Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 5:14 - 5:14
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_5:14. Positive instructions regarding young widows.
βούλομαι οὖν ] βούλομαι , does not express a wish merely (de Wette: “I hold it to be advisable, desirable.”), but a definite command; comp. 1Ti_2:8.
οὖν shows that this thought is a deduction from the one previous; Leo: quae quum ita sint.
νεωτέρας , sc. χήρας , not the virgins, as Baur thinks.
γαμεῖν ] used also in 1Co_7:39 of the re-marriage of widows.
τεκνογονεῖν ( ἅπ . λεγ ., the substantive in 1Ti_2:15) does not include, according to the notion peculiar to himself, the rearing of children (van Oosterzee). The apostle mentions single points; every one can supply the appropriate details for himself. Leo rightly says that the idea of rearing children is included rather in the next word.
οἰκοδεσποτεῖν ( ἅπ . λεγ .; the substantive often occurs in the N. T.) denotes properly the work of the husband, and is equivalent to τοῦ οἴκου προΐστασθαι , 1Ti_3:4; 1Ti_3:12; here it is used of the wife, who necessarily has her share in ruling the household.
μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν διδόναι τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ λοιδορίας χάριν ] The last words: λοιδορίας χάριν , are not to be taken with βούλομαι , (Mack: “I will … for the sake of the reproach which would otherwise be cast upon the church;” the meaning is obviously the reverse of this, so soon as these words are placed in thought after γαμεῖν , since χάριν never loses the sense of “for the sake of”), nor with τῷ ἀντικειμένῳ (Leo: “inimico ad calumniandum parato”). They are to be connected with ἀφορμὴν διδόναι , but not in such a way as to form a supplement to that phrase (de Wette, with the remark that this is indeed a strange construction; also Wiesinger); the supplement should have been in the genitive, see 2Co_5:12. In short, λοιδορ . χαρ . only defines ἀφορμὴν διδόναι more precisely. A definite object is not to be supplied (Leo: occasionem sc. ipsas seducendi praebere; so, too, van Oosterzee, and in this commentary), but the interpretation is: “they are to afford the enemy no opportunity for slandering,” i.e. they are to abstain from everything which the enemy may use for slandering the church (not merely the widows); so, too, Hofmann on the whole. By the ἀντικείμενος is meant either the devil (so most of the older commentators,[185] also Leo and Matthies; van Oosterzee uncertain) or the human enemy, the Jew and Gentile (so de Wette, Wiesinger, Plitt, Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong, however, in asserting that τοῦ σατανᾶ in 1Ti_5:15 is decisive against the first explanation, for αὐτοῦ would have been used.
De Wette joins the last part of the clause to what precedes, in such a way as to supply: “and in this way.” But there is no hint of this limitation. If we add it simply to what precedes, it is more natural to refer it to the whole conduct of the widows.
[185] Comp. Constit. Apost. iii. 2 : νεωτέραις ( χήραις ) δὲ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ πρώτου τελευτὴν συγκεχωρήσθω καὶ ὁ δεύτερος , ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα τοῦ διαβόλου ἐπέσωσι , καὶ παγίδας πολλὰς , καὶ ἐπιθυμίας νοήτους .