Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Timothy 6:4

"he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings," — 1 Timothy 6:4 (ASV)

He is proud.—Saint Paul, with righteous anger, lashes out against these perverse men who, using the name of Christ, substitute their short-sighted views of life for His, throw doubt and discredit upon the teaching of His chosen Apostles and servants, stir up discord, and excite party spirit, thereby often hopelessly hindering the onward march of Christianity. True Christian teaching is healthy, practical, and capable of being carried out by all levels of society, by people of every age and gender, and by enslaved and free people. The false Christian maxims of these men deal with subtle, useless, impractical questions that have no influence on ordinary life and only tend to stir up conflict and useless inquiry, and to make people discontented and rebellious. These unhappy men he first characterizes as “proud”: literally, blinded with pride.

Knowing nothing.—Better rendered, yet without knowing anything; having no real conception of the office and work of Christ in the world.

But doting about questions.—While so ignorant of the higher and more practical points of Christian theology, the false teacher is obsessed with curious and debatable questions, such as the nature of the ever-blessed Trinity; God’s purposes regarding those people who do not know, or have not even heard of, the Redeemer; and similar issues. These are problems never to be solved by us while on earth, and questions whose profitless debating has torn apart whole churches and, individually, has broken up old friendships and sowed the seeds of bitter, irreconcilable hatred.

And strifes of words.—Verbal disputes, fruitless and pointless controversies about words rather than things; such fierce conflict that has also raged, not only in the days of Timothy and of Saint Paul, but all through the Christian ages, on such words as Predestination, Election, Faith, Inspiration, Person, Regeneration, and so on.

Saint Paul was writing, then, in the spirit of the living God. He was not warning just one solitary pastor and friend at Ephesus of the weeds then springing up in that fair, newly-planted vineyard of his, but was addressing the Master’s servants in many vineyards and of many ages. He was telling them what they would encounter, what would damage and ruin their work, and in many cases would break their hearts with sorrow.

So that we ourselves.—Why was it less likely that Saint Paul and his companions should so glory in them than other friends did, or perhaps than the Thessalonians themselves? Possibly, because it seemed almost like self-praise to praise their own converts; but much more probably, because the writers had previously felt and expressed misgivings on this point: this suits the thought of 2 Thessalonians 1:3 better.

Glory in you in the churches of God.—Not only in thanksgiving to God (though, perhaps, outbursts of praise in the public services of “the churches” may be included), but also in talking to others, at Corinth and elsewhere: so, in return, Saint Paul “boasted” to the Thessalonians about the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 9:2).

Your patience and faith.—It was well proven that Saint Paul had no further cause for misgiving, and that the tempter’s tempting by persecution had not made the apostolic labours to be in vain. (See 1 Thessalonians 3:5.) “Patience,” in the New Testament, does not mean a meek submissiveness, but a heroic endurance. The “faith” here becomes almost equivalent to “hope,” except that it introduces the ground of such hope, namely, confidence in the living God; it also includes the notion of faithfulness.

Persecutions and tribulations.—The difference between the two words is that while “tribulation” is quite general, and implies no personal enmities, “persecution” means that a certain set of persons were organising active measures for the harassment of the Church. Such persecution they were still “enduring” when the Letter was written.

Who opposeth and exalteth himself.—The original continues a quasi-substantival form: “the opposer and exalter of himself”—well-known descriptions (doubtless) of the Antichrist. Several of the details are drawn directly from the description of Antiochus in Daniel 11:36. Being merely descriptive epithets, we are not at liberty to press the present tense and say that the Man of Sin was already acting this way at the time St. Paul wrote. The word for “the opposer,” or “adversary,” is a fairly close rendering of the name “Satan,” and passed into a synonym for it in ecclesiastical Greek. The acts attributed here to the Man of Sin are peculiarly Satanic (2 Timothy 3:6). Of course, however, we must not confuse Satan himself with his human minister.

Above all that is called God.—The translation here is not quite exact. The word “above” in the original is compounded with “exalteth”; it should be, and super-exalteth, or exalteth himself above measure (2 Corinthians 12:7, where the same compound is used) against every God so called. Probably the clause “against every God” is to be taken only with “super-exalteth”; the description “who opposeth” stands absolutely: it is one characteristic of the Man of Sin to be always in opposition and to have concord with no one.

“Every God so called” includes the false gods with the true God (Compare to 1 Corinthians 8:5): true or false, it matters not to the jealous Antichrist, who would have nothing worshipped but himself.

This explains the addition of the little clause, “or that is worshipped.” Many things received religious homage from men without being called gods, and the original word (sebasma) may perhaps be designed to hint at one such worship, namely, the worship of the Augustus (Sebastos).

It would be far-fetched, however, to see in this a direct prophecy of conflict between Antichrist and the Civil Power, although it must be admitted that even the word “gods” is sometimes used of secular rulers (for example, Psalms 82:1–6; John 10:34), in which sense some take it here.

So that he as God.—The words “as God” are not part of the original text and should be struck out. In several other points, however, our version does not bring out the profanity of the act as clearly as the Greek. Literally, it would be, “so as to seat himself in the shrine of God, showing himself off that he is God.” The “himself” brings out the spontaneous arrogance of the deed; the Man of Sin does not merely yield to servile flatterers.

The “sitting” is not in the tense of habitual custom but indicates one expressive act of taking possession.

The “in” (literally, into) brings out the idea of actual intrusion.

Furthermore, the word for “temple” is not the general name for the whole group of buildings with their courts, but the sacred house itself. It is the word that would describe the Holy and Holy of Holies of the Jewish temple (Matthew 27:5; Matthew 27:51; Acts 17:4), and it is probably the Mercy Seat that supplies the image to St. Paul’s mind (Psalms 99:1).

The temple of God.—Although the image is drawn from the Jewish temple, we may say with some confidence that St. Paul did not expect the Antichrist, as a literal fact, to take his seat in that edifice. Neither is the metaphor to be pressed into a mere synonym of “the Church” (1 Corinthians 3:17).

The words, so far, need not necessarily mean that the Man of Sin will make special claims upon the Christian community as such. Rather, the whole phrase, “taking his seat in the temple of God,” is a poetical or prophetical description of usurping divine prerogatives generally—not the prerogatives of the true God alone, but whatever prerogatives have been offered to anything “called God.”

Although the prophecy might be fulfilled without any symbolical act (for example, assuming any material throne), yet the spontaneity (“himself”) and the openness (“showing himself”) seem so essentially parts of the prophecy as to necessarily imply that the Man of Sin will make a formal claim to occupy that central seat in people’s minds and aspirations which is acknowledged to be due to God alone. The formal making of this claim seems to be identical with the apocalypse of the Man of Sin, the act by which he is manifested or revealed.

Showing himself.—Or, thus showing himself off. It does not mean that he makes any attempt to prove that he is God; the word only carries on the pictorial representation of the Man of Sin enthroning himself upon the Mercy Seat and by that act of session parading his pretended divinity.

As has been said, the performance of a typical act is not of vital consequence to the accomplishment of the prophecy (for example, Zechariah 9:9 might have been truly accomplished without the literal riding of Matthew 21:7), though there are few great movements that do not express themselves in outward typical acts. However, these words show that (unless St. Paul was mistaken) an explicit claim will be made for submission, like that of creature to Creator.

Even if the “Man of Sin” only signifies a tendency, not a person, yet this “exhibition of himself as God” would hardly be satisfied by a social concession, however widespread, to a general spirit of (say) fleshly luxury or atheistic intellectualism, without the claims of these ideals being eo nomine put forward and consciously admitted. But it is hard to believe that anything avowedly atheistic would be spoken of as explicitly claiming or receiving divine honors.

It seems, therefore, most probable that the great Apostasy will not become avowedly atheistic but will be an apostasy (so to speak) within the Church, and that the Man of Sin, who heads that Apostasy, will make a special claim upon the Christian Church to consciously accord the very honors she pays to the living God.

We have confidence in the Lord concerning you.—Rather, We rely upon you in the Lord: this clause forms the counterpart to the last verse. St. Chrysostom’s entire comment is worth transcribing: —“God,” he says, “is faithful, and having promised to save, He assuredly will save, but as He promised. And how did He promise? If we are receptive and heed Him; not unconditionally, nor while we remain inactive like stocks and stones.

Yet, he has aptly added his point: ‘We rely in the Lord:’ that is, ‘We trust His love for humanity.’ Once more, he humbles them, ascribing the whole matter to God. For if he had said, ‘We trust in you,’ it would have been a great compliment indeed, but would not have taught them to ascribe all to God. And if he had said, ‘We rely on the Lord that He will keep you,’ without adding ‘upon you,’ and ‘that you both do and will do the things we command,’ he would have made them less active by casting the whole upon the power of God.” (See the passage from Galatians mentioned in the margin.)

Both do and will do.—The emphasis of the sentence is on the future tense; the commendation of the present is intended only to counteract the rebuke that might have been conveyed by the future alone. How careful St. Paul is not to wound susceptibilities, though he never pleases men! (See, for instance, the notes on 1 Thessalonians 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:9–10; 1 Thessalonians 5:11.) This expression of confidence is a fitting rhetorical means of preparing readers for the commands that are to follow.