The words of this address are peculiar: κατʼ ἐπαγγελίαν ζωῆς τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; they are not to be joined with θελήματος, nor with the following Τιμοθέῳ, but with ἀπόστολος κ.τ.λ. Ἐπαγγελία in the N. T. constantly means “the promise;” it is incorrect to translate it here by “preaching;” comp. 1Ti 4:8. Its object is the ζωή, the blessed life which “exists objectively, and is presented in Christ” (Wiesinger). The preposition κατά shows that Paul’s apostleship stands in connection with this promise. Matthies defines this connection more precisely by saying that κατά denotes the harmony between the plan of salvation, of which that ἐπαγγελία is the chief element, and the apostleship. But it is more natural, and more in accordance with the passage in Tit 1:2, to explain it, as does Theodoret, followed by de Wette and Wiesinger: ἀπόστολόν με προεβάλετο ὁ Θεὸς, ὥστε με τὴν ἐπαγγελθεῖσαν αἰώνιον ζωὴν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κηρύξαι, so that κατά directs attention to the purpose; see Winer, p. 376 [E. T. p. 502]. Otto contends that κατά means “for the purpose,” and that κηρύξαι should be supplied. He explains it more generally: “in the matter of, in regard to,” with the remark: “Paul means to say that his apostolic office … in its entire work is defined by that promise.” This explanation, however, comes back substantially to the former one, since the work of the apostolic office is specially the κηρύσσειν. Hofmann explains κατά as equivalent to “in consequence of,” in the sense, viz., that the promise of life forms the presupposition of Paul’s apostleship; but for this there is no support in usage; besides, it is self-evident that without that promise of life there would be no apostleship.-2Ti 1:2. Τιμοθέῳ ἀγαπητῷ τέκνῳ] ἀγαπητῷ, in distinction from γνησίῳ, 1Ti 1:2 and Tit 1:4, does not indicate a greater confidence, nor even blame, as if Timothy, by showing a want of courageous faith, no longer deserved the name (Mack).
2Ti 1:3. Χάριν ἔχω τῷ Θεῷ] As in several other epistles, Paul begins here with a thanksgiving to God,-only he usually says εὐχαριστῶ or εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός. The expression is only in 1Ti 1:12 (elsewhere in the N. T. Luk 17:9; Heb 12:28). To τῷ Θεῷ there is next attached the relative clause: ᾧ λατρεύω ἀπὸ προγόνων ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, which is added because the apostle wishes to remind Timothy of his πρόγονοι, viz. his grandmother and mother,-not to bring into prominence a relationship different from the apostle’s own (Hofmann), but one corresponding with his own.
ἀπὸ προγόνων is not equivalent to ἀπὸ βρέφους, 2Ti 3:15; it means that the apostle serves God “in the manner handed down by his progenitors, as they had done” (Buttmann, p. 277), or that the service of the πρόγονοι, i.e. not the ancestors of the Jewish people (Heydenreich and others), but the progenitors of the apostle himself (so most expositors), is continued in him, and denotes therefore “the continuity of the true honouring of God by Judaism” (de Wette). Otto says that the expression is not to be referred to the education (Flatt) or disposition (Winer, p. 349 [E. T. p. 465]; van Oosterzee, Wiesinger), but to the ancestral mode of worship; but, in reply, it is to be observed, that on account of ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει the reference to disposition is by no means to be considered as excluded.[1] The apostle, by his conversion to Christianity, did not interrupt his connection with the λατρεύειν of his ancestors, because it was a necessary condition of the new faith to honour the God of revelation whom the Jews served. This utterance regarding the apostle himself, and particularly the words ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδ., are not in contradiction with 1Ti 1:13 and similar passages, since the apostle, even while he was zealous for the law, served the God of his fathers ἐν καθ. συνειδ., as little then as afterwards falsifying the revealed word with arbitrary fictions, which was done by the heretics; comp. Act 23:1; Act 24:14 ff. Hofmann is wrong in breaking up the inner relation of these words, referring λατρεύω only to ἀπὸ προγόνων, and not also ἐν καθ. συνειδήσει, which he refers only to the apostle. This he does, although the structure of the sentence is most decidedly against such a distribution of the references.
On ἐν καθ. συνειδ., comp. 1Ti 1:5.[2]
ὡς ἀδιάλειπτον κ.τ.λ.] ὡς does not give the reason of thanksgiving, as Chrysostom explains it: εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ, ὅτι μέμνημαί σου, φησὶν, οὕτω σὲ φιλῶ, and as Luther translates: “that I,” etc. Against this there is not only the word ὡς, but also the sense. The apostle, in his giving of thanks to God, often indeed recalls his μνεία of those to whom he writes (Rom 1:9; Php 1:3; 1Th 1:2; Phm 1:4), but he never points them out as the ground of his thanksgiving. Otto, while granting that there are objections to it, wishes to take ὡς as the same as ὅτι, and to regard it as a particle of the reason, equivalent to ὅτι οὕτως, which, however, cannot be justified from usage.[3] Just as little should we take Ὡς adverbially with ἈΔΙΑΛ. Mack: “I thank God, etc.… I keep right continually,” etc.
A subordinate clause begins with Ὡς, which, however, does not mean: “since, quippe, siquidem” (Heydenreich, Flatt, Matthies: “in so far”), “so often” (Calvin: “quoties tui recordor in precibus meis, id autem facio continenter, simul etiam de te gratias ago”), but expresses the parallel relation of the subordinate clause to the principal one, and should be translated by “as” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee); in Gal 6:10, Ὡς has a very similar meaning. The sense accordingly is: “I thank God, as I am continually mindful of thee in my prayers,” so that already in the subordinate clause it is indicated that the thanksgiving to God refers to Timothy. In Rom 1:9, ὡς stands in quite another connection, which makes de Wette’s objection all the less justifiable, that here it has been taken from that passage.
ἈΔΙΆΛΕΙΠΤΟΝ ἜΧΩ ΤῊΝ ΠΕΡΊ ΣΟΥ ΜΝΕΊΑΝ] De Wette arbitrarily maintains that Paul would have said: ἈΔΙΑΛΕΊΠΤΩς ΜΝΕΊΑΝ ΣΟΥ ΠΟΙΟῦΜΑΙ. Though Paul does so express himself in Rom 1:9 (and similarly Eph 1:16), it does not, however, follow that he might not use another form of expression in another epistle, especially since the connection of ΜΝΕΊΑΝ with ἜΧΕΙΝ is by no means unusual with him; comp. 1Th 3:6.
ἈΔΙΆΛΕΙΠΤΟΝ stands first for emphasis. There is nothing strange here in ΜΝΕΊΑ being joined with ΠΕΡΊ, since ΜΝᾶΣΘΑΙ takes that construction even in the classics; comp. Herod. i. 36; Plato, Lach. p. 181 A; Xenophon, Cyrop. i. 6. 12; so, too, with μνημονεύειν, Heb 11:22.
ἘΝ ΤΑῖς ΔΕΉΣΕΣΊ ΜΟΥ ΝΥΚΤῸς ΚΑῚ ἩΜΈΡΑς] ΤΑῖς is not to be supplied before ΝΥΚΤΌς, since the last words are not to be taken with ΔΕΉΣΕΣΙ, but either with ἈΔΙΑΛ. ἜΧΩ Κ.Τ.Λ. (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee) or with what follows (Matthies, Plitt, Hofmann). The first construction is preferable, because the chief emphasis is laid on the preceding thought, the ἘΠΙΠΟΘῶΝ being made subsidiary; besides, the apostle had no particular reason for directing attention to the uninterrupted duration of his longing for Timothy as the source of his unceasing prayer. The assertion, that νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας is superfluous on account of the previous ἈΔΙΆΛΕΙΠΤΟΝ, is not to the point; comp. Act 26:7, where the same words are added with ἘΝ ἘΚΤΕΝΕΊᾼ.
[1] Had the apostle not been conscious that his ancestors had served God ἐν καθ. συνειδ., he would not have expressed himself as he does here.
[2] Otto rightly: “With Paul συνείδησις is purely the self-consciousness of the subject. The consciousness is pure, when it is conscious of no impure strivings. Impurity appears whenever any one, under the pretence of serving God, follows after his own selfish purposes.” There is no ground for Hofmann’s assertion, that the καθ. συνείδησις is only “a conscience free from consciousness of guilt, such as only that man can have who is conscious of the forgiveness of his sins.”
[3] The particle ὡς does sometimes occur in classic Greek in such a way that it is resolvable into ὅτε οὕτως; but, as is shown in the very nature of the word, only in cases when the sentence beginning with ὡς expresses something surprising, something exciting astonishment, in particular, therefore, after the verb θαυμάζω. It follows, as Pape says, s.v., that “in such cases we may translate it with the simple how.” That such is the case, is proved by all the quotations brought together by Otto (p. 301) from the Greek classics. It is therefore entirely erroneous for Otto to say quite generally that “it is in the manner of genuine Greek to contract the causal ὅτι with the following οὕτως into the adverbial pronoun ὡς.” Only if the ἀδιάλειπτον ἔχω τὴν περὶ σοῦ μνείαν occurred to the apostle as something strange, astonishing, could ὡς be explained here by ὅτι οὕτως.-Besides, it is inaccurate for Otto to ascribe to ὡς a causal signification, and then call the clause beginning with it an objective clause.
2Ti 1:4. As in Rom 1:11, Php 1:8, and other passages, Paul also expresses here his longing to see the person to whom the epistle is addressed. The participle ἐπιποθῶν is subordinate to the previous ἔχω; to it, in turn, the next participle μεμνημένος is subordinated. The longing for Timothy causes him to be continually remembered in the apostle’s prayers, and the remembrance is nourished by thinking of his tears.
σου τῶν δακρύων] By these are meant-as the verb μεμνημένος shows-not tears which “Timothy shed” when at a distance from the apostle (Wiesinger), and of which he knew only through a letter (which Timothy therefore “shed by letter,” Hofmann); but the tears of which he himself had been witness, the tears which Timothy shed probably on his departure from him (van Oosterzee, Plitt). These were, to the apostle, a proof of Timothy’s love to him, and produced in him the desire of seeing Timothy again, that he might thereby be filled with joy. In this connection of the clauses with one another, the apostle has not yet given the object of thanks appropriate to the χάριν ἔχω; he does not do so till 2Ti 1:5.[4]
According to Hofmann, the reason of the thanks is already given in the participial clause μεμνημένος. But the idea that Paul thanks God for Timothy’s tears, is out of all analogy with the other epistles of the apostle. Even the ἵνα χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ is against this view, for the apostle could not possibly say that he remembers Timothy’s tears in order that he may be filled with joy.
[4] Against this view it cannot be maintained that it makes a subordinate participle μεμνημένος depend on the subordinate participle ἐπιποθῶν, for that is not in itself impossible; nor can it be said “that the insertion of a clause μεμνημένος between ἰδεῖν σε and ἵνα is intolerable,” since the chief stress is not on μεμνημένος, but on ἐπιποθῶν κ.τ.λ. Further, it cannot provoke objection that Timothy’s tears nourished in the apostle the longing to see him again, since these were a proof of his love-and of his faith.
2Ti 1:5. Ὑπόμνησιν λαβὼν τῆς κ.τ.λ.] This participial clause is to be taken neither with μωμνημένος nor with ἐπιποθῶν (de Wette, Leo); the sense forbids us to subordinate it to one of these ideas, and the want of the copula καί to co-ordinate it with them. Otto joins it with ἵνα χαρᾶς πληρωθῶ: “that I may be filled with joy, as I (sc. by thy personal presence in Rome) receive a renewal of my remembrance of thy unfeigned faith.” Against this construction, however, there are the following reasons:-(1) That to supply “by thy presence” is not only arbitrary, but does not suit with the idea ὑπόμνησιν λαμβάνειν, since the impression made on us by anything before the eyes cannot be described as reminding us of that thing. (2) That, if the remembrance of Timothy’s constancy in the faith is so unceasing with the apostle that he thanks God for it, it is quite inconceivable how he could still wish to receive a ὑπόμνησις of it. (3) That we see ourselves forced by it to prefer the reading λαμβάνων (which Tisch. adopted) to λαβών.
The only remaining course is to connect ὑπομν. λαβ. with χάριν ἔχω τῷ Θεῷ (so Wiesinger, Plitt, and others). It does stand at some distance from it, but that cannot be considered a good reason against the construction. The construction in Php 1:3-5 is similar. Nor can we make objection that “Paul according to this view would not thank God because Timothy stands in such faith, but because he has been brought to his recollection” (Hofmann), for the participial clause does not give the reason of the thanksgiving directly, but only hints at it. It is the same here as at Eph 1:15 and Col 1:3, where, too, the subject of thanksgiving is not the ἀκούειν, but that which the apostle had heard.
ὑπόμνησιν λαβών is not equivalent to “recordans, as I remember” (de Wette: “retaining the remembrance”), for ὑπόμνησις in the N. T. (comp. 2Pe 1:13; 2Pe 3:1; also Sir 16:11; 2Ma 6:17) has an active signification; it is equivalent, therefore, to “since I have received remembrance,” i.e. “since I have been reminded” (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is not said what had reminded the apostle of Timothy’s faith. Bengel supposes that it was externa quaedam occasio, or a nuntius a Timotheo; Wiesinger, that it was Onesimus. But it suits better with the context to regard the tears just mentioned as causing the recollection, inasmuch as they were to the apostle a proof of his unfeigned faith. It is unnecessary to derive the ὑπόμνησις from some inner working of the apostle’s soul (so formerly in this commentary); there is no hint of any such thing. The present λαμβάνων is not against this interpretation, since these tears came so vividly before the apostle’s soul that he was thereby reminded more and more of Timothy’s faith.
τῆς ἐν σοὶ ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως] see 1Ti 1:5; this, now, is the subject of the thanksgiving.
As Paul is conscious that the God whom he serves was the God also of his ancestors, he can remind Timothy of the fact that the faith which dwells in him was before the possession of his grandmother and mother.[5]
ἥτις ἐνῴκησε πρῶτον] ἐνοικεῖν as in 2Ti 1:14; Rom 8:11; 2Co 6:16. The word is chosen here “to denote faith on its objective side as a possession coming from God” (Wiesinger), and it declares that “it has not become a merely transient feeling, but an abiding principle of life dwelling in them” (van Oosterzee).
ΠΡῶΤΟΝ is not, with Luther, to be translated by “before,” but to be taken in its proper meaning, in reference to the ΠΡΌΓΟΝΟΙ of Timothy. The point brought out is, that Timothy was not the first of his family to be a believer, but we cannot press the point so far as to suppose that a distinction is drawn between the apostle whose ancestors served God as Jews, while Timothy’s ancestors were heathen (so Hofmann).
ἘΝ Τῇ ΜΆΜΜῌ ΣΟΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.] Regarding ΜΆΜΜΗ, see Wahl on the passage.
This grandmother of Timothy is not mentioned elsewhere. Of the mother, it is said in Act 16:1 ff. that she was a ΓΥΝΉ ἸΟΥΔΑΊΑ ΠΙΣΤΉ; her name is given only here. The mention of the two is not to be regarded as a superfluous-or even surprising-afterthought. Paul might repose in Timothy all the greater confidence, that he, brought up by a pious mother, had before him her example and that of his grandmother.
This confidence the apostle expresses still more definitely in the next words: ΠΈΠΕΙΣΜΑΙ ΔῈ, ὍΤΙ ΚΑῚ ἘΝ ΣΟΊ, with which Heydenreich wrongly supplies ἘΝΟΙΚΉΣΕΙ instead of ἘΝΟΙΚΕῖ.
[5] Since Timothy’s ἀνυπόκριτος πίστις is Christian faith, faith in Jesus Christ, it is manifestly wrong to regard the πίστις of the grandmother and mother as only faith in the O. T. promise (Otto); the relative ἥτις shows that the two are identical. From Paul’s ascription to himself of a λατρεύειν ἀπὸ προγόνων, we cannot infer, with Otto, that the “matter of faith on the part of Timothy’s πρόγονοι cannot be taken further than on the part of the apostle’s πρόγονοι.” The apostle does not at all boast of the πίστις of his ancestors, but says merely that he serves the same God as they had served. Timothy’s faith could only mean something to him, if it was not only faith in the promise, but also faith in Him who had appeared according to the promise.
2Ti 1:6. Δἰ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναμιμνήσκω σε κ.τ.λ.] This verse contains the chief thought of the whole chapter. By διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν (a formula which occurs in Paul only here, at 2Ti 1:12, and at Tit 1:13; αἰτία not at all in the other Pauline epistles), the apostle connects his exhortation with the previous πέπεισμαι κ.τ.λ., since his conviction of Timothy’s faith was the occasion of his giving the exhortation. There is no ground for the objection raised by Otto against this connection of thought, that αἰτία “never expresses anything but the external objective occasion;” he is no less wrong in wishing to refer διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν not to ἀναμιμνήσκω, but to ἀναζωπυρεῖν. In that case the apostle would have written διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἀναζωπύρει κ.τ.λ. (as Otto explains the expression). The verb ἀναμιμνήσκειν, properly, “remind of something,” contains in itself the idea of exhorting; the apostle finely interprets the word so as to make Timothy appear himself conscious of the duty which was urged on him; ὑπομιμνήσκειν is often used exactly in this way.
ἀναζωπυρεῖν τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ] ἀναζωπυρεῖν: ἅπ. λεγ.: “fan into life again;” comp. Jamblichus, De Vit. Pyth. chap. 16.: ἀνεζωπύρει τὸ θεῖον ἐν αὐτῇ. By χάρισμα τ. Θ. is meant here, as in 1Ti 4:14, the fitness (ἱκανότης) bestowed by God on Timothy for discharging the ἔργον εὐαγγελιστοῦ (2Ti 4:5), which fitness includes both the capacity and also (though Hofmann denies this) zeal and spirit for official labours. The context shows that the courage of a Christian martyr is here specially meant. This παῤῥησία is not the work of man, but the gift of God’s grace to man. It can only be kept alive unceasingly by the labour of man. Chrysostom: δεῖ σου προθυμίας πρὸς τὸ χάρισμα τοῦ Θεοῦ· … ἐν ἡμῖν γὰρ ἐστὶ καὶ σβέσαι, καὶ ἀνάψαι τοῦτο· ὑπὸ μὲν γὰρ ῥαθυμίας καὶ ἀκηδίας σβέννυται, ὑπὸ δὲ νήψεως καὶ προσοχῆς διεγείρεται. Bengel is not incorrect in remarking on this exhortation: videtur Timotheus, Paulo diu carens, nonnihil remisisse; certe nunc ad majora stimulatur. His former zeal seems to have been weakened, particularly by the apostle’s suffering (2Ti 1:8), so that it needed to be quickened again.[6] Otto here, too, understands by χάρισμα, the “right of office;” but this does not accord with the verb ἀναζωπυρεῖν, since the right did not need to be revived. However Timothy might conduct himself in regard to the right imparted to him, it remained always the same; if he did not exercise it as he should have done, he himself or his activity needed the ἀναζωπυρεῖν, but not the right which had been delivered to him with the office.[7] On the next words: ὅ ἐστιν ἐν σοὶ διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου, comp. 1Ti 4:14. There can be no reason for doubting that the same act is meant in both passages. As to the difficulty that, whereas in the former passage it was the presbytery, here it is Paul who is said to have imposed hands, see the remark on that passage. The reason for this lies both in the character of the epistle, “which has for its foundation and in part for its subject the personal relation between the apostle and Timothy,” as well as in Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in 2Ti 1:8, “to make the gift an effective agent for him through whom the gift was received” (Wiesinger).
[6] It has been already remarked (Introd. § 3, p. 27) that Otto is not justified in accusing Timothy of having almost laid down his office through anxiety and timidity. It is a part of this accusation that Otto here finds it said that “Timothy was to resume the duties delivered to him by the apostolic laying on of hands.”-The meaning of ἀναζωπυρεῖν is mistaken by van Oosterzee and Plitt, if they think that we cannot infer from it that there had been an actual decrease of Timothy’s official zeal.
[7] Otto contends, that “along with the office, when the hands were laid on him, Timothy received the understanding, the personal gifts for filling it.” Against this it is to be remarked-(1) That the natural talents are not bestowed along with the office, but the conscious and intentional concentration and employment of them in the office, otherwise the receiver of the office is only a dead machine in it; and (2) that the apostle, in laying on hands, acted as the instrument of the Holy Spirit; and of this Timothy was also aware.
2Ti 1:7. The exhortation in 2Ti 1:6, Paul confirms by pointing to the spirit which God has given to His own people: οὐ γὰρ ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Θεὸς πνεῦμα δειλίας] By ἡμῖν, Otto understands not Christians in general, but the apostle and Timothy in particular as office-bearers. The context, however, does not demand such special reference, since the apostle, in order to confirm his exhortation to Timothy, might very well appeal to a fact which had been experienced by Christians in general as well as by himself. Besides, the ἡμᾶς in 2Ti 1:9 is against Otto’s view. Πνεῦμα here is either-(1) the objective spirit of God, the Holy Spirit (Bengel, Heydenreich, Otto), of whom it is first said negatively that it is not a spirit of δειλία, i.e. not a spirit producing δειλία in man, and then positively that it is a spirit of δύναμις κ.τ.λ., i.e. a spirit imparting δύναμις to man; or (2) πνεῦμα is the subjective condition of man, the spiritual life wrought in him by the Spirit of God (Mack, Matthies, Leo, similarly, too, Hofmann[8]), which is then described more precisely as a spirit, not of δειλία, but of δύναμις κ.τ.λ. The context in which the similar passage in Romans stands, and especially the passage corresponding to this in Gal 4:6, make the first view preferable.
δειλία denotes timidity in the struggle for the kingdom of God; comp. Joh 14:27; Rev 21:7-8.
The ideas δύναμις, ἀγάπη, and σωφρονισμός are closely related to each other. That the Christian, as a warrior of God, may rightly wage the warfare to which he is appointed, he needs first δύναμις, i.e. power, not only to withstand the attacks of the world, but also to gain an increasing victory over the world. He has need next of ἀγάπη, which never suffers him to lose sight of the goal of the struggle, i.e. the salvation of his brethren, and urges him to labour towards it with all self-denial. Lastly, he has need of σωφρονισμός. While Chrysostom and Theophylact leave it uncertain whether this word is to be taken intransitively, reflectively, or transitively (Theophylact: ἢ ἵνα σώφρονες ὦμεν· … ἢ ἵνα σωφρονισμὸν ἔχωμεν τὸ πνεῦμα, κἄν τις πειρασμὸς ἡμῖν ἐπιγένηται, πρὸς σωφρονισμὸν τοῦτον δεχώμεθα· ἢ ἵνα καὶ ἄλλοις ὦμεν σωφρονισταί), later expositors (Hofmann too: “discretion”) have taken it as synonymous with σωφροσύνη (thus Augustine, ad Bonif. iv. chap. 5: continentia; Vulgate: sobrietas; Beza: sanitas animi; Leo: temperantia); de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt make it reflective, “self-control” (properly, therefore, “the σωφρόνισις directed towards oneself”). Neither explanation, however, can be justified by usage. Etymology and usage are decidedly in favour of the transitive meaning, which therefore must be maintained, with Otto, unless we attribute to the apostle a mistake in the use of the word. In itself the Holy Spirit might be called πνεῦμα σωφρονισμοῦ in the other sense, since the σωφρονίζειν is His characteristic, He practises it; but, as the preceding genitives denote effects, and not qualities, of the spirit, the genitive σωφρονισμοῦ would stand to πνεῦμα in a relation differing from that of the other genitives. The Holy Spirit can therefore receive such a designation here, only in so far as He produces the σωφρονίζειν (comp. Tit 2:4) in the Christian, i.e. impels him not to remain inactive when others go wrong, but to correct them that they may desist. Thus taken, the idea of σωφρονισμός appropriately includes that of ἀγάπη, part of which is to be active in amending the unhappy circumstances of the church,-here all the more appropriately because the thought which is true of all Christians is specially applied here to Timothy.[9]
[8] Hofmann, to a certain extent, combines the two, saying: “The spirit which we have received is, looking to its source, the Spirit of God; but, looking to what we become through it, it becomes in us the spirit of our life thus created.”
[9] The explanation here given of σωφρονισμός is in substantial agreement with that proposed by Otto, except that Otto regards the σωφρονισμός as a work, official in kind.
2Ti 1:8. Μὴ οὖν (deduction from what has preceded: since God has given us the spirit of δύναμις κ.τ.λ., then, etc.) ἐπαισχυνθῆς τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν] On the construction, comp. Rom 1:16 : οὐ ἐπαισχύνομαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον.
μαρτύριον, like μαρτυρεῖν in 1Ti 3:16, does not denote the martyrdom of Christ, nor even specially the testimony regarding the martyr-death of Christ (Chrysostom: μὴ αἰσχύνου, ὅτι τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον κηρύσσεις), but more generally the testimony regarding Christ, which certainly includes the other special meaning. Κυρίου is not the subjective genitive (Wahl: testimonium quod dixit Jesus de rebus divinis quas audivit a Patre; Hofmann: “the truth of salvation witnessed by Christ”[10]), but the objective (de Wette, Wiesinger).
The connection between this and the preceding thought is brought out by Bengel’s words: timorem pudor comitatur; victo timore, fugit pudor malus.
ΜΗΔῈ ἘΜῈ ΤῸΝ ΔΈΣΜΙΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ] Paul places himself in immediate connection with the gospel, as he was a prisoner because of his witness of Christ; and the reason of the special mention of himself lies in the summons to Timothy to come to him at Rome.[11] Paul calls himself ΔΈΣΜΙΟς ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ here and at Eph 3:1, Phm 1:9, because he bore his bonds for Christ’s sake; or better, because “Christ (Christ’s cause) had brought him into imprisonment and was keeping him there” (Winer, p. 178 [E. T. p. 236]; Meyer on Eph 3:1; Wiesinger). The expression in Phm 1:13 : ΔΕΣΜΟῚ ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ, forbids the explanation: “a prisoner belonging to Christ.” Hofmann is inaccurate: “a prisoner whose bonds are part of his relation to Christ.”
ἈΛΛᾺ ΣΥΓΚΑΚΟΠΆΘΗΣΟΝ Τῷ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊῼ] “but suffer with (sc. me) for the gospel;” the verb, occurring only here and perhaps at 2Ti 2:3 (the simple form at 2Ti 2:9, 2Ti 4:5; Jam 5:13), is limited more precisely by the reference to the previous ἐμέ. Luther (“suffer with the gospel, as I do”) refers the ΣΥΝ to the dative following; but against this there is the unsuitable collocation of person and thing. Chrysostom rightly says: ΣΥΓΚΑΚΟΠΆΘΗΣΟΝ, ΦΗΣῚ, Τῷ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊῼ, ΟὐΧ Ὡς ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ ΚΑΚΟΠΑΘΟῦΝΤΟς, ἈΛΛᾺ ΤῸΝ ΜΑΘΗΤῊΝ ΔΙΕΓΕΊΡΩΝ ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ ΠΆΣΧΕΙΝ. The dative Τῷ ΕὐΑΓΓ. is to be taken as dativus commodi (Mack, Matthies, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann), as in Php 1:27 : ΣΥΝΑΘΛΟῦΝΤΕς Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ; in Heb 11:25 : ΣΥΓΚΑΚΟΥΧΕῖΣΘΑΙ Τῷ ΛΑῷ, the dative has another meaning.
ΚΑΤᾺ ΔΎΝΑΜΙΝ ΘΕΟῦ] These words do not belong, as Heinrichs thinks possible, to Τῷ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊῼ, in the sense: doctrina cui inest ΔΎΝΑΜΙς ΘΕΟῦ, but to the preceding verb. The meaning, however, is not: “strengthened through God’s aid” (Heydenreich), but ΚΑΤΆ denotes the suitability: “in accordance with the power of God which is effectual in thee,” or “which will not fail thee” (Hofmann). ΔΎΝΑΜΙς ΘΕΟῦ is not here “the power produced by God,” nor is it “God’s own power” (Wiesinger), in the sense of an abstract idea apart from its actual working in the believer.
[10] Hofmann for this explanation appeals wrongly to 1Co 1:6; 1Co 2:1; besides, μαρτύριον does not mean “truth of salvation,” unless it is so defined.
[11] Wiesinger: “Here the twofold contents of the epistle are set forth as the theme; for the contents of the epistle are simply the general duties laid on Timothy as a preacher of the gospel, and the particular service of love which he was to render to the imprisoned apostle.”
2Ti 1:9. In the series of participial and relative clauses which here follow each other in the Pauline manner, the apostle details the saving works of God’s grace, not so much “to bring into prominence the δύναμις Θεοῦ” (Wiesinger), as to strengthen the exhortation in 2Ti 1:8.
τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς καὶ καλέσαντος κλήσει ἁγίᾳ] This thought is closely related to the one preceding, since the mention of the divine act of love serves to give strength in working and suffering for the gospel.
The καλεῖν is placed after the σώζειν, because the salvation of God, the σωτηρία, is imparted to man by God through the call. The thought is to be taken generally of all Christians, and not merely to be referred to Paul and Timothy, as several expositors think, at the same time explaining κλῆσις of the special call to the office of Christian teacher (Heydenreich).
Κλῆσις in the N. T. constantly denotes the call to partake in the kingdom of God, the call being made outwardly by the preaching of the gospel, inwardly by the influence of the spirit working through the word. Κλῆσις and καλεῖν are similarly joined in Eph 4:1.
The added ἁγία defines the κλῆσις more precisely in its nature, not in its working (de Wette, “hallowing”).
In order to denote the σώζειν[12] and ΚΑΛΕῖΝ as purely acts of God’s grace, and thus set the love of God in clearer light, Paul adds the words: Οὐ ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἜΡΓΑ ἩΜῶΝ, ἈΛΛᾺ Κ.Τ.Λ. The first clause is negative, declaring that our works were not the standard (ΚΑΤΆ) of that divine activity (comp. Tit 3:5). The second clause is positive, setting forth the principle by which alone God has guided himself. De Wette is inaccurate in explaining ΚΑΤΆ. as giving the motive; that is not given by ΚΑΤΆ, but by ἘΞ; comp. Rom 9:11. The only rule for God in the work of redemption is God’s ἸΔΊΑ ΠΡΌΘΕΣΙς; comp. on this Rom 8:28 f.; Eph 1:11; Tit 3:5 : ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῸΝ ΑὙΤΟῦ ἜΛΕΟΝ. ἼΔΙΟς is here emphatic, in order to show that this his purpose has its ground in himself alone.[13]
καὶ χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων] By this addition still greater emphasis is laid on the thought contained in the previous words, since the ἰδία πρόθεσις is called a χάρις which has been already given us in Christ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. It is natural to take πρὸ χρόν. αἰων. as identical with πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων, 1Co 2:7 (Eph 1:4 : πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου), i.e. to regard it as a term for eternity, since the χρόνοι αἰώνιοι are the times beginning with the creation (so hitherto in this commentary). Heydenreich and others with this view explain δίδοναι as equivalent to “destinare, appoint;” but as the word does not possess this meaning, it is better to adhere to the idea of giving, but in an ideal signification, “in so far as that which God resolves in eternity is already as good as realized in time” (de Wette). Ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, which is attached immediately to δοθεῖσαν, denotes Christ Jesus as the mediator through whom grace is imparted to us, but in such a way that Christ’s mediatorship is regarded as one provided by God before time was.[14] But the expression πρὸ χρόν. αἰων. may be otherwise taken. In Tit 1:2, it clearly has a weaker signification, viz. “from time immemorial” (similarly Luk 1:70 : ἈΠʼ ΑἸῶΝΟς). If the expression be taken in that way here, ΔΟΘΕῖΣΑΝ may be explained in the sense that to us the ΧΆΡΙς is already given in the promise (Tit 1:2 also refers to God’s promise); so Hofmann. In that case, however, ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ is not to be taken in the sense of mediation, which does not agree with the addition of ἸΗΣΟῦ to ΧΡΙΣΤῷ, but as Hofmann explains it: “ΤῊΝ ΔΟΘ. ἩΜ. ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ denotes that the grace given us was given that Christ Jesus might be given us; He, however, has been given us from the beginning of time, when God promised the Saviour who was to appear in the person of Jesus.” This view (especially on account of Tit 1:2) might be preferred to the one previously mentioned. As contrasted with ΚΑΤᾺ ΤᾺ ἜΡΓΑ ἩΜῶΝ, stress is to be laid on ΠΡῸ ΧΡΌΝΩΝ ΑἸΩΝΊΩΝ. If the imparting of the grace is eternal (resting on the eternal counsel of God), it is all the less dependent on the works of man.
[12] De Wette’s assertion, that with Paul God is never the Saviour, is contradicted by 1Co 1:21.
[13] Πρόθεσις, as Wiesinger rightly remarks, is not equivalent to “foreordination,” but to “purpose;” see Rom 1:13; Eph 1:9; Eph 1:11
[14] Hofmann, in his Schriftbew. I. p. 232, puts forward the explanation: “It is the eternal conduct of God the Father to the Son, in which and with which there is given to us who are in Christ the grace of God eternally;” but he has since withdrawn it.-Wiesinger remarks that the πρόθεσις is not to be understood of a purpose in reference to individuals, but of the purpose in reference to the world, and that every position of the individual is grounded on this eternal grace presented to the world in Christ; but this limitation is in no way indicated by the context.
2Ti 1:10. Φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν] These words form a contrast with τὴν δοθεῖσαν … πρὸ χρόν. αἰων., the grace being concealed which was bestowed on Christians in Christ before the ages. It is to be observed that the idea of the φανέρωσις does not refer here to the decree, but to the grace of God; Heydenreich is therefore inaccurate in saying that “the φανεροῦν here denotes the execution of the divine decree which was made from eternity, and has now come forth from its concealment.” The means by which the φανέρωσις of the divine grace has been made, the apostle calls the ἐπιφάνεια τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. Ἐπιφάνεια is used only here to denote the appearance of Christ in the flesh. As a matter of course (so, too, van Oosterzee, Plitt, and others), it denotes not only the birth of Christ, but also His whole presence on the earth up to His ascension. There is added τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν in reference to τοῦ σώσαντος ἡμᾶς, 2Ti 1:9, in order to make it clear that the grace eternally given to us was made manifest by the appearance of Christ Jesus, because He appeared as our σωτήρ (see on 1Ti 1:1). The means by which He showed Himself to be this, and by which He revealed that grace, are told us in the two participial clauses: καταργήσαντος μὲν τὸν θάνατον, φωτίσαντος δὲ ζωὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
καταργεῖν, properly, “make ineffectual,” means here, as in 1Co 15:26, Heb 2:14, “bring to nought.” Θάνατος is death, as the power to which man is, for his sins, made subject, both for time and for eternity. It is not the “prince of the realm of the dead,” as Heydenreich thinks (also in Heb 2:14 there is a distinction between θάνατος and διάβολος). Still less to the point is the hypothesis of de Wette, that the καταργεῖν τὸν θάνατον is spoken “with subjective reference to the power of death over the mind, or the fear of death;” the discussion here is not of subjective states of feeling, but of objective powers. The question whether θάνατος means here physical or eternal death, may be answered in this way, that the apostle regards the two as one in their inner relation to one another.[15] The second clause: ΦΩΤΊΣΑΝΤΟς ΔῈ Κ.Τ.Λ., corresponds with the first: ΚΑΤΑΡΓ. Κ.Τ.Λ. ΦΩΤΊΖΕΙΝ has usually the intransitive signification: “shine,” Rev 22:5; but it occurs also as transitive, both in the literal and derivative sense, Rev 21:23, Joh 1:9. In 1Co 4:5, it is synonymous with ΦΑΝΕΡΟῦΝ: “bring to light from concealment;” so, too, in Sir 24:30, and in this sense it is used here. The expression is all the more pointed that θάνατος is “a power of darkness” (Wiesinger); comp. Luk 1:79.
Heydenreich’s explanation: “Christ raised the hope of immortality to fullest certainty,” weakens the apostle’s meaning. ΖΩΉ denotes the blessed life of the children of God, which is further described as eternal, ever-during, by the epexegetical ΚΑῚ ἈΦΘΑΡΣΊΑ (Wiesinger). This life was originally hid in God, but Christ brought it to light out of concealment, and brought it ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ. These added words are to be referred only to the second clause, for the annihilation of death was not effected by the gospel, but by Christ’s death and resurrection.
On the other hand, the revelation of life was made by the preaching of the gospel, inasmuch as Christ thereby places before us the ΖΩῊ ΚΑῚ ἈΦΘΑΡΣΊΑ as the inheritance assigned us in Him.
It is incorrect, with Wiesinger, to separate ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΕὐΑΓΓΕΛΊΟΥ from the nearest verb to which it is thoroughly suited if taken in a natural sense, and to connect it with the more distant ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘΕῖΣΑΝ, the means of which, moreover, is already given in ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ἘΠΙΦΑΝΕΊΑς. Plitt wrongly thinks that the construction here is somewhat careless, and that ΔΙᾺ Τ. ΕὐΑΓΓ. is to be co-ordinated with ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ἘΠΙΦΑΝΕΊΑς, giving a still more precise definition to ΦΑΝΕΡΩΘΕῖΣΑΝ.
[15] Wiesinger: “Death as the power to which the whole man, both body and soul, has fallen a prey in consequence of sin, and which makes the bodily death the precursor of death eternal.”
2Ti 1:11. Εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην κ.τ.λ.] With these words the apostle turns to his office and his suffering in his office, in correspondence with μηδὲ ἐμὲ τ. δὲσμ. αὐτοῦ, 2Ti 1:8. The relative ὅ does not refer to the thoughts expressed in the previous verses, but to εὐαγγελίου: “for which,” i.e. in order to preach it. Comp. the parallel passages in 1Ti 2:7.
2Ti 1:12. Διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν (see on 2Ti 1:6) refers to what immediately precedes: “therefore, because I am appointed apostle.”
καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω] goes back to 2Ti 1:8. Και expresses the relation corresponding to what was said in 2Ti 1:11.
ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι] viz. of the sufferings; said in reference to μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς in 2Ti 1:8. Imprisonment is to me not a disgrace, but a καύχημα; comp. Rom 5:3; Col 1:24. The apostle thereby declares that his suffering does not prevent him from preaching the μαρτύριον τοῦ κυρίου (2Ti 1:8) as a κήρυξ κ.τ.λ. The reason is given in the next words: οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα. Heydenreich inaccurately: “I know Him on whom I have trusted;” de Wette rightly: “I know on whom I have set my trust.”
This is defined more precisely by: καὶ πέπεισμαι, ὅτι δυνατός ἐστι κ.τ.λ., which words are closely connected with those previous, in the sense: I know, that He in whom I trust is mighty, etc.
The confidence that God can keep His παραθήκη, is the reason of his οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεσθαι. With οἶδα … καὶ πέπεισμαι, comp. Rom 14:14; with on ὅτι δυν. ἐστι, comp. Rom 11:23; Rom 14:4; 2Co 9:8.
On the meaning of τὴν παραθήκην (Rec. παρακαταθήκην) μου, expositors have spoken very arbitrarily. Theodoret says: παρακαταθήκην, ἢ τὴν πίστιν φησὶ καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα, ἢ τοὺς πιστοὺς, οὓς παρέθετο αὐτῷ ὁ Χριστὸς ἢ οὓς αὐτὸς παρέθετο τῷ κυρίῳ, ἢ παρακαταθήκην λέγει τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν.
The same substantive occurs again at 2Ti 1:13; so, too, at 1Ti 6:20.
It is hardly possible to imagine that Paul in 2Ti 1:14 should have meant something else by παραθήκη than he means here; all the less that he connects the same verb with it in both passages. Though here we have μου, and God is the subject, still the supposition is not thereby justified.[16] The genitive ΜΟΥ may either be subjective or objective. In the former case, Ἡ ΠΑΡΑΘ. ΜΟΥ is something which Paul has entrusted or commended to God; in the latter, something which God has entrusted to Paul, or laid aside for him (a deposit destined for him). With the former view Hofmann understands by ΠΑΡΑΘΉΚΗ the apostle’s soul which he has commended to God; but there is nothing in the context to indicate this. Hofmann appeals to Psa 31:6; but against this it is to be observed that nothing can justify him in supplying the idea of “soul” with the simple word παραθήκη.
With the latter view of the genitive, Wiesinger understands by it the ΖΩῊ ΚΑῚ ἈΦΘΑΡΣΊΑ (2Ti 4:8 : Ὁ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗς ΣΤΈΦΑΝΟς) already mentioned; so, too, Plitt; van Oosterzee, too, agrees with this view, though he, without good grounds, explains ΜΟΥ as a subjective genitive. Against this interpretation there is the fact that with the sentence ΕἸς Ὃ ἘΤΈΘΗΝ the apostle’s thought has already turned from the ΖΩῊ ΚΑῚ ἈΦΘΑΡΣΊΑ to his ΔΙΑΚΟΝΊΑ. The following interpretation suits best with the context: for what other reason could there be for the apostle’s ΟὐΚ ἘΠΑΙΣΧΎΝΟΜΑΙ than the confidence that God would keep the ΔΙΑΚΟΝΊΑ in which, or for whose sake, he had to suffer, would keep it so that it would not be injured by his suffering.
It is less suitable to understand by the ΠΑΡΑΘΉΚΗ the gospel, because the ΜΟΥ, pointing to something entrusted to the apostle personally, does not agree with this. By adding ΕἸς ἘΚΕΊΝΗΝ ΤῊΝ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ, the apostle sets forth that the ΠΑΡΑΘΉΚΗ is not only kept “till that day” (Heydenreich, Wiesinger, Otto[17]), but “for that day,” i.e. that it may be then manifested in its uninjured splendour. The phrase ἐκείνη ἡ ἡμέρα is equivalent to ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “the day of Christ’s second coming”; it is found also in 2Ti 1:18; 2Ti 4:8, 2Th 1:10, and more frequently in the Gospels. On the meaning of the preposition εἰς, comp. Meyer on Php 1:10.
[16] Wiesinger adduces three counter-reasons-(1) in ver. 14 φυλάσσειν is represented as Timothy’s business, here as God’s; (2) in ver. 14 παραθήκη refers to the doctrine, here it is represented as a personal possession; (3) in ver. 14 he is discussing the right behaviour for Timothy, here the confidence in the right behaviour. But against the first reason, it is to be observed that φυλάσσειν of every gift of grace is the business both of God and of the man to whom it is entrusted; in ver. 11 it is expressly said, διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου. Against the second reason, it may be urged that to interpret παραθήκη of doctrine in ver. 14 is at least doubtful; but even if it were correct, still the gospel, too, might be regarded as something given personally to the apostle; comp. 1Ti 1:11 : τὸ εὐαγγέλιον … ὁ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ; Rom 2:16 : to τὸ εὐαγγέλίον μου. Against the third reason, it may be said that no one can really keep the blessing entrusted to him without having confidence that God keeps it for him, and no one can have this confidence without himself preserving the blessing (διὰ πν. ἁγίου).
[17] Otto wrongly uses this passage to support his assertion that in this epistle “there is no trace to be found of forebodings and expectations of death.” He says: “If Paul has confidence in the Lord, that he can maintain for him the παραθήκη till the παρουσία, he must also have hoped that his official work would not be interrupted by his bodily death, since the apostle in it does not in any way express the hope that God would maintain for him his official work till the day of Christ.” The “for him” is arbitrarily imported, and φυλάσσειν does not mean “maintain.”
2Ti 1:13. Exhortation to Timothy.
ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων, ὧν κ.τ.λ.] For ὑποτύπωσις here, as in 1Ti 1:16, “type” is to be retained. There is no reason for explaining the word here by “sketch” (Flatt), or docendi forma et ratio (Beza), or a written sketch given by the apostle to Timothy (Herder). Timothy is to carry with him the words he had heard from Paul as a type, i.e. in order to direct his ministry according to it. Luther translates ὑποτύπωσις by “pattern” (so, too, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others), but the reference thus given is not in the words themselves. The verb ἔχειν stands here in the sense of κατέχειν. Bengel rightly: vult Paulus ea, quae Timotheus semel audierat, semper animo ejus observari et impressa manere. It is incorrect, with Hofmann, to take ὑποτ. ὑγιαιν. λόγων as the predicate of the object, and to assume accordingly that it is a contracted form for ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων τὴν ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν λόγων ὧν κ.τ.λ. Such a contraction is inconceivable, nor does Hofmann give any instance to prove its possibility. The words ἐν τῇ πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ κ.τ.λ., which are neither to be joined with ἤκουσας, nor, with Hofmann, referred to what follows, show that the ἔχειν does not take place externally, but is an effort of memory. Ἐν is not equivalent to “with” (Heydenreich); the πίστις and ἀγάπη are rather regarded as the vessel, in which Timothy is to keep that type. The added words: τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, which go only with ἀγάπῃ (de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann), mark the Christian character of the love which Paul desires from Timothy: “the love grounded in Jesus Christ;” comp. 1Ti 1:14. On the expression λογ. ὑγ., comp. 1Ti 1:10. The article is wanting, “because this expression had become quite current (like νόμος and others) with the author” (de Wette, Wiesinger).
Why this exhortation, as de Wette thinks, gives Timothy a low place, we cannot understand; every appearance of such a thing disappears when it is remembered that the apostle, grey-headed and near his end, is speaking to his pupil and colleague after enduring painful experience of the unfaithfulness of others, to which unfaithfulness he returns afterwards.
Even de Wette wrongly asserts that this verse has no connection with the one preceding; for Paul has been speaking of himself and of the gospel entrusted to him, with the desire that Timothy should always keep in mind his example.
2Ti 1:14. The exhortation in this verse is most closely connected with that in 2Ti 1:13, for παραθήκη here, as in 2Ti 1:12, is the ministry of the gospel.
τὴν καλὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον] ἡ καλὴ παραθήκη is, like ἡ καλὴ διδασκαλία, 1Ti 4:6; ὁ καλὸς ἀγὼν κ.τ.λ., to be taken in a general objective sense. There is no sufficient reason for interpreting παραθήκη otherwise than in 2Ti 1:12-whether, with Wiesinger and Hofmann, as equivalent to “the sound doctrine,” or, with van Oosterzee, as equivalent to τὸ χάρισμα. Since all that the apostle has enjoined on Timothy from 2Ti 1:6 onward has special reference to the discharge of his office, we may surely understand παραθήκη to have the same meaning here as in 2Ti 1:12; besides, as already remarked, it is not conceivable that Paul, in two sentences so closely connected, should have used the same word with different meanings. It need not excite wonder that in 2Ti 1:12 Paul looks to God for the preservation of the παραθήκη, while here he lays it on Timothy as a duty; God’s working does not exclude the activity of man. Φυλάσσειν here, as in 2Ti 1:12, is: “to keep from harm uninjured,” and from the tendency of the whole epistle it is clear that this exhortation referred to the heresy which perverted the gospel.
διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου] Chrysostom: οὐ γὰρ ἐστὶν ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς οὐδὲ δυνάμεως, τοσαῦτα ἐμπιστευθέντα ἀρκέσαι πρὸς τὴν φυλακήν. Timothy is not to employ any human means for preserving the παραθήκη; the only means is to be the Holy Spirit, i.e. he is to let the Spirit work in him free and unconfined, and only do that to which the Spirit impels him. The Spirit, however, is not something distant from him, as is shown by the words: τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν. On ἐνοικοῦντος, comp. 2Ti 1:5. Ἐν ἡμῖν denotes the Spirit as the one principle of the new life, working in all believers. Ἡμῖν, here as in 2Ti 1:6, must not be referred simply to Paul and Timothy; nor is it to be overlooked that Paul does not say ἐν σοί.
2Ti 1:15. The apostle reminds Timothy of those who had deserted him. This is done to incite Timothy to come to Rome with the greater speed, and also not to be ashamed of Paul, the prisoner of Christ, as the others had been (2Ti 1:8).
οἶδας τοῦτο] expresses not the probability merely (as Matthies says), but the certainty that he knows.
ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με] The aorist passive has here the force of the middle voice; for the same construction, comp. Tit 1:14; Heb 12:25; see Wahl on the passage, and Buttmann, p. 166. The word does not denote the departure of any one, but is equivalent to aversari, properly, “turn one’s countenance away from any one,” and so “throw off inwardly the acquaintance of any one” (so in the N. T., in the LXX., the Apocrypha of the O. T., and the classical writers; comp. Otto, p. 283). Without reason, de Wette denies that it has this meaning here. There is therefore in the verb no ground for the common opinion that the πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ had been with Paul in Rome, and had again returned to Asia (Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger). Nor is there more ground in the term used for the subject; πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ are “all who are in (proconsular) Asia;” but, as a matter of course, that cannot mean all the Christians there. Perhaps Paul was thinking only of his colleagues who were then residing in Asia (Otto); but in that case he would surely have designated them more precisely. It is possible that the construction has its explanation in the addition ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελλος καὶ Ἑρμογένης, viz.: “all the Asiatics, to whom belong Phygellus and Hermogenes.” In any case, these two are named because they were the most conspicuous in their unfaithfulness to the apostle. Paul gives no hint of it, and we can hardly think it probable that they were heretics, and that the other Asiatics had also fallen away from the truth (Otto).
2Ti 1:16-18. With these unfaithful Asiatics, Paul contrasts the faithfulness of Onesiphorus, probably that he might place an example before Timothy.
δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ] διδόναι ἔλεος does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. Regarding the form δῴη, proper to later Greek, see Buttmann, Ausführl. Gramm. § 107, Rem. 9; Winer, pp. 75 f. [E. T. p. 94]. By ὁ κύριος we must understand Christ, according to the usage of the N. T. Onesiphorus is named only here and at 2Ti 4:19. Many expositors (also Hofmann) think that his household only is in both passages mentioned, because he was no longer in life. This opinion is confirmed by the way in which mercy is wished for him in 2Ti 1:18 (de Wette).
Paul expressed such a wish because of the love that had been shown him; ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξε] ἀναψύχειν, properly, “cool,” then “refresh, enliven” (Od. iv. 568: ἦτορ), occurring only here in the N. T. (more frequently in the LXX.; ἀνάψυξις, Act 3:19), is not to be derived from ψυχή (Beza), but from ψύχω. De Wette, without ground, thinks that a bodily refreshment of meat and drink only is meant; it should rather be referred more generally to all proofs of love on the part of Onesiphorus. These were all the more precious to the apostle that they were given to him in his imprisonment, and proved that Onesiphorus was not ashamed of his bonds (2Ti 1:8; 2Ti 1:12); this is expressed in the words that follow. On ἅλυσιν, comp. Eph 6:20.-2Ti 1:17. ἀλλά] in opposition to the preceding οὐκ.
γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ] (comp. Mat 26:6; Act 13:5). It is not said what moved him to journey to Rome; it is mere conjecture to suppose that it was business matters.
σπουδαιότερον-g0- (Rec. Tisch. 8: σπουδαίως) ἐζήτησέ με] The comparative is the right reading, and is to be explained by referring to τ. ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη, “all the more eagerly” (Wiesinger, Hofmann).
The ζητεῖν stands in sharp contrast with ἀπεστράφησάν με, 2Ti 1:15.
The addition of καὶ εὗρε brings out that Onesiphorus had sought him till he found him.
Paul at first wished mercy only to the house of Onesiphorus; he now does the same to Onesiphorus himself.-2Ti 1:18. Matthies, Wiesinger, Hofmann think that εὑρεῖν ἔλεος is a play on words with the preceding εὗρε; but this is at least doubtful.
The repetition of κύριος is striking: ὁ κύριος … παρὰ κυρίου. We can hardly take these to refer to two different subjects (according to de Wette, the first being God, the second Christ; according to Wiesinger and Hofmann, the very opposite).
ὁ κύριος here is in any case Christ, as in 2Ti 1:16; 2Ti 4:18 (certainly not: “the world-ruling, divine principle,” Matthies). The apostle in what follows might simply have said εὑρεῖν ἔλεος ἐν ἐκ. τ. ἡμέρᾳ; but in his mental vision of the judgment, seeing Christ as judge, he writes down παρὰ κυρίου just as it occurs to him, without being anxious to remember that he had begun with δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος.[18] The phrase ΕὙΡΊΣΚΕΙΝ ἜΛΕΟς ΠΑΡΆ with genitive does not occur elsewhere; only in the Song of the Three Children, 2Ti 1:14, have we ΕὙΡΕῖΝ ἜΛΕΟς; in 2Jn 1:3 : ἜΣΤΑΙ … ἜΛΕΟς … ΠΑΡᾺ ΘΕΟῦ. As to the expression, we should compare especially Heb 4:16 : ἽΝΑ ΛΆΒΩΜΕΝ ἜΛΕΟς ΚΑῚ ΧΆΡΙΝ ΕὝΡΩΜΕΝ (ΕὙΡΊΣΚ. ΧΆΡΙΝ, Luk 1:30; Act 7:46, and often in the LXX. and the Apocrypha of the O. T.). On ἘΝ ἘΚΕΊΝῌ Τῇ ἩΜΈΡᾼ, comp. 2Ti 1:12. This wish the apostle utters not only because of the love Onesiphorus had shown him in Rome, but also because of what he had done in Ephesus, of which, however, he does not wish here to speak further, as it is well known to Timothy.
ΚΑῚ ὍΣΑ ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ ΔΙΗΚΌΝΗΣΕ] Heydenreich, Hofmann,[19] and some others supply ΜΟΊ, others ΤΟῖς ἉΓΊΟΙς; both are unnecessary. Even without supplying anything, we can of course understand that he is speaking of services rendered in the church. On the other hand, there is nothing to indicate that Onesiphorus was actually a ΔΙΆΚΟΝΟς of the church.
ΒΈΛΤΙΟΝ ΣῪ ΓΙΝΏΣΚΕΙς] The adverb ΒΈΛΤΙΟΝ only here; the comparative does not simply stand for the positive, see Winer, pp. 227 f. [E. T. p. 304]. There is a comparison implied here: “than I could tell thee,” or the like.[20]
[18] Van Oosterzee: “An inartistic form of expression, in which the second χύριος may be taken for the reflective pronoun.”
[19] Hofmann supposes that those services are meant which Onesiphorus, after his return from Rome to Ephesus, rendered to the apostle for the purpose of disarming the charges that had brought him into prison. This, however, is a mere conjecture.
[20] Otto supposes that Onesiphorus was the first to seek Paul out in his imprisonment, and that he brought the news spoken of from Ephesus; but these are conjectures which can hardly be called probable, as there is no ground on which to rest them.
1. Paul an Apostle From the very preface we already perceive that Paul had not in view Timothy alone; other wise he would not have employed such lofty titles in asserting his apostleship; for what purpose would it have served to employ these ornaments of language in writing to one who was fully convinced of the fact? He, therefore, lays claim to that authority over all which belonged to his public character and he does this the more diligently, because, being near death, he wishes to secure the approbation of the whole course of his ministry, (135) and to seal his doctrine which he had labored so hard to teach, that it may be held sacred by posterity, and to leave a true portrait of it in Timothy.
Of Jesus Christ by the will of God First, according to his custom, he calls himself an “Apostle of Christ.” Hence it follows, that he does not speak as a private person, and must not be heard slightly, and for form’s sake, (136) like a man, but as one who is a representative of Christ. But because the dignity of the office is too great to belong to any man, except by the special gift and election of God, he at the same time pronounces a eulogy on his calling, by adding that he was ordained by the will of God His apostleship, therefore, having God for its author and defender, is beyond all dispute.
According to the promise of life That his calling may be the more certain, he connects it with the promises of eternal life; as if he had said, “As from the beginning God promised eternal life in Christ, so now he has appointed me to be the minister for proclaiming that promise.” Thus also he points out the design of his apostleship, namely, to bring men to Christ, that in him they may find life.
Which is in Christ Jesus He speaks with great accuracy, when he mentions that “the promise of life” was indeed given, in ancient times, to the fathers. (Act 26:6.) But yet he declares that this life is in Christ, in order to inform us that the faith of those who lived under the Law must nevertheless have looked towards Christ; and that life, which was contained in promises, was, in some respects, suspended, till it was exhibited in Christ.
(135) “Although, in all that Paul has left us in writing, we must consider that it is God who speaks to us by the mouth of a mortal man, and that all his doctrine ought to be received with such authority and reverence as if God visibly appeared from heaven, yet still there is in this epistle a special object to be kept in view, that Paul, being in prison and perceiving his death to be at hand, wished to ratify his faith, as if he had sealed it with his blood. So then, as often as we read this epistle, let the condition in which Paul was at that time come before our eyes, namely, that he was looking for nothing but to die for the testimony of the gospel (which he actually did) as its standard-bearer, in order to give us stronger assurance of his doctrine, and that will affect us in a more lively manner. Indeed, if we read this epistle carefully, we shall find that the Spirit of God has expressed himself in it in such a manner, with such majesty and power, that we are constrained to be captivated and overwhelmed. For my own part, I know that this epistle has been more profitable to me than any other book of Scripture, and still is profitable to me every day; and if any person shall examine it carefully, there can be no doubt that he will experience the same effect. And if we desire to have a testimony of the truth of God, which pierces our heart, we may well fix on this epistle; for a man must be in a profound sleep, and remarkably stupid, if God do not work in his soul, when he hears the doctrine that shall be drawn from it.”-Fr. Ser.
(136) “Oui par acquit.”
2. My beloved son By this designation he not only testifies his love of Timothy, but procures respect and submission to him; because he wishes to be acknowledged in him, as one who may justly be called his son, (137) The reason of the appellation is, that he had begotten him in Christ; for, although this honor belongs to God alone, yet it is also transferred to ministers, whose agency he employs for regenerating us.
Grace, mercy The word mercy, which he employs here, is commonly left out by him in his ordinary salutations. I think that he introduced it, when he poured out his feelings with more than ordinary vehemence. Moreover, he appears to have inverted the order; for, since “mercy” is the cause of “grace,” it ought to have come before it in this passage. But still it is not unsuitable that it should be put after “grace”, in order to express more clearly what is the nature of that grace, and whence it proceeds; as if he had added, in the form of a declaration, that the reason why we are loved by God is, that he is merciful. Yet this may also be explained as relating to God’s daily benefits, which are so many testimonies of his “mercy”; for, whenever he assists us, whenever he delivers us from evils, pardons our sins, and bears with our weakness, he does so, because he has compassion on us.
(137) “Comme en celuy qui pent a bon droict estre nomme son fils.”
3. I give thanks The meaning usually assigned to these words is, that Paul “gives thanks to God,” and next assigns the cause or ground of thanksgiving; namely, that he is unceasingly mindful of Timothy. But let my readers consider whether the following sense do not suit equally well and even better: “Whenever I remember thee in my prayers, (and I do so continually,) I also give thanks concerning thee;” for the particleὡς most frequently has that meaning; (138) and, indeed, any meaning that can be drawn from a different translation is exceedingly meager. According to this exposition, prayer will be a sign of carefulness, and thanksgiving a sign of joy; that is, he never thought of Timothy without calling to remembrance the eminent virtues with which he was adorned. Hence arises ground of thanksgiving; for the recollection of the gifts of God is always pleasant and delightful to believers. Both are proofs of real friendship. He calls the mention of him (ἀδιάλειπτον) unceasing, because he never forgets him when he prays.
Whom I worship from my ancestors This declaration he made in opposition to those well-known calumnies with which the Jews everywhere loaded him, as if he had forsaken the religion of his country, and apostatized from the law of Moses. On the contrary, he declares that he worships God, concerning whom he had been taught by his ancestors, that is, the God of Abraham, who revealed himself to the Jews, who delivered his law by the hand of Moses; and not some pretended God, whom he had lately made for himself.
But here it may be asked, “Since Paul glories in following the religion handed down from his ancestors, is this a sufficiently solid foundation? For hence it follows, that this will be a plausible presence for excusing all superstitions, and that it will be a crime, if any one depart, in the smallest degree, from the institutions of his ancestors, whatever these are.” The answer is easy. He does not here lay down a fixed rule, that every person who follows the religion that he received from his fathers is believed to worship God aright, and, on the other hand, that he who departs from the custom of his ancestors is at all to blame for it. For this circumstance must always be taken into account, that Paul was not descended from idolaters, but from the children of Abraham, who worshipped the true God. We know what Christ says, in disapproving of all the false worship of the Gentiles, that the Jews alone maintained the true method of worship. Paul, therefore, does not rest solely on the authority of the fathers, nor does he speak indiscriminately of all his ancestors; but he removes that false opinion, with which he knew that he was unjustly loaded, that he had forsaken the God of Israel, and framed for himself a strange god.
In a pure conscience It is certain that Paul’s conscience was not always pure; for he acknowledges that he was deceived by hypocrisy, while he gave loose reins to sinful desire. (139) (Rom 7:8.) The excuse which Chrysostom offers for what Paul did while he was a Pharisee, on the ground that he opposed the gospel, not through malice, but through ignorance, is not a satisfactory reply to the objection; for “a pure conscience” is no ordinary commendation, and cannot be separated from the sincere and hearty fear of God. I, therefore, limit it to the present time, in this manner, that he worships the same God as was worshipped by his ancestors, but that now he worships him with pure affection of the heart, since the time when he was enlightened by the gospel.
This statement has the same object with the numerous protestations of the apostles, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles:
“I serve the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the law and in the prophets.” (Act 24:14.)
Again,
“And now I stand to be judged concerning the hope of the promise which was made to our fathers, to which hope our twelve tribes hope to come.” (Act 26:6.)
Again,
“On account of the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.” (Act 28:20.)
In my prayers night and day Hence we see how great was his constancy in prayer; and yet he affirms nothing about himself but what Christ recommends to all his followers. We ought, therefore, to be moved and inflamed by such examples to imitate them, so far, at least, that an exercise so necessary may be more frequent among us. If any one understand this to mean the daily and nightly prayers which Paul was wont to offer at stated hours, there will be no impropriety in that view; though I give a more simple interpretation, that there was no time when he was not employed in prayer.
(138) “Car le mot Grec se prend plus souvent pour Comme.” — “For the Greek word generally signifies as. ”
(139) “Quand il se laschoit la bride a convoiter, comme si la chose n’eust point illicite.” — “When he gave loose reins to lust, as if it had not been an unlawful thing.”
5. Calling to remembrance that unfeigned faith Not so much for the purpose of applauding as of exhorting Timothy, the Apostle commends both his own faith and that of his grandmother and mother; for, when one has begun well and valiantly, the progress he has made should encourage him to advance, and domestic examples are powerful excitements to urge him forward. Accordingly, he sets before him his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice, by whom he had been educated from his infancy in such a manner that he might have sucked godliness along with his milk. By this godly education, therefore, Timothy is admonished not to degenerate from himself and from his ancestors.
It is uncertain whether, on the one hand, these women were converted to Christ, and what Paul here applauds was the commencement of faith, or whether, on the other hand, faith is attributed to them apart from Christianity. The latter appears to me more probable; for, although at that time everything abounded with many superstitions and corruptions, yet God had always his own people, whom he did not suffer to be corrupted with the multitude, but whom he sanctified and separated to himself, that there might always exist among the Jews a pledge of this grace, which he had promised to the seed of Abraham. There is, therefore, no absurdity in saying that they lived and died in the faith of the Mediator, although Christ had not yet been revealed to them. But I do not assert anything, and could not assert without rashness.
And I am persuaded that in thee also This clause confirms me in the conjecture which I have just now stated; for, in my opinion, he does not here speak of the present faith of Timothy. It would lessen that sure confidence of the former eulogium, if he only said that he reckoned the faith of Timothy to resemble the faith of his grandmother and mother. But I understand the meaning to be, that Timothy, from his childhood, while he had not yet obtained a knowledge of the gospel, was imbued with the fear of God, and with such faith as proved to be a living seed, which afterwards manifested itself.
6. For which cause I advise thee The more abundantly that Timothy had received the grace of God, the more attentive (the Apostle intimates) he ought to be in making progress from day to day. It deserves notice that the words “for which cause” introduce this advice as a conclusion from what has been already said.
To stir up the gift of God. This exhortation is highly necessary; for it usually happens, and may be said to be natural, that the excellence of gifts produces carelessness, which is also accompanied by sloth; and Satan continually labors to extinguish all that is of God in us. We ought, therefore, on the other hand, to strive to bring to perfection everything that is good in us, and to kindle what is languid; for the metaphor, which Paul employs, is taken from a fire which was feeble, or that was in course of being gradually extinguished, if strength and flame were not added, by blowing upon it and by supplying new fuel. Let us therefore remember that we ought to apply to use the gifts of God, lest, being unemployed and concealed, they gather rust. Let us also remember that we should diligently profit by them, lest they be extinguished by our slothfulness.
Which is in thee by the laying on of my hands There can be no doubt that Timothy was invited by the general voice of the Church, and was not elected by the private wish of Paul alone; but there is no absurdity in saying, that Paul ascribes the election to himself personally, because he was the chief actor in it. Yet here he speaks of ordination, that is, of the solemn act of conferring the office of the ministry, and not of election. Besides, it is not perfectly clear whether it was the custom, when any minister was to be set apart, that all laid their hands on his head, or that one only did so, in the room and name of all. I am more inclined to the conjecture, that it was only one person who laid on his hands.
So far as relates to the ceremony, the apostles borrowed it from an ancient custom of their nation; or rather, in consequence of its being in use, they retained it; for this is a part of that decent and orderly procedure which Paul elsewhere recommends. (1Co 14:40.) Yet it may be doubted if that “laying on of hands” which is now mentioned refers to ordination; because, at that time, the graces of the Spirit, of which he speaks in the 12th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans (Rom 12:0), and in the 13th of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1Co 13:0), were bestowed on many others who were not appointed to be pastors. But, for my own part, I think that it may be easily inferred from the former Epistle, that Paul here speaks of the office of a pastor, for this passage agrees with that,
“Do not neglect the grace which was given to thee with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.” (1Ti 4:14.)
That point being settled, it is asked, “Was grace given by the outward sign?” To this question I answer, whenever ministers were ordained, they were recommended to God by the prayers of the whole Church, and in this manner grace from God was obtained for them by prayer, and was not given to them by virtue of the sign, although the sign was not uselessly or unprofitably employed, but was a sure pledge of that grace which they received from God’s own hand. That ceremony was not a profane act, invented for the sole purpose of procuring credit in the eyes of men, but a lawful consecration before God, which is not performed but by the power of the Holy Spirit. Besides, Paul takes the sign for the whole matter or the whole transaction; for he declares that Timothy was endued with grace, when he was offered to God as a minister. Thus in this mode of expression there is a figure of speech, in which a part is taken for the whole.
But we are again met by another question; for if it was only at his ordination that Timothy obtained the grace necessary for discharging his office, of what nature was the election of a man not yet fit or qualified, but hitherto void and destitute of the gift of God? I answer, it was not then so given to him that he had it not before; for it is certain that he excelled both in doctrine and in other gifts before Paul ordained him to the ministry. But there is no inconsistency in saying, that, when God wished to make use of his services, and accordingly called him, he then fitted and enriched him still more with new gifts, or doubled those which he had previously bestowed. It does not therefore follow that Timothy had not formerly any gift, but it shone forth the more when the duty of teaching was laid upon him.
7. For God hath not given to us a spirit of cowardice It is a confirmation of what he had said immediately before; and thus he continues to urge Timothy to display the power of the gifts which he had received. He makes use of this argument, that God governs his ministers by the Spirit of power, which is the opposite of cowardice. Hence it follows, that they ought not to lie down through slothfulness, but, sustained by great confidence and cheerfulness, should exhibit and display, by visible effects, that power of the Spirit.
The following passage occurs in the Epistle to the Romans:
“For we have not received a spirit of bondage, to be again in terror; but we have received the spirit of adoption, by which we cry, Abba, Father.” (Rom 8:15.)
That passage is, at first sight, nearly similar to this; but yet the context shews that the meaning is different. There he treats of the confidence of adoption which all believers have; but here he speaks particularly about ministers, and exhorts them, in the person of Timothy, to arouse themselves actively to deeds of valor; because God does not wish them to perform their office in a cold and lifeless manner, but to press forward powerfully, relying on the efficacy of the Spirit.
But of power, and of love, and of soberness Hence we are taught, first, that not one of us possesses that firmness and unshaken constancy of the Spirit, which is requisite for fulfilling our ministry, until we are endued from heaven with a new power. And indeed the obstructions are so many and so great, that no courage of man will be able to overcome them. It is God, therefore, who endues us with “the spirit of power;” for they who, in other respects, give tokens of much strength, fall down in a moment, when they are not upheld by the power of the Divine Spirit.
Secondly, we gather from it, that they who have slavish meanness and cowardice, so that they do not venture to do anything in defense of the truth, when it is necessary, are not governed by that Spirit by whom the servants of Christ are guided. Hence it follows, that there are very few of those who bear the title of ministers, in the present day, who have the mark of sincerity impressed upon them; for, amongst a vast number, where do we find one who, relying on the power of the Spirit, boldly despises all the loftiness which exalts itself against Christ? Do not almost all seek their own interest and their leisure? Do they not sink down dumb as soon as any noise breaks out? The consequence is, that no majesty of God is seen in their ministry. The word Spirit is here employed figuratively, as in many other passages. (140)
But why did he afterwards add love and soberness? In my opinion, it was for the purpose of distinguishing that power of the Spirit from the fury and rage of fanatics, who while they rush forward with reckless impulse, fiercely boast of having the Spirit of God. For that reason he expressly states that this powerful energy is moderated by “soberness and love,” that is, by a calm desire of edifying. Yet Paul does not deny that prophets and teachers were endued with the same Spirit before the publication of the gospel; but he declares that this grace ought now to be especially powerful and conspicuous under the reign of Christ.
(140) “Le mot d’Esprit est yci pries pout les dons qui en procedent, suy. vent la figure nommee Metonymie.” — “The word Spirit is here taken for the gifts which proceed from him, agreeably to the figure called Metonymy.”
8. Be not ashamed, therefore He said this, because the confession of the gospel was accounted infamous; and therefore he forbids that either ambition or the fear of disgrace shall prevent or retard him from the liberty of preaching the gospel. And he infers this from what has been already said; for he who is armed with the power of God will not tremble at the noise raised by the world, but will reckon it honorable that wicked men mark them with disgrace.
And justly does he call the gospel the testimony of our Lord; because, although he has no need of our assistance, yet he lays upon us this duty, that we shall give “testimony” to him for maintaining his glory. It is a great and distinguished honor which he confers upon us, and, indeed, upon all, (for there is no Christian that ought not to reckon himself a witness of Christ,) but chiefly pastors and teachers, as Christ said to the apostles, —
“Ye shall be witnesses to me,” (Act 1:8.)
Accordingly, the more hateful the doctrine of the gospel is in the world, the more earnestly should they labor to confess it openly.
When he adds, nor of me; by this word he reminds Timothy not to refuse to be his companion, as in a cause common to both of them; for, when we begin to withdraw from the society of those who, for the name of Christ, suffer persecution, what else do we seek than that the gospel shall be free from all persecution? Now, though there were not wanting many wicked men who thus ridiculed Timothy, — “Do you not see what has befallen your master? Do you not know that the same reward awaits you also? Why do you press upon us a doctrine which you see is hissed at by the whole world?” — still he must have been cheered by this exhortation, — “You have no reason to be ashamed of me, in that which is not shameful, for I am Christ’s prisoner;” that is, “Not for any crime or evil deed, but for his name I am kept in prison.”
But be thou a partaker of the afflictions of the gospel He lays down a method by which that which he enjoins may be done; that is, if Timothy shall prepare himself for enduring the afflictions which are connected with the gospel. Whosoever shall revolt at and shrink from the cross will always be ashamed of the gospel. Not without good reason, therefore, does Paul, while he exhorts to boldness of confession, in order that he may not exhort in vain, speak to him also about bearing the cross. (141)
He adds, according to the power of God; because, but for this, and if he did not support us, we should immediately sink under the load. And this clause contains both admonition and consolation. The admonition is, to turn away his eyes from his present weakness, and, relying on the assistance of God, to venture and undertake what is beyond his strength. The consolation is, that, if we endure anything on account of the gospel, God will come forth as our deliverer, that by his power, we may obtain the victory.
(141) “He shews, in the first place, that the gospel cannot be without afflictions. Not that God does not call all men to unity in the faith, and the doctrine of the gospel is the message of reconciliation; but yet, on the one hand, there are those who are drawn by the power of his Holy Spirit, while unbelievers remain in their hardness; and, on the other hand, there is the fire that is kindled, as, when thunders are generated in the air, there must be great troubles, so is it when the gospel is preached. And now, if the gospel brings afflictions, and if our Lord Jesus Christ wishes that what he endured in his person shall be fulfilled in his members, and that every day he shall be, as it were, crucified, is it lawful for us to withdraw from that condition? Since, therefore, all our hope lies in the gospel, and since we ought to lean upon it, let us ponder what Paul says, that we must lend support to our brethren, when we see that they are assailed, that men trample them under their feet, spit in their face, and insult them, let us choose to be their companions for enduring the reproaches and base conduct of the world, rather than to be honored, to be in good reputation and credit, and yet to be estranged from those who suffer for the cause which we have in common with them.” — Fr. Ser.
9. Who hath saved us From the greatness of the benefit he shews how much we owe to God; for the salvation which he has bestowed on us easily swallows up all the evils that must be endured in this world. The word saved, though it admit of a general signification, is here limited, by the context, to denote eternal salvation. So then he means that they who, having obtained through Christ not a fading or transitory, but an eternal salvation, shall spare their fleeting life or honor rather than acknowledge their Redeemer; are excessively ungrateful.
And hath called us with a holy calling He places the sealing of salvation (142) in the calling; for, as the salvation of men was completed in the death of Christ, so God, by the gospel, makes us partakers of it. In order to place in a stronger light the value of this “calling,” he pronounces it to be holy. This ought to be carefully observed, because, as salvation must not be sought anywhere but in Christ; so, on the other hand, he would have died and risen again without any practical advantage, unless so far as he calls us to a participation of this grace. Thus, after having procured salvation for us, this second blessing remains to be bestowed, that, ingrafting us into his body, he may communicate his benefits to be enjoyed by us.
Not according to our works, but according to his purpose and grace He describes the source both of our calling and of the whole of our salvation. We had not works by which we could anticipate God; but the whole depends on his gracious purpose and election; for in the two words purpose and grace there is the figure of speech called Hypallage, (143) and the latter must have the force of an objection, as if he had said, — “according to his gracious purpose.” Although Paul commonly employs the word “purpose” to denote the secret decree of God, the cause of which is in his own power, yet, for the sake of fuller explanation, he chose to add “grace,” that he might more clearly exclude all reference to works. And the very contrast proclaims loudly enough that there is no room for works where the grace of God reigns, especially when we are reminded of the election of God, by which he was beforehand with us, when we had not yet been born. On this subject I have spoken more fully in my exposition of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians; and at present I do nothing more than glance briefly at that which I have there treated more at large. (144)
Which was given to us From the order of time he argues, that, by free grace, salvation was given to us which we did not at all deserve; for, if God chose us before the creation of the world, he could not have regard to works, of which we had none, seeing that we did not then exist. As to the cavil of the sophists, that God was moved by the works which he foresaw, it does not need a long refutation. What kind of works would those have been if God had passed us by, seeing that the election itself is the source and beginning of all good works?
This giving of grace, which he mentions, is nothing else than predestination, by which we were adopted to be the sons of God. On this subject I wished to remind my readers, because God is frequently said actually to “give” his grace to us when we receive the effect of it. But here Paul sets before us what God purposed with himself from the beginning. He, therefore, gave that which, not induced by any merit, he appointed to those who were not yet born, and kept laid up in his treasures, until he made known by the fact itself that he purposeth nothing in vain.
Before eternal ages He employs this phrase in the same sense in which he elsewhere speaks of the uninterrupted succession of years from the foundation of the world. (Tit 1:2.) For that ingenious reasoning which Augustine conducts in many passages is totally different from Paul’s design. The meaning therefore is, — “Before times began to take their course from all past ages.” Besides, it is worthy of notice, that he places the foundation of salvation in Christ; for, apart from him, there is neither adoption nor salvation; as was indeed said in expounding the first chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians.
(142) “La certitude de salut.” — “The certainty of salvation.”
(143) A figure of speech, by which the parts of a proposition seem to be interchanged, ὑπαλλαγή compounded of ν̔πό and ἀλλάσσω ` I change.’-Ed.
(144) See Calvin’s Commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians, pp. 197-201. --Ed.
10But hath now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ Observe how appropriately he connects the faith which we have from the gospel within God’s secret election, and assigns to each of them its own place. God has now called us by the gospel, not because he has suddenly taken counsel about our salvation, but because he had so determined from all eternity. Christ hath now “appeared” (145) for our salvation, not because the power of saving has been recently bestowed on him, but because this grace was laid up in him for us before the creation of the world. The knowledge of those things is revealed to us by faith; and so the Apostle judiciously connects the gospel with the most ancient promises of God, that novelty may not render it contemptible.
But it is asked; “Were the fathers under the Law ignorant of this grace?” for if it was not revealed but by the coming of Christ, it follows that, before that time, it was concealed. I reply, Paul speaks of the full exhibition of the thing itself on which depended also the faith of the fathers, so that this takes nothing from them. The reason why Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and all believers, obtained the same faith with us, was, that they placed their confidence in this “appearance.” Thus, when he says that “grace hath been revealed to us by the appearing of Christ,” he does not exclude from communion with that grace the fathers who are made partakers with us of this appearing by the same faith. Christ (Heb 13:8) was yesterday as he is today; but he did not manifest himself to us, by his death and resurrection, before the time appointed by the Father. To this, as the only pledge and accomplishment of our salvation, both our faith and that of the fathers look with one accord.
Who hath indeed destroyed death When he ascribes to the gospel the manifestation of life, he does not mean that we must begin with the word, leaving out of view the death and resurrection of Christ, (for the word, on the contrary, rests on the subject-matter,) but he only means that the fruit of this grace comes to men in no other way than by the gospel, in accordance with what is said,
“God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, and hath committed to us the ministry of reconciliation.”
(2Co 5:19.)
And hath brought to light life and immortality by the gospel It is a high and remarkable commendation of the gospel, that it “bringeth life to light.” To life he adds immortality; as if he had said, “a true and immortal life.” But, perhaps, it may be thought better, that by life we understand regeneration, that is followed by a blessed immortality which is also the object of hope. And, indeed, this is our “life,” not that which we have in common with brute beasts, but that which consists in partaking of the image of God. But because in this world
“it doth not appear” (1Jo 3:2)
what is the nature, or what is the value of that “life,” for the sake of more full expression he has most properly added, “immortality,” which is the revelation of that life which is now concealed.
(145) τὢς ἐπιφανείας. “This Theodoret well explains by ἐνανθρωπήσεως, the expression being one especially used by the ancient writers, of the appearance of the gods on earth. So Joseph. Ant. 18. 3. 4, we have τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν ἐχδιηγεῖται τοῦ Ανούβιδος [she relates the appearing of (the god) Anubis.] ᾿Επιφάνεια here denotes Christ’s first appearance in the flesh though elsewhere the term always means his second appearance to judge the world.” --Bloomfield.
11To which I have been appointed Not without good reason does he so highly commend the gospel along with his apostleship. Satan labors, beyond all things else, to banish from our hearts, by every possible method, the faith of sound doctrine; and as it is not always easy for him to do this if he attack us in open war, he steals upon us by secret and indirect methods; for, in order to destroy the credibility of doctrine, he holds up to suspicion the calling of godly teachers. (146) Paul, therefore, having death before his eyes, and knowing well the ancient and ordinary snares of Satan, determined to assert not only the doctrine of the gospel in general, but his own calling. Both were necessary; for, although there be uttered long discourses concerning the dignity of the gospel, they will not be of much avail to us, unless we understand what is the gospel. Many will agree as to the general principle of the undoubted authority of the gospel, who afterwards will have nothing certain that they can follow. This is the reason why Paul expressly wishes to be acknowledged to be a faithful and lawful minister of that life-giving doctrine which he had mentioned.
A herald, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles For the reasons now stated, he adorns himself with various titles for expressing one and the same thing. He calls himself a herald, whose duty it is, to publish the commands of princes and magistrates. The word apostle is here used in its ordinary and restricted meaning. Moreover, because there is a natural relation between a teacher and his disciples, he takes to himself also this third name, that they who learn from him may know that they have a master who has been appointed to them by God. And to whom does he declare that he was appointed? To the Gentiles; for the main hinge of the controversy was about them, because the Jews denied that the promises of life belonged to any others than to the fleshly children of Abraham. In order, therefore, that the salvation of the Gentiles may not be called in question, he affirms that to them he has been especially sent by God.
(146) “Des Docteurs ou Pasteurs fideles.” — “Of faithful Teachers or Pastors.”
12For which cause also I suffer these things It is well known that the rage of the Jews was kindled against Paul, for this reason more than any other, that he made the gospel common to the Gentiles. Yet the phrase for which cause relates to the whole verse, and therefore must not be limited to the last clause about “the Gentiles.”
But I am not ashamed That the prison in which he was bound might not in any degree lessen his authority, he contends, on the contrary, by two arguments. First, he shows that the cause, far from being disgraceful, was even honorable to him; for he was a prisoner, not on account of any evil deed, but because he obeyed God who called him. It is an inconceivable consolation, when we are able to bring a good conscience in opposition to the unjust judgments of men. Secondly, from the hope of a prosperous issue he argues that there is nothing disgraceful in his imprisonment. He who shall avail himself of this defense will be able to overcome any temptations, however great they may be. And when he says, that he “is not ashamed,” he stimulates others, by his example, to have the same courage.
For I know whom I have believed This is the only place of refuge, to which all believers ought to resort, whenever the world reckons them to be condemned and ruined men; namely, to reckon it enough that God approves of them; for what would be the result, if they depended on men? And hence we ought to infer how widely faith differs from opinion; because, when Paul says, “I know whom I have believed,” he means that it is not enough if you believe, unless you have the testimony of God, and unless you have full certainty of it. Faith, therefore, neither leans on the authority of men, nor rests on God, in such a manner as to hesitate, but must be joined with knowledge; otherwise it would not be sufficiently strong against the innumerable assaults of Satan. He who with Paul enjoys this knowledge, will know, by experience, that, on good grounds, our faith is called
“the victory that overcometh the world,” (1Jo 5:4)
and that on good grounds, it was said by Christ,
“The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
(Mat 16:18.)
Amidst every storm and tempest, that man will enjoy undisturbed repose, who has a settled conviction that God,
“who cannot lie,” (Tit 1:2)
or deceive, hath spoken, and will undoubtedly perform what he hath promised. On the other hand, he who has not this truth sealed on his heart, will be continually shaken hither and thither like a reed.
This passage is highly worthy of attention; because it expresses admirably the power of faith, when it shows that, even in desperate affairs, we ought to give to God such glory as not to doubt that he will be true and faithful; and when it likewise shows that we ought to rely on the word as fully as if God had manifested himself to us from heaven; for he who has not this conviction understands nothing. Let us always remember that Paul does not pursue philosophical speculations in the shade, but, having the reality before his eyes, solemnly declares, how highly valuable is a confident hope of eternal life.
And am persuaded that he is able Because the power and greatness of dangers often fill us with dismay, or at least tempt our hearts to distrust, for this reason we must defend ourselves with this shield, that there is sufficient protection in the power of God. In like manner Christ, when he bids us cherish confident hope, employs this argument,
“The Father, who gave you to me, is greater than all,”
(Joh 10:29)
by which he means, that we are out of danger, seeing that the Lord, who hath taken us under his protection, is abundantly powerful to put down all opposition. True, Satan does not venture to suggest this thought in a direct form, that God cannot fulfill, or is prevented from fulfilling, what he has promised, (for our senses are shocked by so gross a blasphemy against God,) but, by preoccupying our eyes and understandings, he takes away from us all sense of the power of God. The heart must therefore be well purified, in order that it may not only taste that power, but may retain the taste of it amidst temptations of every kind.
Now, whenever Paul speaks of the power of God, understand by it what may be called his actual or (ἐνεργουμένμν) “effectual” power, as he calls it elsewhere. (Col 1:29) Faith always connects the power of God with the word, which it does not imagine to be at a distance, but, having inwardly conceived it, possesses and retains it. Thus it is said of Abraham:
“He did not hesitate or dispute, but gave glory to God, being fully convinced that what he had promised he was able also to perform,” (Rom 4:20.)
What I have intrusted to him Observe that he employs this phrase to denote eternal life; for hence we conclude, that our salvation is in the hand of God, in the same manner as there are in the hand of a depository those things which we deliver to him to keep, relying on his fidelity. If our salvation depended on ourselves, (147) to how many dangers would it be continually exposed? But now it is well that, having been committed to such a guardian, it is out of all danger.
(147) “Si nostre salut dependoit de nous, et qu’il fust en nostre garde.” — “If our salvation depended on us, and were under our protection.”
13Hold the form of sound words Some explain it thus: “Let thy doctrine be, as it were, a pattern which others may imitate.” I do not approve of that view. Equally removed from Paul’s meaning is Chrysostom’s exposition, that Timothy should have at hand the image of virtues engraven on his heart by Paul’s doctrine. I rather think that Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; forὑποτύπωσις — the word which Paul employs on this occasion — denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes. Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree, is exceedingly injurious. (148)
Hence we see what kind of theology there is in Popery, which has degenerated so far from the pattern which Paul recommends, that it resembles the riddles of diviners or soothsayers rather than a doctrine taken from the word of God. What taste of Paul’s writings, I ask, is there in all the books of the schoolmen? This licentiousness in corrupting doctrine shews that there are great reasons why Paul invites Timothy to hold fast the original and natural form. And he contrasts sound words not only with doctrines manifestly wicked, but within useless questions, which, instead of health, bring nothing but disease.
In faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus I am aware that the prepositionἐν, agreeably to the idiom of the Hebrew language, ב is often taken for with; but here, I think, the meaning is different Paul has added this as a mark of sound doctrine, in order that we may know what it contains, and what is the summary of it, the whole of which, according to his custom, he includes under “faith and love.” He places both of them in Christ; as, indeed, the knowledge of Christ consists chiefly of these two parts; for, although the words, which is, are in the singular number, agreeing with the word love, yet it must also be understood as applying to faith.
Those who translate it, “with faith and love,” make the meaning to be, that Timothy should add to sound doctrine the affections of piety and love. I do acknowledge that no man can persevere faithfully in sound doctrine unless he is endued with true faith and unfeigned love. But the former exposition, in my opinion, is more appropriate, namely, that Paul employs these terms for describing more fully what is the nature of “sound words” and what is the subject of them. Now he says that the summary consists in “faith and love” of which the knowledge of Christ is the source and beginning.
(148) “He was not barely to assert the words of Scripture, but he was to hold fast the summary, or system of the truths he had heard from his spiritual father, and, in a way of dependence on Christ, to show his fidelity and love to his Redeemer. This system of doctrine he was to keep, as a pledge committed to his trust, by the help of the Holy Spirit. Ministers are to hold fast every truth, but, above all, those particular truths which are the peculiar butt of the devil’s opposition, and meet with rough treatment in the times in which they live; so doing, they comply with the command which their exalted Master laid upon the pastor of the Church at Philadelphia, and then they may hope for the blessing he promised. (Rev 3:8.)” — Abraham Taylor.
14Keep the excellent thing committed to thee This exhortation is more extensive than the preceding. He exhorts Timothy to consider what God has given to him, and to bestow care and application in proportion to the high value of that which has been committed; for, when the thing is of little value, we are not wont to call any one to so strict an account.
By “that which hath been committed,” I understand him to mean both the honor of the ministry and all the gifts with which Timothy was endued. Some limit it to the ministry alone; but I think that it denotes chiefly the qualifications for the ministry, that is, all the gifts of the Spirit, in which he excelled. The word “committed” is employed also for another reason, to remind Timothy that he must, one day, render an account; for we ought to administer faithfully what God has committed to us.
Τὸ Καλόν (149) denotes that which is of high or singular value; and, therefore, Erasmus has happily translated it (egregium ) “excellent,” for the sake of denoting its rare worth. I have followed that version. But what is the method of keeping it? It is this. We must beware lest we lose by our indolence what God has bestowed upon us, or lest it be taken away, because we have been ungrateful or have abused it; for there are many who reject the grace of God, and many who, after having received it, deprive themselves of it altogether. Yet because the difficulty of keeping it is beyond our strength, he therefore adds, —
By the Holy Spirit As if he had said, “I do ask from thee more than thou canst, for what thou hast not from thyself the Spirit of God will supply to thee.” Hence it follows, that we must not judge of the strength of men from the commandments of God; because, as he commands by words, so he likewise engraves his words on our hearts, and, by communicating strength, causes that his command shall not be in vain.
Who dwelleth in us (150) By this he means, that the assistance of the Holy Spirit is present to believers, provided that they do not reject it when it is offered to them.
(149) “Le mot Grec duquel il use, que nous traduisons bon.” — “The Greek word, which he employs, which we translate good.”
(150) “Seeing that God hath taken up his abode in us, and wishes that we may be his temples, and dwells in those temples by his Holy Spirit, are we afraid that he will not give us power to persevere till the end, that he will not keep us in certain possession of the benefits which we have received from his hand? True, the devil will labor to deprive us of it, but, as our souls will not be a prey to him, because our Lord Jesus Christ has taken them under his protection, having been committed to him by God the Father; so nothing that God has appointed for our salvation will be a prey to Satan. And why? Because we have the Spirit to defend us against all his efforts. And where is that Spirit? We must not go to seek him above the clouds. It is true that he fills the whole earth, and that his majesty dwells above the heavens; but if we feel that he dwells in us, since he has been pleased to exercise his power on such poor creatures as we are, let us know that that power will be sufficient for defending us against the assaults of Satan; that is, provided that we, on our part, are not negligent. For we must not flatter ourselves in our sins, so as to be careless, but must pray to God, committing everything to him, and hoping that he will always strengthen us more and more. And because he has begun to make us ministers of his grace, let us know that he will continue, and in such a way that our salvation and that of our neighbor’s shall always be carried forward more and more to his glory.”-Fr. Ser.
15Thou knowest that all that are in Asia have forsaken me Those apostasies which he mentions might have shaken the hearts of many, and given rise, at the same time, to many suspicions; as we commonly look at everything in the worst light. Paul meets scandals of this kind with courage and heroism, that all good men may learn to abhor the treachery of those who had thus deserted the servant of Christ, when he alone, at the peril of his life, was upholding the common cause; and that they may not on that account give way, when they learn that Paul is not left destitute of divine assistance.
Of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes He names two of them, who were probably more celebrated than the rest, that he may shut the door against their slanders; for it is customary with revolters and deserters from the Christian warfare, (151) in order to excuse their own baseness, to forge as many accusations as they can against the good and faithful ministers of the gospel. “Phygellus and Hermogenes,” knowing that their cowardice was justly reckoned infamous by believers, and that they were even condemned as guilty of base treachery, would not have hesitated to load Paul with false accusations, and impudently to attack his innocence. Paul, therefore, in order to take away all credit from their lies, brands them with the mark which they deserve.
Thus also, in the present day, there are many who, because they are not here admitted into the ministry, or are stripped of the honor on account of their wickedness, (152) or because we do not choose to support them while they do nothing, or because they have committed theft or fornication, are compelled to fly, and forthwith wander through France and other countries, and, by throwing upon us all the accusations (153) that they can, borrow from them an attestation of their innocence. And some brethren are so silly as to accuse us of cruelty, if any of us paints such persons in their true colors. But it were to be wished that all of them had their forehead marked with a hot iron, that they might be recognized at first sight.
(151) “Car c’est la coustume des apostats, et de ceux qui Laissent la vocation de Christ.” — “For it is customary with apostates, and with those who forsake the calling of Christ.”
(152) “Pource qu’on les en depose a cause de leur mesehancete et vie scandaleuse.” — “Because they are deposed on account of their wickedness and scandalous life.”
(153) “Tous les blasphemes et accusations qu’ils peuvent.” — “All the blasphemies and accusations that they can.”
16May the Lord grant mercy From this prayer we infer, that the good offices done to the saints are not thrown away, even though they cannot recompense them; for, when he prays to God to reward them, this carries in it the force of a promise. At the same time, Paul testifies his gratitude, by desiring that God will grant the remuneration, because he is unable to pay. What if he had possessed abundant means of remuneration? Undoubtedly he would have manifested that he was not ungrateful.
To the family of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me It is worthy of attention, that although he praises the kindness of Onesiphorus alone, yet, on his account, he prays for mercy to the whole family Hence we infer, that “the blessing of God rests, not only on the head of the righteous man,” but on all his house. So great is the love of God toward his people, that it diffuses itself over all who are connected with them.
And was not ashamed of my chain This is a proof, not only of his liberality, but likewise of his zeal; seeing that he cheerfully exposed himself to danger and to the reproach of men, in order to assist Paul.
18May the Lord grant to him Some explain it thus: — “May God grant to him that he may find mercy with Christ the Judge.” And, indeed, this is somewhat more tolerable than to interpret that passage in the writings of Moses:
“The Lord rained fire from the Lord,” (Gen 19:24,)
as meaning, — “The Father rained from the Son.” (154) Yet it is possible that strong feeling may have prompted Paul, as often happens, to make a superfluous repetition.
That he may find mercy with the Lord on that day (155) This prayer shews us how much richer a recompense awaits those who, without the expectation of an earthly reward, perform kind offices to the saints, than if they received it immediately from the hand of men. And what does he pray for? “That he may find mercy;” for he who hath been merciful to his neighbors will receive such mercy from God to himself. And if this promise does not powerfully animate and encourage us to the exercise of kindness, we are worse than stupid. Hence it follows, also, that when God rewards us, it is not on account of our merits or of any excellence that is in us; but that the best and most valuable reward which he bestows upon us is, when he pardons us, and shews himself to be, not a stern judge, but a kind and indulgent Father.
(154) See Calvin on Genesis, vol. 1, p. 512, where that remarkable expression is copiously explained. — Ed.
(155) “No Christian can read this passage without being powerfully affected by it; for we see that Paul was, as it were, transported, when he spoke of that coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the final resurrection. He does not say, “May the Lord grant that he may find favor at his coming, on the day of our redemption, when he shall appear again to judge the world!” But he says, “On that day;” as if he presented the Lord Jesus visibly, with his angels. Paul did not speak those things coldly, or like a man, but he rose above all men, that he might be able to exclaim, “That day, that day!” And where is it? True, none of those who wish to be wise in themselves will take any pains to find it; for that saying must be fulfilled, — “Eye hath not seen, ears have not heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, what God hath prepared for them that love him.” (Isa 64:4.) Let men task their powers to the utmost to know it, it will be to them a dark and mysterious thing, and they will not be able to approach to it. But when we shall embrace the promise which he hath given to us, and after having known that Christ, being risen from the dead, displayed his power, not for his own sake, but to gather together all his members, and to unite them to himself, then shall we be able truly to say, That day.”-Fr. Ser.
