THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY.
INTRODUCTION.
I. NOTICES OF THE LIFE OF TIMOTHY.
NEARLY all that can now be known of Timothy is to be learned from the
New Testament. He was a native of either Derbe or Lystra, but it is not
certainly known which, Acts 16:1. Paul found him there on his visit
to those places, and does not appear to have been acquainted with him
before. His mother, whose name was Eunice, was a Jewess, and was
pious, as was also his grandmother, Lois, 2 Timothy 1:5. His father was
a Greek, but was evidently not unfriendly to the Jewish religion, for
Timothy had been carefully trained in the Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15.
Paul came to Derbe and Lystra, and became acquainted with him about
A.D. 51 or 52; but there is no method now of ascertaining the exact age
of Timothy at that time, though there is reason to think that he was then
a youth, 1 Timothy 4:12. It would seem, also, that he was a youth of
uncommon hope and promise, and that there had been some special
indications that he would rise to distinction as a religious
man, and would exert an extended influence in favour of religion,
1 Timothy 1:18. At the time when Paul first met with him, he was a
"disciple," or a Christian convert; but the means which had been
used for his conversion are unknown. His mother had been before
converted to the Christian faith, (Acts 16:1) and Timothy was well
known to the Christians in the neighbouring towns of Lystra and
Iconium. The gospel had been preached by Paul and Barnabas, in Iconium,
Derbe, and Lystra, some six or seven years before it is said that Paul
met with Timothy, (Acts 16:1,) and it is not improbable that this
youth had been converted in the interval.
Several things appear to have combined to induce the apostle to
introduce him into the ministry, and to make him a travelling
companion. His youth; his acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures; the
"prophecies which went before on him;" his talents; his general
reputation in the church; and, it would seem also, his amiableness of
manners, fitting him to be an agreeable companion, attracted the
attention of the apostle, and led him to desire that he might be a
fellow-labourer with him. To satisfy the prejudices of the Jews, and to
prevent any possible objection which might be made against his
qualifications for the ministerial office, Paul circumcised him,
(Acts 16:3) and he was ordained to the office of the ministry by "the
laying on of the hands of the Presbytery," 1 Timothy 4:14. When this
ordination occurred is not known; but it is most probable that it was
before he went on his travels with Paul, as it is known that Paul was
present on the occasion, and took a leading part in the transaction,
2 Timothy 1:6.
Timothy having joined Paul and Silas, accompanied them on a visit to
the churches of Phrygia and Galatia, in which they delivered them the
decrees to keep which had been ordained at Jerusalem, Acts 16:4, seq.
Having done this, they endeavoured to go together into Bithynia, a
province of Asia Minor, on the north-west, but were prevented; and they
then went into Mysia, and to the town of Troas, Acts 16:8. Here Luke
appears to have joined them; and from this place, in obedience to a
vision which appeared to Paul, they went into Macedonia, and preached
the gospel first at Philippi, where they established a church. In this
city Paul and Silas were imprisoned; but it is remarkable that
nothing is said of Timothy and Luke, and it is not known whether they
shared in the sufferings of the persecution there or not. Everything,
however, renders it probable that Timothy was with them at Philippi; as
he is mentioned as having started with them to go on the journey,
(Acts 16:3, seq.;) and as we find him at Berea, after the apostle had
been released from prison, and had preached at Thessalonica and Berea,
Acts 17:14. From this place Paul was conducted to Athens, but left an
injunction for Silas and Timothy to join him there as soon as possible.
This was done; but when Timothy had come to Athens, Paul felt it to be
important that the church at Thessalonica should be visited and
comforted in its afflictions, and being prevented from doing it
himself, he sent Timothy, at great personal inconvenience, back to that
church. Having discharged the duty there, he rejoined the apostle at
Corinth, (Acts 18:5,) from which place the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians was written. See Intro. to 1 Thess., and
See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 1:1"; See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 3:2". These transactions
occurred about A.D. 52.
Paul remained at Corinth a year and a half, (Acts 18:11,) and it is
probable that Timothy and Silas continued with him. See 2 Thessalonians 1:1.
From Corinth he sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila,
whom he appears to have left on his way at Ephesus, Acts 18:18,19,26.
Whether Timothy and Silas accompanied him is not mentioned, but we find
Timothy again with him at Ephesus, after he had been to Caesarea and
Antioch, and had returned to Ephesus, Acts 18:22; 19:1,22. From
Ephesus, he sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia, Acts 19:22;
but for what purpose, or how long they remained, is unknown. From
1 Corinthians 4:17, it appears that Paul expected that on this journey
Timothy would stop at Corinth, and would give the church there
instructions adapted to its situation. Paul continued in Ephesus
until he was compelled to depart by the tumult caused by Demetrius, when
he left and went to Macedonia, Acts 20. Whether Timothy, during the
interval, had returned to Ephesus from Macedonia, is not expressly
mentioned in the history; but such a supposition is not improbable.
Paul, during the early part of his residence in Ephesus, appears to have
laboured quietly, (Acts 19:9,10;) and Timothy was sent away
before the disturbances caused by Demetrius, Acts 19:22.
Paul designed to follow him soon, and then to go to Jerusalem, and then
to Rome, Acts 19:21. Paul (Acts 20:31) was in Ephesus in all about
three years; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that he remained there
after Timothy was sent to Macedonia long enough for him to go and to
return to him again. If so, it is possible that when he himself went
away, he left Timothy there in his place. Comp. 1 Timothy 1:3. It has
been the general opinion that the First Epistle to Timothy was written
at this time: either when the apostle was on his way to Macedonia, or
while in Macedonia. But this opinion has not been unquestioned. The
departure of Paul for Macedonia occurred about A.D. 58, or 59. In
Acts 20:4, Timothy is again mentioned as accompanying Paul
after he had remained in Greece three months, on the route to Syria
through Macedonia. He went with him, in company with many others, into
"Asia." Going before Paul, they waited for him at Troas, Acts 20:5,
and thence doubtless accompanied him on his way to Jerusalem. It
was on this occasion that Paul delivered his farewell charge to the
elders of the church of Ephesus, at Miletus, Acts 20:17, seq. When in
Macedonia, Paul wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and Timothy
was then with him, for he unites in the salutations, 2 Corinthians 1:1.
Timothy was also with the apostle on this journey at Corinth, when from
that city he wrote his epistle to the Romans, Romans 16:21.
The subsequent events of the life of Timothy are less known. It does
not appear from the Acts of the Apostles, that he was with Paul during
his two years' imprisonment at Caesarea, nor during his voyage to Rome.
It is certain, however, that he was at Rome with the apostle when he
wrote the epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to
Philemon, Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1:1. From Hebrews 13:23, it
appears, also, that Timothy had been with the apostle there, but that
when the epistle was written, he was absent on some important embassy,
and that Paul was expecting his speedy return. See Barnes " :".
Between the first and second imprisonment of Paul at Rome, no mention
is made of Timothy, nor is it known where he was, or whether he
accompanied him in his travels or not. When he was imprisoned there the
second time, he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy, in which he
desires him to come to Rome, and bring with him several things which he
had left at Troas, 2 Timothy 4:9-13,21. If Timothy went to Rome,
agreeably to the request of the apostle, it is probable that he was a
witness there of his martyrdom.
In regard to the latter part of the life of Timothy, there is nothing
which can be depended on. It has been the current opinion, derived from
tradition, that he was "bishop" of Ephesus; that he died and was buried
there; and that his bones were subsequently removed to Constantinople.
The belief that he was "bishop" of Ephesus rests mainly on the
"subscription" to the Second Epistle to Timothy, which is no authority
whatever. See Notes on that subscription. On the question whether he was
an episcopal prelate at Ephesus, the reader may consult my "Inquiry into
the Organization and Government of the Apostolic Church," [pp. 91--114,
London edition.] The supposition that he died at Ephesus, and was
subsequently removed to Constantinople, rests on no certain historical
basis.
Timothy was long the companion and the friend of the apostle Paul, and
is often mentioned by him with affectionate interest. Indeed, there
seems to have been no one of his fellow-labourers, to whom he was so
warmly attached. See 1 Timothy 1:2,18; 2 Timothy 1:2; 2:1; 1 Corinthians 4:17, where he
calls him "his own son," and "his beloved son;" 2 Timothy 1:4, where he
expresses his earnest desire to see him, and makes a reference to the
tears which Timothy shed at parting from him; 1 Corinthians 16:10,11, where
he bespeaks for him a kind reception among the Corinthians;
Romans 16:21; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; and especially Philippians 2:19,20, where he speaks
of his fidelity, of his usefulness to him in his labours, and of the
interest which he took in the churches which the apostle had established.
II. WHEN AND WHERE THE EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN.
THE subscription at the close of the epistle states that it was written
from Laodicea. But these subscriptions are of no authority, and many of
them are false. See Notes at the end of 1 Corinthians. There has been
much diversity of opinion in regard to the time when this epistle was
written, and of course in regard to the place where it was composed.
All that is certain from the epistle itself is, that it was addressed
to Timothy at Ephesus, and that it was soon after Paul had left that
city to go into Macedonia, 1 Timothy 1:3. Paul is mentioned in the Acts
as having been at Ephesus twice, Acts 18:19-23; 19:1-41. After
his first visit there, he went directly to Jerusalem, and of course it
could not have been written at that time. The only question then is,
whether it was written when Paul left the city, having been driven away
by the excitement caused by Demetrius, (Acts 20:1;) or whether he
visited Ephesus again on some occasion after his first imprisonment
at Rome, and of course after the narrative of Luke in the Acts of the
Apostles closes. If on the former occasion, it was written about the
year 58 or 59; if the latter, about the year 64 or 65. Critics have
been divided in reference to this point, and the question is still
unsettled, and it may be impossible to determine it with entire
certainty.
Those who have maintained the former opinion, among others, are
Theodoret, Benson, Zaehariae, Michaelis, Schmidt, Koppe, Planck,
Grotius, Lightfoot, Witsius, Lardner, Hug, and Prof. Stuart. The latter
opinion, that it was written subsequently to the period of Paul's first
imprisonment at Rome, is maintained by Paley, Pearson, L'Enfant, Le
Clere, Cave, Mill, Whitby, Macknight, and others.
An examination of the reasons in favour of each of these opinions as to
the date of the epistle, may be found in Paley's Hor. Paul.; Macknight;
Hug's Intro., and Koppe, Proleg.
The theory of Eienhorn, which is peculiar, and which is supported by
some ingenious and plausible, but not conclusive reasoning, may be
seen in his Einleitung in das neue Test. 3 B. 314--352.
In the diversity of opinion which prevails about the time when the
epistle was written, it is impossible to determine the question in such
a manner as to leave no room for doubt. After the most careful
examination which I have been able to give to the subject, however, it
seems to me that the former opinion is correct, that it was written
soon after Paul was driven from Ephesus by the tumult caused by
Demetrius, as recorded in Acts 19:1-20:1. The reasons for this
opinion are briefly these:--
1. This is the only record that occurs in the New Testament of the
apostle's having gone from Ephesus to Macedonia. See above. It is
natural, therefore, to suppose that this is referred to in
1 Timothy 1:3, unless there is some insuperable difficulty in the way.
2. There is no certain evidence that Paul visited the church at Ephesus
after his first imprisonment at Rome. It is certainly possible that he
did, but there is no record of any such visit in the New Testament, nor
any historical record of it elsewhere. If there had been such a visit
after his release, and if this epistle were written then, it is
remarkable that the apostle does not make any allusion to his
imprisonment in this epistle, and that he does not refer at all to his
own escape from this danger of death at Rome. Comp. 2 Timothy 4:16,17.
3. The supposition that the epistle was written at the time supposed,
agrees better with the character of the epistle, and with the design
for which Timothy was left at Ephesus, than the others. It is manifest
from the epistle that the church was, in some respects, in an unsettled
condition; and it would seem, also, that one part of the duty of
Timothy there was to see that it was placed under a proper
organization. This Paul had evidently proposed to accomplish himself;
but it is clear, from 1 Timothy 1:3, that he left his work unfinished, and
that he gave what he had proposed to do into the hands of Timothy to be
perfected. After the first imprisonment of Paul at Rome, however,
there is every reason to suppose that the church was completely
organized. Even when Paul went from Macedonia to Jerusalem,
Acts 20, there were "elders" placed over the church at Ephesus, whom
Paul assembled at Miletus, and to whom he gave his parting charge, and
his final instructions in regard to the church.
4. At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, Timothy was a young man--a
youth, 1 Timothy 4:12. It is true, that if he were somewhere about twenty
years of age when he was introduced into the ministry, as has been
commonly supposed, this language would not be entirely inappropriate,
even after the imprisonment of Paul; but still the language would more
properly denote one somewhat younger than Timothy would be at that time.
5. To this may be added the declaration of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:14,
that he "hoped to come to him shortly." This is an expression which
agrees well with the supposition that he had himself been driven away
before he had intended to leave; that he had left something unfinished
there which he desired to complete, and that he hoped that affairs would
soon be in such a state that he would be permitted to return. It may be
also suggested, as a circumstance of some importance, though not
conclusive, that when Paul met the elders of the church of Ephesus at
Miletus, he said that he had no expectation of ever seeing them again:
"And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching
the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more," Acts 20:25. I do not
think that this is to be understood as an inspired prediction, aiming
with absolute certainty that he never would see them again, but that he
rather expressed his apprehensions that it would be so from the
circumstances which then existed, Acts 20:22,23. Still, this passage
shows that when he uttered it he did not expect to visit Ephesus
again, as he manifestly did when he wrote the epistle to Timothy.
These considerations seem so clear that they would leave no doubt on
the mind, were it not for certain things which it seems to many
impossible to reconcile with this supposition. The difficulties are
the following:--
1. That before Paul went to Macedonia, he had sent Timothy with Erastus
before him, (Acts 19:22,) purposing to follow them at no distant
period, and to pass through Macedonia and Achaia, and then to go to
Jerusalem, and afterwards to visit Rome, Acts 19:21. As he had sent
Timothy before him but so short a time before he left Ephesus, it is
asked how Timothy could be left at Ephesus when Paul went himself to
Macedonia? To this objection we may reply, that it is not improbable
by any means that Timothy may have accomplished the object of his
journey to Macedonia, and may have returned to the apostle at Ephesus
before he was driven away. It does not appear, from the narrative, that
Timothy was intrusted with any commission which would require a long
time to fulfil it, nor that Paul expected that he would remain in
Macedonia until he himself came. The purpose for which he sent Timothy
and Erastus is not indeed mentioned, but it seems probable that it was
with reference to the collection which he proposed to take up for the
poor saints at Jerusalem. See Barnes "Acts 19:21",
See Barnes "Acts 19:22". Comp. 1 Corinthians 16:1-6. If it were the purpose
to prepare the churches for such a collection, it could not have required
any considerable time, nor was it necessary that Timothy should remain
long in a place; and it was natural, also, that he should return to the
apostle at Ephesus, and apprize him of what he had done, and what was the
prospect in regard to the collection. It has been clearly shown by Hug,
(Intro. to the New Test., % 104. 109,) that such a journey could easily
have been made during the time which the apostle remained at Ephesus
after he had sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia.
2. The next objection--and one which is regarded by Paley as decisive
against the supposition that the epistle was written on this
occasion--is, that from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,
2 Corinthians 1:1, it is evident that at the time in which this epistle is
supposed to have been written, Timothy was with the apostle in Macedonia.
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was undoubtedly written during
this visit of Paul to Macedonia, and at that time Timothy was with him.
See the Introduction to 2 Corinthians 3. How then can it be supposed that he
was at Ephesus? Or how can this fact be reconciled with the supposition
that Timothy was left there, and especially with the declaration of Paul
to him, 1 Timothy 3:14, that he "hoped to come to him shortly?" That Paul
expected that Timothy would remain at Ephesus, at least for some
time, is evident from 1 Timothy 3:15, "But if I tarry long, that thou
mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God;"
and from 1 Timothy 4:13, "Till I come, give attendance to reading, to
exhortation, to doctrine." The only solution of this difficulty is, that
Timothy had left Ephesus, and had followed the apostle into Macedonia;
and the only question here is, whether, since the apostle designed that
he should remain at Ephesus, and expected himself to return and meet him
there, Timothy would be likely to leave that place and go to Macedonia.
It is certain that the history in the Acts does not make this record, but
that is no material objection---since it cannot be supposed that every
occurrence in the travels of the apostles was recorded. But there are
two or three circumstances which may render the supposition that Timothy,
either by the concurrence, or by the direction of Paul, privately
communicated to him, may have left Ephesus sooner than was at first
contemplated, and may have rejoined him in Macedonia.
(1.) One is, that the main business which Timothy was appointed to
perform at Ephesus--to give a solemn charge to certain persons there
to teach no other doctrine but that which Paul taught, 1 Timothy 1:3
--might have been speedily accomplished. Paul was driven away in
haste, and, as he had not the opportunity of doing this himself as he
wished, he left Timothy in charge of it. But this did not require, of
necessity, any considerable time.
(2.) Another is, that the business of appointing suitable officers over
the church there, might also have been soon accomplished. In fact, the
church there is known to have been supplied with proper officers not
long after this, for Paul sent from Miletus for the elders to meet him
there on his way to Jerusalem. This remark is made in accordance with
the opinion that a part of the work which Timothy was expected to
perform there, was to constitute proper officers over the church
But there is no proof that that was a part of his business. It is not
specified in what Paul mentions, in 1 Timothy 1:3, as the design for
which he was left there, and it is hardly probable that the apostle
would have spent so long a time as he did in Ephesus--nearly three years,
Acts 20:31--without having organized the church with proper officers.
Besides, the address of Paul to the elders at Miletus, implies that
they had received their appointment before he left them. See
Acts 20:18-35, particularly Acts 20:35. The instructions to Timothy
in this epistle about the proper qualifications of the officers of the
church, do not prove that he was then to appoint officers at Ephesus, for
they are general instructions, having no particular reference to the
church there, and designed to guide him in his work through life. There
is, therefore, nothing in the duties which Timothy was to perform at
Ephesus which would forbid the supposition that he may have soon followed
the apostle into Macedonia.
(3.) It appears, that though Paul may have intended, if possible, to
visit Ephesus on his way to Jerusalem, in accordance with
1 Timothy 3:14,15; 4:13, yet, if that had been his intention, he
subsequently changed his mind, and found it necessary to make other
arrangements. Thus it is said, Acts 20:16, that "Paul had
determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in
Asia;" that is, he had resolved to sail past Ephesus without visiting
it. It would seem probable, also, that this resolution had been formed
before he left Macedonia, for it is said that he `had determined'
it, (\~ekrine\~;) and if so, there is no improbability in supposing that
he had, in some way, caused it to be intimated to Timothy that he wished
him to leave Ephesus, and join him before he left Macedonia.
(4.) In fact, and in accordance with this supposition, we find Timothy
with Paul when he went on that occasion into "Asia," Acts 20:4,5.
These considerations render it probable that the epistle was written to
Timothy soon after Paul left Ephesus to go into Macedonia after the
tumult excited by Demetrius. As Paul was driven away unexpectedly, and
when he had not completed what he designed to do there, nothing is more
natural than the supposition that he would embrace the earliest
opportunity to give suitable instructions to Timothy, that he might know
how to complete the work.
III. THE OCCASION AND DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE
This is specified in 1 Timothy 1:3. Paul had gone in Macedonia, having
been suddenly driven away from Ephesus, before he had entirely done
what he had designed to do there. He left Timothy there to "charge
some that they teach no other doctrine:" that is, no other doctrine
than that which he had himself taught there. It is clear, from this,
that there were certain errors prevailing there which Paul thought it
of the highest importance to have corrected. In regard to those
errors, see the Introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the
Epistle to the Colossians. some of the circumstances which gave
occasion to this epistle, can be gathered from the history in the Acts
of the Apostles; others can be derived from the epistle itself. From
these sources of information we learn the following things in
reference to the state of the church in Ephesus, which made it proper
that Timothy should be left there, and that these instructions should
be given him to regulate his conduct.
(1.) There was much opposition to the apostle Paul from the Jews who
resided there, Acts 14:8,19.
(2.) There were in the church teachers who endeavoured to enforce the
maxims of the Jewish law, and to represent that law as binding on
Christians, 1 Timothy 1:6,7.
(3.) Some of the Hews residing there were addicted to exorcism, and
endeavoured to make use of Christianity and the name of Jesus to promote
their selfish ends, Acts 19:14. Comp. 1 Timothy 1:4.
(4.) The Jewish teachers laid great stress on geneologies and
traditions, and were much given to debates about various questions
connected with the law, 1 Timothy 1:4-6.
(5.) There were erroneous views prevailing respecting the rights of
women, and the place they ought to occupy in the church, 1 Timothy 2:8-15.
(6.) The organization of the officers of the church had not been
effected as Paul wished it to be. It is probable that some of the
officers had been appointed, and that some instructions had been given
to them in regard to their duties, but the whole arrangement had not
been completed, 1 Timothy 3,5.
(7.) There were certain questions in regard to the proper treatment of
widows, which had not yet been determined, 1 Timothy 5.
(8.) The apostle, in his preaching, had inculcated benevolent
principles, and had asserted the natural equality of all men; and it
would seem that certain persons had taken occasion form this to excite
a spirit of discontent and insubordination among those who were
servants. The doctrine seems to have been advanced, that, as all men
were equal, and all had been redeemed by the same blood, therefore
those who had been held in bondage were free from all obligation to
serve their masters. There were those evidently who sought to excite
them to insurrection; to break down the distinctions in society, and to
produce a state of insubordination and disorder, \\1Ti 6\\; comp.
Ephesians 6:5-10; Colossians 3:22; 4:2.
The remainder of this note is continued in note on 1 Timothy 1:2
Continuation of Note from 1 Timothy 1:1. Material for Verse 2 is
at end of this material.
Such appears to have been the state of things when the apostle was
compelled suddenly to leave Ephesus. He had hitherto directed the
affairs of the church there mainly himself, and had endeavoured to
correct the errors then prevailing, and to establish the church on a
right foundation. Matters appear to have been tending tot he desired
result; religion was acquiring a strong hold on the members of the
church Acts 19:18-20; error was giving way; the community was
becoming more and more impressed with the value of Christianity; the
influence idolatry was becoming less and less, Acts 19:23, seq.
and the arrangements for the complete organization of the church were
in progress. Such was the promising state of things in these respects,
that the apostle hoped to be able to leave Ephesus at no very distant
period, and had actually made arrangements to do it, Acts 19:21. But
his arrangements were not quite finished, and before they were completed,
he was compelled to leave by the tumult excited by Demetrius. He left
Timothy, therefore, to complete the arrangements, and, in this first
epistle, gave him all the instructions necessary to guide him in that
work.
This view of the state of things in Ephesus at the time when the
apostle was constrained to leave it, will enable us to understand the
drift of the epistle, and the reasons why the various topics found in
it were introduced. At the same time, the instructions are of so
general a character, that they would be an invaluable guide to
Timothy not only at Ephesus, but through his life; and not only to him,
but to all the ministers of the gospel in every age and land. A more
detailed view of these topics will be furnished in the analysis prefixed
to the several chapters of the epistle.
The epistles to Timothy and Titus occupy a very important place in
the New Testament, and without them there would be a manifest and most
material defect in the volume of inspiration. Their canonical authority
has never been questioned by the great body of the church, and there
is no doubt that they are the productions of the apostle Paul. If the
various epistles which he wrote, and the various other books of the New
Testament be attentively examined, it will be found that each one is
designed to accomplish an important object, and that if any one were
removed, a material chasm would be made. Though the removal of any one
of them would not so impair the volume of the New Testament as to
obscure any essential doctrine, or prevent our obtaining the knowledge
of the way of salvation from the remainder, yet it would mar the
beauty and symmetry of the truth, and would render the system of
instruction defective and incomplete.
This is true in regard to the epistles to Timothy and Titus, as it is
of the other epistles. They fill a department which nothing else in the
New Testament would enable us to supply, and without which instructions
to man respecting redemption would be incomplete. They relate mainly to
the office of the ministry; and though there are important instructions
of the Saviour himself respecting the office, Matthew 10; Mark 16, and
elsewhere; and though, in the address of Paul to the elders of Ephesus,
Acts 20, and in the epistles to the Corinthians, there are
invaluable suggestions respecting it: yet, such is its importance in
the organization of the church, that more full and complete
instructions seem to be imperiously demanded. Those instructions are
furnished in these epistles. They are as full and complete as we could
desire in regard to the nature of the office, the qualifications for
it, and the duties which grow out of it. They are fitted not only to
direct Timothy and Titus in the work to which they were specifically
appointed, but to counsel the ministry in every age and in every
land. It is obvious that the character and welfare of the church depend
greatly, if not entirely, on the character of the ministry. The
office of the ministry is God's great appointment for the preservation
of pure religion, and for spreading it abroad through the world. The
church adheres to the truth; is built up in faith; is distinguished
for love, and purity, and zeal, in proportion as the ministry
is honoured, and shows itself qualified for its work. In every age
corruption in the church has commenced in the ministry; and where the
gospel has been spread abroad with zeal, and the church has arisen in
her strength and beauty, it has been pre-eminently where God has sent
down his Spirit in copious measures on those who have filled the
sacred office. So important, then, is this office to the welfare of the
church and the world, that it was desirable that full instructions should
be furnished in the volume of revelation in regard to its nature and
design. Such instructions we have in these epistles, and there is
scarcely any portion of the New Testament which the church could not
better afford to part with than the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. Had
the ministry always been such as these epistles contemplate, had they who
have filled the sacred office always had the character and qualifications
here described, we may believe that the church would have been saved from
the strifes that have rent it, and that the pure gospel would long ere
this have been spread through the world.
But it is not to the ministry only that these epistles are of so much
value. They are of scarcely less importance to the church at large. Its
vitality; its purity; its freedom from strife; its zeal and love, and
triumph in spreading the gospel, depend on the character of the ministry.
If the church will prosper from age to age, the pulpit must be filled
with a pious, learned, laborious, and devoted ministry, and one of the
first cares of the church should be, that such a ministry should be
secured. This great object cannot better be attained than by keeping the
instructions in these epistles steadily before the minds of the members
of the church; and though a large part of them is particularly adapted
to the ministers of the gospel, yet the church itself can in no better
way promote its own purity and prosperity than by a prayerful and
attentive study of the epistles to Timothy and Titus.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY.
CHAPTER 1.
ANALYSIS OF CHAPTER 1.
This chapter comprises the following subjects :--
(1.) The salutation to Timothy, in the usual manner in which
Paul introduces his epistles, 1 Timothy 1:1,2.
(2.) The purpose for which he had left him at Ephesus, \\1Ti 1:3,4\\.
It was that he might correct the false instructions of some of the
teachers there, and especially, as it would seem, in regard to the true
use of the law. They gave undue importance to some things in the laws of
Moses; they did not understand the true nature and design of his laws;
and they mingled in their instructions much that was mere fable.
(3.) The true use and design of the law, 1 Timothy 1:5-11. It was to
produce love, not vain jangling. It was not made to fetter the
conscience by vain and troublesome austerities and ceremonies;
it was to restrain and bind the wicked. The use of the law according
to these teachers, and according to the prevailing Jewish notions,
was to prescribe a great number of formalities, and to secure outward
conformity in a great variety of cumbrous rights and ceremonies. Paul
instructs Timothy to teach them that love, out of a pure heart and a
good conscience, was the elementary principle of religion, and that the
"law" was primarily designed to restrain and control the wicked, and
that the gospel brought to light and enforced this important truth.
(4.) The mention of the gospel in this connection, leads Paul
to express his thanks to God that he had been intrusted with this
message of salvation, 1 Timothy 1:12-17. Once he had the same views
as others. But he had obtained mercy, and he was permitted to
publish that glorious gospel which had shed such light on the law
of God, and which had revealed a plan of salvation that was worthy
of universal acceptation.
(5.) This solemn duty of preaching the gospel he commits now to
Timothy, 1 Timothy 1:18-20. He says that he had been called to the
work in accordance with the prophecies which had been uttered
of him in anticipation of his future usefulness in the church, and
in the expectation that he would not, like some others, make shipwreck
of his faith.
Verse 1. Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ. See Barnes "Romans 1:1"
By the commandment of God. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 1:1".
Our Saviour. The name Saviour is as applicable to God the rather as
to the Lord Jesus Christ, since God is the great Author of salvation.
See Barnes "Luke 1:47". Comp. 1 Timothy 4:10; Titus 2:10; Jude 1:25".
And Lord Jesus Christ. The apostle Paul had received his
commission directly from him. See Barnes "Galatians 1:11",
See Barnes "Galatians 1:12".
Which is our hope. See Barnes "Colossians 1:27".
{a} "by the commandment" Acts 9:15
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 2. Unto Timothy. For an account of Timothy see Intro, 1.
My own son in the faith. Converted to the Christian faith by my
instrumentality, and regarded by me with the affection of a father.
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 4:15". Paul had no children of his own, and he
adopted Timothy as a son, and uniformly regarded and treated him
as such. He had the same feeling also towards Titus. Titus 1:4.
Comp. See Barnes "Galatians 4:19"; See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 2:7",
See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 2:11"; See Barnes "Philemon 1:10".
Grace, mercy, and peace, etc. See Barnes "Romans 1:7".
{c} "my own son" Acts 16:1
{d} "in the faith" Titus 1:4
{e} "Grace" Galatians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:2
Verse 3. As I besought thee still to abide at Ephesus. It is clear
from this, that Paul and Timothy had been labouring together at Ephesus,
and the language accords with the supposition that Paul had been
compelled to leave before he had completed what he had designed
to do there. See the Intro. 2.
When I went into Macedonia. Having been driven away by the excitement
caused by Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen, Acts 20:1. See the
Intro. & 2, 3.
That thou mightest charge some. The word charge here--\~paraggeilhv\~--
seems to mean more than is commonly implied by the word as used by us. If
it had been a single direction or command, it might have been given by
Paul himself before he left, but it seems rather to refer to that
continuous instruction which would convince these various errorists,
and lead them to inculcate only the true doctrine. As they may have been
numerous,--as they may have embraced various forms of error, and as they
might have had plausible grounds for their belief, this was evidently a
work requiring time, and hence Timothy was left to effect this at leisure.
It would seem that the wrath which had been excited against Paul had not
affected Timothy, but that he was permitted to remain and labour without
molestation. It is not certainly known who these teachers were, but they
appear to have been of Jewish origin, and to have inculcated the peculiar
sentiments of the Jews respecting the law.
That they teach no other doctrine. That is, no other doctrine than
that taught by the apostles. The Greek word here used is not found in the
classic writers, and does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament except
in 1 Timothy 6:3 of this epistle, where it is rendered `teach otherwise.'
We may learn here what was the design for which Timothy was left at
Ephesus.
(1.) It was for a temporary purpose, and not as a permanent arrangement.
It was to correct certain errors prevailing there which Paul would
have been able himself soon to correct if he had been suffered to
remain. Paul expected soon to return to him again, and then they
would proceed unitedly with their work. 1 Timothy 4:13; 3:15.
(2.) It was not that he might be the "bishop" of Ephesus. There
is no evidence that he was "ordained" there at all, as the subscription
to the second epistle declares, (see Notes on that subscription,)
nor were the functions which he was to perform, those of a prelatical
bishop. He was not to take the charge of a "diocese," or to ordain
ministers of the "second rank," or to administer the rite of
confirmation, or to perform acts of discipline, he was left there for a
purpose which is specified, and that is as far as possible from what are
now regarded as the appropriate functions of a prelatical bishop. Perhaps
no claim which has ever been set up has had less semblance of argument
than that which asserts that Timothy was the "bishop of Ephesus." See
this clause examined in my "Inquiry into the Organization and Government
of the Apostolic Church," [pp. 91---114, London edition.]
{f} "went into Macedonia" Acts 20:1,3
Verse 4. Neither give heed to fables. That is, that they should not
bestow their attention on fables, or regard such trifles as of
importance. The "fables" here referred to were probably the idle and
puerile superstitions and conceits of the Jewish Rabbies. The word
rendered fable (\~muyov\~) means properly speech or discourse, to
and then fable or fiction, or a mystic discourse. Such things abounded
among the Greeks as well as the Jews, but it is probable that the latter
here are particularly intended. These were composed of frivolous and
unfounded stories, which they regarded as of great importance, and which
they seem have desired to incorporate with the teachings
of Christianity. Paul, who had been brought up amidst these
superstitions, saw at once how they would tend, to draw off the mind
from the truth, and would corrupt the true religion. One of the most
successful arts of the adversary of souls has been to mingle fable with
truth; and when he cannot overthrow the truth by direct opposition, to
neutralize it by mingling with it much that is false
and frivolous.
And endless genealogies. This also refers to
Jewish teaching. The Hebrews kept careful genealogical records, for this
was necessary in order that the distinction of their tribes might be
kept up. Of course, in the lapse of centuries, these tables would become
very numerous, complicated, and extended--so that they might, without
much exaggeration, be called "endless." The Jews attached great
importance to them, and insisted on their being carefully preserved. As
the Messiah, however, had now come--as the Jewish polity was to
cease--as the separation between them and the heathen was no longer
necessary, and the distinction of tribes was now useless, there was no
propriety that these distinctions should be regarded by Christians. The
whole system was, moreover, contrary to the genius of Christianity, for
it served to keep up the pride of blood and of birth.
Which minister questions. Which afford matter for troublesome and
angry debates. It was often difficult to settle or understand them. They
became complicated and perplexing. Nothing is more difficult than to
unravel an extensive genealogical table. To do this, therefore, would
often give rise to contentions; and, when settled, would give rise
still further to questions about rank and precedence.
Rather than godly edifying which is in faith. These inquiries do
nothing to promote true religion in the soul. They settle no permanent
principle of truth; they determine nothing that is really concerned in
the salvation of men. They might be pursued through life, and not
one soul be converted by them; they might be settled with the
greatest accuracy, and yet not one heart be made better. Is not
this still true of many controversies and logomachies in the church?
No point of controversy is worth much trouble, which, if it were
settled one way or the other, would not tend to convert the soul
from sin, or to establish some important principle in promoting
true religion.
So do. These words are supplied by our translators, but they are
necessary to the sense. The meaning is, that Timothy was to remain at
Ephesus, and faithfully perform the duty which he had been left there to
discharge.
{g} "heed to fables" 1 Timothy 6:3,4,20
Verse 5. Now the end of the commandment. See Barnes "Romans 10:4".
In order that Timothy might fulfil the design of his appointment,
it was necessary that he should have a correct view of the design
of the law. The teachers, to whom he refers, insisted much on
its obligation and importance; and Paul designs to say that
he did not intend to teach that the law was of no consequence,
and was not, when properly understood, obligatory. Its nature
and use, however, was not correctly understood by them, and hence
it was of great importance for Timothy to inculcate correct views
of the purpose for which it was given. The word "commandment"
here, some have understood of the gospel, (Doddridge ;) others of
the particular command which the apostle here gives to Timothy,
(Benson, Clarke, and Macknight ;) but it seems more naturally to
refer to all that God had commanded--his whole law. As the
error of these teachers arose from improper views of the nature and
design of law, Paul says that that design should be understood. It
was not to produce distinctions and angry contentions, and was
not to fetter the minds of Christians with minute and burdensome
observances, but it was to produce love.
Is charity. On the meaning of this word, See Barnes "1 Corinthians 13:1".
Out of a pure heart. The love which is genuine must proceed from a
holy heart. The commandment was not designed to secure merely the
outward expressions of love, but that which had its seat in the heart.
And of a good conscience. A conscience free from guilt. Of course
there can be no genuine love to God where the dictates of conscience are
constantly violated, or where a man knows that he is continually
doing wrong. If a man wishes to have the evidence of love to God,
he must keep a good conscience. All pretended love, where a man
knows that he is living in sin, is mere hypocrisy.
And of faith unfeigned. Undissembled confidence in God. This does
seem to be intended specifically of faith in the Lord Jesus, but it means
that all true love to God, such as this law would produce, must be
based on confidence in him. How can any one have love to him
who has no confidence in him? Can we exercise love to a professed
friend in whom we have no confidence? Faith, then, is as necessary
under the law as it is under the gospel.
{a} "of the commandment" Romans 13:8,10; Galatians 5:14
{*} "charity" "Love"
{b} "pure heart" 2 Timothy 2:22
Verse 6. From which some having swerved. Marg., not aiming at.
The word here used \~astocew\~-- means properly, to miss the mark; to
err; and then, to swerve from. Comp. 1 Timothy 6:21; 2 Timothy 2:18.
It does not mean that they had ever had that from which they are
said to have swerved--for it does not follow that a man who misses
a mark had ever hit it--but merely that they failed of the things
referred to, and had turned to vain talk. The word "which" (\~wn\~,)
in the plural, refers not to the law, but to the things enumerated
--a pure heart, a good conscience, and unfeigned faith.
Have turned aside unto vain jangling. Vain talk, empty declamation,
discourses without sense. The word here used does not mean contention
or strife, but that kind of discourse which is not founded in good sense.
They were discourses on their pretended distinctions in the law; on their
traditions and ceremonies; on their useless genealogies, and on the
fabulous statements which they had appended to the law of Moses.
{1} "having swerved" "not aiming at"
Verse 7. Desiring to be teachers of the law. That is, to have the
credit and reputation of being well versed in the law of Moses, and
qualified to explain it to others. This was a high honour among the Jews,
and these teachers laid claim to the same distinction.
Understanding neither what they say. That is, they do not understand
the true nature and design of that law which they attempt to explain
to others. This was true of the Jewish teachers, and equally so of
those in the church at Ephesus, who attempted to explain it.
They appear to hare explained the law on the principles which commonly
prevailed among the Jews, and hence their instructions tended greatly to
corrupt the faith of the gospel. They made affirmations of what they knew
nothing of, and though they made confident asseverations, yet they often
pertained to things about which they had no knowledge. One needs only a
slight acquaintance with the manner of teaching among Jewish Rabbies, or
with the things found in their traditions, to see the accuracy of this
statement of the apostle. A sufficient illustration of this may be
found in Allen's "Modern Judaism."
{d} "understanding neither" Romans 1:22
Verse 8. But we know that the law is good. We admit this; it is that
which we all concede. This declaration is evidently made by the apostle
to guard against the supposition that he was an enemy of the law.
Doubtless this charge would be brought against him, or against any one
who maintained the sentiments which he had just expressed. By speaking
thus of what those teachers regarded as so important in the law, it
would be natural for them to declare that he was an enemy of the law
itself, and would be glad to see all its claims abrogated. Paul says that
he designs no such thing. He admitted that the law was good. He was never
disposed for one moment to call it in question. He only asked that it
should be rightly understood and properly explained. Paul was never
disposed to call in question the excellency and the utility of the
law, however it might bear on him or on others. Comp.
See Barnes "Romans 7:12", and See Barnes "Acts 21:21-26".
"If a man use it lawfully". In a proper manner; for the purposes for
which it was designed. It is intended to occupy a most important place,
but it should not be perverted. Paul asked only that it should be used
aright, and, in order to this, he proceeds to state what is its true
design.
{e} "law is good" Romans 7:12
Verse 9. Knowing this. That is, "If any one knows, or admits this,
he has the proper view of the design of the law." The apostle does
not refer particularly to himself as knowing or conceding this, for
then he would have used the plural form of the participle, (see the
Greek;) but he means that any one, who had just views of the law,
would see that that which he proceeds to specify was its real purpose.
The law is not made for a righteous man.--There has been
great variety in the interpretation of this passage. Some suppose
that the law here refers to the ceremonial laws of Moses, (Clarke,
Rosenmuller, Abbot;) others to the denunciatory part of the law,
(Doddridge and Bloomfield;) and others that it means that the
chief purpose of the law was to restrain the wicked. It seems
clear, however, that the apostle does not refer merely to the ceremonial
law, for he specifies that which condemns the unholy and profane; the
murderers of fathers and mothers; liars and perjured persons. It was not
the ceremonial law which condemned these things, but the moral law.
It cannot be supposed, moreover, that the apostle meant, to say that the
law was not binding on a righteous man, or that he was under no
obligation to obey it--for he everywhere teaches that the moral law is
obligatory on all mankind. To suppose also that a righteous man is
released from the obligation to obey the law, that is, to do right,
is an absurdity. Nor does he seem to mean, as Macknight supposes, that
the law was not given for the purpose of justifying a righteous man--for
this was originally one of its designs. Had man always obeyed it, he
would have been justified by it. The meaning seems to be, that the purpose
of the law was not to fetter and perplex those who were righteous,
and who aimed to do their duty and to please God, It was not intended
to produce a spirit of servitude and bondage. As the Jews interpreted it,
it did this, and this interpretation appears to have been adopted by the
teachers at Ephesus, to whom Paul refers. The whole tendency of their
teaching was to bring the soul into a state of bondage, and to make
religion a condition of servitude. Paul teaches, on the other hand, that
religion was a condition of freedom, and that the main purpose of the law
was not to fetter the minds of the righteous by numberless observances
and minute regulations, but that it was to restrain the wicked from sin.
This is the case with all law. No good man feels himself fettered and
manacled by wholesome laws, nor does he feel that the purpose of law is
to reduce him to a state of servitude. It is only the wicked who have
this feeling--and in this sense the law is made for a man who intends to
do wrong.
For the lawless. To bind and restrain them. The word here used
means, properly, those who have no law, and then those who are
transgressors--the wicked. It is rendered transgressors in
Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37; and wicked, Acts 2:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:8.
And disobedient. Those who are insubordinate, lawless, refractory.
The word properly means those who are under no subjection or authority.
It occurs in the New Testament only here, and Titus 1:6,10, where it
is rendered unruly, and Hebrews 2:8, where it is translated not put
under; that is, under Christ.
For the ungodly. Those who have no religion; who do not worship or
honour God. The Greek word occurs in the following places, in all of
which it is rendered ungodly, Romans 4:5; 5:6; 1 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 4:18;
2 Peter 2:5; 3:7; Jude 1:4,15. The meaning is, that the law is
against all who do not worship or honour God.
And for sinners. The word used here is the common word to denote
sinners. It is general, and includes sins of all kinds.
For unholy. "Those who are regardless of duty to God or man."
Robinson, Lex. The word occurs in the New Testament only here, and
in 2 Timothy 3:2. It has particular reference to those who fail of their
duty towards God, and means those who have no piety; who are irreligious.
And profane. This does not necessarily mean that they were profane
in the sense that they blasphemed the name of God, or were profane
swearers--though the word would include that--but it means properly
those who are impious, or who are scoffers. See Barnes "Hebrews 12:16".
The word occurs only in the following places, in all of which it is
rendered profane, 1 Timothy 1:9; 4:7; 6:20; 2 Timothy 2:16; Hebrews 12:16.
A man who treats religion with contempt, mockery, or scorn, would
correspond with the meaning of the word.
For murderers of fathers. The Greek properly means a smiter of
a father, (Robinson,) though here it undoubtedly means a parricide.
This was expressly forbidden by the law of Moses, and was a crime
punishable by death, Exodus 21:15. It is said to have been a crime which
the Roman law did not contemplate as possible, and hence that there was
no enactment against it. It is, indeed, a crime of the highest order;
but facts have shown that if the Romans supposed it would never be
committed, they did not judge aright of human nature. There is no sin
which man will not commit if unrestrained, and there is in fact no
conceivable form of crime of which he has not been guilty.
Murderers of mothers. A still more atrocious and monstrous crime, if
possible, than the former. We can conceive nothing superior to this in
atrocity, and yet it has been committed. Nero caused his mother to be
murdered, and the annals of crime disclose the names of not a few who
have imbrued their own hands in the blood of those who bare them. This
was also expressly forbidden by the law of Moses, Exodus 21:15.
For manslayers. This word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.
It means a homicide--a murderer. The crime is expressly forbidden by the
law, Exodus 20:13; Genesis 9:6.
{f} "the law" Galatians 5:23
Verse 10. For whoremongers. Leviticus 19:29; 20:5.
For them that defile themselves with mankind. Sodomites. See the
evidence that this crime abounded in ancient times,
See Barnes "Romans 1:27". It was forbidden by the law of Moses, and was
punishable with death. Leviticus 20:13.
For menstealers. The word here used \~andrapodisthv\~ occurs nowhere
else in the New Testament. It properly means one who steals another for the
purpose of making him a slave--a kidnapper. This is the common way in
which men are made slaves. Some, indeed, are taken in war and sold as
slaves, but the mass of those who have been reduced to servitude have
become slaves by being kidnapped. Children are stolen from their
parents, or wives from their husbands, or husbands from their wives,
or parents from their children, or whole families are stolen together.
None become slaves voluntarily, and consequently the whole process
of making slaves partakes of the nature of theft of the worst kind.
What theft is like that of stealing a man's children, or his wife, or
his father or mother! The guilt of manstealing is incurred
essentially by those who purchase those who are thus stolen--as the
purchaser of a stolen horse, knowing it to be so, participates in the
crime. A measure of that criminality also adheres to all who own slaves,
and who thus maintain the system-for it is a system known to
have been originated by theft. This crime was expressly forbidden
by the law of God, and was made punishable with death,
Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7.
For liars. Leviticus 6:2-4; 19:11.
For perjured persons. Those who swear falsely. Leviticus 19:12; 6:3;
Exodus 20:7.
And if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.
To sound or correct teaching--for so the word doctrine means. The
meaning is, if there is anything else that is opposed to the instruction
which the law of God gives.
{a} "doctrine" 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 1:9
Verse 11. According to the glorious gospel. The gospel is a system of
Divine revelation. It makes known the will of God. It states what is
duty, and accords in its great principles with the law, or is in harmony
with it. The law, in principle, forbids all which the gospel forbids,
and in publishing the requirements of the gospel, therefore, Paul says
that the law really forbade all which was prohibited in the gospel, and
was designed to restrain all who would act contrary to that gospel. There
is no contradiction between the law and the gospel. They forbid the same
things, and in regard to morals and true piety, the clearer revelations
of the gospel are but carrying out the principles stated in the law. They
who preach the gospel, then, should not be regarded as arrayed against
the law, and Paul says that they who preached the gospel aright
really stated the true principles of the law. This he evidently intends
should bear against the false teachers who professed to explain
the law of Moses. lie means here that if a man wished to explain
the law, the best explanation would be found in that gospel which
it was his office to publish. Comp. Romans 3:31.
Of the blessed God. Revealed by the blessed God--the same God who was
the Author of the law. Which was committed to my trust. Not to him
alone, but to him in common with others, he had received it directly
from the Lord, 1 Corinthians 9:17. See Barnes "Galatians 1:1".
{b} "blessed God" 1 Timothy 6:15
{c} "was committed" 1 Corinthians 9:17
Verse 12. And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord. The mention of the
gospel 1 Timothy 1:11, and of the fact that it was committed to him leads
the apostle to express his gratitude to him who had called him to
the work of preaching it. The Lord Jesus had called him when he was a
blasphemer and a persecutor. He had constrained him to leave his career
of persecution and blasphemy, and to consecrate himself to the defence
and the propagation of the gospel. For all this, though it had required
him to give up his favourite projects in life, and all the flattering
schemes of ambition, he now felt that praise was due to the Redeemer. If
there is anything for which a good man will be thankful, and should be
thankful, it is that he has been so directed by the Spirit and
providence of God as to be put into the ministry. It is indeed a work of
toil and of self-denial, and demanding many sacrifices of personal ease
and comfort. It requires a man to give up his splendid prospects
of worldly distinction, and of wealth and ease. It is often identified
with want, and poverty, and neglect, and persecution. But it is an
office so honourable, so excellent, so noble, and ennobling;
it is attended with so many precious comforts here, and is so useful to
the world, and it has such promises of blessedness and happiness in the
world to come, that no matter what a man is required to give up in
order to become a minister of the gospel, he should be thankful to
Christ for putting him into the office. A minister when he comes to die,
feels that the highest favour which heaven has conferred on him has been
in turning his feet away from the paths of ambition, and the pursuits of
ease or gain, and leading him to that holy work to which he has been
enabled to consecrate his life.
Who hath enabled me. Who has given me ability or strength for this
service. The apostle traced to the Lord Jesus the fact that he was
in the ministry at all, and all the ability which he had to perform the
duties of thai holy office. It is not necessary here to suppose, as
many have done, that he refers to miraculous power conferred on
him, but he makes the acknowledgment which any faithful minister
would do, that all the strength which he has to perform the duties
of his office is derived from Christ. Comp. See Barnes "John 15:5";
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 15:10".
For that he counted me faithful. This is equivalent to saying that
he reposed confidence in me. It means that there was something in the
character of Paul, and in his attachment to the Saviour, on which
reliance could be placed, or that there was that which gave the
assurance that he would be faithful. A sovereign when he sends an
ambassador to a foreign court, reposes confidence in him, and would not
commission him unless he had reason to believe that he would be
faithful. So it is in reference to all who are called by the Redeemer
into the ministry. They are his ambassadors to a lost world. His putting
them into the ministry is an act expressive of great confidence in
them--for he commits to them great and important interests. Learn hence,
(1.) that no one ought to regard himself as called to the ministry who
will not be "faithful" to his Master: and
(2.) that the office of the ministry is most honourable and responsible.
Nowhere else are there so great interests intrusted to man.
{d} "enabled me" 1 Corinthians 15:10
{e} "faithful" 1 Corinthians 7:25
{f} "putting me" Colossians 1:25
Verse 13. Who was before a blasphemer. This does not mean that Paul
before his conversion was what would now be regarded as an open
blasphemer--that he was one who abused and reviled sacred things,
or one who was in the habit of profane swearing. His character
appears to have been just the reverse of this, for he was remarkable
for treating what he regarded as sacred with the utmost respect.
See Barnes "Philippians 3:4-6". The meaning is, that he had reviled
the name of Christ, and opposed him and his cause--not believing
that he was the Messiah; and in thus opposing he had really been
guilty of blasphemy. The true Messiah he had in fact treated
with contempt and reproaches; and he now looked back upon that
fact with the deepest mortification, and with wonder that one who
had been so treated by him should have been willing to put him
into the ministry. On the meaning of the word blaspheme,
See Barnes "Matthew 9:3". Compare See Barnes "Acts 26:11". In his conduct
here referred to, Paul elsewhere says, that he thought at the time that
he was doing what he ought to do, Acts 26:9; here he says
that he now regarded it as blasphemy. Learn hence that men may
have very different views of their conduct when they come to look
at it in subsequent life. What they now regard as harmless, or
even as right and proper, may hereafter overwhelm them with shame
and remorse. The sinner will yet feel the deepest self-reproaches
for that which now gives us no uneasiness.
And a persecutor. Acts 9:1; Acts 22:4; 26:11; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13,23.
And injurious. The word here used, (\~ubristhv\~,) occurs only in
one other place in the New Testament, Romans 1:30, where it is
tendered despiteful. The word injurious does not quite express
its force. It does not mean merely doing injury, but refers rather to
the manner or spirit in which it is done. It is a word of intenser
signification than either the word "blasphemer," or "persecutor,"
and means that what he did was done with a proud, haughty, insolent
spirit. There was wicked and malicious violence, an arrogance and spirit
of tyranny in what he did, which greatly aggravated the wrong that was
done. Comp. the Greek in Matthew 22:6; Luke 11:45; 18:32; Acts 14:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:2;
2 Corinthians 12:10, for illustrations of the meaning of the word. Tindal and
Coverdale render it here "tyrant."
But I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. Comp.
See Barnes "Luke 23:34". The ignorance and unbelief of Paul were not
such excuses for what he did that they would wholly free him from blame,
nor did he regard them as such--for what he did was with a violent and
wicked spirit--but they were mitigating circumstances. They served to
modify his guilt, and were among the reasons why God had mercy
on him. What is said here, therefore, accords with what the Saviour said
in his prayer for his murderers: "Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do." It is undoubtedly true that persons who sin
ignorantly, and who regard themselves as right in what they do, are much
more likely to obtain mercy than those who do wrong designedly.
{a} "a blasphemer" Acts 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:9
{b} "ignorantly" Luke 23:34
Verse 14. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant. That is,
in his conversion under these circumstances, and in the aid which
was afterwards imparted to him in his work.
With faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. Accompanied with the
exercise of faith and love; or producing faith and love. The grace which
was imparted to him was seen in the faith and love which it produced.
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 15:10".
Verse 15. This is a faithful saying. Gr., "Faithful is the word," or
doctrine-- \~o logov\~. This verse has somewhat the character of a
parenthesis, and seems to have been thrown into the midst of the
narrative because the mind of the apostle was full of the subject.
He had said that he, a great sinner, had obtained mercy. This
naturally led him to think of the purpose for which Christ came
into the world--to save sinners--and to think how strikingly that
truth had been illustrated in his own case, and how that case had
shown that it was worthy the attention of all. The word rendered
"saying," means, in this place, doctrine, position, or declaration.
The word "faithful," means assuredly true; it was that which
might be depended on, or on which reliance might be placed. The
meaning is, that the doctrine that Christ came to save sinners might
be depended on as certainly true. Comp. 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8.
And worthy of all acceptation. Worthy to be embraced or believed by
all. This is so because
(1.) all are sinners and need a Saviour. All, therefore, ought to
welcome a doctrine which shows them how they may be saved.
(2.) Because Christ died for all.
If he had died for only a part of the race, and could save only a
part, it could not be said, with any propriety, that the doctrine was
worthy of the acceptance of "all". If that were so, what had it to
do with all? How could all be interested in it, or benefited by it?
If medicine had been provided for only a part of the patients in a
hospital, it could not be said that the announcement of such a fact
was worthy the attention of all. It would be highly worthy the attention
of those for whom it was designed, but there would be a part who would
have nothing to do with it; and why should they concern themselves about
it? But if it were provided for each one, then each one would have the
highest interest in it. So, if salvation has been provided for me, it is
a matter claiming my profoundest attention; and the same is true of
every human being. If not provided for me, I have nothing to do with it.
It does not concern me at all.
(3.) The manner in which the provision of salvation has been made in the
gospel is such as to make it worthy of universal acceptation. It
provides for the complete pardon of sin, and the restoration of the soul
to God. This is done in a way that is honourable to God--maintaining his
law and his justice; and, at the same time, it is in a way that is
honourable to man. He is treated afterwards as a friend of God and an
heir of life. He is raised up from his degradation, and restored to the
favour of his Maker. If man were himself to suggest a way of salvation,
he could think of none that would be more honourable to God and to
himself; none that would do so much to maintain the law, and to
elevate him from all that now degrades him. What higher honour
can be conferred on man than to have his salvation sought as an
object of intense and earnest desire by one so great and glorious as
the Son of God?
(4.) It is worthy of all acceptance, from the nature of the salvation
itself. Heaven is offered, with all its everlasting glories, through the
blood of Christ--and is not this worthy of universal acceptation? Men
would accept of a coronet or crown; a splendid mansion, or a rich
estate; a present of jewels and gold, if freely tendered to them; but
what trifles are these compared with heaven! If there is anything that
is worthy of universal acceptation, it is heaven, for all will be
miserable unless they enter there.
That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. The great and
peculiar doctrine of the gospel. He "came into the world." He,
therefore, had a previous existence. He came. He had, therefore, an
object in coming. It makes his gospel more worthy of acceptation, that
he had an intention, a plan, a wish, in thus coming into the world. He
"came" when he was under no necessity of coming; he came to save, not to
destroy; to reveal mercy, not to denounce judgment; to save sinners--the
poor, the lost, the wandering, not to condemn them; he came to restore
them to the favour of God, to raise them up from their degradation,
and to bring them to heaven.
Of whom I am chief. Gr., first. The word is used to denote
eminence, and it means that he occupied the first rank among
sinners. There were none who surpassed him. This does not mean that he
had been the greatest of sinners in all respects, but that in some
respects he had been so great a sinner, that, on the whole, there were
none who had surpassed him. That to which he particularly refers was
doubtless the part which he had taken in putting the saints to death;
but in connexion with this, he felt, undoubtedly, that he had by nature
a heart eminently prone to sin. See Romans 7. Except in the matter of
persecuting the saints, the youthful Saul of Tarsus appears to have been
eminently moral, and his outward conduct was framed in accordance
with the strictest rules of the law, Philippians 3:6; Acts 26:4,6.
After his conversion, he never attempted to extenuate his conduct,
or excuse himself. He was always ready, in all circles, and in all
places, to admit, to its fullest extent, the fact that he was a sinner.
So deeply convinced was he of the truth of this, that he bore about
with him the constant impression that he was eminently unworthy;
and hence he does not say merely that he had been a sinner of most
aggravated character, but he speaks of it as something that always
pertained to him--" of whom I am chief." We may remark
(1.) that a true Christian will always be ready to admit that his past
life has been evil;
(2.) that this will become the abiding and steady conviction of the
soul; and
(3.) that an acknowledgment that we are sinners is not inconsistent with
evidence of piety, and with high attainments in it. The most eminent
Christian has the deepest sense of the depravity of his own heart, and
of the evil of his past life.
{c} "faithful saying" 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8
{d} "came into the world" Matthew 9:13; Luke 19:10
Verse 16. Howbeit for this came. That is, this was on, of the
causes, or this was a leading reason. We are not to suppose that this
was the only one. God had other ends to answer by his conversion
than this; but this was one of the designs why he was pardoned--
that there might be for all ages a permanent proof that sins of the
deepest dye might be forgiven. It was well to have one such
example at the outset, that a doubt might never arise about the
possibility of forgiving great transgressors. The question thus
would be settled for ever.
That in me first. Not first in the order of time, as our
translation would seem to imply, but that in me the first or chief of
sinners \~en emoi prwtw\~ he might show an example. The idea is, that he
sustained the first rank as a sinner, and that Jesus Christ designed to
show mercy to him as such, in order that the possibility of pardoning
the greatest sinners might be evinced, and that no one might afterwards
despair of salvation on account of the greatness of his crimes.
Might show forth all long-suffering. The highest possible degree of
forbearance, in order that a case might never occur about which there
could be any doubt. It was shown by his example that the Lord Jesus
could evince any possible degree of patience, and could have mercy on
the greatest imaginable offenders.
For a pattern. \~upotupwsin\~. This word occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament, except in 2 Timothy 1:13, where it is rendered form. It
properly means a form, sketch, or imperfect delineation. Then it denotes
a pattern or example, and here it means that the case of Paul was an
example for the encouragement of sinners in all subsequent times. It was
that to which they might look when they desired forgiveness and
salvation. It furnished all the illustration and argument which they
would need to show that they might be forgiven. It settled the
question for ever that the greatest sinners might be pardoned; for
as he was "the chief of sinners," it proved that a case could not
occur which was beyond the possibility of mercy.
Which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. All might
learn from the mercy shown to him that salvation could be obtained. From
this verse we may learn
(1.) that no sinner should despair of mercy. No one should say that he
is so great a sinner that he cannot be forgiven. One who regarded
himself as the "chief" of sinners was pardoned, and pardoned for the
very purpose of illustrating this truth, that any sinner might be saved.
His example stands as the illustration of this to all ages; and were
there no other, any sinner might now come and hope for mercy. But there
are other examples. Sinners of all ranks and descriptions have been
pardoned. Indeed, there is no form of depravity of which men can be
guilty, in respect to which there are not instances where just such
offenders have been forgiven. The persecutor may reflect that great
enemies of the cross like him have been pardoned; the profane man
and the blasphemer, that many such have been forgiven; the murderer, the
thief, the sensualist, that many of the same character have found mercy,
and have been admitted to heaven.
(2.) The fact that great sinners have been pardoned, is a proof that
others of the same description may be also. The same mercy that saved
them can save us--for mercy is not exhausted by being frequently
exercised. The blood of atonement which has cleansed so many
can cleanse us--for its efficacy is not destroyed by being once applied
to the guilty soul. Let no one then despair of obtaining mercy because
he feels that his sins are too great to be forgiven. Let him look to the
past, and remember what God has done. Let him remember the case of Saul
of Tarsus; let him think of David and Peter; let him recall the names of
Augustine, and Col. Gardiner, and the Bari of Rochester, and John
Newton, and John Bunyan--and thousands like them, who have found mercy;
and in their examples let him see a full proof that God is willing
to save any sinner, no matter how vile, provided he is penitent and
believing.
{a} "pattern" Romans 15:4
Verse 17. Now unto the King eternal. This ascription of praise is
offered to God in view of the mercy which he had shown to so
great a sinner. It is the outbreak of that grateful emotion which
swelled his bosom, and which would not be denied expression,
when Paul recalled his former life and the mercy of God to his
soul. It somewhat interrupts indeed the train of his remarks, but
the heart was so full that it demanded utterance. It is just an instance
of the joy and gratitude which fill the soul of a Christian when he is
led along in a train of reflections which conduct him to the
recollection of his former sin and danger, and to the fact that he has
obtained mercy and has now the hope of heaven. The apostle Paul not
unfrequently, in accordance with a mode of writing that was common among
the Hebrews, interposes an expression of praise in the midst of his
reasonings. Comp. Romans 1:25; 2 Corinthians 11:31. God is called King here, as he
is often in the Scriptures, to denote that he rules over the universe. A
literal translation of the passage would be, "To the King of ages, who
is immortal," etc. The meaning of this expression--"the King of ages"
\~basilei twn aiwnwn\~ -- is, that he is a King who rules throughout all
ages. This does not mean that he himself lives for ever, but that his
dominion extends over all ages or generations. The rule of earthly monarchs
does not extend into successive ages; his does. Their reign is
temporary; his is enduring, and continues as one generation after
another passes on, and thus embraces them all.
Immortal. This refers to God himself, not to his reign. It means
that he does not die, and it is given to him to distinguish him from
other sovereigns. All other monarchs but God expire--and are just as
liable to die at any moment as any other men.
Invisible. 1 Timothy 6:16. See Barnes "John 1:18".
The only wise God. See Barnes "Romans 16:27". The word "wise" is
wanting in many .Mss., and in some editions of the New Testament. It is
omitted by Griesbach; marked as doubtful by Tittman; and rejected in the
valuable edition of Hahn. Erasmus conjectures that it was added against
the Arians, who maintained that the Father only was God, and that as he
is here mentioned as such, the word wise was interpolated to denote
merely that the attribute of perfect wisdom belonged only to him.
Wetstein regards the reading as genuine, and suspects that in some of
the early manuscripts where it is wanting it was omitted by the
transcriber, because it was regarded as inelegant for two adjectives to
be united in this manner. It is not easy to determine as to the
genuineness of the reading. The sense is not materially affected,
whichever view be adopted. It is true that Jehovah is the only
God; it is also true that he is the only wise God. The gods of the
heathen are "vanity and a lie," and they are wholly destitute of
wisdom. See Psalms 115:3-8; 135:16-18; Isaiah 40:18-20; 44:10-17.
Be honour. Let there be all the respect and veneration shown to him
which is his due.
And glory. Praise. Let him be praised by all for ever.
Amen. So be it; an expression of strong affirmation.
John 3:3. Here it is used to denote the solemn assent of the heart
to the sentiment conveyed by the words used.
See Barnes "Matthew 6:13 1Co 14:16".
{b} "eternal" Psalms 10:16
{c} "invisible" 1 Timothy 6:15,16
{d} "wise God" John 1:16
{e} "God" Romans 16:27
{f} "honour and glory" 1 Chronicles 29:11
Verse 18. This charge. This command or injunction. It does not refer
to any "charge," or "cure," which he had as bishop or minister, as the
word is sometimes used now, but to the commands or injunctions which he
was delivering to him. The command particularly referred to is that in
1 Timothy 1:3.
According to the prophecies which went before on thee. The general
meaning of this is plain. It is, that Paul was committing to him an
important trust, and one that required great wisdom and fidelity; and
that in doing it he was acting in conformity with the hopes which had
been cherished respecting Timothy, and with certain expressed
anticipations about his influence in the church. From early life the
hope had been entertained that he would be a man to whom important
trusts might be committed; and it had been predicted that he would be
distinguished as a friend of religion. These hopes seem to have
been cherished in consequence of the careful training in religion
which he had had, 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:15, and probably from the
early indications of seriousness, prudence, and piety, which he
manifested. It was natural to entertain such hopes; and it seems,
from this place, that such hopes had even assumed the form of
predictions. It is not absolutely necessary to suppose that these
predictions referred to by the word prophecies were inspired, for the
word may be used in a popular sense, as it is often now, We
speak now familiarly of predicting or foretelling the future
usefulness of a serious, prudent, studious, and pious youth. We argue
œrom what he is, to what he will be, and we do not deem it unsafe or
improper to hazard the prediction that, if he lives, he will be a man
to whom important interests may be intrusted. As there were,
however, prophets in the Christian church, See Barnes "Acts 11:27";
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 14:32", and as it is possible that in some cases
they were inspired to foretell future events, it cannot be regarded as
improper to suppose that some of them had foretold the future usefulness
of this religiously educated youth. Whatever may be meant by the
expression, this general observation may be made, that when a
young man enters on the active duties of life, and when great interests
are intrusted to him, it is not improper to remind him of the hopes
which had been cherished of him; of the anticipations which had been
formed of his future usefulness; and of the expressions which have been
used by the pious and the discerning respecting his future character.
This is a kind of reminiscence which will rather increase his sense of
responsibility than flatter his vanity; and it may be made a means of
exciting him to diligence and fidelity. A virtuous young man will not
willingly disappoint the long-cherished hopes of his friends. He will be
likely to be made more diligent by the remembrance of all their fond
anticipations of his future success.
That thou by them. By those prophecies. That is, that being
stimulated and excited by those predictions and hopes, you might be led
to fidelity and usefulness.
Mightest war a good warfare. The Christian life is often compared to
a warfare or struggle for victory, comp. Ephesians 6:10-17; 1 Corinthians 9:7
2 Corinthians 10:4, and the services of the Christian ministry especially are
likened to those of a soldier, 2 Timothy 2:3,4; 4:7. The meaning
here is, that he should contend with earnestness as a Christian
and a minister in that holy service in which he was engaged, and
endeavour to secure the victory. He "wars a good warfare" who
is engaged in a righteous cause; who is faithful to his commander
and to his post; who is unslumbering in observing the motions of
the enemy, and fearless in courage in meeting them; who never
forsakes his standard, and who continues thus faithful till the
period of his enlistment has expired, or till death. Such a soldier
the Christian minister should be.
{a} "according to the prophecies" 1 Thessalonians 4:14
{*} "on thee" "concerning thee"
Verse 19. Holding faith. Fidelity to the cause in which you are
enlisted as a good soldier should do. This does not mean, as it seems
to me, that Timothy should hold to the system of doctrines revealed
in the gospel, but that he should have that fidelity which a good
soldier ought to have. He should not betray his trust. He should
adhere to the cause of his Master with unwavering steadfastness.
This would include, of course, a belief of the truth, but this is not
the leading idea in the phrase.
And a good conscience. See Barnes "Acts 23:1". A good conscience,
as well as fidelity, is necessary in the service of the Redeemer. A good
conscience is that which is well informed in regard to what is right,
and where its dictates are honestly followed.
Which some having put away. That is, which good conscience some have
put from them, or in other words, have not followed its dictates The
truth thus taught is, that men make shipwreck of their faith by not
keeping a good conscience. They love sin. They follow the leadings of
passion. They choose to indulge in carnal propensities. As a matter of
course, they must, if they will do this, reject and renounce the gospel.
Men become infidels because they wish to indulge in sin. No man can be a
sensualist, and yet love that gospel which enjoins purity of life.
If men would keep a good conscience, the way to a steady belief
in the gospel would be easy. If men will not, they must expect
sooner or later to be landed in infidelity.
Concerning faith. In respect to the whole subject of faith. They are
unfaithful to God, and they reject the whole system of the gospel.
"Faith" is sometimes used to denote the gospel--as faith is the
principal thing in the gospel.
Have made shipwreck. There is an entire destruction of faith--as a
ship is wholly ruined that strikes on a rock and sinks.
{b} "Holding faith". "1 Timothy 3:9
Verse 20. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander. Hymeneus is nowhere
else mentioned in the New Testament, except in 2 Timothy 2:17, where he
is mentioned in connection with Philetus as a very dangerous man. An
Alexander is mentioned in Acts 19:33, which some have supposed to be
the same as the one referred to here. It is not certain, however, that
the same person is intended. See Barnes "Acts 19:33".
In 2 Timothy 4:14, Alexander the coppersmith is mentioned as one who had
done the apostle "much evil," and there can be little doubt that he is
the same person who is referred to here. One of the doctrines which
Hymeneus held was that the "resurrection was past already,"
2 Timothy 2:18; but what doctrine Alexander held is unknown. It is not
improbable, as he is mentioned here in connection with Hymeneus, that he
maintained the same opinion; and, in addition to that, he appears to
have been guilty of some personal injury to the apostle. Both also were
guilty of blasphemy.
Whom I have delivered unto Satan. On the meaning of this expression,
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 5:5".
That they may learn not to blaspheme. It cannot be supposed that
Satan would undertake to teach them not to blaspheme, or that Paul put
them under him as an instructor on that subject. The instructions
of Satan tend rather to teach his followers to blaspheme, and none
in his school fail to be apt scholars. The meaning here is, that
Paul excommunicated them, and not improbably brought upon them, by
giving them over to Satan, some physical maladies, that they might be
reformed. Comp. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 5:5". It is not entirely clear what
is meant by blaspheme in this place. Comp. See Barnes "1 Timothy 1:13"
It cannot be supposed that they were open and bold blasphemers, for such
could not have maintained a place in the church, but rather that they
held doctrines which the apostle regarded as amounting to blasphemy;
that is, doctrines which were in fact a reproach on the Divine
character. There are many doctrines held by men which are in fact a
reflection on the Divine character, and which amount to the same thing
as blasphemy. A blasphemer openly expresses views of the Divine
character which are a reproach to God; an errorist expresses the same
thing in another way--by teaching as true about God that which
represents him in a false light, and to suppose which, in fact, is a
reproach. The spirit with which this is done in the two cases may be
different; the thing itself may be the same. Let us be careful that we
hold no views about God which are reproachful to him, and which,
though we do not express it in words, may lead us to blaspheme
him in our hearts.
{c} "delivered unto Satan" 1 Corinthians 5:5
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP