1 Timothy 6:20

As Ell. points out, this concluding apostrophe, like the last paragraph in 2 Cor. (2 Corinthians 13:11 sqq,), is a summary of the whole epistle.

On the intensity of the appeal in the use of the personal name see on 1 Timothy 1:18.

τὴν παραθήκην : depositum. The term occurs in a similar connexion with φυλάσσω, 2 Timothy 1:14, and also in 2 Timothy 1:12, where see note. Here, and in 2 Timothy 1:14. it means, as Chrys. explains, ἡ πίστις, τὸ κήρυγμα; so Vincent of Lerins, from whose Commonitorium (c. 22) Alf. quotes. “Quid est depositum ? id est. quod tibi creditum est, non quod a te inventum; quod accepisti, non quod excogitasti; rem non ingenii, sed doctrinae; non usurpationis privatae, sed publicae traditionis … catholicae fidei talentum inviolatum illibatumque conserva.… Aurum accepisti, aurum redde: nolo mihi pro aliis alia subjicias: nolo pro auro aut impudenter plumbum, aut fraudulenter aeramenta supponas.” That the “deposit” is practically identical with the “charge,” ch. 1 Timothy 1:5; 1 Timothy 1:18, “the sound doctrine,” 1 Timothy 1:10, “the commandment,” 1 Timothy 6:14, is indicated by the use of the cognate verb παρατίθεμαι in 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 2:2, and the correlative παρέλαβες, Colossians 4:17, and even more by the contrast here between it and “the knowledge falsely so called”.

ἐκτρεπόμενος : turning away from, devitans.

τὰς βεβήλους κενοφωνίας : In 2 Timothy 2:16 the Vulg. has vaniloquia. The rendering vocum novitates found here in Vulg. and O.L. represents the variant καινοφωνίας. The term does not differ much from ματαιολογία, 1 Timothy 1:6, which is also rendered vaniloquium.

ἀντιθέσεις : In face of the general anarthrous character of the Greek of these epistles it is not certain that the absence of an article before ἀντιθ. proves that it is qualified by βεβήλους. The meaning of ἀντιθ. is partly fixed by κενοφωνίας, to which it is in some sort an explanatory appendix; but it must finally depend upon the signification we attach to τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως. The epithet ψευδων. is sufficient to prove that γνῶσις was specially claimed by the heretics whom St. Paul has in his mind. That it should be so is in harmony with the other notices which we find in these epistles suggestive of a puerile and profitless intellectual subtlety, as opposed to the practical moral character of Christianity. We are reminded of the contrast in 1 Corinthians 8:1, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up”. Hort (Judaistic Christianity, p. 139 sqq.) proves that γνῶσις here and elsewhere in N.T. (Luke 11:52; Romans 2:20 sq.) refers to the special lore of those who interpreted mystically the O.T., especially the Law. Knowledge which is merely theoretical, the knowledge of God professed by those who “by their works deny Him” (Titus 1:16), is not real knowledge. The ἀντιθέσεις then of this spurious knowledge would be the dialectical distinctions and niceties of the false teachers. Perhaps inconsistencies is what is meant. For an example of ἀντίθετος in this sense, see Moulton and Milligan, Expositor, vii., 6:275. Something more definite than (a) oppositions, i.e., objections of opponents (so Chrys. Theoph. and von Soden, who compares ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, 2 Timothy 2:25) is implied; but certainly not (b) the formal categorical oppositions between the Law and the Gospel alleged by Marcion.