A Commentary in Simple English on 1 Timothy

NOTES

[0.1] As usual, I adopt Dr Hemer's dates. But these are not exact.

The discovery among the fragments from Cave 7 at Qumran of a fragment (7 Q4) of a scroll (not a codex) of 1 Timothy 3:16 - 4:3 greatly weakens the case for dating the epistle as late as 64 AD. A fragment of James is more easily explained, but the fragment of Mark is also a problem. The cave is assumed to have been sealed in 67 AD or 68 AD at the latest.

The alternative is to date 1 Timothy to the summer of 55 AD when (Acts 20:1) Paul left Ephesus for Macedonia. In Acts 20:4, Timothy is with Paul again. This is about April of 57 AD when Paul is leaving Corinth with the collection for the Jerusalem church.

Dr Hemer sees the references to Hymenaeus as the only real link between the two epistles to Timothy. 1 Timothy 3:14 and 4:13 read as though Timothy is to stay in Ephesus until Paul returns. At the earlier date Paul did return to Ephesus. At the later date he probably did not expect to return. The collection at Ephesus had been completed at the earlier date, so that there is no trace of instructions like those in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.

If we assume the earlier date for 1 Timothy, the whereabouts of Timothy when Paul sent the second epistle are more open. 2 Timothy 1:15 hardly conveys news to Timothy. Most of the personal notes in 2 Timothy make better sense if Timothy was well north of Ephesus. He might not be fully informed about the situation in Ephesus (4:12, 20) and he would not go through Corinth on his way to Rome. He would pass through Troas (4:13) and Thessalonica where he might meet Demas. However, in 2 Timothy 4:19 it appears that Timothy is with Priscilla and Aquilla but they might well have moved on from Ephesus.

[0.2] In the 'Bulletin for Biblical Research' No.6 p 136, S E Porter has introduced what is to me an entirely new argument against those who deny that Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles. This is that there was a concern in the New Testament period as to the genuineness of the writings of secular authors. We know that there was the same concern in the Early Church. It is therefore not good enough to argue that the standards of integrity in such matters were different from ours.

It is a fact that someone else was usually associated with Paul in the writing of the epistles. Tertius (Romans) may not have played so large a part, but Sosthenes (1 Corinthians), Silas and Timothy in other cases do. This suggests that we have a right to say: '1 Timothy is different. But it is what Paul produced on his own'. It is curious that in this letter Paul mentions no one as being with him. 2 Timothy is full of the names of people.

[0.3] This verse could just mean that Paul had been in - say Miletus, but not in Ephesus, but that he asked Timothy to stay on in Ephesus. Despite Acts 20:38, the most natural reading is that Paul had been in Ephesus.

[1.1] (1:6) It has been suggested that the Jewish teachers brought with them from Jerusalem not only strange teaching but also fresh 'waves' of charismatic gifts. This may have impressed some Christians and lent a kind of authority to their teaching.

[1.2] (1:4) Towner stresses that the organisation and discipline of a large household was admired and was often the source of discussion by secular writers in the New Testament period. Good order in the household reflected well on the master and also on the steward.

[1.3] (1:8) In the Bulletin for Biblical Research Volume 2. 1992, pp 1-28, there is a valuable article by E A Martens, 'Embracing the Law'. This stresses the goodness of God's law.There is another very useful article in B.A.R. 12.2

[1.4] (1:13) A.S.Way's 'brutal ruffian' is good, but not easy English!

[1.5] (1:20) Acts 19 ends fairly abruptly and Alexander may have done Paul 'a great deal of harm' after the riot. In 1 Timothy, Alexander seems to be in the church. I suppose the Jewish teachers, armed with 'charismatic gifts' from the latest outbreak in Jerusalem, strange teaching about the law and wild allegorical interpretations of Scripture, may have seen it as their mission to win unbelieving Jews like Alexander. They would then become prominent in the circle of the 'false teachers'. The Alexander of Ephesus is quite likely to have been a metal worker, and Paul's treatment of him would hardly make him friendly towards Timothy! 2 Timothy 4:14 on its own might suggest that he had followed Paul and harmed him at Rome; but the warning of verse 15 rather implies he is still a problem in Ephesus. Calvin thought it was the same man.

[2.1] (2:6) The reference to 'the testimony' here is not easy. I find Cassirer's translation helpful - 'bearing His testimony at the time fixed for this purpose'. In view of 6:13 this seems quite possible. But Guthrie thinks that the testimony is God's act in sending his Son at the appointed time. (See Gal 4: 4.) Towner agrees, but adds that this testimony has passed on to Paul.

[2.2] (2:15) There is a discussion by S.E. Porter in JSNT 49 at pp 87-102 (March 1993). This is quite conservative but reaches no real conclusion. It is helpful in suggesting that 'if they continue' does not imply 'otherwise they will be lost'. A.J. Kostenberger in BBR.7 at page 107 is decidedly Reformed and I have followed his line of interpretation although he does not deal with the last part of the verse.

Poor Adam seems weak. After Genesis 3:12 he says nothing. Eve has the last word. Perhaps the poor man has so much work that he cannot keep his family in order. It seems very possible that Paul is also answering the Jewish teachers. Perhaps they were saying: 'The pain of childbirth is part of the Genesis curse. So marriage and childbirth is not appropriate to a Christian woman'. This would help to explain 4:3. Then Paul is answering by saying here that marriage and childbirth are a means in fact to escape from the devil.

R.W.Wall in B.A.R. 14.2 (2004) at pages 81-104 is another detailed treatment of this passage. I could not endorse some of his assumptions, and his view of Eve is too positive.

[3.1] (3:2) See S Page in JSOT 50 (June 1993) at pp 105-120 for a discussion of the various views about these words.

[3.2] (3:8) See Whelan in JSNT 49 at p 67 for the view that she was a lady who used her influence and money to help the church. In other words she was a 'patroness' rather than a 'deaconess'.

[3.3] (3:9) Paul may be saying to Timothy: 'Do not let men who associate with the Jewish teachers become deacons'. It is not really clear to us at this point whether this is his purpose.

[3.4] (3:11) See Guthrie, p 97

[3.5] (3:16) 'A mystery which tends to encourage powerful and practical godliness in all the parts and branches of it'. (Gill) Richard Sibbes 'The Fountain Opened' (Volume 5 pp 457-539) is based on this verse and is full of good things. Stephen Fowl in 'The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul', JSNT Supplement Series 36 (1990) p 155. is a valuable discussion.

[3.6] (3:16) This proposal was made by A.S. Way. I find that it helps to explain the various reading 'God' or 'He'. Paul wrote 'God', but this was assimilated to the words of the hymn he quoted. R.A.Campbell in JSNT 54 (June 1994) (pp 73-86) proposes rather to attach 3:16 to 3:1, but the difference of subject matter makes this awkward.

[4.1] (4:10) Towner (p 109) quotes a 1979 article by Skeat and compares the use of the word in 5:17 and 2 Timothy 4:13.

[4.2] (4:13 and 14) Calvin's discussion (Commentary on II Tim: 1:6) is helpful. In modern terms, which I do not necessarily like, Paul ordained Timothy to the ministry. (II Tim 1:6) Then the group of elders inducted him into his ministry at Ephesus.

It is just possible that Paul is telling Timothy to watch how other people read the Scriptures in public, how they preach and so on. This seems rather forced.

[5.1] (5:3) The footnote in P H Towner (p118) - quoting B W Winter - is helpful...'custody of the widow's dowry passed to a new lord, perhaps a son or grandson, whose household the widow would then enter'. If the widow was not a Christian, then members of the church might refuse to take the widow in. Or if the widow was a Christian, she might not wish to enter the household of heathen relatives.

See Terence Paige in B.B.R. 12.2 (2002) for a discussion of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. For women - or perhaps - wives - to speak in public is ’shameful’ - that is, socially unacceptable rather than morally wrong. The church was a mix of Greek, Jew and Roman as well as a cross-section of society from top to bottom. This was both a problem and a great opportunity for the church.

The payment of a dowry is still common in the Third World. The fate of widows in some tribes is sad.

[5.2] (5:17) P H Towner argues for 'in other words' rather than 'especially' here. The issue is one that has been debated between Presbyterians and 'independents' for long centuries.

[5.3] (5:24) 'Benefactors' in the Greek cities were honoured with memorial tablets and in various other ways. I feel that I have missed something in verses 24 and 25 but I do not see that this practice is the key to it.

[6.1] (6:1) A Christian slave in a Greek city might not have been prepared to go through a manumission ceremony in a heathen temple - paying his savings over to a heathen 'god' and receiving his freedom from the 'god'.

One wonders also whether in the Roman world it may have been easier for a Christian to remain a slave rather than to pay the respect which a freed man had to pay to his former master.

[6.2] (6:9) Lenski has some wise remarks at this point, and what follows is loosely based on this.

[6.3] (6:11) A helpful suggestion in Cassirer, but it does not go far enough surely.

[6.4] (6:16) I have not attempted to reconcile these words with the teaching of Scripture regarding the 'Beatific Vision'.

[6.5] (6:20) Towner (p 149) gives some help with the word 'deposit'. It 'comes from a rather formal procedure (a 'sacred trust') that was current in Greek, Roman and Jewish Societies. One could securely pass some commodity to another party by entrusting it to an authorised agent'.