For most individuals, the idea of forensics is a fascinating field of criminal science that is dominated by genetic whistleblowers and the uncanny witness of footprints, fibers, and fingerprints. Emerging from the crude and superstitious means by which early criminal justice was adjudicated, the foundations of forensic science were established, in part, because of a sincere desire for a proper criminal investigation that would tether evidence to theories and, in the end, lend toward the prosecution of heinous criminals and nefarious crooks. Yet, between the crime scene and the courtroom, much of forensic science will ultimately circle around one particular concept that cannot be physically dissected or placed under a microscope. Indeed, while the investigation of fibers, blood types, and DNA may lend toward the identification of a criminal, motive is much more difficult to investigate. In like fashion, while one may be able to establish the how’s, the when’s, the where’s, and the who’s of false doctrine, the why is often more difficult to establish.
Motive and the New Testament
Like a coroner fixated upon the gruesome sight of deceased life, the New Testament is no stranger to the postmortem examination of the fallen mighty and/or the casualties of the compromised. For Judas Iscariot, it was filthy lucre that would purchase “a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong…burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out” (Acts 1:18, King James Version). Sadly, scripture is weighted by many others who, desiring to be rich, “swerved from the faith” (I Timothy 6:21, English Standard Version) and “pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (I Timothy 6:10, KJV). These postmortem reflections of eternal consequence would even cast a shadow over the missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul when Demas, “having loved this present world” (II Timothy 4:10, KJV), forsook the call and commission of the Gospel for the temporary gain of corruptible and moth-eaten treasures.
The love of money, the love of the world, and the carnivorous carnality of an unrestrained flesh are often the more easily identifiable motives for those who have become snared in the clutches of falsehood and doctrinal drift. However, motive is not so easily established for those such as Hymenaeus and Alexander, who made “shipwreck of their faith” (I Timothy 1:19b, KJV) and were “delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme” (v. 20b). Nor is motive as easily identified for the young widows who “…cast off their first faith” (I Timothy 5:12). What of Hymenaeus and Philetus who “swerved from the truth” (II Timothy 2:18) and whose “irreverent babble (2:16, ESV) of the resurrection having already occurred “spread like gangrene” (2:17a, ESV)?
While the shipwreck of Hymenaeus and Alexander becomes evident as the broken remnants of their faith wash in with the tide, what caused them to “put away” (lit. thrust off) from “faith, and a good conscience” (I Timothy 1:19, KJV)? Could it be that long before the current of doctrinal drift pulls men out into the depths of tumultuous falsehood that the coordinates for such a tragic end have already been set? Oft-times the initiation of these coordinates is marked by feigned ignorance or a refusal for self-examination; two paths from which the catastrophic journey of self-deception can originate. This self-deception, considered to be the Elephant in the Brain (Simler and Hanson, 2018), is what lends toward the hiddenness of ugly motives and, “as long as we continue to tiptoe around it, we’ll be unable to think clearly about human behavior. We’ll be forced to distort or deny any explanation that harks back to our hidden motives. Key facts will remain taboo, and we’ll forever by mystified by our own thoughts and actions (p. 20).
Even today, years removed from Freud’s exaggerated theories of unconscious motive, modern day psychoanalysis is still deeply interested in determining the degree to which a person is aware of his or her motives. In a sense, just as Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud sought to demystify the conscience and its hidden motives, one must engage a hermeneutic of suspicion (Ricoeur & Thompson, 2016) in an attempt to unmask and demystify the motives that all too often serve as the shadowy captain of ships bearing into waters of false doctrine. As such, few writers in the New Testament developed a more robust hermeneutic of suspicion than the Apostle Paul, whose writings were not afraid to unmask motive and probe into the necessary efforts of self-examination.
Pauline Apologia
The Apostle Paul was no stranger to the sparsely-populated margins of those who comprised “the Way” (Acts 24:14). As one that had persecuted those very margins (Acts 9:4), Paul, through his inspired writings, developed a strong apologia in response to the intense persecution and formal trials he and his fellow-laborers faced on almost a daily basis (Acts 22:1; 25:16; Philippians 1:7; 1:17; II Timothy 4:16). In mere moments, Paul the persecuted would become Paul the prosecutor and, with a zealousness that bordered on the radical, he vociferously condemned the subterfuge of metaphoric wolves that would enter among the flock (Acts 20:29; cf. Galatians 1:7-9).
More disturbing than wolves from without is that, “from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:30, ESV). It is evident that this development made its way into Ephesus (Revelation 2:1-2) and, though employing hyperbole, Paul expressed that “all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes (II Timothy 1:15, KJV). While Phygellus and Hermogenes are not mentioned again in the New Testament nor is reason for their apostacy given, Paul does go on record to prosecute their contemporaries, Hymenaeus and Philetus, who engaged in “profane and vain babblings” (II Timothy 2:16, KJV) that overthrew “the faith of some” (vs. 18). Without dissecting the nature of their profane babbling, it is clear that the end result would always be that “they will increase unto more ungodliness” (v. 16).
In light of Paul’s contention with the gangrenous uprisings from within, the most alarming of all his opponents were those who articulated truth but whose motives stood in sharp contrast to the substance of their speech. Set forth in chiastic structure, the Apostle Paul makes mention of those who “(A) preach Christ even of envy and strife; and (B) some also of good will: (A) the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposed to add affliction to my bonds: (B) but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Philippians 1:15-17, KJV). In the A-A’ clauses, Paul is revealing to the audience of his letter that it is possible to preach truth while being driven by impure motives. Osiek (2011) is correct that “the language in verses 15-18 picks up the accusations of persuasive rhetoric: envy and rivalry, selfish ambition, sharply contrasted with those whose motivation is love” (p. 39). As one whose chains were the result of an unyielding apologia of the gospel, the travesty of those that sought to exploit Paul’s imprisonment through what the Apostle Paul would call pretense (Gk. prophasis) is staggering.
Pauline Prophasis
Phrophasis is a word that was used repeatedly in the medical essays of Hippocrates of Kos between 430 and 420 to address the preconditions that were associated with the development of a disease (Lebow, 2003). However, though its medical use is rich with undertones that would align with a Pauline use, the word in context of the Pastoral Epistles lends toward the idea of “pretext, ostensible reason, alleged motive, which turns out to be false, often contrasted with true motives or sincerity” (Reumann, 2008). This agrees with the prestigious lexical work of Arndt, Gingrich, Alsop, and Bauer (1957) who, in the context of Philippians 1:18, define prophasis as “for a pretext, for appearance sake” (πρόφασις, pg. 730).
This presents a morbid reality that is filled with consequential implications. First, not all who speak truth are driven by a proper motive. As such, truth can serve as a means to cover an underlying spirit of vindictiveness, envy, jealousy, or a plethora of other debilitating attitudes. Even Jesus, when condemning the hypocritical nature of the Pharisees, pointed to the pretense of long prayers as their means to gloss over the despicable violations of a divine ethic (Matthew 23:14; cf. Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). In their case, and others, an honorable action was being utilized for appearance sake. Second, this reality plays into the tragic voyage of many that will launch out from among the very elect and make shipwreck of their faith. Due to perceived injustice, correct or incorrect, many men have sought to become the champions of truth when, if pressed into a Pauline paradigm of self-examination (II Corinthians 13:5), would be forced to admit that their motives for such a conquest are solely-established on the shaky foundation of sinful emotions.
Consider how the charge of hypocrisy addresses the pretense of one whose actions or speech are perceived as noble and righteous. Hypocrite (Gk. hupokrités) summons to mind the notion of a pretender; the masquerade of a stage player acting pretentiously. Yet, when the razor-edge of God’s word (Hebrews 4:12) makes careful and exact incisions through the pretense of outward appearance and speech (the thoughts and the intents of the heart), the corruption and decay of “dead men’s bones and of all uncleanliness” is made manifest. Jesus would openly discuss the finding of this spiritual autopsy by declaring that “out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit….” (Mark 7:21,22a). Sadly, because motive is oft-neglected, many who have fallen prey to the enticing winds of falsehood began their journey as self-appointed champions of a noble cause whose tragic end was voiced from the self-inflicted margins of supposed martyrdom.
Conclusion
It becomes imperative that the Ecclesiastical community confront motive long before the root springs into manifest knowledge. Borrowing directly from Deuteronomy 29:18, the writer of Hebrews gave an impassioned plea that one engages in self-inspection “lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled” (Hebrews 12:15, KJV). The Psalmist, recognizing the propensity of a deceitful heart, purposely petitioned “search me, O god, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me…” (Psalm 139:23). “To what purpose,” the Lord demanded, “is the multitude of your sacrifices…. your new moons and your appointed feasts?” (Isaiah 1:11, 14, KJV). “Come,” the Lord continued, “let us reason together…” (Isaiah 1:18a). In other words, bring the case to formal trial and adjudicate the matter. Expose the root and probe the heart for, if the Church does not, many more will find their faith upon the sterile tables of postmortem examination. Indeed, the monstrous development of damnable doctrine is oft-birthed in the fertile soils of a fallacious heart. Motive must be examined.
Reumann, J. H. P. (2008). Philippians : a new translation with introduction and commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lebow, R. N. (2003). The tragic vision of politics : ethics, interests, and orders. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Osiek, C. (2011). Philippians, Philemon. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press
Ricœur, P., & Thompson, J. B. (2016). Hermeneutics and the human sciences : essays on language, action, and interpretation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Simler, K., & Hanson, R. (2018). The elephant in the brain : hidden motives in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Witherington, B. (2011). Paul’s letter to the Philippians : a socio-rhetorical commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.