Chap. 1:1, 2.] Address and greeting.

1. κατʼ ἐπιτ] See reff., especially Tit.: a usual expression of St. Paul, and remarkably enough occurring in the doxology at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, which there is every reason to think was written long after the Epistle itself. It is a more direct predication of divine command than διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ in the earlier Epistles.

θεοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμ.] Apparently an expression belonging to the later apostolic period,—one characteristic of which seems to have been the gradual dropping of the article from certain well-known theological terms, and treating them almost as proper names (see, however, Ellicott’s note). Thus in Luke 1:47 it is ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου: and indeed in almost every place in the pastoral Epistles except this, σωτήρ has the article. In ref. Jude, the expression is the same as here.

καὶ χρ. Ἰησ.] See a similar repetition after δοῦλος χρ. Ἰησοῦ in Romans 1:4 & 6. The Apostle loves them in his more solemn and formal passages—and the whole style of these Epistles partakes more of this character, as was natural in the decline of life.

τῆς ἐλπίσος ἡμῶν] It is not easy to point out the exact reference of this word here, any further than we may say that it gives utterance to the fulness of an old man’s heart in the near prospect of that on which it naturally was ever dwelling. It is the ripening and familiarization of χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἡ ἐλπὶς τῆς δόξης of ref. Col. See also Titus 1:2. I am persuaded that in many such expressions in these Epistles, we are to seek rather a psychological than a pragmatical explanation. Theodoret notices the similar occurrence of words in Psa_64(65):6, ἐπάκουσον ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, ἡ ἐλπὶς πάντων τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς—which is interesting, as it might have suggested the expression here, familiar as the Apostle was with O. T. diction. Ellic. refers, for the same expression, to Ignat. Trall. § 2, p. 676.

2. γνησίω τ.] Cf. Acts 16:1: 1Corinthians 4:14-17; and Prolegg. to this Epistle, § i. 1 ff. γνησίῳ, true, genuine—cf. Plato, Politic. p. 293, οὐ γνησίας οὐδʼ ὄντως οὔσας … ἀλλὰ μεμιμημένας ταύτην.

ἐν πίστει] When Conyb. says, “ ‘in faith,’ not ‘in the faith,’ which would require τῇ” (so Ellic., without the protest),—he forgets (1) the constant usage by which the article is omitted after prepositions in cases where it is beyond doubt in the mind of the writer and must be expressed in translation: (2) the almost uniform anarthrousness of these Epistles. He himself translates the parallel expression in Titus 1:4, ‘mine own son according to our common faith,’ which is in fact supplying the article. Render therefore in the faith: joining it with γνησίῳ τέκνῳ: and compare reff.

ἔλεος and εἰρήνη are found joined in Galatians 6:16, in which Epistle are so many similarities to these (see Prolegg. to these Epistles, § i. 32, note).

The expression θεὸς πατήρ, absolute, is found in St. Paul, in Galatians 1:1, Galatians 1:3: Ephesians 6:23: Philippians 2:11: Colossians 3:17 (τῷ θ. π.): 1Thessalonians 1:1: 2Thessalonians 1:1: 2Timothy 1:2: Titus 1:4. So that it belongs to all periods of his writing, but chiefly to the later.

3-20.] From specifying the object for which Timotheus was left at Ephesus (vv. 3, 4), and characterizing the false teachers (5-7), he digresses to the true use of the law which they pretended to teach (8-10), and its agreement with the gospel with which he was entrusted (11): thence to his own conversion, for the mercies of which he expresses his thankfulness in glowing terms (12-17). Thence he returns to his exhortations to Timotheus (18-20). On these repeated digressions, and the inferences from them, see Prolegg. ch. vii. § i. 36 f.

3.] The sentence begins As I exhorted thee, &c., but in his negligence of writing, the Apostle does not finish the construction: neither verse 5, nor 12, nor 18, will form the apodosis without unnatural forcing.

παρεκάλεσα] Chr. lays stress on the word, as implying great mildness—ἄκουε τὸ προσηνές, πῶς οὐ διδασκάλου κέχρηται ῥωμῇ, ἀλλʼ οἰκέτου σχεδόν· οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ἐπέταξα οὐδὲ ἐκέλευσα, οὐδὲ παρῄνεσα, ἀλλὰ τί; παρεκάλεσά σε. This has been met (Huther, al.), by remarking that he says διεταξάμην to Titus, Titus 1:5. The present word however was the usual one to his fellow-helpers, see reff.: and διεταξάμην there refers rather to a matter of detail—‘as I prescribed to thee.’

The sense of προσμεῖναι, to tarry, or stay at a place, is sufficiently clear from ref. Acts. The προς- implies a fixity when the word is absolutely used, which altogether forbids the joining προσμεῖναι with πορευόμενος understood of Timotheus, as some have attempted to do. The aorist προσμεῖναι refers to the act of remaining behind when the Apostle departed; the present would have marked an endurance of stay. Various endeavours have been made to escape from the difficulties of the fact implied. Schneckenburger would read προσμείνας: others would take προσμεῖναι as imperative, most unnaturally. No one can doubt, that the straightforward rendering is, As I besought thee to tarry in Ephesus, when I was going to Macedonia.… And on this straightforward rendering we must build our chronological considerations. See the whole subject discussed in the prolegomena, ch. vii. § ii.: and cf. Ellicott’s note here.

προευόμενος, present, when I was on my way.

ἵνα, &c. object of his tarrying.

παραγγείλῃς, see reff.

τισίν] so constantly (reff.) in these Epistles: sometimes οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες Titus 1:9, or πολλοί ib. 10. Huther infers from τισί, that the number at this time was not considerable: but this is hardly safe. “The indefinite pronoun is more probably slightly contemptuous: ‘le mot τινες a quelque chose de méprisant,’ see Arnaud, on Jude 1:4, compare Galatians 2:12.” Ellicott.

ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν] There seems to be in ἑτερο-, as in ἑτεροζυγοῦντες 2Corinthians 6:14, the idea of strange, or incongruous, not merely of different: cf. also ἑτερόγλωσσος, 1Corinthians 14:21. And the compound -διδασκαλεῖν, not -διδάσκειν, brings in the sense of ‘acting as a teacher:’ not to be teachers of strange things. Eusebius has the substantive, H. E. iii. 32—διὰ τῆς τῶν ἑτεροδιδασκάλων ἀπάτης,—in the sense of heretical teachers—which however is too fixed and developed a meaning to give here. We have καλοδιδάσκαλος, Titus 2:3. The meanings of ‘other teaching’ and ‘false teaching,’ when we remember that the faith which St. Paul preached was incapable (Galatians 1:8, Galatians 1:9) of any the least compromise with the errors subsequently described, lie very close to one another.

προσέχειν, to give attention to: see reff.: “as it were, a mean term between ἀκούειν and πιστεύειν, compare Polyb. iv. 84. 6, διακούσαντες οὐδὲν προσέσχον; Jos. B. J. vii. 5. 3, οὔτε προσεῖχον οὔτε ἐπίστευον.” Ellicott.

μύθοις] We can only judge from the other passages in these Epistles where the word occurs, what kind of fables are alluded to. In Titus 1:14, we have μὴ προσέχοντες Ἰουδαϊκοῖς μύθοις. In our ch. 4:7, they are designated as βέβηλοι καὶ γραώδεις. In 2Timothy 4:4, they are spoken of absolutely, as here. If we are justified in identifying the ‘fables’ in Tit. with these, they had a Jewish origin: but merely to take them, as Thdrt., for the Jewish traditional comments on the law (μύθους δὲ οὐ τὴν τοῦ νόμου διδασκαλίαν ἐκάλεσεν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἰουδαϊκὴν ἑρμηνείαν τὴν ὑπʼ αὐτῶν καλουμένην δευτέρωσιν (משְׁנֶה, mischna)), does not seem to satisfy the βέβηλοι καὶ γραώδεις. And consequently others have interpreted them of the gnostic mythology of the Æons. So Tert. adv. Valentinianos, ch. 3, vol. ii. p. 515: ‘qui ex alia conscientia venerit fidei, si statim inveniat tot nomina æonum, tot coniugia, tot genimina, tot exitus, tot eventus, felicitates, infelicitates dispersae atque concisae divinitatis, dubitabiturne ibidem pronuntiare, has esse fabulas et genealogias indeterminatas, quas apostoli spiritus his iam tunc pullulantibus seminibus haereticis damnare praevenit?’ And Iren., in his præf., p. 1, assumes these words in the very outset, almost as his motto—ἐπεὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παραπεμπόμενοί τινες ἐπεισάγουσι λόγους ψευδεῖς κ. γενεαλογίας ματαίας αἵτινες ζητήσεις μᾶλλον παρέχουσι, καθὼς ἱ ἀπόστολός φησιν, ἢ οἰκοδομὴν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει.… Others again (as Suidas’s definition, μῦθος, λόγος ψευδής, εἰκονίζων τὴν ἀλήθειαν) would give an entirely general meaning to the word,—‘false teaching’ of any kind. But this is manifestly too lax: for the descriptions here (ver. 7, e.g.) point at a Jewish origin, and a development in the direction of γενεαλογίαι ἀπέραντοι. It does not seem easy to define any further these μῦθοι, but it is plain that any transitional state from Judaism to gnosticism will satisfy the conditions here propounded, without inferring that the full-blown gnosticism of the second century must be meant, and thus calling in question the genuineness of the Epistle. On the whole subject, see Prolegg. ch. vii. § i. 8 ff.

γενεαλ. ἀπερ.] De W. in his note on Titus 1:14, marks out well the references which have been assigned to this expression: “γενεαλογίαι cannot be 1) properly genealogical registers,—either for a pure genealogico-historical end (Chr., Œc., Thl., Ambr., Est., Calov., Schöttg., Wolf), or for a dogmatico-historical one, to foster the religious national pride of Jews against Gentiles, cf. Philippians 3:4 f. (Storr, Flatt, Wegsch., Leo), or to ascertain the descent of the Messiah (Thdrt., Jer., Wegsch.: according to Nicol. Lyr., to shew that Jesus was not the Messiah), least of all genealogies of Timotheus himself (Wetst.),—for all this does not touch, or too little touches religious interests: nor are they 2) gentile theogonies (Chr. gives this as well as the former interpretation: also Œc., Thl., Elsn.); nor again 3) pedigrees of the cabalistic sephiroth (Vitring. Obss. 1, v. 13: see Wolf), which will hardly suit γενεαλ.: nor 4) Essenian genealogies of angels (Mich., Heinr., al.), of the existence of which we have no proof; nor 5) allegorizing genealogies, applications of psychological and historical considerations to the genealogies contained in the books of Moses; as in Philo (Dähne, Stud. u. Krit. 1853, 1008),—a practice too peculiar to Philo and his view: but most probably 6) lists of gnostic emanations (Tert. contr. Val. 3,—præscr. 33, Iren, præf. (see above), Grot., Hamm., Chr., Mosh., Mack, Baur, al.), &c.”

But again, inasmuch as γενεαλογίαι are coupled in Titus 3:9 with μάχαι νομικαί, it seems as if we must hardly understand the ripened fruits of gnosticism, but rather the first beginnings of those genealogies in the abuse of Judaism. See Prolegg. “It is curious that Polybius uses both terms in similarly close connexion, Hist. ix. 2. 1.” Ellicott.

ἀπεράντοις may be used merely in popular hyperbole to signify the tedious length of such genealogies. The meaning ‘profitless’ (Chr., ἤτοι πέρας μηδὲν ἔχουσαι, ἢ οὐδὲν χρήσιμον, ἢ δυσκατάληπτον ἡμῖν, and so Thdrt.; see below) would be a natural deduction from the other, and is therefore hardly to be so summarily set aside as it has been by De W., al.

αἵτινες, of the kind which.

ζητήσεις] objective, questions: not subjective, ‘questionings:’ see reff. in these Epistles, in which ζητήσεις are not themselves, but lead to, ἔρεις, μάχαι, &c.

παρέχουσιν] minister, as E. V., is the best rendering: ‘afford,’ ‘give rise to,’ ‘furnish:’ see below.

μᾶλλον ἤ is a mild way of saying καὶ οὐ: see reff.

οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ …] This has been taken two ways: 1) objectively: the dispensation (reff.) of God (towards man) which is (consists) in (the) faith: in which case παρέχουσιν must bear something of a transferred meaning,—zeugmatic, as the grammarians call it,—as applied to οἰκονομίαν, implying, “rather than they set forth,” &c. And to this there can be no objection, as the instances of it are so common. This meaning also suits that of οἰκονομία in the reff., even 1Corinthians 9:17, where the οἰκονομία is the objective matter wherewith the Apostle was entrusted, not his own subjective fulfilment of it. 2) subjectively:—‘the exercising of the stewardship of God in faith:’ so Conyb.: or as paraphrased by Storr (in Huther) ζητοῦντας αὐτοὺς ποιοῦσι, μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονόμους θεοῦ πιστούς. But to this there is the serious objection, that οἰκονομία in this subjective sense, ‘the fulfilment of the duty of an οἰκονόμος,’ wants example: and even could this be substantiated, οἰκονομίαν παρέχειν, in the sense required, would seem again questionable. I would therefore agree with Huther and Wiesinger (and Ellicott) in the objective sense—the dispensation of God. Then τὴν ἐν πίστει has also been variously taken. Chrys. says, καλῶς εἶπεν, οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ· μεγάλα γὰρ ἡμῖν δοῦναι ἠθέλησεν ὁ θεός, ἀλλʼ οὐ δέχεται ὁ λογισμὸς τὸ μέγεθος αὐτοῦ τῶν οἰκονομιῶν. διὰ πίστεως οὖν τοῦτο γίνεσθαι δεῖ. And Thdrt.: αἱ μὲν περιτταὶ ζητήσεις ἀνόνητοι, ἡ δὲ πίστις φωτίζει τὸν νοῦν, καὶ ἐπιδείκνυσι τὰς θείας οἰκονομίας. But the words will hardly bear either of these. The only legitimate meaning seems to be—which is in faith, i.e. finds its sphere, and element, and development among men, in faith. Thus ἐν πίστει stands in contrast to ζητήσεις, in which the οἰκονομία θεοῦ does not consist; and the way for the next sentence is prepared, which speaks of πίστις ἀνυπόκριτος as one of the means to the great end of the Gospel.

5.] But (contrast to the practice of these pretended teachers of the law) the end (purpose, aim: Chrys. quotes τέλος ἰατρικῆς ὑγιεία) of the commandment (viz. of the law of God in (ver. 11) the gospel: not, although in the word there may be a slight allusion to it,—of that which Timothy was παραγγέλλειν, ver. 3. This commandment is understood from the οἰκονομία just mentioned, of which it forms a part) is Love (as Romans 13:10. We recognize, in the restating of former axiomatic positions, without immediate reference to the subject in hand, the characteristic of a later style of the Apostle) out of (arising, springing from, as its place of birth—the heart being the central point of life: see especially ref. 1 Pet.) a pure heart (pure from all selfish views and leanings: see Acts 15:9: on the psychology, see Ellicott’s note: and Delitzsch, Biblische Psychologie, iv. 12, p. 204) and good conscience (is this συνείδησις ἀγαθή, 1) a conscience good by being freed from guilt by the application of Christ’s blood,—or is it 2) a conscience pure in motive, antecedent to the act of love? This must be decided by the usage of this and similar expressions in these Epistles, where they occur several times (reff. and 1Timothy 3:9. 2Timothy 1:3. 2Ti 1:152Ti 1:152Ti 1:15). From those examples it would appear, as De W., that in the language of the pastoral Epistles a good conscience is joined with soundness in the faith, a bad, conscience with unsoundness. So that we can hardly help introducing the element of freedom from guilt by the effect of that faith on the conscience. And the earlier usage of St. Paul in Acts 23:1, compared with the very similar one in 2Timothy 1:3, goes to substantiate this) and faith unfeigned (this connects with τὴν ἐν πίστει above; it is faith, not the pretence of faith, the mere ‘Scheinglaube’ of the hypocrite, which, as in Acts 15:9, καθαρίζει τὰς καρδίας, and as in Galatians 5:6, διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργεῖαι: Wiesinger well remarks that we see from this, that the general character of these false teachers, as of those against whom Titus is warned, was not so much error in doctrine, as leading men away from the earnestness of the loving Christian life, to useless and vain questionings, ministering only strife):

6.] (the connexion is—it was by declining from these qualities that these men entered on their paths of error) of which (the καθαρὰ καρδία,—συνείδησις ἀγαθή, and πίστις ἀνυπόκριτος—the sources of ἀγάπη, which last they have therefore missed by losing them) some having failed (reff.: ‘missed their mark:’ but this seems hardly precise enough: it is not so much to miss a thing at which a man is aiming, as to leave unregarded one at which he ought to be aiming: as Schweigh. Lex. Polyb., ‘rationem alicujus rei non habere, et respectu ejus sibi male consulere.’ Thus Polyb. i. 33. 10, τῆς μὲν πρὸς τὰ θηρία μάχης δεόντως ἦσαν ἐστοχασμένοι, τῆς δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἱππεῖς, πολλαπλασίους ὄντας τῶν παρʼ αὐτοῖς, ὁλοσχερῶς ἠστόχησαν: v. 107. 2, πρὸς μὲν τὸ παρὸν ἐνδεχομένως ἐβουλεύσατο, τοῦ δὲ μέλλοντος ἠστόχησε: see also vii. 14. 3) turned aside to (ἐξ-, away from the path leading to the τέλος, ver. 5, in which they should have been walking: the idiom is often found in the examples cited by Wetst.: e.g. Plato, Phædr., δεῦρʼ ἐκτραπόμενος κατὰ τὸν Ἴλισσον ἴωμεν,—Thuc. v. 65, τὸ ὕδωρ ἐξέτρεπε κατὰ τὴν Μαντινικήν,—and in Polyb., ἐκτρέπεσθαι εἰς ὀλιγαρχίαν, vi. 4. 9,—εἰς τὴν συμφυῆ κακίαν, ib. 10. 2 and 7: and in Hippocr. de temp. morbi, even nearer to our present phrase,—εἰς μακρολογίαν ἐξετράποντο) foolish speaking (of what kind, is explained ver. 7, and Titus 3:9, which place connects this expression with our ver. 4. It is the vain questions arising out of the law which he thus characterizes. Herod. (ii. 118) uses μάταιος λόγος of an idle tale, an empty fable:—εἰρομένου δέ μευ τοὺς ἱρέας, εἰ μάταιον λόγον λέγουσι οἱ Ἕλληνες τὰ περὶ Ἴλιον γενέσθαι), wishing to be (giving themselves out as, without really being: so Paus. i. 4. 6, αὐτοὶ δὲ Ἄρκαδες ἐθέλουσιν εἶναι τῶν ὁμοῦ Τηλέφῳ διαβάντων ἐς τὴν Ἀσίαν. Cf. Palm and Rost’s Lex. sub voce) teachers of the law (of what law? and in what sense? To the former question, but one answer can be given. The law is that of Moses; the law, always so known. The usage of νομοδιδάσκαλος (reff.) forbids our giving the word, as coming from a Jew, any other meaning. That this is so, is also borne out by Titus 1:14. Then as to the sense in which these men professed themselves teachers of the law. (1) Clearly not, as Baur, by their very antinomianism,—teachers of the law by setting it aside: this would at best be an unnatural sense to extract from the word, and it is not in any way countenanced by vv. 8 ff. as Baur thinks: see below. (2) Hardly, in the usual position of those Judaizing antagonists of St. Paul against whom he directs his arguments in Rom., Gal., and Col. Of these he would hardly have predicated ματαιολογία, nor would he have said μὴ νοοῦντες κ.τ.λ. Their offence was not either of these things, promulgating of idle fables, or ignorance of their subject, but one not even touched on here—an offence against the liberty of the Gospel, and its very existence, by reintroducing the law and its requirements. (3) We may see clearly by the data furnished in these pastoral Epistles, that it was with a different class of adversaries that the Apostle had in them to deal: with men who corrupted the material enactments of the moral law, and founded on Judaism not assertions of its obligation, but idle fables and allegories, letting in latitude of morals, and unholiness of life. It is against this abuse of the law that his arguments are directed: no formal question arises of the obligation of the law: these men struck, by their interpretation, at the root of all divine law itself, and therefore at that root itself does he meet and grapple with them. (See more in Prolegg.) Hence the following description), understanding neither (notice μήτε … μήτε, making the two branches of the negation parallel, not progressively exclusive, as would be the case with μηδέ: they understand as little about the one as about the other) the things which they say (the actual diatribes which they themselves put forth, they do not understand: they are not honest men, speaking from conviction, and therefore lucidly: but men depraved in conscience (Titus 1:14, Titus 1:15), and putting forth things obscure to themselves, for other and selfish purposes), nor concerning what things they make their affirmations (nor those objective truths which properly belong to and underlie the matters with which they are thus tampering. This explanation of the sentence is called in question by De W., on the ground of the parallel expression in Titus 3:8, περὶ τούτων βούλομαί σε διαβεβαιοῦσθαι, in which he maintains that in διαβεβαιοῦσθαι περί τινος, περί τινος represents the mere thing asserted, not the objective matter concerning which the assertion is made,—and he therefore holds our sentence to be a mere tautology,—ἃ λέγουσιν answering exactly to περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται. But in reply we may say, that there is not the slightest necessity for such a construction in the passage of Titus: see note there. And so Huth., Wies. Cf. Arrian. Epict. ii. 21, τί δʼ ἐροῦσι καὶ περὶ τίνων ἢ πρὸς τίνας, καὶ τί ἔσται αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν λόγων τούτων, οὐδὲ καταβραχὲς πεφροντίκασι).

8 ff.] On the other hand the law has its right use:—not that to which they put it, but to testify against sins in practice: the catalogue of which seems to be here introduced, on account of the lax moral practice of these very men who were, or were in danger of, falling into them: not, as Baur imagines, because they were antinomians and set aside the (moral) law. They did not set it aside, but perverted it, and practised the very sins against which it was directed. Now (slight contrast to last verse, taking up the matter on general grounds) we know (see ref.: especially Romans 7:14: a thoroughly pauline expression) that the law is good (Romans 7:16: not only, as Thdrt., ὠφέλιμον, but in a far higher sense, as in Romans 7:12, Romans 7:14: good abstractedly,—in accordance with the divine holiness and justice and truth; see ver. 18, ch. 4:4) if a man (undoubtedly, in the first place, and mainly, a teacher: but not (as Bengel, De W., and Ellic.) to be confined to that meaning: all that is here said might apply just as well to a private Christian’s thoughts and use of the law, as to the use of it by teachers themselves) use it lawfully (i.e. not, as most expositors, according to its intention as law (ἐάν τις ἀκολουθῇ αὐτοῦ τῷ σκόπῳ, Thdrt.), and as directed against the following sins in Christians: but clearly, from what follows, as De W. insists (see also Ellic.), and as Chrys. obscurely notices amongst other interpretations, νομίμως in the Gospel sense: i.e. as not binding on, nor relevant to Christian believers, but only a means of awakening repentance in the ungodly and profane. Chr.’s words are: τίς δὲ αὐτῷ νομίμως χρήσεται; ὁ εἰδὼς ὅτι οὐ δεῖται αὐτοῦ. His further references of νομίμως, ‘as leading us to Christ,’—as ‘inducing to piety not by its injunctions but by purer motives,’ &c., are not in place here), being aware of this (belongs to τις, the teacher, or former of a judgment on the matter. εἰδώς implies both the possession and the application of the knowledge: ‘heeding,’ or ‘being aware of’), that for a just man (in what sense? in the mere sense of ‘virtuous,’ ‘righteous,’ in the world’s acceptation of the term? in Chrys.’s third alternative, δίκαιον ἐνταῦθα καλεῖ τὸν κατωρθωκότα τὴν ἀρετήν? or as Thl., ὃς διʼ αὐτὸ τὸ καλὸν τήν τε πονηρίαν μισεῖ καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν περιπτύσσεται? All such meanings are clearly excluded by ver. 11, which sets the whole sentence in the full light of Gospel doctrine, and necessitates a corresponding interpretation for every term used in it. δίκαιος therefore can only mean, righteous in the Christian sense, viz. by justifying faith and sanctification of the Spirit,—‘justitia per sanctificationem,’ as De Wette from Croc.,—one who is included in the actual righteousness of Christ by having put Him on, and so not forensically amenable to the law,—partaker of the inherent righteousness of Christ, inwrought by the Spirit, which unites him to Him, and so not morally needing it) the law (as before: not, ‘a law’ in general, as will be plain from the preceding remarks: nor does the omission of the article furnish any ground for such a rendering, in the presence of numerous instances where νόμος, anarthrous, is undeniably ‘the Law’ of Moses. Cf. Romans 2:25 bis; ib. 27; 3:28, 31 bis; 5:20; 7:1; 10:4: Galatians 2:19; Galatians 6:13,—to say nothing of the very many examples after prepositions. And of all parts of the N. T. anarthrousness need least surprise us in these Epistles, where many theological terms, having from constant use become technical words, have lost their articles. No such compromise as that of Bishop Middleton’s, that the Mosaic law is comprehended in νόμος, will answer the requirements of the passage, which strictly deals with the Mosaic law and with nothing else: cf. on the catalogue of sins below. As De Wette remarks, this assertion = that in Romans 6:14, οὐ γὰρ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον, ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν,—Galatians 5:18, εἰ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον) is not enacted (see very numerous instances of νόμος κεῖται in Wetst. The following are some: Eur. Ion 1046, 7, ὅταν δὲ πολεμίους δρᾶσαι κακῶς " θέλῃ τις, οὐδεὶς ἐμποδὼν κεῖται νόμος: Thueyd. ii. 37, νόμως … ὅσοι τε ἐπʼ ὠφελείᾳ τῶν ἀδικουμένων κεῖνται: Galen. a. Julian. (Wetst.), νόμος οὐδεὶς κεῖται κατὰ τῶν ψευδῶς ἐγκαλούντων), but for lawless (reff.: not as in 1Corinthians 9:21) and insubordinate (reff. Tit.: it very nearly = ἀπειθής, see Titus 1:16; Titus 3:3,—this latter being more subjective, whereas ἀνυποτάκτ. points to the objective fact. This first pair of adjectives expresses opposition to the law, and so stands foremost as designating those for whom it is enacted), for impious and sinful (see especially ref. 1 Pet. This second pair expresses opposition to God, whose law it is—ἀσεβής being the man who does not reverence Him, ἁμαρτωλός the man who lives in defiance of Him), for unholy and profane (this last pair betokens separation and alienation from God and His law alike—those who have no share in His holiness, no relation to things sacred. “The ἀσεβής is unholy through his lack of reverence: the ἀνόσιος, through his lack of inner purity.” Ellic.), for father-slayers and mother-slayers (or it may be taken in the wider sense, as Ellic., ‘smiters of fathers:’ so Hesych.: ὁ τὸν πατέρα ἀτιμάζων, τύπτων ἢ κτείνων. In Demosth. κατὰ Τιμοκράτους, p. 732. 14, the word is used of ἡ τῶν γονέων κάκωσις: cf. the law cited immediately after. And Plato, Phæd. 114 a, apparently uses it in the same wide sense, as he distinguishes πατράλοιαι and μητράλοιαι from ἀνδροφόνοι.

Hitherto the classes have been general, and (see above) arranged according to their opposition to the law, or to God, or to both: now he takes the second table of the decalogue and goes through its commandments, to the ninth inclusive, in order. πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις are the transgressors of the fifth), for manslayers (the sixth), for fornicators, for sodomites (sins of abomination against both sexes: the seventh), for slave-dealers (εἴρηται ἀνδραποδιστὴς παρὰ τὸ ἄνδρα ἀποδίδοσθαι, τουτέστι πωλεῖν, Schol. Aristoph. Plut. ver. 521. The etymology is wrong, but the meaning as he states: cf. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 6, τοὺς λαμβάνοντας τῆς ὁμιλίας μισθὸν ἀνδραποδιστὰς ἑαυτῶν ἀπεκάλει: and Pollux. Onomast. iii. 78, ἀνδραποδιστής, ὁ τὸν ἐλεύθερον καταδουλούμενος ἢ τὸν ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην ὑπαγόμενος. (Ellic.) The Apostle puts the ἀνδραποδιστής as the most flagrant of all breakers of the eighth commandment. No theft of a man’s goods can be compared with that most atrocious act, which steals the man himself, and robs him of that free will which is the first gift of his Creator. And of this crime all are guilty, who, whether directly or indirectly, are engaged in, or uphold from whatever pretence, the making or keeping of slaves), for liars, for perjurers (breakers of the ninth commandment. It is remarkable that he does not refer to that very commandment by which the law wrought on himself when he was alive without the law and sin was dead in him, viz. the tenth. Possibly this may be on account of its more spiritual nature, as he here wishes to bring out the grosser kinds of sin against which the moral law is pointedly enacted. The subsequent clause however seems as if he had it in his mind, and on that account added a concluding general and inclusive description), and if any thing else (he passes to sins themselves from the committers of sins) is opposed (reff.) to the healthy teaching (i.e. that moral teaching which is spiritually sound: = ἡ κατʼ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλία, ch. 6:3, where it is parallel with ὑγιαίνοντες λόγοι οἱ τοῦ κυρ. ἡμ. Ἰησ. χριστοῦ. “The formula … stands in clear and suggestive contrast to the sickly (ch. 6:4) and morbid (2Timothy 2:17) teaching of Jewish gnosis.” Ellic.)—according to (belongs, not to ἀντίκειται, which would make the following words a mere flat repetition of τῇ ὑγιαιν. διδασκ. (see ch. 6:1, 3)—nor to διδασκαλία, as Thl.,—τῇ ὑγ. διδ. τῇ οὔση κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγ.,—all. (see D1 in digest),—for certainly in this case the specifying article must have been inserted,—and thus also the above repetition would occur;—but to the whole preceding sentence,—the entire exposition which he has been giving of the freedom of Christians from the moral law of the decalogue) the gospel of the glory (not, ‘the glorious gospel,’ see ref. 2 Cor.: all propriety and beauty of expression is here, as always, destroyed by this adjectival rendering. The gospel is ‘the glad tidings of the glory of God,’ as of Christ in 1. c., inasmuch as it reveals to us God in all His glory, which glory would be here that of justifying the sinner without the law by His marvellous provision of redemption in Christ) of the blessed God (μακὰριος, used of God, is called unpaulinisch) by De Wette, occurring only in 1 Tim. (ref.): in other words, one of those expressions which are peculiar to this later date and manner of the Apostle. On such, see Prolegomena), with which I (emphatic) was (aorist, indicating simply the past; pointing to the time during which this his commission had been growing into its fulness and importance) entrusted (not these τινές.

ὃ ἐπιστεύθην is a construction only and characteristically pauline: see reff. The connexion with the following appears to be this: his mind is full of thankfulness at the thought of the commission which was thus entrusted to him: he does not regret the charge, but overflows with gratitude at the remembrance of Christ’s grace to him, especially when he recollects also what he once was; how nearly approaching (for I would not exclude even that thought as having contributed to produce these strong expressions) some of those whom he has just mentioned. So that he now goes off from the immediate subject, even more completely and suddenly than is his wont in his other writings, as again and again in these pastoral Epistles: shewing thereby, I believe, the tokens of advancing age, and of that faster hold of individual habits of thought and mannerisms, which characterizes the decline of life):

(12 ff.] See summary, on ver. 3.) I give thanks (χάριν ἔχειν (reff.) is only used by the Apostle here and in 2 Tim. ref.) to Him who enabled me (viz. for His work: not only as Chr., in one of his finest passages,—φορτίον ὑπῆλθε μέγα, καὶ πολλῆς ἐδεῖτο τῆς ἄνωθεν ῥοπῆς. ἐννόησον γὰρ ὅσον ἦν πρὸς καθημερινὰς ὕβρεις, λοιδορίας, ἐπιβουλάς, κινδύνους, σκώμματα, ὀνείδη, θανάτους ἵστασθαι, καὶ μὴ ἀποκάμνειν, μηδὲ ὀλισθαίνειν, μηδὲ περιτρέπεσθαι, ἀλλὰ πάντοθεν βαλλόμενον μυρίοις καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν τοῖς βέλεσιν, ἀτενὲς ἔχοντα τὸ ὄμμα ἑστάναι καὶ ἀκατάπληκτον,—see also Philippians 4:13,—for he evidently is here treating of the divine enlightening and strengthening which he received for the ministry: cf. Acts 9:22, where the same word occurs—a coincidence not to be overlooked. So Thdrt.: οὐ γὰρ οἰκείᾳ δυνάμει χρώμενος ταύτην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις προσφέρω τὴν διδασκαλίαν, ἀλλʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ σεσωκότος ῥωννύμενός τε καὶ νευρούμενος, Christ Jesus our Lord (not to be taken as the dativus commodi after ἐνδυναμώσαντι, but in apposition with τῷ ἐνδυν.), that (not, ‘because:’ it is the main ground of the χάριν ἔχω: the specification of τῷ ἐνδυναμώσαντι introducing a subordinate ground) He accounted me faithful (cf. the strikingly similar expression, 1Corinthians 7:25, γνώμην δίδωμι ὡς ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ κυρίου πιστὸς εἶναι:—He knew me to be such an one, in His foresight, as would prove faithful to the great trust), appointing me (cf. ref. 1 Thess. The expression is there used of that appointment of God in His sovereignty, by which our course is marked for a certain aim or end: and so it is best taken here,—not for the act of ‘putting me into’ the ministry, as E. V. But the present sense must be kept: not ‘having appointed,’ θέμενος constituting the external proof of πιστόν με ἡγήσ.) to the ministry (what sort of διακονία, is declared, Acts 20:24, ἡ διακονία ἣν ἔλαβον παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, διαμαρτύρασθαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς χάριτος τοῦ θεοῦ),

13.] (and all the more is he thankful, seeing that he was once a direct opponent of the Gospel) being before (the participle is slightly concessive: as Ellic. from Justiniani, ‘cum tamen essem;’ almost equivalent to ‘though I was’) a blasphemer (see Acts 26:9, Acts 26:11) and persecutor and insulter (one who added insult to persecution. See on ὑβριστής, Trench, N. T. Synonyms, p. 112 f. The facts which justified the use of such a term were known to St. Paul’s conscience: we might well infer them, from his own confessions in Acts 22:4, Acts 22:19, and 26:9-12. He describes himself as περισσῶς ἐμμαινόμενος αὐτοῖς): howbeit (“ἀλλά has here its full and proper seclusive (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz., Devar. ii. p. 2), and thence often antithetical force. God’s mercy and St. Paul’s want of it are put in sharp contrast.” Ellic.) I had mercy shewn me (reff.), because I did it ignorantly (so Romans 10:2, of the Jews, ζῆλον θεοῦ ἔχουσιν, ἀλλʼ οὐ κατʼ ἐπίγνωσιν. Cf. also as a most important parallel, our Lord’s prayer for His murderers, Luke 23:34) in unbelief (ἀπιστία, was his state, of which his ignorance of what he did was a consequence. The clause is a very weighty one as applying to others under similar circumstances: and should lead us to form our judgments in all charity respecting even persecutors—and if of them, then surely even with a wider extension of charity to those generally, who lie in the ignorance of unbelief, whatever be its cause, or its effects),

14.] but (contrast still to his former state, and epexegetical of ἠλεήθη;—not to ἠλεήθ.,—‘not only so, but,’ as Chr., De W., al.) the grace of our Lord (His mercy shewn to me—but not in strengthening me for His work, endowing me with spiritual gifts, &c., as Chr., al.: for the ἠλεήθην is the ruling idea through the whole, and he recurs to it again ver. 16, never having risen above it to that of his higher gifts) superabounded (to be taken not comparatively, but superlatively, see Romans 5:20, note) with (accompanied by) faith and love (see the same pauline expression, Ephesians 6:23, and note there) which are (τῆς probably improperly used by attraction for τῶν: there is no reason why πίστις as well as ἀγάπη should not be designated as ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) in (as their element, and, as it were, home) Christ Jesus (all these three abounded—grace, the objective side of God’s ἔλεος to him:—Christian faith and love—the contrast to his former hatred and unbelief,—God’s gifts, the subjective side. This is much better than to regard μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης as giving that wherein the χάρις ὑπερεπλεόνασεν):

15.] faithful (worthy of credit: ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀψευδὴς καὶ ἀληθής, Thdrt. Cf. Revelation 21:5, οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι ἀληθινοὶ καὶ πιστοί εἰσιν: similarly 22:6 [or, one belonging to those who are of the πίστις]. The formula πιστὸς ὁ λόγος is peculiar to the pastoral Epistles, and characteristic I believe of their later age, when certain sayings had taken their place as Christian axioms, and were thus designated) is the saying, and worthy of all (all possible, i.e. universal) reception (see reff. Polyb., and Wetst. and Kypke, h. l. A word which, with its adjective ἀποδεκτός (ch. 2:3: 5:4), is confined to these Epistles. We have the verb, οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπιτίσθησαν, Acts 2:41), that Christ Jesus came into the world (an expression otherwise found only in St. John. But in the two reff. in Matt. and Luke, we have the ἦλθεν) to save sinners (to be taken in the most general sense, not limited in any way), of whom (sinners; not, as Wegscheider, σωζομένων or σεσωσμένων: the aim and extent of the Lord’s mercy intensifies the feeling of his own especial unworthiness) I am (not, ‘was’) chief (not, ‘one of the chief,’ as Flatt,—nor does πρῶτος refer to time, which would not be the fact (see below): the expression is one of the deepest humility: αὐτὸν ὑπερβαίνει τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης ὅρον, says Thdrt.: and indeed it is so, cf. Philippians 3:6; 1Corinthians 15:9; Acts 23:1; Acts 24:16; but deep humility ever does so: it is but another form of ἐμοὶ τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, Luke 18:13: other men’s crimes seem to sink into nothing in comparison, and a man’s own to be the chief and only ones in his sight):

16.] howbeit (as E. V.: “not resumptive, but as in ver. 13, seclusive and antithetical, marking the contrast between the Apostle’s own judgment on himself, and the mercy which God was pleased to shew him.” Ellic.) for this purpose I had mercy shewn me, that in me (as an example; “in my case:” see reff. and cf. εἰς ὑποτύπωσιν below) first (it can hardly be denied that in πρώτῳ here the senses of ‘chief’ and ‘first’ are combined. This latter seems to be necessitated by μελλόντων below. Though he was not in time ‘the first of sinners,’ yet he was the first as well as the most notable example of such marked long-suffering, held up for the encouragement of the church) Christ Jesus might shew forth (dynamic middle: see note on ref. Eph., and Ellicott there) the whole of His (not merely ‘all’ (all possible, πᾶσαν): nor ‘all His’ (Conyb., Ellic.: πᾶσαν τὴν …), but ‘the whole,’ ‘the whole mass of μακροθυμία, of which I was an example; ὁ ἅπας seems to be found here only. If the rec. reading be in question, in all other cases where ὁ πᾶς occurs with a substantive in the N. T., it is one which admits of partition, and may therefore be rendered by ‘all the ‘or ‘the whole:’ e.g. Acts 20:18, πῶς μεθʼ ὑμῶν τὸν πάντα χρόνον ἐγενόμην: see also ref. Wetst. has two examples from Polyb. in which ὁ πᾶς has the meaning of ‘the utmost:’ τῆς πάσης ἀλογιστίας ἐστὶ σημεῖον,—and τῆς ἁπάσης (as here) ἀτοπίας εἶναι σημεῖον) long-suffering (not, generosity, magnanimity: nor is the idea of long-suffering here irrelevant, as some have said: Christ’s mercy gave him all that time for repentance, during which he was persecuting and opposing Him,—and therefore it was his long-suffering which was so wonderful), for an example (cf. 2Peter 2:6, ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς. Wetst. has shewn by very copious extracts, that ὑποτύπωσις is used by later writers, beginning with Aristotle, for a sketch, an outline, afterwards to be filled up. This indeed the recorded history of Paul would be,—the filling up taking place in each man’s own case: see ref. 2 Tim., note. Or the meaning ‘sample,’ ‘ensample,’ as in 2Timothy 1:13, will suit equally well) of (to, see Ellicott’s note, and Donaldson, Gr. Gr. § 450) those who should (the time of μελλόντων is not the time of writing the Epistles, but that of the mercy being shewn: so that we must not say “who shall,” but “who should”) believe on Him (the unusual ἐπʼ αὐτῷ is easily accounted for, from its occurrence in so very common a quotation as πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐπʼ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται, see reff. The propriety of the expression here is, that it gives more emphatically the ground of the πιστεύειν—brings out more the reliance implied in it—almost q. d., ‘to rely on Him for eternal life.’ Ellicott has, in his note here, given a full and good classification of the constructions of πιστεύω in the N. T.) to (belongs to πιστεύειν (see above) as its aim and end (cf. Hebrews 10:39): not to ὑποτύπωσιν, as Bengel suggests) life eternal:

17.] but (δέ takes the thought entirely off from himself and every thing else, and makes the following sentence exclusive as applied to God. ‘Ex sensu gratiæ fluit doxologan.’ Bengel. Compare by all means the very similar doxology, Romans 16:25 ff.: and see, on their similarity, the inferences in the Prolegomena, ch. vii. § i. 33, and note) to the King (this name, as applied to God, is found, in N. T., only in Matthew 5:35 (not 25:34 ff.) and our ch. 6:15. See below) of the ages (i.e. of eternity: cf. the reff. Tobit, where the same expression occurs, and Sir.—θεὸς τῶν αἰώνων: also Psalm 144:13, ἡ βασιλεία σου βασιλεία πάντων τῶν αἰώνων,—מַלְכוּת כָּל־עֹלָמִים. Comparing these with the well-known εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, and the like, it is far more likely that οἱ αἰῶνες here should mean eternity, than the ages of this world, as many have understood it. The doxology is to the Father, not to the Trinity (Thdrt.), nor to the Son (Calov., al.): cf. ἀοράτῳ), incorruptible (in ref. Rom. only, used of God), invisible (reff.: see also ch. 6:16: John 1:18. Beware of taking ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ with θεῷ, as recommended by Bishop Middleton, on the ground of the articles being wanting before these adjectives. It is obvious that no such consideration is of any weight in a passage like the present. The abstract adjectives of attribute are used almost as substantives, and stand by themselves, referring not to βασιλεῖ immediately, but to Him of whom βασιλεύς is a title, as well as they: q. d. ‘to Him who is the King of the ages, the Incorruptible, the Invisible, …’), the only God (σοφῷ has apparently come from the doxology at the end of Romans, where it is most appropriate), be honour and glory to the ages of the ages (the periods which are made up of αἰῶνες, as these last are of years,—as years are of days: see note, Ephesians 3:21: and Ellic. on Galatians 1:5), Amen.

18 ff.] He now returns to the matter which he dropped in ver. 3, not indeed formally, so as to supply the apodosis there neglected, but virtually: the παραγγελία not being the one there hinted at, for that was one not given to Timotheus, but to be given by him. Nor is it that in ver. 5, for that is introduced as regarding a matter quite different from the present—viz. the aberrations of the false teachers, who do not here appear till the exhortation to Timotheus is over. What this command is, is plain from the following. This command I commit (as a deposit, to be faithfully guarded and kept: see ref. 2 Tim. and ch. 6:20: Herod. vi. 86, beginning) to thee, son Timotheus (see on ver. 2), according to (in pursuance of: these words belong to παρατίθεμαί σοι, not as Œc., Flatt, al., to ἵνα στρατεύῃ below) the former prophecies concerning thee (the directions, or, prophecies properly so called, of the Holy Spirit, which were spoken concerning Timotheus at his first conversion, or at his admission (cf. ch. 4:14) into the ministry, by the προφῆται in the church. We have instances of such prophetic intimations in Acts 13:1, Acts 13:2,—(11:28,)—21:10, 11. By such intimations, spoken perhaps by Silas, who was with him, and who was a προφήτης (Acts 15:32), may St. Paul have been first induced to take Timotheus to him as a companion, Acts 16:3. All other meanings, which it has been attempted to give to προφητείας, are unwarranted, and beside the purpose here: as e.g. ‘the good hopes conceived of thee,’ Heinrichs. The ἐπὶ σέ belongs to προφητείας, the preposition of motion being easily accounted for by the reference to a subject implied in the word), that thou mayest (purpose, and at the same time purport, of the παραγγελία: cf. note, 1Corinthians 14:13; and Ellicott on Ephesians 1:16) war (στρατεύεσθαι, of the whole business of the employed soldier; not merely of fighting, properly so called) in them (not as De W. ‘by virtue of them,’ but as Mack, Matth., and Wies., ‘in,’ as clad with them, as if they were his defence and confirmation. This is not zu künstlich, as Huther, seeing that the whole expression is figurative) the good warfare (not, as Conyb., ‘fight the good fight,’—by which same words he renders the very different expression in 2Timothy 4:7, τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν καλὸν ἠγώνισμαι. It is the whole campaign, not the fight alone, which is here spoken of), holding fast (more than ‘having;’ but we must hardly, as Matth., carry on the metaphor and think of the shield of faith Ephesians 6:16, such continuation being rendered unlikely by the unmetaphorical character of τὴν ἀγαθὴν συνείδησιν) faith (subjective: cf. περὶ τὴν πίστιν below) and good conscience (cf. ver. 5),—which (latter, viz. good conscience—not, both) some having thrust from them (there is something in the word implying the violence of the act required, and the importunity of conscience, reluctant to be so extruded. So Bengel: ‘recedit invita: semper dicit, noli me Iædere’) made shipwreck (the similitude is so common a one, that it is hardly necessary to extend the figure of a shipwreck beyond the word itself, nor to find in ἀπωσάμενοι allusions to a rudder, anchor, &c. See examples in Wetst.) concerning (see reff., and cf. Acts 19:25, οἱ περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐργάται, also Luke 10:40. The same is elsewhere expressed by ἐν,—so Diog. Laërt. v. 2. 14, ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις μάλα νεναυαγηκώς,—Plut. Symp. i. 4, ἐν οἷς τὰ πλεῖστα ναυαγεῖ συμπόσια. See other examples in Kypke: Winer, edn. 6, § 49. i.: and Ellicott’s note here) the faith (objective): of whom (genitive partitive: among whom) is Hymenæus (there is a Hymenæus mentioned 2Timothy 2:17, in conjunction with Philetus, as an heretical teacher. There is no reason to distinguish him from this one: nor any difficulty occasioned (De W.) by the fact of his being here παραδοθεὶς τῷ σατανᾷ, and there mentioned as overthrowing the faith of many. He would probably go on with his evil teaching in spite of the Apostle’s sentence, which could carry weight with those only who were sound in the faith) and Alexander (in all probability identical with Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ χαλκεύς, 2Timothy 4:14. There is nothing against it in what is there said of him (against De Wette). He appears there to have been an adversary of the Apostle, who had withstood and injured him at his late visit to Ephesus: but there is no reason why he should not have been still under this sentence at that time): whom I delivered over to Satan (there does not seem to be, as almost always taken for granted, any necessary assertion of excommunication properly so called. The delivering to Satan, as in 1Corinthians 5:5, seems to have been an apostolic act, for the purpose of active punishment, in order to correction. It might or might not be accompanied by extrusion from the church: it appears to have been thus accompanied in 1Corinthians 5:5:—but the two must not be supposed identical. The upholders of such identity allege the fact of Satan’s empire being conceived as including all outside the church (Acts 26:18 al.): but such expressions are too vague to be adduced as applying to a direct assertion like this. Satan, the adversary, is evidently regarded as the buffeter and tormentor, cf. 2Corinthians 12:7—ever ready, unless his hand were held, to distress and afflict God’s people,—and ready therefore, when thus let loose by one having power over him, to execute punishment with all his malignity.

Observe that the verb is not perfect but aorist. He did this when he was last at Ephesus. On the ecclesiastical questions here involved, Ellic. has, as usual, some very useful references) that they may be disciplined (the subj. after the aorist indicates that the effect of what was done still abides; the sentence was not yet taken off, nor the παίδευσις at an end.

παιδεύω, as in reff., to instruct by punishment, to discipline) not to blaspheme (God, or Christ, whose holy name was brought to shame by these men associating it with unholy and unclean doctrines).