Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 5:21 - 5:21
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_5:21. The apostle concludes the section, on the proper conduct towards the presbyters, with a solemn adjuration to observe the precepts given.
διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων ] In the N. T. the verb διαμαρτύρεσθαι means “testify” (so Act_8:25; Act_10:42; Act_18:5, etc.) and “adjure,” and in the latter sense often serves to strengthen an exhortation (Luk_16:28; Act_2:40; 1Th_4:6; 2Ti_2:14, etc.); so, too, here. The addition καὶ τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγέλων is explained from the idea that the throne of God is surrounded by angels as His servants. The reference to the last judgment is wrong, as in Bengel (with whom Wiesinger and van Oosterzee agree): repraesentat Timotheo judicium extremum, in quo Deus revelabitur et Christus cum angelis coram conspicietur. Paul is appealing, not to something future, but to something present.
The ἐκλεκτῶν cannot be taken as a genitive dependent on τῶν ἀγγέλων (= “before the angels of the elect, i.e. believers,” so Hofmann); ἐκλεκτῶν , as its position between the article and the substantive shows, is an adjective belonging to ἀγγέλων .[192] It does not distinguish higher angels from lower,[193] nor the good from the bad, nor the guardian angels of Timothy and the Ephesian church (Mosheim) from all others, nor the angels in general from earthly beings; it is to be taken simply as an epitheton ornans. The angels as such are ἐκλεκτοὶ Θεοῦ , whom God has chosen as the objects of His love; comp. 1Pe_2:4, where ἘΚΛΕΚΤΌς is synonymous with ἜΝΤΙΜΟς . Wiesinger rightly remarks that ἘΚΛΕΚΤΟΊ is to be taken as a general epithet of all angels, like ἍΓΙΟΙ ἈΓΓ ., ἌΓΓ . ΦΩΤΌς , and the like. It is added in order to give greater solemnity to the form of adjuration. Comp. with it the form in Josephus, where (Bell. Jud. ii. 16. 14) in Agrippa’s address to the Jews we have: μαρτύρομαι διʼ ἐγὼ μὲν ὑμῶν τὰ ἅγια καὶ τοὺς ἱέρους ἀγγέλους τοῦ Θεοῦ .
ἵνα ταῦτα φυλάξῃς ] ταῦτα does not refer to “everything that has been said to Timothy regarding his conduct towards each class” (Hofmann), but to what was said in 1Ti_5:17-20 regarding the presbyters. The solemn adjuration is due to the importance which the office of presbyter had for the church. De Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee refer it only to 1Ti_5:20; but this is contradicted by the close connection of the verse with what precedes.
ΧΩΡῚς ΠΡΟΚΡΊΜΑΤΟς , ΜΗΔῈΝ Κ . Τ . Λ .] ΠΡΌΚΡΙΜΑ , “prejudice,” in a favourable as well as an unfavourable sense. Several expositors take it here in an unfavourable sense, so that the next words: μηδὲν ποιῶν κατὰ πρόσκλισιν , form a contrast to ΧΩΡῚς ΠΡΟΚΡΊΜΑΤΟς (so in this commentary). But as there is nothing to indicate a contrast, it is better to take the second member as defining the first more precisely: “without prejudice, doing nothing by favour.”
Hofmann translates πρόκριμα by “preference” (so Leo); but Wiesinger has already remarked that this meaning cannot be proved. If ΠΡΌΚΛΗΣΙΝ were to be taken as the original reading, it would have to be explained as Theophylact explains it: ΠΡΟΣΚΑΛΕῖΤΑΊ ΣΕ ΤῸ ἛΝ ΜΈΡΟς ΕἸς ΤῸ ΒΟΗΘΕῖΝ ΑὐΤῷ · ΜῊ ΤΟΊΝΥΝ ΠΟΙΉΣῌς ΚΑΤᾺ ΤῊΝ ἘΚΕΊΝΟΥ ΠΡΌΣΚΛΗΣΙΝ , which nevertheless is still an artificial interpretation.[194]
[192] Cases occur in which the genitive of a substantive is governed by a substantive likewise in the genitive (e.g. 2Co_4:4); cases, too, in which the dependent genitive precedes the substantive governing it (e.g. Rom_11:13); but none in which the genitive of a substantive—in form adjectival—governed by a substantive in the genitive, stands between it and the article belonging to it.
[193] Baur explains the expression from the gnostic idea of angels who stand in special connection with the Redeemer. Irenaeus, i. 4. 5 : οἱ ἡλιωκότες αὐτοῦ ( τοῦ Σωτῆρος ) ἄγγελοι ; vii. 1 : οἱ περὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἄγγελοι ; iv. 5 : οἱ ἄγγελοι οἱ μετʼ αὐτοῦ οἱ δορυφόροι .—But apart from other reasons, the expression here used is much too indefinite to be referred to that idea. Van Oosterzee takes ἐκλεκτοί to denote the highest orders of angels, but does not prove that the word is used in such a way.
[194] Reiche is wrong in saying: Huther et Matthies, quin lectionem hanc ( πρόσκλησιν ) absurdam Lachmanni auctoritate sequantur, parum abesse videntur. The reading πρόσκλισιν is distinctly enough preferred by Matthies, as well as in this commentary, in spite of the weight allowed to the important authorities that testify for the other reading.