Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

—
—
100 First Timothy IV. 5.
enjoyment of the things in question, maintain that they are ov KaXov
— dTT6f3X7]~ov. He. however, limits his own assertion by the conditional
clause, {/ if he received loith tlianhsgiving, which is confirmatory
of the ivith thanksgiving in the preceding verse. This clause
is therefore to he closely connected with the preceding good, and
nothing to he refused. It is not two different things that are here
adduced—the natural purity and the receiving with thanksgiving
but the first under the condition of the second. On nriana (comp.
Jam. i. 18), for which Schleierraacher will have Krioig, according to
the Pauline usage, Planck has already remarked, that Paul uses
dcpEiXrifia at Rom, iv. 4, and ^(peiXi] everywhere else, Eom, xiii. 7 ;
1 Cor, vii. 3 ; nspiooevfta at 2 Cor, viii, 14, but generally -rrspiaoeia,
Rom. V. 17 ; 2 Cor. viii, 2, x, 15 ; Trd/«a at 1 Cor. x. 4, usually -rrdaig,
Rom, xiv. 17 ; Col, ii, 16 ; ttpookotttj at 2 Cor, vi, 3, usually -pocf-
Ko^ip.a, Rom, ix. 32, 33, xiv, 13-20 ; 1 Cor. viii. 9, etc. Schleierraacher's
objection to d~6i3X7]rog is obviated by what has already been
remarked in regard to this word. It may, moreover, be said in reply
to it, with Planck, that Koivog, which Schleiermacher would have expected
from the apostle if he had been the author, occurs only once
in this sense, Rom. xiv, 14, and aKadaprog, which Schleiermacher also
adduces, not at all. On Xafifiavofievov, comp. John xix, 30 ; Acts ix,
19 ; Mark xv. 23. On resolving the participle by " if," as at iii. 10,
vi. 8, comp. Winer's Gr., § 45, 2, p, 307,
Ver. 5.—That the apostle did not intend in the words, if it he
received ivith thanhsgiving, to express a merely accessary idea, and
that we are not, as many expositors do, to take the sentence, every
creature of God is good by itself, as that which the apostle places
in opposition to the heretics, and expressive of the natural purity
of the creature as opposed to the assertion of the malignancy of
matter, is evident from ver. 5, in which we are told that the creature
becomes good precisely in consequence of the thanlcsgiving. " For
it is sanctified (every creature) by the word of God and prayer."
sanctified, says the apostle. Does he in this expression tcacli, that
there is a natural impurity in the creature which must be removed
by the word of God and prayer ? That would be in manifest contradiction
to what he declares to be liis conviction in Rom, xiv, 14,
/ hnoio and am persuaded , . . that there is nothing unclean of itself
; hut to him that estcemeth anything to he unclean, to him it is
unclean. But the apostle says nothing inconsistent with this in our
passage. And this is the place where we must meet the question
why does the apostle, in the whole of this passage, lay such emphasis
on tlie with thanlcsgiving, or more definitely still, as we find
the question ah'cady set before us in ver, 5, what meaning are we to
attach to this expression, dyidi^erai ? Let us look, first at the means
through which this dy, is effected, namely, through the word and
Is