Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 4:2 - 4:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_4:2. Ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων ] Leo: “errarunt sine dubio, qui genitivos, qui sequuntur, ψευδολόγων , κεκαυτηριασμένων , κωλυόντων , lege appositionis, junctos esse dicebant cum voc. δαιμονίων ;” but we must also reject Leo’s opinion, that ἐν ὑποκρ . ψευδ . was added to the previous statement as a second characteristic of the heretics, meaning: eadem simulantes, quae simulare solent homines ψευδολόγοι , etc.; ψευδολ ., κεκαυτηρ ., κωλυόντων denote the heretics themselves, and not those whom they imitated. To regard the genitive ψευδολόγων as dependent on διδασκαλίαις , and ἐν ὑποκρίσει as defining more precisely the substantive following it (Estius: doctrinis, inquam, hominum in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium), would make a double difficulty of construction. Nor can Luther’s translation be defended: “by means of such as are speakers of lies in hypocrisy.” Ἐν ὑποκρίσει is either to be taken with ἀποστήσονται (so Bengel: Constr. cum deficient; hypocrisis ea, quae est falsiloquorum, illos auferet; τινες aliqui, illi, sunt seducti; falsiloqui, seductores; falsiloquorum, genitivus, unice pendet ab hypocrisi), or, still better, with προσέχοντες (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt). The objection of Matthies, which agrees with Leo’s explanation, that in that case we should have had instead of ἐν either διά or ἕνεκα with the article, is contradicted by the usage of the N. T. In the N. T. ἐν is not seldom used with the instrument, and in regard to the article there prevails a greater freedom of use than in classic Greek. Hofmann strangely combines δαιμονίων ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολόγων into one idea, explaining δαιμονίων to be an adjective with ψευδολόγων , and ἐν ὑποκρίσει also as a qualification of ψευδολόγων in the sense of “hypocritical.”[154]
The hypocrisy of the heretics consisted in giving themselves, in obedience to a false spiritualism (see 1Ti_4:3), the appearance of a spiritually-inspired life.
The word ψευδολόγοι , (“liars,” Luther) occurs only here in the N. T. In sense it is equivalent to ψευδοδιδάσκαλος , 2Pe_2:1, and ψευδοπροφήτης , 1Jn_4:1 (comp. ματαιολόγοι , Tit_1:10).
κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν ] On the grammatical structure, comp. 1Ti_6:5 ( διεφθαρμένοι ἄνθρωποι τὸν νοῦν ; the more precise definition is not infrequently added in the accusative, see Winer, p. 215 [E. T. p. 287]), “branded as to their conscience” (Wahl: κεκαυτηριασμένην ἔχοντες τὴν ἰδ . συνείδησιν ).
It is to be noted that the καυτηριάζειν (cauterio notare) was not only done on slaves “ut facilius possent discerni” (Leo), but was also a form of punishment for, marking criminals as such (comp. Meyer on Gal_6:17). As these bore the brand on their forehead,—that is the figurative expression,—so do the heretics bear it on their conscience, i.e. they bear in their conscience the knowledge of their guilt. Theophylact rightly: ἐπεὶ συνίσασιν ἑαυτοῖς ἀκαθαρσίαν πολλήν , διὰ τοῦτο τὸ συνειδὸς αὐτῶν ἀνεξαλείπτους ἔχει τοὺς καυτῆρας τοῦ ῥυπαροῦ βίου . Theodoret (followed by Heumann) wrongly understands the apostle’s expression to denote moral deadness: νέκρωσις καὶ ἀποβολὴ πάσης αἰσθήσεως , ἐσχάτη ἀναλγησία · ὁ γὰρ τοῦ καυτῆρος τόπος νεκρωθεὶς τὴν πρότεραν αἴσθησιν ἀποβάλλει . The apostle does not blame the heretics for having a conscience completely blunted, but for acting against their conscience; comp. Tit_3:11 : αὐτοκατάκριτος .
On ἰδίαν , de Wette remarks that it is not emphatic here; but it is not improbable that the apostle had some such side-thought in mind as Bengel suggests: dum alios tamen urgent (so, too, Wiesinger).
[154] Hofmann opposes the view here put forward that ἐν ὑποκρίσει is to be taken with προσέχοντες , and makes the curious remark that ἐν “can only introduce that which is of use to me for doing something, not that which makes me do a thing only in so far as it is of use to another to determine me to do it” (!).