Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:14 - 3:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Weightiness of the preceding admonition for the Church
1Ti_3:14-16
1Ti_3:15. But if I tarry long, &c. It might happen that the expectation of Paul to return soon would be disappointed; and in order to prevent any embarrassment to Timothy, he writes him the necessary instructions. Âñáäýíù , the same word used 2Pe_3:9 of the promise of Christ’s coming. That Paul will meet Timothy in Corinth, to go with him to Macedonia (Otto), is a conjecture, only forced on the text to favor a pet hypothesis.—How thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God. The expression has a general sense, although it apparently refers to Timothy in particular. The explanatory óå has this degree of weight (Luther, too, reads, how thou shouldst behave); but critically the evidence is too weak to admit it into the text. See Tischendorf on this passage.— ἈíáóôñÝöåóèáé means not Christian life in general, but here the life of the Christian officer, which belonged to Timothy and his fellow-episcopi. The scene of this ἀíáóôñïöÞ is the house of God, the Christian community not exclusively in Ephesus, but in general.—House of God, ïἶêïò Èåïῦ . It is well known how frequently this scriptural expression occurs in the other letters of Paul; most strikingly 1Co_3:9—17. If the temple at Jerusalem, as well as Israel itself, the Old Testament people, bore this name (Mat_21:13; Heb_3:2; Heb_3:5), it might certainly be used with greater truth of the Church of the New Testament. It is the house whose owner is God, since He built it, inhabits it, and will complete it in His own way and time (comp. Lisco, “Parables of Jesus,” 4th ed., p. 505). The conception of inward unity, as well as of indestructible steadfastness, is obviously expressed in this word. These attributes are possessed by the Christian church, because it is the house of the living God. Bengel’s remark is deeply spiritual: “Ecclesia Dei viventis opponitur fano Dianæ Ephesiorum. Vita Dei fundamentum spei nostræ,” cap. i1Tim 1Ti_3:10, et fons veritatis, h. l.—Pillar and ground of the truth. We have thus reached by degrees one of the most difficult passages in these Epistles. The words which are chiefly to be discussed offer nothing doubtful in a literal sense. Óôýëïò is the support on which the roof of a house rests, its upholding pillar (comp. Rev_3:12; Gal_2:9). Wahl says very truly: “Omne id, cui ut primario et præ ceteris insigni innititur aliquid.” Ἑäñáßùìá means the ground, the foundation (comp. èåìÝëéïò , 2Ti_2:19), which is as necessary for the stability of the whole house. Pillar and ground of the truth can only refer to the religious truth personally revealed and manifest in Christ. But now the question is, whether these words are in apposition to ïἶêïò ôïῦ èåïῦ æῶíôïò just before, or belong to êáὶ ὁìïëïãïõìÝíùò , ê . ô . ë ., just following them. Both constructions have been often defended and attacked with alternate success by learned and devout men. In De Wette and Huther may be found the names of the various champions of either view. Here, where we do not aim at strict exegetical discussions, but rather to give the results of our own inquiries, we shall simply state why the latter view, as is seen in our translation, seems preferable to the former. The statement of Paul’s design in the preceding portion is already closed with 1Ti_3:15; and while the description of the church as the house of the living God has a good and valid sense, the following phrase, “a pillar and ground of the truth,” if it be considered as an addition to this figurative expression, is exceedingly dull and heavy. It is most improbable that the Apostle should in one breath describe the church, which he has called an ïἶêïò , as also a óôῦëïò êáὶ ἑäñáßùìá . We cannot possibly expect such a violation of all æsthetic rule from a man like Paul. The conception of the church as such a pillar and ground of the truth, is indeed quite explicable in a sound sense, yet it is in itself far from clear and as far from Pauline (comp. 1Co_3:11). But if the new proposition (1Ti_3:16) begins with the words êáß äìïë . ìÝãá , then the copulative êáß is entirely without a purpose, and a singular commencement, too, of a proposition. We need not here recall the misuse made by Romish interpreters of the idea: “The church a pillar of the truth” (comp. Calvin on this passage). A striking view of this conception of the church, as columna veritatis, in the Protestant light, is given by Melanchthon on this sentence.—For all these reasons, we believe that we are right in beginning, with óôῦëïò , a new proposition, which continues to the end of the chapter. It must be granted that the construction remains singular and hard: óôýëïò êáὶ ἑäñáßùìá ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò êáß ὁìïëïãïõìÝíùò ìÝãá ἐóôὶ ôὸ ôῆò åὐóåâåßáò ìõóôÞñéïí ; especially the article ôὸ had best be removed, if, according to our view, óôῦëïò … ἀëçè . is the predicate of ôῆò åὐóåâ . ìõóô . Yet we do not find this objection so overwhelming, as Grotius and others do, against our construction. The evolution of thought is rapid; the Apostle speaks so forcibly, that he does not painfully weigh and arrange his words. The representation of the ὅò ἐöáí ., ê . ô . ë ., in 1Ti_3:16, directly after, as not only a ìõóôÞñéïí ôῆò åὐóåâåßáò , but as likewise a óôýëïò ê . ἑäñáßùìá ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò , the denial and opposition to which is fully noticed 1Ti_4:1, is entirely in the Apostle’s spirit; who, as we know already in earlier letters, gives a special importance to the essentials of the gospel. If a new chapter had been begun with the words, “a pillar and ground of the truth,” the whole connection would perhaps have been viewed in another light. The interpretation of óôýëïò êáὶ ἑäñáßùìá ôῆò ἀëçè . as referring solely to Timothy, deserves scarcely any notice save as an exegetical oddity. To exhort a pillar to behave itself ( ἀíáóôñÝöåóèáé ), sounds a little hyperbolical. Only three of the foremost Apostles are called óôýëïé , Gal_2:9; but never their associates.
1Ti_3:16. And without controversy great, &c., Êáὶ ὁìïëïã . ìÝãá , ê . ô . ë . This must, as óôýëïò êáὶ ἑäñ ., be regarded as the introduction of the summary statement ὅò ἐöáíåñ ., ê . ô . ë . ÌõóôÞñéïí is the Pauline expression for that truth, before hidden, now brought to light (see Eph_3:3-5); ìõóô . ôῆò åõ ʼ óåâåßáò , that which is the object of åὐóåâ ., like ìõóô . ô . ðßóô . (1Ti_3:9); whence it appears that the translation, a godly mystery (Luther), is somewhat arbitrary. This mystery is great, not wholly unfathomable (comp. Mat_13:12), deep in meaning, weighty (comp. 1Co_9:11), confessedly great, ὁìïëïãïõìÝíùò ; not strictly, made known (Luther), but rather in the sense of indubitable, secundum id quod in confesso est apud omnes. Summa; a mystery now revealed, whose weight and worth no Christian can doubt. What, now, is this mystery? The very thing called óôýëïò ê . ἑäñáßùìá ô . ἁë . The phrase lacks, indeed, in a degree, the climax which we might here expect; but this difficulty vanishes when we balance against it the fact that the Apostle has expressed his meaning first in a tropic, then in a literal mode; whilst the following clauses show now in their order what the subject is which was called improprie a pillar and ground, proprie a mystery of godliness. The remark of Wiesinger, following Schleiermacher, that the third adjective of definition, ὁìïëïã . ìÝãá , cannot grammatically be connected with two predicates like óôýëïò and ἑäñáßùìá , seems to us at least without any proof. [The reference of the “pillar and ground” to the church, is more strongly sustained by exegetical argument, both by writers of older and later times, than this view of our author. Huther, Schleiermacher, and Wiesinger, among many, hold the grammatical construction to point to ἐêêëçóßá . Alford has perhaps summed the evidence as concisely as any of our English expositors; and in his view the structure of the whole passage demands this application. His answer to the chief objection offered by our commentator, on the score of good taste, seems sufficient, viz., that the ïἶêïò contains in itself pillar and basement. Conybeare is one of the few who apply the phrase to Timothy; but this sense seems frigid, and unworthy of this great passage. There is a striking suggestion of Arnold, which may well be added: “If the words are to be applied to the church, they do not describe what it is de facto, but what it ought to be. Take care that no error through thy fault creep into that church, which was designed by God to be nothing but a pillar and basis of truth;” “Life and Letters,” p. 31, 1Ti_5:2, Amer. ed.—W.]—God was manifest in the flesh [Who was manifest in the flesh, in the German version]. The translation given above expresses already our probable judgment on this well-known crux criticorum. We can with a good critical conscience wholly agree with the steadily increasing number who regard neither èåüò nor ὅ , but ὅò , as the original reading. See Tischendorf, N. T., ed. 7, on this passage; and compare the very valuable Excursus ad 1Ti_3:16 in his edition of the Codex Ephr Syri rescriptus, 1843. The Codex Sinaiticus has also confirmed the reading ὅò as the only true one. Paul might, indeed, from his Christological standpoint, have very justly written èåüò ; but it does not at all follow that he has done so. It is hardly credible that the original reading èåüò should have been changed to èåὅò ; but very explicable that the original ὅò should have been changed to èåüò . Were èåüò the true reading (Matthäi, Scholz, Rinck), it would be passing strange that such decisive proof-texts should never have been used by the orthodox church fathers in the Arian and other controversies; and, again, Cyril, in his reply to the Emperor Julian, who denied that Paul had ever called Christ èåüò , has not appealed in a word to this passage, as he would almost surely have done had he known the Lectio Recepta. Besides, we find in the following clauses several expressions (e.g., ὤöèç ἀããÝëïéò and ἀíåëÞöèç ἐí äüîῃ ) which could hardly be used of God absolutely, but only of the èåüò öáíåñùèåßò . For all these reasons, the reading ὅò is not only critically but exegetically proved to be best; and the view often expressed, that it is an heretical corruption of the text, is quite exploded. To the question, whether we should supply an ïὗôïò after ὅò before ἐäéêáéþèç , or whether all the clauses following this refer to a subject not further named in 1Ti_3:16, we must answer by the latter opinion. The designation of the ìõóô . ô . åὐóåâ . has the character of a proposition, to which the apodosis is wanting; and this fragmentary style of the whole expression confirms yet more the conjecture, based on the metrical sequence of the words, and already affirmed by many, that we have here a part of an ancient Christian hymn. The unnamed subject of the proposition in 1Ti_3:16 can be only Christ; and although the reading èåüò , in our view, is not critically justified, the passage still contains, by the reading ὅò ἐöáíåñþèç , a proof indirect but unquestionable of the Divine-human nature and dignity of the Lord. Manifest in the flesh can only be said of Him who, before His incarnation, was personally with the Father. Nay, more; it is possible to keep the reading ὅò , with Tischendorf, yet avoid all the difficulties which might possibly come from a surrender of the Recepta, if we consider the clause, Óôýëïò ê . ἑäñ . … ìõóôÞñéïí , as a long parenthesis, and thus read the text, 1Ti_3:15-16 : “ ἵíá åἰäῆ ̣ ò ðῶò äåῖ ἐí ïἴêῳ èåïῦ ἀíáóôñÝöåóèáé ἥôéò ἐóôὶí ἐêêëçóßá èåïῦ æῶíôïò ( óôýëïò êáὶ ἑäñáßùìá ôῆò ἀëçèåßáò êáὶ ὁìïëïãïõìÝíùò ìÝãá ἐóôὶ ôὸ ôῆò åὐóåâåßáò ìõóôÞñéïí !) ὅò ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí óáñêὶ , ê . ô . ë .” This conjecture appears to us the simplest and most natural in the treatment of a passage so often interpreted and misinterpreted. If it be true, then the reading èåüò is critically untenable; yet it is a right exposition of the Apostle’s meaning, since ὅò reverts directly to èåïῦ æῶíôïò . That the Apostle often uses long parentheses, appears, among several instances, from Rom_2:13-15. That he does it here, will seem less extraordinary when we consider the fulness and rapid succession of thoughts in this part of his letter. We readily grant, moreover, that objections may be raised against this view by those especially who regard óôýëïò ê . ἑäñáßùìá as in apposition with ἐêêëçóßá ô . èåïῦ æῶíôïò . But this last view seems to us unsustained; and thus the only question is, in the choice of the many expositions, which has the fewest difficulties? We have from our point of view the double advantage, that we need neither violate our critical conscience, nor surrender a dictum probans for the divinity of Christ.—Manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit. Six connected clauses, which, in the original especially, have a very euphonic and metrical character.—Manifest in the flesh. Man is flesh; the Son of God is manifest in the flesh, since He came forth from the Father, with whom He personally pre-existed (1Jn_1:2). The birth of the Lord is the starting-point of this manifestation; its scene His whole earthly life. Bengel: “Hæc manifestatio dicit totam occonomiam Christi, oculis quondam mortalium conspicui.” If the excellence of this Divine manifestation is misjudged and despised by many, yet God has confirmed it in the most undoubted way. Ἐäéêáéþèç ἐí ðíåýìáôé ; He is proved to be the very Person He truly was (for this sense of justified, comp. Luk_7:35). He is by His divine glory known ἐí ðíåýìáôé , not as Spirit (Baur), but in the Spirit, whereby this His äéêáßùäéò is effected. The Spirit who dwells and works in Him, not by measure (Joh_3:34), and raised Him at last from the dead (Rom_1:3-4), reveals Him in His high nature and dignity. We have here, without any arbitrary severance of the connection, a reference to all by which His divine origin is made known (comp. Joh_1:14). In what way has this wondrous announcement of this wondrous manifestation been given? Paul answers in the two following clauses.—Seen of angels, ὤöèç ἀããÝëïéò ; not the Apostles, which would not be the common use of the word, but the angels of heaven, who often ministered to Him in the days of His humiliation (Mat_4:11; Luk_22:43), and to whom, after His resurrection, He revealed Himself in His godlike glory. The power of Christ over these heavenly beings is not here meant (Mack), but the vision of His glory by those who wonder at the brightness which they have never before seen, or at least not in such perfection. Comp. 1Pe_1:12; Eph_3:10; Heb_1:6. Chrysostom: “ Ὥóôå êáὶ ἄããåëïé ìåè ̓ ἡìῶí åἶäïí ôὸí õἱὸí ôïῦ èåïῦ , ðñüôåñïí ïὐ÷ ὁñῶíôåò .” “He alludes probably to a heavenly scene, the contrast of the descent into hell;” De Wette. If we take èåüò as the subject of this clause, we may perhaps find expressed here the thought, that God, through His manifestation in Christ, has been revealed in a higher light before the angels. Whatever the truth of this, He who has thus revealed Himself in heaven, has not been forgotten on earth.—Preached unto the Gentiles. Ἐèíç ., in a general sense, implying that the nations have received, through the preaching of the gospel, the same truth which the angels received by vision—the glory of Christ, the Lord. Wiesinger justly says: “It is a new commandment to both; and the mystery lies in this union of heaven and earth around His person, in this wonderful blending of such entire opposites.” It is not the contrast between Jew and heathen, but between human and superhuman beings, which the Apostle directly regards.—The third couplet denotes, finally, the results of this whole manifestation, and its announcement. It had not been in vain. It was believed on in the world, ἐðéóôåýèç ἐí êüóìῳ . This last word must be here taken in an ethical sense, quite like 1Jn_2:15; 1Jn_5:19. Amidst the multitude of those who reject Him, the Son of God has found faith with many where He has been preached (comp. 2Th_1:10); and is finally received up into glory, ἀíåëÞöèç ἐí äüîῃ . It is the most natural view to refer this to the ascension of the Lord (comp. Luk_24:40; Luk_24:51); nor is it any insuperable difficulty that the foregoing clauses in part allude to a period after His ascension, since the Apostle does not design to give a chronological view of the events in the life of Jesus. Meanwhile, we need not refer this last clause ( ἀíåëÞöèç ἐí äüîῃ ) to the ascension exclusively, any more than the first ( ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí óáñêß ) to the nativity of Christ. We may embrace in the conception His whole heavenly life in glory, taking the expression per attractionem; ἀíåëÞöèç åἰò äüîáí , êáὶ ἐóôὶí ἐí äüîῃ . Calvin: “Ergo sicuti in mundo quoad fidei obedientiam ita et in Christo personâ mira fuit conversio, dum ex tam abjectâ servi conditione erectus est ad dexteram Patris, ut illi flectatur omne genu.” The three couplets thus bring before our vision the advancing glory of this Divine manifestation in Christ in a series of acts, whose beginning is the earth, whose closing is in heaven. It may appear, perhaps, an incidental feature, that the whole consists of two chief divisions, of which earth has two subdivisions; the first two embracing the events on earth, the third those of heaven (Huther). In any case, Paul has not arranged this division in such an order by any arbitrary rule of art. We probably, therefore, have, as already suggested by Winer, Wiesinger, De Wette, Huther, and others, in this whole passage the fragment of an ancient church hymn (as Eph_5:14), or a symbol of faith, which, when the praise ôïῦ èåïῦ æῶíôïò was sung, perhaps in some strophe. no longer known to us, may have been as follows
Ὅò — ìÝãá ôὸ ìõóôÞñéïí —
ἐöáíåñþèç ἐí óáñêὶ ,
ἐäéêáéþèç ἐí ðíåýìáôé ,
ἐäéêáéþèç ἐí ðíåýìáôé ,
ὤöèç ἀããÝëïéò ,
Ἐêçñý÷èç ἐí ἔèíåóéí ,
ἐðéóôåýèç ἐí êüóìῳ ,
ἀíåëÞöèç ἐí äüîῃ .
All this is, in the Apostle’s view, the great mystery of godliness—the pillar and ground of the truth, on which the house of God (1Ti_3:14) rests unshaken; and it is an apostasy from this in the bosom of the same church to which he looks forward (1Ti_4:1). Compare Rambach, “Anthology of Christian Hymns in all Ages of the Church,” i. p. 33, et seq.
2. The tabernacle and temple of the old covenant, in which it is said that God dwelt in a special manner, were a type of the Christian Church with all its blessings; and Israel, the people of the elder revelation, a pattern of the kingly and priestly race of the new covenant.
3. It is the essential character of Christianity, that it does not rest on abstract conceptions, and inferences of reason, but on undeniable and changeless facts (1Jn_1:1-3). The whole sum of the Christian revelation is in the person and history of its Founder, which the Apostle here condenses in a few words. Each new proposition which he offers opens a new world of Divine wisdom and love. The creed here recorded is not the confession of particular churches, but of the one holy, catholic Church of Christ in all centuries; the oldest formula concordiæ—the standard of the true Church against the unbelieving world, on which a higher hand has written, in hoc signo vinces.
4. The preceding words are most important, as clearly explaining to us the meaning of the ìõóôÞñéïí . The older theology considered mysteries as dogmas, which lie wholly beyond and above the sphere of men, which are to all eternity unsearchable to the finite understanding, and therefore best veiled in a holy obscurity. Paul does not acknowledge many mysteries; he knows one only great mystery, whose chief truth is here revealed; and this is its specific characteristic, that it was before hid, but is now manifest. Yet there is no ground in such a view for the position of modern rationalism, that this mystery, now revealed, may be completely apprehended by man. Even a revealed mystery has its dark, hidden side. The sun, which has been long veiled by the clouds, and suddenly breaks forth in its full light, blinds the eyes as truly as the darkness. “Mysteria quantumvis revelata, vel sic tamen obscura manent” (comp. 1Co_13:11-12). When Paul presents the mystery as the object of the åὐóÝâåéá , he indirectly reproves their arrogance, who think with their bounded understanding to search the deep things of God, instead of keeping them in the sanctuary of a holy heart.
5. This confession of faith is only the fuller exposition of the testimony which the Lord (Joh_16:28) gave of Himself. The last words should not be overlooked, in which the question is answered, whether Paul taught or no the bodily ascension of the Lord Jesus.
Starke: Anton: A Christian minister must not sit always in his study, but must go hither and thither.—Hedinger: The Church may fail, but not fall.—Anton: Behold the Church directly in your sight What it is in God’s eyes, let it be in yours.— ÌõóôÞñéïí . This mystery is great: (1) In its origin, for it comes from the inconceivably and inexpressibly great love of the heavenly Father; (2) in its own character, for who can think or know how it is possible for One greater than all angels, yea, equal to the Father in power and glory, to have been manifest in the flesh; (3) in its purpose, which is the salvation of lost men, lying in the utmost ruin.—The same: The gospel is full of mystery; it must be judged not by the reason, but by God’s revelation (2Co_10:5).—Preachers, who carry into the pulpit an empty babble, which leads not to godliness, are not gospel teachers (1Ti_1:4; 1Ti_4:7).—The mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God, received in faith and shown in godliness, leads to eternal glory (1Ti_4:10; Act_16:30-31).—Heubner: Each Christian community must be a community of the living God.—All Christians must agree in the essential truth of the Christian faith.—Christianity is the holiest and worthiest revelation of God.—The spread of the gospel is an outward enlargement of the glory of Jesus; the greater the number of His worshippers, the greater His kingdom.
Lisco: The inmost kernel of the Christian doctrine of salvation.—The confessedly great and blessed mystery of the Incarnation: (1) A mystery; (2) the godly power which renews our life.
[Bishop Hall, “Mystery of Godliness:” He that should have seen Thee, O Saviour, working in Joseph’s shop, or walking in the fields of Nazareth, would have looked upon Thee as mere man; neither thy garb nor countenance betrayed any difference in Thee from ordinary men. It was Thine all-working and co-essential Spirit, by whose mighty operations Thy divinity was made known to the world.
Bishop Andrewes, Resp. ad Bellarminum, 1Tim 14: We reject not the voice of the Church; nay, we all do venerate it. But the Church to us meaneth not the Pontiff, or the Roman curia; nor, unless you have so prejudged it in your mind, will this title of the Church much advantage you. It is the pillar of the truth, yea, verily; not that the truth is sustained by it, but itself by the truth. This pillar truly hangeth not in the air; it hath a basis: but where, save in the word of God?—W.]
Footnotes:
1Ti_3:16.—See the exegetical explanations. [There are difficulties here both in the proper reading and in the translation. ÏÓ is easily convertible into ÈÓ . In the Oriental Church the powerful Christological interest might easily have overlooked an alteration in the text, which was the result either of inadvertence, or of a design to give greater emphasis to the doctrine of the Incarnation here enunciated. We find that the reading in the Lectionaries, in Chrysostom, Theodoret, John of Damasc., æcumenius, Theophylact, and others, was Èåüò ; but this was not the reading of the great uncial MSS. Bishop Pearson has an elaborate note upon this text (“Creed,” Am. ed., p. 194), in which he assumes, however, that the “Greek copies” all read Èåὸò , which is an error. It is not denied that many of the Greek fathers read Èåὸò ; the question is, what is the evidence that it is the true reading? The reader is referred to the author’s critical remarks.—Nor is the translation easy. Our author is ingenious here, hut not convincing. He brackets the following words: (“Ein Pfeiler und Grundfeste der Wahrheit, und anerkannt gross ist das Geheimniss der Gottseligkeit”) = “a pillar and ground of the truth, and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness.” He thus connects the clause, “great is the mystery of godliness,” with what precedes. It has, indeed, a connection with the foregoing, but not in the way of grammatical structure. We can, with the modern critical editors, place a full period at the end of the 15th verse. Then we can find the logical connection thus: the mystery of godliness is the truth just referred to; the especial substance of that “truth” is then expressed in the words that follow: “Who was manifest,” &c. Yet ὁå creates the greatest difficulty in the way of structure. But it may (so Huther) be regarded as referring to a subject not yet named expressly, but which, of course, must be Christ. Then, if we regard the passage as taken from a current Christian hymn, the difficulty disappears in a measure.—E. H.]