Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:14 - 3:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_3:14-15. The apostle has come here to a resting-point, since he has brought to an end his instructions regarding some of the chief points to be noticed in the affairs of the church; but, before passing to any new matter, he casts a glance back on the instructions he has given, and tells what was the occasion of his giving them.
ταῦτά σοι γράφω ] Bengel’s explanation: “ ταῦτα , i.e. totam epistolam,” in which Hofmann agrees,[136] is so far right, that ΤΑῦΤΑ refers rather to the instructions that precede (from 1Ti_2:1 onward).
ἘΛΠΊΖΩΝ ἘΛΘΕῖΝ ΠΡΌς ΣΕ ΤΆΧΙΟΝ ] ἘΛΠΊΖΩΝ does not give the real (“hoping,” Matthies), but the adversative ground (Leo: Part. ἘΛΠΊΖΩΝ per ΚΑΊΠΕΡ seu similem particulam esse resolvendum, nexus orationis docet; so, too, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt). The real ground is given by the following ἽΝΑ . Hofmann asserts, but does not prove, that this view does not accord with the following ΔΈ . Hofmann finds that ἘΛΠΊΖΩΝ only expresses an accompaniment of the act of writing, and that it was added “lest Timothy should infer from the sending of an epistle that the apostle meant to leave him for some time in Ephesus;” but in this he imports a motive of which the context furnishes no hint.
ΤΆΧΙΟΝ (comp. on this form, Winer, p. 67 [E. T. p. 81]; Buttmann, p. 24) is here taken by most expositors as a pure positive “soon;” the comparative sense (according to Winer, pp. 227 f. [E. T. p. 304]), though in the background, has not wholly disappeared: “sooner” (not “than the arrival of this letter,” or “than thou wilt have need of these instructions,” Winer) “than is or was to be expected.”
In spite of this hope, the apostle’s arrival might possibly be longer delayed, and this possibility had induced him to impart his instructions by writing, lest Timothy should be without them.
ἘᾺΝ ΔῈ ΒΡΑΔΎΝΩ (the verb only here and at 2Pe_3:9), ἽΝΑ ΕἸΔῇς Πῶς ΔΕῖ ἘΝ ΟἼΚῼ ΘΕΟῦ ἈΝΑΣΤΡΈΦΕΣΘΑΙ ] Πῶς ΔΕῖ ἈΝΑΣΤΡΈΦΕΣΘΑΙ refers not so much to the Christian life in general, as to behaviour in church life, viz. in divine service and in church arrangements. This limitation is clearly indicated by the connection with what precedes, the ΤΑῦΤΑ referring us back (in opposition to Hofmann). Its subject is either Timothy, in which case ΣΈ is to be supplied (Luther: “how thou shouldst walk;” so, too, Wiesinger), or no definite subject should be supplied: “how one should walk.”[137] Both explanations are possible in language and in fact; but the second may be preferred, because Paul in the preceding part (to which ταῦτα refers) did not say what Timothy was to do, but what arrangements were to prevail in the church; Hofmann thinks differently, as he understands ταῦτα of the whole epistle. The expression οἶκος Θεοῦ denotes properly the temple at Jerusalem (Mat_21:13), then also the O. T. people as the church in which God had His dwelling (Heb_3:2; Heb_3:5); in Christian usage it is the N. T. people in whom the dwelling of God has been fully realized; Heb_3:6 (Heb_10:21); 1Pe_4:17; synonymous with it are the expressions: κατοικητήριον Θεοῦ , Eph_2:22; ναὸς Θεοῦ , 1Co_3:16; 2Co_6:16.
To elucidate the symbolic expression, Paul adds: ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ ζῶντος ] The pronoun ἥτις (= “seeing it”) makes the explanatory sentence emphatic, by indicating why there should be such behaviour in the house of God as Paul had prescribed (which Hofmann denies); and the reason is not simply that it is an ἐκκλησία , i.e. a church, and as such has necessarily certain definite ordinances, but still more definitely because it is a church of God, of the living God, who as such esteems highly His ordinances in His church.
There follow in simple apposition the words: στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας ] These words are in apposition to ἐκκλησία Θ . ζ ., and as such are rightly explained by the older[138] and most of recent commentators (Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Mack, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann; now, too, by van Oosterzee, 3d ed.[139]). Some Protestant commentators, however, influenced by their polemic against the Catholic idea of the church, have taken these words as the beginning of the following sentence (first, in the edition of the N. T. at Basel, 1540, 1545; later, Bengel, Mosheim, Heydenreich, Matt; formerly also van Oosterzee). The reasons against this construction are—(1) That the new thought would be taken up in a very abrupt and sudden manner, while by connecting it with the previous words, the train of thought is suitable and natural; (2) That “grammatically the third defining term, simply adjectival, ὉΜΟΛ . ΜΈΛΑ , cannot well be placed in co-ordination with two predicates like ΣΤΎΛΟς and ἙΔΡΑΊΩΜΑ ” (Wiesinger, following Schleiermacher); and (3) That, whereas ΤῸ Τῆς ΕὐΣΕΒΕΊΑς ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ is nothing else than the ἈΛΉΘΕΙΑ , this construction would make the former designate the latter as ΣΤΎΛΟς ΚΑῚ ἙΔΡ ., which would clearly be unsuitable. There is manifestly nothing to be said for the opinion of some commentators,[140] that by στ . κ . ἑδρ . we are to understand Timothy.[141]
ΣΤΎΛΟς in the figurative sense occurs only here and at Gal_2:9; Rev_3:12. The ΟἾΚΟς ΘΕΟῦ is called ΣΤΎΛΟς Τῆς ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς , inasmuch as the pillar supports and bears the roof resting on it (see Meyer on Gal_2:9), but not “inasmuch as it serves to elevate something and make it manifest” (Hofmann). The same idea is expressed by the second word: ἙΔΡΑΊΩΜΑ , the base, foundation (similarly ΘΕΜΈΛΙΟς , 2Ti_2:19), a word which is only used here in the N. T. The thought that the divine truth is supported and borne by the church, has nothing startling when we remember that the church, as the ΟἾΚΟς ΘΕΟῦ , has the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of truth; the Spirit of truth, therefore, is its indwelling, all-penetrating principle of life, by which it stands in closest communion with its head.[142] But if the church is set up to be the preserver of divine truth, it is all the more important that all should be well-ordered in it. These words stand, therefore, in close connection with what precedes; but, at the same time, they make the transition to what follows, where the apostle in a few brief characteristics gives the nature of the truth, that he may from this point return to his polemic against the heretics, and continue it further.
[136] Hofmann’s assertion, that the reference of ταῦτα to what precedes is forbidden by the present γράφω (for which we should have had ἔγραφα ), is contradicted by 1Co_4:14; 1Co_14:37; 2Co_13:10; Gal_1:20; also by 1Jn_2:1.
[137] The impersonal δεῖ is usually joined with the accusative and infinitive, the infinitive denoting the thing, the accusative the person who must do the action expressed by the verb. More frequently the person is not named, but is easily supplied from the context, as e.g. in Mat_23:23, where ὑμᾶς , in Luk_12:12, where again ὑμᾶς , and in Luk_15:32, where σέ is to be supplied. Hofmann is therefore wrong in asserting that there is no linguistic justification for supplying σέ here, where εἰδῇς precedes. Sometimes, however, δεῖ refers to no particular person; so Joh_4:20 : ὅπου προσκυνεῖν δεῖ ; Act_5:29 : πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ Θεῷ ; Act_15:5 : δεῖ περιτέμνειν αὐτούς ; Tit_1:11 : οὓς δεῖ ἐπιστομέζειν ; the δεῖ in that case corresponds to the English “one must.” It is arbitrary, with Hofmann, to supply τινά here, and understand by it one who “has to govern a house of God.”
[138] Theodore of M. rightly says: ἐκκλησίας οὐ τοὺς οἴκους λέγει τοὺς εὐκτηρίους κατὰ τὴν τῶν πολλῶν συνήθειαν , ἀλλὰ τῶν πιστῶν τὸν σύλλογον , ὅθεν καὶ στύλον αὐτὴν καὶ ἑδραίωμα τ . ἀλ . ἐκάλεσεν , ὡς ἂν ἐν αὐτῇ τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν σύστασιν ἐχούσης .
[139] Van Oosterzee is, however, inclined to conjecture that “there is here a corruption of the text which cannot now be restored with certainty.”
[140] Gregory of Nyssa (de Vita Mosis): οὐ μόνον Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης στῦλοι τῆς ἐκκλησίας εἰσι … ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος καὶ τὸν Τιμόθεον στύλον καλὸν ἐτεκτήνατο , ποιήσας αὐτὸν , καθὼς φησὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ φωνῇ , στύλον καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἐκκλησίας .
[141] Though Chrysostom construes rightly, he yet inverts the meaning of the sentence: οὐχ ὡς ἐκεῖνος ὁ Ἰουδαικὸς οἶκος θ ., τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ συνέχον τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὸ κήρυγμα · ἡ γὰρ ἀλήθειά ἐστι τῆς ἐκκλησίας καὶ στύλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα .
[142] Wiesinger rightly calls attention to the distinction which should be made between “the truth as it is in itself, and the truth as it is acknowledged in the world,” and then says: “in the former respect it needs no support, but bears itself; in the latter, it needs the church as its support, as its bearer and preserver.” If the Catholic Church has drawn wrong conclusions from the apostle’s words, it has itself to blame, and not the apostle.