Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:6 - 3:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_3:6. Μὴ νεόφυτον ] depending on δεῖ … εἶναι in 1Ti_3:2, is attached to the previous accusatives, 1Ti_3:5 being a parenthesis. Νεόφυτος is rightly explained by Chrysostom: οὐ τὸν νεώτερον ἐνταῦθα λέγει , ἀλλὰ τὸν νεοκατήχητον ; comp. 1Co_3:6-7. Heinrichs is wrong if he thinks that, on account of what follows, the explanation rejected by Chrysostom is really the right one; for the rapid promotion to the episcopate of one newly admitted into the church, might easily have consequences to be dreaded by the apostle.
The reason why a “novice” (Luther) should not be bishop is given in the words that follow: ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου . Τυφωθείς : “lest he being beclouded with conceit (of foolish pride).” The verb (which occurs only here and in 1Ti_6:4 and 2Ti_3:4) comes from τῦφος , which in the figurative sense especially denotes darkness, as beclouding man’s mind so that he does not know himself, so that the consciousness of his own weakness is hidden from him; in 2Ti_3:4 it is appropriately joined with μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος (comp. Athenaeus, vi. 238d). Τυφωθείς describes the conduct of the νεόφυτος which brings on him the κρίμα τοῦ διαβόλου .
εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου ] Nearly all expositors take ὁ διάβολος here and in 1Ti_3:7 to be the devil. Some, again, explain it as “the libellous fellow” (Mosheim, Wegscheider, Hofmann; Luther: “the slanderer”). Against this latter view, however, there are three decisive arguments—(1) According to the constant usage of the N. T., the substantive ὁ διάβολος always denotes the devil (it is otherwise in the LXX., but only in Est_7:4; Est_8:1).[121] (2) The singular has the definite article, which seems to mark out one definite individual, for the collective use of the singular can always be inferred from the context (as in Mat_12:35; Rom_14:1; 1Pe_4:18; Jam_2:6; this, indeed, is less the case in Jam_5:6); besides, here the idea of “libeller” is too indefinite for the train of thought; hence Hofmann is forced to define it arbitrarily: “whoever makes it his business to speak evil of Christianity.” (3) If, in the expression ἡ τοῦ διαβόλου παγίς , at 2Ti_2:26, ΤΟῦ ΔΙΑΒΌΛΟΥ cannot mean anything else than the devil, it is arbitrary to render it otherwise when used in the same expression at 1Ti_3:7.
ΚΡΊΜΑ is not equivalent to “charge, accusation” (Matthies), but “the judgment,” especially “the judgment of condemnation.”
τοῦ διαβόλου is mostly (even by Wiesinger and van Oosterzee) taken to be the genitivus objecti (comp. especially Rev_17:1), equivalent to “the judgment which is executed on the devil” (van Oosterzee), because κρίνειν is not the devil’s business; Bengel: diabolus potest opprobrium inferre (1Ti_3:7), judicium inferre non potest, non enim judicat, sed judicatur.[122] But the notion that the devil is delivered to condemnation because of self-conceit, cannot be scripturally proved. For this reason, and also because ΤΟῦ ΔΙΑΒΌΛΟΥ in 1Ti_3:7 is manifestly the subjective genitive, it is preferable to take it in the same way here (so, too, Plitt).[123] Of course the κρίμα of the devil cannot mean a trial which the devil holds, but the judgment which serves to give him foundation for accusing man with God (comp. the name for the devil, κατήγωρ , in Rev_12:10).[124]
[121] Paul uses the word only here and in ver. 7; 2Ti_2:26; Eph_4:17; Eph_6:11. In 2Ti_2:26 and in Eph_6:11, even Hofmann takes it to be the devil; but, on the other hand, both here and in Eph_4:17 he takes it to be the human slanderer.
[122] It is out of place to appeal to 2Pe_2:4 and Jud_1:6 (Wiesinger), since in these passages mention is made, not of the judgment which will be passed on the devil, but of the judgment which will be passed on a number of wicked angels.
[123] Had the apostle been thinking of the judgment which will be passed on the devil (Mat_25:41; Rev_20:4 [14, 15]), he would have expressed himself more clearly, with something like this: ἵνα μὴ χρινήται σὺν τῷ διαβόλῳ .
[124] Hofmann asserts that it is irrational to speak of a judgment which the devil pronounces; but we may ask, on the other hand, whether it is not irrational to speak of a devil without judgment.