1 Timothy 4:3

κωλυόντων γαμεῖν : Spurious asceticism, in this and other departments of life, characterised the Essenes (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 2) and the Therapeutae (Philo Vit. Contempl. § 4), and all the other false spiritualists of the East; so that this feature does not supply a safe ground for fixing the date of the epistle. At the same time, it is not likely that this particular heresy was present to St. Paul's mind when he was writing 1 Corinthians 7:25-40; see especially 38, ὁ μὴ γαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιήσει; but similar views are condemned in Col., see especially Colossians 2:16; Colossians 2:21-22. See also Hebrews 13:4. St. Paul had come to realise how tyrannous the weak brother could be; and he had become less tolerant of him.

ἀπέχεσθαι : The positive κελευόντων, commanding, must be supplied from the negative κελευόντων μή, commanding not = κωλυόντων.

[265]. [266]. [267]. Vulg. preserve the awkwardness of the Greek, prohibentium nubere, abstinere a cibis. But Faustus read abstinentes, and Origen int. et abstinentes se a cibis. Epiphanius inserts παραγγέλλουσιν after βρωμ., and Isidore inserts καὶ κελευόντων before ἀπεχ., which was also suggested by Bentley. Theophylact inserts similarly συμβουλευόντων. Hort conjectures that ἀπέχεσθαι is a primitive corruption for ἢ ἅπτεσθαι or καὶ γεύεσθαι. He maintains that “no Greek usage will justify or explain this combination of two infinitives, adverse to each other in the tenor of their sense, under the one verb κωλυόντων; and their juxtaposition without a conjunction in a sentence of this kind is at least strange”. Blass, however (Grammar, p. 291) alleges as a parallel κωλύσει ἐνεργεῖν καὶ [sc. ποιήσει] ζημιοῦν from Lucian, Charon, § 2. Another instance of zeugma, though not so startling as this, is in 1 Timothy 2:12, οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω … εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ. See also 1 Corinthians 10:24; 1 Corinthians 14:34 (T.R.). For ἀπέχεσθαι, as used in this connexion, see reff.

[265] The Latin text of Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[266] The Latin version of Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.

[267] The Latin text of Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis (δ) of the Gospels.

ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν, κ. τ. λ.: It has been asked why St. Paul does not justify by specific reasons the use of marriage, as he does the use of food. The answer seems to be that the same general argument applies to both. The final cause of both is the same, i.e., to keep the race alive; and man is not entitled to place restrictions on the use of either, other than those which can be shown to be in accordance with God's law.

μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας is one complex conception. This expresses the ideal use, truly dignified and human, of food. See Romans 14:6, ὁ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ ἐσθίει, εὐχαριστεῖ γὰρ τῷ θεῷ; and 1 Corinthians 10:30, εἰ ἐγὼ χάριτι μετέχω, τί βλασφημοῦμαι ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εὐχαριστῶ; St. Paul of course does not mean that believers only are intended by God to partake of food. His argument is an à fortiori one. “Those that believe,” etc., are certainly included in God's intention. He who makes His sun to rise on the evil is certainly well pleased to make it rise on the good.

Again, St. Paul does not merely desire to vindicate the use of some of God's creatures for them that believe, but the use of all of God's creatures, so far as they are not physically injurious. “God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good,” καλὰ λίαν (Genesis 1:31).

For the association of μετάλημψις compare the phrase μεταλαμβάνειν τροφῆς, Acts 2:46, and reff. on 2 Timothy 2:6.

τοῖς πιστοῖς : dat. commodi, as in Titus 1:15, where see note.

τὴν ἀλήθειαν means, as elsewhere in these epistles, the Gospel truth in general, not the truth of the following statement, πᾶν κτίσμα, κ. τ. λ.