728x90
3 gAs I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not hto teach any different doctrine, 4 nor ito devote themselves to myths and endless jgenealogies, which promote kspeculations rather than the stewardship1 from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love lthat issues from a pure heart and ma good conscience and na sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by oswerving from these, have wandered away into pvain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, qwithout understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
g [Titus 1:5]
h ch. 6:3; [Gal. 1:6, 7]
i ch. 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16
j Titus 3:9
k ch. 6:4
1 Or good order
l 2 Tim. 2:22
m 1 Pet. 3:16, 21
n Rom. 12:9; 2 Tim. 1:5
o ch. 6:21
p Titus 1:10
q [ch. 6:4; Col. 2:18]
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), 딤전 1:3–7.
3 내가 마게도냐로 갈 때에 너를 권하여 에베소에 머물라 한 것은 어떤 사람들을 명하여 다른 교훈을 가르치지 말며
4 신화와 끝없는 족보에 몰두하지 말게 하려 함이라 이런 것은 믿음 안에 있는 하나님의 경륜을 이룸보다 도리어 변론을 내는 것이라
5 이 교훈의 목적은 청결한 마음과 선한 양심과 거짓이 없는 믿음에서 나오는 사랑이거늘
6 사람들이 이에서 벗어나 헛된 말에 빠져
7 율법의 선생이 되려 하나 자기가 말하는 것이나 자기가 확증하는 것도 깨닫지 못하는도다
대한성서공회, 성경전서: 개역개정, 전자책. (서울시 서초구 남부순환로 2569: 대한성서공회, 1998), 딤전 1:3–7.
앞서 1-2절의 인사말에 이어서 바울은 단도직입적으로 디모데가 가장 걱정하고 있을만한 문제인 거짓 가르침에 대한 문제를 다루고 있다.
3절) 당시 바울은 로마의 감옥에서 석방된 후 에베소에서 마게도냐로 떠나면서 디모데로 하여금 에베소에 머물면서 자신의 대리자로 그곳에서 기승을 부리던 거짓 교사들을 물리치고 복음의 진리를 온전하게 지킬 것을 독려하고 있는 것이다.
바울은 디모데로 하여금 에베소에 머물라고 한 이유를 분명히 설명하는데 그것은 거짓 선생들을 잘 대처하라는 것이었다. 특별히 디모데전서에는 거짓 가르침과 거짓 교사들에 대한 이야기가 많이 등장한다. 마게도냐는 발칸 반도의 북쪽 지방으로 성경에 나오는 빌립보, 데살로니가, 베뢰아 등의 도시가 위치한 곳이다. 바울은 지금 에베소를 디모데에게 맡기고 다른 선교지들이 위치한 마게도냐를 돌보기 위해서 떠나고 있는 것이다. 그래서 혹자들은 본절의 바울의 여정이 로마 1차 투옥이후의 바울의 여정으로 이를 4차 선교여행으로 본다. 이 여정속에서 에베소에는 디모데를, 그레데에는 디도를 후임으로 세우고 전도여행을 계속 한 것으로 보인다. 이후 바울의 2차 투옥과 순교를 AD 67-68년으로 본다면 자신의 죽음을 앞두고 사역지를 돌아보며 각 지역의 성도들의 신앙을 굳게 하기 위해서 노력한 것이다. 본인이 한 지역에 오래 머물러 있을 수 없었기에 자신이 신뢰할 만한 동역자들을 보낸 것이다.
‘권하여~ 머물라’, 권하여라는 표현은 ‘파라칼레오’로 ‘~옆에’라는 의미의 ‘파라’와 ‘부르다, 청하다’라는 의미의 동사 ‘칼레오’의 합성어이다. 여기서는 ‘옆으로 다가와 간절하게 청하다’라는 의미로 ‘간청하다’(행 9:38)의 의미로 사용되었다. 여기에서 ‘에클레시아, 교회’, ‘파라클레토스, 보혜사, 중재자’라는 단어가 파생되었다. 또한 ‘머물라’로 번역된 ‘프로스메노’는 ‘프로스’와 ‘메노’의 합성어이다. ‘프로스’는 장소와 관련하여 “가까이에’라는 의미와 시간과 관련하여 ‘~동안”이라는 의미를 지니며 ‘메노’는 ‘머물다’라는 의미의 동사이다. 따라서 프로스메노라는 표현은 단순히 머무는 것이 아니라 계속해서 머물라는 의미인 것이다. 바울이 이런 충고를 하고 있는 것은 디모데가 에베소에 머물기를 원하지 않았기 때문으로 보인다. 에베소는 매우 전략적으로 중요한 지역이었고 바울을 대신해 어린 지도자로서의 역할을 한다는 것이 그에게 상당한 증압감으로 작용했을 것이다. 그렇기에 바울은 디모데로 하여금 이단의 진리에 대항하여 복음을 증거할 것을 권하고 있는 것이다.
‘어떤 사람들을 명하여 다른 교훈을 가르치지 말며’, 3-4절은 ‘히나’ 가정법 구문이다. 명하여로 번역된 ‘파랑게일레스’는 ‘파라’와 ‘앙겔로’의 합성어이다. ‘파라’는 ‘~으로부터. ~곁에’라는 의미이고 ‘앙겔로’는 '소식을 가져오다’라는 의미의 동사이다. 문자적으로 ‘어떤 사람에게서 받은 메시지를 다른 사람에게 그대로 전하다’라는 의미이다. 이것은 권위자로부터 명령을 하달받아 지시하는 의미를 지닌다. 그렇다면 본문의 ‘어떤 사람들’은 누구인가? 이들은 20절에 언급된 후메내오와 알렉산더를 연상시킨다. 이들은 거짓된 가르침을 전하거나 이를 따르는 모든 이들을 포함한다. 결국 이들은 7절에서 말하는 대로 율법의 선생이 되려하지만 복음이 아니라 다른 교훈을 가르치는 자들이다.
‘다른 교훈을 가르치지’로 번역된 ‘헤테로디다스칼레오’는 본절과 딤전 6:3에서만 등장하는 표현이다. 이는 ‘가르치다, 지도하다’라는 의미의 동사 ‘디다스코’와 ‘다른, 또하나의, 이종의’라는 의미의 ‘헤테로스’의 합성어로 ‘허용된 표준과 상반되게 교리를 가르치다’라는 의미를 지닌다. ‘디다케’는 ‘가르침, 교훈’이라는 의미이다.
이 표현은 바울이 에베소에 들어온 거짓 교사들을 지칭하기 위해 만든 신조어일 가능성이 크다.
* 거짓 교사들의 거짓 가르침
1:3 다른 교훈을 가르침
1:4 신화와 끝없는 족보에 몰두하게 함
1:6 청결한 마음과 선한 양심과 짓이 없는 믿음에서 벗어남
1:6 헛된 말에 빠짐
1:7 자신의 말이나 자기가 확증하는 것도 깨닫지 못함
1:10 바른 교훈을 거스르는 일을 행함
1:19 그 믿음에 관하여 파선함
1:20 신성을 모독함
4:1 믿음에서 떠남
4:1 미혹하는 영과 귀신의 가르침을 따름
4:2 양심이 화인을 맞아 외식하고 거짓말함
4:7 망령되고 허탄한 신화를 끝없이 추구함
5:15 사탄에게 돌아감
5:20 계속 죄를 지음
6:10 믿음에서 떠남
6:20 망령되고 헛된 말과 거짓된 지식의 반론
6:21 믿음에서 벗어남
- The historical scenario alluded to requires a situation in which Timothy has either already been dispatched on his own to Ephesus (from somewhere else on duty either with Paul or with others),11 or in which Paul left him there as he himself went on to Macedonia.12 The ambiguity of their relative locations here is similar to the command to Titus concerning Crete (cf. Titus 1:5). And any attempt to locate the place in Paul’s travels in which this assignment most likely occurred remains provisional.13 Barring the theory of a release from Roman imprisonment (cf. Introduction B.1.a), the sequence of Paul’s and his coworker’s movements reported in and around Acts 20:1–3 is perhaps most promising. At this point, in close connection with the Ephesian and ongoing Corinthian stages of Paul’s work, Paul is reported to have left Ephesus for Macedonia (Acts 20:1) after which he arrived in Greece and stayed for three months (20:2). Timothy’s location is not stated at this juncture, though in 19:22 Luke reports that he had been dispatched to Macedonia. If Timothy had returned, or was redirected by Paul back to Ephesus, the scenario assumed by the language of 1 Tim 1:3 of “remaining” on assignment in Ephesus just becomes a possibility during that brief period. After the brief stay in Greece, Paul then makes his way back to Asia Minor via Macedonia, and Timothy is reported to have accompanied Paul from Greece to Troas at this point, all of which assumes that Timothy again left Ephesus in order to return to Paul. As Johnson points out, “the window of opportunity for 1 Timothy” presented by the account of Acts is not substantial.14 But Paul’s frequent travels back and forth between Asia Minor, Achaia and Macedonia and his practice of dispatching delegates to churches are clear from his letters, so the kind of assignment envisioned here is not at all unlikely. If neither Acts nor Paul’s letters allow certainty in the question of the timing of such an assignment of personnel, the incompleteness of each source must also be recognized. We will assume that 1 Timothy addresses Timothy in his work at Ephesus some time during Paul’s active pre-imprisonment ministry in these regions.15
Timothy’s reason for staying in Ephesus emerges in the purpose clause (hina) that begins here and continues into the next verse. It is chiefly to confront the false teachers. First, the term, “command”16 (4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17) belongs to the technical vocabulary of didactic and corrective activities associated with the apostolic mission and teaching within the church (see discussions 4:11; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:1; 15). The term implies the delegate’s authority to issue commands in behalf of Paul17 (the content of which follows) and equally that those being thus commanded are within the jurisdiction of this authority. This means that those referred to indirectly as “certain persons”18 most likely to demean them before the whole community, were members of the church and therefore accountable to Paul.19
The content of the command is expressed negatively as a prohibition by means of two parallel infinitive verbs. The first of these prohibits the activity of “teaching what is false,” before continuing to prohibit the useless speculation that lies behind and fuels the activity itself. The verb, “to teach what is false,” is rare, occurring in the NT only in this letter (6:3).20 The allegation closely parallels one made in Gal 1:6 (cf. 2 Cor 11:4), where opponents are identified with the same indirect demeaning tag (“some people,” Gal 1:7; cf. 2 Cor 10:2). Paul’s main concern at this point is less with the teaching style or methods of the opponents (i.e. some sort of speculation and perhaps argumentation, though elsewhere this too is specifically denounced; 6:4; 2 Tim 2:14; Titus 3:9),21 and mainly with the substandard content that is being taught. The choice of this devaluative verb sets the stage for the series of contrasts that will extol and endorse the apostolic gospel as the standard (“the gospel,” “the sound teaching,” “the sound words of our Lord,” etc.) and deprecate the message of the opponents as a counterfeit.
11 Variously, Simpson, 27.
12 See Dibelius and Conzelmann, 15; Fee, 39.
13 See Introduction B.1.
14 Johnson, 137.
15 The argument mounted by proponents of pseudonymity to the effect that the apostle’s “leaving behind” of coworkers (expressed differently in 1 Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5), in contrast to the genuine Paul’s practice of first planting churches, then “sending” coworkers to further the work (e.g. 1 Cor 4:17; 16:10; 2 Cor 2:4–7), is a literary device that reveals the post-apostolic situation of these letters to Timothy and Titus (especially, Trummer, Paulustradition, 124; Wolter, Paulustradition, 180–84; see also discussion in Marshall, 364). While the Pauline strategy adduced from his letters to churches seems clear, the interpretation of 1 Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5 on the basis of some sort of comparison with other letters to churches is obviously wholly dependent upon prior assumptions about the non-historical and inauthentic character of the letters. If one considers for a moment the possibility that these are in fact two of the only three letters (of the extant Pauline collection) that Paul addressed to individual coworkers (with the wider audience of the churches anticipated), and that Timothy and Titus were already in place as 1 Tim 1:3 and Titus 1:5 suggest (thus explaining the past tense), one has to ask how else Paul would have described their appointments that were in fact already in effect. The function of the instructions to Timothy and Titus not only reminded the coworkers of their task, but also the communities of the coworkers’ authority as apostolic delegates.
16 Gk παραγγέλλω; the term is used frequently of Paul’s authoritative teaching in the churches (1 Cor 7:10; 11:17; 1 Thess 4:11; 2 Thess 3:4, 6, 10, 12 (W. Radl, EDNT 3:16–17; Lips, Glaube, 130–31; Marshall, 364; Roloff, 63) and belongs to the didactic vocabulary by which this ministry is described.
17 Although Marshall, 364, makes the point that Timothy here is called on “to carry out the task of a church leader,” there seems little reason to think that the coworker has ceased to function in his capacity as an apostolic delegate, despite the fact that he is here ministering within a particular church.
18 Gk τινες (the plural indefinite pronoun from τις); this technique is intentional (1:6, 19; 4:1; 5:15, 24; 6:10; 21; 2 Tim 2:18), found also elsewhere in the Pauline letters (Rom 3:8; 1 Cor 4:18; 5:1; 2 Cor 3:1; 10:2; Gal 1:7; 2:12; Phil 1:15; see also Heb 10:25; Ignatius, Eph. 7:1; 9:1; 1 Clement 1:1), and in the letters to Timothy is used specifically for the opponents. See further Johnson, 162; Roloff, 71; Marshall, 365.
19 See Fee, 40, who suggests erring elders are specifically in mind; Towner, Goal, 24–27.
20 Gk ἑτεροδιδασκαλέω; see also Ignatius, To Polycarp 3.1. The term, and other hetero-combinations, occur more frequently in the Fathers, but first-century (and earlier) use of such compounds is also evident (Josephus, Antiquities 10.281; Jewish War, 2.129; Plato, Theaetetus 190E). For the combination of ἑτερο- (“different”) with other verbs to form similar compounds, see 1 Cor 14:21; 2 Cor 6:14.
21 As with the technical term, “the teaching” (διδασκαλία), as it occurs in these letters, either the activity or the content of “teaching” may be in view (cf. Lips, Glaube, 39, n. 39; Towner, Goal, 26–27).
Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 106–109.
4절) 바울이 디모데를 에베소에 머물라고 한 이유는 거짓 선생들로 하여금 다른 교훈’을 가르치지 못하게 하기 위해서 또한 신화와 끝없는 족보에 물두하지 말게 하려함이었다.
‘신화와 끝없는 족보’, ‘신화’로 번역된 ‘뮈도스’는 ‘비밀을 전수하다’라는 의미의 동사 ‘뮈에오’의 명사형으로 ‘비밀스럽게 전해지는 이야기’(벧후 1:16)를 의미하는데 신약에서 5번 사용된다. 여기에서 파생된 단어가 ‘myth, 신화, 전설’이라는 단어이다. 당시 그리스-로마 신화와 같은 신화나 전설이 유행했다. 이런 형태의 영지주이적 이단, 유대주의적 이단의 가르침을 포괄한다고 볼 수 있다. 딛 1:14에서도 ‘유대인의 허탄한 이야기’라는 표현이 사용되었다.
‘족보’로 번역된 ‘게네알로기아’는 ‘일어나다, 발생하다’라는 의미의 ‘기노마이’와 ‘말하다, 이야기하다’라는 의미의 ‘레고’의 합성어로 ‘조상과 가족력에 대한 연구나 조사’를 의미한다. 바울 당시 고대로부터 랍비들이 꾸며 만든 이야기를 늘어놓기 좋아하는 이들이 있었다. ‘끝없는’은 ‘아페란토이스’로 부정접두어 ‘아’와 ‘관통하다, 끝내다’라는 의미의 ‘페라이노’의 합성어로 ‘끝없이 계속되다’라는 의미이다. 여기에 등장하는 끝없는 족보를 ‘유대인의 쥬빌리서’라는 외경으로 본다. ‘소창세리’라고 불리는 이 책은 수많은 분량의 조상일람표가 확대 과장되어 있고, 여인들의 이름이 날조 삽입되어 있으며, 알레고리적이고 부가적으로 날조된 이야기가 가득 들어차있다. 당시 말하기 좋아하는 거짓 선생들은 이러한 이야기를 하기를 좋아했고, 이러한 거짓 가르침들은 많은 이들의 관심을 빼앗아 복음안에서 건강하게 성장하는 것을 방해했다.
‘몰두하지 말게’, 이는 헬라어로 ‘메데 프로세케인’이라는 표현으로 ‘메데’는 부정을 의미하는 접속사, 부사이며 ‘프로세케인’은 ‘~을 향하여, ~ 가까이에, ~함께’라는 의미의 ‘프로스’와 ‘가지다’라는 의미의 동사 ‘에코’의 합성어로 ‘주의하다. 조심하다, 좇다, 청종하다’라는 의미를 지닌다. 사람들은 이처럼 거짓 가르침에 귀 기울이고 마음을 빼앗기기가 쉽다.
‘하나님의 경륜을 이룸보다 도리어 변론을 내는 것이라’, 신화와 끝없는 족보가 주는 악영향은 바로 하나님의 경륜을 이루게 하는 것이 아니라 변론을 내기 때문이다.
‘경륜’을 의미하는 ‘오이코노미안’의 원형 ‘오이코노미아’는 ‘집’을 의미하는 ‘오이코스’와 ‘법, 규칙’을 의미하는 ‘노모스’의 합성어로 문자적으로는 ‘집의 규범’이라는 의미로 이것이 확대되어 직분(눅 16:4), 청지기직(눅 16:3)이라는 의미를 지닌다. 문자적으로 볼때 하나님의 경륜은 ‘하나님의 집의 규범, 경영’을 의미하는 것이다. 특히 에베소서에서 바울은 이 단어를 통해서 하나님의 구원 계획을 설명한다. 결국 신화와 끝없는 족보에 몰두하는 것은 불필요한 논쟁들만 양산할 뿐이고 하나님의 구원을 이루는 청지기직을 수행하지 못하게 한다는 것이다.
‘변론’으로 번역된 ‘엑제테시스’는 ‘변론’이라는 의미를 지닌 ‘제테시스’에 강조를 나타내는 ‘에크’라는 접두어가 결합된 것으로 매우 격렬한 논쟁을 의미한다. 이는 신화와 끝없는 족보는 격렬한 논쟁을 불러일으킨다는 것이다.
그렇다면 이 시대의 신화와 끝없는 족보는 무엇인가? 과거 그리스 로마 신화나 성경의 족보들, 기원을 설명하는 여러 이야기들이 사람들의 마음을 빼앗고 하나님의 경륜, 구원계획을 이루지 못하게 하는 이야기들이었다면 이 시대의 신화는 성공의 신화, 물질, 맘몬의 신화, 자본주의의 신화들이다. 이들이 추구하는 족보는 스펙과 학력을 추구하는 모습들이다. 어느 라인에 자신들의 이름을 올리고 그것을 토대로 더 높은 곳에 올라가려는 이 시대의 모든 노력들이 바로 신화와 족보이다.
- This phrase24 is problematic and resists precise interpretation. Nevertheless, there are certain precedents that allow us to close in on Paul’s sense. The term “myth”25 has a long history of use prior to the NT, through which it comes to mean a fable or far-fetched story often about the gods; most importantly, it can stand as a category meaning essentially falsehood.26 Here the term is in the plural, as throughout the NT, which contains a negative evaluative assessment in itself (namely, spurious, contradictory, human) in contrast to the divinely imbued singularity and unity of the gospel.27 Paul employs the plural term to label the teaching emphatically as falsehood. But the history of the term’s use goes another step: Plato, for one, used the term to denounce certain stories not simply as false but also deceptive, in that they were told so as to lend credence to immoral behavior or practices by linking them to ancient stories about the gods.28 The apparent link between certain extreme ascetic aspects of behavior and the false doctrines in Ephesus (1 Tim 4:1–3; cf. discussion at Titus 1:14–15) suggests that Paul also drew on this nuance of the term’s polemical use. Thus rather than identifying the content of the teaching, the term “myths” evaluates it as false and pernicious.
“Genealogies,” however, with the help of other contextual clues, takes us in the direction of actual content. This term also has a long history of use, describing lists of family names (family trees), and the process of constructing them, that served various purposes.29 Within Judaism, genealogies played the key role of establishing a person’s bloodline and link to a particular family and tribe: rights by birth determined in this way allowed, for example, entrance into the priesthood. As use in Philo demonstrates, the term could refer to the accounts of people in the early parts of Genesis.30 This usage especially opens up the possibility that Paul is identifying the practice among the false teachers of speculating on stories about the early biblical characters as well as actual genealogical lists such as occur there or in other more speculative non-canonical Jewish writings (e.g. Jubilees). Speculation fitting roughly into this category was known to have been practiced in Jewish communities,31 and the reference in 1:7 to the opponents’ aspirations to be “teachers of the law” helps to locate the sources of this practice within the repository of Jewish literature (cf. Titus 1:14 and the reference to “Jewish myths”).32
The adjective “endless” attached to “genealogies” might have been a literal reference to long drawn out speculations, or may be meant in the sense of “pointless,” “contradictory” or “inconclusive.”33 Its force is clearly polemical, meant to discredit the protracted arguments that go nowhere.
We can go little beyond deducing that these early stories were somehow mined for (or reshaped to yield) clues they contained about the deeper sort of piety the false teachers laid claim to.34 Nevertheless, it is clear that Paul regarded this teaching as deceptive and dangerous. Quite possibly the extreme practices alluded to in 4:1–3 (see discussion) were grounded in this speculative interpretation of Israel’s early history, all of which was being served up in the guise of authoritative doctrine (1:7).
In the next phrase, Paul supplies an important reason35 why Timothy is to prohibit this false teaching. It consists of a contrast between the wheel-spinning futility of the deceptive speculation and the direction of God’s mission. The first half of this reason is clear: the obsession with myths and genealogies “promotes controversial speculations.” The verb36 is neutral and also governs the positive side of the contrast to come. But the term that follows, “controversial [or useless]speculations,”37 is one of several that belongs to Paul’s polemical repertoire in these three letters to coworkers drawn on to discredit the opposing doctrines and behavior as being everything from foolish nonsense to disputatious and pernicious.38 It is clearly these latter characteristics and their danger to the church that most concern Paul as he writes (6:3–4).
In contrast,39 it is implied that correct and authoritative teaching will promote “God’s work.” However, the TNIV translation is questionable. The Greek term is oikonomia theou.40 It is translated in various ways in the versions: “the divine training”41 (NRSV); “God’s plan for us” (REB; cf. TEV); “God’s work” (TNIV; NIV); and there are numerous other variations.
Of these attempts to render the term, the first is unlikely. Most who propose the meaning “God’s plan” narrow the focus to salvation, and draw on the use of the term oikonomia in expanded phrases especially in Ephesians 1:10 and 3:9 (cf. 3:2).42 While this can be made to fit the present context, more or less,43 it is perhaps a better fit in Ephesians.
The TNIV rendering, “God’s work,” might mean a couple of things, such as what God himself does, or what the church (empowered and led by God) is to do for God. In any case, the focus in this translation is on “work” (mission work, church work, gospel work) and it is again possible to see this as an apt counterpart to the speculations promoted by false teaching.
This menu of options suggests a continuing state of uncertainty. Johnson and Marshall have suggested that the key to interpreting oikonomia here lies in the household terminology, which Paul employed elsewhere and which is thematic in 1 Timothy. To begin with, oikonomia refers to the organization and ordering of a household or the responsibility of management that maintains the order. This is how Paul describes his mission to the Gentiles in 1 Cor 9:17: that is, he understands himself to have been entrusted with management of a household (presumably God’s; cf. 1 Cor 4:1). The description of his ministry in Col 1:25 follows the same line: “I have become a minister according to the responsibility to manage God’s house [oikonomia tou theou] that was given to me.” Within 1 Timothy household language links several things together into a whole pattern. Leaving 1:4 aside for the moment, in 3:15 the church is depicted as “God’s house” (oikos theou; cf. 2 Tim 2:20–21), and by derivation, overseers are to understand their task in terms of a stewardship (see 3:4–5; in Titus 1:7 the term oikonomos theou [“God’s steward”] is used).
This brings us back to the phrase oikonomia theou in 1:4. Surely it is correct to define the concept within the sphere of household management and duties from which the language emerged. At this point, we note the slight difference in the final results of Johnson and Marshall. Marshall focuses on the activity of management, which leads him to interpret the contrasting image as follows: “rather than [promoting] the performance of the duties of stewardship” (associated with God’s house).44 The duties envisioned include all those to be done by the leaders of the church.
Johnson, however, emphasizes the idea of order: “God’s way of ordering things.” He interprets Paul as contrasting the speculations of the false teachers, which produce disruption and a flawed understanding of behavior and of God’s will, with “faithful attention to” God’s way of ordering his creation. The teaching then that Paul will give the church concerning everything from prayer to women in the church, to elders and widows, and behavior in the household and leadership is all designed to explicate “God’s way of ordering things.” This “ordering” of church and society, two entities or spheres that Johnson rightly sees as continuous and equally “ordered” by God, has been misapprehended by the opponents. In any case, the essential starting point for Johnson is Paul’s setting of the whole letter under the rubric of the ordering of life by God. Paul’s point is then that “by faith,” that is, through acceptance of the correct apostolic preaching and teaching, this divine arrangement can be apprehended and implemented.45
In the absence in 1:4 of a direct statement by Paul to the effect that the oikonomia theou is that which has been entrusted or given to Paul (emphasizing specifically stewardship, responsibility and the activity of management; 1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:2; Col 1:25), it seems best in this case to increase the emphasis on the pattern and order that is to be implemented. That is, the first thought is not of administration as ministry and responsibility, but of the shape of things and the ordering of life to be achieved through the various activities of ministry and service.
The attached comment about faith adds a crucial condition to the understanding of the divine pattern.46 Although it is rendered instrumentally by the TNIV: “which is by faith.” It may denote somewhat more broadly the sense of sphere: “in faith.” In either case, it says something more about “the way God has organized life.” To be “in faith” is to be in the sphere of authentic faith (see note on 1:2), and its attachment to the preceding phrase here will encompass the apprehension of God’s ways and patterns as well as any actions taken to implement them. The point Paul makes, however, is polemical. It is genuine faith, namely, that faith associated with his gospel, which has access to correct understanding of the will of God. The fundamental condition for understanding the way God has organized life (his oikonomia), and for carrying out the activities in the community and world that bring them into alignment, is adherence to genuine faith. As he is about to say, it is Timothy’s task of teaching what is true and correcting what is false that will give insight into the oikonomia of God.
24 For the whole phrase, μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις (“myths and endless genealogies”), cf. Polybius, Histories 9.2.1; Plato, Timaeus 22A, which show the linkage of these two terms to be traditional.
25 Gk μύθος; in the NT always in the plural (4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14; 2 Pet 1:16; see also Sir 20:19; 2 Clement 13:3; cf. Bar 3:23; Ignatius, Magn. 8.1).
26 See e.g. Plato, Republic 376D–377A; Epictetus, Diss. 3.24.18 (also with the verb προσέχω); on the whole matter, see. Spicq, TLNT 2:528–33; G. Stählin, TDNT 4:762–95; F. F. Bruce, NIDNTT 2:643–47; Johnson, 162–63; Marshall, 206; Dibelius and Conzelmann, 16–17.
27 Cf. the plural descriptions “teachings of demons” (4:1; cf. the plural formulations in 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16; Titus 1:11, 14). References to the gospel or the teaching (in various terms) are consistently in the singular.
28 E.g. Plato, Laws 636C–D; 12.941B (ὑπό τινων μυθολόγων πλημμελῶν; “being led astray by certain tellers of myths”); Republic, 376E–383C; see also Quinn, 245; Marshall, 206.
29 Gk γενεαλογία; for the noun, as here, see Plato, Crat. 396C; Josephus, Antiquities 11.71; for the verb (to trace one’s ancestry”), see Herodotus 2.146; Plato, Timaeus 23B.
30 Philo, Life of Moses 2.47 (and Colson’s note in Loeb, VI, 606, which argues for the association of the term with persons in history as against impersonal aspects of history); see further Quinn, 245; Marshall, 335–36; Spicq, 93–104; F. Büchsel, TDNT 1:663–65; Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre, 86–90;
31 E.g. 1QapGen; Pseudo-Philo; see also Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre, 86–92; G. Kittel, “Genealogia des Pastoralbriefe,” ZNW 20 (1921) 49–69; Quinn, 245–46; Marshall, 335.
32 See Schlarb, Die gesunde Lehre, 83–93.
33 Gk ἀπέραντος; only here in the NT (in positive descriptions see LXX Job 36:26; 3 Macc 2:9); in a similar derogatory sense, see Philo, Cong. 53; Spicq, TLNT 1:159; Marshall, 366; Fee, 42.
34 Arguments to the effect that the false teachers were tampering with the lineage of Jesus (as given in Matthew; B. T. Viviano, “The Genre of Matt. 1–2: Light from 1 Tim. 1:4,” RB 97 [1990] 31–53) or sought by study of their own genealogies to place themselves well with Judaism (Schlatter, 34–35), or that Christ’s ancestry was being challenged to some end by them (so Quinn, 245–46, chiefly in reference to Titus 3:9) have little to commend them. Corroborating evidence is also lacking for the once popular (yet still influential) view that “myths and genealogies” (especially the latter term) refers to the systems of Gnostic emanations or aeons, documented only after the first century, that made some use of the biblical genealogies (see e.g. Irenaeus, AH 1 Praef; 1.30.9; Easton, 112–113; Dibelius and Conzelmann, 16–17; G. Haufe, “Gnostische Irrlehre und ihre Abwehr in den Pastoralbriefen,” in K.-W. Tröger (ed.), Gnosis und NT (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973) 325–39 (see discussion in Towner, Goal, 28; Marshall, 336, 366; Johnson, 163); and most recently see Oberlinner, 14.
35 The indefinite relative, αἵτινες, refers to the preceding “myths and genealogies” (taking its gender from the feminine γενεαλογίαις) intending to categorize them by the result they produce (“of a kind which”; see BDF §293.2).
36 Gk παρέχω; 6:17; Titus 2:7.
37 Gk ἐκζήτησις; the variant, ζητήσεις, meaning “disputes,” appears in a majority of the mss. (see discussion in Metzger, 571; Elliott, 18; Marshall, 362), and it is indeed a word that Paul uses in each of these three letters (1 Tim 6:4; 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9; cf. verb in 2 Tim 1:17), while ἐκζητήσεις (“speculations, investigations”) is extremely rare, limited to this instance in the NT and LXX (Johnson, 163, refers to 2 Kgs 4:11, but this appears to be in error) and infrequent in secular Greek (the related verb is common), the harder reading (“speculations”) is more likely the original, having been corrected to (“disputes”) to accord with what was thought to be the author’s vocabulary. Marshall, 362, suggests that ἐκζήτησις (“speculation”) may include the thought of disputation.
38 See the discussions of language at 2 Tim 2:23; Titus 3:9; see also Towner, Goal, 24–25; Schlarb, Die Gesunde Lehre, 59–73; Marshall, 334–35.
39 The combination μᾶλλον ἤ (2 Tim 3:4; Gal 4:27; Acts 4:19; 5:29) means “rather than.”
TNIV Today’s New International Version
40 Gk οἰκονομία θεοῦ (Col 1:25; Eph 3:2).
41 See also Dibelius and Conzelmann, 17–18; Hanson, 57; Oberlinner, 14–15, for the sense “the training which leads to salvation.” This sense of the phrase is attested much later in Clement of Alexandria.
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
REB Revised English Version
TEV Today’s English Version
TNIV Today’s New International Version
NIV New International Version
42 See Kelly, 45; Fee, 42; Arichea-Hatton, 17; Brox, 103.
43 But see Roloff, 65 and Marshall, 367, who maintain that within the contrast, “God’s plan of salvation” is an inapt counterpart to “useless speculations”; however, this may overstress the precision intended.
TNIV Today’s New International Version
44 Marshall, 367. See Knight, 75–76, for the combination of this with the idea of God’s salvation plan: “the outworking, administration or stewardship of God’s plan of salvation through the gospel and its communication.”
45 This use of the term oikonomia seems closest to its use in Eph 1:10 (3:9) for God’s all encompassing plan. There, too, where a Christological perspective is of course dominant, oikonomia must be understood to refer not just to “salvation plan,” but rather to the implementation of the divine ordering of things/life/creation through the Christ event (i.e. of “salvation plan” in its widest sense).
46 The Greek phrase, τὴν ἐν πίστει, is an example of the attachment of a qualification to an anarthrous noun (οἰκονομίαν) by following it with the article and the qualifying phrase (see also 1:14; 3:13; 4:8; 6:3; 2 Tim 1:13, 2:10; 3:15; Titus 1:1); it makes the qualification somewhat emphatic (Marshall, 368); see further BDF §269.3.
TNIV Today’s New International Version
Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 109–114.
- The Charge to Deal with False Teachers. At least one of Timothy’s purposes in Ephesus was to deal with false teaching that was troubling the church. Not enough information is given to determine exactly what the false teaching was. The concern here is not so much the identity of the false teachers but their effect, which was in direct contrast to the goal of apostolic instruction. The results of false teaching were “speculations” (v. 4) and “vain discussion” (v. 6) while the result of true teaching is “love” coming from “a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (v. 5). The focus of false teaching led to “swerving” and wandering (v. 6) while the focus of true teaching was a steadfast “aim” (v. 5). And regarding the law, the advocates of false teaching were “without understanding” (v. 7) while the advocates of true teaching had correct knowledge (vv. 8–11).
Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 2325.
'성경묵상 > 디모데전서' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 딤전 1:14-17 모든 사람이 받을 만한 이 말 (1) | 2022.09.15 |
|---|---|
| 딤전 1:12-13 비방자, 박해자, 폭행자였던 바울 (0) | 2022.09.13 |
| 딤전 1:8-11 율법의 올바른 사용 (1) | 2022.09.08 |
| 딤전 1:4-7 청결한 마음과 선한 양심과 거짓이 없는 믿음 (0) | 2022.09.01 |
| 딤전 1:1-2 그리스도 예수의 사도 된 바울 (0) | 2022.08.25 |