30.05.2014 Views

Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

—<br />

—<br />

First <strong>Timothy</strong> V. 3. IIT<br />

contaiiiing instructions either as <strong>to</strong> their provision from the church,<br />

or their appointment as deaconesses. Others again understand vers.<br />

3—16 as treating of widows in one and the same respect, and that m<br />

vers. 3-8, as well as in ver. 9, seq., rules are laid down with reference<br />

<strong>to</strong> the support which they are <strong>to</strong> receive from the church.<br />

Others again understand vers. 3-8 of the chm'ch provision, but ver.<br />

9, seq., of the appointment of deaconesses. And these differences<br />

assume many shades in the interpretation of the particular parts.<br />

As representatives of the first view we name here only Schleiermacher,<br />

Bottger, and Matthies, the two former of whom agree also in<br />

understanding ver. 9, seq., of the appointment of widows as deaconesses,<br />

while Matthies understands the passage primarily of their<br />

support.<br />

Planck, Baumgarten, and Neander represent the second<br />

view, which is the one more commonly taken ; while Mack has contended<br />

for the third. I confess that I myself was formerly inclined<br />

<strong>to</strong> the second view, that vers. 3-16 treat of the support which the<br />

widows are <strong>to</strong> receive from the church ; but a renewed investigation<br />

has led me <strong>to</strong> substantially the view given by De Wette, and which<br />

he prefaces by saying, that he thinks he has, by means of it, made<br />

clear the interpretation of this difficult passage. So also Leo,<br />

Exc. ii. But chiefly does Mosheim deserve here <strong>to</strong> be gratefully<br />

mentioned, who has already given substantially the same explanation,<br />

and has so conclusively proved it that we cannot but wonder<br />

that it should ever have been rejected. <strong>The</strong> points from which the<br />

differences proceed are the interpretation of ver. 4 and ver. 9, XVP^<br />

KaraXeyiodcx), etc.<br />

Ver. 3.<br />

Xrjpag riiia, rag ovrcog XVP^?- <strong>The</strong> apostle in these<br />

words passes <strong>to</strong> a new and special relation of life, while in vers, 1<br />

and 2 he was dealing with the differences of age and sex—only,<br />

however, in the case of the napaKaXelv ; accordingly, here also, he<br />

does not give rules of life embracing the whole conduct. With<br />

the mention of the xripac comes immediately in<strong>to</strong> view the special<br />

relation in which <strong>Timothy</strong> has <strong>to</strong> do with them—their need of support,<br />

comp. Acts vi. 1. We must not, however, conclude from vers.<br />

1 and 2, with Schleiermacher and others following him, that because<br />

there the conduct of <strong>Timothy</strong> <strong>to</strong>wards different persons is<br />

spoken of, here also nfidv in reference <strong>to</strong> the widows can only be<br />

unders<strong>to</strong>od of his conduct in general, as consisting in the shewing<br />

of that respect wliich is due <strong>to</strong> them. For, on the one hand, ni]<br />

imnX., with that which is opposed <strong>to</strong> it -napaKaXei—cannot be said<br />

<strong>to</strong> denote <strong>Timothy</strong>'s conduct in general, and on the other, the mention<br />

of the XVP^'- carries with it the special relation in which he<br />

stands <strong>to</strong>wards them. <strong>The</strong> writer also in vers. 17, 19, 20, 22, and,<br />

finally, ver. 23, as well as here, passes suddenly <strong>to</strong> what is new.<br />

Chiefly, however, it is apparent from ver. 4 (comp. below), with

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!