Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 4:8 - 4:8
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_4:8. The reason for the previous exhortation is given by contrasting the σωματικὴ γυμνασία with the γυμνασία πρὸς εὐσέβειαν .
ἡ γὰρ σωματικὴ γυμνασία πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος ] Regarding the meaning of σωματ . γυμν ., there are two opinions which need no refutation: the one is that it means the ceremonial law (Braun, Selecta sacra, i. 10, § 156); the other is that of Chrysostom, who understands by it disputation with the heretics.[159] It is a question whether Paul makes use of the word with or without reference to the heretics. Many expositors (of the older, Ambrosius, Thomas; of the more recent, Calvin, Grotius; also Heydenreich, Leo, Matthies) adopt the former view, and explain the σωματικὴ γυμνασία to mean the practice prevailing among the heretics of abstaining from marriage and from certain meats. The connection of ideas is against this view, since in the words immediately preceding he was not speaking of rules of abstinence, but of the myths of the heretics; the sense is also against it, for Paul could not possible say of the heretics’ mode of life, which before he had called devilish, that it was πρὸς ὀλίγον ὠφέλιμος κ . τ . λ . Wiesinger thinks the apostle had in mind, not that degenerate form of asceticism which was to appear in the future, as he described in 1Ti_4:3, but “the phenomena of the present,” viz. an asceticism to which even Timothy (1Ti_5:23) had some inclination. But since, in Wiesinger’s opinion, even this asceticism is to be regarded as an error, we cannot well refer to it the words πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶν ὠφέλιμος .
Hofmann understands the σωματικὴ γυμνασία to be a discipline such as the apostle practised on himself in abstaining from things permitted; not, however, as if the self-denial were anything in itself, but only lest he should be hindered by the needs of the body from attaining the goal. For this Hofmann quotes 1Co_9:27. But the discipline which Paul practised on himself was by no means a purely bodily one; it was rather a γυμνασία πρὸς εὐσέβειαν , since the faithful fulfilment of official duty formed part of the εὐσέβεια . The expression is therefore to be explained simply from itself, and we must understand by it the exercise of the body in general, as Theodoret, Pelagius, Wolf, and others (of those more recent, Mack, de Wette, and van Oosterzee) have rightly explained it.
The reason why Paul here speaks of bodily exercise is contained in the previous exhortation: γύμναζε σὲ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν . This he wishes to make emphatic by contrasting with it the γυμνάζειν practised so carefully among the Greeks, though only πρὸς ὀλίγον ὠφέλιμον . The connection of ideas is by no means, as de Wette thinks, a mere “lexical allusion,” nor is the idea itself superfluous.
πρὸς ὀλίγον is in Jam_4:14 used of time: “for a short time.” In this sense many have taken it here; but the contrasted πρὸς πάντα is against this. It is inaccurate also to regard, as Heumann does, πρὸς ὀλίγον as equivalent to ὀλίγῳ (Luther: “of little use”); it means “for little.” Paul does not mean to say that the σωμ . γυμνασία is of no use, but that its use extends to little, only to some relations of the present, earthly life.[160] It is different with that to which Timothy is exhorted: Ἡ ΔῈ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑ ΠΡῸς ΠΆΝΤΑ ὨΦΈΛΙΜΌς ἘΣΤΙΝ ] A more exact contrast would have been presented by Ἡ ΔῈ ΓΥΜΝΑΣΊΑ Ἡ ΠΡῸς ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ ; but Paul could here speak at once of the use of ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑ in order to strengthen the previous exhortation. ΠΡῸς ΠΆΝΤΑ is here opposed to ΠΡῸς ὈΛΊΓΟΝ . The general reference thus given must not be arbitrarily limited. There is nothing, no active occupation, no condition, no human relation, on which the ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑ does not exercise an influence for good.
ἘΠΑΓΓΕΛΊΑΝ ἜΧΟΥΣΑ ΖΩῆς Τῆς ΝῦΝ ΚΑῚ Τῆς ΜΕΛΛΟΎΣΗς ] This participial clause gives a reason for the words immediately preceding, and confirms them. De Wette, and following him Wiesinger, explain (by appealing to passages such as Exo_20:12; Deu_4:40; Mat_6:33; Eph_6:2, and others) ΖΩῊ Ἡ ΝῦΝ as equivalent to “a long and happy life.” But ΖΩΉ with Ἡ ΝῦΝ cannot have a meaning different from that which it has with Ἡ ΜΕΛΛΟῦΣΑ . It is incorrect also to understand by ΖΩΉ “eternal life, life in the full and true sense of the word” (Hofmann),[161] for it is arbitrary to maintain that Τῆς ΝῦΝ ΚΑῚ Τῆς ΜΕΛΛΟΎΣΗς was added to ΖΩῆς only as an after-thought. This contrast forbids us to understand ΖΩΉ as anything else than simply “life;” ΖΩῊ Ἡ ΝῦΝ is the present, ΖΩῊ Ἡ ΜΕΛΛΟῦΣΑ is the future life which follows the earthly. The genitive is to be taken as a more remote objective genitive,—“promise for the present and the future life” (so, too, van Oosterzee and Plitt). The thing promised is not indeed named, but it can be easily supplied.
[159] Chrysost. μηδὲ εἰς γυμνασίαν ποτὲ καταθὲς σεαυτὸν , διαλεγόμενος πρὸς ἐκείνους · οὐ γάρ ἐστι πρὸς τοὺς διεστραμμένους μαχόμενον ὀνῆσαι τί ποτέ .
[160] If ὀλίγον (without πρός ), the reading of à , is correct, then the meaning is that which Luther has expressed. Still ὀλίγον might be taken also as a milder expression for the absolute negation: of little use, i.e. properly speaking, of no use, viz. for the calling of a Christian. But even this view does not justify the interpretation of γυμνασία which we have rejected above.
[161] It is clear that ζωή is not the “blessed life” (Matthies), since εὐσέβεια itself denotes the blessed life.