1 Timothy 1

CHAPTER I

THE GREETING

1 Timothy 1:1

1 Each of the three stereotyped members of the greeting: “Paul (nominative)—to Timothy (dative)—grace, etc. (nominatives),” is amplified, and these amplifications reflect and harmonize with the contents of the letter just as is done in other letters of Paul. Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus by order of God, our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, our hope, to Timothy, genuine child in faith: grace, mercy, peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus, our Lord!

In 2 Cor. 8:23, Titus and two other brethren are called “apostles of churches,” representatives of the Macedonian churches; in Phil. 2:25, Epaphras is called the apostle of the Philippians, their representative. In Acts 14:4, 14, Paul and Barnabas are termed “apostles” in a higher yet in a broad sense: men sent on the gospel mission by the Holy Spirit. Here, however, “apostle of Christ Jesus,” etc., is to be understood in the eminent sense and is to be confined to the Twelve plus Paul. These were called to go on their mission by Christ Jesus himself, and no others were ever called and sent out in the same way. Derived from ἀποστέλλω, the term means one sent on a mission. The genitive indicates who commissioned Paul.

The more important question is why, in writing this letter to Timothy, Paul adds this important apposition. Certainly not as he did in Galatians in order to emphasize his authority; Timothy never forgets that. It is because of the contents of this letter. Timothy is to act for Paul in Ephesus; this letter contains the necessary instructions.

Timothy had long been Paul’s assistant and knew what Paul wanted him to do. At various times Paul had sent him on important missions. Before leaving him at Ephesus, Paul had, no doubt, also given Timothy his instructions. Yet Timothy’s task was by no means a light one. It was a great advantage for him to have full instructions in writing, not only for his own sake, but also when he was challenged by others. Here are the apostle’s own words, set down by the apostle himself. They are both a written authorization that grant Timothy the right to act for Paul in this apostolic work and written directions about which no person could quibble.

For that reason this apposition is so extensive. “Apostle of Christ Jesus” is not enough; Paul adds: “by order of God, our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, our hope.” Note this κατά phrase in Rom. 16:26; 1 Cor. 7:6; 2 Cor. 8:8. Here it expands what is already contained in the genitive “of Christ Jesus,” namely that Paul’s commission rests on a specific ἐπιταγή or “order” given by God and by Christ. Instead of using this phrase, Paul generally writes διὰθελήματοςΘεοῦ, “through God’s will” (what God willed). “By order of God” is more specific and fits the two genitives “order of God and Christ Jesus” as pointing to the appointment by which Jesus made him an apostle, Acts 26:16–18.

The naming of the two persons who ordered Paul’s apostleship is by no means mere repetition. Note that in this greeting Paul and Timothy are named once, God twice, and Christ Jesus no less than thrice. This is not redundancy. In the work of Paul and of Timothy and in their own spiritual blessing everything comes to them through Christ Jesus whom God the Father sent. The repetition of these divine names is a confession that glories in all that these persons have done and still do. In “Christ Jesus” we have office and person combined much as in General Washington, President Lincoln, etc. The difference between this and “Jesus Christ” is slight.

The significance of the naming of these two persons in this order is brought out fully by the genitive appositions, both of which are enriched by the appropriative “our”: God is “our Savior”—Christ Jesus is “our hope.” The one is the fountain of our salvation; the other the embodiment of our hope. The idea of Σωτήρ is that of rescue from mortal danger, which places the rescued into complete safety. All of God’s saving work is included in this title “Savior.” Hence we do not refer it only to the past while “our hope” is contrasted with it as referring to the future. Still less can we say that God saved us “potentially,” and that “our hope” (Christ) realizes this potentiality. The expression “our Savior” is a noun and thus has no tense which might refer to the past. We therefore do not say that the aorists used in 2 Tim. 1:9 and Tit. 3:5 have this effect on the noun. The verb itself does not only include the momentary act of rescue but in addition to that the effect of placing the rescued ones into permanent safety, which refers to the present and to the future.

Paul uses “Savior” with reference to God only here and in 1 Tim. 2:3; Tit. 1:3; 2:10; 3:4; with reference to Christ he uses it in 2 Tim. 1:10; Tit. 1:4; 2:13; Phil. 3:20; Eph. 5:23. This is regarded as a point in support of the claim that Paul did not write these letters. This claim advances an untenable criterion of authorship, namely that if at any period of your life you use a certain word oftener and with a wider range than you did at other periods, you cannot be the writer of what you have thus written, irrespective of the special reason you may have for thus using the word when you need the idea which it expresses.

We note that it is equally exceptional when Paul calls Christ Jesus “our hope” and uses an abstract term to designate a person. Yet in Eph. 2:14 he similarly calls him “our peace.” “Our hope” is plainly objective and highly concentrated. It is saying too little to claim that our subjective hope rests on Christ for its fulfillment, too little also to think only of the future. Christ is the actual embodiment of our hope, i.e., Christ as he is with all that he has done to be exalted as “Prince and Savior” (Acts 5:31). So certainly is he “our hope” that he is this whether we actually hope in him or not although we most certainly do hope in him.

“Our Savior” and “our hope” are evidently companion terms, the “our” is used with each to indicate appropriation and confession of God as our Savior and of Christ as our hope. Yet “Savior” is a word that expressed an action so that “our” has the touch of an objective genitive: we are the ones God is saving, we are the σωζόμενοι (passive), the ones being saved by him; while “hope” is a term that indicates an object so that “our” has the flavor of a subjective genitive: we appropriate Christ as our hope. In this way the terms are combined and form a unit.

By their order the two persons thus designated made Paul the apostle who was to bring this salvation and this hope to men. Timothy is to regard what follows in the light of this fact, a fact that he has well known for many a year. For all that this letter will say about the errorists and about Timothy’s opposing them means that as Paul’s representative he is to stand as a rock against those who would rob the churches of this blessed “salvation” and of this “hope”; and all that this letter contains about Timothy’s arranging the worship and the organization of the churches and about the conduct of his further work in these churches aims at this one thing, to preserve and to extend the fullest appropriation of this our God as our Savior and of Christ as our hope. The light of these focal terms illumines the whole letter. Unless this is appreciated, much will be lost as we read the epistle.

The pagan world of this time called Zeus the Σωτήρ or “Savior” and applied this title to other gods and to deified emperors and even called the latter “god and savior.” This extension of the expression to great men came after the time of Alexander the Great. This pagan usage of the title “Savior” has led some to conclude that Paul’s use of the term and also John’s is derived from paganism. To justify this view the Christian sense of this word has been reduced so as to mean Nothelfer, “deliverer” in general. We are next referred to the derivation from the Greek mystery cults, but these cults flowered in the second century.

This pagan use of the title “Savior” is found on the low level of political and economic life and never rises to the spiritual and the eternal. The Christian use is derived from the Old Testament riches which are augmented by the New Testament light. C.-K. 1035 adds that the Christians probably used the title “Savior” the more emphatically because the paganism around them made its gods and emperors “saviors.” That is about all one can say. Nor may we say that Paul here and elsewhere uses “Savior,” “to save,” etc., (whether with reference to God or with reference to Christ) just because he has this pagan contrast in. mind. When he wrote and when Timothy read “God our Savior,” both thought of the Old and the New Testament revelation which God had made of himself as Savior and probably not at all of a refutation of heathen saviorhood and a rejection of pagan “saviors.”

1 Timothy 1:2

2 When Timothy is addressed as “genuine child in faith,” the word “child” carries with it the idea of tenderness and endearment. “Son” would touch upon Timothy’s standing. Paul wants the former idea. Yet observe that neither here nor in 2 Tim. 1:1, Paul writes “my child.” We may believe that Paul converted Timothy and was thus the spiritual father of this his child, but that is not the point here. On this account passages such as Philemon 10; 1 Cor. 4:15; Gal. 4:19 are not pertinent; they would, to say the least, require: “my genuine child.” By the very word “faith” “genuine child in faith” relates Timothy to God and to Christ Jesus even as “Savior—hope—faith” are closely related terms. Timothy is here designated as a “real” child of God, γνήσιος, and thus not a νόθος, a bastard, misbegotten. The phrase does not depend on the adjective: “a child genuine in faith,” but on the noun which needs this phrase as a complement to bring out the fact that spiritual childhood is referred to: ἐνπίστει, “in the sphere of faith.”

We thus do not agree with the thought that Paul is addressing Timothy as one of his numerous converts as he addresses his converts in Gal. 4:19; 1 Cor. 4:15; Philemon 10. This is not a letter to a mere convert. It is not its burden to tell a convert how to live and to act as a convert. It tells Timothy how to proceed as the apostle’s representative who has his headquarters in Ephesus. We correlate “apostle of Christ Jesus by order of God,” etc., with “genuine child in faith.” Instead of giving Timothy a title of office, one that might name his office as being beneath that of Paul, Timothy receives a more pertinent designation. This apostle, appointed by God and by Christ, is using this “genuine child” of God as his assistant for work connected with their “Savior” and their “hope” and with his own “faith.” All that this letter asks of Timothy appeals to him in this work to show himself “a genuine child (of God) in faith.” The perfection of this designation is thus apparent.

With reference to himself Paul cannot say that he is a “genuine child”; this designation would not be enough, he must refer to God’s “order” which made Paul an apostle and established his office, in which Timothy is this apostle’s representative. But while he is acting as such a representative, the coaching which Paul gives him in this letter is not that which a superior might give to a subaltern who is to please his chief, but that which befits Timothy as being God’s child in faith, whose one object in the position the apostle has assigned him is to please his divine Father. As a willing and an obedient child in faith Timothy will want to do his Father’s will. What that will is in regard to the Asian work Paul desires to place into Timothy’s hand in writing. It is the will of God, their Savior, the will of Christ, their hope, which Timothy will carry out as “a genuine child in faith.”

We regard “grace, mercy, peace,” etc., as exclamatory, as thus needing no verb. Regarding “grace” and “peace” see the other letters of Paul, which contain only these two. Also consult these same letters regarding the added phrase in which “our” may be placed either after “Father” or, as here, after both names. “Our” is to be construed with both divine names: “from God (our) Father and Christ Jesus, our Lord.”

The exceptional feature here and in 2 Tim. 1:2 is the insertion of “mercy.” While “grace” is the undeserved favor of God, which is extended to the guilty and relieves him of guilt and of the punishment he deserves, “mercy” is the commiseration for the miserable and distressed, which frees him from his wretchedness. Grace is multiplied for God’s children in a constant shower of undeserved gifts (John 1:16: “grace for grace”), and so mercy continues in evernew deliverance out of trouble. “Peace” is the fruit of both, the blessed condition when all is well between me and God.

Right here the idea that this letter is forged breaks down. All the letters that Paul had written up to this time use only “grace and peace”; a forger would have copied this greeting, would not have even thought of risking the innovation: “grace, mercy, peace”—the effective asyndeton is also exceptional.

We are compelled to ask why Paul adds “mercy” in these two letters. To be sure, he might have used the triple form in all his letters or only the double form in these two, see the variety in James, Jude, and the three letters of John. Homiletical and devout remarks on grace, mercy, and peace are not an answer to this question. Oosterzee says: grace for the guilty—mercy for the suffering—peace for the fighting disciples. This is an undue limitation of “peace.” Grace and mercy are related to God while peace would pertain only to men with whom we fight. All pertain to God.

We object to the assertion that it is Spielerei to “press” this greeting as though it applies to Timothy’s special circumstances; we likewise object to interpreting this greeting as though Paul addresses it to all preachers everywhere and at all times. Whatever we may draw from it for ourselves, it was certainly written to Timothy personally; and all that Paul’s letters contain, even down to the details and the implications, always fits the circumstances of the person or the persons addressed.

As this letter shows, Timothy’s position in the Asian field was a trying one. He needed all the gifts of God’s grace, apart even from all special worries and griefs and also God’s peace in which to assure and to rest his soul; but in addition to these two, for all discouraging situations and painful experiences, God’s mercy to sustain him. Even ordinary pastors need God’s healing, comforting mercy, often in large measure. This word is not added inadvertently or for rhetorical fulness. It belongs where it is—for Timothy in his trying work.

Let us also say once more that Timothy was not a mere pastor in Ephesus. This church had its proper pastor-elders, among whom Timothy was not just another. He was Paul’s representative for all the churches in this region with work according, directing, organizing, supervising, helping to eject errorists, etc., as Paul himself would do if he were on the ground. The work of Titus in Crete was of the same order.

How Timothy Is to Deal with Those Teaching Different Doctrine

1 Timothy 1:3

3 The main sections of this letter stand out clearly in the chapter division of our versions. The different matters which Timothy is to look after are taken up in order, and the order is simple and apparent. The first deals with the disturbers of the faith; they must be stopped. This properly comes first.

As I urged thee to remain on in Ephesus when proceeding to Macedonia, so I still do, that thou charge certain ones not to teach differently, nor to devote their attention to endless myths and genealogies such as (and because they are such as) furnish questionings rather than an administration of God, one in connection with faith.

With R. 439 we find no anacoluthon here; this is a simple ellipsis. We disagree with the statement of B.-D. 467 that the construction runs out in a reines Wirrsal with its ceaseless insertions and additions. This view thinks that the ellipsis comes at the end of the entire sentence where it is also supplied by our versions. It comes where we have indicated it and thus allows Paul to add whatever he pleases. As far as the Greek reader is concerned, we should remember that, unlike the English and the German reader, he at once catches the ellipsis after καθώς: “so I still do,” and does not need to have it written out as we do. This is another instance of the nimbleness of the Greek mind as compared with the slowness of our minds.

The moment Paul was released in Rome he sent Timothy to Philippi as he had promised in Phil. 2:19–23. Then Paul went from Rome to Ephesus, visited Colosse as he had promised in Philemon 22, and returned to Ephesus where he met Timothy who came to Ephesus from Philippi. See the introduction. When the two met and surveyed the situation in Ephesus and in the whole field of which this city was the center, Paul did what he says: he urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus while Paul himself proceeds to Macedonia in accord with his promise made in Phil. 2:24. A lot of work needs to be done in the churches of this region, apostolic work; this letter shows what it is. Paul turns it over to Timothy as his representative while he himself proceeds to Macedonia. We see a similar situation in Tit. 1:5, where Paul leaves Titus in Crete to serve in a like capacity.

It is possible that even before his release in Rome, when he wrote to the Philippians, Paul knew about the general situation in the Asian field and made the plans we have indicated, namely to have Timothy meet him in Ephesus. When, upon his arrival in Ephesus, he saw how things stood he felt that he himself did not need to remain, that Timothy could well take care of everything in his stead. So he turned the supervision of this work over to Timothy. He had previously used Timothy on important missions, note the one mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:10, etc., also Paul’s confidence in Timothy as indicated in Phil. 2:20, etc. Timothy had had plenty of experience.

When Paul now says that he had urged Timothy to stay in Ephesus, this does not imply that Timothy did not want to stay or was afraid of the task. Paul uses the same word with regard to Titus (παράκλησις, the noun) when he sent him on a second mission to Corinth, where there was also much to be done (2 Cor. 8:17, see this passage and note also v. 23: “associate of mine”). Παρεκάλεσα may well imply that, when Paul and Timothy discussed matters, Timothy preferred to have Paul himself stay in order to attend to all that was needed, the two of them working together would thus get through more quickly. Paul urged Timothy to remain on (προσμεῖναι) while he himself proceeds to Macedonia and thus extends their labors. The view that Paul should have written προπορευόμενος because he was going forward or ahead to Macedonia misunderstands the situation by thinking that Paul had been no farther than Ephesus. We have seen that he visited Philemon at Colosse and after returning from there is “proceeding,” πορευόμενος, on to Macedonia.

It is a misunderstanding to think that Timothy had been working in Ephesus for some time, that he wanted to be released from the hard task, and that Paul urged, admonished, or encouraged him to stay on. Timothy had just arrived, so had Paul, and the work was yet to be done. Furthermore, the nominative πορευόμενος does not modify the accusative σε, nor does ἐνἘφέσῳ modify παρεκάλεσα, so that the meaning would be that at some earlier time Paul urged Timothy to make his headquarters in Ephesus while he proceeded to Macedonia for checking errorists in that territory. This is done in an effort to find room in the period covered by Acts for what is here said. But the language will not permit this. The time of Acts lies in the past.

Ἵνα indicates simple purpose or the contemplated result of Timothy’s staying on in Ephesus. He is to charge (effective aorist) certain persons “not to teach differently nor to devote their minds or attention (προσέχειν) to endless myths and genealogies,” etc. This is to be the first duty to which Timothy is to attend. As Paul had urged Timothy to stay on for this task when he was leaving, so he again does. We have no more reason to think that Timothy is loth to do this work than that he is loth to do the other things mentioned in this letter. Paul repeats in writing what he had outlined orally for Timothy in order that Timothy might have it black on white and that he might present it as written evidence to those who objected to Timothy’s activities: here are the apostle’s own written instructions, repeated a second time and in deliberate written form.

Former oral instructions, agreements, or advices are repeated for similar purposes in written form. This satisfies this situation.

“That thou charge” is the same verb that is used in 6:13, “I charge thee.” Nothing of special note can be drawn from the absence of the so-called Nominalelenchus, not naming the errorists. We find this often as in 2 Cor. 10:2; Gal. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:11. The idea is not to spare them as some think. Scorn is at times thus conveyed. We cannot even say that Paul knows who the “certain ones are.” He may have heard a few names mentioned while he was in Ephesus, but this is all. These “certain ones” were not located in Ephesus, for then Paul would have dealt with them right then and there.

They were scattered here and there throughout the province, which by this time had been well planted with congregations. The indefinite pronoun “certain ones” means: whoever and wherever they are. The implication is that their number is not large and also that Paul thinks of them slightingly.

Timothy is to charge them “not to teach differently nor to devote their attention to endless myths and genealogies.” In the direct discourse the infinitives would be imperatives, and since the present tenses are negatived, the imperatives would mean: “Stop teaching differently and stop devoting attention to myths and genealogies!” R. 851–2. These foolish persons are to stop their teaching other people and are at the same time to cease devoting their own minds to these trivial topics.

The use of the new compound ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν has been considered linguistic evidence that supports the claim that Paul did not write these letters. But writers freely form any number of new compound terms as they need and find them useful for their thought. Is Paul forbidden to do this? Paul coined this word, which is used here and in 6:3, because it designated exactly what these persons were doing. Nor need we puzzle about the first part of the compound as to whether it is the neuter plural ἕτερα, “different things,” or the adverb ἑτέρως, “differently,” for Paul himself tells us that these “certain ones” are teaching and devoting all their attention to endless myths and genealogies, which are ἕτερα, “different things.”

As far as teaching them “differently” is concerned, in a manner that was very different from that employed by the true teachers, such things as myths and genealogies could not be taught in the same way as the certain truths of the gospel were taught. This verb does not say that they taught a “different gospel” as was the case in Gal. 1:8, 9, what we generally call “false doctrine” or heresy; Paul would then have said so as he does in Galatians 1. He would have added the refutation as he does in 1 Cor. 15:12, etc. No; their minds were taken up with a lot of unwholesome stuff on which they prided themselves (6:3, 4), Jewish myths (Tit. 1:14), foolish disputes (Tit. 3:9).

1 Timothy 1:4

4 Προσέχειν, with or without νοῦν, means to turn the mind to something, to devote attention to something. They were not elders and called teachers of congregations but operated on their private account, “vain talkers and deceivers,” especially of the circumcision, who subverted whole houses and did this for filthy lucre’s sake (Tit. 1:10, 11).

We have every reason to believe that those who worked in Crete were of the same type as these in the Asian province. Their taking good pay for what they taught was the “different way” (ἑτέρως) that went with their teaching these “different things” (ἕτερα) as it naturally would. They crept into families and offered their superior silly goods for good pay.

The gospel and its sound teaching were relegated to the rear. Endless myths and genealogies were taught as being the important thing. The effect was bound to be disastrous. A plant that is smothered by rank, alien growths dies as surely as one that is torn up by the roots.

These μῦθοι were not pagan legends. They were fanciful Jewish fictional tales, the Haggadoth of the Midrash of that time, “which had germinated in a fungus growth over the whole body of the Mosaic institutions” (Farrar, Life of Christ, chapter 58). R., W. P., thinks that the “genealogies” denote “the Gnostic emphasis on eons,” the lines of eons and emanations; but these were never called “genealogies” (C.-K. 240), and Gnosticism was of a later date. Paul refers to Jewish Old Testament genealogies; the Old Testament lists of ancestors were amplified, names of wives were invented, allegorical and additional tales were woven into them. In 4:7 they are called “profane and old wives’ myths” (tales). Wohlenberg writes: “One needs only to cast a glance into the ‘Book of Jubilees’ to see what a role the Old Testament genealogies, the wives not named in the Old Testament, or the incompletely listed sons and daughters of the ancient fathers, played.” He furnishes samples which substantiate this insignificance of “myths and genealogies.” The two terms belong together, “endless” modifies both, properly so because there was no limit to such invention, there could never be.

Αἵτινες is both qualitative and causal and states of what sort these endless tales and genealogies are and intimates that, because they are such, teaching them and filling the mind with them must be stopped: “such as furnish (supply, afford occasion for) questionings (searching out and questing for more and more of these fancies spun from Scripture names and words) rather than (what Christians need) God’s administration connected with faith.” No wonder Paul calls them “endless”: once an appetite for such pabulum is cultivated, it will try to find more and more of it, question every word, pry for new allegories, invent new fancies, and turn the golden Word of God into a mine for such pebbles.

The A. V. version translates the very inferior reading οἰκοδομίαν and makes Θεοῦ an adjectival genitive: “rather than godly edifying.” But we prefer to read οἰκονομίαν and make Θεοῦ a subjective genitive: “God’s administration,” to which the article adds the phrase as a kind of apposition (R. 776), “the one in connection with faith.” The sense is not difficult. God administers the universe, but here the administration of his grace and Word or gospel is indicated, which is the administration connected with saving faith. These men play with the Word; God’s work is not carried forward by their teaching, nor do their fables have anything to do with saving faith. They fill the mind only with pure rubbish. We have discussed οἰκονομία in Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25, in none of which it means “dispensation,” a translation that would be peculiarly unsuitable here.

1 Timothy 1:5

5 Now the goal of the charge is love out of a clean heart and a conscience (that is) good and a faith (that is) unhypocritical.

Δέ is not adversative, nor does it indicate anything parenthetical; it adds this important point about the τέλος, goal, aim, intended outcome of what this charge to Timothy really is, namely the purest and the truest kind of love. The charge itself as it comes from Paul’s heart and goes out to Timothy flows from such love and thus, of course, aims to produce such love in these deluded people who are certainly unable to obtain it either for themselves or for their adherents-through their sterile occupation with myths and genealogies. We may translate the article of previous reference deictically: “now the goal of this charge is love.”

Stopping this kind of teaching and occupation of the mind, making people drop all these endless myths and genealogies and thus all the resultant questionings, and thereby giving God room for his administration, that blessed administration which is in connection with faith, can have only the blessed outcome of “love,” ἀγάπη, the love of true intelligence and understanding combined with corresponding purpose in life. Paul says “love” and adds no limiting modifier except the one denoting its source. So we do not ask whether love to God, to Christ, to the brethren, or to men generally is referred to, for “love” is to be understood in its broadest sense. Those who restrict it to the love of the brethren also say that this love does not exclude love to God.

We do not understand why the article used with παραγγελίας should not point back to the verb παραγγείλῃς in which this noun is contained, why Paul should use this noun only in a general way to match the verb. How can the noun have a different meaning, not “the charge” to Timothy, but “the preaching of the gospel” in general? If we look at Acts 5:28; 16:24; 1 Thess. 4:2; 1 Tim. 1:18, we see what this noun regularly means: “charge, order, command.” Our passage would be a strange exception, the more so since v. 18 follows.

“Faith” has just been mentioned in its connection with (ἐν) God’s administration (the administration of his grace and his gospel). “Love” follows, the fruit of faith and its clear evidence. Operating with myths and genealogies has no connection with such faith and does not aim at such love. To make this plain over against every empty claim of these foolish teachers that they, too, produce true faith and love, Paul adds the phrase regarding the one true source of this love: “out of a clean heart and a conscience (that is) good and a faith (that is) unhypocritical,” the one preposition combines the three nouns as a unit.

Some think that the order is reversed, that Paul says: clean heart—conscience good—faith unhypocritical but really means: faith unhypocritical produces a conscience that is good, and such a conscience produces a clean heart. But why attribute such an inversion to Paul: 2 preceding 1, and 3 preceding 2, and thus 3 and 2 preceding 1? This inversion also disregards the context and generalizes: faith secures forgiveness and frees the conscience of guilt, and such a conscience cleanses the heart. Yet Paul is dealing with his specific charge to Timothy about certain men and their foolish operations, which lead neither to faith nor to love. It is this charge to Timothy which aims at love out of a clean heart. By their whole work these foolish teachers muddy the whole fountain of love.

We leave Paul’s order as he has it: a clean heart produces both a good conscience and an honest faith; an unclean heart cannot have a conscience that is good and a faith that is unhypocritical. The fact that this is the meaning is indicated by the position of the adjectives: clean heart—conscience good, faith unhypocritical. In the Scriptures “heart” is by no means only the seat of the emotions; the word for these latter is σπλάγχνα, the nobler viscera. Heart is the seat of the mind, the emotions, and the will, of the whole inner consciousness of the heart regarding its moral condition but the heart or ego pronouncing verdicts upon its thoughts, words, and deeds.

There is no reason to distinguish between the antecedent conscience, which judges contemplated actions, and the subsequent conscience, which judges completed actions, and to let Paul refer only to the latter. “Faith” has the same meaning it had in v. 4, saving trust in Christ and the gospel. The clean heart leaves the conscience good and the faith unhypocritical; and “out of” these three flows love. But what is there in these endless myths and genealogies that will lead to anything but ἐκζητήσεις, seeking out still more fables and fancies? Only the charge to put away all this noxious stuff will reopen the fount of love that flows from a clean heart, etc.

Here is the motive that should prompt Timothy to carry out this charge, to induce the churches to support him when doing so, to appeal to the foolish members themselves to drop their folly. Love is to bind all of them together, love out of a clean heart and a conscience that is good and a faith that is unhypocritical. Nourishing ourselves only with the gospel produces all these, they are never produced by feeding ourselves or any number among ourselves with myths and genealogies even though these are spun from the Pentateuch or from other parts of the Bible. Conscience is “good” when it functions as it should and approves only what is good in God’s sight. Faith is “unhypocritical” (without a mask such as the ancient show actors wore), “unfeigned” (our versions) when it is not a mere lip faith but sincere trust and confidence of the heart.

1 Timothy 1:6

6 Paul continues with a relative clause: which things some, having missed, turn off into vain talk, wanting to be law teachers although not comprehending either what they say or concerning what they confidently affirm. In English we might begin a new sentence with coordinate verbs: “These things some have missed and have turned off.” These things are the three mentioned in the preceding phrase. We cannot add “love” because this is not coordinated with the three. These “some” went wrong already regarding what forms the source of love. Like bad marksmen, they either never aimed at this right mark or shot so as to miss it altogether (on ὧν see R. 518). So, instead of reaching the “goal” (τέλος), they turned off into vain talk. Μάταιος in the compound = what does not lead to the goal; the word used is not κενός which means empty, without content. There is some content in what these people say, but it does not get anyone to the goal.

The three terms match beautifully: wrong aim—straying off—landing in vain talk. No wonder Paul charges Timothy to stop this sort of thing, this is motive enough for anybody.

1 Timothy 1:7

7 Yet there is more: “wanting to be law teachers although not comprehending either what they declare or concerning what they make confident affirmation.” Pitiful indeed! They want to be law teachers, pose as such with great pride; yet they do not themselves comprehend with their νοῦς or mind the things they say or the questions concerning which they make confident affirmation as though they know. The change from the relative ἅ to the interrogative τίνων is not a confusion of the two (R. 1045) but precision; they declare certain things without understanding “what” they declare, and pronounce with great confidence on what this and what that signifies without even understanding what these things are on which they make such sure pronouncements. Do you know people like this?

With νομοδιδάσκαλοι Paul is turning to the more important part of the assertions of these ignorant and foolish people. They spun their myths from the Old Testament and played pranks with genealogies found in the Pentateuch. A mere reference to these silly things is enough. Then they also found the law in the Pentateuch and went at that with silly ignorance, made useless assertions about this and that and even offered proof regarding what they did not as much as understand. It is bad enough to assert (λέγουσι) vain things that one does not comprehend; it is worse to add strong affirmations (διαβεβαιοῦνται) regarding questions that one does not even understand.

Since these people also tamper with the law, Paul points out a few fundamental things regarding the law, things which these ignorant and pretended “law teachers” have never understood. We may note that they were former Jews or pupils of such Jews (Tit. 1:10, 14). Yet they did not belong to the type of Judaizers found in Galatia, nor to the type of those found in Colosse. They were an ignorant, fantastic lot, and Paul’s polemics are according and not like those employed in his letters to the Galatians and to the Colossians.

1 Timothy 1:8

8 Now we know that the law is excellent (Rom. 7:12) if one uses it lawfully, as knowing this that for a righteous person law is not established but for lawless and disobedient persons, for ungodly and sinful, for impious and profane ones, for father-smiters and mother-smiters, for man-killers, fornicators, pederasts, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and if anything else opposes the healthy teaching, in accord with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I on my part was entrusted.

Δέ is scarcely adversative, it seems to be transitional: from ignorance to knowledge. This is the more true since no contrasting ἡμεῖς appears.

The statement is a simple assertion that the law is excellent if one uses it lawfully. This is not a concession. Teaching the law of God is not wrong, but it is wrong to want to teach it and not to know how but to abuse it in pitiful ignorance by saying things about it which one does not himself comprehend, etc. Thus this statement about what we know does not deal with the law as such but with the law in its lawful use, its excellence and its moral value which come to view when it is employed as it itself demands. The proof of its quality lies in its proper use. The opposite of this statement is thus not that the law is base when it is not used lawfully but that the law is abused when it is used in an unlawful way. In itself and aside from any use, whether lawful or unlawful, it remains what it is, what God made it.

The play on “the law” and “lawfully” is keen; the law itself, because it is law, dictates its lawful use and condemns every abuse as being unlawful. All pretending law teachers stand condemned by the very law they pretend to teach. Bengel finds approval for his remark: Hoc loco none de auditore legis sed de doctore loquitur. But using the law applies to both teacher and hearer. Verse 7 speaks of law teachers, but v. 9–11 certainly of law hearers, of people upon whom the law is used, lawfully used.

1 Timothy 1:9

9 “As knowing this that,” etc., is an explication of the preceding clause and its τὶς, hence the participle is singular. Any teacher, of course, uses the law lawfully when he knows and teaches that law is not established for a righteous person, etc.; κεῖται is a substitute for the passive of τίθημι. But is teaching this the only lawful use of the law? Is not our acting on this teaching equally a lawful use of the law? Those ignorant teachers of the law are not blamed merely for their teaching but equally for what their teaching leads to in the case of themselves and of those who hear it (relative clause in v. 4). One must not only have the right teaching but the right conduct with it.

This is the place to read the Formula of Concord VI (C. Tr. 805, etc., 963, etc.) on the uses of the law. It has been put into three words: the law acts as Riegel, Spiegel, Regel, as a bar with its threats, as a mirror to reveal sin, as a rule and guide to point out the works that please God. Spiegel is used in the C. Tr. 969, 21. We also have the exposition (963, 5): “Although ‘the law is not made for a righteous man,’ as the apostle testifies 1 Tim. 1:9, but for the unrighteous, yet this is not to be understood in the bare meaning that the justified are to live without law.

For the law of God has been written in their heart, and also to the first man immediately after his creation a law was given according to which he was to conduct himself. But the meaning of Paul is that the law cannot burden with its curse those who have been reconciled to God through Christ; nor must it vex the regenerate with its coercion, because they have pleasure in God’s law after the inner man.”

Those who think that νόμος and ὁνόμος refer to the Mosaic law will receive clearness by a study of these two terms in Rom. 2:12–27. “Law” is used in the widest sense and has the meaning legal demands; “the law” is the Mosaic code and is as such included in “law.” For this reason this code is largely followed in the following list of sinners as it certainly is the best code, especially when the relation of “law” to the gospel is touched upon as is done in v. 11. These facts do not support the conclusion of those who think that because δίκαιος = the justified man and not merely one whom the world calls just, therefore “law” must here mean “the law” (Mosaic). What Paul says is that nothing in the nature of law binds the justified Christian.

This does not refer only to the law of Moses. For among all codes and legal systems that of Moses is only supreme; and if the righteous man is free from this, is he not then free from all that has the nature of law? We are told that one might regard the whole statement as abstract and general like that of Socrates: “Law would not be for good persons.” Someone else has stated it: “He who does no wrong needs no law,” ὁμηδὲνἀδικῶνοὐδενὸςδεῖταινόμου. But V. 11 compels us to refer Paul’s statement only to the “righteous” whom God acquits by the forensic act of personal justification. Such a man is no longer ὑπὸνόμον (no article: “under any law”) but ὑπὸχάριν, “under what is grace” (Rom. 6:14, 15). See how often ἔργανόμου is used (Rom. 3:20, 28, etc.: “works of law,” of anything that is law).

The foolish teachers in and about Ephesus were applying their allegorical and other nonsense about the Mosaic law to Christians, were bothering and confusing them in their understanding of this law, were interfering with the healthy teaching that accords with the gospel. They did not seem to know that this and all other legitimate law, when it is used lawfully, is not established for the righteous person in order to disturb his faith, but for the wicked whom Paul now names at length so that law may hold them in check with its threats and its penalties (police function) and may show them what they are (mirror) in order to crush them in contrition and repentance. Paul omits the third use of the law when it acts as “a cudgel of penalties and plagues” on “the old Adam, as an intractable, recalcitrant ass,” when it kills the flesh still left in us (C. Tr. 969, 24, where several lines of the English type have dropped out).

“A righteous person” is singular and thus individualized; all the wicked are named in plurals, for they are all an abominable mass. We have six in three pairs; all are apparently condemned by the first table of the law. Then eight under the second table of the law. The first two of the eight are also paired by καί and thus connected with the foregoing three pairs so that we have a rhetorical set of four pairs. Read them as pairs, and you have eight; read those of the second table, and you again have eight. Read those of the first table, and you have six; read those unconnected with “and,” and you have six.

This makes an interlocked chiasm. The significance of six (one short of seven) appears in Rev. 13:18. These last six are divided into two threes: “murderers—fornicators, sodomites”; next: “kidnapers, liars, perjurers.” The list of the Ten Commandments is not exhausted; “anything else” takes care of any other class of sinners. Did Paul arrange this list consciously as we here trace it in sense, rhetorically, and in numbers? Say “no” if you will; but here is the list. Study his other lists, they are all arranged in this way.

The grandest is found in 2 Cor. 6:4–10; compare my analysis. I confess that I have not seen such lists in secular writers, have you?

“Lawless and disobedient” evidently go together: they throw off law, they will not obey authority. They intend to act as they please. The second term occurs also in Tit. 1:6, 10. We may place both terms under the First Commandment, but they are broad enough to come under all ten. It is striking to hear that “law” is established for “lawless” people. Yet they are the very ones for whom law is established, so established that, although they mock at law and all authority that calls for obedience, law, nevertheless, brings them to account.

None can escape the arm of law. Although God’s law may at times grind slowly, in the end it grinds exceedingly fine. Ἄνομοι is used with reference to pagans who have never had the Mosaic code (including also the ceremonial elaboration) and thus means only “devoid of law”; here it is used in its severe sense: “opposed to law,” and its companion term is “opposed to ranging oneself under” proper authority.

The ἀσεβεῖς, “ungodly” (the abstract “ungodliness” is used in Rom. 1:18) are not atheists but those who disregard God and God’s will in their life and actions, whether by means of atheism or otherwise. Ἀμαρτωλοί is the proper companion term which is so often used to designate plain, open sinners. The former term refers to the First Commandment although both pertain to law in general.

The ἀνόσιοι are the impious to whom nothing is sacred, and their companions are the βέβηλοι, the profane, who walk over everything and make it as common as dirt. We think of the Second Commandment, of all profanation of God’s name. Both terms occur only in these letters. Law will reckon with all such men. It goes without saying that each of the six terms is not exclusive; in a manner all are synonymous, especially those that are paired. All six refer to God and to what pertains directly to God and is thus most sacred.

“Father-smiters and mother-smiters” take us to the Fourth Commandmment, both are compounds of ἀλοιάω, “to smite” (Exod. 21:15). The reason for listing the grossest sins throughout the list is the same as that for the wording of the Ten Commandments. In Matt. 5:21, etc., Jesus explains that by forbidding the actual crimes, the law against murder, adultery, etc., also forbids everything that leads to these crimes, beginning with the faintest stirring in the heart. The worst must be named so as to include it; but naming the tree thereby names its roots, down to the smallest rootlets. Formal pairing with “and” ends here, but the fourth pair has reached the second table. “Mankillers” or murderers points to the Fifth Commandment (note Matt. 5:21); the extreme includes all that is less. While the two smiters and these killers are linked in thought, in form the killers belong with the next two, for no further “ands” follow.

1 Timothy 1:10

10 The next two, “fornicators, pederasts,” belong together (Sixth Commandment). Compare 1 Cor. 6:9; Rom. 1:27. Knabenschaender were prevalent in the highest social ranks; and there were open apologists of this vice.

“Kidnapers” (to catch a man by the foot) is also followed by an allied pair, “liars, perjurers,” and thus makes another trio which is like the preceding one. With “kidnapers”—there were many in that day—we are referred to Exod. 21:16, and Deut. 24:7, which regard this the worst crime against the Seventh Commandment. “Liars, perjurers” take us to the Eighth Commandment, a third eight (two short of the ten).

Thus an et cetera follows: “and if anything else opposes the healthy (a participle used as an adjective) teaching,” etc., τιἕτερον occurs as it does in Attic Greek, at the close of an enumeration. By an implied contrast the teaching of the ignorant and fantastic “law teachers” (v. 7) is called unhealthy, diseased, morbid, and as such it “opposes” the healthy, sound teaching as everything unhealthy conflicts with health. Only in these Pastoral Letters does Paul use this figure in regard to teaching or doctrine. To assail the genuineness of these letters on this account is not warranted. For Paul had not hitherto encountered such fanciful teaching and had not had occasion to use words that so keenly punctured such bubbles. To speak of enlarging his vocabulary as time went on is pointless since the verb “to be healthy” was known to Paul since his boyhood.

1 Timothy 1:11

11 The final phrase cannot be construed with anything in the preceding sentence; it modifies the whole of it from “we know” onward (v. 8–10). All that is said here is “in accord with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I on my part was entrusted,” we should say “have been entrusted,” the Greek merely marks the past fact. The fact that, as we know, the lawful use of the law is to apply it to all lawbreakers accords with the gospel; the right use of the law always does so. It cannot possibly oppose or even interfere with the gospel. Properly, i.e., lawfully, as it itself demands, used upon the wicked, it reveals their wickedness and aims to crush them in contrition so that they may be made “righteous” by the gospel. But to weave in allegories, myths, vain talk, and questings about the law is to deal unlawfully with the law itself and thus to frustrate its lawful purpose and use; “for by means of law (of what is law) is the knowledge (realization) of sin (of what is sin),” Rom. 3:20. “Gospel” is not used in the wide sense as including the law but in its regular sense, the glad news that we are justified and saved from all condemnations of law through Christ by faith.

“The gospel of the glory of the blessed God” is matched by 2 Cor. 4:4: “the gospel of the glory of Christ.” Neither of these expressions is to be translated with a qualitative (adjectival) genitive: “the glorious gospel” (A. V.), because of the article: “of the glory,” and because: “the glory of the blessed God” (in 2 Cor. 4:4, “of Christ”) is a concept by itself. Some call it an objective genitive: “the gospel which brings or proclaims the glory of the blessed God”; but τὸεὐαγγέλιον does not harmonize with such an object since it lacks action, nor does “the glory of God” fit as such an object. This is a possessive genitive: “the gospel which belongs to the glory of the blessed God.”

God’s δόξα is the sum of his attributes as they shine forth in effulgence. Here those attributes are especially to be thought of in which we see God’s blessedness, the blessedness which he intends to have us share, for which the gospel is the one means since it alone has the power to cleanse and renew such sinners as have just been named in a list of fourteen groups. In accord, then, with this gospel and in no other way may the law be lawfully used.

Ὅ is the retained accusative with the passive and its nominative subject: “with which I on my part was entrusted” by this blessed God. Compare v. 1: “apostle of Christ Jesus by order of God, our Savior.” Just as “our Savior” is there added to “God,” so “blessed” is added here: blessed in his own being and glory, God intends to save us and sent “the gospel of his glory” with this object in view. Paul is one of the apostles who was especially entrusted by God with the gospel. This clause harks back to v. 3, to the charge which Paul in this capacity of his gave and now gives (v. 18) to Timothy. He would not be true to his trust if he should do less. Timothy knows that and will receive this renewed charge accordingly. Paul, however, writes this word about his trust (just as in v. 1 he started his letter with the order that made him an apostle) especially for all the Asian churches, so that they may see why he must charge Timothy as he does, and why this unhealthy, unlawful playing with the records of Moses and the law must be stopped in their midst.

“With which I was entrusted” is an essential clause. It should not, therefore, be dismissed with a few remarks and pious reflections such as that Paul often finds it necessary to emphasize his apostleship, that he did not seek it, that he shows his humility, defends it with warmth, and praises God with overflowing heart for his unmerited distinction.

---

1 Timothy 1:12

12 Paul does not go off on a tangent in this paragraph because he was deflected by the last clause in v. 11, which clause is not in line with the preceding. This paragraph is an integral part of the charge to Timothy and belongs right here between v. 3–11, the substance and the details of the charge, and v. 18, 19, the person to whom it is committed.

These pretended “law teachers” (v. 7) whom Timothy is to stop had no conception of how to use the excellent law in a lawful way, namely upon wicked sinners in accord with the gospel; they played with it in fanciful, rabbinical ways just as they played with the genealogies in Moses by spinning myths and fabulous tales around the ancient names mentioned in them. The very soul of Paul rebels against this ignorant folly when he thinks of himself, of his conversion and his apostleship. He had to take measures to stop it. As Stellhorn states it: “He would have had to deny his own most blessed experience, cast from himself all that made him happy and blessed, if he had acted otherwise,” in fact, also give up his whole apostolic office and disown all that he had accomplished and also suffered in this office. He himself was the most outstanding example of what the right use of the law is able to accomplish when it is applied in accord with (κατά) the gospel of the glory of the blessed God (v. 11. Jesus had so applied the law to him (Acts 9:3–5) and had then sent him where he could find the gospel (v. 6), and it was thus that he had been entrusted with the apostolic office, the office rightly to apply the law so that the gospel may do its work. Stopping these silly law workers through Timothy is a part of Paul’s great office and work.

The intensity of feeling expressed in this paragraph should not be lost in the cold type one reads or in the cool, dissecting comment to which the typed lines are subjected. Here speaks the very soul of Paul. Here is doctrine turned into life. Past experience burns undimmed, confession of sin, confession of faith, gratefulness burst into praise and doxology. This was not for himself but “for an example of those that were to believe on Christ unto life everlasting,” to aid Timothy in his work of stopping the foolish teaching by true enlightenment.

Grateful am I to him that enabled me, to Christ Jesus, our Lord, that he considered me faithful, appointing me for service, formerly being a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent; but I was treated with mercy because, being ignorant, I acted in unbelief; moreover, exceedingly did abound the grace of our Lord accompanied by faith and love in connection with Christ Jesus.

The emphatic ἐγώ used in v. 11: “I on my part,” inserts Paul’s own person and soul into this dealing with the “law teachers” who so hurt the gospel by not knowing what the law was for. This was not a merely intellectual matter but one that struck at Paul’s very spiritual existence and thus at the spiritual existence of every true Christian. Unless the evil was checked, the trust Paul had received in his apostleship could not be carried out, yea, his whole office would amount to nothing. He does not expand and say that the other apostles would also be in the same position although he might have done so (as he did in 1 Cor. 15:15 in the case of the Corinthian error); he lets his own concrete case suffice. His conversion and his appointment as an apostle (v. 1), while they are distinct, occurred at the same time. He naturally sees both involved here.

Χάρινἔχω (“and” in the A. V. is the translation of an inferior reading) is not altogether the same as εὐχαριστῷ or χάριςτῷΘεῷ which are otherwise used by Paul; it expresses his continuous thankfulness in the sense: “Grateful am I,” the emphasis being on the Greek noun. His gratitude goes out “to him who enabled me, to Christ Jesus, our Lord,” which names him according to his Messianic work and his exalted Lordship as our Savior (Acts 2:36).

It is best with Bengel to refer the aorist to Paul’s conversio et vocatio and not to his later suffering, not to the miracles he was later on “enabled” to work, and not to his liberation from his Roman imprisonment. While it is true that in the next clause he speaks of his “ministry,” we know from Acts how closely the enabling for this was connected with his conversion. In Phil. 4:13 the present participle is in place: “he who enables me,” for this passage does not speak of the very first enabling but includes all that followed. In 2 Tim. 4:17: “the Lord stood by me and enabled me,” we have an aorist because it refers to the Lord’s help in the hour when he faced the imperial court.

The reason Paul’s heart overflows with gratitude to the Lord is “that he considered me faithful, appointing me for service,” meaning in the apostleship. There is a reason already in the designation “to him who enabled me.” Paul might have coordinated: “Grateful am I to Christ Jesus, our Lord, that he enabled me and considered me faithful,” etc. But the participle makes the enabling subsidiary to the act of considering; at the same time the substantivizing of the participle and the making it a designation for the Lord lifts it into great prominence: Paul’s Enabler considered him faithful and gave him his office. The Lord made Paul something and considered what he made him out there before Damascus and thus gave him his appointment. All this aroused Paul’s everlasting gratitude.

Πιστόν matches ἐπιστεύθην used in v. 11, for one entrusts only a person whom he considers trustworthy, especially one whom he himself has made so. Participles always express relation, and the context determines what this may be. The θέμενος has been made temporal: “when he appointed me.” It seems to imply more, for the appointing of Paul to the apostleship is the evidence that the Lord considered him faithful and does not merely mark the time: literally, “placing me for himself (middle) for ministry,” not specifying just what ministry is meant. The word does not, however, mean “ministry” that benefited the Lord but that benefited other people. Paul is now exercising such ministry through Timothy for the churches in and about Ephesus.

1 Timothy 1:13

13 The climax of the sentence is the apposition to “me” which is delayed until this point is reached in order to be the more effective: me—“formerly (adverbial accusative whether with or without τό) being a blasphemer and a persecutor and an insolent.” This is the astounding thing: a man with such a record, yet so appointed! Such a man enabled, considered faithful! Now we see why we have the long list of awful sinners in v. 9, 10; at one time this man not only belonged in that list but topped it. Here is an open and a full confession of sin, not one word is softened.

“A blasphemer” who blasphemed the Lord of the church by using the most wicked and hateful language against him and tried to force others to do the same, Acts 26:11. “A persecutor” (found only here in the New Testament) who chased the Lord’s people as one chases wild animals, Acts 22:4, 7, who himself acted like a wild animal, Acts 9:1, who in this activity persecuted the Lord himself (Acts 9:4, 5).

“An insolent” (noun) who both outraged and insulted, see Trench, Synonyms. Each term is severer than the other, καί heaps one on the other. Can you imagine a worse sinner? Should he not have been struck down and made an example of the Lord’s justice? The participle is generally regarded as being concessive: “although formerly being.” In Luke 18:32 we have ὑβρισθήσεται to mark the insolent blows and insults that were to be heaped on Jesus in his mockery by the Sanhedrin and by the Roman soldiers.

But, wonder of wonders: “I was mercied,” the Greek has just one word in the aorist passive: I was treated with compassion in my indescribably pitiful and wretched state; “grace,” which is added in a moment, denotes the unmerited favor bestowed upon this man of blackest guilt. It is Pauline thus to vary the verb and the noun. The glory of gospel mercy and grace lay in changing such a monstrous sinner into a penitent believer and a mighty apostle of the Lord.

Ὅτι means “because” and offers an Erklaerungsgrund, not in order to lessen his guilt by an excuse, but to admit all of it (ἐποίησα, “I did it”) and to bring out how he plunged into all of it: “being ignorant, I acted (did it) in unbelief.” This was the same ignorance that is referred to in John 16:2: “Whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service” (Acts 26:9); the same ignorance that brought Jesus to the cross, Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17. The mercy with which Jesus prayed for his murderers (Luke 23:34) was the mercy that reached Paul near Damascus. Being ignorant does not mean having a mind that was utterly blank regarding Jesus; “in unbelief” excludes that thought. This is the ignorance that is always found in unbelief, that does not see what it ought to see: the deity and the Saviorhood of Christ. It is inadequate to say that the ignorance causes the unbelief, and that the ignorance is therefore placed first. No causal relation between the two is here indicated.

The phrase and the participle could be reversed. See the author’s exposition of Eph. 4:18.

No question should be raised regarding the guilt of Paul’s ignorance; so also unbelief is always full of guilt. The main word is ἀγνοῶν, which is the reason it is placed forward and is thus made emphatic. There is an unbelief that acts against better knowledge, that plunges men into the sin against the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 12:31, 32 (Mark 3:28; Luke 12:10) Jesus warns the Pharisees against going that far; in Heb. 6:4–6; 10:26–29 we see that Christians, too, need this warning.

However black Paul’s guilt was, he did not go against better knowledge, did not oppose “wilfully” (ἑκουσίως, Heb. 10:26), “wilfully despise it (the Word), stop their ears and harden their hearts, and in this manner foreclose the ordinary way to the Holy Ghost, so that he cannot perform his work in them” (note “cannot,” C. Tr. 835, 12); where “man … entirely resists the Word, there no conversion takes place, or can be” (note “can be,” 913, 83). Thus it was that, when this ignorance was shattered by a burst of mighty knowledge, Paul says (Acts 26:19): “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” When he realized the deity and the glory of Jesus, his unbelief was changed into belief.

1 Timothy 1:14

14 This clause is not dependent on ὅτι, and δέ does not mark a balance with an omitted μέν, omitted because the use of μέν is on the decline in the Koine. The sinner’s ignorance and the Lord’s grace cannot be balanced in such a way. It is hazardous to supply a μέν where Paul has written none. The reference to Paul’s acting ignorantly is properly found in a subordinate clause; the abounding of the Lord’s grace, just like the extension of mercy, is properly mentioned in a coordinate main clause; δέ is either “and” (our versions) or, preferably, “moreover.” Rom. 5:20: “Where sin abounded (ἐπλεόνασε), grace did much more abound (ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν),” here We have ὑπερεπλεόνασε.

“Grace” is the undeserved favor shown to the guilty sinner, here the favor of our Lord. Great and terrible as Paul’s sin was with all the ignorance that went with it, the Lord’s grace went ὑπέρ, “beyond” it with its abundance. This does not mean that it did so irresistibly, for grace is never irresistible. Some sinners yield to the slightest touch of grace, some need all its blessed power. The Lord’s grace is not a variable quantity that comes now with small, now with large volume at the Lord’s pleasure so that some to whom little grace comes are not converted although they would have been if they had experienced more grace. Jerusalem and Judas resisted all grace.

We should also not confuse the strength of grace with the Lord’s appearance to Paul, for in that appearance the Lord crushed Paul with the law: “Saul, Saul, why art thou persecuting me?” In order to hear the gospel of grace Paul was directed to go to Damascus, Ananias preached the Lord’s grace to him, the same grace that is preached everywhere. The visible appearance of Jesus was preparatory to Paul’s apostleship, for an apostle had to be a witness who could testify that he had seen the risen Lord with his own eyes (Acts 1:8). This appearance placed Paul on an equality with the other apostles. Matthias who was chosen in the place of Judas met that requirement (Acts 1:22).

The fact that this grace of the Lord was successful in Paul’s case is indicated by the phrase that is introduced with μετά: “accompanied by faith and love in connection with Christ Jesus.” The preposition merely states that faith and love were “in company with” grace. It does not say how they came to be there although we know how: they were wrought by this grace. This brevity will be understood by Timothy. To be sure, grace comes from the Lord, and faith and love were in Paul’s heart; but to combine these two with “the grace of our Lord” by means of μετά implies that both of them, faith and love, came into Paul’s heart, grace kindled them. Both ἀγάπη and πίστις are feminine, hence, just as χάρις has its modifier “our Lord,” so these two have their modifier ἐνΧριστῷἸησοῦ, “in connection with Christ Jesus.” What this connection is, is not further described. The supposition that this would entail a difference in the force of τῆς, the connection with faith not being the same as that with love, is untenable.

It would be strange, indeed, to construe only “love” with Christ when both faith and love are mentioned in one breath and τῆς follows. So we also do not agree with the view that this is Christ’s love and not love which is the fruit of faith.

We should note the pertinency of all this regarding Paul’s own person for his charge to Timothy to stop the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι and νομοδιδάσκαλοι. What could their playing with myths and genealogies and their ignorant fancies about Moses’ law do for a sinner like those named in v. 9, 10 or for one like Paul had once been? Absolutely nothing! They could work no contrition with such unhealthy teaching, nothing “in accord with the gospel of the blessed God (our Savior, v. 1).” Paul’s order to Timothy is not due to what men today call a difference in doctrinal “views” but to the very life of faith and love in Paul’s soul as connected with Christ Jesus and to the blessed apostleship and ministry with which God had entrusted and for which the Lord had enabled him. If Paul were not to stand on this order to Timothy, this would mean to be faithless to his office and trust, yea, to contradict his own faith and love. He significantly joins “love” to “faith,” his whole διακονία, his whole ministry to men, was upborne by love.

1 Timothy 1:15

15 All this, which is written with such intensity about himself, applies to Paul himself because it applies to all sinners (see the list in v. 9, 10); yea, in all this the Lord made Paul an example of his longsuffering for all future sinners who would be saved.

Faithful (is) the statement and of all acceptation worthy, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, to whom I on my part belong as foremost; but for this reason I was treated with mercy that in me as a foremost one Jesus Christ may display all his long-suffering for a model of those who are about to believe on him for life eternal.

“Faithful (is) the statement” occurs only in these Pastoral Letters (3:1; 2 Tim. 2:11; Tit. 3:8), and in 4:9 “worthy of all acceptation” is also added. The sense of these words is “reliable,” “trustworthy” and thus of such importance as to be accepted by all who hear them; ἄξιος means “worthy” with the idea of weight. The absence of a connective arrests the attention of the Greek reader and makes the assertion stand by itself, in an independent way. Ἀποδοχή is more than “approbation”; it denotes “acceptance.” A statement that is πιστός deserves the acceptance of πίστις. That does not mean mere assent but a faith that appropriates the statement for one’s own soul, spiritual apprehension. Ὁλόγος denotes the contents of what is expressed by words. Another and a longer wording might be used, but the logos would be the same. “Worthy of all acceptance” = complete acceptation in every way, without reservation, without hesitation, without the least doubt.

The statement presents pure, objective fact: “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” the Greek reads: “sinners to save” (effective aorist), the verb and the object are transposed so as to emphasize both. “Came into the world” is restricted to the incarnation by some; but we may regard the aorist “came” as we do the aorist “to save,” as a constative aorist which includes not merely the arrival alone but everything that occurred until the time of his departure from the world. Verses 9, 10 show what “sinners” Christ came to save. The idea that he came to save only some sinners by a limited atonement and left others to be doomed contradicts this logos. This is the gospel in brief; this is its very heart. It is a repetition of Matt. 18:11: “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost”; compare John 3:17; 1 John 3:5. This word of Jesus’ was undoubtedly restated so many times that it is pointless to say that Paul quotes one of these restatements. There is no need to expand and to say from what Jesus came to save sinners, from their sins, their guilt, and the penalty of perdition. “Sinners” he came to save, not saints (Matt. 9:13).

Ὧνπρῶτόςεἰμιἐγώ, “of whom first or foremost am I on my part,” has the Greek idiom “I am of,” which = “I belong to.” The adjective may be connected with the genitive: “whose first or foremost one I am”; but we prefer not to regard it as the predicate of the copula but as predicative to ἐγώ: “I as foremost.” Its position is due solely to emphasis, ὧνεἰμι is itself a regular idiom so that one could say: “of whom I myself am,” i.e., “to whom I belong.” Those who think that Paul is humbling himself too severely may look at ἔκτρωμα in 1 Cor. 15:8, where he calls himself “an abortion,” a vile, dead thing that ought hurriedly be buried from sight (see the writer on this passage).

Those who would make “first” absolute may note that Paul does not say: “of all whom I am first or the first,” nor “of whom I am the first.” In Acts 28:17, πρῶτοι, is used in the plural: “foremost men of the Jews.” What object is there in making Paul the worst possible of all sinners when we know about the one mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:3, 4? We certainly do not wish to reduce Paul’s sinfulness, he would be foremost in stopping us. But we do refuse to say that every believer ought to confess, “I am the worst possible sinner,” just because each one knows his own sins from personal experience and the sins of others only from what he sees and hears about them. Paul writes: “of whom I am foremost,” not was foremost, but not because he vividly recalls only his past crimes but because he speaks of himself as a sinner, as one who should be classed with sinners because of all his sins, whether past or present.

1 Timothy 1:16

16 In v. 12–14 Paul states what God did for him; in v. 15, 16 what God thereby did for others. The conversion of one man often means much for others; this was eminently the case with regard to Paul. But the thought is not that by converting Paul, God would convert many others, through Paul’s work; also not that Paul’s is an outstanding example of conversion which is in this respect valuable for all future time, although both those ideas are correct. Διὰτοῦτο has the ἵνα clause as an apposition. The reason that Paul was treated with mercy although he was such a frightful sinner is “that in me as foremost Jesus Christ may display all his longsuffering for a model of those who are about to believe on him,” etc. The reason is not Paul or anything in Paul; the reason is Jesus, something in Jesus, namely “all his longsuffering,” μακροθυμία, holding out long under provocation. Did any man provoke Jesus more severely than did Saul? But instead of promptly striking this blasphemous, persecuting insolent down with the justice he deserved, as we might rightly have expected, Jesus bore him and kept bearing him and finally attained the most astonishing success by means of his mercy (ἠλεήθην, the same verb was used in v. 13).

We should expect that after saying, “I was mercied,” in v. 13 Paul would say that Jesus secured in me a great example of his wonderful mercy, a sample of that mercy which he would show toward all future believers, which would certainly also state the fact. But Paul sees much more in his own case. He certainly sees all the mercy of Jesus, for he writes twice, “I was mercied,” and both times he employs finite verbs. But back of that mercy was the wondrous “longsuffering” which held back judgment when it was long overdue and thus enabled mercy to win its blessed result. Thereby Jesus provided a ὑποτύπωσις, an outstanding “model” (it is more than a τύπος or “example”), to set forth once for all as a display (ἐνδείξηται, aorist) as to how he would deal also with so many others who in future would believe on him. Τῶνμελλόντωνπιστεύειν is a periphrastic future: “those about to believe,” i.e., future believers. By using the present participle the iterative sense is made prominent, case after case would extend into the future.

It was the will of Jesus to use Paul’s case as a display of “all his longsuffering.” This does not imply that there are not other cases. Paul writes: that in me “as a foremost one” Jesus may display, etc. With the first πρῶτος Paul says that “as foremost” he belonged to sinners; when πρώτῳ now follows so closely, it must again signify rank. It cannot be a temporal designation and say that as “first” Paul antedated τῶνμελλόντων, the believers of the coming days. Paul naturally deals only with a model of all the longsuffering of Jesus with reference to coming believers, whose cases, as far as Jesus’ longsuffering is concerned, resemble this model, and not with unbelievers who, like Judas, despite all the longsuffering of Jesus persist in unbelief and do not end in mercy but in perdition. We occasionally find “believe on Jesus” (ἐπί), to place confidence and trust “upon” him. “For life eternal” adds the blessed result of believing.

This is ζωή in the spiritual sense which is now begotten in us by faith and extends to all eternity (see the fuller elaboration, Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, 249; compare Matt. 19:16).

How could the Jewish myths, the dabbling with the Mosaic genealogies, the ignorant playing with Mosaic law serve for the conversion of sinners, shed light on the Lord’s mercy and on his longsuffering in enduring such sinners until mercy is able to bring them to faith and to salvation? How would Paul have fared if there had been only such myths, etc.? What about all sinners in the future? Only when the law is lawfully used “in accord with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God,” that gospel which is now entrusted to Paul (v. 11), could the longsuffering of Jesus at last bestow his mercy for faith and life eternal.

1 Timothy 1:17

17 Ex sensu gratiae fluit doxologia, Bengel. This doxology is the outburst of a heart that is surcharged with feeling; it is induced not only by Paul’s own experience but also by all that the Lord’s longsuffering and mercy mean for all past and all future believers. He sees these fountains of his and of their salvation and this eternal life and salvation itself and, stirred thus, he exclaims: Now to the King of the eons, imperishable, invisible, sole God, honor and glory for the eons of the eons! Amen. He rules the eons, the vast eras that are marked by what transpires in them whether they are conceived as belonging to time or to eternity (see the following phrase).

This King is absolute. Note Luke 1:33 regarding the rule of Jesus “for the eons.” Such a King is naturally “imperishable,” “who only has immortality” (6:16). He is the Supreme Spirit over all, not the object of the senses, but of faith and hence “invisible,” unseen. Yea, “sole God,” there is none besides him. The order of these terms accords with their meaning. The King of the eons who rules them and all that is in them must be imperishable as being infinitely superior to them, must thus be Spirit, as such invisible because he is superior to all that is visible, must thus be sole and only God with no other God existing.

Paul has such a large number of doxologies, which are phrased in such varied forms that none of them follow a fixed formula but repeat precious Old Testament expressions in free appropriation. Thus we note Ps. 145:13. Because Paul uses two nouns, some would separate them: To the King of the eons—imperishable, invisible, only God (construing all the adjectives with “God”); but if this were to be done, the adjectives would usually be placed after “God.” The variant readings need not detain us; one has been the basis of the A. V.’s translation: “the only wise God,” which is adopted from Rom. 16:27.

We need no verb since this is an exclamation: to him “honor and glory for the eons of the eons!” Honor is the esteem and reverence, and glory is the ascription of our praise as we see and adore all his excellencies. “For the eons of the eons,” plurals, adds the genitive in Hebrew fashion in order to indicate the superlative degree of duration, namely endlessness; it is our English idiom “forever and ever.” Eternity is really timelessness and not in any sense duration, but human language has no words to express that idea since the human mind is able to form no adequate conception because in its finiteness it is bound to ideas of time.

“Amen” is the transliteration of the Hebrew word which (like hosanna and hallelujah) has passed unchanged into other languages. It means “truth” and, except in the Gospels, is placed at the end of a statement as a seal of verity. It is always emphatic and should be read so; it is a confessional affirmation that completely justifies what precedes and compels the reader to see and to recognize the fact.

1 Timothy 1:18

18 This charge I commit to thee, child Timothy, in accord with the prophecies proceeding in advance to thee, that thou war in connection with them the noble warfare as having faith and a good conscience which some, thrusting away, have made shipwreck as regards the faith, to whom belong Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan in order that they may be disciplined not to blaspheme.

“This charge,” the one named in the verb in v. 3 and in the noun in v. 5 and elucidated in the whole of v. 3–17. It is once more summed up in the ἑτεροδιδάσκαλοι clause regarding warring the good warfare. Here at the end of this first part of the letter Paul commits this task of dealing with the ἵνα to Timothy in a rather formal way. He has already urged Timothy (v. 3) to attend to these people; so that no one may question Timothy’s authority in the matter Paul puts the commission into written form so that Timothy may produce it if necessary. Paul even points to his own summary action when he expelled two men during his brief stay at Ephesus (v. 20). Paul thus fortifies Timothy all around so that Timothy may act under Paul’s own fullest authority.

The view that “this charge” = the gospel in general or something less definite interrupts the context and leaves these verses hanging in the air. “Child Timothy” recalls the endearing address used in v. 2. Those who refer the “charge” to the gospel think that Paul intends to commit the gospel to this child as an inheritance to be preserved; others think of Timothy’s taking an admonition to heart. But the address “child” means that Timothy will carry out the charge of v. 3–17 in the spirit of Paul, “in accord with the prophecies proceeding in advance to thee.”

Luther is puzzled about this phrase and confesses, “I do not know what he (Paul) means with this text,” and wavers between the Old Testament prophecies and teachings and prophecies which were supposedly uttered with reference to Timothy when Paul in Lystra chose Timothy as his assistant. Most commentators decide for the latter, some refer to 4:14; 6:12; 2 Tim. 1:6; 2:2; others refer to Acts 16:2, the good reports of the brethren in Lystra and Iconium about Timothy although they wrestle with the following ἐναὐταῖς, Timothy’s warfare “in these prophecies.”

Luther is evidently on the right track. These are, however, not Old Testament prophecies which preceded Timothy by hundreds of years; why should their proceeding so far in advance be mentioned? These are the apostolic prophecies and teachings which are described with a present (not an aorist) participle as getting to Timothy in advance of this time when he is especially called upon to make his disciplinary measures accord with them (κατά) by conducting his good campaign “in connection with them.” We have discussed prophecy in 1 Thess. 5:20; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 14:3 (which see). This word may refer to immediate revelation, but it is also used with reference to all transmission of such revelation by those who have received it mediately, and 1 Cor. 14:1 urges all Christians to seek this gift and ability. This is the sense of “prophecies” in this passage.

Even now, in this letter, such prophecies are coming to Timothy in advance of his work in applying them to the flighty teachers in the province of Asia. Paul certainly includes the teaching he has presented in this chapter, and it agrees with what he told Timothy before he had left him (v. 3) and with all that Paul had taught him; “proceeding to you” is the correct word and the correct tense. It is well to note that ἐπὶσέ does not = περί, “concerning thee.” “Upon thee” means literally “to thee.” Timothy is well fortified and equipped in advance. Προάγων even fits the idea of the next clause, that of waging a noble campaign. Like troops, these prophecies and true teachings come to Timothy in advance so as to enable him to make a good campaign in his new field. He is Paul’s lieutenant-general who is re-enforced by his general-in-chief.

The ἵνα clause is an apposition to “this charge.” This does not mean that “this charge” does not refer to the one mentioned in v. 3 and 5, to silence those theaching something else; the ἵνα clause merely advances the ἵνα of v. 3, it merely says that what v. 3 orders Timothy to do is a campaign, and that it ought to be an excellent or a noble one, one that is well conducted: “that thou campaign in connection with them the (i.e., thy) noble campaign” (cognate accusative). This is military language: Timothy is the στρατηγός—he has a στράτευμα—is engaged in στρατεύειν—is to accomplish τὴνκαλὴνστρατείαν. But his forces are these “prophecies,” his whole campaigning is a spiritual one. Paul’s charge to Timothy does not merely have this as its purpose; this is the charge itself, this is what v. 3 means.

1 Timothy 1:19

19 As he campaigns thus he is to have “faith and a good conscience,” not Christian faith in general nor a good conscience in general; this is faith in the prophecies he is to use as his victorious forces in this campaign and thus a good conscience that is due to relying onoly on these prophecies and apostolic teachings even as only “in connection with them” he is to do the campaigning. Apart from them Timothy’s conscience would be in a sad plight indeed.

That comment is not acceptable which says that Timothy is to add to the prophecies “faith and a good conscience.” This comment misunderstands the force of ἔχων which merely describes the subject of στρατεύῃ: “that thou campaign as having faith,” etc. We have already said that this is not a purpose clause. Nor can we accept any comment to the effect that Timothy is not to lose his faith and a good conscience. Would Paul appoint as his lieutenant a man regarding whom he still had such fears? The point is that, when he is correcting errors such as were found in the Asian field, even a good man might resort to other means than the prophecies, might not trust them sufficiently and thus hurt his own conscience. We, too, who have so many evils to contend with in the churches might well note this fact.

The Greek permits Paul to continue with three consecutive relative clauses; in English we should use independent sentences. The first is to be construed with “a good conscience” and not also with “faith,” for “the faith” appears in the relative clause: “which some by thrusting away (or: having thrust away) made shipwreck regarding the (their) faith.” When they thrust aside their conscience which tried to hold them to the prophecies they had learned from faithful teachers they made shipwreck of their very faith. One cannot keep his faith while he plays fast and loose with the prophecies (Word). He will have to silence his conscience, make it cease crying out against such practice, and then his faith is wrecked whether he admits it or not. A new, graphic figure is added, but it agrees with the other figure. The one is the disturbance of war during a campaign, the other is the disturbance of a storm at sea.

In both our one reliance is prophecy, the Word. It is a sad campaign, a sad wreck, if conscience is thrust aside and reliance is sought in something aside from or contrary to the prophecies or Word.

Paul says that “some” did make shipwreck of their faith and then names two who had already been expelled. The fact that these “some” are not identical with the “some” mentioned in v. 3 is apparent from what is said about each group. Both of the groups are mentioned in connection with the charge to Timothy and must thus belong to the same class from whose follies Timothy is to rid the churches. These “some” mentioned in our verse are the worst of the group mentioned in v. 3 and 7, the leaders in this business of myths and genealogies and fancies about the law that could not possibly help sinners in accord with the gospel. They got so far away from the apostolic prophecies that they did even what is here stated regarding their conscience and their faith. Paul himself had dealt with two of them, and when he held up to them the prophecies, i.e., the apostolic gospel teaching, and thereby tried to reach their conscience he found that they had actually thrust all good conscience away and had thereby lost their faith altogether. The true gospel teaching no longer made an impression on them, it had been smothered by their myths, etc.

Paul is not warning Timothy lest he, too, join their number and likewise be delivered over to Satan. One does not send as a lieutenant to smite such men with the apostolic teaching in a campaign a man whom he must warn not to go over to the enemy. These relative clauses point out the opposites: Timothy having the prophecies and thus faith and a good conscience—these men having neither; Timothy is thus to eject them as Paul has already ejected two of them.

1 Timothy 1:20

20 “To whom belong” is the same kind of a genitive as that found in v. 16. There is reason for the construction with relatives, it ties everything together from the loss of faith to ultimate expulsion. We see no reason for thinking that this is not the Hymenæus mentioned in 2 Tim. 2:17. There he is an example of teaching that eats like a cancer; here an example of excommunication. Alexander is so common a name that we are not ready to identify him with the Jew Alexander mentioned in Acts 19:33. To think that this Jew became a Christian and then an apostate blasphemer whom Paul excommunicated, can be only a conjecture.

Is he the “Alexander, the metalworker,” mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:14? Why should he, then, be identified as “the metalworker” in the second letter and not in the first? Moreover, the two men referred to in this letter are residing in Ephesus or in one of the churches of the Ephesian group while the man mentioned in Second Timothy seems to be living in Rome. It is again conjecture to transfer him from Ephesus to Rome and then back again to Ephesus.

“Whom I gave over to Satan in order that they may be disciplined (see Trench on the word) not to blaspheme” reads so much like 1 Cor. 5:5 that the two acts are similar. Both of them were formal expulsions or excommunications, see the interpretation of the Corinthian passage. In 1 Cor. 5:3–5, Paul writes as though he himself were present at the meeting of the congregation in Corinth and were offering the formal resolution to expel the man (v. 4, 5), which was to be formally adopted by the congregation, “to deliver such a one over to Satan.” The same words are here used. There the case was one of incest and impenitence, here it was one of blasphemy. In both instances excommunication must needs follow.

And that is the sense of “giving over to Satan.” These two cases are like that of Judas whose heart Satan had filled. They are cases not merely of some false doctrine or other, whose proponent must also be expelled, but not by at once giving him over to Satan, for a doctrinal error may not mean that all faith has already been lost. Impenitence in the case of open sin, likewise blasphemy, does mean that. When Paul says “I gave over,” in the light of 1 Cor. 5:3–5 this cannot mean that Paul did this alone, without the congregation, by his apostolic authority alone, but must be understood as it is in 1 Cor. 5:5. When the cases were brought before the congregation, Paul made the motion indicated, and the congregation adopted the motion. The New Testament knows of no hierarchical excommunication.

Some seem to think that 1 Cor. 5:5 implies that Satan is to punish the man given over to him by physical disease and the like; some say that he was to be punished by demoniacal possession, and such punishment was to bring the expelled man to repentance, as if repentance is ever produced by such means, as if Satan would thus play into the hands of Christ! Such views are scarcely tenable.

The purpose clause: “that they be disciplined not to blaspheme,” means that this congregational act of discipline may, as the church’s final means, bring home to these blasphemers the enormity of their sin and guilt, and that they may be crushed in contrition by the law and come to repentance. Excommunication does not aim to bring about the sinner’s damnation but his reclamation. Often the law does not strike through until it is applied to the limit. Even when it is so applied it does not always succeed; this is only the last expedient. The sinner may remain in Satan’s hands.

Timothy knew these two cases. Whether he had already arrived from Philippi and was present at the double excommunication we are unable to say. That point is not material. If he came a bit later he heard all about what had been done. The point is that, when Paul left for Macedonia, all such discipline was placed into Timothy’s hands, who was to direct and to supervise it in the entire province.

The conclusion is fully warranted that Paul found only these two, Hymenæus and Alexander, in Ephesus itself and thus under his own direction at once had the congregation deal with them. If there had been others of this type in Ephesus, Paul would have had them attended to just as promptly before he proceeded on his way. Thus Ephesus itself had been rid of such men before Paul left. The cases which Timothy would have to attend to would be found outside of Ephesus, scattered here and there in other congregations of the province. Paul’s object in naming the two cases that occurred in Ephesus and in stating what he himself had done with them is to enable Timothy to show this letter wherever he may be questioned or opposed when he insists that effective measures be taken in any congregation. Timothy has in writing what Paul did in Ephesus; no less is to be done elsewhere whenever it becomes necessary.

The word “blaspheme” sheds some light upon the tenets of the men who taught ἕτερα, myths, genealogical fancies, and ignorant legal notions in some of the Asian congregations. Some of these men arrived at the point where they actually blasphemed the true law of the gospel teachings and endeavored to remove these in order to make their myths, etc., the sole teaching. No congregation could tolerate such men in its midst. Still more light is offered by 2 Tim. 2:16, 17, the “profane and vain babblings eating like a cancer,” with malignancy crowding out the teaching of the saving truth. “Stop it!” (see v. 3) is Paul’s charge to Timothy.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.