1Ti 1:1-2. As in most of his other epistles, Paul here calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ in the narrower sense of the term, according to which it was applied only to those immediately called by Christ to the ministry of the gospel. He directs attention to the immediate nature of the call by adding the words κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κ.τ.λ. In 1 Cor., 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim., διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ is used for a like purpose. The expression κατʼ ἐπιταγὴν κ.τ.λ. is found elsewhere in the inscription only in Tit 1:3, where, however, it is not placed in such close connection with ἀπόστολος as here (comp. besides Rom 16:26, also 1Co 7:6; 2Co 8:8). The θέλημα is the source of the ἐπιταγή, by which we are to understand the commission given to the apostle. By this addition the apostle expresses his “assured consciousness of the divine origin and worth of his apostleship” (Matthies). It is not, however, an “involuntary” expression. The apostle deliberately insists on his apostolic authority, for the very sufficient reason that he was laying down in his epistle rules for church life. Heydenreich’s suggestion, that Paul meant at the same time to confirm Timothy’s position, is very far-fetched.
Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν] This collocation of the words is only found elsewhere in the N. T. in Jud 1:25; in all passages of the Pastoral Epistles it usually runs: ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Θεός. In this passage σωτὴρ ἡμῶν is added as in adjectival apposition to Θεοῦ; while in Luk 1:47 it is marked as a substantive by the article. In the Pastoral Epistles σωτήρ is used both of God (so frequently in O. T.; comp. LXX. Psa 24:5; Isa 12:2; Isa 45:15; Isa 45:21; Wis 16:7; Sir 51:1) and of Christ; in the other Pauline Epistles (e.g. Eph 5:23; Php 3:20), as well as in Joh 4:42, Act 5:31, etc., it serves to denote Christ. Heydenreich is right in remarking that God does not bear this name as preserver and benefactor of men in general, but on account of the means He has instituted for saving and blessing us through Christ.
καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ] These words are added on account of the apostle’s Christology; so also in Gal 1:1.
τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν] Christ is so named because He is both “the ground of our hope” (Wiesinger) and the object of it. He is hoped for, because by Him the σωτηρία is brought to completion (Calvin: in eo solo residet tota salutis nostrae materia); comp. the expression in Col 1:27 : ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δοξῆς.
Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει] Paul calls Timothy his child; he was not so κατὰ σάρκα but ἐν πίστει, since he was converted to the faith by Paul, as we learn from 1Co 4:14-17. Paul usually calls himself the father of those who had been led to the faith by him (comp. Gal 4:19). The idea of τἐκνον is strengthened by γνήσιος, perhaps by way of contrast with the heretics. The opposite of γνήσιος is νόθος or οὐκ ὄντως ὤν (comp. Plato, Rep. 293). This addition also gives prominence to the fact that Timothy was his son in the faith, not in appearance but in truth; hence Paul calls him also in 1Co 4:17 his τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν καὶ πιστὸν ἐν κυρίῳ.
ἐν πίστει] “in the sphere of faith,” is not to be connected with γνησίῳ but with τέκνῳ, as defined more closely by γνησίῳ; comp. Tit 1:4, and see Winer, p. 130 [E. T. p. 171].
χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη] This collocation occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles and in 2Jn 1:3; in the other Pauline Epistles it runs: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη. In Gal 6:16, however, εἰρήνη and ἔλεος are connected with one another. In Jud 1:2 we have: ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη. The three expressions manifestly do not indicate three different gifts of grace, but only one. The distinction is, that χάρις points more to the soil from which the gift comes, and εἰρήνη denotes its nature, while the ἔλεος (standing between the two others in the Pastoral Epistles) lays stress on the element of compassionate love in χάρις.[39] Otto arbitrarily finds in ἜΛΕΟς “a reference to the official position,” appealing to such passages as 1Ti 1:13; 1Ti 1:16; 1Co 7:25; 2Co 4:1. Paul does also acknowledge that his call to the ministry of the word came from God’s ἜΛΕΟς; but it does not follow from this that the word ἜΛΕΟς is used only in reference to the official position; comp. Gal 6:16; 2Ti 1:16; 2Ti 1:18.
ἈΠῸ ΘΕΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ΚΑῚ Κ.Τ.Λ.] Even with the reading ἩΜῶΝ the genitive ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ ἸΗΣΟῦ cannot be made to depend on ΘΕΟῦ. Next to the Father, Paul names Christ as the source from which the blessing comes, because all the Father’s gifts of blessing come through the Son.
[39] Wiesinger is right in not agreeing with Olshausen, who wishes to see in the expressions σωτήρ, ἐλπίς, ἔλεος, a special reference to the apostle’s position as a prisoner. Van Oosterzee aptly remarks: “Grace may be called the greatest benefaction for the guilty, compassion for the suffering, peace for the contending (?) disciple of the Lord.” Hofmann is right in his remark on 1Ti 1:1, that χάρις with ἀπό does not denote God’s thoughts, but “that in which His thoughts are shown, the grace which man receives.” In his explanation of 1Ti 1:2 : “χάρις is that which is imparted to man by God, who wishes him well,” the idea of χάρις is made far too general.
1Ti 1:3-4. The apostle reminds Timothy, in the first place, of a previous exhortation, obviously for the purpose of impressing it more deeply on him.
The most natural construction of the sentence appears to be, to take it as an anacolouthon, to connect ἐν Ἐφέσῳ with προσμεῖναι, to refer πορευόμενος to the subject of παρεκάλεσα, and to make ἵνα dependent on παρεκαλεσά σε κ.τ.λ. This construction is held by most expositors to be the only admissible one. The missing apodosis cannot, however, be supplied before ἵνα, because ἵνα is closely connected with what precedes; we may insert with Erasmus “ita facito,” or with Beza “vide,” or with most expositors “οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ” (Winer, p. 530 [E. T. p. 592]). The peculiarity in such an involuntary (Buttm. p. 331) anacolouthon is, that the grammatical connection is not established by inserting the omitted apodosis. The most simple course is to suppose that the apostle had “οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ” or “οὕτω ποίει,” in mind, but the place for it was lost in the abundance of the thoughts that streamed in on him.
Several expositors depart from the construction commonly accepted. Matthies takes προσμεῖναι as “stay,” not as “remain behind,” refers πορευόμενος not to the subject of παρεκάλεσα, but to σε (making an unjustifiable appeal to Eph 3:17-18; Eph 4:1-2; Col 3:16[40]), and explains the whole thus: When Timothy was intending to travel to Macedonia, Paul had charged him to stop at Ephesus and remain there. Schneckenburger (see his Beiträge z. Einl. pp. 182 ff.) arbitrarily changes the infin. προσμεῖναι into the partic. ΠΡΟΣΜΕΊΝΑς, and refers ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς to the following clause: ἽΝΑ ΠΑΡΑΓΓΕΊΛῌς. Otto treats ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς in the same way, at the same time connecting ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ with ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΑ, taking ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ in an absolute sense, making the apodosis begin with ἽΝΑ, and translating: “Just as I exhorted you to stand firm in Ephesus, so shalt thou on the journey to Macedonia command the people not to give attention to strange teachers, nor to hold them in esteem,” etc. This construction is, however, so artificial, that it is obviously incorrect to every one who is not blinded by the desire of placing the date of the composition of the epistle in a period of the apostle’s life known to us.
[40] In the passages quoted, Paul adds the participles to the previous clauses in the nom., and these participial clauses thus acquire the independence due to them according to the context. But in these passages the relation of the participial clause to the preceding main clause is quite different from what it is here, where there is no reason whatever for departing from the regular construction.
REMARK.
In order to justify his view of the sentence, Otto tries to prove the incorrectness of the usual construction, and to get rid of the objections to his own. The hypothesis of an ellipsis he rejects on account of the rule that the emphatic word can never be omitted, and that if we supply the apodosis by “οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ,” the emphatic words are καὶ νῦν. But these words are not by any means the most emphatic. The apostle might be using them not specially of the contrast between past and present, but only to give point to his former exhortation; hence he might easily omit the apodosis. Otto further maintains, that in the usual construction καθώς, which always denotes a material, actual correspondence, even to identity of motives, and further, of material contents, does not get its full force. On this point we indeed grant that the peculiar meaning of καθώς (as distinguished from ὠς) is not distinctly marked by the expositors; but it is not at all necessary in the usual interpretation to weaken arbitrarily the force of καθώς, since the apostle’s former exhortation could not but be his guide in the present one. Still less difficulty, however, is presented by καθώς, if we choose to supply οὕτω ποίει (as Hofmann does), since the meaning then is, that Timothy’s conduct is to be conformed to the exhortation already given by the apostle.
Otto tries further to show that in the usual explanation the participle πορευόμενος is not in its proper place. The rules which Otto lays down on the subject of participial clauses in order to support his assertion are, on the whole, not incorrect. The passages he quotes from the N. T. certainly show that the participle following a finite verb mostly defines it more precisely; that it either explains more precisely the verbal notion, or gives the accompanying circumstances of the verb. But Otto has overlooked the departures from this rule which occur in the N. T.; comp. Luk 4:40 with Mar 1:31; Mat 12:49 with Act 26:1; Mat 22:15 with Mat 12:14; further, Luk 24:17.[41] It cannot be denied that the participle following sometimes gives simply the time in which the action of the finite verb takes place; that here, therefore, the ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς may simply denote the time of the former exhortation.[42] Otto quotes the passage in Act 12:25 as supporting the rule that the participle following should serve to explain the verbal notion, and justifies this by saying that the participle ΠΛΗΡΏΣΑΝΤΕς ΤῊΝ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΊΑΝ gives the motive of the return. But to give the motive is no explanation. In this passage, however, the position of the participle after the finite verb is justified in this way, that it gives the motive for the action expressed by the finite verb. So, too, in the passage here there is nothing to be said against the connection of πορευόμενος with ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΑ, so soon as we suppose that the journey was the occasion for Paul giving Timothy the exhortation in question. Lastly, Otto attacks the usual construction from the notion of προσμεῖναι, because this word is explained in the construction to be equivalent to “remain, stay;” whereas, when not connected with a dative (or with a participial clause representing a dative), but standing absolutely, it has the meaning: “to maintain the position hitherto possessed, to stand firm.” Hence, if any definition of place is added, it is not as a completion of the verbal notion, but only indicates where the standing firm takes place. Otto infers from this: “accordingly ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ here does not complete ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ, but rather ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ is absolute, and ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ gives the place at which the whole sentence, viz. ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΆ ΣΕ ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ, took place.” This inference is obviously incorrect, since from Otto’s premises it only follows that, if ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ belongs to ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ, the place is thus given where Timothy is to stand fast,-in particular against the heretics,-it does not follow that ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ may be connected with ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ. Besides, from Act 18:18, it is clear beyond dispute that ΠΡΟΣΜΈΝΕΙΝ does occur in the N. T. in the weakened sense of “remain, stay.”[43] Otto does not disguise the objections to his view, but he thinks that when thoroughly weighed they are more apparent than real. In this, too, he is wrong. It is indeed right to say that in the N. T. a sentence often begins with ἽΝΑ without any verb preceding on which it depends,-and this not only in cases where the governing verbal notion is easily supplied from what precedes, as in Joh 1:8; Joh 9:3; Joh 13:18, 2Co 8:7, but also when that is not the case, so that the clause beginning with ἽΝΑ stands as an imperative clause, as in Eph 5:33; Mar 5:23 (comp. Buttm. pp. 207 f.). But in all passages where ἽΝΑ is used elliptically, this is shown clearly and distinctly by the form of the sentence, which is not the case here. It is right also to say that emphatic parts of the clause construed with ἽΝΑ are often placed before ἽΝΑ, so that ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς, therefore, might very well be connected with the clause following ἽΝΑ; but this, too, is always indicated clearly by the form of the sentence. Wherever words standing before ἽΝΑ are to be referred to what follows ἽΝΑ, these words cannot possibly be connected with what precedes them, and the part of the sentence following ἽΝΑ is incomplete in itself, so that it has to be taken along with the part before ἽΝΑ. It is wrong to maintain that the participial clause ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς ΕἸς ΜΑΚΕΔ. becomes emphatic by contrast with ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ, inasmuch as what took place in Ephesus is now to take place also on the journey to Macedonia; for-the two things are not at all the same. In Ephesus (according to Otto’s view), Paul exhorted Timothy to stand firm; but on the journey to Macedonia, Timothy is to encounter those who had been led astray. Lastly, it is right to assume that the sender of a letter, if he has anything to say of the place from which the letter is sent, may speak of it by name, comp. 1Co 15:32; 1Co 16:8, so that ἐν Ἐφέσῳ might convey to us that Paul was himself in Ephesus while writing; but we must take into consideration the special circumstances of the case. According to Otto, our epistle is a paper of instructions which the apostle put into Timothy’s hands in Ephesus, where he wrote it before setting out for Macedonia. In that case it was improper to mention the place by name. We cannot understand, then, why Paul in such a paper of instructions should have laid special stress on the exhortation he had imparted to Timothy in the very place where he put that paper into his hands.
[41] Otto tries to weaken the force of this passage against him by assuming a rhetorical inversion, because, he says, it is declared “that taking a walk and holding solemn dispute are inconsistent with one another” (!).
[42] In his groundless denial of this, Otto thinks that if πορευόμενος be joined to παρεκάλεσα it must be assumed to be a circumstance accompanying the παρεκάλεσα, but that this assumption is impossible, since a continuing fact (part. pres.) cannot be regarded as the accompanying circumstance of a concluded fact (part. aor.). But Otto overlooks the fact that πορευόμενος in this connection is not to be understood in the sense of continuing a journey, but in the sense of beginning one, of setting out.
[43] In this passage, also, Otto claims for προσμένειν, as a vox militaris, the meaning: “keep one’s ground,” remarking, “for the circumstances in Corinth were such that they might well have induced Paul to cease his labours and depart.” But this assertion is in contradiction with Luke’s statement, that the attack attempted by the Jews through Gallio was decisively warded off. Otto’s explanation, too, becomes all the more unsuitable, since, according to it, Luke would charge the apostle with not holding his ground more, and with abandoning his post.-Further, Otto seems to hesitate whether to take προσμεῖναι in the present passage as really absolute, or whether to supply with it the dative ἐμοί. After finally deciding for the former, he then explains προσμεῖναι as “keeping ground along with the leader appointed by God in the struggle against all the attacks of the heretic,” and thus in self-contradiction returns to the latter, since this leader is the Apostle Paul.
Some expositors take the whole section 1Ti 1:5-17 to be a parenthesis, and 1Ti 1:18 to be the apodosis corresponding to καθώς. The awkwardness of this construction is obvious; but Plitt thinks that, though it is not without its difficulties, most may be said for it. He is wrong, however, since ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν, in 1Ti 1:18, does not resume the παρεκάλεσά σε.
If we avoid all subtleties, we cannot but explain it: Even as I exhorted thee to remain in Ephesus when I set out for Macedonia, that thou mightst command certain men not to teach false doctrine … even so do (or: even so I exhort thee also now).[44] Regarding the meaning of ΚΑΘΏς and ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ, see the above remark.
ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΑ] Chrys.: ἌΚΟΥΕ ΤῸ ΠΡΟΣΗΝΈς, Πῶς Οὐ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΆΛΟΥ ΚΈΧΡΗΤΑΙ ῬΩΜῇ, ἈΛΛʼ ΟἸΚΈΤΟΥ ΣΧΕΔΌΝ· Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ΕἾΠΕΝ ἘΠΈΤΑΞΑ, ΟὐΔῈ ἘΚΈΛΕΥΣΑ, ΟὐΔῈ ΠΑΡῄΝΕΣΑ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΤΊ; ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΆ ΣΕ. Towards Titus, however, Paul uses the expression ΔΙΕΤΑΞΆΜΗΝ (Tit 1:5), although he was not less friendly towards him than towards Timothy.
ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς ΕἸς ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΊΑΝ] “when I went away, from Ephesus to Macedonia;” ΠΟΡΕΥΈΣΘΑΙ has in itself the general meaning of going, but it is also used of going away from a place, both absolutely (Mat 11:7) and connected with ἈΠΌ (Mat 24:1; Mat 25:41; Mat 19:15 : ἘΚΕῖΘΕΝ; Luk 13:31 : ἘΝΤΕῦΘΕΝ). Otto explains it: “on the way to Macedonia,” which is grammatically correct, but opposed to the connection of ideas. There is no ground whatever for thinking that Paul, in this expression, had in mind one particular place on the way to Macedonia, viz. Corinth. We can see no reason why Paul should have expressed himself indefinitely. Otto, indeed, is of opinion that Timothy could not have been uncertain about the meaning of the expression; and that the apostle chose it in order to spare the feelings of the Corinthians, and that he might not confess to the heretics how they had provoked his apostolic opposition to an exceptional degree. But the first reason proves too much, since Paul, if he refrained from the definite expression because Timothy knew his wishes without it, would also have refrained from the indefinite expression. The other two reasons are weak, because if Timothy was to labour successfully against the heretics, he must necessarily appeal to the authority of the apostle in whose name he was to labour. Besides, such playing at hide-and-seek as Otto imputes to the apostle, is in entire contradiction with Paul’s frank character.
ἽΝΑ ΠΑΡΑΓΓΕΊΛῌς Κ.Τ.Λ.] gives the purpose for which Timothy was to remain in Ephesus. The theory that this gives at the same time the purpose of the whole epistle (Matthies), which opinion de Wette brings forward as proving the epistle not to be genuine, is wrong.
ΠΑΡΑΓΓΕΊΛῌς] does not necessarily involve the suggestion of publicity which Matthies finds in it.
ΤΙΣΊ] The same indefinite term is used for the heretics also in 1Ti 1:6; 1Ti 1:19; 1Ti 4:1; 1Ti 5:15, etc.: “certain people whom the apostle is unwilling to designate further; Timothy already knows them” (Wiesinger).
ΜῊ ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ] The word, which is not made up of ἝΤΕΡΟς and ΔΙΔΑΣΚΆΛΕΙΝ (= ΔΙΔΆΣΚΕΙΝ), but is derived from ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΟς, occurs in the N. T. only here and in 1Ti 6:3 (comp. ἙΤΕΡΟΖΥΓΕῖΝ in 2Co 6:14). In ἝΤΕΡΟς there is not seldom the notion of different in kind, strange, something not agreeing with something else, but opposed to it. Accordingly, in the apostle’s use of the word, a ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος is a teacher who teaches other things than he should teach, who puts forward doctrines in opposition to the gospel; and ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ here means nothing else than to teach something opposed to the gospel (Heb 13:9 : ΔΙΔΑΧΑῖς ΠΟΙΚΊΛΑΙς ΚΑῚ ΞΈΝΑΙς ΜῊ ΠΑΡΑΦΈΡΕΣΘΕ); comp. 2Co 11:4; Gal 1:6 : ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ ἝΤΕΡΟΝ. Wiesinger, in order to favour his theory that heresy proper is not spoken of, weakens the meaning into “teach otherwise,” so that according to him it signifies “teaching things which lie apart from Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑ.” This is incorrect, for in that case some more precise definition would have been given.
Even in classic Greek, ἝΤΕΡΟς, in composition, often has the meaning alleged by us; thus ἙΤΕΡΟΔΟΞΕῖΝ = diversae opinionis esse; comp. Plato, Theaet. p. 190 E: δόξαν εἶναι ψευδῆ τὸ ἑτεροδοξεῖν. According to Otto, ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ means: “to have another teacher, to follow another teacher.” Otto wrongly appeals for this to Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 32, where ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι does not mean false teachers, but “such members of the church as had abandoned the teaching of the apostles and become attached to strange teachers;” and also to Ignat. ad Polycarp. chap. 3, where ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες has the same meaning.[45] Otto also makes appeal to the Greek usage, according to which, in composite nouns, the concluding word, if it be a noun, does not contain the subject of the fundamental thought in such composite words, but the nearer or more distant object. But this rule is only valid with adjectival forms. In composite substantives, on the contrary, the concluding word (if it be an unaltered substantive) may also denote the subject, which is only defined more precisely by the word that precedes.[46]
There is no ground whatever for Schleiermacher’s opinion, that the verb suggests the idea of a hierarchy.
To ΜῊ ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ there is added a second point: ΜΗΔῈ ΠΡΟΣΈΧΕΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., which Timothy is to forbid to ΤΙΝΕς.[47] Except in the Pastoral Epistles, προσέχειν does not occur in Paul. Here, as in Tit 1:14, it includes the notion of agreement; so also in Act 8:6.
μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις] The καί is to be taken epexegetically; we can neither join the two expressions as an hendiadys (fabulosae genealogiae, Heumann), nor regard them as denoting different things. The notion of μῦθοι has been limited too narrowly by many expositors,-as by Theodoret, who understands by it the traditional supplements to the law; or by others, who take it as denoting the allegorical system of interpretation, or the Jewish stories of miracles (such as occur in the pseudo-epigrapha or the Apocrypha), or even the Gentile mythologies. Leo is wrong in agreeing with Theodoret’s exposition, appealing to Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. chap. 8), and alluding to 1Ti 1:7. From that verse it is certainly clear that heretics had peculiar views regarding the law, which were in contradiction with the gospel; but it is a mere assertion to say that μῦθοι here refers to these views, all the more that the word stands closely connected with γενεαλογίαι. De Wette limits the meaning of the word in another fashion, inferring from 2Pe 1:16 : σεσοφισμένοι μῦθοι, that the μῦθοι here meant, formed the definite element in an artificial system; the notion of something artificial is obviously imported. Other expositors take the expression quite generally in the sense of “false doctrine,” as Suidas explains the word: μῦθος· λόγος ψευδής, εἰκονίζων τὴν ἀλήθειαν; this is too indefinite. Paul rather employs it because it was used to denote false ideas regarding the nature of the Godhead. The word that follows defines the nature of these μῦθοι more precisely.
On the γενεαλογίαι ἀπέραντοι, see Introd. sect. 4. Wiesinger’s view, that they denote the genealogies in the O. T., as well as that of Hofmann, that they are the historical facts in the Thora, are both to be rejected. Credner’s view, that the genealogies of Christ are meant, is quite arbitrary. So, too, with Chrysostom’s explanation: οἶμαι καὶ Ἕλληνας αὐτὸν ἐνταῦθα αἰνίττεσθαι, ὅταν λέγῃ μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις, ὡς τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν καταλεγόντων. It is very far-fetched to refer to the Kabbalistic Sephiroth. The application of the expression to the Essenic doctrine of angels (Michaelis), is contradicted by the fact that theories of emanations cannot be proved to have existed among the Essenes. The view upheld by most expositors, that the apostle was thinking of the series of emanations in the speculation of the heretics, must be considered the right one. It is confirmed by the addition of the adjective ἀπέραντοι. The genealogies are “unlimited,” since there was no necessity for them to stop at any point whatever. The conclusion was altogether arbitrary: hence, in the various systems, the genealogies of the aeons differ from one another in all sorts of ways.
αἵτινες] is not simply an attributive relative; it gives at the same time the reason of the foregoing exhortation μὴ προσέχειν “as those which” (comp. Soph. Oed. R. 1184; Pape, Handwörterbuch der griech. Spr. See the word ὅστις).
Ζητήσεις παρέχουσι μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ] Both notions: ζητήσεις and οἰκονομ. Θεοῦ, may be taken either subjectively or objectively. If ζητήσεις be taken objectively, it is “points of controversy, questions of dispute;” if subjectively, it is “investigations, controversies, disputations” (“each one trying to maintain his arbitrary fictions,” Matthies). If οἰκονομία Θεοῦ is taken objectively, it is “the salvation of God” (“the salvation grounded historically in Christ and publicly preached by means of His apostles,” Matthies; or according to others, “the ministry of the gospel;” or, lastly, “the divine gift of grace,” i.e. the divine influence on individuals by which they are brought to the faith). If it is taken subjectively, it is “the work of man as an οἰκόνομος Θεοῦ;” de Wette: “the work of a steward of God in the faith (to be awakened or to be furthered).” This latter may be taken, in a general sense, as meaning, “the Christian activity, the Christian exercise of the divine gifts of grace,”[48] or, more narrowly: “the maintaining, the strengthening in Christianity, the nourishment in the faith by the spiritual food of Christianity, which the teachers as stewards of God distribute,” Zachariae. The meaning of παρέχουσι is also modified according to the interpretation of these two notions. If they are interpreted objectively, παρέχειν is “reach forth, present;” if subjectively, it is “cause, bring about” (so Gal 6:17; also frequently in classic Greek and in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp. Wahl, Clav. libr. V. T. apocryph., under the word). Ζήτησις is not identical with ζήτημα; οἰκονομία is indeed used in the sense of “office of steward,” but οἰκονομία Θεοῦ denotes “the preparation, the arrangement made by God” (comp. Eph 1:10; Eph 3:9), and never “the divine salvation.” Hence the subjective interpretation (Hofmann) is to be preferred to the objective (as formerly in this commentary; also Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee). In any case, Matthies is wrong in taking ζητήσεις subjectively and οἰκονομία Θεοῦ objectively, and then assuming that παρέχειν is used in a zeugma. Otto’s explanation is purely arbitrary. He explains ζητήσεις by “speculations,” and οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει by “a system of divine order in the universe (sc. creation and government), resting on faith, grounded in faith,-the cosmogony and physics of the Jewish gnosis.” Of the latter phrase, he says that Paul “adopts the hypocritical name which the νομοδιδάσκαλοι claimed for their system, so that the ζητήσεις form the real, the οἰκον. ἡ ἐν πίστει, on the contrary, the pretended contents of the μῦθοι and γενεαλογίαι.” By the addition of τὴν ἐν πίστει, the labour of the οἰκόνομος Θεοῦ is defined more precisely as one in the sphere of faith (not “causing faith,” Hofmann).
μᾶλλον ἤ] as in several passages of the N. T., Joh 3:19, Act 27:11, 2Ti 3:4, stands here in the sense of denying the thought contained in the following member, so that (with Suidas) it is equivalent to καὶ οὔ.[49]
With the reading ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΊΑ (or ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΉ) ΘΕΟῦ, we must interpret, “the edifying in the faith as decreed by God” (Luther, inaccurately: “the improvement towards God in the faith”).
[44] Hofmann is wrong in asserting that Paul, when he wrote καθώς (not ὡς), could not have had in mind “any expression of which the writer was the subject, but only an exhortation as to what Timothy was to do.”
[45] The first passage runs: τηνικαῦτα (viz. after the apostle’s death) τῆς ἀθέου πλάνης ἀρχὴν ἐλάμβανεν ἡ σύστασις διὰ τῆς τῶν ἑτεροδιδασκάλων ἀτάτης, οἱ καὶ … γυμνῇ λοιπὸν ἤδη κεφαλῇ τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας κηρύγματι τὴν ψευδώνυμον γεῶσιν ἀντικηρύττειν ἐπεχείρουν. The relative clause shows most clearly that the word ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι means nothing else than false teachers.-The second passage is: οἱ δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπιστοι εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες μή σε καταπλησσέτωσαν; in which, also, false teachers, heretics, are meant, as is evident from the injunction: μή σε κ.τ.λ., as well as from the exhortation that follows.
[46] The adj. ἑτερόπους certainly does not denote “a halting foot,” but “one who has a halting foot.” On the contrary, κακόδουλος is not “one who has a bad slave,” but “a bad slave.” Comp. also μικροβασιλεύς, ψευδόμαντις, and others; in the N. T., especially the expressions: ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (ψευδοπροφήτης, ψευδόμαρτυρ, ψευδαπόστολος), 2Pe 2:1, and καλοδιδάσκαλος, Tit 2:3. It is to be noted, also, that in Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Rhet. 42, κακοδιδασκαλεῖν does not mean “to have a bad teacher,” but “to teach what is bad.”
[47] Without grounds in usage or in fact, Hofmann asserts that “προσέχειν πινί is not an expression applicable to a teacher, and that therefore the ἑτεροδ. was to be applied to some, and the προσέχειν κ.τ.λ. to others.”
[48] Thus Reiche: ista commenta … non exhibent, praebent, efficiunt dispensationem (distributionem) bonoram quae Deus Christo misso in nos contulit.
[49] Hofmann wrongly applies this form of expression in order to dispute the reference of γενεαλογίαι to the series of aeons, saying: “How could it occur to the apostle to treat the question only as a possible one, whether these follies of their own invention could not in some measure be useful to what he calls οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ? Such a possibility is not indicated by μᾶλλον ἤ.
1Ti 1:5. Τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν κ.τ.λ.] It cannot be denied that in παραγγελίας we have an echo of παραγγείλῃς in 1Ti 1:3; but it does not follow that we are to understand by it the command which the apostle gave to Timothy not to teach falsely (so Bengel: praecepti quod Ephesi urgere debes). It rather stands here in contrast with the ἑτεροδιδασκαλία just mentioned, and denotes the command which is serviceable to the οἰκονομία Θεοῦ (1Ti 1:4). It is equivalent to the ἐντολή in 1Ti 6:14, the evangelic law which forms the external rule for the conduct of Christians (Hofmann). The apostle alludes to this because he is about to pass to the doctrine of the heretics regarding the law.
It is wrong to understand by παραγγελία the Mosaic law (Calvin, Beza, and others), from which there would arise a thought foreign to the context; and it is unsatisfactory to take it in a general sense as “practical exhortation” (de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee), for in that case the imperative should have been used instead of ἐστιν. It is a peculiarity of the N. T. usage to take expressions which of themselves have a more general signification, and to mark them off with the definite article as ideas specifically Christian; thus τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἡ ὅδος (often in Acts), τὸ κήρυγμα, and others.
τέλος] is neither “fulfilment” nor “chief sum” (Luther, Erasmus: quod universam legis mosaicae vim compendio complectitur ac praestat est caritas), but “goal, scopus ad quem tendit παραγγελία” (Koppe, Wegscheider, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others[50]).
While the ἑτεροδιδασκαλία only causes ζητήσεις, which serve to engender divisions (γεννῶσι μάχας, 2Ti 2:23), the aim of the command of the gospel is love.
ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας κ.τ.λ.] The gospel proclaims to the believer one divine act, the reconciliation through Christ grounded in God’s love, and it demands also one human act, viz. love, for πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη (Rom 13:10). Leo and Matthies wrongly explain ἀγάπη here of love to God and to one’s neighbour. Here and elsewhere in the N. T., where no other genitive of the object is added, we should understand by it love to one’s neighbour. The words following declare of what nature this love should be.
ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας] καρδία denotes the inward centre of human life, especially as the seat of emotions and desires. Hence in regard to love it is often remarked that it must come from the καρδία (comp. Mat 12:37), and from a heart that is pure, i.e. free from all self-seeking; 1Pe 1:22 : ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀλαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς; comp. 1Co 13:5 : ἡ ἀγάπη … οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς.
The two additions that follow: καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου (as is clear from 1Ti 1:19; 1Ti 3:9; 1Ti 4:2), are added with special reference to the heretics, who are reproached with having both an evil conscience and a pretended faith.
συνείδησις ἀγαθή (1Ti 1:19; 1Pe 3:16; καλή, Heb 13:18; καθαρά, 1Ti 3:9; 2Ti 1:3) is not “the conscience pure from the guilt of sin” (de Wette), nor “the conscience reconciled with God” (van Oosterzee, Plitt), nor “the consciousness of peace with God” (Hofmann). Although “a conscience not reconciled with God and one’s neighbours cannot love purely,” there is no hint here of the element of reconciliation. It is simply the consciousness of cherishing no impure, wicked purposes.[51]
πίστις] is not confidence towards one’s neighbour, as it might be here when placed in connection with the idea of love; but, in accordance with the contents of the epistle, is “faith,” which in Gal 5:6 also is denoted as the ground of love.
ἀνυπόκριτος (also in Rom 12:9; 2Co 6:6; 1Pe 1:22, connected with the idea of love) denotes truth and uprightness in opposition to all flattery. It is used here not without allusion to the heretics who conducted themselves as believers in order to gain a more easy admission for their heresies.
[50] Arriani dissertt. Epict. Book I. chap. 20: τέλος ἐστὶ τὸ ἕπεσθαι θεοῖς.
[51] Otto on 2Ti 1:3 (pp. 302 f.) explains the expression καθαρὰ συνείδησις rightly (following Matthies) as “the self-consciousness of pure thoughts and endeavours;” but, on the other hand, he is wrong in regard to 1Ti 1:19, where he interprets ἀγαθὴ συνείδ. as “the conscience innocent and expectant of all salvation,” “the consciousness of divine grace supporting itself by daily putting to death the old nature.”
1Ti 1:6-7. At 1Ti 1:6 the apostle passes to the heretics.
ων] refers to the ideas immediately preceding: ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας κ.τ.λ., not-as Wiesinger rightly remarks-to ἀγάπη direct, “since εἰς ματαιολογίαν manifestly denotes a false goal in contrast with the true goal, which is ἀγάπη.”[52]
ἀστοχήσαντες] This verb occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, in this passage and also in 1Ti 6:21 and 2Ti 2:18 (where it is joined with περί and the accusative). Here it stands in its original sense: a scopo sive meta aberrare (comp. Plut. de Defect. Oracul. chap. 10), which corresponds to the τέλος mentioned in 1Ti 1:5, and gives us to understand that the heretics had at first been on the way which leads to the goal, but had not remained in it. In this way Schleiermacher’s criticism (p. 90), that the word here is far from clear, loses its force.
ἐξετράπησαν] ἐξ has its full force (Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 18: ἐκτρέπεσθαι τῆς ὁδοῦ δικαίας) in this verb, which, except in Heb 12:13, only occurs in the Epistles to Timothy. The goal to which they have come after turning from the τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας is ματαιολογία. This word (only found here; Tit 1:10 : ματαιολόγοι) characterizes the heresy as empty in nature, contributing nothing to the furtherance of the Christian life. It consists on the one hand of μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις, on the other of such definitions regarding the law as were opposed to evangelic doctrine. This latter reference is proved by the close connection of the verse with what follows.
θέλοντες] The participle does not express contrast: “although;” it gives rather a more precise definition of the previous verb ἐξετράπησαν. Some expositors (de Wette: wish to be, without being so in reality; Bengel has temere; so also Plitt) rightly urge that θέλειν expresses an allegation of their own; Hofmann, on the other hand, wrongly takes it in the sense of “arbitrary assumption.”[53]
νομοδιδάσκαλοι] Luther’s translation is, “masters of the Scripture” (and similar explanations are given; Heinrichs has “teachers”); but this does not give the full force of νόμος. By νόμος we must of course understand the Mosaic law, though it does not follow that the heretics here were Judaizers such as those against whom Paul contends in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians: they might rather be men who acquired the name by laying down arbitrary commands in their interpretations of the law, and calling these the right knowledge of the law. Baur’s theory, that Paul gave this name to the heretics because of their antinomianism, is quite arbitrary, and contrary to the natural meaning of the words. De Wette rightly disproves this by referring to Tit 1:14, from which it is abundantly clear that the heretics made it their business to lay down arbitrary commands. Baur’s appeal to 1Ti 1:8, according to which he thinks the heretics must have declared that the law was not good, must decidedly be rejected, since the idea is only an arbitrary importation into 1Ti 1:8.[54]
μὴ νοοῦντες] This participle expresses contrast (Leo: quamquam ignorant), “without, however, understanding.” The object of νοοῦντες is given in a sentence of two clauses: μήτε … μήτε. The first: μήτε ἃ λέγουσι, is clear in itself; the second: μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται, has been variously explained. Most find the difference between the clauses to lie in this, that the one refers to the utterances themselves, the other to things of which the utterance was made, i.e. to the subject-matter of the doctrine (so Raphelius, Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee, Hofmann). De Wette, again, thinks that this explanation rests on a grammatical error, and that “περὶ τίνων does not refer to the things of which corroboratory assertions were made, but to these assertions themselves” (Luther: what they say or what they suppose). In support of this opinion de Wette wrongly appeals to Tit 3:8.[55] He is wrong, too, in translating διαβεβ. by “corroborate;” it means rather: “give full assurance.” Hofmann says, “to express oneself with confidence regarding anything.” The expression is quite general, and Mack seems to be arbitrary in limiting the thought by explaining how ἃ λεγ. refers to expressions in the law brought forward as proofs of assertions with which they had no real connection, and περὶ τίν. βεβ. to those assertions for which proofs out of the law were given, and which in themselves had no meaning. Paul merely says that the νομοδιδάσκαλοι possessed no insight into the nature of the law, and hence they made assertions regarding it which were not understood even by themselves.[56]
[52] Hofmann is wrong in disputing the reason given by Wiesinger, and maintaining that παραγγελία and not τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας is opposed to ματαιολογία. There is no ground also for his assertion that ἀστοχεῖν has here the general sense of “to leave uncared for.” The ἐξετράπησαν clearly shows that ἀστοχεῖν is to be taken in its own proper sense.
[53] Hofmann’s reason for this explanation is, that “νομοδιδάσκαλοι, who make the law of Israel the subject of their instruction, have no business in the church of the gospel.” This is altogether wrong, as may be seen when, further on, Paul appears as a νομοδιδάσκαλος.
[54] Contrary to the train of thought, van Oosterzee remarks on νομοδιδάσκαλοι: “not in a good, rather in a bad, non-evangelical meaning of this word; men who mixed up law and gospel.” In this explanation he overlooks the θέλοντες εἶναι.
[55] The classical usage is against de Wette’s explanation; comp. Plutarch, Fabii Vita, chap. 14: διαβεβαιούμενος περὶ τῶν πραγμάτων; Polyb. xii. 12. 6 : διοριζόμενος καὶ διαβεβαιούμενος περὶ τούτων.
[56] On the conjunction of the relative and interrogative pronouns ἅ … τίνων, see Winer, p. 159 [E. T. p. 211].
1Ti 1:8. In contrast with the heretics’ advocacy of the law, the apostle, in what follows, states its real value.
Οἴδαμεν δὲ, ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] Baur wrongly infers from these words that the heretics, as Antinomians, had no desire to vindicate the law as good. It is not these first words, but the words ἐάν τις κ.τ.λ., that are directed against the heretics. In spite of Hofmann’s denial, οἴδαμεν δέ stands in a concessive sense, (Wiesinger), as in Rom 7:14, 1Co 8:1, the apostle making an acknowledgment which is restricted by ἐάν τις κ.τ.λ.; still we cannot translate it simply by concedimus, as Heinrichs does.
καλὸς ὁ νόμος] By νόμος we must understand, neither the Christian moral law, nor a single part of the Mosaic law, but the latter as a whole. It is of the entire Mosaic law in its existing form as a revelation of the divine will given in a system of written commands-it is of this that Paul uses καλός as a suitable epithet. It is not enough to take καλός as equivalent to ὠφέλιμος (Theodoret), though the idea of usefulness is included in it; καλός denotes generally the internal excellence of the law, just as the same is set forth in still more significant expressions in Rom 7:12; Rom 7:14. But the good and excellent qualities of the law depend on its being applied according to its nature and signification: when applied otherwise, it ceases to be καλός. Hence Paul, in opposition to the heretics, adds: ἐάν τις αὐτῷ νομίμως χρῆται. The νομίμως, which is clearly a play on words with νόμος, only expresses the formal relation; we can only infer from the thoughts that follow what is meant by the lawful use of law.[57] De Wette rightly remarks: “There is in this passage nothing but what the words really say, that the Christian teacher must not uphold the law as binding on the ΔΊΚΑΙΟς.” While nearly all expositors understand by ΤΙς the Christian as such, Bengel remarks: Paulus hoc loco non de auditore legis, sed de doctore loquitur; in this he is right, as is acknowledged also by de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann. Paul says nothing here as to how the law is to be obeyed, but rather he tells us how it is to be made use of by Christian teachers.
[57] Most expositors have on this passage told us wherein consisted the material advantage of the law; but however correct their statements in themselves may be, they are out of place, since there is no ground for them in the apostle’s words.
1Ti 1:9-10. Εἰδὼς τοῦτο] is not to be referred to οἴδαμεν, but to τις, i.e. to the teacher of the church. The use of the same verb is against the construction with οἴδαμεν. As to the meaning of the word, it is to be observed that here, as in many other passages of the N. T., it expresses not only the idea of knowing, but also that of “weighing, considering.” De Wette says, “as he knows and considers.” The law is rightly used only when it is considered that, etc.
ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται] We may, with Hofmann, take this sentence quite generally, so as to understand by νόμος not any special law, but law in general, and by δίκαιος any one who does rightly, φύσει, and not for the law’s sake (Theophylact: ὃς διʼ αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν τὴν τε πονηρίαν μισεῖ καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν περιπτύσσεται). In that case we would have the same thought here as in Antiph. ad Stobaeum, 9: ὁ μηδὲν ἀδικῶν οὐδενὸς δεῖται νόμου (comp. also the expression of Socrates in Clemens Alex. Stromata, iv. 678: νόμον ἕνεκεν ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ἂν γενέσθαι).
The sentence, however, may also be taken in such a way as to make νόμος the Mosaic law (notwithstanding the omission of the article; comp. Rom 2:12; Rom 2:14; Rom 2:23, al.), and δίκαιος the righteous man in the specially Christian sense, i.e. the man who, in faith as a child of God, fulfils the divine will in the free obedience of the spirit. In that case we have here the thought which forms the fundamental idea of Paul’s view regarding the relations of the Christian to the law (comp. Rom 6:14; Gal 5:18, al.). As Paul in 1Ti 1:11 appeals to the gospel entrusted to him for confirmation of the thought expressed in this verse, the connection of ideas decidedly favours the latter view, which is adopted also by Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Van Oosterzee, et al.
κεῖται] has not, as Heydenreich thinks probable, the additional notion of an oppressive burden; νόμος κεῖται, simply means, according to a usage current even in profane writings: “the law is given, exists.” Otto rightly remarks: “the νόμος κείμενος is one which has not only been given, but is still valid.” The collocation does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; comp., however, Luk 2:34 (Php 1:16); 1Th 3:3; especially also 2Ma 4:11.
If the law was not given for the δίκαιος (as the heretics falsely maintained), then it is valid only for the ἄδικος. This thought Paul emphasizes by pointing out the nature of the ἄδικος in various aspects, mentioning them at first in pairs.
ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις] These two ideas, which express the most decided contrast, are rightly placed first. Ἄνομοι, in 1Co 9:21, means the heathen (Rom 2:14 : ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα); but here it means those who withstand the law, who do not serve the law, but their own pleasure; comp. Mar 15:28.
To this corresponds the following ἀνυπότακτοι (only here and in Tit 1:6; Tit 1:10; comp. Heb 2:8), as a designation of those who submit themselves to no higher will, no higher order. It is quite arbitrary, with Tittmann and Leo, to refer ἀνομ. to divine, and ἀνυπ. to human ordinances.
ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς] These ideas (found together also in 1Pe 4:18 and in Wisd. 41:5) are distinguished from the foregoing by a more definite reference to God; ἀσεβής (used by Paul only here and in Rom 4:5; Rom 5:6) is the man who does not stand in awe, who has no holy awe of God in his heart.
ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις] give prominence to the opposition to what is holy. Ἀνόσιος (again in 2Ti 3:2), when joined with ἀσεβής in the classical usage, refers to the injury of human rights (Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 8. 13: ἀσεβεστέρους περὶ θεοὺς, καὶ ἀνοσιωτέρους περὶ συγγενεῖς). This distinction, however, cannot here be pressed. βέβηλος, which occurs only in the Epistles to Timothy and in Heb 12:16 (the verb βεβηλόω in Mat 12:5; Act 24:6), is synonymous with ἀνόσιος. In these first three pairs the ἄδικοι are characterized as those who stand opposed to what is divine, recognising no divine law, and having no awe of God, and whose life is not consecrated by communion with God.
The ideas that follow refer, on the other hand, to our relations with our neighbour.
πατραλῴαις καὶ μητραλῴαις] only here in N. T.: parricides and matricides. Hesychius explains them: ὁ τὸν πατέρα ἀτιμάζων, τύπτων, ἢ κτείνων; and similarly Matthies: “those who actually assault father and mother.” As the word occurs in this wider sense in Demosth. 732, 14; Lys. 348, ult.; Plato, Phaed. chap. 62, it may be so taken here. At least we cannot, with de Wette, quote the following ἀνδροφόνοις as a cogent reason against it.
ἀνδροφόνοις] 2Ma 9:28; ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in N. T.; the compound is selected to correspond with the previous words.
πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις] refer to un-chastity, the one towards the female, the other towards the male sex; for this latter, comp. Rom 1:27; 1Co 6:9.
ἀνδραποδισταῖς] The Scholiast on Aristoph. Plut. v. 521, says: εἴρηται ἀνδραποδιστὴς παρὰ τὸ ἄνδρα ἀποδίδοσθαι, τουτέστι πωλεῖν. This crime is often mentioned in Greek authors; but also in Exo 21:16; Deu 24:7.
ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις] stand both in opposition to truthfulness; ἐπίορκος is one who wantonly breaks an oath, as well as one who swears something false.
We cannot help seeing that in enumerating these various classes of the ἄδικοι, the apostle has had the Decalogue in mind, not adhering to it strictly, but partly extending, partly limiting it, still without departing from its order.
In order to describe the ἀδικία as a whole, the apostle adds: καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται.
The expression ἡ ὑγιαίν. διδασκ. is one of those which only occur in the Pastoral Epistles, and help to give them a peculiar impress; comp. 2Ti 4:3; Tit 2:1; Tit 1:9.
In 1Ti 6:3 and in 2Ti 1:13, we have ὑγιαίνοντες λόγοι; in Tit 2:8, λόγος ὑγιής. In these epistles ὑγιαίνειν is even used figuratively in another connection; thus Tit 1:13; Tit 2:2 (νοσεῖν in opposite sense, 1Ti 6:4); elsewhere in the N. T. it occurs only in its proper meaning. The expression διδασκαλία is particularly frequent in these epistles, sometimes denoting “the doctrine” (so here) in the objective sense, sometimes subjectively, “the teaching” (comp. chap. 1Ti 4:1; 1Ti 4:6; 1Ti 4:13; 1Ti 4:16, al.; 2Ti 3:10; 2Ti 4:3; Tit 1:9 ff.).
He lays emphasis on sound doctrine, as opposed to the ματαιολογία of the heretics. Luther translates ὑγιαίνουσα inaccurately by “wholesome;” the wholesomeness is only the result of the soundness. By ἡ ὑγιαίν. διδ. is here meant the pure gospel, free from all foreign admixture, having nothing unclean or sickly in it. The apostle here is certainly thinking chiefly of the ethical side of the διδασκ.; still Leo is wrong in translating it “sound morality.” By the form εἴ … ἀντίκειται Paul gives us to understand that there are indeed other forms and shapes of unrighteousness, incompatible with the pure doctrine of the gospel. The neuter form τὶ ἕτερον is strange. In explanation, we might appeal to passages like 1Co 1:17, Heb 7:7, and others, where the neuter denotes persons; but the use of the verb ἀντίκειται is against this. It is better to regard it as a transition from persons to things.[58]
[58] As Wiesinger rightly remarks, vv. 9 and 10 show that the apostle is not contending here against actual Judaizers, but “against such as consider the law a means of attaining to a still higher moral perfection.”
1Ti 1:11. Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον κ.τ.λ.] may be joined with ἀντίκειται, so far as the grammar goes; but the thought is against this, since the ὑγιαίν. διδασκ. is simply the doctrine of the gospel, and the whole of the added clause would be very slipshod. There is as little ground for joining it with διδασκαλία, as was done by Theophylact (τῇ ὑγ. διδ., τῇ οὔσῃ κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγ.), and approved by many later expositors. The only right construction is to refer this addition to the whole of the preceding thought (Wiesinger, Plitt, van Oosterzee, Hofmann), so as to bring the thought to a concluding point. Similarly in Rom 2:16, κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγ. is joined with what precedes. The apostle asserts thereby that his doctrine regarding the law is not founded on his own private opinion, but on the gospel entrusted to him. In order to make its authority plainer as a rule of life, he describes it as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ (de “Wette, Matthies).
The genitive τῆς δόξης is not to be interpreted by the adjective ἔνδοξος, and then joined with τὸ εὐαγγ. (= τὸ εὐαγγ. ἔνδοξον; Luther: “according to the glorious gospel”), or even with Θεοῦ (Heinrichs: = τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Θεοῦ); the genitive should rather be allowed to retain its special meaning. Ἡ δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ may be the glory of the Christians, which is given them by God (comp. Rom 5:2. Wegscheider: “according to the gladdening doctrine of the salvation which the blessed God imparts to us;” Theodoret: εὐαγγ. δόξης τὸ κήρυγμα κέκληκεν, ἐπειδὰν τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἐπαγγέλλεται τοῖς πιστεύουσι, and Theophylact). It is more natural, however, to understand the expression here, as in 2Co 4:4; 2Co 4:6, Rom 9:23, etc., of the glory dwelling in God, peculiar to Him, “revealed to the world in Jesus Christ” (Wiesinger). The relation of the genitive τῆς δόξης to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is not to be taken to mean that the δόξα was declared to be the ground of the gospel (the gospel proceeding from the glory of God); the δόξα is rather contained in the gospel (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt), so that it is thereby revealed and communicated to men.
God’s nature is here described more precisely by the adjective μακαρίου, by which still greater emphasis is laid on God’s δόξα, manifesting itself in the gospel in its peculiar power. Though the word is not foreign to the N. T., it is used only here and in 1Ti 6:15 as an attribute of God. It is not improbable that the apostle uses it with some reference to the heretics. If, in 1Ti 1:4, we are to understand by the genealogies, series of aeons emanating from God, he might readily use μακάριος of God in order to mark the divine unity, for holiness excludes all division of nature. Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that God is here called μακάριος, not only because He has τὸ μακάριον in His nature διὰ τῆς ἀτρεπτότητος, but also because out of His grace He imparts it to us.[59] The words that follow declare that the gospel was entrusted to the apostle: ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ (Tit 1:3). Regarding the construction of these words, cf. Buttmann, Gr. Gram. § 121. 7; Winer, p. 244 [E. T. p. 287]. The same construction is found in Rom 3:2; Gal 2:7; 1Th 2:4; 1Co 9:17. It is to be observed that this construction of the verb πιστεύεσθαι, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, occurs only in the epistles of Paul, and only where he speaks of the gospel, or the office given him to hold.[60]
[59] Otto takes the reference otherwise. He refers the word to the heretics, inasmuch as they taught the eternal continuance of the law: “The eternal continuance of the law presupposes a godlessness that cannot be amended. And these νομοδιδάσκαλοι teach a blessed God? God is not blessed if He is for ever afflicted with those opposed to Himself, with the ἀνόμοις κ.τ.λ. I teach that God got rid of this opposition by reconciling the world to Himself, and that we have indeed a blessed God.” Hofmann refers μακαρίου to this, that the heretics “make the law the subject of their instruction in the place where there should only be preached the things by which God has glorified His blessedness.” In any case, Paul chose the attribute, because the heresy stood in contradiction to God’s blessedness.
[60] We need not be surprised that here, and somewhat frequently in the Pastoral Epistles, Paul directs attention to himself and his office, if only we reflect that the apostle was fully conscious of his position towards the development of God’s kingdom, and that he was bound, therefore, to vindicate fully the principle of the Christian life which he had enounced.
1Ti 1:12. After pointing in these last words to his personal relation to the gospel, the apostle, down to 1Ti 1:17, describes the grace experienced by him, not merely “to let it be seen what assurance he had for his gospel” (Wiesinger), but also to prove by his own example (πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν κ.τ.λ., 1Ti 1:16) the glory of the gospel entrusted to him as the εὐαγγ. τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ. There is therefore no ground for de Wette’s criticism, “that the self-styled apostle lets fall here the thread of his meaning, that he may not have to take it up again.” This section is in the closest connection with the preceding one, since it shows how deep is the contrast between the heresy and the gospel. The heresy, on the one hand, takes up unfruitful speculations, and, whenever it wishes to become practical, it places the Christian in bondage to the law. The one thing which is all-important, the forgiveness of sins, it does not assure, and hence it does not know the compassion of the Lord. On the contrary, it is of the very essence of the gospel to reveal this compassion; and in proof of this, Paul appeals to his own experience.
χάριν ἔχω] We have the same expression in 2Ti 1:3 (comp. also Luk 17:9; Heb 12:28); and in the other Pauline Epistles we have instead: εὐχαριστῶ.
τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί με] must not be limited to the strength granted for enduring afflictions and sufferings; it is rather to be applied to his whole work as an apostle. The proper reason of thanksgiving is only furnished by the clause that follows ὅτι κ.τ.λ.; but an additional reason is given in this participle.[61]
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ κ.τ.λ.] is not to be explained, according to some older expositors: “qui me potentem reddidit Christo,” for Christ, but as a dative closely belonging to the verb.
ὍΤΙ ΠΙΣΤΌΝ ΜΕ ἩΓΉΣΑΤΟ] ΠΙΣΤΌς corresponds with the following ΔΙΑΚΟΝΊΑ. The reason of his thanksgiving is Christ’s confidence in him that he would become a faithful ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟς.[62] This confidence the Lord has shown by committing to him the ministry of the gospel, hence he adds: θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν, which is either “placing me in the ministry” (Heydenreich, van Oosterzee, Hofmann), or “setting me apart for the ministry” (de Wette, Plitt, Winer). The latter seems to be more in accordance with the usage of the N. T.; comp. 1Th 5:9. De Wette rightly remarks that the participle does not stand for ὡς τίθεσθαί με, nor is it to be taken as a pluperfect; it is simply the proof of πιστόν με ἡγ.; see also Winer, p. 326 [E. T. p. 365].
If the apostle’s thanks are due to the Lord on the general ground of His confidence, they are all the more due that he had been before an opponent of the gospel; to this the next verse points.
[61] According to the reading of א: ἐνδυναμοῦντι without με is to be taken as a simple attribute: “Christ Jesus who bestows strength.”
[62] Cf. 1Co 7:25 : γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι ὡς ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ χυρίου πιστὸς εἶνας. Paul gives the nature of this διακονία in Act 20:24 : ἡ διαχονία ἣν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, διαμαρτύρασθαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1Ti 1:13. Τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον κ.τ.λ.] τὸ πρότερον is equivalent to the adverb πρότερον, just as, in Mat 26:45, τὸ λοιπόν is equivalent to λοιπόν. The participle stands here in the relation of contrast to what precedes: “though I was before,” or “I who was nevertheless.”
βλάσφημον] only here as a substantive; comp. on this Act 26:11. For the most part, the idea of βλασφημία is used in reference to what is divine (Suidas: ἡ εἰς Θεὸν ὕβρις).
καὶ διώκτην] Leo says: “Paulus non dictis tantum sed etiam factis furuerat in Christianos;” the word occurs only here in the N. T.; on the subject-matter, comp. Act 22:4; Gal 1:13.
καὶ ὑβριστήν] also in Rom 1:30. Luther translates “reviler,” but Wegscheider: “one who does violence.” Neither translation expresses the full meaning as it is given in Tittmann’s (Syn. p. 74) explanation: “qui prae superbia non solum contemnit alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractat, et injuriis afficit.” Ὑβρίζειν denotes the arrogant conduct of another, whether in words or in actions.
The context leads us to think of Christ’s work, or Christ Himself, as the object of the apostle’s blasphemy.
Having judged his former conduct in straightforward fashion, Paul goes on to contrast with it the grace of the Lord: ἀλλʼ ἠλεήθην, adding, however, by way of explanation: ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ. De Wette is not correct in supposing that the intended aim of these words is to furnish some excuse for himself.[63]
ἠλεήθην] (Luther: “to my lot did compassion fall”) is not to be limited to the pardon of his persecuting fury (Matthies: “to me was my mad eagerness in persecution most graciously forgiven”), but should be taken more generally of the grace imparted to the apostle.[64]
ἈΓΝΟῶΝ] (comp. Rom 10:2 : ΖῆΛΟΝ ΘΕΟῦ ἜΧΩΝ, ἈΛΛʼ Οὐ ΚΑΤʼ ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙΝ), i.e. without knowing how grievously I sinned therein. The reason of this unconsciousness was ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ. Mack is wrong in inverting the relation, as if the apostle added ἘΝ ἈΠΙΣΤΊᾼ to explain his ἌΓΝΟΙΑ. How far the ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ was one to be blamed, Paul does not here say: the idea is to be taken in its purely negative form. It was not this, but the ἌΓΝΟΙΑ grounded on it, which lessened his guilt.[65]
[63] Wiesinger: “The words are not intended to exculpate his acts, but to explain wherein the power of divine grace began to work on him.” Similarly Plitt, van Oosterzee, and others.
[64] Otto wrongly finds in ἠλεήθην a special reference to the fact that Paul “was entrusted with the ministry of the word.”-What precedes in ver. 12 might seem to support this, but what follows is entirely against such a limitation of the thought.
[65] Hofmann wrongly takes ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ as in pure apposition to the participle ἀγνοῶν, and maintains that ἀγνοεῖν is not always an ignorance which simply does not even know, but a misconception of something which it should have known. But this more precise reference is clearly not contained in the words themselves.
1Ti 1:14. The last words might be so explained as to weaken seemingly the divine grace; and therefore the apostle feels bound to set forth its abundant riches.
ὑπερεπλεόνασε δὲ ἡ χάρις κ.τ.λ.] The verb ὑπερπλεονάζειν only occurs here in the N. T., and is not current in classical Greek. The simple πλεονάζειν, with the classic writers, means: “to be more, i.e. than the measure demands, therefore to go beyond the measure;” but in several passages of the N. T. it has clearly the meaning: “become more, therefore increase, grow larger.” Comp. 2Th 1:3 (synon. with ὑπεραυξάνειν); Rom 5:20; Rom 6:1 (Meyer: accumulate); so also Php 4:17 and 2Co 4:15 (Meyer has there: “become abundant … increase,” and here: “be increased”). The prefix ὑπερ serves, with Paul, to strengthen the idea with which it is joined; thus ὑπεραυξάνει, 2Th 1:3; ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, Eph 3:20; ὑπερλίαν, 2Co 11:5, al. In Rom 5:20, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν seems to mean that the ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία was surpassed by the χάρις (so Meyer; Hofmann differs). If we assume here this reference of surpassing, we cannot regard ἠλεήθην as the thing surpassed. For χάρις cannot be regarded as something surpassing ἔλεος;[66] but ὑπερ in that case would have to be referred to τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον κ.τ.λ. Hence the apostle’s meaning in ὑπερεπλεόνασεν would be that grace was manifested to him in abundant measure, far surpassing his enmity (so in a former edition of this commentary); but in that case ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην κ.τ.λ. would be parenthetical. It is more correct not to assume such a reference here, but to explain ὑπερπλεονάζειν: “to go (abundantly) beyond the measure” (Plitt, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle added ὑπερεπλ. ἡ χάρις to ἠλεήθην, because the latter expression did not seem enough to his mind, which was penetrated by the unbounded greatness of the grace he had experienced. “It is as though he wrestles with speech in order to find some sufficient expression for the feeling which quite overpowers him” (van Oosterzee). The particle δέ belongs to the relation of climax existing between the two clauses, as in Heb 12:6; it corresponds to the English yea or aye in a climax.[67]
ΜΕΤᾺ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς ΚΑῚ ἈΓΆΠΗς] The preposition ΜΕΤΆ with the genitive serves to connect the fact with the points that accompany it. ΠΊΣΤΙς and ἈΓΆΠΗ therefore are, properly speaking, not mentioned as results of the ΧΆΡΙς, but as blessings immediately connected with ΧΆΡΙς. They form, as de Wette says, the subjective side of the condition of grace. Leo is right, therefore, in saying: “verbis ΜΕΤᾺ Κ.Τ.Λ. indicatur, Π. Κ. ἈΓ. quasi comites fuisse illius ΧΆΡΙΤΟς” (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee); but he is wrong, if he means that Paul added these words to tell in what the grace was manifested as ὙΠΕΡΠΛΕΟΝΆΖΟΥΣΑ.
By ΠΊΣΤΙς Κ. ἈΓ. Ἡ ἘΝ ΧΡ. Ἰ. we are not to understand God’s faithfulness and love in Christ, nor the apostle’s endeavour to bring others to faith and love; nor, again, is ἘΝ to be explained by ΔΙΆ or by ΕἸς. The words Τῆς ἘΝ ΧΡ. Ἰ. are added to Τῆς ἈΓΆΠΗς, and mark the love as one “that has its ground and middle-point in Christ” (Matthies); cf. 2Ti 1:13. It is doubtful whether the addition is to be referred also to ΠΊΣΤΕΩς (for this Matthies, Plitt, van Oosterzee; against it, Hofmann); since ΠΊΣΤΕΩς does not properly require it, it might be better to limit the reference to ἈΓΆΠΗς.[68] “In contrasting his former ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ with his present increasing ΠΊΣΤΙς Κ. ἈΓ.” (Heydenreich), Paul does not lose sight of the heresy which did not effect ΟἸΚΟΝΟΜΊΑ ΘΕΟῦ ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ (1Ti 1:4), and had not the ἈΓΆΠΗ (1Ti 1:5) as its goal.
[66] Chrysostom: οὐκ ἐτιμωρήθην· ἠλεήθην γὰρ, ἀρʼ οὖν τοῦτο μόνον, καὶ μέχρι τούτου ὁ ἔλεος, τοῦ μὴ δοῦναι τιμωρίαν; οὐδαμῶς· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερα πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα, διὰ τοῦτο φησίν· ὑπερεπλ. ἡ χάρις, δηλῶν, ὅτι ὑπερέβη καὶ τὸν ἔλεον τὰ δῶρα· ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ ἐλεοῦντός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ φιλοῦντος καὶ σφόδρα ἀγαπῶντος. Similarly Leo. In this view the force of ἠλεήθην is arbitrarily weakened.
[67] Hofmann explains δέ as ranking another fact with the one already mentioned; but in ἠλεήθην and ὑπερεπλ. ἡ χάρις we have not two different facts, but one and the same fact-though expressed in two different ways.
[68] Hofmann alleges against the connection with πίστεως, that “ἐν would have a different meaning when joined with πίστεως; according to Eph 1:15; Col 1:4;” but his reason is without force, as this other reference is here cut off by the intervening ἀγάπης.
1Ti 1:15. Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος κ.τ.λ.] With this formula, which is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (found besides here in 1Ti 3:1, 1Ti 4:9; 2Ti 2:11; Tit 3:8; only in Rev. is there a similar formula: οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί εἰσι, Rev 21:5, Rev 22:6), the apostle introduces the general thought whose truth he had himself experienced.
καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος] This addition is also in 1Ti 4:9; the word ἀποδοχή occurs nowhere else in the N. T. (comp. ἀπόδεκτος, 1Ti 2:3, 1Ti 5:4). As Raphelius has shown by many proofs from Polybius, it is synonymous in later Greek with πίστις: the verb ἀποδέχεσθαι (“receive believing”) is used in the same sense in Act 2:41. The adjective πάσης describes the ἀποδοχή of which the word is worthy, as one complete and excluding all doubt.
ὅτι Χρ. Ἰησ. ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον] This expression, found especially in John, may be explained from the saying of Christ: ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, Joh 16:28, κόσμος having here a physical, not an ethical meaning: “the earthly world.”
Ἁμαρτωλοί stands here in a general sense, and is not with Stolz to be limited to the opponents of Christianity, nor with Michaelis to the heathen. As little can the idea of σῶσαι be limited in the one direction or the other. After this general thought, that the aim of Christ’s coming is none other than the σωτηρία of sinners, the apostle returns to his own case, adding, in consciousness of his guilt (1Ti 1:13): ὧν πρῶτός εἰμι ἐγώ, “of whom I am first.” Paul says this, conscious of his former determined hostility to Christ when he was a βλάσφημος κ.τ.λ. (1Ti 1:13), and considering himself at the same time as standing at the head of sinners. It is inaccurate to translate πρῶτος without qualification by “the foremost” (in opposition to Wiesinger and others). Even in Mar 12:28-29, πρώτη πάντων ἐντολή is the commandment which stands at the head of all, is first in the list, and δευτέρα is the one following. In order to qualify the thought, Flatt wishes to translate πρῶτος by “one of the foremost,” which he thinks he can justify by the absence of the article. Wegscheider, again, wishes not to refer ὧν to ἁμαρτωλούς, but to supply σωζομένων or σεσωσμένων; and similarly Mack explains ὧν by “of which saved sinners.” All these expositions are, however, to be rejected as pieces of ingenuity. The thought needs no qualification-at least not for any one who can sympathize with the apostle’s strong feeling. The apostle does not overstep the bounds of humility in what he says in 1Co 15:9 and Eph 3:8; neither does he overstep them here.
1Ti 1:16. After calling himself the first of sinners, Paul gives the reason why he, this foremost sinner, found grace. He begins with ἀλλά, since it must appear strange that grace was imparted to him.
διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην] De Wette says: “therefor (to this end) did I receive grace.”
ἐν ἐμ. πρ.] stands first for the sake of emphasis; ἐν is not equivalent to “by means of,” but to “in the case of” (comp. Rom 7:19). To supply ἁμαρτωλῷ with πρώτῳ (first ed. of this commentary, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others) is arbitrary. There is no need to supply anything. The thought is: “in my case, Christ first showed His entire μακροθυμία.”[69] Paul says this, meaning that the entire fulness of Christ’s μακροθυμία (Buttmann, p. 105) could not be shown to those who before had received grace, because they had not cherished such decided enmity to Christ as he. The πρώτῳ therefore has ἅπασαν corresponding with it; the greater the guilt, the greater the manifestation of μακροθυμία. Bengel says: “cunctam longanimitatem: quum minores peccatores etiam mensura quasi minor possit restituere.” It is not necessary to give the word μακροθυμία the meaning here of “magnanimity” (Heydenreich, Matthies: “long-suffering or magnanimity”). The apostle here regards the love of the Lord as not causing judgment to follow straight on condemnation, but as patient, and granting space for conversion. In this Paul has given the purpose of his pardon; but he states it still more definitely in the words that follow: πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ. The expression ὑποτύπωσις, “likeness, image,” occurs elsewhere only in 2Ti 1:13; it is synonymous with ὑπόδειγμα in 2Pe 2:6, and other passages. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we find τύπος (Rom 5:14; 1Co 10:6; 1Co 10:11; Php 3:17). Leo, without sufficient grounds, explains the word by institutio. The idea of type is not contained in the word itself, but is here transferred to it from the μελλόντων.
πιστεύειν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ] This construction of the word πιστεύειν is found in the N. T. only here and in Rom 9:33; Rom 10:11, 1Pe 2:6; but in all these passages it occurs in words quoted from Isa 28:16, where the LXX. has simply ὁ πιστεύων. It may be explained in this way, that faith has confidence as its substance and basis. Matthies rightly says: “ἐπʼ αὐτῷ, not so much in Him as the object of faith, but rather trusting in faith on Him as the absolute basis of our salvation.”
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον] These words are not to be joined to the distant ὑποτύπωσιν (Bengel), but to the πιστεύειν immediately preceding. They present the goal towards which the πιστεύειν ἐπʼ αὐτῷ is directed (Wiesinger). As Paul usually sets forth his conduct to others as a type, so here he gives to his experience a typical meaning for future believers.[70] This may he explained from the peculiar and important position which he held for the development of God’s kingdom on earth, and of which he was distinctly conscious.
[69] Hofmann: “If πρῶτος before had the meaning of locality, here πρώτῳ has the meaning of time as opposed to τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν.”
[70] Hofmann, without grounds, disputes this view, and gives the apostle’s thought in this way: “The aim is to give a type, not to them, but of them; they were to know that they had to expect such conversions as his, the conversions of revilers and persecutors.” But there is no hint whatever of revilers and persecutors only in οἱ μέλλοντες πιστεύειν.
1Ti 1:17. “Ex sensu gratiae fluit doxologia” (Bengel). With this doxology the apostle closes the digression begun in 1Ti 1:11, and returns again to the proper epistolary style.
τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων] This designation for God is not found elsewhere in the N. T. (even the use of βασιλεύς of God only occurs elsewhere in chap. 1Ti 6:15 and Mat 5:35), but it is found in the Apocrypha of the O. T. in Tob 13:6; Tob 13:10. (Sir 36:19 : ὁ Θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων.) Οἱ αἰῶνες means either “the world,” as in Heb 1:2; Heb 11:3 (see Delitzsch and Lünemann on this passage), or “the times.” The former meaning is adopted by Chrysostom, Leo, etc. (Leo appealing to Eusebius, de Laud. Constant. chap. vi. p. 431, ed. Heinrichs: τὸν μέγαν τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος βασιλέα); the latter, by Matthies: “the ruler of all times, so that all generations are at the same time concretely included.” In a similar way, Heydenreich has “the supreme ruler of time, and of all that takes place in its course.” This latter explanation is supported as correct both by the preceding μελλόντων (van Oosterzee), and also by the ἀφθάρτῳ following, and by εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων farther on.[71] It is incorrect to take αἰῶνες as equivalent to “eternity,” and translate: “to the king eternal” (de Wette, but tentatively; Hofmann: “the king who is for ever and without end”),[72] for αἰῶνες never has that meaning in itself. Only in the formulas ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας does the meaning of the word approach that idea. Besides, the apostle would surely have expressed that adjectival idea by an adjective. It is quite erroneous to take the word here in the Gnostic sense of series of emanations, synonymous with γενεαλογίαι in 1Ti 1:4; for, on the one hand, no proof is given that this expression had been already used by the heretics alluded to in this epistle; and, on the other, the apostle considered the whole theory of genealogies as belonging to the sphere of myths. It was impossible, therefore, for him in his doxology to speak of God as the king of things which were to Him nothing but the inventions of fancy.
ἀφθάρτῳ] is only used of God elsewhere in Rom 1:23 (Plut. adv. St. 31; Wis 12:1). Matthies: “God is the Imperishable One, because His nature is unchanging and based on itself,” equivalent to ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, chap. 1Ti 6:16.
ἀοράτῳ] comp. Heb 11:27 (without Θεός), Rom 1:20, and Col 1:15 (with Θεός); equivalent to ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται, chap. 1Ti 6:16; comp. also Joh 1:18.
μόνῳ Θεῷ] chap. 1Ti 6:15 : μόνος δυναστής; comp. also Joh 5:44; Joh 17:3; Rom 16:27 : μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ. The words ἀφθάρτῳ … Θεῷ are to be taken as in apposition to τῷ βασιλεῖ. But it is doubtful whether Θεῷ is to be joined with μόνῳ only, or also with ἀφθάρτῳ and ἀοράτῳ, as is commonly done. De Wette is wrong in asserting that all these predicates are used of God superfluously: they manifestly express the absolute exaltation of God above all conditioned finite being, and are occasioned naturally (which Hofmann disputes) by the contrast with the heresy which denied the absoluteness of the divine existence.
τιμὴ καὶ δόξα] The two words are united also in Rom 2:7; Rom 2:10; Heb 2:7; but only here and in the Apocalypse do they occur in doxologies. Paul elsewhere uses only δόξα, and always with the article.
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων] a very common conclusion in doxologies, and found in Paul’s other epistles. It is not to be overlooked that this doxology has a peculiar character distinct from those usually occurring in Paul, both in the mode of connection (elsewhere a pronoun connects them with what precedes) and also in the designation for God and the expressions used.
[72] Wiesinger explains it: “He is a king of the aeons, which together give the idea of eternity, just as His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.”
1Ti 1:18. Paul again addresses himself to Timothy direct.
ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν] cannot be referred back to ἵνα παραγγείλῃς in 1Ti 1:3 (Otto), because there he was speaking of a παραγγελία which Timothy was to receive, here he is speaking of a παραγγελία to which Timothy was to give heed. Nor can it be referred to καθὼς παρεκάλεσά σε (Plitt), since that denotes only a special commission, to which there is here no allusion. Some have therefore joined ταύτην immediately with the following ἵνα, and taken ἵνα as introducing the object (so Chrysostom and Theophylact, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee; also in this commentary; comp. Winer, pp. 314 f. [E. T. p. 422]). This construction, however, is opposed by the order of the words; after the verb and the parenthesis κατὰ τὰς κ.τ.λ., we no longer expect an expansion of the thought contained in ταύτην τ. παρ.[73] The only course remaining is to agree with Hofmann in referring ταύτ. τ. παραγγ. back to τῆς παραγγελίας in 1Ti 1:5; not, however, agreeing with him in interpreting the word here, “the Christian teaching,” but taking it in the same sense in both places.
παρατίθεμαί σοι] comp. 2Ti 2:2. The verb is here explained by most expositors, against usage, as equivalent to “lay to heart” (Luther: “order,” in the sense of “recommend to”). Otto, and following him Hofmann, took it in the sense of “give something into one’s charge” which meaning is possible, but not imperative. In itself the word means “bring something before one,” and is defined more precisely by its context, i.e. the purpose of bringing before is not contained in the word itself. Παρατίθεσθαι παραγγελίαν may therefore quite well mean: propose a command to one, viz. that he may act in accordance with it.[74]
ΤΈΚΝΟΝ ΤΙΜ.] see 1Ti 1:1.
ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺς ΠΡΟΑΓΟΎΣΑς ἘΠῚ ΣῈ ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑς] Before giving the command itself, Paul inserts these words to add force to his exhortation; for they are not (as some expositors, Oecumenius, Heumann, Flatt, wish) to be placed after ἽΝΑ in sense, but to be joined with ΠΑΡΑΤΊΘΕΜΑΙ.
ΚΑΤΆ, “in conformity with” not “justified and occasioned by.”
προαγούσας stands here quite absolutely, with the same meaning as in Heb 7:18 : ἈΘΈΤΗΣΙς … ΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ ΠΡΟΑΓΟΎΣΗς ἘΝΤΟΛῆς, “the law that preceded;”[75] the ΠΡΟΑΓ. ΠΡΟΦΗΤ. are accordingly “the promises that preceded.” Matthies is wrong in explaining προάγουσα in connection with ἘΠῚ ΣΈ, as equivalent to “leading towards thee,” i.e. “pointing or aiming towards thee.” This meaning προάγειν never has; as a transitive verb it certainly means: “lead forward to any one;” but this is manifestly a different idea from that which Matthies ascribes to it. Otto explains it: “the prophecies that guide to thee,” making appeal to Xenophon, Memorab. iv. 1, in which passage Kühner paraphrases προάγειν by viam monstrare. In this case we should have to understand it: those among the prophecies that showed others the way leading to Timothy, a statement clearly without meaning. It is, however, altogether arbitrary when Otto defines the prophecies more precisely as those that led to Timothy’s ordination, or occasioned it.
ἐπὶ σέ] is not to be connected with ΠΡΟΑΓΟΎΣΑς, but with ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑς, as Luther rightly translates it: “according to the former prophecies regarding thee;” or de Wette: “in accordance with the preceding prophecies on thee” (so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). On the other hand, the translation: “vaticinia olim de te praenuntiata” (Heydenreich), is inaccurate. ΑἹ ἘΠῚ ΣῈ ΠΡΟΦ. are: the prophecies (expressed) over thee (the peculiar meaning of ἘΠΊ as descending to something should not be overlooked); while ΠΡΟΑΓ. describes these as preceding Timothy’s apostleship.[76]
ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑς] Chrysostom: ΤῸ Τῆς ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑς ΚΑῚ ἹΕΡΩΣΎΝΗς ἈΞΊΩΜΑ, ΜΈΓΑ ὌΝ, Τῆς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΔΕῖΤΑΙ ΨΉΦΟΥ … ΔΙᾺ ΤῸ ΠΑΛΑΙῸΝ ἈΠῸ Τῆς ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑς ΓΊΝΟΝΤΑΙ ΟἹ ἹΕΡΕῖς, ΤΟΥΤΈΣΤΙ ἈΠΌ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ. ΟὝΤΩς Ὁ ΤΙΜ. ᾙΡΈΘΗ. This is wrong, simply because Timothy’s office was not a priestly one. It is quite arbitrary to translate ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕῖΑΙ by: “doctrines, exhortations,” or “hopes,” or “good testimonies” (Heinrichs: “by means of the good hope and expectation which every one cherished regarding thee”). ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕῖΑΙ here, as always, are utterances proceeding from the Holy Spirit, whatever be their contents or their occasion; here it is most natural to think of prophecies made when the ἘΠΊΘΕΣΙς ΤῶΝ ΧΕΙΡῶΝ ΤΟῦ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΊΟΥ (chap. 1Ti 4:14) was imparted to Timothy and made regarding his worthy discharge of the office (Wiesinger).[77]
ἽΝΑ ΣΤΡΑΤΕΎῌ ἘΝ ΑὐΤΑῖς ΤῊΝ ΚΑΛῊΝ ΣΤΡΑΤΕΊΑΝ] Purpose of the ΠΑΡΑΤΊΘΕΜΑΊ ΣΟΙ. ΣΤΡΑΤΕΊΑ (elsewhere only in 2Co 10:4) is frequently translated inaccurately by “fight;” Luther is more correct: “that thou mayest exercise in it a good knighthood.” Στρατεία denotes the entire warfare; the only thing wrong in Luther’s translation is the indefinite article. Though the Christian calling is not seldom described as a warfare, yet here the word is used specially of Timothy’s office, in which he had to contend against the ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΟῦΝΤΕς (1Ti 1:3 ff.).[78] De Wette inaccurately explains it: “that thou conduct thyself worthily and bravely in the discharge of thy evangelic duty;” as if the words were: ἽΝΑ ΚΑΛῶς ΣΤΡΑΤ. ΤῊΝ ΣΤΡΑΤΕΊΑΝ. The chief accent rests on ἘΝ ΑὐΤΑῖς, not on ΚΑΛΉΝ; the ΣΤΡΑΤΕΊΑ assigned to Timothy is in itself ΚΑΛΉ, quite apart from his behaviour in it.
ἘΝ ΑὐΤΑῖς] According to Matthies, Winer (p. 362 [E. T. p. 484]), Wiesinger, Otto, and others, Paul conceives the ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕῖΑΙ, as an armour round Timothy: “as though equipped with them;” it might, however, be more natural to translate: “within them,” i.e. in their limits, not exceeding them. The interpretation: in accordance with them (van Oosterzee, Hofmann: “the prophecies are to be regarded as a rule of conduct”), is against the usage of the N. T.
[73] Hofmann wrongly maintains that this construction is impossible in point of language and in point of fact: “in point of language, because παρατίθεσθαι does not mean lay to heart, but propose, and a command is not proposed (why not?); in point of fact, because what he calls τὰς προαγούσας ἐπί σε cannot furnish any standard for the apostle’s injunction to Timothy to discharge his office well” (why not?).
[74] In Mat 13:24; Mat 13:31, it is joined with παραβολήν; it is used of setting forth a doctrine in Act 17:3; it is chiefly used of setting forth food, as in the N. T. Mar 8:7; Luk 9:16; Luk 10:8; Luk 11:6; it has the sense of “committing to the care of” in Luk 12:48.
[75] Comp. Lünemann and Delitzsch on the passage. Otto is wrong in asserting that προάγειν is never used of priority of time. While it occurs more frequently in the sense of “precede some one,” it has in other passages of the N. T. (e.g. Mat 26:32; Mar 6:45) the meaning practically of “go before some one in any direction whatever,” the notion of space manifestly passing into that of time. In the passage in Hebrews, Otto thinks that προάγουσα ought to mean: “driving forward from one election of high priest to another” (!).
[76] In taking the words thus: αἱ ἐπὶ σὲ προφητεῖαι, there is not, as Otto maintains, a change of order not occurring in Greek; comp. 2Co 8:2 : ἡ κατὰ βάθους πτωχεία αὐτῶν. It is also wrong to say that the prepositional clause must flow from the substantive, and that περί, therefore, should stand here for ἐπί. In the passage quoted, κατά manifestly does not flow from the idea of the substantive πτωχεία.
[77] According to Hofmann, they were prophecies “which had promised to Paul that Timothy would be a true servant of the gospel, and had confirmed him in his choice when he assumed Timothy as his colleague in the apostleship.”
[78] Manifestly Paul here returns to vv. 3 ff., and so far gives reason for saying that here “we have not in form but in substance” the apodosis which was wanting before (Wiesinger).
1Ti 1:19. The manner in which Timothy is to discharge his office, is given still more precisely in the words ἔχων πίστιν καὶ ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν. It is difficult to bring ἔχων into direct connection with the preceding figure στρατεία (Matthies: “hold fast the faith which elsewhere, in Eph 6:16, is called a shield, a weapon of defence in our warfare;” Otto thinks that Paul conceives πίστις and ἀγ. συνείδησις as “the contending power which the general commands, i.e. as his troops!”). It is simply “holding, maintaining” (de Wette), i.e. not denying. The reason for the collocation peculiar to this epistle of πίστις and ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις, and for the strong emphasis laid on the latter idea (comp. 1Ti 1:5; 1Ti 4:2, etc.), is, that the apostle regards the denial of the ἀγ. συνείδ. as the source of the heresy. This is proved by the words that follow, in which Paul returns to the mention of the heretics: ἥν (viz. ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν) τινες (comp. 1Ti 1:6).
ἀπωσάμενοι] This expression, not strange (de Wette) but suitable, denotes the “wantonness” (de Wette) with which the heretics sacrificed the good conscience to their selfish purposes.[79]
περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν] ναυαγεῖν occurs only here in a figurative sense. Περί gives the matter in which they had made shipwreck, i.e. suffered loss. Περί with the accusative, equivalent to quod attinet ad, is found in the N. T. only in the Pastoral Epistles; comp. 1Ti 6:4; 1Ti 6:21; 2Ti 2:18; 2Ti 3:8; Tit 2:7; see Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 506].
[79] Van Oosterzee remarks on ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν “as a troublesome reminder,” which is not appropriate, because ἀγ. συνειδ. is not the conscience exhorting to good and punishing evil, but of willing and doing good.-Hofmann’s opinion, that the good conscience is compared to “the ballast which gives the necessary stability to a ship,” is wrong, since ἀπωθεῖσθαι does not mean “to cast overboard.”
1Ti 1:20. Ὧν ἐστὶν Ὑμέναιος καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος] In 2Ti 2:17, the apostle names two false teachers whose words eat like a cancer
Hymenaeus and Philetus. There is no ground for distinguishing between the Hymenaeus there and the one here mentioned. No difficulty is caused even by the fact that “the one here is mentioned as a man cast out from the church, and the other merely as an example of error” (de Wette); for Hymenaeus and Philetus are not so tenderly dealt with in the other passages as de Wette seems to think. As to Alexander, we must leave it unsettled whether he is the same as the one mentioned in 2Ti 4:14. The reasons are not decisive which seem to tell against the identity, viz. that in the other passage the surname ὁ χαλκεύς is added, and that “he is mentioned there not as excommunicated, but rather as still coming in contact with the apostle; not as a heretic, but as an opponent” (de Wette). It is, however, quite arbitrary to regard the Alexander (Act 19:33) who took part in the uproar at Ephesus as identical with the one mentioned here (see Meyer on the passage).[80]
ΟὛς ΠΑΡΈΔΩΚΑ Τῷ ΣΑΤΑΝᾷ] the same excommunication of which the apostle speaks in 1Co 5:5 (comp. Meyer on the passage). It is not simply excommunication from the church, but with the purpose of ensuring, through Satan’s means, ὌΛΕΘΡΟς Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς to the one excommunicated. This is shown not only by the formula itself, but also by the solemnity with which Paul there expresses himself. The added clause, ἽΝΑ ΠΑΙΔΕΥΘῶΣΙΝ Κ.Τ.Λ., makes it clear that here also the apostle had in mind ΕἸς ὌΛΕΘΡΟΝ Τ. ΣΑΡΚ., for that clause at the same time gives the purpose of the ΠΑΡΈΔΩΚΑ, which is the reformation (ἽΝΑ ΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΣΩΘῇ, 1Co 5:5), or at least the preservation, of the excommunicated man from ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΕῖΝ.[81]
ΠΑΙΔΕΎΕΙΝ] in classical Greek equivalent to “educate, especially by instruction,” so also Act 7:22; Act 22:3, has elsewhere in the N. T. the meaning of “punish in order to reform,” i.e. chastise; comp. 2Ti 2:25; 1Co 11:32; 2Co 6:9, especially Heb 12:5-11. In Rev 3:19 it stands connected with ἐλέγχειν (in Luk 23:16; Luk 23:22, the purpose of reformation falls quite into the background).
The ὌΛΕΘΡΟς Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς is intended by the apostle to be a chastisement to the one named, that he may be kept from further reviling. The expression ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΕῖΝ shows that they had not only suffered shipwreck in faith, but in their unbelief were on the point of proceeding actually to revile the Lord.
[80] Otto (pp. 98-112) gives a very vivid and detailed picture of the tumult at Ephesus in which a certain Alexander took part, in order to prove the identity of the two Alexanders, and confirm his view regarding the date of the composition of this epistle. But even if the course of that tumult was as Otto describes it, with the aid of many arbitrary suppositions, still we can by no means infer the identity he maintains. In order to prove it, Otto does not despise many strange assumptions, such as, that the designation χαλκεύς (2Ti 4:14) was given to Alexander because he was one of those who manufactured the miniature silver temples; further, that he, deceived by the soothsayers, had made no objection to the union of the worship of Jehovah with heathen idolatry.
[81] In opposition to Hofmann’s opinion, that neither here nor in the passage of Corinthians we are to think of an excommunication from the church, comp. Meyer on 1Co 5:5.
1. Paul an apostle If he had written to Timothy alone, it would have been unnecessary to claim this designation, and to maintain it in the manner that he does. Timothy would undoubtedly have been satisfied with having merely the name; for he knew that Paul was an Apostle of Christ, and had no need of proof to convince him of it, being perfectly willing, and having been long accustomed, to acknowledge it. He has his eye, therefore, chiefly on others, who were not so ready to listen to him, or did not so easily believe his words. For the sake of such persons, that they may not treat lightly what he writes, he affirms that he is “an Apostle of Christ. ”
According to the Appointment of God our Savior, and of the Lord Jesus Christ He confirms his apostleship by the appointment or command of God; for no man can make himself to be an apostle, but he whom God hath appointed is a true apostle, and worthy of the honor. Nor does he merely say, that he owes his apostleship to God the Father, but ascribes it to Christ also; and, indeed, in the government of the Church, the Father does nothing but through the Son, and therefore they both act together.
He calls God the Savior, a title which he is more frequently accustomed to assign to the Son; but it belongs to the Father also, because it is he who gave the Son to us. Justly, therefore, is the glory of our salvation ascribed to him. For how comes it that we are saved? It is because the Father loved us in such a manner that he determined to redeem and save us through the Son. He calls Christ our hope; and this appellation is strictly applicable to him; for then do we begin to have good hope, when we look to Christ, since in him alone dwells all that on which our salvation rests.
2. To Timothy my own son This commendation expresses no small praise. Paul means by it, that he owns Timothy to be a true and not a bastard son, and wishes that others should acknowledge him to be such; and he even applauds Timothy in the same manner as if he were another Paul. But how does this agree with the injunction given by Christ, (Mat 23:9,) “Call no man your father on the earth?”
Or how does it agree with the declaration of the Apostle,
“Though ye have many fathers according to the flesh, yet there is but One who is the Father of spirits.” (1Co 4:15; Heb 12:9.) (2)
I reply, while Paul claims for himself the appellation of father, he does it in such a manner as not to take away or diminish the smallest portion of the honor which is due to God. (Heb 12:9.) It is a common proverb “That which is placed below another is not at variance with it.” The name father, applied to Paul, with reference to God, belongs to this class. God alone is the Father of all in faith, because he regenerates us all by his word, and by the power of his Spirit, and because none but he bestows faith. But they whom he is graciously pleased to employ as his ministers for that purpose, are likewise allowed to share with him in his honor, while, at the same time, He parts with nothing that belongs to himself. Thus God, and God alone, strictly speaking, was Timothy’s spiritual Father; but Paul, who was God’s minister in begetting Timothy, lays claim to this title, by what may be called a subordinate right.
Grace, mercy, peace. So far as relates to the word mercy, he has departed from his ordinary custom in introducing it, moved, perhaps, by his extraordinary affection for Timothy. Besides, he does not observe the exact order; for he places first what ought to love been last, namely, the grace which flows from mercy. For the reason why God at first receives us into favor and why he loves us is, that he is merciful. But it is not unusual to mention the cause after the effect, for the sake of explanation. As to the words grace and peace, we have spoken on other occasions.
(2) Our author, quoting from memory, blends the two passages, not quite accurately, yet so as to convey the true meaning of both. — Ed.
3. As I besought thee Either the syntax is elliptical, or the particleἵνα is redundant; and in both cases the meaning will be obvious. (3) First, he reminds Timothy why he was besought to remain at Ephesus. It was with great reluctance, and through hard necessity, that he parted with a companion so dearly beloved and so faithful, in order that he might laboriously hold the part of his deputy, which no other man would have been competent to fill; and, therefore, Timothy must have been powerfully excited by this consideration, not only not to throw away his time, but to conduct himself in an excellent and distinguished manner.
I wish that thou shouldst forbid any. Thus, by way of inference, he exhorts him to oppose the false teachers who corrupted pure doctrine. In the injunction given to Timothy, to occupy his place at Ephesus, we ought to observe the holy anxiety of the Apostle; for while he labored so much to collect many churches he did not leave the former churches destitute of a pastor. And indeed, as an ancient writer remarks, “To keep what has been gained is not a smaller virtue than to make new acquisitions.” The word forbid denotes power; for Paul wishes to arm him with power to restrain others.
Not to teach differently The Greek word (ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν) which Paul employs, is a compound, and, therefore, may either be translated, “to teach differently,” or after a new method, or, “to teach a different doctrine.” The translation given by Erasmus, ( sectari ,) “ to follow,” does not satisfy me; because it might be understood to apply to the hearers. Now Paul means those who, for the sake of ambition, brought forward a new doctrine.
If we read it, “to teach differently,” the meaning will be more extensive; for by this expression he will forbid Timothy to permit any new forms of teaching to be introduced, which do not agree with the true and pure doctrine which he had taught. Thus, in the Second Epistle, he recommendsὑποτύπωσις, (4) that is, a lively picture of his doctrine. (2. i 1:13.) For, as the truth of God is one, so is there but one plain manner of teaching it, which is free from false ornament, and which partakes more of the majesty of the Spirit than of the parade of human eloquence. Whoever departs from that, disfigures and corrupts the doctrine itself; and, therefore, “to teach differently,” must relate to the form.
If we read it, “to teach something different,” it will relate to the matter. Yet it is worthy of observation, that we give the name of another doctrine not only to that which is openly at variance with the pure doctrine of the gospel, but to everything that either corrupts the pure gospel by new and borrowed inventions, or obscures it by ungodly speculations. For all the inventions of men are so many corruptions of the gospel; and they who make sport of the Scriptures, as ungodly people are accustomed to do, so as to turn Christianity into an act of display, darken the gospel. His manner of teaching therefore, is entirely opposed to the word of God, and to that purity of doctrine in which Paul enjoins the Ephesians to continue.
(3) “The construction here is tortuous and elliptical. Πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν must be construed between καθὼς and παρεκάλεσα, and the protasis at καθὼς is without its apodosis, οὕτως, which must be supplied. The simplest and most natural method is to understand οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ.” — Bloomfield.
(4) “Il ne recommande pas simplement a Timothee de retener sa doctrine, mais il use d’un mot qui signifie le vray patron, ou vif portraict d’icelle.” — “He does not merely advise Timothy to hold by his doctrine, but employs a word which denotes the true pattern or lively portrait of it.”
4. And not to give heed to fables He applies the term “fables,” in my opinion, not only to contrived falsehoods, but to trifles or fooleries which have no solidity; for it is possible that something which is not false may yet be fabulous. In this sense, Suetonius speaks of fabulous history, (5) and Livy employs the word fabulari , “to relate fables,” as denoting useless and foolish talk. And, undoubtedly, the wordμῦθος, (which Paul here employs,) is equivalent to the Greek wordφλυαρία, that is, “trifles.” Moreover, by bringing forward one class by way of example, he has removed all doubt; for disputes about genealogies are enumerated by him amongst fables, not because everything that can be said about them is fictitious, but because it is useless and unprofitable.
This passage, therefore, may thus be explained: — “Let them not give heed to fables of that character and description to which genealogies belong.” And that is actually the fabulous history of which Suetonius speaks, and which even among grammarians, has always been justly ridiculed by persons of sound judgment; for it was impossible not to regard as ridiculous that curiosity which, neglecting useful knowledge, spent the whole life in examining the genealogy of Achilles and Ajax, and wasted its powers in reckoning up the sons of Priam. If this be not endured in childish knowledge, in which there is room for that which affords pleasure, how much more intolerable is it heavenly wisdom (6) ?
And to genealogies haste have end (7) He calls them endless, because vain curiosity has no limit, but continually falls from labyrinth to labyrinth.
Which produce questions He judges of doctrine by the fruit; for every thing that does not edify ought to be rejected, although it has no other fault; and everything that is of no avail but for raising contentions, ought to be doubly condemned. And such are all the subtle questions on which ambitious men exercise their faculties. Let us, therefore, remember, that all doctrines must be tried by this rule, that those which contribute to edification may be approved, and that those which give ground for unprofitable disputes may be rejected as unworthy of the Church of God.
If this test had been applied during several centuries, although religion had been stained by many errors, at least that diabolical art of disputing, which has obtained the appellation of Scholastic Theology, would not have prevailed to so great an extent. For what does that theology contain but contentions or idle speculations, from which no advantage is derived? Accordingly, the more learned a man is in it, we ought to account him the more wretched. I am aware of the plausible excuses by which it is defended, but they will never make out that Paul has spoken falsely in condemning, everything of the sort.
Rather than the edification of God. (8) Subtleties of this description edify in pride, and edify in vanity, but not in God. He calls it “the edification of God,” either because God approves of it, or because it is agreeable to the nature of God. (9)
Which consist in faith. He next shews that this edification consists in faith; and by this term he does not exclude the love of our neighbor, or the fear of God, or repentance; for what are all these but fruits of “faith” which always produces the fear of God? Knowing that all the worship of God is founded on faith alone, he therefore reckoned it enough to mention “faith,” on which all the rest depend.
(5) “Et c’est en ceste signification que Suetone, en la vie de Tibere, dit que cest empereur la s’amusoit fort a l’histoire fabuleuse.” — “And it is in this sense that Suetonius, in his life of Tiberius, says that that emperor amused himself very much with fabulous history.”
(6) “Here we see more clearly, that Paul did not merely condemn in this passage doctrines which are altogether false, and which contain some blasphemies, but likewise all those useless speculations which serve to turn aside believers from the pure simplicity of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is what Paul includes under the word “fables,” for he means not only deliberate and manifest falsehoods, but likewise everything that is of no use, and this is implied in the word which he employs. What, then, does Paul set aside in this passage? All curious inquiries, all speculations which serve only to annoy and distress the mind, or in which there is nothing but a fair show and display, and which do not promote the salvation of those who hear them. This must be carefully remembered, for we shall afterwards see that the reason why Paul speaks of them in this manner is, that the word of God must be profitable. (2Ti 3:16.) All who do not apply the word of God to good profit and advantage are despisers and falsifiers of good doctrine.” — Fr. Ser.
(7) “᾿Απέραντος properly signifies interminable. Hence there is also an implicit sense of what is unprofitable. This, indeed, some, but I think injudiciously, make the principal one.” — Bloomfield.
(8) “Rather than godly edifying,” — Eng. Tr.
(9) “This word edify is sufficiently common in the Holy Scripture, but is not understood by all. In order to understand it aright, let us observe, that it is a comparison which is set before us; for we ought to be temples of God, because he wishes to dwell in us. — Those who profit in a right manner, that is, in faith, in the fear of God, in holiness of life, are said to be edified; that is, God builds them to be his temples, and wishes to dwell in them; and also that we should unitedly form a temple of God, for each of us is a stone of that temple. Thus, when each of us shall be well instructed in his duty, and when we shall all be united in holy brotherhood, then shall we be edified in God. It is true, that men may sometimes be edified in pride: as we see that they who take delight in their vain imaginations, and who spread their wings, and swell themselves out like toads, think that they are well edified. Alas! what a poor building is this! But Paul expressly says, that we must be edified according to God. By which he shews, that when we shall be instructed to serve God, to render to him pure worship, to place all our confidence in him, this is the edification at which we must aim; and every doctrine that has that tendency is good and holy, and ought to be received; but all that is opposed to it must be rejected without farther dispute: it is unnecessary to make any longer inquiry. And why must this or that be rejected? Because it does not contribute to the edification of God.” — Fr. Ser.
Those unprincipled men with whom Timothy had to deal, boasted of having the law on their side, in consequence of which Paul anticipates, and shews that the law gives them no support but was even opposed to them, and that it agreed perfectly with the gospel which he had taught. The defense set up by them was not unlike that which is pleaded by those who, in the present day, subject the word of God to torture. They tell us that we aim at nothing else than to destroy sacred theology, as if they alone nourished it in their bosom. They spoke of the law in such a manner as to exhibit Paul in an odious light. And what is his reply? In order to scatter those clouds of smoke, (10) he comes frankly forward, by way of anticipation, and proves that his doctrine is in perfect harmony with the law, and that the law is utterly abused by those who employ it for any other purpose. In like manner, when we now define what is meant by true theology, it is clearly evident that we desire the restoration of that which had been wretchedly torn and disfigured by those triflers who, puffed up by the empty title of theologians, are acquainted with nothing but vapid and unmeaning trifles. Commandment is here put for the law, by taking a part for the whole.
Love out of a pure heart If the law must be directed to this object, that we may be instructed in love, which proceeds from faith and a good conscience, it follows, on the other hand, that they who turn the teaching of it into curious questions are wicked expounders of the law. Besides, it is of no great importance whither the word love be regarded in this passage as relating, to both tables of the law, or only to the second table. We are commanded to love God with our whole heart, and our neighbors as ourselves; but when love is spoken of in Scripture, it is more frequently limited to the second part. On the present occasion I should not hesitate to understand by it the love both of God and of our neighbor, if Paul had employed the word love alone; but when he adds, “faith, and a good conscience, and a pure heart,” the interpretation which I am now to give will not be at variance with his intention, and will agree well with the scope of the passage. The sum of the law is this, that we may worship God with true faith and a pure conscience, and that we may love one another. Whosoever turns aside from this corrupts the law of God by twisting it to a different purpose.
But here arises a doubt, that Paul appears to prefer “love” to “faith.” I reply, they who are of that opinion reason in an excessively childish manner; for, if love is first mentioned, it does not therefore hold the first rank of honor, since Paul shows also that it springs from faith. Now the cause undoubtedly goes before its effect. And if we carefully weigh the whole context, what Paul says is of the same import as if he had said, “The law was given to us for this purpose, that it might instruct us in faith, which is the mother of a good conscience and of love.” Thus we must begin with faith, and not with love.
“A pure heart” and “a good conscience” do not greatly differ from each other. Both proceed from faith; for, as to a pure heart, it is said that “God purifieth hearts by faith.” (Act 15:9.) As to a good conscience, Peter declares that it is founded on the resurrection of Christ. (1Pe 3:21.) From this passage we also learn that there is no true love where there is not fear of God and uprightness of conscience.
Nor is it unworthy of observation that to each of them he adds an epithet; (11) for, as nothing is more common, so nothing is more easy, than to boast of faith and a good conscience. But how few are there who prove by their actions that they are free from all hypocrisy! Especially it is proper to observe the epithet Which he bestows on “faith,” when he calls it faith unfeigned; by which he means that the profession of it is insincere, when we do not perceive a good conscience, and when love is not manifested. Now since the salvation of men rests on faith, and since the perfect worship of God rests on faith and a good conscience and love, we need not wonder if Paul makes the sum of the law to consist of them.
(10) “Pour demesler tout ce qu’ils entassoyent pour esblouir les yeux des simples.” — “In order to sweep away all that they heaped up for the purpose of blinding the eyes of plain people.”
(11) “Il donne a chacune vertu son epithet.” — “He gives to each virtue its epithet.”
6. From which some having gone astray He continues to pursue the metaphor of an object or end; for the verbἀστοχεῖν, the participle of which is here given, signifies to err or go aside from a mark. (12)
Have turned aside to idle talking This is a remarkable passage, in which he condemns for “idle talking” (13) all the doctrines which do not aim at this single end, and at the same time points out that the views and thoughts of all who aim at any other object vanish away. It is, indeed, possible that useless trifles may be regarded by many persons with admiration; but the statement of Paul remains unshaken, that everything that does not edify in godliness isματαιολογία, (14) “idle talking.” We ought; therefore to take the greatest possible care not to seek anything in the holy and sacred word of God but solid edification, lest otherwise he inflict on us severe punishment for abusing it.
(12) “Here he makes use of a metaphor taken from those who shoot with a bow; for they have their mark at which they aim, and do not shoot carelessly, or at random. Thus Paul shews that God, by giving us the law, has determined to give us a sure road, that we may not be liable to wander like vagabonds. And, indeed, it is not without reason that Moses exhorteth the people, ‘This is the way, walk ye in it,’ as if he had said that men do not know where they are, till God has declared to them his will; but then they have an infallible rule. — Let us carefully observe that God intends to address us in such a manner that it shall not be possible for us to go astray, provided that we take him for our guide, seeing that he is ready and willing to perform that office, when we do not refuse such a favor. This is what Paul meant by this metaphor; as we are told that all who have it not as their object to rely on the grace of God, in order that they may call on God as their Father, and may expect salvation from him, and who do not walk with a good conscience, and with a pure heart toward their neighborhood, are like persons who have wandered and gone astray.” — Fr. Ser.
(13) “De vanite et mesonge.” — “For vanity and falsehood.”
(14) “Ματαιολογία has reference to the interminable and unprofitable ζητήσεις mentioned at 1Ti 1:4, and called κενοφωνίας at 1Ti 6:20; this vain and empty talk being, by implication, opposed to the performance of substantial duties.” — Bloomfield.
7. Wishing to be teachers of the law He does not reprove those who openly attack the instruction of the law, but those who boast of belonging to the rank of teachers of it. He affirms that such persons have no understanding, because they harass their faculties to no purpose by curious questions. And, at the same time, he rebukes their pride by adding, —
Of what things they affirm, for none will be found more bold in pronouncing rashly on matters unknown to them than the teachers of such fables. We see in the present day with what pride and haughtiness the schools of the Sorbonne pronounce their authoritative decisions. And on what subjects? On those which are altogether hidden from the minds of men — which no word of Scripture, and no revelation has ever made known to us. With greater boldness do they affirm their purgatory (15) than the resurrection of the dead. As to their contrivances about the intercession of the saints, if we do not hold them to be an undoubted oracle, they cry out that the whole of religion is overturned. What shall I say as to their vast labyrinths about the hierarchies of heaven, relationships, and similar contrivances? It is a matter that has no end. The Apostle declares that in all these is fulfilled what is said in a well-known ancient proverb,
“Ignorance is rash;” as he says that, “puffed up by their carnal mind, they intrude into things which they know not.”
(Col 2:18.)
(15) “And in Popery what are the articles that shall be held as most certain? What angel, or what devil, revealed to them that there is a purgatory? They have fabricated it out of their own brain, and, after having attempted to produce some passages of the Holy Scriptures, they have at length become bewildered, so that they have no defense of their purgatory, but its antiquity. ‘There it is! It has been always held.’ Such is the foundation of faith, according to the learned Papists. And then we must not call in question that we ought to apply to the departed saints as our advocates and intercessors. To go to God without baying as our guide St. Michael, or the Virgin Mary, or some other saint whom the Pope shall have inserted in his calendar for the occasion, would be of no avail. And why? On what ground? Will they find in all the Holy Scriptures a single word, a single syllable, to shew that creatures, that is, deceased persons, intercede for us? For in this world we ought to pray for one another, and that is a mutual obligation; but as to deceased persons, not a word is said about them.” — Fr. Ser.
8. Now we know that the law is good He again anticipates the calumny with which they loaded him; for, whenever he resisted their empty display, they seized on this shield for their defense “What then? Do you wish to have the law buried, and blotted out of the remembrance of men?” In order to repel this calumny, Paul acknowledges that “the law is good,” but contends that we are required to make a lawful use of it. Here he argues from the use of cognate terms; for the word lawful (legitimus ) is derived from the word law (lex ). But he goes still further, and shews that the law agrees excellently with the doctrine which it teaches; and he even directs it against them.
9. That the law is not made for a righteous man The apostle did not intend to argue about the whole office of the law, but views it in reference to men. It frequently happens that they who wish to be regarded as the greatest zealots for the law, give evidence by their whole life that they are the greatest despisers of it. A remarkable and striking instance of this is found in those who maintain the righteousness of works and defend free-will. They have continually in their mouth these words, “Perfect holiness, merits, satisfactions;” but their whole life cries out against them, that they are outrageously wicked and ungodly, that they provoke in every possible way the wrath of God, and fearlessly set his judgment at naught. They extol in lofty terms the free choice of good and evil; but they openly shew, by their actions, that they are the slaves of Satan, and are most firmly held by him in the chains of slavery.
Having such adversaries, in order to restrain their haughty insolence, Paul remonstrates that the law is, as it were, the sword of God to slay them; and that neither he nor any like him have reason for viewing the law with dread or aversion; for it is not opposed to righteous persons, that is, to the godly and to those who willingly obey God. I am well aware that some learned men draw an ingenious sense out of these words; as if Paul were treating theologically about the nature of “the law.” They argue that the law has nothing to do with the sons of God, who have been regenerated by the Spirit; because it was not given for righteous persons. But the connection in which these words occur shuts me up to the necessity of giving a more simple interpretation to this statement. He takes for granted the well-known sentiment, that “from bad manners have sprung good laws,” and maintains that the law of God was given in order to restrain the licentiousness of wicked men; because they who are good of their own accord do not need the authoritative injunction of the law.
A question now arises, “Is there any mortal man who does not belong to this class?” I reply, in this passage Paul gives the appellation “righteous” to those who are not absolutely perfect, (for no such person will be found,) but who, with the strongest desire of their heart, aim at what is good; so that godly desire is to them a kind of voluntary law, without any motive or restraint from another quarter. He therefore wished to repress the impudence of adversaries, who armed themselves with the name of “the law” against godly men, whose whole life exhibits the actual role of the law, since they had very great need of the law, and yet did not care much about it; which is more clearly expressed by the opposite clause. If there be any who refuse to admit that Paul brings an implied or indirect charge against his adversaries as guilty of those wicked acts which he enumerates, still it will be acknowledged to be a simple repelling of the slander; and if they were animated by a sincere and unfeigned zeal for the law, they ought rather to have made use of their armor for carrying on war with offenses and crimes, instead of employing it as a pretext for their own ambition and silly talking.
For the unrighteous and disobedient Instead of “unrighteous,” it would have been better if translators had made use of the word “lawless;” for the Greek word isἀνόμους, which does not differ much from the second word in the clause, “disobedient.” By sinners he means wicked persons, or those who lead a base and immoral life.
For the ungodly and profane These words might have been fitly rendered “profane and impure;” but I did not wish to be fastidious in matters of little importance.
10For robbers The Latin word plagium was employed by ancient writers to denote the carrying off or enticing the slave of another man, or the false sale of a freeman. Those who wish to obtain more full information on this subject may consult authors on the civil law, and especially on the Flavian Law.
Here Paul glances at several classes, which include briefly every kind of transgressions. The root is obstinacy and rebellion; which he describes by the first two words. Ungodly and sinners appear to denote transgressors of the first and second table. To these he adds the profane and impure, or those who lead a base and dissolute life. There being chiefly three ways in which men injure their neighbors, namely, violence, dishonesty, and lust, he reproves successively those three ways, as may be easily seen. First, he speaks of violence as manifested by manslayers and murderers of parents; secondly, he describes shameful uncleanness; and thirdly, he comes down to dishonesty and other crimes.
If there is anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine In this clause he maintains that his gospel is so far from being opposed to the law, that it is a powerful confirmation of it. He declares that by his preaching, he supports that very sentence which the Lord pronounced in his law, against “everything that is contrary to sound doctrine.” Hence it follows, that they who depart from the gospel, do not adhere to the spirit of the law, but merely pursue its shadow.
Sound doctrine is contrasted with frivolous questions about which he says (1Ti 6:3) that foolish teachers are in an unhealthy condition and which, on account of the effect produced by them, are called diseased. (16)
(16) “All vices are contrary to sound doctrine. For what is the advantage to be derived from the Word of God? It is the pasture of our souls; and, next, it is a medicine. We have bread and various kinds of food for the nourishment of our body: the word of God is of the same use for our souls. But it is more advantageous in this respect, that, when we are diseased with our vices, when there are many corruptions and wicked desires, we must be purged of them; and the Word of God serves us for various purposes, for purging, for blood-letting, for drink, and for diet. In short, all that physicians can apply to the human body, for healing its diseases, is not a tenth part of what the Word of God accomplishes for the health of our souls On that account Paul speaks here of sound doctrine. For inquisitive and ambitious persons are always in a diseased state; they have no health in them they are like those unhappy patients who have lost their appetite, and who suck and lick, but cannot receive any nourishment. But when the Word of God is applied in a right manner, there must be a contest; there was a war against every vice; and the Word of God must condemn them in such a manner that the hearts of men shall be touched and pierced — shall be humbled and laid low with sincere repentance to groan before God; and, if there be nothing else, that they shall at least be convinced, that they shall have remorse within themselves, that they may so be an example to all that are not altogether incorrigible. This is the way in which the Lord wishes that his word may be applied to a good use.” — Fr. Ser.
11According to the gospel of glory By calling it “the gospel of glory,” that is, “the glorious gospel,” he sharply rebukes those who labored to degrade the gospel, in which God displays his glory. He expressly says that it hath been intrusted to him, that all may know that there is no other gospel of God than that which he preaches; and consequently, that all the fables which he formerly rebuked are at variance both with the law and with the gospel of God.
12I give thanks Great is the dignity — of the apostleship, which Paul has claimed for himself; and he could not, looking at his former life, be accounted at all worthy of so high an honor. Accordingly, that he may not be accused of presumption, he comes unavoidably to make mention of his own person, and at once frankly acknowledges his own unworthiness, but nevertheless affirms that he is an Apostle by the grace of God. But he goes further, and turns to his own advantage what appeared to lessen his authority, declaring that the grace of God shines in him so much the more brightly.
To our Lord Jesus Christ When he gives thanks to Christ, he removes that dislike towards him which might have been entertained, and cuts off all ground for putting this question, “Does he deserve, or does he not deserve, so honorable an office?” for, although in himself he has no excellence, yet it is enough that he was chosen by Christ. There are, indeed, many who, under the same form of words, make a show of humility, but are widely different from the uprightness of Paul, whose intention was, not only to boast courageously in the Lord, but to give up all the glory that was his own. (17)
By putting me into the ministry. Why does he give thanks? Because he has been placed in the ministry; for thence he concludes that he hath been, accounted faithful Christ does not receive any in the manner that is done by ambitious (18) people, but selects those only who are well qualified; and therefore all on whom he bestows honor are acknowledged by us to be worthy. For is it inconsistent with this, that Judas, according to the prediction, (Psa 109:8) was elevated for a short time, that he might quickly fall. It was otherwise with Paul, who obtained the honor for a different purpose, and on a different condition, when Christ declared that he should be
“a chosen vessel to him.” (Act 9:15.)
But in this manner Paul seems to say that faithfulness, by which he had been previously distinguished, was the cause of his calling. If it were so, the thanksgiving would be hypocritical and contradictory; for he would owe his apostleship not only to God, but to his own merit. I deny, therefore, that the meaning is, that he was admitted to the rank of an apostle, because God had foreseen his faith; for Christ could not foresee in him anything good but what the Father had bestowed on him. Still, therefore, it continues to be true,
“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.”
(Joh 15:16.)
On the contrary, he draws from it a proof of his fidelity, that Christ had made him an Apostle; for he declares that they whom Christ makes Apostles must be held to be pronounced faithful by his decrees.
In a word, this judicial act is not traced by him to foreknowledge, but rather denotes the testimony which is given to men; as if he had said, “I give thanks to Christ, who, by calling me into the ministry, has openly declared that he approves of my faithfulness.” (19)
Who hath made me powerful He now introduces the mention of another act of the kindness of Christ, that he strengthened him, or “made him powerful.” By this expression he does not only mean that he was at first formed by the hand of God, so as to be well qualified for his office, but he likewise includes the continued bestowal of grace. For it would not have been enough that he was once declared to be faithful, if Christ had not strengthened him by the uninterrupted communication of aid. He acknowledges, therefore, that he is indebted to the grace of Christ on two accounts, because he was once elevated, and because he continues in his office.
(17) “Mais de se demettre de toute gloire, et recognoistre a bon eseient son iudignite;” — “But to part with all glory, and to acknowledge sincerely his own unworthiness.”
(18) “Christ ne fait pas comme les hommes, lesquels par ambition mettent des yens en un estat, sans regarder quay et commet;” — “Christ does not act like men, who, through ambition, put persons into an office, without considering what or how.”
(19) “Here is Paul, who was slandered by many people, as we see that there are always dogs that bark against God’s servants, aiming at nothing but to bring them into contempt, or rather to make their doctrine be despised and abhorred. Wishing to shut the mouths of such people, Paul says that he is satisfied with having the authority and warrant of Christ. As if he had said, ‘Men may reject me, but it is enough that I am declared to be faithful by him who has all authority in himself, and who, being the heavenly Judge, hath pronounced it. When he put me into that office, he declared that he reckoned me to be his servant, and that he intended to employ me in preaching his gospel. That is enough for me. Let men contrive and calumniate as much as they may, provided that I have Christ on my side, let men jeer at me, it will be of no avail; For the decision pronounced by the Lord Jesus Christ can never be recalled.’ Thus we see what was Paul’s intention, namely, that he does not here mean that Christ foresaw in him anything as the reason why he called him to so honorable an office, but only that, by putting him into it, he declared and made it evident to men, that he intended to make use of him.” — Fr. Ser.
13. Who was formerly a blasphemer and persecutor; a blasphemer against God, a persecutor and oppressor against the Church. We see how candidly he acknowledges that it might be brought against him as a reproach, and how far he is from extenuating his sins, and how, by willingly acknowledging his unworthiness, he magnifies the greatness of the grace of God. Not satisfied with having called himself a “persecutor,” he intended to express more fully his rage and cruelty by an additional terns, an oppressor.
Because I did it ignorantly in unbelief “I obtained pardon,” said he, “for my unbelief; because it proceeded from ignorance;” for persecution and oppression were nothing else than the fruits of unbelief.
But he appears to insinuate that there is no room for pardon, unless when ignorance can be pleaded in excuse. What then? Will God never pardon any one who has sinned knowingly? I reply, we must observe the word unbelief; (20) for this term limits Paul’s statement to the first table of the law. Transgressions of the second table, although they are voluntary, are forgiven; but he who knowingly and willingly breaks the first table sins against the Holy Spirit, because he is in direct opposition to God. He does not err through weakness, but, by rushing wickedly against God, gives a sure proof of his reprobation.
And hence may be obtained a definition of the sin against the Holy Ghost; first, that it is open rebellion against God in the transgression of the first table; secondly, that it is a malicious rejection of the truth; for, when the truth of God is not rejected through deliberate malice, the Holy Spirit is not resisted. Lastly, unbelief is here employed as a general term; and malicious design, which is contrasted with ignorance, may be regarded as the point of difference. (21)
Accordingly, they are mistaken who make the sin against the Holy Ghost to consist in the transgression of the second table; and they are also mistaken, who pronounce blind and thoughtless violence to be a crime so heinous. For men commit the sin against the Holy Spirit, when they undertake a voluntary war against God in order to extinguish that light of the Spirit which has been offered to them. This is shocking wickedness and monstrous hardihood. Nor is there room for doubting that, by an implied threatening, he intended to terrify all who had been once enlightened, not to stumble against truth which they knew; because such a fall is destructive and fatal; for if, on account of ignorance, God forgave Paul his blasphemies, they who knowingly and intentionally blaspheme ought not to expect any pardon.
But it may be thought that what he now says is to no purpose; for unbelief, which is always blind, can never be unaccompanied by ignorance. I reply, among unbelievers some are so blind that they are deceived by a false imagination of the truth; and in others, while they are blinded, yet malice prevails. Paul was not altogether free from a wicked disposition; but he was hurried along by the thoughtless zeal, so as to think that what he did was right. Thus he was an adversary of Christ, not from deliberate intention, but through mistake and ignorance. The Pharisees, who through a bad conscience slandered Christ, were not entirely free from mistake and ignorance; but they were instigated by ambition, and base hatred of sound doctrine, and even by furious rebellion against God, so that maliciously and intentionally, and not in ignorance, they set themselves in opposition to Christ. (22)
(20) “Par incredulite, ou, n’ayant point la foy.” — “Through unbelief, or not having faith.”
(21) “En la definition du peche contre le S. Esprit, Incredulite est le terme general; et le Propos malicieux, qui est le contraire d’ignoranee, est comme ce que les Dialecticiens appellent la difference, qui restraint ce qui estoit general.” — “In the definition of the sin against the Holy Spirit, Unbelief is the general term, and malicious intention, which is the opposite of ignorance, may be regarded as that which logicians call the difference, which limits what was general.”
(22) “It may deserve consideration whether a large portion of this able argument might not have been avoided, by means of a different collocation of the passage. “Who was formerly a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and an oppressor, (for I did it ignorantly in unbelief,) but I obtained mercy, and the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” — Ed.
14And the grace of our Lord He again magnifies the grace of God towards himself, not only for the purpose of removing the dislike of it and testifying his gratitude, but also to employ it as a shield against the slanders of wicked men, whose whole design was to bring down his apostleship to a lower level. When he says that it abounded, and that, too, beyond measure, the statement implies that the remembrance of past transactions was effaced, and so completely swallowed up, that it was no disadvantage to him that God had formerly been gracious to good men.
With faith and love Both may be viewed as referring to God, in this sense, that God showed himself to be true, and gave a manifestation of his love in Christ, when he bestowed his grace upon him. But I prefer a more simple interpretation, that “faith and love” are indications and proofs of that grace which he had mentioned, that it might not be supposed that he boasted needlessly or without good grounds. And, indeed, “faith” is contrasted with unbelief, and “love in Christ” is contrasted with the cruelty which he had exercised towards believers; as if he had said, that God had so completely changed him, that he had become a totally different and new man. Thus from the signs and effects he celebrates in lofty terms the excellence of that grace which must obliterate the remembrance of his former life.
15It is a faithful saying After having defended his ministry from slander and unjust accusations, not satisfied with this, he turns to his own advantage what might have been brought against him by his adversaries as a reproach. He shews that it was profitable to the Church that he had been such a person as he actually was before he was called to the apostleship, because Christ, by giving him as a pledge, invited all sinners to the sure hope of obtaining pardon. For when he, who had been a fierce and savage beast, was changed into a Pastor, Christ gave a remarkable display of his grace, from which all might be led to entertain a firm belief that no sinner; how heinous and aggravated so ever might have been his transgressions, had the gate of salvation shut against him.
That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners He first brings forward this general statement, and adorns it with a preface, as he is wont to do in matters of vast importance. In the doctrine of religion, indeed, the main point is, to come to Christ, that, being lost in ourselves, we may obtain salvation from him. Let this preface be to our ears like the sound of a trumpet to proclaim the praises of the grace of Christ, in order that we may believe it with a stronger faith. Let it be to us as a seal to impress on our hearts a firm belief of the forgiveness of sins, which otherwise with difficulty finds entrance into the hearts of men.
A faithful saying What was the reason why Paul aroused attention by these words, but because men are always disputing with themselves (23) about their salvation? For, although God the Father a thousand times offer to us salvation, and although Christ himself preach about his own office, yet we do not on that account cease to tremble, or at least to debate with ourselves if it be actually so. Wherefore, whenever any doubt shall arise in our mind about the forgiveness of sins, let us learn to repel it courageously with this shield, that it is an undoubted truth, and deserves to be received without controversy.
To save sinners. The word sinners is emphatic; for they who acknowledge that it is the office of Christ to save, have difficulty in admitting this thought, that such a salvation belongs to “sinners.” Our mind is always impelled to look at our worthiness; and as soon as our unworthiness is seen, our confidence sinks. Accordingly, the more any one is oppressed by his sins, let him the more courageously betake himself to Christ, relying on this doctrine, that he came to bring salvation not to the righteous, but to “sinners.” It deserves attention, also, that Paul draws an argument from the general office of Christ, in order that what he had lately testified about his own person might not appear to be on account of its novelty.
Of whom, I am the first Beware of thinking that the Apostle, under a presence of modesty, spoke falsely, (24) for he intended to make a confession not less true than humble, and drawn from the very bottom of his heart.
But some will ask, “Why does he, who only erred through ignorance of sound doctrine, and whose whole life, in even other respect, was blameless before men, pronounce himself to be the chief of sinners?” I reply, these words inform us how heinous and dreadful a crime unbelief is before God, especially when it is attended by obstinacy and a rage for persecution. (Phi 3:6.) With men, indeed, it is easy to extenuate, under the presence of heedless zeal, all that Paul has acknowledged about himself; but God values more highly the obedience of faith than to reckon unbelief, accompanied by obstinacy, to be a small crime. (25)
We ought carefully to observe this passage, which teaches us, that a man who, before the world, is not only innocent, but eminent for distinguished virtues, and most praiseworthy for his life, yet because he is opposed to the doctrine of the gospel, and on account of the obstinacy of his unbelief, is reckoned one of the most heinous sinners; for hence we may easily conclude of what value before God are all the pompous displays of hypocrites, while they obstinately resist Christ.
(23) “Sinon d’autant que les honames disputent tousjours, et sont en doute en eux — mesmes touehant leur salut.” — “But because men are always disputing, and are in doubt in themselves about their salvation.”
(24) “Il se faut bien donner garde de cuider que l’Apostre ait ainsi parle par une faeon de nmodestie, et non pas qu’il se pensast en son coeur.” — “We must guard against thinking that the Apostle spoke thus under a presence of modesty, and that he did not think so in his heart.”
(25) “If we consider what is the chief service that God demands and accepts, we shall know what is meant by saying that humility is the greatest sacrifice that he approves. (1Sa 15:22.) And that is the reason why it is said that faith may be regarded as the mother of all the virtues; it is the foundation and source of them; and, but for this, all the virtues that are visible, and that are highly valued by men, have no solid value; they are so many vices which God condemns. After we have loudly praised a man, and placed him in the rank of angels, he shall be rejected by God, with all his fine reputation, unless he have that obedience of faith. Thus it will be in vain for men to say, ‘I did not intend it, that was my opinion;’ for, not withstanding their good intention and their reputation, they must be condemned before God as rebels. This would, at first sight, seem hard to digest. And why? For we see how men always endeavor to escape from the hand of God, and resort to many indirect means. And when can they find this palliation, ‘I intended to do what was right, and why not accept my good intention?’ When that can be alleged, we think that it is enough, but such palliations will be of no avail before God.” — Fr. Ser.
16That in me the first Jesus Christ might shew When he calls himself the first, he alludes to what he had said a little before, that he was the first (26) among sinners and, therefore, this word means “chiefly,” or, “above all.” The Apostle’s meaning is, that, from the very beginning, God held out such a pattern as might be visible from a conspicuous and lofty platform, that no one might doubt that he would obtain pardon, provided that he approached to Christ by faith. And, indeed, the distrust entertained by all of us is counteracted, when we thus behold in Paul a visible model of that grace which we desire to see.
(26) “Qu’il estoit le premier ou le principal de tous les pecheurs.” — “That he was the first, or the chief, of all sinners.”
17Now to the King eternal His amazing vehemence at length breaks out into this exclamation; because he could not find words to express his gratitude; for those sudden bursts occur chiefly when we are constrained to break off the discourse, in consequence of being overpowered by the vastness of the subject. And is there anything more astonishing than Paul’s conversion? Yet, at the same time, by his example he reminds us all that we ought never to think of the grace manifested in God’s calling (27) without being carried to lofty admiration.
Eternal, invisible, only wise This sublime praise of the grace which God had bestowed on him (28) swallows up the remembrance of his former life. For how great a deep is the glory of God! Those attributes which he ascribes to God, though they belong to him always, yet are admirably adapted to the present occasion. The Apostle calls him the King eternal, not liable to any change; Invisible, because (1Ti 6:16) he dwells in light that is inaccessible; and, lastly, the Only Wise, because he renders foolish, and condemns as vanity, all the wisdom of men. The whole agrees with that conclusion at which he arrives:
“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his designs! How unsearchable his ways!” (Rom 11:33.)
He means that the infinite and incomprehensible wisdom of God should be beheld by us with such reverence that, if his works surpass our senses, still we may be restrained by admiration.
Yet as to the last epithet Only, it is doubtful whether he means to claim all glory for God alone, or calls him the only wise, or says that he only is God. The second of these meanings is that which I prefer; for it was in fine harmony with his present subject to say, that the understanding of men, whatever it may be, must bend to the secret purpose of God. And yet I do not deny that he affirms that God alone is worthy of all glory; for, while he scatters on his creatures, in every direction, the sparks of his glory, still all glory belongs truly and perfectly to him alone. But either of those meanings implies that there is no glory but that which belongs to God.
(27) “Nostre vocation, e’est a dire, la grace que Dieu nous a faite en nous appellant.” — “Our calling, that is, the grace which God has displayed in calling us.”
(28) “De la grace de Dieu sur lay.”
18I recommend to thee this commandment All that he had introduced about his own person may be viewed as a digression from his subject. Having to arm Timothy with authority, it became necessary for himself to be clothed with the highest authority; and, therefore, he took an early opportunity of refuting an opinion which might have stood in his way. And now, after having proved that his apostleship ought not to be less esteemed by good men, because at one time he fought against the kingdom of Christ, this obstacle being removed, he returns to the course of his exhortation. The commandment, therefore, is the same as he mentioned at the beginning.
Son Timothy By calling him his son, he not only expresses his own warm regard towards him, but also recommends him to others under that name.
According to the prophecies which went before concerning thee. In order to encourage him still more, he reminds him what kind of testimony he had obtained from the Spirit of God; for it was no small excitement, that his ministry was approved by God, and that he had been called by divine revelation before he was called by the votes of men. “It is disgraceful not to come up to the expectations which men have been led to form; and how much more disgraceful will it be to make void, as far as lies in thy power, the judgment of God?”
But we must first ascertain what are the prophecies of which he speaks. Some think that Paul was instructed by revelation to confer the office on Timothy. That I acknowledge to be true, but I add that others made revelations; for it was not without reason that Paul made use of the plural number. Accordingly, we conclude from these words that several prophecies were uttered concerning Timothy, in order to recommend him to the Church. (29) Being still a young man, he might have been despised on account of his age; and Paul might also have been exposed to calumnies, on account of having ordained youths, before the proper time, to the elder’s office. Besides, God had appointed him to great and difficult undertakings; for he was not one of the ordinary rank of ministers, but approached very closely to that of the apostles, and frequently occupied the place of Paul during his absence. It was, therefore, necessary that he should receive an extraordinary testimony, in order to make it manifest that it was not conferred on him at random by men, but that he was chosen by God himself. To be adorned with the applauses of the prophets was not an ordinary occurrence, or one which was common to him along with many persons; but because there were some circumstances to Timothy, it was the will of God that he should not be received by men until he had been previously approved by his own voice; it was the will of God that he should not enter into the exercise of his office until he had been called by the revelations of the prophets. The same thing happened to Paul and Barnabas, (Act 13:2,) when they were ordained to be teachers of the Gentiles; for it was a new and uncommon occurrence, and they could not otherwise have escaped the charge of rashness.
It will now be objected by some, “If God had formerly declared, by his prophets, what kind of minister Timothy should be, what purpose did it serve to admonish him, to show that he was actually such a person? Could he falsify prophecies which had been uttered by divine revelation?” I reply, it could not happen differently from what God had promised; but at the same time it was the duty of Timothy, not to give himself up to sloth and inactivity, but to render a cheerful compliance with the providence of God. It is therefore not without good reason, that Paul, wishing to stimulate him still more, mentions the “prophecies,” by which God might be said to have pledged himself on behalf of Timothy; for he was thus reminded of the purpose for which he was called.
That thou by them mayest war a good warfare. By this he means that Timothy, relying on such approbation of God, ought to fight more courageously. What is there that either ought to give, or can give us greater cheerfulness than to know that God has appointed us to do what we are doing? These are our arms, these are our weapons of defense, by the aid of which we shall never fail.
By the word warfare, he states indirectly, that we must maintain a contest; and this applies universally to all believers, but especially to Christian teachers, who may be said to be standard-bearers and leaders. It is as if he had said, “O Timothy, if thou canst not fulfill thy office without a contest, remember that thou art armed by divine prophecies for cherishing assured hope of victory, and arouse thyself by calling them to remembrance. That warfare which we maintain, having God for our leader, is a good warfare; that is, it is glorious and successful.”
(29) “Pour le recommender a l’Eglise, et luy donner authorite.” — “In order to recommend him to the Church, and to give him authority.”
19Having faith and a good conscience I understand the word faith to be a general term, denoting sound doctrine. In the same sense he afterwards speaks of “the mystery of faith.” (1Ti 3:9.) And, indeed, the chief things demanded from a teacher are these two: — that he shall hold by the pure truth of the gospel; and next, that he shall administer it with a good conscience and holiest zeal. Where these are found, all the others will follow of their own accord.
From which some having turned aside concerning faith He shows how necessary it is that faith be accompanied by a good conscience; because, on the other hand, the punishment of a bad conscience is turning aside from the path of duty. They who do not serve God with a sincere and a perfect heart, but give a loose rein to wicked dispositions, even though at first they had a sound understanding, come to lose it altogether.
This passage ought to be carefully observed. We know that the treasure of sound doctrine is invaluable, and therefore there is nothing that we ought to dread more than to have it taken from us. But Paul here informs us, that there is only one way of keeping it safe; and that is, to secure it by the locks and bars of a good conscience. This is what we experience every day; for how comes it that there are so many who, laying aside the gospel, rush into wicked sects, or become involved in monstrous errors? It is because, by this kind of blindness, God punishes hypocrisy; as, on the other hand, a genuine fear of God gives strength for perseverance.
Hence we may learn two lessons. First, Teachers and ministers of the gospel, and, through them all the churches are taught with what horror they ought to regard a hypocritical and deceitful profession of true doctrine, when they learn that it is so severely punished. Secondly, this passage removes the offense by which so many persons are greatly distressed, when they perceive that some, who formerly professed their attachment to Christ and to the gospel, not only fall back into their former superstitions but (which is far worse) are bewildered and captivated by monstrous errors. For by such examples, God openly supports the majesty of the gospel, and openly shows that he cannot at all endure the profanation of it. And this is what experience has taught us in every age. All the errors that have existed in the Christian Church from the beginning, proceeded from this source, that in some persons, ambition, and in others, covetousness, extinguished the true fear of God. A bad conscience is, therefore, the mother of all heresies; and we see that a vast number of persons, who had not sincerely and honestly embraced the faith, are hurried along, like brute beasts, into the reveries of the Epicureans, so that their hypocrisy is exposed. And not only so, but contempt of God is universally prevalent, and the licentious and disgraceful lives of almost all ranks show that there is either none at all, or the smallest possible potion of integrity in the world; so that there is very great reason to fear lest the light which had been kindled may be speedily extinguished, and God may leave the pure understanding of the gospel to be possessed by very few.
Have made shipwreck: The metaphor taken from shipwreck is highly appropriate; for it suggests to us, that, if we wish to arrive safely at the harbor, our course must be guided by a good conscience, otherwise there is danger of “shipwreck;” that is, there is danger lest faith be sunk by a bad conscience, as by a whirlpool in a stormy sea. (30)
(30) “What is human life, and what is the whole of its course? A navigation. Not only are we travelers, as the Scripture tells us, (1Pe 2:11,) but we have no solidity. They who travel by land, either on foot or on horseback, have still their sure and firm road; but in the world, instead of being on foot or on horseback, we must be, as it were, on a sea, and we have no solid footing. We are like people who are in a boat, and who are always within half a foot of their death; and the boat is a sort of grave, because they see the water all around ready to swallow them up. Thus is it with us, while we live here below. For, on the one hand, there is the frailty that is in us, which is more fluid than water; and then all that surrounds us is like water, which flows on all sides, while at every minute winds, and storms. and tempests arise. Let us therefore learn that our life is but a kind of navigation, which we perform by water, and that we are, at the same time, exposed to many winds and storms. And if it be so, what shall become of us when we have not a good boat or a good pilot?” — Fr. Ser.
20Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander. The former will be again mentioned in the Second Epistle, in which the kind of “shipwreck” which he made is likewise described; for he said that the resurrection was past. (2Ti 2:17.) There is reason to believe that Alexander also was bewitched by an error so absurd. And shall we wonder at the present day, if any are deceived by the various enchantments of Satan, when we see that one of Paul’s companions perished by so dreadful a fall?
He mentions both of them to Timothy as persons whom he knew. For my own part, I have no doubt that this is the same Alexander that is mentioned by Luke, and who attempted, but without success, to quell the commotion. Now he was an Ephesian, and we have said that this Epistle was chiefly written for the sake of the Ephesians. We now learn what was his end; and hearing it, let us keep possession of our faith by a good conscience, that we may hold it safe to the last.
Whom I have delivered to Satan. As I mentioned in the exposition of another passage, (1Co 5:5,) there are some who interpret this to mean that extraordinary chastisement was inflicted on those persons; and they view this as referring toδυνάμεις, “the powers” mentioned by Paul in the same Epistle. (1Co 12:28.) For, as the apostles were endowed with the gift of healing, in order to testify the favor and kindness of God towards the godly, so against wicked and rebellious persons they were armed with power, either to deliver them to the devil to be tormented, or to inflict on them other chastisements. Of this “power,” Peter gave a display in Ananias and Sapphira, (Act 5:1,) and Paul in the magician Bar-Jesus. (Act 13:6.) But, for my own part, I choose rather to explain it as relating to excommunication; for the opinion that the incestuous Corinthian received any other chastisement than excommunication is not supported by any probable conjecture. And, if by excommunicating him, Paul delivered him to Satan, why should not the same mode of expression have a similar import in this passage? Besides, it explains very well the force of excommunication; for, since in the Church Christ holds the seat of his kingdom, out of the Church there is nothing but the dominion of Satan. Accordingly, he who is cast out of the Church must be placed, for a time, under the tyranny of Satan, until, being reconciled to the Church, he return to Christ. I make one exception, that, on account of the enormity of the offense, he might have pronounced a sentence of perpetual excommunication against them; but on that point I would not venture to make a positive assertion.
That they may learn not to blaspheme. What is the meaning of this last clause? For one who has been cast out of the Church takes upon himself greater freedom of acting, because, being freed from the yoke of ordinary discipline, he breaks out into louder insolence. I reply, to whatever extent they may indulge in their wickedness, yet the gate will be shut against them, so that they shall not contaminate the flock; for the greatest injury done by wicked men is, when they mingle with others under the presence of holding the same faith. The power of doing injury is taken from them, when they are branded with public infamy, so that none are so simple as not to know that these are irreligious and detestable men, and therefore their society is shunned by all. Sometimes, too, it happens that — being struck down by this mark of disgrace which has been put upon them — they become less daring and obstinate; and therefore, although this remedy sometimes renders them more wicked, yet it is not always ineffectual for subduing their fierceness.
