Additional Notes §17
§17 Final Exhortation to Timothy (1 Tim. 6:11–16)
The preceding paragraph, with its final indictment of the false teachers, was the third such exposure of these teachers in 1 Timothy (cf. 1:3–7, 18–20 and 4:1–5). In the two preceding instances, the direct word against the false teachers was accompanied by a corresponding personal word to Timothy to resist them and to be their antithesis in the church in Ephesus (cf. 1:3, 18–19; 4:6–16). In each case that charge included an appeal to Timothy’s spiritual beginnings (1:18; 4:14). That pattern is what we meet again in this paragraph. Even though Paul has yet a further word on riches, to the already wealthy (vv. 17–19), the final exposure and indictment of the false teachers calls forth an immediate final exhortation to Timothy.
Even though it is not altogether clear as to what events either in Timothy’s past (vv. 12 and 14) or in Christ’s life (v. 13) form the basis of the appeal, the argument of the paragraph itself is easy enough to discern. Paul begins with a series of four imperatives (vv. 11–12), exhorting Timothy both to avoid the sins of the errorists and to carry on the present struggle of the faith until the final triumph, and to do so by keeping his own calling and confession before him. This leads to a solemn charge (vv. 13–14), which in turn leads to a final doxology (vv. 15–16) full of rare descriptions (for the NT) of God’s eternal majesty. The whole of the appeal is placed against the backdrop of Christian eschatological certainties.
But what is Paul calling him to? Is the concern for his ministry per se, or is it for his personal commitment to Christ that would also include his ministry? The answer to this question is most likely to be found in 2 Timothy 4:6–8, where in similar language Paul reflects on his own spiritual history and is there almost certainly referring to his ministry—although for Paul that also includes his whole life in Christ.
6:11–12 / The exhortation of these verses stands in emphatic contrast to the “sickness” and greed of the false teachers: But you, man of God, flee from all this. The all supplied by NIV is not in the Greek text; it is an attempt (correctly) to help the reader to see that what Timothy is to flee from includes more than just the greed of verses 6–10. It also includes the “different doctrines” (v. 3, and therefore also 1:4 and 4:3, 7), as well as the divisiveness and destructiveness of their controversies (vv. 4–5).
The vocative, man of God, although somewhat unusual (cf. 1:18; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:1), is used again as an appellation for Timothy as minister of the Word of God in 2 Timothy 3:17. The background for the term is the OT, where in each case it refers to one of God’s servants or agents: Moses (Deut. 33:1; Josh. 14:6), David (Neh. 12:24), or one of the prophets (1 Sam. 9:6; 1 Kings 17:18; 2 Kings 4:7). It is probably called forth here as a sharp contrast to the false teachers, who, by having abandoned Christ, have also ceased to be servants of the Word of God.
Rather (there is a de, translated “and” in the NIV), Timothy is to pursue virtues and behavior that are the opposite of the false teacher and that reflect the gospel. Righteousness, in the sense of “uprightness” in conduct (cf. Phil. 1:11), and godliness (eusebeia; cf. 3:16; 4:7–8; 6:5–6), having to do with one’s relationship toward God, reflect the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the faith, with emphasis on observable conduct. Faith and love are the supreme Christian virtues and together appear on every such list in the PE (1 Tim. 1:5; 2:15; 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; Titus 2:2). The final two, endurance and gentleness, are especially Pauline understandings of Christian attitudes (see, e.g., Gal. 5:23; Col. 3:12. Eph 4:2)—and are clearly appropriate to the appeal of this paragraph, that Timothy continue in the noble contest until the end.
From the contrasts of fleeing the pursuits of the false teachers and pursuing those graces that reflect the gospel, Paul flows naturally into a second set of imperatives, calling for perseverance. The first, fight the good fight of the faith, although translated by the NIV exactly as the warfare metaphor in 1:19, is in fact an athletic metaphor from the Games (cf. 2 Tim. 4:7). The metaphor could imply running (suggested by the collocation with “finishing the course” in 2 Tim. 4:7) or boxing/wrestling (cf. the usage in 1 Cor. 9:25–27) or simply, more generally, any of the contests (thus Montgomery, “keep contending in the noble contest of the faith”). The word faith has the article, the faith, but it is not clear whether Paul means for him to contend for the gospel itself (thus referring back to vv. 3–10) or whether it includes that but now, also, in light of verse 11, refers in a broader way to the whole of his Christian life as a great contest requiring discipline and purpose. Probably Paul’s concern is to address Timothy both regarding his own personal life and his faithfulness in ministry, but that depends in part on how one interprets the rest of the paragraph. In any case, the present tense of the verb implies a persevering in the struggle.
The second imperative, take hold of the eternal life to which you were called, extends the metaphor to focus on the prize. Both the language (eternal life, cf. disc. on 1:16) and the nature of the metaphor, as well as the parallel in 2 Timothy 4:7–8, imply that the main thrust of the imperative is eschatological; that is, Timothy is to continue in the contest until it consummates in triumphant conclusion. But as usual in such texts, there is an inherent tension between the “already” and the “not-yet” of the believer’s eschatological existence. The imperative, take hold of, implies a present action as well. Eternal life is that life to which he was called, and which is therefore already in his grasp (cf. 4:8).
The idea that Timothy was called to life is a thoroughly Pauline idea (cf. 1 Cor. 1:9; 7:17–24; 2 Thess. 2:14). God’s is the prior action, but there must also be response. In this case Paul reminds him of when you made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses. Some argue that this refers, as with 1:18 and 4:14, to Timothy’s call to ministry and his own “ordination vows.” But the call here is not to vocation per se, but to Christian life as vocation. It is far more likely, therefore, that the event Paul refers to is that of Timothy’s becoming a believer, very possibly to his baptism, by which event, or in conjunction with it, he made his good confession in the presence of many witnesses.
Thus the imperatives exhort Timothy to persevere both in his life in Christ and his ministry (the present) and thereby to secure the awaited prize (the future), by being reminded of his beginnings—God’s call and his own response (the past).
6:13–14 / The imperatives in verses 11–12, which are very personal words to Timothy but given in the context of the false teachers, are now summed up in the form of a solemn charge (cf. 5:21). As one who stands in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus, Timothy is charged (cf. 1:3, 5, 18) to keep this command.
The God before whom Timothy is given this charge is described as the one who gives life to everything. Actually this verb (zōogoneō), which may mean “to endue with life,” means in both the LXX and NT (Luke 17:33; Acts 7:19) “to preserve or maintain life.” Given the context as a call for steadfastness, this nuance seems the more likely here. Similarly, the appeal to Christ Jesus as the one who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession is almost certainly to be understood as an encouragement to steadfastness on Timothy’s part. But it is not at all certain what Paul specifically intended. NIV has correctly recognized the parallels with Timothy’s confession in verse 12. But the verb and preposition are different here. Literally, it reads, “who bore witness to the noble confession before [or, “in the days of”] Pontius Pilate.” If it means before Pilate, then it could refer to either a confession he actually made or his having borne a good witness during trial. If it means “in the days of” Pilate, then it could refer to either the witness of his entire life and ministry or, more specifically, to his death. Good reasons can be given for all of these, although the appeal to Christ’s death—which was for Timothy—as His own witness and noble confession is particularly appealing.
As Timothy is called upon to stand before the life-preserving God and the Christ who made the greatest “confession” of all, Paul now charges him to keep this command without spot or blame. Most of the difficulties in understanding the paragraph stem from this charge, which is at once quite ambiguous, yet the point of everything.
The command he is charged to keep has been variously understood as (1) the exhortations in verses 11–12, collectively understood; (2) an alleged baptismal charge to which allusion is made in verse 12; (3) an ordination charge; (4) the whole Christian faith thought of as a kind of new law; or (5) a commandment to Timothy to persevere in his own faith and ministry, as in 4:16, so as to save himself and others. This last seems to move in the right direction in light of the context itself and the similar expressions in 6:20 (to guard what has been entrusted to him) and 2 Timothy 4:7 (“I have kept the faith”). Thus it really summarizes the basic thrust of the letter, that Timothy will best stem the tide of the false teachers as he himself is steadfast in his faith and calling.
That the emphasis is still on his perseverance is made plain by the eschatological addition, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word appearing (epiphaneia), which is used of Christ’s incarnation in 2 Timothy 1:10 (cf. Titus 2:11), is the word used consistently in these letters to refer to the Second Advent (2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13). Paul’s more common term is parousia; however, both words occur together as early as 2 Thessalonians 2:8. Although it is not certain, this usage may be another reflection of the Hellenistic religious terminology that occurs frequently in these letters.
It is often suggested that this last phrase implies that Paul (or a later author) is writing at a time when the imminence of the Parousia is no longer alive. But that is to read far too much into one phrase (read, of course, in light of 2 Tim. 2:6–8). It also misses the eschatological urgency of these letters (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1), as well as the ambiguity elsewhere in Paul. As early as 1 Corinthians, the very letter that has so much of the urgency in it (7:29–31), Paul speaks of “awaiting the revelation” (1:7; cf. 11:26) and in Philippians one finds the same tension between his readiness to die (1:21–23) and “awaiting the Lord Jesus from heaven” (3:20–21). If the present text implies anything, it is that Timothy will experience the Parousia, and that scarcely reflects the perspective of a church settling in for a long life in the world.
6:15–16 / What is of greater moment about this mention of the Second Advent is Paul’s insistence in verse 15 about both its certainty (which God will bring about) and its resting in God’s sovereign control (in his own time). This last phrase occurred in 2:6, and will recur in Titus 1:3, to express the coming of Christ and the gospel as in God’s own time. What was true of his first appearing will likewise be true of the second.
This emphasis on the Second Advent as belonging to God’s sovereignty then triggers a series of epithets about God that are at once striking and majestic. Each of the terms has OT and Hellenistic Jewish counterparts; taken together they sound a note for the transcendent majesty of the Eternal God matched in the NT only by the splendid imagery of Revelation 4. Kelly is probably right in calling this “a gem from the devotional treasury of the Hellenistic synagogue which converts had naturalized in the Christian Church” (p. 146).
The God who will bring about Christ’s appearing in his own time is:
The blessed and only Ruler: The word Ruler (dynastēs), used of God only here in the NT, is common in Hellenistic Judaism (e.g., Ecclus. 46:5; 2 Macc. 12:15) and emphasizes God’s sovereignty. Paul has used the language blessed of God in 1:11 and only in 1:17 (cf. 2:5). The latter, of course, is primary in Judaism (Deut. 6:4), whereas blessed had become the currency of the period (cf. Philo, On Abraham 202; On the Special Laws 1.209; 2.53; Jos., Against Apion 2.190; Antiquities 10.278).
The King of kings and Lord of lords: These terms have separate histories in the OT. King of kings was first used of the Babylonian and Persian emperors (Ezek. 26:7; Dan. 2:37; Ezra 7:12) but by the time of 2 Maccabees 13:4 is applied to God. Lord of lords was used in conjunction with “God of gods” to express God’s absolute sovereignty over all other “deities” (Deut. 10:17; Ps. 136:2–3). The two terms had already been joined in Judaism in 1 Enoch 9:4; they are joined again as designations of Christ in Revelation 17:14 and 19:16. Here they emphasize God’s total sovereignty over all powers, human and divine.
He alone is immortal. See the discussion on 1:17, where a different word is used. (This word occurs with blessed in Philo, On the Unchangeableness of God 26, evidencing its use in Hellenistic Judaism.)
He lives in unapproachable light. The description reflects Psalm 104:2. It arose in Judaism in conjunction with the concept of his blinding glory, which no human eye can see (cf. Exod. 24:15–17; 34:29–35; 1 Kings 8:11). The motif of God as pure light is played on from several angles in the Johannine literature (John 1:7–9; 3:19–21; 1 John 1:5–7).
Him no one has seen or can see (cf. “invisible” in 1:17). These clauses reinforce his dwelling in unapproachable light and reflect a common OT theme (Exod. 33:20; cf. 19:21). The emphasis in these last two items is not the Greek one, that God is unknowable, but the Jewish one, that God is so infinitely holy that sinful humanity can never see him and live (cf. Isa. 6:1–5).
To him be honor and might forever! (On the Amen, see disc. on 1:17.) This final ascription turns the whole thing into a doxology. But instead of “honor and glory” as in 1:17 (and elsewhere), Paul says honor and might forever, thus picking up the theme of God’s absolute sovereignty begun in verse 15. For this combination, see Revelation 5:13 (cf. “glory” and might forever in 1 Pet. 4:11; Rev. 1:6).
But why, one wonders, this doxology with these glorious ascriptions right here? It begins in a context emphasizing the certainty of the Second Advent to be brought about by the Mighty God. Is this to reinforce courage in Timothy to persevere in the difficult situation in Ephesus? Perhaps. But it is probably for the sake of the church as well. Ephesus was not only the haven of Artemis, but an early center of emperor worship as well. This doxology, therefore, is Paul’s parting shot that the God with whom the church has to do in the gospel of Christ is none other than the supreme Ruler of the universe, the Lord over all other lords.
6:11–12 / D-C use a rather circuitous route to argue that the vocative man of God “refers to any Christian … who has been endowed with the spirit of God, and who henceforth ‘serves’ God.” It would in this sense also be applicable to Timothy, “the prototype of a ‘man of God’ since he is the leader of the congregation” (p. 88). But again this seems to miss the genuinely ad hoc character of this Epistle.
It is common to argue (e.g., Gealy, Hanson) that Paul could never say, “strive for righteousness or faith,” since in Paul those are “God’s gifts, not man’s achievements” (Gealy, p. 452). But such an argument confines Paul’s own usage of these terms too narrowly. Righteousness as “right-standing” and faith as “trusting response” are indeed God-given; but both terms also become Christian virtues, which, like love, are both gifts (Gal. 5:22) and something pursued (1 Cor. 14:1).
For a presentation of the argument that the athletic metaphor in v. 12 applied to both Timothy’s life and his ministry, see V. C. Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif (see note on 4:7–8), pp. 177–81. The view that vv. 12–14 reflect a baptismal confession and charge may be found in the commentaries by Kelly and Spicq, among others. For a defense of “ordination vows,” see the commentaries by D-C, Barrett, Hanson, and esp. the article by E. Käsemann, “Das Formular einer neutestamentlichen Ordinationspäaranese,” in W. Eltester, ed., Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (Berlin, 1957), pp. 261–68. The argument for a confession before a tribunal was presented by J. Thurén, “Die Struktur der Schlusspäranese 1 Tim. 6, 3–21,” ThZ 26 (1970), pp. 241–53.
6:13–14 / The word epiphaneia (appearing) had a considerable history in Hellenism as a technical term for “a visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or by some deed of power by which its presence is made known” (BAGD). It thus became a common term in Hellenistic Judaism for “manifestations” of the power of God (see, e.g., 2 Macc. 2:21; 3:24; 3 Macc. 5:8; Letter of Aristeas 264; Jos., Antiquities 2.339; 3.310). For an argument for a more strictly Jewish background for this term, see M. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch, AB 27 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), pp. 246–52.
6:15–16 / Hanson (pp. 112–13) minimizes Spicq’s attempt to argue for this doxology as a Pauline composition. But there are no good historical reasons for denying the possibility that Paul has borrowed heavily from the Hellenistic synagogue, where he himself spent so much time.