DHA tah at τῆνον aia ? Ἢ ‘ Ἐπτ' . ᾿ ' ' ᾿ teeta nt ‘ ih hates et pers ᾿ + MA Asatte te ks venice de Ay i ἍΜ, J ΤΩΙ “ 4 Cin 5 a ΗΝ 1 aT val Loe aban 1 ey ᾿ Ἰ 7 ἣ Wee yayen Jy) Ἢ "Ἢ" ἫΝ ὙΡΉΜΗ tet i us Mum i. Hua La AME athe i eat ; r , 6 Φὶ dete Hell ‘ ἡ WY ΣΉ Ln ὙΠ i bt heh Se oh ἯΙ BD ele ih , jabs { " “ ΠΗ ἢ i ΝΥ MeN e A ees Wh MDA‘ i Reh τ ἦν Taplin in 1 Υ ui Vet 1) Within ib AL Mi 41} ΩΝ ht μὴ " Me Ap ἣν ay Kd haven ; ᾿ ities SEM oan 47 ΠΡ ΤΩ ἘΝ Ἴ, ‘ ᾿ ‘ CaS shy 4 rus MVD WRG HOA Lah, eA Mas TA OG Me ἡ Ge ΝΥ usin torre revs Rei be 732 ἘΞ bea lye Tg ᾿ May ey oy Νὴ ; \ ᾿ aN Ace ᾿ 404) 81} 5 i Coli tae ita sth nd a ἢ ἐν τ th ἘΌΝ } hart tes ἢ a ; + Paneer ein tiem ol anc ἐξά ι μλ τ: rte a Wa shy 4 469), \) ᾿ δὴ th ; " ᾿ ἥν a} A ἢ ΠῚ Ἢ Ἢ Aq ἍΜ Neve bet. ΤῊΝ τή ΔΝ "ἢ Ἢ i 3 ἢ J hi want] Ν Μη, ht banlirpenserit 4 Tah MaRS) ͵ Wheat) ΜῊ ΤΉΝ ern MARS 34 ial if i i ν ΚΠ δ ΜΠ ἈΝ ΉΒΉ ἘΜ ΜΉ SAN PU Aa acres | at areata f i BD het Aa eta. OR er ΦΟΥῚ Mad Mie tM bape bein ene i Hy mat J i ΖΗ ΠΝ ἢ Hat shes NAPA atenD Lg 1a RM pM vga try Ν 4 int Lit AVR ᾿ if ft ΠῚ ΤΠ bah ry sheen ty 8%) Ἢ Wi ae ΠΝ 1 ay reat ay Waal) ΜΉΝ “ i vee avis KAR 40} Ve Mist pale Ai » a BELA PAN GA ABD ΠῚ Ἢ, 4 ᾿ Mi ay YO ΠΝ, ἮΝ ἡ χόλος ᾿ jain} at Pete ET ft ἮΙ ΟΝ ΆδΩ τ 1A) Bases ἰώ ἸΉΦΙΝΙ Hatt bs +) be Titian 4,“ ΚΗ τη , yi ashe 7 Temehs arate δι ΜΡΡΝῚ πὴ ἐπ TAME MR ni tec ΠΝ Δ. tay fabreareiscaceet aie Hi ti ti, H f (ill Se } ᾿ ΒΗ: 4 ΤΑ, ἐδ ἔφϑιὴ i ipl bas at EMA FeE Web eh be ag ‘ SMR ΠΕ ΤῊ Lona Whe that i ἘΠ pak ἶ I if ΓΗ “tt atv atin BTML torte, tater te to ν te, Lees ty ΜΝ tie Were ἢ ἜΝ, via 3 bes ἘΝ ΜΉ arate il 4 vs Per er rtetmtarte rey WIS Ui Ve SMA kites ; , yi ὙΜῊΝ (ery tas ps i nn ᾿ 3 WAS Kt 1] ὍΝ et ik a inane Rath Wh, ἐν i be bee SOE ἢ ἡ Tha! i ᾿ . λων ΤῊΝ if Pb 4 Oe hee bee eb , aly He Mt PsA ΓΝ ’ ἮΝ fats (ae abet YT The Bas Wh sat \ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ih i ae Au SOG) aH Mh eh ya CT hy Ay ᾿ ΤΉΝ ΝΙ BS2/35.3 57 test Huther, Joh. Ed. (Johann Eduard), 1807-1880. Critical and exegetical handbook to the epistles of St. Paul to: Tinothy and ΠΕ. vil Mi Hie ee Keen rat Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/criticalexeget1881 huth ives ay st CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D. OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. Prom the German, With the Sanction of the Author. THE PASTORAL EPISTLES BY Dr. J. EF. HUTHER EDINBURGH: ine T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXXI. NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBE RNIN ANS This Issue completes the ‘ Meyer’ series of COMMENTARIES of the NEW TESTAMENT, with the exception of Hebrews, One Volume, and The Epistles of James and John, One Volume, which will be ready in a few months. Disterdieck on Revelation will not be translated in the meantime. The completed series will therefore occupy Twenty Volumes. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK TO THE PeISPLES OF ST. PAUL MeOH Y AND. TITUS. BY JOH. ED. HUTHER, Τα, \ PASTOR AT WITTENFORDEN BEI SCHWERIN. TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH IMPROVED AND ENLARGED EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY DAVID HUNTER, ΒΡ, LATE SCHOLAR IN HEBKEW AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. EDINBURGH: 7. & T.,.CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXXL . ἜΦΥΝ PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. ἃ T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . : ἘΝ HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, . P ‘ , GEORGE STREET. NEW YORK, : . . SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. AUTHORS PREFACE. ied je publishing the fourth edition of my Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, I recall with painful feeling the man who began and conducted the work in which I count it a special honour to take part. When the third edition of my Commentary on the Epistle of James appeared in the year 1870, he was still busy with undiminished mental vigour in conducting his work nearer to that goal of completion, which he had kept before him from the first. At that time I did not anticipate that in a few years he would be called away from his work. Through his death Science has sustained a heavy loss, but she has this comfort, that if he himself has departed from her, the work to which he devoted the labour of a lifetime still remains, a brilliant example of the most thorough and unbiassed exegesis, of an exegesis which, holding itself free from all subjective caprice, “ devotes itself soberly, faithfully, submissively, to the service of the Divine Word.” The works of Meyer testify that he himself adhered to the law which he set down for the expositors of the holy Word, viz. that “ they must interpret its pure contents as historical facts in a manner simple, true, and clear, without bias and independent of dogmatic prejudice, neither adding nor taking away anything, and abstaining from all conjectures of their own” (Preface to the fifth edition of the Commentary on 1 Cor.).— Since he invited me to take part in the work, it has been my constant endeavour to imitate his example; and it shall always be so 5 vi ’ AUTHOR’S PREFACE. with me, so long as I am spared to go on with it. Of what use is it, either to theological science or to the Church, if the expounder of the holy Scriptures uses his acuteness in endeavouring to confirm from them his own preconceived opinions, instead of faithfully interpreting and presenting the thoughts actually contained in them ?—The same endeavour has guided me in this new revision, as will be shown, I hope, by the revision itself. In addition to the scrutiny to which I have subjected my earlier work, I have also carefully considered and examined the writings on the Pastoral Epistles, published since 1866, when the third edition of this Com- mentary appeared. Above all, I have examined the third edition of van Oosterzee’s Commentary, the practical exposi- tion by Plitt, and Hofimann’s Commentary. While fully acknowledging the acuteness displayed in Hofmann’s exposi- tion, I have but seldom been able to agree with it; for the most part, I have felt myself bound to refute it. However convincing it may frequently appear at the first glance, as frequently it will not bear an unbiassed, scrutinizing considera- tion. While it certainly does not yield itself to exuberant fancies, it still follows a mode of exegesis, in which the chief purpose is to put forth new and striking explanations, and then to support them with all kinds of ingenious arguments,— Nevertheless I feel myself bound to express my thanks to it, because it has incited me to examine the thought of the holy text all the more carefully and thoroughly. The disfavour with which the Pastoral Epistles used often to be regarded has gradually disappeared, and rightly; for the more deeply we enter into the spirit of their contents, the more they appear worthy of the apostle whose name they bear. Excellent service in presenting their fulness of thought has been done by Stirm, a deacon in Reutlingen, in his treatise published in the Jahrbuch fiir deutsche Theologie (vol. xviii. No. 1, 1872), and called “ Hints for Pastoral AUTHOR’S PREFACE. Vil Theology contained in the Pastoral Epistles.” The more they who are entrusted with the clerical office make use of the contents of these epistles as their guiding star, the richer in blessing will their labours be.— To that same end may the Lord of the Church bless this my new work ! JOH. ED. HUTHER. WITTENFORDEN, November 1875. = ᾿ rs F * ae J sty » 2: \ ee ys Ὁ greet ae ἀμνῶν 4 ae ‘ -: ee Ratti iq] ἤει ἔ mee ie ih Ra Breed n it lets, od ei ἶ Σ 1 ke ‘ Link shalt sete ane ΜΨΑΙΣ re AS ἢ er + al eae a Pa. ese ~~ y —_~ -- δ᾽ “ ) a, A 4 Ὁ ἽΠ Aare a “ἃ 4 j . Lg oN em 4 Ψψ is f <2 wa i re - “5 Pp OLY 4 τ νος li THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. INTRODUCTION. SECTION 1—TIMOTHY AND TITUS. Β IMOTHY.—He was the son of a Christian Jewess Ἢ (γυναικὸς ᾿Ιουδαίας moths, Acts xvi. 1) named Eunice (2 Tim. i. 5), and of a Greek. We can- not determine for certain his place of birth. The passage in Acts xx. 4 does not prove that he was born in Derbe, since the position of καί forbids the connection of Τιμόθεος with AepBaios.. From Acts xvi. 1, we might possibly take Lystra to be his birthplace. If this be right, we may from it explain why in Acts xx. 4, Τιμόθεος, without more precise description, is named along with Caius of Derbe, since Lystra lies in the neighbourhood of Derbe.? From his mother and his grandmother, called Lois, he had enjoyed a pious edu- cation ; and he had early been made acquainted with the holy scriptures of the Jews (2 Tim. i. 5, 11. 14, 15). When Paul on his second missionary journey came into closer connection with him, he was already a Christian (μαθητής), and possessed a good reputation among the believers in Lystra and Iconium. Paul calls him his τέκνον (1 Tim. i. 2, 18 ; 2 Tim. i. 2; 1 Cor. 1 Wieseler (Chronol. des apost. Zeitaiters, p. 25) argues that δερβαῖος should go with Τιμόθεος. He points out that in xix. 29, Γάϊος is called a Macedonian along with Aristarchus, and that xx. 4 would agree with this if καὶ Taio; were joined to Θεσσαλονικέων. But in this construction καί before Σεκοῦνδος is superfluous. The Gaius here named is not to be held identical with the one mentioned in xix. 29; see Meyer on Acts xx. 4. 2 According to Otto, the ἦν does not denote Timothy’s abode, but only his temporary sojourn occasioned by the presence of Paul—an assertiow which the context flatly contradicts, PasTORAL EPIsTLEs. a 2 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. _ iv. 17), from which it would appear that he had been converted | by the preaching of the apostle, probably during the apostle’s first stay in Lystra (Acts xiv. 6, 7); and, according to the reading: παρὰ τίνων, in the passage 2 Tim. iii. 14, by means of his mother and grandmother. Paul, after circumcising him, because his father was known in the district to be a Gentile,’ adopted him as his assistant in the apostleship. From that time forward, Timothy was one of those who served the apostle (εἷς τῶν διακονούντων αὐτῷ, Acts xix. 22), his συνεργός. The service (διακονία) consisted in helping the apostle in the duties of his office, and was therefore not identical with the office of those called evangelists (this against Wiesinger). See on 2 Tim. iv. 5.—Timothy accompanied the apostle through Asia Minor to Philippi; but when Paul and Silas left that city (Acts xvi. 40), he seems to have remained behind there for some time, along with some other companions of the apostle. At Berea they were again together. When Paul afterwards travelled to Athens, Timothy remained behind (with Silas) at Berea; but Paul sent a message for him to come soon (Acts xvii. 14, 15)? From Athens, Paul sent him to Thessalonica, to inquire into the condition of the church there and to strengthen it (1 Thess. iii. 1-5). After completing this task, Timothy joined Paul again in Corinth (Acts xviii, 5; 1 Thess. iii. 6). The two epistles which Paul wrote from that place to the Thessalonians were written in Timothy’s name also (1 Thess. 1. 1; 2 Thess. 1. 1). When Paul on his third missionary journey remained for some considerable time in Ephesus, Timothy was with him; where he was in the interval is unknown. Before the tumult 1 From the expression: ὅτι Ἕλλην ὑπῆρχεν (Acts xvi. 3), Otto wishes to infer that the father was ‘‘ properly a Hellene, but that not much of a Gentile nature was to be seen in him,” because ὑπάρχειν, in contrast to φαίνεσθαι, is = *‘ to be fundamentally ” (!). 2 There is no tenable ground for Otto’s assertion that Silas remained at Berea, and that Timothy, after completing the apostle’s commission in Thessalonica, joined Silas again at Berea on the return journey, from which place the two travelled together to Corinth. 3 Otto asserts that in Corinth Timothy made ‘‘ his jirst attempts at the κήρυγμα σοῦ λόγου (2 Cor. i. 19),” which is in manifest contradiction with 1 Thess. iii. 1-5. Στηρίζειν and παρακαλεῖν περὶ τῆς πίστεως necessarily include the κηρύσσειν σὸν λόγον, and are not to be regarded merely as the fulfilment of a ‘‘messenger’s duty, demanding no particular experience nor ability.” INTRODUCTION. 3 occasioned by Demetrius, Paul sent him from Ephesus to Macedonia (Acts xix. 22). Immediately afterwards the apostle wrote what is called the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which it would appear that Timothy had been commissioned to go to Corinth, but that the apostle expected him to arrive there after the epistle (1 Cor. iv. 17, xvi. 10,11). Matthies asserts without proof that Timothy did not carry out this journey.— When Paul wrote from. Macedonia the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Timothy was again with him ;* for Paul composed that epistle also in Timothy’s name, a very natural act if Timothy had shortly before been in Corinth.— He next travelled with the apostle to Corinth; his presence there is proved by the greeting which Paul sent from him to the church in Rome (Rom. xvi. 21).—When Paul after three months left Greece, Timothy, besides others of the apostle’s assistants, was in his company. He travelled with him ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας, ie. as far as Philippi, from which the passage across to Asia Minor was usually made. From there Timothy and some others went before the apostle to Troas, where they remained till the apostle also arrived (Acts xx. 3-6). At this point there is a considerable blank in Timothy’s history, since he is not mentioned again until the apostle’s imprisonment in Rome.” He was with the apostle at that time, because Paul put his name also to the Epistles to the Colossians, to Phile- mon, and to the Philippians. This fact is at the same time a proof that no other of his assistants in the apostleship stood in such close relations with him as Timothy—When Paul wrote the last epistle, he intended to send him as soon as possible to Philippi, in order to obtain by him exact intelligence regarding the circumstances of the churches there (Phil. ii. 19 ff.). From our two Epistles to Timothy we learn also the follow- ing facts regarding the circumstances of his life :— According to 1 Tim. i. 3, Paul on a journey to Macedonia left him behind in Ephesus, that he might counteract the false 1 Wieseler assumes that Timothy joined Paul again while still in Ephesus (i.c. pp. 57 f.), but his proofs are not decisive. 2 In this it is presupposed that the two Epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians, and the Epistle to Philemon; were written im Rome, and not, as Meyer assumes, in Czsarea. 4 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. doctrine which was spreading there more and more. Perhaps on this occasion—if not even earlier—Timothy was solemnly ordained to his office by the laying on of hands on the part of the apostle and the presbytery. At this ordination the fairest hopes of him were expressed in prophetic language (comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6), and he made a good confes- sion (1 Tim. vi. 12)—Paul at that time, however, hoped soon to come to him again—As to the period of Paul’s apostolic labours into which this falls, see ὃ 3.—Later on, Paul was a prisoner in Rome. When he was expecting his death as near at hand, he wrote to Timothy to come to him soon, before the approach of winter, and to bring him Mark, together with certain belongings left behind in Troas (2 Tim. iv. 9, 11, 13, 21)—-Regarding this imprisonment of Paul, see ὃ 3. Timothy is only once mentioned elsewhere in the N. T., and that is in Heb. xiii, 23. It is very improbable that the Timothy there mentioned is another person; and from the passage we learn that when the epistle was written, he was again freed from an imprisonment, and that its author, as soon as he came, wished, along with him, to visit those to whom the epistle was directed. According to the tradition of the church, Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus. Chrysostom, indeed, merely says: δῆλον, ὅτι ἐκκλησίαν λοιπὸν ἣν πεπιστεύμενος ὁ Τιμόθεος, ἢ καὶ ἔθνος ὁλόκληρον τὸ τῆς ᾿Ασίας (Homil. 15, on 1 Tim.) ; but Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 4), says directly: Τιμόθεος τῆς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ παροικίας ἱστορεῖται πρῶτος τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰληφέναι. Comp. also Const. Apost. i. 7, ch. 46; Photii Libl. 254.—From the First Epistle only this much is clear, that the apostle gave to him a right of superintending the church at Ephesus, similar to that which the apostles exer- cised over the churches. It was a position from which afterwards the specially episcopal office might spring, but it cannot be considered as identical with the latter. 2. Titus—Regarding the circumstances of his life, we possess still less information than regarding those of Timothy. He was also one of Paul’s assistants, and is first mentioned as such in Gal. 11. 1, where Paul tells us that he took Titus with him to Jerusalem on the journey undertaken fourteen INTRODUCTION. 5 years after his conversion or after his first stay in Jerusalem. Though Titus was of Gentile origin, Paul did not circumcise him, that there might be-no yielding to his opponents.— When Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he sent Titus to Corinth, that a report might be brought to him of the state of matters there. Paul was disappointed in his hope of finding him again at Troas (2 Cor. 11.13), but afterwards joined him in Macedonia (2 Cor. vii. 6). The news brought by Titus led him to compose the Second Epistle. With this he sent Titus a second time to Corinth, where he was at the same time to complete the collection for the poor of the church in Jerusalem, which he had already on a previous occasion begun (2 Cor. vii. 6, 16, 23)—When Paul, from his imprisonment in Rome, wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, Titus was not with him, but had gone to Dalmatia (2 Tim. iv. 10). On this point we do not possess more exact information. From the Epistle to Titus itself, we learn that he had assisted the apostle in his missionary labours in Crete, and had been left behind there in order to make the further arrangements necessary for forming a church (Tit. i. 5). By the epistle he is summoned to come to Nicopolis, where Paul wished to spend the winter (Tit. iii, 12).—Paul calls him his γνήσιον τέκνον κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν, from which it appears that he had been converted to Christianity by Paul. According to the tradition of the church, Titus was installed by Paul as the first bishop of Crete. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii, 4): Τιμόθεός γε μὴν τῆς ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ παροικίας ἱστορεῖται πρῶτος τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰληχέναι" ὡς καὶ Τίτος τῶν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐκκλησιῶν ; comp. Jerome, Catal. ϑορίρέ. Eccles. ; Theodoret on 1 Tim. iii.; Theophylact, Proem. ad Tit. ; Const. Apost. vii. 46. He is said to have died and been buried in Crete in his ninety-fourth year. . SECTION 2.—CONTENTS OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. First Epistle to Timothy.— The epistle begins with a reminder that the apostle had left Timothy behind in Ephesus in order to counteract the heresies of certain teachers. These 6 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. heresies are described in detail, and the evangelic principle of life is placed in opposition to them (i. 3-10) by directing attention to the gospel as it had been entrusted to the apostle. This furnishes an opportunity for expressing his thanks for the grace shown to him in it (11-17), to which is added an exhortation to Timothy to act rightly in regard to it (18—20). Then follow particular directions, first as to public interces- sions and the behaviour of the men and women in the meet- ings of the church (ii. 1-15), and then as to the qualities necessary in a bishop and a deacon (ii. 1-13). After briefly pointing out the essential truth of the gospel (14-16), the apostle goes on to speak further regarding the heretics, and confutes their arbitrary rules (iv. 1-6). After this we have further exhortations to Timothy,—first as to his behaviour towards the heresy (7-11), then as to his official labours (12-16), and lastly in reference to his attitude towards the individual members of the church. Under this last head are given more detailed instructions about widows and presbyters (v. 1-25), to which are added some special remarks regard- ing slaves (vi. 1, 2)—After another attack on the heretics (3-10), there follow again exhortations to Timothy to be true to his calling, which are interrupted by an allusion to the rich (11-- 22). Second Epistle to Timothy.—The epistle begins with the apostle’s assurance to Timothy that, full of desire to see him again, he remembered him always in prayer, and was con- vinced of his unfeigned faith (1. 3-5). This is followed by an exhortation to stir up the gift of the Spirit imparted to him, and not be ashamed of the gospel, but to be ready to suffer for it (6—8); his attention also is directed to the grace of God revealed in the gospel, and to the apostle’s example (9-12). Then follow further exhortations to Timothy to hold fast the doctrine he had received, and to preserve the good thing entrusted to him, the apostle also reminding him of the conduct of the Asiatics who had turned away from him, and of the fidelity of Onesiphorus (13—18).—-The doctrine received from the apostle he is to deliver to other tried men, but he himself is to suffer as a good soldier of Jesus Christ, and to remember the Risen One; just as he, the apostle, INTRODUCTION. 7 suffers for Christ’s sake, that the elect may become partakers of blessedness (ii. 1-13). Then follow warnings against the heresy, which may exercise on many a corrupting influence, but cannot destroy the building founded by God (14-19). Instructions are also given how Timothy is to conduct himself towards this heresy, and towards those who give themselves up to it (20-26). With prophetic. spirit the apostle points next to the moral ruin which threatens to appear in the future in the most varied forms. He pictures the conduct of the heretics, and exhorts Timothy on the contrary—in faithful imitation of his exemplar as before —to hold fast by that which he knows to be the truth (iii 1-17). In reference to the threatening general apostasy from the pure doctrine of the gospel, the apostle exhorts Timothy to perform faithfully the evangelic duties of his office, especially as he himself was already at the end of his apostolic career (iv. 1-8). Then follow various special commissions, items of news, greetings, the repeated summons to come to him soon before the approach of winter, and finally the Christian benediction with which the epistle closes. The Epistle to Titus——After a somewhat elaborate preface, Paul reminds Titus that he had left him behind in Crete for the purpose of ordaining presbyters in the churches there. The qualities are named which the presbyter ought to possess, and Paul points out the upholding of the pure gospel as the most important requisite of all, that the presbyter may be able to withstand the continually growing influence of the heretics. The mention of the heretics in Crete gives the apostle an opportunity of quoting a saying of Epimenides, which describes the character of the Cretans, while at the same time he sketches the heretics, with their arbitrary commands and their hypocritical life, and vindicates against them the principle of life in the gospel (i. 5-16). Then follow rules of conduct for the various members of the church, for old and young, men and women, together with an exhortation to Titus to show a good example in work and doctrine, and especially to call upon the slaves to be faithful to their masters. These exhortations are supported by pointing to the moral character of God’s grace (ii. 1-15)—Then follows 8 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. the injunction that Titus is to urge the Christians to obedi- ence towards the higher powers, and to a peaceful behaviour towards all men. The latter point is enforced by pointing to the undeserved grace of God which has been bestowed on Christians (iii, 1-7). To this are added warnings against heresy, and directions how Titus is to deal with a heretic (8-11). The epistle closes with an injunction to come to the apostle at Nicopoiis, some commissions, greetings, and the benediction. The First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus are letters on business, both occasioned by the apostle’s desire to impart to his colleagues definite instructions for their work in Ephesus and in Crete respectively, The Epistle to Titus has at the same time the purpose of enjoining him, after the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus, to come to Paul at Nicopolis. —The Second Epistle to Timothy is a letter “purely personal” (Wiesinger), occasioned by the wish of the apostle to see him as soon as possible in Rome. It was written, too, for the purpose of encouraging him to faithfulness in his calling as a Christian, and particularly in his official labours. The apostle felt all the greater need for writing, that he perceived in his colleague a certain shrinking from suffering —The instructions in the First Epistle to Timothy refer to the meetings of the church, to prayer and the behaviour of the women in the meetings, to the qualifications of bishops and deacons, to widows, to the relation of slaves to their masters, but at the same time also to Timothy’s conduct in general as well as in special cases——In the Epistle to Titus the apostle instructs him regarding the ordination of bishops, the conduct of individual members of the church, both in particular accord- ing to their age, sex, and position, and also in their general relation to the higher powers and to non-Christians. In all three epistles, besides the more general exhortations to faith- - fulness in word and act, there is a conspicuous reference to heretics who threaten to disturb the church. The apostle exhorts his fellow-workers not only to hold them- selves free from the influence of such men, but also to counteract the heresy by preaching the pure doctrine of the gospel, and to warn the church against the temptations of INTRODUCTION, 9 such heresy. He imparts also rules for proper conduct towards the heretics. The three epistles are closely related in contents, and also in the expression and the form in which the thoughts are developed. They have thus received a definite impress, which distinguishes them from the apostle’s other epistles. All Paul’s epistles contain expressions peculiar to him alone, and this is certainly the case with every one of these three. But there is also in them a not inconsiderable number of expressions peculiar to them all, or even to two of them, and often repeated in them, but occurring only seldom or not at all in the other epistles of the N. T. The nature of the Christian life is denoted specially by εὐσέβεια, 1 Tim. 11. 2, 11. 16, etc.; 2 Tim. ili. 5; Tit. 1. 1 (εὐσεβέω, 1 Tim. v. 4; εὐσεβῶς, 2 Tim. iii, 12; Tit. ii, 12). The following virtues are specially extolled as Christian :--- σεμνότης, 1 Tim. ii. 2, 11. 4; Tit. ii. 7 (σεμνός, 1 Tim. 111. 8, 11; Tit. ii. 2); σωφροσύνη, 1 Tim. ii. 9,15 (σώφρων, 1 Tim. 111. 2; Tit. i. 8, i, 2, 5; σωφρόνως, Tit. ii, 12; σωφρονέω, Tit. ii. 6; σωφρονίζειν, Tit. 11. 4; σωφρονισμός, 2 Tim. i. 7). The same or very similar words, which occur seldom or nowhere else, are used to denote the doctrine of the gospel; 6.9. the word διδασκαλία, especially in connection with ὑγιαινοῦσα, 1 Tim.i. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit. 1.9, ii. 1. The use of ὑγιαίνω and ὑγιής in general is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles: λόγοι ὑγιαίνοντες, 1 Tim. vi. 3; 2 Tim. 1. 18; λόγος ὑγιής, Tit. ii. 8. We may also note: ἡ κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλία, 1 Tim. vi. 3, and ἡ ἀλήθεια ἡ κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν, Tit. i. 1; ἡ καλὴ διδασκαλία, 1 Tim. iv. 6 (καλός is also a word which occurs very often in all three ᾿ epistles). Even in describing the heresy there is a great agreement in all three. Its substance is denoted in a more general way by μῦθοι, 1 Tim. i. 4; 2 Tim. iv. 4; Tit. i. 14; more specially by γενεαλογίαι, 1 Tim. i 4; Tit. ii. 9. Frequently it is reproached with occasioning foolish investi- gations (μωμαΐί ξητήσεις), as in 1 Tim. vi. 4; 2 Tim. il. 23; Tit. 111. 9, In 1 Tim. 1, 6 it is on this account called ματαιο- λογία, and in accordance with this the heretics are called in Tit. i. 10 patavodoyo.. In 1 Tim. vi. 4 the blame of λογομαχίαι is given to it, and in 2 Tim. 11. 14 there is a 10 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. warning against λογομαχεῖν. The same reproach is contained in ai βέβηλοι κενοφωνίαι, which is found in 1 Tim. vi. 20, and 2 Tim. ii. 16.— But also in other respects there is a striking agreement in these epistles. Among the points of agreement are the formula, πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, iv. 9; 2 Tim. ii, 11; Tit. iii, 8; the word dpvéopuas, 1 Tim. v. 8; 2 Tim.i..12,13, m1. 5; Tit. ἀπ ΟΠ ΘΙ athe formula of assurance, διαμαρτύρεσθαι ἐνώπιον (τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ xupiov “I. Xp.), 1 Tim. v. 21; 2 Tim. ii 14, iv. 1; the figurative expression, 1) παγὶς τοῦ διαβόλου, 1 Tim. iii. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 26; the phrase, φυλάσσειν τὴν παραθήκην, 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12, 14; further, the words, κατ᾽ ἐπιταγήν, 1 Tim. i. 1; Tit. i. 3; ὑπομιμνήσκειν, 2 Tim. ii. 14; Tit. iii, 1; δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, 2 Tim. i. 6,12; Tit. 1. 15; ἡ ἐπιφάνεια (τοῦ κυρίου), used of the future return of Christ, 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; Tit. ii. 13; δεσπότης (instead of xvpcos, Eph. vi. 5; Col. iii. 22), 1 Tim. vi. 1; 2 Tim, i, 21; Tit. ii. 9; παραϊπεῖσθαι; 1 Tim. iv. 7, v. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 23; Tit. iii, 10; διαβεβαιοῦσθαι περί τινος, 1 Tim. i. 7; Tit. iii. 8, etc.—Wherever in the three epistles the same subject is spoken of, substantially the same expressions and turns of expression are used, though with some modifications. Thus the benedictions in the inscription agree: χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη (Tit. i. 4 should, however, perhaps have the reading: χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη). In reference to the redemption by Christ we have in 1 Tim. ii. 6: ὁ δοὺς ἑαντὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων; and Tit. i. 14: ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ; in reference to his office Paul says in 1 Tim. ii. 7: εἰς ὃ (τὸ μαρτύριον) ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος... διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν ; and so also in 2 Tim.i111. The necessary qualities of the bishop are mentioned in the same way in 1 Tim. ii. 2 ff. and Tit. 1. 6: μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, σώφρων, φιλόξενος, μὴ πάροινος, μὴ πλήκτης. The general exhortations to Timothy in 1 Tim. vi. 11 and 2 Tim. ii. 22 agree with each other almost to the very letter. : In the other Pauline epistles the fulness of the apostle’s thought struggles with the expression, and causes peculiar difficulties in exposition. The thoughts slide into one another, and are so intertwined in many forms that not seldom the INTRODUCTION. 4 new thought begins before a correct expression has been given to the thought that preceded. Of this confusion there is no example in the Pastoral Epistles. Even in such passages as come nearest to this confused style, such as the beginning of the First and Second Epistles to Timothy (Tit. 11. 11 ff, iii. 4 ff.), the connection of ideas is still, on the whole, simple. It is peculiar that, as De Wette has shown, the transition from the special to a general truth is often made suddenly— thus 1 Tim. i. 15, ii. 4-6, iv. 8-10; 2 Tim. 1. 9 ff, 1. 11-13, iii, 12; Tit. ii, 11-14, iii. 4-7; and that after such general thoughts a resting-point is often sought in an exhortation or instruction addressed to the receivers of the epistle, as in 1 Dime, 1d yi. 25°2 Tim, ity 14, iii. Ὁ 5) Tit. 1:15; 11.0.8. SECTION 3.—TIME AND PLACE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. 1. First Epistle to Timothy.—Regarding the time of the composition of this epistle, different views from an early period have been put forward, since the indications contained in the epistle itself leave a difficulty in assigning to it its proper place in the events of the apostle’s life. According to these indications, Paul had been for some time with Timothy in Ephesus, and had travelled from there to Macedonia, leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus to take his place. Probably the epistle was written by Paul from Macedonia, to remind Timothy of his charge, and to give him suitable instructions ; for, although Paul hoped to return to Ephesus soon, still a delay was regarded as possible (chap. 111. 14, 15).—According to Acts, Paul was twice in Ephesus. The first occasion was on his second missionary journey from Antioch, when he was returning from Corinth to Antioch (Acts xviii. 19). On this first occasion he stayed there only a short time, as he wished to be in Jerusalem in time for the near-approaching festival. The composition cannot be assigned to that occasion, since there was at that time no Christian church in Ephesus, and Paul was not travelling to Macedonia—On his third missionary journey Paul was in Ephesus a second time. This time he stayed 12 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. for two or three years, and then, after the riot caused by Demetrius, travelled to Macedonia and Greece (Acts xx. 1, 2). Theodoret, and after him many other expositors, assume that Paul wrote the epistle on this journey to Macedonia, or in Macedonia. But to this the following circumstances are opposed :—(1) According to Acts xix. 22, Paul, before his own departure from Ephesus, had already sent Timothy to Macedonia; we are not told that Timothy, after being com- missioned to go to Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17), returned to Ephesus again before the apostle’s departure, as the apostle certainly had expected (according to 1 Cor. xvi. 11). (2) When Paul undertook that journey, he did not intend to return soon to Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 6, 7), which decidedly was his intention at the time of the composition of the epistle (1 Tim. iii, 14); and on his return journey from Greece he sailed from Troas past Ephesus for the express purpose of avoiding any stay there (Acts xx. 16). (8) According to 2 Cor. i. 1, Timothy was in Macedonia with Paul when he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and, according to Acts xx. 4, he accompanied the apostle on his journey from Corinth to Philippi. ‘Timothy therefore must also have left Ephesus after the apostle’s departure, although the apostle had charged him to remain there till his own return (1 Tim. iv. 13), and this we can hardly suppose to have been the case. All these reasons prove that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, mentioned in Acts xx. 1, cannot be the same with that of which he speaks in 1 Tim. i. 3. Some expositors (Bertholdt, Matthies), alluding to Acts xx. 5-5, suppose that Timothy set out from Corinth before the apostle, and then went to Ephesus, where he received the epistle. The supposition is, however, contradicted by πορευό- μενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν. This objection Bertholdt can get rid of only by the most arbitrary combinations, Matthies only by most unwarrantably explaining πορευόμενος to be equivalent to πορευόμενον. Besides, Luke’s historical narrative is against the whole hypothesis, unless, as Bertholdt actually does, we charge it with an inaccuracy which distorts the facts of the case—If the composition of the epistle is to be inserted among the incidents in the apostle’s life known to us, the INTRODUCTION. ἢ ΤῸ, only hypothesis left is, that the apostle’s journey from Ephesus to Macedonia, which is mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, and during which Timothy was left behind by him in Ephesus, falls into the period of his sojourn for two or three years in Ephesus, but is not mentioned by Luke. This is the supposition of Wieseler (Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters), who follows Mosheim and Schrader. It is not only admitted, on the whole, that the apostle may possibly have made a journey which Luke leaves unnoticed, but there are also several passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor. event 2 Corn, 1, xno 4, 21: xii) 1, 2)-whichi put. it beyond doubt that Paul had been in Corinth not once but twice before their composition, but that the second time he had stayed there only a short time. For this journey, of which Luke tells us nothing, we can find no place in the apostle’s history, unless during his stay at Ephesus; see Wieseler, 1.0. pp. 232 ff. It is natural, therefore, to identify this journey with the one to Macedonia mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, and to suppose that the epistle was written on this journey from Macedonia. There are still, however, several considerations against this view. One is that both the church organization presupposed in the epistle, and the requirement that the ἐπίσκοπος should not be vedduros, indicate that the church had already been some time in existence. To this Wieseler, indeed, replies that the journey was undertaken shortly before the end of the apostle’s stay in Corinth, so that the church had then been long enough in existence to justify the presupposition and the requirement. But still there is against this hypothesis the consideration that it supposes the apostle to have been in Corinth himself, shortly before the composition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, so that he could not therefore have any sufficient occasion for writing to the church there. SBesides, the passage in Acts xx. 29, 30 is against Wieseler’s view. According to the epistle, the heresy had already made its way into the church at Ephesus, but, according to that passage, Paul mentions the heresy as something to be expected in the future. Supposing even that the words ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν do not refer to the church, but only to the presbyters assembled 14 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, at Miletus, still εἰς ὑμᾶς in ver. 29 must be taken to refer gene- rally to the Christians in Ephesus. Surely Paul, in his address to the presbyters, would not have passed over the presence of heretics in Ephesus, if he knew the church to be so much threatened by the danger that he thought it necessary, even before this, to give Timothy solemn instructions regard- ing it, as he does in his epistle—Further, the view implies that Paul had only for ὦ short time been separated from Timothy, and that he must have sent him away immediately after his own return. But how does the whole character of the epistle agree with this? The instructions which Paul gives to Timothy indicate that the latter was to labour in the church for some time; and the greater the danger threatened it by the heresy, the more inconsistent it seems that Paul, after giving these instructions, should have taken Timothy away so soon from his labours in the church.—The views mentioned hitherto proceed from a presupposed interpretation of 1 Tim. i. 3, viz. that Paul commissioned Timothy to remain in Ephesus, and that the commission was given when Paul departed from Ephesus to Macedonia. This presupposition, however, has been declared erroneous by several expositors, who refer πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν not to the apostle, but to Timothy. Paulus explains προσμεῖναι as = “abide by a thing,” joins πορευόμενος εἰς Maxed. to ἵνα παραγγείλῃς, and takes the latter imperatively, so that the sense is: “As I have exhorted thee to abide in Ephesus, and warn them against false doctrine, so do thou travel now to Macedonia, and exhort certain people there to abstain from false doctrine.” The opinion of Paulus is therefore that Paul wrote the epistle during his imprisonment at Cesarea.— Schneckenburger and Bottger try to help the matter by con- jecture, wishing both to read, instead of προσμεῖναι, the participle προσμείνας. The former then assumes that the epistle was composed at the time denoted in Acts xxi. 26; the latter, that it was written in Patara (Acts xxi. 1), or ἴῃ Miletus (Acts xx. 17). These obviously are arbitrary sup- positions. If the journey to Macedonia, mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 3, is not to be understood as one made by the apostle, but as made by Timothy, then it is much more natural to INTRODUCTION. 19 suppose with Otto that this is the journey of Timothy which is mentioned in Acts xix. 22, and that Paul wrote the epistle in Ephesus. This is the view which Otto has sought to establish in the first book of his work of research, Die geschichtlichen Verhdltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. But this, too, is wrecked on the right explanation of 1 Tim. i. 3, which refers πορευόμενος εἰς Max. to the subject contained in παρεκάλεσα ; see on this point the exposition of the passage. The Epistle to Titus.— The following are the historical circumstances to which this epistle itself points. After Paul had laboured in Crete, he left Titus behind there. Then he wrote to the latter this epistle, instructing him, so soon as Artemas and Tychicus had been sent to him, to come with all haste to Nicopolis, where the apostle had resolved to pass the winter—tThe epistle, indeed, contains nothing definite regarding the first beginning of Christianity in Crete, nothing regarding the duration and extent of the apostle’s labours there, nothing regarding the length of time which intervened between the apostle’s departure from Crete and the composi- tion of the epistle ; but it is probable that when Paul came to Crete he found Christianity already existing there, and that he himself remained there only a short time; for on the one hand there were already Christian churches there in the chief places, at least in several ‘towns of the island, at the time of composing the epistle, while on the other hand they were still unorganized. It is probable that the epistle was written by Paul not long after his departure, for it is not to be supposed that Paul would leave his substitute in the apostleship long without written instructions. It is probable also that Paul gave Titus these instructions some time before the beginning of winter, for it would have been meaningless to give instructions, unless Paul intended Titus to labour in Crete for some considerable time. If we set out with the presupposition that the composition of the epistle is to be placed in that period of the Apostle Paul’s life which is described in Acts, we may thus state more definitely the question regarding the apostle’s stay in Crete, and the composition of the epistle. Did both take place before, or after, or during the two or three years’ stay 16 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. in Ephesus (Acts xix.) ? Each of these suppositions has its supporters among expositors and critics. Those who place the two events in the period before the stay at Ephesus, assume as a fixed date either the time during which Paul was first in Corinth (Acts xvi. 1-18) (Michaelis), o7 the time during which he was travelling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xvii. 18, 19) (Hug, Hemsen), ov, lastly, the time after he had passed through Galatia and Phrygia in the beginning of his third missionary journey, and before he went from there to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23) (Credner, Neudecker). To all these views alike, however, there is this objection, that Apollos could not be the apostle’s assistant before the (second) arrival in Corinth (Acts xviii. 24—xix. 1), whereas he is so named in this epistle. We would then have to suppose that another Apollos was meant here—which would be altogether arbitrary. There are, besides, special objections to these three views. Against the jirst, according to which Paul had made the journey from Corinth to Crete, and from there to Nicopolis in Epirus (iii. 12), and had then returned to Corinth, it may be urged that the apostle’s second stay in Corinth, alluded to in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, 2 Cor. ii. 1, ete., did not take place then, but later. Against the second, we might object not only that the journey from Corinth to Jerusalem was undertaken with some haste, so as to leave no room for labours in Crete, but also that it takes Nicopolis to be the town in Cilicia, without giving any reason why Paul should pass the winter there and not in Antioch. As to the third view, which is, that Paul for this third missionary journey had chosen Ephesus mainly as his goal (Acts xvii, 21), and that his labours, therefore, on the journey thither consisted only in confirming those who already believed (Acts xviii. 23: ἐπιστηρίζων πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς), how are we to reconcile with it the facts that Paul, instead of going at once to Ephesus from Phrygia, went to Crete and Corinth, that he there resolved to pass the winter in Nicopolis (by which Credner in his Hinl. in d. N. T. understands the town in Cilicia), and that then only did he go to Ephesus ?—There is still less justification for the opinion of some expositors, that Paul travelled to Crete at the date defined by Acts xv. 41, and INTRODUCTION. 17 wrote the epistle later during his two or three years’ stay in Ephesus. The former part of this is contradicted by the route (comp. xv. 41 and xvi. 1) furnished by the apostle himself; the latter, by the circumstance that almost the whole of the apostle’s second, and a part of his third, missionary journey lay between the beginning of Titus’ in- dependent labours in Crete and the despatch of the epistle to him. The second supposition is, that both events are to be placed in the time after the apostle’s stay at Ephesus, 1.6. in the period mentioned in Acts xx. 1-3. Its representatives, as before, differ as to the details. Some suppose that Paul, on the journey from Ephesus to Greece, went from Macedonia (vv. 1, 2) to Crete ; others, that he undertook this journey during his three months’ stay in Greece (ver. 3). According to the former opinion, we should have to suppose that Titus, after completing his second mission to Corinth, returned again to the apostle in Macedonia; that Paul then made the journey with him to Crete, and from there returned to Macedonia alone; that he then wrote the epistle from Macedonia, and afterwards went to Corinth. In this way, therefore, Paul after composing the Second Epistle to the Corinthians would have twice journeyed past Greece, whereas it must have been of great importance to him, after the last news he had received from Corinth, not to put off his journey thither—tThe latter opinion, supported particularly by Matthies, refutes itself, in so far as the three months which Paul spent in Hellas were winter months, in which travelling to and fro to Crete was hardly possible. Besides, it was when Paul returned from Crete that he formed his plan of passing the winter at Nicopolis. He then informed Titus of it, with the remark that he was to come to him in that place, after he had first waited for the arrival of Artemas or Tychicus. Wiesinger is right in saying: “ Unless we exercise ingenuity, we must take the κέκρικα παραχειμάσαι (chap. 111. 12) to have been written before the approach of winter.” The third supposition is, that Paul undertook the journey to Crete from Ephesus before his departure to Macedonia, and also wrote the Epistle to Titus from there. Wieseler PasTORAL EPISTLES. B 18 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, defends it with great acuteness. It puts the case in this way. After Paul had stayed over two years in Ephesus, he made by way of Macedonia (1 Tim. i. 3) a journey (the second, not mentioned in Acts) to Cormth. On this journey, which was but short, he was accompanied by Titus, who also went with him to Crete. On departing from Crete, he left Titus behind there, returned to Ephesus, and from Ephesus wrote the Epistle to Titus. Then he sent Timothy to Macedonia, instructing him to go to Corinth, and wrote afterwards our First Epistle to the Corinthians. He next sent Tychicus and Artemas to Crete, and bade Titus return to him. Titus was sent afterwards to Corinth. Paul went on the journey to Macedonia, hoping to meet Titus at Troas. They did not meet, however, at Troas, but in Macedonia, when Titus was a second time sent away to Corinth. After the apostle had written our Second Epistle to the Corinthians, he went through Macedonia to Nicopolis in Epirus, where he spent the first months of winter, going afterwards to Corinth. —However well all this seems to go together, there are still the following reasons against the hypothesis :—(1) If Paul made the second journey to Corinth at the time here mentioned, he can have employed only a short time in it. How, then, can we conceive that he used this short time for missionary labours in Crete? (2) Paul wrote to Titus that he was to remain in Crete till Tychicus and Artemas were sent to him, and that then he was to come to Nicopolis. This hypothesis would make out that he had changed his mind, for according to it he bade Titus come to him at Ephesus. Besides, we cannot think that, just after he had assigned to Titus an important task in Crete, he should take him so quickly away from it again. (9) It is improbable also that Paul should have chosen for his winter residence a town in which he had not been before, and where, therefore, he could not know how he would be received, His resolution seems rather to presuppose that he had laboured before in Nicopolis.’ (4) In 1 Cor, xvi. 6 Paul 1 Otto objects to this, that Paul might very well spend a winter in a town in which he had not before preached ; but that is not the point. The point is that Paul should have formed a resolution to remain for the winter in a town, even before he knew whether his preaching would be received there or not. INTRODUCTION. 19 writes to the Corinthians: πρὸς ὑμᾶς δὲ τυχὸν παραμενῶ, ἢ καὶ παραχειμάσω. According to Wieseler, this πρὸς ὑμᾶς is not to be referred to the Corinthians alone, but generally to the Christians in Achaia, to whom (according to i. 2) the epistle is addressed. As Nicopolis in Epirus, on the authority of Tacitus,’ was counted as belonging to Achaia, Wieseler is of opinion that by spending the winter in Nicopolis the apostle kept the promise given in that passage. But although the epistle was not directed merely to the church in Corinth, it has a special reference to that church, so that its readers could surely understand the words only of an intended stay in Corinth, and not in a place so far distant from Corinth. Paul could not possibly be thinking then of Nicopolis, as is obvious from the fact that at that time, as Wieseler himself maintains, he had not been there ; he did not preach the gospel in Nicopolis till later. Paul, however, in the epistle regarded his readers as Christians only, not as those who were afterwards to be converted to Christianity. Lastly, although Augustus extended the name of Achaia to Epirus, it does not follow that in common life Nicopolis was considered to be in Achaia. It should be added, too, that Paul, in Wieseler’s representation, had not at all fulfilled the promise given in Tit. i. 13, for he supposes that the apostle remained in Nicopolis only two months of winter, and therefore went to Corinth in the middle of winter. —There may be, too, some accessory circumstances which are favourable to Wieseler’s view, and give it an air of pro- bability ; such circumstances as the following :—that Apollos was along with Paul in Ephesus (1 Cor. xvi. 12; Tit. iii. 13); that Tychicus as an Asiatic (Acts xx. 4) probably became acquainted with Paul in Ephesus, and that the mention of him in Tit. iii. 13 agrees with the composition of the epistle ' Tacitus, Ann. ii. 53: ‘‘Sed eum honorem Germanicus iniit apud urbem Achajae Nicopolim.” Pliny also, Nat. Hist. iv. 2, assigns Nicopolis to Acarnania, while Strabo, xvii. p. 840, describes, according to the arrangement of the Emperor Augustus, the province in these words : Ἑβδόμην δ᾽ ᾿Αχαίαν μέχρι Θετταλίας καὶ Αἰτωλῶν καὶ ᾿Ακαρνάνων καί τινων ᾿Ηπειρωτίκων ἐθνῶν, ὅσα τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ προσώρισπο." (Wieseler, 1.6. p. 353.) In opposition to Wieseler’s assertion, Otto (pp. 362-366) seeks to prove that Nicopolis itself was not counted in Achaia, but only the suburb of the town situated on the Acarnanian side. 20 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, in Ephesus; that by the two brothers who accompanied Titus to Corinth we may understand Tychicus and Trophimus —make the theory probable, but cannot completely establish its correctness. Like Wieseler, Reuss (Gesch. d. heil. Schriften d. N. T., 2d ed. 1853, ὃ 87, pp. 73 f.) connects the apostle’s journey to Crete with his second (see Meyer on 2 Cor., Introd. § 2, Rem.) journey to Corinth during the three years’ stay at Ephesus; but he differs from Wieseler in supposing that Paul journeyed first to Crete and then to Corinth, that from the latter place he wrote the epistle, that he then went farther to the north to [lyricum, where trace of him is lost, and returned to Ephesus towards the end of winter. To all this we must say that not only is it inconceivable that Paul should have interrupted his three years’ stay by various missionary journeys, occupying so much time, and to districts so remote, but also that Acts xx. 31 contradicts such a theory. Otto, too, refutes the theory of the apostle’s journey to Crete, and the composition of the epistle during the three years’ stay at Ephesus. In his opinion, Paul made from Ephesus an excursion to Crete,—not mentioned in Acts by Luke, —and on that occasion visited Corinth ἐν παρόδῳ (1 Cor. xvi. 7 ;.2 Cor. 2.1, xii, 14,°21, xi. ΠΟ enna Ephesus, after he had written the lost epistle to the Corin- thians (1 Cor. v. 9), he addressed a letter to Titus whom he had left in Crete-——The passages quoted put it beyond doubt that Paul from Ephesus made a visit to Corinth ἐν παρόδῳ before composing what is called his First Epistle to the Corinthians. Not only, however, is there no indication that Crete was at that time the goal of his journey, but it is also improbable. The theory makes the journey in any case a short one, and Paul could not well choose for its goal a country in which he could not beforehand determine the length of his stay, as he had not been there before. Otto recognises fully the objections arising from the contents of the epistle, which are against placing the date of composi- tion in the three years’ stay; but he thinks to overcome them by supposing that the dates in it rest on a plan of the journey, afterwards altered by the apostle. It is certainly clear from 2 Cor. 1. 15, 16, 23, that Paul, on account. of INTRODUCTION. 21 circumstances in Corinth, did indeed alter the plan of the journey he had previously formed; but that he ever intended to go to Nicopolis in order to spend the winter there, is a fiction contradicted by what he says himself in the passages quoted. According to these, his original plan was to come from Ephesus direct to Corinth, to pass from there to Macedonia, and to return from Macedonia to Corinth again in order to set out for Judea. There is no trace in the apostle’s plans of a journey to Epirus and a winter residence in Nicopolis. The latter he could not even think of, for the reason quoted above. 2. Second Epistle to Timothy.—The historical circumstances alluded to in the epistle prove that it was written by the apostle in imprisonment in Rome ; comp. i. 8, 12, 16, 17, ete—This imprisonment has been held to be the same as that mentioned by Luke in the Acts, and a different date has therefore been assigned to the composition of the epistle. Wieseler, following Hemsen, Kling, and others, supposes that the epistle belongs to the time following the διετία, mentioned in Acts xxviii. 30, and was therefore composed after the Epistle to the Philippians. He rests his supposition on two grounds—(1) That while in his Epistle to the Philippians the apostle was still able to cherish the hope of being soon set free, in this epistle he expresses definite anticipations of death. (2) That in Phil. 1]. 19-24 the apostle expresses his intention of sending Timothy to Philippi, and that at the time of composing this epistle Timothy was actually in those regions, viz. at Ephesus. Against this second ground Otto rightly maintains that “Timothy would not have served the apostle as a child his father,” if after being expected to bring (Phil. 11. 19) comfort to the imprisoned apostle by the news from Philippi, he did not return at once to Rome, but proceeded instead to Ephesus, and there remained till the apostle “by a solemn apostolic message compelled him to return.” Besides, Otto insists that, as Wieseler’s interpretation of 2 Tim. iv. 16 is that “ the apostle is telling Timothy of his first ἀπολογία," the latter according to this was sent away before the first judicial hearing, 1.6. before he could know how the case would end; _ whereas according to Phil. ii. 23, 24, “he makes the despatch aa THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. of Timothy depend on his expectation of a favourable con- clusion of the trial.”——On these grounds Otto rejects Wieseler’s hypothesis, but at the same time he himself—agreeing with Schrader, Matthies, and others—supposes that the epistle was written in the beginning of the διετία mentioned, and therefore before the composition of the Epistle to the Philip- pians. But, as Wieseler and Wiesinger rightly observe, “ the whole position of the apostle as represented in the epistle” is against this view. According to the apostle’s utterances in the Epistle to the Philippians, he was uncertain about the fate hanging over him, but circumstances had so shaped themselves that the expectation of being freed from imprison- ment decidedly prevailed with him, and hence he wrote: πέποιθα ἐν κυρίῳ, ὅτε . . . ταχέως ἐλεύσομαι. In this epistle there is no trace of any such expectation. The apostle rather sees his end close approaching, chap. iv. 6-8 ; and although in the first ἀπολογία he had been rescued, as he says, ἐκ στόματος λέοντος, and now expresses the hope that the Lord would rescue him ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ, he is thinking not of a release from imprisonment, but of a rescue εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον. Otto indeed maintains that the apostle’s expressions in chap. iv. 6—8 do not refer to the end of his life, but to the end appointed to him of his missionary labours in the apostle- ship, and that in the Second Epistle to Timothy there is no trace whatever of anticipations or expectations of death; but this assertion is based on an exposition which, however acute, is anything but tenable. See on this the commentary on the passages in question.—Besides, several of the special notices made by the apostle weigh against the composition of the epistle during the imprisonment mentioned by Luke. Of special weight are the remarks regarding Erastus and Trophimus. Of the former Paul says that he remained in Corinth ; of the latter, that he was left behind in Miletus sick. This presupposes a journey made by the apostle to Rome by way of Corinth and Miletus. But on the voyage which Paul made from Caesarea to Rome as a prisoner, he did not touch at these places. Hence we cannot but suppose that the reference in both cases is to the apostle’s previous INTRODUCTION. a3 journey to Jerusalem; but against this there is the incon- ceivability of his still mentioning those circumstances after a lapse of several years. Jesides, according to Acts xxi. 29, Trophimus was with the apostle in Jerusalem. Wieseler can only get over this by the following artificial combination : “The ship in which Paul as a prisoner embarked at Caesarea in order to be brought to Rome, went to Adramyttium in the neighbourhood of Troas. With it Paul went as far as Myra in Lycia. There he embarked in another ship which sailed direct for Italy. Trophimus accompanied the apostle to Myra; there he stayed behind on account of his illness, in order to go on with the ship from Adramyttium as far as Miletus, which was probably his place of residence, and where he wished to stay.’ This arrangement, artificial to begin with, is contradicted by the apostle’s expression in chap. iv. 20. Besides, all this could not but have been long known to Timothy, who was with Paul in the interval, known all the more if, as Wieseler thinks, the apostle had intended to take Trophimus with him to Rome as a witness against his Jewish accusers. It is an unsatisfactory device to maintain that the emphasis is laid on Τρόφιμον δέ and on ἀσθενοῦντα, and that Paul by this remark wished to remind Timothy only of the feeble health of Trophimus, which might even prevent him from coming to Rome. The sentence has anything but the form of such a reminder.—Otto attacks the point in a different way, by questioning the presence of Trophimus in Jerusalem at the time when the apostle was put in prison. He asserts that “ἦσων προεωρακότες in Acts xxi. 29 must be referred to the apostle’s presence in Jeru- salem four years previously, since according to Acts xx. 4 Trophimus accompanied the apostle on his return from his third missionary journey only into Asia and no farther. Against this, however, it is to be noted that the apostle’s companions there named did really go farther, as is plain from Acts xxi. 12; for by the ἡμεῖς Luke cannot have meant himself alone, but himself and the companions who had accompanied the apostle on his journey to Macedonia. ἄχρι τῆς ᾿Ασίας in Acts xx. 4 simply means that these companions of the apostle remained with him till he had come to the 24 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. place where the passage across to Asia was made. There they left him, crossing over to Troas without him; but later on, Paul again came to them here, and then they continued their journey in company. No hint is given by Luke that they remained at Miletus after the apostle’s departure. There is therefore no ground for assuming that Trophimus was not in Jerusalem when the apostle was put in prison. Rather the opposite. It is inconceivable that the Asiatic Jews should after so long a time have used a suspicion formed four years before as a ground of complaint against the apostle. We do not see why they should not have brought it forward when it was formed. Besides, according to Otto’s hypothesis, these same Asiatic Jews must be regarded as having been present in Jerusalem on both occasions.—In regard to the mention of Erastus, Wieseler is of opinion that he too was important to the apostle as a witness, and that the apostle had sum- moned him to Rome either through Timothy himself or through Onesiphorus, but that he stayed on nevertheless at Corinth, and that this is what Paul now communicates to Timothy. But there is nowhere the slightest trace of such a summons. Further, the order in which ver. 20 occurs, by no means makes it probable that it referred to judicial matters. Something was said of these in vv. 16 and 17, and these verses could not but have been connected with ver. 20 if the reference in them had been the same; they are, however, separated from it by the greetings in ver. 19. On the other hand, they are immediately attached to the apostle’s summons to Timothy to come to him πρὸ χειμῶνος. It is more than probable that vv. 20 and 21 stand in a similar relation to each other as do vv. 9 and 10. In the latter, Timothy knew that Demas, Crescens, and Titus were with Paul in Rome, and so Paul announces that they had left him; in the former, Timothy was in the belief that Erastus and Trophimus had accompanied Paul to Rome, and so Paul now announces that this was not the case. In this way everything stands in a simple, natural connection.— Otto’s explanation, too, is unsatisfactory. According to Acts xix. 22, Paul during his stay in Ephesus sent Erastus along with Timothy to Macedonia. Otto now supposes that both INTRODUCTION. 25 were to make this journey by way of Corinth, and there await the apostle. But afterwards Paul changed the plan of his journey ; he himself proceeding to Macedonia without touching at Corinth, and sending for Timothy to come thither, while Erastus remained at that time in Corinth, to which fact allusion is now made in "Εραστος ἔμεινεν ἐν Κορίνθῳ. This, however, is inconceivable. If the case were as Otto thinks, Timothy himself could not but know very well that Erastus, with whom he had made the journey to Corinth, had been left behind in Corinth. And what purpose was the allusion to serve, since the stay of Erastus in Corinth some years before could in no way furnish a reason for his not being with Paul in Rome after the lapse of these years ?— Further, if we suppose that the epistle was composed during the apostle’s imprisonment in Rome, which is known to us, the charge given to Timothy in chap. iv. 13 is very strange. According to Otto, Paul left behind the articles here men- tioned when he set out from Troas, as is mentioned in Acts xx. 13, because they were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, and he intended to return into those parts later. But according to Acts xx. 22—25, the apostle at that time cherished no such intention; and if those articles were a hindrance to his journeying on foot, his companions might have taken them on board ship.—Finally, it is worth noting that in the epistle no mention whatever is made of Aris- tarchus, who had accompanied the apostle to Rome. Otto tries to explain this by saying that Paul had only to mention his actual fellow-labourers in the gospel, and that Aristarchus was not one of these, but simply looked after the apostle’s bodily maintenance. This, however, is one of Otto’s many assertions, which are only too deficient in actual as well as apparent foundation. The result of unbiassed investigation is that the imprisonment of the Apostle Paul in Rome, during which he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, is not the imprisonment mentioned by Luke, during which he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon. RemMark.—Otto has attempted, not only to weaken the strength of the arguments against the composition of the epistle 26 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. during that imprisonment, but also to give some as positive proofs that the epistle could have been written only at that time. One such argument is that, if the epistle is to belong to a second imprisonment of the apostle in Rome, the situation of the apostle during it must have been the same as during the firstimprisonment. He argues that this is altogether incredible, since the apostle’s favourable situation during the former had its ground only in an ἄνεσις quite unusual and produced by eculiar circumstances, an ἄνεσις Which was much more consider- able than that granted to him in Caesarea. The latter consisted only in this, that it was permitted to him to be attended by his own followers—whether kinsmen or servants; it was not per- mitted to have personal intercourse with his helpers in the apostleship, as was granted to him in Rome. This assertion rests, however, on an unjustifiable interpretation of the passage in Acts xxiv. 23, where Otto leaves the concluding words: ἢ προσέρχεσθαι αὐτῷ, altogether out of consideration. Certainly the apostle’s custodia militaris in Rome had a mild form; but there is no proof that it may not have been so during his second im- prisonment, all the less that its occasion and special circumstances are wholly unknown to us. Otto further asserts that about 63 there prevailed at the imperial court, through the influence of Poppaea, a feeling favourable to the Jews, that this feeling caused the apostle’s confinement to be made more severe after lasting two years, and that this is even clearly indicated by Luke in the word ἀκωλύτως, Acts xxviil. 31. But Otto himself makes this friendly disposition to the Jews active even in 61: how then is it credible that not till 63 had it any influence in aggra- vating the apostle’s situation? The assertion is erroneous that Luke’s ἀκωλύτως Indicates any such thing.—TIf it were the case that Nero was influenced by Poppaea’s favourable inclination to the Jews to cast the blame of the fire in 64 on the Christians, it does not follow from this that Paul was not set free in the spring of 63, though this favourable disposition of the court towards the Jews might explain his condemnation in 64 after a brief imprisonment.—Wieseler thinks that “the chief judicial process against Paul and his πρώτη ἀπολογίω before the emperor and his council took place only after the two first years of his imprisonment in Rome ;” against which Otto maintains that by the πρώτη ἀπολογία in 2 Tim. iv. 16 we are to understand the process before Festus, mentioned in Acts xxv. 6-12. If Otto were right in this assertion, the Second Epistle to Timothy must have been written during the first imprisonment at Rome. But in order to confirm this assertion, Otto sees himself compelled not only to give an unwarrantable interpretation of the expres- INTRODUCTION. 27 sions in 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17 (see on this the exposition of the passage), but also to assume that Acts’ xxiv. 1-21 mentions only the preliminary process—the nominis delatio, not the actio. For the proof of this, Otto appeals to the use of ἀπεχρίθη τε ὁ Παῦλος instead of ἀπελογήσατο In Acts xxiv. 10. This, however, mani- festly proves nothing, since Paul himself distinctly called his speech an ἀπολογία (ver. 10: τὸ περὶ ἐμαυτοῦ ἀπολογοῦμαι). The whole process before Felix wears so decidedly, from beginning to end, the character of the actio, that it cannot in any sense be considered simply a nominis delatio. Otto, too, falls into con- tradiction with himself by saying elsewhere that the nominis delatio took place in Jerusalem when Festus went there after entering on his office—In defence of his opinion that the epistle was written in the beginning of the first Roman imprisonment, Otto appeals further to the peculiarities which are already apparent in the first seven verses, and insists that these peculiarities can only be explained from the circumstances of that period of the apostle’s life. As peculiarities of this nature, Otto mentions: (1) The emphasis laid on holding fast by the promise and faith of the fathers, both on the part of the apostle and on that of Timothy; (2) The apostle’s allusion to the earliest circumstances of Timothy’s life and ministry ; (3) Timothy’s irresolution in regard to ministering as a missionary ; and (4) the repeated mention and discussion of imprisonment on the apostle’s part. Taking up these points in succession, we may note the following :—(1) Not only at the time indicated, but from the very beginning of his apostolic labours, the apostle “had to consider, regarding the gospel, whether it was compatible with the faith inherited from the fathers, or involved a depart- ure therefrom.” It would be strange if the apostle had first been led to such consideration by the accusations of the Jews before Felix and Festus. (2) It is quite natural that the apostle should make less mention of the circumstances of Timothy’s previous life and ministry in the First Epistle than in the Second. The former is more official in character, the latter more personal. If that allusion to Timothy’s earliest circumstances is to be inexplicable after Timothy had already given proof of himself in the apostle’s imprisonment in Rome, then it must be quite as inexplicable that Paul, in the beginning of his imprisonment, says not a syllable to Timothy to remind him of the fidelity which he had shown to the apostle on his third missionary journey. (3) The Second Epistle does, indeed, presuppose that Timothy had slackened in his zeal to labour and suffer for the gospel; but this might have happened later quite as much as earlier. Besides, the decline of zeal was not to such an extent 28 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. as Otto in exaggeration says, “that he had almost abandoned his office through anxiety and timidity.” (4) In the other epistles, written during his imprisonment, the apostle makes mention of it not lessthanin this. There is, however, no reason for saying that in this one he designedly explains the signifi- cance of his imprisonment in a way which suits only the beginning of the imprisonment in Rome. From the survey we have made, it is clear that the com- position of all three epistles does not fall into that period of Paul’s life described in Acts, and that there is nothing in the same period to account for their origin. In spite of these opposing difficulties, it might be held as not absolutely impossible that one or other of them was written some time during that period; but there are two considerations of special weight against this—(1) There is the same difficulty with all three in finding a place in the period specified for the epistle, and in each case combinations more or less improbable, and of a very ingenious nature, have to beused. (2) Zhe very events and circumstances in the life of the apostle which are pre- supposed in these epistles must be regarded as omitted in Acts, which is not the case to the same extent with any other of the Pauline Epistles. And even apart from all this, there are other weighty reasons against assigning their composition to that period—reasons contained in the structure of the epistles themselves. As to their contents, there runs alike through the three Epistles, as before remarked, a polemic against certain heretics. These heretics are of quite another kind than those with whom Paul has to do in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans. They are similar to those against whom he contended in the Epistle to the Colossians —heretics, of such a nature as could only have arisen at a later time, and whose appearance in the church is indicated as something future in Paul’s address to the Ephesian pres- byters at Miletus. Christianity must have already become an aggressive power, before such a mixture of Christian with heathen - Jewish speculation could be formed as we find in these heretics—Then as to the form of the epistles, ze. the diction peculiar to them, it has manifestly another colour- ing than in the other Pauline Epistles, so much so that we INTRODUCTION. 29 cannot explain the difference from the fact “that these epistles were written to the apostle’s pupils and assistants, the others to churches and members of churches” (Otto). It is incon- ceivable that the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus should have been written almost at the same time with the First Epistle to the Corinthians, in the period between the composition of the Epistle to the Galatians and that of the Epistle to the Romans; and it is equally inconceivable that the Second Epistle to Timothy should have been written at a time so much later than those two with which it stands in every way so closely connected. The hypothesis brings together things different in kind, and sunders those that are like one another. ReMARK. — Otto’s attempt to prove the close relationship between the First Epistle to Timothy and the First Epistle to the Corinthians—both of which he refers to the same church and assigns to the same period—must be considered entirely unsuccessful. The contrasts of the epistles compel Otto him- self to take some precautions in order to blunt the edge of certain objections to his assertion. His precautionary remarks are—(1) That the image of the condition of the Corinthian church, which was in his mind when writing the Epistle to Timothy, had become different when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians; and (2) that the apostle “had to write in one fashion to the church, and in another fashion to his deputies.” There are, indeed, in the epistles some points of agreement, which, however, may be satisfactorily explained by their common authorship; in both, attention is directed to heretics, and both refer more specially to the inner cir- cumstances of the church than the apostle’s other epistles. Otto has only succeeded in making it probable that the heretics in the two epistles were the same. He arbitrarily constructs for himself, out of the apostle’s theses in the Epistles to the Corinthians, an image of the antitheses of the heretics, and unjustifiably refers to the latter trains of thought which are quite unsuitable. Nevertheless, he has not succeeded in proving that the heresy spoken of in the Pastoral Epistles, the nature of which may be gathered from the expressions : μῦθοι, γενεαλογίαι, etc., was also the doctrine of the heretics in Corinth. The result of an unbiassed investigation is—(1) That all 30 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. three epistles belong to one and the same period of the apostle’s life, and (2) that this period does not fall into that portion of the apostle’s life with which we are more closely acquainted through Acts and the other Pauline Epistles. Their composition must accordingly belong to a later time in the apostle’s life; and this is possible only if Paul was released from the imprisonment at Rome mentioned by Luke, and was afterwards a second time imprisoned there. The narrative in Acts cannot be used to disprove the historical truth of such a release and renewed imprisonment on the apostle’s part,’ since, so far as it is concerned, the apostle’s martyrdom at the close of the imprisonment there described is as much an hypothesis as the release. It depends on the notices of the elder Fathers. In this respect, however, we must not overlook the fact that in general their communications regarding the apostle are only scanty. In their writings they are not so much concerned for historical truth as for exhortation and dogma; their writings serve the present, and cast only an occasional glance on the facts of the past. Hence we are not surprised that they give but little information regarding the events of Paul’s life, and that little only by allusions. — The first clear and distinct notice of Paul’s release from the imprisonment mentioned by Luke is found in Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 22): τότε μὲν (ic. after the lapse of the two years, Acts xxviii. 30) οὖν ἀπολογησάμενον αὖθις ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος διακονίαν λόγος ἔχει στείλασθαι τὸν ἀπόστολον, δεύτερον δ᾽ ἐπιβάντα τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει τῷ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν (1... Nero) τελειωθῆναι μαρτυρίῳ" ἐν ᾧ δεσμοῖς ἐχόμενος τὴν πρὸς Τιμόθεον δεύτεραν ἐπιστολὴν συντάττει, ὁμοῦ σημαίνων τὴν τε πρότεραν αὐτῷ γενομένην ἀπολογίαν καὶ τὴν παραπόδας τελείωσιν. This testimony of Eusebius has, however, not been left unquestioned. It has been declared invalid, (1) because Eusebius himself does not appeal to reliable authorities, but only to tradition (Adyos); and (2) because his conviction of the accuracy of this tradition rests only on the Second Epistle to Timothy itself, and particularly 1 Otto came forward in 1860 as a decided opponent of this conjecture, and in the same year there appeared in its defence the work, Saint Paul; sa double captivité ἃ Rome, étude historique, par L. Rutffet. INTRODUCTION. 9. on his explanation of 2 Tim. iv. 10, 17. But, on the other hand, it is to be observed that the formula λόγος ἔχει (for which there also occur the expressions: λόγος κατέχει, παρειλήφαμεν, ἱστορεῖται, ἔγνωμεν, ἐμανθάνομεν, ἡ παράδοσις περιέχει) does not, in the mouth of Eusebius, quite mean “as the story goes” (Otto), but is used by him when he wishes to quote tradition as such, without intending’ to mark it as erroneous. Hence his testimony proves this, if nothing more, that in his time the opinion prevailed that Paul was released again from that imprisonment. Then it is to be noted that Eusebius does indeed explain the quoted passage incorrectly, by understanding the words: ἐῤῥύσθην ἐκ στόματος λέοντος, of the release from the first imprisonment, but that this incorrect explanation arose from his conviction agreeing with the tradition, and not the tradition from the explanation, as Rudow thinks (in his prize treatise, De argu- mentis histor., quibus . . . epistolarum pastoral. origo Paulina enpugnata est, Gottingen 1852): in illam sententiam adduc- tus est interpretatione falsa ... verborum ἐῤῥύσθην κ.τ.λ., quae quum ad Neronem referret, putavit, apostolum jam semel saevo . . . Neronis judicio evasisse.— Though it may seem strange that Eusebius quotes no definite testimony from an older writer in support of the correctness of the tradition, still this proves nothing against it, all the less that he mentions no testimony which contradicts it. For the truth of that tradition some earlier documents seem also to speak. In the first place, the passage in Clemens Rom., 1 Epist. ad Corinth. chap. v. The Codex Alex. is the only ms. of it preserved,” and its text, as amended by the conjectures of the editor Junius, runs thus: διὰ ζῆλον [Ὁ] Παῦλος ὑπομονῆς βραβεῖον [ἔπεσχ]εν . .. κῆρυξ [γενόμενος ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ ‘ It is clear that Eusebius by this formula does not mean to denote simply a vague report, for he not only directly recognises the accuracy of the λόγος under discussion, but also confirms it by his interpretation. * Translator’s Note.—Another ms., fortunately unmutilated, was discovered in the library of the Holy Sepulchre, at Fanari in Constantinople, and was published in 1875 by Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae. Later still, a Syriac MS., purchased for the University of Cambridge, has been found to contain a translation of Clement’s two epistles.—See Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. I. p. 557, 32 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. καὶ ἐν [τῇ] δύσει, Tov γενναῖον τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ κλέος ἔλαβεν" δικαιοσύνην διδάξας ὅλον τὸν κόσμον κ[αὶ ἐπὶ] τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως ἐλθὼν καὶ μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμένων, οὕτως ἀπηλλάγη τοῦ κόσμου. If the expression: τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως, means the limits of the west, we can only under- stand it to be Spain, and in that case this passage favours the theory that the apostle was released from the first Roman imprisonment. The reasons urged against this by Meyer, in the fifth edition of his Lpistle to the Romans, are not suffi- cient. Meyer makes appeal to the following facts:—(1) That Clement’s words in general bear a strong impress of oratorical hyperbole; but this is seen at most in the expression: ὅλον τὸν κόσμον, which, however, is sufficiently explained by the previous: ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ x. ἐν τ. δύσει. (2) That Clement speaks from Paul’s point of view; but ἀνατολή and δύσις are simple geographical designations, just like our expressions east and west. (3) That, if Spain were meant, the μαρτυρήσας ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγουμ. would transport us to the scene of a trial in Spain; but that is not the case, since οἱ ἡγούμενοι (note the defin. article) can only be understood as denoting the highest officials of the empire, and besides, in Clement’s time it was known generally that Paul had suf- fered martyrdom in Rome. (4) That Clement otherwise would indicate by the οὕτως that Paul’s death took place in Spain; but οὕτως does nothing but bring together the pre- ceding facts.” The meaning is: in this way, viz. after he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the limits of the west and “borne testimony before those in power” . . .; οὕτως is used in the very same way here as shortly before in the passage about Peter: οὐχ ἕνα, οὐδὲ δύο, ἀλλὰ πλείονας ὑπήνεγκεν πόνους, καὶ οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς So&ys—That Clement did not mean Rome by this expression, is shown by the fact that he was himself in Rome, and would therefore hardly 1 The text, according to Dressel and others, runs somewhat differently. See on this point Meyer’s Comment. iiber den Brief an die Romer, 5th ed. p. 15. Meyer remarks: ‘‘Still the various readings of the different revisions of the . . . text make no material difference in regard to this question.” 2 Hofmann (D. heil. Schr. Thi. V. p. 8) wrongly refers οὕσως only to διὰ ζῆλον; but the wide interval between οὕτως and διὰ ζῆλον is decisive against this. INTRODUCTION. ae speak of that city as the τέρμα τ. δύσεως, and also by the very emphatic position of those words. If Clement had not wished to point to some place beyond Rome, he would have been content with the expressions previously used, since they would have been perfectly sufficient to denote the apostle’s labours in the west, and therefore in Rome. Several exposi- tors, however, deny the proposed interpretation of the word τέρμα as equivalent to limits. The explanation given by Schrader and Hilgenfeld: “the boundary limits,’ and that by Matthies: “the centre of the west,” are altogether arbitrary. Otto’s explanation seems to have more justification. Follow- ing Baur and Schenkel, Otto seeks to prove, on “ philological grounds which they have not supplied,” that by τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσεως we are to understand “the goal in the west appointed to the apostle.” He wishes, in the secondary use of the word, to maintain the original meaning, according to which τὸ τέρμα denotes “the goal-point, the goal-pillar, in the hippodrome and the stadium.” He supplies with τὸ τέρμα the genitive of the τρέχων, who in this place is Paul, and takes the genitive τῆς δύσεως as the genitive of the stadium. But the very last quotations which Otto brings forward from the classics to support his assertion, show his error. In the passage, Eurip. Ale. 646: ἐπὶ τέρμ᾽ ἥκων βίου, the pronoun is not to be supplied with τέρμα, but with Biov; it does not mean “come to fis goal of life,” but “come to the goal of his life.” So also with the passage in Suppl. 369, where we have : ἐπὶ τέρμα ἐμῶν κακῶν ἱκόμενος, and not ἐπὶ τέρμα ἐμὸν κακῶν. Accordingly, in the present passage, if the third personal pronoun were to be supplied, it should be with δύσεως and not with τέρμα; but that would be meaningless. But, further, it is arbitrary here, where there is no hint of a figure taken from running a race, to supply with τὸ τέρμα the notion of the apostolic ministry, separating τῆς δύσεως from its close connection with τὸ τέρμα, and taking it as equivalent to ἐν τῇ δύσει ; all the more that, when so understood, the words are a somewhat superfluous addition. Besides, it is improper to consider τῆς δύσεως as the stadium, and then to place the τέρμα not at the end of it, but somewhere in the middle. If τέρμα in the secondary application is to retain its original meaning, τὸ PASTORAL EPISTLES. C 34 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. τέρμα τῆς δύσεως is either to be explained: “the goal to which the δύσις extends,” or, more naturally: “the goal which is reached by passing through the δύσις. This may be the ocean which bounds the δύσις, but quite as well the extreme land of the west. If the text is rightly restored by Junius, appeal may also be made to this passage for the apostle’s journey to Spain, but certainly not for successful Jabours there, which rather appears to be excluded by the use of the simple ἐλθών. Wieseler, however, has his doubts about the correct- ness of the restoration, as he believes that the original text was not καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα x«.7.r., but καὶ ὑπὸ τὸ τέρμα. This he translates: “after he had taught righteousness to the whole world, and had appeared before the highest power of the west, and had borne witness before the first,’ etc. His explanation, however, is contrary to the meaning of the word, for τέρμα does sometimes occur—only in connection with éxyew—in the sense of “the highest power or decision,’ but it never denotes “the supreme government.” Besides, this conjecture and its explanation would designate the supreme imperial government simply as that of the west, while its authority extended equally over the east. Least of all would Clement, who, according to Wieseler’s own expression, “is obviously tuning a panegyric on Paul,” have used any limited description for that supreme authority. If he had understood τὸ τέρμα in that sense, he would surely have added to the word not simply τῆς δύσεως, but—as was the actual fact— τῆς ἀνατολῆς καὶ τῆς δύσεως. Still less can Rudow’s opinion (in the work quoted, p. 7) be justified, that we should not read ἐπί, but ὡς, and explain it as equivalent to “paene ad finem imperii occidentalis ;” for on the one hand this gives to ὡς an impossible signification, and on the other it attributes to Clement a very commonplace thought.’ The second passage is found in the Muratorian Canon, 1 Wieseler’s other opinion is arbitrary, that in the words “‘ waprupicus iwi σῶν ἡγουμένων " the ἡγούμενοι are the principes who composed the conciliwm which the emperor was wont to consult in his judgments. 2 It is strange that. Rudow, in his conjecture and its explanation, does not understand Spain by τέρμα +. δυσ., but Rome (τὸ τέρμα «. δυσ., non ad Hispaniam sed ad Romam referendum puto), which would make the meaning to be that Paul had come almost to Rome. INTRODUCTION. 35 composed about A.D. 170. It runs thus: Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scribta sunt. Lucas obtime Theo- phile comprindit, quia sub praesentia ejus singula gerebantur, sicuti et semote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed pro- fectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis. From these words, in themselves unintelligible, this much at least is clear, that Paul’s journey to Spain was the subject of tradition in the author’s time. Even if, as Wieseler thinks, the word “omittit” has been dropped after proficiscentis, the words do not say that the journey did not take place, or that it was doubtful and disputed, but only that Luke did not mention it. —Otto conjectures that in the author’s time some began, for ecclesiastical purposes, to maintain the journey into Spain to be an historical fact. This conjecture, as well as the other, that the original text of the Canon afterwards received many interpolatory additions, is a mere makeshift in order to confirm, against the testimony of the Canon, the hypothesis that Paul did not make the journey to Spain.” From this passage it follows that tradition preserved the: report of a journey made to Spain by the apostle, but not of successful /abowrs there.” This (confirmed by the formula in Eusebius: λόγος ἔχει) agrees with the release of the apostle from the imprisonment in Rome, mentioned by Luke, since the journey could only have taken place if Paul were again at liberty.—As nothing can be shown to be decidedly inaccurate in this tradition so as to prove its impossibility, or even its improbability,’ we are justified in using this result in 1 Τὸ will be sufficient here to quote some of the conjectures proposed. Otto thinks that for stcuéi and sed, sic uti and sic et should be read. Laurent (Nevtest. Studien, p. 109) makes the conjecture : sicuti et semota passione Petri evidenter declarat et profectione Pauli ab Urbe Spaniam proficiscentis. Many have tried to make the passage clear by retranslating it into Greek. Schott (Der erste Brief Petri, p. 353) translates it : καθὼς καὶ, παρεὶς μαρτυρίαν μὲν φὴν σοῦ Πέτρου φανερῶς ἀποσημαΐίνει, πορείαν δὲ τὴν τοῦ Παύλον ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως εἰς σὴν Σπανίαν πορευομένουι Hofmann (D. ἢ. Schr. pp. 9 f.): xadds καὶ παρεὶς τὸ σοῦ Πέσρου πάξος σαφῶς δηλοῖ, Παύλου δὲ τὴν πορείαν εἰς τὴν Σπανίαν πορευομένου. Comp. Meyer's Rémerbrief, 5th ed. pp. 17 1. ἢ When this is observed, it may be explained also how Innocent I. (A.D. 416) could write : manifestum in omnem Italiam, Gallias, Hispanias, Africam atque Siciliam . . . nullum instituisse ecclesias, nisi eas, quas venerabilis ap. Petrus aut ejus successores constituerint sacerdotes. 3 Th ᾷ f Ori - E Ῥ. iti Ἂ Σ Ser \ vu Z > \ ty, ‘ € words of Origen in Euseb. 111. 1: ci δὲ; περὶ Παύλου λέγειν ἀπὸ Ἱερουσαλὴμ 36 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. determining the date at which our epistles were composed. If we can find no suitable date for any one of them in the apostle’s life, down to his first imprisonment in Rome; if, at the same time, the composition of all three necessarily belongs to one and the same period of the apostle’s life, and the con- tents of the epistles point to a later period,—then we are surely justified in assuming that they were written after the imprison- ment recorded in Acts, the First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus in the period between this first and a second imprisonment at Rome, and the Second Epistle to Timothy during the second. This view—if we take for granted the genuineness of the epistles—is the only one tenable after the investigation we have made, and hence also more recently it has been accepted by the defenders of their authenticity (even by Bleek, who, however, disputes the authenticity of the First Epistle to Timothy), with the exception of Matthies, Wieseler, and Otto.—The answer to the question, What date is to be assigned to the second imprisonment? depends on the date fixed for the first; and for this the year of Festus’ entry on office furnishes a fixed point, since Paul arrived at Rome in the spring of the following year—lIf, with Anger, Wieseler, Hofmann, we suppose that Festus entered on office in the year 60, then Paul was released from the first imprisonment in 63, and the second imprisonment took place either after or before the burning of Rome and the consequent persecution of the ‘Christians (in the summer of 64). The first supposition seems to be opposed by the fact that in the Pastoral Epistles there is not the slightest allusion to this persecution, while the second gives, from the spring of 63 to the summer of 64, too μέχρι σοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκότο: σὸ εὐαγγέλιον σοῦ Χρισσοῦ καὶ ὕστερον ἐν στῇ Ῥώμῃ ἐσὶ Νέρωνος μεμιαρτυρηκότος, do not exclude the journey to Spain (against Meyer), but any apostolic dabowrs there. On the whole, however, too much should not be inferred from these brief summaries, for otherwise it might be concluded from these words that Paul had preached only from Jerusalem to Illyria, and not in Rome.—It is of still less importance that there is no mention of any release of the apostle in the Hist. apostolica of pseudo-Abdias. 1 Kolbe, too (in areview of Hofmann’s commentary, Zeitschr. f. die luth. Theol. u. K. 1875, No. 3), will acknowledge no second imprisonment of the apostle, which he holds to be an unnecessary hypothesis, ‘‘ not necessary after Wieseler in so natural a manner (!) had assigned to the Pastoral Epistles their proper place in the apostle’s life.” INTRODUCTION, οι short time for the events to which the Pastoral Epistles bear witness. It is true that the objection to the first supposition may be weakened by dating the apostle’s martyrdom as late as possible, say in 67 or 68. For this we have the support of the old tradition; but on the one hand the tradition is very uncertain,’ and on the other we would have the apostle labour- ing for so many years after his first imprisonment, that it would be inexplicable why not a scrap of information has been pre- served regarding it. The objection to the second supposition is of less importance, for, even if the time allowed be short, it is not too short. The events would be placed in the follow- ing order :—In the spring of 63, Paul leaves Rome; he lands at Crete, where he spends a short time only, and, leaving Titus behind, proceeds to Ephesus, where he meets Timothy. Soon after he crosses to Macedonia, and from there writes the Epistle to Timothy; then somewhat later, after resolving to pass the winter in Nicopolis in Epirus, he writes the Epistle to Titus. Towards the end of winter he returns to Ephesus by way of Troas, and then proceeds, without halting there, by Miletus, where he leaves Trophimus behind sick, and by Corinth, where Erastus does not join him as he wished, to Spain; and from there (perhaps as a prisoner) to Rome. In this way he might still arrive at Rome some time before the burning, and undergo his first trial, after which he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy.” Shortly before the burning, or in the persecution occasioned by it, the apostle suffered martyr- dom, and by the sword, according to the testimony of tradition. Wiesinger grants, indeed, that in this view the favourable treatment of the imprisoned apostle is more natural than by In Jerome (Catal. c. 15) it rans : Decimo quarto Neronis anno eodem die quo Petrus Romae pro Christo capite truncatus sepultusque est in via Ostiensi. * Against this reckoning, Otto raises two points in particular—(1) the shortness of the period indicated, and (2) the apostle’s summons in 2 Tim. iv. 9 and 21. As to the first point, Otto grants that about five months might be sufficient for the journeys from Rome to Nicopolis, but thinks that the time from March to the middle of July 64 is too short for the journey to Spain and Rome, since the apostle ‘‘ must have preached in Spain, been taken prisoner, undergone a process before the provincial court, and again made appeal to Caesar.” But these pre- suppositions are not to be considered as at all necessary, since the actual course of events may have been quite different. As to the second point, Otto maintains that Timothy could get from Ephesus to Rome in one month, and that if the 38 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. supposing that he was imprisoned after the burning; but still he thinks that he cannot agree to it. His chief grounds against it are—(1) that the Second Epistle to Timothy is brought too close to the first ; (2) that the apostle, according to 1 Tim. 11. 14 ff, did not stay so short a time in Ephesus ; (3) that it is inconceivable how the Asiatics (2 Tim. i. 15-18) should be still in Rome during the time of the apostle’s imprisonment, and how Timothy had already been informed of their conduct. But, on the other hand, it is to be observed (1) that there is no hint of the Second Epistle being written a long time after the First, the agreement between them rather testifying against this; (2) that from 1 Tim. in. 14 ff no conclusion can be drawn of a long stay made by the apostle in Ephesus; (3) that the verb ἀπεστράφησαν in 2 Tim. i. 15 does not imply the presence of the Asiatics in Rome. Ruffet agrees in the representation here given, but remarks: Huther fait mourir Paul en 64, pendant la grande persécution. 17] est difficile, dans ce cas, d’expliquer le proces de Paul. He gives 66 as the year of the apostle’s death. Against him it must be maintained that there is no ground for assuming that the process was carried out formally, and that it is arbitrary to assign 66 as the year of the apostle’s death. REMARK.—Meyer (Apgesch. 3d ed. 1861, Introd. sect. 4) has sought on two grounds to prove, against Wieseler, that the retirement of Felix from office did not take place in the year 60, but in 61. His first ground is, that it follows from Josephus, Vita, § 3, that in the year 63 Josephus went to Rome in order to obtain the release of some priests who had been imprisoned by Felix, and sent thither. Now, if Felix retired from office in 60, Josephus would have put off his journey too long. But, on the other hand, before undertaking this journey, Josephus had to await the result of the complaint (Aniig. xx. 8. 10) made to the emperor against Felix by the Jews; and when same time is to be given for forwarding the Epistle, Paul could not write in the beginning of July, but only in the middle or end of August, that Timothy was to make haste to come to him before winter! But even this assertion has only an apparent justification, since it rests on the unproved presupposition that Paul forwarded the letter by the shortest route, and supposed that Timothy would and could choose the shortest route for his journey. Besides, it isto be observed that | σαχέως and πρὸ χειμῶνος are not immediately connected with one another. SE eens INTRODUCTION. 39 Felix was acquitted, it could only appear to Josephus to be unfavourable to his purpose. He would hardly, therefore, undertake his journey immediately after he had received news of it. Meyer’s second ground is, that from Josephus, Anfiq. xx. 8. 11, it is clear that Poppaea was already Nero’s wife at the time when Festus entered on office, and she became so in May 62. But the passage in question does not at all prove that. What Josephus says is this. About the time when a great impostor was destroyed with his followers by the troops which Festus, on entering office, sent against him, Agrippa built in Jerusalem the great house from which he could see into the temple. The Jews built a wall to prevent his looking into the temple, and, after vainly negotiating on the matter with Festus, they brought the case before Nero by means of ambassadors. Nero gave them a favourable answer, τῇ γυναικὶ Ποππηΐῳ ὑπὲρ τῶν ᾿Ιουδωΐων δεηθείσῃ χαριζόμενος. Josephus does not say how much time was taken up in building the house, in erecting the wall, in negotiating with Festus, in sending the ambassadors, in awaiting Nero’s answer; but it is more than probable that some years must have passed while these things were going on. Besides, it is at least questionable whether the use of γυνή implies that Poppaea was then Nero’s wife. — If Meyer's reckoning were still to be correct, the apostle’s release would have taken place shortly before the fire. The fact that there is no allusion to Nero’s persecution in the epistles would have to be explained in this way, that the apostle was already made acquainted with it when he was with Timothy in Ephesus. —Dr. H. Lehmann (Chronologische Lestimmung der in der Apgyesch. Kap. 13-28, erzthlten Begebenheiten, in the Stud. u. ΑΚ τέ. 1858, No. 2, pp. 312-319) gives the date of Festus’ entry on office quite differently from Wieseler and Meyer. Accord- ing to Lehmann’s investigation, the year 58 is both the earliest and the latest possible date for the recall of Felix. He believes that Felix was not recalled after the year 58, because Felix was acquitted from the charge raised against him by the Jews through the intercession of his brother Pallas, who, according to the express statement of Josephus, was then in high favour with Nero. But Pallas was in favour with Nero only till 59; his influence was very closely connected with that of Nero’s mother, Agrippina, so that her downfall and murder in 59 would necessarily deprive Pallas of Nero’s favour, just as some years later (in 62) he was poisoned by Nero, who coveted his treasures. — Lehmann is of opinion also that Felix was not recalled before 58, because the revolt of the Egyptians (Acts xxi. 38) cannot have taken place before 56.— According to 40 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. this, Paul would therefore be at liberty again in the spring of 61, which certainly would be a result very favourable to dating the composition of the Pastoral Epistles before Nero’s per- secution. As to the place of composition, Paul wrote the First Epistle to Timothy after his departure from Ephesus, probably in ~ Macedonia, or at least in the neighbourhood of that country, while Timothy was in Ephesus, In accordance with this, the subscription in Awet. Synops. runs: ἀπὸ μωκεδονίας, while in the Coptic and Erpenian versions Athens is set down quite arbitrarily as the place of composition. In several Mss., on the other hand, we find the subscription which has passed into the Received Text: ἀπὸ “αοδικείας, ἥτις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς Πακατιανῆς . in Cod. A simply ἀπὸ “αοδικείας. This place is assigned to it also in the Peschito, the Aethiopic version, in Oecumenius, Theophylact, etc. The addition τῆς ΤΠΙακατιανῆς points to a division which arose in the fourth century. The opinion that the epistle was written in Laodicea is probably grounded on the fact that this epistle was regarded as identical with the ἐπιστολὴ ἐκ Δαοδικείας mentioned in Col. iv. 16. Theophylact says: τίς δὲ ἣν ἡ ἐκ “Λαοδικείας ; ἡ πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτη, αὕτη yap ἐκ Δαοδικείας ἐγράφη. The place in which the Epistle to Titus was written can only be so far determined, that it was on the apostle’s journey © from Crete to Nicopolis. The subscription in the Received Text runs: πρὸς Titov τῆς Κρητῶν ἐκκλησίας πρῶτον ἐπίσκο- πον χειροτονηθέντα ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Νικοπόλεως τῆς Μακεδονίας. This has, however, arisen out of a misconception of chap. iii, 12, where the word ἐκεῖ proves that Paul, at the time of composing the epistle, was not yet in Nicopolis. —If the epistle was written on the apostle’s journey, between the first and second imprisonment at Rome, we cannot, with Guericke, assume that it was composed in Ephesus; for if Paul had already in Ephesus the intention of passing the winter at Nicopolis, he could not, after leaving Ephesus and arriving in Macedonia, write to Timothy that he thought of coming again to him soon, 1 Tim. iii.14. The Epistle to Titus can there- fore have been written only after the First Epistle to Timothy. INTRODUCTION. 41 While composing the latter, he was, indeed, thinking of a speedy return to Ephesus, but he considered it possible then that his return might be delayed (1 Tim. ΠῚ. 15). This actually took place when he resolved to pass the winter at Nicopolis, after which resolution he wrote to Titus. As to the Second Epistle to Timothy, there can be no doubt that it was written in Rome, as many subscriptions say. Only Bottger (Beztrdge, etc., part 2) supposes that Paul wrote it in his imprisonment at Caesarea—which, however, rests on the utterly incorrect presupposition that Paul was only five days a prisoner in Rome. SECTION 4.—THE HERETICS IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. All three epistles contain warnings against heretics. These are described as follows :— First Epistle to Timothy.—They have left the path of faith and of a good conscience (i. 5: ὧν (ie. καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς Kal πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου) ἀστοχήσαντες ; 1,19: ἥν (dc. ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν) τινες ἀπωσάμενοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν; vi. 21: περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἠστόχησαν). They are estranged from the truth (vi. 5: ἀποστερημένοι τῆς ἀληθείας), and do not abide by the sound doctrine of the gospel (vi. 3). Morally corrupt (vi. 5: διεφθαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν), they have an evil conscience (iv. 3: κεκαυτηριασμένοι τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν). Beclouded with self-conceit (vi. 4: τετύφωτα!), they boast of a special knowledge (vi. 20: τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως), which they seek to spread by teaching (i. ὃ: ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν). Their doctrine is a meaningless, empty, profane babble (1. 6: ματαιολογία: vi. 20: βέβηλοι κενοφονίαι), a doctrine of the devil (iv. 2: διδασκαλίαι δαιμονίων). Its contents are made up of profane and silly myths (i. 4, iv. 7: βέβηλοι καὶ ypawders μῦθοι) and genealogies Gi. 4: γενεαλογίαν, ἀπέραντοι), which only furnish points of controversy and arouse contests of words (i. 4, vi. 4), in which they take a special delight (vi. 4: νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ Aoyouayxias). Without knowing the meaning of the law, they wish to be teachers of it (i. 7: θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσ- 42 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. kano), and add to it arbitrary commands forbidding marriage and the enjoyment of many kinds of food (iv. 3: κωλύοντες γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων) ; by their ascetic life they seek to gain the reputation of piety in order to make worldly gain by it (vi. 5: νομίζοντες, πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν). The Epistle to Titus——The heretics (i. 9: οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες) belong especially to Judaism (i. 10: μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς). While boasting of their special knowledge of God, they lead a godless life (i. 16), condemned by their own conscience (iii. 11: αὐτοκατάκριτος). What they bring forward are Jewish myths (i. 14: προσέχοντες ᾿Ιουδαικοῖς μύθοις), genealogies, points of controversy about the law (iii. 9), and mere commands of men (i. 14: ἐντολαὶ ἀνθρώπων ἀποστρε- φομένων ἀλήθειαν). They are idle babblers (i. 10: ματαιόλογοι), who with their shameful doctrine (i. 11: διδάσκοντες ἃ μὴ δεῖ) seduce hearts (i. 10: φρεναπάται), cause divisions in the church (iii. 10: aipetixol ἄνθρωποι), and draw whole families into destruction (i. 11: ὅλους οἴκους ἀνατρέπουσι) ; and all this—for the sake of shameful gain (i. 11: αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν). Second Epistle to Timothy.—Here, just as in the First Epistle, the heretics are denoted as people who have fallen away from the faith, who are striving against the truth (ii, 18: περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἠστόχησαν; iii. 8: ἀνθίστανται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ... ἀδόκιμοι περὶ τὴν πίστιν ; ii. 25: οἱ ἀντιδια- τιθέμενοι), who are oe corrupt Gi. 8: ἄνθρωποι κατεῷ- θαρμένοι τὸν νοῦν; iii. 13: πονηροὶ ἄνθρωποι), who are in the snare of the devil (ii. 25), so that there already exist among them that godlessness and hypocrisy which, the Spirit declares, will characterize mankind in the last days. They seek to extend their doctrine, which is nothing but an unholy babble of empty myths, and contains nothing but points of controversy ; and this they do by sneaking into houses, and by knowing especially how to befool women (iii. 6), just like _ the Egyptian sorcerers who were opposed to the truth (iii. 8). — Contrary to the truth, they teach that the resurrection has already taken place (i. 18: λέγοντες τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι). Have the Pastoral Epistles to do with one or with several INTRODUCTION. 43 different classes of heretics? Credner (Hinleitung in d. N. Τὸ assumes four different classes. He takes the heretics of the Epistle to Titus to be non-Christians, and those of the two Epistles to Timothy to be apostatized Christians, while he divides the former—in consequence of the μάλιστα, chap. i. 10—into Jews, more precisely Essenes, and into Gentiles who are not further described, the /atter into heretics of the present and heretics of the future (1 Tim. iv. 1 ff; 2 Tim. ii. 2 ff.). — These distinctions are, however, not justifiable, for the expression of ἐκ περιτομῆς does not necessarily denote Jews who are not Christians (comp. Acts xi. 2; Gal. ii. 12), Further, μάλιστα does not establish a difference in regard to the heretics, but only indicates that some were added who were not ἐκ περιτομῆς. Lastly, in 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff. and 2 Tim. 111. 2 ff. the future is certainly spoken of; but there is no hint in either of the passages that a heresy would appear different from the present one. — Thiersch (Versuch zur Herstellung, etce., pp. 236 f. and 273 f.) divides the heretics into three groups—(1) Judaists, 1.6. Judaizing teachers of the law to whom there still clung the spirit of Pharisaism; (2) some spiritualistic Gnostics who had suffered shipwreck in the faith ; (3) impostors. He supposes that the first are mentioned in the Epistle to Titus and in some passages of the First Epistle to Timothy, the second in the First and Second Epistles to Timothy, the last in 2 Tim. iii. But apostasy from the faith is charged not only against those mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 19, but also against those in 1 Tim. i. 3 ff, and in the Second Epistle to Timothy the same characteristics are attributed to the heretics as in the Epistle to Titus; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 23 and Tit. iii 9. ΑΒ to the impostors, they are not at all distinguished from the other heretics as a special class. — , Wiesinger confesses, indeed, that the errors placed before us \ in the three epistles are substantially the same; but he thinks that on the one hand “ more general errors” are to be distin- guished from those of individuals, and on the other hand phenomena of the present from those which are designated as future. Hofmann’s view is allied to this. He thinks also that those against whom Paul had a special polemic (Tit. i. 9, 10, iii, 9; 1 Tim. i 3 ff, etc.) are distinct from those to 44 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. whom Hymenaeus and Philetus belonged (2 Tim. ii. 17), and from those mentioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 ff.; and further, that those characterized in 1 Tim. iv. 1-4 are to be regarded as people of the future, and not of the present. Against this, however, it is to be maintained that such a distinction of different classes is not marked in any way by the apostle, and that the men of the future mentioned by him are characterized in substantially the same way as the men of the present against , whom he directs his polemic. Mangold (Die Irrlehrer der | Pa storalbriefe) rightly maintains that the polemic of the Pastoral | Epistles is not directed against different forms of heresy, but against one and the same “heresy : ; but he agrees with Credner _in thinking that the heretics mentioned in the Epistle to Titus stood quite outside of the Christian church, since it is not said of them that they had fallen away from the faith. But against this it is to be observed that the polemic in the N. T. is everywhere directed only against those who, as members of the church, sought to disturb the true faith, and not against non-Christians who assailed the Christian faith from without.’ It is arbitrary also to distinguish the αἱρετικοί mentioned in chap. iii. 10 as corrupted Christians from those named in chap. i. 10 as non-Christians. The second question is, Of what nature was the heretical 1 Otto decides quite differently by roundly calling the heretics Jews, and remarking: ‘‘I have found no passage in the two epistles, not even in all the Pauline Epistles, which compelled me to suppose that the heretics were members of the church.” But should not this assertion be at once refuted by the fact that Paul, when speaking of non-Christians, always denotes them as such, Gentiles as Gentiles, Jews as Jews ; whereas of the heretics, against whom he contends, he nowhere says that fines stand outside of the Christian church ? And would not both his polemic and his warnings have quite another character if the heretics did not belong externally to the church ?—Otto grants that many members of the church had been led astray by those non-Christian heretics ; but would not those betrayed have sought to spread their opinions among their fellow-members, and thus become false teachers themselves? Besides, Otto can support his opinion only by an artificial ces algal of the single passages in question, as is the case among others with 1 Tim. i. 3 (see the exposition of the passage) and with 2 Cor. xi. 13, 23. 1 Cor. “tit 15 alone causes him some scruples; but he overcomes them by referring the pronoun αὐτός to ὁ é:uéaws, altogether omitting to observe that Paul in this passage is not thinking of heretics at all. — Whether the τίνες in Acts xv. 1 were also Jews— and not Christians—Otto does not say ; if he were consistent in his opinions, he would be bound to maintain the former. INTRODUCTION. 45 tendency against which the Pastoral Epistles contend? The views on this point differ widely from one another. The heretics have been held to be—(1) Gnosties, either “ forerunners of the Gnostics of the second century” (so most expositors), or “ Cerinthians ” (Mayerhoff in his work, der Brief an die Colosser, 1838 ; Neander in the first edition of his apostol. Zeitalters), or Gnostics of the second century, in particular Marcionites (Baur); (2) Cabbalists (Grotius, Baumgarten); (3) Pharisaic Judaists (Chrysostom, Jerome, partly also Thiersch); (4) Essenes (Michaelis, Heinrichs, Wegscheider, Mangold, partly also Credner), or Zherapeutae (Ritschl); and lastly, (5) Jewish Christians. These last either had a preference for allegorical interpretations of the Jewish genealogies (pedigrees), which in itself was innocent and not delusive, but which might easily lead to apostasy from the faith (Wiesinger, who, however, remarks that in some are found the germs of the later gnosis), or they were busying themselves with investigations regarding the legal and historical contents of the Thora, to which they ascribed a special importance for the religious life (Hofmann). The second and third views have already received a sufficient refutation. The words: θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι (1 Tim. i. 7), are the only argument in favour of the opinion that these opponents resembled those against whom Paul contended in the Epistle to the Galatians and in the first part of the Epistle to the Romans. From 1 Tim. iv. 3, Tit. 1.14, it is clear that their zeal for the law did not all agree with the pharisaically- inclined Jewish- Christians, as they did not maintain the necessity for circumcision. Cabbalists they cannot be called, although there existed earlier among the orthodox Jews many elements from which was developed the cabbalistic system afterwards imprinted on the books of Jezira and Sohar; these were secret doctrines, and it cannot be proved that these heretics had the same views. For that matter, there are even some points here, such as forbidding to marry, the spiritualistic doctrine of the resurrection, which are foreign to Cabbala. There is only one kindred point in the phenomena of the two: they both consisted in combination of revealed religion, with speculation originally heathen. The view that the heretics were Essenes has found in 46 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. Mangold a defender both thoroughgoing and acute; but he has been able to prove the identity of the two only by a somewhat bold assertion. Proceeding from the opinion “that Essenism was only an attempt to carry out practically the Alexandrine- Jewish philosophy in the definite arrangements of a sect,’ he deduces from this the unjustifiable canon: “Tf, therefore, any trait in the picture of the heretics should find a direct parallel, though only in such a passage of Philo as gives quite general characteristics of the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, we ought not to hesitate in explaining this trait to be Essenic, provided only it does not stand in contradiction with the definite infor- mation given by Philo and Josephus regarding this sect.”— Mangold tries to trace back to Essenism not only the yevea- λογίαι, but also the other traits in the picture of the heretics, especially the μῦθοι, the ζητήσεις, the γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος, the asceticism, the doctrine of the resurrection, the view of the person and work of Christ, not indeed expressed, but indicated, the greed, the hypocrisy, the comparison with the Egyptian sorcerers, etc. But if he had not the aid of the canon quoted, and of an interpretation sometimes very forced, the result would simply be this, that in the heretics of ‘the epistles there existed some traits which belonged also to Essenism. On the other hand, the heretics had many peculiarities not found among the Essenes, and the Essenes again had distinct characteristics of which there is no mention here (comp. Uhlhorn’s criticism of Mangold’s book in the Gétt. gel. Anz. 1857, No. 179).—The fact that Mangold could only justify his assertion that the heretics were Essenes by identify- ing the general Jewish-Alexandrine speculation with Philonism and Essenism, is a sufficient proof that his assertion has no firm / and sure ground.—Against Ritschl’s view that the heretics ' were Therapeutac, Uhlhorn’s remarks (in the criticism quoted) are sufficient: “They have no hesitation in assuming a quite close connection with the Jewish-Alexandrine philosophy, nor would they make any difficulty of importing into it the prin- ciples of Philo. But then new difficulties appear. If it is already hazardous to imagine Essenes in Ephesus and Crete, it might become much harder to suppose that there were Thera- peutae in those regions. Their whole nature is so thoroughly INTRODUCTION. 47 Egyptian, that we can hardly venture on the hypothesis of the sect being transplanted and extended into Asia Minor and Crete. Yet that would be the smallest difficulty. The main point is that the picture of the heretics applies to the Therapeutae much less than to the Essenes; not only because the most striking characteristics of the Therapeutae are wanting, but also because there are features which do not suit the Therapeutae at all. Thus, ¢.g., the busy activity mentioned in 2 Tim. iii. 6 stands in glaring contrast with their habits of contemplation.” The view which is by far the most prevalent is, that the heresy was Gnosticism, either “a rough elementary form of gnosis,” or one of the cultivated systems. Baur, as is well | known, declares himself for the latter with great decision. His judgement (Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. Paulus, 1835, p. 10) ee runs thus: “ We have before us in the heretics of the Pastoral } Epistles the Gnostics of the second century, especially the Marcionites.” For the Marcionitism Baur appeals—(1) to the Antinomianism denoted in 1 Tim. i. 6-11; (2) to the ascetic ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, 1 Tim. iv. 3, which was founded on a certain opposition and dislike to God’s creation—as to some- thing unclean, and therefore on a decidedly dualistic view of the universe (such as Marcion in particular held); (3) to the doctrine of the resurrection, mentioned in 2 Tim. 11. 18; (4) to the express mention of the Marcionite antithesis, 1 Tim. vi. 20.—Of these reasons we must at once strike out the first and the last, as resting on an arbitrary and quite unjustifiable interpretation. As to the second, the opposition made to the asceticism of the heretics in Tit. 1. 15 and 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4, by no means points to a decided form of dualism; and with regard to the third ground, it is to be observed that the doctrine of the resurrection had no more connection with Gnosticism than with other speculative systems.—For the | Gnosticism of the heretics, Baur produces the following | grounds:—(1) The myths and genealogies by which the Valentinian series of aeons and the whole fantastic history of the pleroma were denoted. This, he says, is apparent from the adjective ypawdns, which was chosen because the Sophia- Achamoth was denoted as an old mother. (2) The emphasis laid in the epistles on the universality of the divine grace, by 48 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, which is expressed the opposition to the Gnostic distinction between pneumatic and other men. But even these grounds furnish no proof that the heresy belonged to the second century, for series of emanations and particularism were not phenomena of cultivated Gnosticism alone. The interpreta- tion of the word γραώδης, however, certainly needs no serious refutation. Baur further declares that even the author of the epistles was infected with the Marcionitism, as appears especi- ally from the opposition in which the ἄνθρωπος of 1 Tim. ii. 5 stands to ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί in 1 Tim. 111. 16, also from the passage in 1 Tim. i. 16, where two sets of clauses are opposed, the one more Gnostic, the other more anti-Gnostic ; lastly, from the use of doxologies that have a Gnostic sound. But apart altogether from single pieces of arbitrary conjecture, of which Baur is guilty in his proof, how curious in itself the opinion is, that the assailant of Marcionitism should himself have been half a Marcionite, without having any suspicion of his self- contradiction! In his work, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, 1845, Baur brought forward yet another new and peculiar proof of his assertion that the Gnosticism of the heretics belonged to the second century. He finds it in the express statement of Hegesippus (Eusebius, H. £. ili. 32), that the ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις did not appear openly till there were none of the apostolic circle left. From this Baur draws two inferences—(1) that Gnosticism belonged only to the post- apostolic age; and (2) that the author of the Pastoral Epistles borrowed the expression ἡ ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις from Hegesippus. But against the first inference it is to be noted that in this passage it is not only not denied, but it is even expressly stated that there had existed earlier such as “corrupt the sound rule of wholesome preaching,” and that it is simply remarked that the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι ventured only after the death of the apostles to preach their heresy quite openly and freely. Against the second inference we must maintain that the passage in Eusebius (as Thiersch in his Versuch zur Her- stellung, etc., pp. 301 ff, and following him Wiesinger and Mangold, have proved) is not a simple quotation from Hegesip- pus, but that the thought only was expressed by Hegesippus, while its elaboration and form are due to Eusebius; and that INTRODUCTION. 49 “although the Ebionite Hegesippus would hardly have used the Pastoral Epistles for expressing his own views, yet there is no reason why these expressions in Eusebius should not be traced back to the Pastoral Epistles as their source” (comp. Mangold, pp. 108-112). Thus the theory that the heretics in question were Marcionites, or other Gnostics of the second century, has no real foundation; for which reason, as Man- gold says, “all exegetes and writers on Introduction who have studied the question are unanimous against Baur’s view” (Mangold, p. 14)—Quite as little support has been given also to the theory that the heretics were Cerin- thians; and rightly so, since it cannot be proved that they held the doctrine of Cerinthus regarding the Demiurge, or his Docetism or the Chiliasm ascribed to him by Caius and Dionysius——The answer to the question whether Paul’s opponents were Gnostics (so far, of course, only followers of a gnosis still undeveloped) or not, depends to a large extent if not wholly, on the meaning to be given to γενεαλαγχάμι Irenaeus and Tertullian, whom many later expositors have followed, understood by it, “Gnostic series of emanations.” In more recent times an attempt has been made to maintain that we are to understand by it actual genealogies. Diihne (Stud. wu. Krit. 1833, No. 4), supported by Mangold and Otto, makes it more definite, and says that by it are meant the genealogies of the Pentateuch, along with its historical sections, the former of which Philo interprets in his τρόποι THs ψυχῆς. But there is not the slightest indication in the Pastoral Epistles that the heretics here mentioned made any such interpretation themselves. Wiesinger has let this more definite statement drop, and explains the γενεαλογίαν to be simply Jewish genealogies. Hofmann, on the contrary, going back again to Philo, considers them to be not genealogies proper, but “the whole historical contents of the Thora.”? Both these 1 If Hegesippus did use the expression 4 ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις, it is in any case more probable that he should have borrowed it from the First Epistle to Timothy, than that the author of the epistle should have taken it from Hegesippus. * This explanation Hofmann justifies by referring to Philo’s division of the historical contents of the Thora into two parts : τὸ rsp) σῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενίσεως and τὸ γενεαλογικόν, But though Philo uses the name τὸ γεντα λογικόν for the part after PasToRAL EPIsTLEs. D 50 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. expositors do not wish to regard Paul’s opponents here as heretics in the proper sense. Wiesinger, as he developes this point, contradicts himself. For, when he grants that they culti- vated an arbitrary asceticism,—that they strove after a higher holiness as well as a higher knowledge than the gospel presents, and that they sought to attain this by an allegorical interpreta- tion of the genealogies,,—he is manifestly describing them as heretics in the proper sense of the term. Hofmann does not indeed fall into this contradiction, but with his view it remains wholly unexplained how they could give to the study of the historical contents of the Thora a special importance for the religious life, if they still did not seek to get from it know- ledge transcending the gospel. The following points are against both these explanations :—(1) The sentence of con- demnation pronounced in the epistles is so sharp, that it points to something quite different from mere unprofitable speculation. Although Paul, as these argue, calls their reason- ings ματαιολογία and xevodwvia, he describes this empty babble of theirs not merely as a useless, foolish, old woman’s chatter, but also as something unholy, ac. profane (βέβηλος, comp. Heb. xi. 16), and the reasoners as those who, fallen away from the faith, contradict the truth, and are morally cor- rupt in thought. (2) Paul defines the γενεαλογίαν more precisely by the adjective ἀπέραντοι, which gives, not, as it has been wrongly explained, the nature of the investigations regarding the γενεαλογίαν (as those “which spin on ad infinitum,” Wiesinger ; or “the end of which is never reached,” Hofmann), but the nature of the γενεαλογίαν themselves. Since neither the Jewish genealogies nor the facts given in the Thora are unlimited, we can hardly understand the yevea- λογίαι to be anything else than “ Gnostic series of emanations,” which have no necessary termination in themselves, and can therefore be regarded as unlimited—Beside the expression the history of the creation, because it begins with a genealogy, it does not follow, as a matter of fact, that the single historical events are designated by the word γενεαλογίαι. 1 Wiesinger has not observed that allegorical interpretation is not to be regarded as the source of any special knowledge, but that knowledge obtained in other ways makes use of allegorical interpretation for its own con- firmation. INTRODUCTION. 51 γενεαλογίαι ἀπέραντοι, there are other features in the apostle’s polemic pointing to the Gnostic tendencies of his adversaries here, who boasted of a special knowledge, called by Paul γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος ; still their Gnosticism is quite distinct from Gnosticism proper, ze. from the Gnosticism which spread so widely in the church in the second century. The soil of the Jatter was Gentile Christianity; the soil of the former was Judaism, or Jewish Christianity mingled with Gentile speculation. An appeal to the Mosaic law was quite out of place in Gnosticism proper, but these heretics wished to be νομοδιδάσκαλοι. The asceticism of the Gnostics was based on dualism; the ascetic precepts of these heretics proceeded from the distinction—contained also in the law of Moses—between clean and unclean; and although they inconsistently spiritualized the contrast between spirit and matter, there is nothing to show that they adopted dualism proper, though we may take it for granted that they were so inclined. Gnosticism distinguishes between the Demiurge and the highest God—a distinction not known to these heretics. Finally, while Gnosticism is substantially Docetic in its view of the Redeemer’s person, it is nowhere said that these heretics were Docetic ; it rather appears on the whole as if the idea of redemption had not with them the central importance which it had in Gnosticism.—AIl these details prove that, although \ the heresy in question was in many respects akin to Gnosticism, its nature was still distinct. Peculiar to both is the mingling of revealed religion with Gentile speculation; but in the one case —in Gnosticism — Christianity itself was invaded and penetrated by heathen philosophy; while here, on the other hand, Judaism first underwent that process. This Judaism, modified by speculation and united with Christianity, assumed, indeed, new elements, and suffered thereby many alterations. Still there was no substantial change of form, the Christian element in ¢his form of Jewish Christianity being always over- powered by the Jewish. From it there arose such phenomena as are presented in the Ebionite, the Clementine, the Elkesaitic, and other heresies which are distinguished from systems strictly Gnostic, by preserving as much as possible a mono- theistic character. To this speculative Jewish Christianity 52 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. belongs also the heresy mentioned and combated in the Pastoral Epistles. It does not follow, however, that it was one single system definitely developed; the apostle rather keeps in view the general tendency which embraced manifold distinc- tions, so that all the individual features dwelt on by him were not necessarily characteristic of all these heretics. The general judgment refers to all. All who have yielded to this tendency stand opposed both to the doctrine of the gospel as well as to Christian morality ; but all did not give direct utterance to the principle that the resurrection had already taken place, or that marriage was to be avoided, and we are not bound to regard them all as impostors, or as men who put on the appearance of piety only from motives of greed. One point might be more prominent in one, another in another ; they are all, however, governed by one spirit, which could only exercise a disturbing influence on true Christianity——This tendency is substantially the same as that combated in the Epistle to the Colossians. The distinction is simply this, that at the time of composing the Pastoral Epistles the same heresy was found in a stage of higher development. The doctrine of angels had already assumed the form of an emanation theory ; the contrast between spirit and matter had been made wider, and the self-seeking motives in its followers had become more distinct." SECTION 5.—AUTHENTICITY OF THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. Eusebius reckons the Pastoral Epistles among the homo- locumena, as there existed not the smallest doubt of their genuineness in the catholic church. They not only stand as Pauline Epistles in the Muratorian Canon and the Peschito, but they are also repeatedly quoted as such by Irenaeus, Ter- tullian, and Clemens Alex. Though they are not specially quoted by earlier ecclesiastical writers, yet many expressions and sentences occur showing that they were not less known than the other Pauline Epistles, such expressions appear- 1 ΠῸ the view expressed here, Zéckler (in Vilmar’s Past.-theol. Blitter, 1865, p. 67) has given his adherence, INTRODUCTION, 0 ing as quotations, or at least as reminiscences.! Clemens ‘ Rom. not only makes use of the expression εὐσέβεια, so often | used in the Pastoral Epistles to denote Christian piety, but also in Ep. I. ad Corinth. chap. 2, we have a phrase almost agreeing with Tit. iii, 1: ἕτοιμοι εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθόν, and in chap. 29 there is an echo of the words in 1 Tim. ii. 8 which can hardly be denied: προσελθῶμεν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσίοτητι ψυχῆς, ἅγνας καὶ ἀμιάντους χεῖρας αἴροντες πρὸς avtov.—tin the Epistles of Ignatius, the passage in the Zp. ad Magnes. chap. 8: μὴ πλανᾶσθε ταῖς ἑτεροδοξίαις, μηδὲ pvOevpacr τοῖς παλαιοῖς, ἀνωφελέσιν οὖσιν, reminds one of 1 Tim. i. 4 and Tit. 11. 9.—Still more striking is the agreement between some passages of the Epistle of Polycarp and corresponding passages in the Pastoral Epistles. Thus in particular chap. 4: ἀρχὴ πάντων χαλεπῶν φιλαργυρία" εἰδότες οὖν, ὅτι οὐδὲν εἰσηνέγ- καμεν εἰς τὸν κύσμον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐξενεγκεῖν τι ἔχομεν, ὁπλισώ- μεθα τοῖς ὅπλοις τῆς δικαιοσύνης, with 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10,—an agreement which even de Wette can only explain by supposing Polycarp to have been acquainted with this epistle.— In Justin Martyr the expressions θεοσέβεια and εὐσέβεια fre- quently occur. In his Dialog. c. Tryph. chap. 47, we have: ἡ χρηστότης καὶ ἡ φιλανθρωπία τοῦ Θεοῦ, as in Tit. iii, 4” In the Zp. ad Diogn. chap. 4, there is the expression: αὐτῶν θεοσεβείας μυστήριον μὴ προσδοκήσῃς K.T.r., Which, compared with 1 Tim. Π|. 16, is not to be overlooked—Hegesippus {Euseb. H. #. 11. 32), in agreement with 1 Tim. vi. 20, calls ‘he heresies γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος, provided that Eusebius is t noting him verbally, and not simply giving the substance of fis thought; see p. 48.—Theophilus of Antioch says, ad ‘Autolye. 111. 14, clearly alluding to 1 Tim. 11. 1,2: ἔτι μὲν καὶ “ept τοῦ ὑποτάσσεσθαι ἀρχαῖς καὶ ἐξουσίαις, καὶ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ ™ ray, κελεύει ὑμῖν θεῖος λόγος, ὅπως ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον ε(ἄγωμεν: In Athenagoras, also, there are several allusions l ‘Comp. especially Otto’s thorough investigation in the excursus, ‘‘ The ternal Testimonies to the Authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles,” appended to Ex work, Ueber die geschichtl. Verhiiltnisse der Pastoralbriefe. hi The appeal to Euseb. H. E. iii. 26, who quotes words from a work of ‘tin’s, is out of place, since the expression: τὸ μέγα τῆς θεοσεβείας μυστήριον, Jusiring there, does not belong to the quoted passage. i We should also note Theoph. Ant. ad Aut, i. 2: ὅπως 7 καὶ τοῦτο sis δεῖγμα, 54 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. to passages in our epistles; thus, Ley. pro Christ. pp. 37, 39, ete.—It might indeed be thought strange, that when the older ecclesiastical writers are dealing with the same subjects as occur in the Pastoral Epistles, or subjects akin to them, there is not some more definite allusion to these epistles; but this is quite natural, when we take into account their relative inde- pendence.—According to the testimonies quoted, it is a point beyond dispute that the Pastoral Epistles from an early time were regarded in the catholic church as genuine Pauline Epistles. It is different, indeed, with the Gnostic heretics." In Marcion’s Canon all three are wanting,and Tatian acknowledged only the Epistle to Titus as genuine. We cannot infer, from the absence of the epistles in his Canon, that Marcion did not know them. Jerome, in his introduction to the Commentary on the Epistle to Titus? reproaches him as well as other heretics with rejecting the epistles wilfully. It is well known what liberties Marcion ventured to take with many N. T. writings recognised by himself as genuine; and it is quite in keeping with his usual method, that he should without further, ado omit from the Canon epistles containing so decided a polemic against Gnostic tendencies. The striking fact, how->- ever, that Tatian acknowledges the Epistle to Titus as genuine?, may arise from his being more easily reconciled to it than t> σοῦ μέλλειν λαμβάνειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μετάνοιαν καὶ ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν δ ὕδατος xa a λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας πάντας τοὺς προσιόντας τῇ ἀληθείᾳ Kal ἀναγεννωμένους ; COM) ). with Tit. iii. 5. | 1 Nevertheless, in the fragments of some Gnostics, preserved to us by {ἢ 10 Fathers, there are some passages which point back to the Pastoral Epistl 2s. Thus in Herakleon (Clem. Al. Strom. Book iv. p. 502) the phrase : ἀρνήσασιὶ θαι ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται, is to be compared with 2 Tim. ii. 13 ; and in the extracts fro? Valentinian sources which are contained in the work: Ἔχ σῶν Θεοδόσου καὶ ois AVLTOALKAS καλουμένης διδασκαλίας κατὰ σοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαΐ, usually appended to the writings of Clem. Al., we have the expression φῶς ἀπρόσικι with which comp. 1 Tim. vi. 16. See on this, Otto, lc. ἢ 2 Licet non sint digni fide, qui fidem primam irritam fecerunt, Marciongem loquor et Basilidem et omnes haereticos, qui V. laniant Test., tamen eos alicjjua ex parte ferremus, si saltem in Novo continerent manus suas. . . . Ut enim, de ceteris epistolis taceam, de quibus quidquid contrarium suo dogmati vider/ant eraserunt, nonnullas integras repudiandas crediderunt, ad Timotheum videli'cet utramque, ad Hebraeos et ad Titum. . . . Sed Tatianus, qui et ipse nonnufllas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, h. e. ad Titum, Apostoli ohm ιν andam credidit ; parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum qui cum eo in hae p?arte consentiunt, assertionem. γον, INTRODUCTION. 5 or the Epistles to Timothy, because in it the heretics are more distinctly called Jewish heretics than in the latter; comp. i. 10, 14, ii. 9.. But however that may be, the opposition of these heretics, when the genuineness of the epistles is recognised by the Fathers, can furnish no reason for doubt, all the less that .Tertullian even expresses his wonder how Marcion could have left them out of his Canon.—After Tatian, their genuineness remained uncontested till the beginning of this century ; only the more recent criticism has attempted to make it doubtful. At first the assault was directed against the First Epistle to Timothy. After J. E. C. Schmidt, in his Introduction, had expressed some doubts, its authenticity was disputed in the most decided manner by Schleier- macher in his letter to Gass, 1807. Schleiermacher acknow- ledged the authenticity of the two other epistles, and tried to explain the origin of the First by saying that the others had been used and imitated. He was at once opposed by Planck, Wegscheider, Beckhaus, who stoutly defended the epistle attacked by him; but the controversy was by no means settled by them. Criticism went farther on the way once opened, directing its weapons against the presupposition from which Schleiermacher set out in his polemic. From the inner relationship of all three epistles, it was impossible to deny that many grounds which Schleiermacher urged against the authenticity of the one epistle were not less strong against that of the others. Eichhorn therefore attacked the authen- ticity of all three, and was followed by de Wette (in his Einleitung ins N. T. 1826), but with some uncertainty. For although de Wette declared them to be historically incon- ceivable, and combined Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to Timothy arose from a compilation of the other two, with Eichhorn’s theory, that not one of the three was Pauline, he still confessed that the critical doubts were not sufficient to overturn the opinion cherished for centuries regarding these epistles, which did indeed contain much Pauline matter, and that the doubts therefore only affected their historical interpretation. — De Wette’s theory, so wavering in itself, was besides only of a negative character. Eichhorn, on the other hand, had already tried to reach some positive result, 56 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. by expressing the opinion that the epistles were written by a pupil of Paul in order to give a summary of his verbal instruc- tions regarding the organization of churches. In this he was supported by Schott (Zsagoge, 1830), who, in a very arbitrary fashion, ascribed the authorship to Luke.—Again, there was no lack of defenders of the epistles assailed. Hug, Bertholdt, Veilmoser, Guericke, Bohl, Curtius, Kling, and others’ took up the defence, partly in writings of a general character, partly in special treatises. Heydenreich and Mack also made a point of refuting the charges in their commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles—Eichhorn’s positive result had remained very uncer- tain, a mere suggestion without any tenable grounds. So long as no firmer and better supported theory was brought forward, the defence also had no sure basis. Baur was right (Die sog. Pastoralbriefe des Ap. P. aufs neue kritisch untersucht, 1835) in saying that “there was no sufficient basis for a critical judg- ment so long as it was known only that the epistles could not be Pauline; that some positive data must also be established by which they could be transferred from the time of the apostle to some other.” The theory which Baur had formed of the relations of Christian antiquity, together with the pecu- liar character of the Pastoral Epistles, led him to believe that they had been written while Marcionite errors were current, and written by an author who, without being able to get rid of Gnostic views himself, had in the interests of the Pauline party put his polemic against Gnostic doctrines in the mouth of the Apostle Paul. In this way Baur thought he had found a firm positive foundation for criticism, and thereby brought it to a conclusion. But his opinion did not stand uncontested. Baumgarten, Bottger, and Matthies, in particular, appeared against it, and it is only the later Tiibingen school that has given adherence to it. Even de Wette, in his commentary, 1844 (though he was more decided than ever in disputing the authenticity), declared himself against it, though in a some- what uncertain fashion. His words are: “ Since the references 1 Neander, also, in his Gesch. der Pflanzung . . . der Kirche, 1832; con- fessing, however, that he had not the same confident conviction of the genuine- ness of the First Epistle to Timothy as of the direct Pauline origin of all the other Pauline Epistles. INTRODUCTION. if to Marcion are not at all certain, and the testimonies to the existence of the Pastoral Epistles cannot be got over, we must apparently assume an earlier date for their composition, say at the end of the first century.”—Credner, in his Hinleitung ins N. T. 1836, advanced a peculiar hypothesis, viz., that, of .the three epistles, only the one to Titus is genuinely Pauline, with the exception of the first four verses; that the Second Epistle to Timothy is made up of two Pauline Epistles, the one written during the first, the other during the second imprisonment at Rome, and is interwoven with some pieces of the forger’s own ; lastly, that the First Epistle to Timothy is a pure invention. As a matter of course this ingenious hypothesis found no adherents, and, later, Credner himself (das NV. 7. nach Zweck, Ursprung, Inhalt fiir denkende Leser der Bibel, 1841-1848, chap. 11. pp. 98 f.) withdrew it, and declared all three letters to be not genuine——Soon after the appearance of this commen- tary, Wiesinger, in his commentary, 1850, declared himself for the genuineness of all three epistles, and made a thorough- going defence of them. Later, however, Schleiermacher’s hypothesis found a supporter in Rudow (in the work already quoted, 1850).—Reuss, in the second edition of his Gesch. der heil. Schriften, 1853, 1s not quite certain of the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the First Epistle to Timothy, but is quite confident that the Second Epistle to Timothy is genuine. On the other hand, Meyer, after declaring in the first edition of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1836, the genuineness of the Second Epistle to Timothy to be beyond doubt, in the second edition of the same commentary, 1854, acknowledges that the three epistles stand or fall with each other; and that if they were written by Paul, it could only have been after the first imprisonment in Rome, the one mentioned by Luke. At the same time, he disputes the reality of a release and a second imprisonment, and therefore cannot admit the genuineness of all three epistles. His remarks amount to this, that the more precarious the proof of the second imprisonment, the greater justification there is for the doubts of the genuineness, doubts arising from the epistles themselves—About the same time, Guericke, in his Neutest. Isagogik, 1854, re-stated his conviction of the 58 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. genuineness of all three epistles. Mangold (in his work, Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbriefe, 1856) admits, on the contrary, that neither the heresy mentioned in the epistles, nor the precepts contained in them regarding church matters, militate against their origin in the time of Paul. At the same time, he remarks that their authenticity is dependent on the solution of a whole series of other questions, and that the weight of these compels him to take the side of the exegetes who do not acknowledge their Pauline origin—Bleek (Zinleitung ins N. T. 1866) defends the genuineness of the Epistle to Titus and of the Second Epistle to Timothy. Regarding the First Epistle to Timothy, he thinks that it presents difficulties so consider- able that we may suppose it to have been written in Paul’s name by an author somewhat later, but within the orthodox church. Hausrath (Der Apostel Paulus, 1872) considers the epistles to be not genuine, but conjectures that the Second Epistle to Timothy is based “on a short letter addressed to Timothy by the apostle from his imprisonment in Rome.” Plitt thinks them Pauline in contents, but supposes that “they have been worked up afterwards by the addition of one or two utterances from oral tradition, which has given a somewhat different colour to them.” As the latest decided defenders of the genuineness besides Otto (1860), we may name specially, L. Ruffet (1860), van Oosterzee (1861,’74), and Hofmann (1874). The reasons which chiefly awaken doubt regarding the genuineness of the epistles are the following three :—(1) the difficulty of conceiving historically that Paul composed them ; (2) allusions and discussions which point to a later time than that of the apostles; and (3) their peculiarity in development of thought and mode of expression, departing in many respects from the epistles which are recognised to be genuine. As to the first reason, the difficulty exists only when we presuppose that the apostle was not released from the Roman imprisonment mentioned in Acts, and that therefore the Fir st Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus must have been composed before, the Second Epistle to Timothy during that imprisonment, if they are to be considered genuine at all. But this presupposition, as already shown, has no sufficient grounds, INTRODUCTION. 59 and with it disappears one reason for disputing the authenticity of the epistles. In regard to the second reason, there are especially three points to be considered—(1) the heretics against whom all the three epistles contend; (2) the church-organization pre- supposed in the First Epistle to Timothy and in the Epistle to Titus ; and (3) the institution of widows, mentioned in the First Epistle to Timothy. 1. In regard to the heretics, comp. ὃ 4. Only by taking a false view of their nature can these be adduced as testifying against the authenticity of the epistles. In what the author says of them, there is nothing which compels us to assign them to the post-apostolic age. 2, The church - organization. — Those who dispute the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles, especially Baur and de Wette, reproach their author. with hierarchical tendencies, and maintain that the establishment and improvement of the hierarchy, as intended by the hints given in these epistles, could not have been to Paul’s advantage. While de Wette contents himself with this general remark, Baur goes more into detail. In the earlier work on the Pastoral Epistles, he remarks that in the genuine Pauline Epistles there is no trace of distinct officers for superintending churches (comp. on the contrary, Rom. xii. 8: ὁ προϊστάμενος; 1 Cor. xii, 28: κυβερνήσεις), Whereas, according to these epistles, the churches were already so organized that ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, and διάκονοι have a significant prominence. In this he assumes that the plural πρεσβύτεροι denotes collectively the presidents who, each with the name of ἐπίσκοπος, superintended the individual churches. In the later work on Paul, Baur asserts that the Gnostics, as the first heretics proper, gave the first impulse to the establishment of the episcopal system. Granted that such was the case, that very fact would be a reason for dating the composition of the epistles earlier than the time of Gnosticism, since there is no trace in them of a regular episcopal system. Even if Baur’s view regarding the relation of the expressions πρεσβύτεροι and ἐπίσκοπος were correct, the meaning of ἐπίσκοπος here would be substantially different from that which it had later in the true episcopal system. — In 60 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. our epistles we still find the simplest form of church-organiza- tion. The institution of the deacons had already arisen in the beginning of the apostolic age, and although tradition does not record at what time the presbytery began or how it was intro- duced, it must, apart from all the evidence in Acts, have arisen very early, as we cannot conceive a church without some superintendence. But all the instructions given in our epistles regarding the presbyters and deacons have clearly no other purpose than to say that only such men should be taken as are worthy of the confidence of the church, and are likely to have a blessed influence. — Where in this is there anything hierarchical ? How different the Epistles of Ignatius are on this point! Had the Pastoral Epistles arisen at a later time, whether at the end of the first or in the middle of the second century, the ecclesiastical offices would have been spoken of in quite another way. Wiesinger is right in in- sisting on the identity between bishop and presbyter which prevails in the epistles, on the entire want of any special distinctions given to individuals, and also on the absence of the diaconate in the Epistle to Titus. “On the whole,” says Wiesinger, “there is clearly revealed the primitive character of the apostolic church - organization” (comp. also Zockler, lc. p. 68). Wiesinger is also right when he points to ὀρέγεσθαι ἐπισκοπῆς, to the νεόφυτος, and to the διδακτικός as sions that the epistles were composed in the later period of Paul’s labours. It may be thought strange, however, that while such indications are not contained in the epistles recognised to be genuine, they are given here; but it must, on the other hand, be observed that it must have been the apostle’s chief concern in the later period of his life, all the more that he saw the church threatened by heretics, to instruct the men who had to take his place in setting up and main- taining the arrangements for the life of the church.’ There 1 The charge, that the system is insisted on too strongly, is in any case exag- gerated. In the Second Epistle to Timothy nothing is said of it at all, and in the two others it is discussed only in a few single passages, and in such simple fashion that nothing more is said than is absolutely necessary. In particular, the divine origin of the episcopal office is nowhere named, much less emphasized. Even Clement of Rome insists on the significance of the office quite differently from what is done here. INTRODUCTION. 61 is no ground whatever for asserting that Paul had not the least interest in ecclesiastical institutions, and that this want had its deep ground in the spirit and character of the Pauline Christianity. Besides, all this is in most striking contrast with the information given us in Acts regarding the nature of the apostle’s labours." 3. The institution of widows.—Schleiermacher quoted what is said in 1 Tim. v. 9 ff. regarding the χήρα, as a proof of the later origin of this epistle. At the same time, he did not, like many other expositors, understand ver. 9 to refer to their being placed on the list of those whom the church sup- ported, but to their admission as deaconesses; and he thinks that such a regulation, ordaining that deaconesses shall pro- mise perpetual widowhood, that they shall not marry a second time, and that their children shall be grown up, is not con- ceivable in the apostolic age (Ueber den 1 Br. an Tim. pp. 215-218). While Schleiermacher thus takes χήρα to be a name for the deaconesses, Baur gives a different explanation of the word as used in ver. 9. He thinks that this expression denoted, in the ecclesiastical language of the second century, those women who devoted themselves to an ascetic mode of life, and who in this capacity formed an ecclesiastical grade very closely connected with the grade of ἐπίσκοποι, πρεσβύ- τεροι, and διάκονοι, on which account the name of deaconesses was given to them. It seems, says Baur further, that they were not real widows, but bore that name. As a proof of this, Baur* quotes in particular the passage of Ignatius, Zp. ad Smyrn. chap. 13, where he greets τοὺς οἴκους τῶν ἀδελφῶν σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις, καὶ τὰς παρθένους, τὰς λεγομένας χήρας. But that passage only proves that in the second century there were virgins who, of course for ascetic reasons, remained in that condition, lead a retired life, and, as solitaries, were named yfpau.? It cannot, however, be in the least 1 Only this much is correct, that Paul in his apostolic labours could not begin with regulations for the church, and could not expect salvation from church- organization. But later, when there had developed a manifold life in the churches, he kept organization more in mind—a fact which does not conflict with his peculiar spirit. Luther’s conduct in this respect forms an interesting parallel. * It is incorrect to interpret, as do Béttger and Wiesinger, παρθένους of real widows, and to take the adilition τὰς λεγομένας χήρας as a more precise explana- 62 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. inferred from this that the χῆραι named in the First Epistle of Timothy were such παρθένοι ; on the contrary, everything here said of the χήραν shows that actual widows are meant. Tt is true that in ver. 9 only those widows are spoken of who can be called church-widows ; but Bauy’s assertion, that at the time of the composition of the epistle, according to ver. 11, virgins also were received into the number, is an erroneous opinion, which can only be supported by a wrong interpreta- tion of the verse. On the whole, however, it is very question- able whether we should think of deaconesses at all in the passage. This view was disputed formerly by Mosheim and recently by de Wette. Mosheim supposes that the χῆραι, as ecclesiastical personages, are to be kept distinct from the deaconesses, and that Tertullian, de vel. virg. chap. ix., speaks of those who are also called πρεσβύτιδες, presbyterae, pres- byterissae. (The other proof - passages to which Mosheim appeals are: Palladii vita Chrysostomi, p. 47 ; Hermae, Pastor, Vision II. p. 791, ed. FabriciiimLucianus, de morte Peregrini, Works, vol. iii. p. 335, ed. Reitzian.; particularly also the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea, which in the trans- lation of Dionysius Exiguus runs thus: mulieres, quae apud Graecos presbyterae appellantur, apud nos autem viduae seniores, univirae et matriculariae nominantur, in ecclesia tanquam ordinatas constitui non debere.) The distinction, according to Mosheim, lay in this, that the deaconesses acted as attendants, observed what went on among the women, and did not venture to sit down among the clergy; while the spiritual widows occupied an honourable place in the congregation, had a kind of superintendence over other women, and were employed in instructing and educating the orphans who were maintained by the love of the churches. If Mosheim’s view is correct (see on this the exposition of 1 Tim. v. 9 ff), we can see no reason why such a grade of widows should not have arisen in the apostolic age. Even de Wette thinks it probable that, from the very first, pious widows had an ecclesiastical position, and his only objection is that in this place it is presupposed to be a position defined by law and resting on a formal election. tion of the expression παρθένους. In that case Ignatius could not but have said : τὰς χήρας, τὰς λεγομένας παρθένους. INTRODUCTION. 63 But καταλεγέσθω in ver. 9 by no means presupposes an election in the proper sense. The demand that the widow should be ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή has caused much difficulty ; this difficulty, however, vanishes when the expression is rightly explained (see the exposition). Besides the points mentioned, many others are quoted in proof by the opponents of the authenticity; all these, how- ever, fall to the ground when the passages are explained. There is no doubt that the attacks often proceed from nothing but a groundless view of the relations of the apostolic age, and not seldom rest on the wrong presupposition that usages and views met with in authors of the second century were formed only in their time, and were not rather propagated from the preceding age. We can only discuss one more point here, and that is the assumed νεότης of Timothy. It has been thought strange that in both Epistles to Timothy he should be spoken of as still a young man; that, as de Wette says, the author “ places him on a low footing, reminding him, as a beginner whose faith is weak and doctrine hesitating, of his pious education, of the instruction received from Paul, of the use of the Holy Scriptures, questioning his ability to understand a parable, and exhorting him, as a coward, to brave devotion to the cause of the gospel.” We need hardly remark how much exaggeration there is in this description. But as to Timothy’s youth, de Wette assumes that at the time of the apostles Roman imprisonment he had already been about ten years in the ministry of the gospel, and was then at least thirty-five years of age. This reckoning, how- ever, is very uncertain. The manner in which he is spoken of in Acts xvi. 1 ff, on his first acquaintance with the apostle, would rather suggest that he was then a good deal younger than twenty-five. It is to be observed that Paul, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, also feels himself compelled to remark regarding Timothy: μή τις αὐτὸν ἐξουθενήσῃ, which remark was certainly caused by his youth; see Meyer on the passage. —Besides, we must take into consideration both the ditference between his age and that of the apostle, and also the relation of his age to the position which the apostle had assigned to him shortly before the composition of the epistle, and which 64 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, gave him the superintendence over the church with the oldest in it, etc.’ Further, we do not see what should have moved a forger to represent Timothy as younger than he could have been according to historical facts——It is not right to say that the pressing exhortations imparted to him in the epistles place him on too low a footing, since Paul had had many sad experiences in the last period of his life, and he is far from refusing to put any confidence in his pupil. As to the third reason, we have already remarked that the Pastoral Epistles have much that is peculiar in expression and in development of thought. The only question is, whether the peculiarity is great enough to be an argument against their apostolic origin. The number of ἅπαξ λεγόμενα occur- ring in them is obviously not decisive, since every one of Paul’s epistles contains less or more of such expressions peculiar to itself; thus the Epistle to the Galatians has over fifty ; the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians have together over 140.—The use of some of these expressions in later authors (¢.g. ἄνθρωπος τοῦ Θεοῦ in Ignatius, Lp. ad Rom. chap. 6; διδασκαλίας δαιμονίων in Tertullian, De praescr. haer. chap. 7) is clearly no proof that they belong only to post- apostolic times. It would be otherwise if such expressions could be shown to have arisen from some view or custom which was formed only in a later age; but that is not the case. The statements that the expression μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ presupposes an unapostolic view of marriage, that the plural βασιλεῖς points to a period when, in consequence of the custom of adoption, introduced since Hadrian, there were co-emperors besides the emperor proper, and other similar state- ments, made by Baur, are arbitrary and without proof. On the other hand, the peculiar circumstances of these epistles made peculiar expressions necessary. Apart from the reference to the circumstances of the church here discussed, and to the position of the receivers of the epistles as assisting the apostle 1 Bleek takes objection to μηδείς cov τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω, because ‘‘ though Timothy was not yet at the time exactly old, he had been Paul’s trusted helper for many years, and had received the most weighty commissions.” It is, how- ever, to be observed, that Paul in the epistle is giving him a position in the church such as he had never before occupied, INTRODUCTION. 65 in his ministry, there is especially the heretical tendency, which could not but exercise a distinct influence on the expression. This would happen not merely in passages directly polemical, but also in the sections containing more general exhortations connected by the author in any way with the heretical errors. Wiesinger is right in remarking: “ Con- sidering all the circumstances, that the epistles are aimed at new phenomena, that they are addressed to fellow-teachers, that they are kindred in contents, and were composed at the same time, the peculiar vocabulary is conceivable, and, in comparison with Paul’s other epistles, presents no special difficulty.”——The epistles are peculiar, not only in individual expressions, but also in the entire manner of their thought and composition, and from this some have tried to prove that they are not genuine. But even this phenomenon is sufficiently explained by the peculiar circumstances, in so far as they are in some sort business letters, for the express purpose of con- veying to their receivers short and simple directions on certain points. In this way the lack of the dialectic, which else- where is so characteristic of Paul, is not surprismg. Nothing is proved against their authenticity, when de Wette notes the peculiarity that “there is an inclination to turn away from the proper subject of the epistle to general truths, and then commonly a return is made, or a conclusion and resting- point found, in some exhortation or direction to the readers.” Such rapid transitions to general sentences are found often enough in Paul; comp. Rom. xiii. 10, xiv. 9, 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20, vii. 10, etc. Apart from the form of presenting the subject, the mental attitude indicated in the epistles is said to testify against the Pauline authorship. De Wette directs attention to the following points as un-Pauline:—the prevailing moral view of life, the frequent injunction and commendation of good works, of the domestic virtues among others, the advocacy of moral desert which almost (?) contradicts the Pauline doctrine of grace, the defence of the law in which a moral use of it is granted. But, on the one hand, emphasis is laid most strongly on the ethical character of Christianity in all Paul’s epistles; and, on the other, there is nothing in these epistles te advocate moral desert to the prejudice of PASTORAL EPISTLES, Ε 66 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. divine grace. De Wette acknowledges the univeralism in 1 Tim. ii. 4,iv. 10, Tit. ii, 11, to be Pauline, but he thinks that it has a different polemical bearing from that usual with Paul. The natural reason for this is, that Paul has not to do with Judaizing opposition here, as in his other Epistles.—De Wette’s chief complaint is, that the injunctions given to Titus and Timothy are too general and brief. But why could the apostle not have contented himself with giving the chief points of view from which they were to deal with the various cases? Besides, if they are really so brief, how comes it that the church has always found in them a rich treasure of pointed and pregnant instruction? Nor has the church erred in this respect, as may be seen from Stirm’s excellent treatise among others: “ Die pastoraltheologischen Winke der Pastoralbriefe,” in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theologie, 1872, No. 1. It would certainly awaken justifiable scruples, if it could be proved that other Pauline epistles had been used in com- posing these three. The passages on which this charge is founded are as follow :—From the First Epistle to Timothy, i. 12-14 compared with 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10; 1. 11, 12, with 1 Cor. xiv. 84, 35. From the Second Epistle to Timothy, i. 3-5 compared with Rom. i. 8 ff; 1. 5 with 1 Cor. ix, 24; 1.6 with 1 Cor.ix. 7. ff ;i1. 8. with Rom. 1, 91: τῷ 1 wath Rom. vi. 8; ii. 20 with Rom. ix. 21; ii. 2 ff with Rom. 1. 29 ff.; iv. 6 with Phil. ii, 17. From the Epistle to Titus, i. 1-4 compared with Rom. i. 1 ff. Certainly the partial agree- ment is too great to be considered purely accidental. But it is as natural to suppose that the same author, when led to deal with the same thoughts, employed a similar form of expression, as that a forger made use of some passages in the genuine epistles of Paul in order to give his work a Pauline colouring. As a whole, therefore, the diction and thought peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles cannot be regarded as testifying against their genuineness. But as each of the epistles may bear special traces of non-Pauline origin, we must further consider the criticisms made against them singly. The First Epistle to Timothy.—According to Schleiermacher, INTRODUCTION. 67 it arose out of a compilation of the two other epistles. As proof of this, Schleiermacher mentions several facts, viz., that many expressions standing in a right connection in them, are here used unsuitably ; that resemblances and agreements are found which amount to an appearance of plagiarism; and that this appearance is made an,undeniable truth by mis- understandings and by difficulties, only to be explained by the hypothesis of their being imported from the one epistle into the other. The expressions to which Schleiermacher thus directs attention are as follow:—i. 1: σωτήρ and κατ᾽ ἐπυταγήν (Tit. 1.3); ver. 2: γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει (Tit. 1. 4); ver. 4: μῦθοι (Tit. 1. 14); προσέχειν, yeveadoyiar (Tit. iii. 9); ζητήσεις (idem); ver. 6: ἀστοχήσαντες (2 Tim. 11. 18); ver. 7: διαβεβαιοῦσθαι (Tit. 111. 8); ver. 10: ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία ; ver. 16: ὑποτύπωσις ; 11. 7 compared with 2 Tim. i. 11; iii. 2: νηφάλιον (Tit. 11. 2); ver. 3: ἄμαχον (Tit. iii. 2); ver. 4: σεμνότης (Tit. 11. 7); ver. 9: ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει (2 Tim. 1. 3); ver. 11: μὴ διαβόλους (Tit. ii. 3); iv. 6: παρηκολούθηκας (2 Tim. iii. 10); ver. 7: βεθήλους (2 Tim. 11. 16); ver. 9: πιστὸς ὁ λόγος (2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii, 8). But when considered impartially, these expressions are by no means unsuitably used in the First Epistle to Timothy; it cannot therefore be proved that they are borrowed, and borrowed unskiifully. The agreement of the Pastoral Epistles in their mode of expression is sufficiently explained by the fact that they were written with no long interval between them. Comp. with this the general agreement between the Epistles to the Colossians and to the Ephesians.—Besides this, however, Schleiermacher charges the epistle not only with want οἵ internal connection, launching out often from one subject to another, but also with containmg many thoughts foreign to Paul (i. 8, ii. 14, 15, τ. 5, ete.). But on the former point it is to be noted that the epistle is not a work on doctrine, but a business letter, in which subjects of various kinds are treated according to circumstances; and on the Jatter point, that the thoughts mentioned are not at all in contradiction with Paul’s views.—De Wette, too, has no grounds for asserting that the execution does not correspond with the aims proposed in the epistle. The passage in i. 3, for example, does not justify 68 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. any one in expecting an elaborate polemic against the heretics; it is sufficient for the purpose to give some of their charac- teristics. As a rule, Paul enters on a thorough polemic only against those opponents who disputed his gospel from presuppositions recognised by himself; this, however, was not the case with these heretics. — The charges, that the directions for managing the church are too general and insig- nificant, and that the exhortations given to Timothy (1. 18 f, iv. 7 ff, 12 ff, v. 23, vi. 11 ff.) are not suitable to his character and position, are not to the poimt; and the same may be said of the assertion, that a business letter addressed to Timothy ought to discuss the apostle’s special relations with the church at Ephesus, which was so dear to him. As to other points, de Wette holds that Schleiermacher goes too far in his unfavourable judgment, and does not agree with the theory of a compilation. Still he, too, places this epistle after the other two, and considers it the last written, though he assigns all three to the same author. All this makes it inconceivable how the forger did not express in one epistle what he wished to write in the apostle’s name.— Mangold agrees with de Wette in regarding the First Epistle to Timothy as the last written. The chief ground for this view is the advanced stage of heresy shown in the epistle. When the Epistle to Titus was written, the heretics, according to this theory, still stood outside the church as purely Jewish Essenes, and had had some trifling success only in Crete. When the Second Epistle to Timothy was composed, they had found a more favourable soil in Ephesus; by fusing their dogmas with Christian ideas they had won over notable members of the church, so that there was a danger of this heresy eating into it like a cancer. The author was not deceived in this respect, but saw “the introduction of Essene dogmas into Christianity completed,” and the heretical transformation of the fundamental ideas of Christianity into Essenism carried out to its ultimate consequences; hence he wrote another Third Epistle. In the earlier epistle, however, “he had chosen the situation in Paul’s imprisonment just before his death,’ and thus “he had now to select some earlier period in the apostle’s life for writing anew.” The INTRODUCTION. 69 hypothesis is clever enough, but on the one hand there is no ground for presupposing that the heresy is more advanced in the First Epistle than in the Second, and on the other hand the forger would have acted most foolishly in placing the Jater stage of the heresy in an earlier period. Altogether, apart from the necessary explanation which these hypotheses give of some points, they leave many other points quite untouched. Mangold, in agreement with de Wette, gives one more proof for this theory of later composition—viz. that the Hymenaeus, mentioned in the Second Epistle as a member of the church, had already been excommunicated in the First. But, granting the identity of the persons, why could Paul not bring forward later as a heretic a man who had been excom- municated for his heresy? Besides, in the manner in which the man is mentioned in 2 Tim. ii. 17, there is no indication that Timothy had known anything of him before. Bleek (Linleitung in das N. T.) has anew sought to prove the correctness of Schleiermacher’s view, that the First Epistle to Timothy is the on/y one not genuine. The chief ground on which he relies is the entire want of allusion to personal relations in the church; but this want is sufficiently explained by the motive of the epistle. Bleek thinks it strange that in the instructions regarding the bishopric no mention is made of any particular person in Ephesus fitted for the office; but we must remember that those instructions were given to Timothy not for the Ephesian Church alone. Stress is laid on the absence of any greetings from Paul to the church or to individual members of it, and from the Macedonian Chris- tians to Timothy; but greetings were not at all necessary, and there are other epistles in which they are altogether wanting or very subordinate. All the other reasons advanced by Bleek, he himself declares to be secondary. When impartially con- sidered, they are seen to have no weight—especially for one who, like Bleek, acknowledges that the epistle contains nothing un-Pauline. The Epistle to Titus—The criticisms made on this epistle by de Wette are, that it neither agrees with the state of things mentioned in it, nor corresponds with its purpose and the relation of the writer to the reader. As to the first 70 THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. point, it rests chiefly on the erroneous theory, that the epistle was written soon after the gospel was first preached in Crete. If Christianity had already spread to Crete and in the island before the apostle arrived there, there would be nothing strange in mentioning the multitude of heretics, nor in the blame given to the Cretans in spite of their readiness to receive Christianity, nor in the instructions which presuppose that Christianity had been some time in existence there. With regard to the second and third charge, we must note, on the one hand, that de Wette arbitrarily defines the purpose of the epistle to be, “to give to Titus instructions about the choice of presbyters, and about contending with heretics,” which certainly makes the greatest part of the epistle appear to be a digression from its purpose; and, on the other hand, that the weight and importance of the general instructions and exhortations for the development of the Christian life have received too little recognition—Reuss (Gesch. αἰ. heiligen Schriften des N. T., 2nd ed. 1853) shows greater caution than de Wette in his opinion: “The somewhat solemn tone may excite surprise, not less so that Paul apparently found it necessary in a special letter to say things to Titus which were self-evident. This surprise may, however, give way before the consideration that Paul did not consider it neces- sary to deliver to his substitute a kind of official instruction and authorization as his certificate in the churches. More simply and surely it may give way, when it is remembered that the apostle wrote for special reasons and that an important matter could never appear to him to be too strongly enjoined.” —As to other points, even de Wette acknowledges that the epistle, “though not written with the Pauline power, liveli- ness, and fulness of thought, has still the apostle’s clearness, good connection, and vocabulary.” The Second Epistle to Timothy.— In this epistle, apart from the historical inconceivability which it seems to him to share with the other two, de Wette takes exception to the following | points, viz.: that, as already remarked, Timothy is not treated ᾿ in a proper fashion, and that many exhortations (especially 11. 2, 14-16, iii. 14~iv. 2), as well as the prophetic outbursts (iii. 1-5, — iv. 3) and the polemic attacks (ii. 16-21, 23, ii, 6—9, 13), do INTRODUCTION. wa not accord with the purpose of inviting him to come to Rome. —But as to the first accusation, the apostle’s exhortations do not by any means presuppose such a feebleness of faith and faintness of heart in Timothy, as de Wette in too harsh a fashion represents; besides, a forger would hardly have sketched a picture of Timothy in contradiction with the reality. The second accusation is based solely on de Wette’s inability to distinguish between the occasion and purpose of an epistle. De Wette further finds fault with the epistle, that here and there it is written with no good grammatical and logical connection, and without proper tact (for which he appeals to ii. 11, iv. ὃ !); but these are subjective judgments which decide nothing—Schleiermacher declared the process of thought both in this epistle and in that to Titus to be faultless; and Reuss pronounces the following judgment on them: “Among all the Pauline Epistles assailed by criticism, no one (except the one to Philemon) bears so clearly the stamp of genuineness as this epistle, unless it be considered without any perception of the state of things presented in it. The personal references are almost more numerous than any- where else, always natural, for the most part new, in part extremely insignificant ; the tone is at once paternal, loving, and confidential, as to a colleague; the doctrine brief and hastily repeated, not as to one ignorant and weak, but as from one dying who writes for his own peace——The reference to the apostolic office is the chief point from beginning to end, and there is no trace of hierarchical ambition or any other later tendencies.” Bleek is decided in maintaining the authen- ticity both of the Epistle to Titus and of this epistle. The following are the results of an investigation which takes the actual circumstances into careful consideration :—1. The external testimonies are decidedly in favour of the authenticity of the epistles. 2. The difficulty of bringing them into any period of the apostle’s life disappears when we assume a second imprisonment at Rome. 3. The internal peculiarity of the epistles, both in regard to the matter discussed in them and in regard to the process of thought and mode of expression, resents much that is strange, but nothing to testify against ier THE PASTORAL EPISTLES. the authenticity. 4. “ There is no sufficient resting-place for the critical judgment of rejection, so long as we only know that the epistles cannot be Pauline; everything depends on proving positively that they arose at a later date.” Such 15 Baur’s opinion. But this positive proof entirely breaks down. Baur’s attempt has no evidence to support it; de Wette makes an uncertain conjecture; and Mangold, who sees Essenism in the heresy, himself admits that this is no reason for assigning the epistles to the post-apostolic age. If there are difficulties in vindicating the Pauline authorship, it is still more difficult to prove in whole or in part how a forger could manufacture three such epistles as these are, in form and contents, and foist them on the Apostle Paul.—Since, therefore, there is no sufficient proof of the ost-apostolic origin of the epistles, we may further (as Wiesinger also has completely shown) main- tain their right to a place in the Canon as Pauline writ- ings, all the more that the Pauline spirit is not contradicted in them, and that, in comparison with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, they show a decided superiority in their whole tenor." 1 Guericke: ‘‘ The Pastoral Epistles are certainly not written in so fresh and lively amanner, nor do they enter as thoroughly into details, as do Paul’s earlier epistles. They show us the great apostle as a grey-haired man, bent with age, with persecution, with anxiety (?). His hate is especially sharpened against the enemies of the kingdom of God; but he is at the same time filled with a sadness all the more deep, as he beholds the kingdom of Antichrist develop now and threaten the future. Thus the fragile(?) covering reveals all the more nobly the spirit of faith and love which dwelt within him.” Παύλου πρὸς Τιμόθεον ἐπιστολὴ πρώτη. A, al. have the shorter inscription πρὸς Τιμόθεον ὥ, Which in D E F Gis preceded by the word ἄρχεται. CHAPTER I. Ver. 1. ἐσιτσαγήν] δὲ reads instead ἐπαγγελίαν, a reading not found elsewhere, and not confirmed by its meaning; it may have arisen inadvertently from 2 Tim. 1. 1. — Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν] In the later Mss. there is great variety in the reading, partly by arranging the words differently, partly by adding the article to one or other of them, partly by inserting the word πατρός ; τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ, 73, 80, 116, 213, al., Arm.—rod σωτῆρος Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, 37.—O:0d πατρὸς καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, 38, 48, 72, al., codd. — xa? κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ] καί is omitted by various cursives, or placed before σωτῆρος ; the latter in the Mss. just named, as well as in Ambros., who has Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν; the former in Ar. pol., which has Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, κυρίους In many cursives καί is omitted along with κυρίου following it; Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, in 17, 31, al; τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, 43, and in those above mentioned, 38, 48, 72, and in Ambros.—Cod. 118 has τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἾἿ. X. καὶ κυρίου "I. Χ. --- κυρίου is wanting in the most important authorities, A D* F G, many cursives and translations (Syr. both, Copt. Sahid. Aeth., etc.); hence it is omitted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch., while Matthaei has retained 1t with the remark: ita omnes omnino mei.—AInstead of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the most important Mss., etc., have the reading Χριστοῦ Ιησοῦ, which is therefore adopted by Griesb. & has the same reading as the Ree. : καὶ xupiov Inc. Xp.— Ver. 2. ἡμῶν after πατρός is wanting in A B D* F G 17, 23, al., Copt. (not Sahid.) Arm. Slav., etc., and is therefore to be deleted; the interpolation is easily explained from a comparison with the other Pauline Epistles. — Ver. 4. For γενεωλογίαις, κενολογίαις Occurs as a conjecture. — Instead of ζητήσεις, δὲν A and some cursives have ἐκζητήσεις, which is adopted by Tisch. 8. This reading may be the original one, which as a ἁπαξ λεγομ. in the N. T. was changed into the usual ζητήσεις ; the meaning is the same.— O/xodousuv (Rec.) is found perhaps in 73 ‘ 74 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. no Greek ms. According to Tisch., D*** has it; but this is denied by Reiche (Comment. crit. in N. 1. 11. p. 356). It is, according to Reiche: “nil nisi error typothetarum Erasmi, aut conjectura Erasmi ipsius;” the latter he considers more probable. By far the most have οἰκονομίαν; only D* and Iren. er. ap. Epiph. have οἰκοδομήν (aedificationem: Lyr. Erp. Syr. Ὁ. in τὴ. Vulg. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast.). The reading οἰκονομίαν is supported by authorities so important, that we cannot doubt its correctness. Matthaei says: οἰκονομίαν ita omnes omnino mei, ac li quidem, qui scholia habent, etiam in scholiis, uti quoque interpretes editi, οἰκοδομίαν nihil nisi error est typothetarum Erasmi, 6 cum » confuso, nisi Erasmus deliberato ita correxerit ad Latinum aedificationem. — Ver. 8. Instead of χρῆταν, Lachm. reads χρήσηται, after A '73,Clem. The common reading is more natural, and is to be considered right, as the other has not sufficient testimony.— Ver. 9. Instead of the regular forms rurpuawors and μητραλῴαις, A D F ἃ 48, 72, 93, al. have πατρολῴαις and μητρολῴαις, which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted; several cursives have πατραλοίαις and μητραλοΐαις. ---- Ver. 11. In D* and several versions there stands before κατά the art. τῇ ; a manifest interpolation in order to connect κατὰ z.7.2. With the foregoing διδασκαλίᾳ. ---- Ver. 12. καὶ χάριν ἔχω] The most important authorities, A F G 17, 31, 67** 71, al., Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg., etc., also δὲν are against καί, which seems to have been added in order to join this verse more closely with the previous one. In Matthaei καί stands without dispute. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 left it out; Tisch. 7, with Wiesinger, had retained it, following D K L, several versions, and Fathers. — ἐνδυναμώσαντί we] δὲ has the pres. ἐνδυναμοῦντι, and omits με; a reading supported by no other authority. — Ver. 13. τὸν πρότερον ὄντα) A D* F Gs 17, 67*** 71, 80, al., Dial. c. Mare. have τό instead of τόν. The latter is a correction in order to join the partic. and the following subst. more closely with the previous we. Lachm. and Tisch. adopted ré. Matthaei, on the other hand, reads τόν, with the remark: τὸ zp. in nullo meorum inveni, nisi in uno Chrysostomi « qui fortasse voluit, σὺν τὸ πρότερο. Muralto likewise reads rév.— After ὄντα, A 73 have με, which is also adopted by Lachm. It disturbs, however, the natural connection, and the authorities for it are not sufficient ; hence it is not adopted by Tisch. — Ver. 15. δὲ omits σόν before xéouov.— Ver. 16. Lachm. and Tisch. 7, following A D, etc, read Xp. “Ino.; Tisch. 8, following 8 K L P, reads ἼἸησ. Xp.—Instead of πᾶσαν, according to Ὁ K L, Tisch, rightly adopted ἅπασαν from A F G, etc. — Ver. 17. Instead of ἀφθάρτῳ, D* has the reading ἀθανάτῳ, and F G have this word CHAP. I. 1, 2. Ὁ inserted after uévw.—The word σοφῷ is rightly rejected by Griesb. Knapp, Lachm. Tisch. Buttm. and others, since A D* F G καὶ 37, 179, 73, the Syr. Copt. Arm. and other versions testify against it. Itwas probably an interpolation from Rom. xvi. 27 ; Matthaei retained it, remarking: Vulgatum habet et repetit Chrys. xi. 569, 570; item 1. 464, c. v. 393, 6. Ath. 11. 425, 433. Attamen σοφῷ abest ap. Cyrill. v., a. 295, haud dubie casu ac per errorem. Ex omnibus omnino Codd. omittunt 5011 A D F G 37. Reiche (Comment. crit. in N. 1. 11. pp. 360-363) maintains that σοφῷ cannot be an interpolation from Rom. xvi. 27, because the doxology there is not genuine. See, on the other hand, Meyer in his critical remarks on the passage ; he holds σοφῷ to be genuine, on internal grounds, viz.: (1) Because Paul had no reason for emphasizing the unity of God against the heretics ; and (2) because the reading μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ 15 the more difficult one. But these internal grounds are insufficient against the weight of the authorities. — Ver. 18. Instead of στρατεύῃ, 8 has στρωτεύσῃ. Vv. 1, 2. As in most of his other epistles, Paul here calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ in the narrower sense of the term, according to which it was applied only to those immediately called by Christ to the ministry of the gospel. He directs attention to the immediate nature of the call by adding _ the words κατ᾿ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν κιτιλ. In 1 Cor, 2 Cor., Eph., Col., 2 Tim., dua θελήματος Θεοῦ is used for a like purpose. The expression κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν «.7.r. is found elsewhere in the inscription only in Tit. i. 3, where, however, it is not placed in such close connection with ἀπόστολος as , here (comp. besides Rom. xvi. 26, also 1 Cor. vii. 6; 2 Cor. viii. 8). The θέλημα is the source of the ἐπιταγή, by which we are to understand the commission given to the apostle. By this addition the apostle expresses his “assured consciousness of the divine origin and worth of his apostle- ship” (Matthies). It is not, however, an “involuntary” expression. The apostle deliberately insists on his apostolic authority, for the very sufficient reason that he was laying down in his epistle rules for church life. Heydenreich’s suggestion, that Paul meant at the same time to con- firm Timothy’s position, is very far-fetched. — Θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν] This collocation of the words is only found else- where in the N. T. in Jude 25 ; in all passages of the Pastoral 76 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. Epistles it usually runs: ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Θεός. In this passage σωτὴρ ἡμῶν is added as in adjectival apposition to Θεοῦ ; while in Luke i. 47 it is marked as a substantive by the article. In the Pastoral Epistles σωτήρ is used both of God (so frequently in O. T.; comp. LXX. Ps. xxiv. 5; Isa. xii. 2, xlv. 15, 21; Wisd. Sol. xvi. 7; Ecclus, li. 1) and of Christ ; in the other Pauline Epistles (0... Eph. v. 23; Phil. ii. 20), as well as in John iv. 42, Acts v. 31, etc., it serves to denote Christ. Heydenreich is right in remarking that. God does not bear this name as preserver and benefactor of men in general, but on account of the means He has instituted for saving and blessing us through Christ. — καὶ Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ] These words are added on account of the apostle’s Christology ; so also in Gal. i. 1. — τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν] Christ is so named because He is both “the ground of our hope” (Wiesinger) and the object of it. He is hoped for, because by Him the σωτηρία is brought to completion (Calvin: in eo solo residet tota salutis nostrae materia); comp. the expression in Col. 1. 27: ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς S0&Fs. — Τιμοθέῳ γνησίῳ τέκνῳ ἐν πίστει] Paul calls Timothy his child; he was not so κατὰ σάρκα but ἐν πίστει, since he was converted to the faith by Paul, as we learn from 1 Cor. iv. 14-17. Paul usually calls himself the father of those who had been led to the faith by him (comp. Gal. iv. 19). The idea of τέκνον is strengthened by γνήσιος, perhaps by way of contrast with the heretics. The opposite of γνήσιος is νόθος or οὐκ ὄντως ὧν (comp. Plato, fep. 293). This addition also gives prominence to the fact that Timothy was his son in the faith, not in appear- ance but in truth ; hence Paul calls him also in 1 Cor. iv. 17 his τέκνον ἀγαπητὸν καὶ πιστὸν ἐν κυρίῳ. --- ἐν πίστει] “in the sphere of faith,’ is not to be connected with γνησίῳ but with τέκνῳ, as defined more closely by γνησίῳ ; comp. Tit. i. 4, and see Winer, p. 130 [E. T. p. 171]. — χάρις, ἔλεος, εἰρήνη] This collocation occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles and in 2 John 3; in the other Pauline Epistles it runs: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη. In Gal. vi. 16, however, εἰρήνη and ἔλεος are connected with one another. In Jude 2 we have: ἔλεος ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ ἀγάπη. The three expressions manifestly do not indicate three different gifts of grace, but only one. The CHAP. I. 3, 4. 7] distinction is, that χάρις points more to the soil from which the gift comes, and εἰρήνη denotes its nature, while the ἔλεος (standing between the two others in the Pastoral Epistles) lays stress on the element of compassionate love in χάρις. Otto arbitrarily finds in ἔλεος “a reference to the official position,’ appealing to such passages as 1 Tim. mets tos) Cor, vii 255. 2 Cor ivi 1, Paul. does also acknowledge that his call to the ministry of the word came from God’s ἔλεος: but it does not follow from this that the word ἔλεος is used only in reference to the official position ; comp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Tim. i. 16, 18.— ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ «.T.\.]| Even with the reading ἡμῶν the genitive Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ cannot be made to depend on Θεοῦ. Next to the Father, Paul names Christ as the source from which the blessing comes, because all the Father’s gifts of blessing come through the Son. Vy. 3, 4. The apostle reminds Timothy, in the first place, of a previous exhortation, obviously for the purpose of impress- ing it more deeply on him.—The most natural construction of the sentence appears to be, to take it as an anacolouthon, to connect ἐν ᾿Εἰφέσῳ with προσμεῖναι, to refer πορευόμενος to the subject of παρεκάλεσα, and to make ἵνα dependent on παρεκαλεσά σε κιτλ. This construction is held by most expositors to be the only admissible one. The missing apodosis cannot, however, be supplied before ‘va, because ἵνα is closely connected with what precedes; we may insert with Erasmus “ita facito,’ or with Beza “vide,” or with most expositors “ οὕτω καὶ viv παρακαλῶ" (Winer, p. 530 [E. T. p- 592]). The peculiarity in such an involuntary (Buttm. p. 331) anacolouthon is, that the grammatical connection is not established by inserting the omitted apodosis. The most 1 Wiesinger is right in not agreeing with Olshausen, who wishes to see in the expressions σωτήρ, ἐλπίς, ἔλεος, a special reference to the apostle’s position as a prisoner. Van Oosterzee aptly remarks: ‘‘Grace may be called the greatest benefaction for the guilty, compassion for the suffering, peace for the contend- ing (?) disciple of the Lord.” Hofmann is right in his remark on 1 Tim. i. 1, that χάρις with ἀπό does not denote God’s thoughts, but “that in which His thoughts are shown, the grace which man receives.” In his explanation of 1 Tim. i, 2: ‘‘ χάρις is that which is imparted to man by God, who wishes him well,” the idea of χάρις is made far too general. 78 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. simple course is to suppose that the apostle had “ οὕτω καὶ νῦν Tapaxar®” or “οὕτω ποίει" in mind, but the place for it was lost in the abundance of the thoughts that streamed in on him.—Several expositors depart from the construction commonly accepted. Matthies takes mpoopetvar as “ stay,” not as “remain behind,” refers πορευόμενος not to the subject of παρεκάλεσα, but to σε (making an unjustifiable appeal to Eph. iii. 17, 18, iv. i 2; Col. iii. 16’), and explains the whole thus: When Timothy was intending to travel to Macedonia, Paul had charged him to stop at Ephesus and remain there. Schneckenburger (see his Beitrdge z. Einl. pp. 182 ff.) arbitrarily changes the infin. προσμεῖναιν into the partic. προσμείνας, and refers πορευόμενος to the following clause: ἵνα παραγγείλῃς. Otto treats πορευόμενος in the same way, at the same time connecting ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ with παρεκάλεσα, taking προσμεῖναν in an absolute sense, making the apodosis begin with ἵνα, and translating: “Just as I exhorted you to stand firm in Ephesus, so shalt thou on the journey to Macedonia command the people not to give attention to strange teachers, nor to hold them in esteem,” ete. This construction is, however, so artificial, that it is obviously incorrect to every one who is not blinded by the desire of placing the date of the composition of the epistle in a period of the apostle’s life known to us. REMARK.—In order to justify his view of the sentence, Otto tries to prove the incorrectness of the usual construction, and to get rid of the objections to his own. The hypothesis of an ellipsis he rejects on account of the rule that the emphatic word can never be omitted, and that if we supply the apodosis by “οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ," the emphatic words are καὶ νῦν. But these words are not by any means the most emphatic. The apostle might be using them not specially of the contrast between past and present, but only to give point to his former exhortation; hence he might easily omit the apodosis. Otto further maintains, that in the usual construction καθώς, which always denotes a material, 1 In the passages quoted, Paul adds the participles to the previous clauses in the nom., and these participial clauses thus acquire the independence due to them according to the context. But in these passages the relation of the participial clause to the preceding main clause is quite different from what it is here, where there is no reason whatever for departing from the regular construction. CHAP. I. 3, 4. 79 actual correspondence, even to identity of motives, and further, of material contents, does not get its full force. On this point we indeed grant that the peculiar meaning of καθώς (as distin- euished from ὡς) is not distinctly marked by the expositors ; but it is not at all necessary in the usual interpretation to weaken arbitrarily the force of καθώς, since the apostle’s former exhorta- tion could not but be his guide in the present one. Still less difficulty, however, is presented by καθώς, if we choose to supply οὕτω ποίει (aS Hofmann does), since the meaning then is, that Timothy’s conduct is to be conformed to the exhortation already given by the apostle. — Otto tries further to show that in the usual explanation the participle πορευόμενος 15 not in its proper place. The rules which Otto lays down on the subject of participial clauses in order to support his assertion are, on the whole, not incorrect. The passages he quotes from the N. T. certainly show that the participle following a finite verb mostly defines it more precisely ; that it either explains more precisely the verbal notion, or gives the accompanying circumstances of the verb. But Otto has overlooked the departures from this rule which occur in the N. T.; comp. Luke iv. 40 with Mark i. 31; Matt. xii. 49 with Acts xxvi.1; Matt. xxi. 15 with Matt. xii. 14; further, Luke xxiv. 17.'. It cannot be denied that the participle following sometimes gives simply the time in which the action of the finite verb takes place ; that here, therefore, the πορευόμενος may simply denote the time of the former exhortation.” Otto quotes the passage in Acts xu. 25 as supporting the rule that the participle following should serve to explain the verbal notion, and justifies this by saying that the participle πληρώσαντες τὴν διακονίαν gives the motive of the return. But to give the motive is no explanation. In this passage, however, the position of the participle after the finite verb is justified in this way, that it gives the motive for the action expressed by the finite verb. So, too, in the passage here there is nothing to be said against the connection of πορευόμενος with παρεκάλεσα, SO Soon as we suppose that the journey was the 1 Otto tries to weaken the force of this passage against him by assuming a rhetorical inversion, because, he says, it is declared ‘‘that taking a walk and holding solemn dispute are inconsistent with one another” (!). * In his groundless denial of this, Otto thinks that if πορευόμενος be joined to παρεκάλεσα it must be assumed to be a circumstance accompanying the παρεκάλεσα, but that this assumption is impossible, since a continuing fact (part. pres.) can- not be regarded as the accompanying circumstance of a concluded fact (part. aor.). But Otto overlooks the fact that πορευόμενος in this connection is not to be understood in the sense of continuing a journey, but in the sense of beginning one, of setting out. 80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTIIY. occasion for Paul giving Timothy the exhortation in question. Lastly, Otto attacks the usual construction from the notion of προσμεῖναι, because this word is explained in the construction to be equivalent to “remain, stay;” whereas, when not connected with a dative (or with a participial clause representing a dative), but standing absolutely, it has the meaning: “to maintain the posi- tion hitherto possessed, to stand firm.” Hence, if any definition of place is added, it is not as a completion of the verbal notion, but only indicates where the standing firm takes place. Otto infers from this: “accordingly ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ here does not complete προσμεῖναι, but rather προσμεῖναι is absolute, and ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ gives the place at which the whole sentence, viz. παρεκάλεσά σε προσμεῖναι, took place.” This inference is obviously incorrect, since from Otto’s premises it only follows that, if ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ belongs to προσμεῖναι, the place is thus given where Timothy is to stand fast, —in particular against the heretics,—it does not follow that ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ may be connected with προσμεῦαι. Besides, from Acts xviii. 18, it is clear beyond dispute that προσμένειν does occur in the N. T. in the weakened sense of “remain, stay.”’ Otto does not disguise the objections to his view, but he thinks that when thoroughly weighed they are more apparent than real. In this, too, he is wrong. It is indeed right to say that in the N. T.a sentence often begins with ἵνα without any verb preceding on which it depends,—and this not only in cases where the govern- ing verbal notion is easily supplied from what precedes, as in John i. 8, ix. 3, xiii. 18, 2 Cor. viii. 7, but also when that is not the case, so that the clause beginning with ἵνα stands as an imperative clause, as in Eph. v. 33; Mark v. 23 (comp. Buttm. pp. 207 f.). But in all passages where ἵνα is used elliptically, this is shown clearly and distinctly by the form of the sentence, which is not the case here. It is right also to say that emphatic parts of the clause construed with ἵνα are often placed before iva, so that πορευόμενος, therefore, might very well be connected with 1 In this passage, also, Otto claims for πιροσμένειν, as a Vox militaris, the mean- ing : ‘‘keep one’s ground,” remarking, ‘“‘ for the circumstances in Corinth were such that they might well have induced Paul to cease his labours and depart.” But this assertion is in contradiction with Luke’s statement, that the attack attempted by the Jews through Gallio was decisively warded off. Otto’s ex- planation, too, becomes all the more unsuitable, since, according to it, Luke would charge the apostle with not holding his ground more, and with abandon- ing his post.—Further, Otto seems to hesitate whether to take προσμεῖναι in the present passage as really absolute, or whether to supply with it the dative poi. After finally deciding for the former, he then explains xpocwsivas as ‘keeping ground along with the leader appointed by God in the struggle against all the attacks of the heretic,” and thus in self-contradiction returns to the latter, since this leader is the Apostle Paul. CHAP, I. 3, 4. 81 the clause following ἵνα ; but this, too, is always indicated clearly by the form of the sentence. Wherever words standing before iva are to be referred to what follows iva, these words cannot possibly be connected with what precedes them, and the part of the sentence following ἵνα is incomplete in itself, so that it has to be taken along with the part before ἵνα. It is wrong to main- tain that the participial clause πορευόμενος εἰς Maxed. becomes emphatic by contrast with ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ, inasmuch as what took place in Hphesus is now to take place also on the journey to Macedonia ; for—the two things are not at all the same. In Ephesus (according to Otto’s view), Paul exhorted Timothy to stand firm; but on the journey to Macedonia, Timothy is to encounter those who had been led astray. Lastly, it is right to assume that the sender of a letter, if he has anything to say of the place from which the letter is sent, may speak of it by name, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, so that ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ might convey to us that Paul was himself in Ephesus while writing; but we must take into consideration the special circumstances of the case. According to Otto, our epistle is a paper of instructions which the apostle put into Timothy’s hands in Ephesus, where he wrote it before setting out for Macedonia. In that case it was improper to mention the place by name. We cannot understand, then, why Paul in such a paper of instructions should have laid special stress on the exhortation he had imparted to Timothy in the very place where he put that paper into his hands. Some expositors take the whole section vv. 5-17 to be a parenthesis, and ver. 18 to be the apodosis corresponding to καθώς. The awkwardness of this construction is obvious; but Plitt thinks that, though it is not without its difficulties, most may be said for it. He is wrong, however, since ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν, in ver. 18, does not resume the παρεκάλεσά σε. — If we avoid all subtleties, we cannot but explain it: Even as I exhorted thee to remain in Ephesus when I set out for Macedonia, that thou mightst command certain men not to teach false doctrine . . . even so do (or: even so I exhort thee also now)." Regarding the meaning of καθώς and προσμεῖναι, see the above remark. — παρεκάλεσα] Chrys.: ἄκουε τὸ προσηνές, TAS οὐ διδασκάλου κέχρηται ῥωμῇ, ἀλλ᾽ οἰκέτου σχεδόν᾽ οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ἐπέταξα, οὐδὲ ἐκέλευσα, οὐδὲ παρήνεσα, ἀλλὰ τί; παρεκάλεσά ? Hofmann is wrong in asserting that Paul, when he wrote καθώς (not ὡς), could not have had in mind “‘ any expression of which the writer was the sub- ject, but only an exhortation as to what Timothy was to do.” PASTORAL EPISTLES, F (oe) bo THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTIIY. oc. Towards Titus, however, Paul uses the expression &te- ταξάμην (Tit. i. 5), although he was not less friendly towards him than towards Timothy. — πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν] “when I went away, from Ephesus to Macedonia;” πορεὺυ- έσθαι has in itself the general meaning of going, but it is also used of going away from a place, both absolutely (Matt. xi. 7) and connected with ἀπό (Matt. xxiv. 1, xxv. 41, xix. 15: ἐκεῖθεν ; Luke xiii. 31: ἐντεῦθεν). Otto explains it: “ on the way to Macedonia,” which is grammatically correct, but opposed to the connection of ideas. There is no ground whatever for thinking that Paul, in this expression, had in mind one parti- cular place on the way to Macedonia, viz. Corinth. We can see no reason why Paul should have expressed himself inde- finitely. Otto, indeed, is of opinion that Timothy could not have been uncertain about the meaning of the expression ; and that the apostle chose it in order to spare the feelings of the Corinthians, and that he might not confess to the heretics how they had provoked his apostolic opposition to an exceptional degree. But the first reason proves too much, since Paul, if he refrained from the definite expression because Timothy knew his wishes without it, would also have refrained from the indefinite expression. The other two reasons are weak, because if Timothy was to labour successfully against the heretics, he must necessarily appeal to the authority of the apostle in whose name he was to labour. Besides, such playing at hide-and- seek as Otto imputes to the apostle, is in entire contradiction with Paul’s frank character. — ἵνα παραγγείλῃς κ.τ.λ.] gives the purpose for which Timothy was to remain in Ephesus. The theory that this gives at the same time the purpose of the whole epistle (Matthies), which opinion de Wette brings forward as proving the epistle not to be genuine, is wrong, — παραγγείλῃς does not necessarily involve the suggestion of publicity which Matthies finds in it.— τισί] The same indefinite term is used for the heretics also in vv. 6, 19, iv. 1, v. 15, etc.: “certain people whom the apostle is un- willing to designate further; Timothy already knows them” (Wiesinger). — μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν] The word, which is not made up of ἕτερος and διδασκάλειν (= διδάσκειν), but is derived from ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος, occurs in the N. T. only here and in CHAP. I.. 3, 4 89 vi. 3 (comp. érepofuyety in 2 Cor. vi. 14). In ἕτερος there is not seldom the notion of different in kind, strange, something not agreeing with something else, but opposed to it. Accord- ingly, in the apostle’s use of the word, a ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος is a teacher who teaches other things than he should teach, who puts forward doctrines in opposition to the gospel; and érepo- διδασκαλεῖν here means nothing else than to teach something opposed to the gospel (Heb. xiii. 9: διδαχαῖς ποικίλαις καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε) ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. 1. 6: εὐαγ- γέλιον ἕτερον. Wiesinger, in order to favour his theory that heresy proper is not spoken of, weakens the meaning into “teach otherwise,” so that according to him it signifies “teaching things which lie apart from ἡ κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλία. This is incorrect, for in that case some more precise definition would have been given. — Even in classic Greek, ἕτερος, in composi- tion, often has the meaning alleged by us; thus ἑτεροδοξεῖν = diversae opinionis esse; comp. Plato, Theact. p. 190 E: δόξαν εἶναι ψευδῆ τὸ ἑτεροδοξεῖν. According to Otto, érepodidac- καλεῖν means: “to have another teacher, to follow another teacher.” Otto wrongly appeals for this to Euseb. Hist. Eccles, ill. 32, where ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι does not mean false teachers, but “such members of the church as had abandoned the teaching of the apostles and become attached to strange teachers ;” and also to Ignat. ad Polycarp. chap. 3, where ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες has the same meaning.’ Otto also makes appeal to the Greek usage, according to which, in composite nouns, the concluding word, if it be a noun, does not contain the subject of the fundamental thought in such composite words, but the nearer or more distant object. But this rule is only valid with adjectival forms. In composite substantives, on the contrary, the concluding word (if it be an unaltered substantive) may also denote the subject, which is only defined 1 The first passage runs : τηνικαῦτα (viz. after the apostle’s death) τῆς ἀθέου πλάνης ἀρχὴν ἐλάμβανεν ἡ σύστασις διὰ τῆς τῶν ἱτεροδιδασκάλων ἀτάτης, of καὶ. .. γυμνῇ λοιπὸν ἤδη κεφαλῇ TH τῆς ἀληθείας κηρύγματι Thy Ψευδώνυμον γνῶσιν ἀντικηρύς- πεῖν ἐπεχείρουν. The relative clause shows most clearly that the word ἑσεροδιδάσ- καλοὶ means nothing else than false teachers. — The second passage is: of δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπισσοι εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες μή σε xaraxdnoctrwcey; in which, also, false teachers, heretics, are meant, as is evident from the injunction: μή os %.7.4., as well as from the exhortation that follows. 84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. more precisely by the word that precedes.'— There is no ground whatever for Schleiermacher’s opinion, that the verb suggests the idea of a hierarchy. — To μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν there is added a second point: μηδὲ προσέχειν «.7.r., which Timothy is to forbid to τινες." Except in the Pastoral Epistles, προσέ- xew does not occur in Paul. Here, as in Tit. i. 14, it includes the notion of agreement; so also in Acts viii. 6. — μύθοις καὶ yeveadoyiais] The καί is to be taken epexegetically ; we can neither join the two expressions as an hendiadys (fabulosae genealogiae, Heumann), nor regard them as denoting different things. The notion of μῦθοι has been limited too narrowly by many expositors,—as by Theodoret, who understands by it the traditional supplements to the law; or by others, who take it as denoting the allegorical system of interpretation, or the Jewish stories of miracles (such as occur in the pseudo-epigrapha or the Apocrypha), or even the Gentile mythologies. Leo is wrong in agreeing with Theodoret’s exposition, appealing to Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. chap. 8), and alluding to ver. 7. From that verse it is certainly clear that heretics had peculiar views regarding the law, which were in contradiction with the gospel; but it is a mere assertion to say that μῦθοι here refers to these views, all the more that the word stands closely connected with γενεαλογίαι. De Wette limits the meaning of the word in another fashion, inferrmg from 2 Pet. 1. 16: σεσοφισμένοι μῦθοι, that the μῦθοι here meant, formed the definite element in an artificial system; the notion of some- thing artificial is obviously imported. Other expositors take the expression quite generally in the sense of “false doctrine,” as Suidas explains the word: μῦθος" λόγος ψευδής, εἰκονίζων τὴν ἀλήθειαν ; this is too indefinite. Paul rather employs it because it was used to denote false ideas regarding the nature 1 The adj. ἑσερόσους certainly does not denote ‘‘a halting foot,” but ‘‘ one who has a halting foot.” On the contrary, κακόδουλος is not ‘‘one who has a bad slave,” but ‘‘a bad slave.” Comp. also μικροβασιλεύς, Ψευδόμαντις, and others ; in the N. T., especially the expressions : ψευδοδιδάσκαλος (ψευδοπροφήτης, Ψευδόμαραυρ, ψευδαπόσπολος), 2 Pet. ii. 1, and καλοδιδάσκαωλος, Tit. 11. 3. It is to be noted, also, that in Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Rhet. 42, κακοδιδασκαλεῖν does not mean ‘‘to have a bad teacher,” but ‘‘ to teach what is bad.” 2 Without grounds in usage or in fact, Hofmann asserts that ‘‘ προσέχειν evi is not an expression applicable to a teacher, and that therefore the ἕσεροδ, was to be applied to some, and the προσέχειν x.7.4. to others,” CHAP. I. 3, 4. 8: ῷᾳι of the Godhead. The word that follows defines the nature of these μῦθοι more precisely. —- On the γενεαλογίαν ἀπέραντοι, see Introd. sect. 4. Wiesinger’s view, that they denote the genealogies in the O. T., as well as that of Hofmann, that they are the historical facts in the Thora, are both to be rejected. Credner’s view, that the genealogies of Christ are meant, is quite arbitrary. So, too, with Chrysostom’s explanation: οἶμαι καὶ “Ελληνας αὐτὸν ἐνταῦθα αἰνίττεσθαι, ὅταν λέγῃ μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις, ὧς τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν καταλεγόντων. It is very far-fetched to refer to the Kabbalistic Sephiroth. The appl- cation of the expression to the Essenic doctrine of angels (Michaelis), is contradicted by the fact that theories of emana- tions cannot be proved to have existed among the Essenes. The view upheld by most expositors, that the apostle was thinking of the series of emanations in the speculation of the heretics, must be considered the right one. It is confirmed by the addition of the adjective dwépavro. The genealogies are “ unlimited,’ since there was no necessity for them to stop at any point whatever. The conclusion was altogether arbitrary : hence, in the various systems, the genealogies of the aeons differ from one another in all sorts of ways. — αἵτινες} is not simply an attributive relative; it gives at the same time the reason of the’ foregoing exhortation μὴ προσέχειν “as those which” (comp. Soph. Oed. &. 1184; Pape, Handwirterbuch der griech. Spr. See the word ὅστις). ----Ζητήσεις παρέχουσι μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ] Both notions: ζητήσεις and οἰκονομ. Θεοῦ, may be taken either subjectively or objectively. Τῇ ξητή- ces be taken objectively, it is “ points of controversy, questions of dispute ;” if subjectively, it is “investigations, controversies, disputations” (“each one trying to maintain his arbitrary fictions,” Matthies). If οἰκονομία Θεοῦ is taken objectively, it is “the salvation of God” (“the salvation grounded histori- cally in Christ and publicly preached by means of His apostles,” Matthies ; or according to others, “ the ministry of the gospel ;” or, lastly, “the divine gift of grace,” ze. the divine influence on individuals by which they are brought to the faith). If it is taken subjectively, it is “the work of man as an οἰκόνομος Θεοῦ :" de Wette: “the work of a steward of God in the faith (to be awakened or to be furthered).” This latter may be 86 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. taken, in a general sense, as meaning, “ the Christian activity, the Christian exercise of the divine gifts of grace,’’ or, more narrowly : “the maintaining, the strengthening in Christianity, the nourishment in the faith by the spiritual food of Chris- tianity, which the teachers as stewards of God distribute,” Zachariae. The meaning of παρέχουσι is also modified accord- ing to the interpretation of these two notions. If they are interpreted objectively, παρέχειν is “ reach forth, present ;” if subjectively, it is “cause, bring about” (so Gal. vi. 17; also frequently in classic Greek and in the Apocrypha of the O.T.; comp. Wahl, Clav. libr. V. T. apocryph., under the word). Ζήτησις is not identical with ζήτημα; οἰκονομία is indeed used in the sense of “office of steward,” but οἰκονομία Θεοῦ denotes “the preparation, the arrangement made by God” (comp. Eph. i. 10, ii. 9), and never “the divine salvation.” Hence the subjective interpretation (Hofmann) is to be pre- ferred to the objective (as formerly in this commentary; also Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee). In any case, Matthies is wrong in taking ἕητήσεις subjectively and οἰκονομία Θεοῦ objectively, and then assuming that παρέχειν is used in a zeugma. Otto's explanation is purely arbitrary. He explains ζητήσεις by “ speculations,” and οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει by “a system of divine order in the universe (sc. creation and govern- ment), resting on faith, grounded in faith,—the cosmogony and physics of the Jewish gnosis.” Of the latter phrase, he says that Paul “adopts the hypocritical name which the νομοδιδάσ- καλοι claimed for their system, so that the ζητήσεις form the real, the οἶκον. ἡ ἐν πίστει, on the contrary, the pretended con- tents of the μῦθοι and yeveadoylau.” By the addition of τὴν ἐν πίστει, the labour of the οἰκόνομος Θεοῦ is defined more precisely as one in the sphere of faith (not “ causing faith,” Hofmann). — μᾶλλον 4] as in several passages of the N. Τὶ, John iii. 19, Acts xxvii. 11, 2 Tim. iii. 4, stands here in the sense of denying the thought contained in the following mem- ber, so that (with Suidas) it is equivalent to καὶ ov.” — With 1 Thus Reiche : ista commenta... non exhibent, praebent, efficiunt dispen- sationem (distributionem) bonorum quae Deus Christo misso in nos contulit. 2 Hofmann wrongly applies this form of expression in order to dispute the reference of γενεαλογίαι to the series of aeons, saying: ‘‘ How could it occur to CHAP. 1. 5. 87 the reading οἰκοδομία (or οἰκοδομή) Θεοῦ, we must interpret, “the edifying in the faith as decreed by God” (Luther, in- accurately : “ the improvement towards God in the faith”). Ver. 5. Τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν κιτ.λ.1 It cannot be denied that in παραγγελίας we have an echo of παραγγείλῃς in ver. 3; but it does not follow that we are to understand by it the command which the apostle gave to Timothy not to teach falsely (so Bengel: praecepti quod Ephesi urgere debes). It rather stands here in contrast with the ἑτεροδιδασκαλία just mentioned, and denotes the command which is serviceable to the οἰκονομία Θεοῦ (ver. 4). It is equivalent to the ἐντολῇ in vi. 14, the evangelic law which forms the external rule for the conduct of Christians (Hofmann). The apostle alludes to this because he is about to pass to the doctrine of the heretics regarding the law.— It is wrong to understand by mapayyedia the Mosaic law (Calvin, Beza, and others), from which there would arise a thought foreign to the context; and it is unsatisfactory to take it in a general sense as “practical exhortation” (de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee), for in that case the imperative should have been used instead of ἐστιν. Itisa peculiarity of the N. T. usage to take expressions which of themselves have a more general signification, and to mark them off with the definite article as ideas specifically Chris- tian; thus τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ἡ ὅδος (often in Acts), τὸ κήρυγμα, and others. — τέλος] is neither “fulfilment” nor “chief sum” (Luther, Erasmus: quod universam legis mosaicae vim com- pendio complectitur ac praestat est caritas), but “goal, scopus ad quem tendit παραγγελία" (Koppe, Wegscheider, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others').— While the érepodidacxadia only causes ζητήσεις, which serve to engender divisions (γεννῶσι μάχας, 2 Tim. ii. 23), the aim of the-command of the gospel is love.—dydmn ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας «.7.r.] The gospel proclaims to the believer one divine act, the reconciliation through Christ grounded in God’s love, and it demands also the apostle to treat the question only as a possible one, whether these follies of their own invention could not in some measure be useful to what he calls οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ ὃ Such a possibility is not indicated by μᾶλλον 4. 1 Arriani dissertt. Epict. Book 1. chap. 20: τέλος ἐσεὶ τὸ ἕπεσθαι θεοῖς, 88 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. one human act, viz. love, for πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη (Rom. xi. 10). Leo and Matthies wrongly explain ἀγάπη here of love to God and to one’s neighbour. Here and elsewhere in the N. T., where no other genitive of the object is added, we should understand by it love to one’s neighbour. The words following declare of what nature this love should be. — ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας] καρδία denotes the inward centre of human life, especially as the seat of emotions and desires. Hence in regard to love it is often remarked that it must come from the καρδία (comp. Matt. xii. 37), and from a heart that is pure, 1.6. free from all self-seeking; 1 Pet. i. 22: ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας ἀλλήλους ἀγαπήσατε ἐκτενῶς ; comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 5: ἡ ἀγάπη... ov ζητεῖ τὰ éavTHs.—The two additions that follow: καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου (as is clear from 1 Tim. 1. 19, iii. 9, 1ν. 2), are added with special reference to the heretics, who are reproached with having both an evil conscience and a pretended faith. — συνείδησις ἀγαθή (ver. 19; 1 Pet. iii, 16; καλή, Heb. xiii. 18 ; caOapd, 1 Tim. 11. 9; 2 Tim. 1. 3) is not “the conscience pure from the guilt of sin” (de Wette), nor “the conscience reconciled with God” (van Oosterzee, Plitt), nor “the consciousness of peace with God” (Hofmann). Although “a conscience not reconciled with God and one’s neighbours cannot love purely,” there is no hint here of the element of reconciliation: It is simply the consciousness of cherishing no impure, wicked purposes.' -- πίστις] is not confidence towards one’s neighbour, as it might be here when placed in connection with the idea of love ; but, in accordance with the contents of the epistle, is “faith,” which in Gal. v. 6 also is denoted as the ground of love. — ἀνυπόκριτος (also in Rom. xii. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 6; 1 Pet. i. 22, connected with the idea of love) denotes truth and upright- ness in opposition to all flattery. It is used here not without allusion to the heretics who conducted themselves as believers in order to gain a more easy admission for their heresies. 1 Otto on 2 Tim. i. 3 (pp. 302 f.) explains the expression καθαρὰ συνείδησις rightly (following Matthies) as ‘‘the self-consciousness of pure thoughts and endeavours ;” but, on the other hand, he is wrong in regard to 1 Tim. i. 19, ' where he interprets ἀγαθὴ cvveid. as ‘*the conscience innocent and expectant of all salvation,” ‘‘the consciousness of divine grace supporting itself by daily putting to death the old nature.” CHAP. I. 6, 7. 89 Vv. 6, 7. At ver. 6 the apostle passes to the heretics. — wv] refers to the ideas immediately preceding: ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας «.7.r., not-—as Wiesinger rightly remarks—to ἀγάπη direct, “since εἰς ματαιολογίαν manifestly denotes a false goal in contrast with the true goal, which is aydan.”'— ἀστοχήσαντες] This verb occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, in this passage and also in 1 Tim. vi. 21 and 2 Tim. ii. 18 (where it is joined with περί and the accusative). Here it stands in its original sense: a scopo sive meta aberrare (comp. Plut. de Defect. Oracul. chap. 10), which corresponds to the τέλος mentioned in ver. 5, and gives us to understand that the heretics had at first been on the way which leads to the goal, but had not remained in it. In this way Schleiermacher’s criticism (p. 90), that the word here is far from clear, loses its force. — é£etpurnoar] ἐξ has its full force (Josephus, Antig. xiii. 18: ἐκτρέπεσθαι τῆς ὁδοῦ δικαίας) in this verb, which, except in Heb. xii. 13, only occurs in the Epistles to Timothy. The goal to which they have come after turning from the τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας is ματαιολογία. This word (only found here; Tit. i. 10: ματαιολόγοι) characterizes the heresy as empty in nature, contributing nothing to the furtherance of the Christian life. It consists on the one hand of μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις, on the other of such definitions regarding the law as were opposed to evangelic doctrine. This latter refer- ence is proved by the close connection of the verse with what follows.—6édov7es] The participle does not express contrast : “although ;” it gives rather a more precise definition of the previous verb ἐξετράπησαν. ‘Some expositors (de Wette: wisi, to be, without being so in reality; Bengel has ¢emere ; so also Plitt) rightly urge that θέλειν expresses an allegation of their own; Hofmann, on the other hand, wrongly takes it in the sense of “arbitrary assumption.” ’—vopodvddcxaror] Luther's translation is, “ masters of the Scripture” (and similar explana- 1 Hofmann is wrong in disputing the reason given by Wiesinger, and main- taining that παραγγελία and not τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας is opposed to ματαιολογία. There is no ground also for his assertion that ἀστοχεῖν has here the general sense of “to leave uncared for.” The ἐξετρώπησαν clearly shows that ἀσσοχεῖν is to be taken in its own proper sense. 2 Hofmann’s reason for this explanation is, that ‘‘ νομοοδιδάσκαλοι, who make the law of Israel the subject of their instruction, have no business in the church of 90 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. tions are given ; Heinrichs has “ teachers”); but this does not give the full force of νόμος. By νόμος we must of course understand the Mosaic law, though it does not follow that the heretics here were Judaizers such as those against whom Paul contends in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians: they might rather be men who acquired the name by laying down arbitrary commands in their interpretations of the law, and calling these the right knowledge of the law. Baur’s theory, that Paul gave this name to the heretics because of their antinomianism, is quite arbitrary, and contrary to the natural meaning of the words. De Wette rightly disproves this by referring to Tit. 1. 14, from which it is abundantly clear that the heretics made it their business to lay down arbitrary commands. Baur’s appeal to ver. 8, according to which he thinks the heretics must have declared that the law was not good, must decidedly be rejected, since the idea is only an arbitrary importation into ver. 8.’ — μὴ νοοῦντες] This parti- ciple expresses contrast (Leo: quamquam ignorant), “ without, however, understanding.” (The object of voodvres is given in a sentence of two clauses: μήτε... μήτε. The first: μήτε ἃ λέγουσι, is clear in itself; the second: μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται, has been variously explained. Most find the difference between the clauses to lie in this, that the one refers to the utterances themselves, the other to things of which the utterance was made, 1.6. to the subject-matter of the doctrine (so Raphelius, Leo, Matthies, Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee, Hofmann). De Wette, again, thinks that this explanation rests on a grammatical error, and that “ περὶ τίνων does not refer to the things of which corroboratory assertions were made, but to these assertions themselves” (Luther: what they say or what they suppose). In support of this opinion de Wette wrongly appeals to Tit. iii. 8? He is the gospel.” This is altogether wrong, as may be seen when, further on, Paul appears as ἃ νομοδιδάσκαλος. 1 Contrary to the train of thought, van Oosterzee remarks on νομοδιδάσκαλοι : ‘*not in a good, rather in a bad, non-evangelical meaning of this word ; men who mixed up law and gospel.” In this explanation he overlooks the ¢éAcvres εἶναι. 2 The classical usage is against de Wette’s explanation; comp. Plutarch, Fabii Vita, chap. 14: διαβεβαιούμενος «περὶ σῶν πραγμάτων; Polyb. i 1: 6: διοριζόμενος καὶ διαβεβαιούμενος περὶ rovTwy, ——————EE CHAP. I. 8. 91 wrong, too, in translating dsaBe8. by “ corroborate ;” it means rather: “give full assurance.” Hofmann says, “to express oneself with confidence regarding anything.” The expression is quite general, and Mack seems to be arbitrary in limiting the thought by explaining how ἃ ey. refers to expressions in the law brought forward as proofs of assertions with which they had no real connection, and περὶ tiv. βεβ. to those assertions for which proofs out of the law were given, and which in themselves had no meaning. Paul merely says that the νομοδιδάσκαλοι ‘possessed no insight into the nature of the law, and hence they made assertions regarding it which were not understood even by themselves.’ Ver. 8. In contrast with the heretics’ advocacy of the law, the apostle, in what follows, states its real value. — Οἴδωμεν δὲ, Ore x.7.X.] Baur wrongly infers from these words that the heretics, as Antinomians, had no desire to vindicate the law as good. It is not these first words, but the words ἐάν τις κιτιλ., that are directed against the heretics. In spite of Hofmann’s denial, οἴδαμεν δέ stands in a concessive sense, (Wiesinger), as in Rom. vii. 14, 1 Cor. viii. 1, the apostle making an acknowledgment which is restricted by ἐάν τις κιτιλ.; still we cannot translate it simply by concedimus, as Heinrichs does.— καλὸς ὁ νόμος] By νόμος we must under- stand, neither the Christian moral law, nor a single part of the Mosaic law, but the latter as a whole. It is of the entire Mosaic law in its existing form as a revelation of the divine will given in a system of written commands—it is of this that Paul uses καλός as a suitable epithet. It is not enough to take καλός as equivalent to ὠφέλιμος (Theodoret), though the idea of usefulness is included in it; καλός denotes generally the internal excellence of the law, just as the same is set forth in still more significant expressions in Rom. vii. 12, 14. But the good and excellent qualities of the law depend on its being applied according to its nature and signification: when applied otherwise, it ceases to be καλός.Ό Hence Paul, in opposition to the heretics, adds: ἐάν tis αὐτῷ νομίμως χρῆται. The νομίμως, which is clearly a play on words with νόμος, 1 On the conjunction of the relative and interrogative pronouns @ . . . civwy, see Winer, p. 159 [E. T. p. 211]. 92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. only expresses the formal relation; we can only infer from the thoughts that follow what is meant by the lawful use of αν. De Wette rightly remarks: “There is in this passage nothing but what the words really say, that the Christian teacher must not uphold the law as binding on the δίκαιος." While nearly all expositors understand by tvs the Christian as such, Bengel remarks: Paulus hoc loco non de auditore legis, sed de doctore loquitur; in this he is right, as is acknow- ledged also by de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Hofmann. Paul says nothing here as to how the law is to be obeyed, but rather he tells us how it is to be made use of by Christian teachers. Vv. 9,10. Εἰδὼς τοῦτο] is not to be referred to οἴδαμεν, but to τις, 1.6. to the teacher of the church. The use of the same verb is against the construction with οἴδαμεν. As to the meaning of the word, it is to be observed that here, as in many other passages of the N. T., it expresses not only the idea of knowing, but also that of “ weighing, considering.” De Wette says, “as he knows and considers.” The law is rightly used only when it is considered that, etc. — ὅτε δικαίῳ νόμος ov κεῖται] We may, with Hofmann, take this sentence quite generally, so as to understand by νόμος not any special law, but law in general, and by δίκαιος any one who does rightly, φύσει, and not for the law’s sake (Theophylact: ὃς δ αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν τὴν τε πονηρίαν μισεῖ καὶ THY ἀρετὴν περιπτύσσετα!). In that case we would have the same thought here as in Antiph. ad Stobaewm, 9: ὁ μηδὲν ἀδικῶν οὐδενὸς δεῖται νόμου (comp. also the expression of Socrates in Clemens Alex. Stromata, iv. 678: νόμον ἕνεκεν ἀγαθῶν οὐκ ἂν γενέσθαὺ.---- The sentence, however, may also be taken in such a way as to make νόμος the Mosaic law (notwithstanding the omission of the article; comp. Rom. ii. 12, 14, 23, a/.), and δίκαιος the righteous man in the specially Christian sense, .6. the man who, in faith as a child of God, fulfils the divine will in the free obedience of the spirit. In that case we have here ' Most expositors have on this passage told us wherein consisted the material advantage of the law ; but however correct their statements in themselves may be, they are out of place, since there is no ground for them in the apostle’s words. CHAP. I. 9, 10. θυ the thought which forms the fundamental idea of Paul’s view regarding the relations of the Christian to the law (comp. Rom. vi. 14; Gal. v. 18, αἰ.). As Paul in ver. 11 appeals to the gospel entrusted to him for confirmation of the thought ex- pressed in this verse, the connection of ideas decidedly favours the latter view, which is adopted also by Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Van Oosterzee, οὐ al. — xetrar| has not, as Heyden- reich thinks probable, the additional notion of an oppressive burden; νόμος κεῖται simply means, according to a usage current even in profane writings: “the law is given, exists.” Otto rightly remarks: “the νόμος κείμενος is one which has not only been given, but is still valid.” The collocation does not occur elsewhere in the N. T.; comp., however, Luke ii. 34 (Phil. i. 16); 1 Thess. 111. 3; especially also 2 Macc. iv. 11.— If the law was not given for the δίκαιος (as the heretics falsely maintained), then it is valid only for the ἄδικος. This thought Paul emphasizes by pointing out the nature of the ἄδικος in various aspects, mentioning them at first in pairs. — ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις) These two ideas, which express the most decided contrast, are rightly placed first. "Avowos, in 1 Cor. ix. 21, means the heathen (Rom. ii. 14: ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα) ; but here it means those who withstand the law, who do not serve the law, but their own pleasure ; comp. Mark xy. 28.—To this corresponds the following ἀνυπότακτοι (only here and in Tit. i. 6,10; comp. Heb. 11. 8), as a designation of those who submit themselves to no higher will, no higher order. It is quite arbitrary, with Tittmann and Leo, to refer avou. to divine, and ἀνυπ.. to human ordinances. — ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς) These ideas (found together also in 1 Pet. iv. 18 and in Wisd. xli. 5) are distinguished from the foregoing by a more definite reference to God; ἀσεβής (used by Paul only here and in Rom. iv. 5, v. 6) is the man who does not stand in awe, who has no holy awe of God in his heart. — ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις] give prominence to the opposition to what is holy. ᾿Ανόσιος (again in 2 Tim. iii. 2), when joined with ἀσεβής in the classical usage, refers to the injury of human rights (Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. 8. 13: ἀσεβεστέρους περὶ θεοὺς, καὶ ἀνοσιωτέρους περὶ συγγενεῖς). This distinction, however, cannot here be pressed. βέβηλος, which occurs only 94 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. in the Epistles to Timothy and in Heb. xii. 16 (the verb βεβηλόω in Matt. xii. 5; Acts xxiv. 6), is synonymous with ἀνόσιος. In these first three pairs the ἄδικοι are characterized as those who stand opposed to what is divine, recognising no divine law, and having no awe of God, and whose life is not consecrated by communion with God.—The ideas that follow refer, on. the other hand, to our relations with our neighbour. — πατραλῴαις καὶ μητραλῴαις) only here in N. T.: parricides and matricides, Hesychius explains them: ὁ τὸν πατέρα ἀτιμάζων, τύπτων, ἢ κτείνων ; and similarly Matthies: “those who actually assault father and mother.” As the word occurs in this wider sense in Demosth. 732, 14; Lys. 348, ult.; Plato, Phaed. chap. 62, it may be so taken here. At least we cannot, with de Wette, quote the following ἀνδροφόνοις as a cogent reason against it. — ἀνδροφόνοις] 2 Mace. ix. 28; ἅπαξ λεγόμ. in N. T.; the compound is selected to correspond with the previous words. — πόρνοις, apoevoxoirais| refer to un- chastity, the one towards the female, the other towards the male sex; for this latter, comp. Rom. i. 27; 1 Cor. vi. 9. — ἀνδραποδισταῖς)] The Scholiast on Aristoph. Plut. v. 521, sayS: εἴρηται ἀνδρωποδιστὴς παρὰ τὸ ἄνδρα ἀποδίδοσθαι, τουτέστι πωλεῖν. This crime is often mentioned in Greek authors; but also in Ex. xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7. ---- ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις] stand both in opposition to truthfulness; ἐπίορκος is one who wantonly breaks an oath, as well as one who swears something false—We cannot help seeing that in enumerating these various classes of the ἄδικοι, the apostle has had the Decalogue in mind, not adhering to it strictly, but partly extending, partly limiting it, still without departing from its order.—In order to describe the ἀδικία as a whole, the apostle adds: καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται.--- The expression ἡ ὑγιαίν. διδασκ. is one of those which only occur in the Pastoral Epistles, and help to give them a peculiar impress; comp. 2 Tim. iv. ὃ; Tit. 11. 1, 1. 9.—In 1 Tim. vi. 3 and in 2 Tim. i. 13, we have ὑγιαίνοντες λόγοι; in Tit. 11. 8, λόγος ὑγιής. In these epistles ὑγιαίνειν is even used figuratively in another connection; thus Tit.i.13, ii. 2 (ψοσεῖν in opposite sense, 1 Tim. vi. 4); elsewhere in the N. T. it occurs only in its proper meaning. The expression διδασκαλία is particularly CHAP. I. 11. 95 frequent in these epistles, sometimes denoting “ the doctrine ” (so here) in the objective sense, sometimes subjectively, “the teaching ” (comp. chap. iv. 1,6,13, 16, a/.; 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 3; Tit. i. 9 ff.)—He lays emphasis on sownd doctrine, as opposed to the ματαιολογία of the heretics. Luther translates ὑγιαί- vovea inaccurately by “ wholesome ;” the wholesomeness is only the result of the soundness. By ἡ ὑγιαίν. dvd. is here meant the pure gospel, free from all foreign admixture, having nothing unclean or sickly in it. The apostle here is certainly thinking chiefly of the ethical side of the διδασικ.; still Leo is wrong in translating it “sound morality.” Bythe form εἴ... ἀντίκευται Paul gives us to understand that there are indeed other forms and shapes of unrighteousness, incompatible with the pure doctrine of the gospel. The neuter form ri ἕτερον is strange. In explanation, we might appeal to passages like 1 Cor. i. 17, Heb. vii. 7, and others, where the neuter denotes persons; but the use of the verb ἀντίκειται is against this. It is better to regard it as a transition from persons to things.’ Ver. 11. Κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον x.7.d.] may be joined with ἀντί- κεύται, SO far as the grammar goes; but the thought is against this, since the ὑγιαίν. διδασκ. is simply the doctrine of the gospel, and the whole of the added clause would be very slipshod. There is as little ground for joining it with διδασκαλία, as was done by Theophylact (τῇ ty. 516., τῇ οὔσῃ κατὰ τὸ evaryy.), and approved by many later expositors. The only right construction is to refer this addition to the whole of the preceding thought (Wiesinger, Plitt, van Oosterzee, Hofmann), so as to bring the thought to a concluding point. Similarly in Rom. ii. 16, κατὰ τὸ evayy. is joined with what precedes. The apostle asserts thereby that his doctrine regarding the law is not founded on his own private opinion, but on the gospel entrusted to him. In order to make its authority plainer as a rule of life, he describes it as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ (de Wette, Matthies)—The genitive τῆς δόξης is not to be interpreted by the adjective ἔνδοξος, and then joined with τὸ evayy. (= τὸ evayy. ἔνδοξον ; Luther : “ according to the glorious 1 As Wiesinger rightly remarks, vv. 9 and 10 show that the apostle is not contending here against actual Judaizers, but ‘‘ against such as consider the law & means of attaining to a still higher moral perfection.” Ψ 96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. gospel”), or even with Θεοῦ (Heinrichs: = τοῦ μακαρίου καὶ ἐνδόξου Θεοῦ); the genitive should rather be allowed to retain its special meaning. ‘H δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ may be the glory of the Christians, which is given them by God (comp. Rom. ν. 2. Weegscheider: “according to the gladdening doctrine of the salvation which the blessed God imparts to us;” Theodoret : evayy. δόξης τὸ κήρυγμα κέκληκεν, ἐπειδὰν τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἐπαγγέλλεται τοῖς πιστεύουσι, and Theophylact). It is more natural, however, to understand the expression here, as in 2 Cor. iv. 4, 6, Rom. ix. 23, etc. of the glory dwelling in God, peculiar to Him, “revealed to the world in Jesus Christ” (Wiesinger). The relation of the genitive τῆς δόξης to τὸ εὐαγγέλιον is not to be taken to mean that the δόξα was declared to be the ground of the gospel (the gospel proceeding from the glory of God); the δόξα is rather contained in the gospel (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt), so that it is thereby revealed and communicated to men.—God’s nature is here described more precisely by the adjective μακαρίου, by which still greater emphasis is laid on God’s δόξα, manifesting itself in the gospel in its peculiar power. Though the word is not foreign to the N. T., it is used only here and in vi. 15 as an attribute of God. It is not improbable that the apostle uses it with some reference to the heretics. If, in ver. 4, we are to understand by the genealogies, series of aeons emanating from God, he might readily use μακάριος of God in order to mark the divine unity, for holiness excludes all division of nature. Theodore of Mopsuestia thinks that God is here called μακάριος, not only because He has τὸ μακάριον in His nature διὰ τῆς ἀτρεπτότητος, but also because out of His grace He imparts it to us." The words that follow declare that the gospel was 1 Otto takes the reference otherwise. He refers the word to the heretics, inasmuch as they taught the eternal continuance of the law: ‘‘ The eternal con- tinuance of the law presupposes a godlessness that cannot be amended. And these νομοδιδάσκαλοι teach a blessed God? God is not blessed if He is for ever afflicted with those opposed to Himself, with the ἀνόμοις x.7.a. I teach that God got rid of this opposition by reconciling the world to Himself, and that we have indeed a blessed God.” Hofmann refers μακαρίου to this, that the heretics ‘‘make the law the subject of their instruction in the place where there should only be preached the things by which God has glorified His blessedness.” In any case, Paul chose the attribute, because the heresy stood in contradiction to God’s blessedness. CHAP. I. 12. I entrusted to the apostle: ὃ ἐπιστεύθην ἐγώ (Tit. 1.3). Regard- ing the construction of these words, cf. Buttmann, Gr. Gram. § 121. 7; Winer, p. 244 [E. T. p. 287]. The same construction is found in Rom. iii. 2; Gal. ii. 7; 1 Thess. ii. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 17. It is to be observed that this construction of the verb πισ- teveo Oat, apart from the Pastoral Epistles, occurs only in the epistles of Paul, and only where he speaks of the gospel, or the office given him to hold. Ver. 12. After pointing in these last words to his personal relation to the gospel, the apostle, down to ver. 17, describes the grace experienced by him, not merely “to let it be seen what assurance he had for his gospel” (Wiesinger), but also to prove by his own example (πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν x.7.X., ver. 16) the glory of the gospel entrusted to him as the evayy. τῆς δόξης τοῦ μακαρίου Θεοῦ. There is therefore no ground for de Wette’s criticism, “that the self-styled apostle lets fall here the thread of his meaning, that he may not have to take it up again.” This section is in the closest connection with the preceding one, since it shows how deep is the contrast between the heresy and the gospel. The heresy, on the one hand, takes up unfruitful speculations, and, whenever it wishes to become practical, it places the Christian in bondage to the law. The one thing which is all-important, the forgiveness of sins, it does not assure, and hence it does not know the compassion of the Lord. On the contrary, it is of the very essence of the gospel to reveal this compassion; and in proof of this, Paul appeals to his own experience. — χάριν ἔχω] We have the same expression in 2 Tim.i. 3 (comp. also Luke xvii. 9; Heb. xil. 28); and in the other Pauline Epistles we have instead : εὐχαριστῶ. --- τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντί με] must not be limited to the strength granted for enduring afflictions and sufferings ; it is rather to be applied to his whole work as an apostle. The proper reason of thanksgiving is only furnished by the clause that follows ὅτε «.7.X.; but an additional reason is 1 We need not be surprised that here, and somewhat frequently in the Pastoral Epistles, Paul directs attention to himself and his office, if only we reflect that the apostle was fully conscious of his position towards the development of God's kingdom, and that he was bound, therefore, to vindicate fully the principle of the Christian life which he had enounced. PASTORAL EPISTLEs, G 98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. given in this participle’— Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ x.7.X.] is not to be explained, according to some older expositors: “qui me potentem reddidit Christo,” for Christ, but as a dative closely belonging to the verb.—6tv πιστόν pe ἡγήσατο] πιστός corresponds with the following διακονία. The reason of his thanksgiving is Christ’s confidence in him that he would become a faithful διάκονος." This confidence the Lord has shown by committing to him the ministry of the gospel, hence he adds: θέμενος εἰς διακονίαν, which is either “placing me in the | ministry ” (Heydenreich, van Oosterzee, Hofmann), or “setting me apart for the ministry” (de Wette, Plitt, Winer). The | latter seems to be more in accordance with the usage of the N. T.; comp. 1 Thess. v. 9. De Wette rightly remarks that the participle does not stand for ὡς τίθεσθαί pe, nor is it to be taken as a pluperfect ; it is simply the proof of πεστόν pe ἣγ.; see also Winer, p. 326 [E. T. p. 365]. — If the apostle’s thanks are due to the Lord on the general ground of His confidence, they are all the more due that he had been before an opponent of the gospel ; to this the next verse points. Ver. 13. Τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον x.7.r.| TO πρότερον is equivalent to the adverb πρότερον, just as, in Matt. xxvi. 45, τὸ λουπόν is equivalent to Aourov. The participle stands here in the relation of contrast to what precedes: “though I was before,” or “I who was nevertheless.” — βλάσφημον] only here as a substantive ; com: on this Acts xxvi. 11. For the most part, the idea of βλασφημία is used’ in reference to what is divine (Suidas: ἡ εἰς Θεὸν ὕβρις). ---- καὶ διώκτην] Leo says: “Paulus non dictis tantum sed etiam factis furuerat in Christianos ;” the word occurs only here in the N. T. ; on the subject-matter, comp. Acts xxii. 4; Gal. 1. 13, — καὶ ὑβριστήν] also in Rom. i. 30. Luther translates “reviler,” but Weescheider: “one who does violence.” ‘Neither trans- lation expresses the full meaning as it is given in Tittmann’s (Syn. p. 74) explanation: “ qui prae superbia non solum con- 1 According to the reading of δὲ : ἐνδυναμοῦνσι without με is to be taken as 8 simple attribute : ‘‘ Christ Jesus who bestows strength.” “a 2 Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 25: γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι ὡς ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ κυρίου πισαὸς εἶναι. Paul gives the nature of this διακονία in Acts xx. 24: ἡ διακονία ἣν ἔλαβον παρὰ ποῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, Sicpeapripactus τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος ποῦ Θεοῦ, ’ CHAP. 1. 14. 99 temnit alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractat, et injuriis afficit.” Ὑβρίζειν denotes the arrogant conduct of another, whether in words or in actions.— The context leads us to think of Christ’s work, or Christ Himself, as the object of the apostle’s blasphemy. — Having judged his former conduct in straight- forward fashion, Paul goes on to contrast with it the grace of the Lord: ἀλλ᾽ ἠλεήθην, adding, however, by way of explana- tion: ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ. De Wette is not correct in supposing that the intended aim of these words is to furnish some excuse for himself.‘ — ἠλεήθην] (Luther: “ to my lot did compassion fall”) is not to be limited to the pardon of his persecuting fury (Matthies: “to me was my mad eagerness in persecution most graciously forgiven”), but should be taken more generally of the grace imparted to the apostle.” — ἀγνοῶν] (comp. Rom. x. 2: Ζῆλον Θεοῦ ἔχων, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατ᾽ ἐπίγνωσιν), 1.0. without knowing how grievously I sinned therein. The reason of this unconsciousness was ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ: Mack is wrong in inverting the relation, as if the apostle added ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ to explain his ἄγνοια. How far the ἀπιστία was one to be blamed, Paul does not here say: the idea is to be taken in its purely negative form. It was not this, but the ἄγνοια grounded on it, which lessened his guilt.’ Ver. 14. The last words might be so explained as to weaken seemingly the divine grace; and therefore the apostle feels bound to set forth its abundant riches. — ὑπερεπλεόνασε δὲ ἡ χάρις «.T.r.] The verb ὑπερπλεονάζειν only occurs here in the N. T., and is not current in classical Greek. The simple πλεονάζειν, with the classic writers, means: “to be more, 1.6. than the measure demands, therefore to go beyond the measure ;” but in several passages of the N. T. it has clearly 1 Wiesinger : ‘‘The words are not intended to exculpate his acts, but to explain wherein the power of divine grace began to work on him.” Similarly Plitt, van Oosterzee, and others. 2 Otto wrongly finds in ἠλεήθην a special reference to the fact that Paul ‘‘ was entrusted with the ministry of the word.”—What precedes in ver. 12 might seem to support this, but what follows is entirely against such a limitation of the thought. 3 Hofmann wrongly takes ἐν ὠστιστίᾳ as in pure apposition to the participle ἀγνοῶν, and maintains that ἀγνοεῖν is not always an ignorance which simply does not even know, but a misconception of something which it should have known. But this more precise reference is clearly not contained in the words themselves. 1.00 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. the meaning: “become more, therefore increase, grow larger.” Comp. 2 Thess. 1. 3 (synon. with ὑπεραυξάνειν) ; Rom. v. 20, vi. 1 (Meyer: accumulate); so also Phil. iv. 17 and 2 Cor. iv. 15 (Meyer has there: “become. abundant ... increase,” and here: “be increased”). The prefix ὕπερ serves, with Paul, to strengthen the idea with which it is joined; thus ὑπεραυξάνει, 2 Thess. 1. 33; ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ, Eph. iii. 20 ; ὑπερλίαν, 2 Cor. xi. 5, al. In Rom. v. 20, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν seems to mean that the ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία was surpassed by the χάρις (so Meyer; Hofmann differs). If we assume here this reference of surpassing, we cannot regard ἠλεήθην as the thing surpassed. For χάρις cannot be regarded as some- thing surpassing ἔλεος ;+ but ὕπερ in that case would have to be referred to τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον κατ. Hence the apostle’s meaning in ὑπερεπλεόνασεν would be that grace was manifested to him in abundant measure, far surpassing his enmity (so in a former edition of this commentary); but in that case ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην «x.T.rX. would be parenthetical. It is more correct not to assume such a reference here, but to explain ὑπερπλεονάζειν: “to go (abundantly) beyond the measure” (Plitt, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle added ὑπερεπλ. ἡ χάρις to ἠλεήθην, because the latter expres- sion did not seem enough to his mind, which was penetrated by the unbounded greatness of the grace he had experienced. “Tt is as though he wrestles with speech in order to find some sufficient expression for the feeling which quite overpowers him” (van Oosterzee). The particle δέ belongs to the relation of climax existing between the two clauses, as in Heb. xii. 6; it corresponds to the English yea or aye in a climax.” — μετὰ πίστεως Kal ἀγάπης) The preposition μετά with the genitive — serves to connect the fact with the points that accompany it. Πίστις and ἀγάπη therefore are, properly speaking, not men- 1 Chrysostom : οὐκ ἐτιμωρήθην᾽ ἠλεήθην γὰρ, ap’ οὖν σοῦτο μόνον, καὶ μέχρι τούτον ὃ ἔλεος, τοῦ μὴ δοῦναι σιμωρίαν; οὐδαμῶς" ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερα πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα, διὰ ποῦτο φησίν᾽ ὑπερεσλ. ἡ χάρις, δηλῶν, ὅτι ὑπερέβη καὶ τὸν ἔλεον τὰ δῶρα ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ ἐλεοῦντός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ φιλοῦντος καὶ σφόδρα ἀγαπῶντος. Similarly Leo. In this view the force of ἠλεήθην is arbitrarily weakened. 2 Hofmann explains δέ as ranking another fact with the one already men- tioned ; but in ἠλεήθην and drepera. ἡ χάρις we have not two different facts, but one and the same fagt—though expressed in two different ways. CHAP. 1, 15. 101 tioned as tesults of the χάρις, but as blessings immediately connected with χάρις. They form, as de Wette says, the subjective side of the condition of grace. Leo is right, there- fore, in saying: “verbis μετὰ κιτίλ, indicatur, 7. K. ay. quasi comites fuisse illius χάριτος " (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee); but he is wrong, if he means that Paul added these words to tell in what the grace was manifested as ὑπερπλεονάζουσα. --- By πίστις x. ay. ἡ ἐν Xp. “I. we are not to understand God’s faithfulness and love in Christ, nor the apostle’s endeavour to bring others to faith and love; nor, again, is ἐν to be explained by διά or by εἰς. The words τῆς ἐν Xp. ’I. are added to τῆς ἀγάπης, and mark the love as one “ that has its ground and middle-point in Christ” (Matthies); cf. 2 Tim.1.13. It is doubtful whether the addition is to be referred also to πίστεως (for this Matthies, Plitt, van Oosterzee ; against it, Hofmann) ; since πίστεως does not properly require it, it might be better to limit the reference to ἀγάπης. “In contrasting his former ἀπιστία With his present increasing πίστις x. ay.” (Heyden- reich), Paul does not lose sight of the heresy which did not effect οἰκονομία Θεοῦ ἐν πίστει (ver. 4), and had not the ἀγάπη (ver. 5) as its goal. Ver. 15. Πιστὸς ὁ λόγος κιτ.λ.] With this formula, which is peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (found besides here in ἘΠ ates Ὁ 20 Lim. i. 11 Lit., 1:8» only ‘in; Rev. : is there a similar formula: οὗτοι of λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί εἰσι, χχῖ. 5, xxii. 6), the apostle introduces the general thought whose truth he had himself experienced. — καὶ πάσης ἀποδοχῆς ἄξιος) This addition is also in iv. 9; the word ἀποδοχή occurs nowhere else in the N. T. (comp. ἀπόδεκτος, ii. 3, v. 4. As Raphelius has shown by many proofs from Polybius, it is synonymous in later Greek with πίστις : the verb ἀποδέχεσθαι (“ receive believing”) is used in the same sense in Acts ii 41. The adjective πάσης describes the ἀποδοχή of which the word is worthy, as one complete and excluding all doubt. — ὅτε Xp. “Inc. ἦλθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον] 1 Hofmann alleges against the connection with πίστεως, that “ἐν would have a different meaning when joined with πίστεως ; according to Eph. i. 15; Col. i. 4;” but his reason is without force, as this other reference is here cut off by the intervening ἀγάπης. 162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. This expression, found especially in John, may be explained from the saying of Christ: ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, John xvi. 28, κόσμος having here a physical, not an ethical meaning: “the earthly world.”— ‘Apaptwrot stands here in a general sense, and is not with Stolz to be limited to the opponents of Christianity, nor with Michaelis to the heathen. As little can the idea of σῶσαι be limited in the one direction or the other. After this general thought, that the aim of Christ’s coming is none other than the σωτηρία of sinners, the apostle returns to his own case, adding, in consciousness of his guilt (ver. 13): ὧν πρῶτός εἶμι ἐγώ, “of whom I am first.’ Paul says this, conscious of his former determined hostility to Christ when he was a βλάσφημος x.7.r. (ver. 13), and considering himself at the same time as standing at the head of sinners. It is in- accurate to translate πρῶτος without qualification by “the foremost” (in opposition to Wiesinger and others). Even in Mark xii. 28, 29, πρώτη πάντων ἐντολή is the commandment which stands at the head of all, is first in the list, and δευτέρα is the one following. In order to qualify the thought, Flatt wishes to translate πρῶτος by “one of the foremost,” which he thinks he can justify by the absence of the article. Wegscheider, again, wishes not to refer ὧν to ἁμαρτωλούς, but to supply σωζομένων or σεσωσμένων ; and similarly Mack. explains ὧν by “of which saved sinners.” All these ex- positions are, however, to be rejected as pieces of ingenuity. The thought needs no qualification—at least not for any one who can sympathize with the apostle’s strong feeling. The apostle does not overstep the bounds of humility in what he says in 1 Cor. xv. 9 and Eph. 111. 8; neither does he over- step them here. Ver. 16. After calling himself the first of sinners, Paul gives the reason why fe, this foremost sinner, found grace. He begins with ἀλλά, since it must appear strange that grace was imparted to him. — διὰ τοῦτο ἠλεήθην] De Wette says: “therefor (to this end) did I receive grace.” — ἵνα ἐν épob πρώτῳ ἐνδείξηται Xp. . τὴν ἅπασαν μακροθυμίαν. ---- ἐν ἐμ. πρ.] stands first for the sake of emphasis; ἐν is not equivalent to“ by means of,” but to “ in the case of” (comp. Rom. vii. 19). CHAP. I. 16. 103 To supply ἁμαρτωλῷ with πρώτῳ (first ed. of this com- mentary, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others) is arbitrary. There is no need to supply anything. The thought is: “in my case, Christ first showed His entire μακροθυμία. Paul says this, meaning that the entire fulness of Christ's μακροθυμία (Buttmann, p. 105) could not be shown to those who before had received grace, because they had not cherished such decided enmity to Christ as he. The πρώτῳ therefore has ἅπασαν corresponding with it; the greater the guilt, the greater the manifestation of μακροθυμίᾳ. Bengel says: “cunctam longanimitatem: quum minores peccatores etiam mensura quasi minor possit restituere.” It is not necessary to give the word μακροθυμία the meaning here of “magnanimity ἡ (Heydenreich, Matthies: “long-suffering or magnanimity”). The apostle here regards the love of the Lord as not causing judgment to follow straight on con- demnation, but as patient, and granting space for conversion. In this Paul has given the purpose of his pardon; but he states it still more definitely in the words that follow: πρὸς ὑποτύπωσιν τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ: The ex- pression ὑποτύπωσις, “ likeness, image,” occurs elsewhere only in 2 Tim. i 18; it is synonymous with ὑπόδειγμα in 2 Pet. 11, 6, and other passages. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we find τύπος (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. x. 6, 11; Phil. iii. 17). Leo, without sufficient grounds, explains the word by znstitutio. The idea of type is not contained in the word itself, but is here transferred to it from the μελλόντων. — πιστεύειν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ] This construction of the word πιστεύειν is found in the N. T. only here and in Rom. ix. 33, x. 11, 1 Pet. ii, 6; but in all these passages it occurs in words quoted from Isa. xxviii. 16, where the LXX. has simply ὁ πιστεύων. It may be explained in this way, that faith has confidence as its substance and basis. Matthies rightly says: “ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, not so much in Him as the object of faith, but rather trusting in faith on Him as the absolute basis of our salvation.” — εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον] These words are not to be joined to the distant ὑποτύπωσιν (Bengel), but to the ‘Hofmann : ‘‘ If πρῶτος before had the meaning of locality, here πρώτῳ has the meaning of time as opposed to τῶν μελλόντων πιστεύειν. 104 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. πιστεύειν immediately preceding. They present the goal towards which the πιστεύειν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ is directed (Wiesinger). As Paul usually sets forth his conduct to others as a type, so here he gives to his experience a typical meaning for future believers.’ This may be explained from the peculiar and im- portant position which he held for the development of God’s kingdom on earth, and of which he was distinctly conscious. Ver. 17. “Ex sensu gratiae fluit doxologia” (Bengel). With this doxology the apostle closes the digression begun in ver. 11, and returns again to the proper epistolary style. - τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων] This designation for God is not found elsewhere in the N. T. (even the use of βασιλεύς of God only occurs elsewhere in chap. vi. 15 and Matt. v. 35), but it is found in the Apocrypha of the O. T. in Tob. xiii. 6, 10. (Kcclesiasticus xxxvi. 19: ὁ Θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων.) Οἱ αἰῶνες means either “the world,’ as in Heb. i. 2, xi. 3 (see Delitzsch and Liinemann on this passage), or “the times.” The former meaning is adopted by Chrysostom, Leo, etc. (Leo appealing to Eusebius, de Laud. Constant. chap. v1. p. 431, ed. Heinrichs: τὸν μέγαν τοῦ σύμπαντος αἰῶνος βασιλέαλ ; the latter, by Matthies: “the ruler of all times, so that all generations are at the same time concretely included.” In asimilar way, Heydenreich has “the supreme ruler of time, and of all that takes place in its course.” This latter explanation is supported as correct both by the preceding μελλόντων (van Oosterzee), and also by the ἀφθάρτῳ follow- ing, and by εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων farther on It is incorrect to take αἰῶνες as equivalent to “eternity,” and translate: “to the king eternal” (de Wette, but tentatively ; Hofmann : “ the king who is for ever and without end”), for αἰῶνες never has that meaning in itself. Only in the 1 Hofmann, without grounds, disputes this view, and gives the apostle’s thought in this way : ‘‘The aim is to give a type, not to them, but of them ; they were to know that they had to expect such conversions as his, the con- versions of revilers and persecutors.” But there is no hint whatever of revilers and persecutors only in of μέλλοντες πισαεύειν, 2 Comp. Ps. exlv. 18, LXX.: ἡ βασιλεία cov βασιλεία πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἡ δεσποτεία σου ἐν πάσῃ γενεᾷ καὶ γενεᾷ, 3 Wiesinger explains it : ‘‘ He is ἃ king of the aeons, which together give the idea of eternity, just as His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,” CHAP. I. 17. 105 formulas ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας does the meaning of the word approach that idea. Besides, the apostle would surely have expressed that adjectival idea by an adjective. It is quite erroneous to take the word here in the Gnostic sense of series of emanations, synonymous with γενεαλογίαν in ver. 4; for, on the one hand, no proof is given that this expression had been already used by the heretics alluded to in this epistle; and, on the other, the apostle con- sidered the whole theory of genealogies as belonging to the sphere of myths. It was impossible, therefore, for him in his doxology to speak of God as the king of things which were to Him nothing but the inventions of fancy. — ἀφθάρτῳ] is only used of God elsewhere in Rom. i. 23 (Plut. adv. St. 31; Wisd. of Sol. xii. 1). Matthies: “God is the Imperishable One, because His nature is unchanging and based on itself,” equivalent to ὁ μόνος ἔχων ἀθανασίαν, chap. vi. 16. — ἀοράτῳ] comp. Heb. xi. 27 (without Θεύς), Rom. i. 20, and Col. i. 15 (with Θεός) ; equivalent to ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται, chap. vi. 16 ; comp. also Johni. 18. --- μόνῳ Θεῷ] chap. vi. 15: μόνος δυναστής ; comp. also John v. 44, xvii. 3 ; Rom. xvi. 27: μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ. The words ἀφθάρτῳ... Θεῷ are to be taken as in apposition to τῷ βασιλεῖ, But it is doubtful whether Θεῷ is to be joined with μόνῳ only, or also with ἀφθάρτῳ and ἀοράτῳ, as is commonly done. De Wette is wrong in asserting that all these predicates are used of God superfluously: they manifestly express the absolute exaltation of God above all conditioned finite being, and are occasioned naturally (which Hofmann disputes) by the con- trast with the heresy which denied the absoluteness of the divine existence. — τιμὴ καὶ δόξα] The two words are united also in Rom. ii. 7, 10; Heb. ii. 7; but only here and in the Apocalypse do they occur in doxologies. Paul elsewhere uses only δόξα, and always with the article. — εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων] a very common conclusion in doxologies, and found in Paul’s other epistles. It is not to be overlooked that this doxology has a peculiar character distinct from those usually occurring in Paul, both in the mode of connection (elsewhere a pronoun connects them with what precedes) and also in the designation for God and the expressions used. 106 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. Ver. 18. Paul again addresses himself to Timothy direct. — ταύτην THY παραγγελίαν] cannot be referred back to ἵνα παραγ- γείλῃς in ver. 3 (Otto), because there he was speaking of a mapayyeria which Timothy was to receive, here he is speaking of a παραγγελία to which Timothy was to give heed. Nor can it be referred to καθὼς παρεκάλεσά σε (Plitt), since that denotes only a special commission, to which there is here no allusion. Some have therefore joined ταύτην immediately with the following ἵνα, and taken ἵνα as introducing the object (so Chrysostom and Theophylact, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee ; also in this commentary ; comp. Winer, pp. 314 f. [E. T. p.422]). This construction, however, is opposed by the order of the words; after the verb and the parenthesis κατὰ Tas k.T.A., we no longer expect an expansion of the thought contained in ταύτην τ. παρ The only course remaining is to agree with Hofmann in referring ταύτ. τ. tapayy. back to τῆς παραγγελίας in ver. 5; not, however, agreeing with him in interpreting the word here, “ the Christian teaching,” but taking it in the same sense in both places. — παρατίθεμαί σοι] comp. 2 Tim. ii. 2. The verb is here explained by most expositors, against usage, as equivalent to “lay to heart” (Luther : “ order,” in the sense of “recommend to”). Otto, and following him Hofmann, took it in the sense of “give something into one’s charge,’ which meaning is possible, but not imperative. In itself the word means “ bring something before one,” and is defined more precisely by its context, 1.6. the purpose of bringing before is not contained in the word itself. Παρατίθεσθαι παραγγελίαν may therefore quite well mean: propose ὦ command to one, viz. that he may act in accordance with it.2— τέκνον Tup.] see ver. 1.— κατὰ τὰς προαγούσας ἐπὶ σὲ προφητείας] Before 1 Hofmann wrongly maintains that this construction is impossible in point of - language and in point of fact: ‘‘in point of language, because παρατίθεσθαι does not mean lay to heart, but propose, and a command is not proposed (why not 2) ; in point of fact, because what he calls ras προαγούσας ἐπί σε cannot furnish any standard for the apostle’s injunction to Timothy to discharge his office well” (why not ὃ). 2 In Matt. xiii. 24, 31, it is joined with παραβολήν ; it is used of setting forth a doctrine in Acts xvii. 3 ; itis chiefly used of setting forth food, as in the N. T. Mark viii. 7; Luke ix. 16, x. 8, xi. 6; it has the sense of ‘‘ committing to the care of” in Luke xii. 48. CHAP. I. 18. 107 giving the command itself, Paul inserts these words to add force to his exhortation ; for they are not (as some expositors, Oecumenius, Heumann, Flatt, wish) to be placed after ἵνα in sense, but to be joined with παρατίθεμαι.--- κατά, “in conformity with,” not “justified and occasioned by.” — προαγούσας stands here quite absolutely, with the same meaning as in Heb. vii. 18: ἀθέτησις... γίνεται προαγούσης ἐντολῆς, “the law that preceded ;”* the mpowy. προφητ. are accordingly “ the promises that preceded.” Matthies is wrong in explaining προάγουσα in connection with ἐπὶ σέ, as equivalent to “leading towards thee,’ «.e. “pointing or aiming towards thee.” This meaning προάγειν never has; as a transitive verb it certainly means: “lead forward to any-one ;” but this is manifestly a different idea from that which Matthies ascribes to it. Otto explains it: “the prophecies that guide to thee,’ making appeal to Xenophon, Memorab. iv. 1, in which passage Kiihner para- phrases προάγειν by viam monstrare. In this case we should have to understand it: those among the prophecies that showed others the way leading to Timothy, a statement clearly without meaning. It is, however, altogether arbitrary when Otto defines the prophecies more precisely as those that led to Timothy’s ordination, or occasioned it. — ἐπὶ σέ] is not to be connected with προαγούσας, but with προφητείας, as Luther rightly translates it: “according to the former prophecies regarding thee ;” or de Wette: “in accordance with the pre- ceding prophecies on thee” (so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann). On the other hand, the translation: “ vaticinia olim de te praenuntiata ” (Heydenreich), is inaccurate. Ai ἐπὶ σὲ προφ. are : the prophecies (expressed) over thee (the peculiar meaning of ἐπί as descending to something should not be over- looked) ; while zpoay. describes these as preceding Timothy’s -apostleship.” — προφητείας) Chrysostom: τὸ τῆς διδασκαλίας 1 Comp. Liinemann and Delitzsch on the passage. Otto is wrong in asserting that προάγειν is never used of priority of time. While it occurs more frequently in the sense of “‘ precede some one,” it has in other passages of the N. T. (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 32 ; Mark vi. 45) the meaning practically of ‘‘ go before some one in any direction whatever,” the notion of space manifestly passing into that of time. In the passage in Hebrews, Otto thinks that προάγουσα ought to mean: “ driving forward from one election of high priest to another ” (!). * In taking the words thus: αἱ ἐπὶ σὲ προφητεῖαχι, there is not, as Otto main- 108 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. καὶ ἱερωσύνης ἀξίωμα, μέγα ὄν, τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δεῖται ψήφου... διὰ τὸ παλαιὸν ἀπὸ τῆς προφητείας γίνονται οἱ ἱερεῖς, τουτέστι ἀπό πνεύματος ἁγίου. Οὕτως ὁ Τιμ. ἡρέθη. This is wrong, simply because Timothy’s office was not a priestly one. It is quite arbitrary to translate προφητεῖαι by : “ doctrines, exhorta- tions,” or “ hopes,” or “ good testimonies” (Heinrichs : “ by means of the good hope and expectation which every one cherished regarding thee”). Προφητεῖαι here, as always, are utterances proceeding from the Holy Spirit, whatever be their contents or their occasion ; here it is most natural to think of prophecies made when the ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου (chap. iv. 14) was imparted to Timothy and made regarding his worthy discharge of the office (Wiesinger).'\— ἵνα στρατεύῃ ἐν αὐταῖς τὴν καλὴν στρατείαν] Purpose of the παρατίθεμαί σοι. Στρα- tela (elsewhere only in 2 Cor. x. 4) is frequently translated inaccurately by “fight ;’ Luther is more correct: “that thou mayest exercise in it a good knighthood.” Xtpateta denotes the entire warfare; the only thing wrong in Luther’s transla- tion is the indefinite article. Though the Christian calling is not seldom described as a warfare, yet here the word is used specially of Timothy’s office, in which he had to contend against the ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες (vv. 3 ff.) De Wette inaccu- rately explains it: “that thou conduct thyself worthily and bravely in the discharge of thy evangelic duty ;” as if the words were: ἵνα καλῶς otpat. τὴν στρατείαν. The chief accent rests on ἐν αὐταῖς, not on καλήν ; the στρατεία assioned to Timothy is in itself καλή, quite apart from his behaviour in it. — ἐν αὐταῖς] According to Matthies, Winer (p. 362 [E. T. p. 484]), Wiesinger, Otto, and others, Paul conceives the προφητεῖαι as an armour round Timothy: “as though equipped tains, a change of order not occurring in Greek ; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 2: ἡ κατὰ βάθους πτωχεία αὐτῶν. It is also wrong to say that the prepositional clause must flow from the substantive, and that σερί, therefore, should stand here foriai. In the passage quoted, κατά manifestly does not flow from the idea of the substan- tive σσωχεία, 1 According to Hofmann, they were prophecies ‘‘ which had promised to Paul that Timothy would be a true servant of the gospel, and had confirmed him in his choice when he assumed Timothy as his colleague in the apostleship.” 2 Manifestly Paul here returns to vv. 3 ff., and so far gives reason for saying that here ‘‘we have not in form but in substance” the apodosis which was wanting before (Wiesinger). CITAP. I. 19, 20. 109 with them ;” it might, however, be more natural to translate : “ within them,” 1.6. in their limits, not exceeding them. The interpretation: a accordance with them (van Oosterzee, Hof- mann: “the prophecies are to be regarded as a rule of con- duct’), is against the usage of the N. T. Ver. 19. The manner in which Timothy is to discharge his office, is given still more precisely in the words ἔχων πίστιν Kai ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν. It is difficult to bring ἔχων into direct connection with the preceding figure στρατεία (Matthies: “hold fast the faith which elsewhere, in Eph. vi. 16, is called a shield, a weapon of defence in our warfare ;” Otto thinks that Paul conceives πίστις and ay. συνείδησις as “the contending power which the general commands, 1.6. as his troops!”). It is simply “holding, maintaining” (de Wette), ae. not denying. The reason for the collocation peculiar to this epistle of πίστις and ἀγαθὴ συνείδησις, and for the strong emphasis laid on the latter idea (comp. ver. 5, iv. 2, etc.), is, that the apostle regards the denial of the day. cuveid. as the source of the heresy. This is proved by the words that follow, in which Paul returns to the mention of the heretics : ἣν (viz. ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν) τινες (comp. ver. 6). — ἀπωσάμενοι] This expression, not strange (de Wette) but suitable, denotes the “wantonness” (de Wette) with which the heretics sacri- ficed the good conscience to their selfish purposes." — περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν] ναυαγεῖν occurs only here in a figurative sense. Περί gives the matter in which they had made ship- wreck, 1.6. suffered loss. Περί with the accusative, equivalent to quod attinet ad, is found in the N. T. only in the Pastoral Epistles; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 4, 21; 2 Tim. ii. 18, iii. 8; Tit. ii, 7; see Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 506]. Ver. 20. Ὧν ἐστὶν “Ὑμέναιος καὶ ᾿Αλέξανδρος] In 2 Tim. ii. 17, the apostle names two false teachers whose words eat like a cancer—Hymenaeus and Philetus. There is no ground for distinguishing between the Hymenaeus there and the one 1 Van Oosterzee remarks on ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν ‘as a troublesome reminder,” which is not appropriate, because ἀγ. συνειδ, is not the conscience exhorting to good and punishing evil, but of willing and doing good.—Hofmann’s opinion, that the good conscience is compared to ‘‘the ballast which gives the necessary stability to a ship,” is wrong, since ἀπωθεῖσθαι does not mean ‘to cast over- board.” 110 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. here mentioned. No difficulty is caused even by the fact that “the one here is mentioned as a man cast out from the church, and the other merely as an example of error” (de Wette); for Hymenaeus and Philetus are not so tenderly dealt with in the other passages as de Wette seems to think. As to Alexander, we must leave it unsettled whether he is the same as the one mentioned in 2 Tim. iv. 14. The reasons are not decisive which seem to tell against the identity, viz. that in the other passage the surname ὁ χαλκεύς is added, and that “he is mentioned there not as excommuni- cated, but rather as still coming in contact with the apostle ; not as a heretic, but as an opponent” (de Wette). It is, how- ever, quite arbitrary to regard the Alexander (Acts xix. 33) who took part in the uproar at Ephesus as identical with the one mentioned here (see Meyer on the passage).'— ods παρέδωκα τῷ catava| the same excommunication of which the apostle speaks in 1 Cor. v. 5 (comp. Meyer on the passage). It is not simply excommunication from the church, but with the purpose of ensuring, through Satan’s means, ὄλεθρος τῆς σαρκός to the one excommunicated. This is shown not only by the formula itself, but also by the solemnity with which Paul there expresses himself. The added clause, ἵνα παιδευθῶσιν «.7.r., makes it clear that here also the apostle had in mind εἰς ὄλεθρον τ. σαρκ., for that clause at the same time gives the purpose of the παρέδωκα, which is the reformation (ἵνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ, 1 Cor. v. 5), or at least the preservation, of the excom- municated man from βλασφημεῖν." ---- παιδεύειν] in classical Greek equivalent to “educate, especially by instruction,” so 1 Otto (pp. 98-112) gives a very vivid and detailed picture of the tumult at Ephesus in which a certain Alexander took part, in order to prove the identity of the two Alexanders, and confirm his view regarding the date of the composi- tion of this epistle. But even if the course of that tumult was as Otto describes it, with the aid of many arbitrary suppositions, still we can by no means infer the identity he maintains. In order to prove it, Otto does not despise many strange assumptions, such as, that the designation χαλκεύς (2 Tim. iv. 14) was given to Alexander because he was one of those who manufactured the miniature silver temples; further, that he, deceived by the soothsayers, had made no objection to the union of the worship of Jehovah with heathen idolatry. 2 In opposition to Hofmann’s opinion, that neither here nor in the passage of Corinthians we are to think of an excommunication from the church, comp. Meyer on 1 Cor. v. 5. CHAP. I. 20. ΠῚ also Acts vii. 22, xxii. 35, has elsewhere in the N. T. the meaning of “punish in order to reform,” 1.6. chastise ; comp. 2 Tim. u. 25; 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9, especially Heb. xii. 5-11. In Rev. iti. 19 it stands connected with ἐλέγχειν (in Luke xxiii. 16, 22, the purpose of reformation falls quite into the background). — The ὄλεθρος τῆς σαρκός is intended by the apostle to be a chastisement to the one named, that he may be kept from further reviling. The expression βλασφημεῖν shows that they had not only suffered shipwreck in faith, but in their unbelief were on the point of proceeding actually to revile the Lord. ἜΜ ΤΩ THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. CHAPTER) IL VER. 1. παρακαλῶ] Instead of this, D* F G, Sahid. Clar. Boern. Hilar. Ambrosiast. ed. Cassiod. (alicubi) Or. (ter ut Rec.) have the imperative παρακάλει, which is manifestly a con- jecture for the purpose of giving to the words the form of a commission to Timothy. — πάντων] is omitted in some codd. (G, G, Boern. Or. [semel]); it might easily be overlooked as merely strengthening the πρῶτον. --- Ver. 3. In A 17, 67** 8, Cop. Sahid. γάρ is wanting, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8; it is retained in Matthaei and Tisch. 7. — Ver. 6. +d μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις] Some codd. have the reading οὗ τὸ wapr. x. ἰδ. ἐδόθη (D* F G, Clar. Boern. Harl.* Ambrosiast.; while some cursives have the reading οὗ, but with- out ἐδόθη). This reading has only arisen out of a desire to connect the words more closely with what precedes. The omission of the words τὸ μαρτύριον in A is to be considered merely an error in copying. Lachm. in his large edition (so also Buttm.) left them out; in the small edition he retained them. ® has the reading χαΐ for +é.— Ver. 7. The words ἐν Χριστῷ were rejected from the text even by Griesb. (so also Scholz, Lachm., and others), because they are wanting in the most important authorities, in A D* F G 3, 6, 25* 31, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. etc.; on the other hand, they are found in ὃν, Matthaei, however, has retained them with the remark: adhuc maneo in ea sententia, ut credam, ab Praxapostolis et Eucho- logiis exclusum esse in fine lectionis. If they are compared with Rom. ix. 1, it is easy to explain how they came into the text. — Instead of ἐν πίστει, 8 has ἐν γνώσει. Buttm., following A, reads ἐν πνεύματι. ---- Ver. 8. Instead of the singular διαλογισμοῦ, F G 17, 47, 67** al., Syr. utr. Boern. Or. (ter sed ter ut Rec.) Eus., etc., have the plural διαλογισμῶν (Tisch. 7); Matthaei remarks on this: hujusmodi lectiones plerumque placent viris graece doctis; verum in N. T. contraria ferenda est sententia. Most authorities, including δὲ, have the singular (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). The plural is with Reiche to be con- sidered a mere correction, all the more that the singular of the word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (except in Luke ix. 46, 47); comp. especially Phil. 11. 14.—Ver. 9. καὶ τάς] are CHAP. II. 1. 113 wanting in A 71; καί alone is wanting in 8, and τάς alone is wanting in D* F G 67** 73, al., Or. Lachm. and Buttm. omitted both words, Tisch. only rés.— ἢ χρυσῷ] Instead of the Rec. ἢ (m D*** K LI, etc.), Lachm. Butim. Tisch. rightly adopted καί, following A D* F G, etc. Tisch. retained the Rec. χρυσῷ, following D K L, etc.; Lachm. and Buttm., on the other hand, read χρυσίῳ, following A F G, ete. As both forms are used in the N. T., we can hardly decide which is right here.—Ver. 10. The reading ὡς instead of 6, found in some cursives, Arm. and Cypr., is manifestly a correction to facilitate the interpretation.— Ver. 12. Instead of γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν (Tisch. 7), we should follow A DFG 8, al., Arm. Vulg. It. Cypr. Jer. Ambrosiast., and read διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικί, which has been received into the text by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. Hofm., for the sake of his exposition, prefers the Rec. — Ver. 14. Instead of the Rec. ἀπατηθεῖσα, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. read the compound ἐξαπατηθεῖσα, on the testimony of A D* F G 17 28, al., Mt. K., Bas. Chrys. If the compound had not such weighty authorities in its favour, we should be inclined to account for it out of Rom. vii. 11 and 2 Cor. xi. 3.— Ver. 15. On the reading γάρ for δέ, found in some codd., Matthaei rightly remarks: ita centies istae particulae . . . praesertim in prin- cipio pro arbitrio mutantur. Ver. 1. After directing Timothy’s attention generally to the στρατεία to which he had been appointed, Paul proceeds to mention in detail the things for which, in his office, he had to care. This connection of thought is marked by the particle of transition οὖν (Wiesinger), which therefore does not stand (as de Wette, following Schleiermacher, thinks) without any logical connection._— πρῶτον πάντων] is not to be taken with ποι- εἶσθαι, as Luther does : “ to do before everything else,” but with παρακαλῷ (Heydenreich, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). — ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις x.7..] The apostle herewith begins to give “instructions regarding public prayer” (Wie- singer). The idea of prayer is here expressed by four words. Aénows and προσευχή are connected in other passages as 1 Hofmann’s reference of οὖν to i. 15 and the conclusion of ver. 16 is far- fetched : ‘‘ If Christ came into the world to save sinners, and if the long-suffering of God towards the man whom He made His apostle from being a reviler, was to be a prophecy regarding the conversion of those who were afterwards made to believe on Him, it becomes Christians not, in sectarian fashion, to limit its command to its sphere at that time, but to extend it to all men.” PasToRAL EpIsTLgs. H 114 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. synonyms—in Eph. vi. 18, Phil. iv. 6 ; the difference betweeft them is this, that δέησις can be used only of petitionary prdyer, προσευχή of every kind of prayer. Not less general in meaning is ἔντευξις, from ἐντυγχάνειν τινί incidere in aliquem, adire ali- quem, and in reference to God: pray (Wisd. viii. 21, xvi. 28). The reference to another is not contained in the word itself, but in the preposition connected with it, as in Rom. xi. 2: κατά τίνος ; and Rom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25: ὑπέρ τινος. Accord- ingly, the substantive ἔντευξις, which occurs only here and in chap. iv. 5, does not in itself possess the meaning of intercession for others, but denotes simply prayer as an address to God (Wiesinger) ; comp. Plutarch, Vita Nwmae, chap. 14: μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς πρὸς TO θεῖον ἐντεύξεις ἐν ἀσχολίᾳ Kal παρ- épyws. The three words, accordingly, are thus distinguished : in the first, the element of insufficiency is prominent; in the second, that of devotion; and in the third, that of child-like confidence (prayer—the heart’s converse with God). Calvin is right in his remark, that Paul joined these three words together here “ut precandi studium et assiduitatem magis commendet ac vehementius urgeat.”'— εὐχαριστίας] “ prayers of thanks- giving,” the apostle adds, because in Christian prayer the giving of thanks should never be wanting ; comp. Phil. iv. 6: ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ TH δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωρίζεσθαι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. ---- ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων) is not to be referred merely to εὐχαριστία, but also to 1 In regard to the more precise definition of the word, there is much that is arbitrary in expositors older and more recent. Thus δέησις is understood to be prayer for averting the punishment of sin ; προσευχή, prayer for the bestowal of benefits ; ἔντευξις, prayer for the punishment of the unrighteous (Theodoret : δέησίς ἔσσιν, ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς τινῶν λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία σπροσφερομένη " προσευχή ἔστιν αἴτησις ἀγαθῶν ἔντευξίς tors κατηγορία τῶν ἀδικούντων; So, too, Theophylact and Oecu- menius). Photius (ad Amphil. qu. 193) explains ἐντυχία in the same way : ἐνσυχία (dray ris κατὰ τῶν ἀδικούντων ἐντυγχάνῃ τῷ Θεῷ, προσκαλούμενος αὐτὸν εἰς ἐκδίκησιν) ; but the other two words differently : δέησις μὲν λέγεται, ὅταν ris Θεὸν ἀξιοῖ εἰς πργμα᾽ προσευχὴ δὲ, ὅταν ὑμνῇ τὸν Θεόν. Origen (περὶ εὐχῆς, § 44) finds ἃ climax in the succession of the words, and distinguishes σροσευχαίΐ from δεήσεις in this way, that the former are prayers joined with a δοξολογία, made for greater things and μεγαλοφυέσσερον, while ἐντεύξεις are the prayers of one who has rappncias σινὰ wAstove.—Still more arbitrary is Kling’s explanation, that δεήσεις are prayers in reference to the circumstances of all mankind ; rporcvyai, prayers for some benefit; ἐνπσεύξεις, prayers for the aversion of evil. Matthies is partly right, partly wrong when he says: δέησις is the prayer made with a feeling of the need of God, so CHAP. II. 2. 118 the preceding words (Wiesinger). The prayer of the Christian community (for this and not private prayer is here spoken of) is—in petition and thanksgiving—to embrace all mankind. Ver. 2. Ὑπὲρ βασιλέων] βασιλεῖς are not merely the Roman emperors, the apostle using the plural because of the emperor's colleagues (Baur); the word is to be taken, in a more general sense, as denoting the highest authorities in the state. — καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων] not only denoting the governors in the provinces, but all who hold the office of magistrate anywhere. The expression is synonymous with ἐξουσίαι ὑπερέχουσαν in Rom. xiii. 1; comp. 2 Mace. iii. 11: ἀνὴρ ἐν ὑπεροχῇ κείμενος. Josephus calls the magistrates simply αἱ ὑπεροχαί (Antig. vi. 4. 3). In the old liturgies we find, in express accordance with this passage, the δέησις ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ, ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου. The purpose for which intercession is specially to be made for all men in authority is given in the words that follow: ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον δίαγωμεν, which, as de Wette rightly remarks, denotes the objective and not the sub- jective purpose. Paul does not mean here to direct attention to the value which intercession has for our own inner life, and by means of this for outward peace, as Heydenreich (“ Christians are to pray also for heathen rulers, that by this prayer they may keep alive within themselves the quiet sub- missive spirit of citizens”), Matthies (“ animated with loving thoughts towards the representatives of the government, they that the inner side of the need and of uprightness (Ὁ) is particularly prominent ; προσευχή, prayer, in the act of devotional address to the Godhead, therefore with reference to the outward exercise (1) ; ἐντεύξεις, intercession, made not so much for ourselves as on behalf of others (?).+There is no ground whatever for the opinion of Heydenreich, that the first two expressions are used of prayer (δέησις = petition ; προσευχή = thanksgiving) for the whole Christian community, while the other two (ἔντευξις = petition ; εὐχαρισαία = thanksgiving) are used of prayer for the whole of mankind. Lastly, we may note the peculiar view of Augustine (Zp. 59), according to which the four expressions are to be understood of prayers used at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, δεήσεις being the precationes before consecration ; προσευχαί, the orationes at the benediction, consecration, and breaking of bread ; ἐντεύξεις, the interpellationes at the benediction of the con- gregation ; and εὐχαριστία, the gratiarum actio at the close of the communion. Plitt so far agrees with this view of Augustine, that he thinks the apostle’s various expressions denote the various liturgical prayers, as they were defined even in ancient times at the celebration of the Eucharist (?). 116 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. are to be blameless in their walk, and to strive after the undisturbed enjoyment of outward peace”), and others think ; but the apostle is speaking of the still, quiet life as a blessing which the church obtains by prayer to God for the rulers.’ The prayer is directed, as Wiesinger rightly remarks, not for the conversion of the heathen rulers, but for the divine bless- ing necessary to them in the discharge of their office (Rom. xiii. 14). — The adj. #peuos occurs only here” in the N. Τὶ, and ἡσύχιος only here and in 1 Pet. iii. 4 (synonymous with mpais). The expression βίον διάγειν also occurs only here ; in Tit. ii, 3, διάγειν is used without Piov.— No exact dis- tinction can be established between ἤρεμος and ἡσύχιος. Olshausen (in Wiesinger) says, without reason, that the former means: “not disquieted from without ;” the latter, “ from within.” ᾿Ηρέμα denotes, in classic Greek at any rate, “ still, tranquil existence ;” but ἡσύχιος (ἥσυχος) has the same meaning, and also denotes that there is no disturbance from without. The collocation of the two words serves to give more force to the thought; a ἤρ. x. ἡσύχ. βίος is a life led without disturbance from without, with no excitement of fear, ete. — βίον διάγειν) “ spend life, more than ἄγειν " (Wiesinger) ; the same expression is often found in classical writers. — ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι] Not on this, but on 7p. καὶ ἡσύχ. is the chief emphasis of the sentence laid (Plitt); the words only add a more precise definition. Εὐσέβεια, a word foreign to the other Pauline Epistles, and (with εὐσεβής, εὐσεβῶς, εὐσεβέω) occurring only in the Pastoral Epistles, in Acts, and in 2 Pet., denotes the godliness of the heart; σεμνότης, also peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (σεμνός, only here and in Phil. iv. 8), denotes the becoming conduct of the Christian in all the relations of life. Hofmann is arbitrary in separating this addition from what immediately precedes, and joining it with 1 Hofmann maintains, without grounds, that ἵνα x.7.a. does not give the purpose of the prayer for all men and for rulers, but ‘‘the purpose for which rulers exist” (!). 2 Nor is the positive ἤρεμος used in the Greek classics. As yet it has been found only in the Inscript. Olbiopol. n. 2059, v. 24, by Lobeck; see Winer, p. 68 [E. T. p. 82]; Buttmann, p. 24.—The substantives ἡσυχία and ἠρεμία are frequently found together in the classics; e.g. Demosth. de Contributione, ὃ 8 ; Bekk. 5, Dorville, On Chariton. p. 411. " CHAP. II. 3, 4. 117 ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις K.7.r., ἃ5. “ denoting the manner in which the prayer commended is to be made.” Ver. 3. This verse points back to what was said in ver. 1 ; not, however, in such a way as to make ver. 2 a parenthesis (so in a former edition of this commentary), but rather so as to include the points mentioned in it. — τοῦτο] does not refer to the thoughts immediately preceding, but to the ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις... ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων x.7..— The highest motive of the Christian to such prayer is the good pleasure of God. — καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον] ἀπόδεκτος (like ἀποδοχή) occurs only in this First Epistle to Timothy ; it is synonymous with εὐάρεστος in Col. iii. 20 (τοῦτο yap εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ). — ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ] is referred only to ἀπό- dextov by several expositors, who either take καλόν absolutely (de Wette: “ good in itself;” so also van Oosterzee, Matthies : “xan. denotes the endeavour recommended in its inner worth and contents”), or, as Leo, supply with it ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώ- πων: “which is praiseworthy, sc. before men.” The latter is clearly quite arbitrary; but even for the former there is not sufficient ground, all the more when we compare 2 Cor. vill. 21: προνοοῦμεν yap καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου, GANA καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων. On σωτήρ, see i. 1.— Paul uses this name for God here because he has already in mind the thought that follows (Wiesinger). Ver. 4. Ground of the previous thought. The general inter- cession is Kan. κ. ἀπόδ, before God, because He, etc. It is not unusual to give in a relative clause the grounds of a previous statement. “Os πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι (comp. Tit. il, 11)] The chief accent is laid on πάντας (corresponding with ὑπὲρ πάντων, ver. 1), which is therefore placed first. God’s purpose of salvation extends to all, and therefore the prayer of Christians must include all. Wiesinger, however, is right in remarking that “the apostle in ὃς κιτιλ. does not mean specially to give a reason for prayer for the conversion of all men, but for prayer generally as a duty of universal love to men.” Chrysostom puts it differently: μιμοῦ τὸν 1 Heydenreich’s opinion is utterly erroneous, that Paul calls prayer for all καλόν, because it is not only right and good, but ‘ brings a benefit to the Chris- tians, by recommending them to their rulers.” 118 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. Θεόν" εἰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, θέλε καὶ ob εἰ δὲ θέλεις, εὔχου: τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων (τῶν θελόντων) ἐστὶ τὸ εὔχεσθαι. ---- The true connection of thought is obscured if we supply the intermediate thought, that prayer for all, and specially for kings, serves to maintain the peace without which the spread of Christianity would be hindered."— καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν] The same connection of words is found elsewhere only in 2 Tim. iii. 7; on the meaning of ἐπίγνωσις, see my Commentary on Colossians, pp. 74 f., Remark. — The connection of the two expressions σωθῆναι and εἰς ἐπίγν. ar. ἐλθεῖν may be regarded differently. Hofmann takes them to be in substance identical; Heydenreich takes the latter as an explanation of the former, “showing how and by what means God wishes to effect the salvation of all;” he therefore regards the ἐπίγνωσις τ. ad. as the means of the σωτηρία. So, too, Winer (p. 514 [E. T. p. 692]): “ at first the general purpose is mentioned (καί, and in pursuance of this), then the immediate purpose (as a means of attaining the other).” It is explained in the same way by Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. But it seems more natural to regard the ἐπίγνωσις τῆς ἀληθείας as the goal to which the rescue (σωθῆναι) leads (so, too, Plitt).” Ver. 5. Eis yap Θεός] The particle γάρ connects this verse with the thought immediately preceding (Wiesinger), and not, as Leo and Mack think, with the exhortation to pray for all.* The apostle wishes by it to confirm the idea of the universality of the divine purpose of salvation as true and necessary: he does this first by pointing to the unity of God. There is a 1 Mosheim (Jnstit. Hist. Eccles. raaj. I. 36): Id sanctus homo tradit: nisi pax in orbe terrarum vigeat, fieri nullo modo posse, ut voluntati divinae, quae omnium hominum salutem cupit, satisfiat; bellis nimirum flagrantibus haud licuisset legatis Jesu Christi, secure ad omnes populos proficisci. 2 In this verse the idea of the universality of God’s purpose of salvation is clearly and distinctly expressed. Calvin, in order to save his theory of pre- destination, has to take refuge in an exposition more than ingenious: de hominum generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est ; nihil enim aliud intendit, quam principes et extraneos, populos in hoc numero includere. 3 Van Oosterzee confuses the two references: ‘‘God’s universal purpose of salvation is here established in such a way that at the same time there is éo a certain extent (!) an indication of a third motive for performing Christian intercessions.” CHAP. II. 5. 119 quite similar connection of ideas in Rom. iil. 30 (emphasis is laid on God’s unity in another connection in 1 Cor. viii. 6, and, in a third connection, in Eph. iv. 6). From the unity of God, it necessarily follows that there is only one purpose regarding all; for if there were various purposes for various individuals, the Godhead would be divided in its nature. As there is one God, however, so also there is one Mediator. — εἷς καὶ μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων] The word μεσίτης occurs elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles only in Gal. ii. 19, 20, where the name is given to Moses, because through him God revealed the law to the people. Elsewhere in the N. T. the word is found only in Heb. vii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24, and in con- nection with διαθήκης, from which, however, it cannot (with Schleiermacher and de Wette) be concluded that the idea mediator refers necessarily to the corresponding idea covenant. Christ is here named the μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, because He is inter Deum et homines constitutus (Tertullian). He is the Mediator for both, in so far as only through Him does God accomplish His purpose of salvation (His θέλειν) regarding men, and in so far as only through Him can men reach the goal appointed them by God (σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγν. an. ἐλθεῖν). Hofmann says: “ is the means of bringing about the relation in which God wishes to stand towards men, and in which men ought to stand towards God.” As with the unity of God, so also is the unity of the Mediator a surety for the truth of the thought expressed in ver. 4, that God’s θέλειν refers to all men. — To define it more precisely, Paul adds: ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς. This addition may not, as Otto and others assume, have been occasioned by opposition to the docetism of the heretics. In other epistles of the N. T. special emphasis is laid on Christ's humanity, with no such opposition to suggest it; thus Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Phil. ii. 7; Heb. ii. 16, 17. In this passage the reason for it is contained first in the designation of Christ as the μεσέτης (Theodoret: ἄνθρωπον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ὠνόμασεν, ἐπειδὴ μεσίτην ἐκάλεσεν: ἐνανθρωπήσας γὰρ ἐμεσίτευσεν) ; and 1 Regarding the use of the word in classical Greek, comp. Cremer, 8.¥.— There is no necessity for Cremer’s opinion, that μεσίτης in the passages of Hebrews does not so much mean ‘‘ mediator” as ‘‘ surety.” 120 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. further, in the manner in which Christ carried out His work of mediation, ze, as the next verse informs us, by giving Himself up to death." Ver. 6. Ὃ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων] The word ἀντίλυτρον, which occurs only here, is synonymous with ἀντάλλαγμα in Matt. xvi. 26; it is distinguished from the simple λύτρον, as Matthies rightly remarks, only in this, that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more emphatic. According to the usage of the N. T., there can be no doubt that the apostle here alludes to Christ’s reconciling death ; comp., besides Tit. ii. 14, Matt. xx. 28, etc., especially 1 Pet. 1. 18,19, where the τίμιον αἷμα is mentioned as the means by which we are redeemed. ‘The expression δοὺς ἑαυτόν has here—where ἀντίλυτρον is added by way of apposition to ἑαυτόν (as in Matt. xx. 28, λύτρον is in apposition to τὴν ψυχὴν avtod)—the emphatic meaning of self-surrender to death, as in Tit. ii. 14, Gal. i. 4 (comp. also in John vi. 51, ἣν [τὴν σάρκα μου] δώσω, which, indeed, is uncertain critically), where δοὺς ἑαυτόν has the same meaning as παραδοὺς ἑαυτόν in Gal. 11. 20; Eph. v. 25 (comp., too, Rom. viii. 32). He gave Himself as a ransom by giving Himself up to death. The thought on which it is based is this: men were held ἐν τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ σκότους (Col. i. 13); from this they could not free themselves (τί δώσει ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς αὑτοῦ, Matt. xvi. 26); Christ therefore gave the ἀντίλυτρον necessary to free them; this ransom is Himself (δοὺς ἑαυτόν), i.e. His life: τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, Matt. xx. 28; so that by this, σωτηρία is purchased for them. This, however, was done for the benefit not of some, but of αἱ. Hence Paul adds expressly ὑπὲρ (equivalent to: in commodum?’) πάντων, which is emphatic, 1 The ἀνθρώπων suggested the ἄνθρωπος all the more naturally, that in the apostle’s consciousness the σωτηρίω of men could be wrought only by a man. Only a man could reconcile men with God ; only, indeed, the man of whom it was said ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (chap. iii. 16). Hofmann supposes that Christ Jesus is here called avépwaos, “ἴῃ order to say that, as He became man to be mediator, He is therefore the mediator and saviour not of this or of that man, but of all men without distinction.” This thought, however, is more the ground of the εἷς, for even the mediator ‘‘ of this or that man” might also be a man. 2 Van Oosterzee asserts, without reason, that ὑπέρ here is to be taken in the sense of substitution. CHAP. 11. 6. Tan and with which he returns to the beginning of ver. 4. In this, as at 1. 15, the apostle revealed the substance of the ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία, only that here he defines his former expression more precisely. — In order, however, that this act of love on the Lord’s part may bring forth its fruit, it must be proclaimed to the world; this is indicated in the words that follow. — τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις] τὸ μαρτύριον is not to be taken as in apposition to ἀντίλυτρον, and explained of the death of Christ (Chrysostom: μαρτύριον τὸ πάθος) ; it is to be regarded as in apposition to the thought contained in the previous words of this verse (not “to the whole of what was previously said,” Hofmann). This does not mean, however, that τὸ μαρτύριον denotes Christ’s gift of Himself as a ransom (or “ Christ’s sacrifice”), to be “the witness of salvation set forth at the appointed time, the historical fact that the divine purpose of salvation is realized” (Matthies) ;' for μαρτύριον is not the deed itself, but the attestation, the proclamation of the deed; comp. 1 Cor. i. 6, 11.1. Nor does it mean that by μαρτύριον we are to understand the testimonium, quod Deus per Christi vitam, doctrinam et mortem protulit, vera esse ea omnia et rata, quae V. T. prophetae fore divinaverant (Hein- richs), for there is nothing to indicate an allusion to O. T. prophecy. The act of Christ already mentioned is called τὸ μαρτύριον, in so far as this was its meaning and purpose. Bengel: τὸ μαρτύριον acc. absol. ut evdevyua, 2 Thess. i. 5, innuitur testimonium redemtionis universalis.? The reason why the preaching of the gospel is called μαρτύριον, is that its subject is an historical fact, the importance of which becomes known only by individual experience. — καιροῖς ἰδίοις] “ is to be connected with τὸ μαρτύριον, just as if it were connected with τὸ μαρτυρούμενον " (Hofmann); the same expression is 1 Leo’s explanation is substantially the same as this: Quae Christus, inquit apostolus, ad homines servandos fecit, ea sunt ipsius Dei testimonium. Quid vero testatus est Deus eo, quod Jesum Christum mori passus est? Quid aliud, quam amorem suum in genus humanum plane incomparabilem ? 2 Van Oosterzee believes that μαρτύριον here must be taken as in apposition to ἀντίλυσρον, the apostle calling the Lord’s surrender of Himself the great μαρτύριον, with special reference to the truth mentioned in ver. 4. But against this it is to be remarked, that this explanation does not give a right definition of the relation of apposition, nor of the meaning and purpose of the μαρτύριον. 123 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. found in vi. 15; Tit. 1. 3; also Gal. vi 9 (Acts xvii. 26: καιροὶ mpoTeTaypévor) ; Chrysostom: τοῖς προσήκουσι καιροῖς. Ver. 7. This verse defines more precisely the previous μαρτύριον; it was for proclaiming the μαρτύριον that the apostle received the office entrusted to him. The chief ‘emphasis rests on the universality; the subject of the μαρτύριον is the fact that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all. — εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος] Comp. on this, Eph. iii. 1-12 ; Col. 1. 25-28 ; 2 Tim. i. 9--ΤΊ. --- εἰς 6: for which (μαρτύριον), viz. “for proclaiming which.” ἐτέθην is to be taken in close connection with κήρυξ «.7.r. — κήρυξ, it is true, only occurs here and in 2 Tim. i. 11 as a name for the preacher of the gospel (in 2 Pet. 11. 5, Noah is called a κήρυξ δικαιοσύνης) ; but κηρύσσειν is used very frequently of the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Cor. 1. 21, κήρυγμα is identical with εὐαγγέλιον. In order to direct attention to his peculiar apostolic authority, Paul adds to the general idea of κήρυξ, the more specific expression ἀπόστολος. By the addi- tion of ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ ψεύδομαι, the truth of the eis 6 is confirmed ;+ he explains himself sufficiently on account of the heretics who wished that Paul should not be considered an apostle by the appointment of God. — The further defini- tion: διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν, is to be taken in apposition to κήρυξ κ. ἀπόστολος. It was added to make clearer the reference to the heathen already indicated in εἰς 6, not, as Hofmann thinks, to form an apposition to the subject of ἀλήθειαν λέγω; had that been so, we should have had an emphatic ἐγώ The connected words ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ do not form the object of 66. (Heydenreich takes it as “equivalent to ἐν τῇ πίστει Lal τῇ ἀληθινῇ, a teacher of the Gentiles who is to instruct them 1 Wiesinger less suitably refers the addition to the 33. i#va», which in that case should have been preceded by a xi. Otto (p. 117) unjustifiably uses this asseveration of the apostle to confirm his assertion that the epistle was written during the apostle’s stay at Ephesus, insisting that Paul, after he was put in prison in Jerusalem, was acknowledged an apostle in all Christian churches, and from that time, therefore, had no occasion for this asseveration. Apart from other points, Otto errs in referring the words ἀλήθειαν x.7.2. only to the expres- sion ἀπόστολος, whereas they apply to the entire thought in sis ὃ x.7.a. Paul does not make asseveration that he was appointed an apostle, but that he was appointed an apostle of the μαρτύριον, the subject of which he had already mentioned. Comp. on this the passages quoted above. CHAP. 11. 8. 123 in the true religion”); they are loosely added, according to a common usage of the N. T., and denote here the sphere in which he was appointed to discharge his office as teacher of the Gentiles. The peculiar point of view must not be lost by arbitrarily changing the words into ἐν τῇ πίστει τ. ἀληθινῇ, or, as Leo does, into πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινός. It is wrong also to render πίστις here by “ faithfulness,” and ἀλήθ. by “verity ἢ (Hofmann: ἐν πίστει, equivalent to “faithfully,” and ἐν ἀληθείᾳ to “in verity”). Πίστις is faith, the subjective rela- tion, and ἀληθεία is truth, the objective benefit, appropriated in faith (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee).’ Ver. 8. After giving, in the digression of vv. 3-7, the grounds of his exhortation to prayer for all, Paul returns to the exhortation itself in such a way as to define it more precisely in regard to those who are to offer the prayer. — βούλομαι οὖν προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ] “Hoc verbo (βούλομαι) exprimitur auctoritas apostolica,” Bengel; comp. v. 14; Tit. iii, 18: “JZ ordain.” — οὖν] Bengel’s explanation: “particula ergo reassumit versum 1,” is not quite accurate ; the particle connects with ver. 1 in order to carry on the thought there expressed. — προσεύχεσθαι) Bengel: “sermo de precibus publicis, ubi sermonem orantis subsequitur multitudinis cor.” Matthies wrongly disputes the opinion that προσεύχεσθαι here is used of “ prayer in the congregations.” The whole context shows beyond doubt that the apostle is here speaking of congregations. — τοὺς ἄνδρας] opposed to τὰς γυναῖκας, ver. 9. Paul assigns to each part its proper share in the assemblies for worship ; “he has some- thing different to say to the men and to the women” (Wiesinger). — ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ] does not stand here in opposi- tion to the Jewish limitation to the temple (Chrysostom and others): “not once found” (de Wette), nor to the synagogue 1 Bengel seems to take the words in a sense corresponding to the formula of asseveration, ἀληθ. λέγω x.7.a. He says in regard to this formula: “ pertinet haec aflirmatio ad comma praecedens ; nam subsequenti additur parallela : ἐν x. καὶ dand.;” a view for which there is no justification. — Matthies expresses him- self somewhat obscurely ; for while he in the first place mentions faith and truth not only as the elements, but also as the aims of the teaching, he says at the end of the discussion: ‘‘ The apostle is teacher of the Gentiles in such a way that he knows himself to be impregnably established thereby in faith and truth.” 124 TIE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. (Wolf), nor in reference to the various places of Christian worship in Ephesus (van Oosterzee), nor to the neighbouring congregations belonging to Timothy’s diocese (Heydenreich) ; it is to be taken generally, not in the sense of every place, “where the religious mood, custom, or duty cherishes it” (Matthies), but to all places where Christian congregations assemble (Wiesinger). — As to the construction, ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ does not belong to προσεύχεσθαι alone, but “to the whole clause” (Wiesinger, Matthies, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle means to lay stress not on this, that men are to pray, but on how they are to pray; the chief emphasis, therefore, rests on ἐπαίροντας «.T... — ἐπαίροντας ὁσίους χεῖρας) The Jews lifted up their hands not only in swearing an oath, Gen. xiv. 22 (Rev. x. 5), and in blessing, Lev. ix. 22 (Luke xxiv. 50), but also in prayer, Ps. xxviii. 2, xliv. 21, lxui. 5, etc. This passage is a proof that the same custom was observed in the Christian church. It is true that in the N. T. it is nowhere else mentioned, but in Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we have at chap. xxix. an evident allusion to this passage: προσέλθωμεν αὐτῷ ἐν ὁσιότητι ψυχῆς, ἁγνὰς Kal ἀμιάντους χεῖρας αἴροντες πρὸς αὐτόν. ---- Regarding the form ὁσίους for ὁσίας, see Winer, p. 67 [E. T. p. 811: -- The hands are holy which have not been given over to the deeds of wicked lust; the opposite is given by μεαραί, βέβηλοι χεῖρες, 2 Mace. v.16; comp. on the expression, Job xvii. 9, Ps. xxiv. 4, and in the N. T. Jas. iv. 8 especially : καθαρίσατε χεῖρας καὶ ἁγνίσατε καρδίας. Hofmann is ingenious in defin- ing ὁσίους “χεῖρες more precisely by what follows: “The hands of the one praying are ὅσιοι only when he is inwardly saturated with the consecration without which his praying does not deserve the name of prayer.” — χωρὶς ὀργῆς καὶ διαλογισμοῦ)] Bengel is more pregnant than exact when he says: “ira, quae contraria amori et mater dubitationis ; dubi- tatio, quae adversatur fidei. Fide et amore constat christian- ismus, gratiam et veritatem amplectens. Gratia fidem alit ; veritas amorem Eph. iv. 5 ;” for διαλογισμός is not to be rendered by “doubt” (so Bengel, with Chrysostom, Theophy- Τὺ would be very forced to connect ὁσίους with ἐπαίροντας as a masculine, which Winer considers at least possible. CHAP. II. 9, 10. 15 lact, Theodoret, Luther, and many others), which never is its signification. The rendering “contention” is also inaccurate ; διαλογισμός is equivalent to consideration, deliberation, cogi- tatio. In the N. T. the singular occurs only here and in Luke ix. 46, 47; it is usually in the plural. The word is in itself a vow media, but it is mostly used where evil or per- verted thoughts are spoken of; comp. Matt. xv. 19; Mark vii. 21; Luke v. 22, vi. 8, xxiv. 38. That it is to be taken here malo sensu, is shown by the close connection with ὀργή, which indicates that it is applied to deliberation towards one’s neighbour ; comp. Meyer on Phil. 11. 14, and especially Reiche, Comment. Crit. in N. T., on this passage. In the Pastoral Epistles, special stress is laid on peaceableness as a Christian virtue, iii. 3; Tit. 111. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 24. Vv. 9, 10. Ὡσαύτως γυναῖκας x.7.r.] After speaking of the men, Paul turns to the women, and gives some precepts regarding their behaviour in church assemblies.—As to the construction, it is obvious that the verse depends on βούλομαι in ver. 8. Several expositors, however, connect it not only with βούλομαι, but also with βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι: “1 will that the men pray ...so also the women;” they then take what follows: ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ K.T.r., aS correspond- ing to ἐπαίροντας x.7.X., ver. 8, and as defining more precisely the manner in which the women are to pray. The infinitive κοσμεῖν, however, is against this construction. De Wette, indeed, thinks that it is added to the infinitive προσεύχεσθαι by asyndeton ; but although the connection of several infini- tives with one another asyndetically frequently occurs (v. 14, vi. 18 ; Tit. ni. 1, 2), there is no example of two infinitives being thus connected.! Hofmann is forced to assume that κοσμεῖν “is a consequence dependent on μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης" but how can self-adorning be considered a consequence of “modesty and good sense”? Though sometimes the infinitive does stand connected in such loose fashion with what precedes, 1 Wiesinger unites the κοσμεῖν with the προσεύχεσθαι, and defends it with the remark, that if instead of the asyndeton of the infinitive κοσμεῖν we had the participle, there could have been no doubt regarding it. Then he asks: ‘‘ Have we not elsewhere examples enough of a similar change of construction?” To this we must answer, ‘‘ No,” unless ‘‘ similar” be taken in too wide a sense, 126 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. it would be difficult to find an instance of such a connection as Hofmann here assumes.—Against that construction there is also this point: since in ver. 8 προσεύχεσθαι means prayer made by the men aloud in the church, here in ver. 9 it would have to be taken in a weakened sense; and it is so rendered by de Wette and Hofmann: “taking part in prayer.” — According to this, the verse cannot be dependent on βούλομαι προσεύχεσθαι, but on βούλομαι alone, so that ἐν καταστολῇ k.T.X. merely states how the women are to adorn themselves (so, too, Plitt). De Wette, indeed, thinks that objection may be made to this construction because the affirmative ἐν κατ. «.7.d. is followed not only by a negative μὴ ἐν mr. «.7.r., but also by a second affirmative in ver.10. This accumulation of clauses, however, cannot be urged, since we have a similar accumulation in vv. 11,12. Nor is the particle ὡσαύτως an argument against us, since it stands in other places where the same predicates are not used (comp. iii. 8; Tit. ii. 3). “Ὡσαύτως may be used wherever the members to be connected contain something not exactly alike, but of a kindred nature, as is the case here with ὁσίους... διαλογισμοῦ and ἐν καταστολῇ ... σωφροσύνης. Nothing is to take place in the church, neither among the men nor among the women, which can hurt its spiritual dignity.— ἐν καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ] καταστολή may, according to Greek usage, denote “sedateness of nature.”” Hence it is that some expositors (de Wette among others) take it here as equivalent to habitus, κατάστημα (Tit. 11. 3); but it never occurs in that sense. The words that follow: μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν... . ἱματισμῷ πολυτελεῖ, show that the word is to be understood of clothing. True, it does not originally mean this, but the letting down, eg., of the περιβολή (Plutarch, Pericl. 5). This meaning, however, might easily pass into 1 Jt is necessary therefore to do, as van Oosterzee does, supply the participle προσευχομένας With γυναῖκας because of the ὡσαύτως. 2 In this sense the word is found, e.g. in Arrian (pict. ii. 10), joined with αἰδώς and neperns.—In the passage of Josephus, B. J. ii. 8. 4: καταστολὴ δὲ καὶ σχῆμα σώματος ὅμοιον τοῖς μεστὰ φόβου παιϊδα γωγουμένοις παισίν, Which is commonly quoted as a proof of the meaning ‘‘clothing,” the meaning is doubtful. Sal- masius explains it: sedatus animus et remissus, elato et superbo tumentique oppositus, in contrast with ὀργῆς, ver. 8; but in that case the added adjective κόσμιος is superfluous. CHAP. II. 9, 10. £27 that of “the garment hanging down,” and then further, into that of “clothing in general.” This is the explanation given here by most expositors (also by Plitt and Hofmann; van Oosterzee translates it: “ bearing,” but explains it afterwards: “ καταστολή = ἔνδυμα ᾽). Some take it quite generally ; others, again, understand it of the garment enveloping the whole body (Chrysostom: ἡ ἀμπεχόνη πάντοθεν περιστέλλουσα καλῶς, μὴ περιέργως). This last explanation has no sufficient support in the etymology, nor in the ordinary usage. — κόσμιος] does not mean “delicately” (Luther), but “modestly, honowrably” (comp. iii. 2); beyond these passages, it is not found in the N. T.— μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ σωφροσύνης] The outward modesty which makes itself known in the dress, is to be accompanied by inward purity and chastity, since the former would otherwise be of no account. While αἰδώς denotes the inward shrinking from everything immodest, σωφροσύνη expresses the control of the desires ; τὸ κρατεῖν ἡδονῶν καὶ ἐπιθυμίων (Luther): “ with modesty and propriety.”’—It is to be noted that σωφροσύνη (apart from Acts xxvi. 25: σωφροσύνης ῥήματα ἀποφθέγγομαυ, in opposition to μαίνομαι) occurs only here and in ver. 15, and that all words kindred to it (except σωφρονεῖν in Rom. xii. ὃ, opposed to ὑπερφρονεῖν in 2 Cor. v. 13, denoting the opposite of the ecstatic state; also in Mark v.15; Luke viii. 35; 1 Pet. iv. 7), such as σωφρονίζειν, σωφρονισμός, σώφρων, σωφρόνως, are found only in the Pastoral Epistles. — μὴ ἐν πλέγμασιν «.7.d.] Instead of πλέγματα, we have ἐμπλοκή [τριχῶν] (Isa. iii, 24: ΠΡ) in 1 Pet. 111. 3, which is particularly to be compared with this passage; it denotes “ the artificial plaits of hair” (Clemens Alex. Paedag. iii. 11: περίπλοκαι ἑταιρικαὶ TOV τριχῶν). ---- Kai χρυσίῳ] The καί divides the ornament into ' The two words are also placed together elsewhere as feminine virtues. See Raphelius, who quotes, among others, the passage from Epictetus (Znchir. chap. 62) : mulieres in ornatu spem collocant omnem ; quare operae pretium est, dare operam, ut sentiant, sibi non ob aliud honorem haberi, ἢ τῷ κοσμίαι φαίνεσθαι, καὶ αἰδήμονες ἐν σωφροσύνῃ. Although in the Cyropaedia (Book viii.) the two words are thus distinguished : διήρει (se. Cyrus) δὲ αἰδὼ καὶ σωφροσύνην τῇδε, ὡς ποὺς μὲν αἰδουμένους, τὰ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ αἰσχρὰ φεύγοντας, ποὺς δὲ σώφρονας, καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀφανεῖ, the distinction cannot be regarded as always valid.—Aristotle (Rhet. i. 9) explains σωφροσύνη in the following fashion : σωφροσύνη ἀρετή, δι᾿ ἣν πρὸς τὰ; ἡδονὰς τοῦ σώματος οὕτως ἔχουσιν, ὡς ὁ νόμος κελεύει. 128 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. two parts, πλέγματα belonging to the body itself, and what follows being the things put on the body. In 1 Pet. 111. 3, we have περίθεσις χρυσίων (comp. Rey. xvii. 4)—AIt is wrong to connect χρυσίῳ with the previous πλέγμ. as a hendiadys for πλέγμα χρύσιον (Heinrichs). — 7) μαργαρίταις] The gems are not named in Peter, and instead of ἱματισμὸς πολυτέλής We have there ἔνδυσις ἱματίων ; the adjective πολυτελής (Matt. : μαλακὰ ἱμάτια) is contrasted with κόσμιος. ---- add’ ὃ πρέπει κιτλ] Most expositors (among them Wegscheider, Flatt, Heydenreich, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, also Winer, p. 149, note 1 [E. T. p. 1717) refer δι’ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν to κοσμεῖν, and take ἃ πρέπει... θεοσέβειαν as a parenthesis." But there are three points against this, viz., that the ornament of the women is already named in ἐν καταστολῇ «.T.X., that the preposition διά does not suit with κοσμεῖν (which is con- strued previously with év), and that “ good works” would be unsuitably described as ornament here, where he is speaking ef the conduct of the women in the assemblies of the church, unless we arbitrarily limit the general idea to offerings for the poor, as is done by Heydenreich and van Oosterzee. Theodoret rightly joins δ épy. a@y. with the immediately preceding ἐπαγγελλ. θεοσεβ. (“ εὐσέβειαν ἐπαγγέλλεσθε, καὶ τὴν δι’ ἔργων ἀρετήν ”) ; so, too, Oecumenius, Luther, Calvin, etc.; and among more recent names, Mack, Matthies, and Plitt. The comma before διά, which is found in the editions, must therefore be deleted. Hofmann connects the words with what follows, taking διά in the sense of accompanying ; but διά never has such a simple copulative meaning.” — The relative 6 stands here either for ἐν τούτῳ 6, for which Matthies appeals, but wrongly, to Rom. vi. 21 and x. 14; or more probably for καθ᾽ 6, So far as the meaning goes, the various reading ὡς (καθώς, Eph. v. 3) is correct. Hofmann wishes to refer 6 to κοσμεῖν ἑαυτάς in such a way that “the latter is mentioned as a thing 1 Van Oosterzee explains it as ‘‘a causal periphrasis to show why precisely this ornament is extolled by the apostle.” 2 Hofmann thus paraphrases the thought : ‘‘ They are to do what is good, and to learn in still seclusion. The former is that which is to be accompanied by the latter.” He appeals to 2 Cor. ii. 4. He does not prove, however, that that passage justifies such a paraphrase. The relation between writing and tears is obviously quite different from that between learning in stillness and good works. a τὰ CHAP, II, 11,, 12: 129 ... seemly for women.” The intervening ἀλλά, however, mani- festly makes this construction impossible. — ἐπαγγελλομέναις θεοσέβειαν] ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι usually means in the N. T. “promise.” Matthies accordingly renders the word here by “oive information, show;” so, too, Luther: “who therein manifest blessedness.” But it is more correct here to take the word in the sense in which profitert artem is used, so that θεοσέβεια is regarded as an art or a handicraft. De Wette rightly says: “who make profession of blessedness ;” so, too, vi. 21; comp. Xenophon, Memor. i. 2. 7: ἀρετὴν ἐπαγγελλόμενος (Ienatius, ad Ephes. chap. 14: οὐδεὶς πίστιν ἐπαγγελλόμενος ἁμαρτάνει).---- θεοσέβεια] only here in the N. T. (LXX. Gen. xx. 11; more frequently in the Apocrypha; θεοσεβής, John ix. 31 ; LXX. Ex. xviii. 21), is equivalent to εὐσέβεια. ---- δ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν] must not be limited to works of benevolence alone. The addition of these words is fully explained by a comparison with 2 Tim. 1.5. Calvin gives the connection with the pre- ceding words rightly: si operibus testanda est pietas, in vestitu etiam casto apparere haec professio debet. Vv. 11, 12. Further injunctions for women.— γυνὴ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω)] ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, “without speaking herself ;” μανθάνειν denotes here, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 31, attention to the word in order to learn from it what is necessary for advanc- ing and building up the Christian life.—év πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ] “an complete subordination,” ὁ.6. without contradiction.-——The thought here expressed is to be filled up by what Paul says in 1 Cor. xiv. 35 (which passage should be particularly com- pared with this'): εἰ δέ te μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσιν. --- “Spiritual receptivity and activity in domestic life were recognised as the appropriate destiny of women, and therefore the female sex was excluded from the public discussion of religious subjects” (Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung der Kirche durch die Aposteln, Part I. p. 125). Though in Christ there is no distinction, yet 1 Otto quotes the agreement of these passages with one another as a proof that the letters are contemporaneous. It is, however, to be observed that Paul himself, in the words: ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων (1 Cor. xi. 33), describes the maxim as one which he was seeking to establish in all the churches. Hence there is nothing strange in his urging it on Timothy’s atten- tion at a later period, just as he had urged it before on the Corinthians, PASTORAL EPISTLEs. I 130 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. Christianity does not put an end to the natural distinctions ordained by God ; it recognises them in order to inform them with its higher life. — διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω] 4ιδ. stands first in emphatic opposition to μανθάνειν ; in the parallel passage (1 Cor. xiv.) 6.5. stands instead of the more general word λαλεῖν. ---- οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός] Leo: “αὐθεντεῖν et αὐθέντης apud seriores tantum scriptores ita occurrit, ut dominii notionem involvat; melioribus scriptoribus est αὐθέντης idem quod αὐτόχειρ (see Valckenaer, Diatr. in Eurip. rell. chap. xviii. pp. 188 ff.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 120). Luther has rightly: “that she be master of her husband;” whereas in the translation: “to assume to herself respect or mastery ” (Heydenreich, de Wette, van Oosterzee), the notion of assump- tion is imported. Hofmann, too, is wrong when he says that αὐθεντεῖν in conjunction with the genitive of the person should mean: “to act independently of this person, 1.6. as one’s own master’’(!).—Many expositors (Matthies, and earlier, Estius, Calovius, and others) assume in this word a reference to domestic relations; whereas Heydenreich, de Wette, Wie- singer, and others, limit even this command to behaviour in the assemblies for divine worship.’ This last is correct, as is shown by ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ, corresponding to ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ in ver. 11. Yet οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν τ. ἀνδρ. puts the prohibition to teach under a more general point of view, and at the same time confirms it. Nor can it be denied that women are not αὐθεντεῖν τ. avdp. in the assemblies, because in the apostle’s opinion that does not beseem them at any time. The reason why not, is given in the verses that follow. —It is to be observed, further, that ver. 12 corresponds exactly with ver. 11: γυνὴ. . . γυναικί; pavOavéro . . . διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω; ἐν πάσῃ ὑποταγῇ . .. οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν τοῦ ἀνδρ. ; ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ... ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. This parallelism is clear proof that the same thing is spoken οἵ in ver. 12 as in ver. 11, which Hofmann denies. Still ver. 12 is not there- fore superfluous, since it both emphasizes and more precisely defines the particular ideas in ver. 11. — ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ] 1 Hofmann, in opposition to these two views, maintains that the apostle here speaks of the ‘‘ Christian life in general,” ‘‘of all action for which there was occasion in ordinary life ;” but the context gives no ground for his assertion. CHAP. II. 18. 1.51 The same construction is found in 1 Cor. xiv. 84. The infinitive is dependent on a βούλομαι to be supplied from οὐκ émitpém@—an abbreviated construction which occurs also in classic Greek—De Wette rightly directs attention to these points, that we must not by arbitrary interpretations take away the clear definite meaning from the commands here laid down, in order to make them universal in application; and, on the other hand, that they are not to be considered as local and temporal ordinances: they are rather injunctions to be still held valid as applying to public assemblies.’ Ver. 13. First reason for the previous prohibition, taken from the history of the creation —Ver. 14. The second reason, taken from the history of the fall. Elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles we find proofs that the historical facts of the O. T. are to the apostle full of meaning as symbols of higher, universal truths. So here, the facts that Adam was first created, and that Eve, not Adam, was tempted by the serpent, are to him prototypes and proofs that it is becoming for the wife not αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, but to be meekly subordinate to the husband. Hence he says: "Addy yap πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Eva. The verb πλάσσειν occurs in the N. T. only here and in Rom. ix. 20, both times in its original meaning. The meaning “ create,’ here appropriate to the word, is, however, found in the LXX. Gen. ii. 7, from which passage the apostle here has drawn (comp. also 2 Macc. vii. 23: ὁ πλάσας ἀνθρώπου γένεσιν). Compare 1 Cor. xi. 2 ff., where 1 Compare with this apostolic expression, Const. Apost. iii. 6: οὐκ ἐπιτρέπομεν γυναῖκας διδάσκειν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀλλὰ μόνον προσεύχεσθαι καὶ τῶν διδασκάλων ἐπακούειν. Tertull. De Virg. Vel.: non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui, sed nee docere, nec tinguere, nec ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare. It is curious that in the Apost. Const. it is permitted to women προσεύχεσθαι in church, while here it is granted only to men to doso. But, on the one hand, προσεύχεσθαι in the Constitutions does not mean exactly prayer aloud ; and, on the other hand, this passage here does not plainly and directly forbid προσεύχεσθαι to women ; it only forbids distinctly διδάσκειν on their part.— There is the same apparent contradiction between 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35, and 1 Cor. xi. 5,18. While in the former passage λαλεῖν is forbidden to women, in the latter προσεύχεσθαι and even προφητεύειν are presupposed as things done by women, and the apostle does not rebuke it.—The solution is, that Paul wishes everything in church to be done εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ σπάξιν; while, on the other hand, he holds by the principle: “πὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε᾽" (1 Thess. vy. 19). Meyer on 1 Cor. xi. 5 differs, Ise THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTIIY. the apostle says that the husband is εἴκων καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ, and the wife δόξα ἀνδρός, because the husband is not ἐκ γυναικός, but the wife ἐξ ἀνδρός. De Wette, without reason, thinks that the author of this Epistle to Timothy had that passage in mind, Ver. 14. καὶ “Adam οὐκ ἠπατήθη] In order to justify this expression, the expositors have sought to define it more pre- cisely, mostly by supplying πρῶτος. So Theodoret ; Tertullian, too (De Hab. Mul.), says, perhaps alluding to this passage: tu divinae legis prima es desertrix. Others, again, supply ὑπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως (Matthies: “As the apostle remembers the O. T. story of the fall, there comes into his thoughts the cunning serpent by which Eve, not Adam, let herself be ensnared ”). De Wette thinks that the author is insisting on the notion be charmed, betrayed (by sinful desire), as opposed to some other motive to sin. Hofmann arbitrarily supplies with ᾿Αδὰμ οὐκ ἠπατήθη the thought: “so long as he was alone.” —The apparent difficulty is solved when we remember the peculiarity of allegorical interpretation, which lays stress on the definite expression as such. This here is the word ἀπατᾷν (or ἐξαπατᾷν). On this word the whole emphasis is laid, as is clearly shown by the very repetition of it. This word, however, in the Mosaic account of the fall, is used only of the woman, not of the man, for in Gen. iii. 13 the woman expressly says: ὁ ὄφις ἠπάτησέ pe; the man, however, uses no such expression. And in the story there is no indication that as the woman was deceived or betrayed through the promises of the serpent, so was the man through the woman. —Adam did certainly also transgress the command, but not, as the woman, influenced by ἀπάτη. Paul, remembering this, says: “Adap οὐκ ἠπατήθη, ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα. Bengel: serpens mulierem decepit, mulier virum non decepit, sed ei persuasit. To supply anything whatever, only serves there- fore to conceal the apostle’s real meaning. — ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονε] This betrayal of the woman by the serpent is mentioned by Paul also in 2 Cor. xi. 3, where he employs the same word: éfamarav.—The emphasis, as is apparent from what precedes, is not on the last words, but on éfaratnOeica; hence it is not right to CHAP, 11. 15. Ae supply πρώτη with ἐν rap. yey. Παράβασις here, as else- where (οὗ οὐκ ἔστι νόμος, οὐδὲ παράβασις, Rom. iv. 15), is used in regard to a definite law.— The construction γεγονέναι ἐν occurs frequently in the N. T. in order to denote the entrance into a certain condition, a certain existence. De Wette: “fell into transgression.” Luther wrongly: “and brought in transgression.”’—As to the thought itself, exposi- tors find the force of this second reason to lie in the fact that in the fall the weakness of the woman, her proneness to temptation, was manifested, and that consequently it is not seemly for the woman to have mastery over the man. But did the man resist the temptation more stoutly than the woman? Paul nowhere gives any hint of that. The signifi- cant part of the Mosaic narrative to him is rather this, that the judgment of God was passed upon the woman because she had let herself be betrayed by the serpent, and it is in accordance with this judgment that the husband is made lord over the wife. Ver. 15. Σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς Texvoyovias] σωθήσεται δέ is in opposition to the previous ἐν παραβάσει γέγονε. Still this sentence is not intended merely to moderate the judgment pronounced in ver. 14 (Matthies); after the apostle has for- bidden to the woman any activity in church assemblies as unbecoming to her, he now points to the destiny assigned her by God, the fulfilment of which brings salvation to her. The subject of σωθήσεται is ἡ γυνή, to be supplied from the pre- ceding words; but, of course, it applies collectively to the whole sex, while referring specially to Eve.? — σωθήσεται is to be taken here in the sense which it continually has in the N. T. (not then equivalent to “ she will win for herself merit and reward,” de Wette). Every reason to the. contrary falls to the ground, if only we consider that texvoyovia is regarded as the destiny assigned to the woman by God, and that to the woman σωτηρία is assured by it under the condition given in 1 The right interpretation of this passage does not even in appearance con- tradict Rom. v. 12. In the latter, Paul does not mention the woman, but the man, as the origin of sin ; but then he is thinking of the man as the image of God, of the woman as the image of the man. * Even Theophylact declared against the curious view, that Mary is to be taken here as subject. Clearly also ve cannot here be meant. 134 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. the words following: ἐὰν κατ. It is to be noted also, that though faith is the only source of salvation, the believer must not fail in fulfilling his duties in faith, if he is to partake in the σωτηρία. ---- διά is taken by several expositors (also Wiesinger) in the sense of “in;”* but this is wrong, for either this signification “in” passes over into the signification “by means of,” or it has much the same force as “ notwith- standing, in spite of” (Rom. ii. 27 ; see Meyer on the passage); διά, however, cannot be used in this sense, since texvoyovia would in that case have been regarded as a hindrance to the attainment of the σωτηρίᾳ. This militates also against Hofmann’s view, “that σώξεσθαι διά twos has the same meaning here as in 1 Cor. iii. 15, to be saved as through something ;” this explanation also makes the texvoyovia appear to be something through which the woman’s σώζεσθαι is endangered.” — texvoyovia, a word which occurs only here in the N. T. (as also texvoyovém only in chap. v. 14, and texvotpopéw only in chap. v. 10), can have here nothing but its etymological meaning. Some, quite wrongly, have taken it as a term for the marriage state, and others have made it synonymous with texvotpodia. This latter view is found in the oldest expositors; thus Theophylact remarks, not without Wit: οὐ γεννῆσαι μόνον δεῖ, ἀλλὰ Kal παιδεῦσαι τοῦτο γὰρ ὄντως τεκνογονία, εἰ δὲ οὐ, οὐκ ἐστὶ τεκνογονία, ANNA τεκνο- φθορία ἔσται ταῖς yvvarEii—The question, how the τεκνογονία contributes to the σωτηρία, is answered by most by supplying’ with the one or the other something of which there is no hint 1 Van Oosterzee translates διά by ‘‘ by means of,” and then says: ‘‘it simply indicates a condition in which the woman becomes a partaker of blessedness,” leaving it uncertain in what relation the apostle places σεκνογονία to σώζεσθαι. 2 Hofmann says in explanation: ‘‘If it is appointed to the woman to bear children in pain, she might succumb under such a burden of life ;” but, in reply, it is to be observed that σεκνογονία does not mean “to bear children with pain.” 3 Most think of the faithful fulfilment of maternal duty in the education of children. Chrysostom: TExvoyoviay, φησι, σὸ μὴ (μόνον TEXELY, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατὰ Θεὸν évaryayeiv.—According to Heinrichs, Paul means here to say : mulier jam hoc in mundo peccatorum poenas luit, διὰ τῆς σεκνογ. eo, quod cum dolore parturit, adeoque haec rexvey. eam quasi σώζειν putanda est, et ipsa σώζεσθαι, διὰ «ῆς rexvayovies. The passage quoted by Heinrichs, Gen. iii. 16, does not denote the σεκνογονία as such, but the pains connected with it as a punishment of trans- CHAP. II. 15. 135 in the words of the apostle, and by which the thought is more or less altered. This much may be granted, that Paul, by laying stress on the texvoyovia (the occasion for which was probably the κωλύων γαμεῖν on the part of the heretics, chap. iv. 3), assigns to the woman, who has to conduct herself as passive in the assemblies, the domestic life as the sphere in which—especially in regard to the children—she has to exercise her activity (comp. v. 14).—In order not to be misunderstood, as if he had said that the texvoyovia as a purely external fact affects σωτηρία, he adds the following words: ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει «.7.X. The subject of μείνωσιν is the collective idea γυνή (see Winer, pp. 481, 586 [E. T. pp. 648, 787]), and not, as many older (Chrysostom and others) and later (Schleier- macher, Mack, Leo, Plitt) expositors think: “the children.’ This latter might indeed be supplied from texvoyovia, but it would give a wrong idea.—It is quite arbitrary, with Heyden- reich, to supply “man and wife.”—Paul uses the expressions ἐν πίστει κιτιλ. to denote the Christian life in its various aspects. They are not to be limited to the relation of married life, πίστις denoting conjugal fidelity; ἀγάπη, conjugal love; ἁγιασμός, conjugal chastity ; and σωφροσύνη, living in regular marriage. Σωφροσύνη is named along with the preceding cardinal virtues of the Christian life, because it peculiarly becomes the thoughts of a woman (comp. ver. 9), not because “a woman is apt to lose control of herself through her excit- able temperament” (Hofmann). There is in the context no hint of a reference to female weakness.’ gression. According to Plitt, the rzxvoy. serves to further the woman’s σωτηρία ; on the one hand, because by the fulfilment of her wish gratitude is aroused within her; on the other hand, because of her care for her children she is preserved from many frivolities. 1De Wette asserts too much when he says that this passage is in contradic- tion with 1 Cor. vii. 7 ff., 25ff., 38 ff The truth is rather that the matter is regarded from various points of view. In 1 Corinthians the apostle is deliver- ing his judgment, while he considers the difficult position of Christians amid the hostility of the world, without for a moment denying that τεκνογονία is an ordinance of God. Here, however, he is considering only the latter point, without entering into every detail. 136 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. CHAPTER IIL Ver. 1. πιστός] Instead of this, D has ἀνθρώπινος, and some Latin Fathers have humanus. “ Haec lectio vetustior est Hieronymo. Quod si vero vetustior Hieronymo, vetustior quoque est nostris codicibus omnibus. Nemo tamen ita temerarius est, ut eam pro- baret,’” Matthaei. — Ver. 2. Instead of νηφάλεον, Griesb., following the weightiest authorities, accepted the form νηφάλιον ; so, too, Scholz, Matthaei, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. — Ver. 3. The words μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ are left out in A DF G 5, 6,17, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. ete. Griesb. is right, therefore, in striking them out; they were pro- bably interpolated from Tit.1.7. De Wette’s suggestion, that they may have been omitted intentionally as superfluous, since ἀφιλάργυρον follows, is very improbable; comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. on this passage. — Ver. 4. For προϊστάμενον, 8 has the form προϊ στανόμενον, occurring only in later authors. — Ver. 6. Several cursives have the reading καὶ cuyida after διαβόλου, which, how- ever, is manifestly taken from the next verse.— Ver. 7. de? δὲ αὐτόν] So Griesb. and Scholz, following the fec.; Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. left out αὐτόν, because it is not found in A F G H 17, Copt. Boern.; in Matthaei it stands without dispute. The insertion is more easily explained than the omission. — Ver. 9. For ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, δὰ has the singular reading: καὶ καθαρᾶς ouverdqoews—which can only be explained from an over- sight occasioned by the genitive before. — Ver. 14. τάχιον] Lachm. and Buttm.read ἐν τάχει, following A C D* 17, 71, 73, al. (τωχεῖον and ταχέως are also found). The fec., which has the testimony of D*** F G K L, al., Chr. Theodoret, a/., and is retained by Tisch., is the more difficult reading; besides, in the other passages of the N. T. where the word occurs, the comparative form can be easily explained; ἐν τάχει seems to be an explanatory correction. — In ver. 15, D* Arm. Vulg. Clar. Or. Ambrosiast. have σε inserted after δεῖ --- Ver. 16. For the Rec. Θεός, the most important authorities have the reading é:,as ACF G'®& 17, 73, 181. Further, the Copt. Sahid. and Gothic versions, also 1On the point that in A and C there was originally written not © but ΟΣ, comp. Griesb. in Symb. crit. vol. I. pp. viii.-liv., and vol. II. pp. 56-76 ; further, Tisch. Prolegg. ad Cod. Ephr. sec. vii. p. 39, excursus on 1 Tim. iii, 16. wnt 4 CHAP, III. 1. 137 the Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm., have the relative. Orig., Theod. Mops., Epiph., Cyr. Al., Jerome, Eutherius, beyond doubt, found the latter reading in their MSS.; with several others it is at least probable. The ec. Θεός is found, on the other hand, in D*** K L, in nearly all cursives, in the edd. Arab. p. Slav. Ms., and besides, in Gree. Nyss. (who seems once, however, to have read ὅς) Chrys. Theodoret, Didym. (De T'rinitate, p. 83) Damase. Oecum. Theophyl. In Ignatius (Zp. ad Ephes. § 19) we find Θεὸς ἀνθρωπίνως φανερούμενος; in the Apost. constitt.: Θεὸς κύριε ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν ἐν σαρκί; in Hippol.: Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη; In Gregor. Thaum. (see pot. Apollin. in Photius): Θεὸς ἐν σαρκὶ guvepwbe/z—all which passages seem to testify in favour of Θεύς. —In the ms. er. D* is found the reading ὅ. The It. and Vulg. have: mysterium s. sacramentum, quod manifestatum est, and in this they are followed by the Latin Fathers, excepting Jerome himself. This translation does not, however, point necessarily to the reading 6; it might also be taken from ὅς, which was referred to μυστήριον. Till Wetstein, the reading ὅς was generally held to be the right one,—later also by Matthaei, Tittm. Scholz, Hahn, Heydenr. Linck, Mack; the reading 4 is specially defended by Wetstein and Schulthess. Almost all later critics and expositors, both on external and internal grounds, have rightly preferred. the reading ὅς, which is accepted also by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Comp. the thorough investigation by Reiche, Comment. crit. 11., on the passage. Ver. 1. After speaking of the behaviour of men and women in the church-assemblies, Paul goes on to give instructions regarding the proper qualifications of office-bearers in the church. He begins emphatically with the introductory words: πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, Which here, as in i. 15, do not refer to what precedes (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others), but to what follows. — εἴ tis ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται] Since ἐπισκοπή corre- sponds with ἐπίσκοπος in ver. 2, the word does not denote here generally “the office of one who is set over others” (Hofmann), but specially “the office of a bishop ;” for only in this way can the inferences in vy. 2 f. be drawn from what is said here. Why the previous words πιστὸς ὁ λόγος should not be in agreement with this, we cannot understand. — ᾿Επισκοπή has a similar meaning in Acts i. 20, where it denotes the office of apostle; comp. Meyer on the passage. In the N. T. the word usually means “the visitation.”— ὀρέγεται does not necessarily imply here, as de Wette thinks, 138 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. the notion of ambitious striving; comp. Heb. 11. 16.— The ground of the ὀρέγεσθαι may indeed be ambition, but it may also be the zeal of faith and love. The apostle does not blame the ὀρέγεσθαι in itself; he merely asks us to consider that the ἐπισκοπή is a καλὸν ἔργον, and that not every one therefore may assume it.— καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιθυμεῖ] Leo and others take ἔργον here in the sense of τώ; but it seems more correct to hold by the meaning: “work, business” (Luther, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others); comp. 2 Tim. iv. 5: ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ; 1 Thess. v. 13, where the church is exhorted διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν to the love of the προϊστάμενοι. It is, however, very doubtful, to say the least, that the word is chosen to lay stress on the thought that the ἐπισκοπή is an office of work and not of enjoyment (Jerome: “opus, non dignitatem, non delicias;” Bengel: “negotium, non otium”).—xandod, see i. 18; 2 Tim. iv. 7. Ver. 2. Δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι K.T.r.] τὸν ἐπίσκοπον, as a name for the superintendent of the con- gregation, only occurs in the Pastoral Epistles (here and at Tit. i. 7), and in Acts xx. 28; Phil. 1. 1 (the verb ἐπισκοπεῖν is found in 1 Pet. v. 2). There can be no doubt that in the N. T. the ἐπίσκοποι and the πρεσβύτεροι denote the same persons, The question why these different names should be given to the same persons has been differently answered. REMARK.—Baur supposes that every single town had origin- ally one superintendent, who in his relation to the congregation was called ἐπίσκοπος, but that when several ἐπίσκοποι over single congregations were taken together, they were for the most part designated by the co-ordinate name of πρεσβύτεροι. He finds the chief support for his opinion in the passages, Tit. i. 5: Wa καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, and Acts xiv. 23: χειροτονήσωαντες . . . πρεσβυτέρους Kat ἐκκλησίαν; but the form of expression here used does not necessarily imply that every single town (or congregation) received or was to receive only one presbyter. Since κατὰ πόλιν (ἐκκλησίαν) means: by cities, ie. in every city, and the plural (πρεσβυτέρους) is herewith joined with it, it may be taken in Baur’s sense, but it may also be as well taken to mean that the plural refers to each single city. The passage CHAP. III. 2. 139 in Acts xv. 21, to which Baur appeals, proves nothing for his view, since it is well known that there were several syna- gogues in each city of the Jewish country.— According to the view of Kist (Illgen’s Zeitschrift 7. hist. Theol. 11. 2, pp. 47 ff.), the Christians in any one place formed originally several house-congregations, each of which had its particular superintendent. The college of presbyters then consisted of the superintendents of those house-congregations in one city, which, taken together, were regarded as a congregation. The passage in Epiphanius, Haer. lxix. 1,’ shows that in later times such an arrangement did exist; but there is no passage in the N. T. to prove that that was the original arrangement. In the N. T. the presbyters are always named as the super- intendents of one congregation, and there is nowhere any hint that each house-congregation had its special superintendent. Even when James (v. 14) enjoins that a sick man is to summon τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς éxkdynoias,—and not the presbyter of the house- congregation of which he was a member,—his words are clearly against Kist’s view. — The most probable theory is, that originally the superintendents of the single congregations—according to the analogy of Jewish custom—bore the name of πρεσβύτεροι, but that, in so far as they were ἐπισκοποῦντες in reference to the congregation, they were called ἐπίσκοποι; comp. Acts xx. 17 and 28.— There are, however, two striking facts to be noticed. In the first place, Paul in his epistles (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) makes use of the word ἐπίσκοπος only in Phil. i. 1, and of the word πρεσβύτεροι not at all. Nay, he almost never mentions the superintendent of the congregation except in Eph. iv. 11, where he calls them ποιμένες καὶ διδάσκαλοι, and 1 Thess. v. 12, where he mentions them as προϊστάμενοι ὑμῶν (comp. also Rom. xii. 8: ὁ προϊστάμενος) : comp., how- ever, the passages quoted above from Acts. From this it is clear that at first his attention was directed to the congre- gation only in its indivisible unity, and only by degrees does he give more prominence to its leaders. We cannot, 1 ὅρσα, ἐκκλησίαι τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ ὑπὸ ἕνα ἀρχιεπίσκοσον Ἢ 3 ουσαι, καὶ κατ ἰδίαν ταύταις ἐπιτεταγμένοι εἰσὶ πρεσβύτεροι διὰ τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ΄ ~ > χρείας τῶν οἰκητόρων. 140 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. however, conclude from this, either that the- congregations in the earlier period had no leaders, for it lay in the very nature of a congregation to have some kind of leading; or that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, for why in the later period of his career should circumstances not so have shaped themselves that he thought it necessary to give the leaders more prominence ?—The second striking fact is, that both in this passage and in Tit. i. 7 the singular ἐπίσκοπος and not the plural ἐπίσκοποι is used, though in the latter passage the plural πρεσβύτεροι immediately pre- cedes, and here at ver. 8 we have the plural διάκονοι (comp. also v. 17: οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι. Is there any reason for this in the nature of the episcopate? The fact certainly might be interpreted to favour Kist’s view ; but it may more simply and naturally be thus explained. Both times a τίς precedes, and this almost by necessity compels the use of the plural after it. Odv] is not simply a particle of transition. From the fact that the ἐπισκοπή is a καλὸν ἔργον, the apostle deduces the necessity of a blameless character on the part of the ἐπίσκοπος: Bengel: bonum negotium bonis committendum. —— ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι] In enumerating the qualities which an ἐπίσκοπος must possess, the apostle begins appropriately with a general idea ; so also Tit. i. 7: ἀνεπίληπτος, equivalent to μὴ παρέχων κατηγορίας ἀφορμήν, Schol. Thucyd. v.17. It is important that they who stand at the head of the church should lead an irrepreachable life in the opinion both of Christians and of non-Christians. — μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα] This expression cannot here be properly referred to polygamy ; for, although polygamy might at that time be still found among the civilised heathen, and even among the Jews (comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. ὁ. Tryph. ; Chrysostom on the passage ; Josephus, Antig. vii. 2), it was as a rare exception. JBesides, there is an argument against such an interpretation in the phrase ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, v. 9; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which absolutely never occurred.— Most recent expositors (Leo, Mack, de Wette, Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt) take the expression as referring to a second marriage after the death of the first wife. Heydenreich quotes many testi- CHAP, III. 2. hie: monies from the earlier Fathers to justify this view. The results which these give are the following : —Sirstly, Many held marriage after the death of the first wife to be something immoral. Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christo, p. 37, edit. Colon.) calls second marriage a εὐπρεπὴς μοιχεία; and Tertullian repudiates it utterly, as do the Montanists. Secondly, This was, however, by no means the view that generally prevailed. It had many decided opponents, but even opponents of the view regard abstinence from a second marriage as something praiseworthy, nay, meritorious. Hermas (Past. mandat. iv. chap. 4: dic, Domine, si vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit et nupserit aliquis eorum, num quid peccat? Qui nubit, non peccat; sed si per se manserit, magnum sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum) and the later Fathers, as Chrysostom, Epi- phanius, Cyril, all write in this strain.—Clement of Alex- andria (Stromata, 111. p. 461) says, that he who marries a second time does not commit sin: οὐ yap κεκώλυται πρὸς τοῦ νόμου: ov πληροῖ δὲ τῆς κατὰ TO εὐαγγέλιον πολιτείας τὴν Kat ἐπίτασιν τελειότητα. Thirdly, As to those who held office in the church, it was a general principle that they should not marry a second time. The proof of this is the objection which Tertullian puts in the mouth of his opponents against his condemnation of second marriages: adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, ut solos qui sunt in Clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit (de Monoganua, chap. 12). Origen’s words are in complete accordance with this: ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt ; neque enim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digamii—On the other hand, there is a weighty counter-argument in the fact that the earlier exposi- tors of the Pastoral Epistles (Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Oecumenius) do not share in this view,’ though the practice prevailing in their day must have made the interpretation to 1 Still there are exceptions, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, who shows his freedom of thought in arguing most decidedly against this view ; see Theodori ep. Mops. in N. T. commentarium, quae reperiri potuerunt; ed. O. F. Fritzsche, pp. 150-152. * Chrysostom places the two views together: οὐ νομοθετῶν τοῦτο φησίν, ὡς μὴ ἣν. ϑϑψν ua , . ~ εἶναι ἐξὸν ἅνευ τούτον (γυναικός) γίνεσθαι" ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμετρίαν κωλύων, ἐπειδὴ ἐπὶ τῶν ? ΄ Ψψ Ὁ \ , ~ . ~ Lovdaiwy ἐξῆν, καὶ δευτέροις ὁμιλεῖν γάμοις, καὶ δύο ἔχειν κατὰ ταυτὸν γυναῖκας. 142 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. them an obvious one. Besides, nowhere else in the Ν, T. is there the slightest trace of any ordinance against second marriages; nay, in Rom. vii. 2, 3, and also in 1 Cor. vii. 39, Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1 Cor. vii. 8, he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this epistle, v. 14, he says: βούλομαι νεωτέρας (χήρας) γαμεῖν. It would certainly be more than strange if the apostle should wrge the younger widows to a step which would hinder them later in life from being received into the class of church-widows (see on chap. v. 9).—Appeal has been made to the facts that the nwptiae secwndae were held to be unseemly for women even among the heathen (comp. Rein, Das riémische Privatrecht, pp. 211, 212, and the Latin word univira); but it is to be observed, on the other hand, that it was considered in no way objectionable for a man to marry again after the death of his wife, and that there exists no trace of the opposite principle. (There is no ground for Heyden- reich’s opinion, that the priests highest in rank, 6.5. the Pontifex Maximus, could only be married once.) Hence, neither Christians nor non-Christians could be offended if the presbyters of the churches were married a second time, and Paul would have laid down a maxim which in his day had never been heard of. The undecided opposition to second marriages appeared among the Christians only in the post- apostolic age, when asceticism was already taking a non- Pauline direction, and was therefore inclined to give its own interpretation to the apostle’s words. Besides, the expression here, as also in Tit. i. 6, stands in the midst of others, which denote qualities to be possessed not only by the bishop, but also by every Christian as such. Accordingly, there is good ground for taking the disputed expression simply as opposed to an immoral life, especially to concubinage. What he says then is, that a bishop is to be a man who neither lives nor has lived in sexual intercourse with any other woman than the one to whom he is married (Matthies, Hofmann’). Thus 1 Hofmann (Schriftbew. 11. 2, p. 421) says: ‘‘The injunction is, that the husband have no other wives in addition to his own wife, and the widow (chap. v. 9) no other husbands in addition to her own husband.” So also in his comment. on Tit. 1, 6. CHAP. Ill. 2. 143 interpreted, the apostle’s injunction is amply justified, not only in itself, but also in regard to the extraordinary laxness of living in his day, and it is in full harmony with the other injunctions. The expression under discussion might also be possibly, referred to successive polygamy, 1.6. to the re-marriage of divorced persons, but its terms are too general to make such a reference certain.'— νηφάλιον} only here and in ver. 11 (Tit. 11, 2). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντα, ver. 8; but it is also used in a kindred sense (like the Latin sobrius) to denote one who is not enchanted nor intoxicated by any fleshly passion. It is used, therefore, of sobriety of spirit. This is the meaning of the word here, where it is joined immediately with σώφρονα, and where the original sense follows in the word πάροινος, ver. 3. Even the root- word vido occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, where it is joined with γρηγορεῖν, and stands in opposition to the spiritual καθεύδειν and μεθύειν ; and in 1 Pet. iv. 7, where it is also connected with σωφρονεῖν. —oaddpova, κόσμιον] see ii. 9.—Bengel: quod σώφρων est intus, id κόσμιος est extra. Theodoret: κόσμιος" καὶ φθέγματι καὶ σχήματι καὶ βλέμματι καὶ βαδίσματι ὥστε Kai διὰ τοῦ σώματος φαίνεσθαι τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς σωφροσύνην. --- φιλόξενον] in special reference to strangers who were Christian brethren ; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 2; Rom. xii. 13. — διδακτικόν] “able to teach” (Luther) ; “good at teaching” (van Oosterzee). Διδακτικός is one who possesses everything that fits him for teaching, including also the inclination (Plitt: “inclined to teach”’) or the “ willingness” (Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong in specializing it into “a moral quality.” That is justified neither by the etymology of the word (comp. the similarly- formed πρακτικός, γραφικός, etc.), nor by the position in which ' As a matter of course, Paul did not, as Carlstadt thought, mean in these words to command the bishop to marry ; but, on the other hand, there is at bottom a presupposition that it is better for a bishop to be married than to be unmarried (see vv. 4, 5).—We should note also as an exegetical curiosity, that some Catholic expositors, in the interests of celibacy, have explained the word γυνή of the church.—The strange opinion of Bretschneider, that μιᾶς is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant a bishop should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is accorded to it by Winer, pp. 111 f. [E. T. p. 146]. 144 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. it stands here or in 2 Tim. 11. 24. The word is found else- where only in Philo, De Praem. ct Virt. 4, not in classic Greek. Though the public address in the congregation (both that of the διδασκαλία and that of the προφητεία, 1 Cor. Xli—xiv.) was permitted to every one to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the χάρισμα, still the ἐπίσκοπος in particular had to know how to handle doctrine, in instructing the catechumens, in building up the faith of the church, and in refuting heretics (see Tit. 1. 9); hence Paul, in Eph. iv. 11, calls the ποίμενες of the church, διδάσκαλοι. Ver. 3. The positive characteristics are now followed by two that are negative (or three, according to the Rec.): μὴ πάροινον] This word occurs only here and in Tit.i. 7. Though it is used (comp. παροινέω, LXX. Isa. xli. 12) also in the wider sense, as equivalent to contwmeliosus (Josephus, Antig. vi. 10, where it stands opposed to the word σωφρονεῖν), yet there is here no sufficient ground for departing from its original sense. It is true that, as Bengel indicates, the ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιεικῆ afterwards seems to be in favour of the wider meaning here, without special reference to drunkenness; but the contrast is the same in the other case, if we only remember that πάροινος does not mean simply “drunken,” but “impudent, arrogant in intoxi- cation.” — μὴ πλήκτην] This word also may be taken in a narrower and a wider sense. Here, as in Tit. i. 7, it denotes the passionate man who is inclined to come to blows at once over anything. With these two ideas there are three placed in contrast; not, however, in exact correspondence, for in that case the reading of the Rec., μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, would be indispensable, and for this reading there is too little testimony ; but in such a way that the conduct denoted in the one case is opposed to that in the other.— ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιεικῆ, ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον] In Tit. i. 2, as here, the first two expressions stand together. “Apaxos does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. ᾿Επιεικής does not mean “yielding,” for it does not come from εἴκω, but from εἰκός (€otxa).—The nearest meaning is “beseeming.” As used, however, it has mostly the sense of moderateness and gentle- ness (in Plutarch, Pyrrh. 28.---ἐπιεικῶς is used along with ? Comp. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 981, where the scholiast explains it μέθυσος καὶ ὑβριστής ; see Pape on the word. CHAP. III. 4, 5. 145 πράως). Luther rightly: “mild.” “Apayos is equivalent to peaceful; Luther: “not quarrelsome.” — ἀφιλάργυρον (only here and in Heb. xiii. 5; φιλάργυρος, 2 Tim. 111. 2 and Luke xvi. 14; the substantive φιλαργυρία, 1 Tim. vi. 10) lays stress on a point of which no hint was given before. It is joined with ἄμαχος, since avarice necessarily brings strife with it. Ver. 4. In the second verse, the apostle touched on the subject of marriage-life; here, he directs how the bishop is to conduct himself in his own house. — τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον) Though ἴδιος is used at times in the N. T. instead of the simple possessive pronoun, it is here emphatic, in contrast with ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ, ver. ὅ. ---- οἶκος here, as else- where, denotes the entire household, including slaves. It is above all important that he should act properly in regard to the children ; hence the apostle adds: τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ. μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος) From a comparison with the corre- sponding passage in Tit. 1. 6, it is clear that he is speaking here, not of the father’s disposition, but of that of the children (im opposition to Hofmann). The ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ corresponds in sense with yu)... ἀνυπότακτα in the other passage, and in construction with ἔχοντα... μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας. The- bishop is to preside over his house in such a way that the children shall not be wanting in submissiveness. The words μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος are to be connected with what imme- diately precedes, and not with προϊστάμενον (Hofmann). If it be right to refer them to the fathers (Heydenrich, Matthies, van Oosterzee), ἔχειν must be explained as equivalent either to tenere (Matthies: “ holding the children in obedience”) or to κατέχειν (van Oosterzee). That, however, is arbitrary ; besides, the parallel passage in Tit. 1. 6, where ἀσωτία is the opposite of σεμνότης, is against it. Leo, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, are right therefore in referring the words to the children. The idea of σεμνότης does not forbid this reference, if only we avoid thinking of little children; comp., by way of contrast, the conduct of the children of the high priest Eli, in the O. T. Ver. 5 in a parenthesis gives the reason why a bishop ought to know how to govern his house properly. — εἰ δέ τις Tod ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδε] δέ shows that the confir- matory clause is adversative ; the conclusion is made @ minori PASTORAL EPIsTLEs, K 146 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. ad majus. Bengel: plus est regere ecclesiam, quam familiam." — πῶς ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ ἐπιμελήσεταιἾ The contrast here made becomes still more forcible when it is observed that in ver. 15 Paul calls the ἐκκλησία the οἶκος Ocod. — ἐπιμελήσεται) The future here, as often with the Greeks, expresses the capability; see Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 377. The verb ἐπιμεέλέομαι has not only the more general meaning of “take care of something” (Luke x. 34, 35), but also more definitely, “ fill an office, be overseer over something,” in which sense it is used here. — For a right understanding of the connection of this verse with what precedes, it is to be observed that the first requisite for a successful superintendence is obedience (ὑποταγή) from the church towards its superintendent. It is the bishop’s duty so to conduct himself that the members of the church may be obedient to him, not as servants to a master, but as children to a father, that they may show him obedience in love. Ver. 6. Μὴ νεόφυτον] depending on δεῖ... εἶναι in ver. 2, is attached to the previous accusatives, ver. 5 being a paren- thesis. Νεόφυτος is rightly explained by Chrysostom: οὐ τὸν νεώτερον ἐνταῦθα λέγει, GANA τὸν νεοκατήχητον ; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7. Heinrichs is wrong if he thinks that, on account of what follows, the explanation rejected by Chrysostom is really the right one; for the rapid promotion to the episcopate of one newly admitted into the church, might easily have conse- quences to be dreaded by the apostle. — The reason why a “ novice” (Luther) should not be bishop is given in the words that follow: ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου. Τυφωθείς : “lest he being beclouded with conceit (of foolish pride).” The verb (which occurs only here and in vi. 4 and 2 Tim. © iii. 4) comes from τῦφος, which in the figurative sense especially denotes darkness, as beclouding man’s mind so that he does not know himself, so that the consciousness of his own weak- ness is hidden from him; in 2 Tim. 111. 4 it is appropriately joined with μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος (comp. Athenaeus, vi. 238d). Τυφωθείς describes the conduct of the νεόφυτος which brings on him the κρίμα τοῦ διαβόλου. --- εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου] Nearly all expositors take ὁ διάβολος here and in - ἜΣ ΜΕ Ὰ; 5 1 Theodoret : ὁ τὰ σμικρὰ οἰκονομεῖν οὐκ εἰδὼς, πῶς δύναται τῶν κρεισσόνων καὶ θείων πιστευθῆναι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. CHAP. III. 6. 147 ver. 7 to be the devil. Some, again, explain it as “the libellous fellow” (Mosheim, Wegscheider, Hofmann; Luther: “the slanderer”). Against this latter view, however, there are three decisive arguments—(1) According to the constant usage of the N. T., the substantive ὁ διάβολος always denotes the devil (it is otherwise in the LXX., but only in Esth. vii. 4, viii. 1)} (2) The singular has the definite article, which seems to mark out one definite individual,-for the collective use of the singular can always be inferred from the context (as in Matt. xii. 35; Rom. xiv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 18; Jas. i. 6; this, indeed, is less the case in Jas. v. 6); besides, here the idea of “libeller” is too indefinite for the train of thought; hence Hofmann is forced to define it arbitrarily: “ whoever makes it his business to speak evil of Christianity.” (3) If, in the ex- pression ἡ τοῦ διαβόλου παγίς, at 2 Tim. ii. 26, τοῦ διαβόλου cannot mean anything else than the devil, it is arbitrary to render it otherwise when used in the same expression at ver. 7.— κρίμα is not equivalent to “ charge, accusation” (Matthies), but “ the judgment,” especially “the judgment of condemnation.”— τοῦ διαβόλου is mostly (even by Wiesinger and van Oosterzee) taken to be the genitivus objecti (comp. especially Rev. xvii. 1), equivalent to “the judgment which is executed on the devil” (van Oosterzee), because κρίνειν is not the devil’s business ; Bengel: diabolus potest opprobrium inferre (ver. 7), judicium inferre non potest, non enim judicat, sed judicatur.” But the notion that the devil is delivered to condemnation because of self-conceit, cannot be scripturally proved. For this reason, and also because tod διαβόλου in ver. 7 is manifestly the subjective genitive, it is preferable to take it in the same way here (so, too, Plitt).? Of course the κρίμα of the devil cannot mean a trial which the devil holds, but the judgment which * Paul uses the word only here and in ver. 7 ; 2 Tim. ii. 26 ; Eph. iy. 17, vi. 11. In 2 Tim. ii. 26 and in Eph. vi. 11, even Hofmann takesit to be the devil ; but, on the other hand, both here and in Eph. iv. 17 he takes it to be the human slanderer. * It is out of place to appeal to 2 Pet. ii. 4 and Jude 6 (Wiesinger), since in these passages mention is made, not of the judgment which will be passed on the devil, but of the judgment which will be passed on a number of wicked angels. 5. Had the apostle been thinking of the judgment which will be passed on the devil (Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xx. 40[14, 15]), he would have expressed himself more clearly, with something like this : ἵνα μὴ κρινήται σὺν τῷ διαβόλῳ, 148 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, serves to give him foundation for accusing man with God (comp. the name for the devil, κατήγωρ, in Rey. xii. 10). Ver. 7. Met δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν] Act δέ (which does not present something opposed to ver. 6) adds a new requirement to those already given in vv. 2-6, a requirement needed for the sake of those who are not Christians. Thus δεῖ here becomes connected with the δεῖ in ver. 2, — μαρτυρία occurs in the Pauline Epistles only here and in Tit. 1, 13.— ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν] οἱ ἔξωθεν (for which Paul commonly uses οὗ ἔξω) are those outside the church; ἀπό is equivalent not to “among,” but to “from;” the testimony comes from those who are not Christians. In the choice of a bishop, care is to be taken that he is a man who has led an irreproachable life even in the eyes of those who are not Christians. The reason is added just as in ver. 6: ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου] ὀνειδισμόν may be taken absolutely (Wiesinger, Plitt), or jomed with τοῦ dia. (van Oosterzee). The former view is supported by the fact that ἐμπέσῃ separates dved. from παγίδα : the latter, by the fact that the preposition is not repeated before παγίδα. The passage in vv. 14, 15, when compared with this, supports the former view, which is further established as correct by the considera- tion that we cannot well suppose ὀνειδίζειν to be an act of the devil. Since ὀνειδισμός is not defined more precisely, it must be taken as quite general in meaning. — καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου) the same expression in 2 Tim. ii. 26; in 1 Tim. vi. 9 it stands without τοῦ διαβ., and there, too, it is joined with πειρασμός (elsewhere only in Rom. xi. 9, which follows Ps. Ixix. 23). It is a figurative name for the lying in wait of the devil, who is represented as a hunter. The idea of its association with ὀνειδισμός is this, that the disgrace incurred by one who has not a good testimony from the non-Christians, is used by the devil as a snare, not only to tempt him, but also to seduce him into apostasy from the gospel. Ver. 8. From this to ver. 13 we have instructions regarding 1 Hofmann asserts that it is irrational to speak of a judgment which the devil pronounces ; but we may ask, on the other hand, whether it is not irrational to speak of a devil without judgment. 2In explaining rod διαβόλου, Hofmann explains ἐμπέσῃ (εἰς) ray. τ, tap, to CHAP. III. 9. 149 the deacons. —Svaxovous ὡσαύτως σεμνοὺς K.T.r.] The deacons, as at first instituted in the church at Jerusalem, were originally almoners of the poor (Acts vi. 1-6). They are mentioned again only in Phil.i.1. In Rom. xvi. 1, Paul calls Phoebe a διακόνος of the church at Cenchrea. There are some other passages which allude to the diaconate—Rom. xii. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 28 (ἀντιλήψεις) ; 1 Pet.iv.11. It is known that this office in the church was afterwards not confined to its original object, but there is nothing to indicate how far it was developed in the apostolic age. Many of the duties assigned to the deacons in later times, can only be arbitrarily connected with the office in the apostolic age. Only it is to be observed that both here and in Phil. i. 1, the deacons are named after the bishops. — ὡσαύτως] marks here, as in ii. 9, the transition to ordinances in regard to another class of persons, indicating at the same time their similarity to those preceding. — ceuvovs] The accusative is dependent on δεῖ εἶναι, which is to be supplied; regarding the idea contained in the word, see ii, 2.— μὴ διλόγους] the word δίλογος only here. Siero πὶ 13, LXX.; in Ecelus. v. 9, 14, vi. 1, xxvun 13, we have the similar word: δίγλωσσος ' (comp. also δίψυχος in Jas. iv. 8); Theophylact: ἄλλα φρονοῦντες καὶ ἄλλα λέγοντες, Kal ἄλλα τούτοις Kal ἄλλα ἐκείνοις. ---- μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ προσέχοντας] προσέχειν here, as in iv. 13 and Heb. vii. 13: “be addicted to;” Tit. 11. 3: μὴ οἴνῳ πολλῷ δεδουλωμένας. ---- μὴ αἰσχροκερδεῖς] only here and in Tit. i. 7; comp. 1 Pet. ν. 2: ἐπισκοποῦντες... μηδὲ αἰσχροκερδῶς, ἀλλὰ προθύμως ; and Tit. 1. 11, where it is said of the heretics that they by unseemly doctrine destroy houses αἰσχροῦ κέρδους χάριν. These passages show that we are not to think here of gain from “dishonourable dealing” (Luther, Theodoret: ἐκ πραγμά- των αἰσχρῶν καὶ λίαν ἀτόπων), but rather of using the spiritual office for a material advantage (comp. vi. 5). Ver. 9. "ἔχοντας τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει) The emphasis is not on ἔχοντας, as if it meant mean, that the slanderer tries to ensnare such a one in ¢he sense of ‘‘ showing him as an evidence of the state of morality in an association which selects such a man as its head ” (!). 1 Theogn, v. 91: ὃς μιῇ γλώσσῃ dix? ἔχει. 150 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. “holding fast,” but on ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει (Wiesinger). — TO μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως] This collocation occurs nowhere else. Πίστις is not the doctrine of faith (Heumann), but subjective faith (de Wette). Muoripuov is the subject- matter of faith, ze. the divine truth, which is a secret not only in so far as it was hidden from the world until it was revealed at the appointed time (Rom. xvi. 25) and remains hidden to every man till the knowledge of it is wrought in him by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. ii. 7-10, 14), but also in so far as it is even to the believer ὑπερβαλλοῦσα τῆς γνώσεως (Wiesinger). The expression is synonymous with that in ver. 16: τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. ---- ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει) Comp. i. 5, 19. The clause is to be joined closely with ἔχοντας, and is to be understood neither specially of occupying the office, nor quite generally of the virtuous life, or “the moral disposition” (Hofmann), but of purity and uprightness in regard to the mystery of the faith. It stands in contrast with the impurity of the heretics, who had their conscience stained by the mingling of truth with errors; comp. iv. 2. Ver. 10. Kal οὗτοι δὲ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν πρῶτον] The particles cai... δέ mean and also, καί being purely copula- tive ; δέ, however, opposing and emphasizing’ something new. Since this new thing, which is necessarily emphatic, always stands between καί πα δέ, οὗτοι, as van Oosterzee has rightly seen, must be opposed to those before named, 1.6. to the presbyters ; it is to be explained: “and these too, ἀ6. not only the presbyters, but also the deacons, are first to be proved.” It is wrong, therefore, to make δοκιμαζέσθωσαν emphatic, and to explain οὗτοι without reference to those before named (“ and these are further to be proved”), as was done in the former editions of this commentary.” Had he wished to say that, the apostle could not but have written καὶ δοκιμαζέσθωσαν δὲ οὗτοι ; comp. John viii. 16. It is true that nothing has been said hitherto about an examination in regard to the office of presbyter; but, of course, such an examination must have 1 Comp. Meyer on John vi. 51 ; Hartung, Lehre von den Partik. d. gr. Spr. I. pp. 181 ff. ; Buttmann, p. 312. 2 Wiesinger, too, seems to take it in this way : ‘ These, however, also are first to be proved, then they may serve.” » συσσ-σε---ο.----.-. CHAP, III. 11. 151 preceded the election. The examination for the office of deacon would certainly refer to the life and stedfastness in the faith, He does not say who was to undertake the examination, but it is natural to suppose that it was to be undertaken by those who elected. At the first institution of the diaconate the election was made by the church, the installa- tion to the office by the apostles. It is not known how it was managed later in the apostolic age. Heydenreich makes the examination too formal when he says: “They are to be examined first by Timothy, with the aid of the presbytery ; the votes of the members of the church are to be taken con- cerning his worthiness,” ete. On the other hand, the force of δοκιμαζέσθωσαν must not be weakened by such explanations as: “Paul wishes only those to be made διάκονοι regarding whom a definite opinion had already been formed in the church” (so in the second edition of this commentary); or: “it is the moral testing which naturally took place when they lived for some time under the eyes of the church and its leader : or: “it is in substance the same thing as μὴ νεόφυτον, used regarding the choice of presbyters” (Hofmann). — It is quite wrong, with Luther (“and these are first to be tried ”) and others, to understand the words as if they meant that candidates were first to be tried in the affairs of the diaconate. — εἶτα διακονείτωσαν, ἀνέγκλητοι ὄντες] The parti- ciple expresses the condition under which they are to be admitted to the office of deacon. Avaxovety, as applied definitely to the office of deacon, occurs only here, at ver. 14, and in 1 Pet. iv. 11. Ver. 11. Γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνὰς x.7.d.] No further hint is given as to what women he is here speaking of; only it is to be observed that these instructions regarding them are inserted amongst the rules for the diaconate, since ver. 12 continues to speak of the latter. They must therefore, at all events, be regarded as women who stand in close relation to the deacons— either the wives of the deacons or the deaconesses. Mack’s supposition, that they are the wives of the deacons and of the bishops, is quite arbitrary. The second view is found as early as in Chrysostom (γυναῖκας διακόνους φησί), Theophylact, Oecumenius, Grotius, and others; de 152 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTILY. Wette, Wiesinger, and Hofmann also think it correct. The principal grounds for it are—(1) the word ὡσαύτως, which indicates that the apostle here passes (see ver. 8) to a new class of ecclesiastical persons (Wiesinger); and (2) the fact that the instructions given in this whole section are rather directions for election than exhortations to the persons named. On the other hand, the omisson of αὐτῶν (de Wette, Wiesinger) and the expression πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν, usually understood, as de Wette wrongly thinks, of conjugal fidelity, are of no weight. — Against this view, however, there are two circumstances which should be considered, viz., that the instruction regarding the deaconesses is inserted among those given to the deacons, and also that the apostle calls them quite generally γυναῖκες, instead of using the definite αἱ διάκονοι (comp. Rom. xvi. 1). This makes it probable that by the γυναῖκες we should under- stand the deacons’ wives (so, too, Plitt). The reason of the special exhortation would then be, not, as Heydenreich says, that even the domestic life of the deacons should be con- sidered, but that the office of the deacons, consisting in the care of the poor and the sick, was of a kind in which their wives had to lend a helping hand. Hence we can explain why the wives of the bishops are not specially mentioned.’ — μὴ διαβόλους] διάβολος, as an adjective: “ slanderous,” occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, here and at 2 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit. 11. 3.— νηφαλίους) is not equivalent to μὴ οἴνῳ πόλλῳ προσεχούσας, ver. 8; it is to be taken in the same sense as in ver. 2 (in opposition to Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). — πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν] “ faithful in all things;” ἐν πᾶσιν forbids us to limit the command of fidelity to any one sphere; it is not merely faithfulness at home nor in the duties of the church that is meant. Ver. 12. The apostle returns to the deacons, and gives regarding their domestic life the same instructions as he gave in vv. 2—4 in regard to the bishops. Ver. 13. To these instructions he adds in this verse a reason: of yap καλῶς διακονήσαντες (διακονεῖν is here and in ver. 10 used in the official sense) βαθμὸν ἑαυτοῖς καλὸν περι- 1 Van Oosterzee’s view is arbitrary, that those deacons’ wives are meant who at the same time held the oflice of deaconess. CHAP. III. 13. 1:9 motovvtat2 The word βαθμός, which occurs only here, denotes, like gradus, in the figurative sense, a degree of honour. As to what is to be understood by this, expositors are not agreed; but we may reject at once all explanations in which a comparative is put in place of the positive καλόν. This objection applies to the view that βαθμός denotes here the higher ecclesiastical office, the office of bishop (Jerome: “bonum hic pro gradu majori posuit; sunt enim minores [diaconi];” Bengel: “gradum ab humilitate diaconiae ad majora munera, in ecclesia. Qui in minore gradu fidelis est, ad majora pro- movetur;” so, too, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Heumann, Heydenreich, Baur, Plitt, and others), which view, moreover, presupposes a regulation of rank altogether foreign to the apostolic age. The same objection applies to the view that βαθμὸς καλός is a higher stage of the life of faith, 1.6. an increase in Christian perfection. The expositors who hold by the posi- tive καλός, interpret the idea, some of the future, others of the present life. The former understand by it “a higher stage of blessedness ; so Theodoret (τὸν τίμιον τοῦτον βαθμὸν ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι λήψονται βίῳ), Flatt, and others ; the latter explain the expression as applying to “respect in the church;” so Calvin, Planck, Wegscheider, Leo, Matthies, and others. — Heinrich, de Wette, and Wiesinger agree with the view of the former, only modifying it to mean not a stage of holiness, but “the expectancy of 10. This modification is, however, unwarrantable, since the idea of “expectancy or claim” is imported. βαθμός means a stage; it cannot at the same time mean the claim to a stage; and if βαθμός must mean the claim to something, then there is nothing to indicate what the claim refers to.— The decision between the two interpreta- tions depends on the explanation of the words that follow : καὶ πολλὴν παῤῥησίαν ἐν πίστει TH ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] παῤῥησία means, in the first place, candour in speech; then more generally, bold courage in action, synonymous with ἄδεια 1 Hofmann thinks that ver. 13 is connected only with ver. 12; because a man might fill the office of deacon well, though he lacked the qualities named in vy. 8-10, but not if his house were badly managed. But that is not the case. Those qualities, not less than the one given in ver. 12, are the necessary condi- tions for filling the office of deacon well. 154 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. (Hesychius) ; and lastly, firm confidence in something ; thus in reference to men, 2 Cor. vii. 4 (πολλή μοι παῤῥησία πρὸς ὑμᾶς), or to God, viz. the confidence which the Christian in faith has in the saving grace of God; so in the Epistle to the Hebrews and in the First Epistle of John.’ If βαθμός is to be referred to future blessedness, then παῤῥησία here, as in 1 John iii. 21, Heb. iv. 16, is confidence toward God. But in 1 John iii. 21 we have πρὸς τὸν Θεόν along with παῤῥησία, and in Heb. iv. 16 μετὰ παῤῥησίας is added to define more precisely the clause: προσερχώμεθα τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος ; as to the parallel passage in vi. 19, to which de Wette like- wise appeals, the reference to the future life is distinctly expressed by the words εἰς τὸ μέλλον. Of all this there is nothing here ; there is nothing, either here or with καλὸν βαθμόν, to direct us to the future life, nothing to indicate that with παῤῥησία we should supply πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, or the like. Hence it is more natural to refer these ideas to the sphere in which the διακονεῖν takes place, and to understand by βαθμός, respect in the church;”? by παῤῥησία, confidence in their official labours. These two things stand in closest relation to one another, since only he can possess right confidence in his office who is open to no just reproach, who is honoured for conducting himself well in the matters with which his office-is concerned. Wiesinger, against this view, maintains that “ the aorist (διακονήσαντες) makes the βαθμὸν éavt. Kad. περυπ. appear to be the final result of the official labour ;”® but if that were the case, the present περιποιοῦνται should not have been used, but the perfect; for the acquisition does not take place after the official labour, but during it. — Certainly the aorist is somewhat strange; but it may mean that the βαθμὸς «.T.r. is always the result of good service.*—— The verb περι- 1 Regarding Luther’s translation of παῤῥησία by ‘‘joyfulness,” see my Comment. on the Epistles of John, 3d ed., on 1 John iv. 17. 2 Van Oosterzee’s opinion is manifestly wrong, that βαθμός is ‘‘a beautiful stage of the spiritual life, and also of eternal blessedness.” 3 The other grounds apply only to the exposition of Matthies, who understands by βαθμὸς καλός “the influential post ;” by παῤῥησία, ‘the free play of thought and speech, a wide open field of spiritual activity.” In this he certainly exceeds the meaning which may be assigned to these words. 4 Hofmann’s explanation of βαθμός and παῤῥησία agrees in substance with that CHAP. III. 14, 15. 255 ποιεῖσθαι, in the N. T. only here and in Acts xx. 28, has even in classical writers the meaning “gain for oneself.” The dative éavrots is added to show clearly that he is speaking of the gain to the deacons themselves, and not to the congrega- tion.— €év πίστει τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ] is not to be joined with βαθμόν and παῤῥησίαν (van Oosterzee), but only with παῤῥησίαν. It is not the sphere in which, nor the object in regard to which, there is παῤῥησία (Heumann: “the boldness to teach the Christian faith even in public ;” Wegscheider : “free activity for Christianity, or a greater sphere for the spread of Christianity”); but it denotes the παῤῥησία as Christian, as rooted in Christian faith. The construction of πίστις with ἐν following it, is found also in 2 Tim. iii. 15; Gal. iii. 26; Eph. 1. 15; Col. 1. 4 (only that in these passages there is no article before ἐν, while there is one before πίστις ; on the other hand, comp. Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18). This con- struction may be explained to mean that Christ is the object of faith already apprehended ; the believer not only has Christ before him, but he lives in communion with Him. Vy. 14, 15. The apostle has come here to a resting-point, since he has brought to an end his instructions regarding some of the chief points to be noticed in the affairs of the church; but, before passing to any new matter, he casts a glance back on the instructions he has given, and tells what was the occa- sion of his giving them. — ταῦτά cov γράφω] Bengel’s explana- tion: “ ταῦτα, 1.6. totam epistolam,” in which Hofmann agrees,” is so far right, that ταῦτα refers rather to the instructions that precede (from ii. 1 onward). — ἐλπίζων ἐλθεῖν πρός σε τάχιον] ἐλπίζων does not give the real (“ hoping,” Matthies), but the adversative ground (Leo: Part. ἐλπέζων per καίπερ seu similem given here. He is wrong, however, in asserting that the deacons do not acquire both during, but only after their tenure of office. If the latter were the case, the means by which it takes place would not be given. 1 Hofmann, indeed, holds even this connection of ideas to be unsuitable ; but we do not see why the ragneia may not be marked as Christian, as rooted in faith in Christ. To connect it with what follows, would be to suppose that the apostle lays emphasis on a point, which to Timothy would be self-evident. 2 Hofmann’s assertion, that the reference of ταῦτα to what precedes is forbidden by the present γράφω (for which we should have had ἔγραφα), is contradicted by 1 Cor. iv. 14, xiv. 37; 2Cor. xiii. 10; Gal. i. 20; also by 1 John ii, 1. 156 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. particulam esse resolvendum, nexus orationis docet; so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt). The real ground is given by the following ἵνα. Hofmann asserts, but does not prove, that this view does not accord with the following δέ, Hofmann finds that ἐλπίζων only expresses an accompaniment of the act of writing, and that it was added “lest Timothy should infer from the sending of an epistle that the apostle meant to leave him for some time in Ephesus ;” but in this he imports a motive of which the context furnishes no hint. — τάχιον (comp. on this form, Winer, p. 67 [E. T. p. 81]; Buttmann, . 24) is here taken by most expositors as a pure positive J I ιν “soon ;” the comparative sense (according to Winer, pp. 227 f. [E. T. p. 9047), though in the background, has not wholly dis- appeared: “sooner” (not “than the arrival of this letter,” or “than thou wilt have need of these instructions,” Winer) “ than is or was to be expected.”——In spite of this hope, the apostle’s arrival might possibly be longer delayed, and this possibility had induced him to impart his instructions by writing, lest Timothy should be without them. — ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω (the verb only here and at 2 Pet. iii. 9), Wa εἰδῆς πῶς Set ἐν οἴκῳ Θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι] πῶς δεῖ ἀναστρέφεσθαι refers not so much to the Christian lite in general, as to behaviour in church life, viz. in divine service and in church arrangements. This limitation is clearly indicated by the connection with what precedes, the ταῦτα referring us back (in opposition to Hof- mann). Its subject is either Timothy, in which case σέ is to be supplied (Luther: “how thou shouldst walk;” so, too, Wiesinger), or no definite subject should be supplied: “how one should walk.” Both explanations are possible in language and in fact; but the second may be preferred, because Paul 1 The impersonal δεῖ is usually joined with the accusative and infinitive, the infinitive denoting the thing, the accusative the person who must do the action expressed by the verb. More frequently the person is not named, but is easily supplied from the context, as e.g. in Matt. xxiii. 23, where ὑμᾶς, in Luke xii. 12, where again ὑμᾶς, and in Luke xv. 32, where σέ is to be supplied. Hofmann is therefore wrong in asserting that there is no linguistic justification for supplying σξ here, where εἰδῇς precedes. Sometimes, however, δεῖ refers to no particular person ; so John iv. 20: ὅσον προσκυνεῖν δεῖ; Acts v. 29: πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ Θεῷ; XV. 5: δεῖ περιτέμνειν αὐτούς ; Tit. i. 11: obs δεῖ ἐπιστομέζειν ; the δεῖ in that case corre- sponds to the English ‘‘one must.” It is arbitrary, with Hofmann, to supply σινά here, and understand by it one who ‘has to govern a house of God.” CHAP. III. 14, 15. Lat in the preceding part (to which ταῦτα refers) did not say what Timothy was to do, but what arrangements were to prevail in the church; Hofmann thinks differently, as he understands ταῦτα of the whole epistle. The expression οἶκος Θεοῦ denotes properly the temple at Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 13), then also the O. T. people as the church in which God had His dwelling (Heb. iii. 2, 5); in Christian usage it is the N. T. people in whom the dwelling of God has been fully realized ; Heb. iii. 6 (Heb. x. 21); 1 Pet. iv. 17; synonymous with it are the expressions: κατοικητήριον Θεοῦ, Eph. ii. 22; ναὸς Θεοῦ, 1 Cor. ii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 16.—To elucidate the symbolic expression, Paul adds: ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος] The pronoun ἥτις (= “ seeing it”) makes the explanatory sentence emphatic, by indicating why there should be such behaviour in the house of God as Paul had prescribed (which Hofmann denies); and the reason is not simply that it is an ἐκκλησία, ae. a church, and as such has necessarily certain definite ordinances, but still more definitely because it is a church of God, of the living God, who as such esteems highly His ordinances in His church.—There follow in simple apposition the words: στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας] These words are in apposition to ἐκκλησία Θ. ζ., and as such are rightly explained by the older’ and most of recent commentators (Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Mack, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann; now, too, by van Oosterzee, 3d ed.”). Some Protestant commentators, however, influenced by their polemic against the Catholic idea of the church, have taken these words as the beginning of the following sentence (first, in the edition of the N. T. at Basel, 1540, 1545 ; later, Bengel, Mosheim, Heydenreich, Flatt; formerly also van Oosterzee). The reasons against this construction are—(1) That the new thought would be taken up in a very abrupt and sudden manner, while by connecting it with the previous words, the train of thought is suitable and natural; (2) That “ grammatically 1 Theodore of M. rightly says: ἐκκλησίας οὐ τοὺς οἴκους λέγει φοὺς εὐκτηρίους κατὰ THY τῶν πολλῶν συνήθειαν, ἀλλὰ τῶν πιστῶν τὸν σύλλογον, ὅθεν καὶ στύλον αὐτὴν καὶ ἑδραίωμα ς«. ἀλ. ἐκάλεσεν, ὡς ay ἐν αὐτῇ τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν σύστασιν ἐχούσης. 2 Van Oosterzee is, however, inclined to conjecture that ‘‘there is here a corruption of the text which cannot now be restored with certainty.” 158 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. the third defining term, simply adjectival, ὁμολ. μέλα, cannot well be placed in co-ordination with two predicates like στύλος and édpaiwua” (Wiesinger, following Schleiermacher); and (3) That, whereas τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον is nothing else than the ἀλήθεια, this construction would make the former designate the latter as στύλος καὶ ép., which would clearly be unsuitable. There is manifestly nothing to be said for the opinion of some commentators,’ that by στ. x. ἑδρ. we are to understand Timothy.” - στύλος in the figurative sense occurs only here and at Gal. 11. 9; Rev. 11. 12. The οἶκος Θεοῦ is called στύλος τῆς ἀλη- θείας, inasmuch as the pillar supports and bears the roof resting on it (see Meyer on Gal. ii. 9), but not “inasmuch as it serves to elevate something and make it manifest” (Hofmann). The same idea is expressed by the second word: édpatmpa, the base, foundation (similarly θεμέλιος, 2 Tim. ii. 19), a word which is only used here in the N. T. The thought that the divine truth is supported and borne by the church, has nothing startling when we remember that the church, as the οἶκος Θεοῦ, has the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of truth; the Spirit of truth, therefore, is its indwelling, all-penetrating principle of life, by which it stands in closest communion with its head.’ But if the church is set up to be the preserver of divine truth, it is all the more important that all should be well-ordered in it. These words stand, therefore, in close connection with what precedes ; but, at the same time, they make the transition to what follows, where the apostle in a few brief characteristics gives the nature of the truth, that he may from this point return to his polemic against the heretics, and continue it further. 1 Gregory of Nyssa (de Vita Mosis): οὐ μόνον Πέσρος καὶ ᾿Ιώκωβος καὶ ᾿Ιωώννης σαῦλοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰσι. . . ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος καὶ cov Τιμόθεον σαύλον καλὸν ἐτεκπήνατο, ποιήσας αὐτὸν, καθὼς φησὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ φωνῇ, στύλον καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἐκκλησίας. ? Though Chrysostom construes rightly, he yet inverts the meaning of the sentence : οὐχ ὡς ἔκεῖνος ὃ ᾿Ιουδαικὸς οἶκος Bere σοῦσο γάρ ἔστι τὸ συνέχον σὴν rior καὶ vo κήρυγμα" ἣ γὰρ ἀλήδειώ tori τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ στύλο: καὶ ἑδραίωμα. 3. Wiesinger rightly calls attention to the distinction which should be made between ‘‘the truth as it is in itself, and the truth as it is acknowledged in the world,” and then says: ‘‘in the former respect it needs no support, but bears itself ; in the latter, it needs the church as its support, as its bearer and pre- server.” If the Catholic Church has drawn wrong conclusions from the apostle’s words, it has itself to blame, and not the apostle. CHAP. IIL. 16. 159 Ver. 16. Kai ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον] καί connects what follows with the preceding words, and in such a way as to emphasize the following pre- dicate. — ὁμολογουμένως] which only occurs here, means neither “ manifestly ” (Luther), nor “ according to the song of praise ” (Mack), nor even “ correspondingly ” (Hofmann ’) ; but: “ as is acknowledged” (comp. 4 Macc. vi. 31, vii. 16, xvi. 1 ; Josephus, Antig. i. 10. 2, ii. 9. 6).— μέγα] comp. Eph. v. 32 (καὶ τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν), has the sense of “ important, significant.” — The subject of the sentence: τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας | μυστήριον, is a paraphrase of the ἀλήθεια in the preceding verse. It is so called by the apostle, because, as the substance of the Christian fear of God, or piety, it is hidden from the world: the sense is the same, therefore, as that of τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως in ver. 9. It is wrong to translate it, as Luther does: “the blessed secret,’ or to explain it: “the doctrine which leads to godliness.” Wiesinger is incorrect in explain- ing it: “a secret accessible only to godliness ;” and Hofmann in saying: “ the truth which is of such a nature as to produce godliness where it finds acceptance.” — The purport—ze. the christological purport—is now given in the next clauses, Paul laying stress on it on account of the polemical tendency of the epistle against the heretics (chap. iv.), whose theology and Christology were in contradiction with the gospel. — As to the construction of these clauses, there would be no saa aed with the reading Θεός. If ὅ be read, it must relate to μυστή- ptov, which also might be the construction with és. According to’ the Vulgate (sacramentum quod manifestatum est), the latter is the construction adopted by the Latin Fathers who understood Christ to be the puorpiov,—an interpretation quite unjustifiable and unsuitable to the general train of thought. Several expositors (Mangold, Hofmann, and others) " Hofmann, without reason, takes objection to the sense given to the apostle’s remark, that believers acknowledged the secret of godliness to be great. But if this thought is meaningless here, not less is the one he substitutes: ‘‘ to the greatness of the house of God corresponds the greatness of the mystery of piety.” * Even Buttmann is of this opinion, as he quotes this passage (μυστήριον, ὃ; ἐφανερώθη) under the rule (p. 242), that the relative agrees with the natural gender of the preceding substantive, 160 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. assume the first clause: ds... σαρκί, to be the subject, and the other five clauses to form the predicate; but “on account of the parallelism, that is not advisable” (Winer, p. 519 [E. T. p. 736]). It is much more natural from their similar form to regard all six clauses as co-ordinate. Then the subject to which ὅς relates is not named; but, according to the purport of the various clauses, it can be none other than Christ. This curious omission may be thus accounted for; the sentence has been taken from a formula of confession, or better, from an old Christian hymn, as its metrical and euphonious character seems to indicate; comp. Rambach’s Anthologie christl. Gestinge aus allen Jahrh. d. Kirche, I. 33, and Winer, p. 547 [E. T. p. 797]. This view is also adopted by Heydenreich, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt. — The opinion of Matthies is untenable, that the apostle does not name Christ expressly, in order to maintain the character of τὸ μυστήριον (in the sense: Acknowledged great, etc.,...he who is revealed, etc.), and that this absolute use of the relative pronoun is found else- where in the N. T. In the passages quoted by him, Rom. i, 23, 1 Cor, vii. 37, John i. 46; i. 34, 1 πο πτ- pronoun has not the absolute meaning alleged by him. The first clause runs: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί] ἐφανερώθη is often used of Christ’s appearance on earth, of His becoming man, 1 John i. 2, iii. 5; it presupposes a previous concealment,’ , and consequently the pre-existence of Christ as the eternal! Logos. — Ἐν σαρκί] (comp. 1 John iv. 2 : ἐληλυθὼς ἐν σαρκί; Rom. viii. 3: ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας) denotes the human nature in which Christ appeared; John i. 14: ὁ λόγος σὰρξ éyévero. — With this first clause the second stands in contrast: ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι] means (as in Matt. xi. 19 ; Luke vii. 35): to be shown to be such a one as He is in nature; here, therefore, the sense is: He was shown in His divine glory (as the Logos or eternal Son of God), which was veiled by the σάρξ. Ἔν πνεύματι is contrasted with ἐν σαρκί, the latter denoting the earthly, human manner of His appearing, the former the inner principle which formed the basis of His life. Though ἐν with πνεύματι has not entirely 1 Hence the same word is used also of the resurrection and second coming of Christ. CIIAP. IIf. 16. 161 lost its proper meaning, yet it shades off into the idea of the means used, in so far as the spirit revealed in Him was the means of showing His true nature." It would be wrong to separate here the πνεῦμα from His person, and to understand by it the spirit proceeding from Him and imparted to His own ; it is rather the living spiritual principle dwelling in Him and working out from Him (so, too, Plitt).— Chrysostom diverges from this exposition, and explains ἐδικαιώθη by: δόλον οὐκ ἐποίησεν, ὅπερ ὁ προφήτης λέγει" ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησε; and Bengel takes the meaning of the expression to be that Christ bore the sins of the world (peccata peccatorum tulit .. οὖ justitiam aeternam sibi suisque asseruit) ; but both views import ideas which are here out of place. The expres- sion ἐν πνεύματι has also found very varying interpretations. Instead of πνεῦμα being taken in its real sense, particular elements of it in the life of Christ, or particular modes of revealing the πνεῦμα, have been fixed upon, or πνεῦμα has been taken simply of the divine nature of Christ.? — ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις] The right meaning of this third clause also can only be got from a faithful consideration of the words. The word #67 is in the N. T. frequently joined with the dative, Matt. xvi. 3 ; Luke i. 11; Acts vii. 2; 1 Cor. xv. 5-8; Heb. ix. 28, ete. In all these passages it is not the simple “ was seen,” but “was revealed” or “ appeared;” it always presupposes the activity of the thing seen. — From the analogy of these pas- sages, we must think here of Christ going to those to whom 1 Baur is wrong in explaining ἐν πνεύματι ‘‘as spirit.” This cannot be justi- fied by exegesis, and hence Baur contents himself with the mere assertion that it is so. * The older expositors take πνεῦμα to denote particularly Christ’s miracles (Theodoret: ἀπεδείχθη διὰ τῶν θαυμάτων καὶ ἀπιφάνθη, ὅτι Θεὸς ἀληθὴς καὶ Θεοῦ υἱός). Others apply it to the Spirit imparted to Him in baptism ; others, to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost ; others, to Christ’s resurrection as the most glorious work of the Spirit (so Heydenreich in particular), Akin to this view is that of Hofmann, who says that πνεῦμα is ‘‘ that which quickens, makes alive,” and deduces from this ‘‘ that spirit changed the existence of Christ in the flesh . . . into something that had its nature from the Spirit,” and explains ἐδικ. ἐν σιν. as relating to the justification He received through His resurrection. All these explanations fall to the ground when it is observed that the context con- tains no reference to any such special fact. Glassius explains it thus : Justus declaratus est et filius Dei comprobatus in Spiritu i. e. per deitatem suam, eujus vi miracula fecit. PASTORAL EPISTLEs. L 162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. He became visible, so that all explanations which take ὥφθη merely as “was seen” are to be rejected.—In the N. T. ἄγγελοι is especially applied to angels; in itself the word may also denote human messengers (comp. Jas. 11. 25). To take it here in this latter sense (which Hofmann does), as denoting the apostles to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection, is impossible, because nothing, not even the article, is used here to point to them in particular. If, then, ἄγγελοι can only mean angels, it is most natural to take ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις of the ascension, by which Christ —as the Glorified One—was made manifest to angels (so, too, Plitt). Still there is nothing here to lay stress on the ascension (as is done in the sixth clause); the point is, that He who was justified ἐν πνεύματι presented Himself to the angels in His glory. — Baur, indeed, in gnostic fashion interprets the pas- sage of Christ as passing through the various series of aeons, but it is clear that the words neither demand nor even justify such a view. No less arbitrary is de Wette’s opinion, that probably the ὠφθῆναι ἀγγέλοις relates to a supernatural scene differing from the ascension, and forming the antithesis to the descent into hell. — The very form of the expression shows that we are not to think of appearances of angels at various moments in the earthly life of Christ, as some expositors sup- pose. More noteworthy is an explanation given by Chrysostom and approved by some later expositors, especially by Matthies and Wiesinger. Chrysostom says: ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις" ὥστε καὶ ἄγγελοι μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν εἶδον τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, πρότερον οὐχ ὁρῶντες. Theodoret’s expression is still more pointed: τὴν γὰρ ἀόρατον τῆς θεότητος φύσιν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνοι ἑώρων, σαρκωθέντα δὲ ἐθεάσαντο. Matthies appeals to passages which he thinks are elucidated by the words, passages where Christ is said to have been manifested as ... head to all things in heaven and on earth, Eph. i. 20 ff, iii. 10, iv. 8 ff; Col. 1 15 ff, 1. 10, 15; Heb. i. 6 ff. But, though Christ’s lordship over all is spoken of in such passages, it is not said that Christ was made manifest to the angels only by means of His incarnation. The only passage which might be quoted here is Eph. iii. 10, which, however, rather declares that to the angels the eternal decree of the divine love or of God’s wisdom was to be made known CHAP. III. 16. 163 διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας. But such cannot possibly be the meaning of ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις. Wiesinger simply explains it: “the angels saw the σαρκωθέντα on earth ;” but obviously the sentence is meant to express something which befell not men, but angels. — ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν] for ἐκηρύχθη, comp. Phil. 1. 15; and for ἐν ἔθνεσιν, Matt. xxviii. 19. There is no good reason for taking ἔθνη here as relating not to the nations in general, but, as Hofmann thinks, to the heathen exclusive of the Jews.’ — ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ] ἐπιστεύθη is not, with some expositors, to be explained by ἐδικαιώθη: “ He has been testified” (viz. by the miracles of the apostles), or by “ fidem 5101 fecit” (“ he gained belief for Himself”); it is to be taken in its proper meaning. The word κόσμος has the same general meaning as the preceding ἔθνη; van Oosterzee is wrong in thinking that it ought to be taken here in an ethical sense. — “Jesus is personally the subject-matter of preaching and of faith” (Hofmann). — ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ] Mark xvi. 19; Acts i. 11 (Acts x. 16), where the same verb joined with εἰς οὐρανόν is used of Christ’s ascension. This supports the opinion of most expositors, that the same fact is mentioned here. — ἐν δόξῃ] may be taken as an adverbial adjunct equivalent to ἐνδόξως (similarly 2 Cor. iii. 8; Col. 11. 4); but in that case the expression of this sixth clause would be quite out of keeping with the others. Wahl takes the expression per attractionem pro: aver. εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἐστὶν ἐν δόξῃ, which is the only right exposition.” The apostle did not write εἰς δόξαν, but ἐν δόξῃ, to show that Christ not only entered into glory, but abides for ever in it (so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Still we cannot go so far as Matthies, who says that the result rather than the act of the transition is here mentioned; the expression with forcible brevity includes both points. De Wette’s assertion, too, is quite arbitrary, that Paul is speaking here not of the historical ascension, but of a heavenly occurrence. — In what relation now do these six clauses stand towards each other ?— 1 We cannot, in any case, see how ‘‘ the sentence is emptied of its meaning ” by regarding Israel as included in the idea of Zéyn. ? Strange to say, Hofmann disputes this, on the ground that Jesus ‘‘ was not _ received into glory, but into the celestial sphere.” He appeals for this to Heb. i, 3, which is utterly from the point. ce 164 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. We cannot help seeing that there is a definite order in their succession. It is beyond doubt chronological, since the second clause does not relate to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the last points more to Christ’s life in glory than to the historical ascension. But, at the same time, we can recognise a close relation between the clauses. Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, and Hofmann have adopted three groups, each containing two clauses; but, though ἀγγέλοις and ἔθνεσιν are contrasted, still this arrangement would separate between the fourth and fifth clauses, whose connection Theodoret rightly points out: οὐκ ἐκηρύχθη μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιστεύθη. Besides, in order to make the correspondence complete, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν should have come before ὥφθη ἀγγέλοις. It is more correct, therefore, to divide the whole into two parts, each with three clauses, the two first in each case referring to what took place on earth, the third to what took place in heaven (so, too, Plitt*). 1 Baur maintains that in these six clauses every two form a contrast, the one being more gnostic, the other more anti-gnostic. But in that case the author of the epistle would, in the second part, have very strangely given up the order observable in the first. Besides, of all the clauses, the third has by far the most resemblance to Gnosticism. CHAP. IV. 165 CHAPTER IV. Ver. 1. σλάνοις] For this, many cursives and Fathers have πλάνης, which, however, is only a correction, perhaps after 1 John iv. 6. -—Ver. 2. Instead of the form χεκαυτηριασμένων (Rec. Tisch.), we should probably, after A L &, read χεχαυστηριασμένων (Lachm. smaller ed., Buttm.).— For ἠδίαν συνείδησιν, which is supported by the weightiest authorities, D* has (in Matthaei, E) συνείδησιν ἑαυτῶν. --- Ver. 6. For ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, so many important authorities (A Ὁ F G, many cursives, etc.) have Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, that the latter must be held the right reading. — τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας) for which some cursives, etc., have τῇ καλῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, Which may have arisen from a belief that these words are co-ordinate with τοῖς rovers. — For the Rec. 7 παρηκολούθηκας (Tisch.), Lachm. smaller ed.,and Buttm., fallowins A 80, have adopted the gen. ἧς rxpnz., an attraction seldom occurring, but not without examples : see Winer, p. 148 [Εἰ T. p. 204), — Ver. 8. In & the preposition πρός 1S Wanting before ὀλίγον 5 possibly πρὸς ὀλίγον may have been formed on the analogy of the πρὸς πάντα. --- For the Rec. ἐπαγγελίαν, Which is found in the weightiest authorities, and is received by nearly all critics and editors, K δὲ, many cursives have the plural ἐπαγγελίας. This is defended by Matthaei and Rinck as the original reading, but is disputed by Reiche (Com- ment. crit. Το pp. 389 f.). Τῦ is at least possible that the singular found its way into the text as a correction.— Ver. 10. zai κοπιῶμεν, ftec., supported by F G Καὶ, most cursives, ete. (Tisch. 7); in A ὦ D & 17, 47, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. ete., καῇ is wanting, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. ὃ. Its genuineness is very doubtful. — Instead of the Rec. ὀνειδιζόμεθα (supported by D L, most versions, Theodoret, etc., Tisch. 7), A CFG KX, al., have the reading ἀγωνιζόμεθα, which has been adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. The authorities give a preference to the latter reading, yet it may have arisen from Col. 1,29. Reiche defends the Ree. we cannot decide with certainty ΑΕ is original; see further in the exposition of the verse. — Ver. 12. Between ἀγάπῃ and ἐν πίστει the Rec. has ἐν πνεύματι; rightly withdrawn from the text as not genuine by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., following the w vightiest authorities (ACDE G 31, 47, 70, ΤΊ, αἰ. Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. ete., Clemens, 166 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. Chrys. etc.) ; comp. Reiche (Comment. crit. I. p. 892). — Ver. 15. For ἐν σᾶσιν, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly adopted πᾶσιν (without ἐν), after A C Ὁ F GW 17, 31, al., Syr. Erp. Copt. etc., Clem. Chrys. etc. It is defended, too, by Reiche as the original reading; ἐν appears to have been inserted from the analogy of Rom. 1.19; 1 Cor. xi. 19. Ver. 1. In the first five verses of this chapter, Paul speaks of the heretics, directing special attention in ver. 3 to one point in their doctrine. — τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει] The δέ connects this verse with the beginning of iii. 16, and connects it by way of contrast. Τὸ πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit, as the source of prophecy. To explain the expression by of πνευματικοί (Heydenreich) is inaccurate. Paul goes back here to the fundamental basis of all prophecy. — ῥητῶς (ἅπαξ Ney.) means : “in express words,” and is used particularly with quotations." Heydenreich is inaccurate in explaining it as equivalent to σαφῶς, φανερῶς ; Luther: “distinctly.” The apostle, then, appeals here to a prophecy of the Spirit expressly worded. Such a prophecy of the future apostasy lay before him in. many utterances, both of Christ and of others; besides, the Spirit declared them to the apostle himself.—Leo is wrong: animus mihi praesagit. — ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως) We might readily take ὕστεροι καιροί here as equivalent to ἔσχατοι καιροί (comp. 2 Tim. ili. 1: ἔσχαται ἡμέραι; 1 Pet. 1. 5: καιρὸς ἔσχατος; 2 Pet. 11]. 3; Jude, ver. 18; in Ignatius, Zp. ad Ephes. ο. xi.: ἔσχατοι καιροί) ; but we must not overlook the difference between the two ex- pressions. The former points simply to the future, the latter to the last time of the future, immediately preceding the completion of God’s kingdom and the second coming of Christ (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is unsuitable to press καιρός here in the sense of “ the fitting time,” and to translate it with Matthies: “in the fitting time hereafter.’—Twves are not the heretics, but those who are led away from the faith by the heretics. The apostasy belonged to the future, but the heresy to the present. Hofmann thinks differently, assigning ‘{Huther must mean that ῥητῶς is ἅπαξ λεγ. in the N. T. ; for it is found in Sext. Empir. adv. Log. i. 8: ὁ Ἐενοφῶν ῥητῶς φησίν; also in Strabo, i. p. 4 B, and Polybius, 11. 23. 5.—Tr. J CHAP. IV. 2. 167 the heresy also to the future, though the apostle’s expression does not warrant this." We must not, however, with Otto, infer that in the apostle’s time the heretics were still outside the church.—drootycovrat τῆς πίστεως] “ This sentence forms the antithesis to what has preceded, iii. 15, 16” (Wiesinger) ; for the expression, comp. Luke viii. 13; Heb. iii. 12; Wisd. iii. 10; 1 Mace. i. 15, and other passages. — προσέχοντες] comp. i. 4; the partic. tells how the apostasy is brought about. — πνεύμασι πλάνοις]) the πνεύματα πλάνα are in contrast with the πνεῦμα in ver. 1; and the former are as little to be identi- fied with the heretics, as the latter with the prophets (Wolf: spirituales seductores, z.c. doctores seducentes). The πνεύματα are rather the active spiritual powers hidden in the heretics, the tools and servants of the devil. As the truth is one, so also is its principle one: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Error on the other hand is manifold, and is supported by a plurality of spirits, who may, however, be regarded as a unity: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης, 1 John iv. 6. — These πνεύματα are called πλάνα, because they seduce man from the truth to falsehood ; comp. 2 John ver. 7.— καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων] δαιμονίων is not the objective (Heydenreich: “doctrines regarding demons, a characteristic of Essene-gnostic heretics who spoke so much of the higher world of spirits, of aeons,’ etc.), but the subjective genitive (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Winer, p. 176 [E. T. p- 233]). The δαιμόνια are the source of the doctrines which are opposed to the truth, of the cwdia δαιμονιώδης (Jas. 111. 15); comp. Col. ii. 22. It is wrong to suppose that the δαιμόνια are the heretics themselves. As with πνεῦμα in ver. 1, Paul goes back here to the inner grounds; the διδασκαλίαν proceed- ing from these form the opposite of the διδασκαλία ἡ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ." Ver. 2. Ἔν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων)] Leo: “ errarunt sine dubio, qui genitivos, qui sequuntur, ψευδολόγων, κεκαυτηριασ- 1 Plitt is not wrong in observing that ‘‘ the errors now described by the author were no longer matters purely of the future ; they were already appearing.” 35 The expression δαιμόνια occurs often in the synoptic Gospels ; in John only in the singular. Paul has it only here and in 1 Cor. x. Otto uses this last fact as a proof that the two epistles were contemporaneous, but he is wrong; the reference is different in the two cases; in the passage of 1 Cor. it is not the ὁ onostic ” heresy that is spoken of. 168 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, μένων, κωλυόντων, lege appositionis, junctos esse dicebant cum voc. δαιμονίων ;” but we must also reject Leo’s opinion, that ἐν ὑποκρ. ψευδ. was added to the previous statement as a second characteristic of the heretics, meaning: eadem simu- lantes, quae simulare solent homines ψευδολόγοι, etc.; ψευδολ,, KexauTnp., κωλυόντων denote the heretics themselves, and not those whom they imitated. To regard the genitive ψευδολόγων as dependent on διδασκαλίαις, and ἐν ὑποκρίσει as defining more precisely the substantive following it (Estius: doctrinis, inquam, hominum in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium), would make a double difficulty of construction. Nor can Luther's translation be defended: “by means of such as are speakers of lies in hypocrisy.” Ἂν ὑποκρίσει is either to be taken with ἀποστήσονται (so Bengel: Constr. cum deficient ; hypo- crisis ea, quae est falsiloquorum, illos auferet; tives aliqui, ili, sunt seducti; falsiloqui, seductores; falsiloquorum, geni- tivus, unice pendet ab hypocrisi), or, still better, with προσέχοντες (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt). The objec- tion of Matthies, which agrees with Leo’s explanation, that in that case we should have had instead of ἐν either διά or ἕνεκα with the article, is contradicted by the usage of the N. Τ In the N. T. ἐν is not seldom used with the instru- ment, and in regard to the article there prevails a greater freedom of use than in classic Greek. Hofmann strangely combines δαιμονίων ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων into one idea, explaining δαιμονίων to be an adjective with Ψψευδολόγων, and ἐν ὑποκρίσει also as a qualification of ψευδολόγων in the sense of “hypocritical.”’— The hypocrisy of the heretics consisted in giving themselves, in obedience to a false spiritualism (see ver. 3), the appearance of a spiritually- inspired life.—The word ψευδολόγοι (“ liars,” Luther) occurs only here in the N. T. Im sense it is equivalent to cg hela 2 Pet. ii. 1, and ψευδοπροφήτης, 1 John . 1 (comp. ματαιολόγοι, Tit. i. 10). — κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν] On the grammatical structure, comp, vi. 5 1 Hofmann opposes the view here put forward that ἐν ὑποκρίσει is to be taken with προσέχοντες, and makes the curious remark that ἐν ‘“‘can only introduce that which is of use to me for doing something, not that which makes me do a thing only in so far as it is of use to another to determine me to do it” (!). CHAP. IV. 3. 169 (διεφθαρμένοι ἄνθρωποι τὸν νοῦν ; the more precise definition is not infrequently added in the accusative, see Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 287]), “branded as to their conscience” (Wahl: κεκαυ- τηριασμένην ἔχοντες τὴν ἰδ. συνείδησιν). ---- It is to be noted that the καυτηριάζειν (cauterio notare) was not only done on slaves “ut facilius possent discerni” (Leo), but was also a form of punishment for marking criminals as such (comp. Meyer on Gal. vi. 17). As these bore the brand on their forehead,—that 15 the figurative expression,—so do the heretics bear it on their conscience, 1.6. they bear in their conscience the knowledge of their guilt. Theophylact rightly: ἐπεὶ συνίσασιν ἑαυτοῖς ἀκαθαρσίαν πολλήν, διὰ τοῦτο τὸ συνειδὸς αὐτῶν ἀνεξαλείπτους ἔχει τοὺς καυτῆρας τοῦ ῥυπαροῦ βίου. Theodoret (followed by Heumann) wrongly understands the apostle’s expression to denote moral deadness: νέκρωσις καὶ ἀποβολὴ πάσης αἰσθήσεως, ἐσχάτη avadynola’ ὁ yap τοῦ καυτῆρος τόπος νεκρωθεὶς τὴν πρότεραν αἴσθησιν ἀποβάλλει. The apostle does not blame the heretics for having a conscience completely blunted, but for acting against their conscience ; comp. Tit. 111. 11: avtoxataxpitos.— On ἰδίαν, de Wette remarks that it is not emphatic here; but it is not impro- bable that the apostle had some such side-thought in mind as Bengel suggests: dum alios tamen urgent (so, too, Wiesinger). Ver. 3. Further description of the heretics. — Κωλυόντων γαμεῖν] Since even the Essenes and Therapeutae made absti- nence from marriage a necessary condition of a holy life, there is no ground whatever for supposing that this descrip- tion proves the heretics to have been followers of the later Christian gnostics (especially of Marcion, according to Baur). — ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων] similar construction in 11. 12; 1 Cor. xiv. 34; the infinitive is dependent on the κελευόντων implied in κωλυόντων (= κελευόντων μή); see Winer, p. 578 [Εἰ T. p. 777]; Buttmann, p. 343. Isidor of Pelusium unneces- sarily corrects ἀπέχεσθαι into ἀντέχεσθαι. In the Epistle to the Romans (chap. xiv.) the apostle speaks of weak brethren’s anxiety in regard to the enjoyment of many meats, and the heretics combated in the Epistle to the Colossians are distinctly described as forbidding the enjoyment of certain meats ; but neither here nor in these passages is it said what 170 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. kinds of meat were forbidden, nor why (comp. also Tit. i. 14,15). It is, however, not improbable—if we follow the analogy of later gnostics—that animal food, and perhaps also wine (Col. ii. 6: ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει), are specially meant. There is no indication that the prohibition was founded on gnostic dualism (van Oosterzee); it is more probable that the false asceticism of the heretics was connected with the Mosaic distinction between clean and unclean (comp. Tit. i. 15); so also Wiesinger.'-—In the Epistle to the Colossians (ii. 22) the apostle indicates the perversity of such a prohibition in a brief relative clause; and so also here. —@ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάληψιν «.7.r.| Different answers have been given to the question why only the second, and not also the first error is refuted. It may have been that the heretics did not make abstinence from marriage, as they made abstinence from certain meats, a command laid on all. It may have been, too, “that the prohibition to marry stood in manifest contra- diction with the divine order of creation, whereas the prohibi- tion of certain meats might appear less objectionable because of its analogy with the prohibition in the law of Moses” (Hofmann). Besides, the apostle has already indicated in ii. 15 the opposition of the gospel to this prohibition to marry.—The word μετάληψις occurs only here, though in Acts xxvii. 33 we find μεταλαβεῖν tpodfs.—The apostle does not content himself with saying that God made food to be enjoyed, but he shows at the same time how God meant it to be enjoyed, viz.: μετὰ εὐχαριστίας (comp. on this 1 Cor. x. 31). He then limits the general thought by a special reference to believers: τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλή- θειαν, as those in whom the purpose of creation is fulfilled, solis filiis suis Deus totum mundum et quicquid in mundo est destinavit, qua ratione etiam vocantur mundi heredes (Calvin). The apostle’s thought is distorted by adding “ also” before τοῖς πιστοῖς, as is done by some expositors.—Heyden- reich rightly says that the words are equivalent to wa οἱ πιστοὶ καὶ of ἐπεγνωκότες THY ἀληθ. μεταλαβῶσιν αὐτῶν μετὰ 1 Hofmann, with no good reason, declares, on the other hand, that attention is directed here to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and to the weak Christians mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, as well as to the heretics at Colosse. CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 1} εὐχαριστίας. Hofmann unjustifiably takes exception to this, and—in spite of ὅτε beginning a new sentence—seeks to connect τοῖς πιστοῖς not with what goes before, but with what follows (!). The added words: τοῖς πιστοῖς «.7.r., show most clearly the perverse conduct of the heretics in for- bidding the enjoyment, and to believers of all people. Πιστοί are “believers,” and not “those convinced that enjoyment is permitted to them;” ézeyv. τ. ἀλήθ: also does not denote a special class of the πιστῶν : “the Christians who have come to the true gnosis” (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the πιστοί themselves, as those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognised the truth, 16. the divine truth. Kav is epexegetical ; comp. 11. 4. Ver. 4. Ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα Θεοῦ καλόν] This verse gives the ground of the preceding thought, which Hofmann denies. 3engel wrongly takes it to be in apposition to ἀλήθειαν. --- κτίσμα, Which does not occur elsewhere in Paul, means here of course the creatures of God destined for nourishment. On the principle here expressed, comp. Rom. xiv. 14: οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι αὐτοῦ, and ver. 20: πάντα καθαρά; Acts x. 15: ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε, σὺ μὴ Kolvov.— καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον] comp. Iliad, iii. 65: οὔτοι ἀπόβλητ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῶν ἐρικυδέα δῶρα; and the scholiast’s remark: ἀπόβλητα ἀποβολῆς ἄξια τὰ ὑπὸ θεῶν, φησὶ, διδόμενα δῶρα οὐκ ἔστι μὲν ἀρνήσασθαι. Here the thought stands in contrast with the idea of defile- ment caused by partaking of certain meats. Going back to the μετὰ εὐχαριστίας in ver. 3, the apostle defines it more pre- cisely, though not by mentioning an accessory point merely : μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανύμενον (Eph. v. 20: εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων), because God wishes His gifts to be enjoyed with thankful heart, and the purpose of creation is therefore fulfilled only by him who partakes with thankfulness. Ver. 5 serves to elucidate the thought expressed in ver. 4, that every meat taken with thanksgiving is good, and not to be rejected.—‘Aqudferar yap διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως ἁγιάζειν is not “declare to be clean and permissible,’ but “make something holy.” In itself the meat is not something holy, for, as a purely material thing, it can be called neither holy nor unholy (so also van Oosterzee). It is less suitable 172 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. to say, with Wiesinger, that “the κτίσις being burdened with a curse, is subject to ματαιότης and the δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς ;” but it is made holy for those who enjoy it by the λόγος Θεοῦ. Wahl and Leo take Θεοῦ to be the objective genitive, and interpret it as “oratio ad Deum facta,” which makes the expression synonymous with ἔντευξις following it; but λόγος Θεοῦ never occurs in this sense. Other expositors have supposed that reference is made to some particular passage of the Scriptures, either to Gen. i. 31 or Acts x. 15; but de Wette rightly remarks that the words in that case go quite beyond ver. 4, and touch on the question whether certain meats are clean or unclean. For the same reason, λόγος Θεοῦ cannot mean generally “the expressions of the divine doctrine, the principles of Christianity” (Heydenreich). Since the expression points back to μετὰ εὐχαριστίας in ver. 4, and is closely connected with ἔντευξις, it can only mean the word of God occurring in the prayer of thanksgiving (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee), either in this sense, that the word of thanks itself is called the Word of God, inasmuch as it is the expression of God’s indwelling Spirit, or because the prayer is supposed to consist of the words of Scripture.\— Regarding ἔντευξις, see ii. 1. Ver. 6. After describing the heretics, the apostle turns again to Timothy, exhorting him, in the first place, with special regard to the matters last under discussion, and then more generally in regard to the duties of his office. —tadta ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς] ταῦτα does not, as Heydenreich supposes, pass over all intermediate matter and go back to the christo- logical doctrines expressed in ii. 16. It is more correct, with Hofmann, to refer it to the whole section from 111. 16 to iv. 5 (so Chrysostom) ; but possibly also Paul had in view only the prohibitions of the heretics (Wiesinger; van Oosterzee doubtfully). — ὑποτίθεσθαι (the middle only here, the act. in tom. xvi. 4), properly: “put under the hand or foot,” may "In the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 49, there stands the following grace before meat: εὐλογητὸς εἶ, Κύριε, ὁ σρίφων μὲ ix νεότητός μου, ὁ διδοὺς τροφὴν πάσῃ σαρκί, πλήρωσον χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, ἵνα πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες, σερισσεύωμεν εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐν Xp, ᾿Ιησοῦ, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, O οὗ σοὶ δόξα, τιμὴ καὶ , , ν »"-" we ae Ἄρατος εἰς TOUS Kiwyas, CUNY, CHAP. IV. 6. 173 also mean “instruct” (Josephus, Anéig. 1. 14), as much as “advise” or “command” (Josephus, ell. Jud. 11. 8. 7); here it stands more in the latter sense; Luther: “ point out.”— Hofmann wrongly explains it as equivalent to “take as a theme,” and-——against the natural structure of the sentence— connects it with what follows, though in this way it becomes tolerably superfluous. — καλὸς ἔσῃ διάκονος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ] Paul here uses διώκονος, inasmuch as Timothy was formally appointed to serve in the work of Christ; it has the same meaning as “so wilt thou well occupy the office committed to thee (dvaxovia, 2 Tim. iv. 5).” To this is attached the participial clause: ἐντρεφόμενος τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως «.T..| The present participle does not stand for the perfect participle, but brings out how Timothy is to behave at all times, in order to fulfil his commission as ἃ καλὸς διάκονος ᾿]1. Xp. It declares that he is to be one who makes the words of faith his nourishment. It is inaccurate, therefore, to translate ἐντρεφόμενος by innutritus (Bengel'), or “reared” (Luther). As to the meaning of the word ἐντρέφεσθαι (in N. T. a ἅπαξ Ney.), see Philo, Leg. ad Caj.: ἐνετράφης τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν, and Plato, Leg. vii. T98a: οἷς yap ἂν ἐντραφῶσι νόμοις. --- The λόγοι τῆς πίστεως are the words in which faith expresses itself. The added words: καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας (see i. 10), make the contrast with the heretics more decided, and the further clause: ἡ (ἧς) παρηκολούθηκας, shows that Timothy had hitherto been faithful to pure doctrine. This latter perfect stands in apt contrast with the present participle évtpedopevos. The original meaning of the verb: “follow near any one,” fur- nishes naturally for the present context the meaning: “ which thou hast faithfully followed, to which thou hast remained faithful” The translation: “according to which thou hast formed thyself,’ is inaccurate; the word occurs in the N. T. only here and in 2 Tim. ii. 10, as well as in Luke i. 3 and Mark xvi. 17. 1 Bengel, however, did not overlook the signification of the present altogether, since he explains thus: Praesens cum respectu praeteriti, innutritus ; nutrimen- tum perpetuum. Chrysostom remarks: στὸ dinvexis τῆς εἰς φὰ τοιαῦτα προσοχῆς δηλῶν. Winer says: “ἐντρεφόμενος shows that the λόγοι τῆ; πίστεως are to Timothy a vermanent means of nourishment and culture.” 174 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTIILY. Ver. 7. The exhortation to Timothy in the previous verse, that he should continue faithful to sound doctrine, is followed by an injunction to keep from heresy. — τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους Kat ypawdes μύθους παραιτοῦ] παραιτοῦ" τὴν τελείαν ἀποφυγὴν αἰνίττεται, Chrysostom ; “have nothing to do with.” Here, as in 1. 4, the apostle calls the heresies μῦθοι, in reference to the fictions they contained; but at the same time he describes them more precisely by the adjectives βέβηλοι and γραώδεις. On the former, comp. i. 9 (Luther: “unspiritual”). It is in contrast with écvos, and would be manifestly too strong, if the μῦθοι were only “things which bear no moral fruit,’ which “ have an innocent aspect,” and only “ possibly lead to apostasy ” (against Wiesinger).’ Γραώδης (occurring only here) is equi- valent to “old-wifish” (Luther), ic. antiquated ; comp. 2 Tim. ii. 23. Otto regards “the μῦθοι ypaddes on the formal side as myths, such as are told to children by old fathers ;” but the passages quoted by him from Plato (Republic, i. 350 E; 1]. 377 C,and 378 D) do not support his opinion. These merely say that nurses, mothers, and more generally old wives, are to tell myths to the children, from which we can infer neither that γραώδεις refers merely to the form of the story, nor that Paul had any thought of a reference to children.—The apostle’s exhortation does not touch so much on Timothy’s teaching as on his own personal conduct; but correctness of conduct is all the more necessary that it is a condition of the right fulfil- ment of his διακονία. ---- γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν] After telling Timothy what he is not to do, viz. that he is not to give himself up to the μύθοις βεβηλοῖς, he tells him now what —in contrast to these things—he is to do. The δέ indicates not only the transition to a new thought (Hofmann), but also the contrast to what has preceded. The figurative expression γυμνάζειν is used also in classic Greek of every straining exercise. This meaning is to be maintained here; Theodoret: γυμνασίας dpa χρεία καὶ πόνων διηνεκῶν" ὁ yap γυμναζόμενος 1 Hofmann is right in saying that βέβηλος does not properly mean ‘‘ wicked ” or “ godless,” but ‘‘unholy.” He, however, overlooks the fact that it denotes not simply the negation, but also the opposite of what is holy. He is wrong, there- fore, in maintaining : ‘‘the apostle cannot, however, truly describe in this way the doctrines of devilish liars.” ee ie CHAP. IV. 8. 175 καὶ ἀγῶνος μὴ ὄντος ἀγωνίζεται (δρῶτος ἄχρι. ---- πρός indicat finem, ad quem illa γυμνασία vergat (Leo); this goal is εὐσέβεια, 1... Christian piety rooted in faith. Comp. on this verse, 2 Tim. 11. 22, 23. Ver. 8. The reason for the previous exhortation is given by contrasting the σωματικὴ γυμνασία with the γυμνασία πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. ---ἡ γὰρ σωματικὴ γυμνασία πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος] Regarding the meaning of σώωματ. γυμν., there are two opinions which need no refutation: the one is that it means the ceremonial law (Braun, Selecta sacra, i. 10, § 156); the other is that of Chrysostom, who understands by it disputation with the heretics." It is a question whether Paul makes use of the word with or without reference to the heretics. Many expositors (of the older, Ambrosius, Thomas ; of the more recent, Calvin, Grotius; also Heydenreich, Leo, Matthies) adopt the former view, and explain the σωματικὴ yupvacia to mean the practice prevailing among the heretics of abstaining from marriage and from certain meats. The connection of ideas is against this view, since in the words immediately preceding he was not speaking of rules of abstinence, but of the myths of the heretics; the sense is also against it, for Paul could not possible say of the heretics’ mode of life, which before he had called devilish, that it was πρὸς ὀλίγον ὠφέλιμος κιτιλ. Wiesinger thinks the apostle had in mind, not that degenerate form of asceticism which was to appear in the future, as he described in ver. 3, but “the phenomena of the present,” viz. an asceticism to which even Timothy (v. 23) had some inclination. But since, in Wiesinger’s opinion, even this asceticism is to be regarded as an error, we cannot well refer to it the words πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος. --- Hofmann understands the σωματικὴ yup- vacia to be a discipline such as the apostle practised on himself in abstaining from things permitted; not, however, as if the self-denial were anything in itself, but only lest he should be hindered by the needs of the body from attaining the goal. For this Hofmann quotes 1 Cor. ix. 27. But the discipline which Paul practised on himself was by no means 1 Chrysost.: μηδὲ εἰς γυμνασίαν ποτὲ καταθὲς σεαυτὸν, διαλεγόμενος πρὸς ἐκείνους" οὐ γάρ ἔστι πρὸς τοὺς διεστραμμένους μαχόμενον ὀνῆσαι τί ποτέ. 176 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. a purely bodily one; it was rather a γυμνασία πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, since the faithful fulfilment of official duty formed part of the εὐσέβεια. The expression is therefore to be explained simply from itself, and we must understand by it the exercise of the body in general, as Theodoret, Pelagius, Wolf, and others (of those more recent, Mack, de Wette, and van Oosterzee) have rightly explained it.—The reason why Paul here speaks of bodily exercise is contained in the previous exhortation: γύμναζε σὲ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν. This he wishes to make emphatic by contrasting with it the γυμνάζειν practised so carefully among the Greeks, though only πρὸς ὀλίγον ὠφέλιμον. The connection of ideas is by no means, as de Wette thinks, a mere “lexical allusion,’ nor is the idea itself superfluous.— πρὸς ὀλίγον is in Jas. iv. 14 used of time: “for a short time.” In this sense many have taken it here; but the contrasted πρὸς πάντα is against this. It is inaccurate also to regard, as Heumann does, πρὸς ὀλίγον as equivalent to ὀλίγῳ (Luther: “of little use”); it means “ for little.” Paul does not mean to say that the cop. γυμνασία is of no use, but that its use extends to little, only to some relations of the present, earthly life’ It is different with that to which Timothy is exhorted: ἡ δὲ εὐσέβεια πρὸς πάντα ὠφέλιμός ἐστιν] A more exact contrast would have been presented by ἡ δὲ γυμνασία ἡ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν; but Paul could here speak at once of the use of εὐσέβεια in order to strengthen the previous exhortation. Πρὸς πάντα is here opposed to πρὸς ὀλίγον. The general reference thus given must not be arbitrarily limited. There is nothing, no active occupation, no condition, no human relation, on which the εὐσέβεια does not exercise an influence for good. — ἐπαγγελίαν ἔχουσα ἕξωῆς τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης] This participial clause gives a reason for the words immediately preceding, and confirms them. De Wette, and following him Wiesinger, explain (by appealing to passages such as Ex. xx. 12; 2 If ὀλίψον (without πρός), the reading of §, is correct, then the meaning is that which Luther has expressed. Still ὀλίγον might be taken also as a milder expression for the absolute negation: of little use, i.e. properly speaking, of no use, viz. for the calling of a Christian. But even this view does not justify the interpretation of γυμνασία which we have rejected above. CHAP. IV. 9, 10. LTT Deut. iv. 40; Matt. vi. 33; Eph. vi. 2, and others) ζωὴ ἡ νῦν as equivalent to “a long and happy life” But ζωή with ἡ vov cannot have a meaning different from that which it has with ἡ μελλοῦσα. It is incorrect also to understand by fan “eternal life, life in the full and true sense of the word” (Hofmann),’ for it is arbitrary to maintain that τῆς νῦν καὶ τῆς μελλούσης was added to ζωῆς only as an after-thought. This contrast forbids us to understand ζω as anything else than simply “life;” ζωὴ ἡ νῦν is the present, ζωὴ ἡ μελλοῦσα is the future life which follows the earthly. The genitive is to be taken as a more remote objective genitive— “promise for the present and the future life” (so, too, van Oosterzee and Plitt). The thing promised is not indeed named, but it can be easily supplied. Ver. 9 serves to strengthen the expression immediately preceding (not the thought in iii. 16, against Heinrichs), whereas in i. 15 (comp. also 111. 1) the same words refer to what follows. The γάρ in ver. 10 prevents us from connect- ing them with what comes next. It is no less unsuitable to refer them, as Hofmann does, to the ὅτε following, and to regard εἰς τοῦτο... as a parenthesis. This connection is opposed not only by the harshness of the construction, but also by the consideration that, as a matter of fact, the conduct of the Christian, viz. ἠλπικέναι x.7.r., needed for Timothy no such confirmation as is given in these words.” Ver. 10. Εἰς τοῦτο yap κοπιῶμεν καὶ ὀνειδιζόμεθα κ.τ.λ. The particle yap shows that this verse is to serve as a reason or confirmation of the preceding thought that godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of this and the future life. Eis τοῦτο is by expositors either referred directly to this thought (de Wette, van Oosterzee), or is joined with the ὅτε following (Wiesinger); in the latter case the ἠλπίκαμεν points only to the thought in ver. 8. The former construc- tion deserves the preference, not only because it is more 1 It is clear that ζωή is not the ‘blessed life” (Matthies), since εὐσέβεια itself denotes the blessed life. * This difficulty is concealed in Hofmann by laying the emphasis on Θεῷ ζῶντι, so that πιστὸς ὁ λόγος κι τ. λ. is to refer to the thought that God is a living God. PAsToRAL EPIsTLEs. M 178 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. natural to refer the τοῦτο to the thought of ver. 8 so purposely confirmed by ver. 9; and also because eis τοῦτο cannot be taken as equivalent to διὰ τοῦτο (by which Theodoret paraphrases it), id circo (Beza). Eis always points to a goal (and not to the reason of something). ᾿Ηλπικέναι, however, as an already existing condition, cannot be regarded as the goal to which the κοπιᾶν is directed; hence Luther’s translation: “to this end we labour also... that we... have hoped,” cannot be justified. The meaning therefore is: In regard to this, that godliness has promise, viz. in order that this promise may be fulfilled in us, we labour.—With the Rec. καὶ κοπιῶμεν καὶ ὀνειδιζόμεθα, καὶ... καί is either equivalent to “both... and,” or the first καί is equivalent to “yea also,” and the second xaé is simply “and.” In the former case the two ideas κοπιᾶν and ὀνειδίζεσθαι are more widely separated; in the latter, they are more closely con- nected. The second view seems to be more natural. There is very weighty authority for the reading: κοπιῶμεν καὶ ἀγωνιζόμεθα, which also gives a thoroughly appropriate meaning; but still the Rec. for which, too, almost all expositors (de Wette, Wiesinger, Reiche, van Oosterzee, Hofmann, and others) have decided, might be preferred. The change of ὀνειδιζόμεθα into ἀγωνιζόμεθα may be easily explained from the following facts, that in Col. 1. 29 κοπιᾶν is jomed with ἀγωνίζεσθαι, that ὀνειδίζειν does not occur elsewhere in Paul (except at Rom. xv. 3 in an O. T. quota- tion), that the passive ὀνειδιζόμεθα does not seem suitable, whereas ἀγωνιζόμεθα agrees well with the figure in ver. 8. On the other hand, the change of ἀγωνιζόμεθα into ὀνειδιζό- μεθα is scarcely explicable. The plural κοπιῶμεν is not to be limited to the apostle, or tc him and Timothy; it expresses the general Christian consciousness. The verb, often joined with another verb which has in it the idea of active exertion (1 Cor. iv. 12; Eph. iv. 28; Col. i. 29), does not denote simple labour, but labour with trouble and suffering: “to toil and moil” (Heydenreich); καὶ ὀνειδιζόμεθα again points to the reproach which the Christian bears from the world. ᾿Ονειδιζόμεθα is a “concise expression for we endure to be slandered” (Wiesinger), — ὅτε ἠλπίκαμεν ἐπὶ Θεῷ ζῶντι] CHAP. IV. 11. 179 If εἰς τοῦτο refers to what precedes, ὅτε is equivalent to “because ; the meaning in that case is: in regard to the promise given to εὐσέβεια, we take trouble and reproach upon ourselves, because we have set our hope on the living God, and are certain, therefore, that that promise does not remain unfulfilled. “Orc refers to both the preceding verbs, and does not merely stand “in close connection with the latter,’ as van Oosterzee without reason thinks. The perfect ἡλπίκαμεν as here: 1 Cor. xv. 19; 2 Cor. i. 10.—God is here called the living God, inasmuch as He fulfils what He has promised. — ᾿Ελπίζειν is construed with ἐπί and the dative, because the living God is regarded as the ground on which the hope rests. The construction is only found here at vi. 17, and at Rom. xv. 12 in an Ὁ. T. quotation. Elsewhere ἐλπίζειν is construed with ἐν, or εἰς, or ἐπί and the accusative. —The relative clause ὅς ἐστι σωτὴρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων, μάλιστα πιστῶν Serves as a seal of the hope grounded in God. Since God is the σωτήρ, this hope, too, cannot be vain; de Wette is wrong, therefore, in asserting that this clause is “out of all keeping.” —The first words are explained by ii. 4: ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι. By μάλιστα πιστῶν it is indicated that the will of God unto salvation is realized only in the case of believers. Μάλιστα does not stand here “unsuitably” (de Wette); it rather gives suitable expression to the thought that God is and continues to be the σωτήρ for all, whether they desire σωτηρία or not; but in the proper and special sense the σωτηρία is only for believers who really desire it. Ver. 11. Παράγγελλε ταῦτα καὶ δίδασκε] Timothy is to proclaim to the community that which Paul has enjoined to him. Ταῦτα refers not only to what is in ver. 10 (according to Hofmann: “to God’s living power and willingness to help”), but to everything that has been said previously in regard to εὐσέβεια. The two verbs παραγγέλλειν and διδάσ- xew tell how he is to proclaim these things. They are not distinguished from each other as referring, the one to private, the other to public instruction, nor as expressing, the one, generally public proclamation, the other, more especially exact instruction, explanation, information (Matthies); but παραγ- γέλλειν, which in the N. T. has constantly the sense of “ com- 180 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY, mand,” indicates that Timothy is to hold up these things (ταῦτα) to the community as the standard of their conduct. Ver. 12. From this verse on to the end of the chapter, Paul instructs Timothy how he is to behave towards the community that his παραγγέλλειν καὶ διδάσκειν (ver. 11) may not be in vain. — μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω] cov is dependent on τῆς νεότητος, which is the object of xatappov. Wahl, on the contrary (followed by Leo and Matthies), construes gov directly with xatadgp., and takes τῆς veot. aS a genitive defining the substantive more precisely (= μηδεὶς διὰ τὴν νεότητα καταφρονήσῃ σου, Chrysostom), so that καταφρ. here (like κατηγορεῖν) would be connected with a double genitive (comp. Buttmann, p. 143). This construction, however, is more forced than the former, and Katagp. occurs nowhere else with it—According to the form of the sentence, the command is directed to the community, but in sense to Timothy. Timothy is not to permit the authority entrusted to him as representative of the apostle, to be limited on account of his youth: “permit no one to despise thy youth.” The ἀλλά, however, attached to this injunction shows that he is to effect this especially by his Christian conduct ; most expositors find here only this last thought.—That he may retain respect, he is to make himself an example to all: ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν. A comma is not unsuitably placed after πιστῶν, giving the clause greater independence, and making the qualifications that follow: ἐν λόγῳ «.7.r., More emphatic. On the exhortation τύπος γίνου, comp. besides Tit. ii. 7; Phil. iii, 17; 2 Thess. iii. 9; 1 Pet. v. 3. Γίνου does not mean “ become,’ as if Timothy had not been so hitherto, but “de.” The next five words: ἐν λόγῳ x.7.X, tell wherein Timothy is to be an example to believers. We can- not but observe that there is a certain order in the succession of the words. First we have ἐν λόγω and ἐν ἀναστροφῇ. Aoyos includes every kind of speaking (not merely doctrine), ze. teaching, exhorting, warning, comforting, etc, both in public assemblies and in private intercourse. “Avaorpody is the life as embodied in deeds. Word and life are the two forms of revealing the inner hidden disposition. To this inner life we are directed by the next words: ἐν ἀγάπῃ, ἐν CHAP. IV: 13, 14. 181 πίστει, which denote the powers that give motion to the Christian life. The last word: ἐν ἁγνείᾳ, gives, finally, the nature of the life that is rooted in faith and love. The word does not denote here specially chastity in the relation of sex, but generally “purity of moral behaviour” (Hofmann) ; comp. ἄγνος, v. 22; 2 Cor. vii. 11; Jas. iii. 17; ιἁγνότης, 2 Cor. vi. 6; ayvifev, Jas. iv. 8; 1 Pet. i. 22; 1 John iii. 3. Ver. 13. “Ews ἔρχομαι] comp. 111. 14. De Wette says in explanation: “so long as thou in my absence dost preside over the church at Ephesus.” This does not agree with the circumstances, Inasmuch as Timothy had not been installed as the regular superintendent of the church. That was an office held more by presbyters. — πρόσεχε (i. 4, iii. 8, iv. 1): “curam et studium nava;” de Wette: “ wait.” — τῇ ἀναγνώσει, τῇ παρακλήσει, τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ] Bengel rightly says: “lectioni Scripturae sacrae in ecclesia ; huic adjunguntur duo praecipua genera, adhortatio, quae ad agendum et doctrina, quae ad cognoscendum pertinet.” — ἀνάγνωσις in Acts xiii. 15, 2 Cor. ui. 14, is used of the reading of the law and the prophets in the synagogue; this custom was continued‘ in Christian con- gregations.—The two expressions παράκλησις and διδασκαλία are found elsewhere in connection with one another (Rom. xii. 7, 8; comp. also παρἄγγελλε καὶ δίδασκε above). Chrysostom is wrong in his explanation: παράκλησις" πρὸς ἀλλήλους, διδασκαλία: πρὸς πάντας. With as little ground do others understand by διδασκ. private instruction, and by tmapakn. public preaching; or also by the former, instruction for catechumens, and by the latter, instruction for the church.’ Ver. 14. Μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν col χαρίσματος) Timothy is not to let the χάρισμα lie unused; he is to apply it diligently and faithfully to the purpose for which it was imparied to him. This exhortation does not imply blame, nor does that given in 2 Tim. i. 6—The word χάρισμα may be applied to every gift of God bestowed on man by God's χάρις. In the N. T. it denotes both generally the new spiritual life wrought in the believer by the Holy Spirit, and also specially every 1 Van Oosterzee’s remark is also wrong: ‘The former was necessary for individuals in special circumstances, the latter for all every day ;” because all need continually both the διδασκαλία as well as the rapaxancis. 182 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. faculty imparted for special Christian work (ἱκανότης, comp. 2 Cor. 11. 5). Here, where he is speaking of Timothy’s official work, it can only mean the faculty given him for the office (not simply “the gift of teaching,” as Hofmann thinks), in regard both to the κυβέρνησις and specially to the παρά- κλησις and διδασκαλία (not, however, as Chrysostom explains it, the διδασκαλία itself). It is not to be taken as denoting the office itself; the ἐν σοί is against this, and nowhere in the N. T. has the word this meaning."—36 ἐδόθη σοι] not as Heinrichs says: ὦ me, Apostolo, but, as a matter of course, by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 4).— διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπι- θέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου] διά is here “ by means of,’ so that the προφητεία is to be regarded as the means through which the χάρισμα was given to Timothy (by the Holy Spirit). It is arbitrary to weaken this, the proper mean- ing of the preposition, as Beza does when he explains it: per prophetiam 1. 6. ita jubente per os prophetarum spiritu sancto ;” and as Otto also does, when he finds here the thought that the ordination was occasioned by the προφητεία. Though Hofmann in his Schriftbewcis (II. 2, pp. 278 f.) had explained it: “The word of prophecy pointed out Timothy as the one to be appointed the apostle’s colleague,” he now says: “ διὰ προφητείας does not mean by means of prophecy, but in con- sequence of prophecies.” This latter explanation, however, agrees with the one which he disputes, since the expression “im consequence of” gives not merely the relation of time, but also the relation of cause. We must reject even the 1 Otto grants, indeed, that χάρισμα never stands exactly for office, but thinks that χάρισμα may be used asa predicate of the idea, office, which is certainly right. Otto, however, does not wish to take χάρισμα here as the office generally speaking, but (distinguishing in the office—(1) the rights of office ; (2) the oceu- pations of office) as the rights of office: “Δ position of power working out from within.” To ἐν he assigns the meaning ‘‘ resting upon some one ;” but, what- ever Otto may say against it, the ἀναζωσυρεῖν (2 Tim. i. 6) does not accord with that idea. So long as any one holds the office, the rights of office remain to him undiminished ; for these lie not in the person, but in the office, in the person only as holding the office. For such a meaning of ἐν, Otto has produced some passages from classic Greek, but none from the N. T. ? Beza goes still farther wrong when he continues: ‘‘ Potest tamen etiam sic accipi, ut idem valeat εἰς προφητείαν, i. 6. ad prophetandum ; vel ἐν προφητείᾳ, ita ut quod sit hoc donum exprimat apostolus.” CHAP, IV. 14. 188 qualification of the meaning which Matthies demands: “The fundamental meaning of the preposition διώ, which may be shortly defined as means, may be so modified in -many cases as to give the manner in which something is done, or the intermediating form under which something comes into life.” We must reject this, because, as de Wette rightly remarks, there would otherwise be no indication of a relation of cause. Besides, such passages as Acts viii. 17, 18, ix. 17, xix. 6, 2 Tim. i. 6, prove that we must keep by the proper meaning of διά. The προφητεία is mentioned as the means, but in close connection with ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν. TI podnrteta (i. 18) is not equivalent to “foretelling,’ but is more generally the word proceeding immediately from the Holy Spirit—whether the word of promise, or of exhortation, or of prayer. This word was spoken at the time (μετά) when the presbytery laid their hands on Timothy and appointed him to his ministry. Μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τ. x. is to be taken in close connection with διὰ προφητείας : the laying on of hands is to be regarded as part of the means; comp. 2 Tim. i. 6.’ Otto wrongly says: “The laying on of hands is not a coefficient of the ordina- tion, but an act connected with the ceremony of ordination ; the χάρισμα was imparted to Timothy along with the laying on of hands, not by means of the laying on of hands.” Wherein, then, did the ceremony of ordination consist? It is eurious that Hofmann, influenced by 2 Tim. i. 6, says regard- ing μετά, that “it was of course the apostle’s business to impart the gift to Timothy by laying on of hands,” but then grants that “the presbytery of Timothy’s home-church took part in the laying on of hands,” without telling us what then signified the presbytery’s laying on of hands. The hands were imposed by the presbytery, but Paul does not say who uttered the προφητεία. Leo remarks: “ adfuerunt fortassis, quum manus imponebantur Timotheo, prophetae Christiani, qui praesagiebant faustissima quaevis, et dignum eum fore dice- bant ecclesiae doctorem” (similarly Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others). It is, however, most probable to assume that 1 De Wette rightly : ‘The zpog. is only named as a part of the whole act of consecration by which the zap. was imparted, and the preposition διώ is not to be referred in strictness only to xpo9., but also to the next words.” 184 TIE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. they who uttered the προφητεία were the same as they who laid their hands on Timothy,’ so that we cannot think here of prophets, in the narrower sense of the word, as present at the ordination.—The ἐπίθεσις τῶν χειρῶν is well known as a symbolic action of the early Christians; it was the symbol and means not only of imparting the Holy Spirit in general (Acts viii. 17, xix. 6; Heb. vi. 2), but also of bestowing the inward equipment for a special Christian ministry (Acts vi. 6, xl. 3; comp. also Acts xiv. 23). By the presbytery, we must understand the college of presbyters belonging to the church in which the hands were imposed. What church this was, we are not told. Lcclesiastical tradition, followed by Mack, makes it the church at Ephesus; Matthies, Leo, de Wette, Wiesinger, and others think it more probable that the ordination took place at Lystra, where Paul assumed Timothy as his companion, and that the ordination was held for this very purpose.” To this latter view we must object, that: there is no passage in the N. T. to prove that the reception into the number of the colleagues of the apostles was made with such a solemn ceremony. It is more natural to suppose that such a reception took a freer form, and that a regular ordina- tion was only held after a more independent position had been assigned to the colleague, a position not merely of carry- ing out certain instructions, but of representing the apostle in a more complete way, viz. in a particular church, such as Timothy now held. Perhaps, therefore, this ordination of Timothy had taken place when Paul on his departure for Macedonia left Timothy behind him in Ephesus as his sub- stitute (i. 3); still it is also possible that it had been done on some earlier occasion.’-—It is strange that in 2 Tim. i. 6 1 Bengel is wrong: ‘Constr. prophetiam presbyterii, nam manus imposuit Paulus Timotheo ; impositio manus proprie fit per unam personam et quidem digniorem ; prophetia vero fiebat etiam per aequales, per plures.” 2 So also Hofmann, in whose opinion the ‘‘ precedent ” here alluded to (which, however, he is not willing to recognise as an ordination) must have taken place in Timothy’s ‘‘ home-church.” 3 Otto, in accordance with his whole view, places Timothy’s ordination in the last period of Paul’s three years at Ephesus. The reasons by which he seeks to establish this period as the one most exactly corresponding in Timothy’s life, are anything but sufficient. ζι CHAP. IV. 15, 16. 18 the laying on of hands is mentioned only as the act of the apostle. Paul might certainly be speaking there of some other occasion than here, for the consecration by laying on of hands might be imparted on different occasions to the same man. It is more probable, however, that he is speaking of the same occasion in both passages, and “ that Paul imposed hands along with the elders, but as the first” (de Wette).— It is further to be remarked that the word πρεσβυτέριον occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only as a name for the Jewish Sanhedrim (Luke xxii. 66; Acts xxii. 5), and that it is used here only of the college of the Christian presbyters of a church. Ver. 15. In order that Timothy may rightly lay to heart the exhortations just given, Paul continues: ταῦτα μελέτα, ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι) ταῦτα referendum ad omnia ea, quae a ver. 12, usque ad ver. 14, praeceperat Pauius Timotheo, Leo. — μελετᾶν occurs elsewhere in the N. T. only at Mark xii. 11 and Acts iv. 25, where it means “think, consider, reflect on something,” equivalent to meditari. The more original meaning, however, is “ exercere, carry on something with care;” this is to be maintained here, where it is a matter of putting recommenda- tions into practice. De Wette: “let this be thy care.’ — ἐν τούτοις ἴσθι) added to strengthen the preceding words; .it is equivalent in meaning to the Latin omnis (totus) in hoc sis (Hor. Zp. i. 1, 11, quid verum atque decens curo.. . et omnis in hoc sum).-— ἵνα cov ἡ προκοπὴ φανερὰ ἢ πᾶσιν] With προκοπῦ (only elsewhere in Phil. i. 12, 15), “ progress,” not “progressiveness” (Hofmann), we may either supply “in filling thy office” (Heydenreich ; de Wette: to the perfection of the God-man, 2 Tim. iii. 17), or more generally, “in the Christian life.” The purpose of this lay in the fact that Timothy was to be a τύπος τῶν πιστῶν. Ver. 16. Cumulat sane h. 1. Paulus adhortationes, unde ejus amorem in Timotheum et in Christianos Timotheo subditos intelligas, Leo. — ἔπεχε σεαυτῷ] “take heed to thyself,’ refers to ver. 12; καὶ τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ refers to ver. 13. Heinrichs wrongly combines the two together as an hendiadys (“pro σεαυτῷ ut possis tradere bonam διδασκαλίαν). On the other hand, however, we must not understand the διδασκαλία to 186 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTIIY. mean the doctrine of others (Heydenreich: take heed, that nothing is neglected in the instruction of Christians by the teachers placed under thy oversight). — ἐπίμενε αὐτοῖς] αὐτοῖς is not masculine, as Grotius and Bengel think, the one under- standing it of the Ephesians, the other of the audientes. It is neuter, and as such it is to be referred not only to what immediately preceded (= “in this attention to thyself and to the doctrine ”), but, glancing back to τούτοις, ταῦτα in ver. 15 (Wiesinger), it is to be referred also to all the precepts from ver. 12 onward. Hofmann is wrong in connecting τῇ διδασ- Kania with ἐπίμενε, and explaining αὐτοῖς as the dativus commodi; for, on the one hand, no subject precedes to which αὐτοῖς could be referred; and, on the other, there is nothing to show that αὐτοῖς is the dat. commodi.— The exhortations close with words confirming them: τοῦτο yap ποιῶν] “if thou doest this” (regarding the form of the clause, comp. ver. 6); «at σεαυτὸν σώσεις Kal τοὺς ἀκούοντάς cov] Without reason, de Wette thinks that σώσεις has in Timothy’s case a different meaning from that which it has in the case of others; that in his case it is to be understood of the higher (ἢ) σωτηρία, in theirs simply of the σωτηρία. Σώξειν means originally “save;” but in the N. T. it has in connection with Christian doctrine not only a negative, but also a positive meaning. Hence we cannot, with Mack, take it here as signifying merely, protecting from heresy and its effects. Luther translates it rightly: “thou shalt make blessed,” etc. — —ice. thou shalt further thine own salvation as well as the salvation of those who hear thee, 1.6. of the church assigned to thee. | CHAP. V. 187 CHAPTER V. VER. 4. μανθανέτωσαν] The reading μανθανέτω, which is found in some cursives, 3, 35, and many others, as well as in Vulg. Clar. Ambr. Aug. Ambrosiast. Pel., is to be regarded as a correction, τὶς χήρα being supposed to be the subject of the verb. As to the correctness of this supposition, see the exposition. — ἀπόδεκτον] The words καλὸν καί, which precede in the Rec., are rightly omitted from the text by Griesb., who follows all uncials, very many cursives, versions, etc. ; they are beyond doubt taken from 11]. 3.— Ver. 5. Instead of ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν, δὲ and some other authorities have the reading ἐπὶ κύριον. ----- Ver. 8. τῶν οἰκείων] The article is wanting in A D* F α δὲ; probably not genuine; Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 omitted it.— For the active προνοεῖ (Tisch. 7), D* F ἃ K δὶ, al., have the middle προνοεῦται (Tisch. 8), which, however, may be a correction after Rom. xii. 17; in 2 Cor. vil. 21 the reading is doubtful. — Ver. 10. ἐτεχνοτρόφησεν] The reading érexvopdpecey in F G, er. is strange, since the word occurs nowhere else.— Ver. 11. For χατα- στρηνιάσωσι (Lec. Lachm. ed. maj., Tisch. 7, following C Ὁ ΚΤ κα, most others), A I G 31 have the reading χαταστρηνιάσουσιν (Lachm. ed. min., Buttm. Tisch. 7). The infrequency of the con- struction of ὅταν with the indic. pres., which occurs only a few times in the N. T. (compare especially Rey. iv. 9), might be an argument for the originality of the latter reading; but most authorities are against it.— Ver. 14. Before νεωτέρας there stands in D* and some cursives the article τάς; some other cursives, as well as Slav. Chrys. Theodor. etc., have χήρας after νεωτέρας: clearly an explanatory correction.— Ver. 15. It is doubtful whether τινες was originally placed before or after ἐξετράπησον. For the former position (Rec. Tisch. 8) we have the authority of SC DK LP, al.; for the latter (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 7), that of A F G, al.— Ver. 16. The Ree. πιστὸς ἢ πιστή is found in D K L, nearly all cursives, some versions, and in Ath. contra Arr. ‘Tisch. 7 retained the Rec.; on the other hand, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8 omitted πιστὸς 7. The expositors (also Reiche) have declared for the Rec. It is to be noted further, that in Vulg. ed. Ambros. Aug. Pel. the words ἢ σιστή are omitted, and also that in Boern. Vulg. ms. the transla- 188 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. tion 81 quis fideles habet viduas is found. For further remarks, see the exposition of the verse.—Instead of ἐπαρκείτω (Rec. Tisch. 7, following C Ὁ K LP, al.), AF Gs have the middle ἐπαρκείσθω (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8), which is indeed the original reading, the change being occasioned by the ἐπήρκεσεν in ver. 10, and the ἐπαρκέσῃ in ver. 16.— Ver. 18. For βοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A ΟΡ 37, 57, 73, 80, al., Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. etc., read od φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλιοῶντα, Which, however, might be a correction after 1 Cor. ix. 9. Tisch. has the common reading. — Ver. 20. After τούς, Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D* Clar. Theoph. Ambros. Jerome, read δέ, which in F G, Boern. Vule. ms. is found after ἁμαρτάνοντας. This variety in the position of é¢ makes it suspicious in any case. — Ver. 21. Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (Scholz, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Reiche, etc.), instead of the usual reading zupiov ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Against κυρίου we have the testimony of A D* F G17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Clem. Basil. etc., and for Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ we have that of A D* G 17, 31, 73, αἷ., versions, even the Sahidic and Fathers. — For πρόσχλισιν (Rec., with the authority of F G K, many others, It. Vulg. ete.) it is too rash, with Lachm. and Buttm., on the authority of A D L 10, 31, al., Ath. Bas. ete., to read πσρόσκλησιν; because, notwithstanding the testimony of the oldest Mss., the sense almost imperatively demands πρόσχλισιν. This is a case where Tisch.’s words (see the article “ Bibeltext des N. T.” in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopddie, ΤΊ. pp. 183 f.) apply: “In spite of the great preference to be given to our oldest Greek MSS., we must not overlook the fact that sometimes those opposed to them, and centuries later, have at the same time the authority of much older versions and Fathers.” Tisch. retained the fec.; he explains (1.6. p. 164) πρόσχλησιν AS an itacism occasioned by the dictation of the text; similarly Reiche on the passage.— Ver. 23. Rec. στόμαχόν σου (Tisch. 7, after Ὁ F G K L, al.); the σου is wanting in A D* P καὶ (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8); in any case, the later addition is easier to explain than the omission.— Ver. 25. After ὡσαύτως, Lachm., on the authority of A F G g., inserted 6: ; it is possible that 6¢ was struck out by a copyist on the analogy of 1]. 9.— τὰ κάλα ἔργα] Instead of this reading, A D F Gs 37, 116, al., Vulg. Clar. Boern. Theophyl. Aug. Ambros. Pelag. are decisive for τὰ ἔργα τὰ καλά (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.). — Instead of the Ree. ἐστι after πρόδηλα, there stands in Ὁ F G@ P 17, 67* 93, al., εἰσιν; in A δὲ 67* it is omitted (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.). — ddvara:] Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. read the plur. δύνανται, on the authority of A Ὁ καὶ 17, 44, 67, 71, al., plur. edd. Theodoret. CHAP. V. 1, 2. 189 Vv. 1, 2. Directions regarding Timothy’s behaviour towards elder and younger church-members of both sexes. — πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήςης] Chrysostom rightly remarks: ἄρα τὸ ἀξίωμα νῦν φησίν; οὐκ οἶμαι: ἀλλὰ περὶ παντὸς γεγηρακότος. Other- wise we could not but take νεώτεροι as equivalent to διάκονοι, and understand by vewrepar the deaconesses, which, however, would be arbitrary. There is, besides, no ground for Mack’s opinion, that the οἱ vewrepos mentioned in Acts v. 6 (ver. 10: οἱ νεανίσκοι) were “church servants.” By far the greater number of expositors rightly agree with Chrysostom. — ἐπιπλήσσειν] only occurring here, properly “strike upon,” then “scold, make violent reproaches.” The opposite: Gal. vi. 1, καταρτίζειν ἐν πνεύματι πραότητος. It is presup- posed in this and the next exhortations that the church- members named had been guilty of some transgression or other. — ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα x.7.r.] It is not to be forgotten that Timothy was still a νεός. As such he is in his office to deal in childlike respect with the elder men and women, if they had rendered themselves liable to his correc- tion. — νεωτέρους ὡς ἀδελφούς] supply only παρακάλει ; still Bengel is right in meaning when he remarks on μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς: hoc pertinet etiam ad ea, quae sequuntur. By ὡς ἀδελφούς and ὡς ἀδελφάς it is implied that Timothy was not to exalt himself over those who were of the same age as himself or younger, but that he was to deal with them in brotherly love as his equals. — The addition ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ, which follows ὡς ἀδελφάς, may grammatically be referred to all the mem- bers; but Chrysostom?’ and most expositors since, connect it closely with the words immediately preceding. Lightly ; since, even when taken in the more general sense of “ purity of morals” (iv. 12), it cannot rightly be referred to the pre- ceding relations; but it is very appropriate to the last, all the more if it be taken in the more special sense of “modesty, chastity.” ἡ ‘Chrysostom: μὴ μοί, φησὶ, τὴν τῆς μίξεως μόνον εἴπης ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλὰ μηδὲ ὑποψίαν, φησὶ, δῷς tw δὴ γὰρ αἱ πρὸς τὰς νεωτέρας γενόμεναι ὁμιλίαι δυσκόλως διαφεύγουσιν ὑποψίαν, δεῖ δὲ γίνεσθα, παρὰ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου καὶ τοῦτο, διὰ τοῦτο ν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ προσείξησι. —On the words ὡς ἀδελφάς, Bengel briefly and aptly says: hic respectus egregie adjuvat castitatem. * Comp. Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. p. 36: καθ᾽ ἡλικίαν τοὺς μὲν υἱοὺς καὶ 190 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. Ver. 3. From this to ver. 16 we have instructions regard- ing the widows of the church.— χήρας τίμα] Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, and most recent expositors, among others, de Wette and Wiesinger, refer τίμα to the support of the widows by money. De Wette explains τίμα directly as “care for them, support them,” adding, “he is speaking of support from the church-purse.” Wiesinger, on the other hand, remarks: “We do not say that τιμάω means ‘ support’ exactly, but it means an honouring which was to manifest itself in supporting them.” In proof of this view, appeal is made to the passages in Acts vi. 1, xxviii. 10; Matt. xv. 4-6; but wrongly. In the two last passages the meaning “ support with money” can only arbitrarily be given to τιμᾷν (see Meyer on Acts xxvii. 10); and though the widows were supported by the church, as we learn from Acts vi. 1 (comp. also Ignatius, ad Polycarp. chap. iv.; Justin Martyr, Apology. i. 67), we cannot from that draw any inference as to the meaning of τιμᾷν. But even the context does not necessitate us to specialize the meaning. Granted that all that follows referred only to money-support to be given to the widows, why should not these special exhortations be introduced by one of a more general nature? Besides, the support men- tioned being the business of the church, and not of Timothy alone, the apostle—according to the analogy of καταλεγέσθω (ver. 9)—would not have written τίμα, but χῆραι τιμάσθωσαν. Hence, with several old and some recent commentators, such as Matthies, van Oosterzee, Plitt, Hofmann, we should retain the usual meaning of τιμᾷν. Their support by the church is simply a consequence and proof of the τιμᾷν. ---- τὰς ὄντως χήρας] is added to define more precisely what widows Paul was thinking of, viz. those who are widows in the true and proper sense of the word (Luther: right widows). Ὄντως is used as an adjective only here in the N. T. (Plato, Phacdr. 260a: τὰ ὄντως ἀγαθά). What kind of widows are meant thereby, we are to infer from what follows. Vy. 4-8. There are two opposing views regarding the explanation of this section. (1) The view upheld by the ~ > > ΄ ~ ΄ . - θυγατέρας νοοῦμεν, ποὺς δὲ ἀδελιφοὺς ἔχομεν καὶ ἀδελφάς" καὶ τῆς προβεβηκόσι σὴν τῶν [4 ‘ , πατέρων καὶ μητέρων τιμὴν ἀπονέμορεν. CHAP. Y. 4—8. 191 majority of recent commentators, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt, which is as follows. Paul is giving Timothy instructions to support the “zeal” widows. From these he distinguishes (ver. 4 being in contrast with ver. 3) the widow who has children or grandchildren, because they are able and ought to care for her. With μανθανέτωσαν we should supply as subject τέκνα ἢ ἔκγονα, and we should understand by τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον and τοῖς προγόνοις the widowed mother or grand- mother. Ver. 5 contrasts again with ver. 4; καὶ μεμονωμένη explains the signification of 7 ὄντως χήρα. The predicate ἤλπικε K.7.X. denotes the life-work which the “right,” ce. the forsaken, widow has to fulfil, her fulfilment of it being a necessary condition of receiving support. Ver. 6 declares negatively what conduct the apostle expects from an ὄντως χήρα, and to such conduct Timothy (ver. 7) is to exhort them. At ver. 8, Paul returns to ver. 4, τίς referring to the widows’ relations, and τῶν ἰδίων καὶ μάλιστα [τῶν] οἰκείων to the widows themselves.—(2) The view upheld by most older and some recent commentators, especially Matthies and Hofmann, which is as follows. After enjoining on Timothy to honour the “real” widows, Paul first directs the widows who have children or grandchildren (still uncared for), to show these all loving care, and thereby recompense the love shown to them- selves by their parents. The subject of μανθανέτωσαν is τις χήρα (as a collective idea); τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον are the children or grandchildren, and of πρόγονοι the dead parents of the widow. Ver. 5 describes the “real” widow as one who in her loneliness leads a life pious and consecrated to God ; and as a contrast to this we have the picture of a wanton widow in ver. 6. In ver. 8, again (ver. 4), widows who have rela- tions needing their care are again reminded of the duty of this care..—Each of these views has its difficulties. Against the second view, the supporters of the first maintain the following points :—(1) that as ver. 4 is in contrast with ver. 3, and ver. 5 in contrast again with ver. 4 (δέ), the χήρα spoken of in ver. 4 cannot be regarded as belonging to the ὄντως χήραις ; and (2) that as εὐσεβεῖν (ver. 4) applies more naturally to the 1 Hofmann, however, takes these verses (5-8) in a different way from that in which they are here interpreted by most expositors ; see farther on. 192 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTIIY. conduct of children towards their mother (or grandmother) than vice versd, and as the thought: the widow is by her care for her children to make recompense for the care shown to herself by her parents, is “ somewhat far-fetched” (de Wette), the ὄντως χήρα can only mean the widow with no relations for whom it is her duty to care——But the first view has also its difficulties. If we adopt it, we find it strange that the apostle should not have written simply αὐτήν for τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον, and αὐτῇ for τοῖς προγόνοις, all the more that οἱ πρόγονοι is a name for “ progenitors.” Further, πρῶτον, which Wiesinger translates inaccurately by “before all,” does not get its full force. It is arbitrary to understand by τέκνα ἢ ἔκγονα, grown-up children, especially as the expression τέκνα ἔχειν makes the children appear dependent on the mother (comp. 111. 4; Tit. 1.6). De Wette says regarding ver. 5: The author would have more clearly said: “ Remind a true and forsaken widow to whom thou dost give support, that it falls upon her to show an example of confidence in God and of continual prayer ;” but we can hardly think that the apostle would have expressed this thought in such an uncertain way. Even the three repetitions of the same thought in vv. 4, 8, and 16, is at least very strange. Finally, the idea of money- support, on which this view lays all stress, is purely imported. These difficulties are too considerable for us to regard the first view as right in spite of them.'—De Wette and Wiesinger are certainly right in regarding ver. 4 as contrasted with ver. 3, and ver. 5 with ver. 4, as well as in thinking that the word μεμονωμένη sets forth the apostle’s mark of the ὄντως χήρα; but they are not justified in inferring that in ver. 4 he is speaking of a widow with relations who can take care of her. Why, in that case, should the apostle in ver. 5 have said regarding the ὄντως χήρα, that she was to προσμένειν ταῖς δεήσεσι Kai ταῖς προσευχαῖς, and to do so νυκτὸς Kal ἡμέρας, for all this is in no way opposed to what is said inver. 4? The 1 Van Oosterzee, in agreeing with the first view, thinks it puzzling that this commentary gives the preference to the second. But he does not by this furnish anything towards the solution of the question, all the less that he has neglected to enter in any way upon the difficulties surrounding the view he adopts. CHAP. V. 4—8. 199 προσμένειν leads us to suppose that the apostle was thinking of a widow who had not to care for relations—The right view will accordingly be this. After exhorting Timothy to honour the “real” widows (see on ver. 3), Paul distinguishes from these ὄντως χήραις, in the first place, the one who is not forsaken, but has children or grandchildren (not grown up); and he lays it on her as a duty not to neglect them. Then he describes the conduct of the “veal” or forsaken widow, who has therefore no ἴδιον οἶκον, showing what beseems her in her position in life as a Christian widow; so that he is con- trasting the widow who works diligently for her own, and the lone widow who continues day and night in prayer. As opposed to the latter (or even to both), he mentions in ver. 6 the χήρα σπαταλῶσα, who is, however, to be considered as dead, because her conduct is in entire contradiction with her widowed state. Then there is a natural transition to the exhortation in ver. 7, which gives the apostle an opportunity for uttering, in ver. 8, a general maxim in order to impress once more on the widow with relations to care for, the exhor- tation in ver. 4.— Ver. 4. τέκνα ἢ ἔκγονα) ἔκγονα here (in connection with τέκνα) means the “grandchildren” (τέκνα τέκνων, Hesychius).' In classical usage, ὁ ἔκγονος is usually the son (ἡ ἔκγονος, the daughter), but also the grandson; τὰ ἔκγονα denotes properly posterity (comp. Wisd. xl. 15, xliv. 11, xlv. 13, xlvii. 22; synonymous with τὸ σπέρμα). --- μανθανέτωσαν) The subject for this verb might be taken from the object in the protasis; but the formation of the sentence is more correct, if we take the subject of the protasis (τις χήρα) to be the subject here also. Tvs χήρα is then a collective idea, and takes the plural. Winer, too (p. 586-[E. I. p. 787]), supports this opinion. — πρῶτον] viz., before they give them- selves up to the care of the church for them, with special reference to what follows: χήρα καταλεγέσθω, ver. 9, or better perhaps: “before she makes work for herself outside the house” (Hofmann). — τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον εὐσεβεῖν] The term οἶκον likewise shows that he is speaking not of the things 1 Luther translates it ‘‘ Neffen ” (nephew), which in Old German usage has the meaning ‘‘descendant, grandchild;” comp. Gen. xxi. 23; Job xviii. 19; Isa. xiv. 22. Pasrorat EPIsTLes. N 194 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTIIY. which the children are to do for their widowed mother (or erandmother), but of the things which the widows as mothers are to do for the children; because the mother or grandmother does not necessarily belong to the οἶκος of a grown-up son or erandson, whereas the children not grown up necessarily belong to the οἶκος of the widowed mother. The meaning therefore is: they are not to forsake their house, 1.6. their children or grandchildren. The term εὐσεβεῖν is used to show that the house is a temple to whose service they are to devote themselves. Matthies inaccurately translates: “ practise piety in regard to one’s own house.” Oixoy is not the accusative of reference, but purely an objective accusative; comp. Acts xvii. 23, and Meyer on the passage. =Fo honeae one’s house” is therefore equivalent to serving it with pious heart ;* Luther's translation: “rule divinely,” is not to the point. — καὶ ἀμοιβὰς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς προγόνοις] According to the con- text, the meaning is this: the widows by the εὐσεβεῖν of their house, z.c. by their pious care for their children and grand- children, are to recompense the love shown to themselves by their parents. Chrysostom: ἀπῆλθον ἐκεῖνοι (οἱ πρόγονοι)" οὐκ ἠδυνήθης αὐτοῖς ἀποδοῦναι THY ἀμοιβὴν᾽ ἐν τοῖς ἐκγόνοις ἀμειβοῦ" ἀποδίδου τὸ ὀφείλημα διὰ τῶν παίδων. Though this thought is peculiar, it is neither -ingenious (de Wette) nor far-fetched (Wiesinger). — ἀμοιβή, in the N. T. ἅπαξ λεγόμ.; ἀμοιβ. ἀποδιδόναι, Euripides, Orestes, 467. — οἱ πρόγονοι, in contrast with the previous τὰ ἔκγονα : the progenitors; in the N. Τὶ only here and 2 Tim.i. 3. It would be against usage to understand by it the (widowed) mother or grandmother who is still alive. — τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι ἀπόδεκτον «.7.X.] comp. il. 3. Ver. 5 defines more precisely what widows the apostle specially exhorts Timothy to “honour.”—7 δὲ ὄντως χήρα καὶ μεμονωμένη)] καὶ μεμονωμένη is an epexegetical addition, defining ἡ ὄντως χήρα as one with no relatives who take care of her, or of whom she takes care. —7Aexev ἐπὶ τὸν Θεόν 1 It is certainly correct that εὐσεβεῖν is used properly of conduct towards God, and then of conduct towards parents and persons of higher position ; but it is not restricted to such use. In Euripides, Alcestis, 1151, it is used, 6.9.» of ξένοι. Hofmann well says: ‘If a widow turns her back on the house of her dead husband and of her relations, she neglects her nearest duty, and sins against the holiness of family ties.” CHAP. Υ. 6, 195 The distinction between ἐλπικέναι ἐπί with the dative (iv. 10) and ἐλπικ. ἐπί with accusative, is that in the former case the object furnishes the ground on which the hope rests; in the latter, the goal towards which it is directed. — καὶ προσμένει (strengthened form of μένει ; τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτερεῖν, tom. xii, 12; Col. iv. 2) ταῖς δεήσεσι x. ταῖς προσευχαῖς (comp. ii. 1) νυκτὸς x. ἡμέρας (1 Thess. ii. 9). With this we may compare what Luke (ii. 37) says of Anna the prophetess. Jerome (Hp. ad Gerontiam): quibus deus spes est, et omne opus oratio. Matthies rightly remarks: “The idea of the genuine widow is explained not abstractly, but in concrete form, in actual realization, for which reason we have the indicative used instead of the imperative or optative, as if a single representative of the whole class were described in living, personal form.” Hofmann will not allow this natural explanation to stand, because “the predicate which names a moral behaviour does not accord with a subject denoting an outward state.” Taking ἣ δέ as a relative pronoun, he connects it with ἤλπικεν ἐπὶ O., and regards καὶ προσμενεῖ (for προσμένει) as the apodosis, ὄντως χήρα Kal μεμονωμένη forming an affix to 4) 6é Apart from the objection that the meaning advanced by Hofmann would have been expressed much more naturally by ἡ δὲ ὄντως χήρα K. μεμ., ἣ ἤλπικεν ἐπὶ Θεὸν, καὶ προσμενεῖ, the meaning would be far from appropriate here. Besides, it gives no characteristic mark of the widow, for the hope which results in continual prayer is not peculiar to widows. Hofmann in his polemics does not observe that, in the apostle’s presupposition, she whose outward condition is more definitely described is a believing widow. When this is observed, we cannot deny the appropriateness of the reference (in Wiesinger) to 1 Cor. vii. 32 ff. Ver. 6. ΝΗ δὲ σπαταλῶσα)] The opposite of the ὄντως χήρα who has dedicated her life to piety. Σ΄ παταλᾷν, “ revel, be wanton,” occurs elsewhere only in Jas. v. 5 (Wisd. xxi. 15). There is nothing to show that the apostle was here thinking of the squandering of the support received. — ζῶσα τέθνηκε] These words have been taken as exhorting Timothy to con- sider the wanton widow as dead, and not to support her; but this takes away all point from the words. The right 196 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. meaning is obtained by comparing such passages as Eph. ἵν, 18, Rev. iii. 1, and others similar. While the widow who conducts herself as a widow should, lives in God, the wanton widow leads a life given up to the desires of the world, a life only in appearance, the very opposite of the true life. Theophylact: κἂν δοκεῖ ζῆν κατὰ τὴν αἰσθητὴν, τέθνηκε κατὰ πνεῦμα. Ver. 7. After describing briefly the conduct of the two classes of widows, the apostle continues: καὶ ταῦτα παράγ- yed\re] ταῦτα refers to what was said regarding widows. Timothy is, by way of exhortation, to announce to the church, therefore to the widows, what the apostle has written to hin ; παράγγελλε, comp. iv. 11. --- ἵνα ἀνεπίληπτοι ὦσιν] ἵνα here gives the purpose (at 2 Thess. ili. 12 it stands after παραγ- γέλλειν κ. παρακαλεῖν in a different sense). The subject of the clause is not the dependants (τέκνα καὶ ἔκγονα, ver. 4) of the widows, much less they along with the widows (Heyden- reich), or men and women (Grotius), but the widows spoken of in the preceding verses. Ver. 8. Ei δέ τις τῶν ἰδίων Kal μάλιστα [τῶν] οἰκείων ov προνοεῖ) “ But if any one does not take care for his relatives, and especially for those of his household ;” τις is here quite general in meaning, and this generality must in the first place be maintained. — τῶν ἰδίων and [τῶν] οἰκείων are not neuters, but masculines. In the N. T., as a rule, οἱ ἔδιοι are those in close fellowship and community with another. For instance, in John xiii. 1 the relation of Christ to His disciples is thus named. Οἱ ἴδιοι is here wider in meaning than οἱ οἰκεῖοι, which is “those properly of the household.’ Hofmann thinks that, if the reading without the article be adopted, μάλιστα does not belong to the verb, but to οἰκείων = οἰκειο- τάτων. It is well known that in classic Greek the super- lative is sometimes expressed by μάλιστα before the positive. But this usage is never found in the N. T.; and besides, here, where οἰκεῖος refers to τὸν ἴδιον οἶκον (ver. 4), and is there- fore equivalent to “member of the household or family,” the superlative οἰκείοτατος is meaningless. To paraphrase it into “nearest kinsman of all” is purely arbitrary. At any rate, the article is by no means necessary before οἰκείων, since CHAP. V. 9, 10. τὺ the ἴδιοι and the οἰκεῖοι belong to one class; the intervening μάλιστα makes no difference, although it lays special emphasis on the latter. — τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται] inasmuch as he does not do that to which faith, if it be a living faith, incites him ; fides enim non tollit officia naturalia, sed perficit et firmat, Bengel. — καὶ ἔστιν ἀπίστου χείρων] “Amictos here is not (as at 2 Cor. iv. 4; Tit.1. 15) “an enemy of Christ,” but “one who is not a Christian,’ one who as such is incited by natural law to love his own children (comp. Matt. v. 46, 47). —Calvin says on this: quod duabus de causis verum est, nam quo plus quisque in cognitione Dei profecit, eo minus habet excusationis; . . . deinde hoc genus officii est, quod natura ipsa dictat, sunt enim otopyat duotxat.—The reference of this general thought varies according to the various inter- pretations of ver. 4. If τέκνα καὶ ἔκγονα be taken there as the subject of μανθανέτωσαν, then it refers to the relation of these to the widowed mother or grandmother; if the proper subject be at χῆραι, it refers naturally to the conduct of the widows. ‘There is nothing to show that the apostle here was thinking of the mutual relation between the widows and their dependants (Matthies). Still less correct is it, with Hofmann, to wrench ver. 8 away from ver. 4, and to understand by tus “the father of a family,’ “who at his death leaves wife and child unprovided for, when he might well have provided for them.” Such a sudden transition from what hitherto has been the subject of discussion would be exceedingly strange ; nor is there any hint of it given by the verb προνοεῖν, which denotes care in general terms, not “ care for those left behind at death.” Paul has hitherto been speaking of the conduct of widows, and only to that same subject can this verse be referred. Vv. 9 ff. From this point the apostle takes up a special class of widows, viz. those who had been placed by the church on a formal list, and who accordingly possessed a certain position of honour in the church. From ver. 16 it is to be inferred that it was the duty of the church to care for them so long as they lived, while from ver. 10 it appears that they had to perform for the church certain labours of love suited to them. The various views regarding them have 198 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. already been given in the Introduction, § 5; each has its special difficulties. Still Mosheim’s view is the most pro- bable,’ only what the apostle says of these widows does not justify us in transplanting into the apostolic age the ecclesi- astical institution of the χῆραι (πρεσβύτεραι, πρεσβύτιδες) in the same form as it had at a later date. We have here only the tendencies from which the institution was gradually developed. Though the apostle takes it for granted that the church takes care of these widows, we cannot conclude that, as the older expositors assume,” he means by the καταλεγέσθω their reception into the number of the widows to be supported by the church. Poor widows, like poor persons generally, would surely be supported by the church without being placed in the special class of the χῆραι here meant. — Vv. 9, 10. χήρα καταλεγέσθω] καταλέγειν (ἅπ. dey. in N. T.), properly “select,” then “place upon a list,’ used especially of the citizens chosen for service in war; comp. Aristophanes, Acharn. 1629, Lysist. 14. 6. χήρα is not the subject, but the predicate; Winer, p. 549 [E. T. p. 738]: “as widow let her be registered (enrolled) who is not under sixty” (so, too, Wiesinger, Hofmann). The common translation is: “let a widow be chosen” (so de Wette, van Oosterzee, Plitt.). — μὴ ἔλαττον ἐτῶν ἑξήκοντα γεγονυῖα] Leo and some others connect γεγονυῖα with what follows (Vulgate: quae fuerit unius viri uxor; so Luther). A comparison with iii. 2 shows that this is incorrect; besides, the construction itself demands the con- nection with what precedes. The genitive does not depend on γεγονυῖα (as Luke ii. 42: ὅτι ἐγένετο ἐτῶν δώδεκα), but on ἔλαττον, and is equivalent to ἢ ἔτη ἑξήκοντα (comp. Demos- thenes, in Timocrat. Ὁ. 481: γέγονα οὐκ ἔλαττον ἢ τριάκοντα ἔτη). -- ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή, after the explanation given at il, 2 of the corresponding expression: suds γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, denotes 1 With his view de Wette and Wiesinger agree ; also Hofmann in substance. Even van Oosterzee refers us to Mosheim ; but he wrongly identifies the widows here mentioned with the deaconesses, whereas Mosheim clearly distinguishes between them. 5 Chrysostom in his commentary explains this passage as meaning, receiving in order to care for. In his Hom. 31, in div. N. 7’. loc., however, he interprets it of receiving into an ecclesiastical office, saying : καθάπερ εἰσὶ παρθένων χοροὶ, οὕτω καὶ χηρῶν τὸ παλαιὸν ἦσαν χοροὶ, καὶ οὐκ ἐξῆν αὐταῖ; ἁπλῶς εἰς τὰς χήρα: ἐγγράφεσθαι. CHAP. V. 9, 10. 199 the widow who has lived in sexual intercourse with no one but her lawfully wedded husband. — ἐν ἔργοις καλοῖς μαρτυρουμένη] μαρτυρεῖν in the N. T. has often the mean- ing: give one a good testimony; hence the passive is: possess a good testimony (μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν, 111. 7). Ἔν here (as elsewhere in connection with verbs of similar meaning, see Wahl, s.v. ἐν H. a.) gives the ground (of the good testi- mony); comp. Heb. xi. 2, for which in Heb. xi. 39 we have dud. — The épya καλά (comp. ver. 25, vi. 18, and other passages in the Pastoral Epistles) are not only works of benevolence, although to these chief attention is directed, but generally “good works.’ —ei ἐτεκνοτρόφησεν) εἰ cannot be joined immediately with καταλεγέσθω, since the sense forbids us to consider this and the following clauses as co-ordinate with what precedes. It is rather attached to the ἐν ἔργ. can. μαρτυρουμένη, not, however, in such a way (as Heydenreich thinks) as to stand for ὅτε (which is also not the case in Acts ΧΧΥΪ. 22, 23), but in such a way as to distribute the pre- ceding idea into its single parts, and connect them with it in free fashion, “7f namely.” Luther: “and who has a testimony of good works, as she has brought up children.” — On ἐτεκ- νοτρόφησεν (am. Ney.) Theodoret remarks: οὐ θρέψαι μόνον ἀπαιτεῖ, ἀλλὰ Kal TO εὐσεβῶς θρέψαι. Wrong; the verb, not “year” (van Oosterzee), but “nurse” (Luther), refers to the attention of love, as do the verbs that follow; compare Acts Xxil, 3: ἀνατεθραμμένος distinguished from πεπαιδευμένος. There is no reason for thinking here of strange children, since it may rightly be called a καλὸν ἔργον, if a mother does not entrust the rearing of her children to others, but takes care of them herself (in opposition to Leo and Wiesinger); the apostle is not thinking of the distinction between strange children and one’s own. Heydenreich, de Wette, and others think that Paul bases this exhortation on the ground that the τεκνοτροφία was part of the official duties of a χήρα, and that she must have practised them before; but they are wrong, because in that case we could not but consider the £evodoyeiv «.7.r. as also the special duties of such widows. — εἰ ἐξενοδόχησεν) comp. iii, 2; Tit. i. 8 (φιλόξενος); Rom. xii. 13; Heb. xiii. 2. The word ξενοδοχεῖν (Euripides, Ale. 555) is in the N. T. ἅπαξ 200 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. rey. — εἰ ἁγίων πόδας ἔνυψεν] comp. John xiii. 5 ff.; also Luke vil. 44. Wahl: pedum lotio (apud Judaeos) opus erat servile eademque apud eos in primis humanitatis officiis hospiti praestandis ponebatur. The feet-washing is meant literally, and not merely as “a symbolic expression for the manifesta- tions of self-denying love” (first ed.); although Paul might at the same time be thinking of other services of lowly love. Theophylact: εἰ tas ἐσχάτας ὑπηρεσίας τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀνεπαισ- χύντως ἐξετέλεσε. --- The ἅγιοι are not merely the &évor (in opposition to Wiesinger), but the Christians in general who came into the house as guests.—e~ θλιβομένοις ἐπήρκεσεν;] Bengel arbitrarily limits the meaning of θλιβόμενοι, wishing to interpret it only of the poor; it is to be taken more generally as equivalent to “those in distress.” ᾿Επαρκεῖν in the N. T. only here and at ver. 16.— After naming several works of love in detail, the apostle adds more generally, in order to exhaust the ἐν épy. cad. μαρτυρεῖσθαι : εἰ παντὶ ἔργῳ ἀγαθῷ ἐπηκολούθησε Hence we must not here think of works of benevolence only, but take πᾶν ἔργον in its entire meaning. — ἐπακολουθεῖν (in the N. T. only here at ver. 24, at Mark xvi. 20, where it is absolute, and at 1 Pet. il, 21, where it is joined with τοῖς ἤχνεσι) is mostly referred to persons; but we cannot therefore, with Schleiermacher, supply here αὐτοῖς, 1... θλιβομένοις." It stands here in the same sense as διώκειν, vi. 11; 1 Thess. v. 15; Heb. xii. 14. Luther: “ who has followed every good work.”® Ver. 11. Newrépas δὲ χήρας παραιτοῦ] νεωτέρας is not here strictly comparative in reference to ver. 9 (Wiesinger: “widows under sixty years”); it is rather a positive, as in 1 This Hofmann wrongly disputes, wishing to lay the emphasis not on παντὶ ἔργ. ἀγαθ., but on ἐπηκολούθησε : ‘‘if there was any good to be done, she was to Sollow after it with all diligence, she was to make it her business.” * Bengel gives a peculiar reference to the word, which cannot be justified, saying : antistitum et virorum est bonis operibus praeire Tit. iii. 8, 14, mulierum, subsequi, adjuvando pro sua parte. 3 Hofmann is indeed not wrong in contending against the view that ver. 15 points to the services which the widows here mentioned are to perform for the church. He says that this verse only tells that ‘‘she must have fulfilled the duties of a mother and a Christian housewife.” But the enumeration of all these duties indicates that as a church-widow she must be practised in the exercise of many services of love. CHAP. V. 11. 201 vv. 1, 2 (so, too, van Oosterzee). — παραυτοῦ] in opposition to καταλεγέσθω, ver. 9 (and in opposition to τίμα in ver. 3); yet in such a way that, according to the analogy of the passages, iv. 7, 2 Tim. ii. 23, Tit. iii, 10; Heb. xii. 25, -it’ denotes’ not only that they are to be omitted from the καταλέγεσθαι, but also that they are to be avoided personally. Luther : “the young widows, however, get rid of.”’ The reason for this injunction is given by the apostle in the next words: ὅταν yap κατα- στρηνιάσωσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ γαμεῖν θέλουσιν] The meaning of the verb is variously given by expositors. Several take it as equivalent to “be voluptuous, lust after,” and so refer it to sexual relation, appealing to\ Romy xviii. 9, where στρηνιᾷν is used along with πορνεύειν. But this collocation does not prove that the verbs are related in sense, all the less that in the passage vopvevew is not used literally. Even in Mey. Xvill. ὃ, στρῆνος has not the meaning of sexual desire, but more generally of “ wantonness.” There is no justification, therefore, for de Wette’s translation: “to feel sexual desire,” and that of Jerome (Hp. 123, al. 11, ad