Ver. 9. ζητήσεις and γενεαλογίαι are associated together in 1 Tim. i. 4 (where see notes). Here they are co-ordinated ; there the γενεαλογίαι are one of the sources whence ζητήσεις originate. The nature of the ἔρεις here deprecated is determined by the context. ἔρεις indi- cate the spirit of contentiousness; μάχαι the conflicts as heard and seen. . On μάχαι, see 2 Tim. ii. 23. The μάχαι νοµικαί are no doubt the same as the λογομαχίαι of τ Tim. vi. 4. Speaking broadly, the controversy turned on the attempt to give a fictitious permanence to the essentially transient elements in the Mosaical Law.
περιΐστασο: See note on 2 Tim. ii. 16.
μάταιοι: Here, and in James i. 26, μάταιος is an adjective of two termina- tions; yet ματαία occurs 1 Cor. xv. 17; ματαίας, τ Peter i. 18.
Ver. το. αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον:
St.
0----13.
ἃ A Δρ oe 93 ε A Ν κα , παραιτου, 11. εἰδὼς οτι ἐξέστραπται ο τοιουτος και AWAPTAVEL,
ΠῚ γα , ων αὐτοκατάκριτος.
12. Ὅταν πέμψω ᾿Αρτεμᾶν πρός σε ἢ Τυχικόν, ὅ σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν
πρός με εἰς Νικόπολιν : ἐκεῖ ya ρός μ γ
ii. 15. 12, xxviii. 11, 1 Cor. xvi. 6, not LXX.
Paul passes from the reprehensible opinions to the man who propagates them. He is the same kind of man as the φιλόνεικος of τ Cor. xi. 16; or “he that refuseth to hear the church” of Matt. xviii. 17; he is of “them which cause divisions and occasions of stum- bling,’ Rom. xvi. 17. The term αἵρεσις is applied in a non-offensive sense to the sects of Judaism, Acts v. 17, xv. 5, xxvi. 5. St. Luke represents the Jews as so speaking of the Christian Church (Acts xxiv. 5, xxviii. 22), and St. Paul as resenting this application of the term (Acts xxiv. 14). The Apostle him- self uses the word in an unfavourable sense (1 Cor. xi. 19; Gal. v. 20), as does 2 Pet. ii. 1. A comparison of 1 Cor. xi. το with 1 John ii. το suggests that αἵρεσις involved the formation of a sepa- rate society (so R.V.m. here, factious), not merely the holding of aberrant opinions, or the favouring a policy dif- ferent from that of the Church rulers. The νουθεσία addressed to a member of such a αἵρεσις would be of the nature of a verbal remonstrance, pointing out the essentially unchristian character of needless separation. It is evident that the aipetixds ἄνθρωπος would be beyond any Church discipline. The permission of asecond attempt at reconciliation is probably not unconnected with our Lord’s counsel, Matt. xviii. 15.
παραιτοῦ: Have nothing to do with him. Seenoteont Tim.iv. 7. The word does not necessarily imply any formal excommunication. Such procedure would be unnecessary. Excommunica- tion has no terrors for those who de- liberately separate themselves. ‘‘ Monere desine. quid enim iuvat? laterem la- vares”’ (Bengel).
Ver. 11. εἰδώς : since thou mayest know.
ἐξέστραπται: subversus est. Argu- ment with a man whose basal mental convictions differ from your own, or whose mind has had a twist, is mere waste of breath.
αὐτοκατάκριτος : proprio iudicio con- demnatus (Vulg.). He is self-condemned because his separation from the Church is due to his own acknowledged act. He