Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 6:3 - 6:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_6:3-5. Description of the heretics.
εἴ τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ ] On ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν , comp. 1Ti_1:3; εἴ τις often occurs in the epistle for ὅστις or the like; comp. 1Ti_3:5, 1Ti_5:8; the thought is given in its most comprehensive form.
καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται κ . τ . λ .] defines ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν more exactly, characterizing it as opposed to the pure doctrine of the gospel, as a preaching therefore of heresy (not merely “of a doctrine which has not the quality of being pious” (!), Hofmann).
προσέρχεσθαι is used of mental agreement, and is equivalent to “agree with” (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee); comp. Philo, de Gigantt. p. 289: μηδενὶ προσέρχεσθαι γνώμῃ τῶν εἰρημένων . On ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις , comp. 1Ti_1:10. Hofmann arbitrarily explains the word by: “devote oneself to a thing; employ one’s pains on it.” If προσέχεται is the correct reading, then it is to be explained: “and does not hold fast by sound words.” The genitive τοῦ κυρίου ἡμ . Ἰ . Χρ . gives the source from which the λόγοι proceed. Καὶ τῇ κατʼ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλίᾳ ] an epexegetic addition to what preceded. The expression is not, with Leo and Wiesinger, to be explained by: doctrina ad pietatem ducens; κατά rather expresses the relation of correspondence, suitability (van Oosterzee). By εὐσέβεια is meant Christian piety.—1Ti_6:4. τετύφωται ] comp. 1Ti_3:6.[199] With this word begins the apodosis, which Wegscheider, Mack, and others find expressed only in ἀφίστασο ἀπὸ τ . τοιούτων , which words we can hardly consider genuine. μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος (comp. 1Ti_1:7), the participle is not to be resolved into “although;” all the more that τετύφωται conveys a suggestion of dumbness. Their knowledge, on which they, presume, is limited to fables, and does not penetrate into the truth.
ἀλλὰ νοσῶν περὶ ζητήσεις καὶ λογομαχίας ] νοσῶν , in contrast with ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις in 1Ti_6:3.
Περὶ ζητήσεις κ . τ . λ . gives the sickness of which he is ill (comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 288: ὁ νοσῶν περὶ λόγων ἀκοήν ; Winer, p. 379 [E. T. p. 506]). Luther, not clear: “diseased in questions;” Stier, correct: “diseased with.”
On ζητήσεις , comp. 1Ti_1:4; the addition of λογομαχίαι denotes more exactly the nature of the ζητήσεις . Calvin: λογομαχίας nominat contentiosas disputationes de verbis magis, quam de rebus, vel (ut vulgo loquuntur) sine materia aut subjecto. The word (occurring only in later Greek) is ἅπ . λεγ ., the verb λογομαχεῖν , 2Ti_2:14.
Hitherto he has described the “condition of soul among the ἑτεροδιδασκαλοῦντες ” (Wiesinger); the consequences of their ζητ . and λογομ ., particularly the destructive tendencies, are given in what follows: ἐξ ὧν γίνεται κ . τ . λ .] φθόνος , ἔρις ,[200] ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑΙ , form a climax. ΒΛΑΣΦΗΜΊΑΙ and ὙΠΌΝΟΙΑΙ ΠΟΝΗΡΑΊ are wrongly understood by Chrysostom of conduct towards God. On the latter expression, equivalent to “wicked suspicion” (Luther), see Wisd. 3:24; the word is ἍΠ . ΛΕΓ . in the N. T. Hofmann wishes to separate ΠΟΝΗΡΑΊ from ὙΠΌΝΟΙΑΙ , and to connect it with the next word, “because ὙΠΟΝΟΕῖΝ in itself means suspecting evil.” But, on the one hand, ὙΠΟΝΟΕῖΝ has often the simple meaning “conjecture” (e.g. Act_13:25; also in classic Greek); and, on the other hand, “the suspicion of something evil,” and “the evil, wicked suspicion,” are by no means identical things.—1Ti_6:5. διαπαρατριβαί ] This word and ΠΑΡΑΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΑΊ (according to the usual reading) are not equivalent, as Heydenreich thinks; see Winer, p. 96 [E. T. p. 126]. The distinction between ΠΑΡΑΤΡΙΒΉ and ΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΉ is to be maintained. ΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΉ means, in regard to time: “its consumption, pastime, occupation;” with the prefix ΠΑΡΑ there is added the idea of idle, useless, so that ΠΑΡΑΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΉ denotes the useless occupation of time. The word ΠΑΡΑΤΡΙΒΉ (only in later Greek) means: “wrangling, dispute;” ΔΙΑ serves to intensify the meaning, hence ΔΙΑΠΑΡΑΤΡΙΒΉ is equivalent to “continuous or violent wraingling” (de Wette). Luther translated it: “scholastic disputes.” As the idea of strife has been given already by ἔρις , we might be inclined to consider the Rec. to be the original reading, were the evidence for it not too weak. The same may be said of the reading διατριβαί , which Hofmann, without sufficient ground, maintains to be “what was originally written.” At any rate, the idea “continual wrangling” is not so identical with that of “strife” ( ἜΡΙς ) as to prevent them from being used together.[201] Reiche paraphrases the reading ΔΙʼ Ἃ ΠΑΡΑΤΡΙΒΑΊ as equivalent to per quae, nempe vitia morbosque animi vs 4, exoriuntur rixae et certamina, etc.; but ΔΙʼ Ἅ is not equivalent to per quae, and the previous ἐξ ὧν is against this construction.
ΔΙΕΦΘΑΡΜΈΝΩΝ ἈΝΘΡΏΠΩΝ ΤῸΝ ΝΟῦΝ ] Regarding this accus., see Winer, p. 205 [E. T. p. 287]; comp. 2Ti_3:8 (Xenophon, De Exped. Cyri, iv. 259: διεφθαρμένοι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς ): “whose understanding is destroyed.”
καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας ] “who have been robbed of the truth.” This and the previous participial clauses indicate that formerly the heretics had their understanding sound, and were in possession of the truth, but that they had lost both these jewels, according to 1Ti_4:1, by the influence of demons. It should never have been denied that they who are thus described were actual heretics.
The next clause adds another peculiar characteristic, which proves the διεφθαρμένων κ . τ . λ .: νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν ] πορισμός (only here and at 1Ti_6:6; comp. Sir_13:19; Sir_14:2) is equivalent to “means of gain,” i.e. a business bringing gain; Luther: “trade.”
Wegscheider wrongly explains εὐσέβεια as equivalent to Ἡ ΚΑΤʼ ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑΝ ΔΙΔΑΣΚΑΛΊΑ . The idea is to be kept in its proper meaning; although that which the heretics made to appear ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑ was not ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑ , but only the appearance of it (2Ti_3:5 : ΜΌΡΦΩΣΙΝ ΕὐΣΕΒΕΊΑς ), by means of which they sought to make earthly gain (Tit_1:11).
As to the construction, it seems most natural to make the substantive at the beginning of the verse dependent on ἘΞ ὯΝ ΓΊΝΕΤΑΙ , 1Ti_6:4, along with the substantives before it. Hofmann, on the contrary, thinks it curious, “that besides the bad things already mentioned, there should also be named those with whom they occur;” and he wishes rather to regard ΠΟΝΗΡΑῚ ΔΙΑΤΡΙΒΑΊ (which he reads) as in apposition to ΖΗΤΉΣΕΙς ΚΑῚ ΛΟΓΟΜΑΧΊΑς , just as in Jam_3:8, where the nominative stands in apposition to the previous accusative as a kind of exclamation. This construction is possible, but it is by no means necessary, and from the structure of the sentence not even probable.
The last remark furnishes the apostle with an opportunity for a digression on Christian contentment.[202]
[199] Hofmann thinks that τετύφωται does not here, as in 1Ti_3:6, contain the idea of darkness, since “Paul means to express regarding the schismatics an opinion, not in regard to their moral, but in regard to their spiritual condition.” This opinion is contradicted by the fact that in what follows νοσῶν κ . τ . λ . manifestly denotes a moral fault.
[200] Clemens Al. Stromata, vii. p. 759: ὑπὸ δοξοσοφίας ἐπῃρμένοι ἐρίζοντες πελοῦσι .
[201] Oecumenius explains the expression ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν ψωραλέων προβάτων , and Chrysostom says likewise: καθάπερ τὰ ψωραλέα τῶν προβάτων παρατριβόμενα νόσου καὶ τὰ ὑγιαίνοντα ἐμπίμπλησιν , οὕτω καὶ οὗτοι οἱ πονηροὶ ἄνδρες .—The meaning “provocations” (Mack), and this other: “wicked and hurtful meetings or clubs” (Heinrichs), can he assigned neither to παραδιατριβαί nor to διαπαρατριβαί .
[202] Hofmann’s opinion, that the deductions following are not occasioned by the conduct of the heretics, but by Timothy’s conduct, are not warranted by the exhortation in 1Ti_6:11 : ταῦτα φεῦγε .