Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 1:13 - 1:13
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_1:13. Τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον κ . τ . λ .] τὸ πρότερον is equivalent to the adverb πρότερον , just as, in Mat_26:45, τὸ λοιπόν is equivalent to λοιπόν . The participle stands here in the relation of contrast to what precedes: “though I was before,” or “I who was nevertheless.”
βλάσφημον ] only here as a substantive; comp. on this Act_26:11. For the most part, the idea of βλασφημία is used in reference to what is divine (Suidas: ἡ εἰς Θεὸν ὕβρις ).
καὶ διώκτην ] Leo says: “Paulus non dictis tantum sed etiam factis furuerat in Christianos;” the word occurs only here in the N. T.; on the subject-matter, comp. Act_22:4; Gal_1:13.
καὶ ὑβριστήν ] also in Rom_1:30. Luther translates “reviler,” but Wegscheider: “one who does violence.” Neither translation expresses the full meaning as it is given in Tittmann’s (Syn. p. 74) explanation: “qui prae superbia non solum contemnit alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractat, et injuriis afficit.” Ὑβρίζειν denotes the arrogant conduct of another, whether in words or in actions.
The context leads us to think of Christ’s work, or Christ Himself, as the object of the apostle’s blasphemy.
Having judged his former conduct in straightforward fashion, Paul goes on to contrast with it the grace of the Lord: ἀλλʼ ἠλεήθην , adding, however, by way of explanation: ὅτι ἀγνοῶν ἐποίησα ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ . De Wette is not correct in supposing that the intended aim of these words is to furnish some excuse for himself.[63]
ἠλεήθην ] (Luther: “to my lot did compassion fall”) is not to be limited to the pardon of his persecuting fury (Matthies: “to me was my mad eagerness in persecution most graciously forgiven”), but should be taken more generally of the grace imparted to the apostle.[64]
ἈΓΝΟῶΝ ] (comp. Rom_10:2 : ΖῆΛΟΝ ΘΕΟῦ ἜΧΩΝ , ἈΛΛʼ Οὐ ΚΑΤʼ ἘΠΊΓΝΩΣΙΝ ), i.e. without knowing how grievously I sinned therein. The reason of this unconsciousness was ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ . Mack is wrong in inverting the relation, as if the apostle added ἘΝ ἈΠΙΣΤΊᾼ to explain his ἌΓΝΟΙΑ . How far the ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ was one to be blamed, Paul does not here say: the idea is to be taken in its purely negative form. It was not this, but the ἌΓΝΟΙΑ grounded on it, which lessened his guilt.[65]
[63] Wiesinger: “The words are not intended to exculpate his acts, but to explain wherein the power of divine grace began to work on him.” Similarly Plitt, van Oosterzee, and others.
[64] Otto wrongly finds in ἠλεήθην a special reference to the fact that Paul “was entrusted with the ministry of the word.”—What precedes in ver. 12 might seem to support this, but what follows is entirely against such a limitation of the thought.
[65] Hofmann wrongly takes ἐν ἀπιστίᾳ as in pure apposition to the participle ἀγνοῶν , and maintains that ἀγνοεῖν is not always an ignorance which simply does not even know, but a misconception of something which it should have known. But this more precise reference is clearly not contained in the words themselves.