Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Timothy 6:5
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
5. perverse disputings ] The best attested reading of the Greek word transposes the order of the preposition, and should give us for its meaning ‘continual collisions.’ This seems the reason for the rendering of R.V. wranglings. Compare a similar compound in LXX. 2Sa 3:30, and Jos. Ant. x. 7. 5.
of corrupt minds ] Lit. corrupted in mind. See note on ‘mind’ Tit 1:15, and on ‘uncorruptness’ Tit 2:7.
destitute of the truth ] Our ‘destitute’ has almost ceased to have its original proper force ‘deprived’ of what was once possessed; hence R.V. has rightly substituted, as corresponding with the perf. pass, participle of the Greek, bereft.
gain is godliness ] A well-known violation by A.V. of the law which places the article with the subject. The ending of the Greek noun for ‘gain’ implies rather a ‘trading,’ a ‘means of profit,’ like ‘the reaping time’ for ‘summer.’ Hence the twofold correction of R.V. godliness is a way of gain. But we lose the emphasis of the subject kept back to the end. Point is gained however in this respect by the omission (required on the authority of the best mss.) of the next clause, From such withdraw thyself. See Appendix, K.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Perverse disputings – Margin, gallings one of another. In regard to the correct reading of this passage, see Bib. Repository, vol. iii. pp. 61, 62. The word which is here used in the Received Text – paradiatribe – occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means mis-employment; then idle occupation. (Robinsons Lexicon) The verb from which this is derived means to rub in pieces, to wear away; and hence the word here used refers to what was a mere wearing away of time. The idea is that of employments that merely consumed time without any advantage. The notion of contention or dispute is not necessarily implied in this passage, but the allusion is to inquiries or discussions that were of no practical value, but; were a mere consumption of time; compare Koppe on the passage. The reading in the margin is derived from the common usage of the verb to rub, and hence our translators attached the idea of rubbing against each other, or of galling each other, as by rubbing. This is not, however, the idea in the Greek word. The phrase idle employments would better suit the meaning of the Greek than either of the phrases which our translators have employed.
Of men of corrupt minds – That is, of wicked hearts.
And destitute of the truth – Not knowing the truth; or not having just views of truth. They show that they have no correct acquaintance with the Christian system.
Supposing that gain is godliness – That that which contributes to an increase of property is of course true religion; or that it is proper to infer that any course which contributes to worldly prosperity must be sanctioned by religion. They judge of the consistency of any course with religion by its tendency to promote outward prosperity. This they have exalted into a maxim, and this they make the essential thing in religion. But how could any man do this? And what connection would this have with the subject under consideration – the kind of instruction that was to be given to servants? The meaning of the maxim seems to be, that religion must necessarily promote prosperity by its promoting temperance, and industry, and length of days; and that since this was the case, it was fair to infer that anything which would not do this could not be consistent with religion. They adopted it, therefore, as a general rule of judging, and one in entire accordance with the wishes of their own hearts, that any course of life that would not do this must be contrary to the true spirit of religion. This maxim, it would seem, they applied to the relation of the slave and his master, and as the tendency of the system was always to keep the servant poor and in an humble condition, they seem to have inferred that the relation was contrary to Christianity, and hence to have excited the servant to disaffection. In their reasoning they were not far out of the way, for it is fair to infer that a system that tends to produce uniform poverty, and to perpetuate a degraded condition in society, is contrary to the genius of Christianity. They were wrong:
(1) In making this a general maxim by which to judge of everything in religion; and,
(2) In so applying it as to produce insubordination and discontent in the minds of servants toward their masters; and,
(3) In supposing that everything which produced gain was consistent with religion, or that they could infallibly judge of the moral quality of any course of life by its contributing to outward prosperity. Religion will uniformly lead to that which conduces to prosperity, but it does not follow that every way of making money is therefore a part of piety. It is possible, also, that in some way they hoped for gain to themselves by inculcating those principles. It may be remarked here, that this is not an uncommon maxim practically among people – that gain is godliness. The whole object of life with them is to make money; the rule by which they judge of everything is by its tendency to produce gain; and their whole religion may be summed up in this, that they live for gain. Wealth is the real object of pursuit; but it is often with them cloaked under the pretence of piety. They have no more religion than they suppose will contribute to this object; they judge of the nature and value of every maxim by its tendency to make people prosperous in their worldly business; they have as much as they suppose will promote their pecuniary interest, and they sacrifice every principle of religion which they suppose would conflict with their earthly advancement.
From such withdraw thyself – That is, have no communion or fellowship with them. Do not recognize them as religious teachers; do not countenance their views. Timothy was, in no way, to show that he regarded them as inculcating truth, or to patronize their doctrines. From such people, as having any claim to the character of Christians, every man should withdraw with feelings of unutterable pity and loathing. This passage 1Ti 6:1-5 is often appealed to by the advocates and apologists for slavery, to prove that Christianity countenances that institution, and that no direct attempt should be made by the ministers of the gospel, or other Christians, to show the evil of the institution, and to promote its abolition, and to prove that we have no right to interfere in any way with what pertains to these domestic relations. It is of importance, therefore, in view of the exposition which has been given of the words and phrases in the passage, to sum up the truths which it inculcates. From it, therefore, the following lessons may be derived:
(1) That those who are slaves, and who have been converted to Christianity, should not be indolent or disorderly. If their masters are Christians, they should treat them with respect, and all the more because they are fellow-heirs of the grace of life. If they are not Christians, they should yet show the nature of religion on themselves, and bear the evils of their condition with patience – showing how religion teaches them to endure wrong. In either case, they are to be quiet, industrious, kind, meek, respectful. This Christianity everywhere enjoins while the relation continues, At the same time, however, it does not forbid the slave earnestly to desire his freedom, or to use all proper measures to obtain it; see 1Co 7:21.
(2) That the ministers of religion should not labor to produce a spirit of discontent among slaves, or excite them to rise upon their masters. This passage would undoubtedly forbid all such interference, and all agencies or embassies sent among slaves themselves to inflame their minds against their masters, in view of their wrongs; to put arms into their hands; or to induce them to form combinations for purposes of insurrection. It is not so much in the true spirit of Christianity to go to those who are wronged, as to those who do the wrong. The primary message in such cases is to the latter; and when it does go to the former, it is to teach them to be patient under their wrongs, to evince the Christian spirit there, and to make use only of those means which are consistent with the gospel to free themselves from the evils under which they suffer. At the same time, nothing in this passage, or in any other part of the New Testament, forbids us to go to the master himself, and to show him the evil of the system, and to enjoin upon him to let the oppressed go free.
Nothing in this passage can be reasonably construed as teaching that an appeal of the most earnest and urgent kind may not be made to him; or that the wrongs of the system may not be fully set before him, or that any man or set of men may not lawfully lift up in his hearing a loud and earnest voice in favor of the freedom of all. And in like manner there is nothing which makes it improper that the slave himself should be put fully in possession of that gospel which will apprize him of his rights as a man, and as redeemed by the blood of Jesus. Every human being, whether held in bondage or not, has a right to be made acquainted with all the provisions and truths of that gospel, nor has any man or class of men a right to withhold such knowledge from him. No system of things can be right which contemplates that that gospel shall be withheld, or under which it is necessary to withhold it in order to the perpetuity of the system.
(3) The passage teaches that it is possible that a man who is a slaveholder may become a Christian. But it does not teach that, though he may become a Christian while he is a slaveholder, that it is proper for him to continue this relation after he becomes such. It does not teach that a man can be a Christian and yet go into the business of buying and selling slaves. It does not teach that a man can be a Christian and continue to hold others in bondage, whatever may be true on that point. It does not teach that he ought to be considered as maintaining a good standing in the church, if he continues to be a slaveholder; and whatever may be the truth on these points, this passage should not be adduced as demonstrating them. It settles one point only in regard to these questions – that a case was supposable in which a slave had a Christian master. It settles the duty of the slave in such a case; it says nothing about the duty of the master.
(4) This passage does not teach that slavery is either a good thing, or a just thing, a desirable relation in life, or an institution that God wishes to be perpetuated on the earth. The injunctions to slaves to be patient, meek, industrious, and respectful, no more demonstrate this, than the command to subjects to be obedient to the laws proves that God regarded the government of Nero as such an administration as he wished to be perpetuated on the earth. To exhort a slave to manifest a Christian spirit under his oppressions and wrongs, is not to justify the system that does him wrong, nor does it prohibit us from showing to masters that the system is contrary to the gospel, and that it ought to be abandoned.
(5) This passage, therefore, furnishes no real support for slavery. It can no more be adduced in favor of it than any exhortation to those who are oppressed, or in any degrading situation in life, to be patient, proves that the system which oppresses and degrades them, is a good one. Nor does the fact that a man might be converted who was a slaveholder, and might be spoken of as a pistos, or believer, prove that it would be right and desirable that he should continue that relation, anymore than the fact that Saul of Tarsus became a Christian when engaged in persecution, proves that it would have been right for him to continue in that business, or than the conversion of the Ephesians who used curious arts Act 19:19, proved that it would have been proper for them to continue in that employment. People who are doing wrong are converted in order to turn them from that course of life, not to justify them in it.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Ti 6:3; 1Ti 6:5
Wholesome words.
Wholesome words
The opposite of wholesome in our common speech is that which tends to produce disease; but the opposite of the Greek word, of which this is a translation, is that which is already unsound or diseased. The thought of the apostle is, that there is nothing morbid or unhealthy about the words of Jesus. The words of the Lord are healthy, having nothing of the disproportion of monstrosity, or the colouring of disease about them; and therefore they are wholesome, so that all who believe and obey them become thereby stronger, nobler, and sounder in all the qualities of moral manhood. Now let us see how this statement of Paul may be verified and illustrated.
I. We may take first the matter of creed, and we shall find, when we come to investigate, that in this department the words of the Lord Jesus were distinguished by two qualities which mark them as pre-eminently healthy. The first of these is their positive character. The Lord was no mere dealer in negations. Dr. Samuel Johnson complained of Priestley, as a philosopher, that he unsettled everything and settled nothing; but no one can read the four Gospels without feeling that in meeting Jesus he has come into contact with One who speaks in the most positive manner. On subjects regarding which the wisest minds of antiquity were completely uncertain, He has the fullest assurance. We may wade through volumes of metaphysics, from those of Aristotle to those of Kant, without getting any distinct notion of God, but when we hear Jesus say, God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, we feel that God is a personal reality; and though Christ does not define the nature of spirit, yet when He speaks of God as thinking, loving, willing–His Father and ours–we understand Him better than the philosophers, though He penetrates to the depth of a nature which they had vainly sought to define. He has settled our minds upon the subject, not by argument, but by awakening in us the God-consciousness which is one of the instincts of our being, and so bringing us to say, It must be so, for I can rest in that. In like manner, when He enforces duty He evokes the conscience within us to a recognition of its responsibility. So, too, in reference to the future. He does not argue, He asserts with the speech of One who knows whereof He affirms, and forthwith the natural longing of the heart for immortality finds its craving satisfied, and settles in the certainty that dust thou art, to dust returnest, was not spoken of the soul. Akin to this positive characteristic of the Saviours words concerning creed is the discouragement which they give to all indulgence in speculations about things which are merely curious, and have no bearing upon our character or conduct. Thus, when one of His disciples asked, Are there few that be saved? He declined to answer the question, and fixed the attention of His hearers on the vital and urgent matter of individual duty, saying, Strive ye to enter in at the strait gate, Everything that is profitless and without bearing on life and godliness He brands as unworthy of consideration or discussion, and all mere logomachies are unsparingly condemned by Him. Now in these two things you have the symptoms of mental and spiritual health. The man who accounts nothing certain never focuses his mind on anything; while he who runs after every sort of speculation, scatters his mind over everything. The one never gets ready to do anything; the other attempts so much that he really accomplishes nothing. Is it not, precisely, in these two respects that the unhealthiness of much of the thinking in our own age manifests itself?
II. But now, passing from the domain of creed to that of character, we are equally struck with the healthiness of the Saviours words in reference to that.
1. For in dealing with that subject He is careful to put supreme emphasis, not on that which is without, but on that which is within. He distinguishes between the head and the heart, and never confounds intellectual ability with moral greatness. Now the healthiness of all this is apparent at a glance, for it goes to the root of the matter, and only One who was Himself whole-hearted could thus have prescribed for diseased humanity.
2. Again, in reference to character, the healthiness of the Saviours words appears in that He insists, not on asceticism in any one particular, but on full-rounded holiness. He does not require the eradication of any one principle of our nature, but rather the consecration of them all.
3. But looking now, to the department of conduct, we have in that another equally striking exemplification of the healthiness of the words of the Lord Jesus. He was very far from giving any countenance to the idea that religion is a thing only of sentiment. He insisted, indeed, as we have seen, on the importance of faith in the great central doctrines; and He was equally emphatic in declaring the innerness of holiness. But He dwelt on both of these only that He might the more effectually reach that conduct which one has called three-fourths of life.
4. But another illustration of the healthiness of Christs words in regard to conduct may be seen in the absence of all minute and specific details. He lays down great principles, leaving it to the conscience of the individual to make the application of these to the incidents and occasions of life as they arise. The words of Christ are not like the directions on a finger-pest at a crossing, or the indicators of the cardinal points upon a spire, which are of service only in the places where they are set up; but rather like a pocket compass, which, rightly used and understood, will give a man his bearings anywhere. Nothing so educates a man into weakness and helplessness as to be told in every emergency precisely what he must do. That makes for him a moral go-cart, outside of which he is not able to stand, and the consequence is that he can never be depended upon. If the teacher shows the pupil how to work each individual sum, he will never make him proficient in arithmetic. The man who is continually asking himself, as to his food, what he shall eat and what he shall drink and what he shall avoid, is either a dyspeptic or a valetudinarian. He is not healthy. And in like manner, he who in the domain of morals is continually inquiring of somebody, may I do this? may I go thither? or must I refrain from that? has never rightly comprehended the healthiness of Christs words, and is far from having attained the strength which they are calculated to foster. Here is the great law, Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
A contrast between true and false teaching
At the close of the second verse Paul urges Timothy not to be silent, but to teach and exhort the Christians in Ephesus on the subject in slavery.
I. The wholesomeness of Christs teaching. The apostle speaks of wholesome words, a translation which we prefer to that given in the Revised Version (sound words), because it conveys the idea of imparting health to men and to society. Christs teaching is the ozone of the moral atmosphere.
1. It concerned itself with practical questions. The Sermon on the Mount (which is the chief specimen given us of His teaching) proves this to demonstration. As Jesus Himself put it: a candle was not lighted by Him in order to be looked at or talked about; but that it might give light to all that were in the house. In other words, the Christian religion is to be used rather than to be discussed, and is meant to throw light upon all the obscurities of lifes pathway until it leads up to the light of heaven.
2. His teaching was embodied in His perfect life. This made it the more helpful. These slaves, for example, to whom the apostle had been speaking, wanted to know what they were to do under the provocations and hardships of their lot. And nothing could help them more than the knowledge of Him whose gentleness was never at fault; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; when He suffered He threatened not, but committed Himself to Him that judgeth righteously.
3. His teaching, tended, to the increase of godliness. The doctrine which is according to godliness, means the teaching which makes men more like God–in holiness and righteousness and love. But in sharp contrast with this is presented–
II. the unwholesomeness of false teaching, the effects of which were visible in the character of those who accepted and taught it.
1. Self-sufficiency was written on the forehead of each of them. As Paul says, He is proud, literally carried away with conceit, knowing nothing. A footman is generally more awe-inspiring than his master. And this was true of pretentious teachers in Pauls days, of whom he says they are carried away with conceit.
2. Love of verbal disputes was another characteristic of theirs. The word translated doting indicates a distempered and sickly condition, which turns away from the wholesome food of the gospel; just as a child with a poor appetite refuses bread-and-butter, and can only daintily pick and choose among delicacies, and the more he has of them the worse his appetite becomes. It is a bad sign when society has unwholesome appetites, caring more for art than for truth–more for manner than for matter; for these are signs of decadence such as preceded the fall of the Roman empire.
3. A carnal appetite was displayed by these opponents of our Lords wholesome words. Our translation, supposing that gain is godliness, is incorrect and misleading. No one supposes, or ever supposed, that worldly gain is godliness, or leads to it; but many in all ages have been guilty of what Paul suggests, namely, of using godliness as a way of gain. In other words, these men, corrupted as they were in mind, in the whole inner life, and bereft of the truth, only professed the Christian faith so far as it was serviceable to their worldly interests. (A. Rowland, LL. B.)
Supposing that gain is godliness.—
Gain not godliness
That men are greatly exposed to embrace the absurd doctrine that virtue exists in utility.
I. I am to explain the meaning of the doctrine that virtue consists is utility. This sentiment has been maintained by those who believe, as well as by those who disbelieve Divine revelation. The turning point is utility. Intention is of no farther value than as it leads to utility: it is the means, and not the end. The result of this part of the subject is, that those persons have been grossly mistaken, who taught that virtue was to be pursued for its own sake. Virtue is upon no other account valuable, than as it is the instrument of the most exquisite pleasure. All who suppose that virtue consists in utility, agree in maintaining that virtue has no intrinsic excellence, as an end, but only a relative excellence, as a means to promote the only ultimate end in nature, that is, happiness. Since happiness is, in their view, the supreme good, and misery the supreme evil, they conclude that the whole duty of men consists in pursuing happiness, and avoiding misery. Upon this single principle, that virtue wholly consists in its tendency to promote natural good, in distinction from natural evil, Godwin has founded a scheme of sentiments which, carried into practice, would subvert all morality, religion and government.
II. I proceed to demonstrate the absurdity of supposing that gain is godliness, or that virtue essentially consists in utility. This sentiment is not only false, but absurd, because it contradicts the plainest dictates of reason and conscience.
1. To suppose that virtue consists in utility, is to suppose that virtue may be predicated of inanimate objects. These have a natural tendency, in various ways, to promote human happiness. The mode in which a man is made subservient is by inducement and persuasion. But both are equally the affair of necessity. The man differs from the knife as the iron candlestick differs from the brass one; he has one more way of being acted upon. This additional way in man is motive, in the candlestick it is magnetism. Such is the natural and avowed consequence of the doctrine, that virtue consists in utility. It necessarily implies that mere material objects may be really virtuous; and some material objects may have more virtue than the most benevolent of the human race.
2. To suppose that virtue consists in utility, is to suppose that virtue may be predicated of the mere animal creation. It is no less absurd to ascribe virtue to the utility of animals than to ascribe virtue to a refreshing shower, or a fruitful field.
3. To suppose that virtue consists in utility, is to suppose that men may be virtuous, without any intention to do good. They certainly may be very useful, without having utility in view. Men are every day performing actions which have a tendency to promote that public good which lies beyond all their views and intentions. But the doctrine under consideration places all virtue in the tendency of an action, and not in the intention of the actor. Intention is of no farther value than as it leads to utility. This is stripping moral virtue of every moral quality, which is a gross absurdity.
4. To suppose that virtue consists in utility, is to suppose that men may be virtuous in acting, not only without any intention, but from a positively bad intention. If the virtue of an action consists altogether in its tendency, it may be as virtuous when it flows from a bad intention as when it flows from a good intention, or from no intention at all. The intention of an agent does not alter the tendency of his action. A man may do that from a good intention, which has a tendency to do evil; or he may do that from a bad intention, which has a tendency to do good. Some actions done from the worst intentions have been the most beneficial to mankind. Be it so, that no malevolent action has a natural or direct tendency to promote happiness; yet if virtue consists in utility the good effect of a malevolent action is just as virtuous as the good effect of a benevolent one. For the doctrine we are considering places all virtue in the tendency of an action, and not in the intention of the agent.
5. To suppose that virtue consists in utility, is to suppose that there is nothing right nor wrong in the nature of things, but that virtue and vice depend entirely upon mere accidental and mutable circumstances. There are certain relations which men bear to each other, and which they bear to our Creator, which create obligations that never can be violated without committing a moral crime.
6. To suppose that virtue consists in utility is to suppose that there is nothing in the universe intrinsically good or evil but happiness and misery.
7. To suppose that virtue consists in utility is to suppose that there is really no such thing as either virtue or vice in the world. If the actions of free agents are either good or evil, solely on account of their tendency to promote either pleasure or pain, then nothing can be predicated of them but advantage or disadvantage. Actions which promote happiness may be denominated advantageous, but not virtuous; and actions which produce misery may be denominated disadvantageous, but not vicious.
III. Men are greatly exposed to embrace it. This the apostle plainly intimates, by exhorting Timothy to withdraw himself from those who supposed that gain is godliness.
1. From the resemblance which this error hears to the truth, though it be diametrically opposite to it. Those who maintain that virtue consists in utility, represent it under the alluring name of universal philanthropy, which is an imposing appellation. They pretend that happiness is the supreme good, and virtue solely consists in promoting it to the highest degree. They insinuate that this philanthropy directly tends to diffuse universal happiness, and to raise human nature to a state of perfection in this life.
2. The danger will appear greater if we consider by whom this pleasing and plausible error is disseminated. It is taught by grave divines, in their moral and religious treatises and public discourses. Law and Paley have been mentioned as placing the whole of virtue in utility. Dr. Brown, in his remarks upon the Earl of Shaftesburys characteristics, maintains that virtue consists in its tendency to promote individual happiness.
3. There is a strong propensity in human nature to believe any other scheme of moral and religious sentiments, than that which is according to godliness. Men naturally love happiness, and as naturally hate holiness. (N. Emmons, D. D.)
A mercenary motive
A Christian lady in America, who has earnestly and prayerfully laboured to carry the gospel to the Mongolian laundrymen around her, at length succeeded in getting one of them to attend Sunday school and church regularly. The man was attentive and well-behaved, and the lady had great hopes of him. She tried to interest others in his welfare, too, and induced her friends to patronise his laundry. Visiting him at his home a few days ago, she received a warm welcome. John gave her to understand that he enjoyed very much attending the Sunday school, information that was exceedingly gratifying. Anxious, however, to receive more practical demonstration of the influence of the school upon him, she asked him if he did not think it did him good. Yi, yi! came the convincing response, washee fol le whole conglogation. The Chinamans idea of getting good is not an uncommon one; unhappily, it is the motive of many a church connection.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds] Disputations that cannot be settled, because their partisans will not listen to the truth; and they will not listen to the truth because their minds are corrupt. Both under the law and under the Gospel the true religion was: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength; and thy neighbour as thyself. Where, therefore, the love of God and man does not prevail, there there is no religion. Such corrupt disputers are as destitute of the truth as they are of love to God and man.
Supposing that gain is godliness] Professing religion only for the sake of secular profit; defending their own cause for the emoluments it produced; and having no respect to another world.
From such withdraw thyself] Have no religions fellowship with such people. But this clause is wanting in AD*FG, some others, the Coptic, Sahidic, AEthiopic, Vulgate, and Itala, one copy excepted. It is probably spurious.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth; paradiatribai, mutual tearings, and gallings of or interferings with one another. The word is applied to horses knocking one foot against another. The word without the preposition signifies school conflicts by disputations; the preposition added makes it to signify, in an evil sense, disputations of sophisters, not candid for the finding out of truth, but perverse and litigious merely for masteries; which he saith proceeds from men corrupted as to their understanding and judgment.
Supposing that gain is godliness; all whose religion is gain of riches or reputation.
From such withdraw thyself; with such men have nothing to do, avoid them in thy private converse, and cast them out of the church if their faults be public scandals, and they be contumacious.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. Perverse disputingsuselessdisputings. The oldest manuscripts read, “lasting contests”[WIESINGER]; “incessantcollisions” [ALFORD].”Strifes of words” had already been mentioned so that hewould not be likely to repeat the same idea (as in the EnglishVersion reading) again.
corrupt mindsGreek,“of men corrupted (depraved) in mind.” The inmost source ofthe evil is in the perverted mind (1Ti 6:4;2Ti 3:8; Tit 1:15).
destitute of the truth(Tit 1:14). They had had thetruth, but through want of moral integrity and of love of the truth,they were misled by a pretended deeper gnosis (knowledge) and higherascetical holiness, of which they made a trade [WIESINGER].
supposing, c.The Greekrequires, “supposing (regarding the matter in this point ofview) that piety (so translated for ‘godliness’) is a means of gain(that is, a way of advancing one’s worldly interests: a differentGreek form, poriswa, expresses the thing gained,gain)” not “that gain is godliness,” as EnglishVersion.
from such withdrawthyselfomitted in the oldest manuscripts. The connection with1Ti 6:6 favors the omission ofthese words, which interrupt the connection.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds,…. Who being corrupt in their principles, and corrupters of the word of God, dispute in a very froward and perverse way, rubbing and galling one another, and so provoke, to wrath and anger, and, every evil work:
and destitute of the truth of Christ, who is the truth, knowing nothing of him spiritually and savingly; and of the Gospel, the word of truth; and also of the truth of grace, being carnal, sensual, and having not the Spirit of God.
Supposing that gain is godliness; such were Simon Magus and his followers, and other false teachers, who made merchandise of men, looked everyone for his gain from his quarter, and acted as if there was nothing in religion but worldly profit and gain; these served themselves, their own bellies, and selfish interests, and not the Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore the apostle gives the following advice to Timothy, and through him to all ministers and churches,
from such withdraw thyself: do not come near them; have nothing to do with them; do not lay hands on them, or admit them into the ministry; do not suffer them to preach, or encourage them by hearing them: if in the church, cast them out; have communion with them, neither in a civil nor in a religious way; avoid all conversation with them. The Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions omit this clause; it is wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in Beza’s Claromontane Exemplar, but is in other copies.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Wranglings (). Late and rare (Clem. of Alex.) double compound (, mutual or thorough, , irritations or rubbings alongside). “Mutual irritations” (Field).
Corrupted in mind ( ). Perfect passive participle of , to corrupt, genitive case agreeing with (of men) and retaining the accusative .
Bereft of the truth ( ). Perfect passive participle of , old verb (1Co 6:8) with the ablative case after it ().
A way of gain (). Late word from , to provide, to gain. Only here in N.T. “Rich Christians.” Predicate accusative with (indirect assertion) in apposition with , the accusative of general reference.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Perverse disputings [] . N. T. o. o LXX, o Class. Paratribh, is a rubbing against. Dia signifies constinuance. The meaning therefore is continued friction. Hence wearing discussion; protracted wrangling. 127 Of corrupt minds [ ] . More correctly, corrupted in mind. The verb not common in N. T. In Paul only 2Co 4:16. Only here in Pastorals. Diafqora corruption only in Acts. Comp. katefqarmenoi ton noun corrupted in mind, 2Ti 3:8.
Destitute of the truth [ ] . Rev. bereft of the truth. In N. T. commonly of defrauding, Mr 10:19; 1Co 6:7, 8; 1Co 7:5. The implication is that they once possessed the truth. They put it away from themselves (ch. 1 19; Tit 1:14). Here it is represented as taken away from them. Comp. Rom 1:8.
Gain is godliness [ ] . Wrong. Rend. that godliness is a way (or source) of gain. Porismov, only here and ver. 6, is a gain – making business. See Wisd. 13 19; 14 2. They make religion a means of livelihood. Comp. Tit 1:11.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds” (diaparatrifai diephtharmenon anthropon ton noun) “Perpetual or incessant wranglings of men with corrupt minds. ” “Perverse disputings” refer to slanted arguments, containing half truths hotly presented by the intellectually dishonest to gain a point because he had not truth on his side – much as Job’s pretended friends.
I
2) “And destitute of the truth” (kai apeoteremenon tes aletheas) And (having been) deprived of the truth,” going on in quarrelsome, contentious, galling disputation on a proposition that is false, invalid, or without truth regarding its affirmation.
3) “Supposing that gain is godliness:” (nomizoton porismon einai eusebeian) “Supposing or presuming (earthly) gain to be piety or evidence of godliness.” Some presumed godliness to be a way of gain, to follow with ulterior motives of getting earthly gain. Job’s supposed friends argued this way against him; so did Satan, Job 1:9-11; Job 22:5-9.
4) “From such withdraw thyself.” (this is not in the original as per E. N.) It is an exhortation found in 2Ti 3:5 under similar descriptive circumstances.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5 Of men corrupt in understanding, and that are destitute of the truth It is certain that here he censures the sophists, who, neglecting edification, turn the word of God into trivial distinctions, and an art of ingenious discussion. If the Apostle only shewed that the doctrine of salvation is thus rendered useless, even that would be an intolerable profanation; but far heavier and fiercer is that reproof, when he says that evils so pernicious, and plagues so hurtful, spring from it. From this passage, therefore, let us learn to detest ( σοφιστικὴν) sophistry as a thing more destructive to the Church of God than can easily be believed.
That godliness is gain The meaning is, that godliness is a gainful art; that is, because they measure the whole of Christianity by gain. Just as if the oracles of the Holy Spirit had been recorded with no other design than to serve the purposes of their covetousness, they traffic in it as merchandise exposed to sale.
Withdraw thyself from such. Paul forbids the servants of Christ to have any intercourse with such persons. He not only warns Timothy not to resemble them, but exhorts him to avoid them as dangerous plagues; for, although they do not openly resist the gospel, but, on the contrary, make a false profession of adhering to it, yet their society is infectious. Besides, if the multitude see that we are on familiar terms with those men, the danger is, lest they insinuate themselves under the guise of our friendship. (117) We should therefore, labor to the utmost, that all may know, that so far are we from being agreed with them, that they have no communication with us. (118)
(117) “ Il y a danger que nostre amitie ne leur serve d’une couverture pour avoir entree a abuser les gens.” — “There is danger lest our friendship serve as a disguise for obtaining access to deceive people.”
(118) “When we hear that they who thus misrepresent the word of God make merchandise of our souls, as the Apostle Peter says (2Pe 2:3,) and that they make traffic of us and of our salvation, without any conscience, and that they make no scruple of plunging us into hell, and even to set aside the price which was paid for our redemption, it is certain that they ruin souls, and also mock at the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. When we hear all this, ought we not to hold such teachers in abhorrence? Besides, experience shews us that we have good reason for attending to this warning of the Apostle Paul. For to what a pitch has religion arrived! Has it not been made like a public fair? What has it become in Popery? The Sacraments are exposed to sale, and everything else belonging to our religion has a fixed price put upon it. Not more did Judas sell the Son of God in his own person than the Pope and all that filth of his clergy have sold the graces of the Holy Spirit, and all that belonged to his office and to our salvation. When we see this, have we not good reason for being on our guard?” — Fr. Ser.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) Perverse disputings.The older authorities read here a word which should be rendered lasting or obstinate conflicts. These words close the long catalogue of the fruits of the teaching of the false masters of the new faith, and point out that the disputes engendered by these useless and unhappy controversies would be no mere temporary difficulties, but would indefinitely prolong their weary story.
Of men of corrupt minds.More accurately Tendered, corrupted in their mind. From their mind, over which corruption had spread, arose those mists which (1Ti. 6:4) had clouded their sight with pride. The language used seems to imply that for these unhappy men a time had existed when corruption had not done its fatal work.
Destitute of the truth.More literally, deprived of the truth. The truth was taken away from them: this was the immediate consequence of the corruption which had spread over their minds.
Supposing that gain is godliness.Here the translation of the Greek words must run thus, supposing that godliness is a source of gain. The article before the word signifying godliness requires this rendering of the sentence. (See Tit. 1:11.) St. Paul, here adding his command to Timothy to have no dealings with these men, dismisses the subject with these few scathing words of scorn and contempt. One can imagine with what feelings of holy anger one like the noble chivalrous St. Paul would regard the conduct of men who looked upon the profession of the religion of the Crucified as a source of gain. This was by far the gravest of his public charges against these teachers of a strange and novel Christianity. We read elsewhere (1Co. 3:12-15) men might go wrong in doctrine, might even teach an unpractical, useless religion, if only they were trying their poor best to build on the one foundationChrist. Their faulty work would perish, but they would assuredly find mercy if only they were in earnest, if only they were zeal. But these, St. Paul tells Timothy and his church, were not in earnest; these were unreal. Their religionthey traded upon it. Their teachingthey taught only to win gold. There was another school of teachinghe had just been dwelling on itthe teaching which told men, even slaves, simply, lovingly to do their duty as though ever in the presence of the Lord, without any restless longing for change. This teaching would win souls to Christ, but it would never win gold, or popular applause, or gain, as the world counts gain.
From such withdraw thyself.Most, though not all, the ancient authorities omit these words.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Corrupt minds Whose mental intentions are bad.
Destitute Nay, even deprived of the truth, (as in 1Ti 1:19 and Tit 1:14,) from having finally abandoned it. The reason for their abandoning truth and taking up the propagation of error is next given.
Gain godliness Rather, godliness is a means of gain, a speculation. And all their godliness was for that purpose.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ti 6:5. Supposing that gain is godliness: That godliness is gain. Peirce. Who consider piety as a means to enrich themselves. Heylin. Compare Php 3:1
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Ver. 5. Perverse disputings ] , endless and needless discourses and exercises, opposite to those above, 1Ti 4:13-15 . The Greek word signifieth galling one another with disputes, or rubbing one against another, as scabbed sheep will, and so spreading the infection.
Of men of corrupt minds ] That lack not time but waste it, aliud agendo. As Lactantius saith of some brain sick idolaters in his time, they feigned what they pleased, and then feared what they feigned; so many conceit what they like, and then think themselves bound to justify their wild conceivings.
From such withdraw thyself ] Gr. , stand off, keep at a distance, as you would from one that hath a plague sore; say of them to yourselves and others, as Austin doth of certain heretics, Illi garriant, nos credamus. Let them prate as they please, let us hold fast the faithful word.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Ti 6:5 . : The force of the is expressed in the R.V., wranglings , which denotes protracted quarrellings, perconfricationes ( [294] ), conflictationes ( [295] , Vulg.). Field ( in loc .) comparing , , etc., prefers the sense of reciprocity, mutual irritations, gallings one of another (A.V. m.), “as infected sheep by contact communicate disease to the sound” (Chrys.). (T.R.), perverse disputings , is given a milder sense by Winer-Moulton, Gram . p. 126, “misplaced diligence or useless disputing”.
[294] Cod. Frisingensis
[295] The Latin text of Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
: cf. , 2Ti 3:8 , the acc. being that of the remoter object. Cf. , for the notion, , Eph 4:22 , also 1Co 15:33 , 2Co 11:3 , Jud 1:10 .
: privati . conveys the notion of a person being deprived of a thing to which he has a right. See reff. This is expressed in R.V., bereft of . The truth was once theirs; they have disinherited themselves. The A.V., destitute of , does not assume that they ever had it.
, . . .: since they suppose . For this use of the participle Bengel compares Rom 2:18 ; Rom 2:20 , 2Ti 2:21 , Heb 6:6 .
: a means of gain, quaestus . The commentators quote Plutarch, Cato Major , 25, , .
: not godliness in general, pietatem (Vulg.), but the profession of Christianity, culturam Dei ( [296] 50 ). See 1Ti 2:2 . Allusions elsewhere to those who supposed that the gospel was a means of making money have usually reference to self-interested and grasping teachers (2Co 11:12 ; 2Co 12:17-18 ; Tit 1:11 ; 2Pe 2:3 ). Here the significance of the clause may be that the false teachers demoralised slaves, suggesting to slaves who were converts, or possible converts, that the profession of Christianity involved an improvement in social position and worldly prospects. The article before . shews that the A.V. is wrong, supposing that gain is godliness .
[296] Speculum
Perverse disputings. Greek. paradiatribe. Only here. The texts read diaparatribe.
men. App-123.
of corrupt minds = corrupted (Greek. diophtheiro. See 2Co 4:16) as to their mind,
destitute = deprived. Greek. opostereo. See 1Co 6:7.
gain, &c. Read “godliness is a way of gain”.
gain. Greek. porismos. Here and 1Ti 6:6.
from. App-104.
withdraw thyself. Same as “depart”, 1Ti 4:1, but the texts omit “from such”, &c.
1Ti 6:5. ) , a scholastic disputation or treatise. The insertion of renders it significant of something perverse, as for , Php 3:2. It is opposed to accede (consent), 1Ti 6:3.- ) perverse disputings, which only become men of corrupt minds, 2Ti 3:8 : men corrupted in mind.-, thinking) i.e. inasmuch as they think, for there is no and put before it; comp. Rom 2:18; Rom 2:20; 2Ti 2:21; Heb 6:6, where the use of the participles is the same.-) a gain[48] (means of making gain), a thing given for the sake of procuring property.
[48] The article before , and not before , show the construction to be, that godliness is a gain, a way to advance ones worldly interest not as Engl. Vers., that gain is godliness.-ED.
1Ti 6:5
wranglings of men-These words close the long catalogue of the fruits of the teaching of the false teachers of the faith in Christ and point out that the wranglings engendered by these useless and unhappy controversies would be no mere temporary difficulties, but would indefinitely prolong their destructive work.
corrupted in mind-[They corrupted the word of God, and thus prepared the way for the debasement of their own mind, leading in turn to that pride and ignorance which were their most distinguishing qualities.]
and bereft of the truth,-[This indicates that the truth was once theirs. They had corrupted the word of God, and thus prepared the way for the debasement of their own mind, leading in turn to that pride and ignorance which were their most distinguishing qualities. The truth was theirs once, but they forfeited it by their unfaithfulness and corruption.]
supposing that godliness is a way of gain.-[They did not preach contentment to the slaves or induce them to acquiesce with patience in their hard lot, but rather persuaded them to use religion as a means of worldly betterment. Such counsel would have disorganizing, disintegrating effects upon society. But it was, besides, a degradation of the doctrine of Christ. Godliness was not designed to be a lucrative business or to be followed only so far as it subserved the promotion of worldly interests. Simon Magus and such men as made merchandise of the gospel are examples of this class. Such persons would be teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucres sake. (Tit 1:11.)]
Perverse: etc. or, Gallings one of another, 1Ti 1:6, 1Co 11:16
men: Mat 7:17-20, Mat 12:33, Joh 3:19-21, Eph 4:17-19, 2Th 2:8-11, 2Ti 3:8, Tit 1:15, Tit 1:16, Heb 3:12, Heb 3:13, 2Jo 1:8-10
supposing: 1Ti 6:6, 1Ti 3:3, 1Ti 3:8, 2Ki 5:20-27, Isa 56:11, Jer 6:13, Jer 8:10, Eze 33:31, Mat 21:13, Mat 23:14, Act 8:18-20, Act 19:24-28, Tit 1:11, 2Pe 2:3, 2Pe 2:15, Jud 1:11, Rev 18:3, Rev 18:13
from: Rom 16:17, Rom 16:18, 2Th 3:6, 2Ti 3:5
Reciprocal: Lev 13:46 – without Deu 20:18 – General Job 9:20 – it shall Job 15:3 – he reason Pro 4:24 – a Hos 12:8 – Yet Zec 11:5 – Blessed Mat 12:44 – he findeth Mat 15:14 – Let Mat 18:17 – let Luk 12:13 – Master Joh 2:16 – make Joh 6:26 – Ye seek Act 19:9 – he departed Act 19:27 – that not Act 20:30 – speaking Rom 9:20 – repliest 1Co 5:11 – with Eph 4:31 – clamour Eph 5:11 – no Phi 3:19 – whose God 1Ti 1:4 – questions 1Ti 6:20 – avoiding 2Ti 2:14 – that 2Ti 2:23 – General 1Jo 1:8 – the truth
1Ti 6:5. Perverse disputings is defined by Thayer, “Useless occupation, empty business, misemployment,” and Robinson defines it in virtually the same language. Men of corrupt minds would very naturally come under such a description as the foregoing. Destitute of the truth denotes a mind that never has any truth for its wild outbursts such as the apostle has been describing. Supposing that gain is godliness. These people evidently came into the church for the personal advantage they thought it would be to them. They reasoned that if a person obtained some gain after professing an interest in religion, that would prove that such gain was to be considered as a part of godliness or piety. Such characters are not worthy the association of righteous men, therefore Timothy was told to withdraw himself from them.
1Ti 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Perverse disputings is the Greek term from which our word diatribe comes from. Diatribe means “biting or abusive speech or writing” (from 1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated). Notice that this can mean speech OR writing. If you run into this type of writing, be sure to give it the same action as speech. Withdraw from it – or in current language – put it in the circular file.
These are corrupt minds – destitute of truth! Not the kind of thing you as a believer should be filling your mind with – don’t give it a chance to take up your time.
This term corrupt is a perfect tense which would indicate that the corruptness is complete and something that occurred in the past – something that is done – which I might add, probably won’t be changed – indeed the tense has the thought of once and for all. Application – don’t bother taking your time and effort to change what will not change.
The term destitute is also a perfect tense – truth is not something that is going to come into this mind, nor will it change this mind.
The thought of gain is of interest. Just what type of gain is being mentioned in this context. Is it material gain, is it moral gain, or is it academic gain? Since material items are not involved, it clearly relates not to material or monetary gain. Moral gain has some possibility in the context, but academic gain seems to fit the context best.
The American Standard Version mentions it this way “supposing that godliness is a way of gain.”
The New International Version ties gain to monetary value “who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”
Young translates it this way “supposing the piety to be gain;” This would tie it to moral change to be gained. Moral change is gain but this seems to be a false piety brought about by their disputings etc. and this certainly is not gain, nor true moral change.
III. THE TREATMENT OF DISEASE
“…from such withdraw thyself.”
The truth to be found here is to withdraw from this type of person – back away, loose them!
I am sad to say this but this is the state that many Bible college students pass through. Most do pass through but it is a hard hard time spiritually and mentally. They question everything and everyone. They disagree and dispute everything – not that we aren’t to question what we are taught, but they question way past this – they find little truth, they don’t have the truth, they can’t function properly spiritually, they become proud, they find envy, they cause strife, and they argue constantly. A phase of growth to be passed through. Only God brings them through it!
To a very real point a pastor has the responsibility to maintain his distance from these people in the community and also has a responsibility to warn his flock of the same.
It seems to me that verse one and two are directly connected to verse three and verse six through five is a side warning about anyone trying to detract from Paul’s teaching.
The term is withdraw. This is not a complicated word to understand, yet so many Christians today equate it with incorrect behavior, yet Paul tells us to withdraw from people Christians that sin.
This phrase is not in all translations, but it certainly is not against the norm of Scripture. Rom 16:17 is a very similar passage. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.”
I would like to just recap some criteria for separation within the Christian life.
FALSE DOCTRINE:
1. Anyone that teaches other than the doctrine of Paul, and by application other writers of Scripture.
2. Anyone that believes other than the teachings of Christ.
3. Anyone that believes doctrine that is other than teaching that brings Godliness.
Tit 3:10 also mentions the heretic “A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject;”
Many believers in our area years ago were listening to the local Christian radio station. Many praised the station as their resource for their spiritual life, yet almost every time I tuned in, I would hear blatant false teaching. These folks were flooding their minds with things that were openly against Scripture.
FALSE PRACTICE:
4. Anyone that occupies themselves with doting of questions and strife of word.
5. Anyone that produces envy, strife, or railings of evil surmisings.
6. Anyone that is destructive of truth.
FALSE GODLINESS:
7. Anyone that believes that gain is Godliness.
Stedman related this in a sermon to those that are spiritual or are members of churches for the social and business gain that it provides.
My brother before he was saved joined a mainline denominational church in our hometown and I asked him why. His reply was “Well that is were most of the business people go to church and I thought it would be good for the business.” Had nothing to do with belief, truth or God.
FALSE MORALS:
8. Immorality in I Corinthians five was grounds for separating a person from the assembly. Verse eleven “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.”
FALSE LIVING:
9. Matthew 18 gives the sequence to be followed to gain reconciliation between believers. If a person refuses to resolve the conflict then separation is the end.
10. 2Th 3:6 admonishes us to withdraw from any that walketh disorderly. “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
The Christian’s testimony is very important, thus withdrawal may be the better option. We need to exhort those living wrongly, but keeping a close association with them will open us to their falsehood as well as improper testimony due to public scrutiny.
I would like to read a quote from a document from church history. It was a question answer format produced by Meno Simons and followers when they attempted to live the admonition of Scripture when they were told to withdraw from wrongdoers.
The document sets forth questions as to how they would implement what they called the ban, or the exclusion of erring believers from the assembly.
” O my sincerely beloved brethren, let us sincerely pray for understanding and wisdom that all misunderstanding, error, jealously, offense, division, and untimely reports may be utterly exterminated, root and branch; that a wholesome understanding, doctrine, friendship, love, edification, and a sound judgment may get under, way and prevail. Let everyone look with pure eyes and impartial hearts to the example to which Christ points, and to the wholesome, natural meaning of the holy apostles, and let true, Christian love take precedence; and everyone will know, by the grace of God, how he should act and proceed concerning this matter.”
We are to withdraw, but we are to do it in love and with the thought of restoration to the assembly of the one banned.
If the church had been practicing this teaching the church would not have the problems it has today. There would not be openly sinning believers in the church, there would not be unsaved people in the church and Christ would indeed have a holy church rather than what exists today.
6:5 Perverse {c} disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
(c) Such as we see in those shameless schools of popery, which are nothing else but vain babbling and foolish talking.
Chapter 17
THE GAIN OF A LOVE OF GODLINESS, AND THE UNGODLINESS OF A LOVE OF GAIN. – 1Ti 6:5-7; 1Ti 6:17-19
IT is evident that the subject of avarice is much in the Apostles mind during the writing of the last portion of this Epistle. He comes upon it here in connection with the teachers of false doctrine, and speaks strongly on the subject. Then he writes what appears to be a solemn conclusion to the letter (1Ti 6:11-16). And then, as if he was oppressed by the danger of large possessions as promoting an avaricious spirit, he charges Timothy to warn the wealthy against the folly and wickedness of selfish hoarding. He, as it were, reopens his letter in order to add this charge, and then writes a second conclusion. He cannot feel happy until he has driven home this lesson about the right way of making gain, and the right way of laying up treasure. It is such a common heresy, and such a fatal one, to believe that gold is wealth, and that wealth is the chief good.
“Wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth.” That is how St. Paul describes the “dissidence of dissent,” as it was known to him by grievous experience. There were men who had once been in possession of a sound mind, whereby to recognize and grasp the truth; and they had grasped the truth, and for a time retained it. But they had “given heed to seducing spirits,” and had allowed themselves to be robbed of both these treasures, – not only the truth, but the mental power of appreciating the truth. And what had they in the place of what they had lost? Incessant contentions among themselves. Having lost the truth, they had no longer any center of agreement. Error is manifold and its paths are labyrinthine. When two minds desert the truth there is no reason why they should remain in harmony any more; and each has a right to believe that his own substitute for the truth is the only one worth considering. As proof that their soundness of mind is gone, and that they are far away from the truth, St. Paul states the fact that they suppose that godliness is a way of gain.
It is well known that the scholars whose labors during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries produced at last the Authorized Version, were not masters of the force of the Greek article. Its uses had not yet been analyzed in the thorough way in which they have been analyzed in the present century. Perhaps the text before us is the most remarkable among the numerous errors which are the result of this imperfect knowledge. It seems so strange that those who perpetrated it were not puzzled by their own mistake, and that their perplexity did not put them right. What kind of people could they have been who “supposed that gain was godliness?” Did such an idea ever before enter the head of any person? And if it did, could he have retained it? People have devoted their whole souls to gain, and have worshipped it as if it were Divine. But no man ever yet believed, or acted as if he believed, that gain was godliness. To make money-getting a substitute for religion, in allowing it to become the one absorbing occupation of mind and body, is one thing-to believe it to be religion is quite another.
But what St. Paul says of the opinions of these perverted men is exactly the converse of this: not that they supposed “gain to be godliness,” but that they supposed “godliness to be a means of gain.” They considered godliness, or rather the “form of godliness” which was all that they really possessed, to be a profitable investment. Christianity to them was a “profession” in the mercantile sense, and a profession that paid: and they embarked upon it, just as they would upon any other speculation which offered equally good hopes of being remunerative.
The Apostle takes up this perverted and mean view of religion, and shows that in a higher sense it is perfectly true. Just as Caiaphas; while meaning to express a base and cold-blooded policy of expediency, had given utterance to a profound truth about Christ, so these false teachers had got hold of principles which could be formulated so as to express a profound truth about Christs religion. There is a very real sense in which godliness (genuine godliness and not the mere externals of it) is even in this world a fruitful source of gain. Honesty, so long as it be not practiced merely as a policy, is the best policy. “Righteousness exalteth a nation”: it invariably pays in the long run. And so “Godliness with contentment is great gain.” They suppose that godliness is a good investment:-in quite a different sense from that which they have in their minds, it really is so. And the reason of this is manifest.
It has already been shown that “godliness is profitable for all things.” It makes a man a better master, a better servant, a better citizen, and both in mind and body a healthier and therefore a stronger man. Above all it makes him a happier man; for it gives him that which is the foundation of all happiness in this life, and the foretaste of happiness in the world to come, – a good conscience. A possession of such value as this cannot be otherwise than great gain: especially if it be united, as it probably will be united, with contentment. It is in the nature of the godly man to be content with what God has given him. But godliness and contentment are not identical; and therefore, in order to make his meaning quite clear the Apostle says not merely “godliness,” but “godliness with contentment.” Either of these qualities far exceeds in value the profitable investment which the false teachers saw in the profession of godliness. They found that it paid; that it had a tendency to advance their wordly interests. But, after all, even mere worldly wealth does not consist in the abundance of the things which a man possesses. That man is well off who has as much as he wants; and that man is rich who has more than he wants. Wealth cannot be measured by any absolute standard. We cannot name an income to rise above which is riches, and to fall below which is poverty. Nor is it enough to take into account the unavoidable calls which are made upon the mans purse, in order to know whether he is well off or not: we must also know something of his desires. When all legitimate claims have been discharged, is he satisfied with what remains for his own use? Is he contented? If he is, then he is indeed well to do. If he is not, then the chief element of wealth is still lacking to him.
The Apostle goes on to enforce the truth of the statement that even in this world godliness with contentment is a most valuable possession, far superior to a large income: and to urge that, even from the point of view of earthly prosperity and happiness, those people make a fatal mistake who devote themselves to the accumulation of wealth, without placing any check upon their growing and tormenting desires, and without knowing how to make a good use of the wealth which they are accumulating. With a view to enforce all this he repeats two well-known and indisputable propositions: “We brought nothing into the world” and “We can carry nothing out.” As to the words which connect these two propositions in the original Greek, there seems to be some primitive error which we cannot now correct with any certainty. We are not sure whether one proposition is given as a reason for accepting the other, and, if so, which is premise and which is conclusion. But this is of no moment. Each statement singly has been abundantly proved by the experience of mankind, and no one would be likely to dispute either. One of the earliest books ill human literature has them as its opening moral. “Naked came I out of my mothers womb, and naked shall I return thither,” are Jobs words in the day of his utter ruin; and they have been assented to by millions of hearts ever since.
“We brought nothing into the world.” What right then have we to be discontented with what has since been given to us? “We can take nothing out.” What folly, therefore, to spend all our time in amassing wealth, which at the time of our departure we shall be obliged to leave behind us! There is the case against avarice in a nutshell. Never contented. Never knowing what it is to rest and be thankful.
Always nervously anxious about the preservation of what has been gained, and laboriously toiling in order to augment it. What a contrast to the godly man, who has found true independence in a trustful dependence upon the God Whom he serves! Godliness with contentment is indeed great gain.
There is perhaps no more striking example of the incorrigible perversity of human nature than the fact that, in spite of all experience to the contrary, generation after generation continues to look upon mere wealth as the thing best worth striving after. Century after century we find men telling us, often with much emphasis and bitterness, that great possessions are an imposture, that they promise happiness and never give it. And yet those very men continue to devote their whole energies to the retention and increase of their possessions: or, if they do not, they hardly ever succeed in convincing others that happiness is not to be found in such things. If they could succeed, there would be far more contented, and therefore far more happy people in the world than can be found at present. It is chiefly the desire for greater temporal advantages than we have at present that makes us discontented. We should be a long way on the road to contentment, if we could thoroughly convince ourselves that what are commonly called temporal advantages such as large possessions, rank, power, honors, and the like-are on the whole not advantages; that they more often detract from this worlds joys than augment them, while they are always a serious danger, and sometimes a grievous impediment, in reference to the joys of the world to come.
What man of wealth and position does not feel day by day the worries and anxieties and obligations which his riches and rank impose upon him? Does he not often wish that he could retire to some cottage and there live quietly on a few hundreds a year, and sometimes even seriously think of doing it. But at other times he fancies that his unrest and disquiet are owing to his not having enough. If he could only have some thousands a year added to his present income, then he would cease to be anxious about the future; he could afford to lose some and still have sufficient. If he could only attain to a higher position in society, then he would feel secure from detraction or serious downfall; he would be able to treat with unconcerned neglect the criticisms which are now such a source of annoyance to him. And in most cases this latter view prevails. What determines his conduct is not the well-grounded suspicion that he already has more than is good for him; that it is his abundance which is destroying his peace of mind; but a baseless conviction that an increase of the gifts of this world will win for him the happiness that he has failed to secure. The experience of the past rarely destroys this fallacy. He knows that his enjoyment of life has not increased with his fortune. Perhaps he can see clearly that he was a happier man when he possessed much less. But, nevertheless, he still cherishes the belief that with a few things more he would be contented, and for those few things more he continues to slave. There is no man in this world that has not found out over and over again that success, even the most complete success, in the attainment of any worldly desire, however innocent or laudable, does not bring the permanent satisfaction which was anticipated.
Sooner or later the feeling of satiety, and therefore of disappointment, must set in. And of all the countless thousands who have had this experience, how few there are who have been able to draw the right conclusion, and to act upon it!
And when we take into account the difficulties and dangers which a large increase in the things of this world places in the way of our advance towards moral and spiritual perfection, we have a still stronger case against the fallacy that increase of wealth brings an increase in well-being. The care of the things which we possess takes up thought and time, which could be far more happily employed on nobler objects; and it leads us gradually into the practical conviction that these nobler objects, which have so continually to be neglected in order to make room for other cares, are really of less importance. It is impossible to go on ignoring the claims which intellectual and spiritual exercises have upon our attention without becoming less alive to those claims. We become, not contented, but self-sufficient in the worst sense. We acquiesce in the low and narrow aims which a devotion to worldly advancement has imposed upon us. We habitually act as if there were no other life but this one; and consequently we cease to take much interest in the other life beyond the grave; while even as regards the things of this world our interests become confined to those objects which can gratify our absorbing desire for financial prosperity.
Nor does the mischief done to our best moral and spiritual interests end here; especially if we are what the world calls successful. The man who steadily devotes himself to the advancement of his worldly position, and who succeeds in a very marked way in raising himself, is likely to acquire in the process a kind of brutal self-confidence, very detrimental to his character. He started with nothing, and he now has a fortune. He was once a shop-boy, and he is now a country gentleman. And he has done it all by his own shrewdness, energy, and perseverance. The result is that he makes no account of Providence, and very little of the far greater merits of less conspicuously successful men. A contempt for men and things that would have given him a higher view of this life, and some idea of a better life, is the penalty which he pays for his disastrous prosperity.
But his case is one of the most hopeless, whose desire for worldly advantages has settled down into a mere love of money. The worldly man, whose leading ambition is to rise to a more prominent place in society, to outshine his neighbors in the appointments of his house and in the splendor of his entertainments, to be of importance on all public occasions, and the like, is morally in a far less desperate condition than the miser. There is no vice more deadening to every noble and tender feeling than avarice. It is capable of extinguishing all mercy, all pity, all natural affection. It can make the claims of the suffering and sorrowful, even when they are combined with those of an old friend, or a wife, or a child, fall on deaf ears. It can banish from the heart not only all love, but all shame and self-respect. What does the miser care for the execrations of outraged society, so long as he can keep his gold? There is no heartless or mean act, and very often no deed of fraud or violence, from which he will shrink in order to augment or preserve his hoards. Assuredly the Apostle is right when he calls the love of money a “root of all kinds of evil.” There is no iniquity to which it does not form one of the nearest roads. Every criminal who wants an accomplice can have the avaricious man as his helper, if he only bids high enough.
And note that, unlike almost every other vice, it never loses its hold: its deadly grip is never for an instant relaxed. The selfish man can at a crisis become self-sacrificing, at any rate for a time. The sensualist has his moments when his nobler nature gets the better of his passions, and he spares those whom he thought to make his victims. The drunkard can sometimes be lured by affection or innocent enjoyments to forego the gratification of his craving. And there are times when even pride, that watchful and subtle foe, sleeps at its post and suffers humble thoughts to enter. But the demon avarice never slumbers, and is never off its guard. When it has once taken full possession of a mans heart, neither love, nor pity, nor shame, can ever surprise it into an act of generosity. We all of us have our impulses; and however little we may act upon them, we are conscious that some of our impulses are generous. Some of the worst of us could lay claim to as much as that. But the misers nature is poisoned at its very source. Even his impulses are tainted. Sights and sounds which make other hardened sinners at least wish to help, if only to relieve their own distress at such pitiful things, make him instinctively tighten his purse-strings. Gold is his god; and there is no god who exacts from his worshippers such undivided and unceasing devotion. Family, friends, country, comfort, health, and honor must all be sacrificed at its shrine. Certainly the lust for gold is one of those “foolish and hurtful lusts, such as drown men in destruction and perdition.”
In wealthy Ephesus, with its abundant commerce, the desire to be rich was a common passion; and St. Paul feared-perhaps he knew-that in the Church in Ephesus the mischief was present and increasing. Hence this earnest reiteration of strong warnings against it. Hence the reopening of the letter in order to tell Timothy to charge the rich not to be self-confident and arrogant, not to trust in the wealth which may fail them, but in the God Who cannot do so; and to remind them that the only way to make riches secure is to give them to God and to His work. The wealthy heathen in Ephesus were accustomed to deposit their treasures with “the great goddess Diana,” whose temple was both a sanctuary and a bank. Let Christian merchants deposit theirs with God by being “rich in good works”; so that when He called them to Himself, they might receive their own with usury, and “lay hold on the life which is life indeed.”
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary