself worthy of the Commission which he holds: "not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, temperate; holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers."

Such men, wherever he can find them,--and "_if_ any man is blameless" is not meant to hint that among Cretans it may be impossible to find such,--t.i.tus is to "_appoint_" as elders in every city. In the A.V. the phrase runs "_ordain_ elders in every city." As we have seen already (Chap. V.), there are several pa.s.sages in which the Revisers have changed "ordain" into "appoint." Thus in Mark iii. 14, "He ordained twelve" becomes "He appointed twelve." In John xv. 16, "I have chosen you and ordained you" becomes, "I chose you and appointed you." In 1 Tim. ii. 7, "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle" becomes "whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle." In Heb. v. 1, and viii. 3, "Every high priest is ordained" becomes "every high priest is appointed." In these pa.s.sages three different Greek words (p????, t????, ?a??st??) are used in the original; but not one of them has the special ecclesiastical meaning which we so frequently a.s.sociate with the word "ordain"; not one of them implies, as "ordain" in such context almost of necessity implies, a _rite_ of ordination, a special ceremonial, such as the laying on of hands. When in English we say, "He ordained twelve," "I am ordained an apostle," "Every high priest is ordained," the mind almost inevitably thinks of ordination in the common sense of the word; and this is foisting upon the language of the New Testament a meaning which the words there used do not rightly bear. They all three of them refer to the _appointment_ to the office, and not to rite or ceremony by which the person appointed is admitted to the office. The Revisers, therefore, have done wisely in banishing from all such texts a word which to English readers cannot fail to suggest ideas which are not contained at all in the original Greek. If we ask in what way t.i.tus admitted the men whom he selected to serve as presbyters to their office, the answer is scarcely a doubtful one. Almost certainly he would admit them, as Timothy himself was admitted, and as he is instructed to admit others, by the laying on of hands. But this is neither expressed nor implied in the injunction to "_appoint_ elders in every city." The appointment is one thing, the ordination another; and even in cases in which we are sure that the appointment involved ordination, we are not justified in saying "ordain" where the Greek says "appoint." The Greek words used in the pa.s.sages quoted might equally well be used of the appointment of a magistrate or a steward. And as we should avoid speaking of _ordaining_ a magistrate or a steward, we ought to avoid using "ordain" to translate words which would be thoroughly in place in such a connexion. The Greek words for "ordain" and "ordination," in the sense of imposition of hands in order to admit to an ecclesiastical office (?e????ete?, ?e????es?a), do not occur in the New Testament at all.

It is worthy of note that there is not a trace here, any more than there is in the similar pa.s.sage in 1 Timothy, of the parallel between the threefold ministry in the Old Testament and a threefold ministry in the Christian Church, high-priest, priests, and Levites being compared with bishop, presbyters, and deacons. This parallel was a favourite one and it was made early. The fact therefore that we do not find it in any of these Epistles, nor even any material out of which it could be constructed, confirms us in the belief that these letters belong to the first century and not to the second.

In giving this injunction to t.i.tus, St. Paul a.s.sumes that his disciple and delegate is as free as he himself is from all feelings of jealousy, or envy. "Art thou jealous for my sake? would G.o.d that all the Lord's people were prophets," is the spirit in which these instructions are given, and no doubt were accepted. There is no grasping after power in the great Apostle of the Gentiles; no desire to keep everything in his own hands, that he might have the credit of all that was done. So long as Christ is rightly preached, so long as the Lord's work is faithfully done, he cares not who wins the glory. He is more than willing that Timothy and t.i.tus should share in his work and its reward; and he without hesitation applies to them to admit others in like manner to share with them in their work and its reward. This generous willingness to admit others to co-operate is not always found, especially in men of strong character and great energy and decision. They will admit subordinates as a necessary evil to work out details, because they cannot themselves afford time for all these. But they object to anything like colleagues. Whatever of any serious importance is done must be in their own hands and must be recognized as their work. There is nothing of this spirit in St. Paul. He could rejoice when some "preached Christ even of envy and strife," "not sincerely, thinking to raise up affliction for him in his bonds." He rejoiced, not because of their evil temper, but because that at any rate Christ was preached. How much more, therefore, did he rejoice when Christ was preached "of good will" by disciples devoted to himself and his Master. They all had the same end in view; not their own glory, but the glory of G.o.d.

And this is the end which all Christian ministers have to keep in view, and which they too often exchange for ends that are far lower, and far removed (it may be) from the cause with which we choose to identify them. And as time goes on, and we look less and less with a single eye at the will of G.o.d, and have less and less of the single purpose of seeking His glory, our aims become narrower and our ends more selfish.

At first it is the triumph of a system, then it is the advancement of a party. Then it becomes the propagation of our own views, and the extension of our own influence. Until at last we find ourselves working, no longer for G.o.d's glory, but simply for our own. While professing to work in His Name and for His honour, we have steadily subst.i.tuted our own wills for His.

But it is only by forgetting ourselves that we find ourselves; only by losing our life that we find it. "G.o.d's steward" must be ready to sink every personal interest in the interests of the great Employer. He has nothing of his own. He deals with his Master's goods, and must deal with them in his Master's way. He who labours in this spirit will one day be rewarded by the Divine voice of welcome: "Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things; I will set thee over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord."

FOOTNOTES:

[72] It is worth while here to repeat the caution that the Apostle's language by no means implies that the "elder" or "bishop" _must_ be a married man with children. But it implies that he will generally be such; and in appointing him, the character of his family must be carefully considered.