characterize what they received from him as spiritual, in contra-
diction to that which they gave him as material ; it was not his
object to make any such distinction : all that he means to say
458 PHILIPPIANS IV.
is, that a relation of mutual communication, of reciprocal giving
and receiving has subsisted between him and the Philippians from
the beginning. The idea contained in the 17th verse is also analo-
gous to this view. That on is not " that," but " for," so that it is
not merely a continuation of the on of ver. 15,, but ver. 16 is the con-
firmation of what goes before, De Wette and Meyer have acknowl-
edged, because, as the latter observes not merely a gratuitous re-
versal of the order of time would result from the other supposition,
but also because the contents of ver. 16 would not logically corre-
spond with the words, ye also know. "On, according to Meyer,
confirms the early period fixed in ver. 15 by one still earlier. But
it is not evident, why, with his interpretation, the words, even in
Thessalonica, serve only as a confirmation of ver. 15, and are not
rather to be considered as co-ordinate with it, and placed before the
5-e t-t-ijWor. The name of the place may be connected grammatically
with iTrtfi^are (comp. Meyer), but as it thus stands in antithesis
with the ore ^Wov, I prefer with De Wette to connect it with
fioi, without, however, supplying ovn. Once and again gives promi-
nence to the repetition. E/$- TIJV %peiav (merely rr/v xpfiav is not
the true reading, also not juou, but jzot), means, " to my necessity,"
to its supply. 'ETTt'/z^ore, absolutely, as Acts xi. 29.
Ver. 17. The apostle here again (as above, ver. 11), guards his
readers against mistaking his meaning, by supposing that he is
mainly concerned about the gift in itself. That which he seeks, is
rather the fruit or profit which redounds from such a gift to the
donors, in so* far, namely, as any such gift draws after it a rich
recompense. This future recompense is the fruit which, on every
fresh proof of their love, abounds to their account (following out the
figure in ver. 15). It is therefore not so much his own interest as
that of his benefactors which he has in view. Comp. ver. 19. 'Eirt-
^/roi is not studiose quasro, but qmero, KTTI denoting the direction,
see on Im-xodw, i. 8. nteovdfa, as at Rom. v. 20, vi. 1 ; 2 Cor. iv.
15 ; 2 Thess. i. 3, "to increase," is to be connected with e/f, although
this connexion occurs nowhere else. (2 Thess. i. 3 ?) Comp. Meyer.
Others connect with em^/ru.
Vers. 18-20. The apostle, turning back to the circumstance that
occasioned what he has just said, declares, that in consequence of
their gift he has abundance, promises to them a rich recompense
from God, and concludes with an ascription of praise to him from
whom such recompense is to be looked for. Ver. 18. But I have all.
'ATT-K^W, as at Philem. 15 ; Matth. vi. 2, etc. (comp. Winer's Gr., 40,
4, b., 246) antithetical with tTr/^reZi', ver. 17 : so that nothing more
remains for rne to wish ; therefore, not a certification of his having
received what was sent. And abound, a stronger expression than
the preceding, his abundance being the result of their assistance.
PHILIPPIANS IV. 18-20. 459
Still stronger, I am full, having received, etc. The things sent by
you are characterized as a pleasing sacrifice offered to God. Tw 6e&
belongs to all the parts of the apposition. 'Ocr^ evuSicu; describes
the sacrifice in respect of its efficacy, as a sweet smelling odour. It
is the hih^-h^ of the Old Testament, Lev. i. 9, 13, etc., comp.
Eph. v. 2. This is predicated only of free-will offerings (l?"^). On
this New Testament view of a sacrifice, which has of late been again
justly brought into prominence, and its practical importance held
forth, compare such passages as Horn. xii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii 5 ; Heb.
xiii. 16 ; Phil. ii. 17. Ver. 19. De Wette correctly : advancing
from the idea of acceptability to that of recompense. On my God,
comp. i. 3. God recompenses what is done to him, as he is God.
nA?7pw<7, with reference to n-eTr/b/pwftaj, ver. 18, loses in force if not
viewed as a pure fut. ; the apostle makes an express promise. The
promise is differently understood, some explaining ndoav xpelav of
bodily, others of spiritual wants, and others of both. It is scarcely
possible to settle this point on grammatical grounds or from the con-
text. For 'xjpda in itself, as De Wette has observed in opposi-
tion to Van Hengel, decides as little for the reference to bodily,
comp. Eph. iv. 29, as -nhovToq, to spiritual necessities. Still from the
signification of xpeia at ver. 16 and the parallel, 2 Cor. ix. 8-11, to
which De Wette has already referred, I also am inclined to regard
the reference to the bodily need as the more natural, and in no
case would we be at liberty to exclude this. Meyer understands
every want both bodily and spiritual, but refers TrX^puoet, not to
the earthly recompense, but to the recompense in the kingdom
of the Messiah, for which he finds conclusive ground in the KV
66^1 which is to be viewed as instrumental, dependent on nhrjptiaet,
and denoting the Messianic glory. But this idea o/ the Messianic
glory is warranted neither by the indefinite expression KV do^y, nor
by KV XpiCTTw 'I., which, according to Meyer himself, expresses no-
thing more than the causal confirmation of the promise. And if the
apostle says of himself, nenX-rjp^ai, why should he in rrA^pwaei refer
his readers to the day of the second coming for the supply of their
every want ? He does not do this in 2 Cor. ix. 8, seq. ; and the Lord
himself does not refer his people to a period beyond the present life
for the supply of their every want, Matth. vi. 33. 'Ev dofy as also iv
Xpi<7T<Jj 'I. belongs to TrA^pwaei. The former either designates the
object with which God satisfies their need (Eph. v. 18 ; Col. iv. 12,
etc.), or denotes the manner of this satisfaction. 'Ev 66^y is however
no fitting expression for the object corresponding to every need
(especially if by xpeia are understood wants pertaining to the body),
and would, in this case, have certainly been more exactly defined.
All the passages cited above, in which TT^TJPOVV occurs with KV } have
a clearly defined object. Quite differently again 2 Cor. ix. 8. We
460 PHILIPPIANS IV. 20-23.
can therefore understand ev 66^ only as denoting the way and man-
ner in which God will supply every want ; in glory, according to his
riches. Against the connexion of ev 66fy with TrAovrov, Meyer has
justly observed, that it is not to be overlooked why the apostle has
not adhered to the usual expression, and written rift 66fy$ avrov.
Finally, the words iv Xpiaru 'I. shew wherein this -xXijpuaei has its
ground ; they are therefore not to be rendered in communione Christi,
as the verb to which they belong does not denote a human action ;
what Muskulus says is however substantially true : this supply is to
be looked for by them only in so far as they abide in Christ, i. e., in
the faith and religion of Christ. (Van Hengel, p. 326.)
Ver. 20. The thought of the glorious recompense from God
calls forth the ascription of praise to God. Cornp. Eph. iii. 20 ;
Rom. xi. 36. At ^ 6<%a supply elrj. Cornp. Harless on Eph. iii. 20,
" the glory that belongs to God is ascribed to him, and that for ever
and ever, or through all ages." Comp. Gal. i. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 17 ;
2 Tim. iv. 18, etc. ; comp. Olshausen on Eph. iii. 21, and Harless on
o/wv, Eph. ii. 2.
Vers. 21-23. Salutations and benediction. Salute every saint,
applies to the whole church ; it is a mutual greeting, as at Rom.
xvi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12, where one another is used.
Similarly 1 Thess. v. 26, all the brethren. In all these passages the
words with a holy kiss, instead of as here, in Christ Jesus, mark the
Christian character of the salutation, a salutation which derives its
significance from the consciousness of fellowship with Christ. So
Rom. xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Meyer has with reason rejected the
connexion of ayiov with Iv Xpiorti 'I. The expression every saint,
not all the saints, denotes that each individual is specially saluted.
TJie brethren which are with me, as distinguished from all the saints
ver. 22, denote the inner circle of the apostle's acquaintance, those
mentioned i. 14, from which also those indicated ii. 20 need not be
excluded ; for there is no reason to suppose that a salutation might
not be sent from them. He then sends a salutation, ver. 22, from all
the saints at Rome, chiefly from those that are of Caesar's household,
ol IK, T7/f Kaioapoc olieiag. The ambiguity of these words appears in the
variety of interpretations assigned to them. Some understand, re-
lations^of the emperor, others, servants of the emperor, others, in-
habitants of a house belonging to the emperor. Decisive for the
settlement of this point, is the question whether the oMa Kaioapo?
here is the same as the -npcurupiov i. 13. If they are identical, then
olicia Kaiaapog cannot mean the imperial palace in Rome, which is
never called irpat-wptov, but palatium. But neither can we well sup-
pose the pra3torium in Rome to be meant, as it is most improbable
that this would be called % Kaioapog olaia in Rome itself, where the
emperor lived. This difficulty does not attach certainly to the view
PHILIPPIANS IV. 23. 461
taken by Bottger, that rj Kaiaapog olnia is the palace of Herod in
Caesarea, which after the death of Herod Agrippa the elder, had be-
come, like every other royal house, an alula Kaioapog, and was used as a
Tcpairupiov (Acts xxiii. 35). This ok/a, as the only one of the kind in
Caesarea, might properly enough be designated rj Kaioapog olnia. But,
apart from his other reasons in proof of this epistle's having been
written in Caesarea (on which see Introd.) Bottger has not proved,
and will not be able to prove, that TTpairupiov, i. 13, and rj Kaiaapog
olnia here, are necessarily the same. Allowing that we are justified
in maintaining that this epistle was written from Home, we may
without much hesitation abide by the opinion that rj Kaiaapo^ olnia
is different from the praetorium, i. 13, and denotes the imperial
palace, while by the ol KK rrjg Kaiaapog oliciag are most probably meant
servants belonging to the emperor's household, with whom the apostle
had come into contact through his residence in the prastorium. There
is little probability in itself of relations being meant (comp. 1 Cor.
xvi. 15), besides the absence of all historical ground for such a sup-
position, and also, that had such been the case, it would have been
brought into greater prominence. Matthies' view that praetorians
in Home are meant, is disproved in what has been said. That pro-
curators in Caesarea are meant (Rill.) is contradicted even by the
plural, apart altogether from the .question with regard to Caesarea.
For what remains on this subject comp. Bottger's learned trea-
tise, in his Beitragen ii. p. 47, seq. Olshausen also holds the view
here developed. Why they of Caesar's household should be men-
tioned as especially saluting the Christians at Philippi, cannot be
determined. That the apostle aimed at encouraging the Philip-
pians, as Chrysostom supposes, is not a sufficient explanation, as he
could not send such a salutation except in consequence of an actual
Ver. 23. The apostle concludes with the usual benediction : the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Comp. Rom. xvi.
24 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 23, etc. Manuscripts of some authority read, rov
Trvevjuarof, instead of TTOVTCOV, and Lachmann and Tischendorff have
received it into the text. The form here has then most resemblance
to Gal. vi. 18.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES,
LIC. J. C. AUGUSTUS WIESINGER,
ON THE GENUINENESS OP THE PASTORAL EPISTLES.
1. THE PROBLEM.
ALTHOUGH the second Epistle to Timothy is different in its
scope and aim from the other two so-called Pastoral Epistles, in-
asmuch as it does not treat of the order and government of a
church, but relates entirely to the person of the Evangelist Timothy,
we yet join the three writings here together, as they possess in
common a peculiar character, which distinguishes them from all
the other epistles of the apostle, and on account of which, in
relation to these others, they may be viewed as forming one epistle.
None can pass from the other epistles of Paul to these, without
being struck with this peculiarity. In the three epistles we find
errors of a similar kind combated, to which we may indeed find
analogies here and there in the other epistles of the apostle, but
which stand out here in a breadth and a significance such as they
have in none of the others. The case is similar with regard to
what we find in these epistles (the second to Timothy excepted,
which offered no occasion for such a topic), respecting ecclesiastical
institutions. - To this also we may easily find analogies in the other
epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles, but the defined and com-
prehensive form in which the subject appears here, creates a degree of
surprise. In addition to this, what will perhaps appear most strik-
ing in these epistles, is a peculiarity of language, which shews itself
not merely in the use of new terms for new phenomena, but also in
new and uncommon expressions to denote what is familiar. Nay,
these epistles are even distinguished by a peculiarity in their style
and composition. To him who has still in his thoughts the dialec-
tics of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, or the rhetor-
ical fulness of that to the Ephesians, the style of these epistles
not merely of the first, but of all of them cannot but appear sur-
prising. And even when compared with other epistles, to which
they are much more nearly related, as, for example, with that to the
Philippians, and especially that to Philemon, a marked difference
VOL. V. 30
466 PASTORAL EPISTLES.
will be observed. How loosely are the sentences connected, what a
strangely sententious form of expression prevails here ! Thoughts
and instructions of a general nature, follow in quick succession
precepts of the most special kind, but at the same time of a uni-
versal value. It is also acknowledged that the language of the
Pastoral Epistles is most pure, most free from hebraisrns. And
finally, with respect to the circumstances of time and place amid
which they seem to have been written, we find ourselves here also
on unknown and strange ground, in as far as regards the other epis-
tles, and even the Acts of the Apostles. The statement made in
the first epistle, i. 3, does not correspond to what is said in Acts xx.
1 respecting the apostle Paul, although we are most readily led to
seek in that passage the explanation of the statement. The second
Epistle to Timothy intimates, indeed, that it was written during an
imprisonment of the apostle, but what difficulties beset us, if we fix
it as having been written during his imprisonment at Rome, of which
we are informed in the Acts of the Apostles, and give it a place
among the other epistles which proceeded from this imprisonment !
And, lastly, as to the Epistle to Titus, every trace of history is en-
This peculiarity, which we have pointed out as distinguishing the
Pastoral Epistles, must be acknowledged in the very outset. There
lies here therefore at the threshold of these epistles (as even the
most decided advocates for their genuineness must acknowledge), a
real problem that requires solution ; and the question can only be,
whether such a solution is given in the results of this more recent
criticism, or whether we have to seek it in another way, and how far
it is attainable.
2. THE EXTERNAL TESTIMONIES.*
Ere we set foot on the shifting ground of criticism, it may be
well to call to mind the testimonies afforded by ecclesiastical an-
tiquity in favour of these epistles. We pass over the references to
them which are supposed to be found in Clemens Romanus and
Ignatius, and notice, first of all, the passage in Polycarp, ad Phil,
cap. 4, comp. with 1 Tirn..vi. 7, 10, and cap. 12, comp. with 1 Tim.
ii. 1, 2 ; the passage in Theophilus of Antioch ad Autol. III. 24,
comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 2 ; those in Athenagoras, in which he alludes
to 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, and 1 Tim. vi. 16 ; Justin Martyr, in Euse-
bius (H. E. 3, 22), comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; and lastly, the umm's-
* Comp. on this subject for details, Bauer, die s. g. Pastoralbriefo. Stuttg. u. Tub.
1835, pp. 136-142, aud on the other side, Baumgarten, die JSchthcit dor Pastoralbriefe,
etc., 1837, pp. 27-40. Bottger, Beitrage zur hist. krit. Einl. 1838, V.Abth. pp. 199-204.
Matthies Erkliirung der Pastoralbriefe, pp. 4-16.
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 467
takeable testimonies to their genuineness to be found in Irenseus,
Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian. The heretics, too, appear
as witnesses for these epistles. Comp. in Hug (Einl. 1, p. 54, seq.)
the passages from Theodotus, comp. with 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; from He-
racleon, comp. with 2 Tim. ii. 13 ; from Tertullian as quoting from
heretics, comp. with 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i, 14, ii. 2. Tatian
has acknowledged at least the Epistle to Titus ; and it is not
difficult to account for his having rejected the two others (comp.
Bauer a. a. Q. p. 136); nor is it more difficult to shew why Mar-
cion stumbled at all the three, and excluded them from his canon.
Dr. Baur himself acknowledges, p. 139, that although Marcion
might have admitted the Epistle to Titus, as well as Tatian, he
could not regard the second to Timothy as at all consistent with
his opinions, except on the supposition of interpolations, whilst, by
acknowledging the first to Timothy, he would clearly have condemned
himself. Comp., moreover, Baumgarten, a. a. Q., p. 33, seq., and
Hug, Einl. 1, pp. 56-70. Without at present entering on the objec-
tions that may have been raised against certain of the testimonies
here adduced (comp. Bottger, a. a. Q., p. 199), we may safely assert
that these epistles are inferior to none of the other epistles of Paul
in historical proof, and that long before the close of the second cen-
tury they had, in consequence of these testimonies, obtained the full
acknowledgment of the church.
3. SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM ON THE SUPPOSITION OF THEIR
BEING NOT GENUINE. THEIR GENUINENESS IMPUGNED, AND
It is known that Schleiermacher was the first who, in his crit-
ical dissertation on the so-called first Epistle of Paul to Timothy,
Berl. 1807, directed an attack against one of these epistles, viz., the
first Epistle to Timothy. The two others he acknowledged to be
genuine, and made use of them principally as the basis of his attack
on the first. His arguments against its genuineness are founded
partly on the peculiarity of its language, partly (although this he
regarded as of secondary importance) on historical difficulties, and
lastly, on its plan and composition, which he held to be unworthy
of the apostle. The result of his critical investigation has not
foiled to exercise a mighty influence, as may still be seen in the
opinions expressed on the first epistle, by Usteri (in der Einl. zur
Entw. des Paulinschen Lehrbegriffs, p. 2), by Neander (ueber das
apostolische Zeitalter, i. 539), and by Liicke (Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p.
764). Ere long, however, as was to be expected from the cognate
* See this subject historically treated in Matthies, p. 16, seq.
468 PASTORAL LETTERS.
character of these epistles, even in a grammatical point of view
(which Schleiermacher himself acknowledges a. a. Q. p. 27), the sus-
picion of spuriousness was extended to them all. This was done
first hy Eichhorn, in his Introduction to the New Testament (Leip-
flic, 1812), then by De Wette, Lehrbuch der hist. crit. Einl. (Berl.
1830); Schott. Isag. (Jen. 1830), and Schrader, der ap. Paulus
(Leipsic, 1830). Credner, in his Introduction, sought to give a new
turn to this critical question, by acknowledging the Epistle of
Titus alone to be genuine, while at the same time he professed
to find in the other two epistles certain portions that were genuine.
But the previous criticism had arrived at the fixed conclusion that
the three epistles must stand or fall together ; and Credner himself
has again given up this view. The most recent opponent of the
genuineness, Dr. Baur, die s. g. Pastoralbriefe der ap. Paulus (1835),
we find directing his attack against the three epistles, and also De
Wette, in his most recent statements on this subject in his exeg.
Handbuch, Bd. 2, 5 Th. If the attack on their genuineness has
been thus from time to time renewed, ever since it was first opened,
there has also been from the commencement no lack of able defen-
ders. Against Schleiermacher there appeared in the lists H. Planck
(Bemerkungen ueber den ersten Paul. Brief an den Tim. Gott. 1808),
Wegscheider (der erste Brief, etc. Gott. 1810), Beckhaus (spec, ob-
serv. de voc. dn. tey. etc., Lingae, 1810) for the genuineness of the
first epistle ; and when the attack was directed against all the three,
their defence was undertaken by Siiskind in Bengel's Archiv. fur
Theol. I. 2 ; Bertholdt, in his Einl. 6. Th. Hug. Einl. 2 Th. ; Feil-
moser, Einl. ; Heydenreich de Pastoralbriefe ; Guerike, Beit, zur
hist. crit. Einl. Halle, 1828 ; Curtius de tempore, quo prior P. ad T.
ep. ex. sit ; Bohl on the date and Pauline character of the Epistles
to Tim. and Tit. ; Hemsen, der Ap. Paul. ; Flatt, in his lectures on
the Epistles of Paul to Tim. and Tit; Mack, comm. iiber die Pasto-
ralbriefe ; Baumgarten die jEchtheit der Pastoralbriefe, Berl. 1837 ;
Bottger, Beitriige zur hist. crit. Einl. IV. u. V. Abth. Gott. 1737 ;
and finally, Matthies, Erkliirung der Pastoralbriefe, Greifsw. 1840.
In considering this question, we may fairly view it only in the posi-
. tion which it now occupies as represented by Dr. Baur and De
Wette's most recent attacks, and the replies which these have called
forth from Baumgarten, Bottger, and Matthies. We shall there-
fore, first of all, have to bring forward and examine the grounds on
which the most recent criticism denies the authenticity of these
epistles. But this criticism does not present us with merely nega-
tive results. It is well known that in its latest form, as represented
by Dr. Baur, it boasts of not abiding by merely negative results, but
of building up by positive criticism what has been destroyed by neg-
ative ; of assigning their real historical place to those particular
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 469
compositions that have been shewn to be spurious. With reference
to this criticism all will depend on the question, whether it has really
succeeded in discovering another place ibr these epistles, to which
they unmistakeably belong. If we must answer this question in the
affirmative, then nothing remains for us bat to rest contented, well
or ill, with this critical result ; if the reverse be the case, then the
question with us will be, how the Pauline origin of these epistles
may be vindicated in spite of the acknowledged differences between
them and the other epistles of the apostle. Dr. Baur, in his work
on the apostle Paul, pp. 492-499, has summed up, in the four fol-
lowing points, his arguments against the genuineness of these epis-
tles, and in favour of their having been written in the second century,
corresponding to the more detailed statement of these in his treatise
already named, " die so genannte Pastoralbriefe." 1. The heretics
of the Pastoral Epistles are the Gnostics of the second century ; 2.
That which relates in these epistles to the government and external
institutions of the church points in its historical connexion, and also
considered in itself, to a later period ; 3. The impossibility of
discovering a single passage having reference to the writing of
these epistles, in the history of the apostle's life, as known to us ;
4. Add to all this, that we find in these epistles, viewed separ-
ately, much that is peculiar and unpauline, both in the language
and in the conceptions and views. De Wette's criticism differs
from Baur's, chiefly in not going beyond the negative stand-point.
For, that De Wette has made a conjecture with respect to the
origin of these epistles a. a. Q. p. 119, does not here claim to be
considered. In regard to particulars, he differs from Baur spe-
cially on the first point, p. 120. He acknowledges, indeed, that the
main scope of all the three epistles is the controversy against the
heretics ; but he by no means recognizes in these heretics the Mar-
cionites, as Baur does, nor does he feel warranted, owing to the