Ezekiel, Jonah, and Pastoral Epistles by Patrick Fairbairn - 2 Timothy 1:12 - 1:12

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Ezekiel, Jonah, and Pastoral Epistles by Patrick Fairbairn - 2 Timothy 1:12 - 1:12


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Ver. 12. For which cause also I suffer these things: the things, namely, alluded to in 2Ti_1:8—his persecutions, imprisonment, and sufferings. But I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have trusted, and am persuaded that He is able to keep my deposit against that day. The chief question here is, What is to be understood by my deposit ôὴí ðáñáèÞêçí ìïõ ? Is it what the apostle had committed to God, or what God had committed to him? Having just expressed his trust, and his assurance that this, whatever it might be, God was able to guard or keep ( öõëÜîáé ), one most naturally thinks of it as something which he had committed to God. And this is the view expressed in the Authorized Version—“that which I have committed to Him;” that also which many able expositors, in former and present times, have adopted, with only minor shades of difference as to the thing committed (his soul—Grotius, Bengel; soul, body, and spirit—Conybeare, Alford; his salvation—Calvin, Huther; his final reward, crown of righteousness—Theophylact, Beza, Calov, Wolf). But the view undoubtedly lies open to two somewhat serious objections. First, the personal pronoun connected with the word—my deposit—seems rather to connect its possession with Paul than with God; it was his as contradistinguished from another’s, and his in connection with the cause for which he was suffering. Then, the word as used presently after, 2Ti_1:14, and in 1Ti_6:20 (the only other passages where it occurs), expresses what is committed by God to a person, and for which he is answerable to God. And there is force, it must be allowed, in the question of De Wette: “How could a writer use the same word so shortly afterwards [or before], in a different sense, without giving some indication of the difference?” Considering, also, that the matter has respect to a peculiar Greek mode of expression, there is some weight to be attached to the circumstance that this is the sense which all the Greek expositors seemed to regard as the natural and patent one, though they differed as to what precisely should be understood by it. According to Theodoret, the deposit was “the spirit of grace which God had given to the apostle.” What was the deposit? asks Chrysostom; and answers it by saying, “Faith, preaching.” But he hesitates, and gives, as another possible answer, the faithful: and these, either as committed by God to the apostle, or by the apostle to God. Theophylact, as usual, adopts all Chrysostom’s, and adds another also from himself,—namely, the future recompense: for “whosoever has done anything that is good lays it up with God, that he may in due season be crowned for it.”

There is obviously a good deal of guess work in several of these explanations; in themselves fanciful, they are also little suited to the connection. On the whole, however, the weight of probability, in a linguistic point of view, seems plainly to favour the opinion which regards the deposit as something entrusted to the apostle. Then, looking at the connection, the same impression forces itself upon us. For it will be observed that the apostle is here accounting for the fact, that though now in the extremity of peril and suffering for his apostolic calling and his missionary labours, he was not ashamed. Had he yielded to the sense of shame, what would have happened? He would have renounced his connection with the gospel of Christ as a thing unworthy of him—too weak to stand in the hour of trial. But when he thought of Him who had sent him on such a warfare, and had put him in trust with so precious a treasure, he felt there was no room for shame, and scorned the temporizing policy which shame would dictate. The all-powerful Guardian and Protector in whom he confided, and who had borne him through so many troubles in the past, would assuredly uphold him still, and enable him to preserve his calling, with all its sacred prerogatives and gifts, unimpaired to the end. So that in the great day of account, nothing properly belonging to it should be found wanting—nothing forfeited or lost. (It might be added, in proof of the naturalness of the interpretation which identifies the deposit with the apostolic calling of Paul, that he often elsewhere speaks of being put in trust with the gospel: 1Ti_1:11; Tit_1:3; Gal_2:7, etc.)

This I take to be the most natural explanation of the passage, and the train of thought which it embodies. The attempt of Alford to vindicate the other view has too artificial an appearance, and overlooks, as it seems to me, the more important points, on which the determination of the question must turn. The day referred to in so emphatic a manner, is undoubtedly the day of the Lord’s appearing for judgment. But åἰò ἐêåßíçí ôὴí ἡìÝñáí is not until, up to that day, but for, or, as in the Authorized Version, against it, in view of its proceedings.