Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 2

1 Timothy 2:1. παρακαλῶ] Instead of this, D* F G, Sahid. Clar. Boern. Hilar. Ambrosiast. ed. Cassiod. (alicubi) Or. (ter ut Rec.) have the imperative παρακάλει, which is manifestly a conjecture for the purpose of giving to the words the form of a commission to Timothy.

πάντων] is omitted in some codd. (G, G, Boern. Or. [semel]); it might easily be overlooked as merely strengthening the πρῶτον.—1 Timothy 2:3. In A 17, 67** א, Cop. Sahid. γάρ is wanting, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8; it is retained in Matthaei and Tisch. 7.—1 Timothy 2:6. τὸ μαρτύριον καιροῖς ἰδίοις] Some codd. have the reading οὗ τὸ μαρτ. κ. ἰδ. ἐδόθη (D* F G, Clar. Boern. Harl.* Ambrosiast.; while some cursives have the reading οὗ, but without ἐδόθη). This reading has only arisen out of a desire to connect the words more closely with what precedes. The omission of the words τὸ μαρτύριον in A is to be considered merely an error in copying. Lachm. in his large edition (so also Buttm.) left them out; in the small edition he retained them. א has the reading καί for τό.—1 Timothy 2:7. The words ἐν Χριστῷ were rejected from the text even by Griesb. (so also Scholz, Lachm., and others), because they are wanting in the most important authorities, in A D* F G 3, 6, 23* 31, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. etc.; on the other hand, they are found in א. Matthaei, however, has retained them with the remark: adhuc maneo in ea sententia, ut credam, ab Praxapostolis et Euchologiis exclusum esse in fine lectionis. If they are compared with Romans 9:1, it is easy to explain how they came into the text.

Instead of ἐν πίστει, א has ἐν γνώσει. Buttm., following A, reads ἐν πνεύματι.—1 Timothy 2:8. Instead of the singular διαλογισμοῦ, F G 17, 47, 67** al., Syr. utr. Boern. Or. (ter sed ter ut Rec.) Eus., etc., have the plural διαλογισμῶν (Tisch. 7); Matthaei remarks on this: hujusmodi lectiones plerumque placent viris graece doctis; verum in N. T. contraria ferenda est sententia. Most authorities, including א, have the singular (Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8). The plural is with Reiche to be considered a mere correction, all the more that the singular of the word does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. (except in Luke 9:46-47); comp. especially Php 2:14.—1 Timothy 2:9. καὶ τάς] are wanting in A 71; καί alone is wanting in א, and τάς alone is wanting in D* F G 67** 73, al., Or. Lachm. and Buttm. omitted both words, Tisch. only τάς.

ἢ χρυσῷ] Instead of the Rec. ἤ (in D*** K L, etc.), Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. rightly adopted καί, following A D* F G, etc. Tisch. retained the Rec. χρυσῷ, following D K L, etc.; Lachm. and Buttm., on the other hand, read χρυσίῳ, following A F G, etc. As both forms are used in the N. T., we can hardly decide which is right here.—1 Timothy 2:10. The reading ὡς instead of ὅ, found in some cursives, Arm. and Cypr., is manifestly a correction to facilitate the interpretation.—1 Timothy 2:12. Instead of γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν (Tisch. 7), we should follow A D F G א, al., Arm. Vulg. It. Cypr. Jer. Ambrosiast., and read διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικί, which has been received into the text by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. Hofm., for the sake of his exposition, prefers the Rec.—1 Timothy 2:14. Instead of the Rec. ἀπατηθεῖσα, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. read the compound ἐξαπατηθεῖσα, on the testimony of A D* F G 17 28, al., Mt. K., Bas. Chrys. If the compound had not such weighty authorities in its favour, we should be inclined to account for it out of Romans 7:11 and 2 Corinthians 11:3.—1 Timothy 2:15. On the reading γάρ for δέ, found in some codd., Matthaei rightly remarks: ita centies istae particulae … praesertim in principio pro arbitrio mutantur.

1 Timothy 2:1. After directing Timothy’s attention generally to the στρατεία to which he had been appointed, Paul proceeds to mention in detail the things for which, in his office, he had to care. This connection of thought is marked by the particle of transition οὖν (Wiesinger), which therefore does not stand (as de Wette, following Schleiermacher, thinks) without any logical connection.[82]

ΠΡῶΤΟΝ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ] is not to be taken with ΠΟΙΕῖΣΘΑΙ, as Luther does: “to do before everything else,” but with ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛῶ (Heydenreich, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee).

ΠΟΙΕῖΣΘΑΙ ΔΕΉΣΕΙς Κ.Τ.Λ.] The apostle herewith begins to give “instructions regarding public prayer” (Wiesinger). The idea of prayer is here expressed by four words. ΔΈΗΣΙς and ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΉ are connected in other passages as synonyms—in Ephesians 6:18, Php 4:6; the difference between them is this, that ΔΈΗΣΙς can be used only of petitionary prayer, ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΉ of every kind of prayer. Not less general in meaning is ἜΝΤΕΥΞΙς, from ἘΝΤΥΓΧΆΝΕΙΝ ΤΙΝΊ incidere in aliquem, adire aliquem, and in reference to God: pray (Wis 8:21; Wis 16:28). The reference to another is not contained in the word itself, but in the preposition connected with it, as in Romans 11:2 : κατά τινος; and Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25 : ὙΠΈΡ ΤΙΝΟς. Accordingly, the substantive ἜΝΤΕΥΞΙς, which occurs only here and in chap. 1 Timothy 4:5, does not in itself possess the meaning of intercession for others, but denotes simply prayer as an address to God (Wiesinger); comp. Plutarch, Vita Numae, chap. 14: μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὰς πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἐντεύξεις ἐν ἀσχολίᾳ καὶ παρέργως. The three words, accordingly, are thus distinguished: in the first, the element of insufficiency is prominent; in the second, that of devotion; and in the third, that of child-like confidence (prayer—the heart’s converse with God). Calvin is right in his remark, that Paul joined these three words together here “ut precandi studium et assiduitatem magis commendet ac vehementius urgeat.”[83]

εὐχαριστίας] “prayers of thanksgiving,” the apostle adds, because in Christian prayer the giving of thanks should never be wanting; comp. Php 4:6 : ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωρίζεσθαι πρὸς τὸν Θεόν.

ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων] is not to be referred merely to εὐχαριστία, but also to the preceding words (Wiesinger). The prayer of the Christian community (for this and not private prayer is here spoken of) is—in petition and thanksgiving—to embrace all mankind.

[82] Hofmann’s reference of οὖν to 1 Timothy 1:15 and the conclusion of ver. 16 is far-fetched: “If Christ came into the world to save sinners, and if the long-suffering of God towards the man whom He made His apostle from being a reviler, was to be a prophecy regarding the conversion of those who were afterwards made to believe on Him, it becomes Christians not, in sectarian fashion, to limit its command to its sphere at that time, but to extend it to all men.”

[83] In regard to the more precise definition of the word, there is much that is arbitrary in expositors older and more recent. Thus δέησις is understood to be prayer for averting the punishment of sin; προσευχή, prayer for the bestowal of benefits; ἔντευξις, prayer for the punishment of the unrighteous (Theodoret: δέησίς ἐστιν, ὑπὲρ ἀπαλλαγῆς τινῶν λυπηρῶν ἱκετεία προσφερομένη· προσευχή ἐστιν αἴτησις ἀγαθῶν· ἔντευξίς ἐστι κατηγορία τῶν ἀδικούντων; so, too, Theophylact and Oecumenius). Photius (ad Amphil. qu. 193) explains ἐντυχία in the same way: ἐντυχία (ὅταν τὶς κατὰ τῶν ἀδικούτων ἐντυγχάνῃ τῷ Θεῷ, προσκαλούμενος αὐτὸν εἰς ἐκδίκησιν); but the other two words differently: δέησις μὲν λέγεται, ὅταν τὶς Θεὸν ἀξεοῖ εἰς πρᾶγμα· προσευχὴ δὲ, ὅταν ὑμνῇ τὸν Θεόν. Origen (περὶ εὐχῆς, § 44) finds a climax in the succession of the words, and distinguishes προσευχαί from δεήσεις in this way, that the former are prayers joined with a δοξολογία, made for greater things and μεγαλοφυέστερον, while ἐντεύξεις are the prayers of one who has παῤῥησίαν τινὰ πλείονα.—Still more arbitrary is Kling’s explanation, that δεήσεις are prayers in reference to the circumstances of all mankind; προσευχαί, prayers for some benefit; ἐντεύξεις, prayers for the aversion of evil. Matthies is partly right, partly wrong when he says: δέησις is the prayer made with a feeling of the need of God, so that the inner side of the need and of uprightness (?) is particularly prominent; προσευχή, prayer, in the act of devotional address to the Godhead, therefore with reference to the outward exercise (?); ἐντεύξεις, intercession, made not so much for ourselves as on behalf of others (?).—There is no ground whatever for the opinion of Heydenreich, that the first two expressions are used of prayer (δέησις = petition; προσευχή = thanksgiving) for the whole Christian community, while the other two (ἔντευξις = petition; εὐχαριστία = thanksgiving) are used of prayer for the whole of mankind. Lastly, we may note the peculiar view of Augustine (Ep. 59), according to which the four expressions are to be understood of prayers used at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, δεήσεις being the precationes before consecration; προσευχαί, the orationes at the benediction, consecration, and breaking of bread; ἐντεύξεις, the interpellationes at the benediction of the congregation; and εὐχαριστία, the gratiarum actio at the close of the communion. Plitt so far agrees with this view of Augustine, that he thinks the apostle’s various expressions denote the various liturgical prayers, as they were defined even in ancient times at the celebration of the Eucharist (?).

1 Timothy 2:2. Ὑπὲρ βασιλέων] βασιλεῖς are not merely the Roman emperors, the apostle using the plural because of the emperor’s colleagues (Baur); the word is to be taken, in a more general sense, as denoting the highest authorities in the state.

καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ ὄντων] not only denoting the governors in the provinces, but all who hold the office of magistrate anywhere. The expression is synonymous with ἐξουσίαι ὑπερέχουσαι in Romans 13:1; comp. 2Ma 3:11 : ἀνὴρ ἐν ὑπεροχῇ κείμενος. Josephus calls the magistrates simply αἱ ὑπεροχαί (Antiq. vi. 4. 3). In the old liturgies we find, in express accordance with this passage, the δέησις ὑπὲρ βασιλέων καὶ τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῇ, ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου. The purpose for which intercession is specially to be made for all men in authority is given in the words that follow: ἵνα ἤρεμον καὶ ἡσύχιον βίον δίαγωμεν, which, as de Wette rightly remarks, denotes the objective and not the subjective purpose. Paul does not mean here to direct attention to the value which intercession has for our own inner life, and by means of this for outward peace, as Heydenreich (“Christians are to pray also for heathen rulers, that by this prayer they may keep alive within themselves the quiet submissive spirit of citizens”), Matthies (“animated with loving thoughts towards the representatives of the government, they are to be blameless in their walk, and to strive after the undisturbed enjoyment of outward peace”), and others think; but the apostle is speaking of the still, quiet life as a blessing which the church obtains by prayer to God for the rulers.[84] The prayer is directed, as Wiesinger rightly remarks, not for the conversion of the heathen rulers, but for the divine blessing necessary to them in the discharge of their office (Romans 13:14).

The adj. ἬΡΕΜΟς occurs only here[85] in the N. T., and ἡσύχιος only here and in 1 Peter 3:4 (synonymous with πραΰς). The expression βίον διάγειν also occurs only here; in Titus 3:3, διάγειν is used without βίον.

No exact distinction can be established between ἤρεμος and ἡσύχιος. Olshausen (in Wiesinger) says, without reason, that the former means: “not disquieted from without;” the latter, “from within.” Ἠρέμα denotes, in classic Greek at any rate, “still, tranquil existence;” but ἡσύχιος (ἥσυχος) has the same meaning, and also denotes that there is no disturbance from without. The collocation of the two words serves to give more force to the thought; a ἤρ. κ. ἡσύχ. βίος is a life led without disturbance from without, with no excitement of fear, etc.

βίον διάγειν] “spend life, more than ἄγειν” (Wiesinger); the same expression is often found in classical writers.

ἐν πάσῃ εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ σεμνότητι] Not on this, but on ἠρ. καὶ ἡσύχ. is the chief emphasis of the sentence laid (Plitt); the words only add a more precise definition. Εὐσέβεια, a word foreign to the other Pauline Epistles, and (with εὐσεβής, εὐσεβῶς, εὐσεβέω) occurring only in the Pastoral Epistles, in Acts, and in 2 Pet., denotes the godliness of the heart; σεμνότης, also peculiar to the Pastoral Epistles (σεμνός, only here and in Php 4:8), denotes the becoming conduct of the Christian in all the relations of life. Hofmann is arbitrary in separating this addition from what immediately precedes, and joining it with ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις κ.τ.λ., as “denoting the manner in which the prayer commended is to be made.”

[84] Hofmann maintains, without grounds, that ἵνα κ.τ.λ. does not give the purpose of the prayer for all men and for rulers, but “the purpose for which rulers exist” (!).

[85] Nor is the positive ἤρεμος used in the Greek classics. As yet it has been found only in the Inscript. Olbiopol. n. 2059, v. 24, by Lobeck; see Winer, p. 68 [E. T. p. 82]; Buttmann, p. 24.—The substantives ἡσυχία and ἠρεμία are frequently found together in the classics; e.g. Demosth. de Contributione, § 8; Bekk. s. Dorville, On Chariton. p. 411.

1 Timothy 2:3. This verse points back to what was said in 1 Timothy 2:1; not, however, in such a way as to make 1 Timothy 2:2 a parenthesis (so in a former edition of this commentary), but rather so as to include the points mentioned in it.

τοῦτο] does not refer to the thoughts immediately preceding, but to the ποιεῖσθαι δεήσεις … ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων κ.τ.λ.

The highest motive of the Christian to such prayer is the good pleasure of God.

καλὸν καὶ ἀπόδεκτον] ἀπόδεκτος] (like ἀποδοχή) occurs only in this First Epistle to Timothy; it is synonymous with εὐάρεστος in Colossians 3:20 (τοῦτο γὰρ εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν ἐν κυρίῳ).

ἐνώπιον τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ] is referred only to ἀπόδεκτον by several expositors, who either take καλόν absolutely (de Wette: “good in itself;” so also van Oosterzee, Matthies: “καλ. denotes the endeavour recommended in its inner worth and contents”), or, as Leo, supply with it ἐνώπιον τῶν ἀνθρώπων: “which is praiseworthy, sc. before men.” The latter is clearly quite arbitrary; but even for the former there is not sufficient ground, all the more when we compare 2 Corinthians 8:21 : προνοοῦμεν γὰρ καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων.[86] On ΣΩΤΉΡ, see 1 Timothy 1:1.

Paul uses this name for God here because he has already in mind the thought that follows (Wiesinger).

[86] Heydenieich’s opinion is utterly erroneous, that Paul calls prayer for all καλόν, because it is not only right and good, but “brings a benefit to the Christians, by recommending them to their rulers.”

1 Timothy 2:4. Ground of the previous thought. The general intercession is καλ. κ. ἀπόδ. before God, because He, etc. It is not unusual to give in a relative clause the grounds of a previous statement. Ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι (comp. Titus 2:11)] The chief accent is laid on πάντας (corresponding with ὑπὲρ πάντων, 1 Timothy 2:1), which is therefore placed first. God’s purpose of salvation extends to all, and therefore the prayer of Christians must include all. Wiesinger, however, is right in remarking that “the apostle in ὃς κ.τ.λ. does not mean specially to give a reason for prayer for the conversion of all men, but for prayer generally as a duty of universal love to men.” Chrysostom puts it differently: μιμοῦ τὸν Θεόν· εἰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, θέλε καὶ σύ· εἰ δὲ θέλεις, εὔχου· τῶν γὰρ τοιούτων (τῶν θελόντων) ἐστὶ τὸ εὔχεσθαι.

The true connection of thought is obscured if we supply the intermediate thought, that prayer for all, and specially for kings, serves to maintain the peace without which the spread of Christianity would be hindered.[87]

καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν] The same connection of words is found elsewhere only in 2 Timothy 3:7; on the meaning of ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς, see my Commentary on Colossians, pp. 74 f., Remark.

The connection of the two expressions σωθῆναι and ΕἸς ἘΠΊΓΝ. ἈΛ. ἘΛΘΕῖΝ may be regarded differently. Hofmann takes them to be in substance identical; Heydenreich takes the latter as an explanation of the former, “showing how and by what means God wishes to effect the salvation of all;” he therefore regards the ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς Τ. ἈΛ. as the means of the σωτηρία. So, too, Winer (p. 514 [E. T. p. 692]): “at first the general purpose is mentioned (ΚΑΊ, and in pursuance of this), then the immediate purpose (as a means of attaining the other).” It is explained in the same way by Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and others. But it seems more natural to regard the ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙς Τῆς ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς as the goal to which the rescue (ΣΩΘῆΝΑΙ) leads (so, too, Plitt).[88]

[87] Mosheim (Instit. Hist. Eccles. maj. I. 36): Id sanctus homo tradit: nisi pax in orbe terrarum vigeat, fieri nullo modo posse, ut voluntati divinae, quae omnium hominum salutem cupit, satisfiat; bellis nimirum flagrantibus haud licuisset legatis Jesu Christi, secure ad omnes populos proficisei.

[88] In this verse the idea of the universality of God’s purpose of salvation is clearly and distinctly expressed. Calvin, in order to save his theory of predestination, has to take refuge in an exposition more than ingenious: de hominum generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est; nihil enim aliud intendit, quam principes et extraneos, populos in hoc numero includere.

1 Timothy 2:5. Εἷς γὰρ Θεός] The particle γάρ connects this verse with the thought immediately preceding (Wiesinger), and not, as Leo and Mack think, with the exhortation to pray for all.[89] The apostle wishes by it to confirm the idea of the universality of the divine purpose of salvation as true and necessary: he does this first by pointing to the unity of God. There is a quite similar connection of ideas in Romans 3:30 (emphasis is laid on God’s unity in another connection in 1 Corinthians 8:6, and, in a third connection, in Ephesians 4:6). From the unity of God, it necessarily follows that there is only one purpose regarding all; for if there were various purposes for various individuals, the Godhead would be divided in its nature. As there is one God, however, so also there is one Mediator.

εἷς καὶ μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων] The word ΜΕΣΊΤΗς[90] occurs elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles only in Galatians 3:19-20, where the name is given to Moses, because through him God revealed the law to the people. Elsewhere in the N. T. the word is found only in Hebrews 8:6; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24, and in connection with διαθήκης, from which, however, it cannot (with Schleiermacher and de Wette) be concluded that the idea mediator refers necessarily to the corresponding idea covenant. Christ is here named the μεσίτης Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, because He is inter Deum et homines constitutus (Tertullian). He is the Mediator for both, in so far as only through Him does God accomplish His purpose of salvation (His θέλειν) regarding men, and in so far as only through Him can men reach the goal appointed them by God (σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγν. ἀλ. ἐλθεῖν). Hofmann says: “He is the means of bringing about the relation in which God wishes to stand towards men, and in which men ought to stand towards God.” As with the unity of God, so also is the unity of the Mediator a surety for the truth of the thought expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4, that God’s θέλειν refers to all men.

To define it more precisely, Paul adds: ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς. This addition may not, as Otto and others assume, have been occasioned by opposition to the docetism of the heretics. In other epistles of the N. T. special emphasis is laid on Christ’s humanity, with no such opposition to suggest it; thus Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21; Php 2:7; Hebrews 2:16-17. In this passage the reason for it is contained first in the designation of Christ as the μεσίτης (Theodoret: ἄνθρωπον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ὠνόμασεν, ἐπειδὴ μεσίτην ἐκάλεσεν· ἐνανθρωπήσας γὰρ ἐμεσίτευσεν); and further, in the manner in which Christ carried out His work of mediation, i.e., as the next verse informs us, by giving Himself up to death.[91]

[89] Van Oosterzee confuses the two references: “God’s universal purpose of salvation is here established in such a way that at the same time there is to a certain extent (!) an indication of a third motive for performing Christian intercessions.”

[90] Regarding the use of the word in classical Greek, comp. Cremer, s.v.—There is no necessity for Cremer’s opinion, that μεσίτης in the passages of Hebrews does not so much mean “mediator” as “surety.”

[91] The ἀνθρώπων suggested the ἄνθρωπος all the more naturally, that in the apostle’s consciousness the σωτηρία of men could be wrought only by a man. Only a man could reconcile men with God; only, indeed, the man of whom it was said ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί (chap. 1 Timothy 3:16). Hofmann supposes that Christ Jesus is here called ἄνθρωπος, “in order to say that, as He became man to be mediator, He is therefore the mediator and saviour not of this or of that man, but of all men without distinction.” This thought, however, is more the ground of the εἷς, for even the mediator “of this or that man” might also be a man.

1 Timothy 2:6. Ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτὸν ἀντίλυτρον ὑπὲρ πάντων] The word ἀντίλυτρον, which occurs only here, is synonymous with ἀντάλλαγμα in Matthew 16:26; it is distinguished from the simple λύτρον, as Matthies rightly remarks, only in this, that the preposition makes the idea of exchange still more emphatic. According to the usage of the N. T., there can be no doubt that the apostle here alludes to Christ’s reconciling death; comp., besides Titus 2:14, Matthew 20:28, etc., especially 1 Peter 1:18-19, where the τίμιον αἷμα is mentioned as the means by which we are redeemed. The expression δοὺς ἑαυτόν has here—where ἀντίλυτρον is added by way of apposition to ἑαυτόν (as in Matthew 20:28, λύτρον is in apposition to τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ)—the emphatic meaning of self-surrender to death, as in Titus 2:14, Galatians 1:4 (comp. also in John 6:51, ἣν [τὴν σάρκα μου] δώσω, which, indeed, is uncertain critically), where δοὺς ἑαυτόν has the same meaning as παραδοὺς ἑαυτόν in Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:25 (comp., too, Romans 8:32). He gave Himself as a ransom by giving Himself up to death. The thought on which it is based is this: men were held ἐν τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ σκότους (Colossians 1:13); from this they could not free themselves (τί δώσει ἄνθρωπος ἀντάλλαγμα τῆς ψυχῆς αὑτοῦ, Matthew 16:26); Christ therefore gave the ἀντίλυτρον necessary to free them; this ransom is Himself (δοὺς ἑαυτόν), i.e. His life: τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ, Matthew 20:28; so that by this, σωτηρία is purchased for them. This, however, was done for the benefit not of some, but of all. Hence Paul adds expressly ὑπὲρ (equivalent to: in commodum[92]) ΠΆΝΤΩΝ, which is emphatic, and with which he returns to the beginning of 1 Timothy 2:4. In this, as at 1 Timothy 1:15, the apostle revealed the substance of the ὙΓΙΑΊΝΟΥΣΑ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑ, only that here he defines his former expression more precisely.

In order, however, that this act of love on the Lord’s part may bring forth its fruit, it must be proclaimed to the world; this is indicated in the words that follow.

ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ ΚΑΙΡΟῖς ἸΔΊΟΙς] ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ is not to be taken as in apposition to ἈΝΤΊΛΥΤΡΟΝ, and explained of the death of Christ (Chrysostom: ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ ΤῸ ΠΆΘΟς); it is to be regarded as in apposition to the thought contained in the previous words of this verse (not “to the whole of what was previously said,” Hofmann). This does not mean, however, that τὸ μαρτύριον denotes Christ’s gift of Himself as a ransom (or “Christ’s sacrifice”), to be “the witness of salvation set forth at the appointed time, the historical fact that the divine purpose of salvation is realized” (Matthies);[93] for ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ is not the deed itself, but the attestation, the proclamation of the deed; comp. 1 Corinthians 1:6; 1 Corinthians 2:1. Nor does it mean that by ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ we are to understand the testimonium, quod Deus per Christi vitam, doctrinam et mortem protulit, vera esse ea omnia et rata, quae V. T. prophetae fore divinaverant (Heinrichs), for there is nothing to indicate an allusion to O. T. prophecy. The act of Christ already mentioned is called ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ, in so far as this was its meaning and purpose. Bengel: ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ acc. absol. ut ἜΝΔΕΙΓΜΑ, 2 Thessalonians 1:5, innuitur testimonium redemtionis universalis.[94] The reason why the preaching of the gospel is called ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ, is that its subject is an historical fact, the importance of which becomes known only by individual experience.

ΚΑΙΡΟῖς ἸΔΊΟΙς] “is to be connected with ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟΝ, just as if it were connected with ΤῸ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΎΜΕΝΟΝ” (Hofmann); the same expression is found in 1 Timothy 6:15; Titus 1:3; also Galatians 6:9 (Acts 17:26 : ΚΑΙΡΟῚ ΠΡΟΤΕΤΑΓΜΈΝΟΙ); Chrysostom: ΤΟῖς ΠΡΟΣΉΚΟΥΣΙ ΚΑΙΡΟῖς.

[92] Van Oosterzee asserts, without reason, that ὑπέρ here is to be taken in the sense of substitution.

[93] Leo’s explanation is substantially the same as this: Quae Christus, inquit apostolus, ad homines servandos fecit, ea sunt ipsius Dei testimonium. Quid vero testatus est Deus eo, quod Jesum Christum mori passus est? Quid aliud, quam amorem suum in genus humanum plane incomparabilem?

[94] Van Oosterzee believes that μαρτύριον here must be taken as in apposition to ἀντίλυτρον, the apostle calling the Lord’s surrender of Himself the great μαρτύριον, with special reference to the truth mentioned in ver. 4. But against this it is to be remarked, that this explanation does not give a right definition of the relation of apposition, nor of the meaning and purpose of the μαρτύριον.

1 Timothy 2:7. This verse defines more precisely the previous μαρτύριον; it was for proclaiming the μαρτύριον that the apostle received the office entrusted to him. The chief emphasis rests on the universality; the subject of the μαρτύριον is the fact that Christ gave Himself a ransom for all.

εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κήρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος] Comp. on this, Ephesians 3:1-12; Colossians 1:25-28; 2 Timothy 1:9-11.

εἰς ὅ: for which (μαρτύριον), viz. “for proclaiming which.” ἐτέθην is to be taken in close connection with κήρυξ κ.τ.λ.

κήρυξ, it is true, only occurs here and in 2 Timothy 1:11 as a name for the preacher of the gospel (in 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is called a κήρυξ δικαιοσύνης); but κηρύσσειν is used very frequently of the preaching of the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 1:21, κήρυγμα is identical with εὐαγγέλιον. In order to direct attention to his peculiar apostolic authority, Paul adds to the general idea of κήρυξ, the more specific expression ἀπόστολος. By the addition of ἀλήθειαν λέγω, οὐ ψεύδομαι, the truth of the εἰς ὅ is confirmed;[95] he explains himself sufficiently on account of the heretics who wished that Paul should not be considered an apostle by the appointment of God.

The further definition: ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΟς ἘΘΝῶΝ, is to be taken in apposition to ΚΉΡΥΞ Κ. ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς. It was added to make clearer the reference to the heathen already indicated in ΕἸς Ὅ, not, as Hofmann thinks, to form an apposition to the subject of ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑΝ ΛΈΓΩ; had that been so, we should have had an emphatic ἘΓΏ. The connected words ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ do not form the object of ΔΙΔ. (Heydenreich takes it as “equivalent to ἘΝ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ Τῇ ἈΛΗΘΙΝῇ, a teacher of the Gentiles who is to instruct them in the true religion”); they are loosely added, according to a common usage of the N. T., and denote here the sphere in which he was appointed to discharge his office as teacher of the Gentiles. The peculiar point of view must not be lost by arbitrarily changing the words into ἘΝ Τῇ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ Τ. ἈΛΗΘΙΝῇ, or, as Leo does, into ΠΙΣΤῸς ΚΑῚ ἈΛΗΘΙΝΌς. It is wrong also to render ΠΊΣΤΙς here by “faithfulness,” and ἈΛΉΘ. by “verity” (Hofmann: ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ, equivalent to “faithfully,” and ἘΝ ἈΛΗΘΕΊᾼ to “in verity”). ΠΊΣΤΙς is faith, the subjective relation, and ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑ is truth, the objective benefit, appropriated in faith (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee).[96]

[95] Wiesinger less suitably refers the addition to the διδ. ἐθνῶν, which in that case should have been preceded by a καί. Otto (p. 117) unjustifiably uses this asseveration of the apostle to confirm his assertion that the epistle was written during the apostle’s stay at Ephesus, insisting that Paul, after he was put in prison in Jerusalem, was acknowledged an apostle in all Christian churches, and from that time, therefore, had no occasion for this asseveration. Apart from other points, Otto errs in referring the words ἀλήθειαν κ.τ.λ. only to the expression ἀπόστολος, whereas they apply to the entire thought in εἰς ὃ κ.τ.λ. Paul does not make asseveration that he was appointed an apostle, but that he was appointed an apostle of the μαρτύριον, the subject of which he had already mentioned. Comp. on this the passages quoted above.

[96] Bengel seems to take the words in a sense corresponding to the formula of asseveration, ἀληθ. λέγω κ.τ.λ. He says in regard to this formula: “pertinet haec affirmatio ad comma praecedens; nam subsequenti additur parallela: ἐν π. καὶ ἀληθ.;” a view for which there is no justification.—Matthies expresses himself somewhat obscurely; for while he in the first place mentions faith and truth not only as the elements, but also as the aims of the teaching, he says at the end of the discussion: “The apostle is teacher of the Gentiles in such a way that he knows himself to be impregnably established thereby in faith and truth.”