1 Timothy 6

CHAPTER VI

Slaves, 6:1, 2

1 Timothy 6:1

1 Eph. 6:5–10 and Col. 3:22–4:1 deal with the Christian obligations of both slaves and masters since these letters were written directly to congregations; hence also the obligations of wives and husbands, children and parents are discussed. In this letter Paul writes to Timothy, his apostolic representative for all the churches in the Asian territory, repeats certain directions he had given to Timothy on matters regarding his work. One of these directions is in regard to slaves, some of whom had pagan masters, others of whom were fortunate in having Christian masters. The idea is not that Timothy did not know how to handle these different cases. Timothy had been with Paul a long time, and Paul had left him in Ephesus (1:3) for this work of properly regulating everything for the many congregations. This letter gives Timothy these instructions in writing to be used as needed in the churches. So he sets down what Timothy is to inculcate in regard to the two groups of church members who are slaves.

The Roman world was full of slaves. Many of them were high-class servants who were wholly unlike the Negro slaves in America. What the Christian Church has to say to them we see from Paul’s epistle. As many as are under yoke as slaves, let them consider their own masters worthy of all honor in order that the name of God and the doctrine may not be blasphemed.

We do not think that “as many as are under yoke” refers to a larger class than those named in the predicative apposition “as slaves.” Instead of saying merely “as many as are slaves,” Paul inserts the phrase “under yoke” in order to bring out fully what their condition was. Oxen are under a yoke and are driven by the will of their owner. That, too, is why Paul does not use κύριος but δεσπότης to designate their master. Both terms intend to bring to mind the full oppressiveness of the state of slavery. Trench has a fine essay on the two synonyms: “lord” is one who exercises dominion, “despotes” (from which our “despot” is derived) one who exercises domination. See further in Trench.

Although they are “slaves” in the full sense of what this implies, their Christian religion requires of them that they consider their masters, i.e., each slave his “own,” worthy of all honor. Because a slave is a Christian, a child of God and an heir of heaven, and because his pagan master is not, the slave dare not despise that master of his. The human relation between the two is not abrogated; it is only sanctified on the slave’s part, who will now honor his human master for God’s sake. It is this very spirit which is here instilled into the slave, elsewhere in Paul’s letters also into the master, which finally wiped out the whole institution of slavery. It must be noted that the thread of “honor” runs through 5:3; 5:17; 6:1.

The motive for the Christian slave’s attitude toward his pagan master, irrespective, of course, of how that master may treat him, is to be the very highest and therefore the most powerful: “in order that the name of God and the doctrine may not be blasphemed.” “The name” is more than this or that designation of the Christian God; it is his entire revelation of himself, by which alone we are able to know him; it is God in his holy gospel. Thus also “the doctrine” may be combined with “the name” and mean what Christianity teaches. If a Christian slave dishonored his master in any way by disobedience, by acting disrespectfully, by speaking shamefully of his master, the worst consequence would not be the beating he would receive but the curses he would cause his master to hurl at this miserable slave’s God, his religion, and the teaching he had embraced: “So that is what this new religion teaches its converts!” Instead of bringing honor to the true God and the gospel of his high and holy Name, as every Christian should be anxious to do, this slave would bring about the very opposite, to the devil’s delight.

1 Timothy 6:2

2 And those having believers as masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but let them the rather slave (for them) because they are believers and beloved, they (too) taking hold of the well-doing.

Note the way in which the positive is used and then the negative in a veiled chiasm: for the pagan masters—all honor; for the believing masters—no despising (literally, thinking down upon) because they are brethren. Note also the self-evident logic: If all honor for pagan masters, then certainly not less honor for believing masters; more honor could not be used because all honor is already superlative. The human mind often acts queerly. Because spiritually and in the sight of God slaves and masters (Gal. 3:28) were brethren in the church, both equally dear, equally high, these slaves might despise these masters, might serve them less well.

They ought to do the very opposite. True logic would require that they slave the rather (μᾶλλον) for such masters and thank God that they have believing and not pagan masters. The two ὅτι clauses correspond, which means that both of them have the same subject, namely the believing masters. What Christian slave would not prefer to render his slave-service to a master who is himself πιστός, a true believer, and thus also ἀγαπητός, one truly beloved by the Christian slave? Οἱ merely substantivizes the participle and makes it an apposition to the two predicates πιστοὶκαὶἀγαπητοί. The subject lies in εἰσί, namely “they,” the masters: “because they are believers and beloved ones, they (too) taking hold of the well-doing.” “The working well” is the good activity in which the Christian slaves work for their masters, hence the article is used. This good activity, this working well, the Christian masters also take hold of, sie befleissigen sich dieses Wohltuns, (B.-P. 116), nehmen sich dieses Wohltuns an (C.-K. 658). There is a mutuality, a reciprocity: masters and slaves are both Christian, alike concerned in doing good, each to the other.

The Christian slaves should appreciate having Christian masters and thus serve them μᾶλλον. One may say that this is a hint also for Christians who owned slaves. Some suppose that the article with the participles makes these the subject of the clause; they apply the rule that when a nominative has the article and other nominatives do not, the former is the subject, the others the predicate. But a participle must have the article in order to make it a substantive and thus to use it as an apposition, otherwise it would be only a predicative addition. So here πιστοί and ἀγαπητοί are used as nouns in the predicate just as ἀδελφοί is in the other ὅτι clause. Then comes the apposition which shows why these masters are “beloved ones” to their Christian slaves: they, too, taking hold of this welldoing.

It is important to note this construction because it helps us to avoid several wrong interpretations. Some of these alter the meaning of the participle and of its dependent noun. There is no idea of “partaking of the benefit” (our versions), whether the idea is that the Christian slaves receive the benefit of food, protection, etc., from their masters, or whether the masters receive the benefit of good service from their slaves. Untenable is the view that εὐεργεσία is “benefit” or Wohltat or Wohltun that comes from God. Ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι = sich befleissigen (neuter object) or sich annehmen (personal object) and governs the genitive; the object is neuter: these Christian masters diligently occupy themselves with the well-working.

These things keep teaching and keep urging! This is to be Timothy’s part; compare the same injunction in 5:7. By his teaching and his urging Timothy is to make “these things” the established ethical doctrine concerning slaves in all the churches. The second imperative may mean “urge” or “exhort” or “admonish” or “comfort” or “encourage” as the context may require; “keep urging” is our choice of meaning.

Teachers of Different Doctrines, 3–5

1 Timothy 6:3

3 The teaching of different doctrines in the churches under his supervision must be stopped by Timothy (1:3–20); the Spirit states that devilish doctrines will be promulgated in the future, and Timothy is duly to warn and to fortify the churches in advance (4:1–16). Once more Paul reverts to those who teach different doctrines and now tells Timothy and the churches under his care what their judgment on such men must be. Paul certainly does not mince words. He does not handle men who teach differently with kid gloves. The modern indifference to different doctrine is unapostolic. Much more may be said on this Pauline chapter, especially when all that he writes in his other letters is combined with what is said here.

If anyone teaches different doctrine and does not come to healthy words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine in accord with godliness, he has been puffed up, understanding nothing, but being morbid regarding questionings and battles about words, out of which there keeps coming envy, strife, blasphemies, wicked suspicions, irritations, of men having been corrupted as to the mind and having been bereft of the truth, supposing their godliness to be a means of gain.

This is enough. When Timothy inculcates this correct view of all who teach a different doctrine, none of the churches will tolerate such men. This passage cannot be connected with the little paragraph regarding slaves (v. 1, 2) so as to denounce those who teach slaves something different.

We have had ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν in 1:4; but there Paul refers to those who were then teaching myths, etc., in the churches, now he refers to “anyone” teaching any doctrine that differs from the true one. Zahn, Introduction II, 127, defines ἕτερος in the compound verb thus: “It may retain its primary significance of simple difference or divergence, whether from the standpoint of the speaker or from that of the person or the thing spoken of, but quite commonly also may denote more specifically divergence from what is correct.” Strangely, he objects to the use of this word made by Ignatius in the sense of “to propound a false doctrine” as being inexact; but is Paul here denouncing only small divergencies of doctrine and passing by open falsities? Fortunately, the apostle adds full specifications so that we cannot exclude gross false doctrine.

Paul defines: “and does not come to healthy words,” and then defines the “words” he refers to: “those of our Lord Jesus Christ” (source), and adds the further specification: “and to the doctrine in accord with godliness” (norm). Προσέχεται has too little manuscript authority to be considered; the reading is προσέρχεται M.-M. 646; R., W. P., and others think that the word has an exceptional meaning in this passage, namely “consent to,” and thus seek for examples of this sense. The sense is quite normal, the Germans have no trouble understanding it: “and does not come to healthy words,” von Hofmann adds: as to a pure fountain. It is not even metaphorical, for one may come to spiritual things as well as to physical.

Λόγοι are statements, words conveying thought. “Those of our Lord Jesus Christ” are those spoken by him; note “these my words” in Matt. 7:24, 26; “my words” in Luke 6:47; the singular in John 12:48; 17:14, 17. Jesus’ “word” and “words” constitute the gospel, the singular, the gospel as a whole, the plural as so many doctrines. Whoever does not come to them, strays around elsewhere, no matter where, and teaches both ἑτέρως and ἕτερα, “differently” and “different things.”

Paul significantly calls them “healthy” words, sanus, which is not the same as “wholesome” (A. V.), saluber (Zahn, Introduction II, 129). This thought of health and healthy runs through these last letters: 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Tit. 1:9, 13; 2:1, 2, 8. Who wants unhealthy, diseased words and teaching? Here we have the German reine Lehre, a term that is scoffed at by those who want something unclean in the way of doctrine; we recall the use of the expression “unclean spirits” in the Gospels. Paul first uses the plural “unhealthy words” and spreads them out in their variety and their number; then the compact singular of the mass: “the doctrine not in accord with godliness,” and also changes from an adjective to a phrase—both are typically Pauline. Κατά indicates the norm, it should be godliness; it is not this but some totally different norm that the unhealthy teaching follows.

Who wants teaching that does not accord with godliness; there is no intermediate step. On “godliness” see 4:7.

1 Timothy 6:4

4 We catch the idea of τετύφωται when we note that, like τῦφος, it is used in the sense of being conceited (B.-P. 1328; M.-M. 646); the perfect indicates continuous condition: “is puffed up with conceit.” Demosthenes used it in the sense of dumm sein, which is scarcely the sense here since “understanding nothing” follows and adds this thought to blatant conceit. Conceitedness and silly ignorance so often go together. “The Sonderlehrer know nothing in the domain in which they pretend to know something, in which they pose as teachers. They have no knowledge, they possess no understanding of what they claim to know far better than the true teachers, of the way of justification and sanctification. By pretending to teach and also making many words they by no means prove their expert knowledge.… This is still the characteristic of sectarians.” Kretzmann who points especially to Christian Science and Russellism. But there are also others of this type.

Paul adds another participle: “but being morbid regarding questionings and battles about words” (our “logomachies”). Such a man will not even approach healthy words, “being sick with a morbidity” for all kinds of investigations and disputes about things valueless, that lead to nothing but endless word-battles. What a true picture even today! So much for the subject matter taught by such a man.

1 Timothy 6:5

5 Now the ungodly effects of his teaching such, “different” things: “out of which there keeps coming (durative present, γίνεται: there keeps occurring) envy, strife, blasphemies, wicked suspicions, irritations,” such fruits as these. Paul names five, the half of full completeness, which means that there are others of the same kind that may be added to the list. These miserable products, we should note, appear in these false teachers themselves. In their questions and word-battles one envies the other because of the proficiency which he develops; there is strife as they vie with and contradict each other; blasphemies result, namely denunciations couched in sacred words; also ὑπόνοιαι, “underthoughts,” suspicions of motives and of intents; διαπαρατριβαί (correct reading) “irritations,” mutual rubbing and friction. Chrysostom thought of infected sheep, rubbing and spreading their disease; but these irritations are mutual between men whose minds are diseased with errors.

Paul starts with “anyone,” a singular in form, which is indefinite and thus leads us to think of a number; he now adds the plural with characterizing participles, the perfect tenses describing present conditions that reach far back: all these and similar vices “belonging to men corrupted as to the mind (the passive retaining the accusative of the active) and bereft of the truth” (the ablative genitive, R. 518). Paul’s analysis is keen. This trouble is in the mind, here corruption has occurred. C.-K. 764 is right, νοῦς is the organ of moral thinking and comprehension, the intellectual organ of the moral impulse of man’s being. It is the result of corruption of mind to be bereft of the truth, i.e., of the reality which constitutes the saving gospel. The soundest psychology underlies these two participles, a psychology of error that is little understood today and one that is not investigated by professional psychologists. Will someone not write The Psychology of Error?

Νοσῶν points to mental morbidity which already says much in regard to the pathology here described; διεφθαρμένων says still more. We see the evidences of morbid thinking in what this thinking loves to occupy itself with, ζητήσεις‚ λογομαχίαι. The diseased state of the mind consists in a corruption and a disintegration—the mental faculties no longer function normally in the moral and the spiritual field. They do not react normally to the truth. All reality and its presentation in verity ought to produce the reaction of acceptance, especially the saving divine gospel realities should have this effect; all lies, falsities, perversions ought to produce rejection, most of all those in the moral and the spiritual field. Jesus was compelled to say: “Because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not,” John 8:45; also 5:43.

When it meets “the truth,” the corrupted mind sees and seeks only objections; when it meets what differs from this truth, it sees and seeks reasons for accepting this difference. Jesus presents this psychology in John 3:19–21. A deeper truth underlies it, 2 Cor. 4:4. The psychological feature of it is exceedingly important. For one thing, it reveals the guilt involved.

Thus they “are bereft of the truth.” “Bereft” is correct, for these are not men who have never come into contact with the truth; then “bereft” would not be the proper word. The truth was theirs at one time or could and should have been theirs; thus they now stand as “having been bereft.” The question whether elders or laymen are referred to is unimportant. Far more important is the fact that such men do not go out among pagans and work on them but keep undermining the health of the church and raise the cry of intolerance when they are stopped.

The present participle: “supposing their godliness to be a means of gain,” seems to have been added rather incidentally, for it forms a transition to the next section. Here “their godliness” is not to be understood in the objective sense of the true, genuine godliness as it is in v. 3 but in the subjective sense in which these men conceive of “their godliness” (the article has the force of the possessive pronoun). Paul touches the mercenary side of false teaching. Our times furnish some glaring examples. Luther mercilessly exposed the greed of the papacy. Religious charlatans infested the Roman world, attached themselves to men of power and wealth, their great object being gain.

Paul and his assistants refused to take even their daily bread from their converts. Also in Corinth the Judaizers “devoured” with rank mercenariness.

On slender textual grounds the A. V. adds: “From such withdraw thyself!” which a few commentators would retain on the plea that the insertion cannot be explained. But why not? Does not a similar command appear in 2 Tim. 3:5? Somebody thought Paul’s words incomplete and completed them. However, in no case are we obliged to accept a variant just because we cannot explain its insertion. Paul does not need to say what Timothy and the churches are to do after he has said what these false teachers are.

The Desire to Be Rich, 6–16

1 Timothy 6:6

6 We make a paragraph at this point because Paul is discussing different groups. He has finished his discussion regarding those who are teaching differing doctrines; he still has two further groups about whom he deems it necessary to say something: those who intend to be rich (v. 6–16) and those who are rich (v. 17–19). Where the thought permits it Paul links together. In 5:3; 5:17; 6:1 the links are “honor”; in 6:3 no link is offered; here in v. 6 “godliness” and “means of gain” link with v. 5. Yet the class now discussed is a separate group, those who are bent on getting rich.

Now the godliness (I have in mind) together with contentment actually is a great means of gain. Ἔστι is placed forward, is accented, is emphatic: it is, and there is no doubt about it. Also the predicate is placed emphatically forward, which leaves the subject in last place and lends emphasis to it also. This is what the flexibility of the Greek is able to achieve. The article is pointed: not the godliness that the mercenary false teachers have in mind but “the godliness” which Paul has in mind. Part of it is “contentment,” hence it is always μετά, “together with” or “accompanied by” contentment, αὐτάρκεια, the condition of being satisfied with what one has and not looking elsewhere—see the adjective in Phil. 4:11. This is not the Stoic virtue that goes under this name but is distinctively Christian, for it rests on God’s provident care.

The preposition is neither causal nor conditional: “because or if together with contentment.” Nor is it limiting as if there were two kinds of godliness, one with and the other without contentment. It is explicative: contentment always goes together with the true godliness, hence it also has no article.

As this godliness is a different matter from that of the mercenary false teachers, so it is also “a means of gain” in a far different sense. For the true godliness is profitable for everything, having promise for the life now and for the one to come, 4:8. It is thus “a great means of gain.” Paul indicates only the negative side of the gain: being lifted above all the vexations, temptations, dangers, and disappointments of mercenary, discontented men (v. 9, etc.). Then one rests serene and safe in God’s care, who provides what we need. Then one has the happiness and inward joy which the world in its chase after earthly treasures cannot know.

1 Timothy 6:7

7 The first question is one regarding the reading. There are five variants in the Greek manuscripts: γάρ—ὅτι—δῆλονὅτι—ἁληθὲςὅτι—and ἀλλʼ; several in the Latin versions. When we study them we find that the first has the most weight textually, and that all the rest are due to efforts to adjust the text to a preconceived meaning. Some think that γάρ introduces reasons that the true godliness with contentment is so great a means of gain. Some list three such reasons: the perishableness of earthly goods—their dispensableness—the danger connected with them. This is homiletics rather than exegesis.

Some list only two reasons. But when we look at these “reasons,” they are not reasons that godliness with contentment is so great a means of gain, nor are they reasons that it is so great a gain. Paul does not say: Godliness, etc., will gain you this, will gain you that; or will be a means for gaining this, that, etc. But he would be obliged to say something like this if γάρ were to offer reasons.

For not a thing did we bring into the world because neither are we able to bring a thing out. Now having nourishment and coverings, with these we will be content.

Γάρ elucidates and this time does so by means of an amplified restatement in a different form which ends with the very verb ἀρκεσθησόμεθα, the noun for which ends v. 6, αὐταρκείας. Verse 6 states the fact abstractly, v. 7, 8 state the main point of that fact concretely, personally (with three “we” verbs). Γάρ thus = “to make this clearer let me put it this way.” The stress is on “contentment,” the last word of v. 6; and again on “we will be content,” the last word of v. 8. What true godliness perceives is woven into v. 7, and with what it is content is inserted into the participial clause of v. 8. Proof for “great means of gain” is not in Paul’s mind. “We will be content” is enough for us who are godly. The persons who have this true contentment need no proof or reason as to why their state is so great a means of gain. Paul is not arguing anybody into contentment; he is telling the godly, who are content, what a blessed source of gain they possess. Then in v. 9, etc., he compares with us who are going to be content those who are discontented and intend to get rich.

It is an honest fact, “not a thing (οὐδέν) did we bring into the world,” not even a bit of clothing. Yet how many think of this fact? But why did we not bring in a thing? “Because neither are we able to bring a thing (τι) out.” Thus there was no reason for bringing in even a single thing. Are we not in a little while going out without a thing? Now do not philosophize and seek for some peculiar meaning hidden in these words or change the reading to secure some such meaning. Having arrived naked because we are going to leave that way and cannot possibly leave any other way, the few things we really need for our short stay are not going to disturb our minds as godly people; we are simply going to be content.

That is our great source of spiritual gain. Those who do not perceive what Paul here says are to be pitied, especially if they try to make their false godliness a means of gain.

What is so striking is Paul’s ὅτι and the thought it contains, that because we cannot bring anything away we brought nothing along when we arrived. Even early copyists changed this thought by changing the reading by substituting a thought that was less striking. The two second aorists are exact opposites: “did bring in—to bring out,” or “did carry in—to carry out.” Our versions lose this contrast when they translate: “brought—carry.”

1 Timothy 6:8

8 Δέ is not adversative (“but,” R. V.). It merely resumes the main thought of v. 6, namely “contentment,” and now states it personally: “we will be (are going to be) content.” Δέ adds the whole statement as it is centered in this main verb; it does not connect only with the modifier ἔχοντες. “Now” we who, just because we are unable to bring anything out brought nothing in, “we,” taking what we find in our short stay in the world, “having nourishments (Lebensmittel) and coverings (things that cover or shelter: clothes, a tent, a house), are going to be content with these” (τούτοις, emphatic) and are not going to be discontented like those are who make their short earthly lives in this world a chase after riches as if they could take them along.

This is the simple thought. There is no necessity to seek to find more in it. We see that the verb “we will be content” (volitive future, R. 889) resumes the noun of the phrase “together with contentment” which occurs in v. 6: we Christians, we who have the true godliness, we are going to be content with these things. The verb is properly future: whatever we were before, whatever we did before, this is what we are going to do from henceforth. The verb, too, means just this and should not be altered into something else, for then we should lose its real point.

1 Timothy 6:9

9 With δέ Paul adds a comparison to indicate what happens to the other kind of people. But they who intend to be rich keep falling into temptation and a snare and many thoughtless and hurtful lusts such as sink men in destruction and perdition.

On βουλόμενοι see 2:8 (5:14): “those intending to be rich” whether they succeed in their intention or not. They “keep falling,” iterative present. The Greek word for “temptation” is itself neutral but gets its sinister meaning from the context. Since it is here followed by “snare,” we have the picture of being lured into a snare and thus getting caught and falling. But one preposition governs the three nouns, and these follow in proper sequence: falling into “temptation,” they become enmeshed in a “snare,” and this snare holds them with the cords of “many thoughtless (devoid of sound reason) and hurtful lusts.” There they hang entangled and caught like snared animals. The qualitative relative completes the tragic picture: “such as sink or plunge men into destruction and perdition,” two terms are used to express an intensification.

Note the paronomasia between πορισμός (v. 5, 6) and πειρασμός, and the alliteration of π running through ἐμπίπτουσιν—πειρασμόν—παγίδα—ἐπιθυμίαςπολλάς. It is wholly unsought and is therefore beautiful. The word for “lusts” is also a vox media; the context and the adjectives give it an evil meaning. These lusts are without reason and good sense and thus also hurt and damage. Men who are set on being rich snatch at the tempting bait, are caught in the snare, are held by the lusts. So shrewd they thought themselves, but see into what they have fallen!

They may get rich, may boast of their wealth, their business acumen, their successful deals. But look at the most successful among them—their lusts are “reasonless,” such as a reasonable man must shun! They promise a satisfaction which they never give. They soon show how “hurtful” they are. How seldom are riches and happiness combined! A big price is paid to achieve the intent, and when it is achieved, how many would not gladly pay a bigger price if the whole thing could only again be undone!

The relative clause pictures the climax. It is not merely a fourth and a fifth noun, like the three preceding nouns, but a clause with corresponding emphasis. The climax must be added because some are eternally lost. Dives in the parable, Judas, Ananias and Sapphira. This is the strongest part of the warning for all of us. Through God’s grace some may yet escape out of the snare of their folly before they are drawn into the final plunge by their evil desires.

The verb now used is stronger; it is not merely “fall into” but “sink or plunge into the deep”; its corresponding noun βάθος means “depth.” Here “into destruction and perdition” is literal, hence we do not translate “drown.” One does not “drown” when he sinks into hell. There is no thought of annihilation. The two abstract terms indicate concrete conditions, especially the latter is used in the New Testament to designate the condition after death when the exclusion from salvation has become a final, irrevocable fact (C.-K. 789).

Kretzmann makes the application: “Our land, in which ‘the almighty dollar’ rules, approaches this condition with giant strides. Luxury, indulgence, pride in clothing increase from year to year in astonishing manner, moral decay grows, marital bonds become ever more lax. And they who offer these things to the people, many owners of theatres and many film producers, restaurant and cabaret owners, especially in the great cities, allege as the reason that increasing wealth is to blame. People have the money to waste and by means of it want the satisfaction of the lusts of their flesh and their eyes.” The great world depression is on while these lines are being written, the “distress of nations,” but now there is mostly only complaint because plunging into perdition cannot go on as merrily as before. Men only long for a new era of wealth and “prosperity” in order to abuse it as they did before.

1 Timothy 6:10

10 Paul elucidates still further. For root of all the evils is the love of money which some aspiring to were made to wander away from the faith and did pierce themselves with many pains.

The predicate naturally lacks the article so that we should not stress either “a root” or “the root.” Money-love is “root of all the evils”; κακά is explained at some length with its New Testament synonyms and antonyms in C.-K. 556–7. All things that are “bad” may grow out of money-love as shoots grow out of a root; nothing good ever grows out of it. This shows what money-love really is. A root is hidden in the evil; what it is we see from the growth it sends up. R., W. P., says: “Undoubtedly a proverb that Paul here quotes” and then refers to Bion and Democritus.

But these call money-love a “metropolis” of all the evils, which is a quite different matter. Paul quotes no author. The fact that worldly men express themselves regarding the vice of loving money is to be expected; they also express themselves in regard to other vices. Sometimes they do it aptly, almost like Holy Writ. There is no thought of quoting a proverb.

There is no irregularity in the use of the relative “which” as though it does not refer to ἡφιλαργυρία but to the “silver” (i.e., money) in this compound, or as though its antecedent is “root”—men do not aspire to a root. On the participle see “aspire to” in 3:1. One aspires to the love of something by cultivating that love. It is ever Paul’s way to penetrate beneath the surface; here he does not name the physical silver or money but the vice itself that wants money, aspires to that. One aspires to something καλόν, excellent, noble; so in 3:1 to the holy office of the ministry. That is a normal aspiration.

Here we have a striking paradox: aspiring to what produces all manner of κακά, things bad, base, evil. The height of abnormality, of unnaturalness. A prolific vice regarded as a most desirable virtue. No wonder Paul uses ἀνόητος in v. 9, “devoid of reason,” “senseless.” So Satan kindled Eve’s ambition to grasp the evil as though it were a great good, to eat death by calling it life.

The participle is not an aorist but a durative present: “in, while, or by aspiring” these two things happened to these people (now we have historical aorists), which constitute them concrete warnings for us: “they were made to wander away from the faith (passive: by their unnatural aspiration) and pierced themselves with many pains.” The result was in a perfect line with their abnormality. They obtained the “evils” that grow from this root. Who normally wants to wander away from the right course like a planet thrown out of its appointed orbit? Still plainer: who wants to pierce himself with many sharp pains? “Some” did these very things. We might think that Paul speaks only of what resulted for these men in this life; but this is the end of his paragraph, and while he sometimes at the end weaves in a loose thread that was left hanging in the previous discussion, this is not the case here, these “many pains” include those suffered in “perdition.” Think of it, they pierced themselves!

Some list these “many pains”: worries about wealth, pains of conscience because of the way in which wealth is acquired, etc. But such a list should be very long. Many a would-be-rich man’s success was his failure and ruin; many a son of such a father broke that father’s heart. The delectable fruit of wealth became apples of Sodom in the mouth. The worst, however, is the end and the hereafter. Here again (see 4:1) we should say that “the faith” is objective, quae creditur. One wanders away from a course that has been laid down objectively for him to follow. Off the right course means to be adrift. A derailed train is wrecked. Sometimes drifting goes on and on, but there can be no question as to how it will end. Bengel, thinking only of this life, adds: Horum dolorum remidium fides.

1 Timothy 6:11

11 There are commentators who suppose that Timothy was inclined to love money and point out that his present office afforded him opportunity to gratify this love, and that Paul thus inserted this paragraph as a most personal warning to him. But this supposition is not borne out by the context. For the very first verse of this paragraph names six virtues that are to be pursued, and the next verse speaks of the whole contest for the faith, which cannot signify that Timothy was inclined toward a money-loving vice, to say nothing of drawing a plausible picture of his present office with opportunities and temptations to enrich himself with money. We have 4:6–11 to guide us. In 4:8 Paul uses the second person singular when addressing Timothy; but in 4:10 he uses the first person plural, in which Paul includes himself. In 4:6, 11 Timothy is told to preach and teach “these things” to the churches.

In the light of these facts the present paragraph is to be understood. In v. 13, 14, to which v. 15, 16 are attached, we have a similar order to Timothy regarding his teaching, which is followed in v. 17 by an order regarding what he is to teach to those who are rich.

This paragraph, then, presents the entire positive side of the godliness which shuts out the love of money. Such a vice will be wholly smothered by all that is here presented. Paul follows the same procedure elsewhere. He bombards some single error with all the guns in his heavy battery and crushes some single vice with the whole avalanche of the virtues and the supreme aim of the Christian life. As was the case in 4:12, Timothy in person is to be both the example and the solemn teacher of all these things: “thou, O man of God” (example, v. 11)—“that thou guard the commandment” (as teacher, v. 14).

But thou, O man of God, flee these things! And pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness! Be a contestant in the noble contest for the faith! Lay hold of the eternal life, into which thou wast called and didst confess the noble confession in the presence of many witnesses!

This is the mighty opposite of sin and its consequences, which have been presented in v. 6–10. Some would go back as far as v. 3; but this is not necessary. Not until he reaches v. 20 does Paul write, “O Timothy.” Here he says: “But thou, O man of God,” and uses an epithet that can be applied to any true Christian as 2 Tim. 3:17 shows. In the Old Testament it is applied to great men of God and to prophets, but here it is not restricted to such characters, for also all that follows applies to every Christian. Paul addresses Timothy in words which Timothy may use without change when he calls upon others in his preaching. Never does Paul exclude himself or his assistants when he admonishes.

He often inserts a “we” and an “us” beside the “you.” All that the word contains is intended for him as it is for others. That is also true with regard to this “thou.”

The Greek seldom uses “O” with its vocatives; when it is used, the effect is the greater. Ἄνθρωπε means only “human being” and not “man,” the male. The very address: “man of God,” a person who belongs to God, separates him from those whose hearts are set on money and on earthly riches. God is greater than gold. Blessed everyone who may rightly be addressed: “0 man of God!”

Φεῦγε = “ever flee these things” like a pestilence, like poisonous serpents, like the devil’s snares. One would cease to be a man of God if he did not so flee these things, if he let them catch him. Alas, some only pretend to flee. They often stay near and think they are at a safe distance until they are overtaken and caught. Continue to flee, do nothing but flee, the margin of safety cannot be too great.

That is enough for the negative; sufficient is said in v. 9, 10. Here we have a preamble of only two words, for here the positive is to spread out: Δέ, “on the other hand, pursue,” etc. The two are one, two sides of one course of conduct: when we are fleeing we pursue; when pursuing we flee, a halt in flight is a halt in pursuit, and vice versa.

Six virtues are named in three pairs; they form a chain, and in each instance the second one depends on the first one named. “Righteousness” is the justitia acquisita, the righteousness of life, which thus also is to be pursued. It is never entirely caught in this constant pursuit, but it is caught in ever greater measure. This righteousness has degrees; the justitia imputata has no degrees. The word is always, yes always, forensic, for it denotes the quality which is what it is because God, the Judge, declares it so by his verdict of acceptance. This righteousness includes all the Christian virtues and good works, but it names them from the forensic side, from God’s verdict upon them. “Godliness” is only another word for the same quality, but this names it according to its quality in us, namely as our piety and reverence toward God. We might think of placing godliness first, righteousness second; Paul’s order is correct, which is felt when εὐσέβεια is understood with its Greek connotation.

Secondly: keep pursuing “faith, love.” Why is this pair placed second? Should “faith” not be first in the list? Some answer that “faith” is the source of righteousness and godliness. But is it not also the source of love, patience, and meekness? Then it should be placed first, or, since it is the source of the entire five, last. Since this pair is placed where it is, “faith” together with “love” are as great virtues as the first pair: constant believing and loving. Like these other virtues, “faith” is here not considered as their source but as a good work. Thus: all our believing in God and his doctrines as it proceeds day by day; all our loving God and man, these two walking arm in arm, the latter being the love of intelligent comprehension and of corresponding intelligent purpose.

Thirdly, keep pursuing “patience, meekness.” The υπομονή refers to things, hence it is never used with reference to God as is μακροθυμία (“longsuffering”), brave patience that remains under privations and sufferings without complaining (Trench); πραϋπάθειαν (better reading than πρᾳότητα although the meaning is the same), “meek feeling,” making and enforcing no high claims, the very opposite of what pagan and worldly morality admires, its ideal being strong, self-assertive men. Jesus was meek; a beatitude was pronounced on the meek (Matt. 5:5).

1 Timothy 6:12

12 Paul continues: “Be (ever) a contender in the noble contest for the faith!” We have the cognate accusative: “contend the contest.” “Fight the fight” in our versions alters the figure into a battle or a personal clash; it is taken from the athletic arena and refers to striving for a prize in an athletic event: “Keep on straining every muscle and nerve in the noble straining for the faith!” See this same figure amplified in 2 Tim. 4:7. In 1 Tim. 1:18 we have the general campaigning a noble campaign.

Some note that the genitive is objective: “the noble contest for the faith,” but regard “the faith” as subjective: “Fight to maintain thy own faith in thy heart!” This is only formally different from the subjective genitive which others note here: “Fight faith’s fight!” i.e., the fight faith always has to fight. We consider this genitive objective and “the faith” as objective just as in 4:1 and 6:10. “Contend the noble contest for the substance of the Christian faith!” Hold the banner of the faith high! Carry it to victory! Paul and Timothy were called for the defense of the gospel; so are all of us in whatever station in life we may be.

Those who set out to stalk riches fall into a snare. Ours is a noble contest, it is entirely in the interest of the gospel, “the faith,” the things we believe. The love of money is a root of all κακά; ours is a contest that is καλόν. Ignoble—noble: what a contrast! See the motivation in καλόν. See the virility in these imperatives: Pursue—contend! Here is Christian manhood, red-blooded, strenuous. Here, too, is the highest cause in all the world: THE FAITH. To give one’s life for that is noble (2 Tim. 4:6). To wander away from The Faith (v. 10), to be caught in the devil’s snare, pierced with a thousand pains caused by our own folly—how ignoble, what shame (“flee these things”)!

The figure is not continued when Paul speaks of the reception of the prize (βραβεῖον). This sentence is altogether literal. Not only is “the eternal life” literal but also the verb “lay hold of” and also the participial clause. Those who think that “the eternal life” is the prize overlook the fact that in the Greek games the victor did not “lay hold of” the prize, the victor’s wreath was only placed upon his head. This literal clause interprets the preceding figurative clause. Yet not by describing the ἀγών or contest itself but by taking us to the last supreme moment of this contest.

The contending in the contest is long, hence the durative present: “keep on contending”; the supreme moment at the end is only an instant, hence the punctiliar aorist: “lay hold of” (see also v. 19). This aorist is not constative so as to include all the contending, making all of it a laying hold of eternal life. Such an aorist would be possible, but it would not do here. For the present imperative is an open tense: we see the contending going on and on; we are held in suspense by this tense, waiting for the outcome and the end. This outcome the aorist mentions as it always does in the Greek after an open tense (present or imperfect). “Grasp eternal life!” All our life long we keep on contending for The Faith so that at the end we may grasp the eternal life.

This is the life of glory in heaven, the opposite of the “destruction and perdition” mentioned in v. 9. The ζωὴαἰώνιος may signify “life eternal” as we now have it by faith (John 3:15, 16); but here we must know the final outcome of all this long contending, and that is “the eternal life” of glory in heaven: “Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness,” etc. (2 Tim. 4:8). The article is due to the following relative: “the eternal life for which thou wast called,” etc.

The final outcome is combined with the very beginning. God called us by the gospel; in that hour we entered the contest; the end is the hour when we grasp and hold life eternal as our possession. As is always the case in the epistles, this is the successful and effective κλῆσις or “call”; ever it holds out to us “the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). That inspires us during the whole straining of the contest. The acceptance of God’s call is added: “and didst confess the noble confession in the presence of many witnesses.” Combined, as this confession is, with the calling unto eternal life, it can signify only the confession made at the time of baptism and not what may have been confessed when Paul took Timothy as his assistant, or when he appointed him as his representative for the Asian churches.

We have another cognate accusative. By occurring together they are most effective: contending the noble contest—confessing the noble confession. Καλόν—καλήν impress this point of excellence and nobleness. We possess no formula of the confession which was made at the time of baptism at this early date; its substance we know, it was “The Faith” for which the baptized confessors contended. That was a public confession: “in the presence of many witnesses,” among whom we think Paul also regarded the angels (5:21) and not only the members of the congregation. The motive here touched upon is scarcely that of fear as Bengel states it: Coram multis testibus, qui contra te, si deficeres, testuari forent. Not that all these witnesses will rise up and testify against the one who wanders away from the faith (v. 10); but the fact that all these earthly and heavenly witnesses inspire the confessor to be ever faithful to the confession he has made—this is the motivation also in Heb. 12:1.

1 Timothy 6:13

13 While verses 11, 12 are addressed to Timothy, they are worded in a form that fits any and every Christian. Verses 13, 14 recall 5:21 and include Timothy’s official position. In v. 13–16 the solemnity of the apostle’s injunction to Timothy rises to its greatest height. Glance through the epistle: at the end of 1:4 the verb of enjoining is only understood—in 1:18 we have the first direct injunction—in 2:1 simply “I urge,” but in 4:11 a brief, direct order—in 5:7 another—then the solemn one in 5:21, followed by the brief one in 6:2. Now the climax, 6:13–16; and then the close in 6:20, 21. The climax is purposely not placed at the end.

All good homiletics teach us not to make a sky-rocket finish. Rom. 16:25–27 is a grand doxology and only as such and as a summarizing of the entire epistle forms the appropriate conclusion.

I am ordering thee in the sight of God, the One generating life in everything, and Christ Jesus, the One who witnessed before Pontius Pilate the noble confession, that thou guard the commandment spotless, irreproachable, until the epiphany of our Lord Jesus; etc.

On παραγγέλλω see 1:3; 1:18 (noun); 4:11; 5:7. This word runs through the entire epistle. Paul does not say: “I am ordering thee in the name of God” (in connection with his revelation), but more effectively: “in the sight of God and Christ.” Paul himself and Timothy are standing in God’s and Christ’s presence; their all-seeing eyes are resting upon Paul and Timothy. The two participles are appositions. Paul calls God “the One generating life in all things” because he has just mentioned “the eternal life.” God gives that highest life, for he fills with life all that has life in any form. The participle is the descriptive present, hence it is not to be translated with a past tense.

The etymology points to the generation of life: der alles Belebende, a designation that is so true that we need not think of the possible alternative meaning offered in the R. V. margin: “preserveth all things alive.”

While this apposition leads us to think of the spiritual life generated in us by God, which is presently to merge into the glorious life of heaven, the apposition attached to “Christ Jesus” leads us to think of our own “noble confession,” the first notable act in our spiritual life. What we confessed and still confess is “The Faith” (v. 12), for which we also ever contend. Paul does not say: “the One who confessed before Pontius Pilate the noble confession,” as if he were only our great example, and as if our confession were only a repetition and a continuation of his. Paul says: “the One who witnessed … the noble confession.” Bengel is correct: Testari confessionem est Domini, confiteri confessionem Timothies. Jesus witnessed or attested the noble confession (objective: its substance), and we have already pointed out that the noble confession in v. 12 means “The Faith” (objective, quae creditur). What we believe, what we confess that we believe, this is what Jesus attested, confirmed with his testimony “before Pontius Pilate.” Some regard ἐπί as equivalent to the Latin sub or to the German unter; but little is gained thereby, and ἐπί is the regular preposition used when the standing before a judge or a judgment seat is referred to (see the evidence in 5:19); it is the German vor, our “before,” and not the temporal “at the time of.”

Jesus is “the faithful Witness” (Rev. 1:5), “the Amen, the faithful and true Witness” (Rev. 3:14). The question is asked as to how much Paul includes in this testimony of Jesus. Some restrict it to his verbal testimony as reported in Matt. 27:11; John 18:33–38. This would refer to “the noble confession” that Jesus confessed and testified in regard to himself when he was stating who he was. The ancients went farther; they regarded the phrase “before Pontius Pilate” as including the death of Jesus as decreed by Pilate as we confess in the Apostolic Creed: “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.” We must say that, like Stellhorn, we agree with them. Jesus’ testimony before Pontius Pilate was not merely verbal; it was not even only “in the face of death,” but also a testimony with and by his actual suffering, death, and burial.

We do not extend it so as to include Jesus’ testimony throughout his ministry, which only culminated before Pilate “in the face of death.” “Before Pontius Pilate” should be taken literally; Jesus voluntarily went into the death on the cross. This was the crown of his testimony.

It is generally understood that “to confess the noble confession” is not the same as “to witness the noble confession,” the expressions are not synonymous. Yet it is said that the latter is “somewhat anomalous” or even “harsh.” But this criticism considers the expression apart from its context. Then it would, indeed, be odd. But “the noble confession” which Jesus attested is “the noble confession,” “The FAITH,” which Timothy confessed at the time of his baptism, which we all confess today. C.-K. 690, etc., beclouds the issue by stressing the subjective action of ὁμολογία over against the substance, the truth, the realities that are confessed. To be sure, “The Faith” could not be “The Faith” if no one believed in it; what is believed gets its name from this activity, but its objectiveness remains, would remain even if no one believed.

So there would be no “confession” if no one confessed; but that means only that we would then not have the word “confession”; the substance, truth, realities would nevertheless remain, for they are objective. In both verses “the noble confession” signifies this objective reality. Timothy confessed it, Jesus attested it. A stronger term than “witness” or “attest” could have been used, for Jesus’ attestation was an actual fulfilling of the prophecies, an attestation by deed and not only by word.

The suggestion has also been made that we construe τὴνκαλὴνὁμολογίαν with τηρῆσαι and make it the object of this word, with τὴνἐντολήν as an apposition. This removes the balance: “thou didst confess the noble confession—the One who witnessed the noble confession.” It also creates an untenable apposition: “the noble confession” is not “the commandment.”

1 Timothy 6:14

14 In the sight of God and Christ Jesus (both persons equally producing our salvation) Paul orders Timothy: “That thou guard the commandment spotless, irreproachable,” etc. There should be no difference of opinion as to what “guarding the commandment” means, nor about the dependence of the two adjectives. In Rom. 7:12 “the commandment” is called holy and righteous and good although only the law is referred to; “the commandment” in the higher gospel sense of 1:5, where it is also called ἡπαραγγελία, is no less. It is Timothy’s official task to guard and to keep it so, namely “spotless, irreproachable.” Jesus says the same in John 14:15, 21; 15:10; three times he uses τηρεῖν with ἐντολή although without the adjectives. In Matt. 28:20 it is τηρεῖνπάνταὅσαἐνετειλάμην, “to guard all things whatsoever I did command you,” and here the relative clause = ἡἐντολή. The sense is that Timothy is to guard, protect, preserve all the teaching enjoined upon him so that it will ever remain as spotless and as faultless as when he received it. He is to keep the reine Lehre rein.

Some think that the Word is called “the commandment” because the gospel commands men to repent, believe, etc. But Matt. 28:20; John 14:15, 21; 15:10 show clearly that the gospel is called “the command” because its preaching, teaching, inculcation were enjoined upon the disciples. It is not correct to say that when τηρεῖν is used with τὴνἐντολήν it always means “to observe,” i.e., to obey, to do the commandment, and thus not “to guard” it. The meaning of the verb is “to watch over, guard, keep safe, preserve”; the noun τήρησις means “safekeeping,” “ward” (prison). It is plain that no one “observes” or “obeys” the commandment unless he keeps it intact, prevents anyone from tampering with it, altering, reducing or adding to it. Only he who is so concerned about it will be concerned about really believing and “observing” it with meticulous obedience.

To drop the one part of the meaning of the verb is to slacken hold of the other part. He who guards will obey; he who really obeys must guard.

As the passages in John’s and in Matthew’s Gospels show, “the commandment” is Jesus’ “Word” or his “words,” and no less is referred to by Paul. It is the substance of “the noble confession,” the substance of “The Faith” (v. 12). The term thus needs no further definition: it is all that Christ commands us to believe, teach, confess, keep inviolate, guard against alteration, obey, adhere to throughout our lives.

Here the predicative adjectives “to guard spotless and irreproachable” clearly state that the commandment is to be kept as Christ gave it to us. It is said that in the New Testament these adjectives are always used with reference to persons only and that this analogy compels us to construe them with σέ and not with τὴνἐντολήν. The very position of the adjectives argues against this construction. Clemens Romanus uses “spotless” with reference to the seal; Thayer has an example of a reference to a horse, another to a sheep; B.-P. examples of a reference to a lamb. B.-P. 101 has an example of the use of “irreproachable” with πολιτεία, another with βίος. It would be strange, indeed, if these adjectives were applied only to persons.

Stains, spots, blemishes may appear in anything, so that reproach, adverse criticism, fault may be found with them. Hence also we have this order of the two adjectives in our verse.

“Until the epiphany of our Lord Jesus Christ” = until the end of the world. This is exactly what Jesus says in Matt. 28:20. “The epiphany” is the manifestation or appearing of the Lord at the last day. He entrusted the commandment to us; he will call us to account to ask whether we have duly guarded it. This term appears also in 2 Thess. 2:8; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13; compare Col. 3:3, 4, Christ made manifest in his φανέρωσις. Examine 2 Thess. 2:8. Jesus shall step forth out of his present invisibility, “and every eye shall see him, and they also who pierced him,” Rev. 1:7.

It is not correct to assert that Paul is certain that he and Timothy will live until this epiphany takes place. Paul never pretends to know the date of the final day, Acts 1:7. Because that day might come at any time and overtake them, he speaks just as we often do, who know just as little whether we shall live to see that day or shall die before it arrives. The full soteriological name and title are certainly in place here.

1 Timothy 6:15

15 With a simple relative the great sentence merges into one of Paul’s most glorious doxologies: which at its own season he will show, the blessed God and only Potentate, the King of those reigning as kings and Lord of those ruling as lords, the only One having immortality, inhabiting light inapproachable, whom not a single man has seen nor is able to see, he to whom honor and strength eternal! Amen.

Already the relative clause shows that Paul does not intend to glorify the ineffable majesty and power of Christ but of God, for not the fact that Christ will display his epiphany but that God will display it is the statement. In reality the one amounts to the other, for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa. Christ’s majesty is not reduced when God’s majesty is magnified. Those who are inclined toward subordinationism will naturally interpret in agreement with their view, especially when Christ is named as the Son, yet our old teachers have long ago perceived that the Scriptures make no difference by the way in which they name Christ (whether according to one or to the other nature) when they predicate of him what is human, what is divine, or what is both. No individual passage should be stressed so as to conflict with all else or with anything else that is revealed regarding the nature and the essence of the Son.

The fact that God will display Christ’s epiphany is mentioned only incidentally, the supreme object being the doxological glorification and magnification of God. This object is served when it is stated that he will make this display. The verb and the object match: “will show (or display) the epiphany (visible shining forth or appearing) of our Lord Jesus Christ.” On the dative as indicating a point of time: “at its own season,” see R. 495; the plural is idiomatic in the Greek but is a true plural in 2:6 and Titus 1:3.

When we answer the question as to why Paul so magnifies God at this place, it is well to note that in his letters Paul’s pen often flows over into a doxology. Note how in this short letter he names God in 1:11, and how he turns to a doxology in 1:17. He lived in the very presence of the Almighty; he wrote as being in his presence; he thinks of his reader and his readers as being in his presence. In our minds and hearts, I fear, this direct contact with God is felt far less. This is probably enough to explain why 1:15, 16 is followed by 1:17. In our passage the prompting is far stronger and the magnification according.

In v. 11, 12 Paul sets the whole of the godly life and the confession over against the sin mentioned in v. 9, 10. The whole of this is enjoined on Timothy as the commandment which he is to keep intact as the Faith and confession of the church, and thus twice in this sentence (v. 13–16) God and Christ are placed before Timothy, in v. 15, 16 God in all his majesty. Only the last relative clause of v. 16 is a direct doxology; the rest is magnification.

It is probably best not to make the tremendous nominatives the subjects of δείξει but appositions to the subject contained in this verb. “Potentate” is used only here in the New Testament with reference to God and with reference to men in Luke 1:52, and Acts 8:27 (the eunuch), but in the Old Testament Apocrypha it is several times used with reference to God. The stress is on the two adjectives “the blessed and only Potentate,” combining “the blessed God,” 1:11, with “the only God,” 1:17, substituting “the Potentate” for the term “God.” As the only Potentate he rules with omnipotence, and as such infinite blessedness is his. There is little reason to think that this designation as a whole or that the word “only” are intended to be in special opposition to pagan gods or emperors.

A second article sharply accents a different aspect (R. 785): “the King of those reigning as kings and Lord of those ruling as lords,” both of these terms belong to the second article. Literally: “the King of those kinging and Lord of those lording.” It is thus not quite the same as Rev. 17:14, where the Lamb is called “Lord of lords and King of kings.” This second apposition elucidates the first. As King of all others who act as kings and as Lord of all others who act as lords this only Potentate is infinitely supreme. We think this is a superlative: “the King and Lord in the absolute sense,” there is none greater conceivable.

1 Timothy 6:16

16 We have three nouns, two participles, two relatives—seven terms in all, the sacred three plus the four of the world, for the designations refer to the world of men. Again one article is used with both participles: “the only One having immortality, inhabiting light unapproachable.” Note “incorruptible” in 1:17. In him alone immortality, absolute deathlessness, exists, other immortals derive their immortality from him. The very word ἀθανασία is, however, derived from the negative human condition called death. He is the opposite to us. The more positive designation would be “life,” but this in the absolute sense.

“Inhabiting light unapproachable” likewise refers to us: we cannot even approach, much less enter this light. If such infinite light is God’s habitation, what must God himself be? “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all,” 1 John 1:5. Jesus said: “I am the Light of the world,” John 8:12. This unapproachable light is uncreated, eternal, and not the light that was called into being on the first day and intended for the earthly universe.

There follows an explication with a relative clause: “whom not one of men did see nor is able to see,” fact and possibility are equally denied. Note “invisible” in 1:17; John 6:46; 1:18; Exod. 33:20. What the visio Dei is we shall know only when we attain it (Matt. 5:8).

We regard the final relative clause as exclamatory and not as imperative: “to whom honor and strength eternal!” Its form as well as its contents show that it is the final clause. It is ascription and thus doxological. “Honor” is all esteem, reverence, worship, adoration; the term is to be understood in the widest sense. “Strength eternal” is κράτος, might that is exercised in acts and not merely possessed. The ascription is acknowledgment: eternal honor and exercise of might are his, belong to him; we so confess and magnify God. Here, as in Rom. 2:29; 3:8; 3:30, and elsewhere, the relative pronouns have demonstrative force; here they are like the preceding articles, continuations of them: “He, the One whom no man has seen—He, the One to whom honor,” etc. “Amen” seals this, see 1:17.

The Godly Who Are Rich, 17–19

1 Timothy 6:17

17 Now and then a thought is merely suggested near the beginning of a paragraph; but it is invariably considered before the paragraph is closed. We have such an instance here. When Paul says in v. 9, “they who intend to be rich,” we automatically think also of some who actually are rich. We think also of such that never “intend” to accumulate wealth with an intent such as Paul describes—perhaps they are rich through an inheritance, because of natural prosperity in business, or in some perfectly proper way. What about these? No, they have not slipped Paul’s mind, he takes care of them before he closes, has intended to do so all along, does so now.

To think that he could have closed with v. 13–16, changed v. 20, 21 to conform, and placed v. 17–19 elsewhere, is a legitimate opinion; to fault Paul for choosing a different arrangement is another matter. We are to see just what Paul has done, to understand as fully as possible why he has done so. We notice that Paul separates what he says about the would-be-rich rather widely from what he says about those who are actually rich by placing v. 11–16 between the two classes. That is intentional, it is also wise. The treatment of the former must cast no shadow on what Paul has to say to Timothy regarding the latter.

Because Paul uses no connective, the rich stand entirely by themselves. To those rich in the present eon continue to give orders not to be high-minded nor to put their hope on uncertain riches but on God, the One who furnishes to us all things richly for enjoyment; to be working good, to be rich in excellent (noble) works, to be sharing well, fellowshiping, laying up for themselves as treasure an excellent (noble) stock for the future in order that they may take hold of the genuine life.

Paul considers only two classes: those (whether they are actually poor or rich) whose intention it is to be rich (v. 9); those who are actually rich. The latter should not be thought of as people who have realized their worldly intention but as people who are simply rich in a perfectly legitimate and irreproachable way. The word “rich” is not sufficient because Paul intends to play on the term (“riches”—“richly”—“to be rich”); he also means “rich in earthly wealth,” hence he adds “in the present eon,” αἰών indicating the era “now” in progress. This term refers to time and to what marks it or transpires in it, so that we may translate “in the present (now) world.” Their wealth is only of this kind, a fact that they and we should mark well (note v. 7). Even the most honorable and legitimate wealth constitutes a danger for the Christian although, on the other hand, it also constitutes a blessing; it is a means for all kinds of good works, a means that is not in the hands of the poor.

What are Paul’s orders to Timothy for people of this kind? They are brief, but when we ponder them we find that they are perfect and all-complete, a gem of a little sermon for the rich. Could you, using only a like number of words, preach a better sermon to the rich?

The first danger that confronts any rich man, also a Christian rich man, is to become “high-minded,” to think himself superior to poorer people, to put on lordly airs, to make poorer people bow to him, etc. The inner attitude of being thus minded is the worst feature of it. “Not to be high-minded” = to be lowly-minded (Phil. 2:3). “As ταπεινοφρονεῖν (to be lowly-minded) is a disgrace in the conception of the Hellenists, a virtue in the conception of Scripture, so ὑψηλοφρονεῖν (to be high-minded) is praise in the conception of the Hellenists, but in the conception of Scripture a vice” (von Hofmann). The world of the Greeks despised the humble, lowly mind, admired the self-assertive mind which imposed its will on other men. The Christian reversal of attitude is, however, more than a reversal, for it involves a new basis. The coward, the base fellow who cringes, the man without spirit, is not praised in the Scripture; its lowly-mindedness is true humility before God, loving helpfulness to men, both being learned from the spirit of Christ.

Secondly: “nor to put their hope on uncertain riches but on God, the One who furnishes us all things richly for enjoyment.” The perfect infinitive is intensive, for past hoping has developed to the present and thus goes on. It is foolish to hope and expect on the basis of wealth’s uncertainty. B.-D. 165 understands the genitive and the dative correctly: “on uncertain riches”: the genitive is not adjectival, but the dative is. Ἀδηλότης is “uncertainty.” On etymological grounds it has been understood in the sense of: Unbemerktheit, Verborgenheit: not to put their hope on the hiddenness of their riches, on having their riches well hidden; but this is a rather strange thought. Earthly riches may disappear overnight or may dwindle and melt away like snow in the sun. To predicate the uncertainty of the wealth rather than of its owner is exact language. Sure hope must have a sure and certain basis, and wealth is not such a basis.

This is so important that Paul adds the sure and certain basis: “but on God, the One furnishing to us all things richly for enjoyment,” πάντα, all, whatever we have, whether much or little. Hope that is placed on God will never be disappointed. How “richly” he furnishes us all things! Paul plays on the word. Read Ps. 145:15, 16; Acts 14:17; James 1:17; Ps. 37:25. No man has a thing that God did not furnish him. The Christian sees that fact and hopes in him and not in things. The wealthy Christian regards his wealth as a gift from God. So much God provides even beyond our actual needs! His hand is lavish. When he withholds he does it and for his purposes. Ps. 73:23–26; Job 13:15.

“For enjoyment” is significant. God does not bestow wealth merely in order that we may hold it, live as beggars, as ascetics, but that as Christians we may use and enjoy it with all gratitude. Refusal to enjoy it is as much a sin as misuse, waste, or overindulgence. “He is a rich God and will and cannot hear that we lament that he has not to give or cannot nourish and provide for our poor maggot-bag.” Luther.

1 Timothy 6:18

18 Thirdly, “to be working good,” what is beneficial to others. Riches furnish a rich man especial means for tasting this enjoyment. He can be in only one room at a time, wear only one suit of clothes, sit only in one chair, eat only one meal at mealtime; but with his wealth he can reach out in a thousand directions and work good.

Fourthly, “to be rich in excellent or noble works.” This is another, a higher mode of being rich, which is open even to the poorest, the accumulation of good works (5:10; Titus 3:8; Luke 12:21). We may regard numbers three and four as companions: “working good” as the production, “being rich in noble works” as the possession. Although they are done for others, many of these works benefit us more than they benefit others. Earthly riches are means to be employed for attaining the true riches. Gold that is invested with men brings only other gold, all of which is transient; gold invested in ἔργακαλά is transmuted into wealth that abides, Rev. 14:13, “and their works do follow them.”

Fifthly: “to be sharing well” or generously, εἶναι with the verbal. The verb = to share what one has with another who is without means; the adverb εὖ is drawn into the compound. Generous, liberal giving is referred to, but as a personal attribute and in the beautiful way of sharing good fortune. This is not throwing a coin to a beggar; it is more than just handing out alms. It is giving so that others may have “together” (μετά) with us.

Sixthly, “fellowshiping,” not holding aloof, not being inaccessible. Many regard this as a synonym of the preceding. Thus R., W. P., says: “old adjective, ready to share, gracious, liberal again.” Others find some difference and include in the giving also friendliness, inclination, and the like. We are pleased to note that Wohlenberg has presented a more accurate meaning of this word. The word means “fellowshiping,” ready to fellowship and actually doing so.

The adjective, the noun, and the verb have the same meaning. On κοινωνία see the exposition of 2 Cor. 9:13, where the idea of “contribution” cannot be accepted; see also Rom. 15:26, 27. The Christian rich man is to be in fellowship with all his Christian brethren, down to the poorest and the humblest, is to be wholly one with them just as if he had no wealth.

As far as giving in a friendly manner is concerned, this thought lies in εὐμεταδότους. How can one share together with another and do it well without true friendliness? In μετά, “together or in company with,” there lies the idea of fellowship and fraternal communion; but κοινωνικοί states it outright and with the perfectly correct adjective. The fact that a rich man cannot have such communion without sharing his wealth with the poor is self-evident, in fact, it has already been said in the verbal. As to both the sharing and the fullest fellowship we have the beautiful example mentioned in Acts 2:42 (“fellowship”) and v. 45 (sharing); Acts 4:34–37.

1 Timothy 6:19

19 Seventh, “laying up for themselves as treasure an excellent stock for the future (τὸμέλλον, substantivized neuter participle) in order that,” etc. Not accidentally does Paul have seven items; we have observed this feature in his other listings. You may divide these items into three pairs, these six being climaxed by the seventh. The fact that this item is to end the list we see from the meaning of the number seven, from the purpose clause and its meaning, perhaps also from the fact that this last item is a participle. Some regard these as a mixing of figures: treasure—foundation. But Paul is too able a thinker and writer to mix his figures. Θεμέλιος = Grundstock; it is so used by Philo (B.-P. 555); “a solid and stable possession” (Thayer); ein Kapital, a capital sum invested and thus laid up for the future (Wohlenberg). What future Paul has in mind we see in Matt. 25:34–40.

“That they may take hold of the genuine life” (effective aorist) means the life to come (note “the future”). It has been proposed to join this clause to all the infinitives; it modifies the participle. Yet the thought of this proposal is correct. For we lay up an excellent stock when we live up to these infinitives and what they say and thus get a firm hold of the genuine life, “genuine” is repeatedly used in this letter (1:2; 5:3, 5, 16, the adverb is used as an adjective). Paul no more teaches a salvation by works than does Jesus in Matt. 25:34, etc. Good works are the evidence of faith and justification and as such evidence assure us the genuine life now and also in the verdict that will be rendered at the time of the Lord’s epiphany (v. 14).

Conclusion

1 Timothy 6:20

20 O Timothy, guard the deposit, turning away from the profane babblings and antitheses of the knowledge falsely so named, which some, by professing, missed the mark as regards the faith.

In 1:18 the personal address is “child Timothy”; on the effectiveness of adding “O” to the vocative see 6:11. The earnestness that runs through the letter and comes to its full climax in v. 13–16 continues to the end. In v. 14 it is τηρῆσαιτὴνἐντολήν; now the wording is τὴνπαραθήκηνφύλαξον, the two are the same in substance. The noun means “the deposit.” It is a term used in banking to denote a sum deposited, for which the bank is responsible, which it thus guards most carefully since it must pay it back. Here we have only the general connotation. The imperative reminds of a φύλαξ, a guard posted to keep something safe.

One may τηρε͂ιν by locking up safely and securely; but one φυλάσσειν by standing guard like a soldier. We have the identical expression, the noun and the verb, in 2 Tim. 1:12, 14. Paul has appointed Timothy as his representative in all the churches in the Asian territory. He is to serve as the apostolic guard, and to his guarding he has entrusted “the deposit,” the trust committed to him for his work.

Some think that this deposit refers to the orders given to Timothy in this letter (the verb παρατίθημι is found in 1:18); and the imperative is modified so as to refer only to Timothy’s own observance and Christian conduct. This view excludes guarding the gospel and the gospel teaching in the churches. But this is the main part of Timothy’s work and is what is here referred to. All of these are the same in substance: ἡπαραθήκη, the deposit—ἡἐντολή, the commandment—ἡκαλὴὁμολογία, the noble confession—ἡπίστις, the Faith (v. 12, 21), only the connotations differ; they present the gospel as that which is believed and to be believed, as that which is confessed and to be confessed, as that which is commanded and ever stands as commanded, as that which is deposited in the official care of Timothy for all these churches and should thus be guarded by him. To think only of a deposited order is untenable, for the order deals with something; the fact that it is a deposit means guarding that something with care against attack, hurt, damage. That something is the true gospel, not, indeed, considered in the abstract, but as something to be applied by Timothy in his work here in these churches to purify them and to keep them true, godly, etc.

Hence we also have the present participle after the effective aorist imperative: complete, effective guarding involves—to mention only this point which is repeated from 4:7a—continued turning away from the profane babblings and antitheses of the falsely so-named knowledge, from “the profane old wives’ myths” or fables (4:7), the myths and genealogies circulated in the Asian churches (1:4), the ignorant, antithetical or opposing teaching of law (1:7) with which the churches were bothered.

Paul does not say: Guard the deposit by refuting these profane babblings and antitheses. There is nothing in them that needs to be refuted. How could one refute a myth, a fictional story made up on the basis of the Mosaic genealogies? It is nothing but a κενοφωνία, “an empty sound” as when one babbles unintelligibly. How can one refute the ignorant “law-teachers” and their ἀντιθέσεις when they themselves do not know what they are saying and affirming (1:7)? There is just one effective attitude toward them: turn away from them with disdain. Acts often speak louder than words. To treat them in any other way is to honor them as if there is something in them. Here Paul’s psychology is again correct.

With these two terms, which are combined under one article, Paul refers to chapter 1; the end of the letter reverts to its beginning. As far as the rest of the letter is concerned, we may observe that, unless the churches are freed from these silly, pestiferous pseudo-teachings, all else that Paul directs Timothy to attend to will be made quite impossible. Beginning and end, we may say, encircle all else.

The subjective genitive “of the falsely so-called knowledge” (“of science falsely so-called,” A. V.) is one of Paul’s striking expressions which still rings with crushing vigor. The article points to the γνῶσις that paraded as such here and there in the Asian churches, but there has been and is to this day a large amount of “science,” “knowledge,” that is equally misnamed. It calls itself what it is not. Its very name is κενός, empty, like a nut without a kernel. There is no need to expand.

Our natural sciences as well as many theologies offer as gnosis much that is fiction. The Germans call science Wissenschaft. It is well to note that in the Greek γνῶσις can be used to designate pretended knowledge, but ἐπίγνωσις cannot be so used. The supposition that Paul refers to the Gnostics and thus to Marcion’s “antitheses” conflicts with the time of the composition of this epistle unless this letter is regarded as a late forgery.

1 Timothy 6:21

21 The relative clause is a warning. It is not directed to Timothy as though he might lose the faith but is a warning that Timothy is to address to the membership of the churches. We have already discussed this point in connection with other warnings found in this letter. In 1:20 Paul has pointed Timothy to two apostates. In the classics ἐπαγγέλλομαι is used somewhat as we use “profession”: 1) to profess, advocate, and confess, 2:10; 2) to do this professionally, to make a business of teaching the pseudonymous knowledge. The latter is the sense here; these are the ἐτεροδιδάσκαλοι mentioned in 1:3 and 6:3, and the ignorant νομοδιδάσκαλοι referred to in 1:7, to name some of the professionals found among them.

By their professing and profession “they missed the mark (the same verb that was used in 1:6) regarding the faith.” Here again, as in 4:1; 6:10, 12, “the Faith” is objective, fides quae creditur. Pretending to teach what ought to be believed, they missed it with their falsely so-called gnosis. The fact that their own fides qua creditur was also lost need not be added; for when the true object of faith is lost, subjective faith in that object is impossible. The deplorable fact is that these “some” had not been teaching “The Faith” for which Paul bids Timothy contend the noble contest (v. 12). As for personal faith in their own hearts, the disappearance of that was sad enough, but far worse was the profession of robbing others of the true object of faith, substituting something else, and thus wrecking also their personal faith and trust. Here we have a letter which ends with a negative thought, ἠστόχησαν, “they did miss the mark.” A warning is sometimes properly the last word.

The closing benediction is the briefest in all of Paul’s letters: The grace with you! i. e., favor Dei which we all need as sinners, which flows out to us in a stream of unmerited gifts ever new (John 1:16), walking arm in arm with you (μετά), σύν would be associative to indicate help. The expression is exclamatory as in 1:2 and needs no verb form. “With thee” in the A. V. follows an inferior reading. Neither textually nor otherwise can the plural be dropped. The letter is not addressed to others besides Timothy, but Timothy was to use it when he was dealing with the churches under his care. “With you” is most proper.

The colophon: “The First to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana” (A. V.) only proves that its author lived after the fourth century toward the close of which that name for Phrygia Prima came into use. Otherwise this note reveals the effort to find somewhere in the canon the lost epistle to the Laodiceans mentioned in Col. 4:16. A few texts append a note which dates the letter at Nicopolis (Titus 3:12); the Coptic and a few Arabic versions mention Athens. See the introduction.

Soli Deo Gloria

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.

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

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

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.