Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 4

1 Timothy 4:1. πλάνοις] For this, many cursives and Fathers have πλάνης, which, however, is only a correction, perhaps after 1 John 4:6.—1 Timothy 4:2. Instead of the form κεκαυτηριασμένων (Rec. Tisch.), we should probably, after A L א, read κεκαυστηριασμένων (Lachm. smaller ed., Buttm.).

For ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, which is supported by the weightiest authorities, D* has (in Matthaei, E) συνείδησιν ἑαυτῶν.—1 Timothy 4:6. For Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, so many important authorities (A D F G, many cursives, etc.) have Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, that the latter must be held the right reading.

τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας] for which some cursives, etc., have τῇ καλῇ διδασκαλίᾳ, which may have arisen from a belief that these words are co-ordinate with τοῖς λόγοις.

For the Rec. ᾗ παρηκολούθηκας (Tisch.), Lachm. smaller ed., and Buttm., following A 80, have adopted the gen. ἧς παρηκ., an attraction seldom occurring, but not without examples; see Winer, p. 148 [E. T. p. 204].—1 Timothy 4:8. In א the preposition πρός is wanting before ὀλίγον; possibly πρὸς ὀλίγον may have been formed on the analogy of the πρὸς πάντα.

For the Rec. ἐπαγγελίαν, which is found in the weightiest authorities, and is received by nearly all critics and editors, K א, many cursives have the plural ἐπαγγελίας. This is defended by Matthaei and Rinck as the original reading, but is disputed by Reiche (Comment. crit. I. pp. 389 f.). It is at least possible that the singular found its way into the text as a correction.—1 Timothy 4:10. καὶ κοπιῶμεν, Rec., supported by F G K, most cursives, etc. (Tisch. 7); in A C D א 17, 47, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. etc., καί is wanting, and is therefore omitted by Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. 8. Its genuineness is very doubtful.

Instead of the Rec. ὀνειδιζόμεθα (supported by D L, most versions, Theodoret, etc., Tisch. 7), A C F G K א, al., have the reading ἀγωνιζόμεθα, which has been adopted by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. 8. The authorities give a preference to the latter reading, yet it may have arisen from Colossians 1:29. Reiche defends the Rec.; we cannot decide with certainty which is original; see further in the exposition of the verse.—1 Timothy 4:12. Between ἐν ἀγάπῃ and ἐν πίστει the Rec. has ἐν πνεύματι; rightly withdrawn from the text as not genuine by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., following the weightiest authorities (A C D F G 31, 47, 70, 71, al., Syr. utr. Erp. Copt. etc., Clemens, Chrys. etc.); comp. Reiche (Comment. crit. I. p. 392).—1 Timothy 4:15. For ἐν πᾶσιν, Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. rightly adopted πᾶσιν (without ἐν), after A C D F G א 17, 31, al., Syr. Erp. Copt, etc., Clem. Chrys. etc. It is defended, too, by Reiche as the original reading; ἐν appears to have been inserted from the analogy of Romans 1:19; 1 Corinthians 11:19.

1 Timothy 4:1. In the first five verses of this chapter, Paul speaks of the heretics, directing special attention in 1 Timothy 4:3 to one point in their doctrine.

τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ῥητῶς λέγει] The δέ connects this verse with the beginning of 1 Timothy 3:16, and connects it by way of contrast. Τὸ πνεῦμα is the Holy Spirit, as the source of prophecy. To explain the expression by οἱ πνευματικοί (Heydenreich) is inaccurate. Paul goes back here to the fundamental basis of all prophecy.

ῥητῶς (ἅπαξ λεγ.) means: “in express words,” and is used particularly with quotations.[151] Heydenreich is inaccurate in explaining it as equivalent to σαφῶς, φανερῶς; Luther: “distinctly.” The apostle, then, appeals here to a prophecy of the Spirit expressly worded. Such a prophecy of the future apostasy lay before him in many utterances, both of Christ and of others; besides, the Spirit declared them to the apostle himself.

Leo is wrong: animus mihi praesagit.

ὅτι ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς πίστεως] We might readily take ὕστεροι καιροί here as equivalent to ἔσχατοι καιροί (comp. 2 Timothy 3:1 : ἔσχαται ἡμέραι; 1 Peter 1:5 : καιρὸς ἔσχατος; 2 Peter 3:3; Jdg 4:18; in Ignatius, Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi.: ἔσχατοι καιροί); but we must not overlook the difference between the two expressions. The former points simply to the future, the latter to the last time of the future, immediately preceding the completion of God’s kingdom and the second coming of Christ (so, too, van Oosterzee, Hofmann). It is unsuitable to press καιρός here in the sense of “the fitting time,” and to translate it with Matthies: “in the fitting time hereafter.”

Τινες are not the heretics, but those who are led away from the faith by the heretics. The apostasy belonged to the future, but the heresy to the present. Hofmann thinks differently, assigning the heresy also to the future, though the apostle’s expression does not warrant this.[152] We must not, however, with Otto, infer that in the apostle’s time the heretics were still outside the church.

ἀποστήσονται τῆς πίστεως] “This sentence forms the antithesis to what has preceded, 1 Timothy 3:15-16” (Wiesinger); for the expression, comp. Luke 8:13; Hebrews 3:12; Wis 3:10; 1Ma 1:15, and other passages.

προσέχοντες] comp. 1 Timothy 1:4; the partic. tells how the apostasy is brought about.

πνεύμασι πλάνοις] the πνεύματα πλάνα are in contrast with the πνεῦμα in 1 Timothy 4:1; and the former are as little to be identified with the heretics, as the latter with the prophets (Wolf: spirituales seductores, i.e. doctores seducentes). The πνεύματα are rather the active spiritual powers hidden in the heretics, the tools and servants of the devil. As the truth is one, so also is its principle one: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Error on the other hand is manifold, and is supported by a plurality of spirits, who may, however, be regarded as a unity: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης, 1 John 4:6.

These πνεύματα are called πλάνα, because they seduce man from the truth to falsehood; comp. 2 John 1 Timothy 4:7.

καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων] δαιμονίων is not the objective (Heydenreich: “doctrines regarding demons, a characteristic of Essene-gnostic heretics who spoke so much of the higher world of spirits, of aeons,” etc.), but the subjective genitive (Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Winer, p. 176 [E. T. p. 233]). The δαιμόνια are the source of the doctrines which are opposed to the truth, of the σωφία δαιμονιώδης (Jam 3:15); comp. Colossians 2:22. It is wrong to suppose that the δαιμόνια are the heretics themselves. As with πνεῦμα in 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul goes back here to the inner grounds; the διδασκαλίαι proceeding from these form the opposite of the διδασκαλία ἡ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Θεοῦ.[153]

[151] [Huther must mean that ῥητῶς is ἅπαξ λεγ. in the N. T.; for it is found in Sext. Empir. adv. Log. i. 8: ὁ Ξενοφῶν ῥητῶς φησίν; also in Strabo, i. p. 4 B, and Polybius, ii. 23. 5.—TR.]

[152] Plitt is not wrong in observing that “the errors now described by the author were no longer matters purely of the future; they were already appearing.”

[153] The expression δαιμόνια occurs often in the synoptic Gospels; in John only in the singular. Paul has it only here and in 1 Corinthians 10. Otto uses this last fact as a proof that the two epistles were contemporaneous, but he is wrong; the reference is different in the two cases; in the passage of 1 Cor. it is not the “gnostic” heresy that is spoken of.

1 Timothy 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 1 Timothy 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, 2 Peter 2:1, and ψευδοπροφήτης, 1 John 4:1 (comp. ματαιολόγοι, Titus 1:10).

κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν] On the grammatical structure, comp. 1 Timothy 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 Galatians 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. Titus 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” (!).

1 Timothy 4:3. Further description of the heretics.

Κωλυόντων γαμεῖν] Since even the Essenes and Therapeutae made abstinence from marriage a necessary condition of a holy life, there is no ground whatever for supposing that this description proves the heretics to have been followers of the later Christian gnostics (especially of Marcion, according to Baur).

ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων] similar construction in 1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34; the infinitive is dependent on the κελευόντων implied in κωλυόντων (= κελευόντων μή); see Winer, p. 578 [E. T. p. 777]; Buttmann, p. 343. Isidor of Pelusium unnecessarily corrects ἀπέχεσθαι into ἀντέχεσθαι. In the Epistle to the Romans (chap. 14) the apostle speaks of weak brethren’s anxiety in regard to the enjoyment of many meats, and the heretics combated in the Epistle to the Colossians are distinctly described as forbidding the enjoyment of certain meats; but neither here nor in these passages is it said what kinds of meat were forbidden, nor why (comp. also Titus 1:14-15). It is, however, not improbable—if we follow the analogy of later gnostics—that animal food, and perhaps also wine (Colossians 2:6 : ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει), are specially meant. There is no indication that the prohibition was founded on gnostic dualism (van Oosterzee); it is more probable that the false asceticism of the heretics was connected with the Mosaic distinction between clean and unclean (comp. Titus 1:15); so also Wiesinger.[155]

In the Epistle to the Colossians (Colossians 2:22) the apostle indicates the perversity of such a prohibition in a brief relative clause; and so also here.

ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάληψιν κ.τ.λ.] Different answers have been given to the question why only the second, and not also the first error is refuted. It may have been that the heretics did not make abstinence from marriage, as they made abstinence from certain meats, a command laid on all. It may have been, too, “that the prohibition to marry stood in manifest contradiction with the divine order of creation, whereas the prohibition of certain meats might appear less objectionable because of its analogy with the prohibition in the law of Moses” (Hofmann). Besides, the apostle has already indicated in 1 Timothy 2:15 the opposition of the gospel to this prohibition to marry.

The word μετάληψις occurs only here, though in Acts 27:33 we find μεταλαβεῖν τροφῆς.

The apostle does not content himself with saying that God made food to be enjoyed, but he shows at the same time how God meant it to be enjoyed, viz.: μετὰ εὐχαριστίας (comp. on this 1 Corinthians 10:31). He then limits the general thought by a special reference to believers: τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, as those in whom the purpose of creation is fulfilled, solis filiis suis Deus totum mundum et quicquid in mundo est destinavit, qua ratione etiam vocantur mundi heredes (Calvin). The apostle’s thought is distorted by adding “also” before τοῖς πιστοῖς, as is done by some expositors.

Heydenreich rightly says that the words are equivalent to ἵνα οἱ πιστοὶ καὶ οἱ ἐπεγνωκότες τὴν ἀληθ. μεταλαβῶσιν αὐτῶν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας. Hofmann unjustifiably takes exception to this, and—in spite of ὅτι beginning a new sentence—seeks to connect τοῖς πιστοῖς not with what goes before, but with what follows (!). The added words: τοῖς πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., show most clearly the perverse conduct of the heretics in forbidding the enjoyment, and to believers of all people. Πιστοί are “believers,” and not “those convinced that enjoyment is permitted to them;” ἐπεγν. τ. ἀλήθ. also does not denote a special class of the πιστῶν: “the Christians who have come to the true gnosis” (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the πιστοί themselves, as those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognised the truth, i.e. the divine truth. Καί is epexegetical; comp. 1 Timothy 2:4.

[155] Hofmann, with no good reason, declares, on the other hand, that attention is directed here to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and to the weak Christians mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, as well as to the heretics at Colosse.

1 Timothy 4:4. Ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα Θεοῦ καλόν] This verse gives the ground of the preceding thought, which Hofmann denies. Bengel wrongly takes it to be in apposition to ἀλήθειαν.

κτίσμα, which does not occur elsewhere in Paul, means here of course the creatures of God destined for nourishment. On the principle here expressed, comp. Romans 14:14 : οὐδὲν κοινὸν διʼ αὐτοῦ, and Romans 4:20 : πάντα καθαρά; Acts 10:15 : ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε, σὺ μὴ κοίνου.

καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπόβλητον] comp. Iliad, iii. 65: οὔτοι ἀπόβλητʼ ἐστὶ θεῶν ἐρικυδέα δῶρα; and the scholiast’s remark: ἀπόβλητα· ἀποβολῆς ἄξια· τὰ ὑπὸ θεῶν, φησὶ, διδόμενα δῶρα οὐκ ἔστι μὲν ἀρνήσασθαι. Here the thought stands in contrast with the idea of defilement caused by partaking of certain meats. Going back to the μετὰ εὐχαριστίας in 1 Timothy 4:3, the apostle defines it more precisely, though not by mentioning an accessory point merely: μετὰ εὐχαριστίας λαμβανόμενον (Ephesians 5:20 : εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων), because God wishes His gifts to be enjoyed with thankful heart, and the purpose of creation is therefore fulfilled only by him who partakes with thankfulness.

1 Timothy 4:5 serves to elucidate the thought expressed in 1 Timothy 4:4, that every meat taken with thanksgiving is good, and not to be rejected.

Ἁγιάζεται γὰρ διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως] ἁγιάζειν is not “declare to be clean and permissible,” but “make something holy.” In itself the meat is not something holy, for, as a purely material thing, it can be called neither holy nor unholy (so also van Oosterzee). It is less suitable to say, with Wiesinger, that “the κτίσις being burdened with a curse, is subject to ματαιότης and the δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς;” but it is made holy for those who enjoy it by the λόγος Θεοῦ. Wahl and Leo take Θεοῦ to be the objective genitive, and interpret it as “oratio ad Deum facta,” which makes the expression synonymous with ἔντευξις following it; but λόγος Θεοῦ never occurs in this sense. Other expositors have supposed that reference is made to some particular passage of the Scriptures, either to Genesis 1:31 or Acts 10:15; but de Wette rightly remarks that the words in that case go quite beyond 1 Timothy 4:4, and touch on the question whether certain meats are clean or unclean. For the same reason, λόγος Θεοῦ cannot mean generally “the expressions of the divine doctrine, the principles of Christianity” (Heydenreich). Since the expression points back to μετὰ εὐχαριστίας in 1 Timothy 4:4, and is closely connected with ἔντευξις, it can only mean the word of God occurring in the prayer of thanksgiving (de Wette, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee), either in this sense, that the word of thanks itself is called the Word of God, inasmuch as it is the expression of God’s indwelling Spirit, or because the prayer is supposed to consist of the words of Scripture.[156]

Regarding ἜΝΤΕΥΞΙς, see 1 Timothy 2:1.

[156] In the Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 49, there stands the following grace before meat: εὐλογητὸς εἶ, Κύριε, ὁ τρέφων μὲ ἐκ νεότητός μου, ὁ διδοὺς τροφὴν πάσῃ σαρκί, πλήρωσον χαρᾶς καὶ εὐφροσύνης τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, ἵνα πάντοτε πᾶσαν αὐτάρκειαν ἔχοντες, περισσεύωμεν εἰς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐν Χρ. Ἰησοῦ, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, διʼ οὗ σοὶ δόξα, τιμὴ καὶ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

1 Timothy 4:6. After describing the heretics, the apostle turns again to Timothy, exhorting him, in the first place, with special regard to the matters last under discussion, and then more generally in regard to the duties of his office.

ταῦτα ὑποτιθέμενος τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς] ταῦτα does not, as Heydenreich supposes, pass over all intermediate matter and go back to the christological doctrines expressed in 1 Timothy 3:16. It is more correct, with Hofmann, to refer it to the whole section from 1 Timothy 3:16 to 1 Timothy 4:5 (so Chrysostom); but possibly also Paul had in view only the prohibitions of the heretics (Wiesinger; van Oosterzee doubtfully).

ὑποτίθεσθαι (the middle only here, the act. in Romans 16:4), properly: “put under the hand or foot,” may also mean “instruct” (Josephus, Antiq. i. 14), as much as “advise” or “command” (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 7); here it stands more in the latter sense; Luther: “point out.”

Hofmann wrongly explains it as equivalent to “take as a theme,” and—against the natural structure of the sentence—connects it with what follows, though in this way it becomes tolerably superfluous.

καλὸς ἔσῃ διάκονος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ] Paul here uses διάκονος, inasmuch as Timothy was formally appointed to serve in the work of Christ; it has the same meaning as “so wilt thou well occupy the office committed to thee (διακονία, 2 Timothy 4:5).” To this is attached the participial clause: ἐντρεφόμενος τοῖς λόγοις τῆς πίστεως κ.τ.λ.] The present participle does not stand for the perfect participle, but brings out how Timothy is to behave at all times, in order to fulfil his commission as a καλὸς διάκονος Ἰ. Χρ. It declares that he is to be one who makes the words of faith his nourishment. It is inaccurate, therefore, to translate ἐντρεφόμενος by innutritus (Bengel[157]), or “reared” (Luther). As to the meaning of the word ἐντρέφεσθαι (in N. T. a ἅπαξ λεγ.), see Philo, Leg. ad Caj.: ἐνετράφης τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν, and Plato, Leg. vii. 798a: οἷς γὰρ ἂν ἐντραφῶσι νόμοις.

The λόγοι τῆς πίστεως are the words in which faith expresses itself. The added words: καὶ τῆς καλῆς διδασκαλίας (see 1 Timothy 1:10), make the contrast with the heretics more decided, and the further clause: ᾗ (ἧς) παρηκολούθηκας, shows that Timothy had hitherto been faithful to pure doctrine. This latter perfect stands in apt contrast with the present participle ἐντρεφόμενος. The original meaning of the verb: “follow near any one,” furnishes naturally for the present context the meaning: “which thou hast faithfully followed, to which thou hast remained faithful.” The translation; “according to which thou hast formed thyself,” is inaccurate; the word occurs in the N. T. only here and in 2 Timothy 3:10, as well as in Luke 1:3 and Mark 16:17.

[157] Bengel, however, did not overlook the signification of the present altogether, since he explains thus: Praesens cum respectu praeteriti, innutritus; nutrimentum perpetuum. Chrysostom remarks τὸ διηνεκὲς τῆς εἰς τὰ τοιαῦτα προσοχῆς δηλῶν. Winer says: “ἐντρεφόμενος shows that the λόγοι τῆς πίστεως are to Timothy a permanent means of nourishment and culture.”

1 Timothy 4:7. The exhortation to Timothy in the previous verse, that he should continue faithful to sound doctrine, is followed by an injunction to keep from heresy.

τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ] παραιτοῦ· τὴν τελείαν ἀποφυγὴν αἰνίττεται, Chrysostom; “have nothing to do with.” Here, as in 1 Timothy 1:4, the apostle calls the heresies μῦθοι, in reference to the fictions they contained; but at the same time he describes them more precisely by the adjectives βέβηλοι and γραώδεις. On the former, comp. 1 Timothy 1:9 (Luther: “unspiritual”). It is in contrast with ὅσιος, and would be manifestly too strong, if the μῦθοι were only “things which bear no moral fruit,” which “have an innocent aspect,” and only “possibly lead to apostasy” (against Wiesinger).[158] ΓΡΑΏΔΗς (occurring only here) is equivalent to “old-wifish” (Luther), i.e. antiquated; comp. 2 Timothy 2:23. Otto regards “the μῦθοι γραώδεις on the formal side as myths, such as are told to children by old fathers;” but the passages quoted by him from Plato (Republic, i. 350 E; ii. 377 C, and 378 D) do not support his opinion. These merely say that nurses, mothers, and more generally old wives, are to tell myths to the children, from which we can infer neither that γραώδεις refers merely to the form of the story, nor that Paul had any thought of a reference to children.

The apostle’s exhortation does not touch so much on Timothy’s teaching as on his own personal conduct; but correctness of conduct is all the more necessary that it is a condition of the right fulfilment of his διακονία.

γύμναζε δὲ σεαυτὸν πρὸς εὐσέβειαν] After telling Timothy what he is not to do, viz. that he is not to give himself up to the ΜΎΘΟΙς ΒΕΒΗΛΟῖς, he tells him now what—in contrast to these things—he is to do. The ΔΈ indicates not only the transition to a new thought (Hofmann), but also the contrast to what has preceded. The figurative expression ΓΥΜΝΆΖΕΙΝ is used also in classic Greek of every straining exercise. This meaning is to be maintained here; Theodoret: ΓΥΜΝΑΣΊΑς ἌΡΑ ΧΡΕΊΑ ΚΑῚ ΠΌΝΩΝ ΔΙΗΝΕΚῶΝ· Ὁ ΓᾺΡ ΓΥΜΝΑΖΌΜΕΝΟς ΚΑῚ ἈΓῶΝΟς ΜῊ ὌΝΤΟς ἈΓΩΝΊΖΕΤΑΙ ἹΔΡῶΤΟς ἌΧΡΙ.

ΠΡΌς indicat finem, ad quem illa ΓΥΜΝΑΣΊΑ vergat (Leo); this goal is ΕὐΣΈΒΕΙΑ, i.e. Christian piety rooted in faith. Comp. on this verse, 2 Timothy 2:22-23.

[158] Hofmann is right in saying that βέβηλος does not properly mean “wicked” or “godless,” but “unholy.” He, however, overlooks the fact that it denotes not simply the negation, but also the opposite of what is holy. He is wrong, therefore, in maintaining: “the apostle cannot, however, truly describe in this way the doctrines of devilish liars.”