« AnteriorContinuar »
secution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts. But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came into Iconium . . . . And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed ; but the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evilaffected against the brethren. Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the multitude of the city was divided; and part held with the Jews, and part with the apostles. And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles and also of the Jews, with their rulers, to use them despitefully and to stone them, they were aware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about, and there they preached the gospel .... And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up and came into the city; and the next day he departed with Bar nabas to Derbe: and when they had preached gos. pel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch." This account comprises the period to which the allasion in the epistle is to be referred. We have so far therefore a conformity between the history and the epistle, that St. Paul is asserted in the history to have suffered persecutions in the three cities, his persecu. tions at which are appealed to in the epistle ; and not only so, but have suffered these persecutions both in immediate succession, and in the order in which the cities are mentioned in the epistle. The conformity also extends to another circumstance. In the apostolic history Lystra and Derbe are commonly mentioned together; in the quotation from the epistle Lystra is mentioned, and not Derbe. And the distinction will appear on this occasion to be accurate; for St. Paul
is here enumerating his persecutions: and although he underwent grievous persecutions in each of the three cities through which he passed to Derbe, at Derbe itself he met with none: “The next day he departed,” says the historian, “ to Derbe; and when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra.” The epistle, therefore, in the names of the cities, in the order in which they are enumerated, and in the place at which the enumeration stops, corresponds exactly with the history.
But a second question remains, namely, how these persecutions were “known" to Timothy, or why the apostle should recall these in particular to his remembrance, rather than many other persecutions with which his ministry had beeu attended. When some time, probably three years afterward (vide Pearson's Annales Paulinas), “ St. Paul made a second journey through the same country, “ in order to go again and visit the brethren in every city where he had preached the word of the Lord,” we read, Acts xvi. 1. that " when he came to Derbe and Lystra, behold a certain disciple was there named Timotheus.” One or other, therefore, of these cities was the place of Timothy's abode. We read moreover that he was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.; so that he must have been well acquainted with these places. Also again, when Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, Timothy was already a disciple: “Behold, a certain disciple was there named Timotheus.” Ile must therefore have been converted before. But since it is expressly stated in the epistle, that Timothy was converted by St. Paul himself, that he was “his own son in the faith ;" it follows that he must have been converted by him upon his former journey into those parts; which was the very time when the apostle underwent the persecutions referred to in the epistle. Upon the whole, then, persecutions at the several cities named in the epistle are expressly recorded in the Acts: and Timothy's knowledge of this part of St Paul's history, which knowledge is appealed to in the epistle, is fairly deduced from the place of his abode, and the time of It is well known, and was remarked by St. Jerome, that the apophthegm in the fifteenth chapter of the Co rinthians, “ Evil communications corrupt good manners,” is an Iambic of Menander's:
Φθειρoυσιν ηθη χρησθ' ομιλιαι κακαι. . Here we have another unaffected instance of the same turn and habit of composition. Probably there are some hitherto unnoticed ; and more, which the loss of the original authors renders impossible to be now ascertained.
There exists a visible affinity between the Epistle to Titus and the First Epistle to Timothy. Both letters were addressed to persons left by the writer to preside in their respective churches during his absence. Both letters are principally occupied in describing the qualifications to be sought for, in those whom they should appoint to offices in the church; and the ingredients of this description are in both letters nearly the same. Timothy and Titus are likewise cautioned against the same prevailing corruptions, and in particular, against the same misdirection of their cares and studies. This affinity obtains, not only in the subject of the letters, which, from the similarity of situation in the persons to whom they were addressed, might be expected to be somewhat alike, but extends, in a great variety of instances, to the phrases and expressions. The writer accosts his two friends with the same salutation, and passes on to the business of his letter by the same transition.
“ Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith : Grace mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia," &c. 1 Tim. i. 2, 3.
“To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete." Tit. i. 4, 5.
If Timothy was not to “ give heed to fables and
endless genealogies, which minister questions" (1 Tim. i. 4.); Titus also was to “ avoid foolish questions and genealogies, and contentions” (iii. 9.); and was to “ rebuke them sharply, not giving heed to Jewish fables." (i. 14.) If Timothy was to be a pattern (TUTOS), (1 Tim. iv. 12.) so was Titus. (ii. 7.) If Timothy was to let no man despise his youth" (1 Tim. iv. 12.), Titus also was to “ let no man despise him.” (ii. 15.) This verbal consent is also observable in some very peculiar expressions, which have no relation to the particular character of Timothy or Titus,
The phrase, “ it is a faithful saying" (TLOTOS Ó loyos), made use of to preface some sentence upon which the writer lays a more than ordinary stress, occurs three times in the First Epistle to Timothy, once in the Second, and once in the epistle before us, and in no other part of St. Paul's writings; and it is remarkable that these three epistles were probably all written towards the conclusion of his life; and that they are the only epistles which were written after his first imprisonment at Rome. The same observation belongs to another singularity of expression, and that is in the epithet "sound" (üylaivwv), as applied to words or doctrine. It is thus used, twice in the First Epistle to Timothy, twice in the Second, and three times in the Epistle to Titus, beside two cognate expressions, υγιαινοντας τη πιστει and λογον υγιη; and it is found in the same sense, in no other part of the New Testament,
The phrase, “ God our Saviour,"stands in nearly the same predicament. It is repeated three times in the First Epistle to Timothy, as many in the Epistle to Titus, and in no other book of the New Testament occurs at all, except once in the Epistle of Jude.
Similar terms, intermixed indeed with others, are employed in the two epistles, in enumerating the qualifications required in those who should be advanced to stations of authority in the church.
“ A bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hos. pitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker,
not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity." (1 Τim. iii. 2-4.)
“ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; but a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate.”+ (Titus i. 6-8.)
The most natural account which can be given of these resemblances, is to suppose that the two epistles were written nearly at the same time, and whilst the same ideas and phrases dwelt in the writer's mind. Let us inquire, therefore, whether the notes of time, extant in two epistles, in any manner favour this suppo sition.
We have seen that it was necessary to refer the First Epistle to Timothy to a date subsequent to St. Paul's first imprisonment at Rome, because there was no journey into Macedonia prior to that event, which accorded with the circumstance of leaving “ Timothy behind at Ephesus.” The journey of St. Paul from Crete, alluded to in the epistle before us, and in which Titus “ was left in Crete to set in order the things that were wanting," must, in like manner, be carried to the period which intervened between his first and second imprisonment. For the history, which reaches, we know, to the time of St. Paul's first imprisonment, contains no account of his going to Crete, except upon his
* « Δει ουν τον επισκοπον ανεπιληπτον ειναι, μιας γυναικος ανδρα, νηφαλιον, σωφρονα, κοσμιον, φιλοξενον, διδακτικον, μη παρoινoν, μη πληκτην, μη αισχροκερδη αλλ' επιεικη, αμαχον, αφιλαργυρον του ιδιου οικου καλως προϊσταμενον, τεκνα εχοντα εν υποταγήματα πασης σεμνοτητος."
+ « Ει τις εστιν ανεγκλητος, μιας γυναικος ανήρ, τέκνα έχων πιστα, μη εν κατηγορια ασωτίας, η ανυ» ποτακτα. Δει γαρ τον επισκοπον ανεγκλητον ειναι, ως θεου οικονομον, μη αυθαδη, μη οργιλον, μη παροινον, μη πληκτην, μη αισχροκερδη" αλλα φιλοξενον, φιλαγαθον, σωφρονα, δικαιον, οσιον, εγκρατη.”