Finishing the Race

A Commentary on 2 Timothy 4:6–8

By Johann Gerhard, Th. D.

Translator’s Preface

The following was translated from Adnotationes ad Posteriorem D. Pauli ad Timotheum Epistolam, in Quibus Textus Declaratur, Quaestiones Dubiae Solvuntur, Observationes Eruuntur, & Loca in Speciem Pugnantia quam Brevissime Conciliantur (Commentary on St. Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy, in Which the Text Is Explained, Difficult Questions Are Answered, Observations Are Drawn Out, and Seemingly Contradictory Passages Are Reconciled as Concisely as Possible) by Johann Gerhard, Th.D. (Jena: Steinmann, 1643), 78–86; available from the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. I also consulted the 1666 Jena edition, pp. 205–13.

This translation was prepared in connection with an exegetical presentation assigned to me for a circuit meeting in Merrill, Wisconsin, on December 7, 2015.

The footnotes are mine, and are for the most part an attempt to cite Gerhard’s sources more exactly. “PG” and “PL” stand for J.-P. Migne’s collections of the writings of the church fathers, Patrologia Graeca and Patrologia Latina respectively.

May the Holy Spirit use the apostle Paul’s words to inspire us to contend honorably and well in the good contest in which God has graciously placed us, so that we finish our race as Paul did, satisfied with our earthly lot and confident of the crown of righteousness that awaits us.

2 Timothy 4:6–8

6. Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ἀναλύσεως ἐφέστηκε.

ego enim iam delibor et tempus meae resolutionis instat

• Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι

Paraphrase: I am being offered and poured out in the manner of a sacrifice.

This kind of metaphor is taken from the sacrifices of the Old Testament, to which drink offerings used to be added.

At the same time he is alluding to the punishment that he is going to undergo and its fruit, the verification of the truth of the gospel. For he says that he is being poured out [libari], that is, that he is about to be poured out [libatum iri], that is, that his blood is about to be shed in order to ratify the truth of the doctrine of the gospel, just as agreements were ratified with drink offerings [libaminibus], that is, with the pouring out of wine which the contracting parties had first sampled [libaverant], that is, tasted with the edge of their lips.

Certainly our death is a sacrifice that we offer to God, but that sacrifice ought to be a willing one. Therefore when the hour of death comes, let us follow after our Lord, not with reluctance and groaning, but with a ready spirit.

A passage parallel to this one is found in Philippians 2:17: ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ καὶ λειτουργίᾳ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν, χαίρω [But even if I am being poured out on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice].

The little word ἤδη [already] means that it will not be long before he is carried off to punishment and he ratifies the truth of the gospel with the pouring out of his blood.

• Καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ἀναλύσεως ἐφέστηκε

“The time of my release [resolutionis],” namely from bodily fetters. Cyprian seems to have read ὁ καιρὸς ἐμῆς ἀναλήψεως [the time of my ascension].¹ Some teach that Paul called it “release” [resolutionem] because through death the body is released (or dissolved) [resolvatur] into ashes, but the better reason was just given, namely that through death the fetter is loosened [solvatur] by which the soul was drawn together with the body.²

A parallel passage is Philippians 1:23: ἐπιθυμίαν ἔχων εἰς τὸ ἀναλῦσαι καὶ σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι [having a desire for release and being with Christ].

Most interpreters conclude from this passage that out of all the Pauline epistles, this was the last one the apostle wrote, since the death he would suffer was already imminent. Rf. Eusebius’s Church History, Book 2, Chapter 22.³ Estius opposes this judgment in his section on the “Theme of the Epistle.”⁴ He is of the opinion that “this epistle is either the first or second of those that were produced in Rome, and was written many years before Paul’s death, namely in Nero’s third or fourth year, since Paul’s martyrdom occured during Nero’s thirteenth year.”⁵ He proves his opinion with the following arguments:

1. Since Paul had just arrived in Rome, he wanted to inform his disciple Timothy right away how he was doing, since Timothy was his dearest friend, and in particular about the success of his first defense before Nero, which he does at the end of the epistle.
2. He writes several things in this epistle which clearly show that he has just arrived in the city of Rome, e.g. “When you come, bring along the cloak that I left in Troas” (4:13) and, “Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus” (4:20).
3. In this very epistle he indicates that he is still being reserved for fulfilling the office of preaching among the gentiles: “The Lord stood by me and gave me much strength, in order that through me the proclamation might be fulfilled and all the gentiles might hear it” (4:17).
4. The epistle Paul wrote to Philemon, in which he asks that a guest room be prepared for him [vs. 22], implying that he would soon be released from prison, is much later than this one.⁶

In his exposition of verse 13 in this chapter, he strengthens his opinion with another argument: If [Paul] was thinking that the day of his death was already impending as he wrote this epistle, then what would be the point of his asking for the traveling clothes, or the box, or the scrolls that he had left in Troas some ten years ago, when they would not be of any further use to him?⁷

At the present passage he responds to the mainstream interpretation by saying that the apostle does not think “that he is already about to be carried off to martyrdom,” but that he is simply indicating that, “even though he is uncertain as to the time of his death or suffering, he is gradually being prepared for sacrifice through imprisonments and tribunals.”⁸ But this exposition does not capture the emphasis of the apostle’s words, and the strength of the arguments produced by Baronius and Estius is weak.

7. Τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν καλὸν ἡγώνισμαι, τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα, τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα.

bonum certamen certavi cursum consummavi fidem servavi

This is a flowery and sort of triumphant συμπλοκή [combination] linked together by asyndeton, in which he describes the course of his life using three distinct metaphors.

The first one is borrowed from a strong athlete: Τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν καλὸν ἡγώνισμαι, certamen bonum certavi, “I have contended in the good” – that is, the noble, distinguished, and excellent – “contest.” Some want this to be understood as a running contest here, since it is immediately followed by cursum consummavi, “I have finished the race.” But it is more correct to say that the metaphor is taken particularly from a wrestling contest, which metaphor is also used in 1 Corinthians 9:25.

The second metaphor is borrowed from a strenuous runner: τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα. He compares himself to those who run in a racecourse, which metaphor is used in the same way as the first, and he links it together with the first one taken from an athlete. See 1 Corinthians 9:24,26. Some want this metaphor to be taken from a journey, but the first explanation fits the context better.

The third metaphor is borrowed from an honorable soldier: τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα. By the faith he not only understands the confident apprehending of Christ’s merit, but also the faith of duty or the faithfulness with respect to duty that he owed and promised to God. For he compares himself to a soldier who has pledged loyalty [fidem] to the emperor or to the general and keeps it faithfully. “This is what is sought in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:2).

Therefore Paul’s life has constituted the following:

1. A good contest, since he has thus far been stationed in battle against sins, the world, the flesh, the devil, heretics, false apostles, and also enemies of Christ, both Jews and gentiles, and by the power of Christ, who has strengthened him, he has emerged the victor.
2. A vigorous race, for on the racetrack of the public ministry and of private life, on which he has been running his heart out thus far, he has neither grown faint along the way nor lost faith, but has finished his race the victor.
3. A continuous excercise of faith, since he has remained faithful to Christ his general all the way to his life’s final breath, and has kept the loyalty [fidem] pledged to Christ.

“He says that he has [contended in the contest,] has finished [the] race[, has kept the faith], even though . . . the last act of his suffering and death still remained, because . . . he was already approaching the end of the contest and had firm confidence in the Lord regarding the part of the racecourse he still had to cover.”⁹ Cf. Augustine, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, Book 2, Chapter 16.¹⁰

8. Λοιπὸν, ἀπόκειταί μοι ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος, ὃν ἀποδώσει μοι ὁ Κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής, οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐμοὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ.

in reliquo reposita est mihi iustitiae corona quam reddet mihi Dominus in illa die iustus iudex non solum autem mihi set et his qui diligunt adventum eius

• Λοιπὸν, ἀπόκειταί μοι ὁ τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανος

Ambrose renders the Greek λοιπόν as quod reliquum est, “as for what remains.”¹¹

He continues in the metaphor and calls the reward of the contest, race, and military service that have been completed commendably a crown, since it was customary for a crown to be given to those running in a racecourse and to soldiers.

But the happiness and glory of eternal life is called the crown of righteousness, not Paul’s righteousness, but God’s. And indeed the righteousness of God is understood not as that which judges according to the merits of works, but as that according to which God is steadfast in promises, and which does not pay a debt that has been earned, but a debt that has been freely promised.

Therefore it is the crown of righteousness because:

1. Christ has won it for us by his perfect obedience and righteousness.
2. God has promised it to those who serve him faithfully and pursue holiness and righteousness (1 Corinthians 9:25; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4). In the case of the former, the crown is earned by righteousness; in the case of the latter it is only a consequence of righteousness. It can also be called the crown of righteousness because:
3. At that time Paul and all the elect will be fully and perfectly brought to that life where there is righteousness without sin. In this sense it is called “the crown of life” (James 1:12), “a beautiful crown” (Ezekiel 16:12), and “the crown of glory” (Isaiah 6:3;¹² 1 Peter 5:4), etc.

Estius asks how it can be called the crown of righteousness, since it is the crown of compassion (Psalm 103:4). He responds:

Those are no less compatible than the fact that eternal life is sometimes called a reward [merces] in the Scriptures, and at other times a favor [gratia]—a reward because it is given in return for the merits of good works, and a favor because these same merits are God’s gifts. So too eternal life is the crown of righteousness because it is owed to the one who contends according to the law, and it is the crown of compassion because a person would not be able to contend according to the law if God did not grant it, nor would a person attain to the crown if the same Lord did not mercifully pardon the failings and mistakes committed while contending.¹³

And later:

If Christ as the just judge is going to pay [redditurus] Paul and all the elect with the crown of righteousness in return for having kept the faith and having finished the race, there is therefore a kind [ratio] of merit in these works with respect to such a crown. Nor indeed do the Catholics frame these merits of works in opposition to the grace of Christ. . . . For [they teach] that God’s kindness towards us is required just as much as our merits, which are his gifts. And it is in return for these merits, which he himself has generously bestowed, that eternal rewards are going to be given.¹⁴

We respond:

1. It is not eternal life itself, the essential reward [praemium], that is called a reward [merces], but the accidental or secondary rewards [praemia] that are so called. In Matthew 5:12 and Luke 6:12, Jesus says, “Your reward [merces] will be abundant in heaven,” making a noticeable distinction between heaven itself or eternal life and the reward in heaven. Thus in 1 Timothy 4:8 piety is said to have “promises of the present life and of the life to come,” i.e. promises of the rewards [praemiorum] in the present and future life.
2. If Scripture does call eternal life a reward [mercedem] sometimes, and a favor [gratiam] at other times, then it is not a reward of merit, but a reward of grace [gratiae], and consequently it is not given in return for the merits of good works, but out of grace. “If it is by grace, then it is not by works” (Romans 11:6).
3. When the good works of the pious are called merits by the ancients—and indeed such as derive their origin from God’s gift and grace—then they are using the term merit in a broader sense and καταχρηστικῶς [improperly], as was clearly established at the proper locus.¹⁵
4. We concede that eternal life is called the crown of righteousness because it is given to one who contends according to the law, but it still does not follow from this that the contest is deserving of eternal life, or that eternal life is a reward owed by merit in return for that contest. For it is one thing to ask to whom the crown of eternal life should be given; in that case it is correct to say that it is given to those who contend according to the law. But it is another thing to ask for what reason it should be given. The former describes the subject, the latter the meritorious cause.
5. A debt owed with respect to justice, carefully considered and properly so called, is opposed to a reward of grace, but a debt owed with respect to a gracious promise, carefully considered and καταχρηστικῶς [improperly] so called, does not exclude grace nor is opposed to it. The reward of good works is said by the fathers (but nowhere in Scripture) to be owed by reason of the promise, but since that promise is purely gracious (Isaiah 40:23; Romans 11:35),¹⁶ it is therefore improper to call it owed. Augustine on Psalm 109: “God is faithful, the one who has made himself our debtor, not by accepting anything from us, but by promising so many things to us. . . . Whatever he has promised, he has promised to the unworthy, so that it would not be like a reward [merces] promised in exchange for works, but would be a favor [gratia] given gratis, as its name indicates.”¹⁷
6. If “a person would not be able to contend according to the law if God did not grant it,” then there is no way that the contest can be a meritorious cause of the crown of glory or of eternal life. The reason is that, if the ability to contend according to the law is given by God, then a person is rendered God’s debtor for that, rather than that God should owe a person anything for that. If good works are God’s gifts, then, properly speaking, we are unable to merit anything with them.
7. If “a person would not attain to the crown if God did not mercifully pardon the failings and mistakes committed while contending,” then there is no way that the contest can be a meritorious cause of the eternal crown. The reason for that is because that contest is not complete, perfect, blameless in all respects. And works that are going to be meritorious need to be perfect and pure, completely free of any defect.

As for the rest, the apostle says that that crown of righteousness has been “set aside for [him],” no doubt by God, by whom Paul was most confidently expecting to have it bestowed [reddendam] upon him. “I am certain that he is able to guard my deposit” (2 Timothy 1:12). That is why he immediately adds:

• ὃν ἀποδώσει μοι ὁ Κύριος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ὁ δίκαιος κριτής

Estius emphasizes that Paul does not say, “will give [dabit],” but “will give back [reddet],” “just like some debt, or a loan or deposit, which needs to be paid back by law,” and he cites Theophylact and Oecumenius.¹⁸

We respond:

1. The little word ἀποδώσει has the free promise in mind; for what God has promised out of grace, he faithfully keeps. It is therefore not a debt of justice, but of promise.
2. Basil, on p. 68 of his seventeen homilies on the Psalms, on Psalm 7 in the second homily, teaches that it is Scripture’s custom to say ἀνταπόδοσιν for δόσει and ἀνταποδοῦναι for δοῦναι, just as compound forms are used for simple ones in other cases.¹⁹
3. In Colossians 3:14 the rewards [praemia] for good works are called ἀνταπόδοσις τῆς κληρονομίας, retributio hereditatis, the “repayment of the inheritance.” Just as a son is born an heir, and does not at some point need to earn the inheritance with works, so the pious have been born of God as cherished sons of God in Christ, and if they are sons, then they also have to be heirs. Yet just as a large inheritance is nevertheless at the same time a reward [praemium] for filial obedience, so also the rewards [praemia] of life in heaven compensate the pious for their works and afflictions most generously and far beyond what they deserve.

By ὁ Κύριος [the Lord] he understands Christ, whom he calls ὁ δίκαιος κριτής [the righteous judge], the one to whom the Father has given all judgment (John 5:22). The apostle notably says about this righteous judge that he is going to give the crown both to him (Paul) and to all who love his (the judge’s) appearing, from which it is clearly proved that the authority κριτικήν [to judge] is given to Christ as man.²⁰

But Estius follows this up by saying that Christ is not going to present the elect with heavenly blessedness in any other way than by simply awarding the apostle Paul and the rest of the elect the crown that is owed to them through a judicial decision, since “to bless a creature effectively and properly belongs to uncreated authority alone.”²¹

We respond: But indeed that uncreated and infinite authority to bless a creature has been given to Christ the man through and on account of the personal union of the two natures in time. He will therefore not only pronounce a judicial decision with his external and audible voice, but he will also demonstrate his omniscience by exposing even the most hidden things of all people (1 Corinthians 4:5), and he will demonstrate his omnipotence with that which precedes the judgment—the resuscitation of the dead, the summoning and assembling of all people at the tribunal of judgment, and the effectual execution of the judicial sentencing. Power and glory that are truly divine are required in order to do all or any of these things, which is why Scripture says throughout that Christ is coming to judge in truly divine glory, power, and authority.

By ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ [that day] he understands the day of judgment, which is elsewhere called “the day of the Lord.”

Ἐναντιοφανές [Apparent Contradiction]: As far as his soul is concerned, Paul received that crown of righteousness immediately after his death. Why then does he say that Christ is not going to give it to him until the day of judgment?

We respond: He is talking about the fullest and most perfect blessedness, which will be bestowed not upon the soul, but upon the human consisting of soul and body.

From this passage it is concluded that the apostle was sure of his salvation. But Estius follows this up by saying that “Paul is not simply affirming here what is going to happen. Rather, he is either speaking optimistically [sermonem esse bonae fiduciae], as if to say, ‘I am certainly expecting and hoping to receive this crown from the Lord,’ or more likely, there is an implied condition, ‘The Lord will do this for me if I perserve all the way to my death.’”²² For Estius says that what Paul wrote in the letter to the Philippians “after this one to Timothy”²³ stands against any certainty of salvation, “when he speaks as one who is still by no means completely certain: ‘if somehow I may attain to the resurrection which is from the dead’ (3:11).”²⁴

We respond:

1. The words of the text by themselves testify clearly enough that the apostle was most certain that the crown of glory would be bestowed upon him by Christ the judge. For he says that that crown of glory was set aside for him by the Lord and would be bestowed upon him on that day of judgment, and he does not employ verbs in the optative mood, but in the indicative.
2. Many of the Pontificals concede that the apostle was certain of his salvation, but they add that that certainty came from some special revelation. See Duraeus in the eighth chapter of his book against Whitaker, folio 259,²⁵ and Pistorius in his guide, p. 201.²⁶
3. The words of Romans 8:38, “I am certain that neither death nor life . . .,” are not merely optimistic, but are also words of unshakeable certainty and of the firmest conviction, with which these words in the present text are in perfect agreement.
4. Certainly the condition of perseverance is also implied, but the apostle was certain of that very perseverance because of God’s kindness, faithfulness, and power, as was demonstrated at the proper locus.
5. The particle εἴ πως in Philippians 3:11 does not express doubt, but alludes to the hardship and afflictions that weigh upon the pious in this life.

He is called the δίκαιος κριτής [righteous judge] because he will judge ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ [in righteousness] (Acts 17:31) and will execute that δικαίαν τοῦ θεοῦ κρίσιν [righteous judgment of God] which Paul describes this way in 2 Thessalonians 1:6,7: “It is just in God’s sight to repay tribulation to those who are troubling you, and to you who are undergoing tribulation to repay rest, along with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven . . .”

• οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐμοὶ, ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ

Those “who love [Christ’s] coming” are those who are waiting for him as their Savior with longing and vigilance, who daily prepare themselves for Christ’s coming, and who demonstrate that they love him and are eagerly waiting for his coming by earnestly devoting themselves to piety.

Estius suspects that the “familiar distributive” πᾶσι in the Greek text was a later addition, because:

1. Hentenius does not translate it in Oecumenius.²⁷
2. Ambrose and the other Latin ancients do not read it.²⁸
3. The Syriac translator also does not find it in his Greek text.
4. It is easier to add this little word than to remove it, since the sense seems to require it.²⁹

We respond:

1. The main reason prompting Estius’s position that this particle was a later addition is that it is not included in the Vulgate version, which the Council of Trent pronounced the authentic one.³⁰
2. But what will be done with those same Tridentine fathers, who explicitly add that particle when citing this verse in the Sixth Session, Chapter 16?³¹
3. Estius himself confesses that “the sense seems to require it.” It is therefore easier for it to have been omitted in the Latin version than added in the Greek, especially since other examples of this kind of omission can also be found in the Vulgate version.
4. The Greek text of Oecumenius explicitly includes that particle, and Hentenius’s version cannot detract from it at all. In fact, Oecumenius draws out this useful observation from that particle: “Here he also incites Timothy himself, for he says, ‘He will also bestow it upon you. For if he will give the crown to all [omnibus] who love his coming, then how much more to you!’”³²
5. Ambrose and the Latin ancients have followed the Vulgate version. The Syriac translator also ignored the Greek text and followed the Vulgate now and then, as several examples are able to confirm.

Endnotes

¹ Gerhard may be referring to De Laude Martyrii (On the Glory of Martyrdom) 18 (PL 4, col. 828). This work is attributed to Cyprian with reservation.

² Cf. Guilielmus Estius, In Omnes Beati Pauli et Aliorum Apostolorum Epistolas Commentaria (Paris, 1623), 852.2–853.1: “[Paul] calls death his ‘release’ [resolutionem] either because through death the body is released (or dissolved) [resolvatur] into ashes or, more likely, because through it the fetter is loosened [solvatur] with which the soul was drawn together with the body.” Cosmas Magalianus, Operis Hierarchici, sive, De Ecclesiastico Principatu, Liber II. in quo Beati Pauli Apostoli secunda ad Timotheum Ephesi Episcopum, & Primatem, Epistola, Commentariis illustratur (Lyon, France: Sumptibus Horatii Cardon, 1609), 180: “For death is the loosening [solutio] of the soul from the body, a departure, as it were, from the penitentiary in which it was being detained.”

³ PG 20, cols. 193–96. Rf. also Magalianus, op. cit., p. 8, where he not only cites Eusebius as such an interpreter, but also Chrysostom in his homilies on this epistle (rf. e.g. PG 62, col. 601) and Jerome in his Lives of Illustrious Men (rf. PL 23, col. 615–18).

⁴ Estius’s opposition is really based on the arguments of Cardinal Caesar Baronius, in tome 1 of his Annales Ecclesiastici. (Cardinal Baronius undertook his Annales in answer to the Lutheran church history compiled mainly by Matthias Flacius, the so-called Magdeburg Centuries.) Magalianus (op. cit., p. 9) also cites Alfonso Salmerón the Jesuit, in Salmerón’s first discussion (Prima Disputatio) on 2 Timothy (Disputationum in Epistolas Divi Pauli Tomus Tertius), in addition to Baronius, as going against the judgment of mainstream interpreters.

⁵ Estius, op. cit., p. 825.

⁶ Ibid., pp. 825–26. Estius does not actually include this argument in the “Theme of the Epistle,” as implied here, but in his comments on vs. 6 (p. 852.2), where he says that he will prove his assertion in his comments on Philemon 22.

⁷ Ibid., p. 856.1.

⁸ Ibid., p. 852.2.

⁹ Ibid., p. 853.1. In the original, it appears that Gerhard is citing Augustine (rf. next footnote), but he is actually citing Estius, who supports his interpretation by citing Augustine.

¹⁰ PL 44, cols. 165–66. In English editions, the citation in question appears in Chapter 24. The “Cf.” does not appear in Gerhard’s original (rf. preceding footnote).

¹¹ On the Duties of the Clergy, Book 1, Chapter 15 (PL 16, col. 40). The Latin phrase, like the English, is somewhat ambiguous, referring either to remaining subject matter or to what remains in the future. In Schaff’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (vol. 10, p. 11) the phrase is rendered henceforth.

¹² This reference does not seem to fit.

¹³ Estius, op. cit., p. 853.2.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 854.1.

¹⁵ Latin: suo loco. This phrase occurs again later; both times it seems to be a reference to Gerhard’s well-known dogmatic treatise and magnum opus, Loci Theologici (Theological Topics).

¹⁶ Perhaps Gerhard meant to cite 40:13 (which corresponds to Romans 11:34). The actual Old Testament parallel to Romans 11:35 is Job 41:11.

¹⁷ PL 37, cols. 1445,1446. This corresponds to Psalm 110 in English Bibles.

¹⁸ Estius, op. cit., p. 853.2. Cf. Oecumenius in PG 119, cols. 233,234; Theophylact in PG 125, cols. 131,132.

¹⁹ “‘Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is injustice in my hands, if I have paid back [ἀνταπέδωκα] evil to those who pay me back [τοῖς ἀνταποδιδοῦσί μοι], may I then fall down empty at the hands of my enemies. May the enemy then hunt down my life and overtake it’ [Psalm 7:4–6a LXX]. It is customary for Scripture to apply the term ἀνταπόδοσις [repayment] not only to the usual circumstances, as repayment of something good or bad that already exists, but also to actions taking place first, as in the passage, ‘Pay back [Ἀνταπόδος] to your slave’ [Ps 118:17 LXX]. For instead of saying, ‘Give [Δὸς],’ ‘Pay back [Ἀνταπόδος]’ was said. Δόσις [giving], then, is the beginning of doing good; ἀπόδοσις [giving back] is the reciprocal measuring out of something equal for the good that one has experienced; ἀνταπόδοσις [paying back] is a sort of second beginning and going around [περίοδος] of the good and bad things being paid to certain people. But I think that, whenever the discourse is seeking repayment [τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν], making, as it were, a sort of formal demand instead of a request, it yields something like the following sense: ‘Show me the same obligation of care that progenitors automatically owe their offspring by nature’” (PG 29, col. 233; translation mine).

²⁰ “appearing” in this sentence is adventum, “coming,” in Latin, but Gerhard has the original Greek ἐπιφάνειαν, “appearing,” in mind. The authority to judge is clearly given to Christ as man, since Christ can only visibly appear to other humans as man, and not as God (rf. Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27; John 4:24).

²¹ Estius, op. cit., p. 853.2.

²² Ibid., p. 854.1.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 853.2.

²⁵ Ioannes Duraeus, Confutatio Responsionis Gulielmi Whitakeri (Paris: Apud Thomam Brumennium, 1582).

²⁶ Ioannes Pistorius, Wegweiser für all verführte Christen (Ingolstadt: Andreas Angermayer, 1600). Gerhard cites this book as “hodeget.”, which is an abbreviated Latin transliteration of ὁδηγητήρ, a Greek word corresponding to Wegweiser in German. Pistorius’s father, Johannes Sr., was at first a Roman Catholic and then a Lutheran. Johannes Jr. went the opposite direction.

²⁷ Rf. Iohannes Hentenius, ed., Ennarationes vetustissimorum Theologorum (Antwerp: In aedibus Iohannis Steelsii, 1545), folio 169, Caput Nonum.

²⁸ Rf. Ambrose, op. cit. (endnote 11).

²⁹ Estius, op. cit., p. 854.1.

³⁰ Rf. H. J. Schroeder, trans., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis and London: B. Herder Book Co., 1941), 18 (English), 297 (Latin), Fourth Session, “Decree Concerning the Edition and Use of the Sacred Books.”

³¹ Ibid., p. 41 (English), 319 (Latin).

³² Hentenius, op. cit. (endnote 27), folio 170. At the head of each section of Oecumenius’s commentary, Hentenius includes his own Latin version of the verses being treated.

The Necessity of Being Persecuted

A Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:10-13

By Johann Gerhard, Th. D.

Translator’s Preface

The following was translated from Adnotationes ad Posteriorem D. Pauli ad Timotheum Epistolam, in Quibus Textus Declaratur, Quaestiones Dubiae Solvuntur, Observationes Eruuntur, & Loca in Speciem Pugnantia quam Brevissime Conciliantur (Commentary on St. Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy, in Which the Text Is Explained, Difficult Questions Are Answered, Observations Are Drawn Out, and Seemingly Contradictory Passages Are Reconciled as Concisely as Possible) by Johann Gerhard, Th.D. (Jena: Steinmann, 1643), pp. 63-65; available from the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.

This translation was prepared in connection with an exegetical presentation assigned to me for a circuit meeting in Merrill, Wisconsin, on November 3, 2014.

May the Holy Spirit use the example of the apostle Paul, especially his willingness to suffer a multitude and variety of persecutions for the sake of the gospel, to incite and inspire us so that we are willing and able to undergo similar experiences to the triune God’s honor and glory.

2 Timothy 3:10-13

10. Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθηκάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, τῇ ἀγωγῇ, τῇ προθέσει, τῇ πίστει, τῇ μακροθυμίᾳ, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ὑπομονῇ

Tu autem adsecutus es meam doctrinam institutionem propositum fidem longanimitatem dilectionem patientiam

• Σὺ δὲ παρηκολούθηκάς μου τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, τῇ ἀγωγῇ, τῇ προθέσει

In contrast to the corrupt teachings and practices of the heretics Paul sets down his own example, and with it he incites Timothy to discharge his office in a steadfast manner. Paraphrase: “But you have eagerly sought to imitate and have sufficiently understood my teaching, instruction, and intention, that is, when you were an inseparable companion on my travels and a partner in my activity. Therefore you are thoroughly familiar and intimately acquainted with everything about me.”

Some take ἀγωγὴν to mean a particular method of instructing, since ἀγωγή, as Aristotle teaches in Book 1 of The Art of Rhetoric, signifies a guiding and understanding of the law that happens when an instructor or professor leads, so to speak, a student who is to be instructed to the understanding of a particular matter.¹ Others say it refers to how one acts in day-to-day life and a particular manner of living. Either interpretation works.

By πρόθεσιν Paul means the end and goal of his apostolic activity. That is to say, in all the activity of his ministry he had as his purpose not his own own glory or his own well-being, but the glory of God and the well-being of his neighbor.

• τῇ πίστει, τῇ μακροθυμίᾳ, τῇ ἀγάπῃ, τῇ ὑπομονῇ

Some take faith to mean steadfastness of the soul, but it is more correctly applied to faith’s πληροφορίᾳ or full assurance, which shows itself through firmness and steadfastness of the soul.

By μακροθυμίαν Paul means tenderness of the soul and restraint toward persecutors and enemies of the truth.

By ἀγάπην he means Christian love toward all people.

By ὑπομονὴν he means endurance in the adversities and persecutions that he had to undergo.

11. τοῖς διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασι, οἷά μοι ἐγένετο ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, ἐν Ἰκονίῳ, ἐν Λύστροις, οἵους διωγμοὺς ὑπήνεγκα, καὶ ἐκ πάντων με ἐῤῥύσατο ὁ Κύριος.

persecutiones passiones qualia mihi facta sunt Antiochiae Iconii Lystris quales persecutiones sustinui et ex omnibus me eripuit Dominus

• τοῖς διωγμοῖς, τοῖς παθήμασι

He recounts the persecutions and afflictions that he has patiently endured for the sake of the gospel, in order that he may incite and inspire Timothy so that he is able and willing to submit to similar experiences.

• οἷά μοι ἐγένετο ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ, ἐν Ἰκονίῳ, ἐν Λύστροις

He names three cities that were all accessories to his sufferings – Antioch (Pisidian, not Syrian), Iconium, and Lystra. According to Theodoret and Theophylact, Paul recalls these particular cities because Timothy was more familiar with what Paul had suffered in those places, since Timothy was originally from Lystra, a city in the vicinity of the other two.² Alternatively, he might be recalling these three cities because the persecutions in those places were stirred up against him particularly by the Jews, as is clear from Acts 13 and 14.

• οἵους διωγμοὺς ὑπήνεγκα

He is thinking of either the persecutions he has endured in the cities just mentioned or other persecutions. After all, Timothy had seen many other persecutions of Paul.

• καὶ ἐκ πάντων με ἐῤῥύσατο ὁ Κύριος

Paul adds these words for Timothy’s comfort. However, God does not deliver from adversities in just one way. Sometimes he removes them, sometimes he lightens them, he always works patience in the hearts of the pious, and in the end he grants a blessed ἔκβασιν or release, if not in life, then through death.

12. καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ θέλοντες εὐσεβῶς ζῆν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ διωχθήσονται.

et omnes qui volunt pie vivere in Christo Iesu persecutionem patientur

Paraphrase: “If persecutions and adversities should also fall to your lot, there is no reason that this should seem strange and unusual, because this is common to all those who are truly pious.”

Question: Why does he add “in Christ Jesus,” when no one is able to live piously except in Christ?

Response: He wants to show the only way we are able to live piously, namely in Christ-centered faith.

Gregory says in Book 7, Epistle 30: “I say confidently that you would live less piously if you suffered persecution to a lesser extent.”³

13. πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι καὶ γόητες προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον, πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι.

mali autem homines et seductores proficient in peius errantes et in errorem mittentes

• πονηροὶ δὲ ἄνθρωποι καὶ γόητες προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον

There is no reason for us to expect that persecution will cease during this age, because wicked people and seducers are always getting worse and worse, from which fact persecutions against the pious originate.

• γόητες

Γόητες properly signifies enchanters and swindlers, then it is applied more generally to impostors and deceivers.

• προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον

These words make us think back to what the apostle had said earlier in vs. 9: οὐ προκόψουσιν ἐπὶ πλεῖον, “they will not progress further.” They also send us back to the just judgment of God, on account of which the false teachers and those who listen to them are being struck with blindness (Rom 1:18ff).

• πλανῶντες καὶ πλανώμενοι

This is an elegant polyptoton⁴ – tum seducentes, tum seducti, “both seducing and being seduced.” Erasmus translates: dum & in errorem adducunt [alios], & errant ipsi, “while they are both leading [others] astray and going astray themselves.”⁵

The translator of the Vulgate has altered the sequence of the words, because in the natural order going astray comes first, rather than leading others astray. But we are not compelled by any necessity to have recourse to πρωθύστερον.⁶ For the sense is this: While they are seducing others, they themselves, by the just judgment of God, are suffering the punishment of immediately falling into more grievous errors.

Endnotes

¹ Rf. Aristotle, The “Art” of Rhetoric, tr. John Henry Freese (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926), p. 154, 155. The more exact citation would be Book 1, Chapter 15, Section 10, or 1375b. Gerhard seems to have obtained this interpretation of Aristotle’s usage from Henricus Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, vol. 1 (Paris: Henricus Stephanus, 1572), col. 64. That Aristotle was actually using the word this way does not seem to be firmly established.

² Interpretation of 2 Timothy: “[Paul] left out everything else that happened to him and called to mind only the dangers that he had met with in Pisidia and Lycaonia. For the one to whom he wrote was himself a Lycaonian, so these dangers were more familiar to him than the others” (Theodoret, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 82, Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 847,848).

Commentary on 2 Timothy: “He means the Antioch that was in Pisidia. Lystra was Timothy’s hometown. This is why he only mentions these places, since they were more familiar to Timothy. It could also be that they were the most recent places Paul visited” (Theophylact, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 125, Theophylacti, Bulgariae Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 121,122).

³ St. Gregory the Great, Patrologia Latina, vol. 77, Sancti Gregorii Papae I, Cognomento Magni, Opera Omnia (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1862), col. 886. The letter was addressed “To Narses, the Religious.” “The Narses here addressed as ‘Religiosus’ was probably the same as the ‘Narses Comes’ of I. 6, and VI. 14, and the ‘Narses Patricius’ of IV. 32. For it is evident from the letters that he was of high rank at Constantinople, and greetings are sent through him to the same persons as in the other letters. He had now, we may suppose, devoted himself to the service of the Church in some capacity” (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xviii.html, note 1710; accessed 3 November 2014).

⁴ A rhetorical device when several forms or cases of the same word stand together

⁵ E.g. Novi Testamenti Aeditio Postrema, per Des. Erasmum Roterodamum (Zurich: In Officina Froschoviana, 1541), p. 280. Gerhard incorrectly quotes Erasmus as translating inducunt instead of adducunt, but in this case the two are virtually synonymous.

⁶ Taking what is last and putting it first

Troublesome Times

A Commentary on 2 Timothy 3:1-5

By Johann Gerhard, Th.D.

Translator’s Preface

The following was translated from Adnotationes ad Posteriorem D. Pauli ad Timotheum Epistolam, in Quibus Textus Declaratur, Quaestiones Dubiae Solvuntur, Observationes Eruuntur, & Loca in Speciem Pugnantia quam Brevissime Conciliantur (Commentary on St. Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy, in Which the Text Is Explained, Difficult Questions Are Answered, Observations Are Drawn Out, and Seemingly Contradictory Passages Are Reconciled as Concisely as Possible) by Johann Gerhard, Th.D. (Jena: Steinmann, 1643), pp. 53-57; available from the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. The third edition (Leipzig, 1712), available from Lutheran Legacy, was also consulted.

Chief among the merits of Johann Gerhard is his ability, without wasting words, to familiarize the reader with the original Scripture text, the various available versions, and the remarks of the preeminent church fathers all at the same time.

In this particular section of his commentary on 2 Timothy, due to the nature of the content, he also familiarizes the reader with some secular classics. In so doing, he confirms the importance of a classical, liberal arts education for biblical interpretation and scholarship.

This translation was prepared in connection with an exegetical presentation assigned to me for a circuit meeting in Merrill, Wisconsin, on November 4, 2013, the day after the observance of the Lutheran Reformation. In going over it and digesting it, it struck me how well this portion of Scripture fits the context of a Reformation remembrance and celebration. Many of the characteristics of the troublesome times Paul warns about are precisely the characteristics Martin Luther noted, lamented, and battled in his time, ultimately leading him and his followers to separate from the Roman Catholic Church (2 Timothy 3:5).

Yet we would be fools to think that we are safe from these characteristics in the confessional Lutheran church. The same evils which grow in the garden of the Roman Catholic Church may be noted here and there in our own, and are always sprouting up in our own hearts. If we spend our time trumpeting our supposed superiority over other church bodies and denominations, we have become the very “boastful, arrogant” and “conceited” people against whom Paul warns (3:2,4). Yes, we have shown ourselves to possess that source trait of all evil traits – “lovers of self” (3:2).

My prayer then is that this work, and particularly the meditation on the Bible text to which it lends, leads us to be watchful rather than boastful, to be swollen with gratitude rather than with conceit, and to fall to our knees in humility rather than in despair. God graciously grant it for Jesus’ sake.

2 Timothy 3:1-5

This chapter has three parts:

1. The apostle’s prophetic prediction about the circumstances of the end times (vv. 1-9),
2. The patience that should be exhibited, illustrated by the apostolic example set forth for imitation (vv. 10-12), and
3. A serious forewarning against seducers and an exhortation to unfold Holy Scripture diligently (vv. 13-17).

 1. Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε, ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί

Hoc autem scito quod in novissimis diebus instabunt tempora periculosa

• Τοῦτο δὲ γίνωσκε

Lest Timothy or anyone else be amazed or offended that evil people and hypocrites are multiplying in the church, he warns him in advance that this will be the case.

• ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἐνστήσονται καιροὶ χαλεποί

He understands ἡμέρας ἐσχάτας as the entire time spanning the distance between Christ’s first coming and his second coming, so that his prediction also pertains to Timothy’s times. For at the end of his warning he adds, “and avoid these people” (vs. 5). Therefore he is thinking of all the time subsequent to the apostolic age. Cf. 1 Timothy 4:1.

• καιροὶ χαλεποί

The Vulgate translated this Greek phrase as tempora periculosa, “dangerous times.” But it is properly translated tempora difficilia, “difficult times” – times during which it is difficult for someone to get advice as to how to conduct himself in the face of such people. It can also be rendered tempora molesta, “troublesome times,” since nothing more troublesome can happen to a pious person than having to contend with people like this. Luther translated greuliche Zeiten, “horrible times.” It can also be rendered beschwerliche Zeiten, “oppressive times.”

Epithets of this kind are given to time metonymically, in view of the things that happen in time, especially in view of the morals and endeavors of the people who are going to prevail in those times. For we must note that the apostle does not identify the difficulties of the times by external evils, such as war, famine, plague, etc., but by humanity’s corrupt morals.

2. ἔσονται γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι φιλάργυροι ἀλαζόνες ὑπερήφανοι βλάσφημοι, γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς, ἀχάριστοι ἀνόσιοι

et erunt homines se ipsos amantes cupidi elati superbi blasphemi parentibus inoboedientes ingrati scelesti

• ἔσονται γὰρ οἱ ἄνθρωποι φίλαυτοι

The Vulgate reads se ipsos amantes, “lovers of self.” Augustine provides an excellent explanation of the force of this description in Tractate 123 on John:

In some inexplicable way – I do not know how – whoever loves himself, not God, does not love himself. And whoever loves God, not himself – it is he who loves himself. For he who cannot live by himself¹ surely dies by loving himself; therefore he does not love himself who loves himself to the point that he cannot live. But when he is loved by the One by whom life is lived, by not loving himself he loves more, when he does not love himself for this reason, that he may love Him by whom he lives.²

The apostle has set this vice in the first position because it is the  fountainhead and origin of the rest. Augustine says in the work just cited, “For when the apostle said, ‘For people will be lovers of themselves,’ he continued and added, ‘lovers of money, puffed up, arrogant, blasphemers…’ All these evils flow from that which he set first, as from a fountain, namely ‘lovers of themselves.’”³ He says the same thing in the beginning of his books on the city of God, that the love of self has built the city of the devil, just as the love of God has built the city of God.⁴

Theophylact comments on “lovers of themselves” in this verse: “At once he sets down the cause of all the evils – looking out not for one’s neighbor, but looking out only for oneself. For a φίλαυτος is someone who only loves himself, the result of which is that he does not even love himself.”⁵

Apparent Contradiction: “No one has ever hated his own flesh” (Eph 5:29). Yet in this verse the love of self is mentioned among the most grievous vices!

Response: We must distinguish between an ordinate or moderate love of self, which is spoken of in the passage, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” and an inordinate or absurd love of self which this passage is talking about. Those who love themselves, or are lovers of self, are people seeking to gain things which are their own, who only pursue what is good for themselves.

• φιλάργυροι

The Vulgate has cupidi, “desirous.” The Greek properly says amantes pecuniarum, “lovers of money,” or cupidi divitiarum, “desirous of wealth,” just as φίλαυτοι are desirous of honor.

• ἀλαζόνες

The Vulgate has elati, “puffed up.” Ambrosiaster has insolentes, “insolent.”⁶ The Greek word properly signifies jactatorem, “a boaster,” gloriosum, “a vainglorious person,” or ostentatorem, “a show-off.” Luther has ruhmredig, “boastful.” Grammarians derive from ἄλη and ζῆν that it is properly one who tries to make a living by wandering, just like those who are called ἀγύρται, i.e. circulatores, “peddlers.” As a consequence, however, he turns into a boaster, show-off, or vaunter. Xenophon in Cyropaedia 2, 2, 12:

ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἀλαζὼν ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ ὄνομα κεῖσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς προσποιουμένοις καὶ πλουσιωτέροις εἶναι ἢ εἰσὶ καὶ ἀνδρειοτέροις καὶ ποιήσειν ἃ μὴ ἱκανοί εἰσιν ὑπισχνουμένοις, καὶ ταῦτα φανεροῖς γιγνομένοις ὅτι τοῦ λαβεῖν τι ἕνεκα καὶ κερδᾶναι ποιοῦσιν.⁷

For to me, the name ἀλαζών seems to be given to those pretending to be both richer and more manly than they are, and to those professing to do what they are not capable of doing, and to those getting exposed for doing these things simply for the sake of getting something and making a profit.⁸

“Ulpianus, the expositor of Demosthenes, says that ἀλαζονείαν is used of people promising more than they can fulfill.”⁹

• ὑπερήφανοι

These are superbi, “arrogant,” people who despise the lowly and weak, übersichtige, “presumptuous.”¹⁰ Ἀλαζονεία, a proud bearing in words and gestures, stems from ὑπερηφανίᾳ, arrogance lurking in the heart.

• βλάσφημοι

These are maledici, “slanderous.” Some explain this to be referring to maledictis in Deum prolatis, “slanders directed against God.” But the Greek descriptor is general, denoting those who damage the reputation of others so that they alone might be elevated. Luther has Lästerer, “slanderers.”

• γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς

These are parentibus immorigeri, “disobedient to parents.” The Greek properly signifies those who do not allow themselves to be persuaded to show due obedience to their parents.¹¹ The Syriac translated it as לאנָשַׁיהוּן לָא מֵתּטפִּיסִין, “not submitting to their own people.”¹²

• ἀχάριστοι

Ἀπειθεῖς and ἀχάριστοι are listed together because ἀπείθεια, “disobedience,” stems from ἀχαριστίᾳ, “ingratitude.”

• ἀνόσιοι

The Vulgate has scelesti, “villainous.” The Greek properly signifies profanos, “profane,” nefarios, “godless,” or contemtores religionis et sacrorum, “despisers of religion and sacred rites,” people who have no respect for what is holy and right to keep them from daring to perpetrate any wicked deeds. Luther has ungeistliche, “unspiritual.”

3. ἄστοργοι ἄσπονδοι διάβολοι ἀκρατεῖς ἀνήμεροι ἀφιλάγαθοι

sine affectione sine pace criminatores incontinentes inmites sine benignitate

• ἄστοργοι

These are people in whom the natural affections toward parents, children, and brothers are completely extinguished. Luther has störrige, “stubborn.” The Vulgate has sine affectione, “without affection,” people who are moved by no affection of love toward their neighbor, not even toward those whom nature usually incites us to love most of all.

• ἄσπονδοι

These are foedifragi, “perfidious,” or infidi, “unfaithful.” Σπόνδη signifies familiaritatem and amicitiam, “familiarity” and “friendship.” So ἄσπονδοι are those who do not keep agreements or who are implacable and do not let reconciliation take place. Ambrosiaster has sine fide, “without faith.”¹³ The Vulgate has sine pace, “without peace,” in this verse and absque foedere, “without agreement,” in Romans 1:31. Luther has unversöhnliche, “irreconcilable.”

• διάβολοι

These are calumniatores, “calumniators,” people who suppress the innocence of others by their lies and made-up accusations. The Vulgate has criminatores, “accusers.” Luther has Schänder, “defilers.”

• ἀκρατεῖς

These are incontinentes, “uncontrolled,” people who give themselves up to carnal pleasures. Luther has unkeusch, “unchaste.” The Vulgate has intemperantes, “immoderate.”

• ἀνήμεροι

These are inhumani, “inhuman,” people possessed of a brute character. The Vulgate has inmites, “harsh.” Luther has wilde, “wild.”

• ἀφιλάγαθοι

This can be understood of both persons and things, describing those who love neither a good thing nor good people. Ambrosiaster has bonorum inimici, “enemies of good people or good things.”¹⁴ The Syriac has סָניַי טָבָתָא, “haters of good things.”¹⁵ Luther has ungütige, “unkind.” But it is probably better to apply it to persons, so that it signifies those who are averse to friendship with good people and hate them because of the discrepancy in character.

4. προδόται προπετεῖς τετυφωμένοι, φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι

proditores protervi tumidi voluptatium amatores magis quam Dei

• προδόται

These are proditores, “traitors,” or amicitiae desertores, “abandoners of friendship,” people who expose well-deserving friends to things that endanger their life.

• προπετεῖς

These are praecipites, “rash,” or temerarii, “heedless,” people who follow the impulses of their desires without consideration and counsel. The Vulgate has protervi, “brash.” Luther has Frevler, “wanton offenders.”

• τετυφωμένοι

These are inflati prae superbia, “inflated with arrogance,” or qui sibiipsis sunt Suffeni, “those who are each a Suffenus to themselves,”¹⁶ people who are swollen with conceit. The Vulgate has tumidi, “swollen.” Luther has aufgeblasen, “puffed up.”

• φιλήδονοι μᾶλλον ἢ φιλόθεοι

These are voluptatum magis quam Dei amantes, “lovers of pleasures more than of God.” In Greek this is an elegant play on words.

Incidentally, since the apostle here is not only talking about wicked people in general, but also about false teachers, Augustine makes elegant work of applying all these descriptions to false teachers in Tractate 123 on John. He says:

Let those who feed the sheep of Christ not be “lovers of themselves.” Otherwise they will feed the sheep as if the sheep were their own, and not as Christ’s sheep, and they will want to make their own profits from them, just like the “lovers of money,” or they will lord it over them, just like the “puffed up,” or they will glory in the honors they get from them, just like the “arrogant,” or they will go so far as even to create heresies, just like the “blasphemers.” They will part ways with the holy fathers, just like those who are “disobedient to their parents,” and to those who wish to correct them because they do not want them to perish they will repay evil for good, just like the “ungrateful.” They will destroy their own souls and the souls of others, just like the “villainous.” They will scatter the motherly offspring of the Church, just like the “irreligious.” They will not have compassion for the weak, just like those “without affection.” They will attempt to defile the reputation of the saints, just like the “detractors.” They will not rein in the basest desires, just like the “uncontrolled.” They will occupy themselves with disputes, just like the “harsh.” They will be ignorant of how to lend help, just like those “without kindness.” They will make known to the enemies of the pious what they know ought to be kept secret, just like the “traitors.” They will embarrass human modesty by stirring up what is immodest, just like the “shameless.” They will understand neither what they are saying nor the things about which they are affirming [1Ti 1:7], just like the “blinded.”¹⁷ They will prefer carnal delights to spiritual joys, just like those who are “lovers of pleasures more than of God.” For these vices and others like them – whether all of them befall one human or some rule in these while others rule in those – sprout in some measure from that one root, namely when people are “lovers of themselves.” This vice must be most diligently guarded against by those who feed the sheep of Christ…¹⁸

5. ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι · καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου

habentes speciem quidem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes et hos devita

• ἔχοντες μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας τὴν δὲ δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἠρνημένοι

The Vulgate reads: habentes speciem quidem pietatis virtutem autem eius abnegantes, “having at least a form of piety, but refusing its power.”

The Greek μόρφωσις properly signifies formationem, “a shaping.” Ambrosiaster reads formam, “a shape.”¹⁹

1. Some understand this to mean a speciem, imaginem, or similitudinem pietatis, “kind, image, or likeness of piety,” so that it is spoken against hypocrites and the sense is this: In external words and gestures they put on a show of piety, but in reality they do not have it, or rather they are so foreign to piety that they seem to have refused it and sworn off it.
2. Others think that the apostle is reprimanding those who do a beautiful job prescribing to others whatever deed must be done, even though they themselves are the last ones to carry out those deeds (Mt 23:3). For μόρφωσις signifies a philosophy of educating and training that says that when the teacher prescribes something to the pupil, he ought to speak or conduct himself the same way (Ro 2:20).

But both of these interpretations can be combined. For those who prescribe rules of piety to others and do not observe them themselves have but a μόρφωσιν of piety.

The δύναμις εὐσεβείας consists of true faith in Christ, “which purifies the heart” (Ac 15:9), of spiritual and inner obedience of the heart (1Ti 1:5), of ἀνυποκρίτῳ and sincere love for God and one’s neighbor. This is also what it means “to live piously in Christ” (2Ti 3:12).

Some want δύναμιν to be treated like ἀλήθειαν, for the truth of nature is understood from the power and working of everything in nature.

Paul does not write ἀρνημένοι, a present tense participle, as the Vulgate has translated it with abnegantes, but ἠρνημένοι, a past tense participle, inficiati, “having denied.”

• καὶ τούτους ἀποτρέπου

The Vulgate has devita, “avoid.” The Greek properly signifies illos aversare, “turn yourself away from them,” namely by:

1. neither agreeing with them nor approving of them,
2. drawing yourself away from their midst, and
3. not putting on a yoke with them.

From this apostolic admonition we conclude that Paul is speaking in such a way about the future that he might show at the same time that this kind of people will also not be lacking in Timothy’s time. Otherwise it would not have been worth the effort to urge Timothy to turn himself away from them.

Endnotes

¹ “By himself” not in the sense of “alone,” but in the sense that he cannot make himself live.

² J.-P. Migne, ed., Sancti Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis Episcopi, Opera Omnia, vol. 3, part 2 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864), col. 1968.

³ Ibid., col. 1967-1968.

⁴ Gerhard’s citation lends itself to confusion. First, the quote can be said to come from “the beginning of [Augustine’s] books on the city of God” only if one understands said books in the narrow sense, namely the second part of De Civitate Dei, Books 11-22, which properly deal with the origin, nature, etc. of the two cities. Secondly, Gerhard is paraphrasing Augustine. The opening lines of Book 14, Chapter 28, read: “Accordingly, two loves have made two cities. The love of self, even to contempt of God, has made the earthly city, but the love of God, even to contempt of self, has made the heavenly city” (J.-P. Migne, ed., Sancti Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis Episcopi, Opera Omnia, vol. 7 [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], col. 436). Cf. Saint Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: The Modern Library, 1993), p. 477.

⁵ J.-P. Migne, ed., Theophylacti, Bulgariae Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia, vol. 3 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864), col. 115, 116.

⁶ J.-P. Migne, ed., Sancti Ambrosii Mediolanensis Episcopi Opera Omnia, vol. 2, part 2 (Paris: Vrayet de Surcy, 1845), col. 493.

⁷ Xenophon, Cyropaedia I, trans. Walter Miller (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1914), p. 162.

⁸ Cf. ibid., p. 163. Gerhard does not include the last clause, since he is citing a partial quote from Henricus Stephanus, Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, vol. 1 (Paris: Henricus Stephanus, 1572), col. 306.

⁹ Ibid., col. 307.

¹⁰ Transferred sense of übersichtig. It is properly used of one who has a real or perceived sight defect – a blink-eyed person, a person with a sideways glance, or someone who has oblique, distorted eyes so that he squints strongly. From this it came to be used of someone who looks disapprovingly or disparagingly at others whom he considers to be inferior to himself.

¹¹ Gerhard is probably overdoing the exegesis here.

¹² Peshitta New Testament text viewable here.

¹³ Rf. endnote 6.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Rf. endnote 12.

¹⁶ Gerhard is alluding to poem 22 in Catullus’ Carmina. The entire poem is about a poet named Suffenus, a nice, pleasant, witty man who had written “a thousand or ten thousand or more” verses and published them with the finest available materials. Yet in spite of his otherwise pleasant and witty character and the fancy dress of his poems, Catullus lambasts Suffenus’ poems as worthy only of a goatherd or a ditch-digger. He analyzes: “So much he’s altered from the man he was. | How can this be? and what can be the cause? | Yet he that but just now in others’ sense | Was destitute of every excellence, | Was made the common jest of all the town, | And thought much more unlearned than a clown, | Is wise, and to perfection, in his own. | When he puts pen to paper and indites, | No man so blest as he in what he writes. | He joys so much, and wonders at his skill, | As if the Muses had inspired his quill.” Catullus then concludes: “No wonder; all are subject to mistakes; | None but in something a Suffenus makes. | Our neighbour’s bunch upon his back is known, | But we forget what rises from our own” (Walter K. Kelly, tr., ed., The Poems of Catullus and Tibullus, and the Vigil of Venus [London: George Bell and Sons, 1887], p. 191). Rf. the original here.

¹⁷ Even though Augustine was not known for his ability in Greek, he appears to exhibit some familiarity with the Greek text here. He substitues caecati, “blinded,” for the Vulgate’s tumidi, “swollen.” Both are acceptable translations of the Greek τετυφωμένοι. Cf. BDAG ad τυφόω, 1 & 2.

¹⁸ Rf. endnote 2.

¹⁹ Rf. endnote 6.

The External Elements in the Lord’s Supper

By Johann Gerhard

Translator’s Preface

The following was translated from Johann Gerhard’s Loci Theologici cum pro Adstruenda Veritate tum pro Destruenda Quorumvis Contradicentium Falsitate per Theses Nervose Solide et Copiose Explicati (Theological Topics, Vigorously and Thoroughly Unfolded through Theses Intended both to Establish the Truth and to Destroy the Falsehood of Every Possible Opponent), vol. 5 (Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1867), 12–14. For more on the author, see his biography.

I prepared this translation in preparation for, and as an appendix to, a conference paper on the liquid element in the Lord’s Supper.

The endnotes are, for the most part, my attempt to verify or correct Gerhard’s citations. (I feel that this is one of the glaring weaknesses in Concordia Publishing House’s Theological Commonplaces series, which simply leaves Gerhard’s abbreviated citations in parentheses the way they are. That is not to say that the series does not have its many merits or that I am not overwhelmingly glad that Gerhard’s Loci are finally being offered to the English-speaking world at large.) There are a handful of endnotes that belong to the original editor (possibly Gerhard himself). These are noted as such, though they are often accompanied by more complete citations, which belong to the translator.

Perhaps one of Gerhard’s most useful accomplishments is that he connects the reader to the historic Catholic Church (not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church) from which the Lutheran Church was born and with which she still identifies herself. Our doctrine is obtained from Scripture alone (and one word of Scripture can overturn centuries of writings by Christian Fathers), but it certainly can only help a person to check whether the convictions of Spirit-filled Christians throughout the centuries line up with his own.

The Lord conveys rich and eternal blessings through his Holy Supper, but, as with baptism, he attached those blessings to specific elements when he instituted it. May the Spirit grant wisdom to the reader to discern what is scriptural and what is not when it comes to the earthly elements we offer in the Supper. And may he graciously preserve the Supper in our midst after Christ’s own intent.

The External Symbols or Earthly Matter in the Lord’s Supper (Locus 21, Chapter 5)

Just as in all the other sacraments, so too in this most holy mystery Christ willed to impart heavenly things to us through earthly things or external symbols. Those external symbols are bread and wine. This is clear from…

1. the description of the Evangelists, who unanimously testify that Christ took bread, broke it and gave it to the disciples (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19). In describing what took place afterward they make mention of the cup, τοῦ ποτηρίου (Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23; Lk 22:20). They testify that there was wine in the cup when they relate Christ’s words to the disciples either after the distribution of the Holy Supper or, as some conclude from Luke, spoken just before the institution of the Supper: “I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine [ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου] from now until the day I drink it anew in the kingdom of my Father.”
2. the repetition of the apostle Paul, who had been instructed in the third heaven (2Co 12:2). As he recounts Christ’s institution in exactly the same words, he testifies that Christ used bread and wine (1Co 11:23–25).
3. a comparison of other passages of Scripture which talk about the Holy Supper, yet do not mention any external element other than bread and wine (1Co 10:16,17; 11:26–28; etc.).

The following inquiries are made on this topic:

1. Why was it Christ’s will to use these external elements and not others?
   ANSWER: Christian simplicity responds properly and best: This is what God was pleased to do. Who has known the mind of the Lord? His ways cannot be traced and his works are exceedingly wonderful (Ps 139:17; Isa 40:13; Ro 11:33, 34). Nevertheless, it is not absurdly said that Christ used bread and wine…
   1. on account of the Old Testament types already enumerated.
   2. on account of the very close communion of Christ, whose sign and testimony was instituted in the Holy Supper. Nothing is more united to Christ nor is anything closer to him than his flesh and blood. These are in fact personally united to him. On the other hand, nothing is closer to us nor is anything more united to us than food and drink. We in fact take these inside our bodies and they are fused to the substance of our bodies. Now among food, bread stands out – it “fortifies the heart of man” – and among drink, wine stands out – it “gladdens the heart of man” (Ps 104:15). So when Christ wanted to institute and seal a very close communion of himself in this mystery, it pleased him to do so in this way, by giving us his body and blood by means of the blessed bread and wine. This is Tauler’s reasoning in his sermon on the Supper. On this point, one should carefully consider the emphasis in the following passages: “The one who eats of this bread shall live forever” (Jn 6:51). “I am the vine, you are the branches. The one who remains in me, and I in him, will bear much fruit” (Jn 15:5). “Christ lives in me” (Gal 2:20). Christ dwells in our hearts through faith (Eph 3:17).
   3. because of how well these external elements correspond to the heavenly things distributed by means of those elements in the Holy Supper. For even though the bread and wine in the Holy Supper are used not for signifying, but for imparting the body and blood of Christ, as the apostle testifies (1Co 10:16), yet the striking analogies should not be despised, as long as one does not think that the entire sacramental duty of those symbols consists of signifying.Just as bread is made from kernels of wheat, so Christ’s body is that kernel of grain that bore much fruit when it died (Jn 12:24). Just as bread is baked and prepared for food in an oven in the heat of fire, so Christ was roasted, as it were, on the altar of the cross in the heat of love (Ex 12:9). Just as bread nourishes and fortifies the heart of man, so Christ’s body feeds us for eternal life (Jn 6:50, 51). Cyprian in his sermon on the Supper: “Just as bread is common food for the body that we eat every day, so this essential bread is life for the soul and health for the mind.”¹ Just as bread does not cause any sickness or disgust by daily use, so the body of Christ is the most delightful food for hungry hearts and causes no sickness whatsoever.Just as wine is the most noble drink, produced from the dew of heaven and the richness of the earth (Gen 27:28),² so Christ is the true vine (Jn 15:1) from whose side flowed forth the blood which we drink from the eucharistic cup. Just as wine quenches thirst and gladdens the heart of man (Ps 104:15), so Christ’s blood quenches eternal thirst and refreshes souls (Jn 6:53–55). Peter the Venerable in his first book of epistles, folio 29: “Eternal life is placed in the present world spiritually and invisibly, but it shall be enjoyed physically and visibly in the world to come. Now in order that eternal life might be signified in the Lord’s Supper, Christ’s flesh is given to humans under the form of bread for eating, and Christ’s blood is given to them under the form of wine for drinking. In this way, just as humans chiefly use bread and wine to sustain their mortal life, so too they are fed Christ’s body and blood for life immortal (which is Christ himself) – here spiritually, but afterwards both spiritually and physically into eternity.”³
   4. because of the reminder that these external symbols give to those attending the mystical banquet. Just as one loaf of bread is made from many kernels and one cup prepared from many grapes, so in the Holy Supper we take food and drink into one body, that we may pursue love and harmony as members of one body. We who are many are one loaf, one body, because we partake of one loaf (1Co 10:17). “We have all taken drink into one Spirit” (1Co 12:13). Just as bread and wine do little good for those who are already full, so the heavenly food and drink accomplish little for those who approach without spiritual hunger and thirst. To him who thirsts I will give the water of life without cost (Rev 21:6). “Whoever is thirsty, let him come” (Rev 22:17).
   5. to exclude any idea that they are mere representations, figures, or signs. For if it was not Christ’s intent to offer his body and blood, but just to represent them, not to institute his very body and blood, but to institute merely a figure and sign of them, then he certainly would not have abrogated the Passover lamb or used bread and wine in this New Testament sacrament in its place. After all, slaughtering the Passover lamb and pouring out its blood, eating its flesh and sprinkling its blood on the doorposts and above the lintel of the house, would in many ways be a clearer and more obvious analogy to Christ’s passion and its spiritual fruition than bread and wine.
2. May we change these external elements or earthly things, or substitute anything else similar in their place?
   ANSWER: No.
   1. The description and repetition of the institution mention only bread and wine; they do not mention any other element whatsoever. Therefore it is not sound practice for Christ’s faithful to stray from this path of the divine institution. “If you continue in my teaching, you will truly be my disciples” (Jn 8:31).
   2. Since Christ used no external symbols other than bread and wine in his original institution, by no means should we rashly depart from this example of Christ.
   3. In the sacrament of baptism, it is not permitted to use any other liquid in place of water. Therefore, by a certain analogy, the external symbols in this sacrament also should not be exchanged.
   4. In all the passages of Scripture that talk about the Holy Supper, mention is made of bread and wine, not of any other element.
   5. The promise of Christ concerning the eating of his body and the drinking of his blood in the sacrament is confined to the use of eucharistic bread and wine. Therefore whoever uses other external symbols in the administration of the Holy Supper does not proceed from faith, whose perpetual correlative is the word of promise.
   6. Bread and wine are the material or earthly matter of this sacrament. They therefore belong to the sacrament’s essentials. And when it comes to the essentials of a sacrament, no human may make any arbitrary change.

We must therefore detest the following:

1. The Gnostics, concerning whom Epiphanius recounts things horrible to tell in Adversus Hæreses, no. 26. They used human semen and menstrual blood in their sacred rites, saying of the former: τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (This is the body of Christ), and of the latter: τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ (This is the blood of Christ).⁴
2. The Cataphrygians, of whom Augustine writes in De Hæresibus ad Quodvultdeum, no. 26: “[Their] founders were Montanus (the supposed Paraclete) and his two prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla. … [The Cataphrygians] are said to have deadly sacraments. For they are said to prepare their quasi-eucharist from the blood of year-old infants, which they obtain from the infant’s entire body by means of small puncture wounds. After mixing it with flour they make bread with it. If the child dies, they regard him as a martyr. If he lives, they regard him as a great priest.”^{5 6}
3. The Ebionites in Epiphanius, Adversus Hæreses, no. 30,⁷ the Tatianists in the same, no. 40,⁸ and the Aquarians in Augustine, De Hæresibus, no. 64,⁹ are all in error. On the pretext of sobriety, they only offered water in the chalice. Cyprian contends against them in Book 2, Epistle 3, to Caecilius.^{10 11}
4. The Pepuzians, who joined cheese with bread in their administration of the Eucharist, which is how they acquired the name Ἀρτοτυρίται (Artotyrites or Cheesebreadists).¹² Augustine, De Hæresibus, no. 28: “There are the Artotyrites, who are thus named after their offerings. For they offer bread and cheese, saying that offerings were originally brought by humans from the fruits of the earth and of their flocks. Epiphanius lumps them with the Pepuzians.”¹³ See Philastrius, Basel edition, p. 58.^{14 15}
5. It is reported from Canon 28 of the Sixth Council in Decretum Gratiani, Division 2, Chapter 6, “that in some churches priests join[ed] grapes to the sacrifice of the offering¹⁶…and so distribute[d] both the sacrifice and the grapes to the people at the same time.”¹⁷ In the same division, Chapter 7, it is related that some priests were “consecrat[ing] milk instead of wine; others [were] offering an intincted Eucharist to the people instead of a communion where the elements complement each other; others [were] offering a squeezed vine¹⁸ in the sacrament of the Lord’s cup; while others [were] keeping a linen cloth dipped in must (or unfermented grape juice) available throughout the year, and when it [was] time for the sacrifice they wash[ed] part of it with water and offer[ed] it this way.”¹⁹
6. In Chapter 4 of his first epistle, Alexander I, Bishop of Rome, specified that the wine had to be mixed with water. From Division 2, Chapter 1: “For, as we learned from the Fathers and as reason itself teaches, neither wine alone nor water alone ought to be offered in the Lord’s cup, but both mixed together, since we read that both flowed out from his side in his passion.”²⁰ The papists maintain the necessity of this mixture right up to the present, which we will address more fully a little later.
7. Volaterranus writes in his Commentaria Urbana, Tome 1, Book 7, that Pope Innocent VIII permitted the Norwegians to use another liquid in the Supper in place of wine, since wine is not produced in those parts, nor can it be preserved for a long time there.^{21 22}
8. Theodore Beza writes in his second letter to Tilius: “So if bread or wine isn’t used, or if there’s no supply of them at a given time, the Lord’s Supper really can’t be celebrated? By all means it can be duly celebrated, if what takes the place of bread and wine is used in their place either from common use or by reason of circumstance. For when Christ chose bread and wine for these mysteries, his intent was that, by setting out signs for these things (signs by which our body is nourished), he might, as it were, represent before our eyes the true spiritual nourishment. And so he who substitutes things for bread and wine that have a similar analogy to nourishment (even if not an equal analogy), and does so with no desire simply to innovate, does not stray from Christ’s purpose at all.”^{23 24} Antonius Sadeel, in Opera Theologica, folio 429, thinks it very difficult to overturn this counsel set forth by Beza.^{25 26}

Endnotes

¹ This was not penned by Cyprian († 258), as was generally held in Gerhard’s time, but by Ernaldus Bonaevallis (c. 1156), a Benedictine monk in the Marmoutier Abbey outside Tours, France, and friend of Bernard of Clairvaux. “De coena Domini, et prima institutione consummantis omnia sacramenta” (“The Lord’s Supper, and the Original Institution of the Sacrament that Completed Them All”) was the sixth chapter of his Liber de cardinalibus operibus Christi usque ad ascensum eius ad Patrem (Book on the Cardinal Works of Christ up to His Ascension to the Father). Gerhard’s citation can be found in Patrologia Latina (hereafter PL), vol. 189 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1854), col. 1644.

² The wine referenced in this passage is תִּירוֹשׁ, must (grape juice before or during fermentation) or new wine (wine still in the early stages of fermentation).

³ Gerhard cites the correct author, Peter the Venerable († 1156), but this quote is found not in his collection of epistles, but in his Tractatus contra Petrobrusianos (Tractate Against the Petrobrusians). The Petrobrusians were the followers of the heretic Peter of Bruys († c. 1125), who, among other errors, “denied all sort of real presence in the Eucharist. Whether or not he retained the office of the communion as a memorial rite is not known” (Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, ad “Petrobrusians”). Gerhard’s citation can be found in PL, op. cit., col. 818.

⁴ Patrologia Graeca (hereafter PG), vol. 41 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1863), col. 337–40.

⁵ PL, vol. 42 (Paris: L. Migne, 1865), col. 30.

⁶ See also Eusebius, Church History, 5, 14 & 16 (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xv.html and www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xvii.html [accessed 18 Feb 2013]), and Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos, Ecclesiastica Historia, 4, 22 (PG, vol. 145 [Paris: Garnier Brothers, 1904], col. 1033-1036). – endnote original

⁷ PG, vol. 41, op. cit., col. 431, 432.

⁸ Ibid., col. 839, 840.

⁹ PL, op. cit., col. 42.

¹⁰ Epistle 62 in the Paris edition, 63 in the Oxford and Leipzig editions. PL, vol. 4 (Paris: Garnier Brothers, 1891), col. 383–401. The English translation from the Schaff edition of the Fathers can be found at www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.lxii.html (accessed 18 Feb 2013), where it is dated 253 AD.

¹¹ The Severians similarly condemned wine in the celebration of the Supper “because they assert, with deceitfulness beyond belief, that the grapevine sprouted from Satan and the earth,” as Augustine reports (De Hæresibus, no. 24; see endnote 5).—endnote original

¹² From ἄρτος (bread) + τύρος (cheese)

¹³ PL, vol. 42, op. cit., col. 31.

¹⁴ This probably corresponds to no. 74 in PL, vol. 12 (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1845), col. 1186, 1187.

¹⁵ Scaliger, Exercise 158, sect. 1: “On the island of Vendemao [probably Mindanao] they not only use sagu [sago] for bread, but they also make oil from the same tree. Sagu is the tree from which the bread gets its name. They take a piece of wood and remove the thorn-like things from it. Then they beat it, reducing it to fine flour. With this they prepare bread for sailors to use as provisions” (Julius Caesar Scaliger, Exotericarum Exercitationum Liber XV de Subtilitate, ad Hieronymum Cardanum [Fifteenth Book of Exoteric Exercises on Subtlety, to Gerolamo Cardano] [Frankfurt: Heirs of Andreas Wechel, 1582], 525). Cardano, in De rerum varietate, Book 1, Chapter 4, folio 18, says that on the islands “bread is prepared from dried fish” (Gerolamo Cardano, De Rerum Varietate Libri XVII [Seventeen Books on a Variety of Subjects] [Avignon: Matthew Vincent, 1558], 26). He also testifies from experience that some people make bread from beans and millet. But would such bread really be suitable material for the Eucharist?—endnote original

¹⁶ Oblatio in the Fathers is often a synonym for the Lord’s Supper. Cf. Adolf Hoenecke, who includes θυσία and προσφορά in the names given to the Lord’s Supper by the Greek Fathers. He says that it acquired this name “either with reference to the offering of Christ on the cross, or on account of the offering of thanks that is given” (Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik, vol. 4 [Milwaukee: NPH, 1909], 100).

¹⁷ Pope Gregory XIII, ed., Decretum Gratiani Emendatum et Notationibus Illustratum (Rome: In Aedibus Populi Romani, 1582), col. 2507, 2508.

¹⁸ Gratian’s note on “squeezed” reads: “That is, a pressed cluster of grapes, for this wine would be made from a squeezed vine according to any man’s fancy; or it could mean that the wine was squeezed [from the grapes] after consecration…” (s. previous endnote, col. 2508). However, Gratian’s text is corrupt; cf. Herm. Theod. Bruns, ed., Canones Apostolorum et Conciliorum Saeculorum IV. V. VI. VII., part 2 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1839), 97, 98.

¹⁹ Pope Gregory XIII, ed., op. cit. Gratian, following his predecessor Burchard of Worms († 1025 AD) erroneously cites the source for Chapter 7 as “Pope Julius, Bishop throughout Egypt” († 352 AD). The original source is actually Canon 1 of the Third Council of Braga in Portugal (675 AD). However, the part about the linen cloth dipped in must was inserted by Burchard. Rf. Unfermented Wine: A Report Published by Request of His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917), 23–27.

²⁰ Ibid., col. 2503, 2504.

²¹ Raphael Volaterranus, Commentariorum Urbanorum Libri Octo et Triginta, Accuratius quam Antehac Excusi (Claudius Marnius and Heirs of Johann Aubrius, 1603), col. 248.

²² Yet it is well known that the Norwegians and inhabitants of the islands have a perpetual abundance of wine in their cities, which is annually imported there in large quantities.—endnote original

²³ Théodore Bèze, Correspondance, tome 12, ed. Alain Dufour, Béatrice Nicollier-de Weck, et al. (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1986), 198. Penned in 1571.

²⁴ But Beza is simply following the advice of Calvin, for Beza writes in his twenty-fifth letter: “Dr. Calvin, man of blessed memory, was asked by brothers who were at that time in America, where wine isn’t used, if it were permitted to use in the Lord’s Supper either plain water, which is in common use there, or some other kind of drink not unusual there. He replied that Christ’s intention in instituting this sacrament was to represent for us, under the symbols of common food and drink, the κοινωνίαν [joint partaking] of spiritual nourishment, that is, of himself. Accordingly, if the use of wine had not been common in Judea in his day, he would doubtless have used some other common drink, as is clear from his goal and intention. Therefore those who, in place of wine, make use of some other kind of drink customary in those regions, and are driven to do so not by contempt or rashness, but by necessity itself, seem to be doing nothing inconsistent with Christ’s intention and will. This reply of Master [Domini] Calvin, since it was grounded on supreme reasoning and in harmony with Christ’s intention, our assembly approved so much that we will judge men to be acting superstitiously if they depend on the symbol of wine so much that they would rather omit the second part of the Supper than make use of some other ἀνάλογον [analogous] symbol in such a compelling necessity” (Bèze, Correspondance, tome 9, ed. Claire Chimelli, Alain Dufour, et al. [Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1978] 60; penned in 1568).—endnote original

²⁵ Antonius Sadeel, Opera Theologica, 4th ed. (Isaias le Preux, 1614), folio 429.

²⁶ Johann Heinrich Alsted in Theologia Polemica, Part 5, Division 7, Question 8: “But if a church is to be gathered to God in a place where wine cannot be obtained in any way, another comparatively noble [nobilior], customary drink should be substituted in keeping with the Savior’s purpose, and the assembly should be instructed, lest it take offense” (Theologia Polemica, Exhibens Praecipuas Huius Aevi in Religionis Negotio Controversias [Hanau: Conrad Eifridus, 1620], 603).—endnote original

Commentary on 1 Timothy 4:12

By Johann Gerhard, Th. D.

Translator’s Preface

The following was translated from Adnotationes ad Priorem D. Pauli ad Timotheum Epistolam, in Quibus Textus Declaratur, Quaestiones Dubiae Solvuntur, Observationes Eruunter, & Loca in Speciem Pugnantia Quam Brevissime Conciliantur (Commentary on St. Paul’s First Letter to Timothy, in Which the Text Is Explained, Difficult Questions Are Answered, Observations Are Drawn, and Seemingly Contradictory Passages Are Reconciled as Concisely as Possible), 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1712), pp. 68,69, available from lutheranlegacy.org (UPDATE [3/10/21]: Link is dead; the 1643 Erfurt edition can be accessed here).

It was undertaken in conjunction with preparations for a graduation sermon to be delivered at a Lutheran high school. The translations of the church fathers in the footnotes are the translator’s own.

Through it may God encourage young pastors and Christians not to demand respect, but to earn, win, and compel it from believers and unbelievers by godly words and actions.

1 Timothy 4:12

Μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν ἐν λόγῳ ἐν ἀναστροφῇ ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐν πνεύματι ἐν πίστει ἐν ἁγνείᾳ.

Nemo adulescentiam tuam contemnat sed exemplum esto fidelium in verbo in conversatione in caritate in fide in castitate.

• Μηδείς σου τῆς νεότητος καταφρονείτω

The Greeks interpret thus: μὴ πάρεχε αἰτίαν τινὶ τοῦ καταφρονῆσαι τῆς νεότητός σου [Do not afford anyone an occasion to look down on your youth].¹ The phrase can be taken two ways:

1. Do not allow yourself, even though you are young, to be despised by those over whom you have charge, but exercise the authority of your office (Titus 2:15).
2. Conduct yourself with such dignity, chastity, moderation, and prudence that no one may regard you as inferior because of your age. Behave in such a way that no one may have just cause for despising your youth.

The second sense is acquired from the antithesis.

Youth covers a range of ages that stretches beyond age 30, lest anyone think that Timothy was a young man of 20 or so years when Paul was writing this to him. In Acts 7:58 Paul is called a νεάνιος [young man] at a time when he was nearly 35 years old.

Conclusion: Lest Timothy be held in low esteem because of his youth, the apostle instructs him to show himself to the faithful as an example and pattern according to which they may order their lives and adjust their actions.

• Ἀλλὰ τύπος γίνου τῶν πιστῶν

A τύπος is a distinct pattern to which something else corresponds as an ἀντίτυπον, so to speak.

• Ἐν λόγῳ

Paraphrase: “You should set forth the doctrine of the divine word with integrity,” or, “You should speak with dignity and prudence for the edification of others.” The former interpretation is confirmed by 2 Corinthians 6:7, where Paul adds two words: ἐν λόγῳ τῆς ἀληθείας [in speech of the truth].

• Ἐν ἀναστροφῇ

Paraphrase: “You should build others up by living your everyday life in a holy way.”

• Ἐν ἀγάπῃ

Paraphrase: “Charity² toward your neighbor should shine out from all your actions.”

• Ἐν πνεύματι

That is, “in zeal of the Spirit, in pious devotion, in holiness.” Chrysostom and the interpreters of the Vulgate do not include this phrase. Theophylact and Oecumenius interpret πνεύμα here as a spiritual character or special gift, as if the apostle were warning Timothy not to be puffed up by living this way.³ But it is more properly understood as the Holy Spirit (see 2 Corinthians 6:6), which yields this sense: Timothy ought to demonstrate with his deeds that he has the ardor of the Holy Spirit and the zeal of God.

• Ἐν πίστει

Paraphrase: “You should preach the faith boldly,” or, “You should exhibit your faith by your good works” (see James 2:17,18).

• Ἐν ἁγνείᾳ

Paraphrase: “You should exhibit purity in words and actions.”

Ἐκδίκησις⁴: Estius⁵ seeks proof for the celibacy of the priests in this phrase, since being content with one wife “is the basest kind of chastity.”⁶ We respond:

1. Ἅγνεια also signifies purity or immunity from carnal human desires.
2. Conjugal chastity is often more honorable than virginal chastity.
3. Even the papists acknowledge that celibacy does not come from divine right.

Footnotes

¹ Homily 13 on 1 Timothy: “ ‘Let no one despise your youth,’ he says. Do you see that the priest should also command and speak with strong authority, and not just teach everything? For I think you’ll agree that youth has become a thing easy to despise in the common mind. So he says, ‘Let no one despise your youth.’ For it is also necessary that the teacher be unable to be despised. ‘Then what about gentleness?’ you might ask. ‘Then what about meekness, if he may not be despised?’ In matters where he alone is concerned, let him be despised and let him bear it. For in this way his teaching will prosper by his patient endurance. But in matters where others are concerned, he should tolerate it no longer. For that is not gentleness, but coldness. If a man avenges insults to himself, injuries to himself, plots against himself, you have good reason to accuse him. But where the salvation of others is concerned, command and take care of the matter with authority. What’s needed then is not gentleness, but authority, lest it do harm to the entire community. ‘Either command,’ he says, ‘or teach. Let no one despise you on account of your youth. For as long as you exhibit a life with this kind of counterbalance, no one will despise you because of your age any longer, and they will even admire you instead’ ” (John Chrysostom, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 62, S. P. N. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Omnia Quae Exstant [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1862], pp. 564,565).

Interpretation of 1 Timothy: “ ‘Let no one despise your youth.’ But this does not have to do with me. Why then do you command me about things that concern others? ‘But be an example to the faithful.’ ‘Do you wish,’ he says, ‘not to be despised as you are commanding [vs. 11]? Become a living law. Show in yourself the perfection of the laws you lay down. Make your life bear witness to your message’ ” (Theodoret, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 82, Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 815,816).

Commentary on 2 Timothy: “ ‘Since the common opinion regards youth as a thing easy to despise,’ he says, ‘command with strong authority and do not let anyone despise you.’ For it is also necessary that the teacher be unable to be despised. Then what about meekness? When there is need to avenge insults to himself, let him be meek. But when there is need for austerity for the sake of the salvation of others, let him command boldly. Another interpretation: ‘Exhibit a decent life, and your youth will not be despised, even though it is naturally easy to despise. It will rather be admired’ ” (Theophylact, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 125, Theophylacti, Bulgariae Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 57-60).

Commentary on 2 Timothy: “ ‘Let no one despise your youth.’ For it is also necessary that the bishop speak with strong authority. Then what about, ‘Let your gentleness be known to all people’ [Philippians 4:5]? To that we answer: Among people who are wronging only him, he ought to be meek. But among people who are wronging erring brothers, let him be austere. Or you could take it this way: ‘If you lead an exceptionally decent life, your youth will not be despised, even though it has a natural tendency to be despised’ ” (Oecumenius, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 119, Oecumenii, Triccae in Thessalia Episcopi, Opera Omnia [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 171,172).

² “ ‘Charity’ now means simply what used to be called ‘alms’—that is, giving to the poor. Originally it had a much wider meaning. … Charity means ‘Love, in the Christian sense’. But love, in the Christian sense, does not mean an emotion. It is a state not of the feelings but of the will; that state of the will which we have naturally about ourselves, and must learn to have about other people” (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity [New York, NY: HarperOne, 2001], p. 129). Lewis’ entire chapter “Charity” is worth reading.

³ “Ἐν πνεύματι. Either with a spiritual character or with a special spiritual gift (ἢ τῷ χαρίσματι), so that you do not become puffed up by your charity toward everyone” (Theophylact, op. cit., 59,60).

Oecumenius differs very little and translates into English exactly the same (op. cit., 171,172).

⁴ Ἐκδίκησις means avenging or vindication. Gerhard includes these as opportunities to let the opponents of specific points of Lutheran doctrine (usually Estius) speak their part, in order to vindicate the Lutheran position as the biblical one and prove the opposing position unbiblical.

⁵ Gerhard cites this eminent Roman Catholic theologian (1542-1613) throughout the commentary. In addition to refuting him, Gerhard borrows much of his work in phrasing his own interpretation.

⁶ Guilielmus Estius, In Omnes Pauli Epistolas, Item in Catholicas Commentarii, vol. 5 (Mainz: Kirchheim, Schott, & Theilmann, 1843), p. 203.

Gerhard himself would have referred to the original Douai edition (1614-16).

Not Ashamed of the Cross

By Johann Gerhard, Th.D.

Translator’s Preface

The following was translated from Adnotationes ad Posteriorem D. Pauli ad Timotheum Epistolam, in Quibus Textus Declaratur, Quaestiones Dubiae Solvuntur, Observationes Eruuntur, & Loca in Speciem Pugnantia quam Brevissime Conciliantur (Commentary on St. Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy, in Which the Text Is Explained, Difficult Questions Are Answered, Observations Are Drawn, and Seemingly Contradictory Passages Are Reconciled as Concisely as Possible) by Johann Gerhard (Jena: Steinmann, 1643), pp. 18-25, with an insertion from pp. 8,9; available from the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin. A later edition (3rd ed. [Leipzig, 1712]; available from Lutheran Legacy) was also consulted.

The translation was originally presented as a supplement to an exegesis prepared for a pastoral circuit meeting. Everything is Gerhard’s except the footnotes and formatting. With regard to these, the reader may note the following:

• Each entire verse in both Greek and Latin (Vulgate) has been placed at the head of Gerhard’s comments on that verse.
• Gerhard’s sources have been more precisely cited when possible. Many of them are available for free download on Google Books.
• The Greek variants – words, not punctuation – of Gerhard’s text have been retained, but noted.
• Gerhard used italics whenever he was either quoting or paraphrasing the interpretation of another. In the case of quotations, I have used quotation marks followed by a footnoted reference. In the case of paraphrases, the commentary itself identifies the paraphrase just fine without italics; the work(s) paraphrased has been referenced in a footnote when possible.
• The map “The Roman Empire in AD 69” below was obtained from the Ancient World Mapping Center. It is copyrighted (Ancient World Mapping Center, 2004), but “may be reproduced and redistributed freely for non-profit, personal or educational use only.”

The translator owes a debt of gratitude to a professor at Martin Luther College for help with an obscure reference, a few difficult phrases, and some final polishing touches.

He owes his deepest appreciation, however, to his God and Savior, without whose free salvation, abundant gifts, and daily blessing neither Gerhard’s work nor his would have any worth, usefulness, or existence.

His prayer is that this work, long bound up in a tongue increasingly (and sadly) foreign to many, will redound to the reader’s spiritual benefit and the glory of Christ. God grant it for the sake of his Son.

Commentary on 2 Timothy 1:11-18

11. εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγὼ κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν

in quo positus sum ego praedicator et apostolus et magister gentium

• Εἰς ὃ ἐτέθην ἐγώ

The Vulgate reads, “in which…” But the Greek says, “into which” or “to which I was appointed,” that is, by Christ.

• Κῆρυξ καὶ ἀπόστολος καὶ διδάσκαλος ἐθνῶν

The apostle describes his office with three names. He calls himself:

1. κήρυκα, a public herald presenting commands in the name of the King of heaven;
2. ἀπόστολον, an ambassador of Christ discharging the office of apostleship, an office entrusted to him by God; and
3. τῶν ἐθνῶν διδάσκαλον, sent primarily to teach the gentiles and call them to the fellowship (consortium) of the kingdom of Christ. For he and Peter had reached an agreement, that he would preach the gospel with Barnabas among the gentiles, and Peter with James and John among the Jews. Yet this should not be taken in an exclusive way. Galatians 2:9 in particular is simply mindful of the divine call described in Acts 22:21: “Go, because I will send you to the gentiles far away.”

12. δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παρακαταθήκην¹ μου φυλάξαι εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν

ob quam causam etiam haec patior sed non confundor scio enim cui credidi et certus sum quia potens est depositum meum servare in illum diem

•  Δι᾿ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ ταῦτα πάσχω

With ταῦτα he has in mind the prison in which he was being detained and the fetters with which he was being restrained. The sense is: “Because I have been appointed by God as a herald of the gospel and an apostle and a teacher of the gentiles, therefore I have been thrown into this prison and these chains.”

• Ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐπαισχύνομαι

Paraphrase: “I do not feel ashamed of these chains, which I am enduring on account of the preaching of the gospel.” He is alluding to verse 8 in which the same verb ἐπαισχύνεσθαι is used. It’s as if he were saying, “Therefore do not be ashamed of either the gospel or my chains.”

• Οἶδα γὰρ ᾧ πεπίστευκα

He cites the reason why he regrets neither the gospel nor his chains.

Some want πιστεύειν here to have the sense of entrusting, since mention of a deposit immediately follows. This would yield the sense: “I know how powerful, faithful, kind, and truthful the Lord is, to whom I have committed my deposit for preservation.” But it is more proper to take πιστεύειν in the customary sense of believing: “I know in whom I have had faith ever since I was converted. My faith does not rest on a sandy and slippery foundation, but on a sure and immovable one.”

• Καὶ πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν τὴν παρακαταθήκην μου φυλάξαι

Concerning the verb πέπεισμαι, see what was said at verse 5.

***** [The following are Gerhard’s comments on 1:5] *****

• Πέπεισμαι δὲ ὅτι καὶ ἐν σοὶ (sc. ἐνοικῇ ἀνυπόκριτος πίστις)

The Vulgate has rendered the verb πέπεισμαι, certus sum, “I am certain.” Others have rendered it, persuasum habeo or persuasus sum, “I am convinced or persuaded.”

The papists wish to prove from this passage that the certainty of grace is unable to be proved from Romans 8:38, since it is used here only of a moral certainty and not of an immovable certainty of faith, as also in Romans 15:14.

We respond:

1. The verb πέπεισμαι is taken in two ways. First, it is taken abstractly, in which case it often signifies any kind of likely opinion. Secondly, it is taken concretely or in a material sense. When it is taken this way, it receives various meanings in keeping with the various subject material. For words ἐκ τῶν πολλαχῶς λεγομένων (taken from expressions used in many ways) obtain various meanings in keeping with the various subjects. When the word πέπεισμαι is understood about others, it is understood not ἀποδεικτικὴν² but τοπικήν.³ It does not signify a certainty of faith and infallible truth, but a charitable persuasion, i.e. a likely opinion, because we are not able to determine anything about our neighbor a priori,⁴ but only a posteriori,⁵ i.e. from what he has produced or done. But when it is used about us, it denotes a sure and immovable persuasion, which is the certainty of faith and of the truth, because it rests on an immovable and immutable foundation, namely the promise of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
2. The papists themselves are compelled to acknowledge that Paul uses this verb about himself in verse 12 of this very chapter: πέπεισμαι ὅτι δυνατός ἐστιν. (But then they teach that Paul was sure about the grace of God and his own salvation only through some special revelation of God [s. Pistorius, In Hedeg., p. 201; Duraeus, Contra Witaker., f. 259].) Therefore when Paul uses the verb πέπεισμαι about himself, he is using it with a different meaning than in this passage [vs. 5] about Timothy.
3. Consequently Guilielmus Estius reflects on this passage:⁶

[T]he word [πέπεισμαι] is generally used to denote a persuasion by which something is regarded as certain, either with what they call a moral certainty or with a certainty produced by divine authority, that is, the certainty of faith. For by faith the apostle was certain that God was able to guard his deposit [vs. 12]. However, he did not know in the same way that an unfeigned faith was dwelling in Timothy, but he had learned it by long experience and therefore was humanly sure of it.⁷

***** [This ends Gerhard’s comments on 1:5] *****

Some take παρακαταθήκην to mean the deposit that God had entrusted and committed to Paul, namely the deposit of grace and preaching, and the people who were already converted and were yet to be converted by his work. (In approximately this sense the apostle John is said to have spoken about a young man whom he had entrusted to someone else.⁸) They cite Acts 20:32, “παρατίθεμαι you to God,” as an example of this meaning. But it is more properly understood as the deposit of eternal life and happiness which God had laid aside for Paul in heaven or, as it is called in 4:8, “the crown of righteousness,” which God promises to faithful heralds of the gospel. The following interpretations run along the same lines:

1. Some take deposit to mean Paul’s life, health, and safety (cf. 1 Peter 4:19).
2. Others take it to mean good works, done with the hope of eternal reward.
3. Others understand the payment for the works itself, which is said to be laid aside with God, seeing as a person does not receive his payment immediately after his work is done, but he patiently awaits the time when he will be paid. This takes place in full on the day of judgment.

• Φυλάξαι

Paraphrase: “Neither the devil nor the world are able to snatch away that glory promised to me.”

• Εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν

He means the last day, Judgment Day, on which God will distribute to faithful heralds of the gospel the rewards he has promised.

13. ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὧν παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσας ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

formam habe sanorum verborum quae a me audisti in fide et dilectione in Christo Iesu

• Ὑποτύπωσιν ἔχε ὑγιαινόντων λόγων

He moves on to the second part of his exhortation about preserving the deposit of the pure doctrine.⁹

Some translate ὑποτύπωσιν, “distinct pattern” (expressam formam); others, “likeness or sketch” (imaginem & delineationem); still others, “representation” (informationem). The Vulgate translator used this last rendering in 1 Timothy 1:16.¹⁰

Most take this noun to mean a brief outline, description, or document that Timothy has in front of him, which is also the guideline he conforms to in his teaching. We grant that it is a metaphor, taken from artists who, when setting about to paint a picture, first make a rough sketch of it. Then, when they want to add the living colors, they follow the guidance of those lines, so that the ὑποτύπωσις is the same as the σκιαγραφία.¹¹ But the noun ὑποτύπωσις here does not just mean the pattern and method of teaching, but also the actual foundation of the doctrine.

• Ὑγιαινόντων λόγων

Estius remarks that the apostle has made mention of words “because the doctrine of the gospel was being handed down through words and discourses more than in writing. That is also why the apostle adds, ‘which you heard from me.’ ”¹²

We respond:

1. The second letter to Timothy was written not long before Paul’s death. By that time both the four writings of the Evangelists and the apostolic letters were available to the Church. Therefore at that time the doctrine of the gospel was not only handed down through the living voice, but also in writing.
2. What the apostles first heralded with the living voice they later handed down to us in the Scriptures by the will of God as the foundation and pillar of our faith for the future. Therefore there is no real difference whatsoever between apostolic preaching and the apostolic Scriptures.

• Ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ

There are three interpretations given for this phrase:

1. Some connect it with the words immediately preceding, “which you heard from me,” so that the sense is: “which you heard from me with faith and charity. Not only were you applying faith to my discourses, but you were also adding the affection of charity, in which you were seeking out not what belongs to you, but what belongs to Christ.”
2. Others connect it with the words that are more removed, “Have the pattern of sounds words.” They explain it this way: “Have the pattern of sound words with faith and charity. These two things will prove that you are not departing from that pattern.”
3. Still others also connect it with those more removed words, but they bring out a different sense, which they express this way: “Keep the pattern of sound words, that is, sound doctrine, which deals with faith and love. Keep the pattern in such a way that you preserve the integrity of faith and the sincerity of love.” For faith and love are the two chief divisions of Christian doctrine. Luther translates: “Halte an dem Vorbilde der heilsamen Worte…vom Glauben und von der Liebe [Hold to the pattern of the wholesome words…about faith and love].” This sense best fits the context.

• Τῇ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

The Vulgate has rendered this phrase, in Christo Iesu, “in Christ Jesus.” But the article τῇ in Greek should not have been skipped over: “which is in Christ Jesus.” The same Vulgate translator expresses this article in this way in 1 Timothy 1:14.¹³

14. τὴν καλὴν παρακαταθήκην¹⁴ φύλαξον διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν

bonum depositum custodi per Spiritum Sanctum qui habitat in nobis

• Τὴν καλὴν παρακαταθήκην φύλαξον

The noun deposit in this passage is not used here in same sense it was used in what just preceded (vs. 12), but in the sense it was used in 1 Timothy 6:20: “O Timothy, guard the deposit, avoiding contemporary jargon…”¹⁵ There this noun was understood to mean the gospel’s doctrine which he had entrusted to Timothy.

Here he calls the doctrine of the gospel about Christ “the good deposit,” not just on account of its good author, good material or contents, or good purpose, but also on account of its good effect, namely that this doctrine makes humans good.

Καλὴν can also be translated, “beautiful, excellent, or splendid (deposit).” What he had a little earlier called the sound discourses which had been heard from him (vs. 13), he now calls the splendid deposit.

Estius comments on this passage:

This passage should be noted in opposition to the heretics, who cannot produce any deposit of this kind, i.e. the doctrine handed down and received from the apostles through successors in an unbroken series from that time to the present, unless perhaps they say that this deposit is Holy Scripture. But this cannot be said. For Paul had not deposited Holy Scripture with Timothy, but the doctrine handed down by himself through word of mouth. Besides, what sort of deposit is it, if it is shared by nearly every heretical sect? So then Scripture, which itself we also have handed down from the apostles, is one part of the deposit, but not the whole and complete deposit, which the Catholic Church alone preserves.¹⁶

The necessary response to this argument we have set forth in On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, § 406,¹⁷ and in The Catholic Confession, Book I, Part 2, Chapter 5, Arguments of the Adversaries, no. 6.¹⁸

• Διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος ἐν ἡμῖν

He shows the way to guard the deposit he just mentioned, namely through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Estius thinks that ἐν ἡμῖν refers to “the overseers of the Church, by whose ministry that deposit is preserved in the Church through the Holy Spirit promised to them.”¹⁹

But it is more proper to take it as referring to the whole Church and all her true and living members. The preservation of this deposit is entrusted also to them, and the Holy Spirit’s grace is promised also to them.

15. οἶδας τοῦτο ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης

scis hoc quod aversi sunt a me omnes qui in Asia sunt ex quibus est Phygelus et Hermogenes

• Οἶδας τοῦτο ὅτι ἀπεστράφησάν με πάντες οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ

He recalls this occasion of many people deserting him in order that he might cheer Timothy up and encourage him, for Timothy might have been disturbed by that occurrence when he heard about it.

• Ἀπεστράφησάν με

The Vulgate has rendered this phrase, aversi sunt a me, “they have turned away from me.” Properly speaking, the Greek phrase means, aversati sunt me, “they have turned me away or rejected me.”

• Οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ

Some, especially the Greek commentators,²⁰ take τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ to mean those originally from Asia who were at Rome when the apostle was being held prisoner there, so that the preposition in stands for from.²¹

But others retain the natural meaning of the particle ἐν and still understand those who were from Asia, since the apostle says οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ in an indefinite way. Therefore they judge that the apostle is speaking about those who seemed to put their confidence in the apostle and to adhere to him when he was preaching in Asia, but abandoned him when he came to Rome and they saw him thrown into prison.

Others want the apostle to be talking about those who were in Asia when the apostle was writing this letter. The fact that οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ is preceded by οἶδας τοῦτο favors this interpretation. For Timothy was occupying himself in Asia and could have known what was happening there, but not what was happening at Rome.

The Roman Empire in AD 69

By τοῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ he understands Asia Minor and converts from the Jews, but not from the gentiles. Whether they rejected the faith or person of Paul is not expressed, but the latter seems more likely, for they seem to have been somewhat fearful that they would get involved in danger together with him.²² Of course, this aversion to his person could easily lead to abandoning the faith.

• Ὧν ἐστιν Φύγελος καὶ Ἑρμογένης

These two men were doubtlessly more harsh and deceitful toward Paul than the rest.

Tertullian in The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 3, counts Phygelus and Hermogenes among the deserters of the Church.²³

Concerning Phygelus, Symeon Metaphrastes relates in his sermon about the apostles Peter and Paul that he was appointed by Peter as bishop for the Ephesians, but later turned believing Jews away from the faith. But the faith of the renowned Metaphrastes himself is exceedingly slippery.

Tertullian wrote Against Hermogenes. But it is clear from those very words of Tertullian that he was a different Hermogenes. He says, “[N]or has he, an apostolic Hermogenes, continued steadfastly in the rule [of faith].”²⁴ He calls him “an apostolic Hermogenes,” namely the one whom the apostle has mentioned in this letter.

16. δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξεν καὶ τὴν ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη

det misericordiam Dominus Onesifori domui quia saepe me refrigeravit et catenam meam non erubuit

• Δῴη ἔλεος ὁ κύριος τῷ Ὀνησιφόρου οἴκῳ

Paraphrase: “May God be kind and well-disposed toward him. God grant that he find mercy.”

This is an exception to the general clause, “all who are in Asia have rejected me.” For Onesiphorus was a native of Asia, as can be gathered from the end of this letter where he says, “Greet the household of Onesiphorus” (4:19). Indeed, it is thought that he was an Ephesian on account of that which immediately follows: “And you know well to what great extent he ministered in Ephesus” (1:18).

• 

  Diagram of the etesian winds in southeastern Europe

  Ὅτι πολλάκις με ἀνέψυξεν

Paraphrase: “He refreshed me with his beneficence.” The kind acts and encouragements shown to the pious are like the etesian winds during the dog days of summer.

• Καὶ τὴν ἅλυσίν μου οὐκ ἐπαισχύνθη

Paraphrase: “He did not feel ashamed of my chains like the rest of the Asians.”

17. ἀλλὰ γενόμενος ἐν Ῥώμῃ σπουδαιότερον²⁵ ἐζήτησέν με καὶ εὗρεν

sed cum Romam venisset sollicite me quaesivit et invenit

Paraphrase: “It is so far from the truth that he was ashamed of my chains that, when he was here in Rome, he became aware that I was being held a prisoner in chains on account of the preaching of the gospel, searched for me very eagerly, and did not rest until he found me.”

Question: Why did he need to do all that searching?

Answer: First, there was not just one, but several prisons in which those waiting to appear before Caesar’s tribunal were being detained. Secondly, “Paul was allowed to stay by himself, with a soldier guarding him” (Acts 28:16).²⁶

18. δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος παρὰ κυρίου ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις

det illi Dominus invenire misericordiam a Domino in illa die et quanta Ephesi ministravit melius tu nosti

• Δῴη αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος εὑρεῖν ἔλεος παρὰ κυρίου ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ

The apostle looks back at what he just wrote. “Just as Onesiphorus sought and found me in Rome, so may the Lord grant that he also find mercy.”

Estius thinks that there is a Hebraism in the words, “The Lord grant that he find mercy from the Lord,” such as is also supposedly found in the words of Genesis 19:24: “The Lord rained down from the Lord,” so that the sense is: “The Lord grant that he [Onesiphorus] find mercy from himself [the Lord].” “For Hebrews are accustomed to repeat the antecedent where one would expect a reflexive pronoun.”²⁷

We respond:

1. We are neither ignorant of nor deny that Hebraism, but we deny that it fits this passage.
2. For we are not compelled by any necessity to depart from the customary and natural meaning, as though we did not consider it to be in utmost conformity with the analogy of faith.
3. For, since Christ has been appointed by God the Father to be the judge of the living and the dead (Jn 5:22; Ac 10:42), the apostle is praying for Onesiphorus that God the Father would allow him to find mercy with Christ the Lord on the day of judgment.
4. In contrast to the Calvinist and Photinian²⁸ perversion of the Mosaic text in Genesis 19:24, we promote the clear distinction of the Lord the Son from the Lord the Father, the emphatic addition of the preposition, a comparison with other passages of Scripture, the Aramaic version, and the consensus of Christian interpreters. In Canon 16 of the Council of Sirmium, referred to by Socrates Scholasticus in Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 30, an anathema is pronounced on Estius and everyone else who advocates this distortion of the text.²⁹ Cf. On the Nature of God and on the Trinity, Commonplace III, § 155.³⁰

Chrysostom and Theophylact note that the apostle prays for mercy for Onesiphorus on that day of judgment because many mercies will be needed even for all the saints, and no one will be saved except through mercy.³¹ Augustine writes in On Rebuke and Grace, Chapter 13, that mercy will be necessary on that day for the saints about to be crowned by God.³²

Tertullian, in On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 23, explains that mercy in this way, that on the day of judgment all the elect will be freed from the misery of mortality and corruption through the blessed resurrection.³³

The noun mercy is most simply taken as gracious beneficence, just as it is taken in many passages of Scripture. For eternal life is a χάρισμα τοῦ θεοῦ in Christ (Ro 6:23).

Estius suspects that, at the time when Paul wrote this, Onesiphorus “was already deceased by then,” for the following reasons:

1. The apostle does not say, “The Lord grant mercy to Onesiphorus,” but, “to the household of Onesiphorus.”
2. Paul says about Onesiphorus, “The Lord grant that he find mercy from the Lord on that day,” “namely desiring for him what Christians usually desire for the faithful departed – rest and mercy.” Estius later adds, “If the apostle prays this for Onesiphorus, that he would find mercy from the Lord, when his life is already completed, then prayer for the departed faithful is powerfully established from this passage.”
3. “[A]t the end of the letter, he tells Timothy to greet the household of Onesiphorus, not Onesiphorus himself, as if he were now no longer alive.”³⁴

We respond:

1. Estius does not dare to affirm for certain that Onesiphorus was already deceased. “[I]t can probably be said…,” he says.³⁵
2. Earlier he writes, “As for Onesiphorus, it should be known that this good prayer of the apostle for him was not without effect. For, according to both Greek and Latin martyrologies, Onesiphorus was at last crowned with martyrdom in the Dardanelles for the sake of Christ’s name – assuming that he is the same man they are commemorating.”³⁶
3. We also pray the blessed requiem for the piously departed in our churches, but we do not ask for them to be liberated from purgatory. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession explains how such petitions are to be understood.³⁷

• Καὶ ὅσα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ διηκόνησεν βέλτιον σὺ γινώσκεις

Some explain ὅσα thus: quanta, i.e. quam multa, “how many things.” But this phrase is more properly explained this way: in quam multis rebus Ephesi ministraverit, “in how many affairs he ministered in Ephesus,” i.e. quam fuerit in ministerio officiosus, “how dutiful he was in the ministry.” This is also how the censor understands it in the addition to Estius.³⁸

In some codices mihi, “to me,” is added, but that lacks the credibility of the most reliable Greek and Latin texts. This addition also fights against the context. For if Paul had added, “to me,” he would not tell Timothy, “as you well know.” For it is only reasonable that Paul himself would know the most about services rendered to himself. ✠

Footnotes

¹ Most manuscripts read παραθήκην.

² I.e., in a way that is clearly established or beyond dispute; cf. English apodictic.

³ I.e., in a way that is not demonstrative, but probable.

⁴ I.e., in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation; could be rendered here, “before the fact.”

⁵ I.e., in a way based on reasoning from known facts or past events rather than by making assumptions or predictions; could be rendered here, “after the fact.”

⁶ Gerhard cites this eminent Roman Catholic theologian (1542-1613) throughout the commentary, usually to refute him. Here, however, he displays the charitable tact for which he was known by citing an interpretation with which he agrees.

⁷ Guilielmus Estius, In Omnes Pauli Epistolas, Item in Catholicas Commentarii, vol. 5 (Mainz: Kirchheim, Schott, & Theilmann, 1843), p. 279. Gerhard himself would have referred to the original Douai edition (1614-16).

⁸ The reference is to a story Clement of Alexandria told which Eusebius included in his Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 23. The apostle John allegedly entrusted a promising young boy to a bishop and left. The bishop looked after the boy, brought him up, educated him, and baptized him. After that the bishop lost track of him, and the boy fell in with some bad characters and became a violent, bloody, and cruel leader of a band of robbers. Eventually John returned and said, “Come, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which both I and Christ committed to you.” The bishop was initially confused, and wondered when John had deposited money with him, but it quickly became evident that “the deposit” John was seeking was the young man. Upon learning that the bishop had not kept the young man’s soul safe, John boldly sought him out and brought him to repentance.

⁹ In his Prolegomena, Gerhard divided 2 Timothy into three parts – preface, treatise proper, and conclusion. He wrote: “The actual treatise contains 1) an exhortation a) to patience and endurance under the cross (1:6-18), and b) to steadfastness in doctrine and faith (2:1-14)…” (pp. 1,2). He seems to be modifying that outline somewhat in his comments here.

¹⁰ A number of Vulgate manuscripts read informationem in 1 Timothy 1:16 instead of deformationem, the reading preferred by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft edition. Both essentially have the same meaning.

¹¹ “a sketch or rough painting, such as to produce an effect at a distance, scene-painting, Plat.” (An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon [Oxford University Press, 1889], p. 733.2)

¹² Estius, op. cit., p. 286.

¹³ Vulgate: superabundavit autem gratia Domini nostri cum fide et dilectione quae est in Christo Iesu.

¹⁴ See footnote 1.

¹⁵ Vulgate: O Timothee, depositum custodi vitans prophanas vocum novitates. This reading is based on the Greek variant καινοφωνίας, new talk, for κενοφωνίας, empty talk; cf. BDAG sub κενοφωνία.

¹⁶ Estius, op. cit., p. 287.

¹⁷ Johann Gerhard, On the Nature of Theology and Scripture, vol. 1 of Theological Commonplaces, 1st ed., trans. Richard J. Dinda (St. Louis: CPH, 2006), pp. 379,380.

¹⁸ Johann Gerhard, Confessionis Catholicae, in Qua Doctrina Catholica et Evangelica, quam Ecclesiae Augustanae Confessioni Addictae Profitentur, ex Romano-Catholicorum Scriptorum Suffragiis Confirmatur, book 1, Generalis (Jena: Ernest Steinmann, 1634), pp. 384,385.

¹⁹ Estius, op. cit., p. 287.

²⁰ This label usually refers to John Chrysostom (347-407), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-c.458), and Theophylact of Ochrida (c.1050-c.1109); see footnote 21.

²¹ Homily 3 on 2 Timothy: “It is likely that there were many people in Rome at that time from the regions of Asia. ‘But no one came to help me,’ he says, ‘no one knew me; everyone alienated me’ ” (John Chrysostom, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 62, S. P. N. Joannis Chrysostomi, Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Omnia Quae Exstant [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1862], pp. 613,614).

Interpretation of 2 Timothy: “Rome was once the center of royal affairs. For that reason many people were traveling there, some for the sake of trade and others because of other needs. Therefore we may reasonably suppose that some of those who had come to faith in Asia went abroad [to Rome] during that time, but avoided the company of the apostle because they were afraid of Nero” (Theodoret, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 82, Theodoreti Cyrensis Episcopi Opera Omnia [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 837,838).

Commentary on 2 Timothy: “For, after he was arrested by Nero, all those in Asia abandoned him, that is, those from Asia who were present in Rome” (Theophylact, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 125, Theophylacti, Bulgariae Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 97,98).

²² Jena edition: “videntur enim subveriti, ne uni cum ipso periculo involverentur…” Leipzig edition: “videntur enim subveriti, ne una cum ipso periculo involverentur…” The translation follows the latter.

²³ Tertullian, Patrologia Latina, vol. 2, Tertulliani Presbyteri Carthaginiensis Opera Omnia cum Selectis Praecedentium Editionum Lectionibus Variorumque Commentariis (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844), p. 15.

²⁴ Tertullian, op. cit., p. 198.

²⁵ Most manuscripts read σπουδαίως; cf. BDAG sub σπουδαίως 2.

²⁶ Either Gerhard is erroneously identifying Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, mentioned in Acts 28, with the writing of this letter, or he is assuming that, if Paul was allowed to live by himself the first time, he likely was allowed to do so the second time also.

²⁷ Estius, op. cit., p. 289.

²⁸ The Photinians were “the early modern Unitarians who are sometimes called ‘Socinians.’ Lutherans and others called these Unitarians ‘Photinians’ because they held beliefs similar to the ancient heresy of Photinus, who viewed Christ basically as a mere man and denied the personality of the Holy Spirit” (Johann Gerhard, On the Nature of God and on the Trinity, vol. 2 of Theological Commonplaces, trans. Richard J. Dinda [St. Louis: CPH, 2007], p. ix).

²⁹ “If anyone does not understand, ‘The Lord rained from the Lord’ (Gen 19:24), as referring to the Father and the Son, but says that he has rained down from himself, let him be anathema. For the Lord the Son rained down from the Lord the Father” (Socrates, Patrologiae Graecae, vol. 67, Socratis Scholastici, Hermiae Sozomeni Historia Ecclesiastica [Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864], pp. 283,284).

³⁰ Gerhard, op. cit., pp. 404,405.

³¹ Homily 3 on 2 Timothy: “If Onesiphorus, who exposed himself to danger, is saved through mercy, how much more so we!” (John Chrysostom, op. cit., p. 615).

Commentary on 2 Timothy: “‘He had mercy on me,’ he says. ‘May he therefore receive his reward on that terrible day when there will be need of much mercy for all, even for the saints.’ If Onesiphorus, who exposes himself to danger for the sake of Christ, is saved through mercy, how much more so we!” (Theophylact, op. cit., pp. 99,100).

³² Patrologia Latina, vol. 44, Sancti Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis Episcopi, Opera Omnia (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1865), p. 941.

³³ Tertullian, op. cit., pp. 825-27.

³⁴ Estius, op. cit., p. 291.

³⁵ Estius, op. cit., p. 291.

³⁶ Ibid., p. 291.

³⁷ Article XXIV, § 89-99.

³⁸ Estius, op. cit., pp. 291,292. At the conclusion of Estius’ commentary on 1:18, a section is appended, titled Additiuncula Censoris (“Little Additions by the Censor”).