Additional Notes §16
§16 Final Indictment of the False Teachers (1 Tim. 6:2b–10)
Paul is about to bring the letter to its close. One more time he exhorts Timothy: These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. But before he concludes, the exhortation to teach and urge these things leads Paul to go back over the two dominant concerns one more time: the false teachers and Timothy’s role.
In this section he presents the final exposure and indictment of the false teachers. Much that is said in the first paragraph (vv. 3–5) is reminiscent of the language of chapter 1. But much is new as well. Here the picture is filled out in greater detail. These teachers, who are the reason for everything—Timothy’s presence in Ephesus, this letter, the “falling away” by some in the church—turn out to be conceited, having a sickly craving for arguments. And all of this, it turns out, because the bottom line is greed. They think “godliness” is a means of financial gain—just like the religious hucksters of the Artemis cult (Acts 19:23–41).
The second paragraph (vv. 6–10), therefore, is Paul’s response to their greed and pronounces their sentence of ruin.
6:2b / For the final time in this letter, Paul charges Timothy to teach and urge (or “exhort”) these things. As before (3:14; 4:6, 11; 5:7, 21), these things refer to what has already been said, in this case at least to 5:3–6:2, although given the concluding nature of what follows it may go all the way back to 2:1.
6:3–5 / In contrast to these things that Timothy is to teach, there are those who teach false doctrines (the same word as in 1:3). Verses 3–5 are a single conditional sentence in Greek, of a type known as a simple present particular, meaning that both parts of the sentence express the way things actually are. Such conditional sentences are used when an author is quite certain of his premise. In this case the protasis (the “if” part, v. 3) describes what the false teachers are not doing that they should be doing. The apodosis (the “then” part, vv. 4–5) describes the results.
Most of what is said in verse 3 has been said before. That they teach false doctrines was said in 1:3; the sound instruction is a repetition of the medical metaphor of “sound doctrine” first met in 1:10; the combination of sound instruction and teaching to describe the truth of the gospel occurred in 4:6; and that the teaching must be godly [eusebeia] teaching reflects the “mystery of godliness” in 3:16 and the true godliness that stands in opposition to godless myths in 4:7–10.
What is new in the sentence is the expression the sound (“healthy”) instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ. Some think this refers to what is found in a written Gospel and thus means the words spoken by Christ. But that misses Paul’s emphasis, namely, that the false teachers have abandoned the truth of the gospel, which comes from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who is the ultimate origin of the faith or “godliness” Paul proclaimed. Their abandonment of Christ (i.e., his gospel) is their grave error.
Verses 4–5 describe the results of the false teachers’ having turned away from wholesome teaching. Paul begins by characterizing the false teacher himself in two ways: First, he is conceited and understands nothing (cf. the NEB’s “pompous ignoramus”). This indictment reflects a common motif in Paul, namely, that those who abandon the truth of the gospel think of themselves as wise, or “in the know,” and are thus bloated with self-importance, when actually they understand nothing. (See disc. on 1:7; cf. Titus 1:15–16 and the argument in 1 Cor. 1:18–4:21; 8:1–3; 2 Cor. 10–12; Col. 2.)
Second, he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words. With a nice play on words, Paul describes the opposite of “healthy teaching” as a sickness, a “morbid craving” (BAGD) for controversy. We have already noted that their teachings lead to “meaningless talk” (see disc. on 1:4, 6); we were forewarned by what was said in 2:8 that such “discussions” engendered strife. Now all of this is spelled out clearly (cf. 2 Tim. 2:23–25; Titus 3:9). What at first are merely “idle speculations” (1:4) eventually lead to quarrels about words (a compound word in Gk. from logoi, “words,” and machē, “a fight,” meaning “word battles”).
This conceit and sickly craving to engage in controversy and carry on word battles in turn have two devastating effects. First, they lead to a disrupted and unhealthy community. When teachers abandon the gospel and argue and quarrel, this brings on envy or jealousy—people take sides—which is one of the deadly sins (see Gal. 5:21; Rom. 1:29). Envy usually breaks out in strife (or “quarreling”). This, too, is on the lists in Galatians 5:20 and Romans 1:29. The two words appear together characterizing Paul’s opponents in Philippians 1:15 (cf. 1 Cor. 3:3). Strife (cf. Titus 3:9) in turn brings on malicious talk (cf. Titus 3:2) and evil suspicions. How self-centered is the teaching of error—and how destructive! And how often it is done in the name of “knowledge” and wisdom (cf. 1:7; 6:20–21)! Finally, these result in constant friction. This word occurs only here in the NT and means either constant friction (also Moffatt) or “mutual irritation” (Goodspeed) between people.
The second result of their “sickness” is what it has done to the false teachers themselves. They have become men of corrupt mind; this carries the sickness metaphor to its final conclusion: decay and corruption of the mind. That such corrupted minds have been robbed of the truth repeats a common theme. Believers have come to know the truth (2:4; 4:3; 2 Tim. 2:25); these men have been robbed of it (cf. 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:7, 8; 4:4).
Their corrupted minds, no longer having the truth, are finally evidenced in their thinking that godliness (eusebeia; cf. 3:16; 4:7–8) is a means to financial gain (or “profit”). This final indictment, hinted at in 3:3, 8, seems to unmask what they have been up to all along. These men were teaching because for them it was a means of “turning a dollar.” Although we are not told precisely what this meant for them, teaching philosophy as a “cloak for greed” (1 Thess. 2:5, RSV) was a common accusation in antiquity (see, e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Oration 32) and one that Paul had to defend himself against on at least one occasion (1 Thess. 2:4–9; cf. Gal. 1:10). Probably these false teachers have picked up some clues from the culture and are teaching to curry people’s favor—and eventually their money. It should be noted finally how many things said in these verses have their counterpoints in the qualifications for church leaders in 3:2–12.
This matter of the false teachers’ greed is such a crucial one that Paul now turns to give it some special attention (vv. 6–10). He responds to their thinking of eusebeia as a way of turning a profit in two ways: in verses 6–8, by showing the relationship between true godliness and money—the latter is irrelevant to the former—and in verses 9–10, by showing the true end of those who desire money.
6:6 / This verse stands in immediate contrast to the last words in verse 5, with a striking play on terms. They think godliness “is a way to become rich.” They are partly right. There is great gain (or profit, now used metaphorically) in eusebeia, provided it is accompanied by contentment, that is, if one is satisfied with what one has and does not seek material gain.
The word autarkeia (contentment) expresses the favorite virtue of Stoic and Cynic philosophers, for whom it meant “self-sufficiency,” or the ability to rely on one’s own inner resources. There are some (D-C, Hanson, Brox, et al.) who see that philosophical tradition as lying behind all of verses 6–8, and they translate “if it is coupled with self-sufficiency” (D-C; cf. NEB, “whose resources are within him”). But Paul has already used this word in an analogous context in Philippians 4:11; there he “turned the tables” on the Stoics by declaring that genuine autarkeia is not self-sufficiency but Christ-sufficiency. For Paul, therefore, the word means contentment, the empowering Christ gives to live above both want and plenty (Phil. 4:13). Moreover, there is no hint in 1 Timothy that its author considered anything like self-sufficiency to be a virtue. Life for him is all of grace and dependent on God’s mercies (1:12–17), and his ministry comes from Christ who appointed and empowered him for it (1:12).
Paul’s point, of course, is to combat the greed of the false teachers and, incidentally, of any others who might be tempted to lean in that direction.
6:7–8 / Paul now gives two reasons why contentment should accompany godliness and why, when it does, one has “great profit.” The first reason (v. 7) is primarily eschatological: We can take nothing with us at death (or the Parousia), so material gain is irrelevant—and greed is irrational. The Greek text is indicative—and particularly awkward (see note)—in form, but the NIV captures the sense. We brought nothing material into the world at birth; and we can take nothing out of it at death. This sentiment can also be found among the Stoics, but it is precisely the point of view of Job 1:21: “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return” (RSV; cf. Eccles. 5:15; Philo, On the Special Laws 1.294–95, where he expresses himself in terms very close to Paul’s and then supports it by alluding to Job 1:21). Paul’s emphasis is on the second clause, we can take nothing out of the world; in light of this eschatological reality, greed makes no sense at all.
But, Paul adds as a second reason, if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that (the verb of the same noun as in v. 6). Again, it is argued that this “reflects the spirit of Stoicism” (D-C, p. 85), which indeed it does. But it also reflects more precisely the teaching of Jesus (Luke 12:22–32; Matt. 6:25–34), which in both Gospels is independently placed in a context condemning greed (Luke 12:16–21; Matt. 6:24). Thus, the contacts with Stoicism are incidental; what seems to have happened in verses 7–8, on the contrary, is very similar to what Paul did in 5:18: He gives an allusion to an OT text (v. 7) followed by an allusion to the teaching of Jesus (v. 8).
The point is clear enough. Godliness is not something to make material gain in or from (v. 5); rather, it is itself the greatest gain (v. 6). True godliness, however, is accompanied by contentment (v. 6). Since we can take nothing with us at death (v. 7), if we have life’s essentials, we can be content with these (v. 8); and such an attitude obviously excludes greed.
6:9–10 / Now, by way of contrast with verses 6–8, Paul returns to the false teachers and their avarice. What is said in verse 9, of course, reaches out more broadly and is true of all who want to get rich. The letter after all is written so that God’s household will behave in accordance with the truth and true godliness (3:15). Thus he generalizes at first by describing the results of greed that would apply to all. But verse 10 makes it clear that some have already capitulated, which ties the whole paragraph to verse 5. Thus verses 9–10 are Paul’s final sad commentary—and judgment—on the false teachers. They want to get rich.
The results of greed are a downward spiral. First, the greedy fall into temptation. Avarice has a way of causing people to look in directions they may never have looked in otherwise. And as the hunter well knows, the enticement (temptation) leads to the prey’s getting caught in a trap. The two go together. The trap in this case is many foolish and harmful desires. The word desires often has sexual connotations, but there is no reason to think so here. The many foolish desires are probably for wealth itself, which are foolish because wealth has nothing to do with true godliness and harmful because they ultimately plunge the greedy into ruin and destruction.
Paul’s point is that the very desire for wealth has inherent spiritual dangers, partly because (vv. 6–8) wealth itself is unrelated to godliness in any way and partly because (v. 9) the desire is like a trap set by Satan himself to plunge one into spiritual ruin. To put that in a different way: Why would anyone want to get rich? Wealth has nothing to do with one’s eschatological existence in Christ; on the contrary, the desire leads to other desires that end up in ruin, of which truth the false teachers themselves are Exhibit A (v. 10).
In verse 10, a much-abused text, Paul concludes his indictment of the false teachers in two ways. First, he cites, or alludes to, a well-known proverb that supports his contention in verse 9 about the evil effects of the desire for wealth. Second, he brings all of this into focus on the false teachers, who vividly illustrate the truth of what was said in verse 9.
For, Paul says, now as supporting evidence, in this case the common proverb is quite right: The love of money is a [better, “the”] root of all kinds of evil. This text neither says, as it is often misquoted, that money is the root of all evil nor intends to say that every known evil has avarice as its root. A proverb very much like this (“The love of money is the mother-city of all evil”) is widely attested in Greek antiquity. It is the nature of proverbs to be brief, particular expressions of a truth, often imprecise, and for effect, often overstated. Thus, Paul’s point is not theological precision on the relationship of greed to all other sins. Both Jews and Greeks had long before come to realize the disastrous effects that avarice had on people’s lives, and they expressed it in proverbs. Paul is simply citing a proverb as support for his contention that greed is a trap full of many hurtful desires that lead to all kinds of sin.
The living proof of all this is found in the wayward elders in the church of Ephesus. Some people eager for money have wandered from the faith. They have “sold out” the gospel for different doctrines and in so doing have pierced (lit., “impaled”) themselves with many griefs.
Thus their final indictment is a tragic one, and for Paul a painful one. Here were good men, who had emerged as leaders in the church of Ephesus. But they had allowed themselves to be ensnared by Satan. Who knows how or why, they became enamored of new ideas, fell in love with speculative interpretations, or made themselves look good by appealing to an ascetic ideal, an elitist Christianity. But underneath they had come to love money, and it did them in. They went astray from the faith and pierced themselves through, as with a sword, with many griefs.
6:2b / NIV makes this exhortation conclude vv. 1–2. Far more likely, as in 4:11, it is intended to start a new paragraph by referring to what has preceded.
6:3–5 / A textual addition that seems to have developed in the Latin church, but eventually came to predominate, concludes v. 5 with a personal note to Timothy: “Keep away from such people.” But not only does this imperative interrupt the argument, the Greek is not the language of the PE (paraitou, not aphistaso, is used elsewhere to express this idea: 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:23; Titus 3:10). See also Metzger, TCGNT, p. 643.
6:6 / NIV sees the de in this sentence as an adversative. But that misses the irony of the sentence.
D-C make the remarkable statement about this paragraph that there is an “absence of a strict connection between the sayings, which are simply placed in a series” (p. 84). On the contrary, the whole paragraph is a clear argument and is specifically relevant to the situation in Ephesus (cf. Kelly, p. 138).
For autarkeia as a Stoic-Cynic virtue, D-C cite Stobaeus, Ecl. 3, “Self-sufficiency is nature’s wealth,” and Epictetus, “The art of living well is contingent upon self-control and self-sufficiency, orderliness, propriety, and thrift.”
6:7–8 / The awkwardness of v. 7 is due to a hoti (“because” or “that”) that introduces the second clause. Various attempts have been made to make sense of it including: a textual variation that would read, “it is certain that” (RSV margin); an attempt to make the second clause causal in some way (thus Barrett: “There is no sense in bringing anything into the world with us, because we shall not be able to take anything out”); and ignoring it altogether, or seeing it as resumptive and thus not translating it (e.g., Bernard, NIV). For the textual variation, see Metzger, TCGNT, p. 643.
For the sentiment of this verse found elsewhere, see in Judaism, Eccles. 5:15; Wisd. of Sol. 7:6; and Philo; and in Greco-Roman thought, Seneca, Epistle 102.25.
The two words translated food and clothing are not found elsewhere in the NT, but neither are they the words used by the Greek philosophers in such contexts (cf. Diogenes Laertius 6.106; 10.131). The second word literally means “covering” and could refer to shelter, but “clothing” seems much more likely in this context.
It is perhaps noteworthy that D-C should be so enamored of the affinities of this verse with Greek philosophy that they should fail altogether to mention the much closer affinities with Jesus himself.
6:9–10 / Although it is possible to translate the Greek rhiza as a root, both the emphatic word order and the so-called Colwell’s rule (that a definite predicate noun that precedes its verb is usually without the article, as in John 1:1) suggest the intent is the root, as in all the other expressions of the proverb.
For the proverb itself, see Stobaeus, Ecl. 3; Diogenes Laertius 6:50; Ps.-Phocylides 42; Polycarp, Philippians 4:1; cf. Test. Jud. 19:1; Diodorus Saeculus 21.1; Philo, On the Special Laws 4.65; Apollodorus Comicus, Philadelph. fragmenta 4.
For the use and meaning of biblical proverbs, see Douglas Stuart, in G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, pp. 195–98.