Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 1:14 - 1:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_1:14. The last words might be so explained as to weaken seemingly the divine grace; and therefore the apostle feels bound to set forth its abundant riches.
ὑπερεπλεόνασε δὲ ἡ χάρις κ . τ . λ .] The verb ὑπερπλεονάζειν only occurs here in the N. T., and is not current in classical Greek. The simple πλεονάζειν , with the classic writers, means: “to be more, i.e. than the measure demands, therefore to go beyond the measure;” but in several passages of the N. T. it has clearly the meaning: “become more, therefore increase, grow larger.” Comp. 2Th_1:3 (synon. with ὑπεραυξάνειν ); Rom_5:20; Rom_6:1 (Meyer: accumulate); so also Php_4:17 and 2Co_4:15 (Meyer has there: “become abundant … increase,” and here: “be increased”). The prefix ὑπερ serves, with Paul, to strengthen the idea with which it is joined; thus ὑπεραυξάνει , 2Th_1:3; ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ , Eph_3:20; ὑπερλίαν , 2Co_11:5, al. In Rom_5:20, ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν seems to mean that the ἐπλεόνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία was surpassed by the χάρις (so Meyer; Hofmann differs). If we assume here this reference of surpassing, we cannot regard ἠλεήθην as the thing surpassed. For χάρις cannot be regarded as something surpassing ἔλεος ;[66] but ὑπερ in that case would have to be referred to τὸ πρότερον ὄντα βλάσφημον κ . τ . λ . Hence the apostle’s meaning in ὑπερεπλεόνασεν would be that grace was manifested to him in abundant measure, far surpassing his enmity (so in a former edition of this commentary); but in that case ἀλλὰ ἠλεήθην κ . τ . λ . would be parenthetical. It is more correct not to assume such a reference here, but to explain ὑπερπλεονάζειν : “to go (abundantly) beyond the measure” (Plitt, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). The apostle added ὑπερεπλ . ἡ χάρις to ἠλεήθην , because the latter expression did not seem enough to his mind, which was penetrated by the unbounded greatness of the grace he had experienced. “It is as though he wrestles with speech in order to find some sufficient expression for the feeling which quite overpowers him” (van Oosterzee). The particle δέ belongs to the relation of climax existing between the two clauses, as in Heb_12:6; it corresponds to the English yea or aye in a climax.[67]
ΜΕΤᾺ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς ΚΑῚ ἈΓΆΠΗς ] The preposition ΜΕΤΆ with the genitive serves to connect the fact with the points that accompany it. ΠΊΣΤΙς and ἈΓΆΠΗ therefore are, properly speaking, not mentioned as results of the ΧΆΡΙς , but as blessings immediately connected with ΧΆΡΙς . They form, as de Wette says, the subjective side of the condition of grace. Leo is right, therefore, in saying: “verbis ΜΕΤᾺ Κ . Τ . Λ . indicatur, Π . Κ . ἈΓ . quasi comites fuisse illius ΧΆΡΙΤΟς ” (so also Plitt and van Oosterzee); but he is wrong, if he means that Paul added these words to tell in what the grace was manifested as ὙΠΕΡΠΛΕΟΝΆΖΟΥΣΑ .
By ΠΊΣΤΙς Κ . ἈΓ . Ἡ ἘΝ ΧΡ . Ἰ . we are not to understand God’s faithfulness and love in Christ, nor the apostle’s endeavour to bring others to faith and love; nor, again, is ἘΝ to be explained by ΔΙΆ or by ΕἸς . The words Τῆς ἘΝ ΧΡ . Ἰ . are added to Τῆς ἈΓΆΠΗς , and mark the love as one “that has its ground and middle-point in Christ” (Matthies); cf. 2Ti_1:13. It is doubtful whether the addition is to be referred also to ΠΊΣΤΕΩς (for this Matthies, Plitt, van Oosterzee; against it, Hofmann); since ΠΊΣΤΕΩς does not properly require it, it might be better to limit the reference to ἈΓΆΠΗς .[68] “In contrasting his former ἈΠΙΣΤΊΑ with his present increasing ΠΊΣΤΙς Κ . ἈΓ .” (Heydenreich), Paul does not lose sight of the heresy which did not effect ΟἸΚΟΝΟΜΊΑ ΘΕΟῦ ἘΝ ΠΊΣΤΕΙ (1Ti_1:4), and had not the ἈΓΆΠΗ (1Ti_1:5) as its goal.
[66] Chrysostom: οὐκ ἐτιμωρήθην · ἠλεήθην γὰρ , ἀρʼ οὖν τοῦτο μόνον , καὶ μέχρι τούτου ὁ ἔλεος , τοῦ μὴ δοῦναι τιμωρίαν ; οὐδαμῶς · ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερα πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα , διὰ τοῦτο φησίν · ὑπερεπλ . ἡ χάρις , δηλῶν , ὅτι ὑπερέβη καὶ τὸν ἔλεον τὰ δῶρα · ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ ἐλεοῦντός ἐστιν , ἀλλὰ φιλοῦντος καὶ σφόδρα ἀγαπῶντος . Similarly Leo. In this view the force of ἠλεήθην is arbitrarily weakened.
[67] Hofmann explains δέ as ranking another fact with the one already mentioned; but in ἠλεήθην and ὑπερεπλ . ἡ χάρις we have not two different facts, but one and the same fact—though expressed in two different ways.
[68] Hofmann alleges against the connection with πίστεως , that “ ἐν would have a different meaning when joined with πίστεως ; according to Eph_1:15; Col_1:4;” but his reason is without force, as this other reference is here cut off by the intervening ἀγάπης .