Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:16 - 3:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_3:16. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον ] καί connects what follows with the preceding words, and in such a way as to emphasize the following predicate.
ὁμολογουμένως ] which only occurs here, means neither “manifestly” (Luther), nor “according to the song of praise” (Mack), nor even “correspondingly” (Hofmann[143]); but: “as is acknowledged” (comp. 4Ma_6:31; 4Ma_7:16; 4Ma_16:1; Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 2, ii. 9. 6).
μέγα ] comp. Eph_5:32 ( ΚΑῚ ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ΤΟῦΤΟ ΜΈΓΑ ἘΣΤΊΝ ), has the sense of “important, significant.”
The subject of the sentence: τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον , is a paraphrase of the ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ in the preceding verse. It is so called by the apostle, because, as the substance of the Christian fear of God, or piety, it is hidden from the world: the sense is the same, therefore, as that of ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ Τῆς ΠΊΣΤΕΩς in 1Ti_3:9. It is wrong to translate it, as Luther does: “the blessed secret,” or to explain it: “the doctrine which leads to godliness.” Wiesinger is incorrect in explaining it: “a secret accessible only to godliness;” and Hofmann in saying: “the truth which is of such a nature as to produce godliness where it finds acceptance.”
The purport—i.e. the christological purport—is now given in the next clauses, Paul laying stress on it on account of the polemical tendency of the epistle against the heretics (chap. 4), whose theology and Christology were in contradiction with the gospel.
As to the construction of these clauses, there would be no difficulty with the reading Θεός . If Ὅ be read, it must relate to ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ , which also might be the construction with Ὅς . According to the Vulgate (sacramentum quod manifestatum est), the latter is the construction adopted by the Latin Fathers who understood Christ to be the ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ,[144]—an interpretation quite unjustifiable and unsuitable to the general train of thought. Several expositors (Mangold, Hofmann, and others) assume the first clause: ὃς … σαρκί , to be the subject, and the other five clauses to form the predicate; but “on account of the parallelism, that is not advisable” (Winer, p. 519 [E. T. p. 736]). It is much more natural from their similar form to regard all six clauses as co-ordinate. Then the subject to which ὅς relates is not named; but, according to the purport of the various clauses, it can be none other than Christ. This curious omission may be thus accounted for; the sentence has been taken from a formula of confession, or better, from an old Christian hymn, as its metrical and euphonious character seems to indicate; comp. Rambach’s Anthologie christl. Gesänge aus allen Jahrh. d. Kirche, I. 33, and Winer, p. 547 [E. T. p. 797]. This view is also adopted by Heydenreich, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt.
The opinion of Matthies is untenable, that the apostle does not name Christ expressly, in order to maintain the character of τὸ μυστήριον (in the sense: Acknowledged great, etc., … he who is revealed, etc.), and that this absolute use of the relative pronoun is found elsewhere in the N. T. In the passages quoted by him, Rom_2:23, 1Co_7:37, Joh_1:46; Joh_3:34, 1Jn_1:3, the pronoun has not the absolute meaning alleged by him. The first clause runs: ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ] ἐφανερώθη is often used of Christ’s appearance on earth, of His becoming man, 1Jn_1:2; 1Jn_3:5; it presupposes a previous concealment,[145] and consequently the pre-existence of Christ as the eternal Logos.
Ἐν σαρκί ] (comp. 1Jn_4:2 : ἐληλυθὼς ἐν σαρκί ; Rom_8:3 : ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας ) denotes the human nature in which Christ appeared; Joh_1:14 : ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο .
With this first clause the second stands in contrast: ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ] means (as in Mat_11:19; Luk_7:35): to be shown to be such a one as He is in nature; here, therefore, the sense is: He was shown in His divine glory (as the Logos or eternal Son of God), which was veiled by the σάρξ . Ἐν πνεύματι is contrasted with ἐν σαρκί , the latter denoting the earthly, human manner of His appearing, the former the inner principle which formed the basis of His life. Though ἐν with πνεύματι has not entirely lost its proper meaning, yet it shades off into the idea of the means used, in so far as the spirit revealed in Him was the means of showing His true nature.[146] It would be wrong to separate here the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ from His person, and to understand by it the spirit proceeding from Him and imparted to His own; it is rather the living spiritual principle dwelling in Him and working out from Him (so, too, Plitt).
Chrysostom diverges from this exposition, and explains ἘΔΙΚΑΙΏΘΗ by: ΔΌΛΟΝ ΟὐΚ ἘΠΟΊΗΣΕΝ , ὍΠΕΡ Ὁ ΠΡΟΦΉΤΗς ΛΈΓΕΙ · Ὃς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΝ ΟὐΚ ἘΠΟΊΗΣΕ ; and Bengel takes the meaning of the expression to be that Christ bore the sins of the world (peccata peccatorum tulit … et justitiam aeternam sibi suisque asseruit); but both views import ideas which are here out of place. The expression ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ has also found very varying interpretations. Instead of ΠΝΕῦΜΑ being taken in its real sense, particular elements of it in the life of Christ, or particular modes of revealing the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ , have been fixed upon, or ΠΝΕῦΜΑ has been taken simply of the divine nature of Christ.[147]
ὬΦΘΗ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΙς ] The right meaning of this third clause also can only be got from a faithful consideration of the words. The word ὬΦΘΗ is in the N. T. frequently joined with the dative, Mat_17:3; Luk_1:11; Act_7:2; 1Co_15:5-8; Heb_9:28, etc. In all these passages it is not the simple “was seen,” but “was revealed” or “appeared;” it always presupposes the activity of the thing seen.
From the analogy of these passages, we must think here of Christ going to those to whom He became visible, so that all explanations which take ὬΦΘΗ merely as “was seen” are to be rejected.
In the N. T. ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ is especially applied to angels; in itself the word may also denote human messengers (comp. Jam_2:25). To take it here in this latter sense (which Hofmann does), as denoting the apostles to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection, is impossible, because nothing, not even the article, is used here to point to them in particular. If, then, ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ can only mean angels, it is most natural to take ὬΦΘΗ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΙς of the ascension, by which Christ—as the Glorified One—was made manifest to angels (so, too, Plitt). Still there is nothing here to lay stress on the ascension (as is done in the sixth clause); the point is, that He who was justified ἘΝ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΙ presented Himself to the angels in His glory.
Baur, indeed, in gnostic fashion interprets the passage of Christ as passing through the various series of aeons, but it is clear that the words neither demand nor even justify such a view. No less arbitrary is de Wette’s opinion, that probably the ὨΦΘῆΝΑΙ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΙς relates to a supernatural scene differing from the ascension, and forming the antithesis to the descent into hell.
The very form of the expression shows that we are not to think of appearances of angels at various moments in the earthly life of Christ, as some expositors suppose. More noteworthy is an explanation given by Chrysostom and approved by some later expositors, especially by Matthies and Wiesinger. Chrysostom says: ὬΦΘΗ ἈΓΓΈΛΟΙς · ὭΣΤΕ ΚΑῚ ἌΓΓΕΛΟΙ ΜΕΘʼ ἩΜῶΝ ΕἾΔΟΝ ΤῸΝ ΥἹῸΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ ΟὐΧ ὉΡῶΝΤΕς . Theodoret’s expression is still more pointed: ΤῊΝ ΓᾺΡ ἈΌΡΑΤΟΝ Τῆς ΘΕΌΤΗΤΟς ΦΎΣΙΝ ΟὐΔῈ ἘΚΕῖΝΟΙ ἙΏΡΩΝ , ΣΑΡΚΩΘΈΝΤΑ ΔῈ ἘΘΕΆΣΑΝΤΟ . Matthies appeals to passages which he thinks are elucidated by the words, passages where Christ is said to have been manifested as … head to all things in heaven and on earth, Eph_1:20 ff; Eph_3:10; Eph_4:8 ff.; Col_1:15 ff; Col_2:10; Col_2:15; Heb_1:6 ff. But, though Christ’s lordship over all is spoken of in such passages, it is not said that Christ was made manifest to the angels only by means of His incarnation. The only passage which might be quoted here is Eph_3:10, which, however, rather declares that to the angels the eternal decree of the divine love or of God’s wisdom was to be made known ΔΙᾺ Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς . But such cannot possibly be the meaning of ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις . Wiesinger simply explains it: “the angels saw the ΣΑΡΚΩΘΈΝΤΑ on earth;” but obviously the sentence is meant to express something which befell not men, but angels.
ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ] for ἘΚΗΡΎΧΘΗ , comp. Php_1:15; and for ἘΝ ἜΘΝΕΣΙΝ , Mat_28:19. There is no good reason for taking ἜΘΝΗ here as relating not to the nations in general, but, as Hofmann thinks, to the heathen exclusive of the Jews.[148]
ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ] ἐπιστεύθη is not, with some expositors, to be explained by ἐδικαιώθη : “He has been testified” (viz. by the miracles of the apostles), or by “fidem sibi fecit” (“he gained belief for Himself”); it is to be taken in its proper meaning. The word κόσμος has the same general meaning as the preceding ἔθνη ; van Oosterzee is wrong in thinking that it ought to be taken here in an ethical sense.—“Jesus is personally the subject-matter of preaching and of faith” (Hofmann).
ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ ] Mar_16:19; Act_1:11 (Act_10:16), where the same verb joined with εἰς οὐρανόν is used of Christ’s ascension. This supports the opinion of most expositors, that the same fact is mentioned here.
ἐν δόξῃ ] may be taken as an adverbial adjunct equivalent to ἐνδόξως (similarly 2Co_3:8; Col_3:4); but in that case the expression of this sixth clause would be quite out of keeping with the others. Wahl takes the expression per attractionem pro: ἀνελ . εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἐστὶν ἐν δόξῃ , which is the only right exposition.[149] The apostle did not write εἰς δόξαν , but ἐν δόξῃ , to show that Christ not only entered into glory, but abides for ever in it (so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee). Still we cannot go so far as Matthies, who says that the result rather than the act of the transition is here mentioned; the expression with forcible brevity includes both points. De Wette’s assertion, too, is quite arbitrary, that Paul is speaking here not of the historical ascension, but of a heavenly occurrence.
In what relation now do these six clauses stand towards each other?
We cannot help seeing that there is a definite order in their succession. It is beyond doubt chronological, since the second clause does not relate to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the last points more to Christ’s life in glory than to the historical ascension. But, at the same time, we can recognise a close relation between the clauses. Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, and Hofmann have adopted three groups, each containing two clauses; but, though ἀγγέλοις and ἔθνεσιν are contrasted, still this arrangement would separate between the fourth and fifth clauses, whose connection Theodoret rightly points out: οὐκ ἐκηρύχθη μόνον , ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιστεύθη . Besides, in order to make the correspondence complete, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν should have come before ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις . It is more correct, therefore, to divide the whole into two parts, each with three clauses, the two first in each case referring to what took place on earth, the third to what took place in heaven (so, too, Plitt[150]).
[143] Hofmann, without reason, takes objection to the sense given to the apostle’s remark, that believers acknowledged the secret of godliness to be great. But if this thought is meaningless here, not less is the one he substitutes: “to the greatness of the house of God corresponds the greatness of the mystery of piety.”
[144] Even Buttmann is of this opinion, as he quotes this passage ( μυστήριον , ὃς ἐφανερώθη ) under the rule (p. 242), that the relative agrees with the natural gender of the preceding substantive.
[145] Hence the same word is used also of the resurrection and second coming of Christ.
[146] Baur is wrong in explaining ἐν πνεύματι “as spirit.” This cannot be justified by exegesis, and hence Baur contents himself with the mere assertion that it is so.
[147] The older expositors take πνεῦμα to denote particularly Christ’s miracles (Theodoret: ἀπεδείχθη διὰ τῶν θαυμάτων καὶ ἀπεφάνθη , ὅτι Θεὸς ἀληθὴς καὶ Θεοῦ υἱός ). Others apply it to the Spirit imparted to Him in baptism; others, to the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost; others, to Christ’s resurrection as the most glorious work of the Spirit (so Heydenreich in particular). Akin to this view is that of Hofmann, who says that πνεῦμα is “that which quickens, makes alive,” and deduces from this “that spirit changed the existence of Christ in the flesh … into something that had its nature from the Spirit,” and explains ἐδικ . ἐν πν . as relating to the justification He received through His resurrection. All these explanations fall to the ground when it is observed that the context contains no reference to any such special fact. Glassius explains it thus: Justus declaratus est et filius Dei comprobatus in Spiritu i. e. per deitatem suam, cujus vi miracula fecit.
[148] We cannot, in any case, see how “the sentence is emptied of its meaning” by regarding Israel as included in the idea of ἔθνη .
[149] Strange to say, Hofmann disputes this, on the ground that Jesus “was not received into glory, hut into the celestial sphere.” He appeals for this to Heb_1:3, which is utterly from the point.
[150] Baur maintains that in these six clauses every two form a contrast, the one being more gnostic, the other more anti-gnostic. But in that case the author of the epistle would, in the second part, have very strangely given up the order observable in the first. Besides, of all the clauses, the third has by far the most resemblance to Gnosticism.