Chapter 6

Book Overview - 1 Timothy

The Pastoral Epistles of Paul the Apostle to Timothy and Titus

Commentary by A. R. Faussett

Introduction

Genuineness. — The ancient Church never doubted of their being canonical and written by Paul. They are in the Peschito Syriac version of the second century. Muratori‘s Fragment on the Canon of Scripture, at the close of the second century, acknowledges them as such. Irenaeus [Against Heresies, 1; 3.3.3; 4.16.3; 2.14.8; 3.11.1; 1.16.3], quotes 1 Timothy 1:4, 1 Timothy 1:9; 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 4:9-11; Titus 3:10. Clement of Alexandria [Miscellanies, 2, p. 457; 3, pp. 534, 536; 1, p. 350], quotes 1 Timothy 6:1, 1 Timothy 6:20; Second Timothy, as to deaconesses; Titus 1:12. Tertullian [The Prescription against Heretics, 25; 6], quotes 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:14; 1 Timothy 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:13, etc.; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 3:10, Titus 3:11. Eusebius includes the three in the “universally acknowledged” Scriptures. Also Theophilus of Antioch [To Autolychus, 3.14], quotes 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2; Titus 3:1, and Caius (in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 6.20]) recognizes their authenticity. Clement of Rome, in the end of the first century, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians [29], quotes 1 Timothy 2:8. Ignatius, in the beginning of the second century, in Epistle to Polycarp, [6], alludes to 2 Timothy 2:4. Polycarp, in the beginning of the second century [Epistle to the Philippians, 4], alludes to 2 Timothy 2:4; and in the ninth chapter to 2 Timothy 4:10. Hegisippus, in the end of the second century, in Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, 3.32], alludes to 1 Timothy 6:3, 1 Timothy 6:20. Athenagoras, in the end of the second century, alludes to 1 Timothy 6:16. Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century [Dialogue with Trypho, 47], alludes to Titus 3:4. The Gnostic Marcion alone rejected these Epistles.

The Heresies Opposed in them form the transition stage from Judaism, in its ascetic form, to Gnosticism, as subsequently developed. The references to Judaism and legalism are clear (1 Timothy 1:7; 1 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:10, Titus 1:14; Titus 3:9). Traces of beginning Gnosticism are also unequivocal (1 Timothy 1:4). The Gnostic theory of a twofold principle from the beginning, evil as well as good, appears in germ in 1 Timothy 4:3, etc. In 1 Timothy 6:20 the term Gnosis (“science”) itself occurs. Another Gnostic error, namely, that “the resurrection is past,” is alluded to in 2 Timothy 2:17, 2 Timothy 2:18. The Judaism herein opposed is not that of the earlier Epistles, which upheld the law and tried to join it with faith in Christ for justification. It first passed into that phase of it which appears in the Epistle to the Colossians, whereby will-worship and angel-worship were superadded to Judaizing opinions. Then a further stage of the same evil appears in the Epistle to the Philippians (Philippians 3:2, Philippians 3:18, Philippians 3:19), whereby immoral practice accompanied false doctrine as to the resurrection (compare 2 Timothy 2:18, with 1 Corinthians 15:12, 1 Corinthians 15:32, 1 Corinthians 15:33). This descent from legality to superstition, and from superstition to godlessness, appears more matured in the references to it in these Pastoral Epistles. The false teachers now know not the true use of the law (1 Timothy 1:7, 1 Timothy 1:8), and further, have put away good conscience as well as the faith (1 Timothy 1:19; 1 Timothy 4:2); speak lies in hypocrisy, are corrupt in mind, and regard godliness as a means of earthly gain (1 Timothy 6:5; Titus 1:11); overthrow the faith by heresies eating as a canker, saying the resurrection is past (2 Timothy 2:17, 2 Timothy 2:18), leading captive silly women, ever learning yet never knowing the truth, reprobate as Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3:6, 2 Timothy 3:8), defiled, unbelieving, professing to know God, but in works denying Him, abominable, disobedient, reprobate (Titus 1:15, Titus 1:16). This description accords with that in the Catholic Epistles of St. John and St. Peter, and, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. This fact proves the later date of these Pastoral Epistles as compared with Paul‘s earlier Epistles. The Judaism reprobated herein is not that of an earlier date, so scrupulous as to the law; it was now tending to immortality of practice. On the other hand, the Gnosticism opposed in these Epistles is not the anti-Judaic Gnosticism of a later date, which arose as a consequence of the overthrow of Judaism by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but it was the intermediate phase between Judaism and Gnosticism, in which the Oriental and Greek elements of the latter were in a kind of amalgam with Judaism, just prior to the overthrow of Jerusalem.

The Directions as to Church Governors and ministers, “bishop-elders, and deacons,” are such as were natural for the apostle, in prospect of his own approaching removal, to give to Timothy, the president of the Church at Ephesus, and to Titus, holding the same office in Crete, for securing the due administration of the Church when he should be no more, and at a time when heresies were rapidly springing up. Compare his similar anxiety in his address to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:21-30). The Presbyterate (elders; priest is a contraction from presbyter) and Diaconate had existed from the earliest times in the Church (Acts 6:3; Acts 11:30; Acts 14:23). Timothy and Titus, as superintendents or overseers (so bishop subsequently meant), were to exercise the same power in ordaining elders at Ephesus which the apostle had exercised in his general supervision of all the Gentile churches.

The Peculiarities of Modes of Thought and Expression, are such as the difference of subject and circumstances of those addressed and those spoken of in these Epistles, as compared with the other Epistles, would lead us to expect. Some of these peculiar phrases occur also in Galatians, in which, as in the Pastoral Epistles, he, with his characteristic fervor, attacks the false teachers. Compare 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14, “gave Himself for us,” with Galatians 1:4; 1 Timothy 1:17; 2 Timothy 4:18, “for ever and ever,” with Galatians 1:5: “before God,” 1 Timothy 5:21; 1 Timothy 6:13; 2 Timothy 2:14; 2 Timothy 4:1, with Galatians 1:20: “a pillar,” 1 Timothy 3:15, with Galatians 2:9: “mediator,” 1 Timothy 2:5, with Galatians 3:20: “in due season,” 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Timothy 6:15; Titus 1:3 with Galatians 6:9.

Time and Place of Writing. — The First Epistle to Timothy was written not long after Paul had left Ephesus for Macedon (1 Timothy 1:3). Now, as Timothy was in Macedon with Paul (2 Corinthians 1:1) on the occasion of Paul‘s having passed from Ephesus into that country, as recorded, Acts 19:22; Acts 20:1, whereas the First Epistle to Timothy contemplates a longer stay of Timothy in Ephesus, Mosheim supposes that Paul was nine months of the “three years” stay mostly at Ephesus (Acts 20:31) in Macedonia, and elsewhere (perhaps Crete), (the mention of only “three months” and “two years,” Acts 19:8, Acts 19:10, favors this, the remaining nine months being spent elsewhere); and that during these nine months Timothy, in Paul‘s absence, superintended the Church of Ephesus. It is not likely that Ephesus and the neighboring churches should have been left long without church officers and church organization, rules respecting which are giver in this Epistle. Moreover, Timothy was still “a youth” (1 Timothy 4:12), which he could hardly be called after Paul‘s first imprisonment, when he must have been at least thirty-four years of age. Lastly, in Acts 20:25, Paul asserts his knowledge that the Ephesians should not all see his face again, so that 1 Timothy 1:3 will thus refer to his sojourn at Ephesus, recorded in Acts 19:10, whence he passed into Macedonia. But the difficulty is to account for the false teachers having sprung up almost immediately (according to this theory) after the foundation of the Church. However, his visit recorded in Acts 19:1-41 was not his first visit. The beginning of the Church at Ephesus was probably made at his visit a year before (Acts 18:19-21). Apollos, Aquila and Priscilla, carried on the work (Acts 18:24-26). Thus, as to the sudden growth of false teachers, there was time enough for their springing up, especially considering that the first converts at Ephesus were under Apollos‘ imperfect Christian teachings at first, imbued as he was likely to be with the tenets of Philo of Alexandria, Apollos‘ native town, combined with John the Baptist‘s Old Testament teachings (Acts 18:24-26). Besides Ephesus, from its position in Asia, its notorious voluptuousness and sorcery (Acts 19:18, Acts 19:19), and its lewd worship of Diana (answering to the Phoenician Ashtoreth), was likely from the first to tinge Christianity in some of its converts with Oriental speculations and Asiatic licentiousness of practices. Thus the phenomenon of the phase of error presented in this Epistle, being intermediate between Judaism and later Gnosticism (see above), would be such as might occur at an early period in the Ephesian Church, as well as later, when we know it had open “apostles” of error (Revelation 2:2, Revelation 2:6), and Nicolaitans infamous in practice. As to the close connection between this First Epistle and the Second Epistle (which must have been written at the close of Paul‘s life), on which Alford relies for his theory of making the First Epistle also written at the close of Paul‘s life, the similarity of circumstances, the person addressed being one and the same, and either in Ephesus at the time, or at least connected with Ephesus as its church overseer, and having heretics to contend with of the same stamp as in the First Epistle, would account for the connection. There is not so great identity of tone as to compel us to adopt the theory that some years could not have elapsed between the two Epistles.