Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 1:3 - 1:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_1:3-4. The apostle reminds Timothy, in the first place, of a previous exhortation, obviously for the purpose of impressing it more deeply on him.
The most natural construction of the sentence appears to be, to take it as an anacolouthon, to connect ἐν Ἐφέσῳ with προσμεῖναι , to refer πορευόμενος to the subject of παρεκάλεσα , and to make ἵνα dependent on παρεκαλεσά σε κ . τ . λ . This construction is held by most expositors to be the only admissible one. The missing apodosis cannot, however, be supplied before ἵνα , because ἵνα is closely connected with what precedes; we may insert with Erasmus “ita facito,” or with Beza “vide,” or with most expositors “ οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ ” (Winer, p. 530 [E. T. p. 592]). The peculiarity in such an involuntary (Buttm. p. 331) anacolouthon is, that the grammatical connection is not established by inserting the omitted apodosis. The most simple course is to suppose that the apostle had “ οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ ” or “ οὕτω ποίει ,” in mind, but the place for it was lost in the abundance of the thoughts that streamed in on him.
Several expositors depart from the construction commonly accepted. Matthies takes προσμεῖναι as “stay,” not as “remain behind,” refers πορευόμενος not to the subject of παρεκάλεσα , but to σε (making an unjustifiable appeal to Eph_3:17-18; Eph_4:1-2; Col_3:16[40]), and explains the whole thus: When Timothy was intending to travel to Macedonia, Paul had charged him to stop at Ephesus and remain there. Schneckenburger (see his Beiträge z. Einl. pp. 182 ff.) arbitrarily changes the infin. προσμεῖναι into the partic. ΠΡΟΣΜΕΊΝΑς , and refers ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς to the following clause: ἽΝΑ ΠΑΡΑΓΓΕΊΛῌς . Otto treats ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς in the same way, at the same time connecting ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ with ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΑ , taking ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ in an absolute sense, making the apodosis begin with ἽΝΑ , and translating: “Just as I exhorted you to stand firm in Ephesus, so shalt thou on the journey to Macedonia command the people not to give attention to strange teachers, nor to hold them in esteem,” etc. This construction is, however, so artificial, that it is obviously incorrect to every one who is not blinded by the desire of placing the date of the composition of the epistle in a period of the apostle’s life known to us.
[40] In the passages quoted, Paul adds the participles to the previous clauses in the nom., and these participial clauses thus acquire the independence due to them according to the context. But in these passages the relation of the participial clause to the preceding main clause is quite different from what it is here, where there is no reason whatever for departing from the regular construction.
REMARK.
In order to justify his view of the sentence, Otto tries to prove the incorrectness of the usual construction, and to get rid of the objections to his own. The hypothesis of an ellipsis he rejects on account of the rule that the emphatic word can never be omitted, and that if we supply the apodosis by “ οὕτω καὶ νῦν παρακαλῶ ,” the emphatic words are καὶ νῦν . But these words are not by any means the most emphatic. The apostle might be using them not specially of the contrast between past and present, but only to give point to his former exhortation; hence he might easily omit the apodosis. Otto further maintains, that in the usual construction καθώς , which always denotes a material, actual correspondence, even to identity of motives, and further, of material contents, does not get its full force. On this point we indeed grant that the peculiar meaning of καθώς (as distinguished from ὠς ) is not distinctly marked by the expositors; but it is not at all necessary in the usual interpretation to weaken arbitrarily the force of καθώς , since the apostle’s former exhortation could not but be his guide in the present one. Still less difficulty, however, is presented by καθώς , if we choose to supply οὕτω ποίει (as Hofmann does), since the meaning then is, that Timothy’s conduct is to be conformed to the exhortation already given by the apostle.
Otto tries further to show that in the usual explanation the participle πορευόμενος is not in its proper place. The rules which Otto lays down on the subject of participial clauses in order to support his assertion are, on the whole, not incorrect. The passages he quotes from the N. T. certainly show that the participle following a finite verb mostly defines it more precisely; that it either explains more precisely the verbal notion, or gives the accompanying circumstances of the verb. But Otto has overlooked the departures from this rule which occur in the N. T.; comp. Luk_4:40 with Mar_1:31; Mat_12:49 with Act_26:1; Mat_22:15 with Mat_12:14; further, Luk_24:17.[41] It cannot be denied that the participle following sometimes gives simply the time in which the action of the finite verb takes place; that here, therefore, the ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς may simply denote the time of the former exhortation.[42] Otto quotes the passage in Act_12:25 as supporting the rule that the participle following should serve to explain the verbal notion, and justifies this by saying that the participle ΠΛΗΡΏΣΑΝΤΕς ΤῊΝ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΊΑΝ gives the motive of the return. But to give the motive is no explanation. In this passage, however, the position of the participle after the finite verb is justified in this way, that it gives the motive for the action expressed by the finite verb. So, too, in the passage here there is nothing to be said against the connection of πορευόμενος with ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΑ , so soon as we suppose that the journey was the occasion for Paul giving Timothy the exhortation in question. Lastly, Otto attacks the usual construction from the notion of προσμεῖναι , because this word is explained in the construction to be equivalent to “remain, stay;” whereas, when not connected with a dative (or with a participial clause representing a dative), but standing absolutely, it has the meaning: “to maintain the position hitherto possessed, to stand firm.” Hence, if any definition of place is added, it is not as a completion of the verbal notion, but only indicates where the standing firm takes place. Otto infers from this: “accordingly ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ here does not complete ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ , but rather ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ is absolute, and ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ gives the place at which the whole sentence, viz. ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΆ ΣΕ ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ , took place.” This inference is obviously incorrect, since from Otto’s premises it only follows that, if ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ belongs to ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ , the place is thus given where Timothy is to stand fast,—in particular against the heretics,—it does not follow that ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ may be connected with ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ . Besides, from Act_18:18, it is clear beyond dispute that ΠΡΟΣΜΈΝΕΙΝ does occur in the N. T. in the weakened sense of “remain, stay.”[43] Otto does not disguise the objections to his view, but he thinks that when thoroughly weighed they are more apparent than real. In this, too, he is wrong. It is indeed right to say that in the N. T. a sentence often begins with ἽΝΑ without any verb preceding on which it depends,—and this not only in cases where the governing verbal notion is easily supplied from what precedes, as in Joh_1:8; Joh_9:3; Joh_13:18, 2Co_8:7, but also when that is not the case, so that the clause beginning with ἽΝΑ stands as an imperative clause, as in Eph_5:33; Mar_5:23 (comp. Buttm. pp. 207 f.). But in all passages where ἽΝΑ is used elliptically, this is shown clearly and distinctly by the form of the sentence, which is not the case here. It is right also to say that emphatic parts of the clause construed with ἽΝΑ are often placed before ἽΝΑ , so that ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς , therefore, might very well be connected with the clause following ἽΝΑ ; but this, too, is always indicated clearly by the form of the sentence. Wherever words standing before ἽΝΑ are to be referred to what follows ἽΝΑ , these words cannot possibly be connected with what precedes them, and the part of the sentence following ἽΝΑ is incomplete in itself, so that it has to be taken along with the part before ἽΝΑ . It is wrong to maintain that the participial clause ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς ΕἸς ΜΑΚΕΔ . becomes emphatic by contrast with ἘΝ ἘΦΈΣῼ , inasmuch as what took place in Ephesus is now to take place also on the journey to Macedonia; for—the two things are not at all the same. In Ephesus (according to Otto’s view), Paul exhorted Timothy to stand firm; but on the journey to Macedonia, Timothy is to encounter those who had been led astray. Lastly, it is right to assume that the sender of a letter, if he has anything to say of the place from which the letter is sent, may speak of it by name, comp. 1Co_15:32; 1Co_16:8, so that ἐν Ἐφέσῳ might convey to us that Paul was himself in Ephesus while writing; but we must take into consideration the special circumstances of the case. According to Otto, our epistle is a paper of instructions which the apostle put into Timothy’s hands in Ephesus, where he wrote it before setting out for Macedonia. In that case it was improper to mention the place by name. We cannot understand, then, why Paul in such a paper of instructions should have laid special stress on the exhortation he had imparted to Timothy in the very place where he put that paper into his hands.
[41] Otto tries to weaken the force of this passage against him by assuming a rhetorical inversion, because, he says, it is declared “that taking a walk and holding solemn dispute are inconsistent with one another” (!).
[42] In his groundless denial of this, Otto thinks that if πορευόμενος be joined to παρεκάλεσα it must be assumed to be a circumstance accompanying the παρεκάλεσα , but that this assumption is impossible, since a continuing fact (part. pres.) cannot be regarded as the accompanying circumstance of a concluded fact (part. aor.). But Otto overlooks the fact that πορευόμενος in this connection is not to be understood in the sense of continuing a journey, but in the sense of beginning one, of setting out.
[43] In this passage, also, Otto claims for προσμένειν , as a vox militaris, the meaning: “keep one’s ground,” remarking, “for the circumstances in Corinth were such that they might well have induced Paul to cease his labours and depart.” But this assertion is in contradiction with Luke’s statement, that the attack attempted by the Jews through Gallio was decisively warded off. Otto’s explanation, too, becomes all the more unsuitable, since, according to it, Luke would charge the apostle with not holding his ground more, and with abandoning his post.—Further, Otto seems to hesitate whether to take προσμεῖναι in the present passage as really absolute, or whether to supply with it the dative ἐμοί . After finally deciding for the former, he then explains προσμεῖναι as “keeping ground along with the leader appointed by God in the struggle against all the attacks of the heretic,” and thus in self-contradiction returns to the latter, since this leader is the Apostle Paul.
Some expositors take the whole section 1Ti_1:5-17 to be a parenthesis, and 1Ti_1:18 to be the apodosis corresponding to καθώς . The awkwardness of this construction is obvious; but Plitt thinks that, though it is not without its difficulties, most may be said for it. He is wrong, however, since ταύτην τὴν παραγγελίαν , in 1Ti_1:18, does not resume the παρεκάλεσά σε .
If we avoid all subtleties, we cannot but explain it: Even as I exhorted thee to remain in Ephesus when I set out for Macedonia, that thou mightst command certain men not to teach false doctrine … even so do (or: even so I exhort thee also now).[44] Regarding the meaning of ΚΑΘΏς and ΠΡΟΣΜΕῖΝΑΙ , see the above remark.
ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΑ ] Chrys.: ἌΚΟΥΕ ΤῸ ΠΡΟΣΗΝΈς , Πῶς Οὐ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΆΛΟΥ ΚΈΧΡΗΤΑΙ ῬΩΜῇ , ἈΛΛʼ ΟἸΚΈΤΟΥ ΣΧΕΔΌΝ · Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ΕἾΠΕΝ ἘΠΈΤΑΞΑ , ΟὐΔῈ ἘΚΈΛΕΥΣΑ , ΟὐΔῈ ΠΑΡῄΝΕΣΑ , ἈΛΛᾺ ΤΊ ; ΠΑΡΕΚΆΛΕΣΆ ΣΕ . Towards Titus, however, Paul uses the expression ΔΙΕΤΑΞΆΜΗΝ (Tit_1:5), although he was not less friendly towards him than towards Timothy.
ΠΟΡΕΥΌΜΕΝΟς ΕἸς ΜΑΚΕΔΟΝΊΑΝ ] “when I went away, from Ephesus to Macedonia;” ΠΟΡΕΥΈΣΘΑΙ has in itself the general meaning of going, but it is also used of going away from a place, both absolutely (Mat_11:7) and connected with ἈΠΌ (Mat_24:1; Mat_25:41; Mat_19:15 : ἘΚΕῖΘΕΝ ; Luk_13:31 : ἘΝΤΕῦΘΕΝ ). Otto explains it: “on the way to Macedonia,” which is grammatically correct, but opposed to the connection of ideas. There is no ground whatever for thinking that Paul, in this expression, had in mind one particular place on the way to Macedonia, viz. Corinth. We can see no reason why Paul should have expressed himself indefinitely. Otto, indeed, is of opinion that Timothy could not have been uncertain about the meaning of the expression; and that the apostle chose it in order to spare the feelings of the Corinthians, and that he might not confess to the heretics how they had provoked his apostolic opposition to an exceptional degree. But the first reason proves too much, since Paul, if he refrained from the definite expression because Timothy knew his wishes without it, would also have refrained from the indefinite expression. The other two reasons are weak, because if Timothy was to labour successfully against the heretics, he must necessarily appeal to the authority of the apostle in whose name he was to labour. Besides, such playing at hide-and-seek as Otto imputes to the apostle, is in entire contradiction with Paul’s frank character.
ἽΝΑ ΠΑΡΑΓΓΕΊΛῌς Κ . Τ . Λ .] gives the purpose for which Timothy was to remain in Ephesus. The theory that this gives at the same time the purpose of the whole epistle (Matthies), which opinion de Wette brings forward as proving the epistle not to be genuine, is wrong.
ΠΑΡΑΓΓΕΊΛῌς ] does not necessarily involve the suggestion of publicity which Matthies finds in it.
ΤΙΣΊ ] The same indefinite term is used for the heretics also in 1Ti_1:6; 1Ti_1:19; 1Ti_4:1; 1Ti_5:15, etc.: “certain people whom the apostle is unwilling to designate further; Timothy already knows them” (Wiesinger).
ΜῊ ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ ] The word, which is not made up of ἝΤΕΡΟς and ΔΙΔΑΣΚΆΛΕΙΝ (= ΔΙΔΆΣΚΕΙΝ ), but is derived from ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΟς , occurs in the N. T. only here and in 1Ti_6:3 (comp. ἙΤΕΡΟΖΥΓΕῖΝ in 2Co_6:14). In ἝΤΕΡΟς there is not seldom the notion of different in kind, strange, something not agreeing with something else, but opposed to it. Accordingly, in the apostle’s use of the word, a ἑτεροδιδάσκαλος is a teacher who teaches other things than he should teach, who puts forward doctrines in opposition to the gospel; and ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ here means nothing else than to teach something opposed to the gospel (Heb_13:9 : ΔΙΔΑΧΑῖς ΠΟΙΚΊΛΑΙς ΚΑῚ ΞΈΝΑΙς ΜῊ ΠΑΡΑΦΈΡΕΣΘΕ ); comp. 2Co_11:4; Gal_1:6 : ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ ἝΤΕΡΟΝ . Wiesinger, in order to favour his theory that heresy proper is not spoken of, weakens the meaning into “teach otherwise,” so that according to him it signifies “teaching things which lie apart from Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑ .” This is incorrect, for in that case some more precise definition would have been given.
Even in classic Greek, ἝΤΕΡΟς , in composition, often has the meaning alleged by us; thus ἙΤΕΡΟΔΟΞΕῖΝ = diversae opinionis esse; comp. Plato, Theaet. p. 190 E: δόξαν εἶναι ψευδῆ τὸ ἑτεροδοξεῖν . According to Otto, ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ means: “to have another teacher, to follow another teacher.” Otto wrongly appeals for this to Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 32, where ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι does not mean false teachers, but “such members of the church as had abandoned the teaching of the apostles and become attached to strange teachers;” and also to Ignat. ad Polycarp. chap. 3, where ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες has the same meaning.[45] Otto also makes appeal to the Greek usage, according to which, in composite nouns, the concluding word, if it be a noun, does not contain the subject of the fundamental thought in such composite words, but the nearer or more distant object. But this rule is only valid with adjectival forms. In composite substantives, on the contrary, the concluding word (if it be an unaltered substantive) may also denote the subject, which is only defined more precisely by the word that precedes.[46]
There is no ground whatever for Schleiermacher’s opinion, that the verb suggests the idea of a hierarchy.
To ΜῊ ἙΤΕΡΟΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΕῖΝ there is added a second point: ΜΗΔῈ ΠΡΟΣΈΧΕΙΝ Κ . Τ . Λ ., which Timothy is to forbid to ΤΙΝΕς .[47] Except in the Pastoral Epistles, προσέχειν does not occur in Paul. Here, as in Tit_1:14, it includes the notion of agreement; so also in Act_8:6.
μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις ] The καί is to be taken epexegetically; we can neither join the two expressions as an hendiadys (fabulosae genealogiae, Heumann), nor regard them as denoting different things. The notion of μῦθοι has been limited too narrowly by many expositors,—as by Theodoret, who understands by it the traditional supplements to the law; or by others, who take it as denoting the allegorical system of interpretation, or the Jewish stories of miracles (such as occur in the pseudo-epigrapha or the Apocrypha), or even the Gentile mythologies. Leo is wrong in agreeing with Theodoret’s exposition, appealing to Ignatius (Ep. ad Magnes. chap. 8), and alluding to 1Ti_1:7. From that verse it is certainly clear that heretics had peculiar views regarding the law, which were in contradiction with the gospel; but it is a mere assertion to say that μῦθοι here refers to these views, all the more that the word stands closely connected with γενεαλογίαι . De Wette limits the meaning of the word in another fashion, inferring from 2Pe_1:16 : σεσοφισμένοι μῦθοι , that the μῦθοι here meant, formed the definite element in an artificial system; the notion of something artificial is obviously imported. Other expositors take the expression quite generally in the sense of “false doctrine,” as Suidas explains the word: μῦθος · λόγος ψευδής , εἰκονίζων τὴν ἀλήθειαν ; this is too indefinite. Paul rather employs it because it was used to denote false ideas regarding the nature of the Godhead. The word that follows defines the nature of these μῦθοι more precisely.
On the γενεαλογίαι ἀπέραντοι , see Introd. sect. 4. Wiesinger’s view, that they denote the genealogies in the O. T., as well as that of Hofmann, that they are the historical facts in the Thora, are both to be rejected. Credner’s view, that the genealogies of Christ are meant, is quite arbitrary. So, too, with Chrysostom’s explanation: οἶμαι καὶ Ἕλληνας αὐτὸν ἐνταῦθα αἰνίττεσθαι , ὅταν λέγῃ μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις , ὡς τοὺς θεοὺς αὐτῶν καταλεγόντων . It is very far-fetched to refer to the Kabbalistic Sephiroth. The application of the expression to the Essenic doctrine of angels (Michaelis), is contradicted by the fact that theories of emanations cannot be proved to have existed among the Essenes. The view upheld by most expositors, that the apostle was thinking of the series of emanations in the speculation of the heretics, must be considered the right one. It is confirmed by the addition of the adjective ἀπέραντοι . The genealogies are “unlimited,” since there was no necessity for them to stop at any point whatever. The conclusion was altogether arbitrary: hence, in the various systems, the genealogies of the aeons differ from one another in all sorts of ways.
αἵτινες ] is not simply an attributive relative; it gives at the same time the reason of the foregoing exhortation μὴ προσέχειν “as those which” (comp. Soph. Oed. R. 1184; Pape, Handwörterbuch der griech. Spr. See the word ὅστις ).
Ζητήσεις παρέχουσι μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ ] Both notions: ζητήσεις and οἰκονομ . Θεοῦ , may be taken either subjectively or objectively. If ζητήσεις be taken objectively, it is “points of controversy, questions of dispute;” if subjectively, it is “investigations, controversies, disputations” (“each one trying to maintain his arbitrary fictions,” Matthies). If οἰκονομία Θεοῦ is taken objectively, it is “the salvation of God” (“the salvation grounded historically in Christ and publicly preached by means of His apostles,” Matthies; or according to others, “the ministry of the gospel;” or, lastly, “the divine gift of grace,” i.e. the divine influence on individuals by which they are brought to the faith). If it is taken subjectively, it is “the work of man as an οἰκόνομος Θεοῦ ;” de Wette: “the work of a steward of God in the faith (to be awakened or to be furthered).” This latter may be taken, in a general sense, as meaning, “the Christian activity, the Christian exercise of the divine gifts of grace,”[48] or, more narrowly: “the maintaining, the strengthening in Christianity, the nourishment in the faith by the spiritual food of Christianity, which the teachers as stewards of God distribute,” Zachariae. The meaning of παρέχουσι is also modified according to the interpretation of these two notions. If they are interpreted objectively, παρέχειν is “reach forth, present;” if subjectively, it is “cause, bring about” (so Gal_6:17; also frequently in classic Greek and in the Apocrypha of the O. T.; comp. Wahl, Clav. libr. V. T. apocryph., under the word). Ζήτησις is not identical with ζήτημα ; οἰκονομία is indeed used in the sense of “office of steward,” but οἰκονομία Θεοῦ denotes “the preparation, the arrangement made by God” (comp. Eph_1:10; Eph_3:9), and never “the divine salvation.” Hence the subjective interpretation (Hofmann) is to be preferred to the objective (as formerly in this commentary; also Wiesinger, Plitt, Oosterzee). In any case, Matthies is wrong in taking ζητήσεις subjectively and οἰκονομία Θεοῦ objectively, and then assuming that παρέχειν is used in a zeugma. Otto’s explanation is purely arbitrary. He explains ζητήσεις by “speculations,” and οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει by “a system of divine order in the universe (sc. creation and government), resting on faith, grounded in faith,—the cosmogony and physics of the Jewish gnosis.” Of the latter phrase, he says that Paul “adopts the hypocritical name which the νομοδιδάσκαλοι claimed for their system, so that the ζητήσεις form the real, the οἰκον . ἡ ἐν πίστει , on the contrary, the pretended contents of the μῦθοι and γενεαλογίαι .” By the addition of τὴν ἐν πίστει , the labour of the οἰκόνομος Θεοῦ is defined more precisely as one in the sphere of faith (not “causing faith,” Hofmann).
μᾶλλον ἤ ] as in several passages of the N. T., Joh_3:19, Act_27:11, 2Ti_3:4, stands here in the sense of denying the thought contained in the following member, so that (with Suidas) it is equivalent to καὶ οὔ .[49]
With the reading ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΊΑ (or ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΉ ) ΘΕΟῦ , we must interpret, “the edifying in the faith as decreed by God” (Luther, inaccurately: “the improvement towards God in the faith”).
[44] Hofmann is wrong in asserting that Paul, when he wrote καθώς (not ὡς ), could not have had in mind “any expression of which the writer was the subject, but only an exhortation as to what Timothy was to do.”
[45] The first passage runs: τηνικαῦτα (viz. after the apostle’s death) τῆς ἀθέου πλάνης ἀρχὴν ἐλάμβανεν ἡ σύστασις διὰ τῆς τῶν ἑτεροδιδασκάλων ἀτάτης , οἱ καὶ … γυμνῇ λοιπὸν ἤδη κεφαλῇ τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας κηρύγματι τὴν ψευδώνυμον γεῶσιν ἀντικηρύττειν ἐπεχείρουν . The relative clause shows most clearly that the word ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι means nothing else than false teachers.—The second passage is: οἱ δοκοῦντες ἀξιόπιστοι εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες μή σε καταπλησσέτωσαν ; in which, also, false teachers, heretics, are meant, as is evident from the injunction: μή σε κ . τ . λ ., as well as from the exhortation that follows.
[46] The adj. ἑτερόπους certainly does not denote “a halting foot,” but “one who has a halting foot.” On the contrary, κακόδουλος is not “one who has a bad slave,” but “a bad slave.” Comp. also μικροβασιλεύς , ψευδόμαντις , and others; in the N. T., especially the expressions: ψευδοδιδάσκαλος ( ψευδοπροφήτης , ψευδόμαρτυρ , ψευδαπόστολος ), 2Pe_2:1, and καλοδιδάσκαλος , Tit_2:3. It is to be noted, also, that in Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Rhet. 42, κακοδιδασκαλεῖν does not mean “to have a bad teacher,” but “to teach what is bad.”
[47] Without grounds in usage or in fact, Hofmann asserts that “ προσέχειν πινί is not an expression applicable to a teacher, and that therefore the ἑτεροδ . was to be applied to some, and the προσέχειν κ . τ . λ . to others.”
[48] Thus Reiche: ista commenta … non exhibent, praebent, efficiunt dispensationem (distributionem) bonoram quae Deus Christo misso in nos contulit.
[49] Hofmann wrongly applies this form of expression in order to dispute the reference of γενεαλογίαι to the series of aeons, saying: “How could it occur to the apostle to treat the question only as a possible one, whether these follies of their own invention could not in some measure be useful to what he calls οἰκονομίαν Θεοῦ ? Such a possibility is not indicated by μᾶλλον ἤ .