Skip to main content

Full text of "Biblical commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 





VOLUME XXIII. flttguM mit%iaqn'ii fitbltcol eonutuntiug on 

»t VnilK ElKilIn to tit ytllin)iu»> U Slltu. mV «e 

^ffritt ts 0fmo%- 






















\o\%' cV. \^- 





S 1. OftbeChorohatPhilippi, . . . 1 

§ 2. The oooasion and contents of the Epistle, • 4 

§ 3. The time and place of composition, . . 6 
§ 4. Genuineness and Integrity of the Epistld. 

1. Genuineness, .... 8 

2. Integrity, » . . , 22 
§ 5. Literature, .... 24 


§ I. Inscription and thanksgiving for their stedfastness in the 

faith, . . , • . 25 

§ 2. The Apostle's statement respecting himself, . 37 

§ 3. The Apostle*s earnest wish with respect to the Church, 50 
§ 4. Announcement of his intention to send Timothy, and of his 

having sent back Epaphroditus, . 84 

§ 5. Warning against the possibility of being led away, 90 
§ 6. Concluding exhortations to particular individuals, and to 

the Church at large. .Expression of thanks. Salutations, 123 




§ 1. The Problem, . . ,147 

$ 2, The external testimonies, • 149 



§ 3. Solution of the Problem on the sup position of their being 

not genuine. Their genuineness impugned and defended, 150 

§ 4. Attempt at the solution of the Problem on the supposition 

of the genuineness of the Epistles, . . 190 

§ 5, Literature, .... 241 



I. The historical testimonies of the Epistle concerning itself, 243 

II. Critical objections, .... 253 


§ 1. Inscription and Salutation, . . 257 

§ 2. Instructions in regard to the appointment of Presbyters, 266 
§ 3. What Titus is to teach in opposition to the false Teachers, 

and how he is to act, . . . 297 

§ 4 Personal matters. Salutations. Conclusion, . 337 

Appendix to the Introduction to the foregoing Epistle, 339 



§ 1. Timothy, . . . 345 

§ 2. Occasion, design, and contents of the Epistle, 346 

§ 3. The time and place of composition, . . 348 

§ 4. Genuineness, .... 355 


§ 1. Inscription and charge given to Titus, in opposition to those 

who teach otherwise, . . . 359 

§ 2. Directions to Timothy with regard to the regulation of the 

Church. A. regarding Public Worship, . . 391 

§ 3. Directions to Timothy with regard to the regulation of the 

Church. B. Regarding the offices of Presbyter and Deacon, 410 



§ 4. Admonitions addressed to Timothy as Teacher in the pros- 
pect of the future falling away, . . 430 

§ 5. Directions to Timothy with respect to his conduct towards 
the members of the Church, according to the distinctions of 
age, sex, and position within the Church, . . 473 

§ 6. Instructions to Timothy with regard to Slayes. Warning 
against the desire to become rich after the manner of those 
who teach otherwise. Charge to be addressed to the rich. 
Concluding exhortation, • . . 509 



We shall let Olshansen himself speak here, and shall only, where 
it appears necessary, supplement what he has written with some 
additional remarks. 

The city of Philippi lay in Macedonia near to the Thracian 
boandary, having for its haven a neck of sea, on which stood 
Neapolis. It bore anciently the name of KfyqvlBe^, foantain^city ; 
but about 858 A.O. Philip of Macedon enlarged it, and called it 
after his own name. At a later period the Triumviri fought near 
this city the famous battle, in which they gained the victory over 
the Bepublicans. As a result of that battle Boman colonists settled 
at Philippi, which becoming a Boman colony, received the jus 
Italicum, (Gomp. on this and on the expression irp&Tri 9rJXi9, 
which is applied by Luke to the city Philippi, the remarks in the 
Commentary on Acts xvi. 12.)' In that city, also, continues 

1 The introdaction to this epistle, and that also to the Pastoral epistlH, ift from Ols- 
haasen's own pen, and was left in a state of complete readiness for the press. 

3 I perfectly agree with what Olshausen remarks there on the ttpmrn tr£Kit, It 
could not be called the ehi»f city on the ground, to which reference is there made, that 
in that particular district, where Philippi lay, Amphipolis held such a place — comp. Lit. 
xl?. 29. Equally groundless is the other opinion, that Philippi received the appellation 
on account of its peculiar priTileges. The intention and meaning of this epistle admit, 
in my judgment, of being perfectly determined frY)m the order of the narratire in Acta. 
It had already been intimated— xvi. 6, 7— that the course which the proclamation of the 
Gospel should take, was of divine direction. In ver. 9 the vision is related in which a 
man out of Macedonia calls on the apostle to " come over and help them ;** and in ver. 10, 
we are told of the apostle's atraightway purposing to go into Maeedonia. What, then, is 
more natural than that in the report of the journey at ver. 12, and thence to Philippi, ^«t 
kvrl'rpoaTfi T^t fupldot t^c MaKtiovlat iroXtc, KoXwviat we should think of its geogra- 
phieal position, and in connection with that should perceive a reference to the ftilfllment 
of the call in ver. 9. Even the " thence,** and the pronoun (^h-ct, ut quae) point to that. 
So, after Van Til, in particular Rettig, Qnaest. Philipp. Oiss. 1831, Van Hengel p. 6. 


Olshausen, lived some Jews^ who had there an oratory (no syna- 
gogae.y Tbiy small Jewish community was increased by some 
proselytes, and it was among these first that Christianity difiused 

Paal came to Philippi on his second mission tour, somewhere 
about the year 58. It was the first city of Europe in which he 
preached the Gospel. The first person who gave heed to the 
preaching of the apostle, was a seller of purple, by name Lydia, 
belonging to Thyatira, who received baptism with all her house. A 
female slave, who had a spirit of soothsaying, gave rise to the occa- 
sion which led the apostle soon again to leave Philippi. For, 
when Paul expeUed the spirit, the owner of the slave, who had 
employed her soothsaying to his own account, raised an outcry 
against him. He was beaten and thrown into the prison, the 
jailor of which he converted with all his house. He was soon, 
however, set at liberty again, with a request that he would leave 
the city. Afterwards, we find the apostle again at Philippi, only 
when he was on his way back from Greece. (Acts xx. 6.) But 
there is good ground for believing that on his goiog thither the 
apostle had made a stay there, though probably but a short one 
(Acts XX. 2), as is also supposed by Van Hengel. 

According to our epistle the church in Philippi had exhibited 
the Christian life with remarkable purity. The apostle says much 
good of it, and commends it more highly than almost any other 
church (ch. i. 8 — 8, iv. 1.) On its part also, it hung with strong 
and lively affection on its teacher, whom it endeavoured to succour 
by contributions of money, and for that purpose sent Epaphroditus 
to Rome, where he was in chains. This Paul received as an ex- 
pression of their sincere love, and most thankfully acknowledged 
(iv. 10 — 18; 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9.) From this posture of affairs in 
Philippi, and the occasion of the epistle, being a letter of thanks 
for the support ministered to him by the church, an explaliation 
is afforded how this epistle, more perhaps than any other of Paul, 
should possess so entirely an epistolary character, full of warm 
and friendly feeling. It naturally arose from the general relation of 

and Winer Beal-Wort That the expression was literally correct in this view of it, since 
Neapolia was reckoned to belong to Thrace, see Van Hengel, Introd. p. 4. 

1 Van Hengel, however, may be qnite right in saying, that the expression in Acts xtI. 
13, od tvofiCl^vro irpoaiux^ «tva( says nothing of an oratory, but only, as also Luther 
translates : where they were wont to pray. 


Paul, as an apostle, and the special teacher of the Philippians, that 
exhortations should not he wanting; hut throughout the whole 
epistle Paul gives utterance to his personal feelings, speaks freely 
of himself and of his operations, as well as of his personal rela- 
tion to the Lord, and his striving after perfection. So Olshausen. 
And certainly, more than any particular statements regarding the 
condition of the church, the tone of the whole epistle shows how 
mu^h reason the apostle had to be satisfied with the Philippian 
church generally^ A near and intimate relation had heen formed 
between him and this church, such as scarcely existed in the case 
of any other. He was not merely its apostle and teacher, as in the 
case of other churches, but a tie of personal sympathy and affec* 
tion bound the two most closely together. This is what everywhere 
discovers itself to us in perusing the epistle, and what also throws 
the clearest light on the state of the church itself. 

The supposition of Eichhom, Rheinwald, and others, continues 
Olshausen, that Judaizing and Gnostic heretics had been at work 
at Philippi, is destitute of all semblance of truth. Judaizing here* 
tics, like those who had been busy among the Galatians, are cer- 
tainly described in Phil. iii. ^» ss., but not as if they were actually 
located in Philippi, or had obtained any influence among the 
Christians there. Paul warns them against the itinerant Judaists, 
who, he was well aware, would endeavour also at Philippi to un- 
dermine his labours. Not the least trace, however, of Gnosticising 
heretics is to be found in our epistle. No doubt, the apostle warns 
the disciples (i. 27, ss.) very urgently and at some length against 
spiritual pride, and presents before them the Redeemer as an ex- 
ample of deep humility ; but there is an utter want of the more 
specific traits, which might justify us in regarding this discourse 
as directed against Gnostic presumption. The only actual evil 
to which the epistle bears distinct testimony, is that certain 
jarrings appear to have sprung up in the church (ii. 2, ss., iv. 2.) 
These would probably be occasioned by the ignorance of some 
members of the church, and hence the apostle enjoined at such 
length the cultivation of a spirit of humility. According to Ols- 
hausen, therefore, we have here to do with a purely practical aber- 
ration — and such undoubtedly was the case. Let us listen to him 

This view of the state of the church at Philippi has been sue* 



cessfully applied against the various false representations, by Schinz 
in bis treatise on tbe Cbristian cburcb at Pbiiippi (Zuricb 1833.) 
But when Schinz, at tbe close of bis treatise, on tbe ground ibat 
tbe cburcb at Pbiiippi was infested by no beretical teacbers^ would 
prove tbat it was composed entirely of converted beatbens^ witbout 
any intermixture of Jewisb Gbristians, be seems to go too far. Tbe 
learned autbor, indeed, justly remarks tbat in tbe epistle to tbe 
Fbilippians no reference is made to tbe Old Testament. Tbis in- 
dicates, be tbinks, tbat the Gbristians at Pbiiippi were of beatben 
origin ; but tbe conclusion, as appears to me, is not sufficiently 
grounded. According to tbe teaching of tbe apostle Paul tbe Old 
Testament was not merely for Jews and Jewisb Gbristians, but also 
for tbe beatben and converts from among tbem. Tbe Pbilippians 
must, besides, as proselytes, wbicb tbey must bave been according 
to Scbinz's view« bave been acquainted witb tbe Scriptures of tbe 
Old Testament. Hence, we may fairly regard tbe want of cita* 
tions from tbe Old Testament in tbis epistle as accidental. 

Sut even granting tbat all tbe Gbristians at Pbiiippi were bom 
beatben, tbis would still not suffice to explain tbe freedom of tbe 
cburcb tbere from false doctrines ; foe tbe Gentile Gbristians migbt 
as readily bave been misled as tbe Jewisb ; nay, in so far as regards 
the Gnostic tendencies, as tbey manifested themselves in Golosse, 
tbey were even more liable to deception, as tbey could not be so 
firmly settled in those fundamental views, wbicb the others bad 
received witb their mother s milk. We can ascribe tbe excellent 
condition of tbe youthful community of tbe apostle only to tbe 
fidelity of its members, and to their preservation from seducers. 


There can be no doubt as to the occasion of tbe epistle and its 
immediate object ; the contents of the epistle render both abun- 
dantly plain (iv. 10 — 20.) In its immediate design it was a lettw 
of thanks from tbe apostle to the cburcb at Pbiiippi for tbe sup- 
port ministered to tbe apostle through Epaphroditus. Tbe apostle 
gave tbis letter of love to tbe person who brought tbe gift, as he 
was going to return (ii. 25, ss), which served, at tbe same time, as 
a testimonial to him. With tbe expression of his thankfulness tbe 


apoBtle couples reports conoemiDg himself, as was due to a people, 
who had given him such a proof of their profound fellow-feeling 
by the gift of love they had sent him. But he addresses also a 
word of exhortation and warning to them ; for however satisfactory 
might be the condition of the church as a whole, there still could 
not fail to be shortcomings in the Christian life among them, and 
dangers flowing in upon them from without. And it is possible he 
may have learned as much from Epaphroditus respecting the 
church. These are the essential component parts of our epistle* 
very naturally and simply arising out of the existing relations. 

After the introduction, i. 1 — 11, follow first of all the apostle's 
reports concerning himself, 12 — 26. Then comes a word of exhor- 
tation to the church,.i. 27 — ii. 18, followed up by the section ii. 
19 — 80, in which the apostle shews how he also in point of fact 
was caring for th^ church. He next adds a double warning, to 
which he was passing over at the close of the preceding section, 
iii. 1 — iv. 1. Some special admonitions are then given, iv. 2— -9, 
after which he expresses his gratitude for the gift that had been 
sent, 10 — 20. Salutations and the usual *braedietion form the con- 
clusion, 21 — 28. How naturally these particular parts of the epistle 
adhere together, how clear and easy the connection and progress 
of thought is, throughout the entire epistle, I deem it unnecessary 
to exhibit farther here, as it will be made to appear in the exposi* 
tion itself. There being nothing in the object of the epistle to bias 
its particular parts, and force it out of its proper unity, this unity 
only discovers itself the more palpably in the tone and method 
pursued. Not only the circumstance of the epistle resting upon 
the ground of a close personal relation, indicating and expressing 
in ail its parts the heart-felt love of the apostle to this spiritual 
oommunity, so that it appears more than other epistles a genuine 
outpouring of cordial affection, and carries the stamp of familiarity ; 
not only does this personal bearing of the epistle in general, which 
soitsits character so well as a letter of thanks, give to it an impression 
of unity, but there is one thing especially which may be regarded 
as the key note of the epistle, which is ever and anon struck, and 
pervades the whole : the feeling of joy with which the heart of the 
apostle was filled, and to which he sought also to raise his dear 
Fhilippians* This shows itself even outwardly in the frequent oc- 
currence of the xa/pa> and x^^P^^t ^ut still more in the profound 


and earnest considerations be addresses to them. The *' I rejoice," 
in i. 18, is the result of what he had written concerning himself; 
and the exhortation in i. 27 — ii. 18, stands in a subordinate rela- 
tion to the joy. With a call to rejoice, he commences anew at iii. 
1, while again at the close, iv. 4, he exhorts the whole church to 


We point here, in the first instance, to what Olshausen has 
written in his commentary on the epistle to the Ephesians, Introd. § 8. 
He justly maintains, that the epistle to the Philippians, on account 
of the similarity of the relations under which it was composed, can- 
not in respect to time have been far separate from the periods to 
which those to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, belong. 

In the serial connexion also of these four epistles, there exists a 
proof that the epistle to the Collosians and that to Philemon were 
composed about the same time ; then, that the epistle to the 
Ephesians was written at the most some weeks later ; and that 
finally comes the epistle to the Philippians, composed in the latter 
period of the apostle's imprisonment, as the three others were dur- 
ing the earlier. This supposition in respect to the epistle to the 
Philippians is justly grounded on the passages i. 12, ss., ii. 26, ss. ; 
according to which the apostle had already spent a considerable 
time in the place of his imprisonment, and was able to mark the 
firuit of his labours. Further also, upon ii. 24, where it is said 
that he would soon come to them, while the distant hope of this 
is only for the first time expressed in Philem. 22. And one 
might add, on the probable supposition of Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 
25) being the same person that is called Epaphras in Gol. i. 17, 
iv. 12, Philem. 23, that since he was the carrier of the epistle to 
Philippi, the later composition of this epistle is indicated, as com- 
pared with those in which he is spoken of as present. 

Where now was the place of composition ? Apart from the sup- 
position of CEder (de tempore et loco epistolae at Philippenses 
scriptae, 1731), who ascribes it to the one and a half year's sojourn 
of the apostle in Corinth, which is disposed of by the single fact 
that Paul suffered no imprisonment during that time, a double path 


lies open : either to suppose tbat the period of imprisonment was 
that in Ceesarea (Acts xxiii. 23^ as.), or that it was the time of the 
first Boman imprisonment, (Actsxxviii. 16, ss.) The latter is the 
view of most recent interpreters (Bertholdt, Hug, Bheinwald, Flatt, 
De Wette, Matthies, Meyer, Neander, eto.)> as it is also the tradi- 
tion of the church, comp. the passages in H5lemann (p. 11), and 
the subscription at the end of the epistle; 

It was ascribed to the Gsesarean imprisonment, first by Dr 
Paulns (in a Programme of 1799« and in the Theol. Lit.-Bl. Zu. 
AUg. Echztg. 1834, No. 140), and afterwards by Bottger (Beit- 
rage Gott, 1837). Bottger argues there with much learning and 
aouteness from the judicial treatment of prisoners at Borne, that 
Paul could not have been detained long at Bome ; at the most five 
days. But on the other side, see Neander's just and important re- 
mark (History of Planting, &o., 4th ed. i. p. 469), that the delay 
of five or ten days did not refer to the continuance of the judicial 
procedure, but to the objection against the appeal (=literae dimis- 
soriae) ; that it indicated nothing as to the delay of th^ procedure. 
Farther, Bottger seeks to prove the agreement of the Acts with this 
event, and to invalidate the data, which have usually been regarded 
as decisive in the epistle to the Philippians, for referring it to the 
period of the Boman imprisonment. These are the passages, i. 13, 
and iv< 22, where the discourse is of a Trpcurwpiov, and an oUla 
Kalaapo^, Bottger has certainly proved, that these expressions 
are not conclusive in behalf of Bome, but were also applicable to 
palaces of the emperor out of Bome, as, in particular, we read of 
the Trpanwpiov of Herod, in Acts xxiii. 35 ; and, as Olshausen re- 
marks there, the epistles elsewhere present too few determinate 
points of contact for deciding. But as regards the close of the 
Acts, I must entirely accord with Olshausen, that it does not square 
with Bdttger*s supposition of an imprisonment of a few days. Ne- 
ander justly remarks, in the place referred to above, that we cannot 
imagine, if, as Bottger maintains, the apostle s liberation lay be- 
tween ch. xxviii. 16, and v. 23, Luke should have failed to notice 
it And what must the words xxviii. 30, 31, *' And he abode two 
whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in 
unto him, no one forbidding him," indicate, if not the still advanta- 
geous position of the apostle, notwithstanding bis continued impri- 
sonment ? Must these words be understood of the contrast, as 



Bdttger supposes, between the rest whioh Paul now enjoyed, and 
the stonns of his past life ? The notices in the Acts, therefore, 
do not here withdraw us from the historical grounds for the com- 
position of the four closely connected epistles. We may add that 
Aristarchus and Lucas^ according to Acts zxyii. 2, were with the 
apostle in Rome, and we also find them both actually with him 
in Ool. iv. 10, Fhilem. ver. 24; further, that Paul, according to 
Eph. yi. 19, 20, had freedom to preach the gospel ; still farther, 
that, accordiug to i. 1 2. ss. of our epistle, important results had 
sprung from his imprisonment, as also that Uie apostle expected 
the last decision of his cause to issue either in life or death (i. 20), 
yet with a confident anticipatation of his obtaining his pardon and 
being able soon again to visit the Philippians (i. 25, 26 ; ii. 
24). Putting all these circumstances together, one cannot wonder, 
that neither Olshausen, nor the more recent expositors, such as De 
Wette, Meyer, and also Neander, (in his history of the Planting, 
etc.,) should have dissented from the. view of Bottger, and should 
have adhered to the tradition of the church. 

The composition of the epistle consequently falls, according to 
the common reckoning, in the year 62 or 63. 


1. GEN0INENB88. 

Olshausen oould still say, the epistle to the Philippians belongs 
to the few writings of the New Testament, whose genuineness has 
never been called in question. But since then D. Baur (in his 
Faulus, the apostle of Jesus Christ, Stuttg. 1845), has extended his 
attacks against the New Testament writings also to this epistle—- 
without, however, having yet entered on the particular field. 
Schwegler (Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, 1846, II. p. 183 — 185), 
reckons all the more recent commentators amoug the defenders of 
the epistle, and Liinemann and Bruckner have vindicated it in 
separate productions (Pauli ad Phil. ep. contra Baurium defendit 
Liinemann, Gott 1847, and Bruckner: ep a Phil. Paulo auctori 
vindicata contra Baurium. Lps. 1 848.) So also Meyer in the critical 
remarks of his commentary, p. 61, etc. The epistle is so well ac- 


credited by the testimonies of eoolesiastical antiqaity,i (see these in 
Bheinwald, p. 42. ss., Holemann, p. 82, ss.), the matter and tone of 
the epistle give so little ground for suspicion as to any false design, 
the whole epistle bears, according to the general judgment, so 
thoroughly the impress of the Pauline spirit, that its authenticity must 
be regarded as unquestionable, if that of any one can be so. What 
possible grounds, then, can Baur have had for calling in question the 
general opinion ? There are three points chiefly, which he reckons 
unfavourable to the epistle. 1. The epistle moves in the circle of 
Gnostic ideas and expressions, and in such a manner, as not to op- 
pose, but rather to coincide with them. The leading passage referred 
to in proof of this is ch. ii. 5, ss. " Being in the form of God," etc. 
This, according to Baur, could only be said with respect to the ideas 
of the Gnostics ; and on no other supposition than that Gnostic 
apircuffjm of the Yalentinian Sophia, which with all might would 
press into the nature of the Eternal Father, and so descends from the 
Pleroma into the Kenoma (Iren. adv. haer. I. 2, 2 ; I. 4, 1), can the 
passage admit of any proper explanation. What is said there in a 
speculative sense of a metaphysical procession, may here, through a 
spiritual application, be transferred to the moral procedure of Jesus 
Christ, though without denoting what was an object of sense. So the 
expressions "in the likeness of men," and " being formed in fashion 
as a man," admit only of a docetio meaning. Finally, the hrovpavuov 
— hriffciav — tcaraxOovioiP, through which the power and dominion 
of Christ are extended alike to the three regions, the heavenly, the 
earthly, and the subterannean, these also are genuine Gnostic terms. 
I must here, in order not to be tedious, refer to the commentary 
on the particular verses. It is. there shown in respect to the chief 
passage ii. 5 — 8, that it can only be understood as speaking, after 
the manner of John, of the incarnation, the ipadpKwai^ of the 
Logos ; and that the form of existence before and after is expressed 
by the contrast of that which he did not and that which he did 
wish. Is there still reason, on the supposition of this mode of ex- 
planation, with the allegation of Baur of its being here only a 
moral refraining from the apnraryfios (though such is impossible, 
because it makes no sense), to say that Christ could not before his 

1 Polyo. ep. ad. Phil. cap. i. 11, Maro. in Epip. baer. 42; Tert. contra Mare. ▼. 19; de 
pfaeaer. 86 Canon, in Muratori. in Origcn, in Euaeb. Besidea tbes« teatimonies, tbere are 
citationa in Iren. adv. haer. it. 18 ; Clem. Alex. paed. i. 107 ; Tert. de resur. c. 23 ; etc. 


moral probation have wished to arrogate to himself what he could 
only attain through his probation ? Whence, then, could Baur 
know that that laa Oe^ eivcu must be the reward only of his moral 
probation ? According to the apostle, it equally stood in the 
power of him of whom he speaks, tara r^ 0€^ eivcu, and kaxnov 
K6V0VV, What determined him to choose the latter was the prin- 
ciple of self-denying love which the Fhilippians are called to take 
for their example. But it is objected, how then could it be said 
that Christ would not lay hold of what, according to this view, he 
already had ?^ Let us only place ourselves in the sort of position 
indicated in the passage. Christ himself is represented as an ex- 
ample of self-denying love, and this is shown in the circumstance 
that under two possibilities he chooses and brings into reality that 
which love determines him to adopt. But in every real choice and 
determination, wherein one has to consider about the exchange of 
an old state for a new one, is it not the fact that the earlier one, 
which already belongs to me, must appear as given up, and, in the 
event of my deciding for it, I lay hold of it anew ? And does not 
the expression ov^ afyjra/yfiov ifffyraro in this way admit of a 
satisfactory explanation ? See further the Com. on the passage. 
Or, is it alleged that in this pre-existent condition of Christ, a doc- 
trine not properly Pauline is introduced ? Omitting the epistles, 
which Baur deems not genuine, let only the following passages be 
compared : 2 Cor. viii. 9, 1 Cor. viii. 6, 1 Cor. xv. 47, all of 
which cannot, without great arbitrariness, be referred to the his- 
torical Christ, as they express themselves. Comp. Liinemann, 

1 I cannot go along with Liinemann and Biiiokner in their view of the Xoa rtp Oaip 
flyat, however much I rejoice in being able to concur with them in the general import 
of the pasaage. Both belicTe, that the fundamental error of Banr lies in this, that he 
understands one and the same thing by the iv fiop4>{i Otov flyai, and the tea rta Ot£ elvai. 
They, therefore, make an essential distinction between the two expressions, and would 
find in the former the thought, that Christ, although he was in a divine form, still had 
not wished to have a Kvpiortit in himself, as God has. Liinemann, p. 11 : potiri autem 
potuisset hoc existendi vel vivendi modo, quo ipse vivit Deus, si noluisset se submitters 
atqne servtre Deo Deique consiliis, sed potins regnare voluisset aequo ac regnat ipse 
Deus, subjectua nemini. To the like effect Briiekner, p. 28. Nor do I believe that for 
the sake of the contrast the apostle would have said anything so incredible of Christ. 
For that Christ could desire the Kvpiornv, ver. 11, only in the way of self-denial, is to be 
understood of itself. But even while he desires this Kvplorrn^, he does not ascend to a 
higher dignity than his pre-existent one ; whereas, according to Briiekner and Liine- 
mann, a still higher dignity was withheld firom the Xoyot HaapKof, which he has reached 
by Lttnemann's express declaration, as \6yot Ip^apKo^, 


p. 8, 88., and the lengthened discussion of this point in Briickner in 
the Appendix, p. 84, eto. 

But how comes the apostle by the expression, oifx afyirwffjbbv 
ffffyraTo ? It is certainly to be found nowhere else in his writings. 
But is it of so very peculiar a character that one can only explain 
it by a reference to the history of that Gnostic afmarfiAa ? The 
sense of the passage requires that there should be an expression 
for indicating that Christ did not choose divine glory, as if he had 
looked simply upon his own. Has the apwarfiihv there something 
strange about it, since, according to the connection, it is presented 
as the relatively selfish idea ? And does the reference, then, to 
the Gnostic theosophy explain the expression ? What has the 
expression employed in our passage to do with the history of that 
apnrarf^ ? As little as the Gnosis knows of a being hf fJMp<l>Q 
0€ov in the sense of our passage, of a being taarm 0e& {lara being 
taken as an adverb), as little does it also know properly of a iavrbv 
K€ifovv, Have all these designations, then, not a uniformly New 
Testament, nay Pauline impress? How does iiop4^ deov essen- 
tially differ from that elKiav tov Oeov in 2 Cor. iv. 4 ? Has not 
the iKhfODce iavrbv a substantial parallel in tbe i7rTay)(€V(r€ of 2 
Cor. viii. 9 ? Is the expression Kevovv not used often enough 
elsewhere by the apostle (Bom. iv. 14 ; 1 Cor. i. 17, etc.) to ao« 
count for its use here, where it is so perfectly in place ? How can 
one say that the author moves in the circle of Gnostic ideas and 
expressions, when neither the ideas of the author nor his expres- 
sions are to be found in the Gnostics, but are quite homogeneous to 
the author s own manner of thought and expression, as appears 
elsewhere in his writings ? 

The expressions just referred to, however, are not the only ones 
of their kind ; and in the case of an author who moves in the 
circle of Gnostic ideas, such was to have been expected. The 
words, hf ofiouofAOTL avOpdnrtov r^epofJLepo^, k.t.X. in ii. 7 must also 
be Gnostic, because those in ver. 10, " every knee of the heavenly, 
earthly, and subterraneous (beings)," are Docetic, and most tho- 
roughly and purely Gnostic. Now, we have all the traces of 
Gnosticism that occur in our epistle, nothing of that description 
being found in the remaining parts of it ! 

In regard to the latter passage, it is shown in the exposition that 


here the ** Gnostio" idea of the descent into hell is not to be 
thought of (as if this idea, too, were exclusively Gnostic, because 
it is to be met with in Marcion !) For the meaning of xaxOovioi 
see the exposition, and in respect to the iiroipdvioi Bruckner justly 
points to the passages 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, Rom. viii. 38, 39, which 
speak of the all-embracing power of Christ Bruckner also ex- 
pressly assures us, p. 35, that the thought under this precise ex- 
pression never occurs in the Gnostics. 

As to the other expression, hf bfiouofuvrt, apffpayrrtov yevofiepo^, 
which Baur would have to contain a Dooetic meaning, we are not 
to be entangled by what Lunemann and Bruckner bring into 
notice, that Christ was different from all other men in this respect, 
that he was conscious of no sin (2 Cor. v. 21) ; for the idea of 
the av6ponro<i does not include that of sin. Sin is rather to be re- 
garded as an accident of human nature; hence also in other pas- 
sages, such as Rom. v. 15, 1 Cor. xv. 21, Paul denotes Christ un- 
conditionally avOpayirof;. Baur also maintains with some reason 
that the passage Rom. viii. 3, in which God is said to have sent 
his Son '* in the likeness of sinful flesh," cannot be reckoned 
parallel to the one before us. Neither, however, does it prove, as 
Baur supposes, that the expression in the present passage is 
Docetic, inasmuch as the liketiess which in the Son must, as to its 
idea, be viewed in regard to the sinful fleshy is in Phil. ii. 7, ex- 
tended to humanity at large. For there is ground enough for a 
thought, on account of which the author, who in another connec- 
tion could never have hesitated to say avOptaTro^ yevofievo^, should 
here have said precisely ip ofwuifjuiri apOpdnrtov 7. And that 
ground is, that in the passage he does not speak either of the 
divine or the human nature, but simply of the divine and 
human form of existence or life. Baur has certainly and very 
strangely overlooked this when he says, " Were he already God, 
wherefore should he first become what he already was ?" etc. 
We reply, there is as little previously of a being God, as afterwards 
of a being man ; but as before the discourse was only of a divine 
form of being, in which Christ was, previous to his humiliation, so 
afterwards it can only be of a form of manifestation helonging to 
him, which is designated by " his taking the form of a servant," 
being '' in the likeness of men/' and '* found in fashion as a man." 


To detnre that the writer had simply said dpOpanro^ rfev6fi&fo^, were 
Dotfaieg else than to wish that he had expressed himself less ac- 
carately than he has done. 

The second series of objections raised by Baur against the ge- 
nuineness of our epistle, refers to the composition of it in general. 
Tender and pleasing as the thoughts and sentiments are which are 
expressed in it, the epistle still suffers from a monotonous repetition, 
from the want of a deep internal connection, and from a certain 
poverty of thought. The absence, too, of a sufficient occasion to 
draw forth such a communication, and of a distinctly announced 
aim and train of thought, is a circumstance that must also be taken 
into account. Its polemical character gives the impression, as if 
it existed only on this account, such being the general character of 
PauFs epistles. Sut it is deficient in the freshness and natural- 
ness which distinguish these, and in the objective nature of the re- 
lations indicated. So, in particular, in the passage iii. 18. The 
expression xvve^ in iii. 2 is coarse ; strained and unnatural the 
contrast between Kararofiij and rrepiTOfiij, introduced merely to 
give the apostle an opportunity to speak of himself. Then, iii. 2, 
ss., is just « copy of 2 Cor. xi. 18. How universally known are 
the things which the apostle relates here of the circumstances of his 
life ! The expression *' righteousness in the law" is not Pauline. 
The whole is flat and uninteresting. But especially does it awaken 
suspicion, that it never comes clearly out what had moved the apos- 
tle to write the epistle. In iv. 10, ss., indeed, an occasion is men- 
tioned in connection with a present which the Philippians had sent 
to Rome for the apostle's support. But the passage iv. 15, accord- 
ing to which the apostle had repeatedly received support from the 
church at Phiiippi, involves a contradiction with the apostle s state- 
ment in 1 Cor. ix. 15, '' I have used none of these things," namely, 
those which belonged to living off the gospel. A certain limita- 
tion, indeed, is given to this assertion of the apostle by the admis- 
sion, in 2 Cor. xi. 9, that during his abode at Corinth brethren 
from Macedonia had ministered to his necessities. But in Phil. 
iv. 15, the matter is represented as if it had been an arrangement 
subsisting from the beginning, as if the apostle had to make a sort 
of reckoning with the Philippians as to giving and receiving. One 
can scarcely avoid the supposition, that the author had the passage 
2 Cor. xi. 9 before his eyes, and drew too much from it. The men- 


tion presently after of the contributioos preyioosly received betrays 
the fabe apostle. Paul would have indicated more plainly the con- 
tribution mentioned in ver. 1 5, by which is to be understood that sent 
to Corinth according to 2 Cor. xi. 9 ; and would not have men- 
tioned last, in ver. 16, the contributions he had received at an earlier 
period. It is also stumbling, that, according to ver. 16, the apostle s 
sojonm in Thessalonica is spoken of as much longer than tbe his- 
tory in the Acts would lead us to suppose. From what was said 
at ch. iv. 10, Bs.« upon the occasion of the epistle, there is good rea- 
son to suppose that we have only a feigned situation before us. 

It is not without due consideration that I have exhibited at length 
this second series of Banr s objections, for I hope the reader, who 
has them here clearly before him, that he may himself judge of 
them, will excuse me from meeting them one by one. This has 
also been undertaken by others, and executed in a creditable man- 
ner, as in the productions of Ltinemann and Brtiokner. I simply 
remark, that Baur has pronounced his condemnatory judgment on 
this epistle, accusing it of monotony, poverty of thought, and want 
of a profound internal connection, without any proper foundation. 
If respect is had to the subject matter of the epistle, where is there 
to be found any thing like monotonous repetition and poverty of 
thought ? How clearly do the several parts of the epistle divide 
themselves from each other (comp. § 2), and how characteristic is 
the treatment that is given to each of these ! Only let us not ourselves 
mix what in the epistle is divided. Thus, how very differently are 
his personal opponents in Rome described in ch. i. 15, ss., from 
the enemies of whom he warns his readers in ch. iii. 2, ss. ! How 
plainly, again, are these distinguished from the persons named in 
ch. iii. 18, ss. ? And we have still again others before us in ch. i. 
28. How new and peculiar is the representation given of his po- 
sition and his experience in prison, when compared with what is 
found in the other epistles 1 How completely does ch. ii. 19 — 80 
transport us into the circumstances of the apostle, and provide for 
us solutions in regard to his most particular references ? The 
epistle is quite remarkable for its great variety of matter ; and the 
description given of the state of things then existing is so precise, 
that one can scarcely understand for what purpose the author of the 
epistle, supposing him to have been a writer of the second century, 
should have entered with such detail into the apostle's relations at 


Rome, and specified, for example, with such cordiality the love of 
Epaphroditus, as is done by the apostle in ch. ii. 25,88. Or, 
must the monotony consist in this, that the apostle repeatedly speaks 
of his joy, and calls on his readers to rejoice ? There is certainly 
repetition here, but of such a kind as can easily be perceived to 
have arisen from the fulness of the heart, out of which the words 

The reproach of monotony, however, and of poverty of thought, 
though raised against the whole epistle, must be understood as 
directed chiefly against the polemical part, and more particularly 
the passage at the commencement of ch. iii. Fault is expressly 
found with it, at least for its flatness and feebleness. The passage 
can only be an infelicitous copy of 2 Cor. xi. 18. 

Dr Baur pounces at once on *' speaking the same things" (rh avrh 
ypd<f)eip) in ch. iii. 1, as betraying the author's own sense of poverty 
of thought. But in reality the difiBculty which these words occa- 
sion to the expositor, arises from the circumstance that it is not 
easy to find anything in the preceding context of a similar kind ; 
so that many expositors have been led to look out of the epistle 
altogether, and to suppose a reference to some earlier oral expres- 
sions or a previous epistle. We, who have only this epistle before 
us, can have little reason to complain of monotony and poverty of 
thought, so far as this expression is concerned. And then the 
polemical passage itself, which follows ver. 2, the copy of 2 Cor. xi. 
18 ! Who can deny that the passage has a strong resemblance 
with the one before us ? But who, on the other hand, can wonder 
that this should be the case, since, on both occasions, the apostle 
has the same opponents in his eye ? and, in opposition to them, 
handles the same subject ? Is it not also natural to the apostle, 
when he comes to speak elsewhere of this fleshly privilege (comp. 
Rom. xi. 1), so to do it, as to specify in detail the particular points 
belonging to it? And then, with all the resemblance that our 
passage bears to the other, what diversity also ! It does, indeed, 
require proof, that the one passage is only an infelicitous copy of 
the other. Baur lays stress, with this view, on the do^s in ver. 2, 
and still more on the KararofAtj (concision) with its contrast ^rept- 
T0/A17 (circumcision), in ver. 3. Theexpression dogs is not fine, and 
in that Baur is quite right ; but neither is " ministers of Satan*' in 
1 Cor. xi. 15, as others have already noticed. And how could it 


then be proved that the apostle had not himself used that yery 
common word, that only an imitator of the passage in Corinthians 
had done so ? As regards the other two expressions, Ltinemann 
jnstly points to Gal. v. 11, 12, where the apostle in a manner quite 
similar places an airoKon^vrat over against irepirofii^. Still, how* 
ever, Dr Baur takes offence at Christians being called the true, the 
Jews the false circumcision. But this is not really the sentiment 
of the passage. The apostle does not speak of Jews, and say, 
that their circumcision is a false one. He only says, that the cir- 
cumcision of which the opponents were making a boast, was of no 
more value than a mere cutting of the flesh of one s body. And 
have we not in Rom. ii. 25, ss., a " circumcision becoming uncir- 
cumcision," and '' an uncircumcision being reckoned for circum- 
cision ?'* Have we not also in ver. 28, 29 a similar thought, 
though introduced with a different respect ? And this '' unnatu- 
ral" contrast must have been brought in merely to give the apostle 
an opportunity to speak of himself I It is not true, however, that 
the opportunity is thus sought ; for it is by a new turn in the dis- 
course that he comes, at ver. 4, to speak of himself, and in doing 
so, allows the contrast entirely to drop. I refer to my exposition 
of the passage ; and merely remark here, that if there is a single 
passage in the epistle that bears the genuine Pauline impress, it is 
the one before us. So far from the discourse being made violently 
to assume a personal form, it is in the simplest and most impres- 
sive manner, that the apostle shews in his own person the vanity 
of that confidence in the flesh. And is not the exposition in ver. 
7 — 14 worthy of the apostle ? 

We shall at present only notice farther what has been alleged by 
Baur in regard to the occasion of the epistle. In its primary occa- 
sion and design we have shewn it to be a letter of thanks from the 
apostle, which naturally led him to give his readers some notices 
respecting himself, and address to them such admonitions as they 
might then need. And the composition of the epistle seems per- 
fectly to accord with this supposition. What criticism has to say 
against it has already been mentioned above. But does 1 Cor. ix. 
15 really contain any thing opposed to the declaration of the apostle 
in Phil. iv. 15, 16, that the Philippians had repeatedly sent money 
to support him ? Baur himself adduces a case from 2 Cor. xi. 9, 
"that which was lacking to me the brethren from Macedonia sup- 


plied." Bat on^ time, he wodd have us Ihiok, is no time ; whereas 
this passage should have oonvinced him of the enx>r of his exposi- 
tion of i Cor. ix. 15. For, the apostle does not speak there at all, 
f»f his not having received support from any church whatever, but 
only of the manner in which he had acted toward the Corinthians 
— comp. ver. 11, ss. And if any doubt might still remain of the 
passage, should it not be completely removed by 2 Cor. xi. 8, ** I 
robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service ?'* 
When Baur farther speaks, at oh. iv. 15, of a plan contrived from 
the beginning, when he charges the pseudo-apostle with an un- 
chronological enumeration of the pecuniary contributions, or a too 
indefinite description of the gifts sent after him to Corinth, and at 
last would have it, that in ver. 1 6, Thessalonica was misplaced out 
of Macedonia ; the whole of his averments are mere fabrications, 
which vanish partly under the right exposition of the passages, and 
partly from the consideration that this pseudo-apostle might have 
known as well as the apostle himself, and (since according to Baur 
he had 2 Cor. xi. 9 before him), be must have known, that the 
Philippians had sent a gift to the apostle at Corinth, and which 
formed part of the supplies they ministered to his wants. 

All that Baur has as yet brought against the genuineness of our 
epistle proves on closer investigation to be so untenable, so utterly 
worthless, that it remains incomprehensible, how on such grounds 
he should have come forth on a critical undertaking against the 
epistle ; unless the third part of the considerations urged by him 
should provide some solution of the matter. We shall not err, if 
we hold, that the name of Clemens in ch. iv. 8, with which Baur 
places in connection the persons in CfiBsar's household in ver. 22, 
bears the blame of the whole undertaking. Since neither history, 
says Baur, nor tradition knows of any other Clemens, it must be 
the same who is elsewhere placed in the closest fellowship with the 
apostle Peter, the first bishop of the church at Rome. Tradition 
has reported of this person, that be was a relative of the imperial 
house. (Comp. the Clementine Homilies IV. 7: ap^ wpo9 
yhwv^ TifitpLov Kaurapai.) Now, this Clemens not only belongs 
to tradition, but the piece of history but of which it grew, abun- 
dantly shews that the apostle himself could not have known this 
Clemens. The /utidua/abula is that Flavins Clemens, who is made 
known to us by Suetonius, Dio Cassius, and Eusebius, who was a 


relative of DoinitiaD, and was put to death by this emperor on 
account of his a0€6rfj<:. To refer to the epistle of the Roman 
Clemens, in proof that there really was an apostolical Clemens dif- 
ferent from that other, is improper, since the prefixed name of 
Clemens does not prove that the apostle wrote of the Clemens in 
the Christian tradition. But how, then, could this Flavius Clemens 
of Domidan's time have been called the fellow-worker of the 
apostle ? It was only an author, who lived after the apostolic 
times, that could place him in such a relation to the apostle Paul, 
living at a period when that Clemens had become the well-known 
Clemens of the Roman tradition. And from this point the whole 
purport of the epistle must receive a new light. Now is first ex- 
plained what is reported in ch. i. 12 of the irpoKoni) rov eva/y- 
yeXioVy which calls forth the internal feeling of joy, that discovers 
itself throughout the whole epistle. From the preponderance of 
this feeling of joy, it is to be understood how the author should 
have ascribed to the apostle the hope of a speedy deliverance (ch. 
ii. 24.) Still, however, the well-known end of the apostle flits 
before the eyes of the later author, and hence the hesitancy of 
mind between life and death, which appears in such passages as 
ch. i. 20 — 24. The design of the author, which led him to place 
the Roman Clemens, Peter s genuine disciple, beside the apostle 
Paul as a fellow-worker, was to form a new bond of harmonious 
relationship between the two apostles, as representatives of the 
Jewish and heathen- Christian tendencies ; and it is the proper 
scope of the epistle to put the real aim of the apostle Paul in its 
fair and proper light. In conclusion, reference is made to the 
anachronism in the designations " bishops and deacons ' at the com- 
mencement of the epistle, and to the persons called so enigmati- 
cally Euodia and Syntyche, together with the " dear yoke-fellow" 
in iv. 3, as proofs against the genuineness of the epistle. 

In regard to the chief point, the spurious character of the epistle 
would certainly bo obvious, if it could be proved that the fundus 
fabuliB, in respect to the Roman Clemens, was the Flavius Clemens 
of Roman history ; and, secondly, that the Clemens of our epistle 
is the same person as the one mentioned in the Christian tradition. 
But what is Baur's proof for the first of these positions ? He 
compares what Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Eusebius, have said of 
that Flavius Clemens, the husband of Domitilla, with the Clemens 

introduction; 19. 


of the Clementine homilies. In both ve have before us a man 
who was allied to the imperial family, who became a Christian, 
and whose wife, according to one report, and, according to another, 
his mother and brothers* were obliged to leave Borne. But even 
here in this last particular a difference apparently comes out, and 
one that becomes stilt greater when we ask regarding the leaving, 
on what account it was that the persons in question must go away 
from Borne. Domitilla was banished by Domitian to Pandateria ; 
the mother and the brothers of the Clementine Clemens left Bome 
in consequence of a dream, and withdrew to Athens. Besides, that 
Flavius Clemens was a near relative of Domitian, but this other 
was a distant one of Tiberius. What could be the reason of the 
Clementines departing so far from the fundus /abul€e 7 Why did 
they not allow him to continue a near relative of Doihitian, robbing 
him of such an honour, and thereby departing from the usual cus- 
tom of traditional embellishment ? But let us leave the Clemens 
of the Clementine homilies ; let us grant, that in one point of view 
that Flavius Clemens may have been the /ufidus fabulm ; are we 
on this account necessitated to admit that the well-known Clemens 
of the ecclesiastical tradition is at once to be identified with the 
same ? to be a mere product of traditional embellishment ? No 
one thinks of letting the apostle Peter, because of such traditional 
embellishment in the Clementines, sink into the condition of a tra- 
ditional man ; and why should it be done any more with that 
Clemens 7 Between him and the Clementine one there is still a 
wide distinction. Where is it said, in all that Dionysius of Co- 
rinth, IrenfBus, Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius, have 
reported of that Clemens, that he stood in any relationship to the 
family of Csssar 7 Does not Eusebius know how to distinguish 
between him and Flavius, with whom also he was sufficiently 
acquainted 7 (H. E. III. 18, 2.) Must Dionysius, about the 
middle of the second century, and those other Fathers at the end 
of the second and the beginning of the third, have already so far 
erred as to make a Boman bishop out of that Boman consul* whom, 
according to Suetonius, the emperor repente ex tenuissima sue- 
picione tantum non in ipso ejus consulatu interemit 7 A bishopi 
too, who in the name of the church at Bome wrote a letter to the 
Corinthians, which it was customary to read even in the second 

century in the public meetings of the Corinthian church 7 The 

fi 2 



mere name, however, Baur asserts^ does not prove the epistle to 
have been written by the Clemens of tradition. But was it still 
not written by a Clemens ? Why should it not, then, be the 
one so well known ? Neither history nor tradition, according 
to Baur himself, knows of any other. Or, must the name of 
Clemens have been feigned which is written on the epistle 7 Or, 
must it have been really an epistle from the church at Borne 
to that at Corinth, which first in the way of tradition yrsa ascribed 
to that Clemens, though he never lived as the tradition reports 
him to have done ? How can such a thing be conceived pos- 
sible with an epistle, written in the name of the church at Bome, 
and from the first held in such high estimation ? How also 
could it be conceived in respect to the testimony of Dionysius, 
the bishop of that very church to which the epistle was addressed, 
and at a time so near the period of its production (somewhere 
about fifty years later) ? — And let us see if the Boman Clemens 
can after all serve as a facsimile of the Flavius Clemens referred to. 
Baur maintains that the death of this Clemens had excited a great 
stir among the Bomans, on account of the dreadful disturbances 
that followed it ; whence its great importance in the Christian tra- 
ditional records may more easily be understood. But why then in 
these records is nothing said of the death of Clemens ? They are 
silent about the very thing to which he owed his greatness. A 
mere tradition of the fourth century would have it to be known 
that he died as a martyr. ' 

But even with the Clemens of Christian tradition, to use the 
language of Baur, the Clemens of the epistle before us does not 
coincide. For this Clemens was not to be sought at Bome, but at 
Fhilippi ; and, even if he may have been the same person who 
afterwards became bishop at Bome, still it is not as that Boman 
Clemens that he is introduced and spoken of here. So that the 
ground on which the salutation from those of Csesar's household 
is connected with him for the purpose of establishing his relation- 
ship to the imperial family, falls entirely away. Indeed, it is on this 
account also an arbitrary supposition, because the expression — ix 
T^ Kalaapo^ oucla^ — does not necessarily denote relatives of the em- 
peror, but may as well at least mean the servants of his household. 
— Our epistle, then, has certainly lost again the clear light which it 
has received from the Clemens of Baur. All that he can adduce in 


-support of a disoiple of Peter under that name, and a fellow- worker 
of Paul, is ch. iv. 8, where he is put in a series with other fellow* 
workers, and nothing more is said of him than of the women and 
the rest who had laboured together with the apostle. There is no 
special salutation to him in ch. iv. 22. Who can fail to perceire 
that this Clemens must have played an entirely different part in the 
epistle to give even the appearance of plausibility to Baur's hypo- 
thesis ! Or do we first really need this hypothesis, in order to 
render explicable what is said of the furtherance of the Gospel in 
ch. i. 12, and of the apostle's joyful state of mind, in which he 
would have his readers to sympathise with him ? Were it not, on 
the contrary, inexplicable, why should the author not make the 
apostle say what properly is the ground of his joy, if it could only 
have been thoroughly understood by a reference to Clemens ? But 
the words, '' in all the prsatorium and all other places," do not 
point to Clemens ; nor does the joy, of which the apostle speaks in 
ch. i. 18, refer to the entrance which the Gospel found here or 
there, but to the circumstance that Christ was everywhere preached. 
Still less has the yaipeiv of the apostle in the other passages this 
restricted reference. If only we confine ourselves to the supposi- 
tion that the relations were such as the epistle describes, is not 
every thing then clear and in agreement with itself? Do not ob- 
scurity and confusion come in only with Baur's hypothesis ? The 
division of mind between life and death in ch. i. 21 — 24, which 
Baur presses in support of his view, is explained by the apostle 
himself, when he represents the difficulty of choice as arising from 
the twofold respect he had, first to himself, and then to the interest 
of the churches. It is not correct to say, that his mind was di- 
vided between living and dying ; for he knew it to be certain that 
he should continue in life. And when in ch. ii. 17 he puts the 
case of his going to be sacrificed, every one knows, that with such 
A supposition nothing was said in regard to its actually taking 
place. But when Baur asks, whether such a dividedness of mind 
in a matter that so deeply concerned the cause of the Gospel, were 
not much less suitable for the apostle, than for an author who 
already had before him as a matter of fact the end of the apostle, 
apparently so inappropriate to the great objects of his mission :— - 
we can set against it, and with more right, the counter question, 
how should this author, who, according to Baur, had the end of 


the apostle before him in this very impriBonmeDt as a matter of 
fact, have come to represent the apostle as confidently assuring 
himself of a deliverance from it ? 

In conclusion, Baar has pointed to the mention of bishops and 
deacons in ch. i. 1 as an anachronism. I deem it unnecessary to 
go into this point here, as it has been investigated in the Introduc- 
tion to the pastoral epistles, where the untenableness of such an 
objection is rendered manifest. How fiar, finally, there is any 
ground for objecting to the mode of naming Euodia and Syntyche, 
and introducing the still rarer av^vyo^, will be shown in the expo- 
sition. It is more probable, from the other contents of the epistle, 
to suppose that the two names belong to two women, and that the 
av^vyo^ had been a worthy fellow-labourer of the apostle, than 
that the Eudoxia represented the Jewish-Christian, and Syntyche 
the heathen-Christian party, and that the dear yoke-fellow was, 
after the Clementine homilies, a designation of the apostle Peter. 
So Schwegler in his Nachapost. Zeitalter II. p. 185. I refer 
farther, in respect to the genuineness of the epistle, to the short but 
excellent remarks of Neander in his work already noticed, and to 
Meyer 8 Commentary. 


If we have felt it our duty to dwell longer on the discussion of the 
genuineness of the epistle, we can be the shorter on this second point. 
The question, with which we have here to do, and which Heinrichs 
(N. T. ed. Eoppe, vol. vii. Proleg.) was the first to bring upon the 
field, though the subject has since been prosecuted by others, is this 
— whether the epistle be one whole, as we now have it in our hands ; 
or, whether it has been formed into a whole by some strange hand, 
out of two epistles of the apostle to the Philippians — according to 
Heinrichs embracing respectively a wider and a narrower circle, 
and according to V. Paulus the one addressed to the church, the 
other to the bishops and deacons. 

The only appearance of support that can be brought from the 

epistle itself for this later hypothesis, is the passage ch. iii. 1. 

But does this hypothesis solve the difficulties connected with 

-it ? Does not Heinrichs surprise, that the apostle after the 


salutation-formula, as he regards it (to \oiirov xaejperc iy iQ$pi^)y 
should commence anew, rest upon apttremisuadeTstanding of these 
words ? Aud does he not himself deprive his hypothesis of all 
support by viewing the next words ('' to write the same thiugs to 
you»to me indeed is not grievous," &c.) without respect to any 
connection with the other epistle, and seekiug to find the emphasis 
in ypd^tp, and reverting to some earlier oral declarations of the 
apostle ? Without attempting here to settle anything as to the cor- 
rect meaning of the verse, we must still allow, that the other 
hypothesis of Grotius, Kranse, Hoog, Rheinwald, according to 
which the apostle meant to conclude with to Xoiirbv k, t. X., but 
afterwards added the remainder of the epistle, affords as probable a 
solution of the difficulty — though, as we shall see, there is no ne- 
cessity even for resorting to this supposition. — Support has also 
been sought for the hypothesis of two epistles, an exoteric and 
esoteric, by referring to the passage in Polycarp's ep. ad. Phil. c. 
8, 09 (namely Paul) teal airwv vfuv Sypayp^ev eirtaroKas. We cer- 
tainly cannot, on the opposite side, refer to the other passage in 
Polycarp, c. 11, qui estis in principio epistolse ejus, as has already 
been remarked by Van Hengel, and on still juster grounds by 
Meyer in his commentary. But what reason have we for conclud- 
ing, if the plural hri^rokw; is to be urged, that the epistle was 
composed of two separate epistles, and not rather that Paul may 
have previously written other letters to the Philippians in connection 
with the supplies they sent him ? It is clear that the hypothesis 
rests on very weak grounds. And how utterly contemptible is the 
proof brought from other parts of the epistle ! How completely 
groundless is the supposition of an exoteric and an esoteric portion 
in the epistle drawn from the occurrence of the word ri7\£iot, in 
ch. iii. 15 ? How little does the matter of the epistle accord with 
this ? How unworthy of the apostle are the reasons, on account 
of which he must have uttered, what/ is said of the Jewish adver- 
saries in iii. 2, of the presents in iv. 1 0, on Euodia and Syntyche 
in iv. 2, if it was not uttered in respect to the church in general ? 
How little can any one explain, how so arbitrary a combination of 
two epistles should through violent inversions have been effected ? 
But all this has already been shewn at length by others ; see 
Krause, An epist. ad. Phil, in duas epp. . . dispescenda sit, Schott 
Einl. p. 283 ; Hemsen, as referred to, p. 680 — 694 ; Rheinwalc^ 


p. 4^— M ; Holemann, p. 84 — 44 ; Matlhies, Einl. p. 2'i, Ac. 
I perfectly agree with Credner, Van Hengel, and others, that the 
whole hypothesis deserves to fall into ohlivion. 

§ 5. UTfiRATURB. 

At full length in Bheinwald, Comm. p. 280 — ^49 ; H5lemanD, 
p. »')4 — 59. — As special preparations for the epistle we may here 
mention, Storr diss. exeg. in ep. ad Phil. Tuh. 1 788 ; J. 6. Am 
Ende, Pauli Ap. ad Phil. ep. Viteb. 1798 ; J. F. Krause, observ. 
crit. exeg. Begiom. 1810 ; Rheinwald, Comm. on the ep. to the 
Phil. 1827 ; Flatt's prelections, 1829 ; Matthies exposition, 1885 ; 
Van Hengel's Comm. perpet. in ep. Phil. 1888 ; Holemann, do. 
1889 ; A. Billiet, Comm. sur 1' epitre de 1' ap. P. aux Phil. Gen. 
1841 ; De Wette's exeget. Handbuch, 1847 ; Meyer, Krit-exeget. 
9 Abtheil. 1. Hlilfte, 1847. Treatises are also to be found on par- 
ticular parts, such as Passavant's Versuch einer Prakt. Auslegung» 
Basel, 1884. 

( 25 ) 


or THB 




(i. I— 11.) 

Ver. I. Paal and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Ghrist^ to all 
the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the overseers 
and deacons," &c. 

As in others of his epistles (1 Cor. i. 1, fi Cor. i. 1, CoL i. 1, 
Thess. i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1, Philem. 1) one or several persons are 
named along with the apostle in the insoriptioni so here we find 
the name of Timothy, which indeed oftenest occurs in this connec- 
tion. This implies, in the first place, that the person so named 
was present with the apostle, and, in the second place, that he 
stood in a somewhat close relation to those to whom the epistle 
was addressed ; it also implies that he sympathised with the apostle 
in the sentiments expressed in the epistle, and in his solicitudes 
and prayers in hehalf of those to whom it was written. We are 
not however to suppose that the person so named had any share 
in the writing of the epistle, as is evident from the constant use 
throughout of the first person singular, i. 8, and passages such as 
ii. 19. This last passage aflTords proof at the same time of the 
warm regard which Timothy felt towards the church at Philippi, 
in the planting of which he indeed assisted the apostle, as appears 
from Acts xvi. 17. Besides the naming of Timothy here is all 
the more appropriate, as the epistle announces his speedy arrival 



amoDgst the Philippians. Whether he acted as penmaa of the 
epistle must remain undetermined. 

By the phrase servants of Jesus Christ the apostle designates 
himself in common with Timothy, whilst in Col. i. 1 he designates 
himself as an apostle, and Timothy as his brother. We may cer- 
tainly infer from this that the apostle bad no occasion to vindicate 
his apostolical authority to the church at Fhilippi, and that the 
omission of his official designation here was therefore not merely 
accidental. And how well does this agree with the contents of the 
epistle, which represents the congregation as resting on the foun- 
dation of a close personal relationship to the apostle, and which 
was immediately occasioned by his having to send his thanks for a 
favour he had received from them. There is no ground for suppos- 
ing that, in naming Timothy along with himself, the apostle wished 
to procure for him the same honour that would be given to him- 
self. To all the saints in Christ Jesus. To these the inscrip- 
tion and salutation are addressed, saints through their fellowship 
with Christ. On rov; cuyiot^ compare Eom. i. 7, where Olshausen 
well observes that, with reference to the New Testament church, the 
idea contained in this word is, the impartation of a new and higher 
principle of life. That which makes them holy is their fellowship 
with Christ ; by means of this are they sanctified, and sin in its 
principle is overcome within them, although their victory over 
it in reality is but gradual. 

That emphasis is intended to be laid on the word all, is plain 
irom the repetition of this word 1,4, 7, 8. But those commen- 
tators go too far who suppose that the apostle had particularly in 
his mind either those referred to in ii. 3, who were shewing a spirit 
of strife, or those perhaps who had not contributed anything to the 
gift that was sent to him, and that be used this expression pur- 
posely to include them, and in order to make no difference. It is 
rather to be regarded as simply an expression of affection, which 
is the view that Meyer also takes of it. The iirlcKonrov and hid'- 
Kovei are in this passage alone particularly named by the apostle. 
How little reason there is for doubting the existence of such office- 
bearers in the apostolic time is shewn in the Introduction to the 
Pastoral Epistles, The manifest identity in this passage between 
the hrlaKOTTol and the irpea-^vTepoi, and the fact of several inia- 

Koiroi being indicated, are unmistakeablc marks of the apostolic era. 


" f 

PHILIPPIANS I. 2, 3. 27 

The special notice of these office-bearers in this epistle is striking. 
It has been explained by supposing that they had been specially 
instrumental in collecting the contributions which had been trans- 
mitted to the apostle, and for which he returns thanks in this 
epistle. Meyer thinks this a probable explanation. But on this 
supposition might we not reasonably expect that the apostle would 
have made a more distinct acknowledgment of the services ren- 
dered by these office-bearers ? Besides, the passage at 2 Cor. viii. 
9 gives no countenance to this conjecture. Shall we not rather 
look for the real reason in the circumstances of the church ? It is 
plain that, with all the strength and sincerity of its faith, the church 
at Philippi was in danger of division through the vainglory of some 
of its members. And as, on the one hand, the existence of office^ 
bearers in a congregation presupposes a certain measure of the 
" unity of the faith," so that we are not surprised to find no parti* 
cular reference to such office-bearers in those epistles, the design of 
which is to lead to a right apprehension of the truth, and unity of 
the faith, so, on the other hand, where there is any tendency to the 
undue assumption of importance on the part of the individual, no 
more effective check can be applied than the special acknowledg- 
ment of those who bear office in the church. That such a tendency 
existed in the Philippian church is clear, and hence the particular 
mention of the bishops and deacons. Compare also ii. 29. 

Ver. 2. Grace be with you, &o. The apostle's usual saluta- 
tion, upon which see the excellent observations of Olshausen on 
Bom. i. 7. 

Ver. 8 — 1 1 . In which the apostle's feelings toward the church 
are expressed in hearty thanksgiving to God on their behalf, 2 — 5, 
confidence that the good work will be carried on in them, 6 — 8, and 
earnest prayers for them, 9 — 11. 

Ver. 8. As in his other epistles (with the exception of that to 
the Galatians), so in this the apostle sets out by giving thanks to 
God for what he finds to be good and praiseworthy in the church 
at Philippi. I thank my God upon every remembrance of you. In 
the expression my Ood he gives the reader a glance into his own 
near relation to God. Fellowship with God, although resting on 
one and the same basis for all, yet takes a particular form in the 
case of each individual, according to the particular experiences 


which ho derives from this fellowship, aod which entitle him to call 
the God of all his Ood. And when is this consciousness of special 
relationship to God more felt than in the exercise of prayer ? 

Upon every remembrance of you, I see no reason to interpret 
this as Meyer and the most of commentators do, by every time that 
I remember you. The apostle says much more than this ; he 
means that the remembrance of them in all their circumstances 
in their every relation constrains him to give thanks to God. 
The word iLveia^ when used as here by itself, and without troieur- 
6ai, signifies not mention, but remembrance. 

Ver. 4. The words of this verse are differently connected. Some 
expositors are for regarding the words always in every prayer o/ 
mine for you all, as nothing more than explanatory of the words 
upon every remembrance of you. This, however, is inadmissible, 
as we have seen that the latter phrase does not mean every time 
I remember you, chiefly, however, because then the additional 
phrase ybr you all would be quite inappropriate. For with what 
propriety could the apostle say, that as often as he prays for them 
all he remembers them ? We shall obtain a much better meaning 
if we join wdvroTe with €xy)(api(rr&, and other passages confirm this 
rendeiing, for example, 1 Oor. i. 4, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2, 2 Thess. 
]. 3.) Thus the apostle will say that every time he remembers 
them he gives thanks ; and the meaning of iravrore is rendered 
more apparent by what follows, viz. in every prayer of mine for 
you alL (Gomp. Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2.) The phrase/or yoi/ a//, 
in which the tenderness of the apostle's regard for every member 
of the church finds expression, is not to be joined to what follows. 
It serves as a limitation to the words preceding, viz., in every 
prayer of mine, comp. with this Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. i. 2, where the 
apostle says only, praying for you, and praying always for you. 
It is altogether wrong to separate the words^r you all from their 
connection with what goes before and what follows, and to join 
them with I give thanks. Compare Meyer against this view. The 
sense of this passage then, as far as we have yet proceeded, is that 
the apostle never prays for them without giving thanks to God on 
the remembrance of them. But his feelings toward this church 
are such as constrain him to say in addition to this, that he prays 
for them with joy. Such intercessions coming from a joyful 

PHIUPPIAI48 I. 6. 29 

heart lead naturally to thankBgiving, and may be said to form the 
ground of the eir)(api(rr& in ver. 8. (The article in rifv Betfalv 
points back to the preceding Betjak,) 

Yer. 5. In this Terse the apostle states more particularly what 
that was for which he gave thanks to God in his every prayer for 
them. *£7r/is therefore to be joined with eifxaplarA, not as has been 
recently maintained by Van Hengel and De Wette, with Sirjaiv^ for 
then there would be no specific statement of what was the subject 
of the apostle 8 thanks, and the ytoriH/rom the first day until now 
.would have no proper meaning. As the apostle in other passages, 
where he expresses thanks, generally specifies the subject of his 
thanksgiving, so here he gives thanks to God /or their fellowship 
in the gospel from the first day until now. It is self-evident that 
KOOHDvia ek ro evtvyyiKiov is not the same as rov evarfyeXlov, and 
cannot be rendered by quod participes facti estisevangelii, to which 
dxpi Tov in^ would not correspond. The connection betwixt ek and 
Koivfovelv is certaiuly not so close as to warrant our taking 
6t9 to be a circamlocution for the genitive. We shall therefore with 
the most of modem expositors have to translate the phrase, for 
your fellowship in reference to the gQspel, Here a double 
meaning is possible, according as ek evarfyiKiov is connected more 
or less strictly with Koivmvia. In the latter case KooH&vla will 
express that fellowship of faith and love, that sweet concord, as 
Meyer expresses it, in which the Philippians were united to one 
another, while eU evtvyyiKiov determines more strictly the nature of 
that fellowship, a fellowship, namely, *' the centre point of which 
was the gospel." Against this view, the omission of the article be- 
fore €k €varfyeKMv seems to me to be conclusive. As the words 
stand, they must be closely connected so as to form one idea. 
Comp. Winer, § 19, 2, p. 155. Besides, it appears to me not con- 
sistent with other passages of the epistle, that the apostle should 
first and foremost acknowledge with thankfulness to God, the unity 
and mutual love of the church at Philippi. Oomp. i. 27, ii. 1, iv. 
2. Meyer, in support of the view which we here controvert, re- 
fers to verse 9, where the expression your love, according to him, 
means the same thing as your fellowship. But is it so clear that 
that expression in the 9th verse means their love toward one an- 
other ? If, on the other hand, we connect 6t9 to evayyiKiov with 
Koiwavla more closely, so as to express one idea, then this fellow- 

30 PHILIPPIANS I. 6 — 8. 

ship will mean, cot that of the Philippians with one another,' but 
their fellowship with all those who have the interests of the gospel 
at heart, who earnestly desire its increase and success. And this 
active interest in what pertained to the furtherance of the gospel, 
flowing from their deep and warm attachment to it, was precisely what 
distinguished the Christians at Philippi from the very beginning* 
The apostle had a fresh proof of this, in the gift which they sent 
to him, and which occasioned his particular allusion to this feature 
in their characteri but the words he here employs are not to be 
confined in their application to that which occasioned them, nor in 
general to any pecuniary offerings. The Philippians brought 
whatever they had of Christianity into the service of the gospel. 
Chrysostom and Theophylact have given substantially the true 
meaning of this passage, ort Kotvtovoi fiov ylveade, koX avfi- 
fiepiaral r&v hri r^ eifcuffeXl^ irovmv. So also Van Hengel 
and others. In this interpreptation, /xer* iiiov needs not to be 
supplied, 68 Meyer has objected with reference to a similar in- 
terpretation brought forward by others. For the apostle does not 
thank God for their fellowship with himself so much as for their 
belonging to the fellowship of those who are concerned for the fur- 
therance of the gospel. According to this view, nothing needs to 
be supplied. In Gal. ii. 9, and Acts ii. 42, the word Kovwovla^'iW 
be found in the same signification as here. And for eh rh 
€varfyi>uov in the sense of, furtherance of the gospel, see ver. J 2, 
and I Cor. iz. 14. Thus does the apostle render thanks for their 
fellowship in the gospel, but he adds that this fellowship had ex- 
isted from the first day of their having received the gospel until 
the present time. How different from this was his experience in 
regard to other churches ! In the words axpt' rod vuv there is a 
reference to the fresh proof of this which he had just received, in 
the gift that was transmitted to him. These words from the first 
day until fww, so appropriate when taken in connection with f/our 
fellowship, become tame and meaningless, if with Meyer and others 
we connect them with bein^ confident, ver. 6, or with I give 
thanks, ver. 8. Bheinwald and Van Hengel are also of this opi- 
nion. The absence of the article will not prove such a view of the 
passage to be correct Compare for example ver. 26 

Ver. 6—8. The apostle's confidence with regard to them 
Ver. 6. The apostle is led by the words he had just used, viz.. 


until note, to look forward from the present to the end of their 
couTBe. He thanks God for what he had seen in them up till the 
present time, axpi rou vvvj and as to what will happen hetwixt the 
present and the final issue aypi^ fiiupas; Xpurrcv *I. he declares 
his confidence, a confidence which mingles with and deepens the 
thankfulness of his heart on their hehalf. His cmifidence is not 
to he regarded as the moving cause of his thankfulness, but only 
as an accompanying circumstance ; veiroiBw means, whilst I con- 
Jidently hope. The phrase, this very thing^ sets forth that what 
was the ground of his giving thanks was also the subject-matter of 
his assured hope. This subject matter is here, however, spoken of in 
general as a good work. And the divine agency in bringing it 
about is held up to view, as the apostle's confidence was based on 
this divine causality, not on the feeble will of man. The apostle 
then expresses the confidence he felt with regard to the subject- 
matter of the thanksgiving, viz,, that God who had beg^n a good 
work in the Philippians would also carry it on to perfection. The 
beginning of a good work in them through God's grace is to him 
the pledge of its completion. (On aino rovro placed before 
Sm^ see Winers Gramm. 5th Ed. § 23, 5, page 186 : ^Evap- 
X^urOcu besides in this passage occurs in Gal. iii. 3. On the un- 
important diflference betwixt ^Epapx^iadcu and the simple verb, see 
Van Hengel or Matthies. ^Ep v/up means in you in animis vestris, 
as the phrase wrep iravrtop vfjuop in the following verse proves. 
So Meyer and others. God then will carry forward to the end any 
good work which he has begun, and the end, the absolute in con- 
trast with the relative until now, is the day of Jesus Christ, There 
can be no question as to what is meant by this expression in the 
sense in which it is generally used by the apostle. It is the day in 
which Christ will be revealed in his glory, the day of his coming. 
This day, whether it be near or distant, is to all, to the dead as to 
the living, the decisive day. (See ver. 10.) This passage does not 
necessarily imply the nearness of Christ's coming, as Meyer and 
others suppose. 

Ver. 7. How the apostle for himself {ip^l) arrives at this as- 
sured hope concerning them we are now informed in verses 7 and 
8. It springs from the love he bears to them, which, according to 
its nature, to hope all things (1 Cor. xiii. 7) cannot but give rise 
to such a hope. The apostle says that to think this of them is 


meet for him, t>. suitable to the persooal relation in which he 
stands to them. As this verse is to be explanatory of the preced- 
ing (on Kadm, in this sense, see Winer, § 57, 4, p. 526), the words 
TovTo <l>pov€lv must refer to the confident hope there expressed, 
and points out the source whence it sprung without its being ne* 
cessary with Van Hengel to 'translate this phrase by appetere. As 
the love of the apostle embraces every member of the church, 
so also does his confident hope. Hence he says virep irdvrov 
vfi&v, compare this with ver. 6. 

He now proceeds to state wherefore it is that he entertains such 
an assured hope regarding them : because I have you in my heart. 
It has been doubted whether /x6 or vyMs is here to be considered as 
the subject, but the position of the words settles this point ; and 
the concluding words of this verse and the 8th verse, in which the 
apostle calls God to witness his love to the church, clearly show 
that the common rendering is the right one (comp. Winer, § 45, 6, 
p. 882, Matthies, Van Hengel, and others.) The apostle bears 
them in his heart, and hence for himself personally he cannot but 
cherish such a confident hope regarding them as he has expressed. 
But it is not merely his love to them in the general sense of the 
term that necessitates his entertaining such a hope in regard to 
them : this love has a special character still more nearly related to 
such a hope, arising from its being love to those who have received 
grace along with himself to contend and to suffer for the gospel. 
It is difficult to say whether this participation with him in grace, 
on the part of the Philippians, is to be regarded as real, or as ideal, 
and arising from their sympathy with the apostle. A comparison 
with ver. 27 — 80, favours the former supposition ; on the other 
hand, the immediate context seems to me rather to require that 
this participation should be understood as consisting in sympa- 
thetic love. Hence will appear why the apostle regarded it as a 
duty of love to cherish such a feeling as he expresses above to- 
ward them all. The stedfastness of their attachment to the apostle 
in every thing that concerned him, and their being thereby made 
partakers with him in the grace of suffering for the gospel, ex- 
plains why he considered it as meet for him, as an obligation laid 
upon him by love, to cherish such a confident persuasion regarding 
them. According to this interpretation, the words ep re roh Sea- 
/bUH9 must be construed with av^KOivrnvw fiov, anJ not with exeiv. 

PHILIPPIANS I. 8 11. 88 

That the apostle considers it as a gift of divine grace, to suffer and 
to strive for the Gospel, will appear by a comparison with verse 
29. The context also of this passage con6nns the same view. In 
the words & re roU Becfiok fuw k^ r. X., the apostle represents 
his own state, as on the one hand a state of suffering, and on the 
other of active exertion, for the cause of the Gospel, the latter 
again as manifesting itself in the twofold form of defence and con- 
firmaiion. — (Tot) 6^077 belongs of course to both nouns, as the ar* 
tide shews. And both — the defence, namely, and confirmation of the 
Gospel — prefer, not merely to the judicial process which led to the im- 
prisonment of the apostle, but describe what was his constant aim 
and employment during his imprisonment. In auyKoiinovov^ fiov 
aw is to be connected with fwv. The repetition of vfia*: in irdp- 
Ta9 vfm^y partly on account of irdvra^^ partly by way of resump- 
tion, explains itself. 

Ver. 8. The apostle has just beeu assuring the Philippians, that 
he bears them in his heart as partakers with him of grace, and in 
confirmation of this, he now takes God to witness how greatly 
he longed after them all, in the bowels of Jesus Christ. This 
latter clause points back to the expression avyKoivmvov^, in which 
he set forth the moving cause of his love ; accordingly his ardent 
longing after them alf consists not in the merely natural outgoing 
of his heart's affections toward them, but springs from a higher 
source. It is the love of Christ, the love which Christ bears to 
his own, it is this that the apostle bears in his bosom, and that 
awakens within him such longing after the Philippians. (Compare 
Bengel : in Paulo non Paulus vivit sed Christus quare Paulus in 
Jesu movetur visceribus. {Mdpru^ yap k. t. X. Compare Bom. 
i. 9, also a similar phrase in 1 Thess. ii. 5. Chrysostom's remark 
is certainly striking : oirx^ a»9 airkroviuvo^ iidpiTvpa Kokel top deov 
aXX' CK iroTCKfYi Siadiaea)^ K.r,\, — The word a»v is properly rendered 
by quantopere. knn,iro6& is not love, but longing, ii. 26, and 
Bom. i. 11, 2 Cor. ix. 14, 1 Thess. iii. 6. The eirt does not 
strengthen the meaning of the simple verb, but denotes the direction 
in which it tends. Comp. Winer, § 80, 10, p. 233. — oirTsarfxya, a 
well-known Hebraism, D^rn * Winer, § 3, p. 39.) 

Ver. 9 — 11. The apostle's prayer for his readers. 

Vers. 1 — 8 contain what the apostle has to acknowledge in the 

Philippians with thanks to God, what good persuasion regardingthem 

34 PHILIPPIANS I. 9 — 11. 

connects itself with these thanks, and what motives he finds even in 
his own personal relation to them, to the cherishing o{ sach a per- 
suasion. But along with the good which they have, there is also 
a deficiency. And how could the love of the apostle, who hears 
in him the heart of Christ, pass over this deficiency in silence ? 
Therefore in ver. 9 — 11 the apostle's love leads him to pray, that 
in addition to the good which they have, they may also ohtain that 
which is still awanting to them. The good which they have, is 
denoted hy your love, whilst this, their love, is described as de- 
ficient in ktiowledge and in power of discernment, a deficiency 
which must also of necessity operate injuriously on their progress 
in holiness. 

When we attend to the words of the apostle, one by one, we are 
first of all struck with the expression this I pray, following imme- 
diately upon the foregoing assurance of his affectionate longing 
after them all, and thus with peculiar propriety making the prayer 
that follows to have the appearance of being the outgoing of the 
most ardent love. The word this, points with emphasis to the 
contents of the prayer. The prayer itself is, that your love may 
abound yet more and more in knowledge^ &c. Your love — The 
apostle thus denotes the distinguishing excellence of this church. 
As, at ver. 5, where the apostle describes what he thankfully 
acknowledges in the Philippians by, your fellowship in the Gospel, 
&c., we have not been able to agree with those who would under- 
stand by that, the love-fellowship of the Philippians with one an- 
other, and, as at ver. 7, we have seen in the fact of their being 
partakers in grace with the apostle, the strongest motive to the love 
he bears them, so here, where the apostle notes what was good in 
them, in order along with this to point to what was still awanting, 
we shall have to understand by the expression your love, not the 
mutual love of the Philippians, nor even their love to the apostle, 
but that love which manifests itself in their fellowship in the Gos- 
pel, and in their being partakers with the apostle. It is rather 
the love that has been awakened in them through the preaching of 
the Gospel, which has regard first of all J,o the Lord, but then 
along with him, to all that belongs to him and to his service, the 
root of the Christian life ; and it is therefore worthy of notice, that 
the apostle does not mention knowledge as something distinct from 
love, in which they were deficient, but rather specifies the want of this 


knowledge as a relative defect in their love itself, and prays on their 
behalf that their love may abound more in this respect. Yet more 
andfmore (so he prays), is their love to become rich in knowledge ; 
since they cannot be supposed to be altogether without knowledge ; 
but all depends on their having that measure of knowledge, short 
of which love will become the spoft of every impulse of the heart, 
and lead to perversities^ of which we may easily find examples enough 
in every age. Comp. Ephes. iii. 18, 19, and in our epistle iii. 8 — 
10, and the remarks there made. Their love is to increase, hf 
hrvfinliHTeL lad vcurp, aladi^aei. The word aHaffffO'i^f which has se- 
veral meanings, can in this passage, from its being joined with iniy* 
vtocFK, and firom the whole context, have no other meaning than 
perception by the internal sense. (Comp. Passow and H. U.) 
Therefore also in the Septuagint = J")jn> I^^o^- i* ^» ^^^ other 
passages. While the hrlr/vtoai^ leads to a profound knowledge of 
the Gospel, aXa-ffffat^ will give the right spiritual perception of the 
object every time it is presented by experience. Both are neces- 
sary to love, in order to its being able rightly to discriminate 
ioKifid^eiv Tck hus^povra ; the latter can less be spared. I per- 
fectly agree with Meyer in his interpretation of this phrase. The 
end to be attained by this increase, is marked by the words eh 
TO hoKifjLoXielv vfjbh^ Th iicL^povray — that ye may prove, i.e. be in a 
condition to prove the things that differ, namely, what is right and 
what is wrong. Comp. Bom. ii. 18 ; xii. 2 ; 1 Thess. v. 20. So 
the most of commentators ; but Meyer thus, " that ye may approve 
of what is excellent,'* owing to the context, which however gives 
no occasion for sufti a view. For why may not the power of 
rightly proving, as we must here regard it, be distinguished as the 
end of knowledge, and sincerity as the result of this proving, 
love being pre-nupposed in the whole ? {Ilepiaaeveiv h is " to 
abound in," and hv means neither " through," nor " in commu- 
nion with ;" nor does it denote '' the manner and way/' as De 
Wette will have it, " because love as such cannot know." For it 
is not love as such, that is here spoken of, but the love of the 
Philippians. Comp. passages such as Bom xy. 18 ; 2 Cor. iii. 9, 
viii. 7 ; Col. ii. 7 ; against which those adduced by De Wette 
prove nothing.) 

Ver. 10. The end which the apostle has in view, as that to be 

attained by this increase in the power of moral discernment is, the 

c 2 


fruit which it is to produce in the disposition and life> namely, sincerity 
and blamelessness for the day of Christ. We have here to notice the 
same practical aim which meets us everywhere in the pastoral 
epistles, as opposed to a course of conduct morally unfruitful. (EtXt- 
/epivei^s pure, from cIXtj and xplvca^ Gomp. 1 Cor. v* 8 ; 2 Cor. i. 
12, ii. 17. ^AirpoaKOTTOi without offence, in the passive sense, 
equivalent to blameless ; so again in Acts xxiv. 16 ; differently 1 
Cor. X. 32. Van Hengel and Meyer will make it out to be used 
in an active sense here, but this is far from being the case. — EU 
fiijkipav marks the destination^ *' for the day of Christ," as the de- 
cisive day, comp. ver. 6 then ii. 16 ; Ephes. iv. 30, and other pas- 
sages ; consequently it is different from &xpis^ 

Ver. 11. They are to be sincere and without offence for the day 
of final decision ; but they can be so, only by being filled with the 
fruit of righteousness. The negative side always implies the posi- 
tive, a principle which is of great importance for the Christian life. 
By icapiro^ SiKcuoavvrj^, as in the case of other words similarly 
connected, such as icapriro^ tov TrpevfioTO^, Gal. v. 22, tov 
^709, Ephes. V. 9, must be understood fruit of righteousness, in 
the sense of product thereof; and hucatoauvri does not express so 
much the justificatio, as rather the new moral habitus of the man, 
which is given along with it, and in which he " bears fruit unto 
God in newness of the spirit," Rom. vii. 5. Comp. Meyer, who 
refers, for this view of Bucdioawrf, to Eph. v. 9, Eom. vi. 13, 18, 
xiv. 1 7, and other passages. The apostle adds : which are by 
Jesus Christ, since this fruit, along with the ground from which 
it springs, is a communication of the life of Christ to his own. I 
am the vine, ye are the branches, John xv. 5 ; Gal. ii. 20. Silves- 
tres sumus oleastri et inutiles, donee in Christum sumus insiti 
qui viva sua radice frugiferas arbores nos reddit, says Calvin. 
£(9 to^av KoL eiraivov dead, " to the honour and praise of God," 
to be connected with TreTrXijpafiepoi, Comp. 1 Cor. x. 8J ; 
Eph. i. 6, and other passages. (The reading Kapnrov — tov iib, 
/C.T.X., deserves, according to critical authorities, unlimited preference 
to the other, tcapir&v — r&v. On the accusative, comp. Winer, § 
32, 5, p. 261.) 

PHILIPPIAN8 I. 12 — 26. 37 


(Ch. i. 12—26.) 

The first topic to which the apostle passes after this exordium is, — 
to give the Philippians information concerning himself, the apostle 
who is in bonds for the sake of the gospel. How characteristic of 
the apostle is every feature in this description ! In the accounts 
which he gives, how do we see his own individual concerns, tak- 
ing a subordinate place to the great work of his life. If only 
Christ is preached therein I rejoice, yea and will rejoice* For 
himself personally, it is all one whether Christ be magnified by his 
life or by his death. The sudden transition to these accounts 
about himself induces us to suppose, that what he writes is in 
answer to a question that had been addressed to him. How could 
we suppose it otherwise, than that the church which sends an of- 
fering for the support of the imprisoned apostle should wish to re- 
ceive information regarding him. This information, together with 
thanks for the gift of love which he had received, is to be carried 
to them by Epaphroditus their messenger. Already in ver. 5 and 
ver. 7, we have seen how great an interest the Philippians took in 
the apostle, and even the relation there expressed, renders it natu- 
ral that the apostle should forthwith communicate to them informa* 
tion about himself. 

He begins in ver. 12 — 18 by telling them what unexpected re- 
sults, favourable to the spread of the gospel, had been broughtabout 
by his imprisonment. In the first place, the reason of his im- 
prisonment, and through this, Christ, had become known in the Frae* 
torium and in other places; and then, greater boldness had thereby 
been gained in preaching the gospel. That some were actuated by 
motives hostile to himself in preaching the gospel, can neither now 
or in future, disturb his joy, in that Christ is preached — / therein 
do rejoice, yea and will rejoice. Then (ver. 19 — 24) he tells 
them, that his welfare does not depend on the life or the death of 
the body, for life to him is Christ, and death bears him hence to 
Christ. His heart decides for the latter, as it longs to be with 
Christ, but his regard for the welfare of others leads him to desire 
life. And life, as he foresees with certainty, ver. 25, 26, will be 

3^< PHILIPPIAN8 I. 12 — 14. 

appointed to him. He will abide with them for the furtherance 
and joy of their faith, and will again see them. 

Ver. 1 2. The sum of what the apostle has to communicate to his 
readers, is contained in the words : the things which happened unto 
me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel* 
His present condition, meaning his imprisonment and what belongs 
to it, has conduced rather to the advancement of the gospel, ue, to 
its being publicly made known ; (/^XXoi^in opposition to the ansiety 
which such circumstances might have occasioned. Winer, § 86, 9, 
p. 279.) (With wpo^OTTiy, progress, furtherance, comp. ver. 25, 
and 1 Tim. iv. 1 5. ^E\i\Kv6^ = cessit, Acts xix. 27 ; Sap. 
XV. 5.) 

Ver. 13. As a beneficial result of his imprisonment, the apostle 
first of all states that his bonds had become manifest in Christ. 
The words (f>av€pov<; iv X. are to be strictly connected, for in this 
lies the advancement of the gospel, not that his imprisonment 
had become known, but that it had become known in Christ, i.e. 
in its connection with Christ, in which it has its cause. The fruit 
of it is, — Christ is preached. Thus, he writes, are his bonds be- 
come manifest ev oX^ t& irpaiTwpiq) tcai toi<; XoiTrois irStai. If 
we have otherwise no reason to depart from the supposition that 
the apostle writes during his imprisonment at Rome, then vpcu- 
Ttopiov must mean the camp of the Praetorians (comp. Suet. Tib. 
37), not the imperial palace which in iv. 22 is denoted by oucia 
Kalaapo^. Acts xxviii. 16, ss.« explains how in this place Paul's 
bonds could become manifest in Christ. So also Olshausen, who, 
in addition to this, observes, that the imperial palace in Rome is 
never called praetorium. (On the literature of this subject, see 
Holemann, p. 45, Meyer, p. 21, and our remarks oniv. 22.) Ka\ 
roU XotTToi? ircUn must therefore mean, all the rest not belonging 
to the Praetorium. If, as we have seen, the emphasis lies on the 
words in Christ, then the idea intended to be conveyed will not be 
as is generally explained, that ail who are in Rome hear of his im- 
prisoment, and the cause of it, but that to all, first, in the Prae- 
torium, then also beyond it, who do hear of his imprisonment, the 
cause of it wil] be manifest. 

Ver. 14. A further benefit to the cause of the gospel, arising 
from his imprisonment, is mentioned in this verse. " The greater 
part of the brethren, trusting in the Lord by my bonds are only 

PHILIPPIANS 1. i 5. > 90 

rendered more bold to speak the word." By oBek^ are to be 
understood, fellow labourers with the apostle. ^Ep Kvpi^ is» with 
Winer (§ 19, 2, p. 167), (who refers us to Gal. v. 10, 2 Tbess. 
iii. 4), Meyer and others, to be connected not with dSeX^t&v, but 
with ireiroiOoTa^, '' where alone it has its true meaning." Their 
confidenoe flows from fellowship with the Lord. But the bonds of 
the apostle are the object of their confidence, not merely as fur- 
nishing an encouraging example of steadfastness, but, as Meyer 
explains, in that they present a *' real testimony to the entire truth, 
efficacy, and excellence of the gospel." — Hepuravripiio^, only " so 
much the more;" not **more than formerly," but, in connection with 
the fyriheraftce caused by his imprisonment, more than when I 
was not imprisoned. So also Meyer. IlepuraoTipci}^ is to be 
connected with rdkfi^, which stands next to it. 

Yer. 15, ss. Some indeed preach Christ of envy. The apostle 
proceeds to inform his readers of a painful circumstance connected 
with the preaching of the gospel which he has had to experience. 
These some cannot be part of the brethren mentioned ver. 14 ; 
such a view is opposed by the very expression Tivi^ (not oi fj^)^ 
and also by the xai which points back to what goes before, comp. 
Van Hengel on this passage. What kind of opponents then are 
here meant ? Let us here take a general view of what we are di- 
rectly told regarding them in ver. 15 — 18. Their motives are, 
envy of the apostle, contentiousness and intrigue, motives of a per- 
sonal nature, as is evident also from their opposites, ffood will^ 
and love, and proceeding from an insincere state of mind (ovx 
arpfuK^ which is here to be understood not of the contents of their 
preaching, but of their own disposition). Their aim was, like their 
motives, also personal, (supposing to add afliction to my bonds.) 
Nevertheless (ver. 18), the apostle rejoices also in their preaching ; 
even although they make use of this as an instrument of hostility 
against himself. But this joy of the apostle would be inexplicable 
if the gospel were not preached by them in its integrity, a supposi- 
tion that will not consist with the view generally taken, and 
adopted also fay De Wette and Meyer, that these opponents were 
Judaizing Christians. The apostle mentions no other difierence 
with respect to the preaching of Christ, than is implied in the 
words whether in pretence or in truths and all that we are told of 
the motives and objects of these opponents is of so personal a na- 

iO PH1LIPPIAN8 I. 16, 17. 

tare as to shut us up to the concluaioD, that it is not Judaizing 
GbrisdaDs that are here spoken of, but such as preach Christ, 
agreeing indeed with the apostle in doctrine, but from personal 
enmity seeking to damage him by their preaching. Gomp. Van 
Hengel, p. 69 : atque hoc ipsum . . non de hominibus sumendum 
est, qui superstitionem Judaeorum cnm doctrina Christiana confude- 
runt. Here, then, is a feature that will but ill agree with the ideal 
picture of the apostolic church which many form to themselves. 
(On St^ (fiOovov comp. Winer § 58, c. p. 475.) In opposition to 
the first mentioned Ttvi^s the apostle mentions others, of whom he 
says that they preach Christ of good will, EvSoKla, as the oppo- 
site of Slit ^ovov icaX epiVf means good will toward the apostle. 
This view is also most agreeable to what follows (ver. 16.) So 
also Meyer. By these t4i/69 are to be understood those indicated 
in ver. 14, collectively and individually, as Meyer has established, 
in opposition to Van Hengel. Fritzsche, in his commentary on the 
Bomans ii. p. 372, has referred to this signification of evSoxla, 

Vers. 16, 17. Here we have a more particular description of these 
two kinds of preachers; and they are mentioned in an inverted 
order : oi fih/ i^ arfdirq^ corresponding to the last mentioned rxm, 
and ver. 17, oi he i^ ipiOela^ corresponding to the first mentioned. 
£ach of these phrases, ol /j^v i^ arfdirq^^ and its opposite oi hi i^ 
ipideia^, is to be considered as subject of the sentence, which is of 
itself apparent in the second member, but must on that account 
also be supposed in the first. With this designation of the sub- 
ject, the apostle connects what he has said before regarding them. 
He, however, adds something more particular respecting their mo- 
tives, — oi fi€P ef a7a7n;9, sub. 6vt€^ (comp. Bom. ii.8 ; Gal. iii. 7), 
*' those who are actuated by love in preaching Christ" (supplied 
from ver. 15), because they know that I am set /or the defence of 
the gospel. On the sense of these words there exists some differ- 
ence of opinion. Some explain them thus : because they see me 
hindered in the exercise of my apostolic office and seek to as^st 
me. Others : because they acknowledge and love me as one called 
of God to the defence of the gospel, and see in my imprisonment a 
catastrophe ordained of God and fraught with benefit to the inte- 
rests of the gospel. So De Wette. First of all, it will be acknow- 
ledged, that airoKoyla here must have the same meaning as at ver. 7, 
ponsequently, that it does not mark out any part of the general 

PHIL1PPIAN8 1. 17. 41 

idea implied in the apostolic office, or indicate anything at all re- 
specting the nature of that office. Then, it is not to he overlooked 
that the emphasis in any case must rest on the words, /br the de- 
fence of the gospels even although we should translate Kelficu, '* I 
lie in honds:" (Van Hengel : in miseria.) For it is not the «ceZ* 
luu which the one party know, and the other do not, or will not 
know, comp. ver. 17. Hence that interpretation will of itself fall 
to the ground, which makes the motive of their preaching to con- 
sist in the apostle's heing hindered from exercising his apostolic 
office ; the motive can only he, as De Wette points out, that they 
recognise in the apostle the defender of the gospel. How entirely 
inappropriate would the expression of the apostle be, according to 
the other view. Kelfuii will mean as at Luke ii.^ 34 ; 1 Thess. 
iii. 3 ; 1 Tim. i. 9 : " I am appointed," " ordained ;" since, as 
Meyer well observes, the signification of lying in chains, which, kci- 
fuu may admit of, corop. Fassow's Lex. and De Wette, does not 
correspond to the actual situation of Paul. 

Ver. 17. The other class, oi Si If ipiOela^ — the contentious 
(Fritzsche on Bomans i. p. 1 43.) They preach Christ not with a pure 
design, ovx cuyvw ; which, as before observed, is to be understood, 
not of the subject-matter of their preaching, but of the feelings by 
which they were actuated. What is true proceeds in their case 
from an insincere and false heart, as appears from the participle 
that follows, olofievoi, which is exegetical of the o^ aryvm, *' in 
that they think" (or imagine^ ver. 18) to add affliction to his 
bonds. This affliction does not signify inward trouble (comp. 
ver. 18, ss.) ; but that they sought to make the apostle's outward 
condition worse, though it was bad enough already, (T0Z9 Sea/ioi^ 
fiovJ) De Wette is of opinion that they did this by representing 
him amongst the Jews as an enemy to the law. Meyer takes 
a similar view. But would the apostle have characterised this as 
preaching Christ ? If these preachers, as we have alretidy shown, 
are to be regarded as merely personal opponents, ambitious men, 
and therefore envious of the apostle, then must we abide by the 
opinion that by spreading the gospel they sought to inflame the 
hatred of his enemies, not precisely that of Nero, but probably that 
of the Jews, against Paul, and thereby to aggravate his trouble. 
It remains to be observed critically that the transpoaition of ver. 

16 and 17, according to which the oi i^ ipiOela^ would be placed 


42 P^JILIPPIANS 1. 18. 

first, is with reason rejected by most critics, since Griesbach* ac- 
cording to Codd. A.B.DwE.F.G. and others (cojnp, Tischendorf on 
this passage.) This reading also makes the connection with ver. 
18 to be more regular. Instead of eyeipeiv, D.***E.K., &c., 
have imffyipeip, whilst A.B.D.*F.G. decide for ir^eipeiv. 

Ver. 18. These opponents, though they might succeed outwardly 
in their design (they do not, however, even thus succeed, ver. 27), 
are altogether unsuccessful in so far as the mind of the apostle is 
concerned, which is bent on the single object of desire, that Christ 
may be preached, no matter what private ends may mingle with 
the performance of this work. Tl yap asks the apostle (comp. 
Rom. iii. 3.) Render, not, /or how ? referring back to ver. 12, but 
how now ? The negative answer is involved in the question, and 
does not need to be expressed. The affirmative answer is given in 
7r\i]v, equivalent to, — if only Christ is preached iravrl rpoTrtp, and 
the 7ra9Tpo7ro9 is more exactly defined by etre — elre; be it in pre- 
tence or in truth. De Wette, although he makes out these oppo- 
nents to be Judaizers, yet acknowledges, and Meyer also agrees 
with him in this, that there is here no reference to the doctrines 
which these persons taught, and tries to account for the mildness 
with which the apostle speaks of them by the fact, that they were 
not perverting a church that had been founded by him, and that 
the apostle, in the condition in which he then was, could not but 
see the importance of the gospel being spread, even in its Judaized 
form. That this was not the feeling of the apostle is plainly evi- 
dent from iii. 2, ss. And the epistle to the Romans abundantly 
proves that the perversion of the church at Rome was not a matter 
of inferior concern to him. How double-tongued must the apostle 
also have appeared to the Philippians, when they compared his 
opinion of these same opponents in this passage, with that which he 
expresses at iii. 2, ss. One must see into what difficulties the view 
we are controverting lands us, especially as — (this De Wette also ac- 
knowledges) — it is not Christian teachers with an unprejudiced lean- 
ing towards Judaism (so Rilliet and Miiller), but Judaists of the 
crassest kind, bitter enemies of the apostle, that are here to be 
supposed. If it be said, that adherents of Paul could not have 
wrought in opposition to him, this is true only to the extent, that 
they could not have done this as adherents of Paul. But this 
passage points only to the personal motives by which they were 

PHILIPPIANS 1. 19. 43 

actuated, viz. ambition, and, as proceeding from this, envy, toge- 
ther with a spirit of strife and contention. It will require to be 
proven that there could not be then, as well as now, men who seek 
their own honour in the preaching of the gospel (comp. ii. 21), 
and whose hearts are far from the truth which their lips utter. 

The apostle proceeds to say, / therein do rejoice, yea, and will 
rejoice. He rejoices now that in every way Christ is preached ; 
but he will also rejoice in this in time to come, despite the ma- 
chinations of his enemies. ('ilXXa connects with the following 
train of thought.) This profound feeling of joy which pervades 
the entire epistle is not only not disturbed by the doings of his 
enemies, but rather heightened, in so far as they preach Christ. It 
is the heart of the apostle into which we here look. 

Ver. 19. The apostle has just said that his opponents shall not 
rob him of his joy for the future also, yea, I will rejoice ; and« he 
here farther confirms this sentiment, in such a way. however, as to 
leave undetermined what his future destiny shall be, and whether 
his opponents shall accomplish their purpose (to add afiSiction) or 
not. He only knows so much, that what is mentioned at ver. 18 
shall conduce to his salvation, be it life or death that is appointed 
to him ; his salvation, and therefore his joy, depends as little on the 
one as on the other. He himself knows not which of the two he 
shall choose. In so far as he is individually concerned, he desires 
to depart ; for the sake of others, and, first, chiefly his readers, must 
he desire to live still longer. How assured then is the apostle of 
his aKKh kolI yaprftroiJMi, But he knows also, ver. 20 (where he 
drops the uncertainty purposely maintained in what goes before) 
that the avarficaioTepov will appear, and that he shall continue to 
live for their advantage ; upon this, however, his ^opi^aofiae does 
not depend. 

By the this in ver. 19 can only be meant what in ver. 18 is ex- 
pressed by in this ; viz. the preaching of Christ in every way, even 
in pretetice. It were quite arbitrary to make it refer back to ver. 
17. So also M^yer thinks, in opposition to De Wette and others 
— this preaching in pretence shall also turn to his salvation. On 
aTTo^S. comp. Luke xxi. IS, often used in the Septuagint. Ver. 
20 tells us in what this salvation consists. This salvation is, how- 
ever, to be obtained through the instrumentality of the prayers of 
the Philippians, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. 


Meyer is for taking the latter clause as dependeot on the 7% 
vfi&Vi 80 that the supply of the Spirit is procured by the Philip- 
pians, and he refers in support of this to the omission of the article. 
But Winer, whom he quotes, lays it down, ^ 18, 5, p. 148, that 
here in the second principal word the repetition of the article is not 
necessary, as the two nouns are also separated from each other 
by their accompanying genitives. Intercession on his behalf, is 
the one means, the supply of the Spirit of Christ the other, through 
which the apostle is to obtain that salvation. We cannot but ob- 
serve how highly the apostle here estimates the power of interces- 
sory prayer, when he himself makes his own salvation to be depen- 
dent upon it. As regards hrvxpprf^la tou irvevfiaro^y we may with 
reason abide by the interpretation which Gal. iii. 5 suggests, ac- 
cording to which Tov TTpevfuiTo^ is the object oi hrvxpprjyUi, (On 
the, term iTrfxpfnjyla^ taken from the choragi^ whence it comes to 
mean a great expense^ see Winer on Gal. iii. 5 ; Harlesson Ephes. 
iv. 16.) To say that the expression, in the view we have taken of 
it, implies the absence of the Spirit, and could therefore not be used 
with reference to the apostle, were just as unreasonable as to argue 
in the same way from the expression in Acts vii. 55, ifKr\pt\'^ rov 
irvevfjuaTO^, Those commentators who consider the prayers, and 
the supply of the Spirit as cause and effect, are right in so far as 
that the prayers of the Fhilippians could have, in the general, no 
other import than this. But the hriypprf^ta appears here as an 
independent member, and therefore not as the effect of the prayers. 
Ver. 20. This expectation which the apostle here expresses, har- 
monises with an accompanying hope whereby it is confirmed. 
According to my earnest expectation and my hope, &c. — anroKa- 
pahoKla occurs, besides, at Bom. viii. 19 ; is derived from airo and 
Kapa£oK€(Of capite erecto specto, and means, earnest expectation. 
According to my anxious expectation and hope." The expectation 
is founded on the hope. Both tend to this, that in nothing (comp. 
ver. 28, iv fjurjSevi) he will be ashamed, but that as always, so also 
now, Christ shall be magnified in his body. According to this 
firm hope, he knows that which he expresses at ver. 19. — AUryy- 
veaOa^ means here as generally, to be ashamed, i.e. " to fail in 
reaching that on which one places the glory, honour, and end of 
his life" (De Wette.) And this end is to him Christ ; hence its 
opposite is, Christ shall be magnified. This meaning of alayy- 


veaOac appears from the common use of the term ; in the Septua- 
gint eqaivalent to Q}f^, Fs. sxxiv. 4, iv. 29, and other passages ; in 
the New Testament Bom. ix, 38, 2 Cor. x. 8 ; also from the connec- 
tion with what precedes, and the contrast with what follows {fieya- 
\w0^€Tat)y so that all interpretations are to be rejected which 
rest on the translation, " I shall not have to be ashamed either of 
my own conduct, or that of others, or the circumstances," &c. — Bui 
Christ shall be magnified in my body. If his opponents could 
accomplish this, — that Christ should not be magnified in him, then 
would the apostle 8 joy and salvation be frustrated ; but this they 
cannot effect ; since life and death (which is the worst that can 
happen to the apostle) are only different ways of bringing about 
this magnifying of Christ in him (en-6 8ih ^mj^ ehe St^ OavaTov.) 
From this last phrase the meaning of ev t^ atofiaTi is self evident. 
It is the life or death of the body that is here spoken of. (On 
fju^oKwOrjaera^^ comp. Luke i. 46, Acts x. 46, and other pas- 
sages, with Phil. i. 11. Billiet's view of this word, as expressive 
of the increase of Christ in the apostle, according to Gal. ii. 20, 
is rendered impossible by the iv tnifuiTL.) The phrase iv Trdaij, 
irapjyqaia now only remains to be considered. It belongs evi- 
dently to the antithesis with ovk alayyvOritroiuu (Meyer and others), 
and the meaning would be quite clear if the sentence was taken in 
an active form, thus, " I shall magnify Christ iv Trdajj irap- 
prjala ;' this makes the meaning in the passive form quite plain ; 
only, I conceive that those commentators have erred who adhere 
to the signification candour, which does not suit the BicL Oa- 
vdrov. Bather, it isjoyfulness, as for example £ph. iii. 12, Heb. 
iii. 6, and other passages. Comp. Harless on the passage first ad- 
duced. In the irdarj, Meyer with reason finds an antithetical re- 
ference to the preceding iv ovSevL Against Holemann's view, ac- 
cording to which irappriala describes the candid preaching of the 
teachers mentioned at ver. 15 seqq., comp. Meyer. 

Yer. 21 enters on the confirmation of the latter clause of the pre- 
ceding verse, whether by life or by death. For the magnifying of 
Christ, and as connected therewith for his own salvation, it is all one 
whether life or death shall befall the apostle ; since for me, he says, to 
live is Christ and to die is gain. Be it that the apostle has yet longer 
to live, then for him (e/xo/ with emphasis) to live is Christ, i,e, his 
life is entirely consecrated to the service of Christ, to the preaching 

46 PHIL1PPIAN8 I. 21. 

of Christ, as BoDgel observes : quicqaid vivo, Christum vivo ; 
eoiDp. Gal. ii. 90. Be it that he must die, then to die is to bim 
alao Christ, nay more, by comparison with the other it is gain 
(oomp« ver. 28), for, his longing wisb is to be with Christ. 
Only the expression xipSo^ here calls for explanation. From its 
close relation to fifCyaXwOi^erai we expect an explanation of how 
Christ is to be magnified by the apostle's death ; but tcipSo^ 
strictly gives no sucb explanation. Meyer indeed explains it thus : 
'* in the assurance of that gain the apostle will suffer deatb witb 
joyful courage, and his death will conduce to the magnifying of 
Christ" But this interpretation only makes more manifest what 
we miss in the word /dp&o^^ Corn. Miiller has felt the dif- 
ficulty, and therefore supposed that the qpostle intended to say : 
et si mihi moriendum est, morior Christo ; ita etiam morte 
mea Christus celebratur, at the same time, that he did not use 
in this expression a figure of speech, but allowed himself to 
be overcome, by the thought of the gain that would thereby 
accrue to bim. The words which follow, (ver. 22) besides, do not 
well agree witb the interpretation that has hitherto prevailed. It 
is not at all clear, why the apostle compares the two events in respect 
of their desirableness. It appears to me, that expositors up till this 
time have had too little regard to the emphasis implied, in the plac- 
ing of the i/ioi at the beginning of the clause. This arrangement 
is not explained by the connexion with ver. 20, but only by that with 
ver. 19. The hostile preaching of his opponents can insofar as 
the apostle is personally concerned (fioi), only turn to his salva- 
tion, according to the firmly cherished hope (ver. 20), that Christ 
will be magnified in him whether by life or by death ; since to him 
personally ii is all one whether he should live or die, whether 
Christ should be magnified by his life or by his death. That is, in 
so far as he is personally concerned, a matter of perfect indiflerence 
to him. For him to live is Christ, and for him, as an individual, 
to die is still more preferable, and only a regard to the fruit of his 
labour keeps him fix)m preferring death. How could it then be 
otherwise, than that even what his opponents undertook in opposi- 
tion to him should issue in his salvation, if Christ is even thereby 
magnified in him, and if he, in so far as he is individually concerned, 
is quite as willing that Christ should be magnified by his death as 
by his life, nay, considers death the more preferable. (Comp. Acts 

PHruppiANS I. 22. 47 

XX. 24,) Thus is the position of 6/lu>/ explained, the meaning of 
KipSo^ is clear, and the connection with what follows intelligible, 
whilst otherwise it appears quite uncalled for, that the apostle 
should deliberate with himself, what he should choose, seeing that 
this has no connection with the fieyoKwOvo'eTcu, 

Ver. 22. The apostle has just signified that relatively to himself, 
death is the more desirable Opposed to tliis, however, is another 
consideration arising from his calling, which he proceeds to state. 
Bui if to live in the fleshy this is the fruit of the labour^ then 
I know not what I shall choose. Up to this point it is all 
one to the apostle whether he shall magnify Christ by his life or by 
his death, only the fruit which his apostolical labour produces, 
keeps him from choosing death. What a Christian readiness for 
death is here, and along with this, what an apostolic love and 
devotedness ! To come to particulars, it is to be borne in mind 
that the more strict limitation of the word ^i/, used already 
before, by hf <rapKi, is occasioned by KepBo<;, as Meyer and 
De Wette are also of opinion. Death is gain only in consequence 
of a higher life to which it conducts. The apostle joins the ^v ev 
aapKl emphatically with toOto, so as to form one idea, and thus 
aims at giving prominence to this subjects equivalent to: if to live 
in the flesh, if this is a condition of the fruit. But he immediately 
adds Kafyiro^ Ipyov corresponding to, but not signifying the same 
as xipSo^, (Comp. ver. 23, 24.) By Ipyov is naturally to be 
understood, his apostolical labour. (On Kapmo^i comp. Rom. i. 13, 
ipyov as at ver. 11, BtKaiocvvrj^ gen. subj.) 

With regard to the words that follow, Kal rl, &c., there is room 
for a difference of opinion as to whether they are to be taken as a 
subsequent member of the sentence, or whether we are to suppose 
an aposiopesis. Bezas explanation, which makes el to mean 
" whether/' and Ka\ rl to be dependent on oi ywaplfyo, apart from 
the harshness of the construction, does not agree with the senti- 
ment expressed at ver. 24. The true way, I conceive, is, with the 
most recent commentators, to take k<iL rl^ &c., as a subsequent 
member of the sentence. Of this xal in the apodosis we had a 
parallel instance in 2 Cor. ii. 2. (The rest of the examples ad- 
duced here by Van Hengel appear to me to be not appropriate.) 
But it is proper to observe, that in both examples the subsequent 
member is not expressed in the form originally intended. For as 

48 PHILIPPIAN8 I. 23. 

in the passage 2 Cor. ii. 2 the subsequent member in its simple 
form would be, ** then there is none to make me glad/' instead of 
which the question is asked, " who then is there/' &c, so here 
also, those who suppose that there is an afiosiopesisr^tot example, 
non oegre fero (Miiller), — are right, in so far as that the apostle did 
not at first intend to make the subsequent member of the form koI 
tI; but, instead of saying something like non cegro fero, and then 
expressing the result by : TCalpi^aoficu ovyv<opi^<o, he immediately 
forms the subsequent member with these words, and Kai serves then 
the purpose, as De Wette also remarks, of quickly introducing the 
question. (On rt, instead of iroTepov, see Winer, § 25, 1 Anm. 
p. 194. On the future, alpiiaofuu for the conjunctive, ^ 42^ 4, b. 
p. 346.) 

Ver. 23. The apostle has just said, that he does not decide what 
he shall choose. It is not the reason of this that be here gives 
(for 8i is the true reading, not yap, as is abundantly proved), but 
he lets his readers get a glance into his heart, in which the personal 
desire to be with Christ comes into conflict with his regard to them, 
and therefore brings up again the ov yv<opify^ of the preceding 
verse. It is the positive side of the ov yvcopl^w with which the 
representation of his inward experience is to make us acquainted. 
— Sw€)(pfiai &€, the emphasis lies on this expression ; Si, however, 
is not simply transitive, as Meyer maintains, but means " rather/' 
For avvixofjuit, the signification " to be held in straits," much more, 
angor, will not suffice ; comp. ver. 21, and the words that follow. 
It means ** I am held," teneor (Van Hengel), or still better, accord- 
ing to De Wette, " rather am I held fast of both" (comp. Luke xii. 
50 ; 2 Cor. v. 14.) The t&v Svo refers to what goes before. He 
is held fast of death, inasmuch as hi^ (ti^i/) desire is towards de- 
parting, and (epexegetically) being with Christ. f^^AvoKvaai, comp. 
dvdKwrt^, 2 Tim. iv. 6, properly signifies to loose cable, i.e. to de- 
part, Luke xii. 36.) The phrase, to be with Christ (comp. 2 Cor. 
V. 8 ; Heb. xii. 23 ; Acts vii. 59), implies that, immediately upon 
death, a new and more complete life-fellowship with Christ begins 
in the soul of man, a being at home with the Lord, as it is called 
in the first of the passages above adduced. A comforting thought 
this amid the bitterness of death. It is evident from the whole 
scope of the passage that the apostle speaks there only of death, 
and not of the coming of Christ. Comp. Meyer, p. 36, who strik- 

PHiUPPrANS I. 2i — 26. 49 

ingly observes, that the New Testament view of the comiDg of 
Christ finds no development here, but rather falls into the back- 
ground ; against which see i. 7 ; iii. 20, seq. IIoXK^yhp fiSXK^p 
lepeura-op; these words explain this desire of the apostle. ' (On 
fAoXXov mih the compar., Winer § 36, 3, Obs. 1, p. 281.) 

Ver. 24. This verse is closely connected in meanfng with .the 
last sentence, ver. 23 ; it would be more strictly logical to make it 
refer to axn^expfioL* The consideration of what is profitable for 
others stands opposed to the apostle s longing desire in so far as 
he is personally concerned ; the avaryiccuorepov Si vfia^ to the tcpeur- 
trov. These expressions mutually explain each other ; both have a 
relative signification. ('AvarfKaiorepov, which Van Hengel renders 
" too necessary," may perhaps be the less accurate expression ; iirir 
fA€V€iv corresponds to the avaXucrat.) 

Vers. 25, 26. Whatever uncertainty the apostle might feel as tu 
what he should choose, he expresses himself with the utmost confi- 
dence as to what is to befall him. There is certainly nothing said, 
in what goes before, of the apostle's state of mind being one of 
wavering and indecision, such as Dr Bauer discovers here, and cha- 
racterizes as improper. Bather does the apostle seek by the dis- 
tinction here made to pr6ve, that for himseif he is equally prepared 
for life and for death. On the contrary, then, the utmost resolute- 
ness of mind is expressed, as he is equally prepared for both events. 
What the apostle has characterized as more needful, namely, his 
abiding, will take place ; fievA leal (as consequence), avfiirapa- 
/i€v& (corresponding to the Bi vfi&f; ; it does not include th(f sense 
of *' seeing again") ; and just on the fact of its being more needful, 
is his assurance founded ; tovto ireTroiOm oTba. The rotrro here 
is to be understood as relating to what goes before (so also Meyer 
and De Wette explain it), and not to be taken in connection with 
irerroiOm, as pre-indicative of the subject matter of oZSa. The 
fruit of his remaining together with them alive, is to be the ad- 
vancement and joy of their faith ; which may be regarded as an 
explication of the hi! vfia^ (ver. 24). The genitive 7r^€o>9 de- 
pends on irpoKtmriv as well as on x^P^^ ; it is the subjective geni- 
tive ; the faith itself is to advance and to rejoice. This however 
is not to be merely in consequence of the happy issue of his im- 
prisonment, for this would not correspond to the phrase, ii is 
more needful for you, immediately preceding ; but in so far as 

50 PHILIPPIAN8 1. 26. 

life 9 and abiding with them, is, to the apostle^ equivalent to — 
Christ. — (On Trpotcoirfj comp. 1 Tim. iv 16, according to which 
'H'poK, ifiAp may certainly be taken also separately, as Van Hengel 

Ver. 26. As at vv. 9 and 10 first 6t9, then Xva denotes the end 
aimed at, so also here. — The end here is, that their glorying in 
Christ may be increased for him, by his return again to them. 
Meyer has rightly apprehended the sense and scope of the passage, 
only I woald not regard Kavjpfiiw, here, any more than at 1 Cor, 
V. 6, as meaning materies gloriandi, but glorying. This glorying 
will increase in consequence of the progress and joy of faith already 
mentioned, from which it is self-evident that iv Xpiar^ determines 
the mode of the increase. (Meyer.) For what is all increase of 
faith, else than inward fellowship with him ? /;i me, denotes the 
the object, in whom their glorying is to increase (kv ifioi is there- 
fore not to be connected with Kav^fia alone.) Aia points to the 
means of this increase, viz., the return of the apostle to them, in 
so far as their faith was to be thereby advanced, and carried forward 
to full joyfulness. 

With reference to the apostle's hope of being emancipated from 
prison, and returning again to the church, compare Fhilem. xxii., 
and mark the climax from ikirOjaa to oZSa. Meyer, with reason, 
assigns its full force to oZSa, in opposition to those who would here 
admit only a probabiliter sperare ; but when he goes on to say, 
that along with this it must be acknowledged that the event did 
not correspond to this assurance, and yet is not led to found upon 
this the supposition of a second imprisonment, we cannot but 
think, in opposition to him, that this passage taken by itself does 
confirm such a supposition. 



(Chap. i. 27— ii. 18.) 

Joyful is the apostle's Christianity, in spite of all oppression and 
enmity ; joyful also is theirs to be, and the apostle's present con- 
dition will issue in making it so. But this joyfulness, to which 
they are to attain, has a condition annexed to it on the side of the 

PHIUPPIANS I. 27— 30. 5 f 

Philippians. This condition, a condition of a twofold nature, they 
mast fulfil if they are to arrive at such joy. This is set forth in 
the apostle's earnest request contained in the present section. For, 
the exhortation contained in this section, is to be yiewed as an ear- 
nest personal request on the part of the apostle. Gomp. i. 27 ; 
ii. 1, aeq ; ii. I(( — 18. His own joy, his own credit depends on 
it. This will account for the reference to himself, and the motives 
of a personal nature, which we find in these admonitions, comp. 
i. 80 ; ii. 1, 2. We must not omit to notice here, the ardent love 
of the apostle towards the church, with which he, the stronger, 
would lift up the weaker to his own level, and would fain make 
them partners with him in his confirmation, and the joy resulting 

Vers. 27-— 80 contain the condition of true joyfulness of faith 
(of which the apostle himself is the pattern, i. 19, seq., and to 
which they also are to attain, i. 26, 27), in its one aspect. It is 
stated first of all, in general, as, having a conversation becoming 
the Gospel of Christ]; since from Christ all joy proceeds. And 
such a conversation^ is to display itself in their standing fast in 
one spirits which is necessary on the one side against their adver^ 
saries, ver. 80, and on the other, in their relation to one another, 
if they are to strive together for the faith. They, too, have to 
do with adversaries, as well as the apostie ; in their ^ght deport- 
ment towards these they have an evident token of salvation, like 
the apostle who knows, ver. 1 9, that this shall turn to his salva- 
tiofi. It is,' as is expressly said, ver. 80, the same cortflict, and 
the apostle's trial and confirmation in this conflict, furnish a true 
pattern for them, as delineated in the preceding verses. 

Ver. 27. The word imvov (Gal. ii. 10, v. 18) introduces that, upon 
which all depends, as the sole, but also the indispensable condition 
of the coming to litem again for the joy of their faith, mentioned 
at vv. 25 and 26. This one condition, however, comprises within 
itself a fulness of obligations. It is aJ^Ua/^ rov [evarfYeXlov rod 
Xpurrou woXtreveaOat. (Expressions similar to this are found at 
Col. i. 10 ; a^lta^ tov /cvplov, Eph. iv. 1, a{^9 rryf tcXqaem^ ireptr 
irareuf.) In TroXtrevecr^cM he represents them as citizens of the 
kingdom of God upon earth, who take from Christ their fundamen- 
tal law in the gospel (comp. Acts xxiii. 1, and Meyer's Note) ; and 

he is led to this representation, by having in his mind (as Meyer ob- 

D 2 

65i PHILIPPIAN8 I. 27. 

serves), that cburch-life {gemende lehen) wbioh is conformable to 
the gospel. Tbey ar^ to condact themselves in a manner worthy 
of this their fundamental law, {vofios, not certainly to be under- 
stood in the Old Testament sense), in order that the apostle, 
whether he come or be absent, may hear this of them — viz., that 
they stand in one spirit, striving unanimously for the faith of the 
gospel, &c. Ehe iKOoav supposes the case mentioned at ver. 26 
in the words, by my coming. This therefore stands first. But 
the apostle desires to hear this of them in the other case also. 
The apostle is not speaking here of his deliverance or non- 
deliverance from his imprisonment, for his deliverance is already 
presupposed. The term aKovaeo has given rise to needless diffi- 
culties ; it serves for each of the two supposed cases. (Comp. 
Meyer.) The view which I take of the meaning of the words 
that follow, has already been expressed in the paraphrase given 
above. I agree with Meyer here throughout, with this excep- 
tion, that the aw in awaS\oiivT€^ refers to the apostle. In 
iv. 3 fiol is expressly added. But here^ where the apostle is view- 
ing the Fhilippians as *' a society of Christians,** — where the ex- 
pressions, in one spirit^ with one mind, emphatically enjoin unity 
and concord amongst them, — and where they, is the subject of the 
sentence (anJKeTe, &c.)i the reference of auv to the apostle seems 
to me quite inadmissible. With reference to the words an^Kere 
(stand fast), awa0Kovvr€^ — Trrvpo/ievoi ; the figures which they 
respectively involve, will be apparent to every one. De Wette and 
Meyer have with reason understood the iv ivl irvevfuiTi, not of the 
Holy Ohost, but as a church may have /AtA '^v^, so also may it 
have kv irvevfia, a common spirit. In support of this more gene- 
ral signification of irvevfia, Storr has with reason referred to 1 Cor. 
iv. 21 ; 1 Peter iii. 4 ; and those passages which Van Hengel 
(who, with Matthies and Bheinwald, take the expression to mean 
the Holy Spirit) quotes against this interpretation, are of a very 
questionable kind. So at 1 Cor. xii. 1*3, the expression e^ ^i^ 
irvevfia could scarcely be explained otherwise than here. '* At the 
same time it is self-evident to the Christian consciousness that this 
unity of the human spirit is the effect of the Holy Spirit's working." 
(Meyer.) On trvevfia and '^^vxn^ ^^ Olshausen on Acts iv. 32» 
and farther on in this epistle, ii. 2. This unity of spirit in belief 
and in feeling, and the harmony of soul that springs from it, is 

ruiLiPPJANS I. 28. 53 

brought prominoDtly forward by the apostle as a fruit of the &|teD9 
TrokATevefrOcu, since, for the Phihppiaus every thing depended upon 
this, in the conflict with their adversaries. For then only can the 
battle be successfully fought, when unity prevails among those 
who are on the same side. Then the one strengthens the other, 
aud the one shields the other, the weak are borne up by the strong, 
and the strong gain in courage and in confidence by the concord 
that binds all together. Even the caricature of true unity of mind 
and soul, a self-formed esprit du corps, what a power it has ! What 
ought our church to be, what might it be, were it but to attest this 
uniting power of the divine spirit ! But how far is it still from that 
condition, to which the apostle ascribes the capability of carrying 
on a successful struggle. 

Ver. 28. And in nothing terrified hy your adversaries. They 
are to stand fast without letting themselves be terrified in any one 
thing by their adversaries. The term wrvp&rOcu is generally used 
of horses who take fright. The word is suitable to the metaphor 
of an open contest. With regard to these adversaries, De Wette 
and Meyer are agreed that they were not Jndaists, or malicious false 
teachers in general, but rather such as were not Ohristians, ene- 
mies of the gospel in general, which is already indicated in the ex- 
pression striving together in the faith 0/' /A^ ^o«/7^/, but still more 
clearly at vers. 29 and 50 ; comp. infira. That there was no lack 
of such adversaries in Philippi, may be inferred from whaibefel the 
apostle himself when there. Acts xvi. 11, seq., and in the neigh- 
bourhood, xvii. 5, ss. Comp. also 2 Cor. ii. 14 — 17. Whether 
or not they were Jews (air^idovvrei *Iov&u6i) must be left unde- 
cided. The probability is, however, that they were. In what fol- 
lows we take the reading, with Tischendorf, according to Godd. 
A.B.O.D*F.G. to be ^tw kcrXv airrovi .... hyS» Si, (In 
favour of the latter clause are Godd. D.***E.F.I.E., &c., and se- 
veral versions.) The sense is, '' stand fast and let nothing terrify 
you, as this is (a ground of encouragement) — to them, an evident 
tokeA of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God ; for to 
you the grace is given on the account of Christ, not only to believe 
on him, but also to suffer for him,*' &c. "Hri^ (a familiar instance 
of attraction) refers to the preceding subject fjtif 'nrvpofievoi, as is 
proved by the connexion with ver. 29, Troo-p^eii/, and is to be ex- 
plained by *' which stedfastness amid all the sufferings that shall 

54 PHILIPPIAN8 I. 29. 

overtake them." This is to them, viz. the adversaries, an ivB€i^t<: 
airoiKela^ (on &Set{t9 oomp. Bom. iir. 25 ; % Gor. viii. 24) v/i!v hk 
aayn/pia^. The sense in which the apostle ordinarily uses the 
terms diraiKeia and amrtipla, determines how they are to be under- 
stood here ; oomp. 1 Cor. i. 18 and other passages. It is not the 
issue of the conflict on this side of time that is meant, but the final 
issue. And that of Ood, " These words strengthen the encou- 
ragement which was intended by ^t^, &c., so that rovrro is not to 
be arbitrarily limited to the second half of i^ri?," &c. (Meyer.) So 
Van Hengel and De Wette. Those engaged in this conflict, says 
the apostle, have (although the presentiment may not always be 
felt on both sides) a token foreshowing the ultimate issue, and that, 
a token given by God himself, and therefore infallible, namely, the 
stedfastness of the Christian, by which all the terrors of a hostile 
world, and even those of death itself, shall be put to shame. Whe- 
ther the world acknowledges the pre-indicative token or not, will not 
affect the sentiment here expressed. Similar expressions will be 
found in Rom. viii. 1 7, 2 Tim. ii..2, and elsewhere. — ^The apostle in 
the next verse more exactly shows to what extent there is, in this 
uuaffrighted stedfastness of the Christian, such a token of GoA for 
him, as well as for his adversaries. 

Ver. 29. For to you it is given, &c. De Wette says, that 
this and the following verse contain motives to stedfastness, as if 
any exhortation went before. The apostle only expresses what he 
desires to hear concerning them. Meyer's interpretation also, as I 
conceive, suffers in clearness because he understands the on, &c., 
merely as confirmatory of the icaX rovro airb 0€ov^ and not (as we 
do) as an explanation of the whole sentence, Atto deov not excluded. 
The construction of the passage will not justify the view which 
Meyer takes, for the subject would of necessity have to be brought 
forward, at least not vfuv but ixapla-fftf would have to be placed 
first. Or is the position of vfiw really to be accounted for by the 
sentiment which Meyer finds here, " as it is ffou to whom the fa- 
vour is given, so it is certain that that token proceeds from God, 
who would not otherwise have bestowed upon you that double fa- 
vour ?" On the other hand, all becomes clear and simple, when ori 
is taken as illustrative of the whole sentence preceding. *Ex^P^^ 
then means, in reference^ to diro rev deovy ** And even the power given 
of grace to stiver for Christ, (for that is the idea), as the positive 

^HTLIPPIANS I. 80. 55 

element implied in the fAffirrvpia'dai, is the evident token given of 
Ood as well of the atniXeia as the aomfpla." A sentiment this 
which needs no farther justification ; the history of every martyr 
illastrates it. The construction of the sentence becomes quite appa* 
lent by the resumption of the to inrep Xpurrov, at ro vnkp avrov. 
The iqM)Btle is just about to say, /or to you is the grace given to 
9uffkrfor Christ; but he interposes the additional words, not only 
to believe ofi him, in order to make still more clear what that is, in 
which the &Seif *9 consists. The surprise of many commentators, 
at suffering being represented as a gift of g^ce, has. essentially 
nothing to do with this passage, since to suffer /or Christ or for 
his sake is quite another thing ; and for what else do we honour 
the Christian martyr but for this highest manifestation of grace in 
him, which has made him strong to suffer for Christ, and to yield 
up everything temporal, for the sake of that which is eternal ?. 

Ver 30. Having the same cotifiict which ye saw in me and 
now hear to he in me. In these words the apostle directs them for 
their comfort and encouragement to his own example, as they bad 
seen it and now hear of it. It is no strange thing then, that befalls 
them, but the same as has befallen him. With him may they 
comfort themselves, but from him also may they learn how to 
conduct themselves in this conflict. 'JS;^ovt€9, ^' in that you have 
the same conflict" is not used in place of the dative, and to be 
connected with vpiv ixaplo'fffj (so Meyer) ; but to be connected 
with TToo^eti/, as Matthies and Van Hengel explain it, referring to 
Eph. ii. 18, iv. 2. (Comp. Winer, § 64, 11. 2, p. 620.) The olov 
eiSere (for this, not KSere, is the true reading), iv i/M)i refers to 
what befel the apostle at Fhilippi (Acts xvi. 22, ss.; 1 Thes. ii. 2.) 
KaX vvp aKovere, These words afford additional evidence in 
favour of the view we have taken regarding the opponents of the 
apostle, delineated at ver. 15, ss. For nothing is here said of a con- 
flict with false teachers, on the part of the Philippians. This con- 
flict denotes persecution directed against the person, with its at- 
tendant sufferings. Hence Meyer, who does not agree with us in 
our view of the opponents, ver. 1 5, finds himself under the neces- 
sity of making tov avrov arf&va refer to ver. 7, thus overlooking 
all that the apostle has immediately before communicated regarding 
himself rh lear ifU, and by ver. 26 and 27 has placed in a con- 
nexion so close with that what he says to the Philippians with 

66 PHiLipriANs II. 1 — 18. 

respeot to them. (^Ep i/xol is " in me" as subject. Oomp. Acts 
iv. 2.) 

Chap. ii. 1 — 18. Hitherto, the apostle has expressed what he 
wishes to hear of the Philippians, with regard to their conduct to- 
wards their adversaries. Formally there is do exhortation given to 
them, but in substance, a most urgent one. He now proceeds, in 
the second part of this section to show them how, on the other hand, 
their conduct one towards another must be characterized, if they are 
to be qualified for such a bold striving for the faith in one spirit, 
and are to attain to the full joy of faith. First and foremost, they 
must be of one mind amongst themselves. To such a unanimity, 
however, only humble, self-denying love can lead, of which they had 
before them a high example in the incarnate, but just on account of 
such self-denying love, the exalted Christ. So ought they to work 
out their salvation, not in pride and a spirit of self-conceit, but 
with fear and trembling, remembering that it is not they, but God 
who works to will and to do, and to do all so as to fulfil their high 
calling as lights of the world, for a rejoicing to the apostle in the 
day of the Lord. Nay, though his priestly labour amongst them 
should cost him bis life, still he rejoices, and they are to rejoice 
with him. Thus the end returns to the beginning. How they were to 
attain to such joy (ver. 25, 26) was the point from which the exhorta- 
tion set out, and the^ conclusion is, that both they and the apostle 
attain to this joy even in the case of his death. 

Ver. 1. The apostle specifies the standing in one spirit as the 
condition of a successful contest. But this was the very thing in 
which the church at Philippi was still defective. Therefore the 
apostle now conjures them to fulfil this condition in their conduct 
one towards another. He however closely connects this exhorta- 
tion with ver. 80. (So Meyer, De Wette, on ver. 27.) Of the 
motives, ver. 1, by which the apostle conjures his readers to give 
heed to his admonition, and their arrangement, different views are 
taken. First of all, it is certain that the first and third members 
have this in common, that, as Meyer expresses it, they indicate 
the objective principle of the Christian life {iv Xpurr^ — irvev- 
fiaTo^)i whilst the second and fourth mark, the corresponding sub- 
jective principle (ar^anrfi^'-^airKarfyya^ oitcripfioi^) Thus the verse 
divides itself into two parts, each having two members. But these 
two parts are contra^distinguished iiom each other again by this, 

PU1UPP1AN8 11. 1. 57 

that the first denotes what proceeds from the apostle, the seoond 
that whioh is to exist on the part of the readers, to whom the admo- 
nition is addressed, as the motive to obedience. For I can on no 
account consent to the interpretation of Meyer, who, because of 
ver. 2, would consider all the four terms, as denoting what is to 
exist on the part of the Philippians. Does it appear from what 
goes before, and what follows, that it is the apostle who needs en- 
couragement from them, and not rather they, who need admoni- 
tion from him ? One might be inclined to refer irapafAvOiop arfd- 
irtf^ to the Philippians. But there is also no reason for this, as 
the apostle, whose fundamental tone of mind is joy (vers. 18, 19), 
has not represented himself as standing in need of consolation from 
them, but seeks rather to elevate them to his joy. Therefore be 
says, ver. 2,/u(/ii ye my joy. And, with reference to the expres- 
sion in the fourth member, if any bowels and mercies^ De Wette 
has already well remarked that the apostle does not here lay claim 
to their compassion on account of his present condition, except in 
so far as " he would be unhappy through their want of unanimity.' 
Thus then must we abide by the opinion, that the irapwcT^ai^, as 
also the wapafjwOiov^ proceed from the apostle, whilst the two fol- 
lowing members, denote that which is to exist among the Philip- 
pians. IlapdfMjdtov, liowever, does not signify, as is generally 
understood, " comfort," but " persuasion," winning persuasion of 
love. The kind persuasion of love, is placed over against the ear- 
nest admonition in Christ. (It is evident that in both clauses, as 
also in the succeeding clauses of the verse, itrrl is to be supplied. 
This expression, if there is^ is besides to be understood in a general 
sense, not, with Meyer, to be explained, 'Mf there is amongst you." 
Why should the apostle not have expressed this, if such was his 
meaning ? Bather, " the Philippians are on their part to attest 
the existence of all this to which the apostle so earnestly exhorts 
them." Doubtless the apostle has at the same time the Philippians 
in his mind, but he expresses the idea in a general form. On iv 
Xpurr^ compare our remarks at i. 26. The exhortation is thereby 
characterized as one which, both in respect of its matter and form, 
is based upon Christ. Wahl correctly expresses it, quam dat con- 
junctio cum Ghristo. On irapcucKffO'i^ comp. Bom. xii. 8 ; 1 Cor. 
xiv. 3 ; 1 Thess. it. 8, and other passages. On wapafivOtov I Thess. 
ii. 11. A parallel passage to this is found at Bom. xv. 80.) 


68 PHIL1PPIAN8 II. 2. 

If any fellowship of the Spiriiy if any bowels and mercies, 
namely, on the part of those admonished. By tcoivtovia wvev- 
fMTo^ the apostle denotes, that which we found at i. 5 — 7 to he the 
characteristic excellence of the Gharch atPhilippi. What a strong 
challenge then is addressed to them in these words ! The mean- 
ing of the words, I understand to be, as Van Hengel expresses it, si 
per communem Spiritum sanctum queedam animorum conjunctio 
est ; literally, if there is a fellowship of the spirit, '* in virtue of 
which the prayers of the one find an echo in the hearts of the 
others." (De WetteO Ilvevfia I understand in the same sense 
as above, i. Z7. To this fellowship, the apostle, so far as his re- 
lation to the Philippians was concerned, could well appeal. (Comp. 
i. 5, sqq.) I am induced to think, that the expression here does 
not signify " fellowship with the Spirit of God, or participation in 
Him," since all the remaining clauses, involve the idea of the rela- 
tion of the Philippians one to another. And how remote would 
the connexion be, betwixt the existence of such O' fellowship with 
the Spirit of God, and the exhortation that ioWovis,— fulfil ye my 
joy. No, — this expression also, must contain a motive derived 
from the relation of those who are exhorted to him who exhorts. 
In other passages, as 2 Cor. xiii. 18, the expression, ''fellow- 
ship of the Hoi; Spirit," may signify participation in the Holy 
Spirit, but here the context is against this meaning. El rvva 
airXdyxya, &c.| " if there is heartfelt love and compassion," as 
proof of the Kowwvia already mentioned. (With cifKarfxya comp. 
i. 8 ; ol/cTipfioi as at Bom. xii. 1 ; 2 Cor. i. 3, and other passages. 
On the plural, see Winer, § 27, 3, p. 208. On the conditional 
sense of these words, see supra. The reading Ti9 for nva, though 
strongly confirmed, is yet, according to Winer and others, to be 
regarded as an error of the transcriber, § 85, 1, p. 273.) 

Ver. 2. Fulfil ye my joy that ye be like minded, &c. He 
gives them to understand, that this alone is wanting to fill up the 
measure of his joy. (Comp. John iii. 29 ; 2 Cor. x. 6, and other 
passages.) And ought not the Philippians to give heed to his re- 
quest ? Can we imagine an exhortation and entreaty more urgent, 
than that which the apostle here addresses to them ? (Comp. i. 
4.) They are to fulfil his joy by being like-minded. ''Iva is not, 
with Meyer, to be taken as signifying the purpose or end, nor 
with Van Hengel as referring to an omitted rainviv, but in a weak- 

PH1LIPPIAN8 n. 8. 59 

ened sense, on wfaich oomp. Winer, xlv. 9, p. 891. The to airo 
^poveuf (oomp. iii. 15 ; iv. A ; Bom. xii* 16 ; xv. 5) is then more 
exactly defined by the participles that follow, as consisting in the 
same love which penetrates all, and unites all, and a unanimous 
(comp. supra fiia ^^vj(0) striving after the one object common to 
all (unum habentes ad quod adspirent omnes per totam vitam — 
Van Hengel.) For avfi^^vxpt is not, as Meyer also has perceived, 
to be taken as an independent clause, but to be connected with ^pov- 
ovvre^ ; as thus not only do the several clauses of the verse become 
more elegantly proportioned to one another, but, principally, to fv 
^povovvT^ affords a more suitable accessory expllmation of the 
TO axno <f>pov€lv ; for o^/i'^v%ot to & ^povew is a resolution of the 
TO avTo <f>popuif into its constituent parts. 

Ver. 3 and 4 point out the special obstacles that lie in the way 
of this TO auTo ^povetvy and show what reason the apostle had in 
the social condition of the church at Philippi, to press so earnestly 
the exhortation to unity. It is not divisions in the church that are 
here to be understood, but a striving on the port of individuals, 
hurtful to unity, to make themselves important. And the improper 
motives that lead to this are here specified. (Comp. supra, i. 5.) 
Their common source was selfishness, as this is always to ba found 
along with a want of humility and self-denying love ; and this sel- 
fishness was displayed in siri/e and vain glory, 

Ver. 8. Mvfihf xarh ipiBeiav ^ KcvoSo^lav (soil, ifipovouvres or 
TToiotWc?, Winer, § 66, 2, p. 658.) The apostle proceeds with 
his exhortation, and sets in opposition to the positive elements of 
the unanimity which he is inculcating, those negative chafacter- 
istics which the circumstances of the church suggested. *' Willing 
nothing /rom party spirit and vain ambition," so the apostle 
exhorts. On scard, Winer, § 58, p. 478. With ipiOela, comp* 
supra 1, 17. — KevoBo^ia is found only here. Comp. for what re- 
mains. Gal. V. 26. The exact sense of these words is rendered 
perfectly clear by the following dXKd, q, d., " but by virtue of 
humility, each esteeming others better than himself." On the 
dative, t$ Tair. Winer, § 81, 8, p. 245. The article is used, because, 
according to Meyer, the word denotes a*species — '' through the vir- 
tue of humility." We learn from what is here said, that there 
were those in the church, who, from a want of humility, pushed 

00 PH1LIPPIAN8 II. 4. 

themselves forward and soaght to make themselves important. 
Instead of taming their eyes, as humility would teach, upon their 
owf^ failings and the excelletici^a of others, instead of seeing 
their own faults as a beam in the eye, those of others as a mote, 
whereby alone it were possible candidly to place others above 
themselves, they sought to get the acknowledgment of their own 
excellencies, which could not but end in uncharitableness towards 
others. The apostle is therefore speaking here, not of divisions in 
doctrine, but rather (as is also indicated at i. 9) of a false activity 
and forwardness, of which zeal for the good cause was made to 
serve as the excuse. So also De Wette, p. 194, says, "it was 
emulation and pride in the service of virtue," — and Meyer, p. 47. 
Ver. 4. The second negative characteristic relates to this want 
of love, which is coupled with pride, often with the pride of a pre- 
tended Christianity. Mil ra iavrwu iKooTot atcoirovvrefi oKKii 
KoL rii iripa>p iicaaroi, — (for this we hold with Tischendorf to be 
the true reading, not iKoaro^ in both clauses, nor cKoirelre) — " not 
every one looking to his own, but every one also to the things of 
others." Sicoveip like ^lyreiu, ii. 21; 1 Cor. x. 24, 33, xiii. 5. 
From the signification which aKoireiv bears at iii. 1 7, and other 
passages, as well as from the connexion with what precedes,, 
commentators have been induced to explain r^ iatrrcov and r^ 
eripcoVy " his own excellencies and those of others," a view which 
Meyer and De Wette have rightly rejected. In that case the xal 
would have been quite superfluous. Rather, the apostle as he en- 
joins humility before, now enjoins on his readers the true self-deny- 
ing love of their neighbour. A regardless pursuit of one's own 
interests is already separation in principle* True unity and con- 
cord can flourish only there, where every one looks not merely 
to himself and his own, but also to the things of others ; in other 
words, only where love reigns, that love which is described in i 
Cor. xiii. 4 — 7. The words xal rit ereptop by which the apostle 
softens the severity of his injunction in its expression (comp. Winer. 
§ 59, 8, Obs., p. 583) are worthy of notice, when taken into com- 
parison with I Cor. X. 23, and those similar passages where no 
such teal is used. One sees from this, that the apostle only aims at 
divesting their otherwise laudable exertions to distinguish them- 
selves, of what is selfish in them. (Comp. also on iv. 2.) 


Ver. 6 — 1 1. Christ as the example of self-denying love.i 
The apostle has particularized humility and self-denying love as 
the conditions of true unity. He is now briefly to illustrate what 
he has said on these by an example, the example of Jesus Christ. 
In him they are to learn of what mind they must be^ in order to 
attain to the to avro if>pov€iv, for He is the highest example of 
self-denial, without which there is no humility and no love. It is 
not. however one of these only, but both, that are set before them 
in the example of Christ, in their union and all pervading influ- 
ence. From his example, too, they are at the same time to learn 
how this state of mind alone (the opposite of their strife and vain 
glory) confers worth in the eye of God, — how the way to exaltation 
and glory is that of self-humiliation in lowly sacrificing love. 
Comp. Matth. xviii., 1 sqq. 

Ver. 5. ToOto ffkp <f>pov€la0af iv vfuv 6 tcaX iv X. ^I.^^Fap is 
not found in the manuscripts of best authority, A.B.C. in 17. tS7, 
in several versions, nor in the Fathers, and has therefore been can- 
celled by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Notwithstanding, Meyer 
may be right in retaining it. (See his crit. obs.) It will then 
have an explicative force. There is also some doubt as to the 
reading ^popelado}, for which most manuscripts have <f>pop€Lr€ 
(A.B.C.*D.E.F.6. and others.) The internal evidence is in favour 
of ^popeurOtD, as t Kal iv X. 'I. is not suitable to ^povelre, — 'JSi/ 
vfjAP can, on account of the following hf X. 'I. signify only '* in 
you," not " among you." Kal, before hf X, *!., is not, as Van 
Hengel explains, ''cum maxime," but indicates the identiiy of dia- 
position that is to be between the Philippians and Christ. At iv 
X, *!., ii^povriOe is to be supplied. We must here look more par- 
ticularly at the subject of the verses that follow (6 — 8), and the 
object of ver. 9, seqq. *EvX, *!., says the apostle, S^, Sec. It 
cannot be denied in opposition to De Wette that '* the historical 

1 On the extensive litcratnre connected with tbis passage, comp. Keil (opusc ao ed. 
Goldhorn. Lips., 1821 ) Hdlemann a. a. Q, p. 124. Of most recent date the following are 
addooed by Mejer, tiz.. Kransaold in der Annalen der gee. Theologie. 1830, II., p. 278, 
seqq. Stein in den Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 166, seqq. Philippi der thatige Oehorsam 
Christl. Berl., 1641. As belonging to an earlier period maj be named, H. Moms 
opp. theol., p. 67, seqq. Kesler obserr. in ep. P. ad. Phil. n. Thesanro novo, ex. Mus. 
Hasaet et Ikenii torn. II., p. 947, seq. Sohnltens, sylloge. diss. Philol. £xeg. torn. I., p. 
443, seq. Martini in Oabler*s Journal fiir Anserl, theol. Lit. IV., p. 34, seqq. Von 
Ammon. Magazin. fiir Christliche prediger II. 1. p. 7, aeqq. Tittmann op. theol., p. 642, 
s«'q : prinoipallj however the commentation bj Keil first adduced.) 


Chriat'* is the subject, and it is also true, that vv. 8 — 11 plainly 
speak of the Christ who was on the earth, and was exalted to 
heaven. Bat we should proceed too hastily were we to huild 
upon this the assumption, that these verses can only represent 
an action of the " historical Christ/' or more exactly of the 
\0709 hwapKO^, and must be interpreted in accordance with this 
assumption. Here it will suffice to refw to SQoh passages as CoL 
i. 13, where neither vtov rrfi w f wn f js avrw, according to the true 
interpretation ot uAv, nor \0709 aaapKO^ is the subject, and yet it 
is said, ver. 15, 09 iarwehcoinf rov deoO rov aopdrov, irptarvroKO^ 
iroffij^ tcrio'eo)^ ; Sri iv avr^ iicriadf) r^ iravra ; and then again, 
ver. 18, Kid avrov iar^v 17 teeifniKif tov aAfiaro^, Similarly, Heb. 
i. 1 , sqq., 2 Cor. viii. 9. We see there that things are said concerning 
the '' historical Christ" without any change of the subject which 
relate partly to his pre-human, partly to his human state, and that 
which was consequent upon it. So that the specifying of the sub- 
jecty does not determine beforehand the sense of what follows, but 
leaves us at liberty in this respect, and needs not lead us astray, 
although, in what follows, we should find something belonging 
not merely to the human but also to the pre-human state of the 
person here designated by the words Xptoro? *Iri<rov^, Comp. 
also Meyer, p. 46. *' The name Xptaro^ ^Irfo-ov^ is all the more 
proper, as the person designated was to be represented not merely 
with reference to his pre-human glory, but at the same time also 
with reference to his human abasement and consequent exaltation." 
But these observations are not intended to anticipate the interpre- 
tation of the passage which alone must decide the matter. 

Ver. 6. '^O? iv fiop<\^ 0€ov xrrrapj((ov^ &;c. On the signification of 
the word fiop<f^ we find the more recent commentators pretty much 
at one ; on the application of its meaning, however, there is great di- 
versity of opinion. How could there be any reasonable doubt as to 
the signification of the word? Its derivation (from /m^/ottto)), its 
identity with the Latin forma (by transposition of the letters, Fas- 
sow's Lex.), its use in profane literature (comp. on this, Van Hen- 
gel, p. 14 1 s.), as in all the passages of the New Testament in which 
/lopifyi] itself or any word derived from it occurs, show, that/Aop^i; 
is equivalent to neither ovala or <f>iun^, nor to status or conditio, 
but to /orm, figure, outline ; in general, it denotes the external 

appearance and representation, consequently, just the very opposite 



of ovaia, ID 80 far an this denotes what lies beneath the form, and 
comes to be represented in it. The signification owrla is besides 
rejected by the context ; as, at ver. 7 with reference to the fiop^ 
0€ov it is said iKhwrev iavrovy which certainly cannot be the case 
in respect of his divine nature. We can have little difficulty, at 
the same time, in determining the more exact sense of fiop^ Oeov. 
At Col. i. 15, Christ (as the son of God's love) is called the eucoiv 
rov 0€ov rod aopa%ov ; at 2 Oor. iv. 4, ehcisv rov deov ; at Heb. 
i. 3, the vlo^ cnravyaa/ia r^ Bd^^ xai 'xapaicrrip r>/9 v7rooTa<r6a>9 
ainov. What in our passage is denoted by i^p^ rov Oeov^ is 
there denoted by €uca>v rov deov, only that the latter expression 
places the person spoken of, in a more strictly defined relation to 
6 0609 as his image ; whilst that in our passage is not intended 
primarily to indicate anything regarding his relation to 6 ffeos, but 
to describe the glory of that state of existence out of which he 
passed to enter into that of the fJ^pff^ff BovXov, One has only to 
keep in view the contrast in the words iiop^v hovKov Xa/SAv in 
order to understand why the apostle does not here designate Christ 
eUoiv Tov 0€ov ; for, could he say, ^ euca^v rov deov &p . , . , 
eavTov kfcevtuMrev eUcova hovTsjov Xafia^v ? W^ould not the latter idea, 
already unsuitable in itself, be perfectly unintelligible in reference 
to euemv rov Oeov. — ^The most of commentators are thus far agreed, 
that fM>/>^ properly signifies "form," '"figure," and that conse- 
quently it implies a form of existence on the part of the subject 
named ; and that the expression eliaov rov Oeov contains a similar 
idea. So Keil, Matthies, Van Hengel> De Wette, Meyer. But their 
views take different directions whenever the question is asked, itheti 
this beiup in the /arm of God took place. Van Hengel, up till this 
point, at one with us, answers, Christus in hac terra, quanquam po- 
terat, gloriosus esse noluit. Similarly De Wette, — " Christ when he 
entered on his Messianic career had the divine glory (potentially) 
in himself, and might have made manifestation of it in his life." 
Others, on the contrary, as for example Meyer, think that Christ's 
pre-human state of existence is here represented. Quite as various 
are also of necessity the views held on the question — what is spe- 
cifically signified by the fJLop<fnf Oeov? Those who regard the 
\0709 acrapKO^ as the subject, have a sufficient explanation in the 
eiiwv rov Oeov and similar passages ; those, on the other hand, 
who regard the incarnate Christ as the subject, can explain it only 

64 PHiLiPPiANS n 6. 

by the Bo^af of which John speaks ch. i. 1 1, ii. 14, or by the pas- 
sage in John xiv. 9 : He who seeth me aeeih the Father, and 
others to the same effeot ; and they will associate with this the 
proofs of his divinity in his words and works, especially his 
miracles, or his beatitas and gloria divina. For in what else but 
this could his fiop^ 0€ov consist during his life upon earth ? The 
course pursued by De Wette most evidently shews that there is no 
escape from this signification of /^p^ if it is referred to the X0709 
hfcapKO^. After having rightly explained fiop<l>ii as equivalent to 
elicdp, and maintained (in opposition to the interpretation that 
would refer the expression to all manifestations of divine ma- 
jesty in the life of Christ), that ip fiop<l>§ 0€oVf &c. must pre- 
cede his historical career, on account of ver. 7, he can yet 
understand nothing else by the /^p^ Beov than the grace and 
truth (John i. 14), the power of working miracles, the beatitas 
which belonged to Christ. And does it better the case when 
he tells us that this /^p^ has not preceded the earthly, but 
the historical career of our Lord ? Or rather does not this expla- 
nation give up the result arrived at, with reference to the significa- 
tion of the word fiop<l>ij, and lose sight of the affinity betwixt the 
expressions fiopi^ and eudnv ? Compare only those passages in 
which Christ is called eliciav tov Oeov, and see whether a similar 
signification can be applied to them, or rather whether the expres- 
sion is not in every instance used either of his state of existence 
before he was upon the earth (as 2 Cor. iv. 4), or after he left it.^ 
And is " the kindred idea" contained in fiop<l>i] rou Seov (form of 
God), to be explained by a reference to " grace and truth," by a 
reference to '* revelations of divine majesty" in words and works, 
or to the beatitas ? We have already seen in what direction the 
signification of the word fiop^^, as also the analogy of the expres- 
sion €ueobv would lead us. Only the unwarrantable assumption, 
that because of the designation of the subject Xpurro^ ^Itfaovi it 
must be the " historical Christ" that is spoken of in ver. 6, and 
the false comparison with the expression Bo^a in John i. 14 ; ii. 
1 1 (difierently, yet connected with these, John xvii. 5), can have 
led the commentators to forget their own signification of the word 

1 Even ftt 1 Cor. xi. 7» when it is said of the mao in distinction from the wom»n, that 
he is tUJ^p Kttl doj^a Ogov, the reference to the outward appearance is clear. 


lAop^, in its application to fiop^ Oeov^ and to give np its con- 
nection with ehdnf. We have further to show, that the explana- 
tion we have given is justified hy what follows. I have only to 
observe here that {rrrapx^v is to be construed as an imperfect, and 
the participle to be resolved by " although." What Meyetr says 
against this, seems to me unfounded, as it was, so to speak, natural 
to suppose, that he who was in the divine form, should be equal 
wiih God. Gomp. Matth. xxi. 46; 1 Cor. ix. 21, &c. Winer, 
§46, 12, p. 413. 

Who, although he was in the form of God, ov^ ifmarfiMv 
if^rjaaro to Avm lea 0€^. Let us inquire, first, what is meant by Ura 
de^ ehcu, and then what we are to understand by ofmarffiop. To the 
former of these questions the later interpreters give a unanimous 
reply, which we take as so much gained. It signifies eequaliter 
Deo esse, so that laa as an adverb joined with ehai^ specifies the 
condition of the person spoken of. (Comp. Van Hengel, p. 144 ; 
Winer, § 27, 3, p. 204, and others.) The expression is certainly 
not quite synonymous with ip fiop<l>§ Oeov^ for then, as Van Hen- 
gel and De Wette have already remarked, simply rotrro would have 
been used, and Meyer, too, although he thinks that both expres- 
sions have the same real signification, finds this difference betwixt 
them, that the first marks the state of Christ according to the form 
of his appearance, the second according to his nature. And cer- 
tainly when we look at the connexion with what follows, (viz., a\K* 
iavTov imivoiHre, which is the opposite of ov^ ofmar/fjiJbv 'fff^aro 
TO eha taa r^ 0€^ whilst, at the same time, tliat of which he 
emptied himself can only be the fiop<fMJ, as the subsequent clause 
fiopifnfp BovKov Xafifip proves), it is evident that the ^i^ M^p<l>V ^^ 
virdpxi^iP and the l<ra Be^ehat cannot be separated firom one another. 
Briickner and Lfinemann (comp. the In trod. § 4), have found in 
the latter expression, something entirely different firom the former. 
Lunemann understands the sense of the passage thus — Christ, 
although he was in the form of God, did not wish to grasp at a tcvpio- 
7179, such as belongs to God, and which he could only have seized by 
not willing to subordinate himself to the Father. Similarly, Briick- 
ner. But apart firom the sentiment itself, which must be explained 
and defined by its opposite (for taken by itself it expresses what is 
superfluous, nay, inconceivable) — how is this view to agree with the 
aSX iavTOP ixipc^ae, of which they themselves say that it must refer 


to the ii>op^ 0€ov, becaase no one can empty himself of that which 
does not belong to him (the tcvpioTfjs) ? If the two expressions 
are so entirely different, as they feel under the necessity of main- 
taining, in opposition toBaur, how can the sentiment: — he would 
not appropriate to himself the Kvpiorq^^ suit that which stands op- 
posed to it, and which refers to the entirely different fiop4>i]. To 
interpose an ullro were quite abitrary. We shall therefore be able 
to make out no other difference than that between the '* form of God," 
and the *' divine condition," forma Dei and conditio Divina ; nei- 
ther of which, however, can be conceived of separately from the other. 
We shall also again find in vv. 7 and 8 the antitheses to both, in the 
expressions " form of a man" and " human condition," and the tea 
r9> 0€^ ehiu becomes intelligible, from having as its antithesis not 
merely the itUvaMrc, but also what follows (eraTrelvoxrev.) The 
sense of the words then is-^quum in forma Dei esset non arri- 
piendum sibi dixit conditione divina uti. — We have still farther 
to enquire what is meant by ovx dfyirof^fiop ffffiaaro. This must 
be ascertained from the signification of the word afyjrarffia by it- 
self, and also from its opposition to what follows, viz., aXX' iavrov 
ij€€vwiT€Pf &0. With regard to the former point, we are glad to be 
able to regard it as an established result, that apnrarfiio^ does not 
properly signify praeda or res rapta^ but rapiuSf i.e., actio 
rapiendi. (Comp. the excellent investigation into this word by 
Van.Hengel, p. 145.) This appears both from the nature of the 
termination in /i09 (not fia), and from the single passage in pro- 
fane literature, where the word occurs besides. (Pint de puerorum 
educatione, p. 120.) Another question, however is, whether, as 
Van Hengel supposes, afnraryfio^ may not by metonyme signify 
the res quae actionis causa est, according to which the term would 
then of course take the signification, not of res rapta, but of res 
arripienda, and the sense would be, as Van Hengel has already 
expressed it, rem non duxit, quam suam faceret, cum sua non esset. 
In this view he is supported by Miiller, De Wette, Lunemann 
Bruckner, the last of whom adduces several examples, a. a. Q., p. 
19, in which substantives ending in /lui, (for example Buio^fia)^ take 
the usual signification of those ending in /i09, and, vice versa, 
substantives in /i09, (for example ^^o-^/io?), specify not the action, 
but the object of it. The expression under consideration, will 
thus coincide with the more common apm-arffia ^€ia0ai or irotua* 


0€u (Heb« vii. 11, 20 ; viii. 7), and the Latin praedam ducercy if 
only we do not associate with this the idea of something already 
taken as prey, which, as Bruckner has observed, a. a. Q., it is not 
necessary we should. Meyer, however, has not assented to the 
supposition of a metonyme here, but explains thus : — ^he held the 
being equal with Qod as no robbery, that is, he did not consider the 
equality with Gk>d which he had, to be such a relation as is implied 
in the seizing of a prey, or to consist in the seizure of a poBsession 
that belonged to others. And when we ask what is to be under- 
stood by this possession belonging to others, Meyer replies, — he 
would have emptied othBn by the apirary^. Who then are these 
others ? and what possession have they of which Christ, by his 
being equal with Ood, would not rob them, and whilst it did not 
belong to him, make it his own property ? Would he then, had 
he not become man, have taken anything from men that was 
their possession, or have emptied them ? And does this interpre- 
tation of oifx apirarfflov ^yi^aro correspond exactly, as Meyer 
maintains, to the looking not on every man on his own things, 
hut also on the things of others 9 Are these two things not totally 
different — ^not to take his possession from another, and not to look 
upon one*s own, but also on the things of others ? The idea in it- 
self is already strange, and quite as strange is it that the apostle 
should urge the Philippians to self-denying love, by telling them 
that Christ did not consider his being equal with God as the 
seizure of a possession belonging to another/ Neither also does it 
sait the antithesis in ver. 7, as we shall afterwards see. This at- 
tempt of Meyer's then to adhere to the original signification of 
actio in apnrarffwf;, as we must agree with him in everything else, 
can only confirm us in our interpretation of the ou;^ apTrofyfiop 
ifffftraTo — he did not consider the being equal with Ood to be a 
thing that he must seize for himself With this, all those render- 
ings of the words fall to the ground, which make apirariyLo^ to sig- 
signify res rapta, for example, — Christ did not regard the being 
equal with God as a thing usurped ; or, he willed not obstinately to 
retain it as a robber his prey ; or, he willed not to bear it in trium- 
phal shew, as a victor his spoils, &c. (Comp. Meyer^ p. 51.) 

We have still to consider the antithetical expression aXX' iav- 
rov iic€pa>a€. There can be no doubt as to the exact meaning 
of these words. Kcvovu is " to empty« to strip," " to rob," so 

E 2 


De Wette, expoliare; and that of which he divested himself can, 
from the context, only be the fiopifni mentioned before, (as the snb- 
seqnent clause ^p^v hovKov Xafiwv also shows), not — at least 
formally — the Ura ehai, this being represented as the thing that 
was not to be forcibly taken by him. If, however, aXX* is anti- 
thetical to ou)(^ — ^yi^o-aro, it will appear, as has already been ob- 
served, how little substantia] difference, there is, between Ura elvcu 
and iv /JLop<l>§ wrapx^iv. The antithesis then to what goes before 
is, hut he emptied^ or as we might even translate it, he robbed him- 
self. How then, according to this, must we render the words, ovx 
afyirari^juov ffffyraro ? Will it suffice to render them thus : — Christ 
did not consider the being equal with Ood as a usurpation ? or, he 
would not make a demonstration of it as a spoil ? Or, will Bruck- 
ner and Ltinemann's explanation suffice : — he did not strive after 
the honour of the Kvplon]^ ? Must they not insert an ultra in 
order to suit the antithesis ? (Gomp. supra.) And is the case 
otherwise with Meyer smterpretatiou when he explains thus: — ^in- 
stead of the ofmarffio^ by which he would have emptied others, he 
has emptied (or robbed) himself of the A^p^ ; whilst he had before 
shown that the object which it was possible for Christ to have seized 
was a possession belonging to others. Thus is introduced an op- 
position betwixt others and his own person, which is not to be 
found in the context. Rather, we shall have to say that, if the aXX* 
iavTov itcivdoa-e is to be regarded as purely antithetical, the only 
idea that can correspond to it will be, he has wished to seize nothing; 
and if it be acknowledged, that it is the ^p^^ of which he divests 
himself, then must there be something similar to this in that which 
corresponds to it, viz. that which he wishes not to seize possession of. 
Our interpretation fully agrees with this purely antithetical relation. 
He would not rob (seize possession of), corresponds to the po- 
sitive, he robbed himself; and to the /iop^i^ of which he robs him- 
self, corresponds our interpretation of laa ehai, which is realljf 
included in the /^p^, and which is rendered all the more intelligible 
by having its antithetical counterpart not merely in the eavrov 
iKhfOM-e, but also in what follows, eranrelvwrev^ &c. 

So far as I can see, the only objections that could be brought 
against the interpretation of ver. 6 here given, are the two follow- 
ing ; first, how, in general, is the idea implied in ofmarum admis- 
sible here, which Van Hengel has rightly determined, as actio, qua 


quis aperte qaod soam non est suum facit, and, as connected with 
this, secondly, how can it be said of that which Christ already had 
(in so far as Ura r^ de^ is included in the fjLop<l>i^, that he wished 
not to seize possession of it* Both of these objections appear to 
me to be removed by one consideration. If we look^particularly 
at the antithesis expressed in aXX* eavrov i/civwrev, whereby his 
becoming man is represented, it will appear that by the ov^ 
ofnrivYfJLov iffffcraro only the corresponding negative, the not be- 
coming man, can be denied, which, expressed in a positive form, was 
for him Xna r^ 6^^ elvcu^ He, however, in his self-denying love, 
willed nut the one (fiff r^ iavr&v tncoTTouvre^, ver. 4), but he willed 
the other, iatnov iKevnaae-^erairelvfuxrep iavrov yepofiepoq inriJKOo^s^ 
&0. It is not natural then that the apostle who conceives of Christ as 
in the act of decision should say — ovxafyirof^fiop fj^rjaaro^ just as 
if the question at issue related to the giving up of a possession ? 
When I decide for anything, do I not by that decision take posses- 
sion of the thing anew, although it may not really have been given 
up by me ? And may it not in the other case, when I decide for 
the giving up of a possession, be said with equal propriety — I did 
not think myself under the necessity of seizing it ? The expres- 
sion ofmarffjw in itself, however, is explained partly by the consi- 
deration that ihe being equal with Ood would have appeared at 
least relatively, and connexion with what goes before, as a looking 
to his own things^ and partly, in that it would have been opposed 
to the eternal decree of 6od*s love, and to this extent a taking pos- 
session, of what in consequence of that decree did not belong to him» 
(Comp. fjLop^v SovXot;, ver. 7, vTri/zcoo^, ver. 8.) 

Ver. 7. 'ilXX* kavrov iKivoxre, &c. The proper division of the 
members of the sentence is that, according to which, ^yijaaro 
is rendered more definite by inropxfov, iscivtoae by \a/3<iv, and 
yevofievo^f and irairelvwre by the two participles evpeSek and 
yepofACtM)^, It is evident, how fully the several members of the 
sentence correspond to one another, even in the particular attri- 
butive ideas. So Keil, Van Hengel, and others. On the other 
hand de Wette and Meyer more recently, have joined koI o^/uart 
€vp€0ek CD9 dvdpe^TTO^ with iKewoae as its third attributive ex- 
planation, because it expresses something similar to the two which 
precede it. There b certainly room for difference of opinion ou 


this pointy but it appears to me that iKipaxre is already suffi- 
ciently defined, by the two participles Xafffop and yevofievo^. Then 
what De Wette says is true— -that irajrelwoae refers to the manner 
of action and conduct of Christ as man, iKevaxre, with its defining 
and explaining clauses beinff presupposed ; but the propriety of 
this expression depends, on what is thus presupposed being 
represented by the xal ayrj^Ti evpeOek w avdpanro^ ; finally, 
itairelvoHre, which, according to De Wette and Meyer*i^ view, would 
stand without any connexion, has in it something startling, and all 
the more so on account of what it presupposes being in the pre^ 
ceding clause. 

On the sense of eavrop ixipaxre, all that is necessary has already 
been said in connexion with ver. 6. Gould there, however, be still 
any doubt as to the meaning of ixivc^ae in its opposition to ovx 
afnra^fjMV rffffaaro, it would be removed by the explanatory clause 
fjbopif)r)p SovXov \aff<ov, which sets forth the manner of this itci- 
vfoae. This additional clause tells us that he has emptied or 
robbed himself, in that he has taken upon him the ^brm of a ser- 
vant. The form of Ood ^hioh, he has, is laid aside, and ihe form 
of a servant is assumed. How can this be explained by — ^faumilem 
ac tenuem se gessit, or by Kara Kpinrruv ? What we are to under- 
stand, however, by taking the form of a servant is then more 
definitely explained by the clause that follows, namely, was made in 
the likeness of men, an explanation which is not co-ordinate with, 
but subordinate to the preceding clause. The form of a servant 
takes the place of the form of God, inasmuch as he has entered on the 
condition of likeness to men. This is the unmistakeable sense of 
the words, as fixed both by the signification of the particular terms 
and by the antithesis to ver. 6. But how now comports this ob- 
vious sense of the passage, with the interpretation which already at 
ver. 6 makes the subject to be Christ in his incarnate state ? We 
have before observed, that already the expression, being in the form 
ofGod^ cannot be explained in accordance with this view, without 
doing violence to the language, in that it is said to express the 
same thing, as the ho^a of which John speaks, ch. i. 14, (not how- 
ever that of which he speaks^ ch. xvii. 5, which alone is agreeable 
to the signification of the word/Lu>p^.) But how, besides, does the 
antithesis at ver. 7 agree with this view ? 'E/ch/wae as the Aorist 


expresses of course an aci, that must be referred to the life of the in- 
camate Christ. But the ho^L of which John speaks, ch. i. 14« as 
De Wette himself has remarked, irradiated the whole course of his 
life. What then becomes of — he emptied himself, taking upon 
him the form of a servant } What of — he was made in the 
likeness of men J Has he not then appeared from the beginning 
in the likeness of men ? De Wette, who considers Christ in his 
human state as the sulject also at ver. 6, has justly acknowledged 
this, and in reply to it remarked :-— that the being in theformofOod^ 
on account of the antithesis, cannot be understood of the appear- 
ance of the divine majesty throughout the whole life of Christ, but 
must have preceded, though not his life upon earth, yet his historical 
career. And he himself refers to the period of Chiist's public ap- 
pearance after his baptism, as the time when this empting himself 
and taking upon him the form of a servant, &c., took place. 
" Christ had," he adds by way of explanation, '' when he entered on 
his Messianic career, the divine glory potentially in himself, and 
might have devoted himself to the manifestation of this in his life ; 
but as it did not enter into the object of his redemption work, that 
he should from the very beginning receive divine honour, so," &c. 
And is this what we are to understand by the words — he emptied 
himself taking upon him the form of a servant, being made in 
the likeness offnenl Where is any emptying here? Had he 
not this divine glory potentially in himself, afterwards as well as be- 
fore. Where also is the antithesis between, being in the form of 
Gody and taking upon him the form of a servant, if all that is 
meant by the first is " the grace and truth, John i. 14, and all the 
moral attributes of God, Col. ii. 9," ^. ? And, in short, are we to 
regard the taking upon him the form of a servant , and the being 
made in the liketiess of men^ and also what De Wette connects 
with these, the being found in fashion as a man, as having taken 
place at the baptism of Christ, as the consequence of his not wish- 
ing to assume to himself divine honour, and as a more specific 
statement of what is contained in the words — he emptied himself of 
this (glory), (of which indeed potentially he did not empty himself) ? 
What then are we to make of the preceding period of Christ's life, 
from his birth onwards to his baptism ? Had he no form of a ser- 
vant, no likeness of men, during that period 7 

It will thus be seen, in what difficulties the interpretation is in- 

72 PHILIPP1AN8 II. 7. 

voWed, which already at ver. 6 makes the inoarnate Christ to he 
the subject, instead of understanding ver. 7 antithetically to ver. 6, 
of the act of the incarnation itself. These difficnlties do not belong 
to the pecHliar yiew of this or that interpreter, but to the general 
principle itself, on which they all proceed. On this very account, 
however, there is reason to hope, that gradually it will come to be 
regarded as a fixed result of interpretation, that this classical pass- 
age treats of Christ's becoming man, and not of what was done by 
him as man. Olshausen, so far as can be gathered from bis brief 
hints on this passage, seems to be inclined to the latter view. 

To come to particulars in ver. 7 ; fiop<fpffv SovKov Tugfidp, as de- 
noting the manner of the ixiptoae, tells us that this fcevwrt^ in its 
positive side, consisted in Christ's having taken upon him the out- 
ward appearance of a servant. By SovKov, however, nothing more 
is meant than, (as the farther explanation in the following clause h^ 
ifjLoy&iioTi shows) that his appearance was that of a man. Why 
the term hovKov has been used to express this, is explained by 
the antithesis to f^p^ deov. The form of a servant takes 
the place of the form of God, when he takes upon him the human 
form. Nothing is here said of his relation to other men, it is only 
iiis relation to God that is expressed. The idea of a mean, des- 
pised man is not implied in the expression ; the word hovKov is used 
only to convey a just idea, of the degree of the /eevouv. It has been 
already, observed that iv ofi. avBp. yep. is an accessory explanation 
of the participle that precedes. In this way does he take upon 
him the form of a servant, namely, by entering into the condition t>f 
the likeness of men. There is a reference in the words to the laa 
T& 0€^. As the form of a servant takes the place of the form of 
God, so the condition of the likeness of men^ comes in place of 
that of equality with Ood. On yepofievo^j comp. Winer, § 52, a. 
p. 468. By iv 6fi, the condition into which he enters is specified. 
Fevof/Levo^, however, is not nasci ; ifioltafia means, as usual, like- 
ness. Comp. Bom. i. 23, v' 14, vi. 5, but especially the pas- 
sage viii. 3, iv ofiouifiaTi aapKO^ ofiaprla^, — ^ApBpAirtop is here 
used by the apostle to express, that Christ shared in general with 
men in their likeness, that he entered with them into their condi- 
tion. — On the expressions ifJLouifia and a>9 avOpetnTo^, Docetic 
opinions have by some been founded. Comp. in the In trod, 
against Baur. The reason of the exprebbion is not to be sought 


in a reference to the sinlessDess of Christ ; for against suoh a view, 
as Bauer has shown, might he addaoed the passage Bom. viii. S, 
inaamuoh as, being a man and being a sinner do not, in idea, coin- 
cide ; therefore Christ is, without limitation, called SvOpoanro^^ 
Bom. V. 15; 1 Cor. xiii. 21 ; 1 Tim. 25. The true reason is 
explained by the context itself; in so far as it is the different forms 
of appearance and conditions, of one and the same person, that 
are here spoken of. It is not the laying aside of the divine nature, 
nor even the assumption of the human, that is here spoken of, but 
that Christ's forma and conditio was, first of a divine kind and 
then of a human. Both the one and the other, are forlns of ap- 
pearance and condition in him, who does not give up the identity 
of his divine nature, whilst he becomes man, and is on that very 
account such a man as no other is ; hih ro fjtif ^^iK6v avdpwirov 
(Gnu. Theophylact. quoted by Meyer on this passage. 

Ver. 8. KaX cyrifuiTi^ &c. On the connexion of this partici- 
pial sentence with irairelvwrep^ see the beginning of note on ver. 
7* The difference in sense, between this and the preceding verse 
has been justly expressed by Van Hengel in the words — duo 
enim, ut puto, diversa hie tradit Paulus, et quamnam' vivendi ra- 
tionem (properly, only a form of appearance) Christus inierit .... 
et quo modo haqc vivendi rationem ad mortem usque persecntus 
sit. — By iKevmae, with its explanatory clause, is denoted the form 
of existence opposed to the fJi^pif>fi Oeov into which he passed ; 
by irmrelvoxre and its explanatory clause yepofupov, &c., is des- 
cribed his conduct as man. Both, however, are placed over 
against ver. 5, as the corresponding positive side of what is there 
said. ^Erawelvcxre^ then, far from being the same as iicipoiHre, de- 
notes the humiliation which iKiwoae already presupposes, and it is 
just this presupposition that is expressed in the words xal aj(^fiaT^ 
evpedeU <09 ApSpamo^, immediately before the iraweivmo'ep. These 
words, however, are not to be considered as just the sum of what is 
said at ver. 7, rather, with the evpedeU a new idea is introduced, 
namely, that what the senses of others perceived in him, testi- 
fied to the reality of his human form of being. (Comp. 1 John i. 
1, sq.) — SyflfiM is the habitus, according to Bengel : cultus, veeti- 
tus, victus, gestus, sermones et actiones. Comp. Van Hengel, p. 
151, who quotes from Euripides the words /lop^? <'^A^ arypia^ 
and Tovra fiopifyrj^ ax^ffMn-a, which throw so much light on our 

74 PH1L1PPUN8 II. 9 — 11. 

passage. On Wy see note on ofjLolfOfiart above. The datiyo cr^- 
fuiTi implies *' with respect to." See Winer, § 81, 3, p. 244. 

Being found as a man in the presence of men, he humbled him- 
self, in that he became obedient unto death, even to the death of 
the cross. ^ETairetifwrev eaurov, as the act of his self-denying 
love. The antithesis is vyjt6a>, 2 Cor. xi. 7 ; Matt, xviii. 4 ; xxiv* 
12. In what this irairewoxTev consisted, we learn from the ex- 
planatory clause y€if6fievo^ vm^fcoo^ /^I'^XP^ diwdrov, &c. For, 
Ikkxpi Ocufdrov is with reason to be connected with yevofievo^ vir^' 
KCHHs. Teifiii^vo^ imrfKoa^ by itself would not be sufficiently 
specific, whilst, by connecting the fiiyp^ Oavdrov with iram-ei* 
vwrev, we disturb the regularity according to which the several 
members of the sentence are arranged. His self-humiliation then 
consisted in this, that he became obedient unto death ; not merely 
in a humble disposition of heart. He did not, however, become 
obedient to the law. Gal. iv. 4, as Olshausen also is of opinion. 
Obedience to the law neither laid him under obligation to die, nor 
did that obedience bring death to him ; rather, he was above the 
law. That obedience, the highest proof of which was his death, 
was obedience to God ; to which already the expression SovKov in 
the preceding verse points, as also what follows, Sio koI 6 0eo9, &c. 
In this obedience did he submit to be baptized ; by it he overcame 
temptation, by it was he guided in all the intimations of his public 
life, in it did he sustain the agony of the garden, and he was obe- 
dient even unto death. . Gomp. Heb. v. 8 (ifia0€P o^' &p eiradev 
inroKoriv) ; Bom. v. 19. — Mexpi* denotes not the duration, but the 
degree of his obedience, as Heb. xii. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 9, &c. On the 
increasing force of Se, see Winer, § 57, 4, 6, p. 521, and Meyer 
on this passage. On Oavdrov Be aravpov as a curse-expiating 
death, see Deut. xxi. 23 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; Heb. xii. 2. 

Vers. 9 — 11. The exaltation of Christ as the result of his 
self'detiial. The Philippians are further to learn from the example 
of Christ how, only that disposition of mind which his example sets 
before them, vv. C — 8 (and not the selfish striving to assert their 
own importance), will lead to joy and honour. Comp. Matt, xviii. 
4 ; xxiii. 12. Au>KaX, &c. By &o (not quo facto) the exaltation 
on which he enters, is described as a recompense for his humiliation 
in obedience to God. The idea of recompense is already confirmed 
by the expression vtt^koo^, comp. Heb. ii. 9. This exaltation is 

PH1LIPPIAN8 II. 9 — 11. 76 

denoted by vTrepv^oxr^, as the opposite of ira/ireofwiev, ver. 8. 
The apostle says inrepw^^wre (though the antithesis to erairelvwre 
is simply u^ow), because he is exalted above every otiier, Gomp. 
Ephes. i. 2], sq., and the subsequent words to \m\p itav 6vo/jm, 
which are illustrative of the vTrepi^^roNre. Quam an tea is not to be 
understood. Neither is there in the inrep — any local reference, 
as for example to the heavens, as is evident from what follows ; 
although in such passages as £ph. i. 20; Heb. xii. 2, &c., 
such a reference must be understood. Gomp. also John xvii. 
5 ; Heb. ii. 9. On the Kal accompanying 8«o, which is not, 
as Van Hengel takes it, to be connected with 6 Oeo^, comp. 
Meyer. It denotes the near connexion of the cause with the con- 
sequence, as at Bom. i. 24, iv. 22, &c. The inrepin^'wre is more 
fully explained by the words that follow, ical ^xapltraro, &c. 
^ExO'pUrarOj the same as at i. 29, corresponding to the relation, 
according to which Ghrist prays, John xvii. 5, glorify me^ &c. It 
is here, however, to be remembered that he has attained to such 
glory, not merely in so far as he was already a person ere he be- 
came man, for in this case the ^op/ifraro would be unintelligible ; 
but that he, as this Jesus, has been exalted to the fellowship of the 
divine glory, and therefore this name, the name Jesus, has been 
made a name above every name. 

The words that follow tell us wha^ God hath given him, to 
Bvofia TO, &c. This reading is, with Lachmann, according to 
A.B.G., to be preferred to that which omits the article. Gomp. 
besides, Winer, § 19, 4, p. 160. With regard to the expression 
Svofia, there can be no longer any doubt, (after Van Hengels in- 
vestigation of it in connection with this passage, compared with 
Harlesa on £ph. i. 21), that in itself it signifies not dignity, honour, 
and the like, but simply name. Gomp. here especially Heb. i. 4. 
So also De Wette and Meyer. What name is meant does not need 
to be first learned from Bom. i. 4 ; Acts ii. 86 ( Kvpiov ainov koI 
Xpurrov eiTolria-e roOrov top ^Ifftrovv.) Ver. 10 tells us expressly 
that it is the name of Jesus, and, ver. 11, what we are to associate 
with this name, viz., that he is Kvpto^, The high dignity to which 
he has attained, is henceforth to be connected with his name ; the 
name Jesus has become the designation of him, who was exalted 
from the deepest abasement to the highest glory. Ood then hath 
givon to him this name, not from respect to what is stated at Matt. 


i. 21, but, in that he bath exalted him. Gomp. Heb. i. 4. On to 
inrkp irav 6pofia oomp. Eph. i* 21 ; Heb. i. 4. 

Ver. 10. His exaltation above all {virip nav 6vofia) has for its 
object, that all should bow the knee before him. The words ^ovp- 
poplfoif^'^iryeiiov — KarayBapuov are not to be directly connected 
with TToif Toyv, but are to be understood as an explanation of the 
totality expressed by irav yow, which is thus described in its local 
relations. To understand this universal expression as including 
only man, explaining iwovp, of the navi^yvpi^ irpwroroKiov, Heb. 
xii 22, 28, iTTiy. of the living, and Karaj(6. of the dead, were at 
variance with the universality of the expression to inrkp irav 
6vofjLa at ver. 9, especially as compared with Eph. 1. 21. By 
the hrovpdvioi must be meant, in the first place, the angels, who 
are generally described as inhabitants of heaven ; the hriyeuH 
are, (in contradistinction to the class just mentioned), men ; whilst 
by those mentioned in the third term, we may presume that a new* 
class are meant, viz., demons, in connexion with which the passages 
2 Peter ii. 4 ; Jude 6, are to be referred to. In what manner those 
last mentioned are to be conceived of as bowing the knee is ex* 
plained in such passages as Jam. ii. 19. The most of recent com- 
mentators, as also Olshausen, understand iiriyeioi and Karax' 
66vioL of the dead, something in the same way as at Rom. xiv. 9, 
where, however, the sentiment is different, in so far as it is not the 
universality of the homage paid to Jesus that is there spoken 
of. The expression KaTaxOovuy: occurs only here. On 70101 
Kap,'^ as a mark of divine honour, comp. Bom. xiv. 11, xi. 4 ; 
Eph. iii. 14. The passage atBom* xiv. 1 1 informs us at the same time 
of what is wont to be too little considered, namely, that what is here 
said of the end contemplated in the exaltation of Christ, thai every 
knee should bow^ &c., is not to be conceived of as immediately 
taking place, but only as the final result of the Kvpiornis* Comp. 
1 Cor. XV. 25, 26. Those knees which till then were not wil- 
lingly bowed to him, shall then be forced to bow. In this passage, 
as well as in that from Bomans, there is an evident reference 
to Is. xiv. 28. The word of the Old Testament, has obtained its 
more special meaning and application in the New. 

On iv r^ ovopAn ^Irjaov there are some excellent observations 
by Van Hengel on this passage, also by Harless on Eph. v. 20. 
" In itself," observes Harless, ^' the meaning of this form of expres- 

PHILIPPIAN9 II. 1 U 2. 77 

sion is every where the same* it chaoges only accordiug to the dif- 
fereDce of the idea contained in the verb with which it is connected, 
from it mast be inferred in what relation the name of Jesus occurs 
as connected with any event or action." According then to the 
interpretation given above, not only will the voluntary confession 
of his name be the reason and occasion of bowing the knee, but 
every confession of his name (ver. 11), be it made in fear or in 
love. Oomp. Acts iv. 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; 1 Pet. iv. 14 ; Col. iii. 
17, &c. 

Ver. 11. And every tongue; as universal as every knee. The 
confession of the tongue that Jesus is Lord, corresponds to the 
bowing of the knee. The tongue expresses that at which the 
knee bows (ev ovofiari *If)aat). ^E^fAoXoyeta-dcu is stronger and 
more earnest than ofjLoXoyeurdiu. Their confession is Kupio^ 'I. X. 
Every one will notice the emphasis implied in the placing of icvpio^ 
before !• X. Comp. besides at ver. 9. — To the glory of God the 
Father, is not to be considered as the subject matter of the con- 
fession, but to be connected with shall eon/ess, as expressing, that 
such a confession redounds to the glory of the Father, who has 
exalted the Son to this tcvpiorq^. In opposition to Van Hengel 
and De Wette, who think that the Son is not here represented as 
an object of worship, but only that in his name as Mediator every 
prayer is to be addressed to Ood, — Com. Mtiller and Meyer have 
already justly observed, that the context in general, which treats of 
the honour done to Jesus, is against such a view, and also that iirav' 
paofUov (of the angels) does not agree with it. To this it may- be 
added, that Jesus is not here acknowledged as Mediator, but as 
Lord, and that, the true interpretation of this passage, as also Bom. 
xiv. 1 1 and Is. xlv. 23, show, that it is not a willing acknowledg- 
ment of Jeefbs that is here spoken of, but a universal acknowledg- 
ment, which can only be the final result of the Kvptorq^ of Jesus 

Ver. 12 — 1 8. The apostle now engrafts on the example of Christ, 
a comprehensive and pointed exhortation, having a retrospective re- 
ference to ver. 2—4. 

Ver. 12. "Hare, as a definitive inference from the foregoing, 
(comp. Winer, § 42, 6, p. 848, and the examples there adduced), 
not, however, as De Wette thinks, from all the exhortations from i. 
27, sq., nor even from ii. 2 — ^4, but from what immediately precedes, 

78 PHIUPPIAN8 ri. 12. 

Damely, the example of Christ. Here again, however, it is not as an 
inference from the obedience of Christ, as Meyer supposes, for then 
this ohedience, ver. Sand 12, would no longer be a merely sub- 
ordinate idea ; hut rather as an inference irom the principal idea in 
what goes before, namely, that Christ has attained to his glory only 
by the way of self-denial. Therefore ought they to lay aside that 
proud, vain, and self-secure dispo»tion (the ipideta and K€vo^(a 
opposed to Tair€ivo^po<nnni)^ and seek to work out their salvatiofo 
with fear and trembling, the opposite of that false security. Thus 
explained, the retrospective reference to the exhortation at ver. 
2 — 4, as also the inference from what directly goes before, appears 
to me unmistakeable. But the apostle, before expressing thiis ex- 
hortation, inserts the words, aa ye have always obeyed not as in 
my presence only, but now much more in my absence. In order 
to open up the way for his exhortation, the apostle reminds the 
Philippians of their conduct hitherto, their obedience toward him ; 
they are still to continue true to the character they have hitherto 
sustained. In the subsequent member of the sentence, however, 
beginning with fiif ok where o{fTa>9 is left out, the apostle, at the 
same time, does away with the mistaken notion (co?) that his ex- 
hortation is to apply only to the case of his presence with them ; 
rather should they during his absence, do what he desires of them 
even in a much higher degree. It will be seen that the two antitheses 
of TrdvTore and vup and of irapovaia and airovala are blended 
into one. By the wapovaia can only be meant, a future presence 
in opposition to the foregoing iravrorre. The idea is similar to that 
at ver 27 : 6?t€ i\0a}v . . . €?Te airtav. But why does he 
say, much more in my absence ? Because, as I apprehend, in the 
absence of the apostle, the care of their salvation would rest with 
themselves alone, comp* ver. 25. According to the explanation 
here given, not de^ but ifiol is to be supplied at irrrqKowaTe. The 
connexion of fiij ©9 with vmjKowrare does not any longer require re- 
futation. Comp. Van Hengel, p. 168. — *Si^ is not here a particle of 
comparison (to this the position of the fAovov after iv t§ irapovaia 
fjLov is not agreeable), but indicates a supposition which the apostle 
seeks to remove; comp: Rom. ix. 32; Gal. iii. 16; Eph. vi. 5, 
&c. — On /ieri <f>6fiov Kal rpofiovy comp. 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 
15 ; Eph. vi. 5. It is, as Meyer well explains, the fear of not do- 
ing the thing sufficiently, therefore, an anxious conscientiousness 


proceeding from bumility, the opposite of that arrogant security 
referred to in ver. 8. 4. Work out your own salvation. This is 
to be their aim — the salvation of their souls. Thus will that vain- 
striying after a false greatness disappear of itself, when salvation be- 
comes their only aim. On eavr&v^ for the pronoun of the second 
person, comp. Winer, § 22. 5, p. 174. It is wrong to take 6avr£y 
for aWrjXoDV, comp. Van Hengel, p. 171 . Kareprfd^eaOai, is more 
than €pya^€a0a4, viz. to complete, perficere* 

Ver. 18. If we have rightly understood ver. 12, then is ver. 18 
in its relation to ver. 12, not to be viewed as an encouragement, or 
consolation ; but the exhortation addressed to the Philippians to 
work out their salvation with/ear and trembling is further enforced 
by the consideration here presented to them, that it is not they, 
but God who gives them to will and to do, whereby all self- 
glorying is removed, all ground for seeking to display their 
own importance is taken away. For ver. 18, regarded as an 
encouragement or consolation, would imply that those to whom 
it was addressed were inclined to despond. Such, however, 
does not appear to have been the case with the Philippians ; rather 
did their strivings after self-importance betray their conviction that 
there was no danger of their salvation, — that their safety was a 
thing evident of itself. How little also does this view which sup- 
poses the persons here addressed to have been anxious, desponding 
spirits, agree with the verse immediately following, especially if the 
fnurmuringa there mentioned are, according to the most of com- 
mentators, to be understood as murmurings against God. For it 
is God, &c. The opposite of this is,— no^ you, Comp. Luke 
xxii. 28 ; John vi. 63, &o. The apostle says that God works 
both to will and to do. By the heprfov which God works is, of 
course, not meant the same as KarefrfafyarOoA, which the Philip- 
pians are desired to do, ver. 12 ; but kvepyelv is the power of action 
given along with the OeKew^ and without which the latter cannot 
be carried into effect. It is evident, however, from ver. 12, that 
this iv€frf€lv and OiKeiv which God works, is not all that is 
necessary in order to the completion of the work there spoken 
of. Olshausen justly observes that this passage on the one 
side is most conclusive against Pelagianism, whilst on the other 
side, from its connexion with ver. 12, it plainly shows, how far 
removed the apostle is from the doctrine of a compelling grace. Man, 

80 PHIL1PPIAN8 II. 14, 15. 

it is tnie, has positively power to do nothing, he has power, how- 
ever, to oppose Ood. — 'The additional clause of his good pleasure 
shows again how little room there is for self-exaltation ; for it is 
God's own gracious will alone on which his working in the heart 
depends. EvBokIa as at i. 10. Gomp. also Harless on Eph. 
i. 6. — ^Tirip is " on account of = in virtue of. Comp. Winer, § 
51, 1, p. 459. 

Ver. 14. Do all things without murmurings and disputings ; 
all that you have to do without any restriction. Yet it is evident 
from the foregoing (work out your own salvation, ver. 12), what it 
is that the apostle especially alludes to. Without murmurings, 
comp. 1 Pet. iv. 9. Neither this passage nor that in Peter, requires 
that this murmuring he understood as a murmuring against Grod. 
There is rather here, as at ver. 12, a retrospective reference to 
those deficiencies in the Philippians indicated at vv. 8, 4, and 
accordingly, it is their murmurings against one another that are 
here to be understood. Comp. also Acts vi. 1. The hicLKa- 
yicfAoi are for the same reason, not doubts, but disputations. 
Although the word does not generally occur in the New Testament 
in this sense, it is siiil a common usage with profane writers, and 
Buikoyl^ofjLai, at Mark is. 88, 84 can be taken only in this sense. 
I have yet to state as my principal reason for the interpretation of 
ver. 12 — 14 given above, that I do not understand how the apostle, 
in an exhortation of so definitive a character as is implied in the 
anrre which introduces it, should come to mention things quite 
apart from the foregoing exhortations. 

Ver. 15. De Wette and Meyer, and also Tischendorf, in his 
latest edition, adhere to the reading, yeinjaOe, according to Codd. 
B.C.D.***E.**J.K., &c., instead of ijre, which is supported by 
A.D.*E.*F.G., the Vulgate, and Church Fathers. They also prefer 
apMfirira to ifjuofia. Mkarav is however the true reading, accord- 
ing to Codd. A.B.C.D.^F.O., &c., and not ivpiafp. The apostle at 
ver. 15 reminds his readers of their destination, to be blameless and 
harmless* They can only become so however, in the way pointed 
out to them at ver. 14. But the apostle, whilst he sets this 
aim before them, has especially in view that part of their vocation 
which consists in their position, relatively to the surrounding world. 
They are to become o^/Airrot and aicipaioi. "Afuep^irro^ is one in 
whom there is nothing to blame (iii. 6 ; Luke iv. 6 ; I Thess. iii. 


i8;Heb. viii. 7) ; wcipato^ (from Kepduwfu), properly, HfiitiMrei^, 
hence pure (Matth. z. Id; Bom. zvi. 19); the former, as Meyer 
obserres, denotes moral integrity in its outward manifestation, the 
latter, in its intrinsio natnre. Farther : the sons of Ood without 
rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. They 
are already the sons of Ood through the spirit of adoption ; d/Mi- 
fM7T<i» however, denotes what they are still to beoome, viz., blame- 
less and unrebukeable children of Ood. This expression (occur- 
ring besides, only at 2 Pet. iii. 14) sutns up by way of climax 
the foregoing predicates, on account of its being placed over 
against the following words fUcov, &c., irreproachable children 
of Ood in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. 
On yAaov treated as a preposition, see Winer, § 68, 6, p. 504. 
Peycd rightly explained by Wahl, de aetatis alicujus hominibns. 
IS'/voX&9, properly crooked^ used also by the profane writers in 
the sense of moral obliquity. Comp. Acts ii. 40. jiuarpafAfiiifo^, 
perverse, comp. Matth. xvii. 17 ; Luke ix. 41, &c. In the de- 
signation of the children of Ood by afj^dfjuifra, as also in that of 
the world, the apostle has had in his mind the passage in Deut. 
xxxii. 6, only, that it is there said even of Israel '^fl'^Hp^ ttJpy *^^1* 
Among whom ye appear as lights in the world. In these words 
the apostle brings before them, not what they are to begin to be, 
but what they already are, in order that they may become what they 
still are not. *Ep 8t9, with respect to the sense, to be referred to 
yeved. talveaOe, according to general usage, is not to be trans- 
lated ye shine, give lights as in this case the active is always used, 
(also in a metaphorical sense, John i. 5, v. 85) ; but ye appear. So 
also Meyer. '129 ^trrripe^ iv Koafup. The words iv Koarfito are 
not to be connected with (fMlveaOe, but belong to ^oxrrQpev ; nor 
is ^>alvovrai to be supplied, but tfxooTrjpe^ hf KoafUD are to be con- 
strued together ; as luminaries in the world, as stars on the earth 
do they stand, in the midst of a perverse generation. Comp. Matt, 
y. 14. The light, however, which they shed has not its source in 
them,but only proceeds from them in that they hold forth the word 

Ver. 16. Holding forth the word of life. On the connexion 
between light and life, comp. John i. 5 ; the life was the light of 
men. — ^Ktrix^iv cannot signify to attend to, for in this sense it is 
joined with a dative. Comp. 1 Tim. iv. 6 ; Acts iii. 5. Others 

R2 PHIL1PPIAN8 IT. 17, 18. 

render it, lo hold fast (Hesychius, KpaTovure*:), without any cer- 
tain grammatical analogy ; others, to possess. It appears to me 
most snitahle to keep by the common signification of the word, viz. 
to hold/orth, to o^er, — as also many commentators do. The sense 
of the words connected with <f)alv€a'0€ will then be — ** You appear 
as luminaries in the world, inasmuch as you (by being Christians) 
hold up before the world the word of life." The fulfilment of this 
their high calling, is to be to the apostle /or a rejoicing in the day 
of Christ, Comp. our remarks on ch. i. 10. The cause of his re- 
joicing is set forth in the words ort, &o. £t9 k^vov means, without 
fruity without success, H Cor. vi. 1 ; Gal. ii. 2 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5. 
''ESpafjbov, a figurative representation of his apostolic work ; iKo- 
iriaBa, the literal representation of the same, with especial reference 
to the labour which it implied. 

Vers. 17 and 18 are not to be separated from the foregoing, and 
joined to the following section, ver. 19 — 30, asDe Wette has done. 
According to De Wette, who in this follows Ston and Flatt, ver. 
1 7 is to be connected with i. 26, and aXKd forms an antithesis to 
i. 25 ; i. 27 — ^ii. 16 contains only a subordinate train of thought, 
and the subject of the communications respecting the apostle's con- 
dition, as a prisoner, is again resumed at ii. 17. To this it is to 
be objected, that such a direct reference of aXKd back to i. 25 would 
be harsh in the extreme, chiefly, however, that it is altogether 
wrong to say that the apostle resumes at ii. 1 7 his communications 
about his own circumstances. Even in vv. 19 — 30, as we shall 
afterwards see, there are no such communications. The true way, 
is to regard vv. 17 and 18 as still belonging to this section, and 
ver. 1 9 as beginning a new one. The whole exhortation from i. 
27 onwards, presupposes the hope expressed at vv. 25 and 26, 
that the apostle will abide in the flesh and again visit the church ; 
chiefly, however, as Meyer has justly observed, does the hope that 
the apostle shall continue in life, and see the fruit of his labour 
amongst the Philippians, lie beneath the words of ver. 16 ; for in- 
deed ver. 15 is presupposed in ver. 16. In the aX)C el Kal the 
apostle lays aside for a moment this representation of what is to 
befall him, in order to say that in the other case too, that namely 
of death, he joys and rejoices with them, and they are to do the 
same. The joy which accrues to him, as also to them, from the 
fulfilment of his exhortation, is not conditionally dependent on the 

PIIILTPPIANS 11. 1 7, 1 8. B3 

coDtinnaDce of his life. As tbe entire hortatory passage from i. 
27 onwardsi originated in this, viz. how the true Joy of faith men- 
tioned at ver. %b was to be arrived at, so now too the apostle, after 
having exhorted bis readers, and as he hopes not in vain, closes 
with / rejoice^ and with tbe call addressed to the Philippians, re- 
joice ye^ even in the case of his hope of continuing in life not being 
fulfilled. — The connection of the thought in ver. 17 cannot, as I 
think, be apprehended from the antithetical reference to ver. 16 
alone ; we are not, however, therefore at liberty, with De Wette, to 
place the iMiA in opposition to ver. 25. De Wette and Meyer 
have already shown, that ver. 17 is not to be viewed as the contrary 
supposition to the hope said to be expressed in ver. 16, that he will 
live to see tbe coming of Christ. 

S'lrivSofuii as at 2 Tim. iv. 6, " I am poured out as a drink- 
offering,*' comp. Numbers xxviii. 7, xv. 4, sq., and also Winer, 
R.W.B., on Trankopfer. ^Eirl is differently rendered according as 
dvala is taken to mean the sacrifice itself, or the act of sacrificing. 
The former may, according to the general usage, be the more pro- 
bable, notwithstanding of the following X€AT0i;p7/a which Paul adds, 
in order to describe this sacrifice as one offered by him. Thus, in I 
will signify *'to," not "upon;" because the drink offering was not 
poured upon the sacrifice. Meyer makes it '*in," as he understands 
Ovcia to describe the action. Trj^ irlareto^ vfi&v depends on dvala, 
as on X€tT0i;p7^. The figure is the following — The faith of the 
Philippians is the sacrifice — the apostle, the priest who offers this 
sacrifice — he himself is the drink offering, inasmuch as his blood is 
poured out to this sacrifice. — T^irovpyia^ " priestly service," Luke 
i. 23 ; Heb. viii. 6, &c. In this case also, says the apostle, I joy 
and rejoice with you all. Some suggest as the reason of his joy, 
that his death will conduce to the advancement of the Oospel ; others 
say, that his being made an offering is to him a joyful thought 
But both of these views seem to me to withhold its proper force from 
aXX' el ical, according to which, the sense can only be, that also in 
this case (viz., of his being offered up), something of the effect 
supposed to follow in the other case will be brought about. It is 
the joy offaitht spoken of in i. 19, i. 25, and the condition of 
which (fAOvov, ver. 27) is, obedience to the foregoing exhortation. 
The apostle's meaning then is, that should the opposite event fall 

out, and he have to yield up his life as a sacrifire for tliem, he yet 

F 2 

84 PHILIPPIAN8 II. 18, 19: 

rejoices. His death makes do change in this joy. And I rejoice 
with you all ; for then they too shall have attained to the troe joy of 
faith. Meyer and others maintain that ovy%ai/Kki means '* gratolor/' 
a sense which it certainly has in profane writers* hut never. in the 
New Testament, and especially in the writings of the apostle. 

Yer. 18. The word ovy^^aipo^ certainly implies, that the apostles 
readers will rejoice also in the event of his beingofiPered as a sacrifice. 
And hy how much the less snitable it might appear for them to rejoice 
in this case, by so much the more reason has the apostle emphatically 
to exhort them to do this. Similarly, Van Hengel, p. 187. — 
To avTo I render with De Wette and others " in like manner." The 
idea which Meyer expresses, that the Philippians are here called 
upon to rejoice at the apostle's being offered for them, finds nothing 
to recommend it, at least in i. 22, xxtv. 25. 


(Chap. ii. 19—30.) 

This section is not to be viewed as a return to the communications 
broken off at i. 26, but is rather to be connected with that which 
immediately precedes. The apostle having exhorted the Philippians 
to a right conduct in the meantime, his return to them being pre- 
supposed, now expresses what he further intends to do, in his 
affectionate care for the church. He purposes to send Timothy to 
them (why him particularly we are told at vv. 20 — 22), who is to 
convey to them more special information concerning him ; still the 
hope of returning again to them himself, expressed at i. 20 — 26, is 
not, therefore, given up, ver. 24. Further, he sends back to them 
with this epistle, Epaphroditus their messenger, (who had become 
dear to him), in accordance with his own desire alter his recovery 
from sickness, whom the apostle recommends to their cordial reception 
and esteem (as he does all of his class), on account of the service of 
love which he rendered to him, tv. 25 — 30. 

Ver. 19. But I trust in the Lord Jesus. ^EXirlfyn^ as at ver. 23, 
since the execution of his purpose connects itself with a favourable 
change in his own situation. This hope rests in the Lord Jesus, 
and will, therefore, be fulfilled On the relation of Timothy to the 


' PHILIPPIANS II. 20,21. 85 

oharoh, see on i. 1, and afterwards on ver. 22. The Ta^^o)9 is 
explained by ver. 23. 'T/au/, not the dat. comm., bat as Meyer 
explains, " relation in general." The object of the apostle is, to get 
more particular information through Timothy, concerning the state 
of the church, so that his mind may thereby be set at rest Eif- 
ifvypiif " I am of good comfort ;" icfTvo implies, '* as you may be of 
good comfort, in consequence of the information about me in this 
epistle." Such passages as i. 27, iii. 1, sq., iv. 2, sq., inform 
us what it was that caused the apostle uneasiness in thinking of 

Ver. 20 — 22 mention the reason why he sends Timothy (and 
even his going depends on contingencies), and no other. He has 
besides him, no one like-minded (viz., with the apostle), who will sin* 
cerely care for their state. '0<rTi^, ** of such a character as will," 
&c. FpfierieK properly " genuinely," ** sincerely," u e, with com- 
plete devotedness, in contrast with that which is merely seeming, and 
behind which is a regard to selfish interest. Comp. ver. 21. Me- 
ptfAPi]<r€if properly in the future, with reference to the event of his 
being sent. 

Ver. 21. The ol irAvre^ 7^p, &c., corresponds to the ovBepa IF^a> 
as its positive side, and from its reference to oiSiva, can only be 
rendered " they all," they all seek their own, not the things of Jesus 
Christ. To insert a more, would just be as improper as to take ol 
wavre^ for ol iroXKoi and the like. But there is certainly a re- 
striction of this expression in the context itself, as in the ovBiva 
and ol iravre^, only those can be included, who might in general be 
eligible for this mission. It is also not to be overlooked, how high 
the qualification which the apostle looks for in those whom he 
wonld send, as indicated in the word like-minded^ with reference 
to his own affectionate care for the church.. This consideration 
ought to modify the idea we might otherwise associate with what 
is said at ver. 21 . So mueh, however, must still be allowed, viz., 
that those here referred to, did not place the things of Christ 
above every personal interest, as the apostle did, comp. i. 16, 
sq. It is not to be supposed that they were the same persons 
as are mentioned in i. 15, 17, for how could these have come to 
be considered only in connection with this mission ? On the con- 
trary, i. 14 contains a reference to such oSeKipol as were wanting 

86 PHILIPPIANS II. 22 — 24. 

in boldBess for the preaobing of the Gospel. All that can be 
gathered from history on this point is, that of those named in the 
epistle to the Golossians, and in that to Philemon, only Aristarchus 
and Jesus Justus (pi i/c irepLTOfii]^, Col. i. 11) with Demas and 
Luke, could still have been with the apostle, it being supposed that 
this epistle was written subsequently to these. When with refer- 
ence to Demas we compare 2 Tim. iv. 10, and further, consider 
that those first-named as bein^ of the circumcision, wQuld not be 
thought so suitable for being sent to a church composed almost 
entirely of Gentiles, only Luke will then remain. But with respect 
to him, as he certainly had been with the apostle at Philippi (comp. 
Acts xvi. 10, sq.), and yet no notice is taken of him throughout 
the whole epistle, not even at iv. 21, the conj oture is well founded 
that he was not present with the apostle when the epistle was writ- 
ten, as also De Wette and Meyer suppose. This historical refer- 
ence has not indeed led us to any positive result, but it has at least 
proved that the apostle's words, ver. 20, 21, do not apply to any 
of those of his fellow-labourers in reference to whom they would 
have excited our surprise. 

Ver. 22. If in the others there is no complete devotedness to be 
looked for, on the other hand, the proof of Timothy is known to the 
Philippians, from their own experience. Acts xvi. 1, sq. rivaxr- 
K€T€, regarded as the imperative, does not agree with what fol- 
lows. On SoKifjLij, indoles spectata, comp. Bom. v. 4 ; 2 Cor. ii. 
9, ix. 18. In what this proof consisted, we are told in the words 
that follow, oTif &c. The expression, as a son with the father^ 
indicates that quality of character by which Timothy had approved 
himself; it implies, disinterested devotedness. Ei^ to eucuffi- 
Tuov is, " for the cause of the Gospel." On the oratio variata in 
irarpl and ain/ifj/ilt comp. Winer, § 64, iii. 1, p. 626. 

Ver. 23. This verse concludes what is said regarding Timothy, 
and points back to ver. 19. The Ta;^ia>9 of ver. 19 is here ex- 
plained : as soon as I shall see how it will go with me. The 
apostle will only wait to see how his future lot shall be determined. 
On the form a<l>iSa>, see Winer, § 5, 1, c. Anm. p. 58. The word 
occurs also in the Sept. at Jon. iv. 5, and signifies to '* see from 
afar," ** to wait for," prospicere. 

Ver. 24. Th^ apostle does not, however, give up the prospect of 

PHILIPPIANS II. 25 — 27. 87 

his own arrival amongst them. The Si corresponds to the fUv, ver. 
23. On iv Kvpup, comp. ii. 19. On the hope here expressed, 
i.25, 26; Phil. 22, 

Ver. 25 — 80. The sending back of Epaphroditas has nothing in 
common with the object of Timothy's mission. So that, De Wette 
does not give the true scope of the passage when he understands 
the apostle to mean, "As it is not certain either that I shall see 
you myself, or that I shall send Timothy, I have deemed it neces- 
sary, &c." The reason of Epaphroditus being sent is represented 
in ver. 26 and 28 as arising out of merely personal circumstances. 
Nothing farther is known of Epaphroditus, beyond the notice that 
is here taken of him. It cannot be proved with any certainty, that 
he is the same person as the Epaphras named in Col. i. 7, iv. 12 ; 
Phil. 23. Comp. Winer B.W.B. on Epaphras. There is nothing 
decidedly against this conjecture in our epistle, as he might be the 
bearer of the contribution to the support of the apostle from the 
Philippians, without belonging to their church. In the following 
predicates the apostle describes him, as well in his relation to him 
as to them (jiou — vfA&p Bi). These are his recommendation. The 
first three form a climax — brother (in the Lord) — my companion 
in labour — in struggles and dangers. Phil. 2 ; 2 Tim. ii. 3, sq. — 
*Tfi£v Bi wrriuTToXav, The expression in its general signification, 
viz., *' deputy," occurs at 2 Cor. viii. 23. How could he be called 
the apostle of the Philippians? Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 1 — 3. The 
word v/ACdi/ standing foremost, as the antithesis to the preceding 
part of the verse, extends to the "Keirovfyyov TJ79 %p€/a9 fiov, as ver. 
30 also proves. Aeirovpyo^ as Xeirovpyeay, Bom. xv. 27, and 
Xeirovfyfia, 2 Cor. ix. 12, and in a subsequent passage in this 
epistle, ii. 30, is to be taken in its wider signification, viz., *' ser- 
vant." Xpela means *' want," not, the thing wanted. The Xet- 
rovpyoVf'Scc., explains the airotrrdKop. 

Ver. 20. This verse tells us why the apostle thought it neces- 
sary to send back Epaphroditus, namely, because he (Epaphroditus) 
longed after the Philippians, and was in heaviness because that 
they had heard that he was sick. On the fflf with the parti- 
ciple, see Winer, § 46, 11, p. 411. — ^ASrjuop&v, comp. Matth. xxvi. 
37 ; Mark xiv. 33 (from oSeo) to be satiated, to be disgusted with 
a thing.) 

Ver. 27. The apostle confirms the intelligence they had received ; 

88 PH1LIPPXAN8 II. 28 — 80. 

for indeed he was siek, nigh unto death, but Qoi had meroy on 
him, and not on him only, bat on me also, that I might not have 
sorrow upon sorrow. By the sorrow to which a fresh sorrow would 
have been added, but for the reoovery of Epaphroditus, the most 
of expositors rightly understand, his condition as a prisoner ; oomp. 
ver. 28, from which we see that the apostle has still sorrow, al- 
though it is not increased on account of Epaphroditus. — Tlapa" 
irT^ctov may be understood either, with Meyer, as an adverb of 
comparison, or (which is more agreeable to ver. 80) as a preposi- 
tional adverb, signifying *' near to." Comp. Winer, § 58, 6, p. 
504. That Xvrrrjv cttI Xumiv, and not XuTrp^ is the true reading, 
is folly proved. 

Ver. 28. In such circumstances he hastened the execution of his 
purpose to send him back, in order that they seeing him again, or 
rather, seeing him might again have joy, and he have less sorrow. 
On ^1^69, which does not depend on x^P^^f comp. Winer, § 46, 
1 «« p. 896. On ira>uv connected with xa/9^€, see Meyer on this 
passage. ^A\wr&repo^, in so far as the anxiety of the Philippians 
regarding Epaphroditus is sorrow to the apostle, it ceases so soon 
as they again rejoice. 

Ver. 29, 80. The recommendation of Epaphroditus to their Chris- 
tian reception. Receive him then — according to my intention-r~^ 
Kvpupf as it becomes Christians, with every mark of joy, and hold 
such men in honour. This general form which the apostle gives to 
his injunction, may perhaps be regarded as bearing out what we 
have remarked on the words iTrurKOTrot^ and Suucovoi^, ch. i. 1. 
Comp. also ii. 8. The tendency to overvalue self, has for its re- 
verse side the tendency to undervalue others. Ver. 80 represents 
as the ground of such a recommendation, the service rendered by 
Epaphroditus to the cause of Christ, for which the church owes 
him special thanks. It has been much disputed whether irapa- 
/3ov\eva'dfM6vo<: or 7rapafio7^£vaafjbevof: is the true reading. Tischen- 
dorf has in his latest edition again received into the text the for- 
mer, according to Codd. C.J.G., and the Fathers ; whilst Ories- 
bach, Lachmann, Scholz, Goschen, Matthies, Winer, De Wette, and 
Meyer^ decide in favour of wapajSo'KeuadfjLepoq, which has the pre- 
ponderating authority of A B.D.E.F.G., &c. Neither the one nor 
the other is found in profane writers ; TrapafiovXjeiM'dfjkevo^, how< 
ever, occurs in the Fathers, which may explain how this reading 

PHIUPPIAN8 II. 29, 30. 89 

baa arisen oat of the other, while the other can only be regarded 
as an error of transcription (Van Hengel.) The formation of the 
word {irdpd^oKov etvcu) as Winer, § 16, 1, p. 104, has shown by 
other examples, argues nothing against it. In the profane writers 
irapafiaXKeaOeu occurs in this sense, both with the accusative, for 
example, ifi^ '^^vyrpf " to stake my life upon it," and also though 
mora rarely with the dative, (as in this passage,) which then denotes 
" with regard to." Winer, § 81, 3, p. 244. — For fixing the sense 
of this verse, it is chiefly necessary to keep in view that clause, 
which informs us that the danger to which Epaphroditus exposed 
himself, was occasioned by the fulfilment of the commission which 
he had received from the Philippians. In that clause, &a, &c. 
(which must be connected with irapafioKevaafievosi) ro v^mw wni" 
prffui is to be rendered : *' What was awanting on your part" — 
vfA&v being taken subjectively as at 2 Cor. viii. 14, ix. 12, xi. 9. 
Meyer understands it as denoting that which was awanting, as in 1 
Cor. xvi. 17, vfj£T€pop, which appears to me not to suit the fol- 
lowing genitive. He renders thus — *' yon have failed in rendering 
pecuniary assistance." What was lacking on their part, may be 
seen by reference to such passages as 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; Phil, xiii., 
namely, the persoftai service, as Luther renders it, " that he might 
serve me in your stead." It will not do to understand by vtrri- 
ffvifia, the conveyaftce of the gift, as that which was lacking on 
the part of the Philippians, for this in itself cannot be considered 
as exposing the life to danger. The expression is more probably 
to be understood as implying, on the part of Epaphroditus, a self- 
forgetting, self-sacrificing zeal in the service of the apostle, which 
occasioned the illness that brought him nigh unto death. Still 
nothing can be said with certainty on the point. On the other 
hand, there can be no doubt as to the sense of the words, for 
the work of Christ ; in their connection with Xva they can, at 
least directly, only be understood to signify that the service which 
he rendered to the apostle, was undertaken/or the work of Christ. 
That Epaphroditus was also active in teaching, may be inferred 
firom ii. 26. 

90 PHIUPPIAN8 III. 1 — IV, 1. 


(Ch. iii. 1— iv. J.) 

The apostle has already said what lay Dearest to his heart. He 
now addresses himself to the coDclasioD, in which he once more calls 
upon them to rejoice^ and specially to rejoice in the Lord; for he 
has still to warn them against those who would deprive them of 
this joy, and who would do so in a twofold way. On the one 
hand, danger threatens them from the Judaizing false teachers, on 
the other, from the contaminating example of those whose conver- 
sation is immoral. The apostle warns them against the former in 
vv. 1 — 16, against the latter in vv. 17 — 21, and then closes this 
section ch. iv. 1 with the comprehensive exhortation to stand fast 
in the Lord, in the way in which he has directed them. We proceed 
to the more particular examination of these topics as they are sue* 
cessively hrDught before us in this chapter. 

Ver. I . To \oi7r6v, the well known form of expression denoting the 
transition to the conclusion ; '* what yet remains," what the readers 
have still to attend to, in addition to that which has been already 
said. Comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Eph. vi. 10 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ; 2 Thess. 
iii. 1, and in this epistle ch. iv. 8. What yet remains is, however, 
nothing different from what he has already said to them, viz. x^ 
p€T€. It is the key-note of the epistle which he once more strikes, 
it is the one, in which all that he has still to say is comprehended. 
It appears to me that tbe apostle designedly places before the fol- 
lowing warning, this ^^a/pere, and especially 'yalpere iv KvpUp^ re- 
joice in the Lord, with that joy which has its source and its element 
in Him, which is had only in fellowship with Him. For, the %at- 
/36T€ iv Kvpup comprehends that .which is represented in the words 
<m]Ker€ iv KvpUp, iv. 1, as lying at the foundation of the following 
exhortation. I see no reason, therefore, to suppose that the apostle 
immediately loses sight of the conclusion introduced at ver. 1. 
Why may not the warning which follows be considered as a part of 
that which still remains to be said ? That much still remained to 
be said, or rather that what remained has been said at such length, 
does not argue against this. May it not be the same here as at 
1 Thess. iv. 1 ? — The view which regards to Xoiirovy &c., as the 


coDcIasion to what goes before, is forbidden by the true significa- 
tion of TO XotTTOP. Many hold it to be inadmissible that the apostle 
in TO XotTTov passes to the conclusion, because be has not yet 
thanked the Philippians for the gift which they had transniitted to 
him. As if the ro \ovir6v necessarily excludes the insertion of 
thanksgiving ! On the evidence which some have thought to find 
in this passage in favour of the supposition that two epistles are 
joined together, comp. Introd. § 4, B. It is not necessary, on the 
one hand, to suppose that the apostle added what follows after an 
interruption, or that he introduces a pause after 'xalfiere iv levpl^. 
And just as little reason is there, with De Wette, to consider the;^a(- 
pere (as at iv. 4, 1 Thess. v. 16,) as an exhortation standing by it- 
self. For the cases compared are not analogous. This exhortation, 
unless connected with what precedes and what follows, would ob- 
scure the train of thought throughout the entire epistle, which is 
otherwise so clear. If the view which we have stated above, ac- 
cording to which, the xalpere iv fcvpup is purposely placed before 
the warning that follows, is rejected as improbable, then we can 
only say with Meyer, that the conclusion to which the apostle ad- 
dressed himself at ver. 1 was immediately waived, because another 
topic had come into his mind, which must be disposed of ere he 
should conclude. 

If we have rightly apprehended the sense of the to \oi7r6v 'xfU 
p€T€ iv KvpUp with which the apostle here begins anew, then the 
difficulty will be removed from the words that immediately follow ; 
to write the same things to me indeed is not grievous^ but for you 
it is safe. It is well-known that expositors are divided as to 
whether these words refer to what goes before or to what follows. 
In the latter case, either passages have been sought in the preced- 
ing portion of the epistle, which are supposed to contain warnings 
similar to those here given, as i. 15, xvi. 27, sq. (so Liinemann 
recently), or it has been suggested that the apostle alludes to oral 
statements which he had made, and which he now repeats in 
writing, so that emphasis is to be placed on the word write (which, 
however, the context in no way indicates, comp. Van Hengel, 
litinemann, and*Meyer on this passage), or, finally, epistles of the 
apostle that have been lost are here called into service, which are 
supposed to have contained such warnings against false teachers. 
The last of these hypotheses might be reckoned the most probable 



if, in general, there were any oooasion for sach a hypothesis ; and 
in confirmation of it, the testimony of Polycarp might he appealed 
to, ad Phil. 8 : B^ xal auwv vfilv eypay^^v iiriaTdKd^, as Meyer has 
done, although, it is doubtful whether this testimony may not be 
greatly weakened, by the words occurring at cap. 1 1 : qui estis in 
principio epistolae ejus. But it must at least be acknowledged that 
it is not the apostle's custom, to refer in this manner to epistles 
formerly written by him. (Van Hengel, p. 210). We have already 
stated the objection to the second hypothesis, and, with regard to 
the first, it cannot but be acknowledged that those passages which 
can by any chance be appealed to, bear only a very general resem- 
blance, and that it could scarcely be deemed appropriate for the 
apostle to justify their repetition by the words, lo me indeed U is 
not grievous hut for you it is safe (Van Hengel, p. 211). And 
this will appear still more true U, as has been seen above, i. 15, 16 
is to be understood not of Judaizing, but of purely personal oppo* 
nents of the apostle. If we now turn to the other supposition, ac- 
cording to which T^ airrd is referred to the words immediately pre- 
ceding, and in favour of which, not a few commentators, as Bengel, 
Storr, Matthies, Van Hengel, Billiet, have decided, it will be seen 
at the first glance, that the fact of the x^^^^ having been already 
repeatedly spoken of, confirms this view. The apostle has at i. 18 
denoted his own predominant feeling by the word Joy ; by the ex- 
pression y^y of faithj he denotes the object at which the Philip- 
pians are to aim. The entire section i. 27 — ii. 18, takes (through 
the only, i. 27) the form of an answer to the question, how this 
joy of faith is to be arrived at. The conclusion, ii. 17, 18, evi- 
dently turns back to this point of departure (on which comp. the 
exposition), and he closes expressly with the words Joy and re^ 
Joice with me. And now when the apostle, having with these words 
closed his exhortation, sets out anew, iii. 1, with the word rejoice, 
and adds, to write the same things, &c., is it not most natural to 
refer the same things here spoken of, to these words ? What 
has hitherto been objected to this interpretation does not, as I ap- 
prehend, affect the explanation we have given. For the objection, — 
that avrd cannot apply to x^lpere hv KvpUp and t&e references to 
what goes before connected with this expression (comp. Van Hen- 
gel, p. 211, sq.), and that, if such were the case, roavro would be 
used, has been satisfactorily replied to by Meyer (p. 88) although 

FHILIPP1AN6 HI. 2. 98 

he is in other respects opposed to our view. The ohjeotion that 
ii. 18 treats of quite a different x^oUpeiv, and that ''up to this 
point no call to Christian joyfulness in general has been addressed 
to jthe Philippians," loses its force when viewed in connection with 
the explanation we have given of what goes before, whilst it might 
with reason be urged against the most of interpretations. The 
only remaining source whence an objection has been drawn, is the 
expression cmt^X^, which is said not to be suitable to the exhor- 
tation yalpere^ but only to a warning against danger. But does 
this objection affect our interpretation, when this very x^oUpere iv 
tcvpltp (on the significance of levpl^ here added we have already 
remarked above) forms the introduction to the warning against 
falling away from the Lord ? Gould the apostle, in order to 
explain what might seem strange in his beginning with to 
Xo$w6v9 and yet calling upon them again to rejoice, not appro- 
priately say — " do not wonder that I write this to you once more, 
it does not awaken doubt in me (commonly, me non piget, Meyer, 
better, * doubtful'), but it conduces to your safety." He thus sig- 
nifies by the word aa^MKh his object in again addressing to them 
the injunction ;^a/p€Te ^i; tevpUp, i can see no serious di£Bculty 
in this. 

Ver. 2. Here follows the motive that has induced the apostle 
again to call upon his readers to rejoice in the Lord ; namely, the 
danger that threatens them from those who do not rejoice in Christ, 
but have their confidence in the^«^. In opposition to them, he 
exhorts the Philippians to rejoice in the Lord. That the perver- 
sion is not to be conceived of as having already gained ground, 
but only as having been possible, see on this our remarks in the 
Introduction, and chiefly the work by Schinz there cited. — This 
circumstance will with difficulty be reconciled to the view, that the 
apostle had previously addressed an epistle to the church, "which 
was professedly, and with all the energy of the apostle, as yet un- 
restrained in his labours, occupied with the Judaizing teachers, in 
something of the same style as the epistle to the Galatians," Meyer. 
In such a case it roust be supposed that, as in the church at Oa- 
latia, the perverting influence of the false teachers was already 
manifest ; a supposition which is not borne out by this epistle, in 
so far as it makes us acquainted with the state of the church. It 
has moreover been thought that the tone of severity which cha- 


raoterizes the following passage, is so much at variance with the 
gentle and cordial spirit that pervades the rest of the epistle, and 
especially, that it differs so much from the manner in which at i. 
15, sq. he speaks of the Judaizing teachers, as to warrant pur 
identifying it with the tone of that supposed epistle, from which 
the following passage has been partly taken. But the transcrip- 
tion ot passages or expressions from another epistle, the tone of 
which did not agree with this, would also have something strange 
in it. And then, that the sharp and severe style in which he writes 
against the Judaists, may yet he accompanied with an affectionate 
and familiar manner towards the church, we shall afterwards see 
when at ver. 18, sq., he directs his address to the church. When 
this passage, however, is compared with i. 15, sq., the difference in 
style which is so manifest, ought to lead to the conclusion that in 
that place, not Judaizing opponents are meant, but opponents of 
a different kind ; otherwise, the joy which the apostle there ex- 
presses in their preaching of Christ, could not be reconciled 
with the manner in which he expresses himself in this pas* 
sage. Gomp. supra. BX^Trere roiff; tcuva^. The apostle here 
warns his readers of a danger already known to them, whether 
we suppose it to have been in the church itself or in its neigh- 
bourhood, that such Judaists sought to gain access. They are 
to keep these false teachers in view, in order rightly to learn their 
character. By thus looking at them, they will learn what they 
ought to think of them, and that they ought to beware of them. 
BAiTTcre itself does not, however, mean " beware," on which see 
Winer, § 32, 1, p. 256, but "look at" in order to learn. So 1 Cor* 
X. 18. Similarly axoTrelp, Bom. xvi. 17. The expression tou9 
Kuva^ is not so much to be understood in the sense in which it is 
generally used by profane writers, as denoting " bold and impudent 
men," as in its Scriptural sense, according to which it denotes " impure 
men,^' who have no part in what is holy ; therefore a term of reproach 
commonly applied by the Jews to the Gentiles. So also the most 
recent commentators. 

BXeTrere roi^ kokois ipydra^. On the emphasis implied in 
the repetition, see Winer, § 67, 2, C. p. 602. On roif^ Kcucoif^ 
ifyfdra^, compare the corresponding SoTuoi ifyfarav, 2 Cor. xi. 13. 
Finally, the expression r^v /icararo/Ai^y describes the opponents spe- 
cifically as Judaizing teachers of the law, who insisted on the 

pmuppiANS III. 2. 96 

circamcisioD of the Oentiles, and with this, on the acknowledgment 
of the whole law. The apostle calls them Kararofj/rjv " the concision," 
not nr€pvTOfjuriv (the ahstract for the concrete), to signify that their 
TreptTOfii^.to which they attach so mach value, has no higher meaning, 
that it is nothing hut a mangling of the flesh, and therefore more 
a defect than an advantage. On this play upon words, see Winer, 
§ 62, 2, p. 602. Similarly, Gal. v. 11, 12. The antithesis at ver. 
3, in the words, having no cotifidefice in the fleshy shows, wherefore 
the apostle designates the ireptrofii^ of these opponents as a mere 
cutting without any higher signification. He would not have thus . 
characterized the circumcision of the Old Testament in itself 
(comp. Bom. ix. 4, sq.) ; any more than he ever expected of Jews 
who hecame Christians, that they would give up the obser- 
vance of the law. What was his opinion, as also that of the rest of 
the apostles, on this subject, we learn from Acts xv. 6, sq., com- 
pared with Gal. 2.^ If only the observance of the Old Testament 
law were kept in subordination to the truth declared in Acts 
XV. 11, we believe, that through the grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christy we shall he saved even as they, then might the Jew who 
had become a Christian, always remain faithful to the law of his 
fathers. Nay the apostle himself acted on this principle in his own 
conduct, as is proved by the account of his vow, Acts xviii. 1 8, of 
his purification, Acts xxi. 26, and also of the circumcision of Timothy, 
Acts xyi. 3 ; notwithstanding of all the earnestness with which he 
contends against the imposition of the law as a condition of sal- 
vation. Baur is therefore wrong when he maintains that in this 
passage the Christians are described as the true irepirofnj^ the Jews 
as the false Koraropurj, The circumcision of the Jews becomes a 
KaraTOfiff only because, instead of rejoicing in Christ, they put 
confidence in the flesh, as is shown at ver. 3. And equally mis- 
taken is Baur also in supposing that the difference in quality be- 
tween true and false circumcision, is here expressed by the differ- 
ence in quantity implied in the terms vepvTOfinj and Kararofi'q. 
How can any one impute to the writer of this epistle such an ab- 
surdity as would be implied in his characterizing the circumcision 
of the Jews as Kararoiiri with reference to its quantity, in opposition 
to the circumcision of the heart, which is made without hqnds. 
The apostle rather gives his opponents the appellation KararofArf 

1 Compare my dissertation do consensu looorqm, Acts xv. et Gnl. 2 Erl. 1847. 


(which by no means has a greater quantitative force than wept' 
TOfjuri, H8 it signifies only catting, *' incision"), because he aims at 
representing that circumcision of the flesh in which they put so 
much confidence, as entirely worthless, as what it is Tiewed out- 
wardly, a mangling, a mutilaiiofi, in which one has no cause to 
rejoice. Others are for taking KaraTOfiij in an active sense, as 
already Theodoret has done, denoting that the opponents were 
aiming at cutting in pieces and destroying the church, which is 
plainly forbidden by the antithetical irepirofjuj, in the passive sense 
at ver. 3, as has already been observed by others. 

Ver. 3. The apostle now explains why he designates his Jewish 
Christian opponents by Kararo/iri and not by irepnofiri ; for we are 
the circumcision (17 TreptTOfirj) , not the concision, ufho worship Ood 
in the spirit (the reading deov is satisfactorily established), and re- 
joice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. In 
these few words is contained the sum of what the apostle says in 
the epistle to the Galatians in refutation of these opponents. This 
antithesis is, however, according to Baur, expressed by the apostle, 
not with the view of saying anything relating to the subject, 
but of affording him an opportunity of speaking about himself, as 
is the practice with the authors of pseudo-apostolical writings. 
But, in the first place, the apostle as yet says nothing of himself; 
but designates himself together with the entire church at Philippi, 
and without respect to any difference between Jews and Gentiles 
belonging to it, as the true irepvropa, in which the opposition be- 
tween Jew and Gentile is done away with, so as distinctly to show 
that by Kararoiiri he does not mean the circumcision of the Jews. 
Compare similar passages at Bom. ii. 25 — 29, circumcision of the 
heart. Col. ii. 1 1, in whom ye also are circumcised with the cir^ 
cumcision made without hands, &c. and the Introduction, § 4. 
In addition to these, 1 Cor. vii. 19 ; Gal. iii. 28, v. 6, vi. 15, with 
respect to the difference between Jew and Gentile being done 
away with in Christ ; which, however, does not imply that its con- 
tinuance in time is abolished, any more than the continuance of 
such differences as are expressed in the words, bond and free, 
male and female. The words of ver. 3 contain in particular 
nothing difficult. According to the true reading Trvev^ri Oeou, Xa- 
Tpevo) is absolute, as at Heb. ix. 0, x. 2 ; Acts xxvi. 7 ; Luke 
ii. 87. The dative is to be understood as the casus instrumflntalis. 


oomp. Winer, § 81, 4, p. 246. Ilvevfjui deov^ihe new principle of 
life in opposition to all that which belongs to the natural man, — the 
o-dp^, which appears as the angodly principle, in consequence of its 
opposition to the former. Gomp. the similar passage at John iv 23, 
ihey shall toorship the Father in spirit and in truth, and such 
passages as Heb. ix. 10, 14; Gal. iii. 8, &c. The expression 
ica^i^X^fisvohy as at 1 Cor. i. 81, ii. 21 — 28; 2 Cor. x. 17, is ex- 
plained by its being in opposition to those who rejoice in the flesh. 
What we are to understand by the words rejoicing in Christ, ap- 
pears from the antithetical expression, having no cot^fidetice in tlie 
flesh : see also ver. 9. By the <rap^ in which these opponents 
place their confidence, is meant not merely circumcision, but all 
that the apostle mentions in vv. 5, 6. 

Ver. 4. After the apostle has in ver. 8, placed the circumcision 
of bis opponents as a mere cutting of the body, in opposition to 
the true circumcision^ he proceeds in this and the following verses 
to oombat them with their own weapons. He himself possesses 
all that to which they attach so much value, nevertheless, he has 
renounced it all for the sake of Christ. — The Kaivep iyoi^ ^a>i/ is 
closely connected with the ovk h aapicl weiroiOiTe^, and qualifies 
it especally with respect to the apostle himself, who is included in 
the ^fiek of ver. 8. It is not because he is without such advan- 
tages that he puts no trust in them, but not?rithstanding of his 
possessing them, in as great a measure as any one can do. The 
participle ^oii/ is to be construed with the icfuv of ver. 8. — "E^toy 
rreirolBfiaw kqX iv capxl ; that the apostle does not really cherish 
any such confident trust, is evident both from the foregoing 
ovveirot0iT€^, and the following Soxet fren-otdivat. (Compare on 
'rrerroidfja-Kf Harless on Eph. iii. 12.) It has therefore been 
supposed, according to Beza, that ireirolBniaiv is to be under- 
stood as expressing by metonyme the ground of confidence, or, 
that fx^^ ^^ ^ ^® taken as equivalent to ix^iv Bwdfieuo^, or, (Van 
Hengel) that it is intended to refer to what is past. The true way 
is g^ven by Meyer, who on exoiv observes, '' confidence in carnal 
advantages is here regarded as a possession, which Paul although 
he makes no use of it, still has, and which he can bring into no- 
tice when anything is to be gained by it." On the other hand, I 
am inclined to understand the BoKei in the words that follow, as ex- 
pressive of what one thinks of oneself, as at 1 Cor. iii. 18, viii. 2, 



xiv. 37 ; Gal. vi. 3, rather than of what others think of him (equi- 
valent to ** appear," •* are found," comp. Gal. ii. 6, 9), not, however, 
as implying the ireiroiJdhai^ but only the possession of outward 
advantages. At eyw /taXXoi;, hoK& is to be supplied ; comp. inrep 
eyo}, 2 Cor. xi. 23. Thus does the apostle match himself with 
those false teachers, becoming a fool with them (as he expresses it, 
2 Cor. xi. 17.) 

Ver. 5, 6. In proof of the assertion in iyw fiaXXov, the apostle 
here enumerates the particular grounds of confidence, in which 
the Jews trusted. We are not, however, to look for a fiaXKov 
irfa> in every single particular, as this is not necessary in order to 
the proof of the assertion. The first advantage of this kind is irept,- 
TO/iQ o/eraijfiepo^ — this is the true reading, not vepirofirj^ for rea- 
sons of a grammatical kind, comp. Winer, § 8 1 , 3, p. 244, where 
also see on the dative, denoting '* with reference to." The eighth 
day (comp. Lev. xii. 3), the mark of the native Jew, as distin- 
guished from the proselyte. According to the remark made above 
on i^w fjLoKKov, it is not to be inferred with certainty, that those 
Jewish-Christian opponents were partly proselytes. The apostle 
enumerates all such advantages as belong to himself, and the eycb 
fmKXxw is to be inferred from the whole taken together, not from 
each particular. In censum nunc venit splendor natalium, as Van 
Hengei expresses it. To this belong three particulars. Of (he 
stock of Israel, of the tribe of Betijamin, an Hebrew of the He- 
brews, the first of which denotes the gens, the second, the tribe, 
the third the paretits from which he is descended. Comp. the 
similar passages at 2 Cor. xi. 22 ; Bom. xi. I. On Israel, as the 
designation of the people in their theocratic relation, see Harless 
on £ph. ii. 12. Others render, '* of the race of Israel, i.^. Jacob." 
We learn from history that the tribe of Benjamin was held in ho- 
nour. *EPpa2o^, not with reference to the language, as at Acts vi. 
1, but, as De Wette explains, '' denoting extraction from purely 
Jewish parents," in so far as 'Effpaw is expressive of the natural, 
not of the theocratic distinction of the Jews firom other nations. 
Then follow three other particulars, each of which is related to the 
other, for they represent in different aspects a life blameless in the 
eyes of those teachers of the law. Meyer distinguishes this as the 
apostle's theocratic individuality. Kard expresses in each case the 
particular reference, thus, as touching the law, a Pharisee, Acts 

PHILIPPIAN8 in. 7. 99 

xxii. 3, xxvi. 6, not " aocording to, or conformable to the law." 
To take vofio^ as equivalent to atpeai^, woald be contrary to the 
u^us lingum of the apostle, as well as unsuitable to the connexion, 
as it is the apostle's position with reference to the law that is here 
spoken of. He belongs to the sect whose acknowledged distinction 
18, the observance *of the law. Concerning zeal a persecutor of the 
church. Kara is not to be understood otherwise here than in the 
preoeding clause. Awiaov, used substantively. That which the 
apostle elsewhere characterizes as his greatest sin, 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9 ; 
1 Tim. i. 13, sq., must have been reckoned by those opponents a 
ground of boasting ; and he here mentions it as an honour, although 
ironically, and looking at it for the moment in the light in which 
they regard it. The last particular, Karh BiKOMovvrjv r^v iv 
v6fiq>, with respect to the (entire) righteousness which is founded in 
the law, irreprehensible ; namely, according to the judgment of 
men. It has been already observed how difiPerently the apostle 
himself judges. AtKoioawi] iv v6fup, must not be understood 
(with De Wette) as denoting, righteousness under the law. The 
passages to which de Wette refers are different from the present, 
inasmuch as in them persons are spoken of who are iv v6fi«^. This 
idea of a righteousness founded on the law, is said by Baur to be 
not Pauline ! 

Ver. 7. The apostle having shown how he is superior to all his 
opponents, even when jneasured by their own standard, proceeds to 
say — but what things soever tperegain to me, those I have counted 
loss for Christ, Thus does he in his own person represent the 
position of his opponents to be such, as that what passes with them 
for gain is to be really counted as loss. The irtva " whatsoever," 
includes both the foregoing and all such like advantages, and is 
emphatical, as the following ravra shows* Mol, is not merely to be 
taken as the dative denoting the opiniofi which the apostle then 
entertained ; but as Meyer explains, ** in his former state, Karh 
adpiea^ they were really gain to him." KipSt) plur. ob rerum 
varietatem (Van Hengel.) 'Hyrifuu as actio plane praeterita quae 
per effectus suos durat ; the antithesis to it is at ver. 8, ^ovfuu* 
The expression ybr Christ is explained by the apostle himself at 
vv. 8, 9, in the words, that I mag win Christ, &c. The ground of 
his counting all things but loss, and not gain, lies in Christ, for in 
this his loss consists, that they kept him awav from Christ. We 

G a 


may see from Bom. vii. 7, &C.4 how erroneous it is, to impute the 
workings of the law in consequence of human corruption to the law 
itself, and to include in the &Tiva the law itself^ instead of the 
apostle's position with regard to the law. 

Ver. 8.' — The apostle places ^ovfiai in contrast with rjyrffuu ; 
as then, so now also, whatever his opponents may say. 'AXKk 
liku ovp (not fievovvye) equivalent to imo, vero, Winer, § 67, 4, 
p. 521. Ilcana is that which was denoted at ver. 7 by &Tivc^ 
so that the antithesis lies not in the iraina (Riiliet), but in the 
ff^ovfLai, before which also Kai stands. The present tense expresses 
more pointedly, the opposition to that false doctrine, which would 
require the converted Gentiles to supplement their Christianity with 
Judaism. Further, the apostle counts all but \osb for the ex- 
cellency ^ &c. Avb, TO inrepexpv as a substantive (not for rifv 
wr€p€)(ovaav) in order to give greater prominence to the idea implied 
in it. The excellency on account of which all appears as loss, lies 
in the object of knowledge, Christ Jesus. The nature of this 
knowledge, we learn from w. 9, 1 ; it is a knowledge which pre- 
supposes believing fellowship with Him, and sufferiny the loss of all 
things. Only in this sense does it correspond with the antithesis 
in ffpiyMA, and fjyoviuu. The apostle adds my Lord, under the 
constraining influence of grateful love. The expressions hik rov 
Xpitrrov and Sih ro imepexpv are further explained in what follows — 
first, hih rbv Xpurrov ; this, however, has significance only when 
considered as that which the other presupposes. In order to explain, 
how this knowledge of Christ makes him determine always to count 
all things but loss, he shows at w. 8, 10, that it rests on fellowship 
with Christ; the essential pre-requisite to which is, not the righteous- 
ness of the law but the righteousness which is through faith in him. 
To arrive at this knowledge then, all self- glorying must be renounced. 
Accordingly, the rov yv&va^ of ver. 10 is no other than that 
mentioned at ver. 8, and the secondhalf of ver. 8, and ver. 9 indicates 
that, without which such a yv&vod, is not possible. Thus do we 
understand why the apostle, in the words, ybr whom I am deprived 
of all things, returns to the idea at ver. 7, and, corresponding to 
the expression of that idea in ver. 8 now adds, and do count ihem 
but dung. *E^rjfuw0fjv must not be understood as having a middle 
signification (I have deprived myself) on account of the connexion 
with ver. 7, but may well enough be taken in a passive sense, as 


indeed it usually is (I have been deprived.) It is the cousequence 
of the rjjfjfMii ^fifilavj and the expression is therefore still stronger. 
The words and do count, are not to be separated from for whom^ 
Bni/or whom I have suffered the loss of all things to be taken as a 
parenthetic clause, as appears from the connexion already stated. 
This relative clause would, in that case, be useless, and what follows 
would not appear as an explanation of the hik rh inrep^oVf bat 
would introduce €i/urther reason for the i^yov/iat, whilst, as ver* 10 
shows, no further reason is given, but only the explanation of the 
Sui TO inrepixpv, — SfcvfiaXa, a strong expression for ^rifiia, equi- 
valent to *' refuse," a common derivation from Kval fiaXxlv, see 
Passow.) The end for which the apostle suffers the loss of all 
things, and counts them hut dung, is then stated in the words, 
that I may win Christ, in which accordingly we have the explana- 
tion of the for whom, as also of rhefor Christ, at ver. 7. For 
his sake, i,e. to gain him, I have been deprived of all things, and 
do count them always as dross. The expression xepSi^am is ex- 
plained by the antithesis with ^rifiuaOfjvai ; Christ comes as gain, 
in the place of the loss he has suffered. 

Ver. 9. The words iva Xpurrhv fcepSi^afo evidently correspond 
more to e^tffimOfjv than to '/jyovfuit, unless, with Van Hengel and 
others, we understand xepSalveiv as expressive of a growing posses- 
sion which would involve an idea that we can hardly ascribe .to the 
apostle ; for this K€phaiv€tv \b fully realized by attaining to the right- 
eousness of faith, and entering into fellowship with Christ, ver. 9. 
(The fju}p<l)ovtr0ai at Oal. iv. 19, is a different idea.) If the first 
expression corresponds more to i^rjfiuoOrjv, the teal €vp€0& kv 
airr^f on the other hand, corresponds more to '^ovfiat. It is 
quite evident, that this evpedrjvai is not equivalent to eiva*. On 
the other side, as De Wette remarks, it adequately represents the 
being actually found, and it is therefore not necessary to suppose 
in €vp€0& any allusion to the great day of judgment. De Wette 
and M^yer, have justly stated as reasons why /a^ ^^^ should not 
be immediately connected with evpedA ut deprehendar . . . . 
non habere, (Van Hengel) '' that iv a\n^ and hik irlar^w^ 
Xpurrou do not go together, and thus the significance of the 
evpeOA hf avr^, taken by itself, would be lost." Mfj l^^^ ^^ 
rather to be understood, as introducing a more specific statement 
of what is implied in the €vp€0& iv airr^ On /ky;, Winer^ § 59» 


4, 6, p. 561. In order rightly to understand the following words, 
ver. 9, it is of chief importance to keep in view^ as De Wette has 
shown, the twofold signification of BiKoloawnfv as connected with 
ifii^v, and rf^v ifc vo/jmv. By ifii^v, the apostle denotes one's own 
righteousness wrought out by himself, as Bom. x. 8, rffp ISiav 
Bi/calo<rvvrfv» The opposite of this, as the passage just cited 
shows, is 1^ Tov 0€ov Bitcaloawrf, or, as it is here expressed, rtfv 
ktt 0€ov iucaioauvfiVy whilst to the rr)v he vofiov is opposed the 
rifp Bi^ TTioreo)? XpioTov. I connect, however, the iirl t^ irur- 
T€i at the close, with the last Bucalotrvvrtf as denoting the founda- 
tion on which this Bifcaioamn) 6eov in the individual rests, whilst 
in SiA ^urr£o>9, faith is represented in its objective aspect, as the 
means by which that righteousness is approprinted, corresponding 
to the €K pofioV' The ti]p Ik Oeov BtKaioavpi^p eirl t^ irlaret, 
taken as one idea, forms then the antithesis to e/iffp BixaloavptiP ; 
it is not a righteousness proceeding from the individual who pos- 
sesses it, but from God, and belonging to the individual only in 
so far as it rests on the foundation of faith, as its subjective con- 
dition. It wiU be seen that this interpretation fully brings out 
the antithetical relation of the several clauses to one another.-— 'E^ri 
T^ Trlarev is most simply rendered, as Meyer does, by ** on the 
ground of faith," which, however, requires ^ovi/ to be supplied 
after oKKd, But in this case would not ^cdi/ be repeated 7 And 
is not the omission of the article justified by this, namely, that hrl 
irUrru completes the idea which stands opposed to the €/a^ Bit 
Kaloavpfj? The examples adduced by Winer, § 19, 2, p. 155, 
amply justify this. Compare also Harless on Ephes. i. 15. — 
Against the interpretations '* on account of faith,*' or '* on the 
condition of faith," nothing can be objected grammatically, but it 
seems the most natural way to understand eirl 'nrurret in immediate 
connection with Bucaloawrfp, as we have done. So also 01s- 
hausen. As parallel passages on this subject, comp. Bom. iii. 21, 
22, ix. 82, X. 8, 5, 6, &c., especially on the idea of righteousness 
proceeding from Ood, such passages as iii. 26. God is the Bucai&p 
TOP etc 7r/crT6(»9, iv. 5, &c. 

Ver. 10. Tov fmpcu avTOP, Not to speak of the ungrammatical 
connection of this clause with eirl r^ maret (against which comp. 
Meyer and Van Hengel), it is understood either as parallel to the 7pa, 
ver. 8, or as dependant on evpeOA, or finally, as further explicative 


of the relation expressed in /t^ l^cov, ver. 9. If we have rightly 
apprehended the train of thought from ver. 8 to ver. 10, then th^ 
first of these interpretations falls of itself to the ground, as it im- 
plies that there is no train of thought, and for this reason it pre- 
sents no adequate parallel, as Meyer has also observed. There is 
room for doubt as to whether the clause should be connected with 
€up€0d> or with fiif S^wv (so Meyer), and it is all one which we 
adopt so far as regards the idea conveyed, as in connection with ev- 
p€0&, it roust still be understood as expressing the relation which 
is more exactly determined by the /t^ ^o»y» as the fellowship of 
faith. If Tou depends on eupeOA^ which appears to mo more na- 
tural than to regard it as a by-clause having an explicative force, 
then the construction will be entirely similar to that at Bom. vi. 6, 
where also, on a clause beginning with tm, denoting " end or aim," 
a new one is made to depend with rov and the infinitive. The 
following is the idea intended to be expressed : " the apostle gives 
up all, in order that, through the righteousness of faith (which re- 
quires as its condition this renunciation of what belongs to self), he 
may be found in Christ, so as in consequence of this fellowship to 
know what is stated in ver. 10." So, at £phes. iii. 18, the beiu^ 
rooted in love is represented as that which knowledge presupposes. 
Thus, as Meyer has also observed, the rov yv&vai explains the 
origin of the knowledge mentioned at ver. 8, and from this its origin, 
it appears why the apostle esteems all but loss for its sake ; but this 
knowledge is still more exactly defined in respect of its object, so 
as to manifest its excellency, in comparison with which every thing 
else disappears. That I may know him, says the apostle, and the 
power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, in 
that I am made conformable to his death. This is a knowledge 
which is not possible without being in him ; no mere speculative 
knowledge, but the experimental knowledge and appropriation of 
Christ, a knowledge which makes us like to him who is known, 
and which reaches its perfection only when we shall see him as he 
is, 1 John iii. 18. To know him (avriv), is the apostle s aim in re- 
nouncing all that belongs to himself, in virtue of the believing fel- 
lowship with him of which this self-renunciation is the condition. 
This ainov, however, he now further explains from these two points 
of view, viz. his exaltation and his humiliation. In this twofold 
aspect the apostle aims at appropriating Christ to himselfi and, re- 
nouncing all that belongs to himself, at being entirely transformed 


into his image. The end, however, which he has in view in this 
transformation, is stated at ver. 1 1 ; it is the resurrection of the 
dead to whioh he woald attain. For this very reason, the expe- 
rience of the power of Christ' t resurrection spoken of 'at ver. 10 
cannot mean the same thing as the i^vdarcuri^ mentioned at ver. 
1 1 ; aa elirea^ (si forte, if by any means) always denotes some- 
thing that is not included in what precedes, but is indicated as 
the object to be attained. With this experience of the power of 
the resurrection, the other clauses, and the fellowship, &c, would 
also not correspond. The apostle rather denotes an experience be- 
longing to the present life. What is that knowledge of Christ, 
however, which he means, must be ascertained, on the one hand, 
from the connexion with / count all things but loss, ver. 8, and, 
on the other, from the following criteria, first, that this knowledge 
presupposes a believing fellowship with Christ, secondly, that the in- 
tended fruit of this knowledge is the actual resurrection, and finally, 
that it is to be the object at which the apostle and his readers are 
constantly to aim, ver. 12. The apostle, therefore, cannot be un- 
derstood as seeking to know that power, (which the resurrection 
of Christ has, not by which he was raised up J the experience of 
which is already implied in regeneration, or that fellowship of 
sufferings whioh is connected with it, and of whioh Col. \u\% 
treats. For they are presupposed in the yp&va4,. As little can he 
mean the experience of this power in his own resurrection, as the 
end to be attained through this experience. What kind of 
experience then of the power of the resurrection, and the fel- 
lowship of his sufferings, lies between these two extremes ? The 
life of the apostle himself must furnish the answer. And does 
not this present both to our view, as well the power of the 
resurrection of Christ, as the form of his sufferings ? / live, yet 
not I, he says of himself at Gal. ii. 20, but Christ liveth in 
me, Comp. also Phil, iv. 13. / die daily ^ he says again 
at 1 Cor. XV. 31, again 2 Cor, ii. U, thanks be unto God which 
always eauseth us to triumph in Christ, Always bearing about 
in the body the death of Jesus, that the life also of Christ may 
be manifested in our body, 2 Cor. iv. 10, sq. To these also be* 
long, those passages in which he founds exhortations on the resur* 
rection of Christ, with whom we are risen ; even so we also should 
walk in newness of life. Bom* vi. 4, or if ye then be risen with 
Christy tieek those things which are above. Col. iii. 1. If the 

PH1LIPPIAN8 III. 10. 105 

apostle, by the power of the restirrection, means that power which 
he aims at experiencing in himself, by the renunciation of all that 
bdongs to the old man, and the flesh, so as to attain to the object 
indicated at ver. 11, then by the /ellowahip, &o,, he means a 
second experience, at which he aims as the indispensable condition 
of the first, and this experience, viz., the fellowship of his suffer- 
ings is further explained in the words, bein^ made coftformable to 
his death (referring to yv&vtu. Col. i. 10; Ephes. iii. 18, iv. 2), 
as a being actually made like to him. That this expression /<?/• 
lowship of his sufferings f is not to be confounded with such ex- 
pressions as we are buried with him, Bom. vi. 4, appears from 
what goes before. Bather, as the life of the Christian is to be a 
progressive manifestation of the resurrection of Christ, so in his 
life also is the other side, viz., the form of Christ's sufferings, to be 
manifested. De Wette well observes that, *' as there is no resur- 
rection without death, so neither also without suffering." Comp. 
Bom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 11. The passages above cited will 
show, bow this aspect of Christ was manifested in the life of the 
apostle. There is no necessity for supposing in the words, being 
made conformable, &c., any special prospective allusion to the 
martyrdom of the apostle. The expression is quite intelligible 
without this ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10. (Whether avfifiop^iovfi^evo^ 
or ovfLftop^i^fuvo^, which is supported by A.B.D.* versions and 
Church Fathers, be the true reading is of little consequence, as the 
sense is not affected.) It needs scarcely be shown, that the expla* 
nation we have given fully meets the conditions of the context 
as stated above. De Wette has justly rejected those interpreta- 
tions that would explain the power of the tesurrection by, " the 
apostle's peace of mind," or *' the hope of his own resurrection." 
But Meyers interpretation also, according to which the apostle 
means by this, power the pledge of justification, appears to me (if 
ToO yp&vai, &o., is taken as explicative of the knowledge men» 
tioned at ver. 8) to be too narrow, and not to correspond with the 
believing fellowship already presupposed at ver. 9. Is any such 
pledge of justification needed at this stage, and not rather implied 
in the believing fellowship already existing ? Moreover, this view 
does not place the power of the resurrection in any true relation 
to the fellowship of suffering. How can the certainty of justifica- 
tion and the fellowship of his sufferings be connected together and 

106 PH1UPPIAN8 III. 11. — 14. 

both be regarded as exegetical of airrov ? Is it oot natural and 
necessary, that if, by the fellowship of sufferifigs we uDderstand 
that aspect of Paul's life which corresponds to the sufferings of his 
Lord, then by the experience of the power of Ihe resurrection we 
should also understand the corresponding representation and appro- 
priation of this in his life ? We do not therefore take this to mean 
the moral awakening spoken of at Col. ii. 12, but that manifesta- 
tion of the life as also of the death of Jesus ^ of which the apostle 
speaks 2 Cor. x. 4, and which he denotes as something abiding 
{iramore . . • irepi^povr^,) This life, or rather the striying 
after it, in which Christ represents himself, and the perfection of 
which is denoted at Bom. viii. 29, by <rvfifjL6p<f>ov^ tQ? elteovo^ row 
vlov airrov, is the condition of attaining to the end indicated at ver. 

Ver. 11. On etirw^ si forte, see on ver. 10. Here, it denotes a 
humble striving after, as opposed to a false security. KaTavrriato 
here, as at 2 Mace. vi. 14 ; Acts xxvi. 7 ; Eph. iv. 13, figuratively 
denotes'' the attaining of something," literally " to go down to." Van 
Hengel improperly limits its signification to time or place : si forte 
perveniam ad tempus hujus eventi. The iJ^apwrraai^ r&v ve/ep&v 
is (in this passage only) substantially equivalent to avd(rraai^;i^, 
serves to more vividly represent the idea, as it denotes the terminus 
a quo. What the apostle means by this expression, may be as- 
certained firom such passages as Luke xx. 34, 3d, compared with 1 
Thes. iv. 16 ; Luke xiv. 14, 15. 

Ver. 12 — 14. The apostle here guards against a misapprehen- 
sion, that might be o<X3asioned by what he has just said at ver. 
7 — 11. He does this, not fi*om polemical considerations with 
reference to the false teachers, but for the sake of the Fhilippians, 
that they might learn of him to think humbly of themselves, and 
lay aside that conceit of Christian perfection spoken of at w. 2, 3. 
Comp. especially vv. 13, 15. Not that I have already attained, 
or am already perfect, &c. In order to determine what the apostle 
has not yet attained, we must, first of all, inquire what is said 
in the preceding verses, with regard to which this misunderstand- 
ing was possible. Now this cannot be the resurrection of the 
dead mentioned at ver. 11, for the apostle himself has represented 
this as an object to which he looks forward as future, and after 
wbich he strives. So that there could be no necessity, for his 


guarding them against the misconception that he had already at- 
tained it. That to which the ovk SKafiov refers, can only be the 
TO inrepexpv t^ yvtoaeoi^, ver. 8, or as it is expressed at ver. 10, 
yv&uai auTov. The idea that the apostle has renounced all, in 
order to attain a superabundant good, might certainly be so mis- 
understood as to imply that he had already attained it, and it 
is this misunderstanding (as if the perfection mentioned at ver. 10 
were already realized in him) which he here wards ofiP. In the 
expression eKafiop, the figure of a contest in a race already passes 
through the apostle's mind, but it is distinctly brought forward in 
what follows. The object of this tkafiov is not the /Spafieiov sup- 
plied from ver. 14 ; it is rather to be supplied from what goes 
before, viz., that moral perfection which is indicated in the yv&vcu^ 
ver. 10. This is confirmed by the explanatory words that follow, 
viz., or am aireadi/ perfect, which denote the result of the having 
attained (comp. Winer, § 41, 5, p. 819), and do not mean, *' to be 
at the mark," but *' to be morally perfect," which alone agrees with 
the common usage of the word. (Comp. Van Hengel, p. 240.) 
Therefore also the gloss ii i^Sff BeBiKaioyfiat for ^ ff^ rere- 
Xeuafuu is, in respect of the sense, perfectly correct. AiMxca Sk, 
the apostle here carries out the metaphor taken from a race, el xal 
KarcCKd^fo €^' ^, &c. The object of the KaraXafidv is the 
same as that of the IXa/Sov. The KaraXafiw is stronger than the 
simple eKaPov. Kal is, with De Wette, to be referred to the 
Kui of the following clause. It is difficult to determine the sense 
of the ambiguous i<f> ^. Grammatically, it may mean, " in which 
condition," ** wherefore," " because," " to which." The most na- 
tural way is, with De Wette and others (the same as at Luke v. 
25), to take 6<^' ^ as equivalent to tovto i^* ^, and so to construe 
it as that toOto shall be the object of xaToKd^ca : ** if also I may 
lay hold of that, to which I also was laid hold of by Christ." 
Comp. moreover, Winer, § 62, c p. 469, sq., who prefers the 
signification *' to which," Meyer renders it *' because." ^Eiri in a 
similar connection as denoting that to which a person or thing is 
destined or appointed, 1 Thess. iv. 7 ; Ephes. ii. 10, &c. ; Winer, 
a. a. Q. p. 470. The figure involved in the /careXi/^di/i^ is the same 
as that in the KaraXdfiw. So in Plato Tim. p. 88, D. : leardKafi' 
fidvova-t Kai KaTaKafil3dvovTai \m aXKrikonv, The apostle has 
beei\ overtaken and laid hold of in the course of his departure from 


Christ, namely, at his conversion. De Wette rightly observes, 
that the expression is selected in accordance with the idea of a 
reciprocal action ; comp. Gal. iv, 9 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 12.- -The senti- 
ment expressed in the verse as a whole, namely, that there is no 
attainitig, but merely a following after in order to attain^ is of 
special importance for the Christian life. That perfection, in virtue 
of which our whole life is to become conformable to Christ, is a 
mark of which every one falls short. The fellowship with Christ 
in the righteousness of faith, ver. 9, or the being apprehended of 
Christ, ver. 12, is, so far from being the goal at which we may re- 
pose, only the foundation on which our striving after that perfec- 
tion is to rest ; the entire leavening of the man by the power of 
fellowship with the dead and risen Lord, thatjs the goal. 

Ver. 13 shows that the apostle, in what he has just said, has 
in view his readers and their conduct (ii. 2 — 4) ; hence, not 
merely the emphatical repetition of the thought, but also the 
special address to them oSeX^i, and the^ iya>, the opposite of 
which is not, others who may have this jdea of the apostle, 
but others who seem to have this idea of themselves. As ver. 
18 corresponds to the first half of ver. 12, so at ver. 14, the 
other half, viz., the Suoko) Bi, is further expanded. The sentiment 
already expressed is not simply repeated, but is more strictly de- 
fined, so that, as Meyer justly observes, ver. 18 brings into pro* 
minence the element of self-esteem, whilst ver. 14 more strictly ex- 
plains the hv&Km, both with respect to what lies behind, and to the 
mark that is set before. — -Ev Si supply iroiw (Winer, § 66, III. b. 
p. 676.) Meyer supplies irowv, so that the participles following 
are exegetical of it ; but in the %v the apostle had doubtless in his 
mind the principal idea BuhKO}, and not its subordinate explana- 
tions. On the inadmissibility of other supplementary expressions, 
or the connexion with huoKno itself, see Meyer. The right way of 
following after the mark is stated in the words t^ fih ottuto) — 
i7r€teT€iv6fievo^» It consists in forgetting that which is behind, and 
stretching forward to that which is before. The hr^icrelv^ai re- 
presents the racer stretching forward in his anxiety to reach the 
goal. The rh onlato and the rA SfjvirpoaOev denote, the former 
those stages of the course that have already been passed over, 
and the latter, those that have yet to be passed over ; the ra 

ewrrpooBep does not therefore mean the gaol itself. As it is the 


PHIL1PPIAN8 III. 13. 109 

Striving after Gbristian perfection that is spoken of at ver. 1 3, the 
right explanation of rh vrrUroD and rh ifiirpoa-Oev must he, " the 
progress in this that has already been made« and that which yet re- 
mains to be made. The former is not to be the object of our con- 
templation and self-complacent regard, hut the mind is entirely to 
be directed towards that which is yet to be attained, as a racer 
thinks not of the way that is behind, bnt of that which lies yet be- 
fore him. It is not suitable to the context to refer the rk oirla-o» 
to those things indicated at ver. 7, sq., as having been renounced 
by the apostle. What belongs to the ^sh, as De Wette rightly 
observes, lies mthout the limits of the course here represented, and 
cannot be considered as a part of it That must already have been 
renounced, ere the race begins, to which the apostle here alludes. 
This alone agrees with the context ; for the apostle places this for- 
getting the things that are behind, in opposition to the vain fancy 
of Christian perfection. Thus, he says, he presses toward the mark 
for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus : {Korh 
(TKOTrov, Winer, § 08 d. p. ^76, versus.) That the prize (fipafieiov 
as 1 Cor. ix. 24) is here placed as the object of the Bui>K€Lv, is no 
reason why fipafieiov should be supplied also at ver. 1 2« There 
it is the goal itself that is meant, here it is the prize of victory that 
beckons to the goal, the incorruptible croum, 1 Cor. ix. 26, or 
the crown of righteousness, 2 Tim. iv. ft, or the crown of life. 
Jam. i. 12; Acts ii. 10, of glory ^ 1 Pet. v. 4. — The apostle him- 
self further explains this fipafieiov in the words, high calling of 
Ood in Christ Jesus, The 17 aim KKr^ai^ here is the same as the tcKrj- 
aiM movpdvioti at Heb. iii. 1 . So also Col. iii. 2, rh Apw opposed to 
ra hrl T179 7^. Comp. also Gal. iv. 26 with Heb. xii. 22. This 
KTsJPfavi is thus represented not merely as coming from above, still 
less am I inclined with Meyer to admit that there is in the &iho a re- 
ference to the special calling of the apostle, (against which comp. 
Heb. iii. 1) ; but the nature of this calling is described in general as 
an heavenly, quae ad coelum pertinet, and, as is well observed by Van 
Hengel, the apostle, " following out the metaphor, distinguishes his 
calling from that by which the runners in the race, were wont to be 
called by the arbiters of the contest.*' Similarly 1 Cor. ix. 21. If 
then, the calling in general is characterized as an heavenly, it is no 
tautology, but rather a more particular description of it, when it is 
further represented as proceeding from God (1 Thess. ii. 12), and 

110 PHIUPPIAN8 III. 15, 16. 

as confirmed in Christ Jesas. For I unhesitalingly connect iv 
X. 'I. with icX^o-eoif (oomp. Winer, § 1 9, 2, p. 1 66), not with Buokw 
(comp. I Cor. vii. 22; 2 Pet ▼. 10, &c.) By the /cXQcrt?, however, 
I understand (what it usually denotes) the act of calling, not that to 
which one is called, of which latter signification 2 Thess. i. 11, to 
which De Wette refers, is no proof. 

Vv. 15, 16. The apostle now addresses to his readers the exhor* 
tation ToSro ^povS/A6v, to be thus minded, as the inference from the 
foregoing views (oSi^), whilst at the same time he supposes the case 
of the eT€ptt>9 ff>pov€iv, and expresses his hope with regard to this 
case, with the limitation, however, contained in ver. 16. The 
interpretation of this passage varies hoth with respect to the 
mote definite meaning of toCto ^ov&^iof^ and consequently with 
respect to the el rt irtpo^ (f)pov€tT€, in that some, as Schinz, Meyer, 
and others, understand hy this, the disposition to think humhly of 
ourselves and constantly to press forward, expressed in vv. 12 — 14, 
whilst others understand hy it all that is said from ver. 4 on- 
wards (so Hdlemann, Matthies, and others), or at least from ver. 
8 onwards (so De Wette) as descriptive of that disposition of mind 
which ought to he cultivated; others again refer tovto specially to 
fipafieiovy ver. 14. And there is no less difference of opinion in 
regard to the interpretation of ver. 1 6, where some explain the eU 
o l^aaafJL€v hy high moral attainments, others hy high attain- 
ments in Christian knowledge. To the former belong Sohinz, Van 
Hengel, and Meyer ; to the latter the majority, Bheinwald, Matthies, 
Hdlemann, De Wette. 

The apostle introduces his exhortation by the words ocoi oiv 
riXeioi,. We may therefore look for a definitive exhortation fiowing 
from what goes before; but the oSi/ may just as appropriately 
introduce an exhortation inferred from the whole of the preceding 
context, as one specially referring to that disposition of mind 
delineated in w. 12 — 14, as consisting in a humble opinion of self, 
and a restless pressing forward. The objection which Meyer urges 
against the former view, viz., that only at ver. 12 does the apostle 
first aim his address at the peculiar circumstances of the church 
itself, is not conclusive ; for at whom else but the church is that 
aimed which, at ver. 4 — '1 1 , is said against the false teachers ? The 
right interpretation of the wroi riKeioi will help to the settlement of 
this point. The apostle, in the word Saoi^ leaves it to tho 


jadgraent of the readers to decide, whether or not they belong 
to the class of the riKeioi; or rather it is a call addressed 
to them all to show that they are riXeioi. But what are we 
to understand by riXeiot ? There can be no doubt that it 
is not equivalent to TereKeuDfJuu^ tot, the apostle has just said 
of himself, that he is not what that word implies. It is gene- 
rally explained as being the opposite of pijTrioij 1 Gor. ii. 6, 
iii. 1, xiv. 20 ; Heb. v. 13, 14 ; but, whilst in all these passages 
the antithesis has respect to knowledge, it is allowed that it here 
refers to moral perfection, to the ethical life, which of itself pre- 
supposes a corresponding proportion of practical intelligence. And 
it must certainly be acknowledged that the context forbids our re- 
, ferring the riXemi to knowledge. But how ? Would the apostle, 
who has just been guarding the Philippians against self-esteem, 
and exhorting them to forget what is behind, i.e. the progress 
already made, and, ii. 8, to esteem others better than themselves, 
now call upon those whose great failing was a conceit of their 
moral attainments, to consider themselves as r&sjevoi, in a moral 
pomt of view ? This he could do only ironically, as if he said — 
" You who think yourselves to be perfect shew thnt you are so, 
and shew it by your humility," but the form of expression em* 
ployed by the apostle, in which he addresses the call to himself in 
common with them, is conclusive against this. If, on the other 
hand, the moral perfection denoted by riyjeuoi, is understood as con* 
sisting specially in a humble estimation of self, and a restless 
pressing forward, then the tovto <f>pov&fi€u is purely tautological. 
Gomp. Meyer on tovto if>pov&fiep. TiKciot is therefore not to be 
explained as the opposite of vijinoi in the sense of *' those less ad- 
vanced in moral attainments," for in this sense, the apostle would 
characterize neither himself nor others as riKeioi ; nor would he 
call upon any to cherish the opinion of themselves that they are ri- 
Xe^ot, in comparison with others. Rather, at- 1 Gor. ii. 6, ri- 
Xeioi does not denote those more proficient in respect of know- 
ledge, as compared with the less proficient; but those are said 
to be riKeioi to whom the preaching of the gospel is wisdom^ 
which is also the case with the vrfTnoi^y whilst to the opposite class 
this preaching \% foolishness, which does not apply to the viprioiiv 
XpuTT^, so that riKeto^ is there used as equivalent to wvevpLa- 

112 PHILIPPIAN8 in. 16, 16. 

T^09, ii. 15.^ As T€\€M)t then does not there mean the opposite 
of* less proficient," so neither does it here. A Christian can 
be designated riKeio^ in a moral point of view, and called to con- 
sider himself as such, not on acconnt of his own moral attainments 
ill which he excels others ; for this is not to be the object of his 
regard (forgetting, &c., ver. 14), bat solely on account of that moral 
nature which he receives through fellowship with Christ; this, he is to 
possess as a Christian, and on the ground of this may he be called 
upon (as the apostle here calls upon thePhilippians) to press forward 
in pursuit of higher moral attainments. The expression, however, 
is selected with a view to its connexion with the rereT^iAadai, 
which the apostle has used without any figure at ver. 13. Just as 
the 07101/ elifcu is itself the strongest obligation to the cuyuurfii^f so ^ 
the riKeiop elviu of the Christian, (comp. Passow, on the proper 
signification of the term, viz., '* one who has reached his mark"), 
is the strongest call to strive after the reXeunHrOcu ; and thus does the 
apostle call upon his readers, if they are aiming as being otherwise re* 
Xetoi, to strive after the reKeiovadak in the way pointed out by him. 
What is here denoted by riKeuos may be ascertained from ver. 0, in 
which is stated, the pre-requisite to the appropriation of Christ men- 
tioned in ver. 10 ; this appropriation of Christ is, as we have seen, the 
mark spoken of at ver. 12, the attainment of which brings along with 
it the gaining of the prize. The toOto ^pov&fiev then, is certainly to 
be referred to what immediately goes before, which the apostle has 
marked as the one thing after which he strives ; but in this is in- 
cluded the principal idea in vv. 8 — 1 1, as appears from this, — that 
vv. 12 — 14 only aim at preventing a misapprehension of that idea, 
and setting forth the proper way in which the striving mentioned at 
ver. 10 is to be conducted. When the apostle then says at ver. 15 
let us be thus minded, we are certainly to understand what is stated 
at w. 13 and 14, as to the right way in which this striving is to be 
conducted, but not, however, to the exclusion of all reference to vv. 
8 — 11, as if the Philippians did not need to be exhorted to strive, 
as well as to be told in what manner they ought to strive. Such a 
restriction, not to speak of the right interpretation of the riKotoh 

1 TbiB passage is indeed generally ezpUuDed in a different way, but, as I think, im- 
properly, expositors having allowed themseWes withoot reason to be led away from the 
interpretation given above, by the At miirioiv, iii. 1. 

PHIL1PPIAN8 III. 15, 16. 118 

would also not agree with what iDimediately follows. — KaX el t* 
6T6/XD9 <f>pov€lTey &c. With reference to the <j>pov€ip just men- 
tioned, the apostle supposes the possihle case, of his readers being 
in any one respect otherwise minded. He does not say tr^pov, for 
he cannot suppose any radical difference of mind amongst them, 
but only that along with a fundamental sameness of mind there 
may yet exist in the one or other respect, a difference with re- 
gard to the mantier of this (f)pov€w, by which is meant the striving 
after the mark. The context does not furnish more particular in- 
formation as to what differences the apostle had in view. But in 
striking harmony with this passage is the apostle s prayer, i. 9, 
that the love of the Philippian church may increase in all know* 
ledge and judgment. With regard to such differences the apostle ex- 
presses the hope, Ood will reveal even this unto you. The xaX tovto 
cannot of course refer to the tovto <f>pop&fjL€v, but only to the el 
Tt ; in this case also will a true revelation be given to them, as in 
the other, with respect to which they already have {teal) this re- 
velation. The apostle then does not himself instruct them on these 
points of difference, but confides in the power of the Spirit, who 
teaches all things and leads into all truth, that he will supply 
their deficiency in right knowledge, which lies at the foundation 
of the €T€pai9 if)pov€Uf, and will reveal the corresponding know- 
ledge. For airoKoXvy^t is to be understood of a knowledge to be 
imparted, comp. £ph. i. 17. There can therefore have been no 
essential differences, but only such as vanish on a more profound 
acquaintance with the revealed word of truth. — ^We have already 
observed, that to restrict the tovto <f>pov&fA€u to the right method 
of pressing forward, would not agree with what follows. For in 
this case the et tv kripto^ ^poveh-e could only be explained of a 
way of pressing forward, different from that described, away there^ 
fore not characterised by a humble esteem of self, and a restless 
pressing forward. So Meyer, p. 105 : "if in any respect ye are 
otherwise minded, viz., deviate from the wav indicated in the tovto 
<f>povwfjL€v.'' And Sohinz explains, " if you take yourselves to be 
perfect," which indeed is just what Meyer's explanation amounts 
to with this difference — that he (Schinz) rightly understands the ti 
by which, according to this view, the idea is limited tp the one or 
the other respect, viz., of humble or of ceaseless striving. And are 
we to suppose that the apostle here alludes to those who would not 

114 PHIUPPIAN8 III. 10. 

Strive humbly and ceaselessly, and yet does not in this case exhort 
them to humility, and zeal in the pursuit of moral perfection, but re- 
fers them to a revelation from God as if this were the thing which 
they principally needed ? How does this correspond with what the 
apostle says at ii. 1, sq., where he so earnestly guards them against 
their conceit of moral perfection as the fountain of all discord ? 

Ver. 16. The apostle hopes that in the case of their being other- 
wise minded, God will lead them to right knowledge also in this. 
But J he proceeds, w/iereto we have attained ^ let us walk hy the 
same, &c. The irXtfv yet, however, (comp. Passow) contains a 
limitation of the hope just expressed ; it states the condition upon 
which alone he can cherish this hope in regard to them, and this 
condition is,— 'faithful adherence to that whereto they have already 
attained, and such an adherence as displays itself in the conduct. 
Commentators are here, as has been already observed, divided 
in opinion ; some, explaining the i<f>0da-afi€P of a progress in 
morality, others of attainments in knowledge. The former view 
seems to be supported by what Meyer has shown, viz., that iif>6^ 
<rafi€v is correlative with aToiyeLP, and forms with it a connected 
figure, the one denoting that point in the course which has been 
reached, the other, t^ d. aro^,, holding on in the direction by 
pursuing which, that point was reached ; so that if we explain trro^' 
j(€iv of moral conduct, ek B. €<f>0. must mean the same. But 
aTot,j(€w in itself denotes merely conduct, not moral conduct, and 
the T^ avT^ must determine what kind of conduct is h^re meant 
So at Bom. iv. 12, trroiytiu is used of walking in the footsteps of 
faith, and at Gal. vi. 1 6 of walking according to a rule. If r^ 
ain^ is, from what goes before, to be understood oiknowledye, then 
it will mean, to walk conformably to this knowledge (to conduct one- 
self conformably thereto in all things, in thought, word, and deed.) 
The knowledge attained, is represented as the point which all have 
reached ; according to this then, all who have attained to it are 
farther to walk. The apostle says trrovxelv, not merely, " hold 
fast," because in opposition to the iripoy; ^poveiv, all depends on 
their seeing that the knowledge they have already gained grows in 
power and vitality, for only thus can they come to the hoped- 
for revelatiop. — Again, in opposition to the view according to 
which iif)6aaafJLep denotes moral attainments, as De Wette has 
already remarked, it may be urged that frXtfv eh o iif>0daafAev 


must, on aeoouDt of the antithesis, belong to the same class 
of ideas as airoKaXvy^i^f and can therefore only denote a certain de- 
gree of knowledge, for it is not to be overlooked that the Aorist €<f>0d' 
aafjLcv forms an antithesis with the Future airoKoKuy^et. And what 
adequate sense can, according to that view, be assigned to ek S 
i<f>0a4ra/M€P 7 Ek o cannot, as Meyer himself acknowledges, sig- 
nify the point which is common to all, to which all have attained 
in the scale of moral perfection, but must be conceived of as a line 
with reference to which the individuals occupy a position more be- 
fore or behind — a meaning quite opposed to the simple idea con- 
veyed in ek o i<l>0daafA€v* And when can the i^dat^iev be said 
to have taken place ? Side by side with the striving in the same 
way is the €T€pa>9 ^poveuf^ which does not take the same direction. 
How are the Philippians to know what lies in the same direction, 
and belongs to the i^dcaiih in their course of conduct, and what 
does not ? And with what propriety could it then be said that, 
leaving out of sight that in which they differed, they should pursue 
the direction that was common to them all, on which they had all 
entered ? That would be even in the case of there being no kri- 
pck>9 (f)pov€i9^ a very unsafe rule ; for the sin that cleaves to every 
one, and makes him indolent, prevents his moral strivings from 
taking a purely upward direction (t^ apa ^f/reire, Col. iii. 1.) No 
individual Christian's course of life can be regarded as a line mov- 
ing upwards without deviiition, all depending on the direction once 
taken being undeviatingly pursued ; there is rather required a fixed 
rule by which that direction may be regulated, and this rule is the 
knowledge that has been acquired, indicated by o i<f)dda'afi€v (the 
word of the Scripture) through which the Spirit leads ever further 
into the truth on the condition of its being faithfully held fast, and 
guides the individual in his progress through life in the right path. 
— Others render irX'^v by " interim" (Winer, § 67, 4, Anm. p. 622), 
which makes no sensible difference in the connexion of the thought. 
iOdveiv ekf as at Rom. ix. 31, to "attain to something/' " to 
reach it." On the the lof. trroix^lv, for the Imperative, of the se- 
cond person, see Winer, § 46, 7, p. 884« Against the connection 
with cmoKcCKir^i,, as also the connection of the whole sentence 
with ver. 17, see Meyer's remarks. Finally, with respect to 
the reading, the words teavovt to ovto ^povelv are by the united 

voice of the most recent critics pronounced to be spurious. They 


116 PHILIPPIANS III. 17 — IV. 1. 

are not found in A.B. 17, 67**, in several translations, and the 
Fathers. The reason of their interpolation appears from Gal. vi. 
16y Phil. ii. 2, and their spuriousness is confirmed hy the uncer- 
tainty of the order in which they are placed. They are glosses 
intended for explanation, of which to aino (f>pov€iv was first 
inserted, according to D.*F.G., xapovi having been afterwards 

Ver. 17 — iv. 1. To the foregoing exhortation, in which the 
Philippians are enjoined to be of the same mind, and to strive in 
the same manner with the apostle, and if in any thing there is any 
difference, are earnestly exhorted faithfully to carry out in their 
conduct the knowledge to which they have attained, the apostle 
now adds another injunction (having reference chiefly to the last 
point, viz., the trrovxelv), which, like the foregoing, is addressed 
to the readers from regard to the perverting example of others. 
And as in the foregoing exhortation he warns them against the 
influence of Judaistic false doctrine in moving them away from the 
right mark, and misleading them as to the right manner of striving 
after it, so here, it is the worldly mindedness, and the immoral 
courses of others, against the contaminating example of which he 
warns them, and in opposition to which he reminds them of their 
heavenly calling. This transition is very similar to that at Gal. 
V. 13, sq., where also with the warning against Judaistic teaching 
of the law, the apostle connects that against immoral conduct ; 
there, however, this latter warning is not given with reference to 
the Judaizing opponents, as if any such influence were to be feared 
from them, but rather with reference to the Tery opposite stand- 
point, that, viz. of the iXevOepiaj which was abused so as to he an 
occasion to the flesh. And in the passage before us too, it does 
not seem as if the bad example of sensuality in disposition and 
immorality in practice, were to be charged against those Pharisaical 
Jewish-Christians mentioned before, which is the view that up till 
very recently has been held by almost all commentators, but has 
been rejected by De Wette, Meyer, and others. Not that the desig- 
nation, enemies of the cross^ which the apostle applies to them, is 
inconsistent with this view ; comp. Gal. v. 11, vi. 12, sq., where 
this also is said of those Judaizing Christians, that they themselves 
do not observe the law. But the view, according to which the 
opponents here described are the same as those mentioned before. 


renders the manner in which the apostle introduces them to notice, 
ver. 18, unintelligible, for this evidently suits far better the case of 
a new class of persons, than of those already mentioned and to be 
farther described. Why should the apostle not have referred to 
the persons already mentioned, and, besides, have given promi- 
nence to the fact, that such a licentious conduct connects itself with 
their false doctrine, notwithstanding of all their boasting about the 
law ? But we find nothing of this sort« not a word of reference 
to false doctrine, but only the imputation of earthly mindedness, 
and walking after the flesh. And the very way in which the apostle 
speaks of them, with the deepest pain, that wrings tears from him, 
induces us to think that he must allude not principally to such as 
had gone astray in doctrine, but to such as had sunk back into 
earthliness and sin, in the way described at Gal. v. 13, sq. We 
find also in the Corinthian church those who abused the Christian 
freedom, the wavra /jloc efeort, by making it an excuse for the 
sins of the flesh, 1 Cor. vi. 12. We have only to add to this, the 
obdurate rejection of the apostle's warning and admonition to com- 
plete the picture of men such as are described in the passage be- 
fore us. Persons of this description must have been, if not in 
Pbilippi itself, yet in its neighbourhood, as the apostle has repeat- 
edly occasion to warn the Philippians against them. — The view is 
altogether wrong, that the apostle here alludes to heathen. 

Ver. 17. SvfifjLifiriTai /jlov yiveade, similarly 1 Cor. iv. 16, 
fUfjufjTol fjyov 7. Accordingly the sense here will be : " be ye imi- 
tators of me," not " imitators of Christ with me," which- is not 
contained in the words. The <n;^, however, will not signify '* you 
altogether,'* but according to the words that follow, " you along 
with others who are my imitators, who so (oirro)?) walk in this way 
of following my example ; for those others be forthwith denotes in 
the words, Mark them who walk so. They are to imitate him 
and those who walk in the same mind with him, or more correctly, 
they are to imitate him along with others who do so, and to mark 
those others in respect of their imitation of him. Of the words 
that follow, icado>9, &c., " inasmuch as you have a pattern in us," 
Meyer has given the true interpretation in opposition to that 
hitherto received, as he does not refer KaOw^ to ovto)? as a particle 
of comparison, but takes it as the common argumentative " as," 
** inasmuch as," so that the two foregoing injunctions are thereby 

U8 PHlLIPriANS HI. 18. 

confirmed. This view is also oonnteDanced by the change of the 
number in ^fia^^ whilst in the other case the singular, corresponding 
to the fiov, would be used, as also ^erc for ix^wri ; against this 
the singular rvirov proves nothing, as Meyer remarks, the many 
being included in the one. (On rxnrov oomp. I Thess. i. 7 ; 2 
Thess. iii. 9 ; 1 Tim. iv. 12 ; Titus ii. 7 ; I Pet. v. 3.) 

Ver. 1 7 is now confirmed by ver. 1 8. The reason of his referring 
them to his example, and the conduct of those like-minded with 
him is, that there are many whose example they are not at liberty 
to follow. For many walk, &c. Hepvirarovai, here can only be 
taken in the same sense as in the preceding verse (therefore not as 
at 1 Pet. V. 8.) Some are for supplying Mucmj eripoys, or the like 
without reason ; but I am as little inclined to suppose with Meyer 
that the apostle has hero expressed himself in the way he originally 
intended. He intended certainly more particularly to describe the 
conduct of the persons here referred to, in opposition to the o{h'a> 
Trepiirarouvre^y and not originally to describe the persons, as the 
antithesis would require. This is plain from the word v^piiraroBtri, 
which would be deprived of its proper force if taken as equi- 
valent to €url ; but by the relative clause which follows, and which 
refers to the persons, he is led to describe the persons, to which is 
subjoined also a description of their conduct. He therefore drops 
the TreptiraTovai, in the description of the persons. So also De 
Wette and others. — The words I have told you often allude to for- 
mer oral communications. There is as little necessity, after what 
has been said, for connecting them with iii. 2 as with i. 16, ii. 21. 
As the examples mentioned ver. 17 were held up before the whole 
church, and consequently did not belong to it, so also these many, 
Gomp. our remarks supra. But why does the apostle now say even 
weeping ? To this Cbrysostom has already well replied, ir^ hri- 
T€we TO KOKov. The words eyBpol rov aravpou are properly in ap- 
position to iroWoi, which enters into the construction of the rela- 
tive clause. Winer, § 48, p. 424. The article rov^ points empha- 
tically to the persons meant, — they, the well known enemies of the 
cross. The characteristic, enetnies of the cross, gives no certain 
solution of the question whether Judaists, or immoral men generally 
are meant. According to the marks elsewhere given, it is to be 
understood of those who, from their earthly and carnal mind, are 
naturally the enemies of the cross, which requires of them that 

PHILIPPIANS III. 20, 21. 119 

they crucify the flesh with its affections and lasts. Comp. Gal. vi. 
14. The more special characteristics are stated ver. 14. The most 
fearful of them stands first — ^whose end (to t€Xo9, as 2 Gor. xi. 
15) is destruction, whose god is the belly (comp. Bom. vi. 18 ; 1 
Gor. XV, 32), and whose glory is in their shame, t .^., consists in 
that of which they have to be ashamed, comp 2 Gor. iv. 2 ; spoken 
generally, and therefore not to be understood exclusively of sensu- 
ality. Meyer rightly observes that 17 Bo^a is to be regarded as 
smd;eeiipe, and aia)(ypri as objective^ viewed in the light of true 
moral relations. For it is not properly Antinomianism 'that we 
are here to understand as meant, which makes sin a virtue, and 
which would have been combti^ in quite a different way ; still 
tj Bo^a shows that they sought even their honour in that which the 
apostle stamps as aiayyvfi^ which, if it cannot be called Antino- 
mianism properly, is only thus to be explained, viz., that they abused 
a Ghristian truth by making it an excuse for their moral laxity^ si- 
milarly to what is said at Gal. v. 13, sq. ; 1 Gor. vi. 12, sq. He 
concludes with the comprehensive characteristic, who mind earthly 
things, in which he denotes the root of this immorality of charac- 
ter, which leads to destruction. The nominative, as exclamation. 
Mark xii. 38-40, comp. Winer, § 30, 2 Anm. 2, p. 211 : they 
who are earthly minded ! 

Vv. 20, 21. The apostle has in vv. 18 and 10 stated the reasons 
why he eihorted his readers to become imitators of him, and at- 
tentively to observe those who follow his example. With what rea- 
son, however, be points to himself and to those like minded with 
him he further shews really in vv. 20 and 21. I say really, since 
formally ver. 20 certainly refers to ver 1 9, otherwise the apostle 
would have written not ^dp but simply BL The connection is, as 
Winer § 57, 8, p. 532, has given it ; ^ap closely connects with 
oi rk eirvyeia ^povovvre^. For our conversation is in heaven 
(therefore do I warn you against them — and, we add, you have in 
us a right example.) ^Hfi&v will accordingly refer to the forego- 
ing 17/^09, the examples mentioned at ver. 17. We now learn from 
what follows how far their example is a true one : for our TroXi- 
T€Vfia is in heaven, as opposed to the t^ iirlyeia <j>pov€iv. The an- 
tithesis to the disposition denoted by the last words is properly 
another disposition of an opposite nature, or a subjective charac- 
teristic generally ; with this, however, the objective interpretation 

120 PUILIPPIANS III. 20, 21. 

of iroXlreufia as " oommunity" will not correspond. Therefore 
others : ** conduct," in accordance with the TroTuTevea-Oai, i. 27 ; 
against which Van Hengel has remarked that we are not at liberty 
to take TToXirevfui as identical with avaarpo^^ that irrrdpxjsi does 
not agree well with this interpretation, and that according to it an 
eo9 or some such word innst be supplied ; which I would be inclined 
rather to express thus — that th^ representation of the iv ovpavdk 
as something present, does not correspond with the immediately 
following 6^ ov according to which it appears as something remote. 
Hence Van Hengel renders thus ; nostra enim, quam hie sequamur, 
Vivendi ratio in coelis est; according to which, vivendi ratio 
no longer signifies the conduct itself, but the law, and the 
constitution, agreeably to which one lives. There is nothing 
against this in the word virdpyei, as Meyer maintains, since the 
present retains its signification, but this view is not agreeable to 
our interpretation of ijiJL&v, which we understand as referring to the 
examples mentioned ver. 17; for they are not examples in so far 
as they have in heaven their vivendi ratio, which they ought to fol- 
low, but only in so far as they really follow it. The translation 
according to this view would be— «" for our law and our constitution 
is in heaven," but this presents us again with a purely objective 
characteristic, which corresponds neither with the iwo9 nor with 
the antithesis to <f>pop€lv. It seems therefore most advisable to re- 
turn to the explanation first adopted by Luther, namely, '* citizen- 
ship." IIoXlTevfia = iroXnela, Acts xxii. 28, a signification which 
connects closely enough with the iroXirevea-Oat, i. 27, and satisfies 
all the demands of the context. To this effect is the similar pas- 
sage in Philo, (comp. Van Hengel, p. 260), where iv S irokirevop- 
Tcu is antithetically opposed to ^ ^ Trop^Mci^o-ai/, and is thus ex- 
plained, irarpiSa fiiv top ovpdvvov ^copoi; .... vo/jLi^ovaai. The 
word iroXirevfia occurs only here, while 'TToXireveaOai is found be- 
sides!. 27 at Actsxxiii. 1. — ^"Efod in what follows is "unde," Winer, 
§ 21 , 2, p. 165. The xai denotes the expectation, as a state of mind 
corresponding to the character just described ; am€Kiexpfia ad finem 
usque perseveranter exspecto, Rom. viii. 19 ; 1 Cor. i. 7, Ac. Xfunrfp 
designates the tcvpuy; *Ii]aov^ as the future Saviour. The salvation 
here meant is that final redemption of which we read in Luke xxi. 
28 ; Rom. viii. 23, and which in this very passage is nxore specially 
described in ver. 21 as that final act of the Lord in which he will 

PHILIPPIAN8 III. 20, 21. 121 

exalt his own people from the life in the flesh to the fellowship of 
his glorified life, also in a bodily respect. Kvpiov, an apt appella- 
tion, both with reference to the foregoing woklrevfia, and also to 
what follows regarded as the proof of his icvptorrf^. Bender : 
" from whence we also expect as the Saviour, the Lord Jesus 
Christ." Ver. 21 contains the hope connected with the coming of 
the Lord, peculiar to the Christian as a citizen of heaven, and 
which must act as a motive leading him to purify himself of all 
pollution of the flesh and of the spirit, comp. 2 Cor. vi. 17 — vii. 1 ; 
it is the transformation of the body of his low estate, so as to be 
similar to Christ's glorified body, a hope which is founded on 
the power of the expected Kvpio^, On fieTa<rxrffjLaTl<r€iy comp. 
ayfifia ii. 8, and 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6 ; the identity of 
the body is denoted by the expression itself. The irm, with respect 
to the dead is shown, 1 Cor. xv. 35, sq., with respect to the living, 
XV. 61 — 63. With a&fAa rrj^ raTreivdxredi}^, comp. a&fia rfj^ 
afiapTias;^ Bom. vii. 24 ; it is the body belonging to our state of 
abasement, iii which that state represents itself. 'H/mui/ is to be 
connected with raweivoiHri^, as afterwards airov with So^a, both 
are states to which the body belongs, not merely circumlocutions 
for the adjective, comp. Winer, § 30, 2, 6, p. 216.' 

In the term rameivmaLSi the idea of becoming lowly is not to be 
urged ; comp. Luke i. 48 ; Jam* i. 10 ; nor is it to be associated, 
for the sake of the antithetical reference to ix^pol rov aravpoVf 
with the ira^fMiTa tov Xpurrov with oppression and persecution, 
as Meyer thinks, for it were an arbitrary limitation of ix^pol tov 
aravpov to confine it to those only who would expose themselves 
to no such troubles (see above), and again, because this interpreta- 
tion does not correspond with the antithesis in Tarreivdyai^i ^fi&v 
and So^a avrov. That which we suffer for his sake is partici- 
pation in his suffering, not our Taireivtoai^ in opposition to his 
So^a, comp. above ver. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 10; Gal. ii. 20, vi. 17. 
The body of our Ta'Treti/coo'i?, in opposition to the body of his 
So^a, is rather the body in so far as it still belongs to ihe^esh, the 
body of the flesh, Col. i. 22 ; the body of death. Bom. vii. 24; or 
the natural body as opposed to the spiritual body, 1 Cor. xv. 44. 
The words etV to yeviaffat avro are an interpolation, the insertion 
of which is easily accounted for by the following avfifjLop^v. On 
the pregnancy of the expression, ftCTa(r;^/uiT/o"€i avfifiop<f>ov, "he 



will transform it so as to be like io form/' &c.y in which avfi- 
fiop<f)Ov indicates the result of the fieraa. see Wioer, § 60, III. h., 
p. 680. Ta> (TiOfiaTi Try; So^9 avrov, as opposed to the body 
T7j<; raTreivdiHTeo)^ ^/xw, needs no- farther explanation ; it is die 
a-oifia irvevfiariKOP, the attainment of which is the last aim of 
the hope of faith. Oomp. ver. 11 and 1 Cor. xv. 49. With this is 
attained, what at Eom. viii. 29 is described as that to which we are 
predestinated, <rv/j,fi^p<l>ov^ rrj^ eUopo^ rov vlov avrov. We learn 
from 1 Cor. iii. 18, in what way the believer is already here below 
changed unto ike same image from glory to glory ; this change 
is connected with the condition ot beholding the glory of the Lord, 
with the operations of the Spirit through the word, and even in its 
highest degree, does not rise above the sphere of personal fellow- 
ship of faith ; on the other hand, in the case before us, the body of 
the man will also experience the transforming operation of the 
Spirit, and so the whole man will be received into the fellow- 
ship of the spiritual life. This last hope rests, however, as the 
apostle adds, on the power of the expected Kvpto^, He will do it, 
through the efficacy of his power also to subdue all things unto 
himself. With the expression Korh rtfv ivipyeiav rod hvvaaOai 
avTov^ comp. Eph. iv. 30, k, t. k, 7*179 hiwdfiem^^ which means the 
same thing. Potentia arbor, efficacia fructus, says Calvin on this 
passage ; for ivipyeia is efficacious power, actual efficacy. The 
following Kal, as forming a climax with ^eroo^fuxr/cret, means 
" not that only, but also." With reference to the sentiment, comp. 
1 Cor. XV. 25, 26 ; Ps. ex. 1, viii. 7. The expression points back 
to the prophecy contained in these passages of the Old Testament, 
the fulfilment of which we are to recognise in this exercise of power 
on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ. His /cvpiorq^ will then have 
reached its aim, but with this also its termination. God will then be 
all in all, 1 Cor. xv. 28. 

Chap. iv. 1. The apostle here concludes with a comprehensive ex- 
hortation introduced by ware, as at ii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 28. "Hare in- 
troduces an inference from the immediately foregoing expectation ; I 
am however inclined to consider the exhortation here given not 
merely as connected with vv. 17 — 21, but with the whole preced- 
ing section from iii. 1, just as at ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 58. For the 
words, 80 stand fast in the Lord, may be regarded as applying, 
as well to what the apostle has said against teaching, as to what 

PHiLipriANS IV. 2, 3. 123 

he has said against walking otherwise than he has inoulcated, and 
ID both cases the apostle has saggested the same hope as the 
motive to a right conduct, ver. 1 1, ver. 20, sq. As has been already 
remarked, this conolosion corresponds with the commencement, 
rejoice in the Lord. The love with which the apostle seeks to 
draw the obnrch to a striving and a condaot like his own, appears 
also here in the manner in which he addresses it With iwiTroO- 
ffToif which occurs only here, oomp. i. 6. Joy and crown, 1 Thess. 
ii. 19, where however the designation is given with reference to the 
coming of Christ, inasmuch as then its truth and reality will 
appear. Here it refers to the present, as at 1 Cor. ix. 2, 3. So 
standfast, not " as you now do," for this would contradict what 
goes before, but **as I have exhorted." In the Lord, as i. 27, 
in one spirit, Christ as the element of their spiritual life. 


(Oh. iv. 2—23.) 

The series of exhortations that now follows (vv. 2 — 9) addressed 
partly to particular individuals (2, 3), partly to the church at large 
(4 — 9), is quite in the manner of the apostle (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 
13, sq. ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Gal. v. 26, sq., &c.) Then follows (vv. 
10 — 20) the expression of thanks for the contribution to his main- 
tenance which they had transmitted, and which was the principal 
occasion of his writing this epistle. Salutations and a benediction 
form, as usual, the conclusion. 

Vv. 2, 3. The apostle here first of all addresses to certain indi- 
viduals the same word of counsel as at ii. 2 he has so earnestly 
urged on all without exception, namely, that they be of the same 
mind. And he gives charge to a third individual to be helpful to 
them in this, while he acknowledges with praise the merit of these 
persons in their efforts for the advancement of the gospel. Euo* 
dias and Syntyche, to whom the exhortation to unity is addressed, 
are otherwise unknown to us. Baur's suggestion (see the critical 
part of the Introd.) that, on account of the exhortation to unity, 

124 PHILIPPIAN8 IV. 2, 3. 

two parties rather than two persons are to be understood as meant, 
musty in order to have even the semblance of truth, at least rest on 
the appellative signification of the names, or on some such ground. 
And is it to be said of both parties, " they laboured with me in the 
gospel with Clement also," &c. ? The Jewish, as also the Gentile- 
Christian party in Philippi — for so has Schwegler fully expressed 
the idea of his predecessor — have then assisted the apostle in his 
labours, and besides, Clement and the rest of the fellow-labourers, 
who were probably neither Jewish nor Gentile-Cliristians ; for they 
could not have been strict Judaists who laboured with the apostle 
in the gospel. Such an idea in connection with this passage can be 
entertained only by one who has already brought it along with him, 
and even then it might be seen that it is not at all suitable. — ^We 
shall therefore have to rest contented with the common interpreta- 
tion, that two women are here meant, such as had gained them- 
selves credit in the work of spreading the gospel, of whom we have 
specimens not merely in Priscilla, Bom. xvi. 3, but also in the 
women named in Bom. xvi. 12, as we learn also from xvi. 1 that 
there were deaconesses. I do not think, however, that we have 
reason to suppose the persons here named to have been dea- 
conesses, partly because nothing is here said of their taking any 
part in church affairs, and also because what they are commended 
for with respect to the past is, from the expression here used, to be 
considered as a work having an immediate reference to the propaga- 
tion of the gospel, which was not the business of the deacon as 
such. The repetition of the irapaxaKSi serves not merely ad vehe- 
mentiam affectus significandam, but to denote that the exhorta- 
tion is addressed to the one as well as to the other. To avro 
<l>pov€ip are the words used in the exhortation addressed to the 
church at large, ii. 2, and it is natural to suppose, with Schinz and 
De Wette, that the same motives that are there stated as the ground 
of discord are here also to be understood. And this view is con- 
firmed by ver. 3, where the apostle acknowledges not merely (heir 
equal merit, but also that of all the rest, which is only to be ex- 
plained by the supposition that the display of these merits on the 
part of individuals themselves had given occasion to strife. The 
words in (he Lord, mark the unanimity here enjoined as one 
founded on fellowship with the Lord. — The apostle beseeches a 
third person whom he addresses as av^vye yvi^aie to assist in the 

PHILIPPIAN8 IV. 2, 3. 125 

work of bringing about uDanimity, which is more easily effected 
through the mediation of a third party. Ncu (for this is the true 
reading, not koI) = " yea/' as confirmation of the foregoing coun- 
sel, " I beseech you also — interest yourself in them, as those 
who have laboured with me in the gospel." The expression cu^v- 
709, properly "joined to the same yoke," hence "partner," *' fel- 
low labourer," occurs only here, though the figure from ^1/769 is 
common in various applications. We find erepo^vyeip at 2 Oor. 
vi. 14. There is therefore at least nothing surprising in the use of 
this otherwise common word by the apostle. Bengel has already 
observed with reason (comp. Bruckner, a. a., Q. p. 74) that the ex- 
pression, generally by profane writers used of marriage, implies 
more and denotes a closer relation than awepyo^, and on this ac- 
count might the apostle select it in addressing the person here 
referred to. As to the question who the person is whom the apostle 
here addresses, to this all imaginable answers have been given. It 
is the wife of the apostle say some, misled by a false interpretation 
of 1 Cor. ix. 5, comp. 1 Cor. vii. 7, or according to others, it is 
the husband of one of the women, and so forth. Those opinions 
are alond worthy of notice according to which the person here ad- 
dressed is either Epaphroditus, or a person set over the church at 
Philippi, into whose hands the epistle was probably first put, or 
that according to which av^vye is treated as a proper name, the 
appellative signification of which is indicated by yvi^au, of the 
same nature as the play on the name Onesimus, which occurs at 
Philem. 1 1. There is least to be said in favour of the first view, 
for it is scarcely to be supposed that the apostle would address by 
letter Epaphroditus, who was still with him, and who is not included 
among those for whom the epistle was intended (comp. also ii. 
25 — 30.) The second is the most probable, unless it be thought 
preferable to take av^vye as a proper name, a view which was not 
unknowh to Chrysostom, and has most recently been adopted by 
Meyer. What Van Hengel has objected to it is without weight. Sv\^ 
Xafifidvot. avrw, properly " to lay hold of with the hand," hence 
" to be helpful to," namely, to the promotion of the aino <t>pov€Zv, so 
Luke V. 7. ATrive^ render ** ut quae," '* as those who," intended to 
serve as a recommendation of them. Swi^0\rj<^av as at i. 27. 'JSi/ r<p 
€varfy, as the object of their active exertion. With Clement also, 
&c. It was all the more necessary to acknowledge the merit of all. 

126 PHILIPPIANS IV. 1 — 9. 

as an anbecomiDg assertion and display of their own meritu on the 
part of individuals had been the cause of dissension. There can 
be no doubt that fieri is to be connected with cwrfi\fri<rav^ fot 
not only is this connection grammatically the most proper, while it 
brings out clearly the aim of this clause, but also because the idea 
that would otherwise be brought out would be a strange one, 
namely, that besides the person designated as crv^vyo^, all the 
rest of the apostle's fellow labourers are to be helpfiil to those 
women in restoring unity, a sense which would also, as Meyer 
observes, make it difficult to explain why the apostle adds 
the words, whose names are in the hook of life. That this 
Clement was a Philippian, or rather is here represented as a person 
dwelling in Philippi, cannot be questioned. Therefore all those 
conclusions fall of themselves to the ground, which Baur has 
drawn from the mention of Clemens in this passage, even on the 
supposition most favourable to his view, that this Clemens was the 
same person as Clemens Bomanus, since he is not here mentioned as 
such. Comp. further the critical Introd. Whose names are^ &c., 
a familiar expression denoting the certainty of their future blessed- 
ness, comp. on Luke x* 20 ; Rev. xiii. 8, xvii. 8 ; Exod.xxxii. 32; 
Is. iv. 3 ; Ezek. xiii. 9 ; Ps. Ixix. 29 ; Dan. xii. 1. 

Vv. 4 — 9. The apostle now again addresses the church at large. 
Again, he strikes the key note of the epistle, calling upon them all to 
rejoice, and with this the special exhortations that follow (on till 
ver. 7) stand in close connexion. These exhortations are summarily 
contained in a concluding one in w. 8, 9. Rejoice in the Lord^ 
iii. 1. Again I say — he cannot say this often and emphatically 
enough ; indeed he has included all his exhortations in this word 
rejoice; comp. our remarks on i. 27 ; ii, 17, 18; iii. 1. — Ver. 5, 
TO htru^hKk^ used substantively=e7rf€iicia does not mean " becoming 
conduct," nor " modesty," but according to constant usage in the 
New Testament=Ienitas, '* gentleness,'* pliability, comp. Acts xxiv. 
4 ; 2 Cor. x. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit. iii. 2 (in the two last passages 
it stands beside &iLaypi)\ Jam. iii. 17 (beside eifyrjviKT]) ; I Pet. 
ii. 18. Unto all men: Meyer well explains — " let no man come 
to know anything different of you — experience in you anything of 
an opposite character." Such gentleness is the fruit of joy; the 
exhortation, however, has doubtless reference to the peculiar state 
of the church ; and we may with safety connect it with the ipiOeui 

PHILIPPTAN8 IV. 4 — 9. 127 

which he finds fault with in them, 2, 3, only that here, gentleness 
and a yielding disposition are enjoined upon them, not merely in 
regard to their intercourse one with another, but generally. The 
words, the Lord is night i^re not to be connected with what 
follows, (as vv. 6 and 7 contain no further allusion to this hope of 
the second coming,) but as is also most natural in itself, with what 
goes before. The internal connexion is obvious ; namely, what 
can dispose to gentleness more than the thought that the Lord is 
nigh, whose gentleness we desire to experience in ourselves? That 
6 Kvpuy; does not denote God, but Christ, is evident from the 
common use of the expression in the epistles, comp. Winer, § 18, 
1, Anm. p. 141, and the outline there given on this subject. Nor 
are the words to be understood of the *' assisting presence of God," 
Ps. cxlv. 18; for if 677^9 is to be so explained, it must be understood 
of Christ being thus present, which is contradicted by the words 
of iii. 20, dweKSexo/ieOa Kvpujv^ and by the following irpo^ rov Oeov, 
Against this is ako the independent position of the 6 Kvpio^ i^ffif^. 
Quite difierently, Ps. xxxiv. 19 and cxlvi. 18. ^£771^, with 
respect to iimey as Rom. xiii. 11 ; Rev. i. 8, xxii. 10. The pas- 
sages i. 6, 23, ii. 17, iii. 11, xx. 4, 5, mutually supplement one 
another, and show that the apostle conceives of the day of the 
coming of Christ as nigh, even although he does not confidently 
hope that he himself will live to witness it. Olshausen has also 
acknowledged the interpretation here given as the right one, and 
refers to 1 Pet. iv. 7 ; 1 John ii. 18 ; Jam. v. 8. This hope of the 
coming of Christ as nigh rests on the word of Christ himself. 
Matth. xvi. 28 ; Mar. ix. 1. Nor has this hope been falsified, if 
we are right in regarding the destruction of Jerusalem as the 
beginning of the judgment ; comp. on this, Hofimann s excellent 
investigation of the prophecy in Matth. ch. xxiv. and its fulfilment. 
Nordl. 1841., ii. p. 274, sq. The injunction, he careful for nothing, 
is connected with the yaLpere, as that which is to allay what might 
disturb this joy. MrfBev is the accusative of the object, " about 
nothing," the antithesis is in the following ip iravrL This injunc- 
tion does not forbid active exertion, ii. 20, but faintheartedness 
arising from the consciousness of one's own inability, and the want 
of trust in the help of God. Such care is not to be got rid of by 
contemplating our own power, (on the contrary we ought ever to 
grow in the knowledge of our own insufficiency), but only by a 

] 28 PHILIPPIANS IV. 4 — 9. 

confideDtial committal of ourselves to Him who careth for us 
1 Pet. V. 7. And this trust is to express itself in prayer, in whieh 
the heart always anew unburdens itself of that which may become 
a care to it, or has already become so. Therefore the apostle goes 
on to say, but in everything, &o. 'Ev travri, ** in everything" 
(Ephes. V. 24, and vi. 18), as opposed to those who seek help of 
the Lord only in the season of difficulty ; the true Christian 
knows his need of this help in everything, and seeks it. Tfj 
7rpo<r€%r)(^ kclL ry Beij<r€i, the repetition of the article shows that the 
two terms are independent of each other (Winer, § 18, 5, p. 146, 
sq.) ; the distinction between them is, that the former denotes the 
form, the latter the import, the iormer prayer generally, the latter 
supplication, Comp. Olshausen oi) Ephes. vi. 18, and Harless, 
who rightly observes, " heqci^^ is entreaty, 'trpoaev^, prayer, i,e. 
Trpocevyri has, from use, been invested with the idea of a res sacra, 
5^0*^9 not.*' In everything then, says the apostle, by corresponding 
prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, make your desires 
known unto God. Their desires are to be expressed, for only then 
will the heart be unburdened, and they are to be expressed with 
thanksgiving ; the prayer for new supplies of grace is always to be 
connected with thanksgiving for those already received. We have 
an example of such a prayer in that of Jacob, Ex xxxix. 9, sq. At 
the same time, the expression of the desires of the heart has a pu- 
rifying effect on them, which every praying person experiences in 
himself. It strips prayer of what is selfish in those desires. Alrri' 
fjuira cannot mean here, requests as expressed, as Luke xxiii. 24 ; 
1 John V. 1 5, but what you have to ask, desideria vestra. The irpo^ 
in 7r/)09 TOP Oeov denotes the direction : ** towards God." In ver. 
7 we have the result of such prayer, in which the heart commits 
its requests to the Lord ; it is the peace of God which the heart 
of the suppliant receives. The expositor finds it difficult to 
give an explanation of words such as those of ver. 7. Their beauty 
lies in the. impression which they produce as a whole, and which 
rightly affects every susceptible mind according to its individual 
tone of feeling. The peace o/Godheve is not the same as peace 
with Ood, Bom. v. 1, and to be understood of the peace of recon- 
ciliation, nor is it right to understand /?^ac^ as expressing the peace- 
ableness of their mutual intercourse. Both of these interpretations 
must appear unsuitable to what goes before, if it is acknowledged, 

PUILIPPIAN8 IV. 4,9. 129 

as it universally is, that the teal has a oonsecutive force. The 
latter of the two which is given by Meyer has this against it, that 
it makes the being careful to have been the groand of the dissen- 
sion among the Philippians, whilst from what we know with cer- 
tainty, and what Meyer himself acknowledges, it was just a spi- 
ritual conceit springing from a false security that was the ground 
of this. And can the additional words, which passeth all under- 
standing, be explained of the incomprehensible efficacy of a peace- 
able disposition ? De Wette, and Winer in his latest edition, have 
given the true meaning (Winer, § 80, 1 Anm., p. 218.) Theelp/ivq 
Tov 0€oif (genitive of the subject, as at Col. iii. 15, comp. also 
John xiv. 27, Bom. i. 7, &c.) is the peace of soul wrought by God, 
and more immediately in contrast with the heart tormented with 
care, as at John xiv. 27, it is opposed to the being troubled and 
being a/raid. Reconciliation with God is doubtless, as De Wette 
also observes, the enduring foundation of all peace of mind. Rest 
of mind is a more negative idea that corresponds but little to the 
expression peace of Ood^ which latter is rather to be considered as 
a power ruling in the heart (Col. iii. 15.) Meyer's assertion, how- 
ever, that Apfl)vt) never occurs in this sense, but always denotes the 
relation to others, to God or to men, is based on a too narrow in- 
terpretation of other passages. Compare only the passages cited 
above from John, and then xvi. 88, to say nothing of passages 
more liable to be disputed. And the same remark seems to me to 
apply to the assertion which is here also made, that o ^€09 trfi 
elpi^vrj^ always designates God as the author of concord. This 
peace which proceeds from God, and which fills the heart, is fur- 
ther described as a blessing which passeth all knowledge. Novq 
here denotes the capacity of knowledge. Comp. Harless on Eph. 
iv. 17, p. 400. This passage is similar to Eph. iii. 19. Meyer 
has with reason referred to the a//, in reply to De Wette, who 
thinks that it is only the doubting perplexed understanding that is 
meant. I cannot conceive, however, how the efficacy of this peace 
only should he incomprehensible, and not the peace itself. Thef 
apostle then promises to his readers a blessing, the magnitude of 
which the understanding cannot grasp. The idea that the apostle 
cannot himself give this blessing is not here expressed, but is evi- 
dent of itself. This superabundant blessing of peace from God is 

further described as a power which keeps the heart and mind, and 


retains it in fellowship with Jesus Christ, ^povprfaei is to he con- 
strued as a pure future. The following iv connects most suitably 
with <f>povpri<r€i9 comp. Gal. iii. 23, where it is connected with imo 
and 1 Pet. i. 6, with ek. So Chrysostom : aurre fieveiv Kal fiff 
iKireaelv avrav rij^ 7r/<TT€a>9. This is also confirmed by a com- 
parison with 2 Cor. xi. 8. The ^povpfqaei, is to be understood in 
its general sense. The peace spoken of guards the heart from 
everything that would withdraw it from fellowship with Christ, let 
it come from within or from without. Where its protecting power is 
experienced is set forth in the words fcapBia^ and voi^futra. The 
KopBCa needs this protection above all, for as it is the centre of the 
natural, so is it also the centre of all spiritual life in man. Thence 
proceed evil thoughts. Matt. xv. 19, there also, however, is the 
fountain of the new life. Bom. x. 10. Not only his feeling and 
will, but his thought has its centre there. Further, as i/ov9 de- 
notes the whole spiritual habitus of the man, the voi^fiara refer as 
well to his thoughts as to his disposition and his will. They are the 
issues of the leapSla, denoting his thoughts and his volitions toge- 
ther. So 2 Cor. iii. 14, hroDpcodrf tA wr/jfuiTa, and ver. 15, «a- 
Xufifjui hrl rifv xapSlav KelroA, where the connexion of the one with 
the other is evident. If tcapSia denotes the personal centre of all 
spiritual life, then vornioTa refers to the expressions of this ; in re- 
ference to both, the peace of God will be a protecting power. There 
is just as little reason for restricting the vornuvra to the thoughts as 
there is for applying the KnpSla exclusively to the feelings and the 
will. Comp. Meyer. 

Ver. 8, 9. The apostle brings these practical exhortations to a close 
by summarily stating whatever else, besides the things specially 
mentioned, vv. 4 — 7, they were diligently to strive after. Accord- 
ingly the TO "koiirov is to be understood only in relation to these ex- 
hortations, not as a resumption of the to Xovirov at iii. 1. The 
words of this verse do not contain any express opposition of that 
which God does (ver. 7), to that which still remains for man to do. 
But they plainly involve the idea that the blessing specified in ver. 
7 manifests its presence by the diligent striving after what is men- 
tioned in ver. 8, and only thereby as it seems is the possession of it 
to be secured. Comp. ver. 9. Whatsoever things are true, what- 
soever things are honourable, whatsoever things are just, what- 
soever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever 

PHILIPPiANS IV, 8, 9. I3t 

things are of good report, if there he any virtue, if there he any 
praise, they are to think on these things. Aoyi^eaOe is not 
merely equivalent to ^poveiv, for irpaaaere, ver. 0, sliews plainly 
in tffhat manner they are to think of these things. Every one 
will feel the emphasis implied in the repetition of the oaa he- 
fore each predicate. The entire compass of Christian morality 
is here designed to he presented hefore them. It is not dif- 
ferent ohjects, but one and the same moral nature, which the 
apostle here denotes in its various relations. The first four predi- 
cates denote this moral nature in itself, the two last, according to 
the moral sentiments of approbation which it elicits. ^AKridrf 
signifies what is *' morally true," as at 1 Cor. v. 8, where it is 
joined with etKucplveia (sincerity), which stands in antithesis with, 
Kcucia and irovrjpia. So also £ph. iv. 21, where Harless observes : 
" The good is always at the same time the true, the evil is always 
at the same time the untrue.*' Sefivd occurs besides here, only 
in the pastoral epistles, and signifies " honourable, respectable." 
Altcaia in its general signification, " honest, according to law," as 
at Eph. iv. 24. In like manner is 071/0 to be understood as 
generally characteristic of the moral nature, not chaste in the spe- 
cial sense; it is equivalent to pure, as at 2 Cor. vi 6, vii. 11 ; 
Jam. iii. 17 ; Tim. v. 22, &o. Ilpoa^iXrj is rightly rendered by 
Meyer, ** lovely, that which conciliates love. That which in its 
own nature is amiable, is moral also in the Christian sense." 
Meyer also remarks in opposition to the interpretation (grammati- 
cally true), that would explain this term of " a kind manner and 
conduct towards others," that it does not suit the context in which 
we find no special virtues enumerated. The word occurs only in 
this passage in the New Testament, elsewhere in Sir. iv. 8, xx. 
18 ; it is found often in profane writers. Lastly, ewfyrj/ia, which 
Luther well renders, " that which sounds well, has a good report," 
according to the original signification of the word. It also occurs 
only here. The following el T19, &c., does not specify other 
virtues, but sums up the foregoing, so that aperrj recapitulates 
the first- mentioned, and hraiptx; the last-mentioned predicates. 
^Apen], ** virtue," a word, as is well known, of rare occurrence in 
the New Testament. As a predicate, viewed in reference to man, 
it is found again only at 2 Pet. i. 6. With reference to God, 1 Pet. 

ii. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 8. The choice of the expression in this passage is 

I 2 


explained by the object which the apostle had in view, namely, to 
denote the moral nature in its objective aspect, after the most 
general form in which it was possible to do so. Yer. 9 forms a 
parallel with ver. 8. What the apostle has mentioned before as 
that which they were to strive after, he here farther characterizes 
as the very thing which they had learned and received from him, 
and had seen and heard in his example. This they are to do, and 
the God of peace shall be with them. The first xat signifies ** also," 
the others simply " and." Learned and received refer to the in- 
struction they had received from him, the two other verbs refer to 
the jcxample he had set before them. On h ifioi, oomp. Winer, 
§ 52, a. 3, p. 462. And the God^ &;c., these words show that 
what was stated as implied in ver. 8, was indeed present to the 
mind of the apostle. The peace spoken of in ver. 7 can be guarded 
and secured only by the conduct described in ver. 7 and 8. The 
peace here is the same as at ver. 7. Kal has here as at ver. 7 a 
consecutive sense. When the apostle sets himself forth as an ex- 
ample, he does so in the consciousness of what he has said at iii. 
13, 14, 20, 21. 

Ver. 10 — 20. In this passage, we have the apostle's expression 
of thanks for the contribution he had received for the supply of his 
necessities. With no less dignity than warmth of afiection, does 
he here express his joy on account oi the token of love which had 
come from the church. Not so much, however, as a relief to his 
necessities, was their gift welcome to him, 11 — 13, but rather as a 
fresh token of that relation of mutual communication in which they 
had been closely knit to each other from the first, and in conse- 
quence of which he does not look at the gill as such, so much as 
at the benefit which would accrue from such gifls to those who 
gave them, 14 — 17. He has now abundance in consequence 
of their gift, which he represents as a sacrifice well-pleasing to 
God, and for which he promises to them a rich return from his 
God, 18 — 19 ; then follows an ascription of praise to this God, 
ver. 20. 

Ver. 10. But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly ^ cfcc, the apostle 
thus begins, Se marking the transition to something new; iv 
KvpUp, as at ii. 10, 29, &c. Every event of his experience stands 
in his view in relation to Christ, and takes from Christ its cha- 
racter and form. The words that follow, denote the subject of his 

PH1LIPPIAN8 IV. 10. 188 

joy, 8ti, Sec , " that now" (not, now at laaty comp. De Wette) ye 
have again flourished in your care for me. The connexion of the 
infinitive here is somewhat loose, comp. Winer, § 45, 3, Anm. p. 
375, who explains " with reference to" " as concerning," and solves 
the construction hy supplying SxTre, It is a still simpler method 
to understand ai/edaXere »a transitive, which is justified by the 
usage of the LXX. (Ezek. xxvii. 24), and the Apocrypha (Sir. 
i. 18, xi. 22) ; " that you have let your care for me flourish," so 
De Wette. I, however, prefer the former mode, on account of 
what follows, in which the avaOaXKew is represented as not having 
been dependent on the will of the Philippians. On the form ai/e- 
OaKeret comp. Winer, § 1 5, p. 98. But I do not agree with Meyer 
and others, in understanding avadoKKieip (a metaphorical expres- 
sion derived from a tree growing green again) of the worldly cir- 
cumstances of the Philippians, not only because ^povelv has 
no connection with this, but also because then the following k^ 
^ &;c., as De Wette justly observes, would be very much without 
an object. Besides, the idea that the apostle rejoices in the im- 
provement of their temporal circumstances, has nothing in itself to 
recommend it. It were then not so much their disposition in which 
he rejoices, as their ability to assist him. The apostle rather says : 
he rejoices that their Christian life has gained a new ornament, by 
which he understands this proof of their sympathetic care for him. 
I do not see that there is any want of delicacy in this expression 
of joy. Moreover, it were quite in accordance with the context, if 
the words could be so understood as to imply a charge agaiust the 
Philippians, since, in order to prevent the misunderstanding that 
any imputation against them is implied, the apostle immediately 
adds, wherein ye were also carefuly &c. — *J5<^' ^ is elsewhere used 
by the apostle always as neuter ; we are therefore not at liberty to 
understand it otherwise here, and to refer the pronoun to e/iot), but 
must either separate to inrep i/jLov from ^pov€iv, as Bengel and 
Meyer do, and refer iff> ^ to the first, or refer it to the entire 
phrase to xmip ifiov ^popelv. The latter certainly has this strange 
in it, that a ^povelv hrl r^ <f>poP9ip results from it, which Meyer 
characterises as a logical absurdity. But, in whatever way we take 
it, the first tppopeip is not the same in sense as the second ; in the 
former case it is a care for the apostle which has realised itseli' in 
an actual contribution to his necessities, in the latter case it is a care 

184 PfllLlPPIANS IV. 11. 

without any actual manifestation, a care to which a want of oppor- 
tunity stands opposed. Might the apostle not well enough say, 
viewing the first ^povelv as the proof of their care for him : such 
an actually manifested care for me was the ohject of your care ? 
And, if the relative & refers to the to inrep ifwv alone, why should 
he not have written simply o, which would correspond better with 
the tiKaipelade than 60* & ? Besides, this interpretation gives an 
undue emphasis to the to vTrip i/M)v apart from the ^povelv. I re- 
gard, therefore, the common reference of the €0' ^ as the preferable. 
The words wherein ye were also careful are designed to prevent 
the misunderstanding that the apostle intended to say : — their care 
for him had not existed before. This care was previously felt (the 
emphasis lies on the imperfect, by which the opposition between the 
past and the present is expressed) ; but ye lacked opportunity. 
Those who understand the word aveOoLKere to refer to the tem- 
poral circumstances or means of the Philippians, explain atcai- 
peurOai as its antithesis, and as denoting an unfavourable state of 
their worldly means, a view which, grammatically considered, is 
certainly well founded. If, on the other hand, we have found this 
signification of aveOoKere to be not suitable, then must fiKaipeur- 
Oat also be understood in its general signification as denoting the 
unfavourableness of circumstances generally. The further specifi- 
cation of whether it be the means themselves, or the opportunity 
of sending them that is meant thus remains a matter of conjecture. 
The expression belongs to the later Greek, and occurs only here. 

Yen 1 1. The apostle has just said that he greatly rejoiced be- 
cause of the proof they had given of their care for him. He will 
not, however, be understood as saying this from a feeling of press- 
ing want. Ovx Srt as at iii. 12. Kaff variprjaiv, " on account 
of want, because I sufTer want" (comp. Winer, § 53, d. p. 478), in 
which he does not deny 'the fact of his being in want, but merely 
that his being in want was the cause of his expressing himself as 
he had done. Such a motive finds no place in him, for, he goes on 
to say, I (with emphasis) have learned in whatever circumstances I 
am, therein to find my satisfaction. In the same sense, aptcov- 
fievoti ToU frapova-Lv, Heb. xiii. 5. AvrdpKi]^ as ainapKcia has a 
different sense according as it denotes the outward condition or the 
inward feeling. Comp. 2 Cor. ix. 8 with 1 Tim. vi. 6. Axnrdp- 
K€ia here denotes the ** feeling," an^ it can have no other than the 


seDse already indicated ; it is not, as Meyer understands it, '' to be 
sufficient to myself/' in other words, ** not to need the assistance of 
others," a thing which never can be learned, and which does not 
depend on the state of feeling. On efiaOop comp. Heb. v. 8. The 
school in which the apostle had learned this contentment was, his 
life. He does not, however, in this praise his own strength, but 
the strength of Christ, comp. ver. 13. — 'Ej; oh elfil, not merely the 
circumstances in which he then was, but in which he might be at 
any other time. On the indioat. of the Fres., comp. Winer, § 43, 
3, p. 354. Ver. 12. OlSa xal, &c.» Si is sot the true reading. 
The apostle now further describes the art 9f contentment. It con- 
sists in knowing how to accommodate oneself to the most opposite 
circumstances, how to find a sufficiency in every situation, instead 
of regarding a certain state as the condition of this sufficiency. 
OtBa as the consequence of having learned — •* I know" — by which 
is meant a practical knowledge, as is plain from ver. 13. Kal 
rairewoikrOcu — Kal ^epuraeveiv, the proper antithesis would be 
ir^avcdai; the apostle, however, expresses the antithesis which he 
had more especially in view. He knows how to bear abasement 
as well as abundance, t.^., in rebus exiguis patienter me gerere 
rebus abundantibus cum modo uti (Grotius.) From oTZa he pro- 
ceeds by way of climax to /jbefivTjfun ; " I am initiated," *' admitted 
to the mysteries," an expression which implies that the art of which 
the apostle speaks is not so easy or so directly accessible to all as 
might be supposed. As this verb is usually connected with the 
accusative or dative, many are for connecting hf iravrl icaX iu 
irSuTLv not with fjbe/ivrjfiat, but take the phrase in the same sense 
as above : iv oU elfjki = in whatsoever state, and then join the fol- 
lowing infinitives closely with fiefMvrifiai, But as the following in- 
finitives themselves only indicate the different states, they must be 
regarded as exegetical of the iv irdaiv. Besides it could not with 
logical strictness be said : in every state I am initiated both to- be 
full and to suffer hunger, &c. I prefer therefore to abide by the 
connexion with fie/jLvrj^t, and to view the infinitives as explana* 

Ver. 13. / can do all things , he continues. The iravra is to 
be understood in its widest sense, and is dependent on ur^^voi, as 
Gal. V. 6; James v. 16. ^laywo not olZa again, from which we 
perceive that it is not a mere knowledge but an art that is meant^ 

1*36 PHILlF^iiNS IV. 14, 15, 16. 

the necessary strength for which the apostle draws not from him- 
self but from him who makes him strong. In and through fellow- 
ship with him the apostle is strong. 'EvBupa^M^, as here, Eph. 
vi. 10; Acts ix. 22 ; Rom. iv. 20 ; 1 Tim. i. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1 , 
iv. 17. Xpurr^ is omitted in A.B.D.* d. e., &c., and is doubtless 
a gloss from 1 Tim. 1. 12. 

Ver. 14. Notwithstanding ye have done well, in that ye have 
taken part with me in my affliction. Calvin traces the connexion 
well : cavet ne fortiter loqnendo contemsisse ipsorum beneficium 
videatur. This verse supplies the positive to the oti^ ori, ver. 11, 
and thus indicates *the proper ground of the apostle's great joy, 
ver. 10, namely, that they show an active sympathy with him in 
his affliction, and share his burden along with him. By his afflic^ 
Hon, however, is to be understood his entire state at that time. On 
ovyKoiwoveuf see Eph. v. 1 1 . KaK&i iroieiv with Pardc. as 2 Pet. 
i. 19, &c. Comp. Winer, ^ 46, 1, Anm. p. 898. 

Ver. 15, 16. The apostle now reminds his readers that such a 
relation of mutual communication had existed between them and 
him from the beginning, a relation in which he stood to no other 
church but that of the Fhilippians. There is in these words 
at once a complimentary acknowledgment of the love of the church 
to him, and an expression of grateful love on the part of the 
apostle. An emphasis of feeling therefore rests on ye PhiUp- 
pians, as at 2 Cor. vi. 11. Ye, too, as well as I, he says, know 
that in the beginning of the gospel (i.e. in the beginning of the 
gospel's being spread amongst you, i. 5— -1 2), when I was gone from 
Macedonia no church entered into fellowship with me, as to giving 
and receiving but yoa only. The words when I was gofie, &c., fix 
more definitely the point of time indicated by in t1^ beginning, 
&c. 'E^XBov is to be taken as pluperfect, on which see Winer, 
§ 41, 5, p. 318. The apostle alludes to the assistance mentioned 
in 2 Cor. xi. 9. Others interpret thus, " when I departed," by 
which the time specified in Acts xvii. 14 would be denoted. But 
if the contributions mentioned in ver. 16 as having been sent to 
Thessalonica, are not themselves to be meant, (a supposition which 
is inadmissible both on account of the xal and also because the 
gifts repeatedly sent to Thessalonica cannot be alluded to in 
connexion with the words, when 1 departed, &c.), it is {^.t the same 
^ime scarcely to be supposed that among the circumstances noted 

PHILIPPIAN8 IV. 16, 16. 187 

in the Acts as oonneoted with the apostle's departure from Mace- 
donia, there was still another contribationy sent by the distant 
oharch in Philippic which was not included in those sent to 
Thessalonica. It has appeared surprising that the apostle should 
accordingly notice, in yer. 16, the contribution in Corinth, which 
was later> and should afterwards, in ver. 10, notice that which was 
earlier in point of time. The same difficulty presents itself only in 
another form, in connexion with the interpretation of i^XBov as the 
common aorist ; for here also the question arises, wherefore does the 
apostle mention, in ver. 16. that which is the earlier in point of 
time ? The answer which is wont to be given in the former case — 
that the apostle mentions first that which was the most con- 
siderable, is not at all satisfactory, chiefly because ver. 16, with 
Sri (not " that," but " for,") is not simply an addition to, but serves 
to illustrate and confirm, ver. 16. And still more difficult must it 
be in the other case, to assign the reason why the apostle did not 
.adhere to the order of time, and mention first the contributions 
sent to Thessalonica, and then those sent on his departure from 
Macedonia. — If we bear in mind that ver. 16 stands in a subor- 
dinate relation to ver. 16, it will then appear certain that the 
apostle intends only to adduce the first-mentioned contribution 
(when I departed) as the one specially bearing on the object he has in 
view in this passage. With this contribution which the church sent 
after him a great distance (when I had departed from Macedonia), 
did the relation at present subsisting betweeen the apostle and them 
first connect itself, as the fruit of which he also regards the present 
gift sent to him at Rome. And the following verse (ver. 16) 
then serves to illustrate the fact that they entered into such a con- 
nexion with the apostle : for even before I had departed from 
Macedonia, even in Thessalonica, ye have repeatedly sent to my 
necessities. The words, even in Thessalonica^ will thus be anti- 
thetical with, when I had departed from Macedonia. This 
explanation removes the difficulty started above. — Ei^ 'Koyov. I 
think with De Wette and Meyer, the rendering " in regard to" 
unsuitable, on account of the context ; the words which follow, and 
6t9 \6yov vfi&v of ver. 17 require that X0709 be taken in the sense 
of " account," in which it also occurs in Matth. xviii. 23 and 
elsewhere. So in Cic. Lael. 16 : ratio datorum et acceptorum. 
jd6ai^ Kal \^t9, " giving and reoeiving"=p:|0*| fe^telD* S'^* *''• ^®- 

138 PfliLiPPiANS IV. 15, 16. 

If we suppose the figare to be taken from books of accounts in 
which are inserted the expenditure and receipts, it will not do to 
set the giving to the side of the Fhilippians, the receiving to the 
side of the apostle. For in an account book one does not insert 
what he himself gives and the other receives, but what he gives and 
receives. . Besides, the expression, *' giving and receiving," would 
then be without any object, in so far as it implies nothing more 
than is expressed at Bom. xii. 13, by the simple phrase, he com- 
municaied to my need. Bather, as Meyer well observes, must the 
expression : — you have communicated with me in reference to the 
account of giving and receiving — be understood of a mutual account 
keeping ; the apostle, (as also the Fbilippians,) takes account of 
giving and receiving. Ver. 17, ** to your account," also leads to 
this interpretation. '* In the account of the Fhilippians, remarks 
Meyer, the column for the receivings would be indeed empty, as, in 
Fauls account, would be that for the givings." But if this be true, 
does not the expression, giving and receiving^ become meaningless, • 
and could the apostle have said with any reason: they have entered 
with one another into the relation of reciprocal giving and receiving, 
if the Fhilippians could think of nothing which tbey might regard 
as received by them? And why should they not think of the 
spiritual gifts which they had received from the apostle ? The 
apostle certainly does not characterize what they received from him 
as spiritual, in contradiction to that which they gave him as per- 
taining to the body; it was not his object to make any such 
distinction ; all that he means to say is, that a relation of mutual 
communication of reciprocal giving and receiving has subsisted 
between him and the Fhilippians from the beginning. The idea 
contained in the 1 7th verse is also analogous to this view. That 
Sri is not '' that," but '' for," so that it is not merely a continuation 
of the oTt of ver. 15, but ver. 16 is the confirmation of what goes 
before, De Wette and Meyer have acknowledged, because, as the 
latter observes, — not merely a gratuitous reversal of the order of 
time would result from the other supposition* but also because the 
contents of ver. 16 would not logically correspond with the words, 
ye also knotff* '^Orc, according to Meyer, confirms the early period 
fixed in ver. 15 by one still earlier. But it is not evident, according 
to his interpretation, why the words, even in Thessalonica, serve only 
as a confirmation of ver. 1 5, and are not rather to b^ considered as 

PHILIPP1AN8 IV. 18 — 20. 139 

co-ordinate with it, and placed before the ore ipjXOov. — The name 
of the place may he connected grammatically with eTrifiy^re 
(comp. Meyer), but as it thus stands in antithesis with the ire 
i^\0ov, I prefer with De Wette to connect it with /aoi, without, 
however, supplying 6vti» Once and again gives prominence to 
the repetition. £t9 tt^v 'xp^lav (merely rr^v ypelav is not the true 
reading, also not f&ov, but fioi), means, "to my necessity," to its 
supply. ^Eirifiy^are, absolute as Acts xi. 29. 

Ver. 17. The apostle here again (as above, ver. 11), guards his 
readers against mistaking his meaning, by supposing that he is 
mainly concerned about the gift in itself. That which he seeks, 
is rather the fruit or profit which redounds from such a gift to the 
donors, in so far, namely, as any such gift draws after it a rich re- 
compense. This future recompense is the fruit which, on every 
fresh proof of their love, abounds to their account, (following out 
the figure in ver. 15.) It is therefore not so much his own interest 
as that of his benefactors which he has in view. Oomp. ver. 19. 
^EiTL^rjTo^ is not studiose quaero, butquaero, en-i denoting the direc- 
tion, see on iirnroOoi, i. 8. IlXeovd^co, as at Rom. v. 20, vi. 2 ; 2 
Cor. iv. 15 ; 2 Thess. i. 8, ** to increase," is to be connected with 
ek, although this connection occurs nowhere else (2 Thess. i. 3 ?) 
Comp. Meyer. Others connect with eVtfiyTw. 

Ver. 18 — 20. The apostle, turning back to the circumstance that 
occasioned what he has just said, declares, that in consequence of 
their gift he has abundance, promises to them a rich recompense 
from God, and concludes with an ascription of praise to him from 
whom such recompense is to be looked for. Ver. 18. But I have all. 
'ilTT^o), as at Philem. xv. ; Matth. vi. 2, &c., (comp. Winer, § 41, 
4, b. Anm., p. 318 (antithetical with iTn^rjrelVf ver. 17: so that 
nothing more remains for me to wish ; therefore, not a certification 
of his having received what was sent. And abound, a stronger ex- 
pression than the preceding, his abundance being the result of their 
assistance. Still stronger, / am fuli, having received, &c. The 
things sent by you are characterised as a pleasing sacrifice of- 
fered to God. T^ Oe^ belongs to all the parts of the apposition. 
^Oa-fiff €uo>8/a9 describes the sacrifice in respect of its efficacy, as a 
sweet smelling odour. It is the nllTi^T'l ^f '^^® Old Testament, 
Lev. i. 9, 13, &o., comp. Eph. v. 2. This is predicated only of free- 
will offerings (p*p)- On this New Testament view of a sacrifice, 


140 PHIL1PPIAN8 VI. 18 — 20. 

which has of late been again jastly brought into prominence, and 
its practical importance held forth, compare such passages as 
Rom. xii. 1; 1 Pet. ii. 6; Heb. xiii. 16; Phil. ii. 17. — Ver. 19. 
De Wette correctly : advancing from the idea of acceptability to 
that of recompense. On my God^ comp. i 3. God recompenses 
what is done to him, as his Ood. IlXripdxreiy with reference to 
'rreirXiipa^juUi ver. 18, loses in force if not viewed as a pure Fut. ; 
the apostle makes an express promise. The promise is differently 
nnderstood, some explaining Traaav j(P^lav of bodily, others of 
spiritual wants, and others of both. It is scarcely possible to settle 
this point on grammatical grounds or from the context. For XP^^ 
in itself, as De Wette has observed in opposition to Van Hengel, 
decides as little for the reference to the bodily, comp. Eph. iv. 29, 
as TrXofiro?, to the spiritual necessities. Still, from the signification 
of xpe/a at ver. 16 and the parallel, 2 Cor. ix. 8 — 11, to which De 
Wette has already referred, I also am inclined to regard the re- 
ference to the bodily need as the more natural, and in no case 
would we be at liberty to exclude this. Meyer understands every 
want both of a bodily and spiritual kind, but refers irXofpcMret not 
to the earthly recompense, but to the recompense in the kingdom 
of the Messiah, for which he finds conclusive ground in the ip 
86^ which is to be viewed as instrumental, dependent on irXtj- 
pataei, and denoting the Messianic glory. But this idea of the 
Messianic glory is warranted neither by the indefinite expression iv 
So^27> nor by iv Xpurr^ 'I., which, according to Meyer himself, 
expresses nothing more than the causal confirmation of the promise. 
And if the apostle says of himself, ireirXiipta/juii, why should he in 
7r\r)p(!)a€i refer his readers to the day of the second coming for the 
supply of their every want? He does not do this in 2 Cor. ix. 
8, sq. ; and the Lord himself does not refer his people to a period 
beyond the present life for the supply of their every want, Matth, 
vi. 33. 'Ev B6^ as also iv Xptar^ *I. belongs to TrXrjpiocreu The 
former either designates the object with which God satisfies there 
need (Eph. v. 18 ; Col. iv. 12, &c.)» or denotes the manner of this 
satisfaction. ^Ev S6^ is however no fitting expression for the 
object corresponding to every need, (especially if by ^(pela are 
understood, wants pertaining to the body), and would, in this 
case, have certainly been more exactly defined. All the passages 
cited above, in which trXrjpovv occurs with iv^ l^ave a clearly de- 

PH1LIPPIAN8 IV. 21 — 28. 141 

fined object. Quite differently again 2 Cor. ix. 8. We can there- 
fore understand h/ So^ only as denoting the way and maimer in 
which God will supply every want ; in glory, according to his 
riches. Against the connection of ip Sofy with ttXoOtoi/, Meyer 
has justly observed, that it is not to be overlooked why the apostle 
has not adhered to the usual expression, and written rrj^ So^9 
airrov. Finally, the words h/ Xpicr^ 'I. show wherein this 7r\f)p- 
toaei has its ground ; they are therefore not to be rendered in 
communione Ohristi, as the verb to which they belong does not 
denote a human action; what MuskuJus says is however sub- 
stantially true: this supply is to be looked for by them only in 
so far as they abide in Christ, iW. in the faith and religion of 
Christ. (Van Hengel, p. 32C.) 

Ver. 20. The thought of the glorious recompense from God 
calls forth the ascription of praise to God. Comp. Eph. iii. 20 ; 
Rom. xi. 86. At ^ Bo^a supply etr), Comp. Harless on Eph. iii. 
20 : *' the glory that belongs to God is ascribed to Him, and thai 
for ever and ever, or through all ages." Comp. Gal. i. 5 ; 1 Tim. 
i. 17 ; 2 Tim. iv. 18, Sco., comp. Olshausen on Eph. iii. 21 ; and 
Harless on aSmv, Eph. ii. 2. 

Ver. 21 — 28. Salutations and benediction. Salute every 
saint, applies to the whole church ; it is a mutual greeting, as at 
Bom. xvi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12, where ot^ another 
is used. Similarly 1 Thes. v. 25, all the brethren. In all these 
passages the words with a holy kiss, instead of, as here, in Christ 
Jesus, mark the Christian character of the salutation, a salutation 
which derives its significance from the consciousness of fellowship 
with Christ. So Rom. xvi. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Mever has with 
reason rejected the connexion of Srfiov with iv Xpurr^ 'I. The 
expression every saint, not all the saints, denotes that each indi- 
vidual is specially saluted. The brethren which are with me, as 
distinguished from all the saints, ver. 22, denote the inner circle 
of the apostle's acquaintance, those mentioned i. 14, from which 
also those indicated ii. 20 need not be excluded ; for there is no 
reason to suppose that a salutation might not be sent from them. 
He then sends a salutation, ver. 22, from all the saints at Rome, 
chiefly from those that are of Cesar's household, ol ifc rrj^ KaUra- 
/x>9 ouclaS' The ambiguity of these words appears in the variety 

142 PHIIJPPIANS IV. Hi — 22. 

of interpretations assigned to them. Some understand, relations of 
the emperor, others* servants of the emperor, others, inhabitants of 
a house belonging to the emperor. Of the utmost importance for 
the settlement of this point, is the question whetlier the oUla Kaiaa- 
/709 here is the same as the wpacrcopiov i. 13. If they are identi- 
cal, then oucia ^aiaapo^: cannot mean the imperial palace in Borne, 
which is never called npairoipiov, but palatium. But neither can 
we well suppose the pratorium in Bome to be meant, as it is most 
improbable that this would be called 17 Kalaapo^ oixia in Bome 
itself, where the emperor lived. This difficulty does not attach 
certainly to the view taken by Bottger, according to which 17 Kal- 
aapo^ oUla is the palace of Herod in Cffisarea^ which, after the 
death of Herod Agrippa the elder, had become, like every other 
royal house an olxla Kaurapo^, and was used as a irpairdpiov 
(Acts xxiii. 35.) This oUla, as the only one of the kind in Caesa- 
rea, might properly enough be designated ^ Kalaopo^ oUla. But, 
apart from his other reasons in proof of this epistle's having been 
written in Cssarea (on which see Introd.) Bottger has not proven, 
and vnll not be able to prove, that irpairtopiov, i. 13, and ^ Kala- 
apo^ oltela here, are necessarily the same. Allowing that we are 
justified in maintaining that this epistle was written from Bome, we 
may without much hesitation abide by the opinion that ^ Kalaa' 
po9 oucla is different from the praetorium, i. 13, and denotes the 
imperial palace, whilst by the ol i/c ttj^ Kaiaaptyi oIkUl^ are most 
probably meant servants belonging to the emperor's household, 
vnth whom the apostle had come into contact through his residence 
in the praetorium. There is little probability in itself of relations 
being meant (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 15), besides the absence of all his- 
torical ground for such a supposition, and also, that had such been 
the case, it would have been brought into greater prominence. 
Matthies view that praetorians in Bome are meant, is disproved in 
what has been said. That procurators in G»sarea are meant 
(Bill.) is ahready contradicted by the plural, apart altogether from 
the question with regard to Gsesarea. For what remains on this 
subject comp. Bottgers' learned treatise, in his Beitragen ii. p. 47, 
sq. Olshausen is also in favour of the view here developed. Wliy 
they of Cffisar's household should be mentioned as especially sa- 
luting the Christians at Philippi, cannot be determined. That the 


apostle aimed at eDconraging the Fbilippians, as Chrysostom sop- 
poses, is not a sufficient explanation, as he could not send such a 
salutation except in consequence of an actual commission. 

Ver. 23. The apostle concludes with the usual benediction : the 
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Gomp. Bom. xvi. 
24 ; 1 Cor. 16, 23, &c. Manuscripts of some authority read, rov 
irvevfjMTQ^, instead of irdmrnv, and Lachmann and TischendorjQf 
have received the former into the text. The form here has then 
most resemblance to that at Gal. vi. 18. 



[ 147 J 




Although the second epistle to Timothy is different in its scope 

and aim from the other two so-called Pastoral £pist1es, inasmuch 

as it does not treat of the order and government of a churchy but 

relates entirely to the person of the evangelist Timothy, we yet 

join the three writings here together, as they possess in common a 

peculiar character, which distinguishes them from all the other 

epistles of the apostle, and on account of which, in relation to these 

others, they may be viewed as forming one epistle. Who could 

pass from the perusal of the other epistles of Paul to these, without 

being struck with this peculiarity 7 In the three epistles, we find 

errors of a similar kind combated, to which we may indeed find 

analogies here and there in the other epistles of the apostle, but 

which stand out here in a breadth and a significance such as they 

have in none of the others. The case is similar with regard to 

what we find in these epistles (the second to Timothy excepted, 

which offered no occasion for such a topic), respecting ecclesiastical 

institutions. To this also we may easily find analogies in the 

other epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles, but the defined and 

comprehensive form in which the subject appears here, creates a 

degree of surprise. In addition to this, what will perhaps appear 

most striking in these epistles, is a peculiarity of language, which 

shows itself not merely in the use of new terms for new appear- 



ances, but also in new and uncommon expressions to denote what 
is familiar. Nay, these epistles are even distinguished by a pecu- 
liarity in their style and composition. To him who has still in 
his thoughts the dialectics of the epistles to the Bomans and the 
Galatians, or the oratorical fullness of that to the Ephesians, the 
style of these epistles — not merely of the first, but of all of them— 
cannot but appear strange. And even when compared with other 
epistles, to which they are much more nearly related, as, for ex- 
ample, with that to the Philippians, and especially that to Phile- 
mon, a marked difference will be observed. How loosely are the 
sentences connected, what a strangely sententious form of expres- 
sion prevails here ! Thoughts and instructions of a general na- 
ture, follow in quick succession precepts of the most special kind, 
but at the same time of a universal value. It is also acknowledged 
that the language of the Pastoral Epistles is most pure, most free 
from hebraisms. And finally, with respect to the circumstances 
of time and place amid which these epistles would seem to have 
been written, we find ourselves here also on unknown and strange 
ground, in as far as regards the other epistles, and even the Acts 
of the Apostles. The statement made in the first epistle, i. 8, 
does not correspond to what is said in Acts xx. 1 respecting the 
apostle Paul, although we are most readily led to seek in that 
passage the explanation of the statement. The second epistle to 
Timothy lets us know, indeed, that it was written during an im- 
prisonment of the apostle, but what difficulties beset us, if we fix 
it as having been written during his imprisonment at Borne, of 
which we are informed in the Acts of the Apostles, and give it a 
place among the other epistles which proceeded from this imprison- 
ment ! And, lastly, the epistle to Titus — here every trace of his- 
tory is entirely lost. 

This peculiarity, which we have pointed out as distinguishing 
the Pastoral Epistles, must be acknowledged in the very outset. 
There Ues here therefore at the threshold of these epistles (as even 
the most decided advocates for their genuineness must acknow- 
ledge), a real problem that requires solution ; and the question 
can only be, whether such a solution is given in the results of the 
most recent criticism, or whether we have to seek it in another 
way, and how far it is attainable. 



Ere we set foot on the shifting ground of criticism, it may be 
well to call to mind the testimonies afforded by ecclesiastical anti- 
quity in favour of these epistles. We pass over the references to 
these epistles, which it is supposed are to be found in Clemens Bo- 
raanus and Ignatius, and notice, first of all, the passage in Poly- 
carp ad Phil. cap. 4, comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 7, 10, and cap. 12, 
comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 1 , 2. Further, the passage in Theophilus of 
Antioch ad Autol. III. 24, comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 2. Then those 
in AthenagoraSy in which he alludes to 1 Tim. v. 1,2, and 1 Tim. 
vi. 16. In addition to these, Justin Martyr, in Eusebius (h. e. 8, 
22), comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; lastly, the unmistakeable testimo- 
nies to the genuineness of these epistles to be found in Ireneeus, 
Clemens of Alexandria, and TertuUian. The heretics, too, appear 
as witnesses for these epistles. Comp. in Hug (Einl. 1, p. 54, sq.) 
the passages from Theodotus, comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; from Herac- 
leon, comp. with 2 Tim. ii. 13 ; from Tertullian as quoting from 
heretics, comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 14, ii. 2. Tatian has 
acknowledged at least the epistle to Titus ; and it is not difficult to 
account for his having rejected the two others (comp. Bauer, a. a. 
Q. p. 136) ; nor is it more difficult to show why Marcion stumbled 
at all the three, and kept them out of his canon. Dr Baur him- 
self acknowledges, p. 139, that although Marcion might have ad- 
mitted the epistle to Titus, as well as Tatian, he yet could not have 
made out the second to Timothy to be at all consistent with his 
opinions, except on the supposition of interpolations, whilst, ij ac- 
knowledging the first to Timothy, he would clearly have condemned 
himself. Comp., moreover, Baumgarten, a. a. Q., p. 33, sq., and 
Hug, Einl. 1, p. 56-^70. Without at present entering on the ob- 
jections that may have been raised against certain of the testimo- 
nies here adduced (comp. Bottger, a. a. Q., p. 1 99), we may safely 
assert, that these epistles are inferior to none of the other epistles 
of Paul in historical proof, and that long before the close of the 

1 Comp. on this subjeot for details, Bauer, die s. g. Pastoralbriefe. Stuttg. u. Tiib. 
1836, p. 136—142, and on the other side, Baumgnrten, die Aecbtheit der Pastoralbriefe, 
4c., 1837, p. 27—40. Bottger, Beitriige zur hist. krit. Einl. 1838, V. Abth. p. 199 — 
204. Matthies Erklarung der pastoralbriefe, p. 4— >16. 


second century they had, in consequence of these testimonies, oh 
tained the full acknowledgment of the church. 


It is well known that Schleiermacher was the first, who in his 
critical dissertation on the so-called first epistle of Paul to Timothy, 
Berl. 1807, directed an attack against one of these epistles, viz. 
the first epistle to Timothy. The two others he acknowledged to 
be'^genuine, and made use of them principally as the basis of his 
attack on the first. His arguments against its genuineness are 
founded partly on the peculiarity of its language, partly (although 
this he regarded as of secondary importance) on historical difficul- 
ties, and lastly, on the plan and composition of the epistle, which 
he held to be unworthy of the apostle. The result of his critical 
inyestigation has not failed to exercise a mighty influence, as may 
still be seen in the opinions expressed on the first epistle, by Usteri 
(in der. Einl. zur Entw. des Paulinsohen Lehrbegriffs, p. 2), by Ne- 
ander (ueber das apostolische Zeitalter, i. 589), and by Liicke (Stud, 
u. Erit. 1884, p. 764.) Ere long, however, as was to be expected 
from the cognate character of these epistles, even in a grammatical 
point of view (which Schleiermacher himself acknowledges a. a. Q. p. 
27,) the suspicion of spuriousness was extended to them all. This 
was done first by Eichhom, in his Introduction to the New Testa- 
ment (Leipsic 1812), then by De Wette, Lehrbuch der hist. crit. 
Einl. (Berl. 1880) ; Schott. Isag. (Jen. 1880), and Schrader, der 
ap. Faulus (Leipsic 1880.) Gredner, in his Introduction, sought 
to give a new turn to this critical question, in that he acknowledged 
the epistle of Titus alone to be genuine, while at the same time he 
professed to find in the other two epistles certain portions that were 
genuine. But the previous criticism had arrived at the fixed con- 
clusion that the three epistles must stand or fall together; and 
Gredner himself has again given up this view. The most recent 
opponent of the genuineness, Dr Baur : die s< g. Pastoralbriefe 
des ap. Paulus (1835), we find directing his attack against the 

1 See this subject historicallj treatt'd in Matthies, p. 16, «q. 


three epistles, and also De Wette in bis most recent statements on 
this subject in bis exeg. Handbuch. Bd. 2, 6 Th. If the attack on 
the genuineness has been thus from time to time renewed ever since 
it was first opened, there has also been no lack of able defenders 
from the commencement. Against Schleiermacher there appeared 
in the lists H. Planck (Bemerkungen ueber den ersten Paul. Brief 
an den Tim. (Oott. 1808), Wegscheider, (der erste Brief, &c., Gott 
1810), Beckbaus (spec, obsery. de voc. a9rX€7. &c., Lingae 1810) 
for the genuineness of tbe first epistle ; and when the attack was 
directed against all tbe three, their defence was undertaken by 
Suakind in Bengel's Archiv. fur Tbeol^. I. 2 ; Bertholdt, in his 
Einl. 6 Th. Hug. Einl. 2 Th. ; Feelmoser, Einl. ; Heydenreich 
die Pastoralbriefe ; Guerike, Beit. zur. hist. (;rit. Einl. Halle 1828 ; 
Gurtius de tempore, quo prior I. ad T. ep. ex. sit ; Bohl on the 
date and pauline character of the epistles to Tim. and Tit. ; Hem- 
sen, der. ap. Paul. ; Flatt, in his lectures on the epistles of Paul* to 
Tim. and Tit. Mack. comm. ueber die Pastoralbriefe ; Baumgarten 
die Acchtheit der Pastoralbriefe BerL 1837 ; Bottger Beitr&ge zur 
hist. crit. Einl. lY. u. V. Abth. Gott 1787 ; and fioally, Matthies, 
Erklarung der Pastoralbriefe. Greifew. 1840. In considering this 
question, we may fairly view it only in the position which it now 
occupies as represented by Dr Baur and De Wette's most recent 
attacks, and the replies which these have called forth from Baum- 
garten, Bottger, and Matthias. We shall therefore, first of all, haye to 
bring forward and examine tbe grounds on which the most recent 
criticism denies the authenticity of these epistles. But this criticism 
does not present us with merely negative results. It is well known 
that in its latest form, as represented by Dr Baur, it boasts of not 
abiding by merely negative results, but of building up by positive cri- 
ticism what has been destroyed by negative ; by assigning their real 
historical place to those particular compositions that have been 
shown to be spurious. With reference to this criticism all will 
depend on the question, whether it has really succeeded in discover- 
ing another place for these epistles, to which they unmistakeably 
belong. Must we answer this question in the affirmative, then 
nothing further remains for us but to rest contented, well or ill, 
with this critical result ; if tbe reverse be the case, then the question 
with us will be, how the Pauline origin of these epistles may be 
vindicated in spite of the acknowledged differences between them 


and the other epistles of the apostle. Dr Baur, in his work on the 
apostle Paul, p. 492 — 499, has summed up in the four following 
points, his arguments against the genuineness of these epistles, and 
in favour of their having heen written in the second century, 
corresponding to the more detailed statement of these in his treatise 
already named, " die so genanute Pastoralbriefe.'* 1. The heretics 
of the Pastoral Epistles are the Gnostics of the second century ; 2, 
That which relates in these epistles to the government and external 
institutions of the church points in its historical connexion, and 
also considered in itself, to a later period ; 3, The impossibility of 
discovering a singte passage having reference to the writing of 
these epistles, in the history of the apostle s life, with which we 
are familar; 4, Add to all this, that we find in these epistles 
viewed separately, so much that is peculiar and unpanline, both 
in the language and in many of the conceptions and views. De 
Wette's criticism differs from Baur's, chiefly in that it does not 
go beyond the negative stand point. For, that De Wette has made 
a conjecture with respect to the origin of these epistles a. a. Q. p. 
J 1 9, falls not to be considered here. In regard to particulars, he 
differs somewhat from Baur on the first point, p. 120. He acknow- 
ledges, indeed, that the main scope of all the three epistles is, the 
controversy against the heretics ; but he by no means recognises 
in these heretics, the Marcionites, as Baur does, nor does he feel 
warranted, owing to the weight of external evidence for the exis- 
tence of these epistles, in assigning their origin to a period so 
late as after the middle of the second century. He supposes their 
date to be about the end of the first century ; and that they were 
written by one who was either directly or indirectly a disciple of 
the apostle. De Wette does not agree with Baur in the very point 
which the latter represents as his principal argument. Nor does 
he quite agree with him also in the second of the above mentioned 
points ; though he finds the traces of a later date. On the other 
hand, he lays most weight on the impossibility of accounting for 
these epistles in an historical respect, which falls in with the third 
of the above points, and scarcely less, on the exegetical difficulties 
which come under Baur s fourth point, — but which De Wette has 
presented more in detail, by a larger induction of particulars. Under 
these difficulties he includes not only tlie peculiarity in language 
(comp. 116, 117), and in composition, in conceptions, and views, 


bat also the nnsaitableness of their contents to the state of things, 
to the design of the epistle, &o. The objeetions which De Wette 
here urges, can for the most part be considered only in the exposi- 
tion of each epistle by itself; in regard to the other three points 
we shall be chargeable with no oversight, if we keep Baur's argu- 
ments principally in view, in the order in which they have been 

I. Baur's first argument against the genuineness of these epistles 
is, that the heretics therein refuted are the Gnostics of the second 
century. This statement contains both a negative and a positive 
criticism ; if therefore it is to be viewed as historically proven, we 
mpst expect these two things to be shown — first, that at the period 
to which these epistles, according to their own showing, belong, 
there neither were, nor could be any forms of error against which 
that portion of their contents under consideration might be directed ; 
and, second, that what is said with respect to heretics fully corres- 
ponds with the Gnostics of the second century. For it must of 
course be acknowledged, that although certain allusions in these 
epistles should correspond with particular features in the Gnosis of 
the second century, — as for example, what is said of the fables and 
genealogies, — it is still far firom being proven that the epistles 
actually belong to this century. I am here touching a point of 
great importance, as opposed to this criticism of the Pastoral Epistles, 
and which the advocates for their genuineness, Baumgarton, Bottger, 
and Matthies, have not failed to bring forward. These have all 
remarked it as strange, that Dr Baur, who, in his work on the 
Christian Gnosis, has so well shown that the elements of the 
Gnostic systems were already in existence before the time of Christ, 
namely, in Judaism, should, in this critical investigation, hurry so 
quickly over the period, in which according to his own representa- 
tion must lie that series of intermediate links which are necessarily 
presupposed in the Gnostic systems of the second century. These 
systems, and as it appears these alone, are held to be what corres- 
ponds with the characteristics contained in these epistles. We will 
not, in opposition to this, insist, as Matthies has done, on the fact 
that the representations given in the Pastoral Epistles of the superior 
spirits, have a loose and unconnected form ; as to this it might be 
justly replied by Baur, that it was not to be expected of the writer 
of the Pastoral Epistles, that in order to refute the Gnostics, he 


should have to delineate their systems. We shall afterwards have 
an opportunity of more exactly delineating the oharaoter of the 
heretics according to the representation given in these epistles; 
meantime we have to notice it as a defect in the criticism to which 
we are opposed, (even on the supposition of its being right in the 
explanation it gives of the characteristic references in these epis- 
tles), that in its attention to the positive, it has entirely omitted 
the negative side, according to which it is to be proved that errors 
existing in the apostle's time cannot bo referred to. Such a criti- 
cism can only yield problematical results. The critic hastens with 
the point which he wishes to establish, to reach ground that is his- 
torically sure ; he lays historical data beneath what is uncertain 
and shifting, in order to give it a fixed historical form, and then 
he imagines that the result deserves, on account of this historical 
aspect which it has acquired, to be preferred to a view that has 
fewer points of connection with historical data. But how easily 
may he be mistaken, if — as in the case before us — the allusions on 
which the criticism is founded are indefinite and capable of various 
explanation ; and if, as is also the case here, the time to which the 
point in question according to its own showing belongs^ is one 
which historically is dark and uncertain. Baur himself concedes, 
that between the matured Gnostic systems of the second century 
and the first beginning of the Gnosis, a series of intermediate Unks 
must be allowed to have intervened, the discovery of which will 
still occupy history long enough. We confess, however, that all 
this would be of trifling importance, if the criticism in question had 
succeeded in proving beyond contradiction, from the characteristic 
features which the writer of the Pastoral Epistles gives of the error 
he refutes, that this error is none other than the Gnosis of the se- 
cond century with which history acquaints us. 

The proof of this is made to rest on the following points. It is 
said that the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles, as distinguished 
from those who are combated in the epistles of the apostle acknow- 
ledged to be genuine, have already the entire complexion and phy- 
siognomy of the later heretics. The epistles themselves are said 
to refer us to a later date (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 2 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1, 
iv. 3.) The fables and genealogies of which they speak, are said 
to be those of Valentinian ; the Antinomianism which they re- 
fute, that of Marcion. It is held that they give prominence to 


the universality of the divine grace in opposition to the Gnostics ; 
and oppose the Gnostic aversion to the creation ; and that every 
doubt as to the Gnostics being meant, should be removed from 
our minds when we read at the close of the first epistle, of opposi- 
tions tf science (^pfwrew^) falsely so called^ along with which in 
particular a passage in Eusebius, cited from Hegesippns (h. e. 
8, 22) is produced for consideration. In addition to this, the 
doxologies, formulas, and many expressions are said to have a 
Gnostic cast — see 1 Tim. i. 17^ vi. 15, iii. 16, &o. The represen- 
tation which is given of the heretics, is said to be purposely neither 
too general nor too special. The heretics named are fictitious 
persons. Nor, lastly, among the characteristics of this heresy is 
the Marcionitic doctrine of the resurrection wanting. Comp. Baur 
on the so-called Pastoral Epistles, p. 1 — 39. 

Against the assertion, maintained with great learning and acute- 
ness in the work already named, that in the heretics of the Pastoral 
Epistles we may everywhere trace the well^-known features of the 
Gnosis, nothing of any weight according to Dr Baur has as yet 
been brought ; and he appeals farther to the accordant testimony 
of De Wette, that the heresy refuted in the Pastoral Epistles is no 
other than the Gnosis known to us from history. But, does not De 
Wette expressly say (a. a. Q . p. 1 20), that the allusions to Marcion are 
by no means certain, and that the evidences from the second century 
for the existence of the Pastoral Epistles, requires that an earlier 
date be assigned to them, somewhere about the end of the first 
century ? The very chief reason, the positive proof which Baur 
has undertaken to give, is not acknowledged by De Wette. And 
with respect to the assertion, that nothing of moment has been 
brought against Baur s view, we must here gratefully call to mind 
especially what has been produced by Baumgarten and Bottger. 

We now proceed, first of all, to consider more particularly those 
characteristics which are said to belong to the Gnostics of the second 
century. The first of these is set forth in the words iwOot and yeveor 
Xo7eai, which occur together in 1 Tim. i. 4. We read oithefivOa 
alone in 2 Tim. iv. 4 ; 1 Tim. iv. 7; Tit. i. 14; where they are cha- 
racterised as opposed to the truth, aspro/ane and old wives* fables, 
and in the passage last adduced, as Jewish fables. The genealo- 
gies are mentioned at Tit. iii. 9 along mih foolish questions, cofi- 
tentions, and strivings about the law. (Comp. Baur, die, s.q., 



pp. 11.) The first question here then is, whether these /a 6/^« and 
genealogies roast necessarily be explained of fantastic fictions re- 
specting the world of spirits. Neander has denied this in reference 
to the genealogies mentioned in the epistle to Titus (Pflanzung, 
&c., T. 645), and maintained that from the context they aretather 
to be referred to the common Jewish genealogies. Baur himself has 
referred to Dahne, who is strongly of opinion that by the genealo- 
gies at 1 Tim. i. 4 are meant genealogical investigations in Philo's 
sense, but he disputes the historical vindication of this view, on the 
ground that the proofs on which it rests are found in the Gnostic 
systems. B5ttger too has assented to this last signification of the 
y€P€a\oyiaif and I think besides that the contents of the epistles 
do most favour this signification. Baur has not entered particu- 
larly on the interpretation of these terms ; he only states as an ob- 
jection to Neander s view, according to which pneumatologies 
similar to those of the later gnosticism are meant, that it is defi- 
cient in historical proof; and then shows how exactly the doctrine 
of the Gnostics is characterised in the expressions fables and 
genealogies. This assertion no one will contradict. But there 
remains some obscurity in the epithet Jewish, applied to these fables ; 
as, in the fable of the Valentinians concerning the fall of the Enthy- 
mesis or Achamoth out of the pleroma, to which reference is supposed 
to be made, no one will discern anything specifically Jewish, even 
though it be probable that Jewish Christians were the founders of the 
Valentinian and the Ophitian sects. It is said, farther, that the epi- 
thet ypoMSvi^ was peculiarly applicable to this fable as the Sophia- 
Achamoth is there represented as an old woman ; but the expression 
fiv0o^ypaa)Bri^ cannot rightly be explained of a fable which treats of 
an old woman, but of one which befits an old woman. It deserves also 
to be mentioned that the expression getiealogies is by no means a 
usual designation of the doctrine of aeons ; and Baur produces 
only one passage from Tertullian in which the expression receives 
its more definite meaning from being joined with aeones. — Gomp., 
moreover, § 4, and the commentary. 

Again, we are told that the Antinomianism which is opposed in 
these epistles is of a Gnostic description, and specifically that of 
the Marcionites. The passage 1 Tim. i. C — 11 is meant Already, 
it is said, do the words of ver. 8, koSjo^ 6 vofio^ sufficiently show 
that it is only Marcionites that are here spoken of; and that only 


on the supposition of the words being directed against these heretics 
can the distinctions which he there lays down concerning the law 
have a suitable meaning. It will belong to the exposition to show 
how these words have a suitable meaning when viewed as opposed 
generally to a wrong application of the law ; meantime, against the 
interpretation just mentioned, it may be well to call to mind with 
Bottger, a. a. Q. p. 122, that according to the usage of the apostle 
the phrase oiSafiev &n Kdk6<: vofjLoq must not be understood as ex- 
pressive of opposition, but rather of assent. As Bottger justly 
says, ** he accedes to the assertion, but duly qualifies it ;" referring 
also for examples of the same usage to Bom. vii. 11, 1 Cor. viii. 1, 
and citing Baur s own explanation of the latter of these passages, " as 
is evident from the olBafiev which expresses assent," (die Christl. 
Gnosis, p. 90, 92.) But no one who is without prejudice will fail 
to see how completely the explanation under discussion falls to 
pieces when viewed in connection with the expression vofioBiSdaKa- 
Xot, ver. 7, by which the apostle designates his opponents. For 
that this expression is not used ironically (the only remaining way 
of accounting for it) to designate such as will kpow nothing of the 
law, is evident from the OeKovrei elpcu vofjtoBi&daKdKoi, irom which 
it appears that they gave themselves out for this. And are we then 
to believe that the Marcionites gave themselves out as being teachers 
of the law ? — Gomp. Baumgarten, p. 32 ; Bottger, p. 110. 

Further, we are told that these epistles give a prominent place 
to the doctrine of the universality of the divine grace, in opposition 
to the Gnostics. On turning to the passages on which this asser* 
don is made to rest, 1 Tim. ii. 3, iv. 10, vi. 18, ii. 11, we find 
the doolrine (acknowledged to be Pauline) of the all-embracing 
grace of God in Christ, stated in a purely positive form, without 
any express reference to opponents. And are we to regard these 
statements, which are made in so general a form, as to apply to 
every possible error in respect to them, as specially directed against 
Marcion ? Nay, as regards the principal passage, 1 Tim. ii. 8, is 
it not clear from the connexion with what precedes, why the uni- 
versality of grace comes to be spoken of ? And just as little do 
the other passages require, that in order to their explanation we 
should suppose them to contain a refutation of this particular 
heresy. And on the supposition that they did, we must certainly 
allow that Clemens of Alexandria knew much better how to refute 


the heresy which holds that a portion of mankind are by nature 
incapable of blessedness, when he appealed to man's moral freedom 
of will, than the writer of this epistle ; as that universal divine will, 
which he opposes to this heresy, is represented by him as connected 
with the performance of certain subjective conditions on the part 
of man. Baur seems to feel this himself, as he obeervea, that this 
element which enters into the idea of the moral freedom of the will 
has not been overlooked in these epistles, as appears in their fre- 
quent exhortations to zeal for good works, and eq)ecially in 2 Tim. 
ii. 20, sq. We shall afterwards show the reason of these exhorta- 
tions ; but it is difficult to see how the assertion, that the doctrine 
of grace is held forth in these epistles in opposition to Marcion, is 
at all confirmed by the statement that practical exhortations are 
given in other passages. — Gomp. Baumgarten, p. 54, sq. 

Farther, there is a passage referred to, 1 Tim. iv. 3, in wliich it 
is said, the allusion to the Gnostics is clear as the light of day ; 
in which we read of the heretics, that they forbid to marry and 
command to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be 
received with thaoksgiving of them that believe and know the 
truth ; for every creature of God is good, and not to be refused if 
it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of 
God and prayer. To this also belongs Tit. i. 14. All this is 
made to apply to heretics, whose doctrine consists in a dualistic 
view of the world and of life, such as we find among the Gnostics, 
and in its most defined form in Marcion. *' Their abstinence from 
meats," says Baur, " must have had its source in a certain feeling 
of dislike and abhorrencci which they cherished towards the crea* 
tion of God, as towards something unclean." (Baur, p. 21, sq.) 
Now it is not to be denied that there are here traces of an asce- 
ticism which goes far beyond the Jewish prohibitions of meats. 
But we can abo fully assent to everything else that is said by 
Baur, without being obliged to refer the date of the epistle to the 
second century, if only the epistle to the Romans maintain its place 
in the first, (I argue ex concessis) ; for in that epistle we.find even, 
according to Baur's own view, allusions to the same Gnostic dis- 
like towards the creation. (Faulus, p. 390.) "AH this," says 
Baur there, " is in favour of the supposition that already among 
the Jewish Christians at Borne there existed a dualistic view of the 
world, very closely allied in its root to the £bionitism of a later 


period ; which is the less to he wondered at as this dualism iu re^ 
ference to civil life stands in a very natural connexion with that 
view which sees in the life of nature an impure and demoniacal 
principle, awakening dislike and ahhorrence/* (Gomp. Bom. xiv. 
14 — 20.) Baumgarten has already with good reason pointed out 
this inconsistency. Baur, indeed, has attempted to explain it in 
his work on the origin of Episcopacy, p. 32, by showing that 
there is a wide distance firom the first germ of a certain form of 
error to its actual existence and extensive propagation, and espe- 
cially from certain practical views affecting life, to theoretically de- 
veloped systems, and to the last step of a reaction which was begun 
without the full consciousness of its ultimate consequences. Ac- 
cordingly he endeavours to show that from the germ which ap- 
peared in the church at Bome a system might indeed spring such 
as that exemplified in the pseudo- Clementine homilies, but by no 
« means such as the Yalentinian and Marcionidc, as is proved by the 
opposition in which the former stands to the two latter, both in 
the fables and genealogies^ and also in the dualistic view of the 
world. But however true these remarks are in themselves, the 
inconsistency in regard to the point in question does not seem 
to be thereby removed. For, in order to this it must first be proved 
that the dualistically ascetic view of the world in these epistles is 
represented as a developed system in comparison with that in the 
epistle to the Bomans. For what remains, comp. the commentary, 
where it will be shewn that the Gnostic dualistic view of the world 
cannot at all be meant. 

The only remaining point which we will notice, in order not to 
overstep the limits assigned to us, is that on which Baur seems to 
lay the greatest stress. It is the words of 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; iKrpe- 

«/Muir6a>9, principally the concluding words. Here, it is said, ^e 
have an evident reference to Marcion, capable of being demonstrated 
from history. We will not insist on the fact that this reference 
has lost much of the ground on which it rests, from its being im- 
possible that those vo^jtoBiScur/caKoi, mentioned in the first chapter, 
can be Marcionites. But even taking the passage by itself, it must 
above all appear remarkable that the writer, who as Baur himself 
shows, purposely gives the characteristics of the heretics in such a 
way as not to be too special, in order not to betray himself by 


aDachronisms as a pseudo- apostle, should DOt shrink here from 
marking the doctrine of Mansion by its most " appropriate name" 
(Baur, p. 26.) It may be. said, however, that the author has here 
forgotten his part. But must we after all refer the expression oj?- 
positiotis of science falsely so called to the oppositions of Mar- 
cion ? By no means, replies Matthias, and refers justly to the 
term avrt^iariOefievoi in 2 Tim. ii. 25. And Baur in his review 
of this commentary (Jahrbb. f&r wissensch. Eritik 1841, No. 12), 
has brought nothing against this, but acknowledges that it would 
be correct enough if we had otherwise no occasion to r^fer the ex- 
pression to the Gnostic systems. But we have hitherto in reality 
found no occasion to understand a reference to the Onostio systems, 
in the sense that they alone can be meant. What Baur there 
adds by way of restriction, namely, that it nevertheless remains 
strange that the heretics should have expressed their contradictions 
in such definite antithetical assertions, rests on the supposition of. 
a collection of oppositions similar to that of the Marcionites, of 
which the passage under discussion says nothing, as we would then 
have to suppose for the same reason a similar coUection of vain 
babblings. For what remains, comp. Baumgarten, p. 69. We 
have here, however, still further to justify our position. The 
passage in Eusebius, b. e. 8, 32, cited from Hegesippus, is said 
to contain a double testimony against the genuineness of these 
epistles. For first there is found in that passage the peculiar ex- 
pression yp'euSo^WfUf^ yp&ai^ ; and even the erepoSiSaaicaXeiv has 
there its parallel in the expression erepoBiSdatcaXoif and there too 
a vyiif^ Kav&v rov acmfplov KffpvyfiaTo^ is spoken of ; and se- 
condly, Hegesippus there says expressly, that the '^^^evSdwfio^ 
yvSxn^ first openly showed itself after there was none surviving of 
the circle of the apostles. With respect to the latter point we 
refer to the competent judgment of Neander, a. a. Q. p. 539 : 
" As there was an unhistorical tendency, proceeding from a dog- 
matic interest, which sought to place the originators of all here- 
sies in the apostolic era ; so there was also a tendency still 
more unhistorical, the result also of a dogmatic interest (as is ma- 
nifest in all the accounts of Hegesippus) to make it appear, 
that the church had, up till a certain period, continued quite 
pure, and that no heresy broke out until after the removal of the 
apostles." Besides, Hegesippus in the passage quoted does not 


deny that the heretics were already in existence {hf a£^\^ irov 
a-tdrei tlxokevoprtov) ; bat only says, that they now first appeared 
yvfuf^ r^ K€il>a\^. Nay, as Thiersch has shown, we have not even 
the words of Hegesippas before as, but those of Eusebius, in which 
he obscnres a simple statement of Hegesippas; in the passage iv. 22, 
where we have really to do with Hegesippas, we learn that be dates 
the outbreak of Gnosticism after the death of James. Here, he sees 
" the beginning of that chain of heresies," the last links of which 
he finds in the sects foanded in his own time, — the Maroionites, 
Garpooratians, Valentinians, Basilidians, and Satnrninians." If by 
this statement of Hegesippas is meant, that the apostolic age re- 
mained free from every kind of heresy, even from such as are noticed 
in 1 Cor. xv., or in the epistle to the Golossians, then we have no- 
thing to say to it ; but if he fixes the beginning of the subsequent 
Gnosticism to the time after the death of James, then our view of 
the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles remains quite unassailed, comp. 
§ 4. With respect to the other point, namely, of the same expres- 
sions being used by Hegesippus as are found in the first epistle to 
Timothy, the supposition, that Hegesippas the Ebionite may not 
have shunned to employ expressions that occur in an epistle of 
Paal, without any direct reference to this epistle, is at least not so 
improbable as that any argument can be founded on it against the 
genuineness of this epistle. On the opposite hypothesis, that a 
disciple of Paul had the words of Hegesippus in view, the same 
di£Sculty presents itself on the other side. 

We notice only another characteristic, which it is said must be- 
long to the Gnostics of the second century. The apostle, to show 
what these profane babblings will lead to, adduces the examples 
of Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. ii. 18, teAo concerning the 
truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already. 
Here, it is said, reference is made to a wide-spread error of which, 
if it had already existed in the apost1e*s time, some further trace 
must have come down to us. But how do we know that it was 
already wide-spread ? The words, their word will eat as a 
canker, if indeed they are to be understood of the outward spread 
of this error, represent this as prospective, and the examples adduced 
of Hymeneus and Philetus are the best proof that this error has 
not the character of a wide-spread heresy, but is to be regarded as 
the excrescence of vain disputation on the part of certain individqala 


who are Darned on ibis very acooant. That the sect of the Mar- 
cionites cannot be meant, as Banr maintains, is already plain from 
the fact, that this doctrine was one of their standing characteristics, 
while here it is only said, that it had developed itself from the ieevo- 
^vlaiB, in the case of certain persons who are named. And can 
it seem at all surprising, that even in the apostle's time some should 
have fallen into this error, which is so closely connected with a 
spiritualistic view of the doctrine in question. We see how this 
doctrine offended the Sadducees, as also the Oentile Christians at 
Corinth, and the philosophic audience of the apostle at Athens. 
And if, moreover, we suppose that there were Jewish Christians in 
the apostolic era, who held dualistic notions, such as Baur main- 
tains were held by those at Rome, we will not be surprised at its 
having entered into the minds of certain individuals, that the Chris- 
tian doctrine of the resurrection would receive its right place, if 
they maintained that it was past already ; and we can then 
also feel a satisfaction in finding a clear trace of this error in 
this epistle. For what remains, see Bottger's learned notices 
(p. 170) concerning the Therapeutae, the Essenes, the ancient 
Ophites, and his observations on the meaning of a resurrection 
already past. Here then, also, we can find no unmistakeable re- 
ference to Marcion. 

It would lead us too far to attempt to throw light on the other 
particular characteristics which Baur notices in support of his as- 
sertion. There are still the doxologies and formulas occurring in 
these epistles, as 1 Tim. i. 17, vi. 15, 16; further, expressions 
such as (fMvepova-Ocu, ^7r«0ai/6ia, 1 Tim. iii. IG ; 2 Tim. i. 9, &o., 
Bei^ amrrip, 1 Tim. i. 1, &c. ; further, the christological repre- 
sentations, 1 Tim. ii. 5, iii. 16, then the expressions 0d!>9 drrpoai- 
TOV9 aoparo^f a^aprro^ a^apala dffavaala trpo jfpovtov auovinv 
iKketerol ayyeXoi, the prominence given to the ')(pfi<rr&rq^ and 
(t>tXav0poyrria rov 0€ov, all represented as traces of the Gnostic 
period. Not indeed that the writer in these expressions opposes 
the Gnostics, but that he has adopted involuntarily their ideas and 
language. However, in the passage 1 Tim. iii. 16, according to 
Baur's interpretation, the author must have deliberately expressed 
himself in a Gnostic form ; as there are there six clauses, every 
two of which form an antithesis, in as far as the one member has 
more a Gnostic, the other more an anti- Gnostic cast. A strange 


method certainly of refuting Gnosticism, which is yet said to have 
heen the chief object of this false apostle. — Finally, it is said that 
the heretics named in the epistles show themselves to be fictitions. 
Banr has not troubled himself much with the proof of this point, 
so as to make it evident that he lays no particular weight upon it. 
And with regard to the doxologies and other expressions, he re- 
peatedly acknowledges, that what he has adduced furnishes no 
strong proof. He finds nothing that is unpauline in any of them ; 
nor can it have escaped his observation, how many representations 
and designations may be found in Scripture, and even in the writ- 
ings of Paul, from which the expressions in question might be 
derived, or at least explained, without having recourse to the help 
of a Gnostic style of language and conception, as also Baumgarten 
and Bdttger have shown. We shall have an opportunity in com- 
menting on the particnlar passages of saying what we deem neces- 

If now we inquire to what result we have been led by the in- 
vestigation of the main features which are said to belong to the 
Gnosis of the second century, we find that it can only be the same 
as that to which De Wette, Nennder, Bothe, Matthies, Baum- 
garten, and Bottger, have come ; who, in spite of the criticism of 
Dr Baur, supported as it is by the most comprehensive learning, 
have not been convinced of the justness of his conclusion. They 
all more or less point to this, that " the germ of a Judaizing 
Gnosticism, or a Judaizing theosophic-ascetical tendency, such as 
shows itself in the two epistles to Timothy, must a priori be pre- 
supposed as existing at this period ; as the heresies of the second 
century point back to such a tendency gradually evolving itself out 
of Judaism" (Neander, p. 439.) To the same effect, Bothe con- 
siders the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles as being an indispensable 
intervening link already pre-supposed a priori, (Aufange der chr. 
k. I. 822.) So also Bottger, p. 21 1. Comp. also Thiersch in his 
Herstellung des hist. Standpunkts ftir die Eritik, p. 249. When 
we go back to the origin of Gnosticism, as Baur has traced it out 
in his work on this subject (p. 36-— 38), and learn that the first 
elements of this were already formed within the sphere of the Jews' 
religious history ; farther, that Christianity could not first call 
forth this speculative philosophy of religion, although it could not 

but be immediately drawn into its circle wherever it came into 



contact with it ; when we add to this, that Baar himself finds in 
the yp&a'^^ of the first epistle to the Corinthians, yiii. 1, sq., an 
idea at least closely allied with the later Gnosticism, — that- he al- 
ready asorihes to the Jewish Christians at Borne a dualistio view 
of the worid of a Gnostic kind, — that he recognizes in the epistle 
to the Colossians an example of the manner in which Essaism in 
particular united itself with Christianity, hut in this connexion 
generally prodjiced a new form of the Gnosis, — that he further 
supposes a series of intervening links, hy which the Gnosticism of 
a later period is traced to its first elements : the question presses 
itself upon us, why is no place to be found in the apostolical era 
for the heresy of the Pastoral Epistles, and can they not be one of 
those necessary intermediate links for which they give themselves 
out ? We receive for answer :— •that would be a Gnosticismus 
ante Gnosticos, which is just in other words, that in the Pastoral 
Epistles we have before us the fully developed, wide-spread, here- 
sies of the second century, otherwise Bothe's suggestion must 
certainly be admitted as valid, that we have also in the epistle 
to the Oolossians Gnostics ante gnosticismum ; and *' among 
the Jewish Christians of the earliest period there are many indica- 
tions which lead to the conclusion, that all these Jewish Christians 
of the earliest period bore more or less an Ebionitic stamp, and had 
an element of Gnosticism which they derived firom Essaism" (Baur 
Ursprung des Epesc. p. 128.) All will depend then on our being 
able to prove also positively, that there is nothing inconceivable in 
such heretics as those of the Pastoral Epistles having existed in the 
apostolic time ; on which, see § 4, and the Commentary. 

We now add only one or two general remarks on Baur s view of 
the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles. Dr Baur has maintained that 
the general delineation which is given of the heretics, already 
transfers us to a time subsequent to that of the apostles ; inasmuch 
as they do not appear as the apostles' personal opponents, but come 
into collision with the settled faith of the church, and are desig- 
nated by the n^me fupeiTucb^ SvOptoTTo^j Tit. iii. 11, which was not 
applicable in this sense in the apostolic time. Comp. also 1 Tim. 
i. 19, who concerning faith have made shipwreckj wnd QimilBX ^bb- 
sages. The heresy, it is said, is here represented as a wide-spread- 
ing evil, and the opposition between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, 
comes clearly out in expressions such as if there be any other thing 


that is contrary to sound doctrim^ 1 Tim. i. 10, &o. We shall 
afterwards see that the apostle does not here speak of heterodoxy 
and orthodoxy in the sense which we attach to the words ; hut of 
an unhealthy, unprofitable tendency to speculations and pursuits 
which are destitute of moral fruit, as opposed to the spirit of prac- 
tical morality that belongs to Ghristianity. Bottger rightly ob« 
serves, that there is much more said of heterodoxy and orthodoxy 
in such a passage as Gal. i. 6 — 9. The term alpenKo^ too can 
cause no serious offence, so long as aip€a'€i<i retains its place in 
1 Cor. xi. J 9. Comp. the interpretation of the passage. It has 
already been sufficiently noticed by others, how uncertain is the 
criterion which is founded on the assertion, that the opponents with 
whom the apostle deals are always represented as contradicting his 
own personal authority, while those of the Pastoral Epistles come 
into collision with the faith of the church (concerning faith have 
made shipwreck — oppose the truth, are the expressions referred 
to.) (Baumgarten, p. 47. Bottger, p. 113.) We however ac- 
knowledge fully, that the perverse tendency to be taken up with 
vain fancies and controversies about words which is rebuked in 
these epistles, was widely extended, but we do not admit that this 
points to a period posterior to that of the apostles. Baur also 
brings forward that the epistles themselves refer us to a later date. 
1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. I. But, far from our being constrained 
by this to the adoption of Baur s view, it is just the point where 
may be clearly seen, with what injustice Baur has brought together 
all that is said in these epistles respecting corruptions of, and 
apostacy from the faith on the part of some, with reference both to 
the present and the iuture, — has set it down as features of one and the 
same wide- spread heresy, and transferred it to the Gnosticism of 
the second century. 

We shall not pursue this further, but rather proceed to set over 
against these general remarks of Baur's, certain others, that we may 
see which view has the more on its side on the principles of proba- 
bility, — that namely, which finds the heretics of the Pastoral 
Epistles in the Gnostics of the second century, or our own, which 
gives credit to the testimony of these epistles themselves. Let it 
be supposed that a pseudo apostle reintes the Gnostics of the se- 
cond century. This man was, of course, a child of his age, a con- 
temporary of Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Athenagoras, Theophilus of 


Antioch, IreneBus, perhaps also of Tertullian and Glemeos of Alex- 
andria. We might here with good reason remark, as has already 
been often done, that it were assuredly strange to find just the very 
writings of the second century that are spurious — to which by hy- 
pothesis these epistles belong — so far surpassing in their spirit, and 
in their intrinsic value, every other production of mind confessedly 
belonging to that period. This must be acknowledged by all with 
respect to these epistles generally, whatever particular exceptions 
may be made. But we confine ourselves to the refutation of the 
heretics, of which we have specimens before us belonging to this 
period by several of those named above. How marked a difierence 
roust appear to every one ! While the so-called heretics of the Pas- 
toral Epistles belong to the fellowship of the church, and of some 
only it is said that they are fallen away from the faith, and such as 
were excluded from church fellowship are expressly named ; those 
Gnostic sects, to which these epistles sre held to refer, are, on the 
contrary, represented as all of them out of the fellowship of the 
church, and as declared enemies. Could a pseudo-apostle of the 
second century, whose main object was to combat those here- 
tics, concede to them such a position that he might have more 
the appearance of being an apostle ? And then, how ^he writer 
has been able to divest himself of all the influences of his 
time, its language, its style of thinking and representing! If 
an Ireneeus and Tertullian appeal against the heretics, above all 
to the general tradition of the church, must it not have been most 
natural for a pseudo- apostle of that time to make the apostle speak 
of the higher certainty of the doctrine declared by him, of his agree- 
ment with the rest of the apostles, &c. While they direct their 
attacks on this controversy against the blasphemous doctrines of 
the Gnostics — chiefly of the Marcionites — concerning the Creator 
of the world, and insist on the unity of the Old and New Testa- 
ments, we find no trace of this in these epistles. See on this point 
Thiersch, p. 255. This writer says justly, although in a different 
connexion : " at all events we have in this the most direct of all 
proofs, that in the New Testament there lie before us the documents 
of a stage in the controversy with the Gnosis quite different from 
all later stages." And bow do these epistles actually combat the 
Gnostics of the second century ? They were written, it is said, 
because Paul's own epistles could not be made available for this 


object ; as, *' the heretics made them out to be chiefly fayourable 
to their opinions without finding anything which they were com- 
pelled to acknowledge as a direct testimony against them" (Baur.) 
*'How naturally must it have suggested itself, to represent the 
apostle by means of writings appearing then for the first time, as 
saying directly and with immediate reference to those opponents, 
what was not said in his writings already known with the distinct- 
ness that was to be desired" (Baur.) Where then is the direct 
testimony in these epistles — ^wbere are the immediate references to 
these opponents ? The beginning of 1 Timothy is the principal 
passage adduced, i. 3 — 11. But what says the ^tbor there? It 
is enjoined not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies* for 
they only minister to controversy, instead of leading to the things 
that make for salvation. And so in all these epistles together, the 
sum of what is urged against the so-called heresy is, a warning 
against empty talk, useless contention — a conduct tending not to 
the advancement of the Christian spirit, but to its hindrance, 
morally unfruitful and unsound, which in several instances had led 
to a total departure from the faith (comp. 1 Tim. i. 19, 20 ; 2 Tim. 
ii. 16 — 18.) Besides this, and distinct from it, there are certain 
forms of error specified which were to appear in the future, the 
beginnings of which were already showing themselves (1 Tim. iv. 
1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1 , sq.) Are we to suppose what is inconceivable, 
that the whole argument against the Gnostics is contained in these 
two passages ? And have we here any direct testimony against 
these heretics? If the whole argument indeed be here, then 
must we acknowledge it to bo seriously defective. No — the 
origin of these epistles is not made clear to us in the way pointed 
out by this criticism, and the manner altogether in which the 
error referred to in these epistles is refuted, has nothing of the 
form which we would expect it to have in the circumstances sup- 
posed by this criticism. Even Baur himself, as Bottger observes, 
has admitted the unsuitableness of two of these epistles for their 
object — the refutation, namely, of the Gnostics — when he says 
(p. 136), " Marcion, as well as Tatian (who, it is well known, 
highly esteemed it), might have admitted the epistle to Titus ; in 
the second epistle to Timothy, however, he must at least have 
taken offence at the two passages, ii. 8, 18." There was no 
necessity then for any forged Epistle, since all that is contained in 


these two passages, as Bottger has also observed, is found as well 
and even better slated in Rom. i. 8, and 1 Cor. xv. 

II. The second class of arguments adduced by DrBaur includes 
" whatever in these epistles relates to the government and external 
institutions of the church." " This point stands in close and inti* 
mate connexion with the foregoing. The Gnostics, as the first 
heretics properly so called, gave the first impulse to the formation 
of an episcopal government." Yet, considered in itself, this fixed 
organization of the church, as we have it before us in the Pastoral 
Epistles, is, we are told, sufficiently fitted to awaken doubt and 
hesitation (Baur, Paulus, p. 4^5.) According to Baur, the consti- 
tution of the church, as it appears in these epistles, is characterieed 
by a hierarchical tendency quite remote from the Christianity of 
Paul ; and the same is perceptible in the principles he lays down 
with regard to the treatment of heretics. Further, the insti- 
tution for the widows is also to be viewed in the same light; 
and then the command that women shall not teach, which is 
said to be pointedly directed against the Marcionites ; then what 
is said regarding the female sex, 1 Tim. ii. 18 — 15, in con- 
nexion with what is said respecting widows. Finally, the injunc- 
tion to a married life is to be regarded as having reference 
to the practice of the church. Here also may be included those 
expressions which Baur notices in the fourth section of his work 
as unpauline, such as laying on of hands, 2Tira.i. 6 ; then such 
expressions as he alleges do not correspond lo the apostolic time, 
as, the husband of one mfe^ Tit. i. 6 ; the wife of one man, 1 Tim. 
V. 9 ; desire the office of a bishop, 1 Tim. iii. 1 ; and that no 
neophyte be made a bishop, ver. 6 ; so also 1 Tim. iii. 13, where 
deacons are said to purchase for themselves an honourable post, 
and then what is said respecting the presbyters, v. 1 7, 1 9, indicating 
the transition to the later ideas connected with the office of presby- 
ter ; then also the charge to lay hands suddenly on no man, as 
the mark of a later period ; finally, the expressions, witnessed a 
good confession, and Christ Jesus who witnessed before Pontius 
Pilate, 1 Tim. vi. 12, 18, are said to bear the stamp of a later 
period. With all this De Wette for the most part agrees, chiefiy 
instancing the institution for widows, the desiring the office of a 
bishop, &c., as traces of a later state of things in the church, a. a. 1 , Q., 
p. 118. He too explains the direclions as to the appointment of 


office- beareis in the church, Tit. i. <^, sq. ; 1 Tim. iii. 1, sq., and 
the '' remarkable" counsel, ^ Tim. ii. Si, by a reference to the in- 
terests of the hierarchy. AH this, however, according to him, falls 
within the period towards the end of the first century, which makes 
a considerable modification. 

We haye already fully acknowledged (§ 1) the problem which 
presents itself on a comparison of these with the other epistles of 
Paul. The question here is, whether Dr Baur has not represented 
this problem as more difficult than we find it to be on a comparison 
with what is known to ns, and whether we can admit the solution of 
it which he has given. There are two points on which the decision 
of this question must rest ; viz., the organization of the church 
through hrUncviroi, and hicucovoi,^ which comes strongly into notice, 
and the institution for widows. 

Now with regard to the en-iaKoiroi and Buucopoi of the Pastoral 
epistles, we are quite at one with Baur in this — that the appearance 
of heretical tendencies in the church was that which chiefly led to 
an insight into the necessity of settled ecclesiastical organization. 
We find this connection indicated in these epistles themselves, as 
Baur also observes (comp. Tit. i. 5 — 10.) When Baur proceeds 
to say, *'The Gnostics (namely, of the second century), as the 
first heretics, gave the first impulse to the estabhshmeut of an 
episcopal constitution" — this does not at all afiPect our position ; 
for before the appearance of these Gnostics, there were heretical 
elements in great abundance. How otherwise could Baur him- 
self urge as an objection, that there were opponents and heretics 
in Corinth and Galatia, and yet that the apostle, although the 
occasion equally demanded it with respect to them, gives no ad- 
monitions relating to bishops and deacons. The maxim cessante 
causa cessat effectus, is not applicable to this case according to 
Baur's own acknowledgment. Yet, let it be supposed that only the 
Gnostics of the second century could have given the first impulse 
to the settlement of an episcopal constitution, it may be proved, and 
Baur himself also admits, that in the Pastoral Epistles there is no 
mention of episcopal government in the sense which belonged to 
that expression in the second century. That Baur has in reaUty 
made this concession, we shall afterwards show, when we come to 
examine the view which he has submitted respecting the relation 

between the iirUfKoiroi and Trpe^T^vrepoi, 



Tbe second thing we have to mention against Baur^s view, is, 
that he either entirely leaves out of sight or arbitrarily rejects as 
unhistorical, those analogies which we cannot fail to observe, 
bearing on the ecclesiastical organization so prominently brought 
before us in these epistles, on a comparison of them with the rest of 
PauFs epistles, and the accounts we have elsewhere in the Acts of 
the Apostles. He has said nothing on the appointment of deacons, 
as related in Acts, chap. vi. And is it not critical caprice to set 
aside the account in Acts xiv. 23 regarding the appointment of 
presbyters, and the passage Phil. i. 1, by saying that these data 
are far too isolated ? What are we to say then of the presbyters 
in the church at Jerusalem, Acts xi. 80, xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 
4, xxi. 18, in the church at Ephesus, xx. 17, in the Epistle of 
James v. 14, and in 1 Pet. v. 1, 5 ? Are these merely isolated 
data ? With these before us, can it be maintained : *' that all 
official relations of this kind lie quite beyond the sphere of the 
apostle ?" Have we not here already *' standing offices ?" But 
we turn to the epistles *' confessedly genuine," in order to see 
whether *' we can find in those epistles nothing analogous offer- 
ing itself for comparison." Baur himself adduces the passages 
1 Cor. xii. 28, the Kvfiepvi^aet^;, the gifts of church government, 
the avTiKifs^et^f the gifts of various services, such as the care 
of the alms, the care of the sick, and has nothing to object to 
this signification of the words ; he notices Bom. xii. 6, sq., the 
gills of SioKovla, BiSaaicaXla, also the wpoiardfievo^, in addition 
to which we may reckon Eph. vi. 11, some apoatlea^ some pro- 
phets, some preachers, some pastors and teachers, and 1 Thess. 
V. 12, those that labour among you and have the rule (irpolara' 
liiifov^) over you, &c., as undisputed passages. And yet in those 
" genuine" epistles is to be found according to Baur nothing ana- 
logous, nothing even presenting itself for comparison ; and all re- 
lations of the kind brought before us in the Pastoral Epistles are 
entirely out of the sphere of the apostle. It is true, indeed, that 
in the passages just quoted it is yapUrfuiTa that are enumerated ; 
but does not the very point of view from which these appointments 
for the service of the church are there regarded show, why not so 
much the external regulation as the internal gifts corresponding to 
this are prominently noticed. And yet, what else can the Trpoia- 
rdfj^vos be than what we are accustomed to regard as meant by 



the irp€<rfiuT€pGfi ? Of what use was the gift ot ffovernmetit if the 
person endowed had no sphere for the exercise of his gift ? That 
some of these gifts found no outward corresponding sphere in a 
settled and everywhere similar church servicci was to be expected 
from the very nature of the gifts themselves, and can prove nothing 
here against the existence of presbyters and deacons, as it is not 
the enumeration of the '' settled and permanent relations ' in the 
churches, but of '* gifts" that is intended to be given. Thus we see 
that in those epistles of the apostle ** acknowledged to be genuine" 
there are direct analogies to the church government with which we 
are made acquainted in the Pastoral Epistles ; and that from what 
we find in tbe Acts of the Apostles, as well as in several of the 
epistles which harmonize with what is there stated, we may infer 
that this church government was a generally existing state of things. 
And bow a priori could we suppose it otherwise than that some 
form of church regulation would be adopted from the very begin- 
ning ? The individual Christian did not surely live for himself, 
but as a member of a society ? How could such a society subsist 
without an arrangement and direction, it matters not what may be our 
opinion as to the origin and the first form of this ? Not to speak of a 
later period in the history of the church, we cannot imagine a 
Christian congregation at any time to have existed without some 
form of direction or superintendence. Baur ftilly agrees with us 
in this, and he himself declares, in his work on the origin of Epis- 
copacy, that we must associate a " certain oversight and superinten- 
dence" with the very first rise of a Christian congregation. Ac- 
cording to his view, those who had first taken the decisive step of 
embracing Christianity acquired a preponderating authority, and 
became the " presidents" of the congregations as they were formed. 
** Thus were the irpeafivrepoi — as indeed even in the Pastoral 
Epistles the one point of view always passes over into the other — at 
once tbe presidents of the congregations and the eldest in point of 
age," (p. 86.) " The a'Tra/^^^a^ then were the first bishops and dea- 
cons," (p. 87.) Whether it was not rather age and fitness other- 
wise (as the pastoral epistles show on Baur s own admission to have 
been the case in regard to the former) on account of which an in- 
dividual was raised to the office of hriaicxmo^ — whether with Bothe 
we consider these presbyters as having formed a college — or with 
Baur, each one as having been a little bishop, is here quite the 


same for our purpose ; all that we urge is, that Baur accounts for 
the existence of presbyters as it were a priori^ and admits that " this 
was the natural course of things necessarily brought about by the 
circumscribed state of things in the church during its earliest 
period/' We may then maintain without fear of contradiction that 
there must have been from the commencement presidents of con- 
gregations, and that it is capable of proof that there actually were 
such, as we have seen above. The existence of such presidents 
does not lie beyond the time of the apostle ; and even although the 
epistles to the Romans, the Corinthians, and the Galatians were 
silent on the subject, this would be no proof of their not having 
existed. Indeed it could not have been otherwise ; " the natural 
course of things" led to this. And we now find what Baur says 
(p. 89) to be quite intelligible — *' that the Pastoral Epistles repre- 
sent the constitution of the church rather as already established 
than as being first introduced." The question now still more ap- 
pears to be that which from the commencement we have laid down 
as the problem for investigation, viz., why is so little said in the 
other epistles respecting such office-bearers, notwithstanding that 
there is no doubt of their having existed, while in the Pastoral 
Epistles they are brought so prominently into notice ? 

We have thus endeavoured to reduce the question to its true po- 
sition ; and it is here, therefore, that we first encounter the real 
punctum siliens of the criticism to which we are opposed. If 
hitherto, so far as we have followed it, that criticism has laboured 
by the setting aside of all analogies, to render difficult a solution 
of the question by which the authenticity of these epistles might 
be established, and yet in the end has been necessitated to admit 
the existence of church government by persons who presided over 
the congregations ; its object now is to lay stress on the strong 
way in which this ecclesiastical organization is brought forward in 
these epistles, and chiefly to show that it has a hierarchical ten- 
dency. It is alleged to be improbable, '* that the apostle himself > 
should have made the introduction and consolidation of church 
government a special object of his apostolical care." And further, 
the relation of the eiricKoiroi to the irpeaPirepoi is said to discover 
already a hierarchical tendency of the monarchical form, which is 
also said to be reflected in the rule laid down for the treatment of 
heretics. By. an investigation into the relation between the irpea^ 


fivrepoL and hrlaK<nroi, Baur (p. 80 — 86) attempts to prove '* that 
both in their sphere were the same with the later bishops." '* What- 
ever, there/ore, in the Pastoral Epistles is arranged or enjoined 
with respect to these for founding and establishing the eoclesias- 
tioal organization, has nothing else for its object than the fartherance 
of this monarchical constitution of the church which at a later pe- 
riod was by way of distinction connected with the name of the eTrur- 
Koiroi,** *' And is it probable, that this monarchical constitution of 
the church which is so entirely unknown to the genuine epistles of 
the apostle — at least so far ! as that nowhere in these is any sig- 
nificance attached to it — should have become to the same apostle 
(be it at a later period) a matter of so much importance as that 
the sanctioning of it should have been his principal aim, in these 
so-called Pastoral Epistles?" (p. 86.) "It appears to me that 
this points to a later period, when in the church at Rome the Pe- 
trine Jewish- Christian element had gained the decided preponder- 
ance over the Pauline Christian/' And then are adduced certain 
proofs of the early manifestation of the hierarchical tendency in 
this church. The letters of Ignatius are also brought forward; 
but in these the connection of all the members with the bishop is 
spoken of in a manner quite different from that of the Pastoral 
Epistles, which we may be allowed to add makes the very differ-, 
ence in question. 

We must give especial consideration to what is here said, 
for it is the sinew of this discussion. The hrUricoiroi, and Trpco-- 
fivrepoi were presidents over small individual congregations from 
the very commencement, even in the period of the first formation of 
Christian congregations (Baur on Episcopacy, p. 86.) There 
were no colleges of presbyters formed, but individuals put them- 
selves at the head of the congregations, and were like petty bishops 
in the later sense of the word. Thus a '* monarchical constitution 
is, according to Baur, to be supposed as existing from the first," a 
'* monarchical constitution" which was formed by '* the natural 
course of things" wherever congregations were formed. *' What- 
ever, therefore" (this is the inference drawn from the proofis ad- 
duced on the other side) *' is arranged and enjoined in the Pastoral 
Epistles with respect to the presbyters and bishops, for the settling 
and confirming of the ecclesiastical organism, has nothing else for its 
object than this monarchical constitution which was afterwards by 


way of distinction associated with the name of the hrlaicorroi. Is it 
then probable that this monarchical constitution of the charoh which 
is so ^i/ir^/y unknown to the genuine epistles of the apostle— at least 
in 80 far as that nowhere in these is any kind of significance attached 
to it — should have become to the same apostle — (be it at a later 
period) a matter of so much importance, &c." We ask here — if in 
general these Pastoral Epistles contain arrangements with respect 
to presbyters and bishops, — what else can they have for their object 
than the monarchical constitution, if this, according to Baur s re- 
presentation, was the original and the only constitution ? And 
how can it be inferred from the fact of their insisting on a monar- 
chical constitution, that they display a hierarchical tendency, or 
that their object is to give prominence to the Petrine Jewish-Chris- 
tian element above the Pauline- Christian ? The natural course 
of things is said to have placed these bishops and deacons at the 
head of congregations from the very first, and thus to have 
led to a monarchical constitution. Why then must the Pastoral 
Epistles in particular, " because they represent this constitution as 
already existing rather than as being first introduced," be supposed 
to have in view the monarchical constitution ** which was afterwards 
specially cotjnected with the name of the hria-Koiroi" and to betray 
the predominance of the Petrine Jewish-Christian element ? " In 
the same light we are to regard the Trpe^ifiuTepoi of the church at 
Jerusalem, frequently mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles," p. 85, 
that is, as denoting the same monarchical constitution which after- 
wards took its name from the hrUrKViro^. And if it be true that the 
apostle Paul appointed presbyters, he too has had in view the same 
monarchical constitution at the head of which the iirlaicoTro^ 
was afterwards placed. How then can it be asked — " Is it pro- 
bable that this monarchical constitution of the church, of which we 
find nothing in the genuine epistles of the apostle, should after- 
wards have appeared to him so important a matter." The question 
can only be — whether church government in general has ever 
seemed to him of so much importance, as that he should deem it 
necessary to give to his assistants whom he charged with the order 
and government of the congregations, such directions as we read of 
in these epistles. If he gave any such, they must have tended to- 
wards the formation of a monarchical constitution, to which, accord- 
ing to Baur, " the natural course of things" had given birth. It is 


the same then whether it were a monarchical or a democratioal 
coDstitatioQ. And if there is any trace at all of church government 
in the '* genuine" epistles of the apostle, it must point to the mo- 
narchical form, if in general it be supposed that this was the ori- 
ginal form, as Baur maintains. There can no proof, therefore, of 
a hierarchical tendency in the Pastoral Epistles be drawn from the 
fact, that the arrangements which they enjoin with respect to bishops 
and deacons accord with the monarchical form of government. 
And if the monarchical constitution in these epistles gives no proof 
of a hierarchical tendenov. neither also does " the earnest manner 
in which they speak of ecclesiastical regulations and persons/' for 
the question just recurs, — is that which is earnestly enjoined of 
a hierarchical nature ? Can it be ascertained even in a very par- 
tial way, by what particular marks the hierarchical tendency dis- 
played itself in the second century ? Baur only proves that in 
Rome at an early period such a tendency had developed itself, but 
not that the traces of this development are to be seen in the injunc- 
tions and regulations of these epistles. He adduces the epistles of 
Ignatius from the second century as an evidence of the rising Rom- 
ish hierarchy. But on comparing these with what we find in the 
Pastoral Epistles on the subject of church government, we first be- 
come really aware how remote these epistles are from the tendency 
ascribed to them, and how truly all that they contain on that 
subject bears the stamp of primitiveness. Baur observes with 
reference to this, that the principal ecclesiastical office-bearers 
mentioned in the Pastoral Epistles are the same with those in the 
Ignatian letters. But very little weight can be attached to this, 
when we find that the iwtaxoiro^ and trpeafivrepo^ are quite a 
different thing in the Ignatian epistles; the hria-Koma^ is there 
separated from the 7rp€(r)9ur€po9, and the latter has become the 
member of a college of presbyters. We have there the very reverse 
of the constitution which, according to Baur, is to be regarded as 
the original one, and as still to be recognised in the Pastoral 
Epistles. For while, according to Dr Baur, the irpec/Surepo^ 
(= irrUrKOwo^) was originally in his own sphere a small bishop 
in the later sense of the word — (although along with this it must 
of necessity be supposed, that in certain cases, when the indi- 
vidual congregations, say for example in Corinth, formed a whole, 
there was a common government which could issue only from the 


college formed by the single petty bishops, so that we have here a 
coUegial element besides and above the monarchical maintained by 
Baur) — the reverse was the case in the second century when 
the hrUrKoiro^ (that is, the monarchical element) was placed at 
the head, and under him the college of presbyters. It is at 
this period, in my opinion, that we can first speak with any 
propriety of a monarchical constitution ; while previous to this, 
even granting the origin of the irp€<r^vT€f>o^ and the sphere 
of operation to have been such as Dr Baur represents it, a 
coUegial action must of necessity be supposed as having beeif 
the culminating point of the constitution chiefly in larger congre- 
gations, such as that in Jerusalem ; unless it be maintained, Uiat 
such a congregation did not properly form a whole« but an aggre- 
gate made up of several particular congregations, with their petty 
bishops, each of whom might act as he pleased. When wo look 
at the accounts given in the Acts of the Apostles respecting the 
church in Jerusalem, we find that a coUegial action on the part of 
the presbyters there, can as little be questioned as that the con- 
gregation there fonned a whole, the various particular congrega- 
tions (if there were such) disappearing under this unity. 

We see then how small the resemblance that obtains between 
the ecclesiastical constitution of the first period, and the monarcho- 
episcopal of the second century, according to Baur s own repre- 
sentation. But it is now time to examine more closely this repre- 
sentation itself, according to which the first Trpea-fivrepoi were 
petty bishops, and upon which our respected opponent founds his 
assertion of a monarchical constitution having existed from the 
first What evidence have we for this view ? It is not proved — 
as Baur himself admits — by passages such as Acts xiv. 23 ; Tit. 
i. 5, which speak of the ordination of presbyters (in the plural) in 
each city. '* The naturaj course of things," according to which 
the first converts, and those in whose houses the congregations 
assembled, became presbyters eo ipso, is in reality the only proof 
to which we are referred. Now we will not deny that the fact of 
belonging to the " first fruits," perhaps also the other circumstance 
gave a kind of claim to the oversight, if only these early converts 
and house owners were otherwise able and qualified persons ; which 
is certainly not implied in one's having been amongst the first who 
were converted, or in his having opened his house for Christian 



assemblies. That however is all to which we are allowed to give 
any weight, according to the view under consideration. We are 
not, however, thereby relieved of the main question/ namely — 
whether the thing took this coarse of itself, or whether such first 
fruits and house-owners, if they were otherwise qualified persons, 
were appointed to the office of presbyters. The name Tr/oecr- 
fivrepo^ seems to oppose the view, according to which presbyters 
became such merely in the natural course of things ; for this name 
points to another element as the ground of the office, namely, age ; 
and that is sufficiently explained neither by the character of the 
" first fruits," as such, nor of the house-owners. This then — age 
— ^must have been the first thing looked at in the origin of pres- 
byters, or in their designation. This, however, could not possibly 
come about of itself, as indeed Baur s representation of the natural 
course of things shows, but pre-supposes a principle that was 
generally acted upon in the Christian congregations, in accordance 
with which the eldest, supposing them to be qualified, were placed 
at the head. And those passages to which the opposite view ap- 
peals, as in the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, declare, in- 
deed expressly, that the bishops and deacons did not enter on their 
offices of themselves, but were chosen. If, however, it be said 
here that these first presbyters and deacons were the '' first fruits," 
we have already acknowledged that this was an element. And as 
the name 7rp€(r)9vrepo9, so also does all historical tradition oppose 
the view under consideration. Not merely that with respect to the 
deacons, we have in Acts, ch. vi., the account of their appointment, 
and with this an analogy to the appointment of presbyters ; but in 
Acts xiv. 23, we are told in the most distinct terms the very same 
thing with respect to the presbyters, viz., that they were ordained ; 
and the other view can only be maintained by the arbitrary rejec- 
tion of this passage. With this, however, we have at the same 
time a new argument, against the view which represents the con- 
stitution of the first Christian church to have been monarchical. 
For if in each of the smaller spheres of the united congregations 
the presbyter or bishop did not of himself assume the lead, how 
are we to suppose that the apostle gave its own presbyter to each 
of such small individual congregations ? How comes it, then, as 
has already been made out, that, if such a united congregation 
consisting of smaller ones really formed a whole, as Baur also 



acknowledges, we may not dispense with the supposition of a col- 
legia! co-operation on the part of the individual presbyters. If, 
however, we must allow the constitution of the larger congregations 
to have been like that of the church at Jerusalem, I do not see 
why we may not suppose that the smaller ones also were organized 
after its model, as soon only as the competept number of members 
was made up. Thus we are of necessity shut up to the view which 
is commonly taken of the first management of the congregations 
by a plurality of presbyters, and must totally contradict the sup- 
position of a monarcho-episcopal constitution. Comp. Neander, 
Ap. Zeitalter I. p. 253, 254, 262, 264. 

So much the more considerable does the difference thus appear, 
between the form of church government as traced in these epistles, 
and the monarchical of the second century. Let any one only 
look at these epistles, and say whether they do no not bear a per- 
fect impression of what has just been described as the constitution 
of the church in the apostolical time. How far removed are they, 
according to Baur's own words, from the manner in which the 
epistles of Ignatius speak of the dignity and importance of the 
heads of the church, and the connexion of all the members of the 
congregation with them, as the indispensable condition of salvation 1 
There is here as yet no difference observable between the irp^a- 
fivT€p<yi and the hrlaKonro^, just as at Acts xx. 17, 28 ; Phil. i. 1. 
And not only can no such difference be observed in the name (as 
is likewise the case at a later period in Clemens Bomanus, and 
Polyc^rp) ; but also in itself, the office of the eTricKoiro^ and the 
irpeajSirrepo^ is one and the same (Baur die. s. g. Past. p. 81.) In- 
deed so much do the Pastoral Epistles reveal of the ground and origin 
of these official relations, that the one point of view (that, namely, 
of age in the expression irpea^vrepo^) is always merging into the 
other," (Ursprung, &c., p. 86.) And all this is to be explained thus — 
the autlior, mindful of the difference of times, designs only to charac- 
terize the first elements of the later church government as apostoli- 
cal institutions. How inconceivable ! Already had the hrla-Kovo^ 
raised himself above the presbyters with a claim to superior autho- 
rity ; precisely in this does the hierarchical tendency of the second 
century concentrate itself; and this pretended apostle who writes in 
furtherance of the Romish hierarchical tendency nullifies this dis- 
tinction, inasmuch as he again places the hrUrKOTTo^ and irpeajSv* 


T6po9 on exactly the same level. What could have been said more 
diredUy at variance with that hierarchical tendency, than that the 
iffiaKcm^ was originally entirely the same with the irpeafiurepof: ? 
And what else does the writer say calculated to advance the hierar- 
chical aim ? " Does he represent the monarchical principle as 
originally involved in the idea of the irpeafiurepoi ;* he yet there- 
by in no way iarthers the peculiar interests of tiie hierarchy of his 
time. It must then be supposed, that in his time it was still held in 
doubt whether there had been from the commencement appointed 
presbyters and bishops ; which Baur will not maintain, as be him- 
self says, that ** at a later period no Christian congregation could be 
conceived of without a president regularly appointed from its first 
commencement." (Past. p. 86.) And that later period is just the 
one of which we speak, (Ap. Paul, p. 12.) 

When, finally, fiaur thinks that a hierarchical state of thin(;B 
shows itself in the prescribed mode of treating a man ihat is an 
heretic. Tit. iii. 10, this is sufficiently explained by what has been 
said above on the opposition of orthodoxy and heterodoxy ; espe- 
cially as in regard to this passage it is acknowledged, " that one 
might only wonder why the author does not pronounce upon him 
the formal ecclesiastical sentence." The avdOefia e<rrm of the 
apostle Paul is of course hierarchical. Gomp. Neander, ap. Zei- 
talter I. p. 54 G. 

We are at liberty then to affirm as the result of this investigation, 
that the ecclesiastical arrangements in the Pastoral Epistles with 
respect to the hriaKoiro^ (and hidKovoC)^ present nothing which 
does not correspond to the apostolical time, and nothing which re- 
fers to the second century. See also on this, B5ttger, p. B6 — 64, 
and Baiungarten, p. 84 — 90. 

The second main point adduced to prove that these epistles be- 
long to the second century, in so far as regards ecclesiastical ar- 
rangements, is the widow's institution. Now it is certainly acknow- 
ledged (comp. Baur, p. 49), that by the writers of the second cen« 
tury widows are distinguished in the same way, and are placed side 
by side with the higher ecclesiastical functionaries ; and likewise we 
find in the New Testament no farther trace of an enrolment, or of any 
such distinction of widows. Meanwhile we learn from Acts vi. 1, 
sq., that the widows were from the very beginning in particular an 

object of care to the congregations, just as it is also natural to be- 

M 2 


lieve — from the principle on which presbyters were chosen as im- 
plied in the expression wpetrfivrepos — that the TrpeaPiri^^ were 
also distinguished with especial honoar, if they were worthy of it. 
The latter point in particular seems to me to give the clue to the 
explanation of the fact, that in the earliest period the widows not 
under threescore years old were placed along with the presbyters 
as church functiomanes. But it is not merely this institution in 
itself (the historical impossibility of which in the apostolic time 
cannot be maintained a priori) which, according to Baur, declares 
against the genuineness of these epistles, but chiefly the circum- 
stance that by the " veorripa^ XVP^^" ^^i** 1 1 > ^^^ ^^^ veonipa^, ver. 
14, are to be understood virgins ; which decidedly points to the se- 
cond century. This assertion of our opponent, however, is exege- 
tically altogether untenable; in proof of which, for the sake of 
brevity, we refer to the commentary, where also the difficulties with 
which he attempts to surround the common intrepretation find their 
solution. Here we would onlv observe, that it cannot so much as 
be shown that in the second century it was customary to receive vir- 
gins also into the number of the church widows, and accordingly 
under the name jfiipai to understand also virgins, as is said to be 
the case in the passage under consideration. Baur too says only 
" that this may with great probability be supposed." But the pas- 
sage from Tertullian de velandis virginibus, c. 9, bears directly 
against his view, seeing that Tertullian there characterises it as 
" miraculum ne dixerum monstrum" that such a thing should once 
take place. The other passage to which we are referred, that, 
namely, in Ignatius to the Smymaens, c. id, aavd^ofuii rov^ St- 
/eov^ r&v a^eK^v fiov aw yuvcu^l fcal riicvoK xal r^9 trapBevms 
T^9 Xeyofjiiva^ X'ipo>^* appears certainly to have the meaning that 
is attached to it. But even though we may not object to this 
meaning on critical grounds, still, as it presents what is so alto- 
gether singular, it is natural to remember that the term wapOh/oi 
was also frequently used to denote such as were widows indeed ; 
and that it may here, with Bottger, be understood in that sense ac- 
cording to the principle : 17 x^P^ ^^ <rto<l>po<rvprj^ aJf6t<: 'jrapOevoff. 
The clause rit^ Xeyofiiva^ X>7pA9 would then be a more special 
explanation of the expression TrapOivou^, and this would then be 
selected on purpose, in so far as the idea of bereavement and sor-> 
row lies in the XPV^- Still, however that may be, it belongs to 


our opponent at all events, in the first place, to prove that in the 
passage 1 Tim. v. 11, the XVP^ signifies a nrapBhfo^ in the proper 
sense. Baur has subsequently objected to our view on the ground 
that, according to it, what is said ver. 11 — 14 must apply to all 
widows under sixty years. But does it then suit better to make it 
apply to all virgins under sixty years ? Gomp. also here Baum- 
garten, p. 67 ; B5ttger, p. 65. How little the injunction to marry 
contained in this passage, in the circumstances supposed at ver. 
1 1 — 1:3, is at variance with the opinion of the apostle as expressed 
in 1 Cor. vii. we have already hinted above; there is as little 
need therefore of supposing, in order to the explanation of this pas- 
sage, that it is directed against the celibacy of the Marcionites, as 
that it presents a pseudo- Clementine view of marriage. In like 
manner, I cannot see how we are under the necessity of supposing 
in the words ii. II, I do not 9uffer a woman to teach, an allusion 
to the improprieties of the Marcionites ; as the apostle might have 
the same inducement to mention here that it did not become a 
woman to make a public appearance, as he had in regard to the 
church at Corinth (1 Cor. xi. 5, sq. ; xiv. 34), or to the church at 
Ephesus. Those only who have been led on other grounds to 
question their apostolical origin, can be led to seek such allusions 
in the words. With regard to the passage 1 Tim. ii. 18 — 15, at 
which also Baur takes ofience, and which he thinks is allied to the 
pseudo- Clementine view, we refer to the commentary ; where also 
will be considered the particular points enumerated above as brought 
forward by Baur. There too we shall have the most fitting oppor- 
tunity of dealing with the particular objections that still remain, 
such as the mention of Timothy's mother and grandmother (2 Tim. 
i.), the military comparison (2 Tim. ii. 3, sq.), mi/ gospel (ii. 8), &c. 
III. ** A further step in the criticism of the Pastoral Epistles is, 
the impossibility of finding a single passage in the history of the 
apostle B life with which we are acquainted, on which we can rest 
the supposition of their having been written by him ;" or in the 
words of De Wette, " their historical unaccountableness." I fully 
admit this impossibility and historical unaccountableness, if it be 
held to be necessary, that we should find a place for these epistles 
among the events and circumstances of that period of the apostle's 
life with which we are made acquainted in the Acts of the Apostles, 
and in the rest of the epistles ; and the latest attempts by Bottger 


and Matthies to find a passage that will correspoDd, within this pe- 
riod, are also in my view " new proofs of this assertion." I fully 
admit the justice of what De Wette affirms, that the internal affi- 
nity which obtains between these epistles in form and subslancp, 
*' shuts up the advocate for their genuineness to the supposition 
that they were all written about the same time," and have no hesi- 
tation! — ^following the example of Usher, Mil], Pearson, Glericus, 
Paley, who are followed by the most of the later advocates for the 
genuineness, such as Heydenreich, Bohl, Guerike, Neander, Bothe, 
&c. (comp. Baumgarten, p. 196) — in maintaining, that the first 
epistle to Timothy and the epistle to Titus were vrritten during the 
period between the first and a second imprisonment at Rome, while 
the second epistle to Timothy was written during this second im- 
prisonment.^^ And that not merely, because I cannot suppose that 
the second epistle to Timothy was written about the same time with 
the epistle to the Ephesians, and the other epistles of the first im- 
prisonment at Bome, but also because the circumstances of time 
and place given in the epistles themselves, especially the second, 
require this supposition ; on which the introduction to the particular 
epistles is to be compared. This position is not affected by all that 
De Wette and Baur's criticism brings, against the possibility of 
finding a place for these epistles in '^ the history of the apostle with 
which we are acquainted ;" and we have to meet only those objec- 
tions that are brought against the supposition of their having been 
written before and during a second imprisonment at Bome. 

Among these objections, that which calls in question the fact of 
a second imprisonment is chiefly to be noticed. Without entering 
here on a new investigation of this much controverted question, it 
may be stated as the result of the investigation hitherto made, that 
probability is opposed to probability* If we compare what Baur 
says on this subject (der ap. Faulus, p. 231), we find that not a 
single historical statement can be brought against our supposition, 
but only the improbability that the apostle should have been liber- 
ated from his first imprisonment. But is not this improbability — 
if we keep out of view the second epistle to Timothy, as we may 
reasonably do — fully counterbalanced when we find the apostle 
himself, in bis epistles written during the first confinement, repeat- 
edly expressing the hope, nay the assurance, of obtaining his liberty, 
and again visiting the churches in Asia Minor and Macedonia ? 


Phil. 1. 25, 8S., ii. 24 ; Philem. 22. And the testimony of GlemeDs 
that the apostle had come eirl to ripfui lij^ Svo-eoK, — it being said 
before that he had become a herald, & re t§ ai/aroX^ tcaX iv t§ 
Sva-eiy and had tanght righteousness, oTiov rov Koafiov, on which 
immediately follow the words teal hrl ro ripfui rrj^ Bva-etu^ ikOmp, 
so that by the repfia we mast understand the limit of the afore- 
mentioned BvaK, which, together with the dyaroXi;, makes out 
SXof rhf MoafMov (the oratorical character of the passage can make 
no change here), — this testimony leans at all events towards our 
view, even reckoning merely according to probability. Nor will it 
do to explain to ripfia t% Swr€<o^ — contrary to its connexion with 
the foregoing objective, geographical statements — of a subjective 
repfia of the apostle, and translate the phrase by the insertion of 
the pronoun eat/rov, which in this case were inadmissible, thus : 
to his limit in the west, namely Rome. (The passage in Ignatius, 
where he speaks of the apostle's rising and falling, should not 
rightly be cited here.) And further, the testimony of Dionysius of 
Corinth, in Eusebius h. e. 2, 25, and that of Eusebius, h. e. 2, 22, 
lend so much weight to our supposition, that it cannot all at once be 
referred to the airy region of mere hypothesis. Comp. Bohl, a. a. Q. 
p. 91, ss. I can, therefore, from the deepest conviction assent to 
what Neander has said on this question a. a. Q., p. 528, as also to the 
observations he has made on the views of Schenkel, Ernesti, and 
Schrader. Comp. also Baumgarten, p. 196, sq. ; Credner, Einl. 
I. p. 316, sq. If then our view has at least so much claim to 
probability as opposed to the other, the question can only be how 
far this view may be vindicated and confirmed by the contents of 
the epistles themselves ; on which see infra. There also, the ob- 
jections that have been raised by De Wette against this supposition, 
chiefly on the ground of certain passages in the epistles, will be 
fully considered. Let it suffice here to say, that these epistles are 
not " historically unaccountable," so long as it cannot be shown 
that the supposition of a second imprisonment is historically un- 
tenable ; and that such a supposition stands opposed to its rejec- 
tion, with an equal or a higher claim to probability, and is no 
mere fancy, but has historical data on which to rest. 

IV. The last argument against the genuineness of the Pastoral 
Epistles, is drawn from what is alleged to be *' peculiar and un- 
paiiline in these epistles when considered separately ; both with re- 


speot to the language and also to many of the ideas and views." 
Baar has specified several examples of this in his work on the Pas- 
toral Epistles, p. 97 — 136. De Wette's criticism is, however, es- 
pecially full on this point. See in his Handbook a. a. Q. p. 116, 
Bs., where he gives a complete enumeration of the peculiarities in 
the language of these epistles, then directs attention to the pecu- 
liarity in style, and finally to what is singular in the ideas and 
views which they contain. Along with this is also to be taken his 
assertion respecting the unsuitableness of their contents to the 
state of things, and to the professed object which they have in 
view ; in short, all that belongs to what he has characterized as 
the ^'exegetical unaccountableness" of these epistles. It is quite 
evident that we cannot go further into these arguments here, but 
must leave their refutation to the exposition of the epistles them- 
selves. In this it will be shown that the contents of the epistles, 
the circumstances such as they are historically supposed to have 
been, amid which the epistles themselves give out that they were 
written, do correspond to the state of things as well as to the object 
aimed at. The peculiarity in ideas, in expression as well as in 
style, has already been fully admitted. But if, as the exposition 
must likewise show, we can find nothing unpauline, in the sense 
that Paul could not have so expressed himself, and so written, 
then we just come back to the question already indicated above — 
how is it to be explained that precisely in these epistles such pecu- 
liarities occur ? on which comp. § 4. 

Let us, in conclusion, take another glance at the account of the 
origin of these epistles, as this is represented by the latest criti- 
cism. De Wette has satisfied himself with starting the conjecture^ 
that the three epistles are to be ascribed to one and the same 
author, and that a disciple of Paul, who at the period when Gnosti- 
cism had begun to prevail, thought that it would tend to the quiet 
and confirmation of the faithful if he were to put into the mouth 
of his master, partly predictions of the disturbing phenomenon, 
partly warnings against the new errors, partly refutations of these 
(comp. a. a. Q., p. 119, ss.) As, in respect to his negative criti- 
cism, the denial of the genuineness of these epistles is quite inde- 
pendent of the correctness of the positive account which he gives 
of their origin, but which he does not farther confirm, we shall lay 
it aside and examine rather the representation given by Baur, which. 


if it can be proved to be ud tenable, a doubt will be thrown over the 
entire result of this criticism. 

As the result of his investigations regarding the heretics of the 
Pastord Epistles and the ecclesiastical institutions of which we 
have an account there, it has already been stated, that the origin 
of these epistles is laid in the second half of the second century. 
We learn, farther, that they had their origin in the church at Borne, 
where the authority of the apostle Paul was assailed from two 
quarters ; by the Marcionites on the one side, who sought to class 
the apostle with themselves, and on the other by the Jewish Chris- 
tians there, who sought on that very account to make out that Paul 
was a false apostle. Some one belonging to the followers of Paul, 
of whom there was also a party there, resisted this injury done to 
the apostle. And as the epistles of the apostle were not available 
for the refutation of the Marcionites, he represented him as saying 
in writings which then for the first time appeared, what could not 
be found said with the distinctness that was to be desired in his 
writings that were already known. Thus was produced the second 
epistle to Timothy, for which the author fortunately enough chose 
the period of the imprisonment as the historical basis, and thus 
succeeded in imparting considerable colouring and life to his 
epistle. Meanwhile the epistle seems not to have met the existing 
necessity — at least we must suppose so, for Baur does not en- 
lighten us further on this point ; there appeared, therefore, the 
epistle to Titus and the first epistle to Timothy, proceeding from 
other authors, but having the same object. As, however, the most 
plausible historical ground had already been preoccupied by the 
epistle that was first written, these latter made even no pretence to 
any historical connexion with the life of the apostle. Besides the 
polemical aim against the Marcionites, and that with respect to the 
Jewish-Christians, to substitute amongst them the true picture of 
the apostle Paul for the Marcionitic caricature, and thus to unite 
Jewish and Gen tile- Christians more with each other — ^besides these 
aims, the cause of the hierarchy is represented in these epistles 
in the rules which they lay down regarding the ecclesiastical 
office-bearers. " That those who were opposed to writings 
which then all at once appeared with the claim to such (apos- 
tolical) authority, should contradict their authority, was natur- 
ally to be expected." And it was also to be expected, we would 


add, thftt the Jewish Gbristians who were to be gained over would 
likewise oppose (heir claim. '* At ail events there would be no harm 
in making the attempt, and why should it be so much wondered at 
that this attempt succeeded ?*' " That which might be of so much 
service (namely, against the Gnostics and in favour of the hierarchy) 
was held really to be what it professed to be." 

Here we have in brief the account of the origin of these epistles 
and their acknowledgment* Apart from the consideration that we 
have proved the allusions to heretics of the second century, and to 
hierarchical aims and interests of this period, to be untenable — even 
when we view this account from its own premises, enough still 
remains that is inconceivable. — This point is admirably treated by 
Baumgarten, p. 90 — 103, as also by B5ttger, a. a. Q. p. 178 — 198. 

Already against the alleged cause of the origin of these writings, 
namely, the necessity that was felt of having epistles of apostolical 
authority containing direct arguments against those heretics, Baum* 
garten has justly stated as an objection that the church teachers by 
no means gave up the already extant epistles of the apostle Paul, 
and considered them as useless in contending with those heretics ; 
and secondly, that '' the early champions of the church found what 
the Scripture wanted in means of proof fully compensated by tradi- 
tion, which indeed they regarded as the real strength of their 
argument, of which Baumgarten has given satisfactory evidence, p. 
93. Still less can we conceive of the manner in which this un- 
dertaking was carried out. The aim to combat Gnosticism, chiefly 
the system of Marcion, with which a conciliatory and Romish- 
hierarchical aim was at the same time conjoined, is said to have first 
of all produced the second epistle to Timothy. How does this 
correspond to what has been premised with regard to its origin ? 
Baur himself, as has been already observed, acknowledges that 
Marcion might have admitted the epistle with the exception of two 
passages, ii. 8, 18, which contain nothing that may not also be found 
in the epistles of Paul that are confessedly genuine. There is cot 
a single trace of a hierarchical tendency in the epistle ; the passage 
it. 2 is the only one having even the appearance of this, which 
Baur can adduce ; in so far, that it discovers a care that extends 
more widely and stretches into the future. And what is there 
in it that bears the marks of an Treneean tendency 7 Let any one 
read the epistle, which treats throughout of the person of Timothy, 


addreeaas to bim paternal ooansela not to be aafaamed of the gospel 
or of the imprisoned apoatle, to hold fast the sound doctrine, and to 
goard against vain contention, and to falfil well his calling as an 
evangelist, which finally addresses to him the invitation to come 
and visit the apostle in his imprisonment ; let any one read this 
epistle^ and say whether it is not altogether unintelligible on the 
supposition of its being a controversial writing against the Mar- 
cionites put into the mouth of the apostle. The only remaining 
conjecture is, that the pseudo- apostle, in his endeavour to impart 
colouring and life to the epistle by means of historical details, quite 
lost sight of his proper subject; but it is difficult to tell how this 
oriticism is able to discover that the epistle should be, what it in 
reality is not. The comparative failure of the first (this criticism 
^oes on to show), makes it the less wonderful that a second should 
apply himself to the same task with the hope of excelling his 
predecessor. *^ It would not suit,' however, to address the epistle 
to Timothy a second time ; nor could '' he represent the apostle 
who in the former epistle has his martyrdom in near prospect, as 
writing again during his imprisonment." Thus arose the epistle to 
Titus, which, however, for the very same reason as the first epistle 
to Timothy, was left without any even apparent points of contact 
with the life of the apostle. No one will satisfactorily show, why for 
this reason these epistles should have remained without any such 
points of connexion. The remainder of the apostle's life ofiered 
still scope for these. Why should the writer of these epistles have 
hesitated to connect them with it, and thus to invest them with the 
appearance of historical truth ? Why should they purposely in their 
fabrications have placed themselves in collision with what was then 
known and believed regarding the life of the apostle, and thus have 
awakened suspicion against themselves ? 

And the epistles themselves — do they correspond to those ten- 
dencies 7 Dr Baur himself finds so few direct arguments against, 
and immediate allusions to, Maroion in the epistle to Titus, as to 
lead him to acknowledge, that *' Marcion might with as much reason 
as Tatian have admitted the epistle to Titus" (p. 139.) As to the 
alleged conciliatory aim of the epistles — this is not borne out, as 
Bdttger also remarks, p. 186, by the fact that the writer chiefly 
indicates Jewish Christians as the originators of the errors which he 
combats. Besides, almost the greatest part of the epistle, the 

188 PASTOliAl. EP18TLES. 

injunctions in cbap.ii. andiii., eipbracing all the members belonging 
to the fellowship of the church must, from the point of view which 
this criticism takes up, be unintelligible. The same is the case 
with respect to the first epistle to Timothy. Here too '' there is a 
very comprehensive injunction, embracing as much as possible all 
the relations of life/' which deviates from the object assigned to the 
epistle by this criticism. It would moreover be still matter of 
surprise, even although all the alleged references to Marcion were 
conceded, that this polemical aim finds in so few passages any more 
definite expression ; and that even these few passages fail to touch 
precisely the chief point of difierence between the system of 
Marcion and the doctrine of the church, and overlook that which 
is principally kept in view by all the ecclesiastical opponents of 
Marcion. Let any one but compare for example the representa- 
tion which Baur himself has given (die Christl-Gnosis, p. 313, ss.), 
of the mode in which the pseudo-Clementines opposed Marcion. 
(Comp. also Baumgarten, p. 96.) The writer of the epistle how- 
ever, it is alleged, unhesitatingly refers to the oppositions of Mar- 
cion in chap. vi. 20. But what should have kept him from spe- 
cially noticing, at least in the form of a prediction, that fundamen- 
tal error — that the supreme Grod is not the creator of the world ? 
And then, what a confused idea does this criticism present to us, 
of a writer, who, himself entangled with Marcionitic ideas, has re- 
course to the extreme expedient of writing a pretendedly apostoli- 


cal epistle in order to confute Marcion, and then in iii. 16 pur- 
posely compounds the fivanjptov eifaeffeiev; from a mixture of 
Gnostic and antignostic ingredients ! But, finally, the success of 
this imposture would also be unaccountable. The epistles are said 
to have appeared in the second half of the second century ; at a 
time then when the genuine epistles of the apostle had long been 
in use in the church, and when there already existed several col- 
lections of them. Comp. Thiersch, a. a. Q , p. 823, ss. All at 
once, three epistles come forth with the claim to apostolical autho- 
rity, the principal aim of which is said to be the refutation of the 
Gnostics. And these enemies of the church ofier no opposition to 
this claim, although so much importance was wont to be laid by 
them on agreement with the writings of the canon. In the shortest 
possible time these epistles receive the universal acknowledgment 
of the church ; since, ** that which might be put to so good a pur- 


pose, was held really to be what it claimed to be." In other words, 
the bishops, together with their congregations, laid aside all oon- 
scientioQsness and honesty, qoalities for which we are wont hon- 
ourably to distinguish the church of that age ; and as if all acted 
on a secret nnderstanding, not a doubt is expressed as to the 
genuineness of these epistles ! And could then these epistles be 
really of so much service ? What use could bo made of one 
epistle which Marcion as well as Tatian might have acknowledged ; 
of another, which he might have made his own on the supposition 
of two passages having been interpolated ; and of a third, the po- 
lemical allusions in which, as we have already seen and shall 
farther see, might bo perfectly understood although there had been 
no Marcion ? And did these epistles, from that time forward, be- 
come the chief weapons against Gnosticism ? We have already 
shown, that the early champions of the church against this enemy, 
rather appealed to the universal tradition of the church. Besides, 
they found nothing in these epistles which they could direct 
against the fundamental error of Marcion which they chiefly com- 
bated. Nay, so little did the church know why it was pleased to 
sanction the forgery of these epistles, and how they were to be of 
service to it, that one of Marcion 's principal antagonists, TertuUian, 
cannot comprehend for what reason Marcion did not receive these 
epistles into his canon, as he admitted the epistle to Philemon which 
is likewise addressed to a single individual. Gomp. on the moral 
character of the church at this period, Thiersch, a. a. Q., p. 828, 
ss., and especially on the question under discussion, the excellent 
investigation by Baumgarten, p. 99 — 108. 

In spite then of the present state of the critical question as to 
the genuineness of these epistles, I think myself at liberty, after the 
investigation here made, to express the opinion that the solution of 
this problem offered by the latest criticism is in no way satisfactory, 
and carries along with it difficulties, compared with which the real 
difficulties that arise on the supposition of the apostolical origin of 
these epistles appear to be insignificant. The result thus gained 
leads us back to the question — how we are to explain the pe- 
culiarity of these epistles, supposing them to be authentic ^ Tt will 
be our endeavour in the following section to indicate some points 
generally, the vindication of which can indeed only be furnished by 
the exposition of the epistles themselves. 



How then are we to explain the problem stated above in § 1 as 
arising out of the peculiarity of these epistles, viz., their acknow* 
ledged difference from the rest of Paul's epistles — on the supposi- 
tion of their genuineness ? We will look chiefly at the heretics 
noticed in these epistles. Let us inquire then first, what. do we 
specially know concerning these heretics from the*!Pastoral Epistles ; 
and then, secondly, let us see how the information there given 
accords with what is otherwise known to us on this subject. 

1. With regard then to the first point, viz., the delineation of 
the heretics, it must be acknowledged, that the errors which are 
brought before us in the two epistles to Timothy, as well as in that 
to Titus, are essentially the same. Meanwhile, ere we enter further 
on this point, a circumstance must be noticed which the critics 
have arbitrarily kept out of view. It must, namely, be exactly de- 
termined (if we would ascertain what is to be learned from these 
epistles concerning the heretics), what errors are there noticed as 
already existing, what are indicated as future, and again - what is 
there represented as an error that is more prevalent, and what, on 
the other hand, as one that is peculiar only to a few. These points 
may be ascertained with considerable exactness from the epistles 
themselves. The epistle to Titus speaks only of an error that had 
already at that time become prevalent, and was far spread. On 
the other hand, the first epistle to Timothy — besides that more 
prevalent error, in which, as we shall afterwards see, we may re- 
cognize one that is closely related to that in the epistle to Titus — 
points distinctly to errors that are distinguishable from the more 
general one. Thus, at i. 20, Hymenaeus and Alexander are named 
as persons who have made shipwreck of their faith, and gone the 
length even of blasphemy ; but who for this reason had been ex- 
communicated from the church. They are dearly not to be put 
in the same category with those whom Timothy is enjoined i. B, 
ss. to oppose ; for these, together with their adherents, are within 
the pale of the church. Further, the passage, iv. 1, speaks of 
phenomena that were future, although the beginnings of these had 
already commenced to show themselves. What is there said of 


doctrines of devils, o^ forbidding to marry, of abstaining from 
meats, is therefore not to be all at once put down as a character- 
istic of the more widely- prevalent error, which is combated by the 
apostle as one already present. For it wonld indeed be in the 
highest degree strange, were the writer to represent those character- 
istics which distinguished the heretics then existing, such as the 
fables and genealogies, as belonging to future heretics. The same 
distinction between the present and the future is also to be found 
in the second epistle to Timothy. Reference is there made to that 
error which was then existing and more widely spread, in. the same 
expressions as in the first epistle to Timothy and in that to Titus. 
On the other hand> at ii. 17, s., in like manner as at 1 Tim. i. 19» 
20, single individuals, — Hymenaeus and Philetus are again ex- 
pressly named^ as those in whom might be Seen what profane and 
tain babblings would lead to. Of them it is said that they have 
so far erred from the truth as to maintain, that the resurrection is 
past already. Now, is it not pure caprice, to transfer what is here 
predicated of some (who were addicted certainly to that more ge- 
neral error implied in the vain babblings) as the particular result 
of their vain unsanctified talk, to that more widely spread tendency 
to inddge in empty questions of controversy, and to make this a 
criterion of the heretics who are combated in the Pastoral Epistles ? 
We have likewise in this epistle a distinct reference to what is to 
happen at a future period, iii. 1, ss., with which, however^ is con- 
nected a reference to the present, iii. 6 — 9, Id. But the seducers 
described in this passage as already present must not, any more 
than those mentioned at ii. 17, be thrown together into one with 
all those to whom the foolish talk, fables, genealogies, questions, 
&c., are elsewhere to be applied. The characteristics of these show 
plainly that they form a special class, although in disposition and 
general character (iii. 8) they may correspond to those elsewhere 
mentioned. The passage, iv. 8, in like manner points distinctly 
to the future ; however, this passage has, in reference to our present 
object, no farther significance, owing to its generality. 

The critics on the other side have, all at once, effaced these lines 
of separation that are drawn in the epistles themselves. Whether 
the epistles speak of what is present or of what is future, of errors 
pecuUar to some, or of a more wide-spread perversion, all are 
brought together as lines of one and the same picture, that, 


namely, which the Gnosticism of the second century presents t(\ 
our view. But wherefore then, it may justly be asked* does the 
writer make such a distinction 7 If the error implied in main* 
taining that the resurrection is past already, as well as the fables 
and getiealogies, be a characteristic feature of the Gnosticism of 
Marcion, for what object then is this error represented not as a 
general feature of the tendency wliich is combated in these epistles* 
but as the special error of some ? In opposition to the course 
pursued by this criticism, which is founded on the pre-supposition 
that it is dealing with the production of a pseudo apostle, who, in 
order not to betray himself, speaks of the present as if it were the 
future (although one cannot see why hd should represent as the 
special error of some, what was common to the whole tendency 
which he combats), — id opposition to this arbitrary course, which 
is founded on the supposition of the epistles being spurious, we 
would call attention to, and urge the importance of these distinc- 
tions made by the writer. And we maintain accordingly, that the 
errors noticed above as special aberrations from the truth; partly 
peculiar to certain individuals, or to a certain defined class of here- 
tics, partly in their full development belonging to the future, must, 
first of all. be acknowledged as something special, and may not 
all at once be included among the characteristics of the error re- 
presented in the epistles as at that time prevalent. 

In what, then, did this prevalent error consist ? In the epistle 
to Titus, where this one alone comes into notice, it is character- 
ized, i. 10, by the words, there are many unruly and vain talkers 
and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision. Its consti- 
tuent parts are at i. 14, said to be Jewish fables and command- 
ments of men ; its origin, i. 15, 16, an impure disposition ; finally, 
it is characterized, iii. 9, by foolish questions^ genealogies, con- 
tentions, strivings about the law, &c., and these things are des- 
cribed as unprofitable and vain. Titus himself is warned against 
having anything to do with these, and in opposition to this error 
he is enjoined to hold fast the sound doctrine, that is, the doctrine 
which tends to godliness, and to give prominence to whatever is 
according to this. We lay it down as a result of the exegetical 
investigation to which we refer, that the error combated in the 
epistle to Titus appears throughout not as a heresy properly so 
called ; we find nothing there of a dogmatical opposition betwixt 


trae and false doctrioe; rather, it is the opposition betwixt a 
knowledge directed towards things that are unfruitful in a moral 
point of view and the sound doctrine, that everywhere meets 
us in that epistle. The whole manner in which the hostile ten- 
dency is there characterized, while in opposition to it all stress is 
laid on a christianly moral conduct, — as also the warning given 
to Titus himself not to meddle with it, — the designations given to 
it, such as unprofitable and foolish^ — ^in short, the entire con- 
tents of the epistle show that it is not an opposition of a dog- 
matic kind, a heresy properly so called, of which it treats, but 
rather certain perversities as well of a theoretical as a practical kind, 
which are to be viewed as proceeding chiefly from Jewish Chris- 
tians (not, however, from the common Judaizing opponents), and 
which in themselves did not directly contradict the faith, but which 
might easily lead to a falling away from the faith. But in the two 
epistles to Timothy, the case is not different with respect to the so- 
called wide-spread heresy which is said to be found there, apart 
from the special heresies to which some had arrived who had set 
out from the general tendency. The very first expression for this 
error, viz., irepc&iZaaKaKeli/, denotes, — as we may see from vi. 8, 
where this expression is explained by, not consenting to sound 
words and to the doctrine which is according to godliness^ — not a 
heresy properly, but precisely the same error as in the epistle to 
Titos. We find also further at i. 4, the fables and the genealo- 
gies again with the epithet endless, then also the questions ; and 
here, too, just as there, these fables and genealogies are said to 
raise disputes rather than to minister to godly edifying, and there- 
fore not to promote faith, and love which proceeds from faith, i. 
5. The same fundamental state of mind is here attributed to the 
seducers as there, i. 6, namely, the want of a good conscience and 
of faith. The expression vain jangling occurs here, i. 6, as well 
as there. Here also, in like manner, importance is attached to the 
requirements of the law, i. 7, ss. ; here also the sound doctrine is 
opposed to error, i. 10. Timothy is here warned, as Titus is there, 
against profane and old wives fables, iv. 7, and in opposition to 
these, the practical side of Christianity is prominently set forth. 
We have already spoken above of the passage vi. 8, a- ; we would 
only notice here further, how, in opposition to the sound doctrine, 
tbe conduct of the adversaries is represented as a doting about 



questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh efivy, strife, &o.j 
and reference is made, vi. 5, to their state of mind (men of corrupt 
mind) as well as to the same special motive of avarice mentioned in 
Tit. i. 11. And Timothy himself is once more warned against 
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely 
so called, vi. 20, s., as the error is here designated. Let us take 
in connection with this, what the second epistle to Timothy fur- 
nishes on the same subject. In ii. 14, Timothy is enjoined to 
warn them against striving about words to no profit^ &c. He 
himself is exhorted, ver. 16, to shun profane and vain babblings, 
for they increase unto more ungodliness ; and Hymenaeus and 
Philetus are adduced as examples of this. In ii. 22 he is exhorted 
to maintain a Christian character and conduct, and as the opposite 
of this, to avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that 
they do gender strife, ver. 23 ; upon which follows that passage 
iii. 6, already cited above, in which a class of men are pourtrayed 
dearly enough to be distinguished from those described in other 
places. Already this simple collection of passages shows, that the 
error referred to in these two epistles (keeping out of view one or 
two passages, which of themselves bear that they are descriptions 
of special errors beside that more general one) corresponds in its 
main points with that in the epistle to Titus ; and our exegetical 
investigation leads us here also, to the result, that it is no heresy 
that is there spoken of, but errors which lead away from the object 
of all true knowledge, and create empty disputations, which not only 
have no good influence on morality — on the contrary, they are 
fraught with moral Qvils of all sorts (vi. 4) — but also, might easily 
lead to an entire apostacy from the faith, as is manifest from cer- 
tain examples that are specified. The proof of this cannot be 
given at greater length here, but must be left to the exposition. 
We would only refer here to Schleiermacher's observations, a. a. Q. 
p. 83, ss., which coincide with what we have said. 

We shall rather endeavour here to determine more exactly the 
nature of this error, in order with this to connect the question, whe- 
ther the existence of such an error in the time of the apostles is a 
thing inconceivable. It may be regarded as conclusively settled 
that these errors were of a Jewish kind. In support of this are 
Tit. i. 10, chiefly they of the circumcisiofi ; i. 14, Jewish fables 
and commandments of men ; and also 1 Tim. i. 7, wishing to he 


teachers of the law. With regard to the fables mentioned i. 4 
and iv. 7, we learn from the epistle to Titas that they were of 
Jewish origin. The same is shown in 1 Tim. vi. 6 compared with 
Tit i. 1 1 . Bat to this we must add that it is not the common Jewish 
opponents with whom the apostle has here to do ; this is not the 
case, even in those passages in which at first sight it might appear 
so, as in Tit. i. 14, commandmefUs of men, with which iii. 9, striv- 
inga about the law, is to he compared, and principally in Tim. i. 
6, ss. Doubtless the commandments which these teachers of the 
law held forth, had reference to the voiio^ of the Old Testament ; 
bnt what they wished was not such a recognition of the authority 
of the law, as that, for example, which is alluded to in the epistle to 
the Galatians. Schleiermacher, as I am convinced, is quite right 
when he observes that the manner in which the apostle combats 
those well-known Jewish Christians, i. 7 — 11, in no way accords 
with his usual manner, and fails in that which is precisely most 
essential ; and Baumgarten's assertion that this is supplied after- 
wards at vv. 12 — 1 7 is evidently a mere make-shift. Comp. the com- 
mentary. And how little this view has to rest upon otherwise, will 
appear from the passages brought together above, in which this error 
that had become prevalent is characterized and refuted. Neither 
does it correspond with such expressions as the sound doctrine, or 
the truth which is according to godliness, or the doctrine 
according to godliness, which are opposed to the error in (ques- 
tion. Such expressions can only be opposed to a pursuit which 
produces no moral fruit in the life and conversation. This 
view, moreover, does not agree with the figure conveyed in 
the expressions, unsoundness, and soundness in the faith, nor 
with the common designation of this pursuit as unprofitable, vain, 
unfruitful ; as little does it agree with the constant reference that 
is made to the moral shortcomings of those who represent this 
movement, or, finally, with the repeated reference to the fact, that 
a total apostacy from the faith may so easily result from it, and 
the repeated charge addressed to Timothy and Titus, not to have 
anything to do with these profane and foolish disputations. All 
this may with perfect certainty be drawn from the epistles ; but 
the investigation becomes difficult, when it is attempted more par- 
ticularly to follow out this description of the errors, which in their 
general aspect is so marked, and to inquire into their more specifie 

N 58 


details. The roost of the terms by which they are designated give 
us the idea merely of an empty talking, a profitless contention 
about things which are morally fruitless, as they are destitute of 
all higher interest of a religious kind. Such are the expressions, 
vatn talkers, teaching things which profit not, questions, foolish 
questiofis, strifes, teach another doctrine, strifes of mords, per' 
verse disputings^ vain babblings. By how much the more dis- 
tinctly these expressions, — both in themselves, and in the explana- 
tions which they receive from the kindred passages — designate the 
error in question in its general character, by so much the more 
useless are they in so far as regards our obtaining from them 
special details. On the other hand, however, we find certain more 
special characteristics, which, as it appears, can furnish the desired 
informaiion. These are, — commandments of men^ &c.. Tit. i. 14, 
strivings about the law, iii. 0, with which is to be compared, 
teachers of the law, 1 Tim. i. 7, ss. These expressions at least 
intimate, that it was attempted to connect those foolish disputa- 
tions with the Old Testament law, that the distinction betwixt 
clean and unclean was insisted on (Tit. i. 15), and even that a 
perverted application was made of the moral law of the Old Testa- 
ment (1 Tim. i. 6.) Compare what has already been said above 
with regard to this, and the exposition. The precepts of a pre- 
tendedly higher morality, than the common Christian morality 
seemed to be, were urged on the authority of the Old Testament, 
and prescriptions of an ascetic kind were insisted on. Of still 
greater importance, however, it is considered, for determining the 
special character of this error, are those designations of it which 
we have in the expressions /a ^/^«, 1 Tim. i. 4, Jewish fables, Tit. 
i. 14, profane and old wives fables, 1 Tim. iv. 7 ; further, in 
genealogies, Tit. iii. 9, endless genealogies, I Tim. i. 4, along 
with which also is taken the expression oppositions of science 
falsely so called, 1 Tim. vi. ^Q. These expressions, especially end- 
less genealogies^ indicate certainly something special. But as we 
have no information from any other source regarding the errors 
combated in these epistles, it could not fail to happen, that these 
designations should be applied to the most various historical phe- 
nomena. With regard especially to the last of these expressions, 
some adhering to the most literal signification of the word, under- 
stand it of genealogical registers, especially those of the Messiah. 


Others explain it of heathen theogonies, the descents of the cabba- 
listic Sephiruth, or Essenian genealogies of angels, or allegorizing 
genealogies, such as those in Fbilo, finally of this Gnostic successiTC 
emanations of spirits, to which TertuUian and Ireneous refer.* The 
one class of interpreters, accordingly, understand merely the loose 
and crude beginnings of the later Gnosticism as designated, while 
the other think they find in the same expressions this Gnosticism 
itself, with its successions of emanations. Comp. De Wette, p. 1 1 . 
It must Jiere, first of all, be asked, what result do we obtain 
from the exegetical examination of these terms ? The words iivdoi, 
and y€V€d>jiyiai in themselves, according to their common use 
elsewhere in the New Testament, ft Pet. i. 16, 2 Tim. iv. 4, 
Heb. vii. 6, are not difficult to determine. By the former are to 
be understood, mere fabrications in opposition to the certain truth, 
(it matters not here whether in the form of stories merely, or of 
doctrines also),' by the latter are to be understood chiefly, genea- 
logical registers. Comp. the exposition. (It is not here denied, 
that the latter expression might very properly be used to denote 
series of emanations of spirits, were such, in general, to be un- 
derstood as meant.) Further, the epithet *IovBaucoi joined to 
fivOoi intimates, that these fables were of Jewish origin ; the 
epithets fie^TsjOi and ypcuoSei^ that they were profane and insipid ; 
the epithet airipavrot joined to yeveaXoyUu that these researches 
might be spun out to an endless length. The close connection be- 
tween the fivOoi and the yepeaXoyun, is further to be attended to. 
On comparing Tit. i. 14 with iii. 8, in both of which there occurs 
a summary designation of the prevailing errors, it is evident, that in 
the first passage the fables include the genealogiesy and in the 
second, where genealogies only are mentioned, the fables are at the 
same time to be understood. In the passage 1 Tim. i. 4, both ex^ 
pressions stand together, and the airive^ must there at all events bo 
applied also to the pSfdo^ ; otherwise nothing would be said of these 
at all. We shall thus not be wrong in coming to the conclusion, 
that both go hand in hand. But with these, the strivings about 
the law also are always closely connected. Tit. i. 14 ; 1 Tim. i. 

1 T«rt. Contra Valent. 3, dubitabit ne has esse fabulaa et geiiealogias quaa Paulus 
ap damnare praevenit. De praescr. heret. cap. 33, Iren. adv. baer. libr. I. 

3 Tbeodoret underataoda ii as referring to the htvTipmoit the 'lov^atx^ ipiiny*ta^ 
with which Jgnat. ep. ad Magii. c. R ie to be compared. Comp. also on 1 Tim. iv. 7. 


3, 6, 88. ; 80 that we cannot but be confirmed in tbe view, that the 
errors here referred to are of a Jewish kind, which aimed at a con- 
nexion with the Old Testament, and which ofiered Old Testament 
genealogies decked out with fables, as well as legal prescriptions 
drawn from the Old Testament, to those who sought a higher 
knowledge and a higher sanctity, just because they had not the 
true knowledge and the true morality. We are still farther con- 
firmed in this supposition, when we look at the context of tbe 
passages where those designations occur in which we have a gene- 
ral representation of the errors in question. It must be left to the 
exposition to show, that neither Tit. i. 14, nor iii. 8, nor 1 Tim. i. 
3, 88., nor iv. 7, speak of a heresy in the proper sense of the term ; 
that the fables and genealogies are not to be viewed in this light, 
but only in the light of a tendency that was foolish, morally un- 
fruitful, and that might possibly lead to an entire apostacy from the 
faith. And this, to my mind, is so clearly and convincingly the 
result to be drawn from the whole contents of the epistles, as was 
already observed above, that I cannot, on purely exegetical grounds, 
acquiesce in the opinion most recently adopted so generally, — that 
by the iivOoi and ^^v^dKorftoA are to be understood, fictions relat- 
ing to the world of spirits, and Gnostic pneumatologies.i This 
view rests not so much on what is said in these epistles, as on the 
close parallel to be found in the epistle to the Colossians. But, 
let only a comparison be made of the manner in which these epistles 
handle the error to which they refer, with the manner that pervades 
the epistle Co the Colossians. Even so far as the error is of a 
legal kind, the manner in which it is refuted in these epistles, is 
obviously quite different from that in the epistle to the Colossians. 
We do not find in them, as in the epistle to the Colossians, (herein 
I must entirely agree with Dr Baur) any reference to the inferior 
position of Judaism and the higher one of Christianity. *' The 
heretics at Colosse," so Dr Baur thinks, and rightly, *' must be 
much more akin to the common Judaists, than the heretics of whom 
the Pastoral Epistles treat." With respect, moreover, to the y&Boi, 
and ^^veaSjcTfUui there is really nothing at all in the Pastoral 

1 Schleiennacber (p. 83) says of tbe yrviaX. 1 Tim. i. 4 : *' They are not even once 
represented as sometbing opposed to Christianity, but only as something unprofitable 
and insidioos." On Tit. iii. 9, be says, '* They are so defined by tbe context ta to 
make it impossible for any one even to imagine that they are to be understood of tbe 
descent of Gnostic aeons (p. 81.) 


EpiBlleBft that reminds ns of the manDer in whioh the apoatle com- 
bats the error refened to in the epistle to the Colossians. It is 
not indeed to be looked for, that the apostle should always combat 
the same error with the same weapons; but that theeie epistles 
should contain not even anything of the manner in which the 
apostle in the Epistle to the Colossians opposes the false notions 
about angels, must certainly strike every unprejudiced mind, espe- 
cially if the error is held to have already proceeded so far as that regu- 
lar genealogies of angels were constructed, which can only be sup- 
posed in connexion with an extensively developed tbeosophy. In 
the Epistle to the Colossians there is no trace of genealogies or 
anything similar ; and nothing of the kind can be shown even with 
respect to the Essenes, with whom the Golossian heresy is said to be 
nearly connected. (Comp. Schleiermacher, p. 85 ; Baur die s. g., 
Past, p, 81 .) How are we to suppose that the apostle has nothing 
more to say against such an error — an error which we are under the 
necessity of viewing as intimately connected with the Gnosticism of 
the second century, and which consequently could not be a thing so 
entirely harmless and uninsidious — than merely what is impjied in 
such designations as vain talking, unprofitable controversies, strifes 
of words, &;c. ? Must we allow him so small a measure of acute- 
ness and foresight, as that he could not see farther into an error, 
which manifestly carried in it the beginnings of the Gnosticism of 
the second century ; and therefore satisfied himself with pointing 
to the moral deficiencies of its originators, to their avarice, to the 
evil consequences of such disputations, inasmuch as they excite 
hatred, strife, &c. How little would then be implied in the oppo- 
sition of the sound doctrine to this error, how little hold would be 
taken of the root of the evil, emphasis being laid on the moral side 
of Christianity, while the error itself remains untouched ? No ! So 
long as we hold by the opinion that Paul was the author of these 
epistles, we must suppose that here also he followed his usual prac- 
tice of seizing the mischief by its roots, and placing the corres- 
ponding truth, in opposition to the lie upon which the error was 
built.^ The error, then, that is opposed in these epistles cannot 

1 Schleiermacher, p. 86: " I do not even mention theOnostics, whom some have thought 
to be referred to here; aa it ia too manifeat that Paul would have apoken againat them, 
at leaat more aeverely, than he doea in thia incidental notice.'* The difflonlty whioh be 
flnda in the deaignation irtftoiidaoicaXla diaappean of itaelf on a oompariaon with 
i. 6, 8. 


have been a heresy properly so called, but only (as is evident from 
the manner in which the apostle characterizes it) an unprofitable 
knowledge directed to empty, fruitless subjects, and destitute of the 
power of godliness ; against which nothing better could be said, 
than just that one should avoid such a profitless pursuit, and direct 
one 8 regard to things from which a power of godliness will proceed, 
else there will be the danger of falling away entirely from the faith, 
inasmuch as such pursuits tend to harden the heart, as has already 
been shown in the case of several. It was thus quite proper in the 
apostle to allude to the moral and religious deficiencies of men, 
who made use of their secret wisdom as a means of bringing gain 
to themselves; it was not necessary, on the other hand, that he 
should refute their absurdities. The view which we here advocate 
is, as is well known, a very ancient one. Gbrysostom brings it 
forward, although not to the exclusion of every other, then also 
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, &c. ; at a later period, espe* 
cially Schottgeu, Wolf; then Storr, Flatt, Wegscheider, Leo ; only 
that they difier in opinion as to the purpose which these genealo- 
gies were designed to serve. To me, however, it is of great im- 
portance that Neander also, in reference to the epistle to Titus, thus 
expresses himself: '* The term yeveoK. in the epistle to Titus, with- 
out further explanation, and in the connexion in which it stands, 
cannot be supposed to mean anything of the kind (namely a doc- 
trine of emanations); but we are rather induced to explain it of the 
common Jewish genealogies, although we are not able to determine 
more exactly for what purpose these were used." By /iOdot, however, 
he thinks, are to be understood rabbinical fables, whether derived from 
a rabbinical tradition or from arbitrary interpretations of the Old 
Testament. Now, as we have already seen, s5 great is the accord- 
ance between the epistles to Timothy and the epistle to Titus, in 
reference to this form of error (laying out of view for the present 
the more special errors which are there noticed), and the mode of 
its treatment here and there, that I venture confidently to maintain 
that if, in the epistle to Titus, by genealogies are meant Jewish 
family registers, it is impossible that these can mean anything else 
in the epistles to Timothy; altogether apart from the consideration 
that the argumentation of the apostle in these epistles appears aim- 
less if we are to suppose that he refers to Gnostic emanations. A 
further authority for my vitw I find in Dahne (Theol. Studien. u. 


Krit ISBSf p. 1008), who also thinks that genealogieB in the proper 
sense are meant, and in particular those of an allegorijeing kind, as 
in Philo. Finally, I rejoice to find that I am perfectly at one with 
the learned Thiersch, who in his work already more than once referred 
to (Versuch zur Herstellung, Sco., p. 274), thus writes: "those genea- 
logies must have been genealogies of Jewish families, and along with 
the old wives fables that are placed beside them, and the subtle ques- 
tions about the law, must have been the subject of earnest concern and 
controversy among the Jewish Christians — a supposition which is 
confirmed by the connexion, and which, ere it is rejected, must be 
shown to be historically inadmissible and inconceivable." — But 
why then have the majority of the more recent critics departed from 
this, so natural and so old an interpretation ? We have already 
spoken of Schleiermaoher's opinion as agreeing with that which we 
advocate. On comparing Mack, Matthies, De Wette, Neander, 
all of whom explain the term in question of pneuumatologies similar 
to those of the later Gnosticism, the chief objection which we find 
urged against our view is, that researches such as those we have 
supposed, could find no countenance or acceptance among Gentile 
Christians (Neander, a. a. Q., p. 54 1 .) Our Lord himself, observes 
Mack further, did not find fault with the Jews for taking themselves 
up with genealogies ; why then should the apostle have held them 
to be so dangerous, nay, to be directly contrary to the true doctrine ? 
(the latter is a view which exegetically is altogether untenable.) 
" In shoit," says Matthies, '' the genealogies, in the sense just 
spoken of, come far too little into contact with the sphere of 
Christian ideas and Christian morals, to account for their having 
been made the subject of special warning" (p. 166.) But in these ob- 
jections too little regard is had to the close connexion allowed by the 
commentators to obtain, between the gefiealogies and the fables the 
cofitroversies about the law and the teachers of the law. This 
connexion itself shows, that it is not merely the drawing out of 
genealogical registers for Jewish families that is meant. It is 
apparent that beyond this, a trading in magic was carried on through 
the medium of these, that they were extolled as a higher wisdom, 
as means to the attainment of a higher moral perfection, and were 
employed as an instrument of gain (Tit. i. 1 1 ; 1 Tim. vi. 5.) All 
this will not correspond to the yeveaXorflai, if by this is merely to 
be understood, the construction of Jewish family registers. We must 



rather suppose* that they included a deeper goosis, (the yvSkrvifahely 
80 called, against which Timothy is warned.) We shall not then 
he surprised at the Gentile Christians being interested in these, any 
more than at the warning which is addressed to Timothy and Titus. 
Moreover, it must be observed that we are not at liberty to suppose, 
that the influence which these things had acquired over the Chris- 
tian churcnes was greater than it really was, as has been done 
especially vrith reference to the first epistle to Timothy ; for the 
epistle itself gives no warrant for this, (i. 3, that thou mightest 
charge some, c&o.)> in as far as it refers to the error which it treats 
of in common with the epistle to Titus ; and what was sufficient at 
Crete to bring about the error combated by the apostle is adequate 
also in the first epistle to Timothy. The only objection that might 
be urged against our view is, that it is not historically confirmed to 
the extent that might be desired. But it is at least as much so as 
the opposite view, that, namely, of Gnostic successions of emana- 
tions. Philo's allegorical treatment of the Mosaic genealogies 
furnishes something analogous, to which we might appeal with bb 
much reason as the opposite view appeals to the Colossian heresy, 
comp. Bottger, a. a. Q., p. 142. And at a later period we find 
instances of a Gnostic treatment of genealogies (just as that view 
finds these in the Gnostic systems of the second century, comp. 
Baur, a. a. Q., p. 14), in the progress towards which, we might 
regard the characteristics of our epistles as the intermediate steps, 
with as much reason as the opposite view finds in its series of ema- 
nations, the germ of the later Gnosis. But the designation of the 
error in our epistles, as mere talk, &c., forbids our identifying it 
with those later appearances. They are too far removed from what we 
find here. All will depend, then, on whether the view we have given 
is exegetically well founded. And in this case it can be no proper 
criterion by which to test the correctness of this view,— a view that 
relates to a period in connection with which we have few, and in the 
matter before us no additional documents, — to inquire, whether it be 
historically demonstrable. That which is presupposed in general in 
errors of the kind — we refer not merely to the gettealogies but also to 
the fables, &c. — may be sufficiently demonstrated, namely, that pre- 
vious to the spread of the gnosis in the second century, there existed 
already a Jewish and a Jewish-Christian gnosis. With respect to the 
former, we knew of no one to whom we could refer as having more 


directly Bubstantiated this, than Dr Baar in his work on the Christian 
goosis (p. S6 — 38.) Gomp. § 3. Especially does the Cabbala here 
come into notice, the elements of which, as is acknowledged, were 
already in existence at that period. Bat with regard also to the Jewish- 
Christian guosis, Dr Baar makes sach admissions, that the existence 
of this before the second centory can appear only as something 
quite natural. Thus when, for example, he maintains (a. a. Q. p. 
50) that Christianity, wherever it came into contact ¥rith this 
speculative philosophy of religion, could not but be also im- 
mediately drawn into its sphere; comp. in Bottger, p. 175, 208, 
ss., 213. Not merely do the Jewish-Christians referred to in the 
epistle to the Romans betray, according to Baur, a dualistic view 
of the world ; the strongest proof of the existence of a Jewish- 
Christian gnosis must always be the epistle to the Colossians, with 
its ^CKoao^la, With it are then to be classed the two epistles to 
Timothy, not merely in so far as they treat of those errors hitherto 
described) but as they present to us at the same time the beginnings 
of the later gnosis in its various tendencies with express reference to 
the future, towards which these present appearances point. To 
this belong the passages already adduced, 1 Tim. i. 19, 20 ; 2 Tim. 
ii. 16—18 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. I, ss. The first of these 
passages does not afford any more special mark of the error that is 
meant ; the second, however, plainly points to a spiritualistic ten- 
dency. The third of the passages adduced clearly discovers the ori- 
ginal form of asceticism ; the last, the immoral antinomian tendency, 
which was connected with magic. How the traces of this gnosis 
may be further followed out in the rest of the epistles of the New 
Testament, may be seen by referring to Thiersch, a. a. Q., p. 236 ; 
Bothe, die aufange der Christl. Eirche, p. 320, ss. ; Neander, a. a. 
Q. II., p. 261, BS., 638, ss. 

We shall again, in the investigation of those passages, have to 
recur to the question whether these Gnostic errors, partly of a 
spiritualistically ascetic, and partly of an antinomian character, 
noticed in certain passages of the two epistles to Timothy, may not 
be conceived to have existed in the time of the apostle. Here let 
us refer only to one other point, the importance of which Baur also 
fully acknowledges ; it is in the passage Acts xx. 29, 30, where 
the apostle Paul, addressing the elders of the Ephesian church, 
whom he had sent for to meet him at Miletus, says, *' For I know 



this, that after my depardng shall grievous wolves come in among 
you, not sparing the flock ; also of your own selves shall men arise 
speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." '* Only 
one prop, as it appears to me," so Dr Baur expresses himself, *' could 
the defence of the apostolical origin of the pastoral epistles still have 

upon which to rest. I mean the farewell address Here we 

find the eye of the apostle, directed towards the same state of things 
as meets us in the Pastoral Epistles in its more definite form. . . . 
• . . And indeed he sees the danger to be at no great distance. 
But with regard to the whole of this farewell address, it is but too 
apparent — at least I cannot help thinking so concerning it — that it 

was written after the event It appears to me, indeed, even 

when I overlook its character as an address written post eventum, 
one of the most direct testimonies ageanst the genuineness of these 
epistles." *' It cannot be supposed that the apostle should have 
transferred the charge of combating the heretics, from himself to 
those persons who were set over the Ephesian church, if in reality he 
had afterwards come to devote three special epistles mainly to this 
subject." " Let it be supposed, however, that the appstle was 
mistaken, it would still be impossible to find a period when these 
epistles could have been written, if, as apostoUca), they must in 
any way be brought to correspond with the farewell address in 
Miletus" (a. a. Q., p. 92, ss.) With regard to this critical diffi- 
culty, we may here refer to Neander I., p. 475, s., and Bottger, 
a. a. Q., p. 216, ss. The words not knowing, &c., Acts xx. 22^ 
may be opposed to what is said respecting the certainty with which 
the apostle foresaw his future fate. That in the prospect of the 
threatening dangers, he earnestly charges the elders, as the shep- 
herds of the flock, with the care of the church, surely involves no 
serious difficulty. But the only real difficulty,— *that the apostle, 
according to the Pastoral Epistles, must have gone again to Ephe- 
sus, notwithstanding that in his address to the elders he appears to 
bid them farewell for ever, — can but induce us to suppose, that the 
olSa of the apostle was not ftilfilled in its entire compass (comp. 
infra.) As long as the genuineness of this farewell address is un- 
shaken, we have, according to Baur's own admission, the necessary 
point of connexion for the heretical appearances of these epistles. 
They set before us the most proximate fulfilment of those memor- 
able farewell words ; that fulfilment itself, pointing to a stiJI more 


periloas fhture, which, according to the testimony of the later 
epistles of the New Testament, and chiefly of the Apocalypse, did 
not fail to come to pass. 

Before bringing to a close this investigation concerning the 
heretics of the Pastoral Epistles, I owe it to my readers to state 
Olshausen's view, as he himself refers to this subject in his intro- 
duction to the epistle to the Golossians, and gives his opinion to 
the following effect. " It must be shown/' he observes, *' how such 
heresies may be supposed to have existed in the apostolic age. 
Already in the epistle to the Bomans, chap, xiv., we find a remark- 
able description of Judaizing ascetics." In the first epistle to the 
Corinthians also, Olshausen understands by the ol rov Xpurrov, 
a Gnostic party. Further, he appeals to the epistle to the Golos- 
sians. ^' However much these heretics of the epistle to the Colos- 
sians may have in common with those in the Pastoral Epistles, 
there may still be perceived a considerable difference between them. 
The Colossians entertained false notions regarding the person of 
Christ, side by side with whom they placed angels, to whom they 
likewise dedicated a species of worship, ii. 18. Accordingly, Paul 
sets himself in the epistle to the Colossians to prove the doctrine 
of the divine nature of Christ,, i. 15, ss. We find nothing of this 
kind in the heretics of the Pastoral Epistles. These are rather re- 
presented as having doubts as to the real humanity of Christ. Ac- 
cording to that principle, namely, that matter {v\r)) is ^^^ source of 
sin, these, like the later Docetists, seem to have held that the union 
of Christ the Son of God with a coarse human body was inadmissible. 
Paul, therefore, always brings into prominence in these epistles 
the humanity of Christ, 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; iii. 16 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Quite 
the same we find in 1 John.- A farther gnostic tendency meets us 
in the second epistle of Peter, and in that of Jude, to which also the 
Apocalypse corresponds, where men are described who, setting out 
from gnostic principles, had sunk into the depths of moral laxity. 
According to these testimonies we must say, that the Pastoral Epis- 
tles contain nothing at variance with them in the representation of 
the heretics which we find there ; rather, it becomes apparent that in 
the New Testament itself, may be found already the germs of all those 
tendencies which in the second century were developed into sects. 
If, accordingly, we must reject Baur's view as altogether inadmissible, 
the difficult question still arises — to what influence are we to trace 



the origin of these heresies. First of all, to a Jadaizing influence ; 
and here a threefold way may he supposed : 1, we might derive 
this influence from the sect of the Essenes and Therapeutae; or2» 
from the Ebionites ; or 3, from the Cabbalistic sources." Against 
the first supposition, Olshausen urges the seclusion of these sects. 
If, however, it is supposed that, not indeed E8senians,tbut a certain 
general Essenian influence was spread into a wider sphere, then 
less objection could be made to this view ; but in this form it 
would correspond with tbe second supposition, which traces these 
heresies to the influence of the Ebionites. Against this influence, 
however, according to Olshausen, may be adduced the view ex- 
pressed in 1 Tim. iv. 3 on the subject of marriage. There remains 
then only the third way, according to which these heresies were de- 
rived from Jewish Cabbalistic ideas, — which is adopted by Vitringa, 
Grotius, Wolf, Schottgen, Herder, Kleuker, Schneokenburgfaer 
(Studien, &c., 1832), Osiander (uber die Col. Irrlehrer, Tub. 
Zeitschrift, 1836), Steiger (Col., p. 90), Baumgarten (against 
Baur, p. 170, ss.) The Cabbala seems to have been the originating 
principle of the heresies in the epistle to the Oolossians, as well 
as in the Pastoral Epistles. That this originating principle might 
have various developments, will at once appear when it is taken 
into account, that the principles were capable of various interpreta- 
tions. "There was at that time a fluctuating movement in the 
principles ; especially does this show itself in the asceticism, in 
which the most complete extremes issued from the same principles. 
Notwithstanding that the prohibition of marriage and celibacy were 
most opposed to the Jewish spirit, yet even this might very easily 
be arrived at, if only it were supposed that matter is evil. And 
already do we find approximations to this among the Therapeutae. 
Philo. II. 633 ; Jos. Antt XVIII. 1,5; Bell. J. II. 8, 2 ; Plin. 
H. N. V. 15." With regard to the fivdov and yepedKoyuu in par- 
ticular, Olshausen agrees in opinion with the most of the later 
critics, and accordingly understands by the fivOoi narrations con- 
cerning the aeons, and by the latter, the successions of emanations 
of these aeons. 

Looking then at the result of this investigation in regard to the 
genuineness of the epistles, we deem' ourselves at liberty to affirm : 
that what is wont to be characterized as the wide-spread heresy of 
the Pastoral Epistles, when more closely examined, does not appear 


as properly a heresy at all ; but as an unprofitable pursuit taking 
its rise in particular among Jewish Christians, the historical possi- 
bility of which cannot be denied, as long as the existence of a 
Jewish Gnosis at that period must be uniyersally admitted. But, 
even within the sphere of the New Testament, we find also so many 
traces of real heresies of a Gnostic description, both such as fore- 
shadowed these heresies, and such as were consequent upon them, 
that a reference to them in several passages of the two epistles to 
Timothy ought not in the least to create surprise ; and all that is 
necessary with reference to these heretical appearances is to show, 
liow easily we might adduce from history what is closely analogous 
to them ; and then in respect to the particular instances, reference 
would have to be made to the exposition of the passages con- 
cerned. Those other opinions noticed above, as held on the sub- 
ject of ih^ genealogies^ as well as Buxtorf s view, according to which 
oonclusiones, or Harduin's, according to which etymologies are to 
be understood as meant, I do not think it necessary expressly to 
reftite, as they, one and all, may be considered to be given up. 
Heydenreioh, Mack, and Matthies, have stated all that is necessary 
in opposition to them, in connection with the appropriate passages. 
2. We proceed now to the second point which has been employed 
as a means of assailing the genuineness of the epistles, namely, 
the ecclesiastical institutions, as represented in the Pastoral 
Epistles. Here it might suffice for our object to refer to the 
critical investigation in § 3, in which we have endeavoured to 
show, that the church-organization delineated in these epistles 
is demonstrably apostolical, and fully harmonizes with the hints 
on this subject to be found elsewhere in the New Testament. 
It has there also been shown, that the alleged hierarchical tendency 
of the epistles is a pure fiction, for this reason, even if there were 
no other, that the constitution which they enjoin is the original 
one, and therefore the objection of a hierarchical tendency must 
apply to this constitution from its first existence ; chiefly, however, 
is the groundlessness of this assertion proven by a comparison 
with those institutions of the second century, beneath which such 
a tendency in reality lay. 

We shall here vnly further direct attention to some marks which 
confirm our assertion, that the ecclesiastical institutions noticed in 
these epistles belong to the- apostolic age, and which contradict the 


supposition that these epistles ha^ve a later date. To these belongs 
not merely the fact already adverted to, and fully acknowledged by 
those on the other side — the identity, namely, of the office desig- 
nated equally by the terms irpeajSurepo^ and iirurKfmo^, the entire 
absence of anything like the prominent distinction of any single 
person (Neander, a. a. Q. 1, 254), a circumstance which of itself is 
sufficient to make it appear as a thing inconceivable, that these 
epistles were written in the second century, and with a hierarchical 
aim. (Gomp, § 3.) I farther take into consideration here, the 
absence of all reference to the deaconship in the epistle to Titus. 
One cannot see how a writer of the second century should here 
pass over in silence the office of the deacon, whilst he speaks of 
this subject with so much earnestness and minuteness in the first 
epistle to Timothy. The already settled ecclesiastical institutions 
of his time, would surely have induced him to make ' mention of 
this office, which also was handed down from the time of the 
apostles, when he was aiming at the confirmation of the church 
government. On the other hand, the absence of all reference to 
the deaconship is, on the supposition of the genuineness of these 
epistles, not only accountable, but is also a striking mark, from 
which we obtain a deep insight into the nature of this office, in its 
distinction from the office of the presbyter. The deaconship, 
namely, as will have to be shown under the appropriate passages^ 
stands in no way on the same level with that office. Galled into 
existence from a necessity inherent in the very nature of church 
order and government, it does not at all form the subject of con- 
sideration in the epistle to Titus, which treats simply of the set- 
ting up of an ecclesiastical connexion. How different is the case 
in the first epistle to Timothy, which treats not of the first intro- 
duction of a church connexion, but of conducting in a proper 
spirit and manner the already existing organization. Whilst we 
plainly see in all this the primitive stamp of the apostolic church 
government, we, at the same time, perceive in these epistles certain 
traces, which, although faithful to this primitive impress, do yet 
point to the later period in the history of apostolic labour, to which 
the epistles belong. Thus, both in respect to the ecclesiastical 
institutions, and also to the heresy, these epistles find a suitable 
place in the very midst of the appearances that come within the 
compass of the New Testament. The criticism to which we are 


opposed, has found the marks of a period suhsequent to that of the 
apostles, in the manner in which the office-hearers and their ap- 
pointment are spoken of; thus, for example, in the expression opi- 
yeadai ivurKoiny:, in the emphasis that is laid on moral qualities 
generally as pro-requisite to ordination, and especially in such ex- 
pressions as husband of ofie tfife, neophyte^ &c. We can perceive 
in all these (comp. the exposition) nothing that is necessarily 
post-apostolical ; we must certainly, however, claim these as the 
manifest indications of a later apostolic period. We cannot hut say, 
that both the epistle to Titus and the two epistles to Timothy im- 
ply the previous existence of Christianity for some length of time ; 
on this supposition too, however, all that has been referred to, may 
be completely understood and historically vindicated. There is 
still another circumstance in which we may discern the later 
period, namely, the comparative disappearance of the x^P^' 
fjMra ; from this too we may infer, that Christianity had been 
already of some considerable time standing. The mighty im- 
pulse communicated to the minds of men on the introduction of 
Christianity had already assumed a more fixed and regular cha- 
racter; the new relations which were formed had become more 
settled; and along with the free movement of the spirit in the 
charismata, the regular office had also been elevated to its real 
importance. And there is here still a feature which especially 
deserves our regard, and to which Neander has, with the same view, 
already directed attention (a. a. Q. I. p. 263, ss.) In the first 
epistle to Timothy ii. 2, v. 17, and in Tit. i. 9, it ts -required of the 
presbyter, that he be apt to teach. "' It was not till a later period," 
justly observes Neander, '' when the pure gospel had to contend 
with manifold hostile errors, as was the case especially in the latter 
stage of the apostle Paul's labours — it was not till this critical period 
that the same apostle considered it necessary to unite the two offices 
of the church teachers (have we authority for supposing that there 
was an office of this kind as distinct from that of the hrUrKoircs ?) 
and the church presidents more closely with each other, and to take 
heed that such should be appointed to preside over the congregations 
as were at the same time capable by their teaching, of preserving 
them from the infection of error, of confirming them in the pure 
doctrine, and confuting the enemies, Tit. i. 9. And accordingly he 
counts those presb^rs who also laboured in teaching, to be especially 


worthy of honour. Who does not also recollect here the passage in 
Acts XX. 28, 8S., so conolasive in regard to the heretics of the Pas- 
toral Epistles, where the apostle charges the preshyters with the 
duty of defending the church against the coming dangers ? Dr 
Baur has acknowledged the weight of this passage, notwith- 
standing of his heing on the opposite side (Past. p. 92.) And let 
U also he ohserved, that just as with respect to the heretics we have 
in the Apocalypse the representation of a more advanced state of 
things, so also with reference to the office-bearers. ''When, how- 
ever, John in the Apocalypse addresses his epistle to the AffeKo^, 
it is evident that in each of these congregations one — the eldest — 
stood pre-eminent above the rest, so that already had the constitu- 
tion, subsequent to the apostolic time, been introduced in a twofold 
way, with respect, namely, to the relation of the iirltrtunra^ to the 
irpeafixmljpiov, and with respect to the united organization of con- 
gregations with one person at their head" (extract from the Zeitechr. 
fiir prot. und Kirche 1840, p. 144, ss.) Thus then do we see, that 
in this respect also the Pastoral Epistles completely correspond in 
their contents to the historical place that must be assigned to them 
if they are genuine, and thereby attest their own genuineness. 

But it is further urged by way of objection, that we cannot sup- 
pose that the apostle should have spoken so fully and so earnestly 
on church government. Those indeed who discover in this church 
government, on which so much emphasis is laid, the victory of the 
Jewish Christian, Petrine .element over the Pauline, must think so, 
and must regard as well founded^ the alleged want of a church 
organization in the spirit and character of the Ohristianity of Paul; 
we have (^ 8) no reason for such an opinion. This whole question 
presents itself to us in this form : can we conceive it possible, that 
the apostle Paul should at any time have made the order and 
government of churches the subject of his earnest regard ? Or 
more exactly still : are we at liberty to predicate of the apostle, that 
he perceived and valued the importance of church organization in 
order to the continuanoe of the Christian church 7 If so, then we 
need not be surprised at the earnestness with which in these epistles 
he treats of ecclesiastical institutions. But why, it is asked, does 
the apostle, in these epistles particularly, insist with such ear- 
nestness and emphasis on church institutions. Granted, that 
there is a connexion between heresieB and the development of 


church gOTernment, it will still have to be explained, say our 
opponents^ how in other epistles, where the apostle also com- 
bats heresies, this point is not brought forward, as for example 
in the epistles to the Corinthians and the epistle to the Galatians. 
It remains then, say they, for the advocates of the genuineness to 
show a special necessity in this case. We observe, in reply, that 
this reasoning can only be maintained by the rejection of the pas* 
sage Acts xx^ 17, ss. *' Hero we see the apostle's eye (according 
to Baur, p. 92) already directed to the same state of things, as 
meets us in a more definite form in the Pastoral Epistles. The 
most powerful protection from, and resistance to, this danger that 
threatened the church is expected, as in the Pastoral Epistles, from 
those who were set over the church ; and it was chiefly with this 
view that the apostle sent for them to meet him at Miletus, in order 
to commit this charge to them in the most earnest manner, before 
taking leave of that scene of his previous labours. This address 
seems therefore to prove most clearly that what forms the principal 
contents, and the principal design of the Pastoral Epistles, was even 
at that time within the sphere of the apostle's vision." So Dr Baur 
expresses himself, and we know of nothing that could be said in 
addition to this for our purpose ; we will only further call attention 
to Acts ziv. 23, where we have an account of the appointment of 
presbyters by the apostle. That passage not merely shows, that the 
apostle elsewhere than in the Pastoral Epistles made church-govern- 
ment the subject of his most earnest concern ; but it can also show 
why, in the Pastoral Epistles, this subject comes so much into the 
foreground. Dr Baur has himself unintentionally indicated this in 
the words quoted above : that the apostle commits this charge in 
the most pressing terms to those who presided over the church, 
before taking leave of that scene of his past labours ; and further, 
in that he says, that the apostle here, as in the Pastoral Epistles, 
expects at the hands of those who were set over the church, the most 
powerful protection from, and resistance to, a danger which threa* 
tened the church. We have already adverted to the fact that the 
o£Bice could then only acquire its full significance and efficiency, 
when things had begun to assume a settled form. What could be 
effected by office-'bearers whose power rested solely on the obedience 
of faith, so long as faith itself had not yet found a settled place in 

the heart, as in the epistle to the Galatians,-^8o long as the very 

o 2 


coDtiouance of ChristiaDity was placed in doubt, or when, as in the 
epistlo to the Corinthians, the church was rent by factions which 
endangered the apostolical authority of the apostle ? In circum- 
stances such as these, the very principle was assailed, on the ac- 
knowledgment of which the whole efficiency of the elders appointed 
by the apostle depended. The church in Galatia must first be 
brought to the obedience of the faith, the factions in the church at 
Corinth must first be removed, ere the influence of office can with 
any propriety be spoken of. In this way do we account for no fur- 
ther mention being made of office-bearers in those epistles. Alto- 
gether different is the case when the danger of being led away 
threatens a Christian, or as it is said, a Pauline- Christian church 
already standing. Here, that which the efficiency of the office pre- 
supposes is already acknowledged. It is thus natural that the 
apostle should look for the strongest protection against this 
danger which threatened the church, from those who were set 
over it. From what other quarter should he have looked for 
this ? And wherefore was the office of presbyter instituted, if 
such an end was not to be served by it ? It was therefore 
the danger arising from errors which threatened the church, that 
induced the apostle, in the Acts of the Apostles, as well as in 
the Pastoral Epistles, to lay so much stress on church-govern- 
ment. (In the second epistle to Timothy we do not find any- 
thing of this kind, which is easily accounted for.) In the epistle 
to Titus we find substantially the same state of things. Here in- 
deed we find no church regularly formed, but nothing more is re- 
quired, than just that the existing materials be brought together and 
united around the office, in order to form a Christian, a Pauline- 
Christian church. And although the newly-formed church is as 
yet threatened by no heresy in the proper sense of the word, it is 
in danger from an unsound tendency, which those who are to be set 
over it must oppose ¥rith sound doctrine, just as heresy must be op- 
posed with the truth. If, as many commentators think, Christianity 
in the island of Crete was, at the time when the epistle was written, 
exposed to danger from the influence of Judaism in some such way 
as we find in the epistle to the Galatians, then assuredly, the apostle 
would have aimed chiefly at destroying this Judaistic tendency, 
in order to make those who were infected with such an error Chris- 
tians, before he would give them a church government. There is 


yet another circuxnstanoe, however, to he noticed, to which Dr Baur 
has likewise referred. The apostle, hefore quitting the scene of his 
past lahoars, and just hecause he takes his leave not knowing what 
is to befall him, most earnestly charges the elders of the church 
at Ephesus to resist the impending danger. " Can the genuine- 
ness of these epistles, as their ablest advocates suppose, be upheld 
only on the supposition that the apostle Paul was imprisoned a 
second time at Rome," (Baur, p. 93) and do they consequently all 
of them belong to the latest period of his labours — we have in this 
circumstance an additional light thrown upon the matter in ques- 
tion. As the apostle on his departure from the Ephesian church 
charges the presbyters with its protection and defence, so we ob- 
serve in these, the last of the apostle's epistles, written just before 
the period of his final departure, a concern for the interests of the 
church, reaching into the future, and passing from his own person and 
from personalities generally to the office and the office-bearers. And 
it is worthy of notice that in the epistle to the Philippians, the last 
of all with the exception of the Pastoral Epistles, the apostle makes 
special mention of the bishops and deacons, although his earnest 
request with respect to this church, flowing from the tender affec- 
tion which he bore to all its members, was not addressed merely 
to the office-bearers, but to all without distinction, (i. 3, 7, 8 ; iv. 
21.) Looking then (if only by way of supposition) at the historical 
place which the epistle to Titus and the first epistle to Timothy 
assert for themselves, I do not see what reason there is to stumble 
at the prominent place given to the office-bearers of the church in 
these epistles. And if Titus in Crete and Timothy in Ephesus 
were charged with the conduct and government of the church, it 
becomes quite plain, why precisely in these epistles so much should 
be said, and said so emphatically, on the subject of church govern- 
ment ; and only then can- any objection be reasonably urged against 
this, when other epistles of the apostle can be shewn in which he 
had a similar inducement to speak of the constitution of the church. 
Here then also, by a careful examination of the circumstances, and 
by a comparison with what we learn from other sources, the diffi- 
culty, ^ 1, finds a satisfactory solution. 

3. With respect to the third of the points above mentioned, 
namely, the date of the epistles, it has already been shown, § 8, that for 
the disposal of this a period will always remain, the historical reality 


of whioh does Dot need to be postulated merely for the sake of the 
Pastoral Epistles — for Hug supposes a second imprisonment at 
Rome without placing the Pastoral Epistles in the period thus 
gained — but which may rather be confirmed by indications oon* 
tained in passages of the New Testament, and by historical testi- 
monies from the age immediately subsequent to that of the apostles. 
Again, in the special introduction to the respective epistles, it will be 
found, that neither in regard to the epistle to Titus nor the other 
two epistles, is the supposition of their having been written within 
the period embraced by the Acts of the Apostles and the rest of the 
•epistles, at all tenable. From these two premises it clearly follows, 
that the epistles, if they are to be regarded as genuine, can only be 
placed in the period between the first and the second imprisonment 
at Rome. To the period between the first and second imprison- 
ment belong the epistle to Titus and the first to Timothy ; while 
the second to Timothy belongs to the time of the second impri* 
sqnment We here only give a brief statement of the results ar- 
rived at in the investigation connected with the separate epistles, 
because we regard the agreement of the several epistles with each 
other in the data which they furnish, as well as with what is otherwise 
known, as a testimony in favour of our supposition with respect to 
the date of the epistles, and consequently in favour of their genuine* 
nesB. The epistle to Titus informs us that the apostle, after what 
we have supposed to be his liberation from the first imprisonment, 
(according to Hug in the year 64), and before the breaking out of 
the persecution by Nero, had been in Crete ; that he had left Titus 
there, and had given him instructions to come to him at Nicopolis, 
where he intended to pass the winter. If then we must at all events 
suppose that the apostle's release from imprisonment at Rome took 
place during the first half of the year — it is all one which year, 
oomp. Hug. II. p. 276— it follows that Titus' stay in Crete must 
have extended to the corresponding period of at least half a year, 
namely, till winter ; it being supposed that the apostle went to Crete 
immediately after his liberation. Without bringing his work thero 
to a conclusion (Tit. i. 5) he hastened forwards ; and we learn no- 
thing farther of his subsequent progress from the epistle, except 
that at the setting in of winter he was to be found at Nicopolis 
(whioh Nicopolis is meant the epistle does not inform us.) Ho?r 
strikingly now do the data of the two epistles to Timothy oorres* 


pond to this ! Here we meet the apostle, not on his way from west 
to east, but from east to west. We find him acoording to the state- 
ments of the first epistle on his way from Lesser Asia to Macedonia, 
i. 3 (whether he was even with Timothy in Ephesus cannot be said 
with certainty), with the hope, however, of yet roTisiting Ephesus ; 
frx>m the statements of the second epistle we learn, that he had pur- 
sued his journey (we say nothing at present of Miletus) by Troas, 
where he left some of his effects behind him, to Macedonia (which 
fully harmonizes with the purpose expressed in the first epistle, 
to go from Macedonia to Ephesus), from thence to Greece, and we 
find him again a prisoner at Borne when this epistle was written. 
When we remember that the apostle, according to what is stated 
in the epistle to Titus, intended to spend the winter in Nico- 
polis, we find a complete harmony in the circumstances con- 
nected with this journey, not merely in regard to time— for that 
the apostle hastened forwards in Iiesser Asia, as well as in Crete, 
we learn from the first epistle to Timothy — but also in regard to 
place, if we may understand the Nicopolis in Epirus to be the Ni- 
copolis to which the apostle betook himself on the setting in of 
winter, in order to pursue his journey to Rome in the beginning of 
spring, as soon as the sea might again be navigated. We are here 
reminded of 1 Cor. xvi. 6, where the apostle purposes to spend the 
winter in Corinth, in order to pursue his journey by sea (Acts xx. 
3), from thence to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21.) The harmony is ap- 
parent also in the circumstance that Titus really was with the 
apostle in Bome, (comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10.) We will not attach so 
much importance to this harmony as to hold that of itself it forms 
a proof; but it is at all events worthy of notice how easily and 
naturally all these circumstances correspond to each other. Not 
less in favour of our supposition is also the harmony with state- 
ments to be found in other places. We learn from the epistle to 
the Philippians i. 25 — 27, ii. 24, and from that to Philemon, ver. 
22, that the apostle towards the end of bis imprisonment at Rome, 
which lasted two years, purposed to go both to Macedonia and 
to Asia Minor. If the apostle was indeed set at liberty, we^can- 
not but suppose that he would in the first place visit these dis- 
tricts. In our epistles we find him really there; and it may 
here appear to be a circumstance of some importance, that the 
object of his sidy in Lesser Asia seems to have had reference 


not merely to Ephesuti (the words of 1 Tim. i. 8, may be per- 
fectly understood without supposing Paul to have been in Epbesns, 
and wherefore otherwise does he commit to Timothy the charge 
of governing the church and protecting it from error ?) but also, as 
may be gathered from the epistle to Philemon, to the district of 
country for which this epistle was designed. The subscription too 
of the epistle (from Laodicea), which appears to rest on tradition, 
as it is in no way authenticated by the epistle itself, leads to the 
same conclusion. In accordance with our supposition, the apostle's 
visit to Crete may appear to be explained by his journey to Bome, 
in the course of which he touched at Crete (Acts xxvii. 7), — and how 
natural would it have been to mention that the apostle had preached 
the gospel here before if this had really been the case. And even 
the haste with which he pursued this whole journey by Crete, 
through Asia Minor, Macedonia, Greece, may be accounted for by 
the intention which the apostle so decidedly expresses in Rom. xv. 
24, to go to Spain. With this also agrees the circumstance, that 
Mark, who, according to Col. iv. 10, had gone to Lesser Asia, is to 
come again to the apostle at Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11), along with 
Timothy, who is supposed latterly to have gone from Rome to Phi- 
lippi, and from thence might easily pass to Ephesus. What re- 
mains to be said on these points will be found in the special intro- 
duction to the respective epistles* We have brought together these 
particulars, not so much as separate arguments for our position, 
but rather with the view of showing how well every thing corres- 
ponds, supposing our position to be the true one, how the three 
epistles harmonize with each other in the representation which they 
give of the apostle's journey, and how what we learn from other 
sources, is implied and presupposed in the statements of the 
epistles. But, moreover, the peculiar contents, as well as the form 
of these epistles, will not easily be accounted for, on the supposition 
of any other date than that which we have assigned to them. With 
respect to the former we have already observed how, in various 
ways, these epistles bear the stamp of ^ a later, nay of the latest pe- 
riod in the life and labours of the apostle ; how especially what we 
find in the Pastoral Epistles with reference to the heretics, and the 
ecclesiastical institutions, points to such a period ; how the state- 
ments on both these subjects, evidently belong to a state of things 
occupying a place between what meets us in the earlier epistles of 


the ap08tle> and the latest epistles of the New Testament, especially 
in the Apocalypse. We would only refer here to what has been 
said above on this part of our subject. One other point, however, 
we must bring forward, to which indeed we att&ch the greatest 
weight in connection with this question. Not only do we maintain 
that these epistles, from the nature of their contents, belong to a 
later period than the rest of the epistles of Paul, but also that from 
their contents and their form — especially the latter — they belong 
all to the same period. The most recent critics on the other side 
have more thoroughly perceived this, than has been done by the 
latest advocates for the genuineness. '* The same or similar pole- 
mical references in these epistles," observes De Wette with perfect 
justice, ** and their peculiar phraseology, constrain the defender of 
their genuineness to the supposition that they were all written about 
the same time" (p. 118.) And to the same effect, Dr Baur thinks 
that the genuineness of the epistles could only be maintained by 
presupposing a second imprisonment at Rome (p. 93.) If this 
were founded on the contents of the epistles alone, then it might 
be said in reply : that it is by no means so difficult to conceive that 
the same errors which at a later period appeared in Ephesus, had 
already shown themselves in Crete several years before ; that the 
apostle had occasion, in the epistle which had reference to Crete, to 
speak of the presbyters just as much as afterwards in his epistle to 
Timothv ; and that the same circumstances also would account for 
the precepts of a moral kind, which occur in connexion witfa^he re- 
ference to the teaching of other doctrines. All this expressed in so 
general a form seems true enough, and sounds well. But let only 
these epistles be compared first with each other, and then jointly 
with the rest of the apostle's epistles. What an agreement in the 
one case, what a difference in the other! And will it then be 
maintained, that the epistle to the Romans was written nearly 
contemporarily with the epistle to Titus an^ the first to Timo- 
thy ; and that between these two and the last to Timothy, the 
epistles to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and Philemon, were 
indited, as Matthies supposes ? But, as Matthies has aptly 
observed (p. 692), the second epistle to Timothy presupposes 
an entirely different state of things from the first, and shows 
a different aim — wherein then the agreement ? De Wette has 
performed the praiseworthy task of drawing out a- comprehen- 


fidve view of the phraseology peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles. 
Now let any one but look at this assemblage of peculiar formulas 
and words, many of which also express peculiar ideas, and say how 
this phenomenon is to be explained on the supposition that the 
epistles were not written at one period, but that a number of other 
epistles came between them, in which we find no trace of this pe* 
culiarity. And this peculiarity extends not merely to particular 
expressions, but also to the style, as De Wette shows (p. 117), and 
even to the ideas and views (comp. De Wette, p. 1 1 7.) We have 
only to refer to such instances as the designation of piety by evai- 
fi€ui, the expression sound doctrine, &o. This close a£Einity of 
the Pastoral Epistles to one another, which imparts to them the 
character of a single epistle as compared with the others^ cannot 
be accounted for merely by the fact that they are epistles addressed 
to private persons, or to fellow teachers with the apostle, or that in 
all of them the same circumstances had to be spoken of (this, to 
say nothing further, does not hold with reference to the second 
epistle to Timothy) ; it can only be explained by supposing that 
these epistles were indited at one and the same time, when the 
apostle s mind was occupied with the thoughts therein expressed, 
and when, so to speak, a certain mould had been formed in his 
mind, in which were cast his views and designations, and indeed 
his whole treatment of the subjects occurring in the epistles, and 
the stamp of which we find even in the second epistle to Timothy, 
as the result of its having been written at the same period, although 
in many respects it differs from the others. We have here then 
the same phenomenon, as we find in the epistle to the Ephesians, 
compared with that to the Golossians. Comp. Harless on the 
Ephesians, Intro, p. 70. But how could this oontemporariness, 
so altogether indispensable, be explained, except by our hypothesis 
with regard to the date of the epistles, which we have found con- 
firmed from other sources ? Bottger, well aware of the importance 
of this point, and overlooking the supposition of a second impri- 
sonment, has yet sought to assign a cootemporary date to these 
epistles ; but the critical process which he has brought to bear 
upon the text it is to be hoped will not find acknowledgment, else 
I know not to what pass Scripture criticism will come. Every 
other hypothesis must renounce this contemporarinessy without 
which the close affinity that pervades these epistles cannot be 



righdy ezplauied. If the apostle s liberation from imprisoninent 
at Borne is not admitted, then the epistle to Titus, and the first to 
Timothy, wbioh represent the apostle as in a state of freedom, can 
ba?e been written only before his imprisonment in Jerasalem, 
whatever be the special date that is assigned to them ; and the 
second epistle to Timothy (leaving out of sight Bottger's view that 
it was written in GflBsarea) only during the Boman imprisonment, 
it may have been at the beginning or at the end of it. And what 
an insuperable difficulty does Acts xz. 18, ss., oppose to this view 
in its every aspect ! How little do the contents of the first epistle 
to Timothy, agree with the farewell address at Miletus, if that 
epistle is to be considered as having been written before this ad- 
dress was delivered 1 Every unprejudiced mind will view the 
matter in entirely the reverse way, and recognise in the first epistle 
to Timothy, the beginning of the fulfilment of the apostle's pre- 
diction in that address. Dr Baur thinks it " impossible that the 
epistles can have been written previous to that farewell address," 
and in this he is perfectly right. '' The apostle," he continues, 
" must have been liberated from imprisonment in order to his be- 
ing able to write them, but the parting address at Miletus most 
decidedly contradicts this supposition (p. 95,) We have already 
noticed this contradiction, and in connexion with it have admitted 
a difficulty, that, namely, which arises from the fact that the apostle, 
if the Pastoral Epistles are genuine, must have again visited these 
countries, whilst in that address he seems to take his departure 
bom them never to return again. We will not urge, by way of 
explaining this, that there is no necessity for supposing that Paul 
was in Epbesus fiK)m what is said in the first epistle to Timothy, 
or farther, that his intention to go from Macedonia to Epbesus 
(1 Tim. iii. 14, 16) seems not to have been carried into efifect. 
We will rather take the most unfavourable view of the case, and 
suppose that the apostle was mistaken in this respect in his know- 
ledge of the /uture ; shall we on this account reject the Pastoral 
Epistles as spurious, if they are otherwise proven to be genuine ? 
'* Infallible foreknowledge," observes Neander (p. 476), '* belongs 
not to the marks of a genuine apostle, and from Pauls own words, 
ver. 22, the opposite rather may be inferred. He himself speaks in a 
somewhat uncertain manner as to his future destiny. Comp. also 
Acts xiv. 7 ; XX. d ; 2 Oor. i. 15, ii. 12. If the address in question be 


bat closely examined, it will be found that it does not say all that it is 
held to say by those on the other side. The apostle does not see 
himself ahready boand in the spirit; the words SeSefUvo^ r^ 
wev^ri cannot possibly be made to imply this, whatever be the 
interpretation we give to r^ irvevfiari, whether '' bound in the 
spirit" (Meyer), or ** bound by the spirit" (Calvin), or "bound with 
respect to my spirit" — in every case the SeBefiivoq must contain the 
reason of the wopevofuuj and, on account of the words that follow, 
rh awavrrjiTOVTa fioi fifj 6^Sa>9, &c., (in which the apostle appeals 
not to what he himself knows, but to what is known by another) 
cannot be understood in the sense expressed by Dr Baur : " seeing 
myself in the spirit already bound, I go to Jerusalem not knowing 
what will befall me there, except that the Holy Ghost witnesses by 
others," &o. How are fiif e^&o^ and ttXi^i; to be reconciled with 
this interpretation ? Just as little is the apostle '' now about to 
finish hiB course," ver. 24 ; he only explains, why in spite of all 
those unfavourable predictions he goes to Jerusalem, following the 
leadings of the Spirit ; because, namely, his life, in so far as he 
himself and his own interests are concerned, is not so dear to him 
(comp. on Phil. i. 21) as to prevent him from finishing his course, 
i.e, as is shown by the words that follow, from carrying out and 
fulfilling the work to which he has been officially called, that of 
testifying to the gospel. " The value which I set on my life does 
not restrain me from fulfilling my course, i.e. my ministration," 
(Meyer on this passage.) The apostle, then, says that he is ready 
to yield up his Ufe if that should conduce to the fulfihnent of his 
calling ; but he does not say that he is already about to die. The 
apostle does not speak of what he himself knows till ver. 25; in 
what goes before this it is /^^ c2S(09. These words of ver. 25 must 
certainly be understood to mean that the apostle would never again 
see any of those who were then present ; for the hfievi irdvre^ can* 
not possibly be so explained as to make the apostle say that all — 
as opposed to some — shall not see his face again. The apostle not 
merely hears in the predictions of the Spirit that bonds await him ; 
but apart from this, his aims are now more directed towards Home 
(Acts xix. 21 ; Rom. i. 10 ; xv. 23), and even towards the most 
distant west (Rom. xv. 24), having no more place in these parts 
— as he wrote to the Christians at Rome shortly before entering on 
this journey, in the course of which we find him at Miletus In 


no case then could be hope soon, if ever, to return to these dis* 
tricts, and this thought might he expressed in the words of ver. 
25. Let it also be borne in mind further, that the difficulty with 
which we are now dealing, belongs not to the Pastoral Epistles 
alone, but also to the epistle to the Philippians and that to Phile- 
mon» both of which represent the apostle as having the prospect of 
returning from Bome to the east. The difficulty extends likewise 
to the epistle to the Colossians (which may be said to be inter- 
woven with the epistle to Philemon), and then also to the epistle 
to the Ephesians. For, if the epistle to the Philippians was the 
last that was written during that imprisonment, and was subsequent 
to the epistle to Philemon, then the promise in Phil. ii. 24 stands 
of course in connexion with the intention expressed in Philem. ver. 
22. Who would ever think of rcgecting these epistles as spurious 
on account of the oJSa in Acts xx. 25 ? The difficulty is however 
just the same in reference to the Pastoral Epistles ; the purpose 
which the apostle there expresses, we here find carried into effect. 
And the address at Miletus contradicts our epistles just in the same 
way as it does those others. I think that this must restrain all who 
hold the genuineness of the epistle to the Philippians, and that to 
Philemon, as conclusively settled, from rejecting the Pastoral 
Epistles on account of this circumstance. 

I will only add here that Olshausen also expresses himself to the 
effect, that the supposition of a second Roman imprisonment is the 
only way in which the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles can be 
proved. '' This concession alone can solve the serious difficulties. 
So much progress at least has been made by the critical question. 
This supposition, however, does not appear as merely arbitrary, 
but as a supplement to the history of the apostle, in confirmation 
of which not a little may be adduced from history indicating that 
such was the fact. For, 1, the Acts of the Apostles is not complete 
in its communications ; 2, it ends without bringing the life of the 
apostle down to its close ; of course then it needs a supplement ; 
3, all that we are informed concerning the accusation of Paul, seems 
in no way to imply that he would be sentenced to death. He has 
the privilege of moving about, not at all in strict confinement. As we 
certainly know that Paul suffered martyrdom, it is in the highest 
degree probable, that his capital accusation was quite a different one 
from that under which we find him in his first imprisonment. 4, 
We are informed by credible authorities that Paul also visited 


Spain; by Clemens Romanas {ek ripfui i% Zvaev^ ikSmv), by 
Hieronymus on Is. xi. 14, Cyhll of Jerusalem, Katech. 17." 
Compare Olshausen's observations in the Stad. and Krit. 188. 
The most of those who have recently examined the point have ar» 
rived at the same result, comp. above, § 8.^ Special difficulties 
that may still attend this historical arrangement of the epistles, 
will find consideration in the exposition of the epistles themselves* 

4. We now proceed to the fourth of the points noticed above as 
fomishing an argument against the Pastoral Epistles, with the 
view of giving it a fuller investigation here, so far as this can be 
done in a general way. We mean the alleged unacoountableness of 
these epistles on exegetical grounds, as distinct from that on his* 
torical grounds which we have just considered. We have here, as 
has been already observed, principally to deal with De Wette, who 
has given all diligence to establish this objection in every way. 
We must of course leave it to the exposition of the respective 
epistles to show, that they are quite in keeping with the state of 
things which they bring before us, that they correspond to the 
object they have in view and to the relation of the writer to those 
to whom they were addressed, and that the exceptions that have 
been taken to each of the epistles severally in these respects are 
without foundation. What we here intend to discuss, are the oh** 
jections that have been urged against the epistles on the ground of 
the grammatical and religious character common to them as a whole, 
comp. in De Wette, p. 116, ss. As the most recent negative criti* 
cism in this respect also treats the three epistles as one, and has 
almost entirely withdrawn from Schleiermacher's suspicions against 
the first epistle to Timothy in particula^^ so do we also treat them 
in our defence. The three epistles must, in regard to this objec- 
tion also, in our view stand or fall together. 

We have already fully acknowledged in § 1 the critical difficulty 

1 Harless has also expressed himvelf decidedly to the same effect. Ephesertnief, EinL 
p. 61. 

9 "No one who is acquainted with the mora recent isTestigations since Sclileiermacher, 
and finds almost all eriHcs nnanimoas in the opinion that these three epistles in raspeoC 
to their contents, their form, and their entire pecoliarity, are not to he separated Aronk 
each other, can suppose that in point of composition there is so marked a superiority in 
the two other epistles over the first," Banr p. T8. "Sehleiermachw has certainly exag- 
gerated the more un&TonraUe chcraotcristica of the first epistle to Timothy," I>e 
Wette, p. 119. De Wette himself however gives an inferior place to the first epistle to 
Timothy as compared with the two others. But in his yiew they must stand or fall 


that preseots itself here. Bnt we shall find here alsp that on a 
closer examination, what at first seems strange beoomes less so, nay, 
beoomes quite accountable. These epistles, says De Wette, differ 
from all the rest of PauFs epistles in a peculiar phraseology, which 
is common either to all the three or at least to two ; and he follows 
up this assertion with a long list of these peculiar words and phrases. 
The same process which Schleiermacher brought to bear against 
the first epistle to Timothy, is thus extended to the three epistles. 
But how uncertain the result of such a process is, in a numerical 
respect, has been already ably demonstrated by Planck, in a com- 
parison made by him in opposition to Schleiermacher, of the pecu- 
liar expressions to be found in other epistles with those in the first 
epistle to Timothy, in regard to their number. He shows that in 
the first epistle to Timothy there are eighty-one aira^ Xeyo/icva, in 
the second sixty-three, and in the epistle to Titus forty-four ; but 
that in the epistle to the Philippians there are fifty -four, in the 
epistle to the Galatians fifty-seven, and in the epistles to the Ephe- 
sians and Oolossians together 148. It is thus evident that, in a 
purely numerical point of view, the Pastoral Epistles appear by no 
means in a disadvantageous light. But from this nothing farther 
can be inferred, than that the difierence in phraseology is not in it- 
self conclusive against the genuineness of these epistles. How, 
too, should this be possible ? We shall not go so far as Planck, 
who asserts that the apostle had no rhetorically developed style of 
language ; but we would simply ask, what right have we to sup- 
pose, that in ten or eleven other epistles which we possess of the 
apostle's writings, his whole stock of words lies before us ? Do not 
the last epistles of the apostle (keeping the Pastoral Epistles out 
of view), contain an abundant supply of new words not before used 
by him ? If then, in these epistles, which in their having been 
addressed to churches, as well as in their aim and contents, bear a 
much greater a£Einity to the rest, we yet find so great a difference, 
how much more accountable is this in the Pastoral Epistles which 
differ firom all the others — with the exception of the short epistle 
to Timothy — in being addressed not to congregations but to indi- 
viduals, and these fellow teachers with the apostle, and in being 
partly, (that to Titus and the first to Timothy), quite of the nature of 
official letters. May we not expect a priori^ that in these epistles a 
new class of words will appear, when we find this in every one even of 


the epistles that are otherwise homogeneous ? Of still greater import- 
ance, however, is another circumstance which falls to be noticed here. 
These epistles, as we have already seen, and as the criticism to 
which we are opposed is wont most to insist upon, bring before cis 
in detail, forms of the religious life altogether new, and errors, the 
like of which do not occur in the other epistles. These new things, 
if they are to be called by their names, must of necessity give rise 
to new designations. And if now these episdes treat of the insti* 
tutions of the church, and contain directions to Titus and Timothy 
for the right management of the affairs of the church, topics which 
we find handled in none of the other epistles, how could it be 
otherwise, than that new expressions should occur in connexion with 
these subjects? Besides, if these epistles collectively belong to a 
later period than all the rest, and all of them to about the same 
period, what ground is there a priori for surprise at finding that 
they are closely related to each other, and differ considerably from 
the rest, especially as they all refer to matters which till then were 
unknown ? There is no reason then for our being perplexed by 
the occurrence of new expressions and formulas. Still, however, 
all will depend on the character of this peculiar phraseology. One 
could imagine that a single aira^ \ey6fievov of a decidedly later 
origin might occur, and this would certainly weigh more against 
the genuineness than a long catalogue of peculiar expressions, which 
Paul does not elsewhere use, but which, in so far as the idea or the 
grammatical usage is concerned, he might have employed. The 
criticism to which we are opposed has made too lax a use of the term 
" unpauline." It has not adduced a single instance of an expression 
which can be said to be unpauline in the sense that Paul could not 
have used it, however numerous may be the instances of words 
which he does not actually use. Keeping, then, these general remarks 
in view, when we turn to what De Wette has characterised as the 
peculiar phraseology of the Pastoral Epistles, we at once find a series 
of expressions, the occurrence of which may be simply explained 
by the circumstance that these epistles allude to matters such as we 
do not find spoken of in the other epistles. He adduces fwOoi^ 
ytvecCKoylai, ^rfn^a-ei^, fianuoXoyla, fiarcuoKoyoq, kcvo^xwIcu, X070- 
fuxx^h Xoyofiax^iP' lu regard to some of these expressions it will 
be evident at the first glance, that they owe their existence to the 
pecuUarity of the things to which the epistles refer. What proof 


can be drawn from the ocourrence of fjAOoi, and yeveoKoyuu, if 
these were the very things with which the Jewish Christians carried 
on their trade in magic ? As well might we on grammatical grounds* 
stnmble at the occurrence of etSosikodirrov in the first epistle to the 
Corinthians alone, where indeed it occurs six times; or at finding 
the expression el&DKeiov only in that epistle, or iOeT^jodpvfa-Kela, 
ififiareiw only in the epistle to the Colossians. But such expres- 
sions also as {ifn7(r€i9» fiarcuoXoyia, and the rest, may be explained 
without wiolence by the nature of those appearances against which 
they were directed. This, as we have seen, is the chief characteristic 
of the mode in which the apostle combats the errors with which he 
deals in these epistles — namely, that he almost entirely absjtains from 
a serious refutation of the things brought forward by those seducers 
who were destitute of all moral earnestness, and just concisely warns 
against them as empty talk, profitless controversy, vain disputation, 
whilst he directs to those subjects that are indeed worthy of being 
known, and will conduct to godliness. What expressions could be 
more appropriate for this end than just those selected, such as fitopdi 
{i7n;(ree9, fuvreuoXoyla, tcevoffxoplat, TioyofiaxuM ? Thus when the 
historical element is justly apprehended, every stumblingblock dis- 
appears, whether arising from the manner in which the apostle 
combats the error, or the expressions he employs. And may we not 
point to parallels to these expressions in other epistles of the 
apostle ? Are not fuopoKoyla, Eph. v. 4, wiOavoXoyia, Col. ii. 4, 
XpV<fToKoyiat Bom. xvi. 18, teevoSo^ia^ Phil. ii. 8, all words formed 
in quite a similar manner ; whilst the first two are similar designa- 
tions also with respect to the sense. Might we not justly refer, as 
others have ahready done, for fjurnuoXoyia^ to LCor. iii. 20 ; Bom. 
i. 21, for K€Po<fxovia, to Eph. v. 6, for ^rin^aei^ to the av^rjrrfTq^ at 
1 Cor. i. 20 7 But the influence of the specific error which is 
combated in the Pastoral Epistles, extends to the phraseology of 
these epistles much more than might be believed at first sight. The 
terms iyii^ and vytalveiv — along with that to which they stand 
opposed, namely, i/oo-eti^ — are adduced as peculiar, in so far as they 
are employed to denote the true doctrine, and surprise has been ex- 
pressed that the apostle, although he combats heresies in others of 
his epistles, yet employs these expressions only here, and here so 
often. But this surprise proceeds from overlooking just the prin- 
cipal thing that ought to be kept in view, namely, that we do not 


find in these epistles, as many commentators sappose, the opposition 
of true and false doctrine, but the opposition of an unsound and 
a sound Gbristianity. The apostle characterizes as diseased the 
Christianity of those who give themselves up to profitless things, 
that are destitute of all moral fruitfulness, and he warns them of 
the danger of entirely falling away ; on the contrary, he charac- 
terizes as sound, the Christianity of those who direct their regards 
to the truth which is according to godliness, or as he is wont con- 
cisely to express it, the vyiaipovaa SiSaaK&Xla. We shall find no 
more appropriate designation for this kind of error in the other 
epistles of the apostle. With this too is connected the frequent use 
of evai^eia in the Pastoral Epistles, an expression which the apostle 
employs no where else ; on which we have said what is necessary 
in connection with Tit. i. 1. In like manner, the frequent use of 
aaxf>poi)v with its derivatives, is explained by taking into account 
that the apostle, in delineating Christianity as opposed to amorally 
unsound course of conduct, lays all stress on the disposition and 
conduct of its professors. Where does the apostle in any other 
place describe Christianity in its application to individuals, and 
that accofding to the distinctions of sex, age, and rank ? And on 
turning to Phil. iv. 8 — a passage which comes nearest to that in 
which aa>it>pa}v occurs, inasmuch as the apostle there aims at giv- 
ing an exhaustive designation of the idea of Christian morality — we 
find several expressions which do not occur any where else, or occur 
but seldom, such as 071^69 and <r€/Av6^ so often found in these 
epistles, and «n-po(r^X)79, d$^/u)9, aperq not found at all in any 
other place. The circumstances which naturally led to the use of 
the expression (T<o^p<ov by the apostle will be adverted to in the 
exposition of Tit i. 8. The epithets fiifiTJXo^ ypawBr)^ aTraiSeu^ 
T09 (the two latter occurring only once) are also adduced. But 
their occurrence is also explained by the relation they bear to 
the errors that are combated. If they were things of a foolish and 
insipid character to which the persons alluded to gave themselves 
up, then the use of these words, which belonged to the usus 
linguae of that period (comp. also here the passages in which they 
occur), is no proof that the epistles were not written by the apostle. 
Further, the expressions '7rpoai)(€i,v, atrorpeireadoiy itcrpi^etrdai, 
treptuTTcurf^ai,^ wapaireiaOai, aaTOj(€iVf rv^wrOcu are adduced. 
But these expressions also do all of them refer to the errors opposed 


in these epistles, as Bohl also justly obBervea to the same effect, that 
the peculiarity in the language of the Pastoral Epistles, almost 
wholly relates to the designation of the evangelical doctrine on 
the one hand, and of the errors on the other. The first of these 
expressions occurs elsewhere in the sense in which it is adduced as 
peculiar to these epistles; comp. on Tit. i. 14. ^AirorpiweaOcu 
ifcrphrefrOcu and the remaining expressions are found certainly 
only here; for in Heb. xii. 13, itcrphreaOcu has a different signi- 
fication ; comp. De Wette on the passage. But there is nothing 
in the words themselves to prevent our supposing that the apostle 
might have used them ; and the reason of his not using them else- 
where, is just that be does not elsewhere combat error by repelling 
it in the same summary way. The passage Bom. xvi. 18 might be 
mentioned as containing an expression which has some resemblance 
to it ; Kol itacKipare aif ainmf. This expression is quite as pecu- 
liar to this passage, as those of a similar kind in our epistles ; only, 
at Bom. iii. 12, the expression occurs again without aTro, If 
the apostle then in that passage uses the expression hKKKlveuf 
awOf why may he not here also have used expressions which we 
do not find elsewhere in his writings ? In hke manner we find at 
Oal. i. 6 fierariffeadcu ano^ which does not thus occur else- 
where. The case is the same in regard to the expression irepturrcuT- 
daiy which in the signification in which it is here used is not 
at all an uncommon word ; comp. Passow. With wapaireurdiu 
might be compared Heb. xii. 19, 25, and Acts xxv. 11. And 
what objection can be made to the expression acrro^^io), far- 
ther than that it does not occur elsewhere, which might also be 
said of aaXevOrjpai awo occuring only at 2 Thess. ii. 2, fjLera- 
/upeiadcu aTTO only at Col. i. 23, itnrtrnTetv rivo^ only at Gal. v. 
4 ; especially as (like the preceding term itcrpiTreadai) the word 
stands in express connection with to t€Xo9, 1 Tim. i. 6, 6 ? How 
similar to it is the elsewhere occurring expression arovxelv. Bom. 
rv. 12 ; Gal. vi. 16 ? Finally, with reference to the expression tv- 
ijxnkrdai we might place against it the expression ^wnovcOaL^ which, 
with the exception of Col. ii. 8, is found only in the epistles to the 
Corinthians, and occurs there no fewer than six times. Other ex- 
pressions on which stress is also laid, such as hiafiefiaunkrdcu wepi 
T«vo9, imofUfivii<rtc€tVy are occasioned by the epistles having been 

addressed to fellow teachers of the apostle, on whom he enjoins 

p 2 


what they are to do ; as Bottger has already observed. With re- 
spect to the former of these expressions, it may be observed that fii- 
fioM^ffieficuooD^ ffefialaxri^St are frequently ased by the apostle ; while 
the latter will suggest the avafiLfivi^cKm of 1 Cor. iv. 1 7, which 
also occurs at 2 Tim. i. 6 in proximity to the other. De Wette, 
moreover, adduces the unusual formulas of salutation x^P^^* IXeo9, 
elpi^vrf, which occur in 1 Tim. i. 2 ; 2 Tim. i. 2 ; (that in Tit. i. 4 
is spurious.) This formula, however, is not a peculiarity which 
universally belongs to the Pastoral Epistles, for we find there the 
more common along with the more uncommon formula. Further 
^609 aam^p. It were easy to show that the idea is not unpauline ; 
comp. on Tit. i. 3. This concise expression of the idea becomes 
accountable on the hypothesis that these epistles belong to a later 
period, as has been already observed by a critic ; and an imitator 
of the apostle would naturally have avoided this. Lastly, the for- 
mula TTurro^ 6 X0709 corresponding to the afAi]v (oomp. on Tit. 
iii. 8) is used by the apostle only here. Did it occur only once, 
no one would have anything to say against it ; and I take its more 
frequent occurrence to be just as accidental as the frequent occur- 
rence of fiif ifKavcLade in the first epistle to the Oorinthians^ whilst 
it is found elsewhere only at Oal. vi. 7. The expression doubtless 
involves an antithetical reference to the uncertain human opinions 
of the seducers, comp. Tit. i. 9 ; although it is also used in a 
general way, as at 1 Tim. iii. 1. In such matters, I think full 
allowance ought to be made for a writer's individuality. If we are 
right in supposing t|iat these epistles were written about the same 
time, and if we are constrained to acknowledge that they bear such 
an affinity to one another as imparts to them the character of one 
epistle in comparison with the rest, then, in the frequent occur- 
rence of one and the same expression, we have just the same phe- 
nomenon that meets us in the other epistles, as for example when 
we find the word ^7Jh6to occurring 6ve times in the epistles to the 
Corinthians, although it occurs besides only in Gal. iv. 17, 18, or 
when we find ^vauAaOat six times in the epistles to the Corin- 
thians, and only once besides, in Col. ii. 18. But a closer compa- 
rison of the usus linguae in the other epistles of Paul, with that 
in the Pastoral Epistles, would doubtless bring to light many ex- 
pressions which are specifically Pauline, and which, except in those 
epistles and in the Pastoral, occur no where else. We adduce for 


the sake of example only such expressions as ivheltanxrOai^ Tit. 
li. IO9 which in the New Testament is used by the apostle alone, but 
by him freqaently ; together with evheiJ^L^ and hheirfyM, which are 
used only by him. In like manner avcucaiiwav; and avcueaivooi} 
dpcuccup{^(o are used only by Paul ; comp. Tit. iii. 5. Again 
avafUfivrj<rKfOy 2 Tim. i. 6, occurs besides in the New Testament 
only at I Cor. iv. 1 7. So vovdereiv and vovdeala used only by 
the apostle (in Acts xx. 81 it is the apostle who speaks), and by 
him eight times in all, is found at Tit. iii. 10; also eTr^roTi;, 
fivela, vXa^fOf found only in the other epistles of Paul, and 
there repeatedly. In like manner dvoT6fJua^, ^pevanaratOj comp. 
with Tit. i. 10, and aif>opfiij. For the explanation of the other 
expressions adduced by De Wette, iwi^dveia instead of va- 
povala, SetnroTfj^ instead of tcvpio^, I refer to the passages in 
which they occur. Besides these expressions, which are common 
to the three epistles, or to two of them, others of a peculiar kind, 
which occur in each of the epistles respectively, will be attended to 
in the exposition. These general remarks are intended only to 
show, that the difference in phraseology observable in these epistles 
by no means proves that which is sought to be proved by it. We 
have seen that regard being had to the following circumstances, 
namely, that these epistles allude to new forms of error, that they 
are addressed to fellow-teachers of the apostle, that in regard 
to their contents they bear a strong affinity to one another, and 
that they were written nearly contemporarily — the peculiarity of 
their phraseology is easily accounted for, and in comparison with 
the other epistles of the apostle, offers no inexplicable enigma. 
The criticism which has failed to show in the case of any one of 
those words, that the apostle might not have used it, ought at least 
to point out, what Pauline expressions should have been chosen in 
place of the " unpauline" ones, and how a forger should happen to 
prove false to the original precisely in those things in which a suc- 
cessful imitation would have displayed the smallest art, as, for 
example, in those formulas of salutation. But how unsuccessful 
has Schleiermacher been in his attempt to fulfil the former of 
these obligations, when he takes irepoBtSaa-KoXelp, I Tim. i. 8, to 
be identical with oKKov *l7)aouv icqpvaauv, 2 Cor. xi. 4, and 
thinks that the apostle would never have expressed himself in 
such a round about way if he had known the krepoBiZaaKaKuit, 


In reply to ibis it is enough to refer to 1 Tim. vi. 3. Gomp. 
on I Tim. i. 8. — That the language of the Pastoral Epistles is 
purer Greek than that of the other epistles, arises plainly from 
the circumstanoe, that the apostle does not here treat of doctrinal 

It is not, however, merely the diction of the Pastoral Epistles 
that is alleged to be unpauline, but also the style as a whole, the 
composition of the epistles. De Wette remarks as a peculiarity 
common to them all, that they deal much in common-places, and 
that even what is intended to serve for the refutation of error or 
for instruction, is given in a general form ; with which also is to 
be connected the further peculiarity, that after such digressions or 
general instructions, a return, or a conclusion and resting point, is 
generally sought in an exhortation or an application in some form, 
addressed to the party who is to receive the epistle. In order to 
understand what De Wette means by the common places so fre- 
quently occurring in these epistles, we may refer to such passages 
as Tit. ii. 11— 15 or iii. 3 — 8. We must leave it to the exposi- 
tion to show, with reference both to this passage and to the re- 
maining passages of the same kind, whether it is a digression 
or a common -place that is expressed, and not rather a truth 
which stands in close connexion with the foregoing exhortation* 
as that by which it is confirmed, and which on this account is 
strongly urged on the party to whom the epistle is addressed, 
as on one who ought to conduct himself in accordance with 
this general truth. It is certainly true, however, that in these 
epistles the special and the general follow each other in close suc- 
cession, and also that the particular subjects are for the most part 
treated in a general way, and that even what is said in the way of 
refutation or of instruction is presented in a general form. It is 
this, namely, the sententious character of the epistles, in which they 
di£fer from the others. And with this sententiousness which cha- 
racterizes the particular sentences, the manner in which these are 
put together stands closely connected. It is evident at first sight 
that these epistles for the most part contain no artificially-con- 
structed periods, but sentences connected in a simple form. Sen- 
tence follows sentence in the simplest connexion, often in no con- 
nexion ; and this want of any apparent connexion frequently ap 
pears also in the transitions, where with the connecting link of a 


relative or a xai, somethiDg follows quite reniote from wbut goes 
before. This differeDce in the style of oomposition, can fail to be 
perceived by no one who passes from the reading of the other 
epistlee to these. How is the apostle elsewhere wont to interweave 
the special with the general, how lively and impressive is his style, 
how full of special allusions, and the context how closely connected, 
and how full of the finest reciprocal references! Whilst, in the 
case of the other episUes of Paul, the expositor cannot in general 
mistake the right meaning if he but carefully considers the context ; 
in the Pastoral Epistles, on the contrary, he is often deserted by 
the context, as well in respect to the meaning of particular words 
as to the whole thought, and left to form his opinion from the 
general usage of the language and the general analogy of the 
apostle's peculiar sphere of thought ; and in like manner in deter- 
mining the connexion (this applies especially to the first epistle to 
Timothy) he is very much left to the resources of his own judg- 
ment. How is this dissimilarity to be explained ? If we have re- 
ferred in a general way to the other epistles of Paul in order to 
make this dissimilarity apparent, we must also, on the other hand, 
refer to them in our endeavour to account for it. And whilst it 
cannot be denied that there is a certain similarity between the Pas- 
toral Epistles and the others, it must also be acknowledged how 
great a difference there is between them. Schleiermacher, with 
special reference to the first epistle to Timothy, gives prominence 
to the objection that it is entirely wanting in specialities, that in it 
everything wears a general and undefined aspect, and appears un- 
fixed, as if hovering in the air rather than resting on the firm 
ground of a really existing state of things. But he is not inclined 
to undertake from a comparison with the rest of Paul's epistles in 
respect to their style, to prove that this epistle cannot be of a 
Pauline origin, for, he says, this dissimilarity might be of trifling 
significance, inasmuch as these epistles (the other epistles of Paul; 
are of so very various a character, that there might easily have 
been one other differing in a peculiar way from all the rest. Leav- 
ing out of view that Schleiermacher would have found it difficult 
to prove the style of the first epistle to be unpauline, so long as the 
two others are acknowledged to be Pauline, we accept as perfectly 
true his remark as to the other epistles of Paul being various in 
their character, and we unhesitatingly bring it forward in behalf 


of the three epistles. How different, in spite of the iundamental 
similarity already alladed to, is the dialectic character of the 
epistles to the Romans and to the Oalatians, from the oratorical 
style of the epistle to the Ephesians, and this again from the 
epistle to the Philippians, which approaches nearest to the purely 
epistolary style, or from the first epistle to the Corinthians, 
which also has more of the same character. We are then entitled 
to ask, whether there could not he other epistles still, which 
might differ again from all the rest in a peculiar way ? Still, how- 
ever, very little is accomplished hy this appeal to a mere abstract 
possibility. Much more will depend on our being able to show, 
why precisely these epistles differ from the others in this particular 
manner. Importance has been given to the circumstance, that from 
all appearances (?) the apostle wrote these epistles with his own 
hand, instead of dictating them to an amanuensis. (Comp. Bothe, 
a. a. Q., p. 322.) But the epistle to the Oalatians was also written 
by the apostle with his own hand (comp. on vi. H) ; and, even 
although it were shown that this was the case in regard to these 
epistles, no definite conclusion could be drawn from the influence 
of this circumstance, which is different in the case of different indi- 
viduals. On the other hand, I fully agree with Bothe when he 
explains the discrepancy in style, by the essential difference in the 
situation of one and the same writer, who at one time- sends 
a didactic writing to an entire church, and at another writes a 
confidential letter to a disciple and a friend who is of the same mind 
with himself, and not intended to be publicly read, inasmuch as it 
rather contains hints than enlarges on any topic. I also agree 
with him, when he further refers to the difference which the diver- 
sity of subject could not fail to produce. Let but any one look at 
the first of these circumstances brought forward by Bothe, and he 
will have to admit in general, that there is nothing surprising in the 
simplicity of style and laxity of connexion which characterise these 
epistles. One has only to turn to a remark such as that made in 
1 Tim. vi. 23, in order to see how little the writer was concerned 
about a skilful plan and an elaborate execution. How strange 
beside such a remark would the skilful dialectic of the epistle to 
the Bomans look, or that of the epistle to the Galatians, or the style 
of the epistle to the Ephesians, if otherwise the subject might ad- 
mit of such. But the style of the epistle is to be explained, not 


merely by itsf confidential character, as addressed to a pupil between 
whom and the apostle there existed a most intimate mutual under- 
standing. It is moreover to be taken into consideration, espe- 
cially in regard to the first epistle to Timothy and the epistle to 
Titus, that they are official letters, a point of view in which 
already Scbleiennacher has placed them both, although even in 
this point of view he refuses to acknowledge the Pauline origin of 
the former. The second epistle to Timothy, though not an official 
letter, is still so closely related to those others in its contents 
(namely the references which we find in it to the office of Timothy), 
as well as in the time when it was indited, as sufficiently to account 
for the similarity of style in so far as that exists. The character of 
these epistles, as epistles of an official character, must, however, be 
insisted on chiefly on this account, because if there is any epidtle 
that is written in a familiar and confidential tone, it is that to the 
Philippians, which, although addressed to a church, is essentially 
indebted, both for its matter and form, to the close personal rela- 
tion that subsisted between the apostle and the church. There is 
besides it the epistle to Philemon, which, although not addressed 
to a church, yet, like the epistle to the Philippians, stands much 
farther from our epistles than near to the rest. Precisely by this 
circumstance, I apprehend, is the peculiarity in style to be chiefly 
accounted for. This may be made plain by examples. Let but a 
comparison be made between what the apostle writes to Titus on the 
subject of slaves, for the purpose of directing Titus in his conduct 
towards these, with those passages in Paul's epistles in which thesame 
point is elsewhere handled (comp. on Tit. ii. 9, 10), and it will at once 
be perceived, what a difierence of style is occasioned by the circum- 
stance, that the apostle does not here directly speak to the slaves. It is 
essentially the same thing that is prescribed in those other passages, 
but how is the injunction there enforced by reasons entering into 
the particulars of the subject, whilst everything is held forth that 
may encourage and stimulate to a faithful performance of duty ! Is 
it to be expected that the apostle should speak to Titus in the same 
way as if he had the slaves themselves before him ? Is it not 
enough that he concisely states the points to Titus to which he is 
to refer, leaving to him the enforcement of these and everything else 
connected with them ? Now it is just to this we are to trace that 
peculiarity which is characterized as the indeflniteness, the vague 


generality of the Pastoral Epistles as compared with the others ; a 
peculiarity which need not surprise, inasmuch as it is based on the 
character of the epistles. Certainly if those commentators were 
right, who suppose that these epistles were only nominally addressed 
to Timothy and Titus, and were really intended as public writings 
for the churches, then this style might reasonably create surprise, 
and perhaps it would have to be acknowledged, as has been main- 
tained, that not much could have been learned from them. But 
when, on the other hand, we regard these epistles as official com- 
munications, and consequently that which was written to Titus as 
intended concisely to state to him the points to which his attention 
is to be directed, we have then a satisfactory explanation of the style, 
and we perceive the suitableness of this style to the object aimed at. 
For almost the whole epistle is written in the manner we have shown 
in this particular instance. The requisite qualifications of a pres- 
byter are stated in chap. i. with the same brevity ; in this way also 
is the error characterized, not so much in the way of furnishing a 
refutation of it, as of indicating to Titus the points which he is to 
keep in view. This is self-evident in regard to the remaining portion 
of this epistle in chap. ii. and chap. iii. How should the style be 
dialectical, or oratorical, or even elaborate to the same extent for 
example as the epistle to the Philippians or that to Philemon, when 
all that was aimed at was just to state to Titus what was necessary 
in a concise form, the result of which is, that the epistle as a whole, 
owing to the variety of its contents, has a summary, sententious, 
asynthetic appearance ? The case, however, is different with respect 
to the much-abused first epistle to Timothy. This will be evi- 
dent at the first glance, in regard to the parties to which it sUudes 
in common with the epistle to Titus; so chiefly in chap. iii. 
The apostle treats more fully and with less of summariness the 
point that is spoken of in chap. ii. ; but here also in my opinion, 
the style approaches perceptibly nearer to that of the epistle 
which, as might be maintained a priori^ must bear the greatest 
resemblance to the Pastoral Epistles whensoever the apostle more 
especially enters on one point or another, namely, the first epistle 
to the Corinthians, in those places where the circumstances of 
the church are spoken of, aef in chap. xi. 14 — 34, ss., pas- 
sages which are also related to one another in their special con- 
tents. The same applies to chap, v., in so far as this treats some- 


what at large of the institution for widows ; whereas the stylo of 
ohap. iv. and v. again has more of the sententious oharaoter. 
The seoond epistle to Timothy is both in form and matter cognate 
with the first, although in it much less of that generality and vague- 
ness* as it is called, can be shown. Thus, considered generally, the 
style of these epistles, in so far as it is peculiar, cannot be assailed ; 
it may clearly enough be vindicated, by a reference to their design 
and their contents. That, also which has been specially cha- 
racterized by De Wette as a peculiarity of composition, appears to 
me to be already accounted for by these general considerations, the 
peculiarity, namely, which consists, as De Wette expresses it, in 
the writer 8 digressing from what belongs to the subject of the 
epistle to so-called common-places, and returning from such a 
digression to an exhortation. How natural is it, for example, in 
Tit. ii. 10, that the apostle should merge the special injunctions 
(which he does not here enforce one by one because he is not ad- 
dressing the church), in the mention of the fimdamdntal truth on 
which all Christian morality rests, and should then return to Titus 
with the exhortation : These things speak and exhort j &c. These 
fundamental truths form, as it were, resting-places on which the 
heart of the apostle fondly leans, and where it delights to tarry ; 
the exhortation, however, by which they are followed up, addressed 
to the receiver of the epistle, shows that he never loses sight of the 
object he has in view in referring to these truths. And how easily 
may it be explained, that such fundamental truths addressed to Ti- 
mothy or Titus, are not further opened up in an official letter ? 
comp. Planck, a. a Q., p. 232. 

We have hitherto been looking only at those portions of the Pas- 
toral Epistles, in which may be perceived a style different from that 
of the rest of Paul's epistles. We now proceed to add, in support 
of their Pauline origin, that particular portions, and especially those 
the contents of which are kindred to what we find in other epistles, 
discover a genuine Pauline style. As examples of this, let but the 
two doctrinal passages be read which occur in the epistle to Titus 
ii. 1 1 — 14 and iil. 2 — 7. I think the style of these passages must 
remind every reader of the apostle, even though in other passages 
he may not be able to recognize him. Sohleiermacher has already 
remarked, how much the introduction ch. i. 1 — 8 resembles gene- 
rally that in the epistle to the Romans, or the epistle to the Gala 



tiaDS. In 1 Tim. i. 8, 8s. we find a passage, which of all the New 
Testament writers can be ascribed only to the apostle Paul ; comp. 
on the passage. We have already spoken of the similarity in style, 
between the second and fifth chapters and certain portions of the 
first epistle to the Corinthians. How close the resemblance be- 
tween the introduction to 2 Tim. cb. i. 3, ss., and that toihe epistle 
to the Romans, many have already observed. This circamstance 
— namely, that these epistles approach nearer in style to the rest of 
the epistles, in those passages in which the contents are of a kin- 
dred nature, while on the other hand, they differ most from them in 
those places, where their specific contents and aim come most into 
prominence — is certainly the most favourable testimony to their 
genuineness, since it explains the difference of style in a way whieh 
leaves the Pauline origin unassailed. If these observations are 
true, all will then depend on the questiouy how this peculiar 
style is managed in these epistles. The strongest testimony 
has been given by the critics on the other side, to the method 
and clearness of the epistle to Tilus; less is said in favour 
of the second epistle to Timothy, in which De Wette finds at least 
here and there the absence of a good grammatical and logical con- 
nexion ; and least of all in favour of the first epistle to Timothy, 
in which Schleiermacher has been able to find no intelligible con- 
nexion at all. De Wette, however, thinks Schleiermacher s assertion 
exaggerated (p. 119); Baur is not inclined to acknowledge any 
decided superiority in the other two epistles as compared with this 
one, and admits that this epistle also as a whole, is not wanting in 
unity and in the development of a definite idea (p. 77.) So think 
the representatives of the most recent criticism, and from these 
opinions we may infer that, granting a difference of style as arising 
out of a difference of circumstances, these epistles after all do not 
appear in so unfavourable a light. Baumgarten is the last who has 
come forward against Schleiermacher, in the defence of the first 
epistle to Timothy, in this point in which it has been assailed, 
comp. a. a. Q., p. 205—264, and Planck, a. a. Q., p. 116, ss. We 
shall give special heed to this point in the exposition. 

Schleiermacher has gone still farther in his objections to the first 
epistle to Timothy, inasmuch as he denies to it the character of a 
didactic epistle in general (p. 128, ss.) It is no real epistle at all 
he contends, but only a writing in this form, forged with considerable 


awkwardness. The explanations he has given respecting the nature 
of the didactic epistle, and its possible forms, are most worthy of 
perasal. But he is justly charged with the inconsistency implied 
in vindicating the genuineness of the epistle to Titus, and the second 
epistle to Timothy, from this same point of view (p. 141 — 152.) 
That the disfavour with which he has treated the first epistle to 
Timothy is unjust, and that the epistle, when viewed in the same 
light as that in which he regards the epistle to Titus, namely, as an 
official letter addressed by the apostle to a confidential disciple 
and fellow teacher, may be explained just as easily as it, has already 
been shown by Planck, p. 106, ss., and is no longer denied by any 

Finally, with respect to the peculiarity in ideas and views be- 
longing to these epistles, which De Wette has also ably set forth, 
as seen from his point of view, p. 117, we shall omit here 
what refers only to special passages, and direct our attention 
to what may be said to be common to these epistles. De Wette 
brings forward as illustrations of this peculiarity, that the writer 
employs the term evaifieia to denote Christian piety, and so 
often enjoins virtue under the term atDippoavptf ; and he observes, 
that this stands in connexion with the predominating tendency to 
regard life from a moral point of view (by 'the BiScurKoKla vy. De 
Wette understands the doctrine of morality), — with the frequent in- 
junction and recommendation of good works, — with the view that 
error is connected with an evil, and the true faith with a good con- 
science, — with a vindication of moral merit which stands almost in 
contradiction to the Pauline doctrine of grace, — with the defence of 
the law, according to which it is admitted that the law may be 
used on a merely moral footing (which he remarks in reference to 
1 Tim. i. 8, ss.) On the other hand, the doctrinal element of 
Cfaiistianity comes prominently forward, in the frequent expression 
SiSaatcdKla and the like, in the abstract view which is taken of the 
atonement (Tit. ii. 11, s. ; iii. 4), in the value that is attached to 
the holy Scripture. And with this abstract view is connected a 
universalism, which indeed is not in itself unpauline, but which 
does not appear in the same polemical relation as we find it in 
Paul's writings, for example in Bom. iii. 29. Now, while it must 
be acknowledged that with some exceptions, which we shall have 
to state, these characteristics have been ably selected and set forth 


by De Wette, it will yet be found that this peculiarity does not ne- 
cessitate the supposition of another author, but only of other cir- 
cumstances with reference to the subject of morality, than those 
which the apostle has before him in his other writings. It is 
wrong to take the expression SiBaaKoXia vy. all at once to mean 
the doctrine of morality. De Wette himself has truly observed on 
Tit. i. 9, that the expression denotes the same thing as aKijdeui 17 
tear evaifieiav, Tit. i. 1, consequently not the doctrine of morality, 
but the Christian doctrine which leads to piety. It is the opposite 
of the fiaraioXoyla and the ^i/rfTcrei?, which produce no moral 
fruit. That good works are recommended is in itself not un- 
pauline. In Bom. xii. 1 7 he exhorts the Christians thus : taking 
care to do t kings of good report in the sight of all men ; and in 
Ephes. ii. 10 ; Col. i. 10, thus : being created anew unto good 

works that we should walk in them. " These are," as 

Harless observes on this passage, '* the works which the apostle 
views as the sound fruits of the tree that has been again restored 
(CoK i. 10) ; these alone he calls atfaJda, tcoKd ; all the legal per- 
formances of self-righteousness on the other hand, lie under the 
curse, (Gal. iii. 10.)" As De Wette himself acknowledges farther, 
that the Pauline doctrine of grace is to be found in these epistles, 
2 Tim. i. 9, Tit. iii. 5, it is difficult to see what can be in- 
ferred from this circumstance against their Pauline origin. The 
frequency of this injunction (to good works) is certainly not to be 
denied, but as will afterwards be seen neither does it want a snf* 
ficient reason. Although, according to Wette, in such passages as 
2 Tim. iv. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 15, iii. 13, iv. 8, vi. 18, ss., the apostle 
seems to teach a doctrine of grace no where else inculcated by him, 
that, namely, of moral meritoriousness, as belonging even to the 
individual himself, yet the consideration of these passages respec- 
tively, will show that they contain no doctrine which the apAlle 
does not teach elsewhere, for example in 6, ss., who will 
render to every man according to his deedi ; to them who by 
patietit continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and 
immortality^ eiertml lifCy &c. Further, the admission that a moral 
use may be made of the law, 1 Tim. i. 8, in the case of the avo- 
/M>49, &c*, cannot at all be regarded as unpauline, when it is com- 
pared with such passages as Gal. ii. 19, iii. 2S ; Rom. v. 20, &c. 
How otherwise can the lawless', the disobedient, afid the profane 


be helped, but by the law first of all accomplishiDg its design upon 
them, of leading them to the knowledge of sin ? Comp. Usteri, 
a. a. Q. p. 65 — 75. Moreover, the special polemical reference in 
which the apostle in this passage speaks of the design of the law, 
is well worthy of consideration ; oomp. the exposition. When 
again it is characterized as a peculiarity in the views of the writer, 
that he connects error with a bad, and the true faith with a good 
conscience, we would say in reply, that this is rather to be regarded 
as a peculiarity in the errors which he combats, than in the writer's 
mode of viewing them ; inasmuch as these errors take their rise 
from men who, just because they wanted the moral energy which 
is requisite for the apprehensioa as well as for the preservation of 
the simple Christian truth, turned aside into those devious by-paths 
of a mystic Gnosis and asceticism, and sought to propagate their 
wisdomj not from conviction, or in a spirit of moral earnestness, 
but for the sake of gain. And this accounts for the same view not 
being urged in the same degree, against the ordinary Judaistic 
opponents of the apostle ; although we find something resembling 
this in passages such as Oal. vi. 1 2, ss. Finally, with respect to 
what is further urged, namely, that a universalism is found in 
these epistles which, though Pauline in itself, is yet not expressed 
by Paul in the same polemical connexion — all will depend on 
whether this universalism is in place in the passages concerned ; 
on which see the exposition. On the other hand, we acquiesce in 
the truth of De Wette's remarks, that in these epistles the view of 
life in its moral relations comes into prominence, that good works 
are frequently recommended, and that, on the other hand, the doc- 
trinal element of Christianity is brought prominently forward in the 
frequently recurring BiSaatcdKia and the like, (I do not see why the 
view of the atonement, which we find in Tit. ii. 11, iii. 4, 2 Tim. i. 
1 0, can be said to be abstract, inasmuch as the subject is there treated 
in a general way ; comp. on this what has been said above). Here, 
however, it must be observed first of all, that this mode of concep- 
tion and expression on these topics must by no means be regarded 
as merely accidental, or in general as having its ground in the 
individuality of the writer ; for he very plainly shows, what is 
his design in the selection of the expression eiftrifieta or StSaa-- 
KoKia. Compare only Tit. i. 2, where the writer in the very out- 
set designates himself in the inscription as afiroino'Ko^ kot hrlrf- 


vcMTiv dXTfdeCa^i rtyi Kar ewriffeiav ; or the passage chap. ii. 1 , 
where Titus is enjoined in opposition to the /uxroMKoyoi^ to speak 
the things that become sound doctrine, & irphrei, trj vyuiu/owrp 
hiZcuTKoKla ; or 1 Tim. vi. 3, where the krepo^iZcurfcoKeiv is ex- 
plained negatively by /i^ irpoaipx'ScrBai vyialvovai X07049, and this 
again by t§ Kar eifa-i/Seiav BiBcuTKoKla. It can therefore be 
scarcely doubted, that this style of viewing and presenting the 
Christian truth, chiefly with regard to its moral influence, as truth 
which is according to godliness; as well as the weight that is 
given in general throughout these epistles to the practical side of 
Christianity, stands in close antithetical connection with the nature 
of the errors which are opposed. If, however, the one element — 
the moral — is presented in its totality, this necessitates that the 
other — the doctrinal — should also be presented more in its abstract 
form. The true doctrine, is justly placed in opposition to the pro* 
fitless science of the opponents, which produces no moral fruit. 
Not to repeat here what has been already said, we refer to the 
remarks made above on the so-called heretics. In general, how- 
ever, it must be acknowledged that the danger grew always the 
longer the greater, lest Christianity should be treated as a matter 
of science, to meet which, a reference to its moral requirements was 
especially needed. This was a danger most likely to spring up 
with the longer and by degrees familiar continuance of Christianity ; 
and the history of a later age shows but too plainly, how this danger 
was not without its consequences. 

We here bring our critical investigation to a close. It may be 
that a more discerning eye, shall perceive much of what has been 
here adduced in behalf of the genuineness of the epistles to be un- 
tenable, but so much at least must be acknowledged by every 
unprejudiced reader, namely, that the critical problem which 
lies before us finds an easier and a more natural solution in 
the way pointed out by us, than in that which is followed by 
the criticism on the other side ; and that what remains yet un- 
accounted for, is as nothing when compared with the enormous 
difficulties, in which the result offered by that criticism is involved. 
Wo would also, in conclusion, merely call to mind (comp. § 2) 
how considerable is the weight which is laid in the scale of the 
genuineness of these epistles, by the external testimonies, accord- 
ing to which the Pastoral Epistles belong to the most favoured, so 


much SO, that Ue Wette himself shows it to be impossiblu that 
they could have been written after the middle of the second century, 
p. 120. 


Olshausen has adduced (vol. i., Intro. § 9) those exegetical works 
which embrace the whole New Testament. The homilies of Chry- 
sostom, the exposition of Theodoret and of Jerome, the i^rjyijaei^ 
of Oecumenius> and the ipfirjpela of Theophyiact, extend also to 
these epistles. As belonging to the period of the Reformation, is 
first of all to be named Luther : Scholia et sermones in I. Jo. atque 
annott in ep. Pauli (priorcm) ad Tim. et Tit. ed. Bruns., Lub. 
1797. Then Melancthon : Enarratio ep. 1 ad Tim., et duorum 
capp. secundae. Wittenb. 1561. And chiefly Calvin in his Com- 
ment, on the whole epistles of Paul. Ed. by Tholuck, Berl. 

As belonging to the later and the most recent time, may be 
mentioned, Conr. Vorstii : Comm. in Omnes, epp. ap. exc. II. ad 
Tim. ad Tit. ad Philem. et ad Uebr. 1631. Benson : Paraphras- 
tical explanations of, and observations on several books of the New 
Testament. J. D. Michaelis: Paraphrasis und Anm. ueber die 
Briefe Pauli an die Gal. Eph. Phil. Col. Thess. den Tim. Tit. 
und Philem., Gott 1750 u 1769. Heinrichs: Im Eoppe'schen 
Bibelwerk. 7 Bd. Gott. 1798. 2 Aufl. 1828. Especially, Hey- 
denreich : Die Pastoralbriefe Pauli erl&utert 2 Bde. Hadam. 1826. 
Then J. F. by Flatt : Vorlesungen ueber die Br. P. an Tim. u. 
Tit. herausgegeben von Kling Tub. 1831. The Catholic com- 
mentator Mack : Comm. ueber die Pastoralbriefe, Tub. 1836. 
Matthies : Erklar der Pastoralbriefe Mit bes. Beziehung auf Au- 
thentie und Ort and Zeit der Abfassung, Greifsw. 1840. De 
Wette in s. Kurzgefassten Handbuch Bd. 2. Th. 5. 2 Aufl. Leipz. 
J 847. Huthers : Pastoralbriefe, as continuation of the commen- 
tary by Meyer. 

Mosheim has expounded only the two epistles to Tim. : Erkl^i- 
rung der beiden Briefe P. an den Tim., Hamburgh, 1755. Wegs- 
cheider only the first : der erste Brief des ap. P. an den Tim., neu 
uebers. und erklart, Gott, 1810. Then G. E. Leo. Pauli ep. 1 


ad Tim., graece cam perp comm. Lips. 1837. On the second 
epistle to Tim. : J. Broechner Gommentatio de ep. II. ad Tim. 
Copenh., 1829. On the epistle to Titus : Eninoel ezplic. ep. P. 
ad Tit. commentatt. theol. ed. a Velthusen, Buperto et Eninoel. 
Vol. ]., 292. The literature of these epistles is given still more 
fully in Matthies, p. 49, ss. Winer, Handbuch der theol. Litera- 
tar. Works on special points, such as the authenticity, &c., are 
noticed at the places in which these points are treated. 

( 248 ) 





1. The receiver of the epistle is distinotly named in i. 4. It is 
Titos, the well-known assistant of the apostle Paul. His name is 
nowhere mentioned in the Acts ; hut we learn from Oal. ii. 3 that 
he was a Oenlile by birth, and that he remained uncircumoised. 
We do not hear of him again till the occasion of Paul's stay at 
Ephesus, and then, that he was sent by the apostle as a deputy to 
Corinth about a collection (2 Cor. vii. 14 ; zii. 28.) On his re- 
turn thence, he met with the apostle in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. Id ; 
▼ii. 6, s.) From thence he was sent again to Corinth^ as the bearer 
of the second epistle (2 Cor. viii. 6, 18, ss.) Upon this follow the 
data furnished by the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. iv. 10, his journey 
to Dalmatia, and Tit. i. 5 ; iii. 12.) According to the statements 
contained in the epistle addressed to him, he had been left by the 
apostle in Crete to settle the afiBairs of the church, and to act as 
teacher (evangelist.) He was not a bishop or an archbishop in 
Crete, but be laboured there as an evangelist, the pecuUar circum- 
stances requiring that he should direct his energies chielSy against 
prevailing corruptions ; and he received a special commission to 
ordain presbyters, so as to form an outward union of the Christians 
there into a Christian society. Chap. iii. 12 of this epistle plainly 
intimates that another would soon relieve him, and says, that he 
was to join the apostle at Nicopolis. Tradition makes him out to 
have been bishop of Crete ; on which, and in the literature con- 
nected with this, compare Winer's BWB. on Titus, and Bohl, p. 




According to the plain inscription of the epistle, i. 4, we must 
consider it as settled, that it was designed for Titus, and not for the 
church or for the church along with him. The form as well as the 
contents of the epistle accord only with this supposition. With 
regard to the former, in addition to the address itself, we need only 
to refer to i. 5, 18 ; ii. 1, 6, 7, 16 ; iii. 1, 8, 9, 10, 18, 18, 16. 
Everywhere it is Titus, and Titus alone, who is addressed ; nowhere 
do we find any direct reference to the church ; when there is any 
such reference it is always indirect, through Titus. And, with re* 
gard to the contents, it is justly observed, that i. 12, s. does not 
agree with the epistles having been intended for the church. The 
moral precepts, also, would in this case have been stated differently. 
The apostle would not have satisfied himself with a simple enume- 
ration of the things enjoined ; on which compare the exposition at 
ii. 12. This mode of treating his subject, in contradistinction to 
that of other epistles in which the apostle addresses himself directly 
to the church (the comparison may be made especially in connec- 
tion withii. 12, see exposition), is suitable only to Titus; and this 
circumstance, which has been urged as an objection against the 
epistle, is precisely an argument for its genuineness, on which also 
more is said in the exposition and in the general introduction. 
That what the apostle says in ch. i. 2, 8, by way of more definitely 
naming, not of attesting his office, contains nothing against our 
view of the epistle's having been intended for Titus alone, and that 
ii. 15, iii. 16, likewise contain nothing against this, we must leave 
it to the exposition to show. 

2. The condition of the Christians in Crete, which was the oc- 
casiati at once of Titus' having been left behind, and of his receiv- 
ing this apostolical letter, finds a sufficient explanation in the 
epistle, if we do not allow ourselves to be misled by a preconceived 
opinion. Even the negative criticism directs attention to the fact, 
that we are not at liberty to suppose that Christianity was first 
planted there by the apostle. To this supposition, indeed, the con- 
tents of the epistle, which was written shortly after the apostle s de- 
parture from Crete (comp. on i. 6), and which presupposes that 
Christianity had been longer in existence there, do not correspond. 
But what is there to hinder us from supposing, that the apostle was 
not the first to make known Christianity there, but found it already 
existing ? (CoiQp. on i. 6.) And he found there not merely the seed 


of Christianity, bat along with and intermingled with it, much that 
was corrupt, which took its rise especially from the Jewish Christians 
(i. 10.) This element is not treated as a doctrinal heresy, but, on the 
one hand, as a science occupied with unsubstantial things, and having 
in it no principle of godliness, on the other, as a leaning to the 
commandments of men, which are likewise destitute of moral influ- 
ence, and which spring from the moral deficiencies of their authors. 
It was not aAer the apostle's departure, which was just shortly before 
this epistle was written, that these corruptions first showed them- 
selves ; for the apostle, as we may see from the epistle, knows them 
from personal observation. He himself had had openly to combat 
them, and what still remained to be done in regard to them formed 
part of those things that were wanting which Titus was fully to set in 
order. We may gather, besides, from the epistle, that as yet the 
Christians had not been united into a church. The apostle himself 
had not been able to ordain presbyters, so that Titus' commission 
was to establish church order and government. It is remarkable 
that in this epistle no mention is made of deacons. It is plain 
from this, that the deaconal office was non-essential in comparison 
with that of the presbyter, as indeed it owed its existence to a 
necessity which the progress of time evolved (Acts vi. 1.) 

3. The contefitB of the epistle result simply and naturally firom 
these circumstances which occasioned it. The design of the apostle 
is to instruct Titus in reference both to the setting up of church 
government through presbyters, and to his labours as an evangelist 
in opposition to the prevailing errors. After an introduction, i. 
1 — 4, in which the apostle designates his office with specific re- 
ference to the errors that were to be combated, he proceeds to the 
subject of the ordination of presbyters, and lays down the qualifica- 
tions which Titus is specially to look for in this work. They are 
JBoral qualifications, and a firm adherence to the faithful word and 
sound doctrine, as the apostle characterizes the apostolic doctrine, 
in opposition to a vain and morally fruitless tendency, 5 — 10. The 
necessity of these qualifications is then shown by a reference to the 
prevailing corruptions. Then follows what Titus is to teach, in 
opposition to the errors of the seducers. He is above all to lay 
stress on moral conduct, and in a series of predicates, ii. 1 — 10, 
those moral qualities which he is to commend, are set forth with 
respect to the distinctions of sex, age^ and rank. The reason an4 


confirmation of this moral oonduot is then given, vv. 11 — 15. Bat 
the Cretans need also to be reminded how they should conduct 
themselves toward magistrates, and those who werQ not Christians 
generally. This is concisely stated, iii. 1 — d, and it is then con- 
firmed by the consideration of how little reason the Christian has 
to exalt himself above those who are not Christians, 3 — 7. On 
this follows an exhortation addressed to Titus himself, as to what 
he is to teach and what he is to let alone, and how he is personally 
to act towards those who cause division by their perversity, 8 — 11. 
'The epistle concludes with the mention of some personal matters, 
with salutations, and the usual benediction. De Wette, with the 
impartiality for which he is so much to be commended, speaks 
highly of the clearness and method of this epistle. Still he thinks 
that the instructions there given to Titus, as well with respect to the 
appointment of presbyters, as with respect to that which is to form 
the subject matter of his teaching, are too general and universally 
known, and therefore not worthy of being addressed to one who 
was a helper of the apostle. Compare on this the exposition of the 
appropriate passages. 

4. With regard, finally, to the time when, and the place where, 
the epistle was written, as also to the historical circumstances con- 
nected with it in general, the epistle itself informs us that it was 
written soon after the departure of the apostle from Crete. Further, 
that the apostle intends to pass the ensuing winter in Nicopolis, 
and Titus is to join him there ; from which, of course, it does not 
follow that the apostle writes from Nicopolis, as the subscription 
would lead us to believe. From the circumstance that ApoUos is 
at Crete and is invited to come io the apostle, it may at least be 
inferred that the epistle was not written till after the apostle's 
acquaintance with Apollos, consequently not till after Acts xviii. 
24, ss. (De Wette.) These are the data furnished by the epistle 
itself on this point. But when was the apostle in Crete ? Which 
Nicopolis is meant ? When was the epistle written ? 

The epistle itself says nothing in reply to these questions. We 
must therefore seek their solution by comparing and combining the 
data which history furnishes. The Acts of the Apostles, as is 
well known, mentions only one visit made by the apostle to Crete, 
xxvii. 7, ss., on the occasion of his passage from Caesarea to Rome ; 
and indeed some of the learned have believed that this was the 


time, when theapoeileB atay in Crete mentioned in the epistle 
took place. I deem it saperflaons anew to refate in this investi- 
gation, yiews which have long since been refuted, and which in 
more recent times have found no new advocate, and refer therefore 
in regard to this hypothesis to Bohl's conclusive remarks against 
it, p. 123, ss., Matthies, p. 190. If the Acts of the Apostles give 
no further positive information on this subject, they, on the other 
hand, by their acknowledged incompleteness, furnish all the more 
free scope for hypotheses. I merely notice the view taken by L. 
Gapelltts, — that the apostle in his second missionary tour through 
Syria and Celicia (Acts xv. 41), made an excursion thence to 
Crete ; against which Bohl, p. 125, ss., Matthies, p. 191, s. Fur- 
ther, the hypothesis of J. D. Micbaelis and others, according to 
which the apostle, during his stay of a year and a half at Corinth, 
preached the gospel at Crete (Acts xviii. 1, ss.), is also satisfac- 
torily refiited by Bohl, p. 126, Matthies, p. 191. The circum- 
stance mentioned above, — that on account of ApoUos, iii. 18, the 
epistle cannot have been written previous to what we read at Acts 
xviii. 24, ss., — is decisive against these views. They have besides 
found no other advocate in more recent times. On the other hand, 
the view which now comes to be mentioned, namely, that the apostle 
visited Crete with Titus on the occasion of his return from Corinth 
to Syria (Acts xviii. 18, 19), and wrote the epistle from Ephesus, 
has more recently found influential advocates in Hug, Hemsen, 
and others. But against it likewise may be urged the circum- 
stance just noticed, that it was not till afler this that Apollos be- 
came a Christian, and still later that he entered into connection 
with the apostle. In no case then could the epistle have been 
written during the stay in Ephesus, of which we have an account 
in Acts xviii, 19 — 22 (comp. Bohl, p. 137), but must have been 
written at a later period, after the apostle had been in Jerusalem 
and Antioch, had passed through Galada and Phrygia, and returned 
to Ephesus (Acts xix. 1, ss.) But we cannot place, even in this 
period, the commencement of the relation that afterwards subsisted 
between Paul and Apollos, according to the account in the Acts 
of the Apostles (Bohl, p. 188), and then, too (a point which Bohl 
does not notice), so long an interval between the apostle s depar- 
ture from Crete and the writing of the epistle, cannot be reconciled 
with the statement of the epistle itself. For it is to be regarded 


as a settled point, tbat the epistle cannot have been' written long 
after the apostle's departure from Crete. How little does this 
view consist also with the intention to spend the winter at Nico- 
polis ; for the idea of his spending the winter at that Nicopolis, 
which is situated between Antioch and Tarsus, is not to be enter- 
tained ; and how many hypotheses must be had recourse to in 
order to make it harmonize with the accounts about Titus in the 
second epistle to the Corinthians ? Comp. Bohl, a. a. Q. And 
how little, in fine, this view agrees with all the personal references 
in the epistle to Titus, as well in respect to what is not said a» to 
what is said, has been shown by Matthies, p. 191, 192. This 
view will hardly find a new advocate, as indeed it does not occur 
among those most recently put forth. A step farther on in the 
life of the apostle has been taken by Schmidt (Einl. ins Neue Test., 
i. p. 265) and others, inasmuch as he makes out the aposdes stay 
in Ephesus, of which we have an account in Acts zix. 10, xx. 31, 
to have been the period, in the course of which the apostle visited 
Crete and wrote the epistle. Bohl, p. 141 ; Matthies, p. J 92, ss. 
But the same difficulty encounters this hypothesis, — that Apollos 
was already in Corinth, Acts xix. 1 ; and also, that although the 
accounts in the Acts of the Apostles do not exclude the supposition 
of such an intermediate journey, it is still impossible to show how 
the spending the winter at Nicopolis corresponds to these circum- 
stances. This hypothesis also requires us to admit tbat Titus did 
not go to Nicopolis, but met the apostle again at Ephesus, whence 
he was deputed to Corinth ; and it may also be objected to it, that 
nothing is known to us of Tychicus previous to what we read of 
him in Acts xx. 4. We shall thus have to advance still farther 
forwards in the life of the apostle. The sole remaining conjecture 
that is possible, — if it is to be supposed that the apostle visited 
Crete during the period of his history comprehended by the Acts 
of the Apostles, — is, that this visit took place before or during the 
second stay at Achaia, consequently in the period referred to ia 
Acts XX. 1 — 3. So Baronius, Lightfoot, Lardner, Hammond, 
and others, with the most recent commentator on the Pastoral 
Epistles,—- Matthies. We shall therefore enter more particularly 
into this view as it is represented by Matthies. According to 
it, the apostle visited Crete during his three months' stay in 
Greece, left Titus there, and wrote the epistle before his departure 


for Jerusalem, either from Nicdpolis or some place in the neigh* 
bourhood. The apostle had gone to Nicopolis in Epiras on 
account of the plots of the Jews against him, with the view of re- 
turning thence through Macedonia to Jerusalem. It must be con- 
ceded to this hypothesis, that it partly corresponds to the persons 
named in the epistle, in connexion with what is otherwise known 
regarding them, Matthies, p. 201, s. For both Titus and Tychi- 
cus were along with the apostle at the same time in Greece, and 
1 Cor. xvi. 12 shows this also to have been probable of Apollos, 
although nothing depends on this in his case, for it is not necessary 
to suppose that he went to Crete along with the apostle. It'is also 
true that Titus is not named in Acts xx. 4, 5, along with the others. 
This, however, is all that can be said in behalf of this view. In 
everything else it depends for its truth (as Dr Baur has already ob- 
served against Matthies) on the indefiuiteness of the accounts in the 
Acts of the Apostles, which give us no further information re- 
garding the apostle's stay in Greece than is contained in the words 
XX. 2, 3, He went into Greece^ and there abode three months. 
And when the Jews laid wait for him as he was about to sail 
into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia, It must 
certainly be acknowledged that Lnke does not relate with exactness, 
if the apostle during these three months of which the historian says 
that he spent them in Greece, visited Crete and preached the gos- 
pel there. Matthies himself must also admit that the period of 
three months is short for the stay in Greece and in Crete together. 
It is indeed true that the apostle writes in 2 Cor. x. 16, that he 
purposes to preach the gospel in the regions beyond Achaia ; but 
we have only to call to mind Acts xix. 21, and those passages in 
the epistle to the Romans already cited, in which he expresses his 
intention to come to Home, in order to have no doubt that Crete 
was not the place referred to. Further, the Nicopolis in Epirus, 
where the apostle intends to winter, will not correspond to this 
view, unless violence be done to the words of the Acts of the 
Apostles, already quoted. According to these words, the plan of 
his return to Jerusalem was already formed, and it was to be by 
sea, when the plots of the Jews compel him to take the land route 
through Macedonia, which he does forthwith, and in which those 
named in vv. 4 and 5 give him a convoy as far as Asia, they again 
continuing their journey from Philippi to Troas by land, the 


apostle, on the other hand, making the same journey by sea, and 
again meeting his companions at Troas. How can we imagine that 
the apostle on this journey should have passed over to the western 
coast of Epirus, to Nicopolis ? And that with the intention of 
passing the winter there ? While his travelling companions go 
before him to Troas, can he have passed the winter at Nicopolis 
and yet have met them at Troas ? But according to Matthies, the 
apostle only passed some weeks of the winter at Nicopolis, and 
proceeded forwards on his journey earlier than he anticipated, when* 
he wrote the epistle from Nicopolis or some place in the neighbour- 
hood. He went then to Nicopolis with the intention of passing 
the winter there. And from thence he writes to Titus instructing 
him how he is to fulfil the commission given to him ; so that he 
reckons on Titus' staying for some length of time in Crete. Then 
he purposes to send Artemas or Tychicus, and not till after their 
arrival is Titus to come to the apostle at Nicopolis. The apostle 
then must have intended to remain at Nicopolis at least so long as 
was necessary for all this to be done, while his travelling com- 
panions are already on their way to Troas, where be is to meet 
them. How is this conceivable ? And further, the apostle intends 
to send Tychicus to Crete ; the same who, according to Matthies, 
is represented as having, along with several others, accompanied 
the apostle from Greece, and gone before him to Troas at his own 
suggestion, while the apostle, owing to the plots that were formed 
against him, goes to Nicopolis, and writes this epistle from Ni- 
copolis or some place near it, after Tychicus had already set out on 
his journey to Troas before him, at the apostle's own suggestion. 
That is a manifest contradiction. In general, however, the state- 
ment in the Acts does not warrant the supposition that the apostle's 
companions set out before him, and Matthies must rather have re- 
course to the conjecture, that the whole company intended to pass 
the winter at Nicopolis. (Compare Meyer on the passage.) But 
the hypothesis now under consideration is untenable also in a chro- 
nological point of view. The expression, / have delermined to 
winter, Tit. iii. 12, if not unduly refined upon, must be regarded 
as having been written before the winter set in ; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 6. 
If now, as Matthies maintains, the apostle passed only a few weeks 
at Nicopolis, is it possible that, notwithstanding of the haste with 
which he makes this journey to Jerusalem, he should not reach 


Pbjlippi till Easter ? (Acts xz. 6.) And leaving this oat of view, 
can it be deemed probable that the apostle should prepare to jour- 
ney irom Corinth to Syria by sea at the setting in of winter ? 
Does he not say in 1 Cor. xvi. 6, that he intends to spend the 
winter in Corinth ? And what hinders our supposing that he did 
this, as it does not appear that the plots of the Jews had given any 
cause for fear until he was about to set sail {fjLiXKomiavayeo'Oai) ? 
If this was the case, then Vve can understand how he should arrive, 
at Philippi at Easter. But we do not need to lay any stress on 
probabilities ; we have already seen that this hypothesis is involved 
in impossibilities and contradictions. Bdttger has put forth quite 
a new view* regarding the time of Paul's stay at Crete, and the date 
of this epistle a. a. Q. Abth. 4, p. 1 — 12. According to it the 
apostle was not once merely, but twice at Crete. First, in the 
period referred to in Acts xviii. 11, during, the first stay in Achaid, 
then in that of Acts xix. 22, 23, during his from two to three 
years* stay at Ephesus ; and he was even on the point of visiting 
Crete once more on his return from Greece to Jerusalem, when 
pirates hired by the Jews showed themselves and compelled him to 
take another direction. Titus was dismissed in a boat or second 
ship (?) to Crete, with parting words to this effect, " Set in order 
what is still wanting in the churches at Crete : as soon as I effect 
my escape I will write to you." The apostle then went by Mes- 
senia and Elis to Epirus. From that place he writes to Titus, and 
remains there until Titus has set in order the churches in Crete, 
and comes to him to Nicopolis, although *' his journey is towards 
Macedonia," and he is in great haste still to acrive at Jerusalem 
in proper time for the feast of Pentecost. This view unites in 
itself the difficulties of several others, and falls to pieces on Tit. 
i. 5, according to which the apostle was with Titus at Crete ; nor 
does it agree any better than those before mentioned with the 
simple account in Acts xx. 3, 4. For fUXKovn avofyeadcu does 
not surely mean : at the moment when the apostle was about to 
reach the high sea ? And eyivero yimfAtf rov viroarpi^ttf hik 
MaKeSovla/9 does not surely imply : the apostle had sailed to Epirus 
in order to pass the winter there, and afi;erwards to return through 
Macedonia. But it certainly implies : that he chose to perform 
the journey by land rather than by sea. ^ 

But against all these views, which would bring the apostle's visit 


to Crete and the date of the epistle within the period described by 
the Acts of the Apostles, might be urged, not merely the circum- 
stance that it were strange to find in Acts xxvii. 7, ss., no mention 
made of Christians in Crete, if indeed the apostle had laboured 
there before and Titus had set churches in order. I lay no parti- 
cular stress on that ; but it appears to me that the close kindred 
relation which the Pastoral Epistles bear to one another in form and 
matter, would remain unaccountable in spite of all that Hemsen 
says to the contrary, if the epistle to Titus were separated from the 
others by any considerable period of time ; as De Wette also ad- 
mits. Comp. the General Introduction. And what special objec- 
tion can be drawn from the epistle itself, against the supposition of 
its having been written during the period between the first and 
second imprisonment (the possibility of a second imprisonment 
being once granted) ? In regard to the persons named in the 
< |)istle, no contradiction could be discovered ; the apostle had 
ulready been long acquainted with ApoUos ; and, with the manner 
in which Tychicus is mentioned, Ephes. vi. 22, Col. iv. 7, corres- 
pond. The apostle's return to the east is rendered certain by Phil. 
i. 25, ii. 24 ; Philem. 22. The visit to Crete then finds a natural 
occasion in Acts xxvii. 7, ss. Matthies, a decided opponent of this 
view, thinks, that a journey comprehending such a circuit from east 
to west must have been fruitful in events ; the period between the 
first and second imprisonment was that on which the distresses 
of the Christians were severer than thev had ever been: and 
yet no word of all this is found in the epistle. But the reason 
of this appears at once, if th^ apostle after he was liberated 
was along with Titus in Crete. All that he had to communi- 
cate on these subjects would thus jiave been told to Titus be- 
fore. If, however, as I am constrained to think, on the ground 
of the passages in the epistle to the Phihppians and in the 
epistle to Philemon, the apostle went to Crete immediately after 
being liberated, and not first of all to Spain, he would then 
have nothing to tell about a journey extending from east to west 
Is the epistle, moreover, from beginning to end, purely an offi- 
cial communication designed to give the necessary instructions 
and hints to Titus in a concise form ; what place is there 
in it for such accounts as those to which Matthies refers ? Comp. 
here also what is said in the General Introduction* When, how- 


ever, Matthies goes on to say, that the planting of the Cretan 
churcbes, the place from vhiuh the epistle was written, as well as the 
apostle's stay (in Nicopolis ?), must remain in deep obscurity, we 
would refer in reply to the General Introduction, where it has been 
shown how fully on our hypothesis all the data of the Pastoral 
Epistles harmonize with each other/ 


Those which are urged specially against this epistle, and in par- 
ticular against its historical intimations, are the following (comp. 
De Wette, p. 1, ss., of his commentary.) 

1. The epistle can find no place in the history of the apostle s 
life ; in reply to which all that is necessary has been said in the 
General Introduction. 

2. It is said to have been written shortly after the planting of 
the churches in Crete, and before they were fully settled. Sut with 
this do not agree the complaints which we find in the epistle of 
the number of heretics in Crete, and their pernicious influence (i. 
10, s.)» insomuch that even in the choice of a presbyter it was to 
be a question, whether he held fast the true doctrine (i. 9.) " How 
could such a reaction be formed so speedily in the bosom of the 
Cretan Christianity ? If, however, it be supposed that those here- 
tics were strangers who had forced themselves in on the church, 
they must at least have plied their disorderly course for some 
length of time, so that the epistle could not have been written 
shortly after the planting of Christianity in the island." To this 
we reply, that De Wette himself shows that Christianity cannot 
have been planted for the first time in Crete shortly before by the 
apostle. It is thus quite unnecessary to suppose that such a re- 
action was formed so speedily ; it may have been formed long be- 
fore« The conjecture is also unnecessary, that strangers intruded 
themselves on the church, who yet must have pursued their dis- 
orderly course for some length of time, according to which the 
epistle cannot have been written shortly after the planting of 
Christianity in the island. It is true that it was not written shortly 
after the planting of Christianity ; for the apostle did not plant 

1 Compare the appendix at the ooncluaioii of tbe epiatle. 


it, but foaad it already there. His epistle, which was vritteo shortly 
after his departure from Crete, was not therefore written shortly 
after the planting of Ghristianily there, and the '* heresy" did not 
first make its appearance after his departure ; on the contrary, the 
apostle knows it from personal observation, from haying seen it 
for some length of time, as even De Wette maintains, p. 2. More- 
over, nothing is said in the epistle of a heresy properly so called. 
It is evident then, that in order to the removal of these objections, 
the critics who urge them need only to give credit to the state- 
ments of the epistle itself, which they themselves acknowledge, 
against their supposition that it was the apostle who planted 
Christianity in Crete, for which there is no foundation in the 

3. The great success which is said to have attended the apostle 
in Crete, implies such a measure of receptivity for the gospel on the 
part of the inhabitants, as gives an appearance of injustice to the 
charge brought against the Cretans in i. ) 2, s., as to their depraved 
disposition, a charge too founded on foreign testimony. For the 
same reason the absence of all joyful and thankful acknowledg- 
ment on the part of the apostle seems strange. In the epistle to 
the Oalatians, although the first part is not written in a tone of 
grateful acknowledgment, there are stiU not wanting many kind 
and confidential expressions. To this we reply : that this epistle, 
unlike that to the Gralatians, was not addressed to the church. If 
this had been the case, then doubtless it would have contained ex- 
pressions of the same nature. Chiefly however : from what source 
do we learn of the great success which Paul had at Crete ? The 
epistle says nothing of this; it does not represent the spread of the 
gospel there as the work of the apostle at all. On the contrary*, 
the apostle had there observed grievous corruptions in the Chris- 
tian life, as De Wette himself admits, and was not able entirely to 
put them down during his stay ; wherefore he left Titus behind to 
set in order what was still wanting. The whole objection rests be* 
sides on the unfounded supposition, that the apostle, during his 
short stay in Crete, was the first to plant Christianity there, and 
that at the same time he spread it over the entire island. If this 
was not the case, then may the charge against the national charac- 
ter of the Cretans have been well enough founded, a charge which we 
find confirmed, too, from other sources. There appears the utmost 


propriety in the apostle's making this charge to rest on foreign 
testimony, that, namely, of a poet who was regarded hy themselves 
as a prophet. Comp. the exposition. Here then also the oritics 
have only to give up their supposition, and the truth follows. 

4. But the moral and ecclesiastical state of the Cretan Ohris- 
tians, implies that Christianity must have existed for a. greater 
length of time there ; in proof of which reference is most justly 
made to the words of i. 6, having believing children, and to the 
moral qualifications that are elsewhere laid down there. To this 
we have nothing to say, but thankfully to accept it as an acknow- 
ledgment of our assertion. The critics have not been able even in 
the remotest degree to prove that it cannot have been so, and that 
the apostle must have been the first who carried the news of the 
gospel to Crete ; comp. Acts ii. 11, and on i. 5 of this epistle. 

5. It is remarkable, as the epistle was written soon after the 
apostle had been in Crete, that we find in it not a single allusion 
to what he experienced and did there« &c. Quite difierent is the 
case in 1 Thess. To this objection also what has been already said 
applies, viz., that the apostle does not write to the Cretans. If 
this had been the case, then probably such allusions would not 
have been wanting. The critics who urge this objection must first 
show, that it was necessary for the apostle to speak of these things 
to Titus, who had been in Crete at the same time with himself, 
and had seen and heard everything along with him. 

6. It is objected that the epistle does not answer its end, or 
correspond to the relation between the writer and the receiver. 
What is said as to the qualifications to be looked for in the 
choice of presbyters is self-evident. The same may be said of the 
other point, namely, the refutation of the heretics. As on the one 
hand, they themselves are indistinctly characterized, so on the 
other nothing is said in opposition to them which might serve as a 
snitable refutation. This end is not served by what is said in i. 
15 on things pure and impure, or by the superficial moral rules in 
ii. 1 — 10, coupled with the reference to the practical spirit of 
Christianity ii. 11 — 14. Such are the objections made by the 
critics, who here and there also make trifling admissions. With re- 
gard to the charge thati. 5 — 9, ii. 1 — 8, is too general and self- 
evident, we have endeavoured to reply to it in the exposition. Fur- 
ther, that the moral precepts in ii. 1, ss., are superficial, and not 
founded on any principle, is, when viewed in the light of vv. 11 — 14, 


altogether incorrect. In general it is a strange method, to aim at 
establishing conclusions regaiding the genuineness of an epistle, on 
the ground of its containing what is otherwise known or unknown. 
That method alone can be the just one» according to whicli it is in- 
quired, whether the contents of the epistle correspond to the state of 
things with which it deals. If this state of things render it necessary 
to lay an emphasis on things that may be already known, no one 
surely is entitled to take offence at the fact of their being already 
known. We would only add that Schleiermacher (Sendschreiber, p. 
1 95) acknowledges how characteristic are the precepts in the epistle 
to Titus, according to the distinctions of sex and age. Gomp. what 
is said on this point in the exposition. Here then also we have to 
do with the arbitrary suppositions of the critics, which they haye only 
to sacrifice to the real contents of the epistle, in order to come at the 
trath, but which in reality they hold fast in opposition to these. 
Again it is said that the heretics are indistinctly characterized. 
We have already seen, and the exposition will further show, what 
a distinct picture is drawn in this epistle of the corruptions of the 
Cretan Christians. If, however, it is Gnostics similar to those of 
the second century (De Wette), or even these themselves (Baur) 
that are meant, then we freely confess that they are not only indis- 
tinctly but very indistinctly characterized. It is, moreover, re- 
markable that De Wette should here say that the heretics are *' in- 
distinctly'* characterized, after he had said before that the apostle 
wrote concerning them with *' a knowledge which pre-supposed a 
lengthened observation of them," (p. 2.) ' A similar reply is far- 
ther to be made to the objection, that this epistle contains nothing 
in opposition to these heretics that might serve as an apt refutation of 
their errors, and that this desideratum is not supplied by the " su- 
perficial and familiar moral precepts," in ii. 1 — 10 ; iii. 1, s. This 
opinion is founded on the erroneous supposition that the Pastoral 
Epistles aim at refuting a dogmatical system. What the apostle 
says on '' the heresy," is more by way of characterizing than of 
refuting it ; besides, ii. 1, ss. is not in the remotest way intended 
to serve as a refutation of heresies* Here also are manifest the false 
suppositions. The epistle becomes altogether unintelligible on the 
supposition of its having been written in the second century for the 
purpose of combating the Gnostics and promoting hierarchical ten- 
dencies, on which comp. the General Introduction, § 3. 

( 257 ) 


or THl 



(Chap. i. 1—4.) 

The insoription and salutation remind us of the apostle's usual 
manner. He desigimtea himself by his apostolical office, whence 
flows his authority to give the instructions and exhortations that 
follow. He then names the person to whom the epistle is addressed, 
with a reference to the relation in which he stands to him, and ends 
with the usual apostolical salutation. The commencement of this 
epistle bears a close resemblance to that of the epistle to the Ro- 
mans, and the epistle to the Galatians, inasmuch as in these 
epistles also the designation dwoaroXo^ is more exactly defined. 
And it may be inferred from this that here also, as in these epistles, 
the more full and definitive representation of the apostle's apostolic 
office, stands in closest connexion with the design of the epistle, 
and is as it were a comprehensive index to its contents. But 
while the commencement of this epistle, bears as a whole a com- 
mon stamp as compared with that of these other epistles, there 
appears in it at the same time along with this similarity, the pecu« 
liarity which belongs to the contents, and consequently also to the 
form of this epistle ; and that in a manner so easy, and yet so 
decided, as to be altogether unaccountable on the supposition of its 
having proceeded from an imitator of the apostle s epistles, who had 
any wish to conceal himself. For what could have been easier and 
more natural, than for an imitator to avoid such peculiarities as 


268 TtTUS 1. 1. 

servant o/God, God our Saviour, Christ our Saviour, and in trhese 
also to adhere to tfae pattern whicb was presented to bim in the 
rest of the apostle s epistles ? 

V^r. 1. Paul, a servant of Ood, and an apostle of Jesus 
Christ, &c. Jot)Xo9 O^ov here, in the same sense as in Acts xvi. 
17, Bev. i. 1, XV. 8. x. 1, &c., not as in 1 Pet ii. 16, Boy. vii. 8, 
&c. It is the more general designation of the office, which finds its 
special expression in what follows, namely, aTrooroXo?, &o. Hence 
Calvin justly observes : he thus descends from the genus to the 
species. The two predicates by which the apostle here designates 
himself, occur nowhere else in the same connexion. Even the ex- 
pression servant of God, is not used by the apostle elsewhere in 
this particular sense; although we find servant of Jesus Christ in 
Rom. i. 1, Oal. i. 10, Phil. i. 1, as the more general form of his 
official designation, and also as designating the relation in which 
the Christian as such stands to Christ as his Lord, 1 Cor. vii. 22, 
Eph. vi. 6 ; in both these passages, however, the context gives 
special occasion to this appellation. TSi^m. i. 1 has most similarity 
to this passage, inasmuch as there the apostl» first represents him- 
self generally as the servant of -Jesus Christ, and then in like 
manner adds the more special designation, called to be an apostle. 
If it was his design in this passage to represent his office in its 
twofold aspect, with reference both to God and to Christ, we 
find the complete counterpart of this in Bom. i. 1, where, with 
reference to the former, he calls himself servant, with reference to 
the latter, apostle. It may be said with truth that the apostle must 
thus express himself according to his usual nkanner. But it may 
still be asked, why he here in particular designates his office accord- 
ing to this twofold aspect. To this it has been answered that he has 
already in his eye the Jewish opponents, in opposition to whom he 
aims at establishing bis own authority and that of Titus; or he so 
characterizes himself on account of the church, and in order that 
by this appeal to his own dignity and authority, more weight and 
value might be imparted to the arrangements of Titus, as one who 
was commissioned by him. But the epistle was not written for the 
church, and much less for the opponents, so as to give any occasion 
for confirming his authority and that of Titus; it was written only 
to and for Titus, with reference to whom there was no necessity for 
any such attestation of the apostle's official standing. It might 

TITUS I. 1. 269 

indeed be supposed, nevertheless, that the thought of those Jewish 
teachers called forth in the apostle's mind the consciousness, that 
as he was an apostle of Jesus Christ, so was he also and therewith 
a servant of God ; and thus, while he refers to his calling, in which 
the exhortations that follow have their ground, he calls himself a 
servant of Ood as well as an apostle of Jesus Christ, But are 
we not here within the sphere whioh belongs to a writer s individu- 
ality, and where explanation finds its lioiits ? Who will venture 
to explain the reason why the apostle designates himself in Bom. 
i. 1, by servant of Jesus Christ, in 1 Cor* i. 1, by caUed to be an 
apostle^ in 2 Cor. i. 1, hj apostle ? {Ai after a7roirroXo9 is not to 
be understood as expressing opposition, but serves merely to intro- 
duce something diflTerent, Winer, § 57, 4, p. 520.) On the other 
band, the design of the following expressions by which the airoa- 
7t>Xo9 is more exactly defined, is plainly *»fttiifiaflfr. i according to the 
faith of Oods elect, &c. We have already, noticed the similarity 
here to Bom. i. 1, ss., Oal, i. 1, ss. The relation of these words 
to the subsequent contents of the epistle is not to be mistaken. The 
end of his apostolic office is described in these words, as the bring- 
ing about of faith in the elect of God, and the knowledge of the 
truth, whilst the subject matter of his preaching, with which he 
was entrusted, according to the commandment of God our Saviour, is 
described as the hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, pro- 
mised before the world began, but hath in his own time manifested 
bis word through the preaching which is committed to the apostle. 
The manner in which the apostle here more exactly defines his 
office, can only be understood by viewing it in opposition to those 
whose knowledge was not directed to the truth that leads to godli* 
ness, and whose doctrine had not for its essential contents the hope 
of eternal life. Accordingly we find errors of this kind really re- 
presented in the epistle, i. 10 — 16, iii. 8 — 11. And besides these 
particular passages which directly refer to those corruptions, the 
whole epistle is just an efflux and evidence of the apostolic calling, 
which has for its end the faith of the elect, and the knowledge of 
the truth according to godliness, while its doctrine has the hope of 
eternal life for its essential import. On the construction of vv. 
1 — 3, which proceed without interruption, see Winer, § 64, 1, 2, 
p. 614. To come to particulars, it is to be observed iheXKark 

vitmv icaX hrtypcoatv do not mean *' according to, or in 

R 2 

260 TITU8 I. 1 . 

conformity with*' the faith and the knowledge. The faith and 
knowledge of individaals, are not the rule or measure of the 
apostle 8 office. The only true rendering of tcarii is " for, to, des- 
tined for." Comp. Winer, § 53, d. p. 479 ; 2 Tim. i. 1 ; 2 Cor. 
xi. 6. It occurs nowhere else in connexion with am-ocrdkoq. On 
the ahsence of the article with tlie following nouns, irUmv hrlypm- 
aw ikKe/er&v, comp. Winer, § 18, 2 b. p. 142, with deoiij § 18, 1 
Anm. p. 138, with aXi^Oeia, ibid. p. 136, s. — JKaxA irltrnv ixKeK- 
T&v Oeov. — The expression i/cSe/crol is transferred from the Old 
Testament Israel to that under the New Testament dispensation ; 
comp. Deut. xiv. 2, 20 ; Ps. cv. 43, cvi. 6, &c., f rt rT^ 'n'^rS' 
This designation has its ground not in anything belonging to those 
who are thus distinguished, but in the eternal act of the divine 
will, the irpoOeai^, Bom. v. 28, or ISla trpoOeai^, 2 Tim. i. 9, in 
virtue of which they are fore-ordained in Christ to salvation. How 
the predestination is realized in time is shown in Rom. viii. 30, 
compared with Luke xviii. 7 ; Bom. viii. 33 ; Col. iii. 12, &o. 
Matthies observes on this expression, that the difficulty in the way 
of taking Kard as a final preposition is shewn by this, namely, that 
iKXetcTol must then either be understood of those who are not Chris- 
tians, but are to be brought to the faith according to the divine decree, 
or if it be understood of Christians, that xard requires an extension 
of the sense, namely, *' for the furtherance of the faith of the elect." 
But Kard means generally, '' for, to." The sense is : the faith of 
the elect is aimed at. — ^EKXeKrol, however, — which, as the parallel 
member, ek hrlrfvooaof, &c., proves, is to be taken quite generally, 
not with reference to certain individuals — signifies neither Chris- 
tians nor not Christians, but such as are chosen of God to salvation. 
The faith of the elect of God is the destination of the apostle's 
office ; it is all one whether the KXrjai^ has already taken effect in 
them or not. For, that his apostolical office hath this end and de- 
sign also with regard to those who are already Christians, is plain 
from Phil. i. 5, &c. De Wette's supposition of a prolepsis, in 
support of which he adduces 2 Tim. ii. 10, Acts xiii. 18, is there- 
fore unnecessary. The first of these passages is in regard to this 
point quite the same with the present, and the second shows, how 
all faith on the part of individuals rests on the divine fore-ordina- 
tion, which manifests itself in their becoming believers ; so that 
they do not become elect by their faith, but become believers be- 

TITUS I. 1. 261 

cause they are elect, Gomp. Epfa. i. 4, and on the whole subject 
Kom. i. 5. When, moreover, we consider the reference to the pe- 
culiar error combated in the epistle, in this more fiiU and exact 
representation of the apostolical office, which comes out especially 
in the parallel clause Koi hriyvoxraf, &c., we cannot help thinking 
that this expression also, elect of Gody is used in opposition to 
those whose faith rested on no such election of God. — KaX eni- 
yvwnvy &c. ; in these words the apostle denotes the second thing at 
which his office aims. By this iwiyvctxri^ is meant a knowledge 
resting on faith, and penetrating ever farther and farther into the 
truth. Gomp. Phil. i. 9. For eiryyvtaai^ is, as Wahl observes : 
Plena et accurata cognitio. Gomp. on hrlrfwaai,^^ Harless on 
Eph. i. 17, p. 95, 8. On aXtiOeia^ the Christian truth, comp. Eph. 
i. IS. This truth is more exactly defined in the words which fol- 
low, as a truth which leads to godliness. On the article coming 
after the noun in aXriBeia^, comp. Winer, § 19, 4, p. 159. It is 
the opposite of a knowledge which has not to do with the truth 
that leads to godliness, but that leads away from this, i. 11 ; i. 16, 
&;o. Kara, as before, comp. 1 Tim. vi. 8. Here also Matthies is 
for taking Kara in the sense of '' conformable to," although he 
understands by aXi^Oeia the evangelical truth, as if the godliness to 
which this truth alone can lead, were a rule lying beyond it. *Evair 
fieia is not used by the apostle except in the Pastoral Epistles ; it 
is found, however, in Acts iii. 12, 2 Pet. i. 8, 6, and in other 
places. On the other hand we find ivae/Selv in an address by the 
apostle. Acts xvii. 22 ; and in like manner evtre/Sii^, Aotsxxii. 12 ; 
aae/Si]^, Bom. iv. 5, v. 6 ; ocreySeta, Bom. i. 18, xi. 26. If the 
apostle had to combat in the Pastoral Epistles an* error which 
tended to acre/Seui (2 Tim. ii. 16), as is abundantly evident firom 
the representation which is given of the opponents therein referred 
to, it is easy to account for the frequent occurrence of the term ivae- 
/Seia in these epistles ; it thus belongs to those expressions, the 
use of which is at once explained, by a reference to the state of 
things which the apostle had in his eye. And what was more na- 
tural than that the apostle who, at Bom. iv. 5, v. 6, denotes the • 
state of men previous to conversion by the term curefiti^, should 
use the term ivaefieia in opposition to those errors which result in 
a knowledge morally unfruitful, and lead away from a moral course, 
when he is laying stress on the moral aspect of Christianity, seeing 

262 TITUS T. 2. 

that this term denotes the opposite of that which he expresses by 
aaefii]^ and aaifieut (Bom. i. 18), and which he here finds fault 
with in his opponents ? If curi^eia, as the reverse of the ivaifieui 
here used, is a Pauline ezpressioui then iva-i/Seia cannot, as De 
Wette maintains, be an unpauline expression and idea ; and its 
use in these epistles is fully accounted for by the reference to the 
errors which are combated. Or, should the apostle have used the 
expressions Oe^Xarpeve^v or BovXeveiv, in opposition to the morally 
unfruitful, or rather altogether immoral course of those fMratoKo' 
yoi ; expressions which De Wette says he might have used, but 
which would only by possibility have conveyed his meaning, inas- 
much as De Wette himself admits, that no expression can be found 
in the other epistles to denote that which the apostle had to say in 
the given circumstances ? On the idea implied in iuailSeM, comp. 
ii. 11, 12; 1 Tim. i. 6. 

Ver. 2. In hope of eternal life, &c. These words, as De Wetto 
has already observed, are to be understood neither as more exactly 
determining the godlitiess, nor (he truth which leads to godliness. 
For what proper sense do the words receive from Matthies' expla- 
nation : '' the truth which is conformable to piety derives its per- 
manence from the hope of eternal life ?" Is not the dXi^^ia re- 
presented as the objective truth ; on which the by-clause 17 Kar hnrir 
fieuiv can make no alteration ? But scarcely even can these 
words be connected with aTroaroXo^, for in this case the co- 
ordinate position of the inl, with the xard, would have been 
signified by a Bi or in some such way. It only remains then 
with De Wette to connect eir iXm-lBi with the whole sentence 
Karh ttIoto/, &c., or with the second member, teal hrlrfvwriv* The 
latter seems to me the more natural. The apostle has just said 
what that is, which is the aim of his office, namely, the faith of the 
elect, and the knowledge of the truth according to godliness ; and he 
might have mentioned as a third thing at which the apostolical office 
aims, the hope of eternal life. But he prefers, after having in the 
words, truth which leads to godliness, more exactly determined the 
subject matter of this knowledge, to mention the third thing like- 
wise in its relation to the knowledge thus determined ; it is a know- 
ledge the subject matter of which is that truth, and the ground and 
o(Hidition of which is the hope of eternal life, by which it is borne 
up and directed. ^Eiri I take in the sense " on or with ;" comp. 

TITU8 I. 2. 263 

Winer, § 52, o. p. 469. OlabauaeD, sb denoting the " end," '* to- 
wards the hopa." On the idea expreeeed in §b»^ auiafioq compare 
iii. 7. There lies in the wckrds iw^ 4\iri&t, a farther opposition to 
that vain talking, i. 10 ; iii. 9, which discovers nothing of this hope 
of eternal life. Very little weight will be given to what De Wette 
here observes, namely, that the apostle never makes eternal life the 
subject of hope, and of Old Testament prophecies. Is not this 
eternal life represented as the end of all oar striving in Bom. ii. 7, 
Gal. vi. 8, &c., as the sum of that which Christ hath obtained for 
OS, Bom. V. 21, vi. 23 ? Why then may he not represent it here 
as the object of Christian hope, and as the sum of all the divine 
promises ? The single passage, Bom. vi. 23, the gift of God is 
eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord, is of itself sufficient to justify 
this. The apostle then characterizes this §a>^ aSmvio^ — for the fjv 
refers to it — as the subject of promise by the infallible God, irpo 
Xpovmv alo9vuov, ^EvrfyyetKaro in the sense of promise, as used 
elsewhere by the apostle, Bom. iv. 29 ; Gal. iii. 1 9. *A'^evSii<; only 
here; with respect to the idea, comp. Heb. vi. 18 ; Bom. iii. 4, xi. 
29 ; 1 Cor. i. 9. ITpo j(p6voiv aUopwv may denote either what has 
been before all time, as in 2 Tim. i. 9 = vpo r&v aiiovtov^ 1 Cor. 
ii. 7, or what has been done before everlasting, ue, very ancient 
times. This ihdeterminateness has its ground, in the absence of 
the article being possible in each of the two cases. The sense of 
the passage is therefore not all at once to be determined by a com- 
parison with 2 Tim. i. 9, 10, and Bom. xvi. 25, where j(p6vot aim- 
vioi occurs, but solely from the context. We have in the passage 
a double antithesis composed of kirriyyelyaro and i^Mviptoae, and 
of xpovmv cLUdvlwf and Kaipok tBloi^, Now, if the last expression 
does not necessitate our supposing as its opposite that which has 
preceded all time, the first expression is decidedly against such an 
interpretation ; for the term irrarfyiKKeaOcu can by no means be 
used to denote a promise of eternal life made before all time, and 
recourse must then be had to the grammatically incorrect render- 
ing : promittere decrevit (Heydenreich.) It may be so explained in 
2 Tim. i. 9 (comp. the exposition), but, while BoOeiaav in that 
passage may correspond to this act before all time, ^a77eXX€<r- 
Oai does not ; and the same is the case with the analogous passages 
£ph. iii. 9, the mystery which was hid in God, airo t&v aUivoiv^ 
Bom. xvi. 25, the mystery which was kept secret, xpopoi^ aitavloi^. 

264 TITUS I. 3. 

1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Col. i. 26 ; Eph. i. 4, hath chosen us in him, irpo 
KarafioKrj^ Koafiov* All these passages, as they agree with 2 Tim. 
i. 9, so they as directly contradiot the sentiment that the ^caff 
auui/to9 was hefore all time the suhject of a divine promise ; for 
then a mystery sealed or hid in Ood, onto r&v alol}vwv, would he 
impossihie. So also De Wette. Olshausen, on the other hand, 
appears to understand the expression of the divine decree, as he 
refers to Eph. iii. 1 1 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; De Wette, on the contrary, 
refers justly to Luke i. 70 ; Bom. i. 2. The expression air alA- 
V09 in the former of these passages has suhstantially the same sense 
as the clause in our passage. It corresponds to the aim of the 
passage, which is to represent that which is now revealed as a thing 
long before promised, to refer it with Grotius to the earliest pro- 
mises of salvation, which is here denoted by §e»^ cuavto^. The 
whole by-clause, however, has undoubtedly for its object to bring 
into view the greatness and importance of that which is now made 
manifest, inasmuch as it forms the essential subject matter of the 
apostle's preaching, and must form also, as the hope of eternal life, 
the fundamental tone of mind in the Christian, ii. 13. 

Ver. 3. Hath manifested. The strict antithesis to this is the ex- 
pression hid in Col. i. 26, &o., which is perceptible in every 
other modification of this antithesis, comp. Bom. xvi. 25, 26 ; 

2 Tim. 1. 9, 10. Thus in our passage the thing promised is rela- 
tively hid, and the fulfilment of the promise is the manifestation 
of that which was hid, the foil revelation of the thing promised. 
That ifuipepovp in the same connexion as here is a familiar expres- 
sion of the apostle, is shown by the passages above cited. KcupoU 
IBioi^ — Katpo^ properly *' measure," consequently not synonymous 
with the preceding }(p6vo^, but denoting the right point of time ; 
Kaipoly the seasonable times, comp. Meyer on Acts i. 7. 'IS/b(9, 
with retrospective reference to the subject, namely, Ood, denoting the 
times appointed by him, Acts i. 7 ; 1 Tim. vi. 15. The word is 
here used in its original signification, from which its other meanings, 
'* fit, adapted to," have been derived. On the sense of the whole 
expression comp. Oal. iv. 4. Toi/XoYoi^avrovhere takes the place 
of the ^1/ in the preceding verse. It will be seen at once why the 
apostle changes the object or rather its designation : eternal life is 
still in respect of its appearance a thing future, and is revealed only 
as Xoyo^. From this it follows that the etertial life is to be under- 

TITUS I. 3. 5^65 

stood as specifically included in the word, Bom. vi. 28 ; oomp. 
Winer, § 64, 11. 1, p. 616. It is therefore incorrect to understand 
the expression rov Xoyov airrov as standing in opposition to S»^ 
altovuis. But this word, it is added, is revealed iv terfpvyfjMTk, by 
which is to be understood the apostolical annunciation quite gene- 
rally, in the form of an annunciation of salvation ; so Ktipvy^uij 

1 Tim. iv. 17; 1 Cor. i. 21. — Which is commitied to me, the 
apostle adds this to express, that that eternal life long since pro 
mised, and now manifested, is the subject matter of his preaching. 
On the construction of hn^reiOfpf, comp. Gal. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ix. 7. 
Winer, § 32, 5, p. 261. According to the commandment of God, 
&c., in like manner, Bom. xvi. 26 ; 2 Cor. viii. 8 ; 1 Cor. vii. 6, 
25. The more common expression in this connexion, namely, ac- 
cording to the will of God, is found also in the Pastoral £pistles» 

2 Tim. i. 1. To God, the appellation our Saviour is added. 
The same designation of God is found in Luke i. 47, and Jude 25, 
and frequently in the Septuagint, as the translation of the Hebrew 

1^* rry^tt^ '^^ ^® ^^^®> ^B* ^^i^* ^ ' Is- ^"* ^> ^^' i^> ^1 ; 

then also in Sir. li. 1, comp. Wahl ; in the Pastoral Epistles, 
1 Tim. i. 1, ii. 3, iv. 10 ; Tit. ii. 10, iii. 4 ; in like man- 
ner it is often used of Christ, Tit. i. 4, ii. 18, iii. 6; 2 Tim. i. 10 ; 
as also elsewhere in the epistles of the apostle, £ph. v. 23 ; Phil, 
iii. 20 ; and likewise in John iv. 42 ; Acts v. 81 ; 2 Pet. i. 1, &c. 
The Pastoral Epistles then contain the ordinary use of the word in 
common with the other epistles of Paul, the more extraordinary use 
as applied to God, at least in common with the New Testament 
writings, and the usage of the Old Testament. The idea itself ex- 
pressed by the word is altogether Pduline; comp. 2 Cor. v. 19 : 
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, &c. How 
then should the expression itself, or the frequent use of it in the 
Pastoral Epistles (it occurs in all six times) prove anything against 
their genuineness ? Are we to regard it as an evidence of the 
spuriousness of the epistle to the Philippians, that the term cwa- 
dkkm occurs only there, and occurs there several times ? Comp. 
besides the General Introduction.! 

1 De Wette coDfliden what is said in this inscription, tt. 2 and 3, by way of ooDflnn- 

ing Uie^postle's o£Bc)al antbority, to be uoBuitabl«, on the sapposition of its having been 

in tended for Timothy. But according to the interpretation given above, tv. 2 and 3 

are not to be viewed as intended to confirm, bat rather to characterize the apostolic 


266 TITUS r. 5 — J 6. 

Ver. 4. The poison is here desigDated to whom the epistle is ad- 
dressed : to Titos mine own son, &c. It is therefore very arbi- 
trary to suppose all at once that the epistle was written for the 
church* The benediction at the conclusion by no means requires 
this supposition, comp. infra. The contents of the epistle too, as 
we shall see, accord only with the yiew of its haying been addressed 
to Titus i. 12, ss., son^ comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; Philem. x., points to 
the conversion of Titus through the instrumentality of the apostle* 
ri^i7<7to9, genuine, comp. Phil. iv. 3 ; on the whole expression see 
1 Tim. i. 2. According to ihe common faiths not of Titus alone, 
but of all Christians. He is a genuine son in virtue of the com- 
mon faith. Chrysostom 8 remark is substantially correct, r^ Kork 
T^v irloTiv ehreip rifv aZeK^irrqra ^p^aro, but corresponding less 
closely to the idea of the apostle, inasmuch as the Karh serves to 
more exactly determine the preceding expression. De Wette's 
opinion, however, that xarii r. <ir. is not a suitable expression, 
inasmuch as it corresponds rather to dSeX^9, is without foun- 
dation. Might not the father in a corporeal sense designate 
his child by yvriauov rhcvov tcarh kowov o^uk, with as much 
propriety as the brother designates his brother by f^vijiruw oBeK- 
^v MLTh tcoofop ciXfia ? Upon this follows the usual apostoli- 
cal salutation. "EXeo?, which we find in 1 Tim. i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 
2, is spurious in this passage, according to C.^^D.E.F.G,y &c., 
comp, Tischendorf. The clause our Saviour, added to Jesus Christy 
is peculiar to this passage, for in 1 Tim i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2, the com- 
mon expression our Lord is used. On x^P^^» ^*> comp. Olshausen 
on Bom. i. 7. 



(Chap. i. 5—16.) 

The apostle begins by reminding Titus of the commission given 
him to ordain presbyters, ver. 5, he then in vv. 6 — 8 specifies the 

office in a manner oonesponding to the contents of the epistle. Tbat the writer designates 
himself as an apostle, cannot appear nnsaitable in an epistle, which as an offlcial coo* 
miinication is» flrom beginning to end, an expression of apostolic antbortty. 


T1TU8 I. 6. 267 

qaalificatiooB of a presbyter in a mora] point of view» then with 
reepect to doetrine, vet. 9, and confirms the necessity of these 
qaalifioationSy vv. 10 — 16, by a| reference to the ciroomstances of 
the Cretan Christians, which demand on the part of the presbyter 
a decided adherence to the trae and sonnd doctrine, and an energe- 
tic application of it. 

Ver. 5. The apostle enters forthwith in medias res, as at Gal. i. 
6. For this cause have I left thee in Crete, that thou migbtest set 
in order what is yet wanting, and appoint elders in every city (from 
city to city) as I had instrocted thee. De Wette thinks that the 
words seem to imply, that Panl now for the first time makes Titus 
aware of his object in leaving him in Crete. This is quite ground- 
less already on account of the words, as I had instructed thee ; 
but also apart firom this. For when the apostle sets himself to give 
Titus further directions as to the execution of the commission which 
be had received, what more natural than that he should state in 
the outset the commission itself, as the Cheme, so to speak, of what 
follows ? The assertion is therefore well founded, which critics have 
urged strongly for a negative purpose, namely, that the epistle was 
written -soon after the apostle s departure from Crete ; since it is 
presupposed that Titus had not yet fulfilled the commission given 
to him* But the difiiculties which are built on this fact, have their 
ground properly not in the fact itself, that the epistle was written 
shortly after the apostle's departure, but in the false premises that 
Christianity was first planted and propagated in Crete by the 
apostle during his stay there ; while the contents of the epistle 
compel us to suppose that Christianity had already existed in Crete 
for some length of time. Is there any necessity then for main- 
taining, that because this epistle presents unmistakeable traces of 
an earlier existence of Christianity in Crete, it can therefore not 
be genuine ? Is it then inconceivable that, as in so- many other 
places (Acts viii. 4, ss., ix. 31 , ss., xi. 1 9, ss.), in Phoenicia, Cyprus, 
Antioch, so also in Crete, the gospelVas first announced not by an 
apostle, but by some other instrumentality, which was followed up 
by apostolic agency, purifying, confirming, uniting, and setting in 
order the elements already existing ? It is certain that the num- 
ber of Jews in Crete was very large, as may be seen from i. 10 
compared with Acts xi. ] 9. And do we not read in Acts ii. 1 1 
that Cretans were present at the Pentecostal miracle ? Might not 

268 TITU8 I. 6. 

the seed of Christianity have been transplanted to Crete at that 
time, while by means of the subsequent intercourse of the Jews 
of that island with Jerusalem, and the proximity to Greece, it 
might have been further spread? How far these hypotheses may 
be true is to us a matter of indifference ; so much at least is thereby 
shown,^that the traces of Christianity's having existed in Crete for 
some length of time, can fiimish no decisive evidence against the 
genuineness of this epistle. In what way, however, the special 
objections which critics have brought forward, are removed by this 
the true view of the case which the epistle itself presents to us, has 
been already shown in the Introduction, and will be further con- 
firmed in the exposition of particular passages. 

We suppose then that the apostle, on his arrival at Crete, found 
Christianity already planted and propagated there. But beside the 
truth, and connected with it, he found also many corruptions 
springing chiefly from Jewish-Christians ; much idle talking, 
foolish disputation on subjects having nothing in common with the 
morally renewing and quickening power of the truth ; much that 
was morally lax and altogether immoral in conduct. The/aiih 
was there, but there was a want of soundness in the faith. In 
like manner, in consequence of the absence of apostolic guidance 
hitherto, there was a want of all church order and government. 
The apostle during his short stay set himself to remedy these de- 
fects, and to advance the Christianity of Crete both in respect of 
its external form and internal nature. His work, however, was not 
fully accomplished when he had to leave the island. He, there- 
fore, left Titu» behind not as bishop or as archbishop, but, if we 
may use an expression belonging to a later period, as apostolical 
delegate, that he might set in order what still was wanting, and in 
particular ordain presbyters from city to city. For we may well 
suppose, that it was not the outward organization of a church 
which the apostle had first of all seen to be wanting in Crete, but 
that he had sought chiefly to improve the Christianity itself which 
he found there, so that the former was for the most part what he 
had left over to Titus. For the most part — for that this did not 
exhaust his commission, is evident from i. 18, chap. ii. and iii. 
The apostle wrote this epistle in order to give him instructions as 
to the manner in which he should fulfil his commission. It has 
indeed been thought strange, that the apostle should have written 

TITU8 1. 5. 2C9 

sacb an epistle to Titus so soon after having left Crete, and that 
he did not say to Titns by word of mouth what he found necessary, 
before his departure. We may confidently, however, leave this 
objection to itself, if only the contents of the epistle itself are found 
to be appropriate, and to correspond to the state of things that 

For this cause I left thee, &c. : thus the apostle begins. In- 
stead of Kariluirov, the reading air&airov is confirmed by prepon- 
derating authorities. The words, /or this cause, point emphatically 
to the following sentence which states the object for which Titus 
was left behind. This is denoted by the words, that thou mighiest 
set in order. Here also the reading wavers between iniSiopOioaff 
as middle, and hnZiopBrncrrf^^ which is supported by A.D.^E., &c. 
Lachmann has decided for the latter, and Tischendorf in his latest 
edition for the former. On grammatical grounds, the active is 
certainly to be preferred, comp. § 39, 6, p. 299. Nothing in reply 
to the question, what did the apostle himself accomplish, can be 
obtained from the expression tA \eiirovra in itself. It only says : 
Titus is to bring completely into order what it was not possible for 
the apostle to set in order. The following Koi brings into promi- 
nence one of those things that were wanting, and which Titus was 
to set in order, namely, a church government. To introduce such a 
church order, after the pattern of other Christian churches (1 Tim. 
iv. 14), is the first and the chief part of Titus' commission. From 
city to city {Kara iroKiv, Acts xv. 21, &c.), where Christians are 
to be found {Kar iKKkfjalav, Acts xiv. 23), is he to appoint pres- 
byters, as the apostle on leaving Crete had instructed him (Si^ 
r6a<rofjuu found elsewhere in 1 Cor. vii. 17, xi. 31.) De Wette 
observes quite correctly in regard to the ck, that it refers not merely 
to the t/iat, but also to the how, which latter is farther laid down in 
the statement of the qualifications which are to belong to those 
who are to be chosen as office-bearers, icad/onz/u, properly to 
'* set down," s= " to appoint." So frequently Luke xii. 14 ; Acts 
vii. 10, &c. Compare chiefly Acts vi. 3y where the same expres- 
sion is used of the deacons who are to be appointed. The expres- 
sion throws no light on the question whether this appointment of 
presbyters was to be done with or without the co-operation of the 
church. In the passage last adduced, the term KaOtardvcu ex- 
presses an act common to the apostle and the church. In the 

270 TITU8 T. 6. 

passage Acts xiv. 23 we read yeifHnovr^avre^ ainoin wpea/Svri' 
pov^, which, compared with 2 Cor. viii. 16, represents the idea of a 
co-operation on the part of the cbnrch as the more probable, 
althoagh it does not necessitate such a supposition, comp. Acts 
X. 41. Baur has sought to make out, that the expression tcarii 
iroTuv TTpetrfivripov^ is favourable to his view, inasmuch as every 
church, here every 70X^9, had but one president or hrlaKviro^, not 
several, while he says, that we are not warranted in under- 
standing the plural (presbyters), otherwise than of the collective 
idea which lies in the Karh itoKlv. On the contrary, however, we 
must say, that the apostle would have expressed himself very 
inaccurately if the sense of the words were, that only one elder 
was to be appointed in every city. The very expression Karh 
irokiv — in every single city — obliges us to apply the plural (pres* 
byters) to the individual city, as also Matthies has admitted, who 
refers justly to Acts xv. 21. That the expression Trpeafivrepoi 
designates the same office as hrCcncoiroi (comp. ver* 7)^ is acknow- 
ledged by all who can acknowledge it. Compare the Oeneral In- 
troduction and Matthies' dissertation on the subject, p. 78, ss. 
With regard to the difference between the two terms, we cannot but 
fully agree with Baur when he says, that hrUrKo^o^ designates the 
representative of the same office in his relation to the church, as 
indeed the expression itself intimates, and as we learn with certainty 
from passages such as Acts xx. 1 7, compared with ver. 28 ; 1 Pet 
V. 1,2. He is also quite right when referring to I Pet. v. 1 and i 
Tim V. 19, he maintains that irpeafiirepo^ was used when the col- 
legial relation of the presbyters was spoken of. But for what reason 
was irpetrfivrepo^ used in this case ? Clearly, as may be seen from 
the expression itself, which indicates the ground upon which per- 
sons were to be chosen to this office, because Trpecr/Si^po? designates 
the office with respect to the honour which it implies, whilst iirta- 
/co7ro9 points rather to its duties, as consisting in the oversight of 
the flock entrusted to the bearer of the office. The reason then 
why wpeafiurepov^ is the designation employed in this passage is, 
that it treats quite generally of the setting up of this office, of the 

1 Comp. NMnder, a. a. Q., p.2!>2: 'rptvPorapot, the appellation borrowed from Ja- 
daism, of those who were appointed to preside over charches, and mora especially 
designating the honour of the office ; iirtvK<yiroi, the Greek name, more especially 
designating the duties of the office. 

TITUS I. 6 — 8. 271 

appointment of persons who are to take this place of pre-eminence 
as elders, while afterwards, at ver, 7, hrUnctmo^ is used, because 
mention is there made of those qualities which are requisite in a 
presbyter with reference to the church over which he is placed, in 
order to his being able rightly to perform the duties which his 
office devolves upon him. With reference to the whole passage, 
the words of Ghrysostom may properly find a place here : " thou 
seest here a soul free from all envy, everywhere seeking the welfare 
of the disciples, and not concerned whether that should be accom- 
plished by himself or by another." This passage, as indeed the 
whole epistle, clearly proves the importance of the outward govern- 
ment of the church. From the condition of the Christians in 
Crete, as described in this epistle, may be plainly perceived the 
danger that grows out of the absence of an external form of church 
life. In place of the certain word that has been objectively given 
(the faithful word according to the teaching), the subjective ele- 
ment comes into prominence in the unruly and vain talkers; 
and the spiritually healing, morally cleansing, and sanctifying 
power of the gospel, is enfeebled wherever the office of Christian 
discipline is not exercised. Or, again, do not w. 9 and 10 show 
plainly, that the apostle, in the appointment of presbyters, aimed 
at putting a salutary check to the spread of idle speculation, and 
of that moral unsoundness which ever goes along with it ? But 
we learn as clearly also from the present passage, that the external 
organization of the church pre*8upposes a certain measure of Chris- 
tian knowledge and feeling in the church. It was not the apostle s 
first object when he came to Crete, although he doubtless found 
Christians there already, all at once to form them into churches 
and to give them elders. This work was left over to Titus. As 
little, however, did he wait until all the evils which affected the 
Christianity of the Cretans were removed ; but after the commence- 
ment of a right Christian feeling and life had been made in the 
several places, he caused presbyters to be appointed, in order that 
through the power of the office, what was still unsound might be 
carried forward to perfect soundness of the faith. 

Yer. 6 — 8. The apostle now mentions the qualifications of a 
presbyter, first of all, in a moral point of view. Ver. 6 contains 
the chief qualifications, and these are represented as just the par- 
ticular details of the general direction already given to Titus ; for 

272 TITUS I. 6 — 8. 

the words, ei t(9, &g., can be understood only in their connexion 
with what immediately precedes ; comp. Matthies. Ver. 7 is then 
a confirmatory explanation of ver. 6. Qualifications with respect 
to the presbyter s own person, and witC^ respect to those belonging 
to him, are specified in ver. 6. In the former respect, it is re* 
quired that he be blameless and the husband of one wife. ^Avey^ 
KXtfTot;, one against whom no charge can be brought ; so 1 Gor. 
i. 8 ; Col. i. 22 ; 1 Tim. iii. 10. The word again occurs in ver. 
7, where it is confirmed by the expression as the steward of God, 
while in w. 7 and 8 its import is explained. Now this first word 
lets us see, what in the apostle s estimate was mainly to be looked 
to. It is the moral estimation in which the person to be selected 
was held, the reputation which he had amongst men, on which 
above all he lays stress. For an efficient discharge of the duties 
of the office can be conceived of only on the supposition of a good 
reputation. De Wette expresses his astonishment that Titus should 
be enjoined to have respect first of all to outward unblameableness, 
and then to other moral qualities, in part equally external ; he 
thinks that Titus ought before all to have preferred such as had 
approved themselvqs to him, or to the apostle, to be especially 
zealous, devotedly believing, warm and animated in their attach- 
ment to the gospel. What is here said is, according to De Wette, 
so very self-evident, as that it could be of very little assistance to 
Titus. But are not those which De Wette thinks would have been 
the suitable qualifications, just as self-evident, and even more so ? 
It appears to me that here also the reasoning implied in tliis ob- 
jection sets out from false premises, inasmuch as it is supposed 
that Christianity was first settled in Crete by the apostle, while 
according to the admissions of the critics themselves the epistle 
teaches the contrary, and again, inasmuch as a mistaken view is 
entertained of the special necessities of the Christians in Crete, and 
the consequent requisites to be sought for in a presbyter. More- 
over, considered in itself there appears to me to be great wisdom 
in the apostle s requiring, that in the selection of a man for the 
office of presbyter, particular regard should be had to the moral 
estimation in which he is held in the sphere over which he is to 
preside ; and while Titus would most naturally look out for such 
as had shown themselves to be faithful and zealous adherents of 
the gospel, the apostle's injunction reminds him to have respect 

TITUS I. 6—8. 273 

also to the moral reputation in which the persons to be chosen are 
held, by the chorches which are to be formed. Let ns consider for- 
ther, however, the state of things in Crete. The Christian life there 
was unsound in a twofold respect, in respect, namely, of morality, 
and also in respect of doctrine. What then was more necessary 
than that those whose vocation it was to counteract these evils, 
should in the first phce be themselves pure and blameless in a 
moral point of view, so as to be able to rebuke others (i. 13), and 
then that they should be firm adherents of the sure doctrine, and 
be fi^ee from the infection of that idle speculation and disputation 
which so much prevailed ? The apostle, however, requires both, 
ver. 5 — 9. Add to all, finally, this, — that Christianity had already 
existed in Crete for some length of time, so that an opinion might, 
and indeed must already have been formedj respecting the Christian 
disposition and conduct of individuals, — and the objection of the 
critics disappears of itself, for even De Wette admits, that on the 
supposition of Christianity's having been of some time's standing 
in Crete, the qualifications here specified might be such as would 
be most suitable to an ecclesiastical office. — Chrysostom has 
already well expressed the sense of the apostolic injunctions 
thus : " he desires that the person who rules may give no handle 
to those over whom he is to rule ; wherefore he says, if any one 
be blameless/' &c. It is in like manner only from this point of 
view, namely, the regard which is had to the moral estimation in 
which the person to be chosen is held by the church, that we can 
explain the qualification that comes next, the husband of one wife. 
Not as if this in itself were one of the principal marks of morality, 
or as if the contrary were a mark of an immoral disposition — for 
how many must there have been to whom this criterion could not 
at all be applied — ^but here again it is the reference noticed above, 
which leads the apostle to lay precisely on this circumstance so 
great stress, that he will even have those who do not possess this 
qualification, to be unhesitatingly excluded from the office of a 
presbyter. With respect to the sense of the words husband of one 
wife, we do not deem it necessary to show, that it is not here re- 
quired that a presbyter should be married. Against this the fMa9 
is decisive, which cannot be here put for the indefinite article, comp. 
Winer, § 17, 4, Anm. 3*^, p« 126 ; altogether apart from the view 
which the apostle elsewhere expresses (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 7, 8, 


274 TITUS I. 6—8. 

37, 40.) Still less can it be meant to express that a married man 
is not to be excluded, — ^for those qualifications are here enamerated 
which one must have in order to be fit for becoming a presbyter. 
It is also quite evident that the words are not to be understood as 
referring to conjugal fidelity. On the other hand, the view is cer- 
tainly grammatically correct, which explains the expression of having 
more than one wife at the same time. Those who tate this view 
appeal to Eom. vii. 1, ss. ; 1 Cor. vii. 8, 9, 39, in which the apostle 
permits a second marriage, and with which the present passage 
would not agree if it were understood to refer to second marriage ; 
and farther, to the fact that polygamy strictly so called prevailed 
at that time among the Jews, and that this practice might easily 
pass over to the Gentile-Christians in Crete, through the pernicious 
influence of the Jews, very many of whom, it is well known, were 
living there. (Jos. Antt. XVII. 1,2; Justin. M. dial. c. Tryph. 
§ 134, ed. Col.) So Calvin, Beza, Heinrichs, Schleiermacher. 
Notwithstanding, however, that the apostle permits second mar- 
riage in general, — though he at the same time gives the preference to 
the unmarried state, — ^it does not follow that the present passage 
cannot be intended to forbid second marriage in a presbyter.. Al- 
though the Christian as such may be under no obligation to ab- 
stain from second marriage, this may yet with the utmost propriety 
be required as a requisite qualification in him who, as presbyter, 
is to preside over a church, from a regard to his reputation in the 
church, and even also from regard to the heathen (that the word 
may not be blasphemed.) And that the having been married only 
once, in opposition to second marriage, was considered as a mark 
of higher moral strictness and firmness, appears from Luke ii. 36, 
37, and from all the ancient ecclesiastical writers, as Heydenreich 
has proved with reference to Athenag. Leg. pro Christ, p. 37 ; 
Theoph. ad Autol. HI., p. 127, ed. Col.; Minuo. Felix Octav. 
TertuU. ad ux. 1, 7 ; exhort, cast. c. 7 ; demonag. c. 12 ; Orig. c. 
Celsum III., p. 141. The same view of second marriage is found in 
the ancient heathen writers, as De Wette observes, and Heyden- 
reich in p. 169 of his commentary ; comp. also Mack on the pas- 
sage, and Bottger V., p. 78, s. With regard to the other reason 
brought forward in support of the view that this passage tefers to 
polygamy, the objection will certainly not hold, that if polygamy 
were meant, the prohibition would then be applicable to all Chris- 

TITUS I. 6—8. 275 

tians ; for tbe fiij opyCXov, another of the presbyter's qualificatioDS, 
is equally applicable to all Christians. Bat are we to believe that 
the apostle thought it necessary to mention this among the first 
things to Titus, that no one Jiving in polygamy should be ap- 
pointed as a presbyter ? We know of no single case of the kind 
among the Christians. Quite decisive, however, against this inter- 
pretation, and in favour of that which takes the words to be di- 
rected against deuterogamy, as Heydenreich, Mack, Matthies, and 
others have already observed, is the passage 1 Tim. v. 9, where 
the expression hw avBpo^ ymni cannot possibly be understood 
as the opposite of having more than one husband at the same 
time. In both places it is ecclesiastical distinction that is 
spoken of, and in both places the having been but once mar- 
ried is specified as a condition of this. The words of 1 Tim. 
iii. 2, 12, are thus to be understood in the same sense as this 
passage. This circumstance belongs to the iyKpareia, ver. 8, and 
it is required not of all, but of those who are to have the over- 
sight of churches, as a proof of moral strictness ; and the reason of 
its being required lies in the moral estimate in which second mar- 
riage was held, to which we have already referred above. To this 
also correspond the views and practice of ecclesiastical antiquity, to 
which Tertullian has borne testimony de monag. c. 12, who as a 
Montanist was addicted to the view that second marriage was in- 
admissible in the case of all without distinction, and brings as an 
objection against the Catholic view, '* that they say the apostle 
has permitted second marriage, because he has bound under the 
yoke of monogamy those only who hold office in the church." 
Comp. Heydenreich, p. 166, s. "Such as were living in second 
or third marriage were not admitted to the pastoral office," p. 
168, ss. 

If in regard to the qualification expressed in the word blameteBs, 
and the others laid down in vv. 5 — 8, the objection is urged that 
they are too general and self evident, we have, on the contrary, in 
that which we have just been considering, one of a very special na- 
ture. But this very circumstance has been laid hold of as a mark 
of the spuriousness of the epistle. The requirement is too positive, 
observes De Wette ; and Baur, appealing to passages in writings of 
the second century, partly those adduced above, and partly others 
of a similar import, finds in this circumstance a new confirmation 

8 2 

276 TITU8 I. 6—8. 

of his view respecting the origin of the. Pastoral Epistles ahout 
this period. For every one will concede to him against Sohleier- 
macher, that there is no ground for understanding the expression 
in question in first Timothy differently from here. Dr Baur refers 
us to the circumstances of that period, in which such a number and 
variety of notions on the subject of marriage were put in circula- 
tion by Gnostics and Montanists on- the one hand, and their op< 
ponents on the other. It was therefore natdral, he says, that the 
writers of these epistles should not overlook this so important a 
question of the time, but in accordance with their mediating aim, 
should express a conciliatory opinion also on this question, to the 
effect, namely, that second marriage is not to be forbidden in the 
case of Christians generally, but in the case of the office-bearers, to 
whom this prohibition was first of all applied, and, for the further- 
ance of the ecclesiastical system which these epistles aimed at con- 
firming, could not but be ever more and more strictly applied. 
(P. 112 — 120 die s. q. Pastoralbriefe.) Here again is confirmed, 
what we found it necessary to state in the General Introduction in 
opposition to Baur s whole reasoning, namely, that in the induction 
of positive evidence for the origin of these epistles in the second 
century, the negative proof that they do not correspond to the 
period to which they claim to belong, is neglected. Is it then so 
inconceivable, that the apostle who prescribes second marriage for 
those who cannot contain, because it is better to marry than to 
bum, 1 Cor. vii. 9, should require of presbyters such a degree of con- 
tinence as is implied in their not living in second marriage ? Is it to 
be said that the Christian view which prevailed in the second century 
on the subject of second marriage, and which in the Shepherd of 
Hennas, in Athenagoras, in Tertullian, and others (comp. Baur, p. 
117), goes the length of an entire prohibition of deuterogamy in 
every case without exception, stands in no connexion with the 
first century, and specially with the apostolic era ? Do not the 
catholic writers of the second century, according to the passage 
cited above from Tertullian, appeal expressly to the apostle ? For 
what remains on this point, I refer to the General Introduction, in 
which is shown also in particular, how little ground there is for 
speaking of the hierarchical aim of this epistle . Comp. also on this 
subject, Bottger V., p. 76, ss. I would also here cite a passage 
from Chrysostoro, which places this matter in its proper point of 

TITUS I. 6—8. 277 

view : *' Although second marriage may not be prohibited by the 
law, still it is a thing against which much may be said." 

A farther desideratum in a presbyter, not with respect to his own 
person, but with respect to those belonging to him, is specified 
in the words having faiihful children. That irurra is not to be 
taken in the merely external sense of belonging to the Christian 
church, is evident from the apostle's usual manner of speaking, 
and is shown by the following words, not accused^ &c. ITurro?, as 
at Eph. i. 1 ; Col. i. 2. We find the same requisition in I Tim. 
ill. 4, where it is confirmed in the following verse : for if a man 
know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the 
church of God. These are simple things ; but the wisdom which 
they display consists just in this, that the significance of these 
simple things is rightly appreciated. The expression not accused^ 
shows again the apostle's point of view. Chrysostom observes : 
" the apostle does not merely say that they are not to be licentious. 
but that they are not even to be accused of this, — not to have an ill 
report." 'ilo-ctfr/a, licentiousness ; in like manner, Eph. v. 18; 1 
Pet. iv. 4 ; Luke xv. 13. Comp. on the first passage Harless's 
investigation into the signification of the word, ^AwTrortucrfy:, in- 
subordinate, 1 Tim. iii. 4, opposed to iv {moray^y Heb. ii. 9. The 
objection which is made to rest on this requisite, namely, that it 
presupposes the previous existence of Christianity in Crete for some 
length of time, can, after what has already been said, present no 
difficulty. Mi; here, as in the following characteristics, because 
the idea of an efficient bishop is expressed, Winer, § 69, 4 Anm.^ 

In ver. 6 the apostle reminds Titus of the direction already given 
to him, and urges it anew. Then follows in ver. 7, the reason of 
his requiring that a presbyter should have the qualification already 
expressed in the word blameless, which may be said to comprehend 
in itself every other : Sel yapy Ac., says the apostle. The emphasis 
rests on the word Sel ; the apostle points at the necessity implied in 
the relation conformably to which this requisite is laid down. This 
relation is however indicated in the expression eiriaKOiro^; the 
presbyter, in so far as he is overseer, shepherd of the flock, must 
bd open to no objection, if he is to guide the flock. Thus the 
change of the designation from irp^a^vrepfx: to iTrUrKOTro^ is ex- 
plained ; comp. above, ver. 6. The apostle still brings into pro- 
minence the idea implied in hricKoiro^, in the words that follow : 

278 TITUS I. 6—8. 

a« the steward of God. Oeov emphatically placed before; as 
God's steward. Ue is God's steward, iDasmuch as the house of 
God, i.e, the charch, is entrusted to his management. It is wrong 
to take this as equivalent to the expression of 1 Cor. iv. 1, steward 
of the mysteries of God ; for the co9 in its reference to cTrla- 
KOTTo^ can only express the idea already implied in the word 
hriaKoiro^f that he is steward of the house, which, according to 1 
Tim. iii. 5, is the church of the living God. Gomp. on this use of 
oIko^, 1 Pet. iv. 17 ; Heb. iii. 2, 5, 6, x. 21 ; and the Hebrew ^^i^I 
nirP> Num.xii. 7 ; Hos. viii. 1, as also the metaphor frequently 

used by the apostle, temple of God, 1 Cor. iii. 16, vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. 
vi. 16 ; Eph. ii. 21 ; and oucohofiri, 1 Cor. iii. 9 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; Eph. 
ii. 21. The import of the general term blameless, is then unfolded 
in the following specific qualities, in which there is an unmistakable 
reference to the vices that were prevalent in Crete ; comp. ver. 12, 
and Winer, RWB., on Crete. He is not to be avOdSfj^, properly 
qui sibi ipse placet ; occurring also in 2 Pet. i. 10, and in the Sept. 
where it is used for w, Gen. xlix. 37, •^*»n*' (proud, arrogant), Prov. 

xxi. 24 (comp. Wahl.) It denotes a selMoving, imperious, vio- 
lent disposition. 'Op7/\o9 found only here, iracundus. Mif 
Trdpoivov here, and 1 Tim. iii. 8, vinolentus. In 1 Tim. iii. 8, this 
is expressed by ftot given to much wine. The word includes at the 
same time the signification, *' impudent, insolent." No striker, 
in the same connexion, 1 Tim. iii. 3, which shows plainly the in- 
tended connexion with the preceding. Not given to filthy lucre^ 
also at 1 Tim. iii. 8. The same quality is enjoined upon bishops 
at 1 Pet. V. 2 ; where alayfiOKep&w stands in opposition to irpo- 
0vfia>^ ; to be understood not of disreputable trafficking apart from 
the office, but of base eagerness after gain in the office, as we learn 
from ver. 1 1 ; 1 Tim. vi. 5 ; 1 Tim. iii. 3 ; and 1 Pet. v. 2. Comp. 
De Wette. That disposition and manner of conduct are meant, 
which make of the living of the gospel an afiair of gain. An 
injunction especially necessary for Cretans. In ver. 8 the op- 
posite qualities are specified. They are, however, only the same 
qualities viewed positively. A lover of hospitality, the opposite of 
given to filthy lucre, so at 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; 1 Pet. iv. 9. Hospitq- 
lily is likewise enjoined upon all Christians in Rom. xii. 13 ; Heb. 
xiii. 2, compared with 3 John 5 ; a virtue for the injunction of which 
there were special reasons in the circumstances of the time. tiXa- 

TITUS, I. 6—8. 279 

yaOo^ only here, loving wha( is good and those who are good, 
comp. Paasow ; not specificaJly benevolent, bat as opposed gene- 
rally to the corrupt tendencies before mentioned. Sober^ just, 
holy, temperate — thus the apostle continues to designate the sub- 
stantial elements of personal character positively, in opposition to 
the negative characteristics before specified. The word coM^po)!/, — 
as also aoxppoavvrf, a(o<f>p6vfa9, ato<f>povitOf cc^povi^w, Gta<f>pO' 
vuTfi6<;y — has been found fault with by the critics. S(off>pci>v cer- 
tainly occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles, three times in this 
epistle, and in 1 Tim. iii. 2, in the same connexion as in this pas- 
sage. S(o<f>p6v<o^, ao}<f>popi^a>, ao^poviap^^, occur, each once in 
these epistles, comp. Tit. iii. 12, ii. 4 ; 2 Tim. i. ^7 ; on the other 
hand, we find ao)if>povi(o and co^poainni besides Tit. ii. 6, 1 Tim. 
ii. 9, 15, in many other passages, as, — the former in Mark v. 15 ; 
Luke viii. 35 ; Bom. xii. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 13 ; 1 Pet. iv. 6, — the latter 
in Acts xxvi. 25. ^/oi/i/ used by Paul only in 1 Cor. xiv. 20, where 
it occurs twice ; besides aff>pa>v, a<f>po<ruvr), in several passages, and 
a^ptav in a moral sense, comp. Eph. v. 17, and Harless on the pas- 
sage. Already it is evident from this collation of passages, how 
little reason there is for finding anything perplexing in the use of 
the word iu these epistles. And when we consider further, that as 
the critics themselves admit, greater stress is laid on the moral side 
of Christianity in these than in the other epistles, inasmuch as the 
circumstances of the church required this, the reason of this expres- 
sion being more frequently used becomes self-evident. Iu the second 
epistle to Timothy, where the circumstances are different, we find 
only a'(o<f>povurfi6^ in one passage. Bottger V., p. 5, correctly ob- 
serves, that " the expression ctii^paw is in strict connexion with 
the metaphor then before the apostle's mind, of soundness and 
unsoundness in religious knowledge and religious conduct. For aa>- 
^pcoi; = 0*0)9 ^/^eo-tV just deuotes the sanitas mentis, — and this, both 
in opposition to fJMipeaOaiy comp. a(o<f>poavin], Acts xxvi. 25, con-* 
sequently in an intellectual respect, and in opposition to desires and 
passions as a malady affecting man's moral nature. In this pas- 
sage, it is opposed to the passionateness expressed in the opf^tKo^, 
and the following term as such, while ^CKar^aOo^ is opposed in ge- 
neral to the objects there specified, towards which the propensity is 
directed ; it therefore means " discreet, sober." Just, holyy both 
ideas are also elsewhere connected by the apostle, comp. Eph. iv. 

280 TITU8 I. 9 — 16. 

24 ; I Tbess. ii. 10. On the sigDification of &ru>9, neither " pious/' 
nor '* devoted to God/' but pure, holy, as a personal quality, see 
Harless on Epb. iv. 24. AUcuo^ also will thus not be the desig- 
nation of the special virtue of justice toward others, a sense which 
in itself is not suitable to the context, but is to be understood in a 
general sense of moral probity, as afterwards at ii. 12 ; Eph. iv. 24 ; 
1 Thess. ii. 10. The expressions lover of what is good^ &c., are 
not intended to designate special and particular virtues, but to set 
forth in its various aspects that fundamental state of mind and 
heart which is right. Comp. on Phil. iv. 8, 9. The explanation : 
"just towards men, pious towards God," must therefore be rejected. 
^EyKpaiij used only here, and in this connexion referring not 
merely to the sexual, but to the passions generally ; Ghrysostom : 
'* one who has his passions under command." It is he who has 
himself in his own power, continens ; the word in its reference par- 
ticularly to the lusts and desires, contains a more special idea than 

Ver. 9 — 16. The qualification of an hruTKoiro^ with respect to 
doctrine, and confirmation of this by a reference to the state of 
things in Crete. — Ver. 9. The enumeration of the requisite quali- 
fications in a positive form, leads the apostle beyond what the anti* 
thesis would have required, inasmuch as he forthwith adds the 
qualities which a bishop must have with respect to doctrine. Ghry- 
sostom : T^ fihf yhp aXXa kclL €p tok ap^ofievoc^ eSpoi Tt9 iv — 8 
Bk fiaXurra "xO'peucrqpl^ei tov SiSdaKaXov tovto iari to Bvpoadai 
tcarfjx^iv TovXayop, — Holding fast the faithful word, &c. ^Avri- 
')(€a0cu, similarly Matt. vi. 24 ; Luke xvi. 13, of adherence to a 
master; by the apostle in 1 Thess. v. 14, in the sense *' taking care 
of." The radical signification in the construction with the genitive 
is, " to hold fast by" = " to abide by." So in Herodotus I. 134, 
avrexecOat 7% aperrj^y comp. Fassow. On the frequent use of the 
word in the Septuagint, see Wahl. Tov Kark rrfv St&i^^i/ irurrov 
Xoyov is not to be understood as expressing two co-ordinate pro- 
perties of the X0709 ; but the Kar^ rifv BiSa'^ifv more exactly deter- 
mines the \6709. Still the Kara may be variously rendered. 
Calvin, = *' for, to," as i. 1 ; others in the general signification = 
*' with respect to," from which certainly would result the suitable 
sense : " sure with respect to the instruction," i,e, the \6709 is de- 
scribed as a sure rule for those who are to teach. But neither of 

TiTOB 1. 9—16. 281 

these Bignifications correspond to the right explanation of ttmt- 
T09, by which is denoted the credibility of the word, according to 
iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 16, iii. 1, iv. 9 ; Bey. xxi. 5, xxii. 6 ; hence Calvin 
has been led into the mistake of taking irurro^ = utiKs. We shall 
therefore have to abide by the signification '' according to, con- 
formable to/' so that Karit Si8af)(iip denotes the ground of the cre- 
dibility, in so far, namely, as the word rests on the apostolic teach- 
ing. This characteristic forms an antithesis to the immediately 
following fiaratoXoyla, which does not abide by the sound doctrine, 
teaching things which they ought not, ver. 11. *0 X6709, without 
any further explanation, is used elsewhere by the apostle also to 
designate the Christian doctrine. Gal. vi. 6 ; Phil. i. 14 ; Col. iv. 
8 ; 1 These, i. 6. The design of this qualification is then given, 
&a, &c. He is to be able both to admonish with the sound doc- 
trine, and also to refute the gainsayers ; and only then is he quali- 
fied for both of these ends, when he has to insist, not on a mere 
subjective opinion, but on a word delivered to him, and credible be- 
cause thus delivered to him. HapaKoKdv denotes one part 
of his function as a teacher, in connexion with the following in the 
sound doctrine. The ku shows that irapatedKew here signifies 
not " to comfort," but ''to admonish/* 'fi hiZaaiccLKUi 1} vyiai- 
vovaa is another expression which critics have put into their index 
probibitorum. ^iSaatcaXla is often used by the apostle, Bom. xii. 
7, XV. 4 ; £ph. iv. 14 ; Col. ii. 22, to signify both the teaching and 
the doctrine itself in which instruction is given, as a comparison of 
the passages cited will show. It has the same twofold signification 
frequently in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. i. 10, iv. 1, 6, 13, 16, 
V. 17, vi. 1, 3 ; 2 Tim. iii. 10, iv. 3 Tit. ; i. 9, ii. 1, 7, 10 ; here 
as also at ii. 1 it means the doctrine. There is therefore here as 
yet nothing unpauline. With regard to vyiaivovcray this expres- 
sion and vyiij^ in the sense in which it is here used, occurs only 
in the Pastoral Epistles, and in them very often, 1 Tim. i. 10, 
vi. 3 ; 2 Tim. i. 13, iv. 3 ; especially in this epistle; i. 9, 13, ii. 1, 
2, ii. 7 (£7^179), partly in connexion with X0709 or Xo70£, and 
partly with Trlart^, In like manner the opposite of this occura iu 
the metaphor : poa-eip irepX ^tiniaet^:, 1 Tim. vi. 4, where also the 
^ffTTfaev: are opposed to the X0709 and the SiSaaKoXla, as the 
voaeof to the vyuiiveip ; to this belongs also the expression 707* 
ypatva, 2 Tim. ii. 17. De Wette rightly refers for an explanation 

282 TITUS I. 9—16. 

to 1 Tim. iv. 6, Oie good doctrine^ 1 Tim. vi. 3, the doctrine ac- 
cording to godliness ; especially however would we refer in con- 
nexion with this passage to the words in the opening of the 
epistle^ the truth which leads to godliness. Already may we 
infer from this expression in which the apostle more exactly de- 
fines his apostolic office, as also from the firequent recurrence of 
the expression in this epistle, that it is not one chosen by the 
apostle at random, and for which any other might be substituted 
from any of the rest of his epistles. And the critics are then only 
warranted in characterizing this expression as unpauline, when 
they are able to point out one corresponding to it from the other 
epistles, which might take the place of that which has been se- 
lected in this passage. So long as they are unable to do this, we 
must maintain that the apostle himself, even were he not the writer, 
would have had recourse in this case, to an expression which we 
do not find elsewhere in his writings. It is just in such an ex- 
pression as that of this passage, and in its recurrence throughout 
the Pastoral Epistles, that we clearly see bow the peculiar phrase- 
ology of these epistles is so closely connected with the state of 
things which the writer has in his eye. We refer here to what 
has been already said in the General Introduction. Has the apostle 
in his eye a state of things in the church, the peculiarity of which 
consists in a knowledge directed to useless subjects, to fables and 
commandments of men, ver. 14, iii. 9, which bear no firuit of 
moral improvement, — a state of things not indeed implying any 
open warfare against the truth, but such a placing in the back 
ground of what is essential, as results in the loss of that power of 
godliness which lies in the truth, and in a gradual falling away on 
the part of individuals from the faith — what designation then could 
be more^suitable, than that which is here selected, and which is de- 
rived from the comparison with bodily health and sickness ? Sound 
doctrine, i.e., the truth which leads to godliness, i. 1, or t/ie doc- 
trine which leads to godliness, 1 Tim. vi. 3, is necessary in 
order that those infected with the spiritual malady of vain specu- 
lation and moral apathy, may be again restored, and brought to 
the true soundness of the faith. Moreover, De Wette is wrong 
when he explains the expression sound doctrine of moral doctrine ; 
it is rather the Christian doctrine viewed as a doctrine which pro- 
duces the fruits of godliness, and is opposed to those questions 

TITU8 I. 1 I. 2H3 

which bear no 8aoh fruit, as is evident from 1 Tim. vi. 4. Thus 
the expression is fully vindicated, as the adequate designation of a 
new state of things in the church of the apostolic era. We learn 
also from the other epistles of Paul how easily he could command 
new expressions when such were necessary. Gomp. also on this 
the General Introduction. 

A bishop must be able to admonish with the sound doctrine, 
and secondly to contradict the gainsayers, inasmuch as he himself 
stands on the sure ground of the wholesome doctrine. For he 
would have to deal with a contentious and refractory people in 
Crete^ as is added in ver. 10 by way of confirming the necessity of 
such qualifications ; for there are many unruly and vain talkers 
and deceivers, chiefly they of the circumcision, whose mouths must 
be stopped. Ka/before ainnroratcroi, is not found in A C. and others. 
Tischendorf has received it again on the authority of D.E.F.6.I.K., 
&c., and justly, comp. De Wette. There are many and unruly [uir 
TiuoKoyoL and <f>p€va7rdTcu. The former expression occurs again in 
an abstract form at 1 Tim. i. 6 ; similar designations of the corrup- 
tion which is assailed, such sls foolish questions, empty babblings^ 
&c t occur often. It is not, however, to be said with De Wette, 
that the heresy is characterized as vain talking, for this overlooks 
what is specific in the expression ; it is not a heresy that is spoken 
of, but merely a vain talking. What is the import of this fiaTOM- 
\oyla we learn from i. 14, iii. 9. ^p€va7rdrf)<; only here, but 
<l>p€vairaT^ is found in Gal. vi. 8. Both expressions denote the 
evil, the cure of which can be wrought only by the doctrine men- 
tioned before. The next words tell us from what source this evil 
chiefly proceeds : chiefly they of tlie circumcision, comp. with 
ver. 14. Wc learn from Josophus and Philo that great numbers 
of Jews were at that time living in Crete. Comp. Winer, RWB. 
on Crete. Those here alluded to are not to be conceived of as 
standing outside of the Christian circle, but as Jewish Christians, 
who do not abide by the simple truth of the gospel, but mingle 
with it their own ingredients, and thus obscure the truth and hinder 
their own moral progress. They have, however, had some success 
in spreading their errors among the Gentile-Christians ; hence /u£- 

Ver. 1 1 . Whose mouths must be stopped : iTrtarofLi^eiv is 

found only here, os obturo, to muzzle ; in sense = iKiyx^^^* ^^^* 


284 TITU8 I. 12. 

9. Their pernicious influence is described in what follows : who 
subvert whole houses teaching things which they ought not, for 
filthy lucre's sake. ^Avarpeirw = everto, here and in 2 Tim. 
ii. 18 ; in this passage it is a figure corresponding to olKov<i, The 
other passage shows in what sense the word is to be taken, inas- 
much as the object of it is there stated to be — the faith of some. 
This is the effect of their talking, — it leads of itself even further 
firom faith and godliness, corap. 2 Tim. ii. 16. If, on the other 
hand^ this vain talking and vain babbling, together with the 
things mentioned in ver. 14 and in iii. 9 were in decided opposi- 
tion to the truth, a heresy strictly so-called, and not rather a being 
taken up with things which do not lead to salvation, and which are 
destitute of all moral efficacy, then it is impossible to conceive how 
even a forger should have addressed to Titus iii. 9, and repeatedly 
to Timothy i. 6 — 20, ii. 2 — 16, &o., the admonition not to meddle 
with these things. This were conceivable only on the supposition 
that these things had a harmless appearance, but at the same time 
might lead gradually away from the true foundation of faith and 
life. De Wette also coincides in this view of the matter, inasmuch 
as he observes that the expression, things which they ought not, 
but vaguely defines the heresy ; an expression, however, all the 
more suitable if what has just been said is true. On fj/i] beside 
69 comp. Winer, § 69, 6, c. p. 666, 1 Tim. v. 13. For the sake 
of filthy lucre, comp. above on aurxpotccpSij and 1 Tim. vi. 6 — 10. 
This motive which is imputed to these opponents, as well as the 
entire description and confutation of them, shows that we have not 
here the same hostile principle of Judaism which we find in the 
epistle to the Galatians, in. the epistles to the Corinthians, and in 
that to the Fhilippians. There, — Jewish-Christians are described 
whose zeal for the law made them the enemies of the apostle, here, 
people whose object is gain, and who seek to make those ingre- 
dients with which they disfigure the Christian truths and which they 
give out for wisdom, subservient to their own selfish interests. We 
find the same thing described in 1 Tim. i. 6, where the expression 
vain talking is farther explained by the words, wishing to be 
teachers of the law, set. 1, Comp. also the contentions about the 
law. Tit. iii. 9 and i. 14. 

Ver. 12. One of them, their own prophet has said, the Cretans, 
&c. One of the three citations from heathen poets which we meet 

TITUS I. 12. 285 

with in the apostle's writiDgs. We have a complete hexameter in 
this passage. Comp. Winer, § 68, p. 704. The other citations 
are to be found in Acts xvii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xt. 83. The poet whose 
words are cited is Epimenides of Gnossns in Crete, who flourished 
in the sixth century before Christ, and they are said to be taken 
irom a writing of his Trepl xpv^f^^- The beginning of the verse 
Kpvp-e^ ael y^^evarai is found also in Callimachus the Cyrenaean, 
who flourished in the third century before Christ, — ^in his hymn in 
Jov. Y. 8, where the charge of lying refers to the circumstance that 
the Cretans showed Jupiter's tomb in their island ; and Theodoret 
has therefore considered the words as cited from him, the incor- 
rectness of which has already been shown by Jerome and Epipha- 
nius. Cotnp. Matthies against this view. The words designate 
the well-known national character of the Cretans, such as it is 
described by many other profane writers, comp. Winer RWB. on 
Crete. Kfyrjrt^eiv was used synonymously with y^vSeadcu, in the 
same way as KopivOta^eiv = scortari. Kaxi^ dripla denotes their 
wildness, rudeness, covetousness, cunning. Faaripe^ apyalf for 
they had the reputation of being drunkards, licentious, idlers ; the 
tarrying long at the wine was regarded by them as an accom- 
plishment, comp. ii. 8 ; Hug Einl. ii. p. 298, s. The critics in- 
troduce several objections here* They find, that inasmuch as the 
words one of themselves refer exclusively to the preceding they of 
the circumcision, the applicatiou of the verse is far-fetched and un- 
suitable, since it can be applied properly only to Cretans, while 
here it is applied to native Jews (comp. Baur die so. g. Fastoral- 
briefe, p. 121.) De Wette himself has defended the author of the 
epistle from this charge of impropriety, inasmuch as he shows that 
it is altogether unnecessary to impute such an absurdity to him ; 
and he observes quite correctly that the indefinite reference in the 
words one o/ themselves, applies to the Cretans not in so far as 
they were heretics, hut as they gave consent to such, which idea 
is already involved in the expression whole houses, and fiif irpo^ 
<rexpvT€^, ver. 14. So Bottger, a. a. Q. V. p. 21 : "what Paul 
says from ver. 1 2 onwards, refers to those who may have been led 
away by the heretics, and characterizes them as persons whom it 
would not be at all difficult to lead away. The expression whole 
houses forms the transition from the heretics to the church." 
Bottger shows also how natural it was for the apostle to say one of 

280 TITOS I. 12. 

ihetnaelves, not one of the CretauB, in order to avoid repetition, 
seeing that he had in his mind the proverh which begins with the 
Cretans, Accordingly, ver. 12 is to he taken not so much as a 
confirmation of the preceding, but rather as a reason for what fol- 
lows ; still T am not inclined to make so pointed a distinction, be- 
tween the false teachers and those whom they led away as Bottger 
does, who maintains that Ikdrfyeiv cannot apply to heretics, against 
which, however, are ver. 9, 10, iii. 10; as indeed the expression 
heretics in general is not quite suitable. A further objection is 
brought by the critics against the designati n of £pimenides as a 
prophet. " It almost appears," says Baur, *' as if the writer has 
called the poet a prophet, in order that he may regard his saying 
as a prophetical reference to these very heretics of the circumci- 
sion, as if they had been especially meant." That must certainly 
appear to the critics on the other side the most probable view, for 
with this they have something from which they may set out. 
Thus they can proceed further to say : " a writer who, like the 
author of these epistles, does not write from the actual state of 
things before him, but must first create his material, naturally seizes 
hold of everything that may serve his purpose . . . inasmuch 
as here, however, where he was speaking of heretics, he thought it 
necessary to bring in the anti- Judaism of the apostle, so much the 
more infelicitous was the application of that verse in snob a con- 
nexion." But, according to Baur, the object of the writer of this 
epistle was to gain over the Jewish- Christian party. What induce- 
ment then had he to introduce here the anti-Judaism of the apostle. 
That Epimenides was really reputed to be a prophet in ancient 
times, we learn from various authorities. Pint Solon, c. 12. Plato 
legg. 1, 642. Cicero de divin. 1, 18 (vaticinans per furorem.) 
'' Whether the apostle himself also held Epimenides for a prophet," 
observes Mattbies justly, "is quite another and a difierent point," 
and, ** if heathen idols are loosely termed gods^ surely the apostle 
might, without doing violence to Christian piety, give to an important 
heathen personage the name oiprop}iet,^\nc\k was generally assigned 
to- him." The context, however, shows plainly why the apostle ad- 
heres to the appellation which the Cretans assigned to Epimenides. 
" If he stood so high in their estimation, then must a saying of his 
have come to them with authority," as Bottger rightly observes, p. 
22. On the expression 6 T&ov axnSiv irp. comp. Winer, § 22, 7, 

TITUS I. 13. 287 

p. 178 ; the pronoun expresses only the idea of " belonging to/* the 
tBio^ makes the antithesis : their own poet, not a strange one. 
Finally, the critics find the charge here brought against the Cretans 
to be unjust (De Wette, p. 2 — 10), since the apostle seems to have 
had so much success in his labours amongst them, on which see 
the Introduction. The apostle, however, is jast saying here, that 
precisely on account of this national character Christianity in Crete 
was exposed to great danger. 

Ver. 13. This testimony is true, the apostle adds, wherefore 
rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith, &c. 
Ver. 13, according to De Wette, applies not to the heretics, but to 
those whom they had seduced into error, or as I would be inclined 
to express it, — it designates the persons meant as those who had been 
led away, but who themselves might again be the means of leading 
others away, comp. Matthies. The word where/ore shows plainly 
the reference of ver. 12 to what follows. Because that is true set 
them right. The expression Si r^p alrlav occurs again only in 
2 Tim. i. 6, 12; and Heb. ii. 11. The apostle here drops the 
reference to the bishops who were to be appointed, and lays on 
Titus himself the charge of applying the proper remedy. Thus 
the term S^^efxis forms the natural transition to the further exhor- 
tation addressed to Titus, ii. 1; ss. "EX^fxe, as at i. 9, is set 
them right with reprehension ; and he is to set them right sharply : 
the nature of the people requires this. A hint this, worthy of being 
well considered in a practical point of view ! This word (aTroro/MOf) 
is also found in other epistles of the apostle, and is used only by 
him. As an adverb it occurs again in 2Cor. 13, 10, — as a substantive. 
Bom. xi. 22 ; in the latter passage it stands opposed to ^^ototy;?, 
in the former it is characterized as a means to edification. Sharp- 
ness and severity are but the other side of love itself, when the 
wounds can be healed only by cutting. " Sharply, because such 
persons could not be brought down by gentleness ; inflict, there- 
fore, he says, a heavier stroke," Chrysostom. The object of this 
procedure is then stated — thai they may be sound in the faith. 
There is no reason for taking Xva here as equivalent to ori. It 
expresses the same thing as is expressed by €t9 olKoSofii^v in 2 Cor. 
xiii. 10 ; only the apostle adheres to the metaphor employed in 
ver. 9. They are, so to speak, infected with the malady of vain 
questions, &c., 1 Tim. vi. 4, comp. with Tit. iii. 9. '' Plainly not 

288 TITUS I. 18. 

horetios," observes De Wette also here, and Matthies is quite right 
when he says, that the words in the faith express precisely the 
thing in which, as unhealthy persons, they need restoration. *' For 
their faith was infected with the heresy, — their evangelical nature 
partly corrupted ; iv^ however, is not = Bid, but denotes the ele- 
ment of life in which they may rejoice in perfect health, if only their 
faith is emptied of all foreign and morbid ingredients." It is evident 
from this, how entirely different the state of things here from what 
we find for example in the epistle to the Galatians, where the 
apostle addresses those who had been led ^way in the words, ye are 
removed unto another gospel, i. 6, and again, Christ is made of 
none effect to you, v. 4. We have not here an error of the kind 
described in these passages, — a doctrine opposed directly to the 
gospel and the faith, — ^bnt an unsoundness in the faith, and in the 
truth which is according to godliness^ as the apostle indicates in 
the very outset of the epistle. 

But the apostle himself proceeds, in ver. 14, to explain more 
fully what he means by this unsoundness, by describing the malady 
of which the Cretan Christians must be cured. It is plain from 
ver. 6 — 9 that the apostle does not intend to say, that all without 
exception have been infected with this malady. Not giving heed 
to Jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the 
truth. On irpoakx^^w, comp, Winer, § 66, 7 a., p. 668 ; i/oSi/is not 
to be supplied, as in 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 1, and elsewhere ; Heb. ii. 1 ; 
Acts viii. 6, 16, 14. For the more general use of the word, 1 Tim. 
iii. 8, iv. 13, comp. Heb. vii. 13. These^d/i^« are mentioned also 
in 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 7 ; 2 Tim. iv. 4. In the passage first cited it 
occurs along with endless genealogies^ with which Tit. iii. 9 is to 
be compared, where in like manner genealogies are specified as the 
subject with which these opponents employ themselves. In that 
passage also we find the questions and strivings about the law 
which are mentioned in Tit. iii. 9 in the same connexion, comp. 
i. 4, 7, vi. 4. Vain talking is also specified there, in connexion 
with these errors, i. 6. We find there also the same thing placed 
in opposition to these errors, namely, soundness, as associated with 
the true doctrine, 1 Tim. i. 10, vi. 3 (yoaelv occurs ver. 4),-T-and the ' 
same stress laid on the practical side of Christianity of which we 
have an indication in the frequent use of the word godlitiess^ godly, 
1 Tim. ii. 2, iii. 16, iv. 7, vi. 3, 6, 1 1. And the second epistle to 

T1TU8 T. 13. 280 

Timothy partakes also in proportion of these peculiarities. Every- 
where do we find this error traced to the same state of mind as its 
source, comp. Tit. i. 15, 16 ; 1 Tim. i. 19, vi. 5, &c., to the same 
governing motive. Tit. i. 1 1 ; 1 Tim. vi. 9 ; and described as leading 
to the same result, Tit. i. 11, 13 ; 1 Tim. i. 4, vi. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 
14, ss., ii. 23. In short, there can be no question that by these 
fables, together with the genealogies and the more indefinite desig- 
nations such as questions, vain talking, strifes of words, dsc., one 
and the same error is to be understood, as indeed the most of 
expositions proceed upon this understanding. If now we look more 
particularly at the passage under consideration, it is manifest, as 
has already been observed, that the nol giving heed to Jewish 
fables^ together with what follows, denotes the malady with which 
the Christianity of the Cretans was infected, and of which they 
must be cured in order to come to soundness in the faith. The 
opposite of these errors is the sound doctrine, as we learn from 
ven 13 and ii. I. That by this doctrine, however, nothing else 
can be understood than the doctrine according to godliness, 1 Tim. 
vi. 3, or as it is called in our epistle, i* I, the truth which is 
according to godliness^ is admitted by De Wette, and is in itself 
quite evident. Thus the fables, as also the commandments of men, 
are designated here only as things which do not tend to godliness, 
which do not promote true piety. And quite the same thing is 
predicated of them in 1 Tim. i. 4, which minister questions rather 
than godly edifying in faith* Titus as well as Timothy is admo- 
nished not to meddle with these things ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 7, vi. 20 ; 
2 Tim. ii. 16, 23, with Tit. iii. 9 ; and the being taken up with 
these things is everywhere described, not as what is directly op- 
posed to the Christian truth, but as a tendency which is vain and 
fruitless, not productive of true godliness but rather gradually lead- 
ing away from the truth which tends to godliness, and horn the 
faith. Comp. iii. 9 of this epistle with 1 Tim. i. 4, iv. 7, vi. 4, 
21 ; 2 Tim. ii. 14, 16, 17, 23. Commentators generally have paid 
too little attention to the circumstances here noticed, — inasmuch as 
they have characterized this error all at once as a heresy,—- and the 
critics to whom we have referred still less. How weak and point- 
less would be such designations as profitless, unfruitful, if errors 
directly opposed to the truth are meant ? How could the apostle 
warn even Timothy and Titus against it if it were a heresy strictly 


290 TITU8 I. 18. 

80 called, and not rather things whiob appear to be harmless, but 
which are in themselves useless and vain) and from being anfavour^ 
able to moral earnestness become dangerous to the faith ? And 
not merely in the case of the apostle, but even in tiie case of a for- 
ger of the second century, whose aim was to refute Gnosticism, 
such designations of the heresies to which he was opposed would 
be quite unaccountable ; unaccountable that he should even for a 
moment think of warning Timothy and Titus against participating 
in such heresies, that he should characterize these heresies them- 
selves only as something profitless, and represent the falling away 
from the faith only as something to which they might possibly 
lead ; while the controversialists of the second century consider them 
as in themselves apostacy, and even as blasphemy. We refer on this 
to the General Introduction. In regard to the passage before us, it is 
sufiBcient for us to have shown, on the one hand, that by the fables and 
the other kindred characteristics by which the errors combated in 
the three epistles are described, one and the same thing is meant, 
and on the other, that the point of view in which these fables are 
presented is not that of a heresy, but of a tendency unfavourable to 
true godliness and to soundness in the faith. So much in parti- 
cular with reference to the passage before us ; and that the case is 
not otherwise with reference to the other passages will be shown in 
the exposition. With regard to the expression fwOoi, itself, which 
besides in the Pastoral Epistles occurs only in 2 Pet. i. 16, it is 
here sufficiently determined by its being opposed to the faithful 
word, &c., ver. 9, and by its connexion with commatidmenta of 
men, and must denote that which is not to be depended on, which 
wants a sure foundation. Still more pointed is 2 Tim. iv. 4, where 
fiv0ot are opposed to d\]i0€ia ; similarly 1 Tim. i. 4, where irpo- 
aexi^w fivOoi^ serves more exactly to define irepoStSaaKiiKeiVf and 
in like manner 1 Tim. iv. 7, where the fivOoi. stand opposed to the 
\oyo^ 77/9 TrloTeco^ koI t^9 fcaXrj^ BiScurKaXlcK* To this also cor- 
responds the use of the word in 2 Pet. i. 16, ^fhere folloteing cun' 
riingly devised fables is opposed to beifig eye-witnesses of the 
event referred to. With respect farther to the contents of these 
fables, it is quite evident that they must have pertained to religion, 
for how otherwise could soundness in the faith be opposed to them, 
or how could'they result in apostacy from the faith ? A more par- 
ticular description of them, however, cannot be obtained from the 

TITU6 I. 18. 201 

Qplstles, except thai we may suppose the fables to have been closely 
oonnected with the genealogies on the authority of 1 Tim. i« 4, 
where they occur together, and Tit. iii. 0, where in the enumeration 
of the characteristics of the general error to which they belong, the 
fables are not mentioned, but the getiealogies are put in place of 
them. We learn only further from 1 Tim. iv. 7, that they were 
profane and old wives fables (comp. the exposition), and from the 
passage before us that they were of Jewish origin and character, 
like the commandments of men with which they are connected ; a 
designation which certainly corresponds but little to the Valentinian 
system, the entire character of which, according to Baur's own re- 
presentation, rather denies than betrays its Jewish origin (Gnosis, 
p. 122.) Thus from the passage before us, taken in connection 
with the kindred passages in the other epistles, we can only obtain 
certain general marks from which to draw the special signification 
of fjLvOoi. These alone form the sure results of the exegesis ; every 
thing frnrther must be the result of historical research, and we refer 
therefore to the General Introduction > ^ 4. — Along with the fables 
the apostle also mentions the commandrnejUs of men, who turn away 
from the truth, as a source of unsoundness, comp. iii. 9. So also 
1 Tim. i. 7, wishing to be teachers of the law, iv. 8, bodily exer* 
cise — (iv. 8 goes farther.) The expression, comma^tdfm^fi/^^m^/i, 
implies an antithesis to the commaudmetits of God, whose place they 
usurp, comp. Matt. xv. 9 ; Mark vii. 7 ; Col. ii. 22. That also which 
in its nature and import is godly, may by a perverted application be- 
come the commandments of men. Men who turn away from the 
truth, airoarpe^fihiov ripf akfjOeuLV, The verb in an active siglii* 
fication, also in Bom. xi« 26, and the same as here, Heb. xii. 25. 
The middle in a transitive signification, hence the accus. Comp. 
Winer, § 89, 2, p. 293. With respect to the sense Matthies well ob- 
serves, *' they turn away from the truth in so far as they let 

the revealed word of truth disappear amid their selfish degenerate ten- 
denciea" Here also it is no direct warfare against the truth that 
is spoken of. We learn from vv. 15 and 16 to what these com- 
mandments referred, namely, to the distinction between clean and 
unclean, with which we naturally associate the prohibitions in re 
gard to food, and whatever else belongs to a bodily exercise. But 
it is not the common Jewish stand-poiot that is here meant, ac- 
cording to which injury was done to the faith by giving an undue 

T 2 

Ji92 TITUS I. 13. 

place and prominence to the law : this is evident from the expres- 
sion commandments ofmen,Bnd not to speak of this, from the whole 
manner in which the apostle opposes the error ; and it has also 
been declared by Neander* and even by his opponent Baur (die 
s. g. Pastoralbriefe, p. 22, ss.)» while De Wette understands by it 
not simply the Mosaic prohibitions with regard to food, bat the 
traditional additions and exaggerations which these onderwent. As 
these seducers thought to improve the Christian truth in an intel- 
lectual respect by their additions, so would they also promote its 
perfection in an ethical respect by their commandments, while in 
reality by the one as well as by the other, they hindered the true 
soundness in the faith. Here also we have nothing mainly and 
directly opposed to the faith, as is evident from the connexion 
with the preceding, and also from the admonition addressed to 
Titus iii. 9, not to meddle with these controversies about the law, 
and the designation of these as profitless and vain, I must there- 
fore coincide with Baur, when he maintains (p. 280), that the 
opponents in this passage bear much less of the common Judaistio 
character than the Colossian heretics, and that the manner in which 
they are opposed here is quite different from that in the epistle to 
the Golossians, where the apostle by no means fails to refer to the 
inferior position of Judaism as compared with the higher one of 
Christianity. But what right has Baur all at once to throw this 
passage and 1 Tim. iv. 3, together, when the expression, latter 
times, in that passage points at what is to happen at a future 
period, and forbids (as he himself maintains), our connectid|^ it 
with earlier and already existing heretics, such as were those in 
Colosse ? Does the same expression not also forbid our connect- 
ing it with cotemporary errors, as would be the case were we to 
connect it with Tit. i. 14 ? And how little does it agree with the con- 
tents of our epistle to assert, that it differs from that to the Colos- 
sians, inasmuch as the error which is opposed in the latter, is by 
no means such a radical contradiction of Christianity, destitute of 
all truth, as we find in the former ? For where is there a single 
trace of any such radical contradiction to Christianity in our 
epistle ? Quite the contrary is the case. Nowhere does the 
epistle point at any fundamental opposition to the truth, it speaks 
only of corruptions which promote nmther the knowledge of that 
on which all depends, nor true godliness, but rather lead away from 

TITUS I. 16. 293 

these. If, however, the characteristics of the heretics in this 
epistle are to be regarded as applicable to Marcion, and to him 
alone, then indeed mast we attribute to them a dualistio view 
of the world, such as belongs to Gnosticism, together with a 
dislike of the Creator of the world, opinions to which such epithets 
hA profitless and vain, as well as the warning addressed to Titus 
against meddling with such things, are as far from being suitable, 
as is the opposition to it implied in the sound doctrine^ i. 9, ii. 1. 
And even then it must still be shown, that the characteristics can 
correspond only to Marcion. For had not the Jewish- Christians at 
Borne, according to Baur's own representation, a dualistio notion 
with reference to the world quite kindred in its root to the later 
Ebionitism ? Or might it be objected, as Baur has done, to this 
analogous case, that there is a wide interval between the germ and 
the theoretically developed system ? But where do we find such 
H system in this epistle ? All things are pure, says the apostle 
in opposition to these commandments of men, and he says just the 
same in Bom. xiv. 20. And how shall it be proved with reference 
to the church at Bome, that the germ which was then present in it 
grew into a system, such as that of the pseudo- Clementine homilies ; 
and yet, on the other hand, that from what is said in our epistle, 
more especially as to the ascetic principles of the opponents, only a 
Marcionetic system could result, " chiefly because," as Baur main- 
tains, " the notions with respect to the world entertained by the 
writer of the Clementine homilies, bears quite the character of the 
Marcionitic dualism ?" (Christ. Gnosis, p. 325.) We would sim*" 
ply say, with reference to the degree of asceticism which we find 
represented in this passage, that even although it should be re^ 
garded as going beyond the mere insisting on the Mosaical pro- 
hibitions of meats, we can point to analogous manifestations in the 
apostolic time, such as those described in the fourteenth chapter of 
Bomans, and in the epistle to the Colossians; comp. the Com- 

Ver. 15. This ascetic tendency which places the distinction of 
clean and unclean in the things themselves, and consequently in the 
use of these finds a hindrance or a furtherance to moral perfection, 
is opposed by the apostle in the assertion, that the distinction does 
not lie in the things themselves, but in the disposition of him who 
uses them. Where thai is pure, then all is pure ; in the other case, 

294 TlTUB I. 15. 

nothing is pure. The phrase irdvra tcaOapd (for fUp is to be can- 
celled according to A.G.D.^E.^F.^G., &c.) is found also at Bom* 
xi?. 20. The sentiment in itself is the same, the connexion however 
in which it is there used is different. There, it is an acknowledg- 
ment of the truth which those whom the apostle is setting right 
bring forward in their defence, and the but which follows, places 
in opposition to this truth the other, which in consequence of it was 
forgotten by them. It would be wrong to transfer this reference to 
the passage before us, and here also to take the all things are pure^ 
as an acknowledgment on the part of the apostle, according to which 
he combats a false view of Ohristian freedom. Against this is the 
expression, commandmetUs of mett, and the form in which he 
opposes the error, as we may see clearly by comparing the passage 
in Bomans with 1 Cor. vi. 12, x. 23 ; for were we to suppose 
that the following but introduces the apostle s own view, which he 
places in opposition to the admission just made, it will at once be 
perceived that the but introduces no such sentiment as could be 
placed in opposition to the phrase immediately preceding. Quite 
as mistaken is the view which explains the all things to mean the 
errors of the opponents, according to which the apostle would say, that 
these do not injure the pure ; against this view De Wette and Mat- 
thies have said all that is necessary. By the Trdvra (here as uni- 
versal as at Bom. xiv. 20, and I Cor. ii. 12) can only be under- 
stood the entire range of those things to which the distinction 
between pure and impure can be applied ; still, as De Wette re- 
marks with truth, it is not actions, but the materials of action that 
are meant. Pure^ in opposition to the view which finds something 
impure in the things themselves, so that their use has something 
polluting in it. The words of Bom. xiv. 20 will serve to explain 
those now before us. And we learn from Acts x. 14, xi. 6, how 
closely connected such a view was with the Old Testament stand 
point, so that we need no Gnostic aversion to the creation in order 
to its explanation. Tol^ teadofioUt not the dative of estimation, 
*' in the estimation of the pure," but " pure for them in the use,*' 
as the antithesis shows. It is also shown in the antithetical terms 
defiled and unbelieving^ the latter of which is explanatory of the 
former, what kind of purity is meant, — that purity, namely, of mind 
and heart which proceeds from faith. It is arbitrary to assign to 
the word the signification of '' free from prejudice," as is done by 

Tiiue I. 15. 295 

fie W«tte« although in 1 Oor. x. 86, I Tim. iy. 4^ knowledge is 
mentioned as a oondition of the state expressed in the term Koda- 
po9 ; comp* Bom. xiv. 14. As to the pure all things are pure, so 
to the defiled and the anbeKeving nothing is pure, i.e. the impurity 
of their mind is reflected froip the things with which they come 
into contact : '' all things become to them the materials of sin." (De 
Wette.) On fjLefiiafifihfo^^ instead of fiefuac/jLipoi^, Winer, § 15, 
p. 99. The word commonly used to express Levitical purity, John 
xviii. 28, and in the Septuagint, is here transferred to the state of 
mind, comp. Heb. xii. 15 ; Jude 8. On this very account perhaps 
is the designation unbelieving added, which determines the sense of 
the preceding expression to be, the impurity of unbelief. That the 
apostle has here in his eye the authors of those commandments 
(ver. 14) we learn from the following words, but, &c.,. which refer 
specially to them. These words declare in a positive form why no- 
thing is pure to the dqfiled and the unbelieving ; this, however, is 
stated not in the form of a reason, but simply as the opposite of 
what precedes, as in 1 Cor. xv. 10, oKKd also is used, where, how- 
ever, the sentiment might quite as well be applied in a causal form. 
" But their mind and conscience is defiled." The defilement which 
already exists within them communicates itself to every thing with 
which they come into contact ; even the purest thing thus becomes 
impure. By pov9 the apostle denotes not merely the understanding, 
but the entire mental habitus = sense ; avveiSviai^, however, is 
conscience, the moral consciousness of my thoughts end feelings, 
and manner of conduct in their relation to the law. It is a stand- 
ing feature of the errors combated in the Pastoral Epistles, that 
they have their source in a defiled conscience, a depraved mind, 
1 Tim. i. 19, iii. 9, vi. 6. Such a state of mind has no relish for 
the simple truth of the gospel, and therefore leads into those by- 
paths of error ; for the reception of the Christian truth, as well as 
the maintenance of it, requires a certain moral integrity which is 
not to be found in persons of this description. 

Their moral deficiency is described in ver. 16. They are men 
who are entirely wanting in moral earnestness, and in all power for 
what is good. " They profess that they know God, but in works 
they deny it, being abominable and disobedient, and unto every good 
work reprobate." After apvovvrat supply elSivai ; compare on the 
expression ii. 12 ; 1 Tim. v. 8 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12, iii. 5, and elsewhere, 

U06 TITUS I. J 5. 

1 John ii. 22, 28 ; Luke xxii. 57, &o. That it does not elsewhere 
occur in the apostle's writings is indeed true, but no one will there- 
fore hold the sentiment to he unpauline. BSeKu/erol only here, in 
the Sept. used for nSVin* ^^^ °^^ designate the seduoers as ido- 
lators, but, in its connexion with the following general predicates, 
denotes their moral abandonment, which is such as to make them 
an abomination. The expression, however, is not selected without 
a reference to the foregoing ; while they lay stress on the contract- 
ing of abomination irom outward things, they themselves are 
abominable^ comp* Bom. ii. 22, and Lev. xi. 10, 18, ss. Disobe- 
diefit, as at iii. 8, namely, towards God ; compare with Eph. ii. 2, 
V. 6. *AB6/ufio^ = reprobuB, here as elsewhere in a passive signi- 
fication, 2 Tim. iii. 8 ; Bom. i. 28 ; 1 Cor. ix. 27, See. The critics 
have also much to object to in this passage *' on the heretics,'* ver. 
10 — 16. They find that the heretics themselves are indistinctly 
characterized (so De Wette, Einl. p. 8) ; this, however, will not 
agree with what De Wette himself says in the page immediately be- 
fore» that the apostle warns Titus against the heretics, " from a 
knowledge which implies a lengthened observation of them." Fur- 
thetf it is alleged that nothing is said in opposition to them by the 
apostle that might serve as an adequate refutation of their errors. 
But only on the supposition that we find here the forms of the 
later gnosis already distinctly stamped, can the designation, as also 
the refutation, of the errors appear to be inadequate. That without 
this supposition, a distinct view of the error of these opponents in 
its original source, its manifestations, and its results, may bfi ob- 
tained firom this passage, has, we hope, been satisfactorily shown 
in the exposition. Nor do I know what more suitable confutation 
could have been given of those who, themselves inwardly impure, 
lay stress on a certain outward purity^ than that which the apostle 
has given in ver. 15. If it is difficult for us to determine with 
certainty the sense of this or that expression, such a difficulty is 
at once accounted for by the fact, that the apostle was writing to 
Titus, who knew well what the apostle meant, and for whom the 
indications which he gives as to the real source of the error were 
amply sufficient. 

T1TU8 II. 1. 297 


(Ch. ii. 1— iii. 11.) 

A. Id reference to the right deportment of Christians, and that 
according to sex, age, and rank. (Gh. ii. 1 — 15.) 

The apostle now lays down what Titus is to teach, in opposition 
to the vain, unprofitable talk, the contents of which are specified 
at ver. 14 as fahles and commandments of men* and to which be- 
longs no morally regenerating influence. He states it summarily 
in ver. 1 as ike things which become sound doctrine^ an expres- 
sion which could not be selected in opposition to a cardinal heresy, 
but only in opposition to a doctrine which is destitute of the firuits 
of godliness. The apostle farther explains in ver. 2 — 10; what he 
means by the things which become^ &b., inasmuch as he there 
prescribes to Titus how he is to exhort the aged men in the church, 
ver. 2, then ver. 3 the aged women, in order that through their 
instrumentality the younger persons of their sex may be directed 
to what is good. Then ver. 6, how he is to exhort young men, where 
also the apostle, ver. 7 and 8, interposes an admonition to Titus, 
to show himself a pattern in conformity to his calling. Then ver. 

and 10, what is necessary for slaves, in order that they may 
adorn the doctrine of God. From these injunctions intended for 
individuals, according to sex, age, and rank, the apostle then, ver. 

1 1, reverts to the great truth on which the foregoing exhortations 
are founded (7ap), namely, that the end for which the divine grace 
hath been manifested in regard to all is, that we might begin and 
carry forward a new godly life here below, in the expectation of 
the glorious appearing of Him, who designed by his death to pur* 
chase a peculiar people for himself, zealous of good works. This 
then Titus is to urge in every way on those under his care, and 
not to give himself any concern about his youth. Thus the apostle 
concludes, in order, at iii. 1, to pass to a new admonition bearing 
on a difierent relation, that, namely, in which Christians stand to 

Ver. 1. But speak thou, says the apostle to Titus, what becomes 
the sound doctrine. Titus, in opposition to the seducers described 

a08 . TITUB U. 1 . 

before and their doings, is to speak what becomes the sound 
dootzine. "A irpeiret cannot denote the true doctrine itself in op- 
position to the error, but only what is conformable to the aonml 
doctrine which leads to godfineas ; it is. as is plain from what 
follows, the right moral deportment as founded in the facts of the 
gospel plan of salvation (ver.* 11) that is meant. We perceive* 
also here, that they are not errors of a dogmatical kind which the 
apostle refutes, for all that he brings forward of this kind (ver. 1 1 ; 
iii. d, 8S«) has but a subordinate relation to the moral precepts 
which are laid down, and is brought forward only to confirm these. 
If then Titus, in opposition to the prevailing error, is to urge with 
all his might the moral requirements of Christianity, and to enjoin 
a moral conduct corresponding to the sound doctrine, it is clear 
that the main and essential characteristic of that error must have 
been its moral unfruitfulness, and its tendency to divert from 
strenuous efforts after holiness by leading its followers to take 
themselves up with profitless questions. The critics, however, do 
not allow themselves to be disturbed by this in their suppositions 
with regard to heresies, but rather put forward the objection (comp. 
De Wette's Comm. p. 14), that one would look for a fundamental 
principle to be opposed to the heresy (said indeed to be but vaguely 
described), instead of which, however, there follow only certain 
moral precepts (for as also in 1 Tim. i. 10, the sound doctrine is 
viewed in its moral aspect), to which, moreover, the heretics them- 
selves would assuredly have also subscribed. It is evident from 
such expressions, how by their groundless pre-suppositions they 
have made it impossible for them to come to the right understand- 
ing of the epistle, and at the same time, that they give testimony 
to the correctness of our view by acknowledging, that in the pas- 
sage before us nothing is said in opposition to a dogmatical error, 
but only to a tendency that was vain and fruitless in a moral point 
of view. When, further, it is objected, that the opponents would 
assuredly have also subscribed to the moral precepts that are laid 
down, here again an entirely false point of view is taken up. For 
the apostle does not confute the opponents with these precepts, but 
he tells Titus what he is to insist on, namely, on a conduct be- 
coming the gospel, a conduct the real nature of which be further 
shows with reference to the natural distinctions of sex, age, and 
rank. It is not said that those opponents had denied the rightneas 

TITT76 II. d, 8. ^e 

of these moral precepts, but only that it is necessary in oppoflatni 
to them to tiirn away the attention from the false direction towards 
subjects morally unprofitable, and to lead to a manifestation of 
faith in a corresponding moral condnct. Calvin says well : '* be- 
sides, he therefore deals more in exhortations, becaase those who 
were intent on useless questions needed chiefly to be re-called to 
the study of a holy and honest life ; for there is nothing that will 
more e£fectually allay the wandering curiosity of men, than their 
being brought to recognize those duties in which they ought to 
exercise themselves." 

Ver. 9. The apostle now begins with his moral injunctions for 
the aged. That ihe aged men he sober, &a). On irpeaPtna^ 
comp. Fhilm. 9 ; Luke i. 18, denoting merely the age, and there- 
fore to be distinguished from 7r/>€o-)8vr6po9, the official designation. 
Hfl^aKLov^, ** sober" in the proper sense of the term, comp. i. 7 ; 
ii. 8 is found also in 1 Tim. iii. 2, 1 1 ; aefivoih, besides in the 
Pastoral Epistles, occurs only in Phil. iv. 8, " dignified." ^o)- 
^pova^i *' steady, discreet," comp. on i. 8. ^Tytaivovra^, &c., sound 
with respect to faith, love, patience. The expression comprehen- 
sively denotes that moral perfection which we are warranted to ex- 
pect chiefly in a irpea^vTqf;. If patience is used here in place of 
hope (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 13), it is with the view of giving promi- 
nence to that moral energy, in virtue of which the Christian stands 
fast, comp. 1 Thess. i. 8, in which both are connected. Chry- 
sostom : " the apostle has well said in patience, for this is espe- 
cially suitable to old men." On the connexion between love and 
patience comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 7. De Wette's remark is unfounded, 
that vyiah. in reference to t§ arydrrff and t§ vTrofiop^ is an inac- 
curate expression for : fruitful in love, strong in patience. ^Tyiai^ 
vtDv denotes the man who is as he ought to be, in a normal condi- 
tion in every respect. 

Yer. 8. The aged women likewisa^ fto. A similar character is 
required in them, hence likewise, which places them side by side 
with the aged men, Kardtrrqiia used by the profane writers and 
elsewhere (Ign. ad Trail, c. 8), not merely of the dress, but of the 
whole deportment. ^leptrnpeirek only here, conveniens hominibus 
Beo sacris (Wahl), is explained by 1 Tim. ii. 10, which hecometh 
women professing godliness, £ph. v. 8, as hecometh saints* Their 
priestly calling should manifest itself in their whole conduct. 

300 TITUS II. 4. 

Jerome : " that their very gait and moUoDS, their countenaDce, their 
speech, their silence, may carry in them a certain dignity of sacred 
beauty." Not slandererSy not given to much wine, faults of which 
the first is frequent in this class, the second doubtless bears reference 
to the national character of the people. Not slanderers, 1 Tim. iii. 
1 1, not given to much wine, — not indulging the inclination for wine. 
Similarly 1 Tim. iii. 8, comp. with 2 Pet. ii. 19. Further, KaXoii- 
BaaxdKoik only here, honestatis magistrae ; not by public ad- 
dresses (1 Tim. ii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 34), but by private admonition 
and the example of their conduct, in order that through their 
instrumentality the young women might be directed to what is 

Yer. 4. "Ivd a-m<l>pov(SaKn (Tischendorf, ata^^povlfyvai,, ac- 
cording to A.F.G.H., comp. Winer, ^ 42, 1, p, 886) t^9 via/;, 
Saxl>povi^€iv only here »» to set right. The following infinitives 
depend on am^povifyiCL^ although the following adappova^ may 
certainly seem strange according to this view of the construction ; 
hence many commentators are rather for taking these infinitives 
as dependent on XoXet, ver. 1. Against this, however, is the infi- 
nitive elvcuy which in this case would better be wanting, and also 
that the following special characteristics are more suitable to young 
wives (by via^ are to be understood married women), and, lastly, 
that in reference to these too little would be said in proportion. It 
is doubtless not by chance merely that the apostle gives directions 
for the younger women to be taught by the elder, and not directly by 
Titus, which also Ghrysostom and others have noticed. They are 
to be directed to love their husbands and children, for in this lies the 
foundation of all domestic happiness ; further, to be modest, chaste, 
keepers at home, kind, obedient to their husbands. If <r€d^pO' 
vlfyiv comprehends all the following characteristics, then in its 
more general signification of " to set right," it must be understood 
as = vovOeretv or ircuZevetUt as Theophylact explains it Xoih 
if>pova/i is then '* discreet, judiciously modest." (Matthies.) ^A^^fvo^ 
in its more special signification = chaste. Oltcovpois (according 
to C.D.***H.LK., &c., and oUovpyov^ according to A.C.D.*F.G. ; 
the latter occurs nowhere else = active in household affairs.) 
Hesychitts, ol/coupo^' 6 ^povrU^v rh rov oIkov koI ^vXArrfoir 
ovpo^ yhp 6 <l>vXa^ Xeyercu; comp. 1 Tim. v. 13 ; Pro. vii. 11. 

*Aya0d^ is not to be connected with oucovpov^, as the latter is already 


TITUS .II. 7. 301 

a complete idea in itself; but =» *< kind/' as Matt. zz. 15 ; 1 Pet. 
ii. 18 ; Bom. ▼. 7. Hevdenreich : " their tbhftiness most not 
degenerate into avarioe." Subject to their husbands^ Epb. ▼• 22 ; 
Col. iii. 18, &c. ''Ihw; avrip^ husband, oornp. Winer, § 22» 7, p. 
178. That the word of God be not blasphemed, comp. ver. 8 
and 10 ; 1 Tim. v. 14, vi. 1 ; Bom. ii. 24. Tbeopbylaot : " unless we 
are virtuous blasphemy will come through us to the faith.*' Ghrysos- 
tom connects with this especially the case of a Ohristian wife having 
a heathen husband. An unnecessary limitation, as the comparison 
with other passages shows. 

Ver. 6. The apostle now turns to the younger men. They 
stand opposed to the irpea-fivra^^ ver. 2, just as the viai to the 
irpeafivTiSe^, ver. 3. Young unmarried women are therefore not 
to be included in the v&irripou^ ; for that the i/^oi, ver. 4, are 
spoken of in close connezion with the irpea^vri&e^f is accounted 
for by the relation which is to subsist between them as teachers 
and taught, and can therefore not be brought as a proof against 
this arrangement. The apostle sums up in the word awf>pov€hf 
every duty to which they are to be admonished. Calvin : bene 
oompositos, et rationi obtemperantes. Chrysostom : " nothing is 
so hard and di£BiouIt at this age as to overcome pleasures and 

Ver. 7. To this class Titus himself belongs (comp. ver. 15), 
and therefore the apostle here interposes an admonition to him, to 
show himself a pattern of good works. The apostle thus gives U9 
to understand that all teaching and ezhortation are useless, unless 
the teacher's ezample confirm and enforce his word. Titus is to 
show himself in every respect a pattern of good works. On irepi 
as denoting the objects about which an action is conversant e= " in 
respect to, see Winer, § 58, i. p. 482 ; comp. 1 Tim. i. 19 ; 2 Tim. 
iii. 8, and also elsewhere, Phil. ii. 23 ; Luke z. 41, &o. On the 
middle irapexpfievo^ connected with thereflez pronoun, see Winer, 
§ 89, 6, p. 298.— £a\£v if^rov^ as ver. 14, iii. 8—14 ; 1 Tim. 
V. 10—25, vi. 18, and Spyaw^add, 1 Tim. ii. 10 ; 2 Tim. ii. 21 ; 
Tit. iii. 1. ''A characteristic of the Pastoral Epistles," observes 
De Wette on this ezpression ; he himself however refers to Eph. 
ii. 20 : created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, where we 
find quite the same expression and idea, — for by these good works 
are to be understood, as Matthies ezpresses it, the attestation of 

802 T1TD8 II. 7. 

evangelioal life. It is the manifestation of that in the life, which 
the apostle denotes in Ter. 1 hy 2 irphrei as the import of his ad- 
monitions. Comp. General Introduction, § 4. The only thing 
then in regard to this expression, that is peculiar to the Pastoral 
Epistles, is the more frequent use of it. But when we consider the 
nature of the error to which opposition is made in these epistles, 
the more frequent use of this expression will be fully accounted 
for; comp., moreover, Kak/moieip, in 2 Thess. iii. 13— Tuirof, 
used in like manner of the apostle in Phil. iii. 17, comp. 
the comment Then follow the words : iv t§ SiBaatcoKla oBta^- 
Boplav (the older and more authorized reading a^opiap signifies 
the same thing), xal aefivoTqra^ &c. In order to the right 
understanding of these words, it must not be overlooked that they 
set forth that in which Titus is to show himself a pattern of his own 
instructions to others. Further, that ht&aaKdKla may signify as 
well the doctrine in which instruction is given as the teaching itself, 
we have seen at ver. 9. It will therefore not do to connect hv r^ 
BiScuTKoKia with the immediately preceding, according to which the 
sense would be: Titus is to show himself in every department of 
his teaching a pattern of good works. This limitation of the 
example to the teaching, yields no suitable sense, and the words 
can give no other sense in this connexion. If, then, Titus is to 
show himself in all respects as a pattern, then in the words, tii 
doctrine, the special sphere of his vocation is brought into promi- 
nence, after the foregoing expression Trepl irdina had set forth in a 
general form all things in which he is to be a pattern. As well 
generally as specially in his official calling is he to show himself a 
pattern. Uncorruptness is, however, not to be understood as ex* 
pressing a quality of the doctrine, but a personal quality, for this is 
required by the idea of the rinro^y and also by the quality expressed 
in the word following, namely, gravity, '^^dopia signifies, there- 
fore, not purity of doctrine, but sincerity of mind in teaching, 
and is to bo compared with 2 Cor. xi, 3, lest your minds should be 
corrupted {<l>0apff) from the simplicity that is in Christ* SefA- 
vorryi will thus mean a dignified seriousness in setting forth the 
Christian Cruth. The end sought to be gained is, that the learners 
may, through his instructions, be penetrated with the personal 
sincerity,-— *' which is concerned only about the communication of 
the pure truth" (Heydenreich)-*and the deep seriousness of 

TITOB II. 8. 808 

the teacher. Thus does he who teaches show himself a pattern in 
his teaching ; the truth and power of that which he makes known 
is perceived in his own person. The verb irapexofiepo^ is to be 
connected with these sabstantives, as also with the following X0701/ 
vyirj, comp. Acts xix .24 ; Ool. iv. 1. 

Ver. 8. If our interpretation is so far correct, then can Xoyov 
vyirj not be understood of private conversation, as Calvin explains 
it : sanus sermo ad communem vitam et privata coUoquia refertur. 
After the foregoing expression in doctrine, which transfers us to 
the sphere of Titus' official calling, a new characteristic would cer- 
tainly be requisite, in contradistinction to it> in order to intimate 
that the X0709 does not also belong to it. But neither can Xo^os 
vyiij^ be understood to mean the sound Christian doctrine, for this 
would not correspond to aKararpfwarof; and the reference to iwof ; 
rather, X0709 £7^179 and aKardyvaxFTO^ in close connexion with the 
preceding, are meant to designate the qualities and character of the 
discourse, sincerity and seriousness in the speaker being presup- 
posed : it will be sound speech that cannot be condemned* 'Ako' 
rarfwaxTTO^ only here, comp. Kareyvtaafiivo^y Gal. ii. 11* The 
apostle now adds, as at vers. 5 and 10, the design of all this, it is 
that the enemy may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of us* 
TlepX fffi&v, not irepl vfA&Vj is certainly the true reading according 
to critical authorities ; it is likewise more suitable that the apostle 
should here place himself in the same category with Titus when he 
is speaking of the SiBaaKoKia. It is difficult to say with certainty 
whether the Christian or the heathen opponents are to be under- 
stood as referred to in the expression, he that is of the contrary 
part^ — ^for the apostle must certainly have had in his mind either the 
one class or the other* In the case of the former being meant, 
reference is made to i. 0, 2 Tim. ii. 25 (Heydenreich), and in 
favour of the latter, the analogy in vers. 5 and 10, and 1 Tim. v. 
14 is appealed to (De Wette.) It appears to me from the whole 
context, in which Titus is enjoined to teach and to labour in oppo- 
sition to the false seducers (comp. ii. 1), and also from the apostle's 
placing himself here in the same category with Titus, to be more 
natural to refer the expression to these opponents. If Titus oppose 
them without being, as he is here admonished to be, a pattern in 
his whole deportment, he will then not escape their malicious 
retorts. 'EvrperriaOa^t literally to be turned in upon themselves 

304 TITUS II. 9, 10. 

= ''be ashamed/' 1 Gor. iv. 14,. 2 Thess, iii. 14, &c. ^i?Xo9, 
comp. John iii. 20, v. 29; Jam. iii. 16; Bom. ix. II. 

Ver. 9, 10. The constraction interrupted in vers. 7 and 8 is 
now without any further notice continued ; the infinitives, there- 
fore, are dependent on irapaKoKei, ver 6. The apostle gives here 
also special injunctions to be addressed to slaves, as in £ph. vi. 
5, ss., Gol. iii. 22; 1 Tim. vi. 1> ss.; 1 Cor. vii. 21 ; comp. also 
1 Pet ii. 18. The reason of these repeated exhortations is plain 
enough. In no rank was the high idea of Christian freedom and 
equality more in danger of being misapplied, than in that of the 
slave, which indeed appeared to be a direct contradiction of this 
idea. Hence the apostle's sentiments on the subject of their 
emancipation, 1 Cor. vii. 21, hence the ever recurring exhortation 
to subjection and obedience. And indeed whether the master was 
a heathen or a Christian, in either case it was natural for the slave 
who had become a Christian to forget his place, and to seek either 
to exalt himself above his master, or to put himself on a level 
with him. Thus in this passage also the first thing that is en- 
joined is subjection to their masters, '^IBio^ Secnrorrf^^ like iSto9 
avi^Pt ii. 5. AeoTTan]^, not icupu>^, as in 1 Pet. ii. 18. Still more 
is required of them in the words following : iv irSunv eifapicrov^ 
ehai to be complaisant in everything* The word is often used by 
the apostle, Rom. xii. 1, 14, 18, &c. It denotes that zeal in the 
discharge of duty which does even more than is required, that 
service which anticipates the command, and seeks in everything to 
gain the goodwill of the master. Not answering again (Rom x. 
21), not purloining (literally not putting anything apart for them- 
selves), Acts V. 2, 3, but showing all good fidelity. On iriaru^ 
comp. Rom. iii. 8. ^EpBeucwfiivov^ — a word often used by the 
apostle, and only by him. ^Aya0i]v, the apostle adds this in oppo- 
sition to a service which aims merely at a good appearance ; comp. 
the passages adduced above, Eph. vi. 5, ss. ; Col. iii. 22, ss. There 
also the apostle again in iva points at the obligation of Christians 
to give testimony to the gospel in their conduct ** For the hea- 
then," says Chrysostom, " do not judge of the Christianas doctrines 
from the doctrine, but from his actions and life." " That they may 
adorn the doctrine of our Saviour God in all things." The ip iraai 
answers to the 'rrcurap. Their conduct is an ornament to the doc- 
trine, inasmuch as it reveals the power of godliness that lies in it. 

TITUS 11. 11 — 14. 805 

Our Saviour God — this appellation of its author at once denotes the 
essential import of the doctrine^ and points at the ground of the 
obligation to such a conduct, which is then further explained in 
what follows. There is therefore here no reason for surprise at 
this circumlocution for the gospel. 

Ver. 11 — 14. In these verses we have the further explanation of 
the ground of obligation to such a deportment. The connexion is 
this : the appearance of the grace of God has for its end the sane- 
tification of men. Some understand the words of ver. 1 1 , for the 
grace of God hath appeared^ &c., as confirmatory of all that pre- 
cedes from ver. 1 onwards, others only from ver. 9 onwards. It 
appears to me the most natural way to refer them to the sentiment 
immediately preceding, in which is already contained the reference 
to the ground of the obligation to adorn the doctrine by a holy 
walk. The explanation itself, however, is not to be understood as 
having special reference to the slaves, but is expressed in a gene- 
ral form, and refers equally to all, so that substantially we have 
here the confirmation of all the foregoing exhortations from ver. 1 
onwards. '' For the grace of Qod which bringeth salvation hath ap- 
peared to all men, teaching them/' &c. 'ETre^i/i;, so again at iii. 4 ; 
comp. Luke i. 79, to give light to them that are in darkness (Isa. 
ix. 2 ; Ix. 1, ss.), Col. i. 26. The use of the word in Acts xxvii. 
20, shows firom what the metaphor is taken. Similar passages are 
Bom. xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 6, 8, where the time of the appearance 
of this grace is denoted by the day. A comparison with these pas- 
sages shows at the same time that the appearing of the grace of 
God is not to be referred exclusively to the incarnation ; but rather 
(with De Wette and Matthies) to the whole work of redemption, 
" the highest cause of which lies in the grace of God." 'H aayrri' 
pio^ irSunv avOpdmoi^. Tischendorf has retained the article, ac- 
cording to C***D***E.I.K., &c., rightly, as I apprehend, al- 
though contrary to other authorities likewise weighty ; for the em- 
phasis in the sentiment rests not on acan^pu)^ but on teaching, 
which is to be closely connected with hath appeared. Soyn^pio^ 
without the article would obscure the otherwise clear connexion. 
The term is then all the more expressive, as an appositional desig- 
nation of the xapvi. The apostle does not speak of the teaching 
power of the grace of God without specifying the essential import 

of this grace, upon which this teaching power rests. The 17 awnf- 


306 TITUB II. 11 — 14. 

pu)^ points back to the aoyrqpf ver. 10, as also the clause 'rraaip 
avdpdmoi^, to the universality of this grace as contemplated in the 
foregoing exhortations, ver. 1, ss. There is no ground for suppos* 
ing that the apostle here, as it were, in passing, takes a side glance 
at Jewish or even at Gnostic particularism. If the apostle had 
such adversanes in his eye, he would oppose them in quite a dif- 
ferent way. The critics only betray the insufficiency of their 
means of proof, when in their induction of passages, they include 
those from which a polemical aim is so remote as it is from the 
passage before us. Matthies is also of this opinion, p. 132. On 
the connexion of iraaw avOpamoi^, whether with iire^avri, or with 
0-Q>T^pio9, or with both, there is a difference of opinion among 
commentators. The connexion with acanipu)^ is alone conformable 
to the context, for connected with iireffMVf) it is quite aimless and 
obstructive. For what has itSutlv dvBpdmoi^ to do with 'rratSevovaa 
rjfia^ ? On atonjpiof:, comp. Epb. vi. 17. 

The discipline which the appearing grace of God exercises, is 
described in ver. 12, teaching us that, denying the ungodly nature, 
we should live orderly, righteously, and godly, in this present time ; 
ver. 13, in expectation of the blessed hope and appearance of the 
glory of the great God and our Saviour. IlaiBevova-a, says the 
apostle ; grace exercises discipline, it cannot be received until its 
disciplining power is experienced (comp. Heb. xii. 6, 7 ; 1 Oor. 
xi. 32.) Its aim is then stated both negatively and positively. 
For iva is here to be understood in its Jinal signification. The 
negative side, as that which is pre-supposed in the positive, is de- 
noted by dpvffo'dfiepoi. On apveurdai, comp. what has been said 
on i. Id. Savarovv, Oavarovadai is used similarly by the apostle 
in Rom. viii. 13, vii. 4. ^Apveurdcu, the opposite of ofidXjoyovPj 
i. 16, is a denial in heart and deed. Luke ix. 28 ; Rev. ii. 13, may 
be compared as passages analogous to this ; and besides 1 Tim. 
V. 8 ; 2 Tim. iii. 5. Tifp daeficiav (comp. on Kar ivaifieuiv, 
i. 1) clesignates the condition of the unconverted in its most funda« 
mental aspect as separation from God, which has for its reverse 
side a cleaving to the world, and to that which is in the world : 
worldly lusts ^ as it is here expressed. KoafUKo^ occurs besides 
only in Heb. ix. 1, as denoting what belongs to earth. 1 John ii. 15, 
16, may be considered as a comment on this passage, love not the 
world, neither the things that are in the world ; and then all 

TITUS II. 13. 807 

that is in the world is described as the lust of thejlesh^ &c. The 
worldly lusts are the lusts which are directed to the things that are 
in the world, Oomp. Gal. v. 16 ; Eph. ii. 8. In contrast with 
this condition of the man, who is not yet walking in the light of 
grace, it is said farther that we may live soberly^ righteously^ and 
godly. So)<t>p6voi>^, in opposition to the lusts which had the mas- 
tei^ over him before, comp. on i. 8. Aucaunyi denotes, in general, 
the right conduct conformably to the law of God ; ewrefiw^ in op- 
position to aa-ifieia, the right conduct in its deepest source, — 
godliness. The sum of Christian moraUty is here set forth in its 
fundamental aspects ; the limits of its various spheres are, how- 
ever, not marked off here, as many commentators imagine, so as 
that 0*0)^^0 va)9 denotes virtue as regards ourselves, iucaloi^ as re- 
gards our fellow-creatures, and evae/Sik as respects God. JS'co^- 
povfo^ can with as little propriety be referred merely to ones self 
as Bueaio)^ merely to others, and by evaefiw is also denoted the 
whole sphere of the Christian life. Comp. Matthies on the pas* 
sage. ^Ev r^ vvv ai&vi,, the apostle adds this in opposition to 
what follows, which refers to the aia^v iiiXKtav, comp. 1 Cor. i. 20, 
iii. 18, 19. 

Ver. 13. Looking for, &c. As in ver. 2, the words in hope of 
eternal life serve more exactly to determine the preceding, so here 
the words looking for, &c., ver. 13, serve the same puq)ose, comp. 
Phil. iii. 20, 21. There lies in this expectation an antidote to 
the worldly lusts, and a stimulus to live in the present time, con- 
formably to this expectation. IIpoa'Bex'Ba'dai as usual in the sig- 
nification, *' expect," Luke ii. 25, 38 ; Mark xv. 43. The object 
of this expectation the apostle denotes by blessed hope and ap- 
pearing , &c. ^EXirk is consequently to be taken in an objec- 
tive sense (as in Rom. viii. 24 ; Col. i. 5), and to be connected 
with the following genitive t^9 So^rjf;, IIpoaBoKdo} connected with 
iKirk is in like manner found in the Sept. Job ii. 9. The apostle 
calls this hope fi&Kaplap (an expression elsewhere used by the 
apostle. Bom. iv. 7, 8 ; 1 Cor. vii. 40), inasmuch as it brings the 
expected blessedness. The words following tell us what is meant by 
this hope in the expectation of which we are to live. On the ex- 
pression hn^v€ta, comp. ver. 11. We have thus a double appear* 
ance, an appearance of grace (ver. 11), as the ground and source 

of all new life, and an appearance of glory as the end and aim of the 

u 2 

308 TITUS IT. 1 3. 

former. I)e Wette has given a place in his critical index to hr^ 
<f)dv€ia as being instead oiirapovcla, 1 Tim. vi. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. I, 
8; Tit. ii. 18. Bat do we not find also in 2 Tbess. ii. 8, the 
expression, t§ hri^vela T179 irapoinria^, from which we may infer 
both that emijkivela differs from irapova-la, inasmuch as it refers to 
the visibility of Christ's coming, and also that the expression is 
elsewhere used by the apostle with reference to the coroing-of 
Christ ? As regards the interpretation of the following words Try; 
S6^9 ToS fieydKov Beov Koi aayrrjpo^ 'qfi&v ^Irjaov Xpurroii, the 
question is« whether the great God and our Saviour are to be 
taken as predicates of one and the same person, namely, Jesus 
Christ, or whether two different subjects are meant : God (the 
Father) and Jesus Christ. In favour of the former — that one 
subject is meant, are the most of the Fathers., and many of the more 
recent comroontators, as Mack, Matthies^ Usteri ; the latter view, 
however, has its representatives also among the Fathers, as Am- 
brose, — and Grotius, Wetstein,Heinrichs,De Wette, have acquiesced 
in this view, while others are doubtful. Olshausen has expressed 
himself in favour of the former view, which refers both predicates 
to Christ. Winer has shown (§ 18, 5, Anm. p. 148) that the 
question cannot be decided on grammatical grounds. It has in- 
deed been maintained that the article must be repeated before awrr^- 
po9 }\ii&v^ if by this expression a new subject is designated ; in 
reply to which again, it has been justly said, that o-coT^pof, because 
defined by the genitive 17/^011/, does not require the article, and that 
the absence of it may be shown in cases quite similar to the pre- 
sent, 2 Thess. i. ] 2 ; 2 Pet i. 1 ; Jud. iv. These passages also 
prove, that in case the words aam^po^ fjfi&v apply to a second sub- 
ject, it is not necessary that ^Irjaov Xpurrov should be placed be- 
fore them. But it is difficult also from the context, to obtain a 
decided reason either for the one or the other view. For, to the 
objection against the view that one subject is meant, — namely, that 
on account of ver. 14, the appellation, great Ood, cannot be ap- 
plied to Christ, — what Heydenreich has already observed is a suf- 
ficient reply, namely, that Christ is also represented as Saviour, 
and in this respect the words of ver. 14, he gave himself^ could 
be predicated of him. And the objection has just as little weight, 
that if Christ were the subject of both predicates, aomjpo^, accord- 
ing to the apubtle's usual manner, must have been placed before /itey. 

TITUS II. 18. 309 

0€ov; against which, in like manner, Heydenreich has said what is 
neoessary. On the other hand, what is said against applying fiey. 
0€ov to God the Father, — namely, that it is not the appearance of the 
majesty of God, hut of Jesus Christ, that is represented as the ob- 
ject of hope for the day of the second coming, — in so far as it 
denies the possibility of such an application, has no weight ; for 
the advocates of this view, as De Wette, have justly referred to the 
fact, that according to passages such as Matth. xvi. 27 ; Mark viii* 
38, " Christ appears in the glory {Le. the majesty and omnipo- 
tence) of the Father, and at the same time in his own glory (Matth. 
XXV. 31), and consequently that his appearance may be represented 
as at once the appearance of the glory of God, and of his own glory. 
If, however, with this. so much must be granted, that the glory in 
which Christ appears can be described asthe^/ory of God, it must 
still remain a striking fact, that God and Christ are here placed in 
an equal relation to this ^lory of the future appearance. It is in 
reality Christ himself who will then appear in the glory of his 
Father^ not God himself, as, in this case, quite different relations to 
the glory would be expressed by the genitive in this passage. Mat- 
thies has indicated the same thing, when he says (p. 139), that if 
both subjects were to be connected with the hri^aveta^ then in 
order to be grammatico-logically correct, instead of koX aayrijpo^ 
fjfi&Vi it would have to be ^ amrrjpi ^fi&v ^Irfaov Xpiarov, or 
Tov aorrrjpo^ ^fi&v €V t§ Sofi; rov /JLeyaXov deov. The way in 
which this is sought to be evaded, namely, by explaining hri^, rrj^ 
S6^^ of that manifestation of glory in which Christians shall at a 
future time take part, is too great a misconception of the idea im- 
plied in iiri^dveui, and too great a departure from the objective 
sense of the passage, to find much acceptance. But still more 
important than this, is the consideration derived from the accus- 
tomed style of the apostle, according to which we nowhere else 
find this hope spoken of without its being referred to Christ, while 
iiriffkiveui, as also irapovala, is never used of the Father, but 
only of the Son, also in the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. vi« 14; 2 
Tim. iv. 1, 8. This circumstance alone appears to Olshausen to 
be decisive. It is also to be considered how natural it must have 
been for the apostle — if, contrary to the general usage, he here 
meant to name two subjects — distinctly to indicate this, while, on 
the contrary, the expression which he employs must always be 

310 T1TU8 11. 14, 15. 

most naturally anderstood of one subjeot ; further, that the context 
affords no reason at all why God should bo named besides Christ 
in reference to the hn^aveui ; that in ver. 14 there is no reference 
to the great God ; and, finally, that the epithet fieyoKov is no 
where else used in reference to God (the Father), and that its ap- 
plication to 0€Q^ here ean be much more easily explained on the 
supposition that it is Christ who is denoted by ^609. (" God the 
Father too did not need the exalting and laudatory epithet fieytv; ; 
this rather refers to Christ," " Usteri Paul. Lehrb. 5, Aufl. p. 326 ; 
and Olshausen refers to 1 John v. 20, the true God,) It will 
therefore be the more natural way to understand the words great 
God of Christ. In proof of there being nothing in the doctrinal 
system of Paul to contradict this view, I refer to Usteri a. a. Q. 
824, ss., and Olshausen on Bom. ix. 6. — The expression, great 
God, occurring no where in the New Testament, but frequently 
in the Old, comp. Deut. vii. 21, x. 17, &c., is warranted by 
the context, which refers to the glory of his appearance, in like 
manner as the expression true God in John v. 20. On S6^9 
Calvin well observes : gloriam Dei interpretor non tantum, qua in 
se ipse gloriosus erit, sed qua tunc se quoquoversus diffundet, ut 
omnes electos suos ejus faciat participes. 

Vv. 14, 15. '^ Who hath given himself for us, that he might 
redeem us from all unrighteousness, and purify us to himself a pe- 
culiar people, zealous of good works. These things teach and ex- 
hort, and rebuke with all authoritativeness. Let no one despise 
thee." — On the connexion of the relative sentence, ver. 14, De 
Wette justly observes, that the atoning work of Christ already indi- 
cated in the words the grace that bringeth salvation, and in which 
lies the power to teach, is here supplementarily recalled to mind. 
And it is just this teaching element in the saving grace, which is 
here brought into prominence and explained. He has given him- 
self — J^Kcy emphatically, Olshausen — namely, in his atoning 
death ; comp. Gal. i. 4, ii. 20 ; Eph. v. 2, v. 25, &c., where BiSovai 
and irapaJBiSopai in like manner occurs. That he might redeem 
us, comp. Matth. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45 ; to give his life a ransom, 
and the commentary on the passage and 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; Xurpova- 
0ai, as here, 1 Pet. i. 18 ; Luke xxiv. 21. That from which he 
has redeemed us is the avofiui (comp. ver. 12, denying ungodli- 
ness), in bondage to which we were till then, Rom. i. 24. The 

TITUS ri. 14, 16. 311 

context shows, why the state from which we are redeemed is des- 
cribed as a state of unrighteousness ; the moral servitude implied 
in a right Christian conduct, is placed in opposition to the bondage 
of unrighteousness. The whole expression, however, will only then 
be fully understood, when tbfi real force which lies in the word ai/o- 
fiia, as used by the apostle, is taken into view. ^AvofiCa denotes 
the essence of sin, comp. 1 John iii. 4 ; sin is the transgression of 
the law {avofjua,) That he might purify unto himself a peculiar 
people. On xadaplarf, 1 Cor. vii. 1 ; Eph. v. 26 ; Heb. ix. 14. 
Both XvTpovaOai and KadapO^ew denote the permanent result of 
his giving himself to the death, and correspond to the iratZev- 
owra above. Comp. on the idea the commentary on Rom. iii. 
21, 25. AcLQV Trepiova-iov must be understood as the accus. of 
the predicate : that he might purify us to himself for, &c. Tlepiov' 
trio^ only here, similarly 1 Pet. ii. 9 : \aov ek irepiirolr^aiv corres- 
pond to the Heb. fl^Jp Dy» which the Septuagint renders by 
this expression. On the derivation and signification of the word 
see Winer, § 16, 3, p. 108 ; as hriovaui<i from eTrtova-a, so Trept- 
ovaiof: from irepiova-a. Not merely proprius, as Winer says ; Wahl 
and De Wette rightly, peculiaris = peculiar ; Theodoret : olK€to<$, 
in which lies the accessary idea of being separated to the service of 
God. Comp. Harloss on Eph. i. 14— diligent in good works. Z17- 
\a)T979here the same as in 1 Cor. xiv. 12. It occurs besides often 
in connexion with vo/iov. Gal. i. 14 ; Acts xxi. 20, &;c. So also 
^7jfK6a} in the same sense as here used only by the apostle, 1 Cor. 
xiii. 21. On good works, comp. on ii. 7. When De Wette says that 
it is not the atonement but moral cleansing that is here spoken of, 
he is right only in so far as that here the atonement is represented 
in respect to its moral efficacy. For how can the words, /te gave 
himself for uSy in which lies the ground of all moral renovation, 
be otherwise understood than of the atoning death of Christ ? — 
Ver. 15, pointing back to ver. 1, shows plainly that the apostle 
concludes with this verse in order to pass on to something new. 
But the apostle exhorts Titus here not merely to speak (ver. 1), 
but to exhort (ver. 6) and to rebuke ; Titus is to labour for the 
bringing about of this moral renovation, in each of these forms, 
that of the simple address, of exhortation, of rebt|ke. Tavra is, 
with De Wette, to be immediately connected with Xa\€t. With 
all authoritativeness ; corresponding to this is the word sharply 

312 TITUS II. 14, 15. 

i. 18 ; it means with all the authority of his office. Chrysostom : 
" Both with authority and with all power." The word eiriToryrf 
is used by Paul, besides in the Pastoral Epistles, only in the epistle 
to the Bomans and in those to the Corinthians. The next words, 
lei no one despise thee, in which Titus is enjoined to conduct 
himself in a firm and vigorous manner, follow naturally upon the 
preceding, mlh all authority. Calvin and many others think that 
in these words " he addresses the people rather than Titus ;" a view 
quite unfounded, in favour of which, as already observed, nothing 
can be found elsewhere in the epistle, and which is here also un* 
necessary. Olshausen has also taken this erroneous view. De 
Wette renders rightly : speak so as to command respect, as 1 Tim. 
iv. J 2, where the additional words but be a pattern, leave us in 
no doubt as to the meaning. Ilept^poveu/, to look over one =s 
" to despise," found only here ; elsewhere Kara^poveip, 

At the close of this section of the epistle, we would advert again 
to the critical judgment which De Wette has pronounced upon it. 
He by no means overlooks the clearness and excellent method of 
this section, but he maintains that there is nothing in it which could 
serve as an adequate confutation of the adversaries. * But it is to 
be borne in mind that it was not written for the confutation of the 
adversaries, but for the purpose of letting Titus know what he was 
to insist on, namely, on the evidencing of faith in the conduct, on 
a practical Christianity, and with this view are set before him tike 
exhortations he was. to make according to the distinctions of sex, 
age, and rank, with a regard to the prevailing errors. But De 
Wette farther pronounces the moral precepts here laid down to 
be superficial, not founded on any general principle, and the refer- 
ence to the moral spirit of Christianity to be like the foregoing, 
so general and aimless as to make it appear that the Cretans had as 
yet understood nothing of practical Christianity. Moreover, these 
well-known precepts and practical truths are pronounced to be peon* 
liarly unsuitable, as addressed to one who was a helper of the 
apostle. To all these objections it is a sufficient reply to point to 
the real state of the matter. We have seen from chap. i. of the 
epistle that the Cretans had not indeed fallen away from the faith, 
nor become addicted to any cardinal heresy which contradicted the 
true faith, bu^hat their Christianity was morbid and infirm, inas- 
much as there prevailed among them a foolish and profitless ten- 

TITUS II. 14, 15. 313 

dency to occupy themselTes with things which had nothing to do 
with the kernel of the doctrine of salvation, and which therefore 
produced no moral fruit in the life. In opposition to such errors, 
what else can the apostle do hut direct Titus to insist on the right 
moral conduct, on the display of the fruits of the truth in godli- 
ness, both in old and young ? How a godly old age should show 
itself in man and woman, how those who are younger should adorn 
the gospel in their walk, and how also, in an especial manner, the 
genuine Christian spirit should display itself in those who are 
slaves — these are the points which are simply and plainly set be- 
fore Titus, in a series of characteristics which no one will maintain 
to be in any respect unsuitable, or to fail in marking the very 
thing that is necessary in the different relations with which they 
are connected. (Comp. Schleiermacher, p. 196.) The apostle 
would certainly have put these exhortations in another form if they 
had been addressed directly to the church. Not that he would then 
have had reason to say what was less known and familiar. We can 
plainly infer this from the passage which treats of slaves, to which, as 
cited above, we have several parallels in the other epistles of the 
apostle. Is what he addresses to slaves in Col. iii. 22, ss ; Eph. 
vi. 5, ss., at all materially different from what we find here ? The 
subjection which is enjoined is there certainly explained more par- 
ticularly as to its proper form, the injunction is more enforced by 
motives according to its particular aspects, but are we then to ex- 
pect that the apostle should write to Titus in exactly the same 
manner as if he were directly addressing the slaves ? Is it not 
enough that he specifies those qualities upon which he is to lay 
stress ? Precisely in this difierence do we recognize a recom- 
mendation of this epistle, as in it the difference of circumstances is 
clearly reflected. The objection of superficiality will therefore not 
disturb us, so long as it is not shown, that the moral precepts here 
laid down do not substantially correspond to the state of things to 
which they relate : for, that the rules laid down are not more par- 
ticularly examined and enforced by motives in the same manner as 
in Col. iii. 22, ss., and in other places where the apostle addresses 
himself directly to those who are admonished, is not a proof of 
superficiality, but is to be accounted for by the difference of cir- 
cumstances. That they are familiar and well known things is just 
what we should expect, when they are regarded irora the right 


314 TITUS III. 1 — 11. 


point of view. For to what else could those be admonished who 
had deviated from the right moral track, than just to true morality ? 
And such an admonition can contain nothing new, but can only 
aim at holding out for reflection what is old and long since known. 
And if, accordingly, the apostle wished to say something more to 
Titus than merely in general, that he should have a regard to 
moral conduct, — and to indicate in particular some of the special 
points to which his attention should be directed, he could say 
nothing else than what he has in reality said, if this indeed was 
the thing that was needed. These moral precepts are, in fine, held 
to be not founded on any principle. But what other principle 
should they or could they have, than that which is given in ver. 
II, ss., the reference, namely, to the great truth, that our moral 
renovation is founded on the sacrifice of Christ, and is binding 
upon us as his people ? The apostle dwells with delight on this 
truth ; that is true, but just on this account the passage is no com- 
mon place, but in its entire connexion is closely related to what 
precedes. If it be said, however, that Titus knew this already, and 
did not require to have it written to him, I should only like 
to know how much might be expunged from the rest of Pauls 
epistles on the application of the same test. Do we not find the 
same in Phil. iii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 18—21 ; IPet. i. 18, as we find here ? 

B. What Titus is to teach with regard to the right conduct of 
Christians towards the world, along with a word of exhortation 
to him on his position in reference to the prevailing errors. 

Chap. iii. 1 — 11. The apostle having shown in chap. ii. what is 
the conduct which becomes the members of a Christian church, 
and that according to the distinctions of age, sex, and rank, now 
opens with a new series of exhortations having reference to the de- 
portment of Christians in general, towards the magistracy and 
towards those who are not Christians generally, ver. ] and 2. In 
order to show them how little cause they have to exalt them- 
selves, he reminds them of their state previous to their becoming 
Christians, and how they owe it not to their own merit, but solely 
to the mercy of God, that it has been better with them. Yv. 8 — 7. 
This Titus is emphatically to hold up before them, and upon this 
he is to insist, that they now walk worthy of the gospel ; on 
the other hand, he is not to meddle with that foolish and pro- 

TITUS III. 1. 815 

fitless talk which was prevalent, vv. 8 — 9. A man that is an 
heretic he is to shun after a repeated admonition, and to leave 
him over to the fate which he has chosen for himself, vv. 10 
and 11. 

Ver. 1. Put them in mind, the apostle writes farther, to be sub- 
ject to magistrates and powers, to obey, to be ready to every good 
work. 'TTTOfilfivrjcKe occurs again at 2 Tim. ii. 14, but besides 
also in five passages of the New Testament ; this word also has 
been put into the index prohibitorum. What more suitafble 
word could the apostle have chosen, when his object was to 
remind them anew of something which they ought to have re- 
membered, but which they seem to have forgotten ? Could the 
apostle use avafUfipi^a-Keip, 1 Cor. iv. 17, 2 Cor. vii. 15, and not 
also inrofiifjLPija'Keaf ? oomp. also BoUger, p. 4, who rightly 
observes that inrofAifivija'Keip in the sense which it has in the Pas- 
toral Epistles, denotes what is the business of the teacher, and in a 
transitive signification expressing an injunction as here, could be 
used only in reference to a teacher. — How easily the opposition of 
Christianity to heathenism, might lead to a false view with regard 
to the relation of Christians to the heathen magistracy, we learn 
from Bom. xiii. 1, ss., 1 Pet. ii. 13, ss., where it is prominently 
shown that obedience to God requires subjection to such ordinances 
of man ; comp. also 1 Tim. ii. 1, ss. When to this we add that a 
people like those of Crete (comp. Hug. Einl. II., p. 299) must from 
their very nature have been of a rebellious disposition, and that 
the Jews of that period, of whom many were then living in Crete, 
shared with them in this, we shall not find it necessary, in 
order to be able to explain the apostle's admonition, to suppose, 
with Olshausen, that heretics were spreading false views of the 
Christian freedom. ^Apxal and e^ovtrUu here connected as in 
Luke xii. 1 1 ; the difierenoe is that between magistracies and 
powers. IleiBafyxelp must with De Wette be taken as grammatically 
independent. ^TiroTda-aeaOai denotes their proper position with 
regard to the powers, iretdapx^w the obligation to obedience result- 
ing therefrom. And it is willing obedience which the apostle 
requires : be ready to every good work. These words are to be 
connected still with the preceding, and refer to the magistracy. It 
is of course implied that the magistracy requires good works, comp. 

Rom. xiii. 3 ; 1 Pet ii. 14, s. The idea that obedience is not to 


316 TITOS III. 3; 

be rendered to what is evil is therefore not intended, and does not 
belong to the contex^t, oomp. Matthies. 

With ver. :iy the apostle passes to the subject of a right deport- 
ment towards those who are not Christians generally, as the newly 
introduced object — no man — shows. ** To speak evil of no man, 
not to be quarrelsome, gentle, showing all (possible) meekness 
towards all men." The reference to those who are not Christians 
generally, as is noticed also by De Wette, comes into view espe- 
cially in the last words. B\aa<lyrjfjL€w (properly fiXdirreiv rriv f^ 
fjuijv TM/09, Wahl) according to Theodoret = fjajBiva dyopcveiv 
K€ucm. Oishausen is for referring it to the magistrates, against 
which are the words, no one. The word is elsewhere used by the 
apostle, Rom. iii. 8, xiv. 16 ; 1 Cor. iv. 13, &c. ''Afia'xp^ occurs 
again only at 1 Tit. iii. 3. EirietKevij comp. on Phil. iv. 5, de- 
rived from €t/eo9, yielding, gentle, mild. On Trpaorrf^, 2 Cor. 
X. 1, as here in connection with iirieiKela, I Cor. iv. 21, as 
the opposite of severity = mansuetudo erga alios, comp. Winer 
on Gal. V. 22 ; Harless on £ph. iv. 2 ; Tholuck. zur Bergpr.. 
p. 82, 8. To all fnen — these epistles give prominence not merely 
to the universality of grace which the critics have held up, but also 
to the right deportment of Christians towards all men, comp. 1 
Tim. ii. 1,8. On ivBet/cvufiivou^, comp. chap. ii. 10. 

Ver. 3. Here follows, as confirming the propriety of the conduct 
here required towards those who are not Christians, a reference to 
the fact that the Christian himself was formerly in the same state 
of ungodliness as those who are not Christians are now, and that 
he owes his deliverance from this state not to his own merit. This 
reference gives us plainly to perceive, that the Cretan Christians 
thought they found in their Christianity a reason for looking down 
on those who were not Christians^ and imagined that they owed no 
debt of love to them. Indeed when Christianity becomes an ex- 
ternal affair of mere knowledge, it is quite natural that the false 
conceit should go hand in hand with it, that the man who possesses 
the truth thereby stands on an elevation above others. — " For we 
also were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lusts 
and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another." 
Such a picture does the apostle hold up before them of their former 
state. In their uncharitable contempt of their neighbour, they 
seem to have quite forgotten that it is their own previous character 

TITUS III. 3. 317 

wbioh they now find in those who are not Christians, and on account 
of which they despise them. Chrysostora : " therefore despise no 
one, he says, for such wast thou/* In the successive clauses of this 
verse we mark the progress from that which is the inward source 
to the outward expression, and its consequences. "Hfiev with 
emphasis forwards : we were irori, the antithesis is in ver. 4, St€ 
a. We have here the well-known Pauline anthithcsis of irori and 
vw, comp. Rom. xi. 30; Eph. ii. 2, 11, 13, v. 8 ; Col. i. 21 ; iii. 
7, 8 ; the two angles of the Pauline system. With this passage as 
a whole, chiefly that cited from the epistle to the Ephesians is to 
be compared. Kcu'^fjielf: =.we too, as those before mentioned still 
are. This teal shows plainly what is the apostle's object in referring 
to their former condition, namely, to show how little reason the 
. Christian has to look down upon those who have not yet attained to 
the possession o( the blessings of salvation. As to the reference 
of i7/Li€£? there has been some difiference of opinion. The context 
decides the point, from which we find that it is the difference be- 
tween Christians and not Christians, that is here spoken of. It is 
otherwise in Eph. ii. 3, where the contrast is drawn between Jews 
and heathen. The apostle then means himself, together with all 
who are now converted, chiefly with reference to the Cretans, comp. 
i. 11. On the other hand we may learn from Eph. ii. 3, how 
little hesitation the apostle had in predicating what he here says in 
ver. 3 of the former condition of the converted Jews, not less than 
of that of the Gentile Christians. ^Avorjiroi, denotes the state of 
man as destitute of the true knowledge of God = arfvouit Eph. 
iv. 18, the result of his own fault, Rom. i. 18, ss. ^Aireideky dis- 
obedient, in this general description of course not to be explained 
of disobedience towards magistrates (so Heydenreich), but to- 
wards God, comp. i. 1 6, and Rom. xi. 30 ; Eph. ii. 2 ; Col. iii. 6. 
So in like manner in Eph. iv. 18, along with the arpfoia, the dark- 
ening of the understanding, is mentioned the hlinduesa of the 
heart* ITKavd/jievoi soil. aTTo t^ oXi/de^, where by the ah^Oeui 
is to be understood not abstract truth merely, but also the sum of 
what is morally good ; hence irXawifievoi is not the same as dvof/Totf 
but denotes the result of the two first predicates, and has the same 
signification with TrXai/i;, Eph. iv. 14; Rom. i. 27. Compare 
Harless on the former passage. We find a similar sentiment in 
Eph. iv. 18, aliettated from the life o/Ood, through the ignorance 

818 TITT8 III. 4 — 7. 

that is in them because of tlve blindness of their heart. With 
special reference to the term, comp. Jas. v. 19, 20; Heb. v. 2. 
The words following describe the further consequences of this state, 
serving divers lusts and pleasures^ &c., comp. Eph. ii. 3 ; on Sot/- 
\€U€tv comp. chiefly Rom. vi. 6. The term denotes the power 
which sin acquires over men, by which it makes them slaves. On 
flhovat De Wette remarks, that it is not Pauline, which is true in 
so far as that the word is accidentallv not to be found in the other 
epistles, but every epistle of the apostle contains words that are not 
Pauline in this sense. Gomp. Luke viii. 14; Jam. iv. 1, 8; 2 
Pet. ii. Id. The word denotes the voluptates camis. With as 
much reason might De Wette have said that TtoiKiKoLVi is not 
Pauline, as it is to be found only in the epistle to the Hebrews. 
Living in malice and efivy. The meaning of kojcUl is explained 
by its connection with (l)06vq> ; it is the same as in Eph. iv. 31 
(where special manifestations of it are denoted in the preceding 
words), and Col. iii. 8 = malignitas. Significat hoc verbo animi 
pravitatem, quae humanitati et aequitati est opposita^ et malignitas 
vulgo nuncupatur. Calvin cited by Harlesson Eph iv. 31. Aid- 
yovre^ = " living in/' occurring again only at 1 Tim. ii. 2, con- 
nected with filop. The two last predicates are to be taken together 
as forming an antithesis, and denoting the consequences resulting 
from what is said immediately before : hateful, hating one another 
— to be understood of a reciprocal deportment. Bom. i. 29 ; Qal. 
V. 15. It would be unsuitable to suppose here any reference to 
the relation between Jews and Gentiles, of which nothing is said. 
So once (ttot^.) 

Ver. 4 — 7. To this he now proceeds to place in opposition a Sre 
Scy not, however, with the view of giving a description of the new 
state introduced by the jre, in contrast with the former, but accord- 
ing to the connexion, to shew how little reason the Cretans have 
to be proud of themselves. It is through the kindness and love 
of God that they have been saved, not in consequence of their own 
merit, but solely in virtue of his compassion, through the work of 
salvation and the efficacy of baptism. When the connexion is 
rightly considered, the objections which have been brought also 
against this part of the epistle fall of themselves to the ground. 
It then appears quite evident, for what reason the kindness and 
love of the Saviour- God are mentioned so emphatically in con- 

TITUS III. 4. 319 

nection with the work of salvation , without our needing to have 
recourseto Marcion s God of love in order to account for it. Fur- 
ther, the words, not hy works of righteousness which we have 
done, are then explained, and the only thing that appears inex- 
plicahle, is that such an expositor as De Wette should stumhle at 
them. Finally, it is then evident why precisely the saving efficacy 
of baptism is brought prominently forward. When, however, says 
the apostle, the kindness and philanthropy of our Saviour- God 
appeared, he saved us not on account of works in righteousness 
which we had done, but in yirtue of his mercy through the bath 
of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghoat, which he has 
shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that 
being justified by his grace we should become heirs according to 
the hope of eternal life. 

Ver. 4. As is clear from the connexion given above, Heyden- 
reich incorrectly traces the scope of the passage when he says : — 
Now however the grace of God manifested towards us in Christ, 
lays us under obligation to cultivate other and worthier disposi- 
tions. As if we were transferred back to ch. ii. 1 1 . — The apostle's 
object is merely to show, how little the Christian is at liberty to 
exalt himself above him who is not a Christian ; inasmuch as he 
was formerly himself nothing better, and has become better nor 
through any merit of his own. — With respect to the construction, 
when the connexion is rightly apprehended, according to which it 
is not the introduction of salvation in general, but the change that 
has passed upon individuals that is here described, there can be no 
question that the accessary clause already begins with the words 
not by works, &c. It is therefore superfluous to recur, with Mat- 
thies, to the grounds of the Pauline system of doctrine. But when 
— of God, the anterior clause, is intended only to denote what is 
necessarily pre-supposed in he saved us. The salvation must first 
be there, before the individuals can enter on the possession of it. 
That kindness and love answer here to the idea more commonly 
expressed in the word grace, is quite correct. Substantially the 
same thing is expressed here as at ii. 1 1 by the grace of Ood 
which bringeth salvation. It is howoTcr easy to see why the 
apostle expresses himself differently here. His object is to show 
how little the Christian can speak of his own merit, in comparing 
himself with those who are not Christians ; hence in the very out- 

320 T1TD8 III. 5. 

Bet, and still more pointedly in what immediately follows, the 
prominence which is given to the goodness and benevolence of 
God, in which alone lies the ground of the appearance of salvation 
in general, as in regard to the individuals who partake of it — it 
lies in the saving mercy of God. De Wette himself has shown 
that the use of the expression yprjaTorr}^ is altogether Pauline, 
by referring to Bom. xi. 28, Eph. ii. 7, where the word occurs in 
the same connexion. On the relation of the ypriarorri^ to the 
;^apt9 the passage last cited throws light, inasmuch as the XP^' 
TOTq^ is there adduced as the proof of the x^pw. Comp. Harless 
on the passage. The same applies to the <f>i7uivdpayn'la< The 
divine ^aptv manifests itself in the form of kindness and philan- 
thropy. These expressions are all the more suitable here, as in 
ver. 3 the natural condition is described in its entire wretchedness. 
The expression (t>tKav0payn-la (Acts xxviii. 2) occurs nowhere else. 
As a parallel to the thing expressed by the word De Wette adduces 
John iii. 16 ; he might have adduced from the epistles of the 
apostle those passages which we have already cited, if such had 
been necessary. On the expression eTnff>dv7i all that is necessary 
has been said at ii. 11 ; on atarripo^ Oeov at i. 3. Baur would 
like to recognize in the tracing back of the atonement to the kind- 
ness and benevolence of God, an accordance with the Marcionidc 
phraseology, against which Bottger, a. a. Q. p. 105, refers to 
Bom. viii. 31 — 39; v. 8, ss ; ii. 4, and the passages already 
quoted above. 

Ver. 5 he has saved us not in consequence of (= on ac- 
count of) " works wrought by us in righteousness/' as De Wette 
renders. On ef comp. Winer, § 51, under i/c. p. 441. The words 
T&v epyoDv T&v iv S. are placed in their true light by De Wette s 
translation just quoted, and his explanation: '^ not, as Matthies 
thinks, of works appearing in the form of the SiKcuoaumj^ for iv 
SiK, likeip 0e^, John iii. 21, denotes the state of mind and feeling 
in which these works are done." Comp. on Phil. i. 1 1, fruits of 
righteousness ; Winer, § 52, iv, p. 466. We find the same ex- 
clusion of man's works of righteousness, in Eph. ii. 8, 9, by grace 
ye are saved . . . fiot of works. De Wette thinks the senti- 
ment unsuitable in both passages, as it is the sinful state of those 
who were formerly heathen, that is spoken of before. This is quite 
true, in so far as, from the foregoing description, their not having 

TITUS III. 6. 321 

been saved on account of their own works was self-evident. But 
the apostle nevertheless expressly declares it, and he must have 
had a special reason for doing so ; and this reason is plain enough ; 
he aims, namely, at strongly representing the saving grace as free 
' and undeserved, by expressing it in a negative (o^/k, &c.) as well as 
in a positive form. The emphasis in the sentiment of this passage 
rests indeed entirely on the not. It is a very abstract logic that 
will stumble at this. Hariess, on Eph. ii. 9, does not seem to have 
even imagined that any such objection could be raised. We learn 
from the passages adduced by him, how truly Pauline this anti- 
thesis is. Bom. iii. 20, iv. 2 ; GaL ii. 16, iii. 2 ; Phil. iii. 9. How 
much importance the apostle attaches to this '^ unsuitable" exclusion 
of roan's works, appears from the words immediately following, &v 
iiroii^aafA€v "^fiek (quae nos fecissemus.) We, as opposed to, his 
mercy. The true cause of our salvation already indicated negatively, 
and thus expressed with all emphasis, is given in the words kot 
avTov ekeov. On Kara, Winer, § 53, d., p. 479. By virtue of 
his mercy he has saved us, comp. 1 Pet. i. 8. On eX€09, Bom. 
ix. 28, x\» 31 ; Eph. ii. 4 ; Gal. vi. 16. It denotes the ground 
of salvation in these passages. Here it denotes the means of 
salvation in the case of individuals, after the kindness and philan- 
thropy of God has already been manifested in the objective fleets 
of the gospel. It is therefore self-evident, that the apostle cannot 
here be speaking of those facts connected* with the gospel, upon 
which hangs the possibility of salvation for individuals, but only of 
the means by which God brings the individual into a state of sal- 
vation, — how he introduces him to the possession of those redemp- 
tion blessings which are already objectively present. And here 
again the connexion, according to which it is only the part which 
God performs in our salvation that is held up to view, does not 
admit of that being mentioned which is required on the part of 
man, as the subjective instrument or condition of his entrance on 
salvation. Hence it is not said, hik r^? iriareoD'; (Eph. ii. 8, comp. 
with Phil. iii. 9, eirirfi wlarei, and Hariess on the former passage), 
for the apostle's aim here is not to describe the new state of the 
man, but to point to the act and saving agency of God in regard to 
the individual by which the new state is brought about, and which 
shows more than any thing else, that this new state does not rest 
on man's merit or on his doing. And what act of God's saving 


322 TITUS III. 5. 

mercy towards the individaal coald this be, other than baptism, 
through which the man is planted into the fellowship of the Three 
One 'God, which is a putting off of the body of the flesh (a-wfia 
7% aap/c6<;, (Col. ii. 11), and a putting on of Christ (Xpurrop 
hfehvacurde. Gal. iii. 27), in short — which, as it is described in our 
passage, is a bath of regeneration ? It is this which transfers the 
man from the state described in ver. 3, to the new life of the Spirit, 
it is the sure foundation upon which, in regard to the individual, rests 
all farther increase in the life of the Spirit. Thus we understand why 
it is, that baptism is here referred to as the means of salvation. 
And this the apostle designates by T^vrpov iraXvyyevetrlai, hath of 
regeneration : for it will scarcely be necessary to refute the view, 
according to which we are to regard this as merely a metaphorical ex- 
pression, a view which is also applied to Eph. v. 26. Gomp., more- 
over, what Harless says against it on the passage adduced. With 
regard to the passage before us, Heydenreich has already said all 
that is necessary, p. 320, ss., when in opposition to all those views, 
according to which Xovrpov is held to be a metaphorical description 
of the change that has taken place, or to denote the Divine Spirit 
himself, and the purifying, renewing, and exalting power of this 
Spirit, or the abundant communication of the Spirit, or the Chris- 
tian doctrine — he urges with truth, that the regeneration and 
renewal which the Spirit of God effects are sufficiently denoted 
by the words 7raXi77.*and avax., that the Spirit of Qoi him- 
self, and his gracious influence, are never denoted by Xovrpov^ 
and that the agent in our renewal is by 'nvevfia Sr/iop plainly 
enough distinguished from his agency, (the iraXvyy. and ava/c.), 
and the instrument he employs, Xovrpov. He farther observes 
with perfect justice, that Xovrpov is anything but a suitable em- 
blem of the abundant communication of the divine gifts of grace, 
or the sanctifying influence of the Divine Spirit ; a bath can only 
be the symbol of cleansing, not of the abundant overflowing of 
certain blessings ; and if reference be made to i^ex^e^ ver. 6, as 
explaining the Tsjovrpov (Teller), it must still be said, that a bath 
and the outpouring of a rich overflowing fullness of strength and 
blessing, are plainly quite different ideas. Finally, to represent the 
doctrine of Christ as Xovrpov^ were a metaphor quite foreign to the 
New Testament. Enough has been said for the refutation of these 
interpretations, although in a grammatical point of view much 

T]TUS III. 5. 323 

more might be said. But it must create surprise^ to find Matthias 
still saying : if by Xovrpov we understand not so much a mere play 
upon the idea of baptism, as rather the express designation of 
the outward act of baptism (?), then must the whole passage ap- 
pear indistinct and self-contradiotoryy irom the confusion of the 
material element with the spiritual principle of life, while yet Paul 
himself repeatedly places the true signification of baptism in the 
symbolical reference to Christ, and the evangelical renewal of the 
life (Bom. vi. 3, ss.) But how then will Matthies remove this in- 
distinct commingling of the material element and the spiritual 
principle of life, seeing that it is plainly said of baptism, Ti/a aMjv 
arfidajf tcaffaplam r^ Xovrp^ rov vBaro^ iv ^fMor^ ? Is Xovrpov 
Toif v8aro<s here also a *' bath of the Spirit V Comp. Harless* 
excellent interpretation of this passage. And if the symbolical 
reference will suffice for such passages as Bom. vi. 4 ; Gal. iii. 
27 ; Col. ii. 11, will it also suffice for 1 Pet. iii. 21, where 
of the fidimafia it is said : ao^lfii .... aw€iirjae<»yi 
dya07J<: eirepdnrffia ek Oeov (comp. Hofmann, Weiss, und Eriiil* 
lung, II. p. 234), and John iii. 3 — 6, except a man he born of 
water and tlie Spirity }he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ? 
Or rather do not these passages place before us that very ^* com- 
mingling of the material element with the spiritual," in which the 
Christian church has, in conformity with the Scripture, from the 
very beginning recognized the essence of the " outward act of bap- 
tism," and according to which the Christian doctrine has stamped 
it ? Matthies says, there can be no doubt that by Xovrpov is to be 
understood the bath in the sense of moral cleansing, as in regenera- 
tion and renewal the washing away of, or the freeing from all un- 
truth and sin, forms the most essential element To this we would 
simply say, that the expression iraXirf/eveala, as also dvaxal- 
vmaviy has so little to do with the figure of washing away, that it 
appears quite unintelligible how the apostle should have fallen 
upon such a comparison, if he had not in his mind a certain Xou- 
rpovj namely, baptism, the substantial effect of which is this iraXi^- 
ryeveaia. And how inconsistent is it with the clear context (the 
aim of which is to show how little reason the Christian has to boast 
on comparing himself with those who are not Christians, seeing 
that it is the mercy of God alone that hath saved him) to speak, as 

Matthies goes on to do, of the free self-determination with which 


821 TITUS III. 5. 

every individual has to subject himself to this *' purifying and 
quickening bath of the Spirit," whilst along with this he yet sees a 
reference to baptism, on the ground that the idea of baptism points 
to this, namely, that the life of the baptized person must bring to 
completion in itself the moral purifying process of expiation ! and 
sanctification. Thus far the words of the passage before us are 
explained as certainly referring to baptism ! Having stated my 
view of the passage in general, it remains only now to confirm it 
by a reference to particulars. The apostle denotes the instrument 
of the salvation which is founded on the mercy of God by Xovrpov 
'/raKt'fyeveaia^ /cal avaKaivaHreo^ ayiov irveOfxaro^. What grounds 
we have for taking Xotrr/701/in its literal and not in its metaphorical 
sense, are shown by the unsuitableuess of the metaphor, and also by 
passages such as Eph. v. 20, t& Xovrp^rov t/Saro^; Hebr. x. 22, 
XeXovfiipoi TO a&fxa vBart Kadap^ ; John. iii. 5, i^ vharo^ koX 
wvev/MiTO^ ; I John v. G, hi vharo^ koX at/iaro9, comp. with ver. 
8 ; and finally, from passages such as i Pet. iii. 21, where baptism 
is likewise described as the means of salvation, and indeed in ge- 
neral from everything that we know on the subject of baptism from 
Scripture, comp. Hofmann, a. a. Q., II. p. 233 — 236. How in- 
definite and ambiguous is the relation expressed by the genitive, is 
shown by Winer, § 30, p. 211, ss., chiefly p. 215. Thus the 
similar expression fiaimafia fiCTavouv: can, from the nature of the 
thing itself, be explained only of baptism which binds to repentance, 
and, taken by itself, the expression in the passage before us admits 
of a similar meaning. The relation of the genitive can be deter- 
mined only from the context, and from a comparison with what we 
learn elsewhere concerning this Xovrpop. With regard next ta 
iroKir/yevealaj it occurs again only at Matth. xix. 28, and there it 
denotes the restoration of all things. Here, on the other hand, it 
is substantially the same as the beitt^ born from above, or 0/ the 
Spirit^ or 0/ God, John iii. 3, s. To this belongs also the iroKt^p 
oiSlvfo, Gal. iv. 19, and all those passages which speak of adoption. 
Gal. iv. 6, &c. The old man dies, the body of the flesh is put 
off, Col. ii. II, and Christ is put on instead. Gal. iii. 27. ** He 
who otters himself for baptism, desires a relation to God in which 
Christ is, what formerly was the body of the flesh, and the spirit of 
Christ, what hitherto has been the sin dwelling in the flesh. He 
purposes no longer to wear the garment of that nature which con- 

TITUS III. 6. 325 

si ts in sinful incliDation to what is evil, but to put on Christ, the 
new man." Hofmann, a. a. Q. If this is the idea implied in the 
traXvyyeveaia which is connected with this Xovrpov, there can then 
be no doubt as to the reference in the words Kal ouuk,, &c. They 
cannot denote a second means of salvation along with the first, a 
view in favour of which nothing can be said also on grammatical 
grounds (the repetition of the hid is not warranted by critical au- 
thority), nor can they denote a second effect of the Xovrpov dif- 
ferent from the first (we suppose for the present that this is the 
relation implied in the genitive) ; the words can only be an ex- 
planation of the expression immediately preceding. For what else 
can be meant by avaKalvfoai*; irv, or/. = the renewal proceeding 
from the Spirit of God, answering to the putting on the new tnauj 
Eph. iv. 24 = putting on Christ, Gal. iii. 27, — what else can be 
meant by this expression, than just the new birth of the man de- 
noted by the word immediately preceding ? Both expressions then 
are equally designations of the Xovrpov, but the latter more spe- 
cially defines the former. So also Olshausen : avaKalvroai^ is the 
process, when the new man is created ; and this takes place in the 
iraXvffeveala, ^AvaxalvtoaK is used by the apostle only again at 
Bom. xii. 2, as also dvoKatvoto and avaKaivi^to are used only by 
him, but by him frequently. On the thing denoted by the word, 
comp. Eph. iv. 28 ; Col. iii. 10 ; Gal. vi. 16 ; 2 Cor. v. 17. It is 
evident that irveufuno^ ar/iov denotes the causa efficiens. — ^We have 
supposed, in the course of this investigation, that the relation of the 
genitive waXtrf. and dvaK, to Xovrpov is expressed thus : a bath 
which brings about this regeneration and renewing. The simple 
consideration of what is said concerning this regeneration and re- 
newal, namely, that it is not the work of man but of the Holy 
Spirit, shows that Xovrpov iraXvf^, cannot, like fidirrurfia fiera- 
vola^^ signify : a bath which binds to regeneration as a duty. The 
same is shown by the context of the passage, which speaks of God's 
saving mercy, and describes the Xovrpov vaXtyy, as the means of 
this salvation proceeding from him. But equally unsuitable to the 
context is the view taken by De Wette and others, according to which 
the relation of the genitive is to be expressed thus : a bath which 
represents the allegorical regeneration. For the means of the salva- 
tion which proceeds only from God, cannot be an allegorical re- 
presentation of the means of salvation ; and just because Xovrpov 

326 TITUS III. 6. 

denotes ibis means, if it be a settled point tbat Xoxrrpov refers to 
baptism, as De Wette acknowledges it to be, then must this bap- 
tism itself be understood as the means of salvation, and the geni- 
tive can consequently denote only that real connexion of the Xotn** 
pov with the iroKtrfy, ; and that the rest of the passages which treat 
of baptism confirm this result, has already been shown, and refer- 
ence has been made on this part of the subject to Hofmann. We 
are therefore not at liberty to doubt that the ancient view held by 
the church, according to which baptism is here denoted, and its 
explanation of the nature and efficacy of baptism as founded on 
this passage, are alone to be regarded as exegetically confirmed ; 
since a metaphorical explanation is already in itself inadmissible, 
and is shown to be altogether untenable by a comparison with similar 
passages ; and if once a reference to baptism is admitted, there can 
only be supposed such a real connexion as we have shown between it 
and the regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. — Another 
question started by Olshausen in the observations now lying before 
me, is, how far what is here said on the subject of baptism applies to 
the baptism of infants. The propriety of such an application may be 
contested, in so far as the apostle hero speaks of himself and of 
those who share with him in the new life of the Spirit. In spito of 
this, however, as this passage represents baptism as the saving act 
of God, and therefore altogether in its objective aspect, it may give' 
some insight into the grounds upon which infant baptism may be 
vindicated. The passage speaks not of a doing of man, but a doing 
of God upon man in baptism ; and the question, therefore, takes 
this form : 1, whether the child to be baptized needs such a saving 
act ; and 2, whether he is susceptible of it. There can be no 
doubt as to the answer which Scripture gives to the former of these 
questions. And if this is a settled point, then a doubt can scarcely 
be entertained with regard to the other. Just as a sinful state (the 
body of the flesh) may exist prior to the exercise of will on the 
part of the individual, which makes him to stand in need of the 
saving act, so also must the opposite state in which the dominion 
of sin is removed, be one which may be supposed to exist prior to 
the development of personal consciousness. Just as in the unbap- 
tized person there may be, and really is, a sinful state previous 
to the development of personal consciousness, so, in like man* 
ner, in the same person a state of sanctification may take place, 

TITUS III. 6, 327 

and will take place, if he is transplanted into the sanctifying fellow- 
ship of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. We have hut to distinguish between 
the operation of the Spirit on the person of the man,— on his con- 
scioasness and will,— ^-and his openition on the foundation of life in 
the man, — the region of theuncoDaoioas, on which his personal life 
rests. It is only as an influence wrought, not throug[h the medium 
of consciousness, but on the foundation of life, the nature of the 
man, in contradistinction to his person, that original sin can be 
understood, or the mental resemblance often so unmistakable be- 
tween parents and children ; and as an efficacy of the same kind 
also, must we regard what the apostle says as to the sanctifying in- 
fluence of parents on their children (1 Cor. vii. 14, comp. Neander 
a. a. Q., I., p. 282, s.) And can we conceiye of a real redemption 
of the man from the dominion of sin which dwells in him, — ^in his 
flesh, — and keeps his personal will in bondage. Bom. vii. 28, other- 
wise than through an influence on this nature, so that a really new 
life- power, the power of the spirit of regetteration, opposes the law 
in the members^ and destroys the dominion of sin ? And can the 
efficacy of the sacrament, as distinguished from the word, be other- 
wise understood ? There will, indeed, always be a diflerence be- 
tween the baptism of the grown up person and that of the infant. 
In the former case, a personal desire of salvation and a personal ac- 
quiescence in all that is performed in baptism in the person bap- 
tized is presupposed, and only in this case will baptism have for its 
result a foil regeneration and retiewing of the Holy Spirit. In 
the latter case, there is the need of salvation, but neither personal 
desire for it nor acquiescence in the act performed in baptism on 
the baptized person ; accordingly, the effect will also be different. 
The effect will be a power of the sanctifying spirit coming into op- 
position to the dominion of sin dwelling in the flesh, which, how- 
ever, will only then issue in a regeneration and renewing, in a real 
avm y€vv7)0ijifaL of the man, when he lets the power of this spirit 
manifest itself with his growing consciousness, and when by an act 
of his own will he appropriates what has been done to him. 01s- 
hausen points to this when he observes, ** Baptism is thus treated 
in the same way as regeneration itself. In this way also the dog- 
matic theologians of our church interpreted the passage. They, 
however, fell into a confusion of ideas really distinct. They referred 
this sentiment, without hesitation, also to infant baptism, and sup^ 

828 TITUS in. 6. 

posed that regeneration took place also in unconscious children. 
But the New Testament knows nothing of infant baptism. Nor 
can a man be born again without consciousness. But the theolo- 
gians understood by the regeneration of children only the forgive- 
ness of original sin, not the dominion over sin. In this sense re- 
generation is not used in the New Testament. In children, con- 
firmation 18 regeneration." 

Ver. 6. Ov i^ix^ev (Aorist.)- The ov (attraction == o) refers 
of course not to Xovrpov but to irvevfia. The apostle has yet to 
say how this regenerating and renewing operation of the Spirit has 
been obtained, and he does this by pointins^ to the mediation of 
Jesus Christ our Saviour, through whom this Spirit has been abun- 
dantly poured out. Regeneration is thus described as a work of the 
Triune God, and the different relations of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost to this work are clearly denoted. To understand by i<l> 
fiim^ others than were before meant by this expression, is against 
the context, which in no way indicates such a change, and requires 
that i^e)(€€ be referred to the operation of the Spirit just mentioned. 
I cannot, therefore, with Olshausen, perceive any reference here to 
the day of Pentecost, in so far as the communication of the Spirit 
had then reference not to the apostles alone, but was a communi- 
cation for the church in all times. To the same effect De Wette 
also says : from this spirit of Christianity as a whole does the 
conversion of individuals proceed. He is certainly right when he 
adds : it is not the communication of the Spirit to individuals after 
baptism tliat is here spoken of, for not until ver. 7 is justification 
mentioned as the consequence of regeneration. Ver. 7 shows rather, 
that the act of God denoted by i^ix^e coincides in point of time 
with the i(T<aae hih Xvrpov. — Matthies justly observes, that while 
Christ is represented as the objective mediatory power, faith is 
placed beside it as the subjective instrumental condition. ilXou- 
aiay; not in contrast with the Old Testament, but with reference 
to the mighty operation of this Spirit, ver. 5, comp. with ver. 3. 
The same expression is found in Col. iii. 16 ; 2 Pet. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. 
vi. 1 7. It is agreed by all the more recent commentators, that 
the words Bi€i ^Itfcov Xpiarov cannot, with Bengel and Flatt, be 
connected with eatDae, which has its own Sid already, but only 
with €f6^6€. The new life-power which shows itself efficacious in 
baptiem, is obtained through the mediation of Christ. The words 

TITUS in. 7. 320 

our Saviour, as above, ver. 4, in connection with 0609, need no 
explanation here, where the saving act of God and Jesos Christ is 
spoken of. 

Ver. 7. The design of the pouring out abundantly, &Cm is 
stated in this verse. Others (De Wette) understand ha as ex- 
pressing the aim of l<raMre, an unnecessary harshness, in which 
the exegeticai relation of ver. 6 and 7 to ver. 5 is overlooked* 
and ^{6^6€ deprived of the more exact determination which is 
necessary to it, while lawre needs not to be thus determined. 
^Ek€(vov also, which is thus made to refer to God, is in this im- 
mediate connexion with Oeo^ eaaure unsuitable. — If then i^exee 
and icwre coincide in the manner stated above, the words being 
justified by his grace will not, as many think, denote something 
following upon the communication of the Spirit in baptism — for 
how can this be conceived of as separate from regeneration ? — but, 
as the participle also indicates, must be understood as expressing 
the consummation of the afore- mentioned operation of the Spirit, 
which then is what is pre- supposed in the final end of all the saving 
agency of God, namely, the attainment of eternal life. AtKauo 
dhne^ is therefore used here in the same sense as it commonly is 
by the apoatle; comp. for example Rom. viii. 80, a passage which 
distinctly shows, that in the hiKauAv the saving act of God 
in the individual is consummated, upon which consequently follows 
the So{a2f6&i^, just in the same way as we maintain it to be here with 
reference to ver. 5. This, however, we learn plainly enough from 
the passage before us, namely, that the state denoted by hucauo- 
dek is not merely one of oulward acquittal from the guilt of sin, as 
indeed the evangelical church has never taught, and that it cannot 
be conceived of apart from an inward transformation of the man, 
which indeed is already pre-supposed in the condition of faith. 
The Catholic commentator. Mack, is therefore in this passage 
needlessly angry at the doctrine of our church as limiting the 
righteousness before God to the non-imputation of sin ; while he 
himself finds here the catholic doctrine of sanccification through 
the gracious assistance of God, against which Matthies has said all 
that is requisite. Only in this would I be inclined to disagree with 
Matthies, namely, that he understands hih Xirrpov, &c. to denote the 
active process in the development of the evangelical life ; Sucaito- 

0ipT€^, on the other hand, to denote the relation formed once for all 


830 TITUS III. 7. 

in his inmost being between the Christian and God. He here 
forgets that all the progressive holiness of the man, rests precisely 
on the act performed but once, of the avprcufnjvcu and iyepOifvcUf 
as a fixed and settled relation, which is clearly shown in Bom. vi. 
2, Bs. ; and Mack is right, in so far as he recognizes in the being 
bom again, and on the other hand in the being justified, expres- 
sions which apply to one and the same thing. — In ry hcelvov 
j(apiri, almost all the more recent commentators refer ixelvov to 
deo^. The sense is then as Chrysostom concisely states it : iroKiv 
X^^'^h ov/c o^CKy^ in the sense of ver. 5. So also Olshausen. 
Comp. Gal. ii. 16; Ephes. ii. 8, &c. This construction appears to 
me to be suitable neither to the train of thought nor to the iKelvov. 
For it were unnatural to refer ifcelvo^ to the principal subject, to 
which reference was made just before in i^ix^e. And would it 
not correspond much more with the exegetical relation in which 
TV. 6 and 7 stand to ver. 5, to ref^r iKclvov to the Spirit, whose 
operation is described in the words preceding according to its ob* 
jective mediation, and here according to its final purpose, so that 
the beift^ Justified by grace is the consummation of the Spirit s 
work described in ver. 5 ? ^Exetpov would then be used, because 
reference was made not to Christ, but to the more remote irvevfia, 
and by %ap£Tt, the grace of the Holy Spirit, would then be denoted 
that work of the Spirit described in ver. 5. So also Heydenreich. 
The purpose of this outpouring with respect to its final aim, is 
then given in the words thai we should be made heirs, &g. The 
Old Testament allusion in this often -occurring expression (Gal. 
iii. 18 ; Eph. i. 11, 14 ; Col. iii. 24, &c.), is acknowledged, comp. 
Harless on Eph. i. 11. That which to the Israel of the Old 
Testament was the land of promise, is to that of the new covenant 
the life eternal. Kar iXnrlZa (= ** according to hope," t. e., in 
the way of hope, Winer, § 58, d. p. 476), which is not to be con- 
nected with fy>fi<; aiwvy is added in order to express that the in- 
heritance is not immediately to be entered upon. Bom. viii. 24, s. 
On the Pauline character of the sentiment, comp. i. 2. That ^q>^ 
aUoi/lov is nowhere else used by the apostle in connection either 
with Kkffpovofio^ or with iKirk, as De Wette observes, is of little 
consequence, for one can see no reason why he might not have 
connected it with both just in the same way as iKwh aaTfjpla^ 
(I Thcss. v. 8), and K\qpov6fio^ t^? erraryyeXia^ or BiKo^oavprf^ 

TiTue III. 8 — 11. S31 

(Hebr. vi. 17, xi. 7) are oonneoted. That this reference to the 
S»tf auovio^, had in the eye of the apostle an especial significance 
in regard to the Oretans, see on i. 2. It has already been ob- 
served that TV. 8-— 7 present a cursory view of the whole work of 

Ver. 8 — 11. These verses can be rightly understood only when 
viewed as containing a special admonition to Titus, in reference to 
the work he has to do in Crete in opposition to the prevailing errors. 
Ver. 8 tells him what he is to pursue ; ver. 9, what he is to' avoid ; 
ver. 10 and 11 how he is to deal with an incorrigible heretic. 
They do not, as De Wette maintains, repeat in a different form and 
aspect what is said in w. 4 — 7, namely, in the form of a practical 
motive, and with the view of reverting to the train of thought in 
ver. I. The apostle rather is done with what is to be enjoined on 
the Cretans, and deals now with Titus. That which the apostle 
has just said concerning the saving act of the unmerited mercy of 
God, through the bath of regeneration, to a living hope of eternal 
life, is to be constantly affirmed by Titus to his bearers. Thus the 
moral fruit will not fail to appear ; but on the other hand he is, 
(See., ver. 9. How little also does the form of the preceding, comp. 
with 11 — 15, correspond to such an application of the sentiment 
as that which De Wette assigns to it ; and why the same thing 
again ? 

Faithful is the word = ttmtto^ o X0709, a formula certainly pe- 
culiar to the Pastoral Epistles, 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, iv. 9 ; 2 Tim. 
ii. 11, now pointing with emphasis at what goes before, and now 
at what follows ; here at ver. 4 — 8 the sum of the whole doctrine 
of salvation. This phrase answers to the ifiiiv used at the begin- 
ning or the end of an address which is intended to be spoken with 
emphasis, comp. llom. i. 25 ; Gal. i. v ; Eph. iii. 21 ; and 2 Cor. 
i 20. Its occarreuce in the three epistles belongs to the indices, 
which show them to have been written about the same time. ** And I 
will that thou insist strongly on these things, so that the believers 
in God may be careful to maintain good works." The irepl rov- 
rtov refers to the points contained in the X0709. AiaPeficuova- 
0a$ = " assure strongly," occurring again only at 1 Tim. i. 7, is 
used also by profane writers. On the other hand, ^e^oM^, ^e^aiow, 
ffeficuwai^ is one of the apostles familiar words, Kom. iv. 16 (Heb. 

ii. 2) ; Rom. xv. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 6 (Heb. ii. 3) ; Phil. i. 7 (Hcb. vi. 


332 TITUS III. 8—11. 


16) where connexions qalte similar occar, although not with irepl. 
The anpaaline character of the expression which De Wette like- 
wise notices, is therefore of very small importance. The frait of 
this Suifiefiaicvadeu is then denoted by the ivcu We have here 
the same sentiment as in i. 9 is denoted by the sound doctrine. 
Such doctrine the apostle means to say has in it a power of godli- 
ness (i. 1, the truth which leads to godliness), produces the fruits 
of morality. In reference to the contrast which the apostle here 
has in 'his eye, Calvin well says on the word if>povTlfyxn which 
occurs only here: ita vult eos studium suum curamque hue ap- 
plicare, et videtur apostolus, quum dicit : <f>povTifyi<ri,Vt eleganter 
alludere ad inanes eorum con tern plationes, qui sine fructu et extra 
vitam philosophantur. Only thus is the use of this expression here 
to be explained. On koK&v epywv see i. 2. The ol r^ 0€^ ireirurrev' 
tcirre^ are not those who have become believers in God, but *' those 
to whom God has given faith," namely, in the gospel, as the word 
of Godf i. 3 ; comp. Acts xvi. 34. There are, therefore, no 
grounds in the expression itself for limiting it to the gentile Chris- 
tians ; besides the distinguishing appellation of the true God in 
contrast with idols (1 Thess. i. 9) is wanting here, as De Wette and 
Matthies have already observed in opposition to Mack ; nor are 
the actual circumstances in favour of this supposition, as a large 
portion of the population in Crete consisted of Jews, amongst whom 
the gospel had likewise found acceptance, and through whom doubt- 
less it had been first introduced, as is proved also by the errors 
which proceeded from them, i. 10. IIpotiTraadaioccurrmg again 
in the same sense at ver. 14, literally *' to stand before" (Bom. 
xii* 8; 1 Thess. v. 12), from which easily arises the signification 
in the passage = *' to care for," to manage, to be intent on a 
thing. So frequently in the classical writers, Passow. " This is 
good and profitable for men.'' It appears that the article before 
xaXd must be cancelled according to preponderating critical autho- 
riticS) comp. Tischendorf ; it is difficult, however, to account for 
its insertion. De Wette, in opposition to Theophylact, Grotius, 
Heydenreich, Mat'thies, refers the ravra, not correctly as I appre- 
hend, to the doctrines^ on the ground that to refer it to epya would 
cause tautology. £aX^ epya does not however denote the works 
ns becoming in men, which is what we are to understand by ko^ 
avOpdmoi^, Nor could KoKa avOpoimoi^ be said with propriety of 

TITUS III. 9. 333 

the contents of the doctriDe, the wepl tovt<dv. If again it referred 
to SuifieficuovaOai, it would be tovto> We mast therefore abide 
by what is grammatically the most natural reference ; that, 
namely, to cfxya. The following words show for what reason 
he enjoins this on Titas. Titus is to insist on this doctrine, be- 
cause from it proceeds what is good and profitable ; he is not 
to meddle, ver. 9, mih/oolish questions: for they are profitless 
and vaiu, 

Ver. 9. "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and 
contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are profitless 
and vain/' The/oolish questions stand in contrast with the sound 
doctrine which produces moral fruit \ ji&pdss chiefly points however 
to the insipid contents of these ^i/n/o-et?, by which are to be un- 
derstood, not contentions (these are the epev; afterwards men- 
tioned, but questions of discussion, as 1 Tim. i. 4, vi. 4 ; % Tim. 
ii. 23 ; comp. i. 10, fjbarcuoXoyou As belonging to the class of 
these qtiestions, the Kal gives a specific prominence to the gene- 
alogieSy which we find again mentioned in 1 Tim. i. 4 in CQunection 
vi\\^ fables. In chap. i. 4 of our epistle only the fables are men- 
tioned, here only the genealogies, and in 1 Tim. i. 4 both are 
mentioned together, irom which we may infer with considerable 
certainty that they were nearly related to each other. The con- 
jectures of expositors have been quite as numerous on the subject 
of the genealogies, as they have been on the fables. The exe- 
getical expositor must, however, abide by what he obtains from the 
natural signification of the word according to its general use in the 
profane writers, as also its use in Heb. vii. 6, and see whether the 
context is against this signification. The context, then, places the 
genealogies in opposition to a doctrine which produces moral fruit, 
and comprehends them under the class of foolish questions, the 
contents of which are foolish, and which, in a moral point of view, 
are fruitless and vain. There is no trace in the immediate context 
of a heresy, an opposition of true to false doctrine, and it has 
already been sufficiently made out that the remaining contents of 
the epistle point at nothing of the kind. If now we compare the 
passage in 1 Tim. i. 4, we find there the genealogies described as 
endless, an expression which is far too indefinite to admit of our 
determining anything with certainty respecting the import of the 
genealogies. The clause which follows, however, fully confirms 

334 . TITU8 lU. 9. 

the view furnished by the epistle, that it is no heresy properly so 
called* bat a foolish, morally fraitless pursuit that is spoken of; for 
how otherwise could it be said, that they (the genealogies) minister 
questions rather than promote fruitful knowledge, and opposition 
be made to them (ver. 5) from a purely practical point of view ? 
- Everything plainly indicates that things are meant which are in 
themselves vain, and therefore without moral efScacy. But to 
this most natural result to which we are led by the signification of 
the word, and with which the context and the contents of the epistle 
harmonize, it is objected that the error which gave rise to these 
genealogies cannot be explained, if something of the nature of 
Jewish family registers are to be understood by them, nor can it be 
shown how the Gentile Christians should have taken any interest 
in them. But the genealogies were not the only subject of these 
vain pursuits ; and at all events we must suppose, as indeed the 
fables prove, that there was a special mode of treating this subject. 
See, besides, the General Introduction. The apostle further speci- 
fies the things which Titus is to shun in the words following: and 
contetitions and utrtfes about the law. The ip€i<s (not to be con- 
nected with vofUKos;^ as De Wette observes, against Heydenreich, and 
Baur, with whom Olshausen agrees), are to be viewed as the efiects of 
the qu€8tiofi8^ comp. vi. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 23; they are the contentions of 
these men among themselves proceeding from their obstinateness of 
opinion. The following strifes about the law are a specific form 
of these contentionSy just as the genealogies are in relation to the 
questions^ In order to determine what is meant by these strifes 
about the law, it will be necessary to attend chiefly to i. 14, where, 
as the constituent parts of the error, are mentioned commandmetits 
of men, along mih fables. Here then, where likewise the prevail- 
ing errors are referred to, we are not at liberty to understand by 
strifes about the law, as Mack thinks, strifes about whether the 
Gnostic doctrines of spirits have a foundation in the Old Testament, 
or generally about the law being binding ot not binding, which De 
Wette, along with Baur, thinks probable in reference to 1 Tim. i. 
7, but on the authority of the passage already referred to, in which 
we find nothing of Antinoraianism — strifes about the authority and 
confirmation of tbjB commandments, i. 14, as Matthies also is of 
opinion. So much then may be inferred from this designation in 
the passage before us, namely, ihat bhose commandments spoken 

TITUS in. 10. 385 

of in i. 14, although going beyond the law, nevertheless sought to 
connect themselves with the law, and to confirm themselves by it. 
UeptuTTOLaOai = '* to go out of the way," " to shun," occurs again 
only at 2 Tim. ii. 16. The word is used in the same signification 
also in profane literature. — For they are profitless and vain, cor- 
responding to, these things are good and profitable, ver. 6 ; fjkdrau)^, 
** empty" vacuus, in respect to their import, used elsewhere by the 
apostle in the same sense, 1 Cor. iii. 20. 

Ver. 10. Ver. 9 informs Titus how he is to act in reference to 
the errors; this verse gives him an injunction as to his conduct 
towards persons who, by separating themselves, cause divisions. 
'' Avoid an heretical man after a first and second admonition." In 
determining what is to be understood by aiperuco^ avOptoTro^, 
we are by no means at liberty all at once to fix on the later 
signification of the word, and then to maintain that the word 
had not this signification until the Gnostics were distinguished 
as the first heretics, and from this to infer the spuriousness of 
the epistles as Baur does. De Wette also observes that this 
is a later word and a later idea ; that atpecri^ is never used by 
Paul in reference to doctrine, comp. 1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20; 
certainly, however, 2 Pet. ii. 1. But the question precisely is, 
whether it is a later idea ? We must first of all examine in 
what sense the apostle elsewhere uses the word atpeai^ ; and 
if it must be admitted that the word in those passages where 
it occurs, does not refer to doctrine, and does not signify heresies 
in the later sense of the term, it will farther have to be asked whe- 
ther by aipenim here we are to understand anything difierent from 
one who causes divisions (alpecrWy in the apostle s sense of the 
term), or is addicted to these. We have already seen how little the 
epistle speaks of heresies, or fundamental errors ; and the idea 
implied in aiperUo^ must be judged of, according to what we 
know concerning the errors of the Christians in Crete. If then 
we do not proceed arbitrarily we must say, that alperlKo^ denotes, 
according to the usus linguae one who gives rise to divisions in 
the church ; and it may be inferred from what we find in the 
epistle, that he does this by separations and errors such as are 
described in iii. 9, i. 14. Thus we have no later idea, but only a 
word which indeed the apostle does not use elsewhere, but which 
by a simple formation is derived as an adjective from the ai- 

33G TITUS ITI. 1 1 . 

p6(r£9,with which he is familiar ; a form of deriyation of which 
we find many examples in the apostle's writings, comp. Bott- 
ger, a. a. Q., p. 115. In reference to any such person, who 
causes division and discord, Titus is enjoined once and a second 
time to make the attempt to set hira right. He is not to contend 
with him, hut to admonish him, to hring home to him a sense of 
his error. NovOea-la as also vovOerelv used only hy the apostle, 
and by him frequently ; for it is the apostle who uses it in Acts 
XX. 31, and it denotes the earnest admonition directed to the 
heart, oorop. Harless, a. a. Q. 522. He is to seek to gain 
back such individuals ; which of course does not exclude their 
being rebuked and silenced (i. 11) qua seducers* If this at- 
tempt repeated has proved in vain, he is then to avoid them. 
The word 'irapaiTelaOai, literally to excuse one's self from anything 
= " to avoid," cannot be understood of exclusion from church 
fellowship ; according to the context, it signifies nothing farther 
than : personally to have nothing more to do with them, to let 
them go. The expression, besides in the Pastoral Epistles, is 
found in Heb. xii. 25. 

Ver. 11. This verse gives the reason why he is henceforth to 
avoid him: inasmuch as thou knowest (of course not beforehand, 
but in consequence of these unsuccessful attempts to recover him), 
that such an one is perverted and sinnetb, being condemned by 
himself. ^E^koTpairrai only here, in the Sept. Deut. xxxli. 20; 
Jer. ii. 21,for«!fQ*^ n'^29nfl= perverseness ; in profane writers, 
to invert, so that what is uppermost comes to be undermost, or 
to turn round, to change his disposition ; comp. Passow. Baur, 
in order to make it out to be more appropriate in reference to a 
heretic, observes that it is more suitable to the context and to the 
signification of the word to render : such a one has turned away 
from us, and is gone out from the fellowship of the faithful ; in 
support of which he appeals to Deut. xxxii. 20. I do not under- 
stand how e#c, not airotrrk^trOai^ can be made to have this signifi- 
cation ; and further, this signification is demonstrably contrary to 
the U8U9 linguae, nor does it occur in this sense in the Septuagint, 
as a comparison with Jer. ii. 21 shows, where indeed the Septuagint 
gives an inaccurate rendering, but yet, as^i';^ stands expressly along 

with n3BrT3» *^® words could in no case mean what Baur under- 

TITUS III. 11. 337 

stands by the expression i^arp. As little does the following 
word afjbaprdvei conyey a more special designation of the heretic ; 
he sins qua atperUo^ by causing divisions, while he is avroKa- 
rdicpiTo^ Rs '' condemned by himself/' In this word and not in 
the ofjutprdvei lies the reason why Titus is to leave him to himself. 
Ghrysostom well explains the sense : ovk ^et ehrew art, oitSeU 
ehrev. Srav odi/ /lerk ripf irapalveaiv o auT09 hnfievri ainoicaTdpVTO^ 
yli/ercu. He has judged himself inasmuch as he rejeots the warn* 
ing and sins with knowledge. What could be effected by further 
admonition ? Nothing is said of his shutting himself oat from 
fellowship. *Gomp. moreover the General Introduction, § 3, on 
Baur's objections against the genuineness founded on this passage. 


Passing to matters of a personal kind« the apostle charges Titus 
to come to him at Nicopolis ; not, however, before he has sent to 
him either Artemas or Tychicus ; but after that speedily. To Nico* 
polis, for there he has determined to pass the winter (comp. 1 Cor. 
xvi. 6.) The sending of one or other of those two who are named, 
seems to have had for its object that the person sent should take 
Titus s place in Crete, as his departure was to depend on the ar- 
rival of the person sent Artemas is unknown to us. Tychious 
is, in Acts xx. 4, called Lysanins. He was with the apostle during 
the first, and, if our view is correct, also during the second impri- 
sonment at Rome, and was sent twice by him from Bome to Lesser 
Asia, Ool. iv. 7, 8 ; £ph. vi. 21 ; 2 Tim. iv. 12. The first passage 
speaks of him in such a manner as to make it appear that he was 
fully qualified for being Titus' successor in Crete. Tradition says 
that he was at last bishop of Chalcedon in Bithynia. Comp. 
Winer's Il.W.6. Several towns bore the name of Nicopolis, one 
in Epirus, one in Nestus in Thrace (which is the one meant in the 
subscription of the epistle), one in Cilicia, &c., comp. De Wette. 
Which is meant here, can be decided only by comparing and combin* 
ing the data which bear on the point, comp. the Introduction. Ki^ 
KpiKa : ^' I have determined," frequently used by the apostle, 1 Cor, 
V. 3 ; 2 Cor. ii. 1 . The 'rrapax€ifidcrcu leads us to suppose that 
the winter was drawing near when the apostle wrote. 

888 TITUS III. 13, 14. 

Ver. 18. Others who are already with Titus he is to send 
speedily, ue. to fit them out for the journey that nothing may be 
wanting to them. The tva does not refer to awovBaUo^, but to 
Trpoirifjm-etv in the sense we have assigned to it ; comp. 8 John 
yi. Zenas is unknown to us. His by-name, vofiuco^ = ypofifxa- 
T6V9 (Matth. xxii. 85), may have remained with him from an 
earlier period, according to which he must have been a Jewish 
Christian. Others understand vofiUo^ of the civil law = '' lawyer,' 
which is certainly preferable to the other, as the retaining of the 
name vofiUo^ in the first sense by a Pauline Christian is not 
probable. Apollos is known to us, comp. Acts xviii. 24 ; I 
Cor. i. 12, iii. 4, ss., xvi. 12, and Winers B.W.B. "Iva, &;c., 
an imitator of the apostle could hardly have fallen upon such ob- 

Ver. 14. " And withal let our s also learn to exercise themselves 
carefully in good works for the supply of necessary wants." The 
sense of the verse is differently determined, according as by 17/i^ 
repoi the Cretan Christians, or the persons named immediately 
before, Zenas and Apollos, are understood to be meant In the 
latter case the apostle would say : let them by the labour of their 
hands earn something like himself (the apostle), for the time of 
need. So Orotius and others. I cannot agree with this ex- 
planation, as it would assign to the words koK&v ipycov irpotcrrouT'- 
0(u quite a different sense from that in which they were used in 
ver. 8 ; again because teai cannot refer to the apostle, but only to 
Titus, with whom the ^fUrepoi are placed on a level, and further 
because Iva firi Snnv axafyirroi^ according to its general use, 1 Cor. 
xiv. 14 ; Eph. v. 11, would also in itself be far too strong an ex- 
pression, and because it cannot be presupposed that all understood, 
like Paul, a trade by which they could everywhere earn for them- 
selves a maintenance* It will be better, therefore, to understand 
the words as containing an admonition to benevolence which might 
here have an opportunity of manifesting itself. What in the pre- 
ceding verse he requests from Titus, he here makes the business of 
all. Good works would then refer chiefly to benevolence, which is 
represented as the /ruU of faith. So also Olshausen. EU r^9 
ypeliK as Phil. iv. 16 (De Wette.) The admonition is all the more 
appropriate in that these journeys were of great importance for the 
spread of Christianity ; comp. on <f>iK6^€vo^, i. 8. 


In ver. 15 follow salutations from all who were with tbd apostle, 
and from the apostle to all who are with Titus* who are united with 
the apostle by the love that is in the faith. The expression, who 
love us in ihe/aith, is chosen from a regard to the circumstances, 
aooording to which he could not expect this of all. Loyo is repre^ 
sented as having its root in faith, this again as the bond of fellow- 
ship. The short benediction (as in Col. iv. 18), ^race be with you 
alii is no proof that the epistle was addressed to the church. " It 
only implied the fellowship of Titus with all Christiana there." Do 
Wette, and similarly Matthies. ^Afiriv is a later addition. 


I find from the most recent researches^ into the question as to 
the date of the epistle to Titus, that it will be necessary to add the 
following observations, in order to complete what has already been 
given in the Introduction. There are some views of this question 
which have not received consideration there, and by refuting which 
the view which we have developed may be still frirther confirmed. 
Chiefly, however, does Wieseler's view of this subject, which he has 
been at so much pajns to estfiblish, demand our attention. — With 
reference to those hypotheses which^ have been already refuted in 
the Introduction, I rejoice to find that in the rejection of these I 
am supported by Wieseler (p. 329, S8.)> and by Huther s investi- 
gations. The latter entirely coincides with me in the result to 
which he has come, inasmuch as he fixes the journey to Crete, and 
the writing of the epistle, to the period subsequent' to the first 
imprisonment at Borne ; while the latter denies that the apostle 
was liberated from this imprisonment, and maintains that the writ- 

1 WieMler, Cfaronologie dea apost. Zeitaltera, Obit. 1848. Huther, Comm. Einl. 
p. 17-22. 

*^ Compare hia fuller inveatigation of thia eritical problem of a second imprtsonmeot, 
p. %tt a. 

Y 2 


ing of the epidtle, together with the journey to Crete, took place 
daring the from two to three years' stay of the apostle in Ephesus. 
— ^But the hypothesis started by Gredner, and adopted by Nea- 
decker, namely, that Paul (Acts xviii. 23) made an intermediate 
journey from Galatia and Phrygia, by Crete, to Corinth — has not 
been noticed in the Introduction. Wieseler justly refers against 
this view to Acts xix. 1, xviii. 21. — ^As regards the misplacing of 
the events in question in the period specified in Acts xx. 1 — 5, the 
view as represented by Matthies, that the apostle made the journey 
to Crete from Greece, has already in the Introduction been pretty 
fully considered (comp. also Wieseler, p. 337, ss.) ; on the other 
hand, the hypothesis, according to which the apostle's journey to 
Crete and the writing of the epistle, took place before his arrival in 
Greece, but not till after the completion of Titus' twofold mission 
to Corinth (so Tbeodoret, Baronius, Lightfoot, and others), has 
not been specially examined. What Wieseler and Huther say in 
opposition to it, is much to the point, namely, that in this case 
Titus, in spite of 2 Cor. ix. 4, 5, must after his second mission to 
Corinth have returned thence again to Macedonia to the apostle, 
and that Paul must have twice passed through Greece, namely, on 
his way going to Crete, and on his way back to Macedonia. 
(Wieseler, p. 842.) " What a journeying hither and thitlier with- 
out a plan, would this imply on the part of the apostle .... at a 
time when, from the intelligence which Titus brought respecting 
the state of affairs in the churches of Achaia, the apostle was filled 
with the greatest joy." So Wieseler. But Wieseler's own view, 
according to which the journey in question and the writing of the 
epistle, fall within the period of the apostle's stay in Ephesus, and 
previous to his journey to Greece (Acts xix. 1), will also scarcely 
admit of being maintained, as Huther has shown. We have al- 
ready mentioned several things in opposition to this view, without 
having before us Wieseler's acute statement and defence of it. We 
shall here again look at it, and if this — certainly the most plansible 
of all the views which date the journey in question before the Bo^ 
man imprisonment — is foilnd to be incapable of proof, we shall 
then abide still more confidently by the view which we have taken. 
— His hypothesis is as follows : After having laboured somewhere 
about two years in Ephesus, the apostle went thence on a visitation- 


journey first to MacedoDia (I Tim. i. 8), and then to GoriDth, and 
having been invited when there to visit Crete by the Christians 
who were dispersed through that island, he returned by Crete, 
where he left Titus behind him, to Ephesus, where he remained 
until his stay of almost three years was completed. . . . The epistle 
to Titus was written not long after his rettprn to Ephesus, . . . after 
the first epistle to the Corinthians, . . . soon after Easter, 57, 
A.D.," p. 847 — 355. With regard to this hypothesis, the following 
doubts suggest themselves. 1 . Granted that that second journey 
of the apostle to Corinth, of which we have no account in the Acts 
of the Apostles, but which is supposed on the authority of the 
notices in the second epistle to the Corinthians (xiii. I, fly iL 1, 
xii. 14, 21), took place within the period of the apostle's stay in 
Ephesus, there are yet great difficulties in the way of placing it so 
far on towards the end of that stay as is here supposed. Paul is 
said to have written the epistle to Titus soon after his return, be* 
fore he had written the first epistle to the Corinthians ; the journey, 
however, was not made till after he had been about two years in 
Ephesus. Is it not then in the highest degree strange, that the 
first epistle to the Corinthians should contain throughout no allu- 
sion to his having been shortly before present among them, but 
should refer all the particulars of which he speaks to accounts 
which he had received from others, or through communications by 
letter, and nowhere to his own observation, i. 1 1 (v. 1 ), vii. 8^ viii. 1, 
xi. 18, xii. 1 ? Can we suppose that things in Corinth had so 
turned out during the few months that had elapsed since the apostle 
was there ? How unaccountable is the passage, v. 9, where Paul 
refers to an epistle that has been lost, and the words in iv. 18, w fjkif 
ipXOfUuoVy if we are to believe that the apostle was shortly before 
in Corinth ? 2. Wieseler must suppose that Titus, notwithstand- 
ing of tlie instructions given to him in the epistle, was soon called 
away again and sent to Corinth, consequently that he did not fulfil 
his mission in Crete (compare against this in Wieseler on the first 
epistle to Timothy, p. 291), and that the apostle changed his pur- 
pose intimated in iii. 12 of causing Titus to meet him at Nicopolis ; 
for, according to this hypothesis, Titus comes again to the apostle 
at Macedonia, after he had performed his mission to Corinth. 
8. That the apostle intended to winter in Nicopolis on his way to 
Corinth is in itself hardly credible (almost as little as that he 


twice passed through Greece to Macedonia), and decidedly con- 
tradicts the passage, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, where the apostle writes wfw 
vfia^ .... irapafievA ^ koX irapa'^etfjuia'to* For if, as Wieseler 
admits, the gospel had not yet heen preached in Nicopolis, it is 
then impossible to understand by the vfia^, Nioopolis. And even 
although, as Wieseler utges, the two epistles were not written ex- 
clusively to the congregations in Corinth, there can yet be no 
doubt that in the word vfia^ the apostle has chiefly Corinth in his 
mind, and not the people of Nicopolis. The learned observation 
that Nicopolis was at that time reckoned as belonging to Achaia, 
can decide nothing against what we have said (comp Huther.) 
4. There remains almost no time for Corinth and its neighbour- 
hood (upon which^ notwithstanding, the apostle's mind must chiefly 
have been fixed, as appears from the two epistles to the Corinthians), 
if Paul spends the winter months in Nicopolis in Epirus, and leaves 
Corinth in the beginning of March. Or it must be supposed (as 
Wieseler in fact does), that the apostle did not remain over the 
winter in Nicopolis according to Tit. iii. 1 2, but left tot Corinth 
during the winter.-^To these objections are to be added all those 
which are derived from the later form of church life, of church 
doctrine and discipline, which we find in this epistle. And the 
most serious of all is, that in the separation of the second epistle 
to Timothy from the two others (which this hypothesis of necessity 
implies), its kindred relation to these remains unaccountable ; and 
the writing of other epistles about the same time by the apostle so 
difierent in their phraseology, style, and ideas, remains a mystery. 
Compare the General Introduction. With regard to the positive 
reasons by which Wieseler has sought to support his view, namely, 
that Titus was already at that time about the apostle (Acts xviii. 
22 ; Gal. ii. 1 ), that ApoUos was already personally known to him 
(according to 1 Cor. xvi. 12), that the same may be supposed of 
Tychicus (according to Acts xx. 4), nay that in respect to him it 
is even probable that he accompanied Titus, to whom he was sent 
(iii. 12), on his journey to Corinth — all these will not outweigh 
the difficulties we have stated, even if we should concede all the 
data upon which they rest. Especially the circumstance on which 
Wieseler lays great stress — that Tychicus seems to have accom- 
panied Titus to Corinth — rather in my opinion contradicts the 
passage iii. 12 ; for this passage is doabtless much more correctly 


undeiatood of loosing Titas from Crete by ooe of the persons there 
named supplying his plaoe, than in the way Wieseler explains it. 
The difficnlties arising from Nicopolis have already been stated 
(chiefly suggested by 1 Cor. xvi. 6.) The conjecture that Paul 
could have preached the gospel in Nicopolis only during the sup- 
posed period, must of necessity vemain uncertain ; and also the 
passages Bom. xv. 19 and 23 can, in the face of these difficulties, 
and owing to their generality, by no means prove that Paul must 
at that time have already .been in Nicopolis. 

( 84<i ) 




Timothy is named as the receiver of the epistle, i. 2, iii. 14. It 
was intended for him alone, not for the church at the same time, 
as this would contradict what is plainly said in the inscription, 
while it would be inconsistent with the character of the epistle as 
an official letter, and with the whole import of it ; on iv. 1 2 see the 
exposition. As to his personal history we learn from passages in 
the New Testament that Lycaonia was his native country — ^whether 
Lystra (De Wette) or Dejbe (Wieseler) was his birth-place is 
undetermined — that his father was a Greek, and his mother a 
Jewess who had embraced Christianity (Acts xvi. 1 — 3.) His 
mother's name was Eunice, his grandmother's Lois (2 Tim. i. 5.) 
From this last passage compared with iii. J 5, we may infer that 
Timothy had enjoyed the benefit of a pious education on the 
side of his mother. Already at the time of the apostles second 
stay in that district, do we find him mentioned as a disciple 
who had a good report of the brethren (Acts xvi. 1, 2.) After 
he had allowed himself to be circumcised (Acts xvi. 3), and 
had been set apart with the laying on of hands to the work of an 
evangelist (1 Tim. i. 18, iv. 14, vi. 12; » Tim. i. 6, ii. 2), he 
joined the apostle on his journey through Lesser Asia and Mace- 
donia, followed him to Rome, after having remained behind in 

Berea (Acts xvii. 14 — 26), was deputed thence by the apostle to 



Tbessalonica, and returned to him at Corinth (Acts xviii. 5 ; 1 
Thess. Hi. 6.) We find him at a later period in Ephesns again 
with the apostle, from whence he was sent to Macedonia and 
Comith (Acts xix. 22; I Cor. iv. 17, xiy. 10, 11.) The second 
epistle to the Corinthians does not expressly say that he had actn* 
ally been there. But we find him again with the apostle in Mace- 
donia (2 Cor. i. 1), and he went with him to Corinth (Bom. xiv. 
21.) He was one of the apostle's travelling companions on his 
return thence, and he went forward along with several others from 
Philippi to Troas (Acts xx. 4» ss.) According to Phil. ii. 19 — 23, 
he was to have gone to Philippi. According to our epistle, he abode 
in Ephesus (i. 3), having being charged by the apostle with the care 
of the affairs of the church Uiere. In Heb. xiii. 23, we have another 
historical notice concerning him, to which however no certain 
place can be assigned. Tradition makes him out to have been the 
first bishop of Ephesus, and to have suffered martyrdom there 
under Domitian. More will be found in Bohl, p. 22, ss. Comp 
Winer's BWB* The passages in which the apostle speaks of 
Timothy are I Cor. iv. 17 ; xvi. 10, 11 ; Phil. ii. 19—23; 1 
Thess. iii. 1 — 6 ; they show what love he bare to him, and what 
confidence he reposed in him. In the apostles epistles, he is 
oftenest named along with the apostle in the inscription, 2 Cor. i. 
1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Col. i. 1 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 ; Philem. i., 
which is also a testimony in his favour. 


Timothy had been left by the apostle in Ephesus, with the spe- 
cial charge of opposing a false form of Christian doctrine and 
Christian life which was manifesting itself there, and of giving heed 
to the settlement and administration of the church. As the apostle 
foresees the possibility of his return being delayed, he is induced 
to give instructions to his substitute for guiding him in his con- 
duct, chiefly with respect to this charge (iii. 14, 15.) But the 
design of the epistle is not limited to this its proximate occasion. 
The apostle has also words of admonition and warning to address 
to Timothy the evangelist ; he sets before him what is incumbent 
on him as a good servant of Jesus Christ, both with reference to 



bitnself as an individaal, and to the ohuroh, and gives him the 
necessary hints for his gaidanoe in the discharge of these obliga- 
tions. When we take this extended view of the design of the 
epistle, we shall not merely find that its contents correspond to this 
design when viewed as a whole, bat we shall perceive also a regular 
method in the plan of the epistle, and in the succession of its 
particular parts. The epistle accordingly divides itself into two 
parts. The first of these contains the instructions given to assist 
Timothy in the fulfilment of his temporary commission ; ch. i. 8, 
15. More particularly, ch. i. treats of the false teaching against 
which Timothy is to be on his guard ; ch. ii. and iii. of the admi- 
nistration of the church ;-— in ch. ii., namely, are given directions 
with respect to the assemblies of the church, in ch. iii. for ordina* 
tion to church offices. The second part, which extends from iii. 
15 to the end, contains instructions bearing on Timothy's calling 
as an evangelist, setting before him what is incumbent upon him in 
this respect. The conclusion of ch. iii. forms the transition to the 
future falling away from the faith described in ch. iv., which makes 
it the duty of Timothy as a teacher of the gospel all the more faith- 
fully to hold fast the apostolical doctrine, and to make a con* 
scientious improvement of the gifts bestowed on him (ch. iv.) In 
ch. 6, Timothy is farther instructed how he is to deal with the 
particular members of the church, according to the distinctions of 
sex, age. and according to other differences (in which from the 
nature of the case it cannot be expected that the line of distinction 
should be drawn between Timothy's position as representative of 
the apostle, and as an evangelist) Finally, in ch. vi., special in- 
junctions are given him with respect to slaves, and with respect to 
the rich. The transition to this last point is made by a warning 
addressed to Timothy as an individual, against the desire to be 
rich, a warning which the apostle is induced to give from a regard 
to the character and pursuits of the fiilse seducers. 

The conclusion stands by itself, ver. 20 — 22, and contains a 
reiterated comprehensive warning against that secret science which 
is referred to in other parts of the epistle. For the confirmation 
and further expansion of this, see the interpretation. 



The historical oircamstances under which the epistle according 
to its own statements was written, are the following. The apostle 
had gone from Ephesus to Macedonia, and had left Timothy to 
conduct the affairs of the Ephesian church until he himself should 
return, which he hoped would not be long, but which might possi- 
bly be delayed. The church was already fully organized. It had 
not only presbyters and deacons ; but also an institution for 
widows belonging to the church. Already a i^o^t/rov was ineligi- 
ble to the office of a bishop, and in general, a Christian test was 
applied in the appointment to any office, and to any ecclesiastical 
distinction, v. 9, ss. A corrupt tendency to vain speculation, and a 
false asceticism, had prominently appeared in the church, which in 
the case of some had even led to a complete apostacy from the faith ; 
the present already displayed the germ of an error which threatened 
the future with danger (iv. 1, ss.) From these circumstances it 
will appear that the date of the epistle must belong to the later, 
nay, I might say to the latest period of the apostle's history. It 
will be difficult to prove that the existence of Christianity for two 
or three years is sufficient to explain the qualifications laid down 
in chap. iii. to be looked for in the appointment of ecclesiastical 
office-bearers, the rules laid down in chap. v. regarding widows, 
and the experiences of which we have there an account, as also the 
warnings pervading the entire epistle against false teaching and 
error. Can this epistle have been written before the farewell address 
at Miletum to the Ephesian presbyters, in which the apostle warns 
against a danger, not that was already present, but which threatened 
the future ; or before the epistle to the Ephesians, which contains 
no trace of the errors here pourtrayed, while the apostle himself 
represents these errors as the beginning of a falling away from the 
faith which was progressively to develope itself ? We would iiere 
further recall to mind what has been said in the Greneral Introduc- 
tion, namely, that what the epistle contains respecting the prevail- 
ing errors, as well as the ecclesiastical institutions, indicates its 
place to be in the midst of the earlier appearances of this kind, 
and the latest within the apostolic era ; that we find everywhere 


the marks of Obristianity having heen in existence for some length 
of time, and its presence having become familiar, as, for example, 
in, the disappearance of the charismata, and the qualification of 
aptness to teach being required in the presbyter-— although the 
total impression made by the epistle in this respect is much more 
striking when we compare it with the epistles to the Corinthians, 
or with that to the Romans, in proximity to which some would 
place it. 

Meanwhile we proceed to consider those hypotheses which at* 
tempt to bring our epistle within the period comprehended by the 
Acts of the Apostles, withont»the supposition of the apostle's libe- 
ration from his imprisonment at Rome, to which we feel ourselves 
driven. We pass over Calvin's conjecture, who fixes the writing 
of the epistle even to the period subsequent to the apostle's first 
stay in Ephesus (Acts xviii. 19 ; compare against it Wieseler, p. 
290) ; we omit also that of Dr Paulus, that the epistle was written 
from the apostle's imprisonment at Caesarea, an hypothesis which 
creates for itself the necessary facts, and can only be maintained 
by an arbitrary exegesis (oomp. against it Bohl, p. 202, ss. ; Mat- 
thies, p. 449, ss. ; Wieseler, p. 802 ; Huther, p. 15, s.) Nor 
shall we do more than mention Schneckenburgher and Bottger's 
view, which rests on the change of Trpoirfieivai to Trpotr/ielva^f as 
we deny at the very outset their right to such an emendation against 
the unanimity of the codd. and the clear sense of the words (comp. 
Wieseler, p. 303.) There will thus remain for more particular 
examination, three hypotheses, of which the first fixes the date of 
the epistle to the period described in Acts xx. 1,2 (held by many 
ancient and modem commentators as Theodoret, Hug, Hemsen, 
&c.), the second makes the epistle to have been written during a 
journey undertaken by the apostle from Ephesus, in the period of 
bis from two to three years' stay there (so Mosheim, who supposes 
the journey in question to have taken place at the commencement 
of this stay, Schrader, and last of all, Wieseler, who places it at 
the end of this stay) ; finally, the third explains the circumstances 
mentioned in Acts xx. 3 — 5, as marking the most appcopriate 
period for the writing of the epistle (so Bertholdt and Matthies.) 

Of these hypotheses the first has seemingly the best connexion 
with the Acts of the Apostles, for in Acts xx. 1 we read that the 
apostle went on a journey from Ephesus to Macedonia ; when more 


closely examined, however, it is foand to be the most uDtenaUe. 
The grounds on which it is opposed, and whioh have already been 
adduced by Schleiermacher, Bohl, Mack, Matthies, Huther, Wieae- 
ler, &c., may be summed up in the following : The supposition that 
Timothy, on the apoatle's departure from Ephesus, was left behind 
with the charge of conducting the Ephesian churches, contradicts 
the aeoounts in the Acts of the Apostles, and the notices in the 
two epistles to the Corinthians. According to Acts xix. 21—23, 
Timothy had been sent to Macedonia, and from thence to go to 
Corinth (1 Cor. iv. 17) at the time when the apostle was purpos- 
ing to set out on his own journey. It must therefore be supposed 
that, notwithstanding of the insurrection caused by Demetrius, die 
apostle's departure was delayed so long, that Timothy was able to 
perform a journey over Macedonia to Corinth, there execute his 
commission, and return again to the apostle at Ephesus before he 
set out. Timothy — whom the apostle, in his first epistle to the 
Corinthians, supposes to be not yet in Corinth (xvi. 10) — must 
have returned to the apostle at Ephesus by the time of Pentecost 
(xvi. 8), while the epistle was not written till about the time of the 
Passover (v. 6 — 8 ; comp. Meyer.) But if it be supposed that 
this period is not too short, or that Timothy did not actually go to 
Corinth, this hypothesis is still inconsistent with 2 Cor. i. 1, ac* 
cording to which Timothy did not remain in Ephesus, but stayed 
with the apostle in Macedonia, and was with him likewise during 
his short stay in Greece, and accompanied him on his retun^ thence 
(Bom. xvi. 21 ; Acts xx. 4.) The apostle further writes, 1 Tim. 
iii. 14, that he intends shortly to return to Ephesus. But accord- 
ing to Acts XX. 3 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 5, ss. ; Acts xix. 21, he has the 
fixed purpose of journeying over Macedonia to Greece, and thence 
to Jerusalem, as also he expresses himself to the same effect again 
in the second epistle to the Corinthians (xiii. 1), written from 
Macedonia, and in Bom. xv. 25, ss. Nay, so little does the 
apostle think at that time of a return to Ephesus, that afterwards 
when he is induced by the plots of the Jews against him to change 
his original plan of going from Greece to Syria by sea, and is thus 
obliged to come near to Ephesus, he sails past it, and only gives 
directions for the presbyters to meet him at Miletum (Acts xx. 
1 6.) On these grounds alone this hypothesis is untenable, alto- 
gether apart from the internal improbability of the state of things 


which it compels us to suppose (on which see Schleiermacb^r, p. 
115, ss.), and from all the criteria of the epistle, which present us 
with a form of the Christian life belonging to a much later period 
of the apostolic era. 

The third of the hypotheses above stated, is surrounded with dif- 
ficulties scarcely less serious, as has already been shown by Mack» 
Hnther, Wieseler, against Matthies, its most recent advocate, after 
Bertholdt had led the way. According to this hypothesis Paul had 
sent Timothy forward to Ephesus shortly before he set out on his 
journey back from Achaia to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 8, ss.), with a 
verbal commission, intending to be there soon also himself, but not 
being quite certain that he should accomplish this, he therefore em- 
braced the first favourable opportunity of writing this epistle from 
some place in Achaia or Macedonia, in order to give Timothy instruc- 
tions how to act in the interval, only a short time, perhaps only a 
few weeks later than the epistle to Titus was written, which Matthies 
likewise places in the same period. Against this view as defended 
by Matthies are the following considerations-— 1, That it rests on an 
unwarrantable interpretation of the passage 1 Tim. i. 3 (according 
to the opinion of De Wette, Winer, Hutber, Wieseler (comp. on 
the passage), in which iropevofuvo^ is made to refer, not to the apostle 
but to Timothy. This interpretation is not made use of by Ber- 
tholdty for he refers these words to the journey alluded to in Acts 
XX. 1, 2 ; but still the difficulty arises, why Timothy did not then 
remain in Ephesus, and why the apostlci after having been a consi- 
derable time in company with Timothy, as is the case here, should 
have referred to the commission which he then received. 2. The 
account of the journey in Acts xx. 4, 5, is inconsistent with this 
hypothesis, for according to it Timothy was not sent forward, but 
went in company with the apostle, and was parted from him only 
from Fhilippi to Troas, jand thence to Assos. Matthies' view, 
therefore, contradicts this account. It must rather be supposed, as 
Huther observes, that the apostle did not send Timothy to Ephesus 
till later, possibly from Troas, and that he sent the epistle imme- 
diately after him, a supposition, however, which is not very con- 
ceivable. 3. How little accordance is there between the purpose 
of the apostle as expressed in iii. 14, iv. 13 of this epistle, ere long 
to come to Ephesus, and Acts xx. 16, where it is said, '* For Paul 
had determined to sail past Ephesus because he would not spend 


the time in Asia." Nor can this have been his original purpose, 
as Acts XX. 3 shows. (Wieseler, p. 294, s.) 4. And how strange 
must it appear, that in Acts xx. 16 no mention whatever is made 
of Titus ? 5. And in general, what need was there of an epistle, 
seeing that Timothy had been with the apostle shortly before, and 
that the epistle itself gives no ground for supposing that any new 
information regarding the church at Ephesus had come to him, 
which induced him to write ? 6. What is predicted in Acts xx. 
29, 30, concerning a future error, does not consist with this hypo- 
thesis. In short, as Baur has justly observed against this hypo- 
thesis, '' nothing agrees with it." 

The second of the above mentioned hypothesis, which lays the 
apostle's journey to Macedonia, and the writing of the epistle, in the 
period of his from two three years' stay in Ephesus, and in particular 
towards the end of this period, has most in its favour so long as 
we look merely at the external historical data. This is Wieseler s 
view, and he has developed and defended it with great acuteness. 
With him agree Mosheim and Sohrader, in so far as that they also 
place the journey in question in the period of the apostle's stay at 
Ephesus; but the form which they have given to this hypothesis is 
altogether untenable, in proof of which we would here for the sake 
of brevity refer to what Wieseler has said against it, p. 295, ss. 
His own view is as follows (comp. p. 316). '* The first epistle to 
Timothy was written by Paul, certainly during his three years' stay 
at Ephesus (Acts xix.), previous to the writing of the epistle to 
the Corinthians, which has not been preserved, and the existing 
first epistle, — on the occasion of an intermediate journey not re- 
corded in the Acts of the Apostles, either in Macedonia or Achaia, 
in the years 64-57, most \)robably, however, in the last year of 
his stay atEphesus^ a.d. 56." To this view it has been objected, 
as appears to me justly, by Huther: 1. That even were it ad- 
mitted that the apostle had made a second journey to Corinth 
during the period of his stay in Ephesus, it would still be very 
doubtful that he was in Corinth shortly before the writing of the 
first epistle to Corinthians, as he could then have had no occasion 
for writing ; which (referring to what has already been said in the 
Introduction to the epistle to Titus) I would rather express thus^- 
that the absence of all allusions to this visit in the epistle written 
shortly after, is strange. 2. Huther observes, that in spite of the 


safe positioD attempted to be taken by Wieeeler, Acts zx. 29, 80» 
is still opposed to his view, inasmuch as there the error is spoken 
of as something altogether future. Wieseler's assertion that ek 
vfioM in that passage refers only to the presbyters, while the error 
was already present in the church, contradicts the context vt. 28 
and 29, and is in itself scarcely conceivable : the apostle must 
have in this case expressed himself quite differently. (Comp. 
Titus i. 9, ss.) *• And surely," says Huther justly, " Paul would 
not have passed over the existence of such errors * in Ephesus 
without notice, if he knew the danger with which the church was 
threatened to be so great that he had thought it necessary before 
this, to give Timothy such earnest instructions with respect to 
these errors." The danger which threatened the future is repre- 
sented as the progressive development of present appearances (Acts 
XX. 29; 1 Tim. iv. 1, ss.) It is therefore strange that the 
epistle to theEphesians, which, according to Wieseler, was intended 
for Ephesus, contains no trace of the errors mentioned in our 
epistle. 3. Huther observes, that the entire character of the epistle 
does not correspond to the view that Paul was separated from Ti- 
mothy only for a short time, and that immediately on his return he 
sent him away, as the instructions in the epistle imply a longer 
period of labour on the part of Timothy. Certainly, as the apostle 
must have left Ephesus again not long after his return thither (not 
longer than from the time of the Passover to that of the Pentecost, 
as the sea journey from Achaia by Crete to Ephesus could not have 
been undertaken long before the former of these periods), there ap* 
pears something strange in the sending away of Timothy to Co- 
rinth, and thus withdrawing him from his important labours in 
Ophesus. But to this we have to add in general, that the objec- 
tions which have already been expressed in the Introduction to the 
epistle to Titus, are applicable here also, against this supposed 
journey made by the apostle towards the end of his stay at Ephe- 
sus, if it is to be taken as identical with the journey to Crete, as 
Wieseler must suppose it to be. Wieseler has indeed endeavoured 
to obviate the objections arising from the already far advanced ex- 
ternal organization of the church which meets us in this epistle. 
He remarks that, after the apostle had laboured between two and 
three years in Ephesus, it was quite possible for presbyters and 
deacons to have been appointed, which w^ will not gainsay ; we will 


also suppose that his observation accounts for what is said as to the 
exclusion of a i/co^irro? from the office of bishop ; but it can 
scarcely be conceived, that Jn the course of this period a widow's 
institution could have come to be established, or that the apostle 
should have already had such experiences in reference to this in- 
stitution as are expressed in 1 Tim. v. 11. We have already suffi- 
ciently shown elsewhere, how the entire form of Christian life which 
meets us in this epistle, as well as the character of the errors com- 
bated in it, points to a later date, and how the separation of the 
second epistle to Timothy from the first, which the above hypothesis 
implies, is unfavourable to its truth. 

We see then that none of the hypotheses which we have just 
mentioned is without weighty difficulties, and we cannot but feel 
ourselves confirmed by this negative proof in the view, that this 
epistle also belongs to the period subsequent to the first imprisonment 
at Borne, and more particularly between the first and second. This 
is the view which is most commonly taken, next to that which regards 
Acts XX. 1 as the period in question. So Tbeophylact, Oecumenius. 
This view also has given rise to the subscription of the epistle, 
from LaodiceOj which the Peschito also has. What conception we 
are to form of the course taken by the apostle in his journey after 
his liberation, to which 1 Tim. i. 3 refers, has already been shown 
in the General Introduction ; in like manner, what points of con- 
nexion are elsewhere to be found in other epistle's. What has been 
there said in reference to the passages Philem. 22 and Phil. ii. 24, 
that when the apostle was liberated he returned to the east, remains 
intact, even after Wieseler s statement to the contrary (p. 299.) As 
a special objection drawn from our epistle, against tYie supposition 
of so late a date, reference is made to the word t^rfn/? applied to 
Timothy ; comp., in reply to this, the Commentary on iv. 12 ; the 
little experience which Timothy had in the administration and re- 
gulation of the afiairs of a Christian church is also to be consi- 
dered. Timothy then for the first time was placed in such a posi- 
tion ; compare the remarks by Hug II. p. 330, ss. (4 Aufl.) And 
how, on the supposition that the instructions addressed to Timothy 
can be accounted for only by his youthful inexperience, shall we 
explain what is said regarding him in 1 Thess. iii. 1,2; I Cor. 
iv. 17? 

Nothing certain can be said as to the place where this epistle 


was written. The most probable supposition, however, is, that it 
was written from some place in Macedonia. 


We have endeavoared, in the critical introdoction to the Pastoral 
Episdes, to obviate those objections which apply to the three 
epistles together. We have here still to attend only to those doubts 
that have been raised with regard to this epistle in particular. It 
is alleged that the episdeis historically inexplicable, even although 
its date should be placed in the period subsequent to the first im^ 
prisonment at Rome ; for it is inconsistent with so lata a date that 
Timothy should be represented as a young man ; against ^hich 
oomp. the Oommentary on iv. 12.-<-The same inference is drawn 
from the absence of all allusions to that imprisonment, and the 
journeys following upon it, witii the events which happened to the 
aposde in the course of these. But if, after bis liberation and 
after those journeys, the aposde was personally in Timothys 
company (i. 8), it is difficult to see why he should communi- 
cate to him by letter what he might long before have done by 
word of mouth. Moreover this episUe is a purely official let* 
ter, and therefore in the least degree adapted for such commu- 
nications. — ^But it is also alleged that exegeticaUy the epiade is 
unaccountable, inasmuch as. A, it does not correspond to its pro« 
fessed and conceivable ends. a. From the object which was had in 
view in leaving Timothy in Ephesus, as stated i. 8, we are led to 
expect a special refutation of the errors of the false teachers ; but this 
entirely fails. — To this we' reply, that it is not to be expected that- 
the aposde should enter more particularly than he has done, into 
things which he has concisely characterized as empty talk, mere 
word-strife and insipidity. That he repeatedly reverts to these 
things, and expresses himself regarding them in such a variety of 
ways, is easily explained, as the exposition shows, h. It is objected 
that, according to the professed design of the episde, iii. 16, we 
are led to expect a treasury of seasonable and weighty directions 
and counsels as to the administration of a church ; but we do not 
find this. In reply to this, we have to say, that the sense of iii. 
1 5 must be determined by the preceding context, and the question 


can then only be, whether oh. iii. like eh. ii. corresponds to its 
design, namely, to give Timothy the necessary guidance in these 
particular points. This question we may unhesitatingly venture 
to answer in the affirmative ; comp. the Commentary, c. We might 
well suppose, it is alleged, that Paul even in an official letter to 
Timothy would, over and above what pertained to the business in 
hand, have much to say to Timothy himself, by way of instructing 
and quickening him ; but all that is to be found in the epistle of this 
nature, either places on too low a level one who was the apostle's 
assistant (i. 18, s., iv. 7, ss., 12, ss., vi. 1 1, ss.), or else is too gene- 
ral and even of little use for ordinary Christians (iv. 7, ss., 12, ss. ; 
V. 28, vi. 11.) In reply to this, we have to say, that on consulting 
the passages here adduced, it will be found that they contain an 
admonition to Timothy faithfully to fulfil his calling, or to main** 
tain a holy conversation, such as becomes a Christian ; or as v. 
28, vi. 11, they refer to special things. Moreover, these admoni- 
tions have a special ground when viewed in opposition to the pur- 
suits and character of the false teachers. Let it be supposed that 
those pursuits, with the secret wisdom about which they were con- 
versant, and their harmless appearance, might have attractions even 
for Timothy, and that he, as we learn chiefly from the second 
epistle, was not quite free from a leaning towards what was earthly 
— and I do not see how the possibility of such having been the 
case can be denied — then do these admonitions become very intelli- 
gible. It will be a much more difficult task for those critics who 
suppose that the epistle was written at a later period to explain, 
how a pseudo apostle should address exhortations to Timothy so 
" unworthy" of him, especially if the writer had in his eye the 
Gnostic heresies of a later period, and thought it necessary to warn 
Timothy against participating in them. — B. As what is said with 
respect to Timothy is alleged not to correspond to the position and 
character of a helper of the apostle, and to bear out the close re- 
lation that subsisted between him and the apostle, expressed in i. 
2. 18, iv. 6, V. 28, still less than in the second epistle (here it is 
not taken into consideration that the epistle is a business com- 
munication, the aim of which is concisely to state what is necessary), 
so it is further said, that it entirely fails in allusions to the church 
which stood in so interesting a relation to the apostle, comp. Acts 
XX. 18, ss. But in this objection it is forgotten, that the epistle 


was not addressed to the church (comp. on this the Introduction 
to the epistle to Titus.) In so far as Timothy was concerned) there 
was no occasion for such allusions in an epistle of this character, as 
also no passage in the epistle can he specified where it can he said 
that such ought to have heen introduced. Finally, apart from these 
historical references, the epistle is held even as a literary produc- 
tion to deny the apostle for its author, in its want of all ground- 
work and connexion ; in reply to which, we would simply refer to 
the exposition, where it has been our endeavour to show the unrea- 
sonableness of this charge. 

( 369 ) 






(Chap. i. 1-20.) 

The inscription and salatation of the epistle, i. 1, 2, are after the 
common form in the epistles of Paul. We do not find here the 
predicate apostle more specially determined, as we foand it in Tit 
i. 1, oomp. with Bom. i. 1, ss. ; Gal. i. 1, ss., where it forms an 
index to the import of the epistle. The writer here simply desig- 
nates himself as an apostle o/ Jesus Christ (which is not done on 
account of the church ; comp. on Tit. i. 1, and 2 Tim. i. 1, where 
such a reference cannot be supposed), — ^refers to the divine authority 
of his office, names the person to whom the epistle is addressed, 
and then adds the usual salutation at the heginning of his epistle, 
deriving it from 0eo9 iranjp {vfimv to be cancelled) kcCL Xpiarov, 
&c. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. ; £ph. i. 1 ; Col* i. 1. With this simi- 
larity, however, we find in this epistle, as in the other two Pas- 
toral Epistles, what is peculiar. Instead of the common expres- 
sion, by the will of God, in those passages which we have 
adduced, and which are otherwise similar, we find here as in Tit. 
i. 3, the words, according to the commandmefU of Ood our 
Saviour ; on the other hand, 2 Tim. i* 1 retains the more 
common form of expression. It is further peculiar to this epistle, 
that the words and Christ Jesus are added to the expression 

860 FIRST TlMOTHIf 1. 1 — ^20. 

according to ike commandmetit of Qod our Saviour^ (the oot- 
rect reading is not tcvplov ^Irfaov Xpurrov, but simply fcal Xpta- 
Tou 'Iijaov, oomp. Tischendorfs Critical Observations.) Fur- 
ther, the designation of Christ Jesus in this passage as our hope is 
also peculiar to this epistle. FinaUy, in the benediction, between 
the grace and peace he has inserted mercy, which is found no- 
where else» except in 2 Tim. i. 2. In the passage Tit. i. 4 it is not 
genuine. The peculiarity in this epistle, then, does not consist in 
the use of these expressions in themselves. The single expression 
Ood our Saviour excepted, which, however, contains a thoroughly 
Pauline idea (comp. on Tit. i. 3), all the rest are used elsewhere by 
the apostle, although not precisely in the same place, namely, in 
the inscription of an epistle. On the expression, according to the 
commandment of God, compare Bom. xvi. 26, and our remarks on 
Tit. i. 8 ; with respect to the words Christ Jesus, added to, accord- 
ing to the commandment of God, comp. Gal. i. j» and Bom. i. 6; 
in the former passage the writer designates himself as an apostle 
by Jesus Christ and God the Father, in the latter we read by whom 
(namely, by Jesus Christ) we have received grace and apostleship. 
The only striking thing in our passage appears to be the circum- 
stance, that the apostle has already in the very commencement called 
himself an apostle of Jesus Christ. This is no tautology, however, 
when it is considered that the words, according to the commatid" 
ment, &o., are explanatory of the preceding, apostle of Christ 
Jesus, and it is warranted by the farther addition of the words, our 
hope to Christ Jesus, besides that we find what is nearly analogous 
to it in Bom. i. I, comp. with ver. 5. The exftesi^on, our hope — 
in which Christ is designated as the foundation of our hope, as in 
Tit. i. 2 its object is denoted by eternal life — ^has its parallel in 
Col. i. 27, with which also Eph. ii. 24 is to be compared. And 
with respect to the word mercy, it is found connected with peace 
as a benediction, also in Gal. vi. 16, comp. also 2 John iii. ; Jade 
2. We have already shown in the Introduction to the epistle to 
Titus what weight is to be attached to these peculiarities in a cri- 
tical point of view. They are much more inexplicable in the case 
of an imitator of the apostle who bad any wish to conceal himself, 
and who might so easily have adhered to the apostle s usual man- 
ner, than in the case of the apostle, whom we are not at liberty to 
make so dependent on his accustomed manner of expression., as 

FIR8T TIMOTHY T. 1 — 20,- 361 


that instead of by the will he could not have written according to the 
commandment, or instead of prace and peace-^grace, mercy, and 
peace. The former of these instances needs no farther explanation ; 
the latter, viewed in connection with the words Qod our Saviour 
and our hope, plainly reflects the apostle's state of mind, as being 
one in which these ideas were uppermost, so that the choice of the 
expressions, as in Tit. i. 1, 3, either stands in direct connection with 
the import of the epistle, or is of a general nature, as in the case 
before us, where the expressions Ood our Saviour, our hope — mercy 
— show in what frame the writer's mind was, without its being 
necessary that, as in the epistle to Titus, I should endeavour to 
point out any more special reference to the design of the epistle. 
On comparing the expression our hope here, with Tit. i. 2, it seems 
to imply a more immediate reference to those false teachers who 
set aside this hope. It may suffice also to show by a reference to 
such passages as i. 12, ss., ii. 3, iii. 16, iv. 9, 10, vi. 12, ss., how 
the ideas indicated in the expressions under consideration pervade 
the epistle, and often come into prominence. Everywhere we find 
these great thoughts breaking forth, and the apostle's mind dwelling 
upon them with delight as resting-places. — ^For this reason I am 
not inclined to agree with Olshausen, who finds in the expression 
Saviour, as well as in hope and mercy, a special reference to the 
apostle's situation in his imprisonment, comp. also Baumgarten, 
p. 232, ss. Have we not the expression Saviour and something 
corresponding to our hope, also at the beginning of the epistle to 
Titus ? And does this epistle contain elsewhere a single reference 
to the apostle's situation \ Instead of the words in the faith, de- 
noting the ground and element of this relation in which Timothy 
stands to Paul, we have in Tit. i. 4 the words, according to the 
common faith. Here, as there, the preposition is to be connected 
with the compound idea expressed in genuine son, comp. on Tit 
i. 4, and Winer, § 19, 2, p. 157. De Wette and others are for 
connecting in the faiths only with $on. Some have sought to ex- 
plain the addition of the word mercy ^ which denotes the condes- 
cending mercy of Ood in contrast with our weakness and un worthi- 
ness (comp. Matthies on Tit. i. 4), by the reference to the mediator 
in the benediction, as it is peculiar to Paul to regard the office of 
a Christian teacher as a gift of God^s mercy, 1 Oor. vii. 25 ; 2 Cor. 
iv. 1 ; 1 Tim. i. 16. It may be so, although Gal. vi. 16 does not 

362 FJR8T TIMOTHY I. 3. 

confirm this view. At all events it is an expression of that with 
which the mind of the apostle shows itself to be filled in the whole 
epistle, and a proof of the apostle's warm affection for Timothy. 
KaX rovTo ofiro iroXX^ ^Xoaropyla^^, observes Ghrysostom. For 
what remains I refer to Tit i. 1 — 4, where we have explained any- 
thing else that needs explanation. 

Ver. 8 — 20. The apostle forthwith proceeds, as in the epistle to 
Titns, without farther introdaction to the subject itself. Timothy 
is reminded of the design of his being left in Ephesns. namely, to 
oppose the corrupt tendency there to things which only minister 
strife, but do not promote Christian feeling and Christian life. The 
end, the attainment of which ought ever to be kept in view, is love 
out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. 
But this fundamental characteristic is wanting in those teachers of 
other things,' and hence the excrescences of empty talk which are to 
be seen in those who set up for being teachers of the law, without 
knowing what they are about. For the law is not designed for the 
upright, but to rebuke vices, in confirmation of which the apostle 
appeals to the gospel committed to him, the certainty of which he 
has experienced in himself. Thus, on the ground of this gospel, at 
the same time also, however, on the ground of the prophecies which 
went before on Timothy, he admonishes him to fight the good fight 
in order that he may be able to maintain faith and a good con- 
science, the latter of which, if it be wanting, the warning examples 
of others teach him what will be the result. 

Ver. 8. KaOm-^ihe apostle begins the sentence with a /^ro/am, 
but we look in vain for the apodosis, which to correspond with KoOat^ 
irap€KaKe<ra — MaxeB. would have to run thus, ovrto koX yvv irctpa^ 
hclKm Zva, &c. It will be apparent from this construction of the 
period, how similar in form and substance the apodosis must be to 
the protasis, and how almost necessary it was that the apostle 
should substantially express in the protasis ag I besought ihee, &;c,, 
that to which he is now about to admonish Timothy anew. Thus 
wA actually find that the protasis, in which the commission that 
had been given to Timothy is more particularly stated, vv. 3 and 4, 
and not only so, but in which also the error is opposed by the cor- 
responding truth, and thereupon the farther characteristics of the 
errors against which Timothy is to guard, are mentioned along 
with their refutation, vv. 6 — 10, which gives occasion for the refer- 



ence to the gospel which the apostle is called to promulgate — that 
this protasis absorbs the apodosis, and properly contains what, ac" 
cording to the apostle's original conception, the latter ought to 
have expressed, Oomp* Winer, § 64, 2, p. 614 : '^ There is here 
properly an anaoolouthon, inasmuch as Paul intended to write KoJdia/^ 
TrapetcaKetra^^MaK. aSrio teal vvv irapoKaK&t tva, Sco* While he 
brings the object of the irapcK. within the protasis, the apodosis 
disappears." I do not think, however, that the occasion of the 
anacolouthon is to be sought in the tva iraparfy. ; but further on 
in ver. 5, which appears to me to be confirmed by Tit. i. 5, ss., 
and also by the circumstance that if the idea had been so simply 
conceived, no adequate reason could be given for the change. How 
frequently these anacoloutha occur in PauFs writings is shewn by 
Winer, a. a. Q., pp. 616 — 619, where reference is made to several 
examples of the kind. So also Olshausen. To what extent, more- 
over, the apodosis discovers itself again in ver. 18, if not in form at 
least in substance, is shown in our remarks on that verse. The other 
constructions that have been proposed with the view of making out 
a formal apodosis, as, for example, that the apodosis begins with %va 
iraparfi*^ or that frpoafieiviu is an imperative, or that KoBm is 
mei^ly a transition-particle, or that vv. 6 — 17 forms a single paren- 
thesis, have already been all justly rejected by Winer. In like 
manner Schneckenburgher and Bottger a change of Trpocfielvai 
into irpoaiielvwiy which entirely fails in critical authority, and causes 
«n unnatural position of the words, has justly met with no counte- 
nance. — As I besought thee (De Wette : " not commanded. The 
apostle does not command his helper, comp. 2 Cor. viii. 6, ix. 5, 
xii. IS") to remain in Ephesus when I went to Macedonia, that 
thou mightest forbid certain people from teaching otherwise, and 
giving heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister dis- 
cussions rather than the saving dispensation of Ood in the faith 
— thus the apostle sets out, vv. 3 and 4. This commencement 
reminds us of the epistle to Timothy in a two-fold respect. Here, 
as also in that epistle, the introduction expressing the apostle's 
thanksgiving, which is usual elsewhere, with the exception of the 
epistle to the Oalatians, is wanting; and in both epistles the 
apostle begins by calling to mind a commission which had been 
given, and for the fulfilment of which the epistle gives further di- 
rections Already, then, may we infer from this commencement 


of the epistle, if the writer is true to himself in the other parts of 
it, that this, like the epistle to Titus, is, to use Schleiermecher s 
expression, an official letter, and, like it, was designed only for the 
person named in the inscription. This, as has already been ob- 
served in reference to the epistle to Titns, wiU account for the ab- 
sence of an expression of thanks in the introduction, as also for 
the absence of all allusions to the first imprisonment (if the epistle 
was written subsequent to this) during which Timothy was with 
the apostle. All this is quite different in the second epistle to 
Timothy, the peculiarity of which has been more justly apprehended 
by Schleiermacher than by many of the more recent commentators, 
when he says of that epistle that it is altogether of the confidential 
and friendly kind, and with respect to the contents, observes that 
it has nothing else in common with the first to Timothy than 
merely the personal relation of the apostle to his disciple, and is 
not intended to give directions as to the proper regulation of 
a church ; and that the second epistle to Timothy and that to 
Titus, have in regard to their contents no similarity whatever. 
This distinction shows itself at once in the introduction (as 1 
Tim. i. 8, ss., comp. with the commencement of the two other 
epistles, proves), and discovers an author who knows well what he 

npoafjLeivai iv ^E<l)€afp, iropevofiepo^ ek M. De Wette has 
already observed that iropevofieuo^ cannot with Matthies be referred 
to Timothy instead of Paul, and be rendered : when going to Ma- 
cedonia to remain in Ephesus. This is grammatically impossible 
(comp. Winer, § 45, 2, p. 371, against De Wette, who thinks this 
connexion possible), and yields no proper sense. Quite as arbi- 
trary is it, as every one will perceive (comp. likewise De Wette) to 
connect iropei^fieuof; with what follows, and to supply : so T entreat 
thee now, on thy journey to Macedonia, to remain, Sso. There is no 
other way but to apply the word to the apostle. The journey, there- 
fore, mentioned in Acts xx. 1, on the occasion of which Timothy 
did not remain in Ephesus, but rather went before the apostle to 
Macedonia, Acts xix. 22, cannot be here referred to, as might be 
shown by many other reasons ; comp. the Introd. The words 
following state the object for which the apostle left Timothy behind 
when he himself went to Macedonia, — that thou mighiest fdrhid, 
&c. IlaparyyiKKew, as here also 1 Cor. vii. 10, xi. 17 ; 1 Thcss. 


iy. 11 ; 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10, 12, with the following fi^ *» " to 
forbid." Turi = certain people, whom the apostle will not farther 
designate ; Timothy knows them already. We find the same in- 
definite expression also in ver. 6, 1 9, iv. 1, Sec. He is to forhid the 
€T€poBi£€UTKa\€iv ss woll as the irpoaix^w fivOoi^, &g., — *' to teach 
otherwise and to give heed to such doctrines." So Theodoret : rov- 

Tov^ fih iTTurrofil^eiv roi^ Bi ye aXkoi^ irapoKeKevea-dcu 

ry TovTow fitf irpoaex^iv oSdKecrjfia. — ^Witb regard to irepoBiBaa" 
KoKeiv, at which the critics firom Schleiermaoher downwards have 
stnmhled so much, and which occurs again only at vi. 8, it is quite 
evident from the latter passage, as Schleiermacher himself observes, 
that the expression can only mean : to teach what deviates from 
the sound doctrine ; for this interpretation is placed beyond doubt 
by the following words in that verse, and consent not to whole- 
some words, and the doctrines which leads to godliness. This 
passage, however, gives us more information about the erepoBiSaa' 
kclKeW than Schleiermacher finds in it, else he would not have 
gone on to say, that Paul elsewhere from not knowing the suitable 
word, helps himself out with the roundabout expression oKKov 
^Iffaovp tcfipvaaeiv, 2 Cor. xi. 4 ; Irepov evarfy^Wiov, Oal. i. 6, 
viii. 9. In the negative clause and consetits not, Sec,, which is 
explanatory of the preceding, that from which these teachers de- 
viate is expressed first, by wholesome words, and then by the doc- 
trine which leads to godliness, both of which are substantially the 
same thing, in proof of which I refer to Tit. i. 9, and our interpre- 
tation, as also that of De Wette. 'ErepohiZa.aica'Kelv denotes the 
teaching of things which lie aside of this doctrine according to 
godliness, or truth according to godliness, Tit. i. 1. In the epistle 
to Titus we have found it uniformly confirmed, that it is not a 
heresy properly so called that is here spoken of, or a doctrine 
dogmatically false in direct opposition to the true ; and the same 
conviction is pressed upon us here in the word erepoBiS, as 
compared with vi. 8.- Hence the use of this word by the apostle 
here, a word which properly signifies to " teach otherwise," not 
" to teach false doctrine," is fully vindicated, and the circumlocu- 
tion mentioned by Schleiermacher to preach another Jesa$, &c., 

1 Hnther agrees with Schleiermacher, only that he finds no acoesBary idea of a hier> 
arehical kind in the word. 



does not answer to it Witb reference to the formftdon of tlie 
word, Planck, in the work ahfeady noticed, has, in cqppoeition to 
Scbleiermacher, referred to the ezpreesion mtOuaBtSda-iedKo^, Tit. ii. 8, 
according to which the aposUe might easily form the word irepo- 
BtBda/cdKo^s, from which again the verh in our passage is derived in 
the regular manner. And are not the expressions er€p6y\oo<ra'o^ 
and erepo^vyetv closely analogous ? From these analogous ex- 
pressions an inference may be drawn rather for, than against the 
use of this word by the apostle. Olshausen and others have 
shown rightly, why it is erepoSi&ia'KdKeii/ and not simply irepoSir 
Saaxeiv^ — because, namely, the former expression involves the idea 
of making a business of teaching otherwise = to play the irepoSt- 
SdaxaXcyi, On Baur s critical doubts about this word comp. the 
General Introduction. 

Ver. 4. Noi to give heed. On irpoaexetv comp. Tit i. 14. 
Olshausen says rightly, that the injunction not to give heed to 
such doctrioes is aptly connected with the foregoing. Wb may 
also gather from this verse what that was, in which this erepoSiSdur- 
KoketP consisted. Fables and endless genealogies are said to be 
the things to which the persons referred to {nvi.^) are not to give 
heed. We have already met with the word iiiOoi at Tit i. 14, 
and there it was connected with the epithet Jewish, it occurs be- 
sides again at 1 Tim. iv. 7, and 2 Tim. iv. 4. The latter passage 
speaks of the future, and in so far does not belong to our present 
purpose. In the former passage ihea^ fables are characterized as 
profane and old wives , or insipid fables. Any more direct and 
special information as to their contents is as little to be obtained 
from this epistle, as from that to Titus. On the Other hand, what 
clue may be found in the epistles, and especially in the epistle to 
Titus, for farther determiniog this, and how much reason we have 
for believing that one and the same error is meant, has already 
been shown on Tit. i. 9. The case is similar with regard to the 
genealogies^ which are named again only at Tit iii. 9, and the 
connexion of which with the fables (comp. on Tit i. 14, and iii. 
9), as also with the strifes about the law, can scarcely be ques- 
tioned* (comp. on the same passages, and also on 1 Tim. iv. 7.) 
We were accordingly induced to understand things of a Jewish 
character and origin as meaut in all these expressions which throw 

FIRST TIMOTHY 1. 8. 867 

any light on the constitueDt elements of these fables.^ The genealo- 
gies, which at Tit. iii. 9 have no desiguative epithet, are here called 
endless (not aimless), Tob. xxxvi. 26 ; 3 Mace, ii 9. Things are 
meant which may be spun oat to an endless extent. The words 
following contain the reason of the warning against these things, 
trhich minister^ &c. The reading oUovofiiav is so strongly con- 
firmed, in comparison with the other, oUoSofilav D^*^ and ouco- 
Sofiijv D*, &c. (comp Tisohendorf), that we are not at liberty to 
yield it up from the' convenience of the latter. If we inquire what 
is meant by ^rirrjaei^, we shall find that the expression is not to be 
taken differently herefrom vi. 4 ; 2 Tim. ii. 23 ; Tit. iii. 9, in all 
of which passages it denotes not strife, but questions of controversy, 
as the result of which are mentioned in these very passages, con- 
tentions, strifes. The epithet foolish applied to these questions in 
2 Tim. ii. 23 ; Tit. iii. 9, is not necessary here any more than 
at vi. 4, as that to which they are opposed plainly shows of what 
nature these questions are. On 7rap€)(€tv comp. Oal. vi. 17; we 
must not lose sight of the original signification of the word, 
namely, ** to hold out anything towards any one" (comp. vi. 17), if 
we would understand the ^ which is annexed to it. These genealo- 
gies hold out only questions, and material always for disputation. 
MaXKov fi intimates what ought to be held forth, namely, instead 
of the questions the dispensation of God which is in faith, OUo- 
vofiia dead 17 iv iriaret. This expression is taken to mean either 
the gracious efficiency of God in the faith, or the efficiency of a 
steward of the house of God in the faith (to be awakened or pro- 
moted ) But the idea that the doctrine is to hold forth, to afford 
(or in whatever sense irapix^tv may be taken) the gracious effi- 
ciency of God, appears to me as unsuitable and as unwarranted by 
the usage of the apostle, as the other signification is remote from 
the context. For how can olKOVouia rod 6eov signify the efficiency 
of a steward of God, seeing that it is not an olKOvofio^ that is 
spoken of, but fables and genealogies, against giving heed to which, 
a warning is given, because they do not afford this olKovofiia ? 
What else then can be understood by oIkov. Oeov than that which 
ought to be the import of all Christian doctrine, namely, the dis- 
pensation of God for Ealvation, " which has its means and its re- 

1 Hutlier explains fiv9oi and ytveaX. of tbc Onostie dociriue of Aeons. Comni. z. 
N.T.V. 1. 


alizatioD iir faith" (De Wette) ? So also Neander a. a. Q.I. p. 
541, "the diapensatioD of Ood for the salvation of man/'^ With 
this interpretation the constant use of the expression in Paul's 
writings agrees (£ ph. i. 10, iii. 2; Col. i. 25) ; it everywhere sig- 
nifies a dispensation devised by God. I cannot see how, as De 
Wette maintains, the iropexpvai, does not suit this interpreta- 
tion : these things, says the apostle, hold out questions, not 
that which ought to be the import of the dootrine, they afford a 
fruitless exercise for the understanding but not for the heart The 
expression which is in faith evidently stands in opposition to the 
questions, Olshausen also thus understands the sense of the pas- 
sage ; only, he further supposes that oucovo^la rov deov is used 
by metonyme to express what it brings to pass, namely, the pro- 
gress of the life of faith. If the apostle had intended to say this 
he would doubtless have used oucoSofii^v or the like. 

Ver. 5. " But the aim of the exhortation is love out of a pure 
heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned." These words 
are not to be understood as a resumption of the ha waparfyetkti^, 
ver. 8, nor as the beginning of a new train of thought, but as oc- 
casioned by ver. 4, and as standing in an adversative relation to 
this verse (Se.) The otherwise abrupt transition from ver. 4 to 
ver. 5 were inconsistent with the circumstance that the flow of the 
ideas causes an anaoolouthon (comp. on ver. 8.) The apostle 
specifies the aim of the exhortation, with the view of showing how 
far the things of which he speaks in ver. 4 deviate from this aim. 
This aim is love out of a pure heart, &c. How remote from this 
are those fables and genealogies with their subtle speculations, 
which take the place of the dispensation of God which is in faith ! 
This love which is the aim of all precept rests on the foundation of 
a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned, while 
those questions have nothing to do with that which is the subject 
matter of faith. How indeed can love which has its root in faith 
proceed from them ? In order then to understand the connexion, 
two things must be taken into consideration, namely, the opposi- 
tion of that which is in faith to the questions which exercise the 
understanding merely, and the stress which the apostle lays on the 
source out of which alone love can spring. A measuring line is 

1 I rejoice to find that I coincide with Huther. 


here supplied, as Matthies justly observes, to Timothy and to every 
other. To riko^ according to the common analogous use of the 
word, Rom. vi. 21, 22; 2 Cor. xi. 15; Phil. iii. 19. signifies nei- 
ther " sum " nor " perfection,'* but simply " aim." IlapayyeWld, 
as TrapcvfyiWto, has always the definite sense of " precept, in- 
junction," as often as it is used by the apostle, or elsewhere in the 
New Testament (comp on '/rapayyeWla, I These, iv. 2.) It is 
therefore to be taken neither as a designation of the objectiye doc- 
trine == tifcuyyiKiov, nor of the Mosaic law = 6 vofjM^, of which 
nothing is said here, nor of the law of Christian morality ; but it is 
as elsewhere *' precept, exhortation" in the wider sense, ^* practical 
doctrine as the principal part of the sound doctrine in opposition 
to the fables" as De Wette righly explains it referring to iv. II, 
▼. 7, vi. 13, 17. The apostle selects the expression with the 
view of specifying the end to which all doctrine should tend in 
those who are instructed, and to the attainment of which all doc- 
trine should admonish. The doctrine which has this practical aim 
becomes of itself TraparfyeWla. So also Olshausen, " The highest 
aim of all the labour of the Christian preacher should be a prac- 
tical one, namely, to call forth true love." Such love, however, 
springs only from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith 
unfeigned. ^AyaTrrf (without the article, comp. Winer, § 18, 1, p. 
187) denotes the sum of the moral conduct of a Christian, comp. 
Bom. xiii. 10 : love is the fHl/illing of the law, Gal. v. 6. 

On Kaptla comp. Phil. iv. 7 ; on ttadapii xapBla, comp. Matth. 
V. 8, and Olshausen on the passage ; 1 Pet. i. 21 ; 2 Tim. ii. 22. 
Purity of heart can only be the result of a previous purifying, 
comp. Acts XV. 9 : purifying their hearts by faith. With the 
pure heart is then necessarily connected the second thing which the 
apostle mentions as pre-supposed in all true love, viz., the crvi/ei- 
Si7(r»9 arfaOri, comp. iii. 9 ; 2 Tim. i. 3 ; or Kak/i, Hebr. xiii. 18. 
It is the conscience which knows that its guilt is removed, ai^d 
that it is reconciled to God, 1 Pet. iii. 21 ; since, as De Wette 
truly says, a conscience unreconciled to God and mnn cannot love 
purely, because it cannot believe.^ — That oi.Iy is true love which 
springs from a conscience that has experienced the power of divine 
love, — that has been kindled at divine love. The third thing ne- 

1 Huther rejects tbe idea of roconciliuiiou liert>, and understands aw, ay. geueia'.iy 
as tbe conscionsufss of iuward harmouy mIiU tUe di\iQe will. 
2 A* 


cessary to troe loye is, faith unfeigned ; in which words the 
apostle names the new life-power that dwells in such a heart and 
conscience. The pure heart and good conscience is, with respect 
to its quality, to be viewed as springing from faith, observes 01s- 
hausen. It is faith which makes the evil conscience good, and 
which purifies the heart (Acts xv. 9) ; but it does this only when 
it is itself unfeigned. Where a gbod conscience is lost, there also 
, does faith disappear, i. 19, and in its place comes, not unbeUef, 
but a mere pretended faith, and talking (ver. 6), such as the apostle 
everywhere represents as a characteristic feature of the opponents 
who are combated in the Pastoral Epistles. — ^AwTroxpiro^ in the 
same sense as it is elsewhere used by the apostle, Bom. zii. 9 ; 
2 Cor. vi. 6. Gomp. also Jam. iii. 17 ; 1 Pet. i. 22. — If we look 
back on what the apostle here says regarding the errors which 
Timothy is to check, according to the interpretation we have given, 
we find the same characteristics as in the epistle to Titus. As in 
that epistle it is evidently not a dogmatical heresy that is spoken 
of, but errors which lead away from the truth that tends to godli- 
ness, and which belong to, the sphere of unprofitable questions that 
cause only strife and contention, so also is it in this epistle. This 
is shown by the right interpretation of eTepoBtBao-KaXew, by the 
reason which is given for the warning against those questions^ and 
by the practical end of all admonition being placed in opposition to 

As ver. 6 stands in an adversative relation to ver. 4, so at the 
same time it forms the transition to ver. 6 and the following 
verses, which give additional characteristics of those errors. The 
apostle proceeds to say, that from the want of a pure heart and a 
good conscience and faith unfeigned, certain persons have turned 
aside to vain talking. Schleiermacher indeed thinks the writer 
here makes but an awkward return from the digression in ver. 5, 
when he represents this, — ^namely, that those opponents could not 
attain to that which is the effect of the true doctrine, — as the rea- 
son why they had turned aside to vain talking. The writer here 
betrays, according to Schleiermacher, the utmost incapacity to 
make a return from a slight digression. But ver. 5 is, in our 
opinion, no digression. And is there any room for finding fault 
with the sentiment, that those seducers were wanting in that funda- 
mental state of mind, from which alone can proceed timt which is 


the aim of all Christian precept, namely, love, and that therefore 
they swerved from this ahn, and became fbolish talkers ? This 
is indeed just the way in which the subject is treated everywhere 
in these epistles, comp. vi. 6 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8 ; Tit. i. 15. Schleier- 
maoher seems in what he says to have referred the Jrom which, 
ver. 6, not merely to the three things last mentioned, but also to 
the love, in regard to which De Wette also was in doubt. But 
even although we had not those parallel passages from which we 
learn that it is not the want of love, but the want of faith and a 
good conscience, from which the foolish tcUking proceeds, we 
yet could not refer the &\f to aydirfi, as the expression eh fjtarcuo- 
\oylav plainly designates a false aim in opposition to the true, 
which is denoted by arfdirrj, ^Atrroyelv only in the Pastoral 
Epistles, vi. 21; 2 Tim. ii. 18. 'EtcTpeireaOaL, "to swerve 
from," V. 15 ; 2 Tim. iv. 4 (Heb. xii. 13.) Both expressions, as 
Mack rightly observes, are suggested by the riko^, MarauiKoyla, 
aa Tit. i. 9, ft>ar€uo'K6yoi, What kind of vain talk the apostle 
means we now learn from ver. 7. 

Ver. 7. Desiring to be teachers of the law, without understand- 
ing either what they say or whereof they affirm. As at Tit. i. 14, 
besides the /ables, also commandments of men are mentioned, and 
as at Tit. iii. 9, along with the genealogies are mentioned strifes 
about the law, so here also, with the fables and genealogies is 
connected the vain talk of those who. affect to be teachers of the 
law. The expression voy^&axTKCLKjai^ which occurs only here, as 
also fipaiifMiT€if^ only at 1 Cor. i. 20, reminds us too much of the 
usual signification of the term elsewhere (Luke v. 17 ; Acts v. 34), 
to admit of our assigning any other to it here. The sense then 
is : they desire to be in their way what the doctors of the law are 
among the Jewish people. That we are not to understand real 
teachers of the law is plain from the expression deKovre^, Nor 
will the characteristic here given suit, as applied to the common 
Judaizing opponents; and Schleiermaoher seems to me to have 
reason for the objections which he has made to this passage, on 
the supposition that it refers to these well-known opponents.^ He 

I Hutber bIbo is of opinion, tbat tbe persons here meant did not maintain the obli- 
gation of the law in the same manner as the Pharisaical Jewish-Christians, but tbat in 
their allegorical interpretations of the law, they claimed to tbemselTes that knowledge 
of the law which entitled them to impose arbitrary commands. 

Jd A 2 


IS surprised, and justly so, that these teachers of the law are not 
described as different from the genealogists and fablers, ver. 4, 
but that, on the contrary, the two passages are connected by the 
expression fJMraioXxrfia, ver. 6. And he might have added that 
fjLarautKxrfia itself is but a very weak designation of that Jnda- 
izing tendency, and one that never occurs. Further, he misses a 
climax here justly ; for it has not escaped Sohleiermacher to per- 
ceive, that those errors named in ver. 4 appear much less dan- 
gerous than that Judaizing tendency. He says with truth, '* that 
for Paul, the introduction of the law was a much greater evil 
than he describes the fables and genealogies to be. And how 
differently does Paul elsewhere oppose the giving of an undue 
prominence to the law ? There is not a single argument given 
here for a Pauline confutation of the Judaizers." In all this 
Sohleiermacher appears to me to be perfectly right, and the refer- 
ence to Gal. V. 23, against such there is no lawj in reply to him, 
to be quite pointless ; for the fundamental difference in the manner 
in which the refutation is conducted there from here is not thereby 
removed. But another question suggests itself, whether the sup- 
position from which Schleiermacher and his opponents set out is 
well founded, namely, that this passage applies to that well-known 
Judaizing tendency ; whether the very way in which Paul charac- 
terizes and refutes the tendency here opposed does not compel us 
to depart from that supposition, instead of making it the ground 
upon which objections against the passage are made to rest? 
When we look to the manner in which the persons here alluded to 
are said to have come to their vain talk, ver. 6, — to the expression 
fiaratoXoyla, — to the /l^^ voovvre^y as also to the opposition in vv. 8 
— 10, we can scarcely fail to be convinced that quite a different class 
of opponents are meant than the common Judaists ; they are men 
such as those described in Tit. i. 14, 15, of whom it is there said 
that they turn away from the truth .... that their mind and 
conscience is defiled. We found, in expounding that passage, that 
the common Judaists could not be meant. Can it be otherwise in 
the paseage before us when there is so great a similarity in the 
errors described ? Does not the expression yro/w which some hav-- 
ing turtied aside indicate the same fundamental state of mind as 
the descriptions which we have just cited from the epistle to Titus ? 
And does not the same word futraio'Koyla here, and in Tit. i. 1 0, 

FIRST TIMOTHY 1. 8 — 10. 873 

show the similarity in tlie error described ? And do not tbe words, 
to the pure all things are pure, answer in a certain measare to the 
not understanding what they sag, &c., in the former of which ex- 
pressions the apostle gives it to be understood » that those seducers, 
while they seek a higher moral perfection in such commandmetits^ 
show that they are tiot pure but defiled. Certainly those who are 
here meant, like the well-known Judaizers, gave prominence to the 
law, otherwise the apostle could not go on to say by way of con* 
cession in ver. 8, we know that the law is good, nor could he 
describe them as those who wished to be teachers of the law ; but 
the manner in which, and the end for which they gave prominence to 
the law, must have been different from that of the Judaizers, other- 
wise the apostle would have refuted their error in a different way. 
What remains to be said will result from the particular considera- 
tion of the passage. Desiring to be teachers of the law, says the 
apostle, — they would be such, but they are not. And why not, we 
learn from the words following, not understanding, &c. It could 
not have been maintained of the common Judaists that ihev knew 
not what they said. The expression answers only to those who do 
not really aim at what their words declare, who do not see through 
the real tendency of that which they affirm. On the change of the 
relative to the interrogative see Winer, § 25, 1, p. 194. In the & 
and irepl rlvmv De Wette does not understand different objects, as 
'nepl Tony; Siafiefi., comp. Tit. iii. 8, does not signify '* to put forth 
confirmatory assertions concerning anything/' but ** to confirm 
anything." But what signification is then to be given to irepi ? 
Others therefore (for example Leo) rightly explain the first mem- 
ber of the subjective assertions, the second of the object itself about 
which these assertions are made. So also Huther. ' 

Vv. 8 — 10. " But we know that the law is good if one use it 
agreeably to its design." The sentence is not antithetical to the 
assertion of these teachers of the law, according to which they 
taught that the law is not good, as Banr understands it, while he 
views it as opposed to the Marcionitio rejection of the law ; the sen- 
tence rather concedes this assertion to the opponents, but adds a 
limitation (idv) in connexion with which alone it is true, and the 
neglect of which leads to the error. On this concessive sense of atSa- 
fi€v oTt, comp. Bom. vii. 14 ; I Cor. viii. 1, How little Baur's 
interpretation consists with the appellation /^ac/i^r« of the law^ has 

874 FIRST TIMOTHY I. 8 — 10. 

already been shown in the General Introdnction. Against this 
view De Wette also justly draws attention to the circumstanoe, that 
ver. 4t, comp. with Tit. i. 14, shows that it is not Judaizers who 
are spoken of. The limitation which the apostle annexes to the 
assertion, the law is good, namely, if a man fiseit lawfully , shows 
that it is not of the law itself, hut of the use of it that he speaks. 
The law is good if a man know how to use it. By t&9 the apostle 
understands " him who will teach," as Bengel has already observed. 
Nofilfie^, as the law itself desires to be used, " agreeably to the de- 
sign of the law." But we learn from ver. 9, first negatively, and then 
positively, what the design of the law is, which he must know who 
will rightly use it. He must know and consider that it is not de- 
signed for the SUa^a;} The negative sentence must doubtless con- 
tain the error, to the charge of which those teachers of the law ex- 
posed themselves. Oonsequently, they acted as if the law were 
designed for the righteous man ; they thought it necessary to im- 
prove the gospel by the law, they set up requirements which involved 
a recurrence to the law, in order by the fulfilment of these to lead 
to a higher stage of moral perfection. The expression bodily ex- 
ercise, iv. 8, points at such a tendencyi which is there spoken of in 
connexion with the fables, and the same appears on comparing Tit. 
i. 14. And, if we are not mistaken in placing these fables and 
genealogies in connexion with the legal tendency, it would seem 
to follow that this tendency did not consist in simply giving pro- 
minence to the Mosaic law, but in such an application of the law 
as connected itself with pretensions to a more profound wisdom, 
through which a higher moral perfection was attainable than by a 
simple adherence to the gospel. With this interpretation the posi- 
tive statement of the design of the law fully agrees, and it alone 
will explain why the apostle here enumerates a series of the worst 
vices which the law is designed to punish. It fares with those 
teachers of the law that, while they would be wise, they become 
fools ; while they boast of a higher wisdom and a higher mo- 
rality, they really bring themselves down to the level of the 
avofio^. For this very reason the apostle says of them, that they 
know not what they say nor whereof they affirm, — On Keta-deu 
in the signification, " to be ordained, appointed," comp. Luke 

I Maltttm de hoc Pauli loco diBputatum esne tempore reBtauratoniin aacroram ab 
Acricola .... Dotum est. Leo. 


ii. 34 ; Phil. i. 16 ; 1 Thess. iii. 3. On vofio^, without the article, 
Winer, § 18, 1., p. 137. AUaio^ has here its exact opposite in 
what follows, according to which it cannot be understood of the 
justified person =<= StscoM^ek, but in the sense which it often has 
=s honest, virtuous, which indeed he only oan be who is justified, 
and who has reoei?ed the new life of the spirit Comp. on the 
whole subject, Gal. ▼. 18, 23 ; Bom. vi. 14. Then follow as op- 
posed to Bucaltpj the general terms, avofiot^ Sk $cai dwiroTOKTOK. 
On &vofjLo^, comp. Tit. ii. 14. ^ AvtnroraKTo^y as the effect of ob- 
stinacy, occurs only in the Pastoral Epistles in this sense ; similar to 
it is the term oTretdeS? often used by the apostle. As these two terms 
are connected with each other, so also are the two following, aae- 
fiiat Kol afjMpTtoKok^ and in like manner avtHrloyi koL Pefii/jKoi^. 
On curefiifs, comp. Tit. ii. 12. ^AfiaprmKo^ here denotes the open 
sinner. On avoato^. Tit. i. 8. BefirfKo^, Heb. xii. 16, unholy, 
impure. From these general terms, the apostle passes to special 
crimes and vices which the law is designed to restrain. He pur- 
posely names the worst crimes and vices, in order thus to expose 
the folly of those who make the observance of the law to be bind- 
ing upon Christians, and thereby fancy that a special superiority 
belongs to them. " The law is designed for murderers of fathers and 
murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them 
that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers (comp. Ex. 
xxi. 16; Deut. xxiv. 7), for liars, for perjured persons, and what* 
soever is contrary to sound doctrine." With regard to the first 
three of these terms, Schleiermacher remarks that they are all 
foreign to the New Testament, and also, that Paul is not wont to 
name such vices in such a connexion. These remarks remind us 
anew of how differently the apostle goes to work, when he elsewhere 
opposes the Judaizers. And what proper sense can we attach to 
what the apostle here says, when viewed as directed against the 
Judaizers, namely, that the law is not designed for the righteous, 
but for the lawless f The apostle surely cannot intend to say : 
in reference to the lawless, &c., those Judaizers are right in their 
way of enforcing the observance of the law, but not in reference 
to the righteous. The entire distinction between the B^io^ and 
the avofifyi, as it is here given, has not the slightest reference to 
the question of dispute between the apostle and those opponents. 
For as they could not be supposed to insist on the righteousness 

870 riRST TIMOTHY T. 1 I. 

hff the law only in refereDce to the hU(uo^, as little wonld the 
npostle desire that they should do this in respect to the avofjxn. 
On the ooDtrary, all heoomes plain, when we suppose that the 
apostle has in his eye, those who r^gfu'ded the law as a means hy 
which Christians were to attain a still higher moral perfection. 
In opposition to such, nothing more suitable could be said than 
just what the apostle here says, namely, tb^t the law is quite good, 
only they must know that it is not designed for the righteous* as 
they think, but for the lawless, &c. These the law is designed to 
restrain. " And if there be any other thing that is contrary to 
sound doctrine," the apostle adds. On vy, BiS., comp. Tit* i. 0, 
nnd Leo on the present passage. The apostle having already pur- 
posely named the most fiagrftnt crimes and vices, now sums up 
everything else that is contrary to the doptrine which leads to god- 
liness, in the words, if there be ani/, &;e. Moreover, the expres- 
sion here reminds us so strongly of the charge which the apostle 
brings elsewhere against these errors, namely, that they are want^ 
ing in the principle of morality, and consequently in the fruits of 
morality, that one might be inclined to suppose the apostle in* 
tends to say ironically : these teachers of the law ought certainly 
to use the law ; enough will be found in them for the law to deal 
with. Comp. Tit. i. 16, &c. 

Ver. 11. In testimony of what he has just said, namely, that the 
law is not designed for the virtuous, but for the lawless, the apostle 
appeals to hh gospel, which has been intrusted to him. The 
critics have thought this appeal to his gospel to be altogether un- 
necessary, and regard this as an illustration of how the pseudo- 
apostle always seeks occasion to make the apostle speak of himself* 
But the words, with which I was intruMted, show that the writer 
has in view a certain contrast ; the gospel, as De Wette says, with 
which he is intrusted is, in reference to the manner in which it 
teaches that the law should be used, characterized as Pauline, in 
contrast with that of these teachers of t/te law. Thus is removed 
all ground for regarding what the apostle here says of himself as a 
merely casual expression. Kara cannot be connected with t0 
vy, BiBoir/caKlq, (Leo), were it for no other reason than that the 
article is wanting, and also that it would make an altogether super- 
fluous and tautological explanation. As little is it to be connected 
with avTixeirai, which is already sufficiently determined by — the 

FIRST TIMdTHY 1. 12. 877 

sound doctrine* It is rather in testimony of what he has said, 
ver. 9, respeoting the design of the law, that be here appeals to his 
gospel. So also Huther. *' In reality," says De Wette, " the 
s^Qtiment in ver. 9 is Pauline (comp. Rom. yi. 14 ; Gal. ?. 18), 
the apostle, however would not thus have opposed these teachers 
of the law, but rather with the statement, that we can be justified 
only through faith. The writer takes up an Irenaean stand-point, 
between the friends of the law and the Pauline party." The first 
of these remarks is just as true, as the second is harmless in regard 
to our position. The apostle is not dealing with those who con- 
test the doctrine of justification by faith, but with such as in addi- 
tion to faith, prescribe for the hUaw; certain requirements of a 
pretendedly higher morality, for which they appeal to the Old 
Testament. To evarfyiTuov rrjq S6^9 : '* gospel of the glory of 
God," the import of which is this glory, 2 Cor. iv. 4. This glory 
is here, as elsewhere represented, as revealed to the world in Jesus 
Christ (Bom. is. 23 ; £ph. i. 17, iii. 16.) The designation, 7% 
So^9, as also the epithet luucapiovy is selected with the view of giv- 
ing prominence to the preponderating value of the gospel, in op» 
position to that legal error ; it is the revelation of the glory of 
him who is blessed. The revelation of his glory will therefore be 
rich in blessings. Mcucapio^ applied to God also at vi. 15; for 
what remains, oump. on Tit. ii. 13. On 3 iiriarevOffv, Winer, § 
40, ], p. 301, a construction frequently used by the apostle, apd 
only by him. 

Ver. 12, The apostle has appealed to the gospel which was 
committed to his trust, in opposition to those teachers of the law. 
In ver. 12, ss., he enters more fully into the manner in which this 
trust was committed to him, in order thus to show what certainty 
he has of the truth of the gospel, — the certainty, namely, of a per- 
sonal experience, in virtue of which he who was a blasphemer and 
a persecutor, was transformed into a minister of Jesus Christ. The 
apostle, however, following the impulse of his heart, clothes the idea 
in the form of a thanksgiving. Baumgarten has traced the scope 
of the passage otherwise, a. a. Q. p. 224, in opposition to Schleier- 
macher, who finds here a total want of connection. The apostle, 
according to Baumgarten, speaks of himself, in so far as in his 
case, the peculiar nature of the gospel, namely, that it is designed 
precisely for the salvation of sinners and transgressors of the law, 


was convincingly manifested. The question to which no reply is 
given in vv. 9 and 10^ namely, how are transgressors of the law to 
attain to righteousness, is here answered. This interpretation, 
however, will hold only when vv. 9 and 10 are viewed as op- 
posed to the common Judaistic tendency. And even apart from 
this, ver. 1 2 appears to me to stand in so close a connection with 
the emphatic words of the preceding verse which was commiUed 
to my irust, that it can only be understood as a farther ezplana- 
tion of these words. And how can the words, but I obtained mercy 
because I did it in ignorance, agree with the above view ? Doubt- 
less the apostle intends to show, how in his own person, in his own 
history, the import of the gospel is strikingly represented, and how 
the entire forbearance of divine love has been manifested in the 
mercy which he obtained, and has thus made him a pattern to all 
who should hereafter believe. But are we to regard this as sup- 
plementary to the doctrine stated before respecting the design of 
the law ? There is surely nothing in these words about the law or 
its design. Nay, the apostle s conversion is in the least degree 
fitted to show the relation of the law to faith ; for it was not a 
knowledge of his sins wrought in him by the law that brought him 
to Ghrist. This, however, must be the case with any one, in order 
to his being able to show by his example, how the transgressors of 
the law may be led by the law itself to the righteousness in Ghrist 
Jesus, how the law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ} Kai 
before x^P''^ hc^* which is not found in A.F.O., &c., has perhaps 
rightly been retained by Tischendorf according to D.I.E. &c. And I 
thank Christ Jesus our Lord who hath enabled me, that he counted 
me faithful, appointing me to the ministry, although I was before a 
blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious, says the apostle, in ex- 
planation of the words which was committed to my trusty yer. 1 1. 
Christ who hath enabled me, — inasmuch as the strength for the 
ministry to which the Lord hath appointed him, proceeds not from 
himself, but from the Lord who hath called him to this ministry ; 
the apostle, as Matthies well observes, repels the supposition, that 
" at the time when he was called, the strength for the ministry was 
already present in him, and was only acknowledged by the Lord.*' 
On ivhwafjJm (a genuine Pauline word) comp. on Phil. iv. 13. 

I Hother: the apostle dweUs till ver. 17 on the grace experieneed by him, in sach a 
manner, howeTer, as to make it most clearly manifest, that the gospel committed to hia 
trust is % gospel of the glory of the blessed God. 


The ground of bis thanks is expressed in the words, that he 
counted me faithful, which are further explained by the following 
putting, &o,, for this latter is just the actaal proof of what is said 
in the words, he counted me faithfuL Faithful (comp. 1 Cor. 
iv. 2), is the quality which is required of a steward of Ood, the 
strength is given by the Lord. On the whole expression comp. 
1 Cor. vii. 25. In like manner the expression Oifieva^ ek has its 
parallel in 1 Thess. vi. ; comp. also Acts xiii. 47. On Buuco- 
vlaif, in its wider signification, comp. Rom. xi. 13 ; Eph. iii. 8 ; 
Col. i. 23. 

Ver. 13. The apostle now describes bis former condition in the 
words, leho was before a hlasphemer and a persecutor and 
injurious. The reading is to wporepov, not top, according to 
A.D.^F.6., &c. These strong expressions are designed to give 
effect to the contrast with the foregoing, putting me into the mi" 
nistry. In this way, by so powerful an experience of the trans- 
forming grace of the Lord, did he become a minister of Christ, 
from being a blasphemer and a persecutor. On jSKdaifnifi^ 
comp. Acts xxyi. 1 1 ; on SuitcTff<:, at which Schleiermacher has 
stumbled, passages such as Gal. i. 13; on v/Spt^m^v, Matth. 
xxii. 6, &c. The last expression forms a. climax with the fore- 
going, in so far as it denotes an injurious act which proceeds 
from arrogance and contempt of others. On the participle Oifie" 
1^09, not equivalent to the infinitive, comp. Winer, § 46, 1, p, 
399. '* But I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbe- 
lief." These words are not intended as a palliation of his conduct, 
but only to show, that there was that in him upon which mercy 
might take hold, how it was possible for mercy to be shown to him. 
Mack well observes, that " the words of Christ, Matt. xii. 31, s., 
were confirmed in the apostle, that every sin and blasphemy, even 
that against the Son, may be forgiven, so long as there is no blas- 
phemy against the Spirit." / obtained mercy ; this expression 
points to the fact denoted by, was committed to my trust, ver. 1 1 , 
and counted me faithful, putting, &c. By this the apostle is as- 
sured that he has obtained mercy. The expression, / obtained 
mercy, is selected with reference to the condition described in ver* 
13, from which compassionating grace has rescued him. When 
the apostle says, / obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in 
unbelief, he does not mean that he had a claim to such mercy, as 


880 FIRST TIMOTHY I. 14, 15. 

if with oTi a saffioient reason for the bestowal of mercy were ex- 
pressed ; he only explains how it was possible that such a sinner 
could obtain mercy, Acts iii. 17. The positive ground of mercy 
being shown to him, lies solely in t^e compassion of God, Tit. 
iii. 5. The ground of the ignorance lies in the unbeliefs which 
implies that this ignorance is by no means unaccompanied with 
guilt. But there is still a great difference between the conduct 
which the apostle here describes, to which he was led by an honest 
zeal for the law, and that of which we read in Luke xi« 62 ; Matth. 
xii. 32, where the conduct described proceeds from an indelible 
enmity against whatsoever is of God, and a wilful striving against 
the spirit of God. In this case grace must become a compelling 
power in order to be able to save. 

Ver. 14. " And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant 
wilh faith and love in Christ Jesus." The apostle here places in 
opposition to the state just described, ver. 13, the new state, namely, 
that of grace, which magnifies itself in his life and labours, and 
which has adorned these with faith and love in Christ Jesus, i.e, 
love which has its root in him. Faith and love are described as 
the result of grace ; when grace magnifies itself in a man, it brings 
faith and love along with iL The love which is in Christ Jesus^ 
Olshausen remarks, is not the love which Christ has and exercises, 
but that which he gives to men. lis being joined wilh faith ne- 
cessitates this interpretation. Faith and love form the antithesis 
to unbeliefs ver. 13, comp. with ver. 6. The expression virep- 
9rX€oi/a^a> only here == was exceeding abundant, not to be taken 
in a comparative sense ; compare passages such as Bom. v. 20, vi. 

1 ; 2 Cor. iv. 15, where nfSMovaJQ^iv occurs, with passages such as 

2 Cor. vii. 4 ; 2 Thess. i. 3, where words similarly compounded 
occur. That the humility as well as the greatness of the apostle is 
here expressed, as it is also elsewhere, has been observed by Mack, 
who refers to Phil. i. 21, ii. 1 ; 2 Cor. x. 5, 23—29 ; Gal. iv. 19. 

Ver. 15. The apostle has just described how the power of saving 
love manifested itself in him. Thus from his own experience he 
can testify what he here says : assuredly true and worthy of all 
acceptance is the assertion, that Christ Jesus came into the world 
to save sinners, of whom, he adds, I am chief. Hmtto? o yJr^^ 
comp. on Tit. iii. 8. ^ Airti^ioyTi^ as also amoi^Kro^^ (the former 
occurring again at iv. 9, the latter ii. 3, v. 4), only in this epistle. 

FIRST TIMOTHY I. 16. 3ft 1 

On the other hand, the aposiie uses elsewhere ieKro^ and eimpotx^ 
Zeiero^, Phil. iv. 18; 2 Cor. vi. 2; Rom. xv. 81, &c.; comp., he- 
sides, Acts ii. 41, they that gladly received the word (airoie^' 
fisvoi TOP \oyov.) On the use of the word hy the classical writers, see 
Leo on the passage. On vaaa mroSo^, like fratra x^P<^i f^ joy* 
Winer, § 17, 10, p. 182. On Christ Jesus as the subject of what 
follows, comp. Phil. ii. d, s. ^EpyjsaOai ek Koafiopy with definite 
' allusion to the pre-existenoe of Christ. It is the substance of 
what is contained in the gospel committed to his trust, which the 
apostle here compresses into these words as the experience of his 
own life ; comp. Matth. xviii. 1 1 ; Luke, xix. 10, " Of whom I am 
the chief." Some have thought this expression too strong, and 
endeavoured to soften it by pointing to the omission of the article 
(against which De Wette justly refers to Matth. x. 2, xxii. 88), or 
to the present tense, elfii, according to which it applies only to the 
saved sinner. But &v refers not to saved sinners, but to sinners in 
general. All these limitations come into collision with ver. 1 6, the 
entire signification of which rests on this irpSrros in its full sense. 
The apostle also speaks elsewhere of his former life in the same 
manner ; comp. Eph. iii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 8, 0, where he states as the 
reason of his humiliation : because I persecuted the church of 
God* So here where the apostle calls himself trp&rov, we are to 
associate this with what he says in ver. 18, nor are we to be hin- 
dered from this by the words, / obtained pardon because I did it 
iynorantly, &c., comp. above. Only to this reference of the 
7rptt>T09,to ver. 13, — the outward act, — corresponds also what he 
says of himself, ver. 16. It is the conduct of the apostle in itself, 
viewed by him apart from its mitigating circumstances, which con- 
strains him to make use of this expression regarding himself. 

Ver. 1 G. Howbeitfor this cause I obtained mercy, as above at 
ver. 14, antithetical with the apostle s judgment concerning himself. 
Although the chief of sinners, I yet obtained pardon for this cause — 
pointing forward emphatically to the ha — that in me the chief (for 
trpSno^ is not to be taken differently here from before), Christ 
Jesus might show his entire forbearance, for a pattern to those who 
should hereafter repose their believing trust in him to life everlast- 
ing. The whole passage indicates how entirely in earnest the 
apostle was in the irpSno^ iycl>» Only thus can he see in bis having 
obtained mercy, the entire riches of the divine forbearance, and 

38a FIRST TIMOTHY I. 1 7. 

hold it up as a consoling pattern to all who shall hereafter believe, 
even to the greatest sinners. "A real miracle of the love of Jesus 
Christ to sinners," Olshausen. MaxpoOvfila, some think it neces- 
sary, without reason to understand this word in the sense, " mag- 
nanimity." But does not the long-suffering of the divine love 
which follows the sinner appear in the conversion of Paul. On rip/ 
iircurav (so Tischendorf) fuucpoOvpUav, comp. Winer, § 17, 10, p. 
18d. *T'jroTimaHn^ (only again at 2 Tim. i. 13) =» Tviro9, 1 Cor. 
X. 6, 11; Phil. iii. 17, &c., or inroBevyfia, John xiii. 15 ; 2 Pet. ii. 
6, &c. The common interpretation is, " that I may be a pattern," 
better thus, " that this proof of his long suffering may he a pattern ; 
and perhaps for this very reason it is inronrrraxn^, and not two?. 
The less frequent connexion irurreveiv hrl (Bom. ix. 33, x«. 11 ; 
Pet. ii. 6 ; [Matth. xxvii. 42]) r eprese n ts Christ as the foundation 
on which faith rests. To life everlasting, this again is the mark 
which all true faith has, and keeps in its eye; comp. on Tit. i. 2. 

Ver. 17. The consideration of that which, as a pattern to all who 
should afterwards believe, has been done in the apostle, and has 
made him an enduring monument of the saving long-suffering of 
Christ, constrains him to the ascription of praise which he here 
makes, and with which he closes the explanation of the above i 
hrurreuOvpf iyo» in the same way as it was begun. Such expres- 
sions of adoration, says Schleiermacher, are found for the most part 
only where a subject somewhat fully treated is brought to a termi- 
nation, and shown in a light convincingly clear ; so Bom. xi. ; 
1 Cor. XV. ; 2 Cor. ix. 15 ; £ph. iii. 21, &;c. I would have thought 
that both of these things m^ght be predicated of the passage before 
us. The train of thought to which the o hrurrevOffv iya> gave 
occasion is brought to a conclusion, and it is made out in a man- 
ner convincingly clear that he is warranted in saying that of himself. 
" And can any one," asks Baumgarten justly, ** imagine a more 
suitable conclusion. The apostle has not merely in a general form 
declared the counsel of God for the salvation of men, with which 
his whole soul was filled, but he has brought this subject as near 
as possible to his own person and his own experience ; he has held 
himself forth as a living announcement of the truth, his history as 
a type of the gospel." T^ Bi jSaaiKei r&v almvap occurs nowhere 
else in the New Testament. The same expression, however, is 
found in Tob. xiii. 6, 10, and D'ttS3^^^ ilttStt* ^^* ^^^^' ^^• 


Parallel expressions beyond the Bible, both from the Christian and 
the ante- Christian period, have been collected by Bottger^ on this 
passage and on vi. 15, a. a., Q., p. 97. Olshansen remarks that 
it is doabtfal what signification ought to be given to al&pe^, whe- 
ther it is to be understood as denoting the sum of the ages := 
eternity, thus, king of eternity, or as equivalent to " world,'* which 
developes itself in time, as Heb. i. 2, zi. 8, comp. on cmov, Harless 
on Eph. p. 143. De Wette also wavers between the two signifi- 
cations. It appears to me better that ai&ve^ should be taken in 
the same sense as afterwards in ek tov9 al&pa^ r&v aitoimv = 
irdvra^ al&va^ (comp. on Phil. iv. 20.) He is a king of the ages, 
which together make up the idea of eternity, as His kingdom 
(comp. Ps. cxlv. 13) is an everlasting kingdom. Huther takes 
at&v&: = world, as Heb. i. 2, xi. 8. To this the apostle is led by 
the foregoing expression, ver. 1 6, ek ^a)r)v awviov, with which the 
expression in ver. 17 is immediately connected, as also the rest of 
the epithets in this verse represent God, not so much in his relation 
to the world as in the infinite fulness and majesty of his being. 
Honour and praise are due to Him, the king of the ages, the im- 
mortal, invisible, the only God ; for He it is in whom all fulness 
dwells, who has come nigh to us in Christ Jesus to save us. It 
is altogether wrong, therefore, to refer the doxology to Christ ; the 
epithet invisible ought to have been decisive against this. On aj>6ap' 
rtp, comp. Bom. i..23; on aopdrtp^ Col. i. 15; Heb. xi. 27; 
Bom. i. 20. M6vq> 0€^, not fwv^ awf)^ Oe^, which has A.D.*F.G., 
&c., against it, and appears to be a gloss from Bom. xvi. 27, as 
also Jude 25. ^Afjuqv is also added elsewhere in the same way 
(Gal. i. 5 ; Phil. iv. 20, &c.) For what remains, comp. on Phil, 
iv. 20. Dr Baur thinks that the epithets here applied to God are 
of a Gnostic cast. The parallel passages to which we have referred 
show how little necessity there is for such an opinion. 

Ver. 18. The apostle, after this explanation of the S hriareuOfiv 
eyw upon which his heart has poured itself forth in an ascription 
of praise to God, now turns again to Timothy, comp. ver. 3. We 
have seen how in that verse there was a protasis without an apo- 
dosis. Have we not the apodosis here, if not formally, at least 
substantially ? Let us in the first place inquire to what the rcUmjp 
Ti)v iraporffiKlav refers ? It cannot be referred to the immediately- 
foregoing /a ///*/«/ saying^ for iraparfyeKla, as we have seen, de- 


notes an inj unction or charge^ and what we read in ver. 15 and 
the context is not given in the form of a charge. It will not even 
do to refer the ravrypf t. it. directly to 7rapa/ff€iXf)^t ver. 8, or 
iraparfytXla^, yet* 5, as De Wette has shown ; for against the for- 
mer it is to be observed that the import of the charge is there de- 
finitely stated in the vforAs, forbid some to teach otherwise, against 
the latter, that it is not a certain injunction or charge, but precept 
in gefieral that is spoken of in ver. 6. Thus the ravrriv rifv ir. 
can be explained only as pointing to the following iva (so also 
Huther), where it is to be observed that the form of the sentence 
beginning with tva has been modified by the words, according to 
the prophecies which went be/ore on thee, to which it is referred. 
The apostle therefore writes thus : this charge I commit to thee, 
my son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on 
thee, that thou dost war in them the good warfare. Without the 
Kard in the foregoing clause, the apostle would have said : that 
thou dost war the good warfare, in which the substance of the 
charge is given {iva in a weakened signification.) But what else 
can the good warfare be which Timothy is to war, than the ful- 
filling of his calling ? And the apostle has set before him in irer. 
3, ss., what is the duty which his calling actually imposes upon 
him. The idea, therefore, which must have been expressed in the 
apodosis if it had been given, is found here, although in a more 
general form. Next to a regular apodosis, we could imagine no 
better form for the conclusion than that which we have here. Al- 
though the direct reference of ravrrfv rifv it, back to ver. 3, ss., is 
impossible, still, as Schleiermacher himself has perceived, the ira" 
parfyekia carries us back to the /aith and good conscience in ver. 
5, and reminds us that it is here we are to seek the substance of 
the apodosis to the Ka0m, ver. 3. So also Olshausen : ** Paul re- 
sumes in substance what is said at ver. 3, ss." He, however, ex- 
plains the irapayyeXla also here of the special commission to op- 
pose the heretics. And does the writer of the epistle really, as 
Schleiermacher maintains, leap back in ver. 18 to the old subject^ 
He has already, in ver. 8, ss., shown in opposition to the teachers 
of the law, what is the right use of the law, and referred in testi- 
mony of this to the gospel committed to bis trust, and proved that 
he has the assurance of his own experience to produce for the 
truth of this gospe]. How naturally then is this followed up with 

FIRST TIMOTHY I. 18. " 385 

the injuDotion to Timothy (so well founded, in as far as the apostle 
is concerned, before whose eyes the certainty as well as the glory 
of this gospel has been presented) to war the good warfare, to do 
what he is taught to do in vv. 8 — 10 ? Similarly also Heyden- 
reich : in virtue of this my office, which has been committed to me, 
who was once a persecutor, but who obtained mercy of the Lord, 
vv. 13 — 16, 1 charge thee, &c. The apostle, however, mentions 
at the same time an additional ground of obligation which Timothy 
has in his own person to war the good warfare of his calling, in the 
words, according to the jprophecieSy &c. He reminds him of the pro^ 
phecies that have been spoken in regard to him, and charges him 
according to these to see that they are fulfilled in him, by war^ 
ring the good warfare hf aincik. We see here that whatever 
might have the effect of stirring up Timothy to a faithful perform- 
ance of his duty is held up before him. On iraparlOeiuii comp. 
Matth. xiii. ^4, 31 ; Acts vii. 23 ; 2 Tim. ii. 2. Kard has been 
regarded without any reason as a hyperbaton ; it belongs really 
to waparlffe^i ; in what way it belongs to oTpareinj is shown by 
havTiik, By vpoarfovaa^ irpo^nfrelas are denoted antecedent or 
preceding prophecies, comp. Heb. vii. 18 ; hr\ ai is to be con- 
nected with 9rpo0. On the subject, comp. iv, 14, from which we 
may gather that on the occasion of the laying on of the hands of 
the presbytery^ such words were spoken concerning him as in- 
dicated what was to be expected of him. So also Olsbausen and 
Huther ; but it is not his ordination to his office that is spoken of. 
I am not inclined to regard the good report which, according to 
Acts xvi. 2, Timothy had of all the brethren in Lystra and Iconium 
as indentical with these prophecies, comp. Acts vi. 8, &c. The 
occurrence referred to is to be conceived of as similar to that of 
which we have an account in Acts xiii. 1, where we find the 
prophecy and layifig on of hands conjoined. For what remains 
comp. iv. 14 and 2 Tim. i. 6. It is true that nothing is recorded 
in the Acts of the Apostles of these prophecies in reference to Ti- 
mothy. But what can be inferred from this ? As well might we 
suppose a discrepancy to exist between 2 Tim. i. 6 and 1 Tim. iv. 
14. Compare also Gal. ii. 2 with Acts xv. 1, the former of which 
passages speaks oi 9^ revelation, while the latter says nothing of tliis. 
This passage also supplies us with an argument against Schleierma- 

cher, to prove that the apostle elsewhere also appeals to such a revela- 
2 b* 


tion. In reply, however, to the objection that it was not the apos- 
tle's custom to pay regard to prophecies when he himself had to act, 
in support of which Schleiermaoher refers to Acts xxi. 11, ss., 
Baumgarten has already observed justly, that the prophecy cited 
from Acts xxi. 1 1 contains nothing at all about what Paul should 
do or not do, and has referred with reason to Paul's opinion con- 
cerning prophecy, 1 Cor. xii. 10 ; Eph. iv. 11 ; 1 Cor. xiv. I. — 
*Ev avTiik is rendered by De Wette, '* in the strength of," better 
" in, with," armed as it were with these. On arpareveaOai r^v k. 
arparetav, oomf. 2 Cor. x. 4 ; Eph. vi. 14 ; 1 Thess. v. S ; and 
on 2 Tim. ii. 8 — 5. It is not his conduct as an individual, but 
rather in his official character, which is here meant. Ghrysostom : 
Buirl KaT^l arpareiav to irparffia ; bPjk&v &n iroKe/AO^ iyi^eprai 
aiffoSpo^ iraai fihf fMoXurra Bi r^ 8iBdaKak(p, Srparela, as 
Huther observes, means properly *' military service/' not merely 

Ver. 19. All fitness for this military service, however, stands 
connected with the character and state of the individual engaged in 
it. That which the teacher seeks to bring about in others, he must 
himself have, and hold fast ; hence the apostle adds, '* holding 
faith and a good conscience," which he has mentioned above, ver* 
6, as the fundamental condition of all Christian being and striving. 
He is to hold faith and a good conscience (^q>p not holding fast 
SB icarixfop, as if it would escape from him ; to which the expre8-> 
sion airtoadfievoi does not correspond) ; for the examples of 
Hymeneus and Alexander show how it will go with those who 
put these away from them. The ffood conscience is represented as 
the condition and ground of faith. The sentiment, observes 
Olshausen, is in a practical point of view of the greatest importance, 
that the loss of a good conscience will cause shipwreck of faith. 
The state of faith depends on the inmost tendency of the soul in 
man ; the consciousness of sin kills the germ of faith in man. '^Hv 
refers of course only to 07. atweiS. The expression airwrdiievoi,^ 
'* having oast off," denotes a wilful act. Bengel rightly shows the 
reason of this, when he says : th^y have cast it from them, as a 
iroublesome monitor. The expression already points to the ivav- 
arftfaaVf according to which the good conscience is to be conceived 
of as the anchor of faith. It is found also in a metaphorical sense 
at Rom. xi. 1,2 ; Acts vii. 89, xiii. 46; Prov. xxiii. 28; H08. 


iv. 6 ; Ezek. xliii. 9. Conscience is a power in man which con- 
tradicts him when he acts in opposition to it ; according to which 
the expression avma. involves nothing unsuitahle (against Schleier- 
macher.) The consequence of this casting offis the making ship- 
wreck of faith, n^ply " with respect to," Winer, ^ •53, i. p. 483. 
It is well known how frequently this metaphor was applied in the 
ancient church, according to which the course of faith was repre- 
sented hy navigation. 

Ver. 20. As examples of this class, Hymeneus and Alexander 
are named, who in this way have come not merely to the loss of 
faith, but have even gone the length of blasphemy, and upon whom, 
therefore, the apostle was compelled to exercise his apostolical 
power of rebuke. In 1 Cor. v. 5, we find a parallel to this con- 
duct on the part of the apostle. Olshausen remarks on this, that 
the idea of excommunication certainly lies in it, but so as that out 
of the church of Christ we are to conceive of the kingdom and 
power of Satan (Acts xxvi. 18) ; he who is excluded from it be- 
comes thereby the prey of Satanic power. A comparison with 1 
Cor. v.» however, suggests the question whether something still more 
special is not to be understood in our present passage. There, it 
is added, that the giving over to Satan is to operate not only spiri- 
tually but also pliysically. This implies that severe sufferings, 
disease, and the like, should come upon the person excommuni- 
cated, which should have the effect of bringing him to reflection, in 
order that his soul might be saved. Here also the salvation of the 
persons concerned is the end which the apostle has in view* Nothing 
is here said of any reference to bodily sufferings ; but although all 
the church doctors explain this formula in our passage as being also 
a formula of excommunication, we yet do not find that it was ever 
used as such, but always avddefia iarm. It seems as if the church 
has supposed that this phrase involved an apostolical prerogative 
(comp. Acts V.) — IlaiJ^wa denotes here, as at I Cor. xi. 32 ; 2 Cor. 
vi. 9, &c., to instruct by discipline. BXaa<Pi]fi€tv can, in accordance 
with the context, be referred only to speaking evil of that which is 
divine, comp. vi. I, and 2 Pet. ii. 10; Jude 8. Hymeneus and 
Alexander are the persons in whom Timothy may see an example of 
what the apostle has just maintained. Whether the fact itself to 
which reference is here made, was already known to Timothy or 

not, is of no importance for the apostle s object. But the manner 

2 b2 


in whioh the reference is made, shows, that the individaals mnst at 
all events have heen known to him. Whether both are to he con- 
ceived of as belonging to Ephesas cannot be determined with cer- 
tainty, as this also was irrelevant to the apostle's object The former 
name ooonrs also at 2 Tim. ii* 17, in connexion with Philetus, where 
these two are adduced as examples to show how the " vain talking" 
tends ever more and more to ungodliness, and has even carried 
them the length of maintaining that the resurrection is past already. 
That what is there said is quite consistent with what we read in the 
passage before us, on the supposition that jone and the same per* 
son is meant, and that the doctrine, the resurrectiofi is past already, 
must be congenial to one who has an evil conscience, needs no 
farther showing. The connexion with Philetus is no proof against 
the identity of the person, for it might easily be the case that 
Alexander did not participate with him in that special heresy, as 
he did in the moral aberration which lay beneath it. Hence, the 
most of commentators, Olshausen among the number, have main- 
tained the identity of the person, while Mosheim has denied it. 
Comp. on 2 Tim. ii. 17. With regard to Alexander, we meet this 
name also again at 2 Tim. iv. 14, where the individual referred to 
appears as a personal adversary of tlie apostle, and Timothy is 
warned against him. He has there the by-name o ;^aXir€i;9, by 
which it is intended to distinguish him from another of the same 
name. He is not there described as having been shut out from the 
church, without however our being able to say that he was not, for 
on this latter supposition also, his conduct towards the apostle and 
the warning against him may be explained. Just as little is he 
described as a heretic. Many commentators, doubtless with reason, 
identify him with the person named in Acts xix. 23, anfi distinguish 
him from the one mentioned in our passage ; while others again, 
as Olshausen, recognize three of this name, and understand a dif- 
ferent person in each of the three passages. The whole question is one 
merely of probability. If accordingly we decide for the identity of the 
Hymeneus named here and at 2 Tim. ii. 17, and against that of 
the Alexander likewise named twice, the possibility of its being 
otherwise in reference to the former, must still be acknowledged. 
It seems therefore all the more surprising that the criticism to which 
we are opposed lays so much stress for its purposes on these names. 
TIius De Wette, on the supposition that the Hymeneus mentioned 


in tbe first and BecoDd epistle to Timothy^ is the same person, 
seeks to prove, from the difference in the circumstances referred to 
in each instance, the earlier date of the second epistle to Timothy, 
and thereby the spurioasness of all the Pastoral Epistles. But if 
the circumstances cannot in reality be reconciled with the supposi- 
tion that one and the same person is meant, there remains still the 
possible supposition that different persons are meant. To this it 
has been olgected that, apart from the improbability which lies in 
the sameness of the name, Paul would in this case have held up to 
the Hymeneus of the second epistle that of the first as a warning 
example. But this objection rests on the^untenable supposition, that 
the Hymeneus of the second epistle was himself to be warned, where- 
as he is only adduced as an example for Timothy, to show him whe- 
ther that vain talking tends, in which case any such allusion to the 
Hymeneus of the first epistle would have been quite superfluous. 
And when it is further objected by Schleiermacher against two per- 
sons being meant, that in this case the person second-named must 
have been distinguished from the first by some by-name, — to this 
it may reasonably be replied, that the one is sufficiently distin* 
guished from the other, by being named in connexion with his 
companion in error. In addition to this, it cannot at all be proven 
that either in the one place or the other it is persons in £phesus 
who are spoken of. This cannot be inferred from the fact that they 
are named as examples, as indeed generally the critics have paid 
too little attention to this circumstance, that the persons named are 
only meant to serve as examples. And if it were really the case, 
as those critics maintain, that the author of the first epistle had the 
second in his eye, and ** thought it necessary to make it appear as 
if the heresy had made progress such as would be sufficiently ac- 
counted for by what is said in the second epistle," \iby should he 
have separated Hymeneus and Philetus, who are there named 
together, and have placed Hymeneus along with Alexander, as he 
must surely have observed the different connection in which the latter 
is mentioned in d Tim. ii. 17 ? Will the answer which Dr Baur 
gives to this question be held sufficient, namely, that in 1 Tim. i. 
20, Hymeneus stands at the same time for the Philetus named 
with and after him ? We have here one of those cases in which 
favour for the author or prejudice against him obtains free scope, be- 
cause nothing can be evidently proven. For this very reason, however, 


the question can never be one of any advantage to the critics on 
the other side. Before leaving this section, we have still to look 
at the principal attack which has been directed against it by 
Schleiermacher. According to the introduction, ver. S, says 
Schleiermacher, it is the writer's intention to give directions to Ti- 
mothy as to his conduct towards the heretics. But no such direc- 
tions are to be found ; with the exception of vv. 3 — 11 and vv. 19 
and iO, nothing is said about heretics at all till we come* to chap, 
iv. 1 ; up to this place the writer has lost sight of his object. But 
even in chap. iv. 1 he cannot be said to have resumed it, for be 
speaks there of heretics wl)o are to be expected at a later period. 
In ver. 7, indeed, he seems to speak of excrescences in doctrine 
already present, and in like manner in vi. 8 — 5, 20, passages 
which, as regards their sense, we find exactly repeated, but which 
give no other instruction to Timothy than merely that he is to have 
nothing to do with those heretics. Thus the introduction does not 
correspond to the body of the epistle, and what is said of the here- 
tics forms, when compared with the rest of the epistle, but a very 
insignificant part of it In reply to all this we would say, that, 
keeping in view particularly chap, i., it is principally to be borne in 
mind that the introduction, ver. 8, in which Timothy is reminded of 
the object of his having been left in Ephesus, is by no means to be 
i^egarded as the theme of the whole epistle, as may be seen indeed 
from the epistle itself, iii. 14. That which was the principal "psiti 
of Timothy's commission in the position in which he was left in 
Ephesus, is also, of course, the principal subject of the writing 
which was addressed to him. But what necessity is there for sup- 
posing, that the epistle was written solely for the purpose of giving 
him instructions on this subject ? As, over and above his special 
commission to oppose those who taught otherwise, Timothy was 
charged also with the settlement and administration of the church, 
SB well as with the general duties of an evangelist, we find accord- 
ingly that the epistle treats of all these things. The only question 
then is, whether the section which professes to give instructions to 
Timothy on that part of his charge which has reference to the un- 
sound doctrine, or rather which professes merely to remind him of 
this charge, is in reality what the introduction, as I besought thee^ 
&c., warrants us to expect. And who can doubt that it is so, if it 
be kept in view that the apodosis to ver. 8 is absorbed in the pro- 

FIRST TIMOTHY 11. 1 — 16. 891 

tasia, and that in this latter therefore is to be sought what the apostle 
has to say on the aubject to Timothy ? We find the errors which Ti- 
mothy is to ward off not merely designated in a general way in w. 
3, 4, 6, 6, and 7, but that which is erroneous in them is in vy. 4 and 
5 especially noticed. The source whence they spring is shown in 
ver. 6 ; in vv. 7 — 1 1 a species of the general error is more fully 
entered into, and Timothy is referred to the gospel which the 
apostle promulgates with the assurance of his own experience. In 
ver. 18 the apostle, referring to this gospel, and the prophecies 
which had gone before respecting Timothy, admonishes him to 
fight the good fight of his calling, in order to which he must take 
good heed to himself, and maintain that state of soul the loss of 
which brings along with it the loss of faith. All this is certainly 
no refutation of heresies in the strict sense, nor does it profess to 
be this ; it is, however, a renewed statement of the charge which 
had been given to Timothy, and an advice as to the right way of 
fulfilling this charge. And this is all that the introduction war- 
rants us reasonably to expect. In fine, those who, like Schleier- 
macher, hold the epistle to Titus to be genuine, need not stumble 
at the way in which the apostle treats this subject here, for it is quite 
the same as in that epistle, and all that is peculiar to our passage is 
the anacolouthon, as an unprejudiced comparison will show. 




(Chap. ii. 1—15.) 

Along with the commission which Timothy as the representative 
of the apostle in Ephesus received, to oppose those who sought to 
mislead the church by their fruitless pursuits, another was conjoined, 
namely, to take charge of the regulation and administration of the 
church. The apostle passes in chap. ii. to this part of the com- 
mission given to Timothy, in order to furnish him with directions 
regarding it, and, first of all, he gives him injunctions with respect 
to the assemblies for public worship. These, however, are not of 

392 FIRST TIMOTHY 11. 1. 

a merely general kind, as if the charoh were to be began ab ovo^ 
but refer to special points which the state of the church leads him 
to suggest. The first direction of this kind is, that the prayers of 
the church he made for all men, and in particular also for magis- 
trates, this duty being implied in the universality of the design and 
application of Christianity, which finds its expression in his calling 
to be the apostle of the Gentiles, ver.* 1 — 7. Then, what is the 
right internal as well as external preparation for prayer, which it 
becomes the man and also the woman to make, ver. 8 — 10. Lastly, 
the special injunction that the woman make no public appearance, 
but find her vocation in the discharge of her conjugal and domestic 
duties, ver. 11 — 15. 

Ver. 1 . / exhort therefore^ &c. ; the apostle thus begins to 
give instructions respecting j^i/d/tc prayer, for it is of this that he 
is speaking, as ver. 6 — 1 1 show. It is maintained that the there^ 
fore has no logical connexion with the preceding. Baumgarten 
proposes to supply this connexion by observing, that either Timothy 
is instructed how and what he is to do, in opposition to such des- 
troyers as are mentioned in ver. 20, or it may be that the refer- 
ence to the church predominates, and in this case it is shown what 
is to be done in the church, in order to protect it from these des- 
troyers. Both of these inferences, however, are ultimately con- 
joined, in confirmation of which he refers to iv. 16. -Against this 
view, it is first of all to be noticed, that those named in i. 20 are 
not represented as destroyers of the church, but as individual 
examples of a falling away from the faith. Further, that chap. li. 
shows throughout no such opposition to chap. i. The oppo- 
sition which Baumgarten makes out here is found in Tit. ii. 1 ; 
but a comparison will show that our passage does not admit of 
being interpreted in the same way. Olshausen also has rejected 
Baumgarten 8 view of this passage. The words, / exhort there^ 
forey are rather, as Matthies has already observed, to be placed in 
connexion with ver. 18. This special direction which the apostle 
here gives, rests on that general admonition in ver. 18,- which is con- 
firmed by what precedes. So also Leo. Reference has justly been 
made to 2 Tim. ii. 1 for this oSi;, in opposition to Schleiermacher. 
Olshausen, differently. He finds the link of connexion in fikaa- 
^li^w, ver. 20, which he understands to mean^ speaking evil 
of the magistracy. As the destruction of Jerusalem drew near. 


observes Olshausen, we find that all the Jews were seized with 
delasive dreams of fireedom, with which also those Ephesian Ju- 
daists were infected. In opposition to these, Paul gives prominence 
to the injunction that prayer bo made for all men» especially also 
for magistrates. But who could feel warranted in making pKaur- 
^fieiv, which is only incidentally introduced, the transition-idea 
to chap, ii., even could it be proved to have this special refer- 
ence ? — The apostle says, ^rst of all (which is not with Luther 
to be connected with be made, but with I exhori), not to signify 
that the injunction which follows in itself deserves this place, — ^but 
there are special reasons which induce him to give it the first place 
here. The apostle aims at denoting prayer in its every aspect, 
when he says, iroieurOai, B&jaei^y Trpoaevxii^y hrrev^i^ eirxapur- 
Tia9. On Seffci^ and irpo<Fevx^y comp. F]^il. iv. 6. "Evr^v^i^ 
only again at iv. 6, from which passage we learn, that the term 
does not in itself denote specially " intercessions," which also is 
not involved in the word {hrnrxaim = adeo allquem) ; comp. 
Book of Wisdom viii. 21 ; xvi. 28 ; chiefly, however. Bom. viii. 
27, 34 ; Heb. vii. 25. It is plain firom these passages, that iimrf- 
X^veiv signifies to come in to any one, and as regards another, as 
well for, as against him, and so also ivrev^i/it which (comp. Wahl) 
occurs in the profane writers in the same sense as here (Diod. Sic. 
xvi. 25 ; Jos. Antt. xv. 3, 8.) It obtain^ here through the fol- 
lowing virip the signification of intercession for some one. The 
word itself is therefore not chargeable with the offence whic