Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. (1 Tim 1:4)
Commenting on this verse, I. Howard Marshall wrote:
4. ἐκζητήσεις ζητήσεις (D F G Ψ 0285vid 1739 1881 TR Iren), ‘debates, disputes’, is preferred by Elliott, 18, on the grounds that the word forms part of the author’s vocabulary (6:4; 2 Tim 2:23; Tit 3:9; verb, 2 Tim 1:17) and has the appropriate meaning for the context, whereas ἐκζητήσεις should mean ‘researches’. However, (a) Elliott admits that scribes frequently reduced compound to simple forms; (b) the author likes unusual words and new forms; (c) the word is previously unattested and the meaning could well involve an element of disputation; speculation forms a good contrast to οἰκονομία. In any case, futile disputes are in mind. Cf. Metzger, 571.
οἰκονομίαν οἰκοδομίαν (Dc 625); οἰκοδομήν (D* syP hl goth Iren Epiph. cf. aedificationem g m vg). The difficulty of the term led to scribal emendations (Metzger, 571). However, Elliott, 19, argues that οἰκοδομήν is original and was objected to by Atticists. But although the word is frequent in Paul, it is not found in the PE, and the attached gen. θεοῦ is rather awkward. WH Notes, 132, hold that it arose by a conjectural adaptation of οἰκονομίαν to aedificationem. Lock, xxxvi, cites Tit 1:7 to show that PE use this idea . . . 4a. μηδὲ προσέχειν μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις Behind the unacceptable teaching lies a specific interest which comes to expression in it and is leading to barren speculation and argument in the church instead of to spiritual and moral growth.
The false teachers have become preoccupied (προσέχω, Tit 1:14** note) with a speculative approach to the Old Testament, seeing it as a source of μύθοι καὶ γενεαλογίαι. μύθος is the same language as is used in Titus (1:14; 3:9 see notes), though it is probably not necessary to argue that precisely the same false teaching is in view in each case. The connection in this passage with ‘Jewish’ ideas in νομοδιδάσκαλοι and the discussion of the law (vv. 7–10) suggests the OT source of the ‘myths’. The plural ‘myths’ itself is pejorative, indicating the fallacious nature of the teaching (more so than referring to any specific content—on which see below) and perhaps also making a statement about the behaviour associated with the teaching. The significance of the term here depends on the pairing with γενεαλογία.
γενεαλογία (Tit 3:9*** note) refers to the content of the teaching and takes the discussion into the realm of Jewish use of the OT accounts of the biblical characters (as Philo used the term) or speculation based on OT family trees. The futility of this line of exegesis begins to emerge in the description ἀπέραντος***. ‘Endless’ may be meant literally but can have the sense of ‘leading nowhere’, hence ‘unintelligible’ and ‘useless’, or ‘exhausting, wearisome’ (Fee, 42; they could ‘be spun out for ever’, Scott, 8). From Tit 1:14; 3:9 and from vv. 7–10 below it is most likely that use of Jewish genealogies, or OT material that could be so categorised, is in mind here.
Thus ‘myths and genealogies’ describe (a) an untruthful teaching with an ethical dimension; it was probably aimed at authenticating questionable practices by (b) rooting them in the OT history (in much the same way as attempts by certain philosophers to ground their teaching in stories about the gods; see Tit 1:14 note); the latter term probably identifies the kinds of OT material exploited. The close link with the law, noted by Schlarb 1990:83–93, is significant. We are dealing with a form of Jewish teaching which was particularly concerned with the interpretation of the Pentateuch in ways that Pauline Christians found unacceptable.
Hence several interpretations are to be ruled out. There is no evidence to suggest either that the false teachers speculated on their own genealogies which would give them standing in Judaism (Schlatter, 34f.), or that the reference might be to Gnostic systems of aeons standing in genealogical relationship to one another, despite the fact that Irenaeus (AH praef. 1) applied this verse to Gnostics (see Tit 1:14; 3:9 and notes).
4b. αἵτινες ἐκζητήσεις παρέχουσιν μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει This clause completes the thought begun in v. 3 by supplying the reason that the false speculation is to be discouraged, namely, because its results undermine or interfere with responsible execution of the ministry given by God.
Preoccupation with the ‘myths and genealogies’ promotes (παρέχω, 6:17; Tit 2:7**) ‘useless speculations’ (ἐκζήτησις***). This term is a part of the author’s polemical arsenal designed to discredit the opposition.17 In polemical fashion, the author contrasts this result with the result of genuine Christian teaching. Christian teaching should promote (the same verb is in mind) οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ.
οἰκονομία** generally refers to the task or office of an οἰκονόμος (Lk 16:2–4) and is applied metaphorically to the work of Paul as an apostle (1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:2; Col 1:25). It can also mean a plan or arrangement made by somebody. The context in Eph 1:10; 3:9 would suggest that God’s salvation plan is in mind; but in other contexts the usage may be more general (cf. Ignatius, Eph. 18:2; 20:1; Diognetus 4:5). The meaning here is uncertain:
(a) ‘Training’ in (or which leads to) salvation. This meaning is found in later writings.21
(b) God’s ‘plan’ of salvation. However, οἰκονομία in this sense does not provide a very logical counterpart to ἐκζήτησις (useless speculation) with which it is contrasted (Roloff, 65).
(c) It is thus best to understand the term against the background of the οἶκος-οἰκονόμος-οἰκονομία concept which the PE employ to depict the church (οἶκος θεοῦ, 3:15; 2 Tim 2:20–21) and the stewardship of ministry (οἰκονόμος θεοῦ, Tit 1:7 [note]; 1 Tim 3:4–5). On this analogy οἰκονομία θεοῦ denotes ‘the responsibility’, and hence ‘authority’, laid on the leaders of his people by God; it is in effect the performance of the duties of an οἰκονόμος. Knight, 75f., suggests that this view and the preceding one may be combined to give ‘the outworking, administration or stewardship of God’s plan of salvation through the gospel and its communication’.
The false teachers do not in fact carry out, or by teaching false doctrine fail to carry out, the kind of responsibility given to stewards in God’s household. Their influence is disruptive and they constitute a liability to the welfare of the οἶκος θεοῦ (see esp. Lips 1979:145–7; Verner 1983). This corresponds well with the issues of what constitutes legitimate teachers and teaching addressed in this passage and throughout 1 Timothy (cf. Tit 1:7).
The emphatic phrase which closes the sentence, τὴν ἐν πίστει, creates still more distance between the activities of the false teachers and authentic Christian ministry. The point is that such administration of the church is ἐν πίστει. The phrase has the appearance of being rather formal (cf. 2 Tim 1:13), but the force is by no means formal (pace Brox, 103): such administration takes place only through the faithfulness which genuine faith in Christ produces in the leader (i.e. a good steward; cf. Tit 1:7 (I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [London: T&T Clark International, 1999], 362, 365-68