Additional Notes §2
§2 The Charge: Stop the False Teachers (1 Tim. 1:3–11)
Paul begins the letter proper in a way that is uncharacteristic of him—without the standard thanksgiving. Of his earlier letters, only Galatians (significantly enough) lacks the thanksgiving. The absence of one here supports the observation already made that 1 Timothy is really for the sake of the church as much as, or more than, for Timothy himself; what is taking place in the church gives no cause for thanksgiving.
Instead Paul launches immediately into the occasion and purpose of the letter. Indeed, all the crucial matters that make up the framework and content of 1 Timothy are set out in the opening paragraph (vv. 3–7). The church has been greatly endangered by some elders (probably), who think of themselves as teachers of the law (v. 7), but who in fact teach false doctrines (v. 3). Timothy has been left in Ephesus to stem the tide. He is not the “pastor”; rather, he has been left to act on Paul’s behalf while Paul is away. This letter will authorize Timothy—before the church—to oppose those deceivers and their followers. Thus the stage is set: The whole letter is a response to the presence of the false teachers.
1:3 / The opening sentence gives the occasion of the letter, plus all the significant “actors”—Paul, Timothy, the church (implied in the in Ephesus), and the false teachers.
Although it is not certain whether Paul had recently been in Ephesus, that seems to be implied by his urging Timothy to stay there, while he himself went into Macedonia. Later we learn (3:14) that he had hoped to go to Ephesus soon; however, in case of delay (which indeed happened, given the evidence of 2 Timothy), Paul wanted his younger colleague to “have in writing” the reason for his being there.
The beginnings of the church in Ephesus are somewhat shrouded in mystery (Acts 18:19–21; 18:24–20:1), although it is clear from the account in Acts, corroborated by passing references in 1 Corinthians 16:8–9, 19, and 2 Corinthians 1:8–9, that it was a Pauline church (perhaps composed of many house-churches; see 1 Cor. 16:19). Ephesus itself was both the provincial capital and the religious center of the province of Asia. Because of the silting of its harbor, it was in Paul’s time in commercial decline; this was still offset, however, by its past importance and the presence of its Temple of Artemis (Diana), one of the Seven Wonders of the World and a tourist attraction that obviously netted no small gain to enterprising hawkers of religious souvenirs (Acts 19:23–41). The cult of Artemis reflected religious mixture (syncretism) but basically was an Oriental fertility rite, with sensuous and orgiastic practices. The Ephesian church was very important in Paul’s missionary strategy; hence his concern to root out the error in this key center.
There is no hint in either letter to Timothy that the certain men who were teaching false doctrines were outsiders, as was the case in Galatia (Gal. 2:4) and Corinth (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:4, 12–15). Moreover, Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian elders, as recorded in Acts 20:17–35, clearly predicts that the “savage wolves” who “will not spare the flock” will be some men “from your own number” (vv. 29–30). That the false teachers were therefore probably elders is supported by several items from 1 Timothy: their presuming to be “teachers of the law” (v. 7), a responsibility of the elders (5:17; cf. 3:2); the fact that two are named and excommunicated by Paul (1:19–20), not by the church as in 2 Thessalonians 3:14 and 1 Corinthians 5:1–5; and the repeated concern about elders in this letter, both as to their qualifications—with no mention of duties—in 3:1–7 and their discipline and apparent replacement in 5:19–25.
The word translated teach false doctrines, apparently coined here and found subsequently only in Christian writings, literally means “to teach other things,” or “novelties.” It is reminiscent of the false teachers in Corinth, who preached “a different Jesus” and a “different gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4; cf. Gal. 1:6). But the “novelties” are not innocent trivialities; they are clear perversions of the pure gospel. Timothy’s purpose in remaining there, then, was to command them not to teach false doctrines any longer.
1:4 / Timothy is also to command the erring teachers not to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These two words, among the few in the letters to Timothy that give any indication of the content of the false doctrines, are also among the more puzzling. As Kelly says, “They come tantalizingly near disclosing the content of the heresy”! (p. 44). In 4:7 they are again characterized as “godless myths and old wives’ tales.” A similar phenomenon has also emerged in Crete, where they are called “Jewish myths” (Titus 1:14); the “genealogies” reappear in a list that includes “arguments and quarrels about the Law” (Titus 3:9).
It has often been suggested that these words reflect the alleged Gnostic character of the heresy, supported further by such language as “the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” (6:20) and by the ascetic practices mentioned in 4:3 (cf. 5:23). Thus the myths and genealogies are seen to refer to the speculative cosmologies of the later Gnostics with their systems of aeons (spiritual beings) that emanate from God (the Father of the All), such as one finds in Valentinus. (This position seems to be reflected in the Living Bible, which reads: “Their idea of being saved by finding favor with an endless chain of angels leading up to God.”)
But the terms translated myths (mythoi) and genealogies (genealogiai) are never used in descriptions of these Gnostic systems. They do, however, regularly appear in Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism to refer to traditions about peoples’ origins. The term mythoi in this literature is almost always used in a pejorative sense (as throughout the PE), to contrast the mythical character of many of these stories to historical truth.
Therefore, given the lack of any real concern in 1 and 2 Timothy for characteristically Gnostic motifs, plus the fact that in verse 7 the errors are specifically related to the Law, it is more plausible that these myths and endless genealogies reflect Jewish influence of some kind, undoubtedly with some Hellenistic overlays. But what they were precisely is not available to us, although there have been several suggestions (such as the kinds of speculations one finds in the Book of Jubilees or in Philo’s Questions and Answers on Genesis or in Pseudo-Philo’s Book of Biblical Antiquities or even in the Jewish haggadic tradition [illustrative commentary on the OT]). It must finally be admitted that we simply do not know, because Paul does not give us enough clues.
What we do know is that he stands boldly against such things, not so much because of their content (although such myths are quite unrelated to the truth [4:6–7; 2 Tim. 4:4]) but because such teaching has two net effects: (1) “meaningless talk” (1:6; cf. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16; 3:7), which (2) results in quarrels and strife (6:3–5; 2 Tim. 2:14, 23).
It is the utter futility of it all that grips Paul at this point. Indeed, the word translated endless most likely refers to the “exhausting, wearisome” nature of the teaching. What such “myths and endless genealogies” promote are “speculations” (RSV; lit., a “seeking out”), not controversies (NIV). Thus myths and genealogies are interminable tediums, promoting foolish speculations, “full of sound and fury,” but “signifying nothing.”
Furthermore, such “speculations” have nothing to do with God’s work—which is by faith. The word translated work, when used in its literal, nonfigurative sense, refers to the “management” of another’s household (as in Luke 16:2–4). As a metaphor it means either “a stewardship entrusted by God” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:17; Eph. 3:2) or, as in the NIV, God’s work, meaning God’s “arrangements for people’s redemption.” This latter is more likely the intent, since the emphasis in this context does not seem to be on the failure of the false teachers to exercise faithful stewardship but on the gospel as God’s work, based on or known by faith, in contrast to the futility of the “novelties.”
1:5 / Having given the occasion for writing (v. 3), plus some reaction to what the erring elders are doing (v. 4), Paul now returns to his command that they stop (v. 3). The goal of this command, he says, is love. This is probably not a general statement about the gospel, in contrast to the errors; rather, Paul is specifically giving the reason for Timothy’s involvement, namely, to arouse the love which comes from a pure heart. The false teachers are involved in speculations (v. 4) and meaningless talk (v. 6) that are full of deception (4:1–2) and lead to quarrels and suspicions (6:4–5). The purpose of ordering them to stop is to bring the church back to the proper result of “God’s work, based on faith,” namely, their loving one another. (Note how often faith and love appear together in the PE as the truly Christian virtues: 1 Tim. 1:14; 2:15; 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim. 1:13; 2:22; 3:10; Titus 2:2).
The Christian grace of love springs from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. These motivations to love stand in stark contrast to those of the false teachers, who are deceived and deceitful (4:1–2; 5:24; 2 Tim. 2:26; 3:13; cf. 1 Tim. 2:14; 5:15; 2 Tim. 3:5–7), have “seared” consciences (4:2), “and have shipwrecked their faith” (1:19).
A pure heart reflects Paul’s biblical background (Pss. 24:4; 51:10; cf. Jesus’ beatitude, Matt. 5:8). The concept of a good conscience derives from his Hellenistic environment. The conscience is the capacity, or seat, of moral consciousness, common to all people (Rom. 2:15; 2 Cor. 4:2). In Paul’s earlier letters (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians only) the conscience arbitrates one’s own—and others’—actions (see esp. 1 Corinthians 8–10). But it is also clear that it can be informed, either by one’s pagan past or present existence in Christ. In the PE, the term conscience is often, as here, accompanied by a descriptive adjective (good, pure, seared), implying the seat of moral decision-making to have been “purified” by Christ or “seared” or “defiled” by Satan (see disc. on 1 Tim. 4:2 and Titus 1:15–16). It is clear from this context and from 1:19 that a pure heart and good conscience are synonymous ideas.
The qualification of faith as sincere is comparable to his qualifying love in the same way in Romans 12:9. In a sense, neither can be so qualified. Either you have faith, or love, or you do not. But the word faith has a broad usage in Paul, ranging from “trust in God” (most common), to a Christian virtue coming very close to the idea of “faithfulness” (e.g., 1 Thess. 3:6; 5:8, and frequently in the PE; see disc. on 1:2), to the content of Christian belief (e.g., Gal. 1:23; also frequently in the PE). Here sincere faith refers to the Christian virtue, meaning trust in God that is truly there, in contrast to the deceptive nature of the errorists’ “faith.”
1:6–7 / That these sources of Christian love are expressed in this way so as to stand in contrast to the false teachers is now made clear. Some, namely, the false teachers, have wandered away from these (that is, “a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith”; cf. 1:19). The concept of wandering away from faith (or the faith) recurs throughout the PE, sometimes with this verb (6:21; 2 Tim. 2:18), but also with several others (“repudiate” [NIV, “have rejected”], 1:19; “abandon,” 4:1; “turn away,” 5:15; “wander,” 1:6; 6:10; “turn … away,” 2 Tim. 4:4). This “apostasy” on the part of both the erring elders and their followers is the great urgency of 1 Timothy.
Not only have they wandered away from true faith and integrity, but in its place they have turned to meaningless talk. This repeats the themes of tediousness and speculations from verse 4. The word for meaningless talk is a compound of mataios (“empty, vain”) and logos (“speech”). This “talk” is elsewhere characterized as “godless chatter” (6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16).
Paul has one final designation for the straying teachers in this opening salvo: They want to be teachers of the law. It is not easy to determine precisely what is intended by teachers of the law (a compound word in Greek: nomos, “law”; didaskalos, “teacher”). The word is a strictly Christian one, used by Luke of the rabbis in Luke 5:17 and of Gamaliel in Acts 5:34. Here it may be a pejorative epithet (they are merely taking the role of Jewish rabbis); but more likely it is a description of what the false teachers were really aspiring to—to be teachers of the Law (meaning probably both interpreters of the laws, 4:3, and speculative interpreters of the OT stories and genealogies about beginnings, 1:4).
In either case, as the next paragraph will elaborate, they do not know what they are talking about (because they are full of speculations and empty talk) or what they so confidently affirm (the meaning of the Scriptures). They are simply “pontificating on the unknowable.” The theme of the “ignorance” or “mindlessness” of the heretics will recur in these letters (6:4, 20; 2 Tim. 2:23; Titus 1:15; 3:9; cf. 2 Tim. 3:7).
1:8 / The next paragraph (vv. 8–11) is something of a digression, which will lead in turn to a second digression (vv. 12–17; note how vv. 18–20 resume the argument of vv. 3–7). But in typical Pauline fashion it is a digression that bears significantly upon the point at hand. In response to the false teachers’ improper use of the “Law,” Paul sets forth its real intent, which, as expressed here, is that it is for the ungodly.
Interestingly, he fails to go on to say how or why it is for them; but in Galatians 3:23–4:7 and Romans 7:7–25, he had previously spoken to this question and suggested two reasons: to put a restraint on sin (Galatians) and to expose the sinners’ desperate sinfulness, causing them to throw themselves upon God’s mercy (Romans). More likely it was the former that was in mind as this paragraph begins.
The opening sentence evolves out of verse 7. The false teachers wish to be teachers of the Law but do not know what they are doing. It is clear that Paul’s intent here is not to argue for a correct, Christian use of the Law. Rather, he is pointing out the folly of the false teachers, including the fact that they use the Law at all. That the Law is good repeats an assertion made in Romans 7:12–13 and 16 (albeit in a different context). Implied in both instances is that it is good because it truly does reflect God’s will. Nonetheless, as Kelly points out, the Law is not gospel, but remains a species of law. Here its “goodness” is related to its being used properly, that is, treated as law (intended for the lawless, v. 9) and not used “illegitimately” as a source for myths and endless genealogies, or for ascetic practices.
1:9–10 / Paul continues by describing what one does who treats the Law as law. What is true of God’s Law, thought of as law, is of course true of all laws. It was given, not for the righteous, but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful. By saying that the Law was not intended for “the righteous.” Paul reflects a point made earlier in Galatians, that those who have the Spirit and bear its fruit have entered a sphere of existence in which the Law no longer performs its legal functions (Gal. 5:22–23).
The mention of lawbreakers launches Paul into a whole list of such sinners. Vice lists like this are typical of the apostle (see e.g., Rom. 1:29–31; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:9–10; Gal. 5:19–21; and 2 Tim. 3:2–4). What amazes one is that no single sin is specifically repeated in them all (even in the three earlier letters). They seem in each case to be ad hoc catalogues, although they also seem to be somewhat adapted to contexts. Of the sins in this list, only adulterers and perverts (v. 10) are found in earlier lists (1 Cor. 6:9). But what is more striking is the two-part nature of the catalogue. First, there are three pairs of general classifications: lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly (inwardly irreverent) and sinful (outwardly disobedient), and the unholy and irreligious. Thereafter the catalogue has a remarkable coincidence with the Ten Commandments (the fifth through the ninth), often giving more grotesque expressions of these sins.
Thus these lawless are those who kill their fathers or mothers (fifth commandment); murderers (sixth commandment); the adulterers (lit., “fornicators”) and perverts, a word for male coital homosexuality (seventh commandment); slave traders (eighth commandment); and liars and perjurers (ninth commandment). Such coincidences can scarcely be accidental. But what is the reason for such a list here? It is certainly not a hidden reference to the sins of the false teachers, who are guilty of their own kinds of sins, but not these. Most likely the list is a conscious reflection of the Mosaic Law as law and expresses the kinds of sins such law was given to prohibit. This, Paul says, is why God gave his Law, not for idle speculation and meaningless talk.
Paul rounds off this list in a manner similar to Romans 13:9 and Galatians 5:21, so as to include all other sins as well: those who do whatever else is contrary to … sound doctrine. But in this case the “rounding off” words bring Paul back once again to the warnings against false teachings. The term sound doctrine will appear regularly in these letters (6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9, 13; 2:2, 8). It is a medical metaphor referring to the “healthiness” of teaching “found in the gospel” (v. 11) and stands in opposition to the “sickly craving” (6:4; NIV, “unhealthy interest”) of the errorists, whose “teaching will spread like gangrene” (2 Tim. 2:17). Such a metaphor is not found earlier in Paul. Its source, especially as a polemic device, is most likely contemporary itinerant philosophers, who would have been well known to the Ephesians. That Paul should borrow such metaphors is no more surprising than his use of the body metaphor, a well-known contemporary political metaphor, in 1 Corinthians 12, or his use of athletic metaphors in 1 Corinthians 9:24–27 and in these letters (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:5; 4:7–8). In these Epistles, the metaphor of healthy teaching becomes a thoroughgoing polemic against the diseased false teachers. But the concern of the metaphor is not with the content of doctrine; rather, it is with behavior. Healthy teaching leads to proper Christian behavior, love and good works; the diseased teaching of the heretics leads to controversies, arrogance, abusiveness, and strife (6:4).
1:11 / Having mentioned behavior that is “contrary to sound doctrine,” Paul concludes by describing the true source and measure for such teaching. It is that which conforms to the … gospel of … God. The gospel, as God’s good news over against the bad news of humanity’s grotesque sinfulness, is Paul’s favorite word for God’s activity in Christ Jesus on behalf of sinners. “Sound doctrine” accords with the gospel message, both in content and resultant behavior; the “diseased” teaching of the straying elders does not.
In mentioning the gospel Paul makes two elaborations: it is described as the glorious gospel of the blessed God, and it was entrusted to me. The gospel is first of all the glorious gospel of the blessed God (lit., “the gospel of the glory of the blessed God”). This kind of genitive (“of-phrase”) construction is particularly difficult to make sense of in English (and there are about fourteen possibilities for its meaning in Greek). Although the phrase “of the glory” is often used in a descriptive way in the NT (e.g., Eph. 1:17, “the glorious Father”; Col. 1:11, “his glorious power”; or see GNB here, “glorious and blessed God”), it is far more likely in this case that the phrase describes, not the character of the gospel (“glorious gospel”), but its content (“gospel which manifests God’s full glory”). The gospel Paul announces unveils the “glory,” or majesty, of God himself, here described as the blessed God. This latter term, found also in 6:15, does not so much mean that we ascribe blessedness to God, but that all blessedness resides in him and proceeds from him.
This gospel, which reveals the very glory of God, Paul concludes, was entrusted to me. This is typically Pauline. To mention the gospel, God’s gracious activity for sinners, is often to mention his own role as recipient and servant, or steward (cf. 1 Cor. 9:17; Gal. 2:7; Eph. 3:2; 1 Thess. 2:4). But in this case he is probably also harking back to the authority motif (see disc. on v. 1). This theme is so important, in fact, that it will be more fully elaborated in the next paragraph.
So the paragraph concludes, apparently at some distance from where it began, as a slight digression on the purpose of the Law, which has been totally missed by the Law-teachers. However, this brief excursion to mention the gospel as the revelation of God’s majesty and Paul’s relationship to it is not so far afield from his main concern—to check the spread of false teaching. And having gone this far, he will now elaborate even further, again not without contextual purpose.
1:3 / The opening sentence in Paul’s Greek is ungrammatical, although it might be merely elliptical (some examples are given in Moulton-Milligan, p. 314). It begins, “Even as,” a construction that needs a “so now” to complete it. Paul intended either something like what the NIV translates or something like, “Even as I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia, so now I urge you in writing, stay in Ephesus.”
Whether Paul has recently been in Ephesus is a moot point. Guthrie, probably because of how Paul expresses himself in 3:14, suggests that he may have “left Timothy en route for Ephesus, and charged him to abide there” (p. 57). More recently, J. D. Quinn, who does not think Paul wrote the letters, has offered the very attractive alternative that the author intended them to be read in the order Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy; so that Paul moved from Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), whence he dispatched Timothy while on his way to Macedonia (1 Tim. 1:3), intending to come himself shortly (3:14). But en route he was arrested at Troas (2 Tim. 4:13), whence he was taken to Rome (see “Paul’s Last Captivity”). The stance taken here presupposes that Paul had been on hand personally to excommunicate Hymenaeus and Alexander (v. 20).
1:4 / For a discussion of the “myths and endless genealogies” as reflecting Gnostic or Greek ideas, see the commentaries by D-C and Hanson. For the perspective adopted here, see further in F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 132–33; and F. Büchsel, TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 663–65. Cf. the commentaries by Kelly and Bernard.
The word translated controversies (ekzētēseis) occurs here for the first time in Greek literature. The verb form is well attested and means to “seek out.” Since the companion, noncompounded word zētēsis (substituted here in later MSS) appears elsewhere in the PE (1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23; Titus 3:9)—and does mean “controversies” or “arguments”—Paul surely intended something different here by using ekzētēseis.
BAGD, followed by the RSV and others, suggests “divine training” as a translation for God’s work; but there is no known use of the word with this meaning before the late second century A.D., and either of the other meanings, both well established by Paul’s time, fits the context well.
1:5 / Many argue that the qualifications of both conscience and faith are dead giveaways of the non-Pauline character of the ideas of the PE. But this often assumes a static Paul, on the one hand, and seems to misread the earlier evidence, on the other. For example, D-C argue that “faith” has been transformed here into “a human attitude” (p. 18). But this is both to neglect the evidence for its being a Christian virtue, often in conjunction with love, in the earlier letters and to miss the point here, which really does have to do with trust in God.
1:8 / In the Greek this sentence has an apparent wordplay, hard to reproduce in English. “The Law (nomos) is good, provided it is used ‘lawfully’ (nomimōs).”
1:9–10 / For an analysis of the possible source(s) and function of the vice lists in the PE, see N. J. McEleney, “The Vice Lists of the Pastoral Epistles.”
The word for slave traders has been suggested by BAGD (as a possibility) to mean “procurer,” thus linking it with the previously mentioned sexual sins. But it almost certainly refers to slave dealing. Moreover, there is evidence for a very early understanding among the rabbis of the eighth commandment referring to slave dealing. See Str-B, vol. 1, pp. 810–12.
1:11 / There has been a long debate on the meaning of sound doctrine in the PE. For a critique of that debate and a full presentation of the position adopted here, see A. J. Malherbe, “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles.”